SCORECARDS Archives: |
| ||
|
REDEVELOPMENT
ABUSE: Redevelopment is based on the concept of blight and attracting capital into a blighted area. A Better Way for Grantville Redevelopment bond scheme floated again The Blight Fight What CCDC spends isn't its money Redevelopment, San Diego style Berkeley Study on Infill Development. Heads Up..... Redevelopment Abuse Mr. Mayor, your credit card has just been declined. SI Comes to Gym’s Defense Don't Think Twice, It's All Blight Blight, The Budget with an Extra Pay Boost Cigar Store Owner Receives Compensation for His Property Redevelopment: Public? Private? Property seizure measure moves ahead Downtown Dipping Chongqing Journal Homeowner Stares Down Wreckers, New Study Details Devastating Effects of
Eminent Domain Abuse on African Americans
City Heights project loses steam PROP C-CITY OF CHULA VISTA Ch. Am.- Em. Domain WINS! ABUSIVE REDEVELOPMENT COUNCIL VOTES 2006 Property rights fight on again The Myth of the Housing Shortage 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) County sues city over Grantville plan Justices' ruling on property seizure ignites revolt Homeowners Ask U.S. Supreme Court: Rehear Eminent Domain Never have I been as outraged (and depressed) with government as with the recent U.S Supreme Court decision, condoning the taking of private property for private use.
Redevelopment staff pleased in SacramentoDuring my 11 year term as a professor of Real Property law, my law students and I frequently discussed the cases that proceeded to erode the mandate of the 5th Amendment - that government shall take no private property for public use without just compensation. In this letter, I’d like to share, in non-legalese, some of these thoughts, the history that led up to the Court’s ruling and what we can expect if we sit complacently on our civil rights. Undermining the 5th Amendment began when courts reinterpreted the word “public” to mean “governmental” and the word “use” to mean not just a measurable land use but an amorphous “purpose”. Condemnation was thus permitted for a governmental building, not just a public park or road. From these decisions, our legislatures, with the approval of our courts, then proceeded to destroy the mandate of our 10th Amendment - that government shall only legislate to benefit the public health, safety and welfare. It was a simple matter. All they had to do was interpret the phrase “public welfare” to mean the “public economy” and thus the “governmental tax base”. The rationale was that these Constitutional erosions were authorized by the public under the theory that we have, at all times, government of, by and for the people. But this was not the most serious and insidious erosion of our Constitution. Until the Supreme Court ruling of July 23rd, the worst erosion was the shameless violation of our 14th Amendment which prohibits legislation that results in discrimination based on wealth or poverty. How often have we observed the condemnation of whole areas in our city due to “economic blight”? How often have we heard the local legislative pronouncement of “urban blight”, a judgment call made without fixed and equitable standards, that discriminates against area residents and small business owners because of their collectively small bank accounts. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that we’ve seen the worst. Taking private property for private use - your business or my home - won’t hold a candle to the day when we see private personal property as well as real property - your automobile and my cat - taken because they constitute blights to our neighborhoods. And just wait until government sees no need to compensate us for either the personal or real property they take. Indeed, it already does this by reinterpreting the word “taking” to mean mere “regulation”, for which no compensation need be paid. Prime examples of regulation are downzoning or removing trees that allegedly obstruct the views of drivers. For the time being, it seems that government would prefer that we keep our mouths shut, that we relinquish our 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech, press, religion, and certainly, our right to petition government. If we speak out, our legislators might retaliate and take whatever they will from us, even without unjust compensation. We are the public, the people, the government, and we must preserve our property rights in every way we can. We cannot permit our state to adopt these new federal standards. We cannot allow our county and city to deprive us of our right to life, liberty, and property by following suit. We cannot afford to look elsewhere when we see the camel’s nose poking through our neighbor’s tent lest our own campground be overrun and ruled by camels.—Abbe Wolfsheimer Stutz Court: Cities may seize homes for economic development By Hope Yen, ASSOCIATED PRESS, 10:12 a.m. June 23, 2005 WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights. * Excerpts from ruling: The 5-4 ruling – assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America – was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Among those still pending for the court, which next meets on Monday, is one testing the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commands on government property. Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said. "The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including – but by no means limited to – new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote. Stevens was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing – David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. The bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects that benefit the lower and middle class. They were joined by Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy in rejecting the conservative principle of individual property rights. Critics had feared that would allow a small group of homeowners to stymie rebuilding efforts that benefit the city through added jobs and more tax revenue for social programs. "It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," Stevens wrote. O'Connor argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting. "It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word." Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result." At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use." Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted. Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision "means a lot for New London's future." The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight. Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners. New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs. City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum. New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway. Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property. The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.Cigar bar owner ends eminent domain fight By Martin Stolz, Union Tribune, June 12, 2005 Opponents of the government's power to take private property will bid farewell today to one of their most celebrated San Diego fighters. Ahmad Mesdaq, owner of the Gran Havana Cigar and Coffee Lounge, waged a spirited and costly legal battle to stop the city from taking his business to make way for a proposed Marriott Renaissance Hotel at Fifth Avenue and J Street. "I'm really exhausted, and I'm really depressed," he said. "I cannot fight this anymore. I'm burned out." Mesdaq spent $2.5 million to buy and renovate the former warehouse. To take the property, the Centre City Development Corp., the downtown redevelopment agency, declared the site "blighted," a first step in eminent domain, a process enabling the government to condemn private property for a public benefit. In Mesdaq's case, the land surrounding his building – some old buildings and parking lots – were declared blighted. Mesdaq refused offers to sell to the hotel developer and CCDC. San Diego still must pay Mesdaq what a court decides is a fair market price; any cleanup costs could be deducted from that money. CCDC advises the Redevelopment Agency, which consists of the mayor and City Council. Councilwoman Donna Frye alone voted against the taking. With legal bills exceeding $500,000 and seeing few prospects for success in the courts, Mesdaq said he could no longer fight. He has been ordered to vacate the property by Wednesday for demolition. The case, which drew national attention, had support from property rights groups and was the subject of a documentary film. The dispute has left Mesdaq financially and emotionally broken, he said. "I feel it's just wrong," he said. "Sunday is a farewell, a goodbye, to all my supporters and the patriots and customers who have been with me for the past 14 years." The Gaslamp Quarter Association, a merchant and property owners' organization for the 16-block historic district, this week asked Mayor Dick Murphy and the council members to delay demolition. The group's board unanimously adopted a resolution urging the city to forestall demolition "until all necessary funding has been obtained for the Renaissance Hotel project and a construction start date is established with certainty," wrote the group's executive director, Jimmy Parker. "There is no benefit to the community if this building is demolished and the property is left to sit vacant as a dead space on Fifth Avenue for an undetermined amount of time." IJ Urges Activists: Put Outrage to Productive Uses, Take Positive Action in Congress, State Legislatures, Local Governments and in State Courts Thank you for being an important part of a national groundswell of support that is calling local legislators as well as national representatives to end eminent domain abuse in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Kelo case. This grassroots activism is clearly having a positive impact: in the past week alone, the Institute for Justice has been contacted by members of the U.S. Congress as well as legislators in 14 states who want to limit the power of eminent domain. This is just the kind of positive activism we need. Unfortunately, while members of the Castle Coalition have been making a difference, there have been others who have undertaken misguided efforts