San Diego Coastal Alliance

REDEVELOPMENT ABUSE:
End Eminent Domain Abuse in California
Restore Public Money to Public Service
Control Corporate Welfare
Activist DVD: "Not for Sale:
A Comprehensive Guide to Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse"
Not for Sale: A Comprehensive Guide to Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse” is a live-action DVD and companion to the Castle Coalition’s popular Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guide. Both can be purchased together for $3.95 at www.ij.org/freedommarket.
Featuring interviews with property owners and activists from across the nation who have successfully battled eminent domain abuse, “Not for Sale” provides tips, tactics and practical advice for anyone waging their own grassroots battle to save their home or small business.
The 1-hour DVD employs cutting-edge graphics and illustrations along with interviews to explain to viewers how to gather information, build a coalition and engage in local activism. The DVD instructs homeowners on how to hold a rally, create a website, work toward legislative reform and file a Freedom of Information Act request, among other topics.

What CCDC spends isn't its money
By Mel Shapiro, Union Tribune, February 9, 2008
LOCAL PERSPECTIVE: CITY EDITION
There is a long-standing misconception in San Diego about who finances downtown redevelopment. The general public seems to think it's the Centre City Development Corp., known as CCDC. It isn't. CCDC, a city-owned corporation, has only a small administrative budget. It has never funded any redevelopment. It only advises the City Council on funding.
CCDC officials and the unquestioning media help perpetuate the myth. But the millions of dollars spent on downtown were all approved by the San Diego City Council acting as the Redevelopment Agency.
The “Redevelopment Agency” is seldom mentioned in articles or the many CCDC publications.
It is a little-known corporation, created under Section 33110 of the Health and Safety Code of California. A redevelopment agency is created for a city or a county, not for a neighborhood. Since a city can have only one redevelopment agency, the term “downtown redevelopment agency” is a confusing misuse.
The top brass of CCDC is well aware of that. But it hasn't stopped them from claiming that CCDC is a redevelopment agency and funds the hundreds of millions spent downtown.
Here are some examples: From the CCDC budget for fiscal 2008' “$82.3 million for projects ... total revenue $217.5 million.”
In fact, the revenue and the project money are part of the Redevelopment Agency's budget, not of CCDC's.
Nevertheless, the council approved both the Agency budget and the CCDC budget. From the CCDC publication Downtown San Diego Affordable Housing: “To date, CCDC has provided over $150 million in downtown tax-increment funds to help create affordable housing within and outside of downtown.”
In fact, CCDC spent zero dollars on housing. All the money came from the Redevelopment Agency and was voted on by the City Council. An entire page of this publication is titled “CCDC funds,” which don't exist since its funds are entirely Redevelopment Agency funds. From the CCDC magazine Downtown Today, page 3: “CCDC has purchased a 19,000 square foot site...” Page 6: “CCDC is in the process of acquiring land...” Page 10: “CCDC board of directors has committed more money than ever before...” In fact, CCDC purchased no land and made no financial commitments. The Redevelopment Agency made the decisions and financed the projects.
The City Council, sitting as the Redevelopment Agency, voted the money for them. In August I sent a memo to CCDC's chief financial officer about such misinformation. He then sent the following memo to all of CCDC staff: “I have received several concerns raised by Mel Shapiro that we are referring to funds in our staff reports that “CCDC funds” are being used to fund projects.
However, (Redevelopment) Agency funds are actually being used. Where appropriate, we should use “Agency” funds and or reference as we typically do in our Fiscal Impact statement that “funds are available from a certain district in the Centre City Redevelopment Project.” Unfortunately, the CFO's advice is being ignored.

A second outrageous raise for Graham who helped overbuild Downtown (unsellable condos) and promote the giveaway earthquake ridden Navy Broadway Complex property
CCDC president will get $65,000
UNION-TRIBUNE, November 3, 2007
SAN DIEGO: The Centre City Development Corp. board gave its president,Nancy Graham, a $65,000 bonus yesterday.Graham has been at the helm of the city's downtown redevelopment arm for alittle more than a year. Her base annual salary is $235,000.In comparison, San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne makes $182,000 ayear, and the city's chief operating officer, Ronne Froman, makes$195,000.
"Nancy did an outstanding job in a difficult year of transition with someextraordinary challenges," board Chairman Fredric Maas said.

Redevelopment, San Diego style
By Michael Jenkins and Norma Damashek, Union-Tribune, 10/12/07
Excerpt: San Diego's redevelopment agency – established to eliminate blight and revitalize older neighborhoods – is in crisis. Unless city leaders take decisive action to reform redevelopment, voters will take matters into their own hands.
Under California law, a city can form a redevelopment agency to revitalize areas that meet state definitions of blight. A redevelopment agency has broad powers to use “eminent domain” authority to force private owners to sell property to the agency and then resell it for different private purposes.
Anyone who remembers downtown 30 years ago, where new investment had shriveled and junkyards, crack houses, strip joints and incompatible uses were the norm, can attest to redevelopment's benefits. In North Park, City Heights, Southcrest and other neighborhoods, redevelopment has promoted homeownership, new jobs, preservation of historic properties and affordable housing.So what's the problem? When the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 allowed New London, Conn., to use eminent domain to force a widow to sell her old but well-maintained home so the city could build an industrial campus, the public was outraged. In several states, initiatives were placed on the ballot to restrict eminent domain. California's initiative was rejected by voters as overbroad, but anger over eminent domain continues. Local critics are working to place a measure on San Diego's 2008 ballot to put an end to city redevelopment.
But eminent domain is not the only flash point. Critics charge that redevelopment lacks public accountability and benefits influential private interests more than the public. They cite the Naval Training Center (Liberty Station) as a sweetheart deal for a politically connected developer. They condemn the selection process, project changes, nepotism for company employees, reneging on public improvements, lack of affordable housing and few new jobs. Other city redevelopment projects receive similar criticism. FULL ARTICLE

Berkeley Study on Infill Development. Heads Up.....
Berkeley study on infill development. This study has an online database of properties that would be "ideal" for infill.... and guess what.... most of our properties are on that list!
The authors of the study say that this database is to help owners, developers, etc decide how to go about building infill. In today's climate, its more of a tool to use the threat of Eminant Domain to "redevelop" an ecomically underutilized property.http://infill.gisc.berkeley.edu/

Mr. Mayor, your credit card has just been declined.
by Pat Flannery, Blog of san Diego, 07/31/07
Today, Attorney Cory J. Briggs of the Briggs Law Corporation filed this complaint in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of the City of San Diego has failed to prepare and file its "annual report" for fiscal years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 as required by California Health & Safety Code § 33080.1(a).
Mr. Briggs is asking the court for a writ of mandate prohibiting the RDA from receiving or expending any funds and incurring any debt unless and until it fully complies with Redevelopment Law.
He had made a Public Records Act request for these reports but the RDA was unable to produce them. He assumed they did not have them. He was right.
Then Briggs sent this letter to Mr. Christopher Cox, Chairman of the SEC, advising him of his complaint. Mr. Cox made a speech last week in Los Angeles in which he referred to the fact that the SEC had sanctioned San Diego for having committed securities fraud.
According to Cox in LA: "San Diego's new procedures will cover disclosures it makes in its financial statements, its continuing disclosure agreements, and its disclosures to rating agencies." But how can it comply if its Redevelopment Agency has not filed financial reports for 2003 thru 2006? FULL ARTICLE

Don't Think Twice, It's All BlightBlight,
which used to be reserved for seedy, dilapidated areas of the city, is beingincreasingly attached to places that may be profitable, just not profitable enough.
By NINA PETERSEN-PERLMAN, Voice Staff Writer, July 18, 2007
Grantville's Friars Road Pet Hospital and National City's Community Youth Athletic Center, while not gleaming edifices of commercial might, don't fit the traditional definition of an eyesore.
The windows aren't cracked, the plaster isn't peeling and they attract concerned pet owners and kids wanting to learn how to box, not a rough crowd looking to cause trouble.
Yet, according to local officials, they're blight.
Blight for Your Right: FULL ARTICLE

The Budget with an Extra Pay Boost
By ANDREW DONOHUE Voice Staff Writer, July 27, 2007
Excerpt: When staff from the Independent Budget Analyst's Office combed through the San Diego Redevelopment Agency's budget proposals in May, it found something that raised a red flag: a reported 30 percent increase in salaries at the Southeastern Economic Development Corp."
This increase in salaries appears to be excessive," wrote fiscal analyst Lisa Celaya in a report to the City Council, which was set to consider SEDC's budget.But, days after the report was released, SEDC President Carolyn Smith testified to the council that the IBA report was incorrect. The salary increase was only 4 percent, she said, ticking off a long list of other increased costs that had incorrectly been counted toward that 30 percent: added positions, unused employee vacation hours that are cashed out; a wellness policy that allows employees who aren't sick all year to take one week of paid sick leave; and funds for unanticipated payments of separation agreements with employees.
The council seemed satisfied. It shook off concerns about the raises and approved the redevelopment group's budget.
However, SEDC's pay increase wasn't so simple. FULL ARTICLE

