When city planners attack
Eminent domain authorizes a government body to take land from private entities for public use if they pay just compensation. Eminent domain should not be used solely for the purpose of settling the disagreement over what just compensation is:
Negotiations between the city and owner Joe Zivnak of Azusa have been stuck for months, with the city willing to pay $1.75 million and Zivnak holding out for a package deal worth $2 million.
“The city budged a lot” from its earliest offers months ago, Michael Beck, the assistant city manager, said, adding that the amount was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Zivnak disagrees. “The city never budged at all,” he said.
Part of the disagreement is over cleanup costs, including the removal of asbestos and lead-based paint. The city received an estimate of $600,000, and Zivnak said it could be done for much less.
The reason the city wants the theater:
City officials envision a renovated Fox as an entertainment venue – preferably a performing arts center – that would attract thousands of people a week to downtown Riverside.
That doesn’t look like public use to me.
I don’t oppose all eminent domain. I do oppose its abuse, as illustrated above. Or as illustrated in the pending Supreme Court case involving the city of New London where the city is trying to take property from one private entity to give to a developer. However, a case like this one passes the smell test. In this case, the city is taking property to widen an intersection. That is definitely public use.