directed personally at public officials who favor an expanded eminent domain power. We want to emphasize that it is essential right now that all those who wish to protect their homes and businesses from eminent domain abuse work in a positive way through their state legislature, state courts and peaceful protests. As an example, we started the Castle Coalition’s “Hands Off My Home” campaign (www.castlecoalition.org <http://www.castlecoalition.org>), designed to give ordinary citizens the means to protect their homes from government-forced takings for private development. The Castle Coalition also has a protest scheduled for this evening (Tuesday, July 05, 2005) during the first meeting of the New London City Council to occur since the Kelodecision was released. During the coming weeks, we hope that activists will continue to contact their governors, state legislators, and city council members to seek pledges that they will end eminent domain abuse. We must look to long-range efforts while the public feeling about this issue is so strong. There’s much to be done, and now is the time to change the world! —Steven D. Anderson, Castle Coalition Coordinator, Institute for Justice, www.CastleCoalition.orgTo Condemn A Cash Cow By Joe Deegan, Reader, December 8, 2005 Last summer's trial of San Diego councilmen Michael Zucchet and Ralph Inzunza produced an unexpected candor from the city's Redevelopment Agency. On June 24, Zucchet's attorney Raymond (Jerry) Coughlan called agency employee Alex Greenwood to the witness stand. The move seemed intended to hammer home a point: that since the beginning of his only city council term, Zucchet's "first, second, and third priorities" had been to get rid of the Body Shop and Les Girls strip clubs in Loma Portal. Coughlan had said earlier in the trial, according to Kelly Thornton's May 11 story in the Union-Tribune, that Zucchet was willing to listen to Galardi's representatives about no-touch at Galardi's club, Cheetahs in Kearny Mesa, "if they talk about Mr. Galardi buying [Les Girls and the Body Shop] and turning them into Krispy Kreme (doughnut shop) or a sports bar. "In the June 24 court transcripts, attorney Coughlan began by asking Greenwood to describe the Redevelopment Agency. "We look at blighted areas of the city," said Greenwood, "and [put] together real estate deals to bring in new businesses, new housing, new office and other uses to create new jobs and revitalize the area." Greenwood went on to include as part of the agency's work planning and providing public infrastructure for the blighted areas.Coughlan asked the witness about the concept "blighted area." "I take it," said the attorney, "that that's a term of art within redevelopment jargon. Is that correct?" "Yes," Greenwood answered. "Under the California Health and Safety Code, there's a specific definition of what a blighted area is. An example...would be an area that suffers from dilapidated buildings, parcels that are so small and irregular that they cannot accommodate modern development, lack of public amenities or infrastructure, broken sidewalks, for example, [or] crime. "The most recent assignment Greenwood had with the Redevelopment Agency was to oversee the North Bay Redevelopment Project Area, 1360 acres along Interstate 5 and Pacific Highway and in the Midway area. Greenwood told the court that "one of the main, prominent gateways into that area is off of the freeways on Camino del Rio [West] and Rosecrans [Boulevard], and there is about a 5-acre area there that we zeroed in on. Because of its prominent location, we thought it was a potentially good site for some sort of real estate project." Greenwood labeled the area blighted. The five-acre site described (and most of the North Bay Redevelopment Project Area) lies within Zucchet's former council District 2 and contains the Body Shop and Les Girls strip clubs. Greenwood described for the court how, beginning on March 24, 2003, shortly after Zucchet came into office, he met with the councilman every couple of months, and with the councilman's staff almost weekly, to figure out ways to move the strip clubs and an adult bookstore out of the area. Also in attendance at the first meeting with Zucchet was Greenwood's boss, Hank Cunningham, the city's director of the Community and Economic Development Department and assistant executive director of the Redevelopment Agency.Greenwood said he pointed out to Zucchet that the adult-entertainment businesses were likely "cash cows" that the city could not afford to buy out by itself. He also told Zucchet that rezoning the area to try to force them out would not work, since they were "grandfathered in." Eventually, Greenwood testified, he convinced Zucchet that the redevelopment plan for the area around the strip clubs would be sufficient to do the trick.Greenwood then told the court, "We developed a list of opportunity sites. We analyzed the parcels, looking at such things as property tax data, zoning, and sales tax data.... We looked specifically at the area inclusive of and surrounding the Body Shop and Les Girls sites." Greenwood continued moments later in the same vein: "We tried