Cigar Store Owner Receives Compensation for His Property
Developers of the Marriott Renaissance hotel said they would pay Gran Havana cigar shop owner Ahmad Mesdaq the nearly $7.8 million a court awarded him in November 2005 for the land taken from him by eminent domain, said Mesdaq's lawyer Vincent Bartolotta.The city used the power in 2004, originally offering Mesdaq $3 million for the Gaslamp site. The shop was razed and has been a parking lot since.
Cindy Eldred, a land-use lawyer representing developers GRH, LLC., said last month the legal battle with Mesdaq pushed the hotel behind schedule, to a projected opening in 2010. She said today the settlement was offered in attempts to move the project forward.
"We need to move the project as quickly as we can," she said. "This will give us a certainty we otherwise don't have.
"The Centre City Development Corp. was scheduled to vote on giving the developers an extension at yesterday's meeting, but the item was taken off the calendar due to the settlement, said CCDC's David Allsbrook.Bartolotta said while his client would have preferred to have kept his property, he is pleased to be compensated for it. "This isn't a happy situation, but it's a practical solution to protect his family."The settlement is pending city approval.
--NINA PETERSEN-PERLMAN, Voice of San Diego, July 12 -- 1:42 pm

CCDC used a false allegation of toxic waste to seize Gran Havana.
by Pat Flannery, 06/25/07, http://www.blogofsandiego.com/
Mayor Sanders must deal with the emerging Gran Havana scandal before he has another Sunroad on his hands, maybe even worse.
Eli Sanchez, the CCDC project manager for Ramin Samimi's hotel project, admitted under oath blogofsandiego.com/GranHavana/CityAbusePolancoAct.pdf at trial that he knew there was no contamination on the Gran Havana site and that he knew Samimi was using CCDC's false charge of toxic waste as a negotiating tool against Gran Havana. Isn't that corruption? A City employee lying for a developer?
Here's the unfolding story:
According to Cynthia Eldred's letter (pages 17-26) blogofsandiego.com/GranHavana/CCDC_Staff_Report.pdf to CCDC (she is the lawyer for the developer who seized Gran Havana) the developer, Ramin Simimi, has to date spent $23 million on this project. Now he is in default on his contract with the City. Read the draft Notice of Default (pages 15-16) blogofsandiego.com/GranHavana/CCDC_Staff_Report.pdf prepared for the CCDC Board meeting tomorrow. They must decide between extending and changing his contract or pulling the rug on him.
Simimi was contracted to close escrow (on the purchase from the now City-condemned Gran Havana property) by December 15, 2006 and to commence construction of a hotel by January 16, 2006. He has done neither. That escrow was due to close over 6 months ago! Try that one in the real world of private real estate.
Mr. Simimi now has $23 million riding on the toss of a coin at tomorrow's CCDC meeting. He is truly a risk-taker. Or is he? Somehow I don't think so. I suspect the fix has been in for a long time. We know he has friends in high places.
Remember the Iranian immigrant, Kourosh Hangafarin, Dick Murphy controversially appointed to the Port Commission, widely believed to be because of his extraordinary ability to raise big bucks for Republican Party causes from the deep-pocketed San Diego Iranian-American community? I am told Hangafarin is Samini's cousin. Read this CityBeat article <http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=2957> about Hangafarin's bizarre trip to Cuba that got him fired from the Port.
So, Simimi has $10,165,000 on deposit with CCDC for the acquisition of the 5,000 square feet Gran Havana lot (which the City now owns) and according to Cynthia Eldred, he spent $8 million on consulting and legal fees. This means that he spent only $4,835,000 to acquire the other 35,000 square feet. He offered Mesdaq a mere pittance for the Gran Havana property, boasting that he would use CCDC to get it for him.
In her letter to CCDC (page 25) blogofsandiego.com/GranHavana/CCDC_Staff_Report.pdf, Ms. Eldred cites as evidence of Mr. Simimi's "good faith effort to develop the project" the fact that he has spent $23 million to date. To expend such money without a guarantee of success, she points out, would be "folly". I agree. Who then is Mr. Simimi's friend at CCDC? The Project Manager Eli Sanchez? His boss Mr. Allsbrook? Both? The whole CCDC Board?
Why did CCDC appeal Mr. Mesdaq's successful court case? The Agency had nothing to gain. Simimi had contracted with CCDC to pay all the expenses, including acquisition costs and litigation expenses. CCDC is not at risk for a penny. And Simimi had already put the $10,165,000 on deposit with CCDC. There must be a reason why CCDC appealed.
I suspect that CCDC knew all along that Simimi was no hotel developer, that he needed to find somebody to do what he was contracted to do. He needed time. Did they cover for him until he finally located such a hotel developer? Read the email (page 33) <http://www.blogofsandiego.com/GranHavana/CCDC_Staff_Report.pdf> everybody was waiting for. It didn't take Eli Sanchez long to get things rolling after that.
This vital June 5, 2007 email confirmed for Eli Sanchez and CCDC that Simimi's proposed lessee, Hansji Hotels Inc., had finally secured its contract with Marriott and everything was a go. Sanchez got it docketed for the CCDC Real Estate Committee June 13. They passed the buck to a full CCDC Board meeting tomorrow.
Why would CCDC spend public money to help a private developer when they had no monetary interest in the case? It screams to high heaven of corruption!
Project Manager Eli Sanchez's staff report to the CCDC Board tomorrow is taken almost word for word from Cynthia Eldred's letter. Sanchez is a City-paid advocate for Simimi.
David Allsbrook, Eli Sanchez' boss, is a long time staffer with CCDC. He was CCDC's manager of contracting and acquisitions and managed the agency's "land assembly" efforts in the East Village. He knows all the tricks. He is an expert on the use of eminent domain and the use (and abuse?) of the Polanco Act , the legal tool used by Redevelopment Agencies to clean up toxic waste sites.
This extract from attorney Vince Bartolotta's court brief <http://www.blogofsandiego.com/GranHavana/CityAbusePolancoAct.pdf> makes it very clear that CCDC, acting on behalf of a private developer, forced Ahmed Mesdaq, owner of Gran Havana, to spend $100,000 to defend himself against a trumped up charge of toxic waste. Read the whole brief <http://www.granhavana.com/pdf/Appeal.DOC> .
Who is going to stop this corruption from being confirmed by the CCDC Board tomorrow? It is not too late. Nancy Graham, President of CCDC, should intervene and at least ask for a continuance until the matter can be investigated. If not, the false toxic waste charge is enough to launch an FBI investigation. The Feds don't like their laws being abused.
If Nancy Graham does not act in time to save this scandal from becoming validated by the whole CCDC Board tomorrow, Mayor Sanders should intervene. Does he want another Sunroad, maybe much worse, on his hands? The smell of corruption is already starting to stick to this city. If Sanders does not act he may never be able to convince the credit agencies to reinstate our credit rating, this side of a Chapter 9 Municipal bankruptcy.

Redevelopment: Public? Private?
By Joe Deegan, San Diego Reader City lights, June 28, 2007
http://www.sdreader.com/php/cityshow.php?id=1648
As if Grantville didn't have enough traffic problems, local developer Leon Parma wants to build 588 new condominiums, plus new restaurant and office space, on land he owns in the area. The property sits on the block bordered by Mission Gorge Road and Fairmount, Twain, and Vandever avenues. At its May 15 meeting, the San Diego City Council approved the project, called Centerpointe at Grantville, rezoning the block from industrial and commercial designations to mixed use.
Opposing the project in the council chambers was Brian Peterson, president of the Grantville Action Group (GAG). Peterson noted the eventual traffic problems but argued that Centerpointe's main damage will be a depletion of money from the City's general fund, which pays for basic services such as fire and police protection. True, Centerpointe will be more valuable than the light industrial and commercial businesses that are on the site now. And that will result in greater tax increments in the future. But those new dollars will not go into the general fund but to the Grantville Redevelopment Project Area. Meanwhile, the greater population density caused by Centerpointe in Grantville will demand more services from a City that has fewer resources to provide them.
Centerpointe and the Grantville Redevelopment Project are two different ventures, one private and one public. For clarification of the connection between them that Peterson worries about, I visit his Friars Road Pet Hospital. Across the table he uses to examine the animals, Peterson and I talk. The veterinarian remains standing on crutches, as he recently broke his hip in a bicycle accident. "I've got three pins in my leg holding it together right now," he says."One angle on this whole scheme," Peterson tells me, "is that even if the Redevelopment Agency does nothing to promote development in Grantville, the Redevelopment Agency will collect tax increments from every building that sells or is built in the project area. Personally, I would not be opposed to Centerpointe -- which looks now to be a done deal -- if it weren't for the redevelopment zone. After all, it does not violate property rights. And I don't live in [nearby] Allied Gardens, although residents there are very upset about the increased traffic Centerpointe will bring.
"Peterson supports a lawsuit that the County of San Diego filed against the City last year to stop the Grantville Redevelopment Project. The County argues that it will lose as much as $200 million in taxes over the 45-year life of the project. "The County needs its money, too," says Peterson, "to pay for health and other services it provides San Diego residents." A superior court trial to hear the County's suit is set to begin in November. FULL ARTICLE

Property seizure measure moves ahead
News from the Union-Tribune's newsroom, July 03, 2007
SACRAMENTO -- Ahmad Mesdaq's Gran Havana Coffee and Cigar Lounge was booted out of San Diego's historic Gaslamp Quarter to make way for a hotel, which so far has not risen from the temporary parking lot where his business was located.
Years later, California lawmakers are attempting to respond to horror stories told by business people like Mesdaq, proposing to weaken the powers of cities to seize private property through eminent domain.
But the response, crafted in a constitutional amendment that passed its first test Tuesday in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, has not satisfied most Republican lawmakers, private property rights advocates -- and Mesdaq.
"My dream was shattered," Mesdaq told the committee. "The city of San Diego used the law as a tool -- a weapon -- to evict me."
Mesdaq supports tougher limits contained in a separate initiative that private property rights advocates plan to circulate to qualify for the ballot. It would bar local governments from seizing private property in most cases, with exceptions for public uses such as schools, highways and hospitals. Full Article

We owe Ahmad Mesdaq (Gran Havana coffee shop) our support.
by Pat Flannery, 06/25/07
This is a video interview with Ahmad Mesdaq, former owner of the Gran Havana cigar and coffee shop downtown.
Ahmad had his property taken from him by the City of San Diego using eminent domain.
The City gave it to Ramin Samimi. The case has attracted national attention. He asks for your support at Wednesday's CCDC meeting (2 pm at City Council Chambers, 202 C st., 12th floor) where he hopes they will not give an extension to Samimi who has done nothing with the property. It is now a parking lot.
We owe him our support, it could happen to any of us. For those of you who really want to help and who really care, read this brief. It tells it all. Why is the City helping this developer? He has already lost his case, but the City is appealing it.
Is this another Sunroad?

The Castle Coalition released these exciting new projects:
50 State Report Card
The Castle Coalition examined and graded eminent domain laws for each of the 50 states over the past two years - since the Kelo decision allowing eminent domain for private gain. “This report finds that your right to own your home free from the specter of eminent domain abuse depends on which state you live in,” said Steven Anderson, director of the Castle Coalition. “States in the Northeast as well as California remain some of the biggest abusers of eminent domain and legislators in those states have so far refused to pass meaningful eminent domain reform despite the public’s overwhelming desire to be protected from eminent domain for private gain.” The report is available at: www.CastleCoalition.org/publications/report_card

Boxing Club Fights National City
By NINA PETERSEN-PERLMAN, Voice Staff Writer, 6/22/07
Supporters of the Community Youth Athletic Center are rallying against a proposed measure to extend the city's power of eminent domain for another 12 years. FULL ARTICLE

Downtown Dipping
By Don Bauder, San Diego Reader City Light, April 12, 2007
Civic activist Mel Shapiro says that Centre City Development Corporation is "a sacred cow." Actually, it's more like a 500-pound gorilla that plops itself down anywhere it desires. Recently, Shapiro thought it odd that Centre City had hired a lobbyist; after all, Centre City's mandate is only to advise the Redevelopment Agency, which is the city council. Why did it need a lobbyist? Shapiro asked the agency and was told to look at Centre City's monthly president reports. He was astonished to find that Centre City's president, Nancy Graham, has almost as much latitude to pass out contracts without oversight as the mayor has.
And look at the difference. The 2007 San Diego budget is $2.556 billion. Centre City's budget is $176.4 million, or roughly 7 percent of the city's. The San Diego government has 11,416 employees; Centre City has 51. But the average salary at Centre City is $85,400; in city government it is $61,000.
Graham can dole out contracts to consultants for up to $250,000 without the Centre City board looking over her shoulder. The mayor can dish out the same sum without city council approval. When a contract is amended, Graham can hand out another $200,000 in a different year without her board looking at it. The mayor's limit is a little higher -- $250,000.
Shapiro got a list of the contracts that Graham unilaterally passed out last year and the first two months of this year. She handed out $5.5 million last year and $1.1 million in January and February of this year. A full $2.2 million, or one-third of those contracts, were sole source; there was no competitive bidding. Full Article: http://www.sdreader.com/php/cityshow.php?id=1599

Chongqing Journal Homeowner Stares Down Wreckers,
at Least for a While
A building sits on its own island of land in Chongqing Municipality, China. The homeowner has refused to sell to a developer, who went ahead with construction around the site.
By HOWARD W. FRENCH Pub.: 3/27/07CHONGQING, China, 3/27/07
For weeks the confrontation drew attention from people all across China, as a simple homeowner stared down the forces of large-scale redevelopment that are sweeping this country, blocking the preparation of a gigantic construction site by an act of sheer will. Full Article

Is Your Home Targeted?
In the SD Union-Tribune Home section, 4/30/06, there is a discussion on the Berkeley study on infill development. This study has an online database of properties that would be "ideal" for infill.... and guess what.... most of our properties along with thousands of million dollar beach properties are are on that list!
The authors say that this database is to help owners, developers, etc decide how to go about building infill. In today's climate, its more of a tool to use the threat of Eminant Domain to "redevelop" an ecomically underutilized property. Check it out: infill.gisc.berkeley.edu/

Nancy Graham Needs to be Fired and Shipped Back to Floridia!
CCDC & Economic Development Corp. needs to be axed, and leave our taxes and public properties alone!
CCDC leader gets $65,000 bonus
Union-Tribune, – Dani Dodge, Fla, DOWNTOWN –
The Centre City Development Corp. board gave its president, Nancy Graham, a $65,000 bonus yesterday.
Graham has been at the helm of the city's downtown redevelopment arm for a little more than a year. Her base annual salary is $235,000.In comparison, San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne makes $182,000 a year, and the city's chief operating officer, Ronne Froman, makes $195,000.“Nancy did an outstanding job in a difficult year of transition with some extraordinary challenges,” board Chairman Fredric Maas said.Graham is a former mayor of West Palm Beach, Fla.
She led the CCDC through the approval to redevelop the Navy Broadway Complex and a downtown community plan update. She also led the agency as it began the process to revitalize C Street.
When she was hired in December 2005, Graham received a signing bonus of $25,000. She also gets a monthly car allowance of $750, four weeks' vacation and a benefits package..Instead of a Bonus.
Redevelopment is based on the concept of blight and attracting capital into a blighted area.
Here's what the Supreme Court has said about the meaning of the term blight: We recognize the statutory definition of blight has evolved over the years. However, as stated just two years ago in County of Riverside, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at pages 627-628, "True blight is expressed by the kind of dire inner-city slum conditions described in the Bunker Hill case: unacceptable living conditions of 82 percent; unacceptable building conditions of 76 percent; crime rate of double the city's average; arrest rate of eight times the city's average; fire rate of nine times the city's average; and the cost of city services more than seven times the cost of tax revenues."
So far as I am aware, no physical area of any appreciable size in the City of San Diego has ever suffered from blight. So all redevelopment in the City is a fraud.
When you commence a government program based on falsehoods, economic resources tend to be misappropriated and the community as a whole suffers accordingly. Moreover, falsehoods breed corrupt practices. Developers characterize the enhanced revenue stream as money that is supposed to be earmarked to promote new development, otherwise known as a government subsidy. Developers look elected officials in the eye and tell them that if subsidies aren't granted that the development will build in other areas of the community, e.g., the Golden Triangle. Therefore, developers argue, a refusal to grant subsidies equates to a support of continuing blight.
It sounds great and provides just the cover many elected officials need to divert scare public resources to those who constitute their contributors.
The press promotes the concept of fighting blight. A bureaucracy (e.g., CCDC) is created. It hires PR firms. It paints rosy pictures of what central planning can accomplish. (See CCDC promotions of 10 years ago regarding the salutary effect that redevelopment would have on C St.)
It all constitutes a vicious downward spiral. See the editorial Jan. 2 in Voice of San Diego regarding the practical result: a downtown that is functionally unlivable. — Tom Mullaney, Friends of San Diego

New Study Details Devastating Effects of Eminent Domain Abuse on African Americans
Arlington, Va. - “Eminent domain has become what the founding fathers sought to prevent: a tool that takes from the poor and the politically weak to give to the rich and politically powerful,” concludes Dr. Mindy Fullilove in her new report released today titled, “Eminent Domain & African Americans: What is the Price of the Commons?” The report is available at http://www.castlecoalition.org/publications/index.html.

CCDC facing lawsuit over El Cortez development
By ELIZABETH MALLOY, The Daily Transcript, October 11, 2006
Excerpt: A group of neighbors fighting a mixed-use development near the El Cortez hotel said Wednesday that they are suing the Centre City Development Corp.
Neighbors and residents of the surrounding Cortez Hill neighborhood filed a lawsuit against CCDC seeking a court decision on the 1999 AgreementAffecting Real Property, which contractually precludes development on the historic site until 2025.The group alleges that thus far, CCDC has moved forward with development plans regardless of the AARP. They are against the proposed 7 to 8 story mixed-use development at 777 Beech St.