to get a good idea of...the underground soil conditions, the appraised value of the land, all the information that a developer might want to know before they started thinking seriously about it. We contacted several developers to see if there was any interest in pursuing it; some people seemed interested, some people didn't. We really tried general marketing to try and develop interest in that site, and nothing worked at first for several months.... It was all me and one other person working on this. We worked very hard on it."Since Les Girls and the Body Shop sit on small parcels of 5000 to 10,000 square feet apiece but bring in large amounts of revenue, Greenwood said he figured he needed additional parcels to go along with them. "Buying other pieces of land at a cheaper price because they don't have such income-producing uses on them would allow you to get enough land to do a modern development, and it would also lower your average cost of acquiring the land." "Is this a project," asked Coughlan, "that the developer and your agency...would work on together?" "Yes, through a development agreement," answered Greenwood. "The classic agreement would be the developer...would take the lead on this. They would take the lead on buying all the land, and we would help support them either financially or using our negotiating powers to try and purchase the land."Coughlan then inquired about the condemnation tool."Under redevelopment law," Greenwood replied, "if we're in a redevelopment agreement with a developer and they use their best-faith efforts to acquire land just through the private market but fail, if there are one or two people that will not sell their land at a fair market value, we can then come in and negotiate with them.... And if that fails, then we have the legal ability to condemn the property and take ownership of it. We pay the property owner fair market value and any other costs associated with that, but we take possession of the land by force." "Did somebody step forward and make a proposal to develop this piece of property [at and around Les Girls and the Body Shop]?" "Yes. All through 2003 we were doing marketing efforts to different developers and other stakeholders. In late [2003] I was approached by a community leader who said, 'Be prepared, you're going to get a proposal from a local property owner. He owns land immediately behind Les Girls and the Body Shop, and he wants to do some sort of project there.' And sure enough, in February [2004], we got a written proposal from a local property owner saying he wanted the agency's assistance in acquiring a large amount of land." "Is this what's known as an owner-participation effort or offer?" "Yes." During cross-examination, assistant U.S. attorney Paul Cook asked Greenwood whether Councilwoman Donna Frye had shown an eagerness similar to Zucchet's to get rid of Les Girls and the Body Shop. A small part of the North Bay Redevelopment Project Area lies in Frye's District 6. "No, her focus was very different," Greenwood replied. "Her agenda for District 6 and the North Bay redevelopment was more concerned for helping small businesses. She was very suspicious... about any heavy-handed use of redevelopment." "By 'heavy-handed,' " inquired Cook, "you mean she had some concerns, perhaps, about this condemnation procedure that Mr. Coughlan asked you about, where the city goes in and condemns property and then buys out someone whether they want to sell or not?" "Absolutely. And, in addition, I think she is reluctant to support any large redevelopment real estate project," said Greenwood. "She just has a distrust of developers, if I may say. "Cook then asked whether Zucchet shared "those same views. [Did he] have a distrust of the heavy-handed use of condemnation procedures?""I didn't really get that sense from him. He seemed to want aggressive and forthright actions from the Redevelopment Agency," said Greenwood. To better appreciate Greenwood's candor while under oath, we jump to late December 2004. That's when Greenwood wrote to the owners of the "opportunity sites" -- ten parcels between Kurtz and Hancock Streets behind Les Girls and the Body Shop. In the letter, Greenwood told the owners that he had received on December 14 an official, "unsolicited" written proposal to build condominiums on their properties from business neighbor Bill Kenton, owner of 40 percent of the land in question. Although none of the owners except Kenton had ever heard of the city's designs on their area, Greenwood gave them 30 days to sign on to the new proposal, agreeing to sell to Kenton, or to draw up and present their own owner-participation offer. In other words, the majority of the owners were to receive a month to develop an owner-participation offer like the one that Kenton had been collaborating on with the city since the previous February. In response to the letter, Joe Fritzenkotter, owner of Vanard Lithographics, one of the targeted businesses and employer of 100 skilled workers, told me he invited Greenwood to tour his facilities in January 2005. He mentioned to Greenwood that once, during the previous year, Bill Kenton had made an offer to buy his property but without suggesting the deal was part of city redevelopment plans. It therefore took Fritzenkotter aback several months later, he says he told Greenwood, when Kenton "hinted" that the city might take his property in an eminent domain action if he continued refusing to sell. "Greenwood said that I must have misunderstood," said Fritzenkotter, "that eminent domain was not being considered. "Greenwood's letter to the business owners eventually provoked a storm of protest among all of them except Kenton. On March 21, 2005, a subcommittee of the North Bay Redevelopment Project Area Committee met to hear their complaints and make a recommendation. During the meeting, Chris Clifford, who owns a small share in one affected business, accused Greenwood and Kenton of working behind the backs of the other owners. Greenwood denied it. But the subcommittee recommended that the Kenton proposal be rejected. On March 29, Greenwood appeared with Kenton and Vanard Lithographics representative Rene Coons on the KPBS program Full Focus. The show's host, Gloria Penner, asked how well the redevelopment plan for the Body Shop and Les Girls area was being received. Greenwood suggested that people in the area were excited about change.Almost three months later, Greenwood was testifying under oath in the councilmen's trial. In between, court records show, the FBI interviewed him concerning his conversations with Zucchet. Although both Greenwood and Cunningham resigned their positions over the spring and summer, proponents of the redevelopment plan are going ahead with what they now call "the Gateway Project." On December 15, the North Bay Redevelopment Project Area Committee will elect nine new members; the committee will then have to address "Gateway" again. Congrats, Mel - Thanks for taking this all the way... Court wants eminent domain talks in public By Martin Stolz, Union Tribuner, November 23, 2005 Downtown San Diego's redevelopment arm can no longer conduct closed-door meetings to discuss eminent domain litigation, a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Mel Shapiro, a Hillcrest resident and government watchdog, went to court in 2004 against the Centre City Development Corp. board over its practice of discussing eminent domain in private meetings. The board advises the City Council on downtown redevelopment and planning. The council, sitting as the San Diego Redevelopment Agency, has final say on redevelopment matters.Shapiro argued that the board's private meetings with the council's lawyers violated the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state's open-meeting law. Superior Court Judge Richard E.L. Strauss ruled against Shapiro, finding that the board acts on behalf of the council. The San Diego-based 4th District Court of Appeal reversed Strauss yesterday, saying the board "may not meet in closed session" to discuss the redevelopment agency's eminent domain lawsuits. Eminent domain is the government's power to take private property for public uses. The unanimous conclusion of the three-judge appeals panel is included in its published decision, so it can be cited as precedent in California cities with similar development corporations. The panel said, "We are constrained by the plain language of the Brown Act to conclude that CCDC may not meet in closed session with the agency's counsel to discuss pending litigation to which CCDC is not a party. "Peter Hall, president of the Centre City Development Corp., said his board "is going to want to discuss this with counsel before we have any formal reaction or position about what it means to us. "City Attorney Michael Aguirre called the ruling "a wonderful advancement of the public's right to know."Too many of San Diego's commissions and agencies "have forgotten that they are public agencies, and they have to conduct their business in public," he said. Shapiro, 78, sent out an e-mail proclaiming: "I WON!City's plan to overhaul panel fails trust test Residents vent displeasure with redevelopment system By Craig Gustafson, Union-Tribune, November 18, 2005 Frustrated residents sent a blunt message last night to San Diego officials looking to overhaul the division charged with revitalizing some of the city's older neighborhoods. Their message: We don't trust you. At a town hall-style meeting at Linda Vista's Bayside Community Center, many of the 60 people in attendance vented about the state of redevelopment in San Diego. The city had hoped to gauge community reaction to three options for reorganizing the Redevelopment Division, which oversees urban renewal in 11 areas. But much of the talk focused on the existing system. The options are to change the division's management practices, turn it into a separate entity similar to the Centre City Development Corp., or merge it with the Housing Commission. The city began exploring the options after the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce in January recommended spinning off the division into one or more nonprofits. Redevelopment changes San Diego officials are considering three proposals for restructuring the Redevelopment Division, which oversees 