City Heights project loses steam
Model School advocates vow to find ways to revitalize area
By Helen Gao, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER, Aug. 14, 2006
Excerpt: An ambitious redevelopment project in City Heights, which would have wiped out a few hundred homes and businesses, has been all but abandoned after four years of planning and community meetings.
The so-called Model School Project, announced with fanfare in 2002 by city and school officials, was to feature an elementary school, apartments, townhomes, a community clinic, child-care center, canyon parkland and commercial space.
The goal was to revitalize a neighborhood off Fairmount Avenue and 43rd Street, while replacing scores of homes razed by the San Diego Unified School District to build schools. The Model School Project, with an affordable housing component, was initially proposed for 30 acres before being scaled back to about 10.But all that stands today is a partially built Florence Griffith Joyner Elementary School set to open in September 2007, one year behind schedule.
The joint powers agency created by the city, its Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority and the school district voted to disband in July.
Many homeowners whose properties fell within the project's boundaries opposed the development. The project also did not pencil out economically because it would require tens of millions of dollars in public subsidy.

SAN DIEGO CITY OFFICIALS DESTROY MAN'S BUSINESS FOR A HOTEL, NOW A PARKING LOT
"Ahmad's clash with the City was never about dollars and cents. He waged a political and legal battle that gained national media attention well before the U.S. Supreme Court worsened the situation nationwide when it decided Kelo v. City of New London... On this San Diego corner, tax-hungry city councilmen and a landhungry wealthy hotel chain teamed up to destroy an honest man's American Dream." FULL STORY

PROP C-CITY OF CHULA VISTA Ch. Am.- Em. Domain WINS!
June 6, 2006— CHULA VISTA voters took a strong stand against Eminent Domain
YES 15167 73.22% NO 5547 26.78%
CV amends eminent domain charter
San Diego Daily Transcript, Wednesday, June 7, 2006
The citizens of Chula Vista voted to amend their eminent domain charter by approving Proposition C, which received more than 73 percent "yes" votes, according to SmartVoter.org. The proposition, which contains two sections, limits the abilities of the City Council to use eminent domain.
The charter, Section 305.5 will now read "the city shall not initiate or participate in any proceedings, or take any action to condemn private property for the purpose of making such property available for private development, nor shall the city participate, directly or indirectly, in such takings." However, "the city may participate in proceedings to condemn private property for the purpose of making such property available for private development if such participation is approved by a majority of the voters.
Another section added to the charter, Section 305.6, reads "property acquired by the city through the use of eminent domain after the effective date of this charter amendment must be held or used for a public use by the city for a minimum 10 year period prior to sale, lease, transfer or other disposition by the city.
The two sections will go into effect 10 days after it was approved.

ABUSIVE REDEVELOPMENT COUNCIL VOTES 2006
4/8/06 Stella-Project,2015 Hancock St — Breaks 30 ft. Coastal Height Limit.zoned industrial when it went to boards & negatively effects neighboring businesses. MOTION BY FAULCONER TO DISPENSE WITH THE READING AND ADOPT THE ORDINANCE. Council voted 5-2. Frye & Hueso voted nay. Maienschein not present
5/23/05 Renewing the College Project Area's blighted designation & eminent domain for 12 more yrs. Council voted 7-1 Frye voted nay.

July 25, 2004— A poll in New Hampshire showed
"93% opposed "eminent domain for private development."
Stay Tuned: Info. on a CA State-wide Initiative to amend the State Constitutional to eliminate eminent domain from the taking of private property from one owner and giving it to another private owner.

Redevelop groups told to hold off on raises
S.D. City Council cites ongoing salary freeze
By Jeanette Steele, Union Tribune, May 24, 2006
Don't sign those bigger paychecks yet, the City Council said to two redevelopment agencies yesterday.
The council held off approval of salary increases next year at the Centre City Development Corp. and Southeastern Economic Development Corp., noting that the city's umbrella Redevelopment Agency – and all city employees – are enduring a salary freeze because of the city's dire finances.Centre City Development Corp. had budgeted a 7 percent salary increase for existing workers. It also planned to cover an 8 percent increase in medical benefit costs.
The Southeastern agency did not propose an overall pay hike, because it cut a high-paying vice president job. But officials said some employees were scheduled to get raises of less than 4 percent.
The budgets “should be in line with the city's, which is no increase,” said Councilwoman Donna Frye, who suggested that pay ranges be frozen next year for CCDC and SEDC workers.
That would allow them to get a raise only if they were not already earning at the top of the range.
Both organizations work for the city, but their staff members are not technically city employees.The Centre City agency acts as the city's downtown redevelopment arm. Southeastern focuses on seven square miles south of state Route 94 and east of Interstate 5.
But while these agencies are independent, public dollars make up much of their budgets through property taxes earmarked for those jurisdictions. The City Council, in its role as the city's Redevelopment Agency, approves their spending.Centre City president Nancy Graham said in an interview that a recent compensation survey showed a handful of her 50 employees were being paid below market rates. Also, she said some people are slated to get pay raises because of promotions.
“There is no across-the-board 7 percent increase,” said Graham, whose current salary is $235,500. Next year the proposed range would be up to $260,000.
Graham said she sympathizes with the city's situation but she is afraid employees would leave without raises. She also said her agency contributes to to the city's general fund through increased sales and tourist taxes generated by its projects.
“It would be silly for CCDC to cut off its nose and lose some of its really good people,” she said. “We still don't pay what private development pays.
”When Graham voiced that sentiment at the council meeting, Councilman Brian Maienschein objected, saying, “You make it seem like some of these people are taking a vow of poverty.
”He pointed out top pay for the senior vice president would go from $174,000 to $190,000 and the chief financial officer's would move from $170,000 to $185,000. “All of those positions are close to double or triple what anyone on the council makes.
”After the meeting, Graham said her agency will try to address the council's concerns. SEDC President Carolyn Smith said her agency's pay ranges have not increased for two years.Times are tough for city workers, as the city wrestles with a $1.4 billion pension deficit.Four public employee labor unions agreed to salary freezes or cuts last year and, in most cases, to make employees contribute more of their paychecks to pensions. When the police union didn't accept the concessions, they were imposed upon them.
The council approved the rest of the CCDC and SEDC budgets but the salary issue must be revisited before June 30.

Sorority will fight to stay put Stance could block $350 million project proposed at SDSU
By Lisa Petrillo, Union Tribune, May 24, 2006
For a half-century, the sisterhood has owned the house her uncle built, and Barbara Clark, Alpha Chi Omega pledge class of 1955, plans to fight both City Hall and San Diego State University to save it.
Clark is president of the nonprofit board that owns the Alpha Chi Omega house near SDSU, and yesterday she tried to save one of the county's oldest sorority houses from the threat of the wrecking ball.Kimi Marshall, president of Alpha Chi Omega, looked over a bedroom where a fire started. The house is being renovated.
Her fight is yet another twist in the 18-year saga of the Paseo, the proposed $350 million combination retail and student housing complex on the south end of the university campus.
The sorority stands in the way of the Paseo.
Clark doesn't plan to get out of the way, although she argued unsuccessfully before the San Diego City Council yesterday to stop it from renewing its power of eminent domain over the sorority and all properties in the College Area project.
“I am not a short-termer,” said Clark, 69. “We plan to see this through to the end.”
Also standing in the way of the Paseo is the sorority's neighbor, Virginia Scarcella, whose family could lose the McDonald's fast food restaurant and shopping center on Montezuma Road near College Avenue.Scarcella told the council that her Italian immigrant parents, Joseph and Mary LaRussa, scrimped and saved to buy the corner property 55 years ago as a legacy for their children.
“We are very adamant, angry and upset that anyone feels they are entitled to take this property away from us,” Scarcella said.Alpha Chi Omega wants to keep its sorority house at San Diego State, and that action may stand in the way of the $350 million Paseo project. But the City Council renewed the area's blighted designation for 12 more years.Scarcella and more than a dozen sorority members talked of the stress of living with the threat of eminent domain for the past 12 years, never knowing when they would be evicted by the city.
Still, the council voted 7-1 in favor of renewing the area's blighted designation for 12 more years, with Donna Frye the lone vote against it.
Councilman Jim Madaffer laid the blame for the delays in the Paseo's construction on the university.
The project was only months away from groundbreaking last spring when it became mired in a power struggle among the city, the university and the university's auxiliary foundation over who would build it – and reap the millions of dollars in profits.
The city and the foundation were on the verge of an agreement when university officials said they had to take control.
They said their actions came because of post-Enron rules regarding how public universities handle their financing.
Currently the project remains stalled while Mayor Jerry Sanders' office tries to negotiate a compromise between the university and the city.
The Alpha Chi Omega sorority last year signed contracts to sell and move into the proposed Sorority Row, which the university's auxiliary planned to build on the west side of College Avenue and south of Montezuma Road to house multiple sororities together.
When that project became stalled in the fallout over the Paseo, Clark said the sorority board decided to spend $700,000 renovating the house, which was damaged by fire last fall.
The board now plans to keep the house operating.Clark and Scarcella say that because their properties sit on the edges of the proposed Paseo boundaries, they will fight to move the boundary so they can remain.
The City Council did decide, at Madaffer's suggestion, to let people stay in their businesses or residences for one year after receiving an eviction notice. Previously, it had been three months.