11 project areas. The options: Change the division's management practices; turn it into a nonprofit similar to the Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment arm; or merge it with the Housing Commission. Affected project areas: Barrio Logan, City Heights, College Community, College Grove, Crossroads, Grantville, Linda Vista, Naval Training Center, North Bay, North Park and San Ysidro. Any new plan would be expected to increase the number of projects, improve efficiency and save money, Chamber officials and developers say. Critics say it is simply an opportunity for developers to make money while ignoring the community's wants and needs. "I don't trust the city, and none of us should trust the city because it's being investigated," said Ross Lopez of North Park. He was referring to federal investigations into possible financial crimes and political corruption related to the city's pension system deficit, which totals about $1.4 billion. The Redevelopment Division, which has more than $1.2 billion in projects completed or under way, is part of the city's three-pronged approach to revitalize blighted areas. It oversees projects in neighborhoods such as Barrio Logan, City Heights, Grantville, Linda Vista and San Ysidro. The city also has two redevelopment arms that operate as nonprofits: the Centre City Development Corp., which oversees downtown revitalization, and the Southeastern Economic Development Corp., which oversees urban renewal in Central Imperial, Gateway Center West, Mount Hope and Southcrest. Several residents criticized the idea of turning the Redevelopment Division into a similar nonprofit. Remy Bermúdez, a former City Council candidate who worked for both nonprofits, said there are no checks or balances in either organization, which leads to little accountability when the public complains. Several people asked for a more open process and an opportunity for the public to vote on controversial projects. Debra Fischle-Faulk, the Redevelopment Agency's assistant executive director, said she expects to hold another meeting on the division's future in January. She hopes to submit a formal proposal to the City Council by April when the city begins looking at next year's budget.Redevelopment body is facing an overhaul By Craig Gustafson, Union Tribune, November 16, 2005 With redevelopment booming in downtown San Diego, the city is looking to overhaul the division charged with rehabilitating many of its older neighborhoods.The city is considering three options for reshaping its Redevelopment Division in the hopes of increasing the number of projects, improving efficiency and possibly saving a few bucks. Community comment on the matter will be sought tomorrow night at the Bayview Community Center in Linda Vista. The division, which has more than $1.2 billion in projects completed or under way, is part of the city's three-pronged approach to revitalize blighted areas. It oversees projects in 11 neighborhoods, including Barrio Logan, City Heights, Grantville, Linda Vista and San Ysidro. The city also has two redevelopment arms that operate as nonprofits: the Centre City Development Corp., which oversees downtown revitalization, and the Southeastern Economic Development Corp., which oversees urban renewal in four project areas: Central Imperial, Gateway Center West, Mount Hope and Southcrest. The Redevelopment Division and the two nonprofits operate under the Redevelopment Agency, which is the City Council. Plans to reorganize the Redevelopment Division stem from recommendations made in January by the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. San Diego officials are considering restructuring the Redevelopment Division, which oversees 11 project areas, and will hold a public workshop on the proposals tomorrow. Time: 6 to 7:30 p.m. Where: Bayside Community Center, 2202 Comstock St., Linda Vista. Three options: Change the division's management practices; turn it into a nonprofit similar to the Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment arm; or merge it with the Housing Commission. Affected project areas: Barrio Logan, City Heights, College Community, College Grove, Crossroads, Grantville, Linda Vista, Naval Training Center, North Bay, North Park and San Ysidro. The chamber called for creating one or more nonprofit corporations similar to the Centre City Development Corp. to oversee revitalization in other areas of the city. The chamber and developers say an independent entity would remove the bureaucratic headaches of dealing with city government for initial approvals and allow for expeditious planning and permitting. Critics fear a power-hungry nonprofit will be created that favors the interests of developers over the concerns of residents. The three options being considered for reorganizing the Redevelopment Division are: To change the division's management practices. The city already has hired a consultant to study the division's negotiation tactics and permitting process. To spin it off as a nonprofit. The move would take the division's expenses out of the city's general fund and its employees out of the troubled pension plan. The nonprofit