Property rights fight on again
Eminent Domain Fight Not Over Yet, Say Supporters
Measure Similar to Prop. 90 Could Be on Ballot in 2008
By MICHELLE MOWAD - San Diego Business Journal , 11/20/2006
Excerpt: The ability of government to take private property for public use was challenged in the Nov. 7 state election. And while current eminent domain law was upheld, many believe the fight for reform is far from over.
Proposition 90 asked voters if state law should be amended to limit government‚s ability to take private property through eminent domain. Though 53.6 percent of San Diego voters voted in favor, only 47.6 percent of voters statewide supported the measure.
Supporters argued the ballot measure would stop government from taking property through unfair use of eminent domain and without just compensation....
The Centre City Development Corp., San Diego‚s downtown planning and redevelopment agency, has used eminent domain for numerous projects both public and private.
The CCDC acquired 56 properties for Petco Park from 1998 through 2003 and 33 properties for the development of Horton Plaza in the late 1970s through early 1980s.

'Simple' bill fights power to seize home
By Bonita Brewer, CONTRA COSTA TIMES, Feb. 11, 2006
Walnut Creek resident Mary Phelps has high hopes for yet another state ballot initiative to eliminate the government's power to force owners to sell property for redevelopment.
Phelps is Contra Costa County's organizer for "The People's Initiative," which she says is an alternative to three other, more drastic and/or confusing initiatives aimed at curbing eminent domain.
"I think we can get ours passed, because it's so simple -- 'No eminent domain for private gain,'" said Phelps, who lives near the Pleasant Hill BART station. That's where she fears redevelopment will expand, despite legal restrictions and Contra Costa County's assurances to the contrary.
"I have high hopes for this one," Phelps said of her group's initiative. "We're not against houses being taken through eminent domain for a higher and better public use (such as roads or schools), but we don't want to have to deal with developers when they have the strong arm of government on their side."
Three other initiatives have been proposed for November's ballot that, like the California Eminent Domain Limitations Act backed by Phelps, would allow continued use of eminent domain for public purposes but would forbid seized property from being turned over to for-profit entities.
Phelps said the initiative proposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association "is too broad" and controversial in that it also would play havoc with city rent-control ordinances.
The initiative proposed by state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, is too complicated, she said, and would likely be opposed by Democrats because McClintock is a conservative Republican running this year for lieutenant governor.
"The People's Initiative is much cleaner and self-explanatory," Phelps said, noting one of the citizen sponsors is a Democrat and the other a Republican.
She and others say the fourth initiative is ambiguous and that it's unclear who's behind it.
McClintock and the Jarvis group support each other's initiatives and say they will likely move forward with only one in circulating petitions to qualify for the ballot.
None of the groups have shown the financial ability to launch a petition drive, but the Jarvis group said Friday it's optimistic about funding sources.
The League of California Cities has criticized all the plans.
If voters were to approve any of the proposals, the likely effect could be to "significantly limit efforts by cities and redevelopment agencies to revitalize blighted areas," the league said.
"The measures could make it much harder to build in-fill projects, and thus could force new housing growth into surrounding open space and farmland."
State Sen. Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, wants the Legislature to put what he calls a less radical measure on the ballot.
It would forbid forcing the sale of owner-occupied single-family housing for redevelopment, but would continue allowing the acquisition of business or rental property.

Shapiro successfully sued City Council in 2002 for meeting illegally in private.Court Rules CCDC Violated Brown Act
By San Diego Business Journal, Pat Broderick, 11/23/05
The Centre City Development Corp., which oversees redevelopment in Downtown San Diego, violated the Brown Act by meeting in closed session with legal counsel to discuss eminent domain litigation.
That was the ruling on Nov. 22 of the 4th District Court of Appeal, reversing a Superior Court judge‚s earlier decision. The suit against the CCDC board of directors had been filed by civic watchdog Mel Shapiro.
The 4th District Court found that CCDC, created by the city, may not meet in closed session on behalf of the city‚s Redevelopment Agency when it is not a party to the litigation.
Some history: The city‚s Redevelopment Agency was created by the City Council in 1958 to improve blighted conditions in the urban areas. The agency coordinates the activities of its two nonprofit corporations, CCDC and the Southeastern Economic Development Corp.
"The city of San Diego owns us, and created us to do redevelopment of Downtown, said Peter Hall, outgoing president and chief operating officer of CCDC.
"We operate on behalf of the city‚s Redevelopment Agency. We are a surrogate. We don‚t have the ability to do condemnations, only to advise the city that they should be done."
Neither can CCDC issue bonds or sell property without the City Council's approval, he added.
The CCDC board will be meeting with its legal counsel to discuss the ruling at its meeting next Wednesday, said Hall.
"It's much ado about nothing," he said. "It doesn‚t change the fundamental way we do business. But if we made a mistake, we‚ll change and make sure we don‚t do it that way next time."
San Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre said he considers the ruling „ wonderful. It reinforces the rights of the public, and reestablishes the power of the City Council to be the decision maker. It reestablishes the rule of law.
The CCDC is an arm of the city, but the City Council is the redevelopment agency, where decisions need to be centered. They are the elected officials.

Eminent domain and blight
Re: "California Legislature considers changes to eminent domain law,"
The Daily Transcript, Nov. 15, Source Code: 20051114ra
Blight occurs principally for two reasons: rigid zoning laws, which prohibit gradual changes dictated by changes in the free market, and capital gains taxes, which discourage long-time property owners from selling. Neighborhoods typically evolve through the phases of brand new, to stabile, to older, to blighted, to historical.
When private developers want to redevelop unprosperous areas, it's pejoratively called gentrification. This transformation of blighted "affordable" neighborhoods is discouraged so as not dislocate low-income owners and renters. When the government does exactly the same thing it is called "Redevelopment."
When private developers propose an increase in densities such as Paseo Mission Hills, politicians mobilize constituents against the "change in neighborhood character." When government does exactly the same thing with humongous taxpayer subsidies, such as City Heights Square, politicians mobilize constituents in favor of the change in neighborhood character by calling it "smart growth."
Redevelopment projects look beautiful. But they are economically no different than the ancient pyramids, or the more recent St. Louis Gateway Arch. They all create jobs. But for every job the government creates -- since money must be taken out of the private economy -- a private job is destroyed, constituting the seen and the unseen. The bigger the pyramid, the greater the numbers of jobs both created and destroyed; a zero sum game. Government-imposed pyramids, however, have more in common with Ponzi schemes (also known as pyramid Schemes).
Like the pyramids, all "government redevelopment" represents a net loss to society because the money spent is not available to produce a greater abundance per dollar spent in the more efficient private sector. Typically, government-built housing costs up to twice as much as privately built housing. This means you can build half the number of homes with the same given amount of money. Redevelopment projects work on a limited basis because government has unlimited funds to disguise the true costs, but there is no reason to believe that government intervention will work on a larger scale any better in San Diego than it works in socialist countries.
You will notice the common thread used by all redevelopment agencies is "single entry bookkeeping," which only lists the benefits, with none of the social and economic costs or lost opportunities. The redevelopment of Horton Plaza, for instance, required the downsizing by half of the University Town Centre and spelled the death knell for College Grove Center, the "unseen" economic costs of redevelopment. Horton Plaza has not offset the losses that have accrued or tax revenues foregone that should have come from UTC and College Grove -- losses that were not the result of free market competition, but government edict.
Redevelopment projects concentrate benefits for supporters and disperse the true costs to those whose property is taken and to taxpayers in general. (Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman's concentration of benefits/diffusion of costs explanation for why governments expand). Redevelopment is also an affront to property rights, the very foundation of a free society. Laws promoting freedom are far more important than redevelopment laws.
To rebuild inner cities, politicians should rezone deteriorating areas into enterprise zones with no restrictions on densities. Eliminate capital gains taxes in areas deemed blighted and at considerably less cost the free market will reinvigorate neighborhoods gradually and naturally, without massive taxpayer subsidies. This will be done in the same way that free enterprise has built the most economically powerful, vibrant and diverse cities with more square footage of housing per capita than any other country in history.—Fred Schnaubelt, Former San Diego City Councilman

Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005
(Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
109th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 4128 AN ACT
To protect private property rights.
HR 4128 EH109th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 4128 AN ACT
To protect private property rights. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE BY STATES.
(a) In General- No State or political subdivision of a State shall exercise its power of eminent domain, or allow the exercise of such power by any person or entity to which such power has been delegated, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is subsequently used for economic development, if that State or political subdivision receives Federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which it does so.