would be run by a private board that recommends projects to the City Council in its role as the Redevelopment Agency. To merge it with the Housing Commission, similar to cities such as Sacramento. Time and money would be saved because the commission has a board and employees in place. The city held a meeting on the three options last month, but many participants left confused about what was being proposed. For the most part, people asked for more openness in how any new organization would operate. Debra Fischle-Faulk, the Redevelopment Agency's assistant executive director, hopes tomorrow's meeting fosters more discussion about what the community wants. The proposed changes, she said, come from frustration over how long it takes for projects to be approved. Fischle-Faulk said she expects to have a final recommendation to the City Council by April. Sherm Harmer, a member of the Chamber of Commerce's housing committee, said a separate authority would help foster entrepreneurial spirit. "When you look at the success ratios of separate organizations versus the one that's existing under the City Manager's Office, there's no comparison," said Harmer, president of Urban Housing Partners, a development company. The city could also recruit a board of community leaders who will lend their expertise for free, Harmer said. "There's enormous talent (out there). You couldn't afford to pay for it," he said. Kathleen Blavatt, a community activist, said the changes are an attempt to privatize government and fast-track projects for developers. She criticized efforts to change the system when many people don't understand how the current Redevelopment Division works or how it uses property taxes. Mel Shapiro, a City Hall watchdog, said he doesn't see how creating another board will help the city."I didn't see any necessity for it," he said. "The staff can handle everything. What do we need seven more political appointments for?"City Hall Roundup: On C Street— City looks at eminent domain; balks at waiver; adds to pension board ANDREW DONOHUE, Voice Political Writer, Sept. 13, 2005 This land is my land. City Councilwoman and mayoral hopeful Donna Frye pushed the issue of eminent domain abuse into the forefront of the city's business and the mayoral campaign Monday, urging the city to reconsider policies that she says put the profit of a few ahead of the interests of home owners and small business owners. First in a morning committee hearing and later at a press conference hosted by her mayoral campaign, Frye joined a growing chorus nationwide questioning how eminent domain is used in seizing private land. The Government Efficiency and Openness Committee, chaired by Frye, heard the pros and cons of the history of redevelopment law Monday morning. The committee then recommended that the full City Council limit the government's ability to take property and adopt other policies that protect and better inform property owners of their rights. "The simplest way to discuss this with the public is to say to them that the public has a right to feel safe" that their businesses and their homes will not be taken by government and handed over to another private property owner for profit," Frye said. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of New London, Conn., in the landmark Kelo case, which allowed governments to seize private land that is deemed "blighted" and give it to another private entity or landowner if the transfer is found to be in the public's best interest. Read more about the Supreme Court decision. However, the ruling did leave open the possibility for local governments to craft their own laws in regards to eminent domain. Efforts in the state Legislature to tailor the state's laws have to date failed, prompting Frye to review the city's policies. The issue has hit home locally. Ahmed Mesdaq, owner of the Gran Havana Cigar and Coffee Lounge, recently lost his battle with the city. Shortly after remodeling his café in the Gaslamp Quarter, the Afghani immigrant was informed that the city would be seizing his land in order to make way for a Marriott Renaissance Hotel that will bring more tax revenue into city coffers. He quit his legal battle against the seizure in June, saying he was exhausted physically and financially. A redevelopment project in City Heights has also raised the ire of local property owners and opponents of current redevelopment policies. Jody Carey and Dennis Wood say they bought and remodeled a home there in early 2004, only to find out later that year that their property could be seized and passed along to a private developer to build condominiums. The Encinitas City Council in July voted to limit its ability to seize private land. Redevelopment officials defended their work at the hearing, saying that between 80 and 90 percent of all properties are acquired through friendly negotiations and not eminent domain. A spokesman from the Jerry Sanders' campaign said that the former police chief, Frye's opponent in the November runoff election, believes that eminent domain is an important tool in redevelopment. However, the spokesman said, Sanders also believes that officials