Reorganization Options for SD Redevelopment Division, 10/27/05
Discussion of Reorganization Options for the City of San Diego’s Redevelopment Division, Community & Economic Development Department (Very little discussion, attendees wrote opinions on large sticky on topics)
PROJECT AREAS WITHIN THE DIVISION: Barrio Logan, City Heights, College Community, College Grove, Crossroads, Grantville, Linda Vista, North Bay, Naval Training Center, North Park, San Ysidro
CITY CONTACT: Natalie Crosthwaite, (619)533-5350 or ncrosthwaite@sandiego.gov
The City of San Diego is seeking community input regarding options being studied for the possible reorganization of the City’s Redevelopment Division.
The Division is one of three sections of the City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency. It is currently part of the Community and Economic Development Department and manages 11 Redevelopment Project Areas throughout the City, as well as, the administrative functions of the Redevelopment Agency. Interested parties are invited to the first of two public outreach meetings to discuss the options being reviewed, which include enhancing the existing structure of the City’s Redevelopment Division, creating an independent City Agency and merging with the San Diego Housing Commission.
For more information on these options as well as other supporting documents, visit the City’s Web site at www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency and click on the “public meeting announcement.” The public meeting agenda will include: 1. A presentation of the reorganization options being studied 2. A review of the Redevelopment Project Areas potentially affected 3. A brainstorming session to discuss ideas and concerns
Following is supporting documents:
Manager's Report: http://clerkdoc.sannet.gov/RightSite/getcontent/local.pdf?DMW_OBJECTID=09001451800baf61 Redevelopment Reorganization Alternatives Workplan:
http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/pdf/workplan.pdf
Redevelopment Agency Fact Sheet:
http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/pdf/fsredev.pdf
Redevelopment Agency Project Area Map:
http://www.sandiego.gov/redevelopment-agency/pdf/redevmap.pdf

Important: Joint interim hearing on "Redevelopment Reforms"
Thursday, November 17, 2005 (9:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon)
State Capitol, Room 4203, Sacramento
Redevelopment Reforms
Who: Senate Local Government Committee
Senate Transportation & Housing Committee
Assembly Local Government Committee
Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee
Assembly Judiciary Committee

Hearing Redevelopment and Blight
Joint interim hearing on "Redevelopment and Blight", October 26,
Went to Chris Kehoes meeting on "Blight" today it was also a fiasco...packed with city hall redevelopment personnel, developers and their attorneys extolling the virtues of stealing other peoples property. We had to listen to a lying attorney for 15 minutes, another one talking about desert property for 15 minutes...all in all out of a three hour and forty minute "Public Forum" the public got only 50 minutes and some of that was taken up by developer shills. Leaving the public only 2 minutes each.... —J

Beware: Fast-tracting/Privatization of San Diego Government Plant
Redevelopment Organization Plan released Mid-Sept.
Redevelopment Project Areas and having power of eminent domain over private property.
...The Redevelopment Agency Rep. came to the North Bay PAC Wed. Sept. 7 asked the PAC to approval Plans for a Non-Profit CCDC style of agency to oversee ten Redevelopment Project Areas. They want this approved in less than one month... since they couldn't get a positive vote recommendation from the PAC group that day it went to: North BayPAC Subcommittee, Mon. Sept. 19 at the Peninsulia Community Center
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES met on the Redevelopment Organization Plan
Sept. 21, 2005 (Why this committee, not Gov. Rules or some other group dealing with Government Change? ) They have no docket on the City website for this meeting.
At the PAC meeting they had NO figures, rules or anything on paper of how the organization would run, just basically saying it would be like CCDC, No longer a City entity. This Org. would have it's own private staff, legal staff and power of eminent domain .
Please help STOP this fast-tracting and this privatization of government without any checks and balances and very limited public input. We don't need this Redevelopment Agency having complete eminent domain power, and control over citizen's taxes/bonds any more it already has!

Sounding Board: Eminent, Domain II
San Diego Daily Transcript, Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Daily Transcript Question: "Should the cities in San Diego County use a combination of eminent domain and rezoning as public policy tools to achieve higher density development in their communities?"
Eminent domain and rezoning are basic tools to be used to implement long range planning policies: they are not policies in themselves.
Community plans and redevelopment plans guide the use of these tools. The city's planning policies are contained in the community plans and redevelopment plans and may occasionally require eminent domain or rezoning for implementation.
In that case, if higher density is an adopted policy of the plans, these tools may be in order but only if all other means have been exhausted.
-- Mark W. Steele, FAIA, AICP, President, MW Steele Group

We are a free country.
Our forefathers fought to the death to ensure that we each have the right to live life free of fear that the government will step in and take away the fruits of our labor.
I find it very troubling that the US Supreme Court recently dealt a low blow to that sense of security by seemly extending the rights of the government to take property from any of us and then give that property to another private person for private commercial development.
Because this ruling is so shocking and properly the subject of severe criticism, I believe it will either be addressed by Congress or substantially limited in application by the courts.
In the meantime I would encourage governmental leaders to follow the spirit of the Constitution and not abuse the power of eminent domain. Implementing this type of policy partnerships with private parties could also lead to corruption.
We all understand that city leaders are charged with planning the healthy development of our communities. The correct tool for that planning is through appropriate zoning, not by taking Mrs. Smith's home away from her so it can be transferred to a private developer for who in exchange has agreed to implement the city's plan.
-- Douglas Tribble, Attorney, Pillsbury Winthrop

Private property should not be taken to be given to another private property owner.
Eminent domain, or the threat of eminent domain, takes away our freedom of private property ownership which most citizens view as sacred.
Redevelopment, and its tool eminent domain, has been abused by this city already. For example, a large union print shop and a Washington Republican senator in the same block received their 30-day notice to be eminent domain before zoning was even changed.
If a union shop and a Republican senator's properties aren't safe from eminent domain, is anyone's?
We need our light industry businesses and the good jobs they provide, as much as we need housing. In addition, many of the areas the city wants to rezone shouldn't be rezoned for housing because of toxic contamination, also some are located on flood plains, or have high decibel levels etc.
Another problem is a majority of the housing being built is high-end and displaces the lower income housing which basically is older apartments.
Another problem with using eminent domain is areas that the city wants to become Redevelopment Projects Areas. Many of these projects areas such as North Bay Redevelopment have called unblighted areas like sections of Point Loma "blighted." This is a farce and plays into the hand of large developers and insiders as a way of doing land grabs.
The City Redevelopment Agency uses density as an excuse to use eminent domain.
One of the reasons the city is broke is that the non-redevelopment areas subsidize most of redevelopment project areas, schools and services, shorting their own communities.
According to watchdog Mel Shapiro, because of the structure of redevelopment, we lose $50 million in tax funding a year for police services.
Redevelopment taxes need to be closely looked at and changed. The Redevelopment Agency and their power, a more privatized form of government with power to eminent domain, needs reining in or some or all of the redevelopment projects eliminating.
The Redevelopment Agency should not be able to use eminent domain.
--Kathleen Blavatt, Co-founder of the San Diego Coastal Alliance & candidate for City Council District 2.

Jury gives man forced from store $7.7 million
Gaslamp property taken to make way for a hotel
By Greg Moran, Union Tribune, October 29, 2005
Jurors awarded $7.7 million yesterday to the former owner of a Gaslamp Quarter cigar store who was forced to move by the city to make way for a new hotel.
Ahmed Mesdaq, who was awarded $7.7 million yesterday, said he welcomed the verdict but would prefer to still be in business in the Gaslamp Quarter. The verdict in San Diego Superior Court was the latest chapter in the battle of Ahmed Mesdaq and his Gran Havana Cigar and Coffee Lounge. The city used its powers of eminent domain and forced Mesdaq out of the property at Fifth Avenue and J Street so a developer could build a Marriott Renaissance Hotel.
The case attracted national attention in the growing debate over the government's power to take private land and hand it over to a private developer in the name of economic development.
Vincent Bartolotta Jr., who represented Mesdaq during the two-week trial, called the verdict a "home run" for Mesdaq and important for other property owners.
"The message is you've got to play by the rules," Bartolotta said outside court. "You can't take advantage of the little guy because you've got the power."
The jury's award covered two aspects relating to the store. The first was the value of the property and the second was the "good will" – the value of a business due to its location, good reputation and other factors.
Outside court, Mesdaq welcomed the verdict but said he still would prefer to be in business.
"The verdict is what it is," he said. "But I wish we had never had to come this far. I love the Gaslamp. I love San Diego. I just want to work."
For two years, he had waged a spirited campaign against the city's attempt to take his land. Exhausted by the legal battle to stop the condemnation, he gave up the fight and vacated the building in June. He now has his business stored in a 400-square-foot storage space as he decides what his next move will be.
The trial, over the value of the land and business, pitted Mesdaq against the city. The City Council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency of San Diego, voted in April 2004 to use eminent domain power and condemn the property and others around it for the 334-room hotel.
The hotel developer will have to pay the judgment under terms of its agreement with the city.
Bruce W. Beach, the attorney who represented the city, said it was unknown whether the verdict would be appealed.
"It's too early to say," Beach said. "We are disappointed in the result. There are some legal issues that we need to discuss with the agency first."
Bartolotta said the city offered $3 million before the trial.
Mesdaq bought the property in 2000 and – combined with renovations he had made – sunk about $2.5 million into the former warehouse. The city long has maintained that Mesdaq knew the hotel proposal was coming when he purchased the land.
Mesdaq refused offers to sell and went to court to stop the condemnation. He argued that taking his land and handing it to a private party did not amount to a "public use."
That is traditionally why governments have taken property – for public projects such as roads, schools and bridges.
In recent years governments have used eminent domain powers for "economic development," arguing that the tax revenue and jobs that private developers bring ultimately benefit the public.
The city used the same argument in this instance, declaring that the property and hotel room tax revenue – as well as additional rooms to serve the Convention Center – would benefit the public.
Using eminent domain for economic benefits has been a controversial development in the law. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case from Connecticut that it was appropriate for governments to take land for that purpose.
That ruling touched off a fight in which property rights activists nationwide are lobbying state legislatures to pass laws curbing the practice. Such legislation is pending in California.
Mesdaq said that while he strongly believes he was wronged, he still hopes one day to return to the Gaslamp Quarter. Before moving to the J Street location, he had run his business for more than a dozen years from other locations in the neighborhood.
"I hope, someday," he said quietly, "I will have the ability to come back to the Gaslamp."

Sale of car site to Mossy averts forced seizure
By Tanya Sierra, Union Tribune, Sept. 14, 2005
NATIONAL CITY – A last-minute deal between Mossy Nissan and the owners of the property it leases was announced last night, just before National City officials were to vote on whether to invoke eminent domain to force a sale. Without help from the city's Community Development Commission, Mossy Nissan will buy the 4 1⁄2 acres it has leased from the Daily family since 1982 for $7.95 million and will finish out its lease, which has less than two years left.
We've been a good neighbor for 23 years and we'll be here for a long time," Peter Mossy told the City Council, which also acts as the CDC board of directors.
Mossy Nissan had threatened to leave the lucrative Mile of Cars location if it could not acquire the Daily property, and asked the city to help it do so. In March, its real estate representative said it would pay no more than $7 million for the Daily parcel.
With the possibility looming that Mossy would leave National City, taking at least $1 million in annual property and sales taxes with it, CDC staff members began the eminent-domain process, which shook the public.
The Daily family believed it was wrapping up negotiations with Mossy Nissan when it received a letter from the CDC, which began the condemnation process.
Believing Mossy was working both sides – the Daily family and the city – for a lower price, the Dailys hired an attorney to take on the eminent-domain process.
"I'm pleased the parties could come to a meeting of the minds without involvement from the CDC," Daily attorney Anna F. Roppo said.
Lawrence Daily, the family spokesman, said the family made concessions worth about $3.5 million but was satisfied because ultimately a government entity was not forcing them to sell.
"We're trying to make the best of a bad situation," he said.
In the past, National City did well using eminent domain to erase bars and accompanying crime to clear a site for an education center on National City Boulevard.
In this case, however, many residents thought the city was meddling in a private matter and spoke out at council meetings.
Mayor Nick Inzunza, who has had an aggressive agenda for revitalizing the city in a relatively short time, said, "This is not an attempt to overuse our authority."
Property must be considered blighted in order for the city to seize it through eminent domain. In simple terms, law defines blight as property that is not economically viable and includes deteriorating physical conditions.
Even though Roppo knew about the last-minute agreement before the eminent-domain hearing began, she said, as a matter of principle, it was important to make a meticulous presentation objecting to the city's involvement and its description of the property as blighted.
City leaders said they are just as relieved not to have to engage in eminent domain.
"We're glad (the two) sides were able to come to an agreement," Vice Mayor Ron Morrison said. "We realize how sensitive the issue of eminent domain is."

Established San Diego Family Owned Printer and other local businesses & Properties Threatened
My family owns Vanard Lithographers, Inc., which is located in the Midway/Pacific Highway Corridor. We are the only large family owned union printing company in San Diego. Unfortunately, we have recently learned that “redevelopment” means engaging in the worst form of corporate welfare: taking the property of hard working entrepreneurs for the benefit of well-heeled developers.
Vanard and a coalition of San Diego property owners intends to fight for their private property rights, which have been threatened by a local developer seeking to use the public power of eminent domain for his private gain.You could be next!
We have worked extremely hard to build-up our family business to the point where we now employ 35 individuals, most with families. We love our location. We love our land. We do not intend to leave. And neither do our neighbors.
Please help all of the hard working employers, property owners, employees and residents in the midway area.
Thank you for your support,
René Coons, VP Marketing, Vanard Lithographers, Inc.

he Myth of the Housing Shortage
By RICH TOSCANO, Jan. 19, 2006
It has become almost universally accepted over the past few years that San Diego is experiencing a severe housing shortage. The presumed housing shortage -- or when the occasion calls for slightly more drama, "housing crisis" -- has served as the a priori basis for untold articles, analyses and conversations regarding San Diego real estate.
Even your mother's folksy platitude that "they're not making any more land" has made a rousing comeback.
But the fact is that there is no housing shortage in San Diego, and there never was.According to the San Diego Association of Governments, or SANDAG, San Diego's population grew by 5.5 percent from 2001-2005. Over the same period, the supply of San Diego homes grew by 5.1 percent. The overall ratio of people to housing units increased by a mere 0.4 percent.
Moreover, the prior trend has reversed itself: San Diego's housing supply has actually been growing faster than its population since 2003.I'm just not seeing the big crisis.
There are three reasons that people continue to believe in a housing shortage when the evidence shows that there is no such thing. The first is in the home prices themselves.
During the 2001-2005 period, when the population grew 0.4 percent faster than the housing supply, the median San Diego home price increased by 88 percent. Prices rose 42 percent from 2003-2005 alone, even as growth in the home supply was outpacing that of population. When people saw prices rising so fast, they assumed that there was a cause, and the most obvious cause was a shortage of housing relative to population. It's understandable -- but the obvious answer was, in this case, incorrect.A second reason for the widespread belief in a housing shortage was a persistently low level of for-sale inventory. During 2003 and 2004, it was fairly difficult for homebuyers to find available houses, because people hoping to buy homes during that time outnumbered those trying to sell homes.
Many confused this temporary run on inventory with a longer-term structural housing shortage, but as the numbers above show, it was not. It was a short-term inventory drain caused by a temporary imbalance between buyers and sellers, which was in turn caused by a period of extreme homebuyer optimism, and it has already passed. The inventory of homes for sale, after reaching a low of around 2,000 in early 2004, is now back up to 15,000 and rising.
The third factor reinforcing the belief in a housing shortage involves a misinterpretation of fallout from the prior housing bubble. San Diego enjoyed a housing boom in the late 1980s that led to a period of overbuilding and then a housing downturn in the early 1990s. This combination of oversupply and low demand encouraged a slowdown in the building of new housing units through much of the 1990s.
By the time home prices accelerated again, analysts looked back at San Diego's comparatively low rate of homebuilding in the 1990s and concluded that San Diego just hadn't been building homes fast enough to accommodate population growth. In fact, the low building rate in the late 1990s was simply balancing out the extremely high building rate that took place prior. This period of slower building allowed San Diego's housing inventory overhang to be absorbed before building could ramp up to a more normal rate, which it did by 2001.
It's easy to understand, given the above, how people would initially conclude that San Diego has an undersupply of housing. But the data speaks loud and clear: there is no housing shortage in San Diego. There never was. And take a drive around downtown sometime -- given the amount of building taking place, there certainly won't be a San Diego housing shortage any time soon.
Rich Toscano is an independent real estate analyst residing in Hillcrest and working in La Jolla. He writes extensively about San Diego housing at Piggington's Econo-Almanac.

Developing a Platform
By EVAN McLAUGHLIN, Voice Staff Writer, Jan. 4, 2006
Excerpt: Some have seen the city's switch to a strong-mayor form of governances as a way for the mayor to seize unprecedented powers over development. However, the candidates winning elections for two open City Council seats will have immediate sway over important planning and land use decisions as soon as they take office.
Sanders officially took control of the city bureaucracy this week as the voter-approved strong-mayor form of governance took effect, giving him day-to-day oversight of the departments handling planning and development services.
The mayor, however, will no longer have a vote on the council, leaving him out of a number of pending debates involving downtown's blueprint for growth, public land sales and new redevelopment areas.
"You could argue on the one hand that the mayor has the enhanced abilities because he is the direct boss of the planning director and the development services director, but on the other hand, having the mayor removed from the council means he has no oversight on final land use issues," said Craig Benedetto, a lobbyist for the San Diego Building Owners & Managers Association.
The two successful candidates that emerge from the District 2 and District 8 elections Tuesday will face at least one immediate, major policy decision related to development -- the downtown community plan update. In interviews, the candidates produced guarded answers on a plan that could drastically change the way both council districts look.
Centre City Development Corp., the agency overseeing the redevelopment of downtown San Diego, is asking the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council to allow an exceptional amount of density -- both in residential units and office space -- to be built in the city's urban hub over the next 25 years.

SD Watchdogs say AB1162 is no protection (below)
State Senate OKs bill to trim eminent domain
By Michael Gardner, San Diego Union-Tribune, Aug. 31, 2005
SACRAMENTO ˆ Jarred by stories of shattered dreams, California lawmakers took a first step yesterday to temporarily harness the power of local governments to seize private homes through eminent domain.
However, tales of mom and pop shops shuttered by public agencies to make way for larger tax-generating retailers failed to persuade senators to extend the same protection to businesses.
Their reluctance could ignite an initiative tapping into what appears to be a growing public backlash to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the broad eminent-domain powers in Connecticut.
In the first crucial test of the California Legislature's response, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a measure that would impose a two-year moratorium on taking homes for private projects, giving the state time to study whether to impose new limits.
Some Democrats conceded that they remain wary of wading in, but still provided the 5-2 majority vote to keep the bill moving to give supporters time to hammer out some outstanding issues that threaten to keep it from reaching the governor's desk.
"We're asking for an extraordinary remedy, but do we have an extraordinary problem?" asked Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, who nevertheless supported the moratorium in AB 1162.
Taking stock of the outpouring of reports of businesses, churches and homes being seized to make way for big-box stores and hotels, Cedillo urged caution. "Too often we legislate by hysteria," he said.
Majority Democrats derailed SCA 15, a broader constitutional amendment that would have barred all seizure of private property unless it was for a public use, such as roads or schools. Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, and others agreed to shelve a narrower version protecting homeowners, SCA 12, until hearings can be held this fall.
San Diegan Jody Carey, who was ensnared in a high-profile eminent-domain proceeding, argued in vain for a broad ban on seizures.
"They answer to no one," said Carey, whose nearly half-million-dollar City Heights home has been coveted by an obscure redevelopment authority pursuing a large housing project.
The San Diego Model School Development Agency has retreated for now, but Carey says a blanket ban, not a moratorium, is the only way to save his home from being bulldozed.
"The bill will give them two years to lick their wounds and come right back," he said.
But officials with redevelopment agencies that use eminent domain sparingly say problems are overblown and that overreacting could eliminate a valuable tool to chase out drug dealers, remove toxic waste and revitalize neighborhoods.
"It's a nuclear blast," said John Shirey, who represents redevelopment agencies, generally an arm of city or county governments.
But that blast still may be leveled at redevelopment agencies at the ballot box.
Orange County Supervisor Chris Norby, a strident critic of eminent domain, said influential supporters are ready to begin collecting nearly 600,000 signatures to place a constitutional amendment before voters that would restrict the use of eminent domain to public needs, such as freeways and hospitals.

San Diego CCDC owes the city general fund over $100 million...
Donna Frye is the only councilmember who wants it repaid!
CCDC tells the council their projects are too important to cut.
Example: $22 million to refurbish the Balboa Theatre.
$100 million to beautify the Embarcadero
ALL OTHER councilmembers think this is more important than:
1) Cutting branch library hours
2) Higher fees for parking permits
3) New admission charge to Botanical Garden Building
4) Raising fees for using athletic fields and swimming pools
5) Cutting the "6 to 6 program" for kids
6) Cutting graffiti removal by 40%
7) Large fee increases on businesses
8) Not replacing police cars with more than 100,000 miles.

County sues city over Grantville plan
By Doug Sherwin,San Diego Daily Transcript , July 21, 2005
The county of San Diego is suing the city of San Diego over the proposed redevelopment of the Grantville area near Mission Gorge.
County officials are hoping to prevent the project from starting, saying it could cost the county approximately $200 million in tax revenues over the life of the project.
"It's a misuse of the (California) Community Redevelopment Law to keep tax revenues in that area, which we feel do not need them," said Laurie Orange, senior deputy of the County Counsel.
Once a project has been claimed under the redevelopment law, all tax revenues must remain in that particular area.
The redevelopment statute requires the areas to be blighted, in an urban setting and causing a serious physical and economic burden to that area, which can't otherwise be resolved by private or government action.
The San Diego City Council and the city's community redevelopment agency was also named in the suit, which was filed July 8.
"We believe that the evidence does not show it's physically and economically blighted," Orange said. "The county put in a number of objections that introduce other evidence showing that this area is actually thriving. It enjoys a low vacancy rate, and it has quite a bit of new development going on without the need for redevelopment.
"What we saw was the area had a greater property value increase than the remainder of the city."
The suit cites figures showing the property values in the Grantville area have risen 54.29 percent during the last five years.
"That's not indicative of blight," Orange said. "The redevelopment law sets out factors that need to be met. The facts the city put forward either are incomplete, sometimes incorrect or if they were correct, they did not actually show blight."
The complaint also notes a Grantville "sand and gravel operation" that is thriving and a "multimillion dollar development" occurring on property that the city identified as vacant.
A spokesman for the city's redevelopment agency said he could not address pending litigation, and calls to the city attorney's office were unsuccessful.
On the redevelopment group's Web site, a report claimed that 90 percent of the parcels in the project area exhibited one or more physical blighting characteristics, including 25 percent having exposed wiring.
The report also claims that during the last two years, Grantville's "assessed values have risen 40 percent to 42 percent less than the city and county respectively."
The city's findings also assert that the crime rate in the area, based on a 2003 survey, was 37 percent above the county average.
The city's stated five-year implementation plan says it "strives to eliminate blight in the Project Area by assisting with rehabilitation and new construction of commercial and industrial areas and upgrading of public infrastructure, facilities, open space and parks."
The county's lawsuit, however, alleges "the proposed redevelopment plan would actually exacerbate rather than relieve existing traffic problems. Rather than eliminating any burden on the community, creating a redevelopment project here would burden the entire city by redirecting property tax revenues away from the city's general fund where they could be used for badly needed services, such as police, fire and infrastructure throughout the city."
The lawsuit also claims that a council member stated there "are no planned redevelopment activities" and that the project presented the only method to "capture the additional tax increment."

Senator McClintock has introduced the Homeowners & Property Protection Act as SCA 15.
We start with the bi-partisan support of 45 other members of the Legislature who have signed on as co-authors, but it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses to place this important measure on a statewide ballot for approval. If the Legislature has the will it can be placed on the November 8th special election ballot with votes during the week of August 15th. Failing such immediate action they will still have plenty of time to place it on the June primary ballot in 2006.
What we need at this point is for concerned supporters to contact their local Senate and Assembly members and asking them to support SCA 15, if they are not signed on as co-authors.
[Co-authors are listed here: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sca_15_bill_20050713_introduced.html ]
There are currently over 6,000 government agencies that have the power of eminent domain and most do not want that power curtailed in any way and are aggressively opposing SCA 15. It is important that we get as many letters of support for SCA 15 from individuals, small business, churches, organizations and any other groups that can be affected negatively by property seizures that are for the benefit of other private parties. These letters of support can be addressed to Senator Tom McClintock, State Capitol, Sacramento CA, 95814 or faxed to 916-324-7544. Or e-mailed to: tom.mcclintock@sen.ca.gov
Thank you in advance of helping us spread the word and your support of this important measure. Feel free to call our office at 916-445-8873 if you need any additional information or have questions about SCA 15.
1-page version of the language that amends the California State Constitution
—John E. Stoos, Chief Consultant
—Senator Tom McClintock

Justices' ruling on property seizure ignites revolt
BY KENNETH HARNEY, July 24, 2005, WASHINGTON --
To call it a backlash would hardly do it justice. Calling it an unprecedented uprising to nullify a decision of the highest court of the land would be more accurate.
In the four weeks since the Supreme Court sanctioned the seizure of private homes by municipal governments for private economic development, a firestorm has broken out in dozens of state legislatures and in Congress.
At the federal level, by a 365-33 vote the House adopted a highly unusual resolution deploring the court's ruling. The House also voted 231-189 for a bill that would prohibit expenditure of any federal housing, transportation or treasury funds "to enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. City of New London." The court ruled that municipalities have the right to determine what constitutes a "public purpose" for eminent domain seizure purposes -- even if that means taking privately owned real estate away from citizens and handing it over to private developers who promise to increase the local tax revenue base or increase employment.
In effect, the House told the court: You may have narrowly approved the Connecticut city's eminent domain seizures of homes for a privately developed and owned urban renewal project, but we have a weapon in this fight, too. If the appropriations amendment passes the Senate, the city of New London will not be able to use key federal funds in any way, directly or indirectly, to move that project forward. No transportation money, no housing subsidies, no assistance from the U.S. Treasury. Meanwhile, bipartisan support is building in the Senate for the broader-sweeping "Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2005," authored by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. That bill declares it is Congress' view that "the power of eminent domain should be exercised only for 'public use' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and that this power to seize homes, small businesses and other private property should be reserved only for true public purposes."
Under no circumstances, according to Cornyn, should local eminent domain powers "be used simply to further private economic development." If passed and signed into law, the bill would prohibit all uses of federal funds in connection with any eminent domain seizures for economic development purposes.
At the state level, legislative moves are under way in more than two dozen states to rein in, or at least clarify, the powers of municipalities to condemn and seize homes. Eight states -- Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, South Carolina and Washington -- already impose restrictions in some form.
In Connecticut, Gov. Jodi Rell endorsed a moratorium on eminent domain seizures, and called the issue "the 21st Century equivalent of the Boston Tea Party: the government taking away the rights and liberties of property owners without giving them a voice. But this time it is not a monarch wearing robes in England we are fighting -- it is five robed justices at the Supreme Court in Washington."
The outraged reaction to the Kelo decision erupted across the political and ideological spectrum and created momentary bedfellows out of legislators who rarely agree on anything. Name another issue on which House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., the House's lone self-described socialist, Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., evangelical Christian groups, Rush Limbaugh and Ralph Nader all are on the same side.
Waters denounced the decision as "the most un-American thing that can be done." She said it would weigh most heavily upon minority and poor neighborhoods. DeLay called the ruling "a travesty."
A few opponents of the Kelo decision are looking to mount direct action -- sometimes tongue in cheek. A California group called Fre