have abused a loose definition of the term "blighted." The council committee recommended Thursday that the full City Council: do away with its powers of eminent domain; monitor negotiations with a third party mediator to ensure that property owners aren't threatened or intimidated; enact strict guidelines for developers to meet before using eminent domain; make sure that property owners receive just compensation; and require that negotiations be made public record. She said she hopes to see full council action within 30 to 60 days. Wastewater waiver. After spending a summer pressuring the pension board to waive its attorney-client privilege in connection with ongoing investigations into City Hall, the City Council has balked at applying the same waiver to documents subpoenaed from the Metropolitan Wastewater Department by federal investigators. The Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Attorney's Office investigations into City Hall have expanded from the pension system and into the wastewater department, where the city discovered a number of years ago that it was improperly charging residential users for wastewater treatment to the benefit of large industrial users. The City Council has since changed its rate structure, but the previous policy has called the city's receipt of local and federal grants into question. There are also questions as to whether the city properly disclosed the risk this policy placed on its financial state. Councilman Jim Madaffer said he's worried that doing so could harm the city in a separate lawsuit that seeks damages for residential ratepayers. In that suit, a utility consumer advocate is seeking damages of up to $200 million. Pension board members have argued that a full waiver of its attorney-client privilege could expose the pension system to litigation. The City Council will resume the discussion Tuesday in closed session. The council has waived its attorney-client privilege in connection with the ongoing investigations all eight times it was asked, said Councilman Brian Maienschein. Board of Defectors. The City Council found one more person willing to serve on that pension board Thursday, approving the nomination of La Jolla attorney James Waring to fill the spot of one of the four resigned board members. That leaves the council with two more gaps to fill. The council appoints seven of the 13 trustees on the board that sits square in the middle of the city's legal, political and economic battles. The most high-profile struggle ongoing at the pension board is the waiver of attorney-client privilege, as investigators and auditors of all varieties want access to years of pension documents and e-mail correspondence. Until two weeks ago, the board had refused to turn over any of the documents to the SEC, U.S. Attorney's Office and auditors trying to verify the city's stalled 2003 financial statements. A federal judge ruled last month that the board had to turn over the documents to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the board opened up limited access to the documents to chosen investigators two weeks ago. Former Mayor Dick Murphy originally nominated seven members for the board in April after voters approved a November ballot measure that shifted the majority of the board to independent outside volunteers. Prior to that, the board had been dominated by union representatives and city management. The structure was blamed for cozy relationships that allowed two funding deals in 1996 and 2002 that led to a pension deficit of at least $1.37 billion and a number of investigations. Three of Murphy's seven original nominees stepped down before being confirmed by the council. Four more stepped down in July after the board came under pressure to hand over the documents and City Attorney Mike Aguirre sued the system. Waring said that although he hasn't been privy to the advice of the pension system lawyers, he was inclined to believe the waiver was a good idea. "My bias would be to disclose as much information as possible," Waring said.Homeowners are outraged by threat of demolition By Roger M. Showley, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, Aug. 24, 2005 The debate over the government's right to take private property prompted by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling hovers at the very doorstep of Jody Carey and Dennis Wood, who live in a 1,000-square-foot house at the edge of a canyon in City Heights. City Heights resident Jody Carey, who stood in front of three houses built by Habitat for Humanity last year that face demolition, said he could lose his home without recourse to the City Council. No sooner did they buy the property for $260,000 last year and spend $200,000 rebuilding it ˆ complete with a built-in beer keg tap in the kitchen, two limestone-trimmed spa bathtubs and maple floors throughout ˆ than they received a notice from a little-known agency that their home and 187 others nearby might be demolished. "It doesn't sound right," Carey said. "We bought and fixed it up and they're talking about taking it away. It's not the American way." Carey's ire was raised even more last week when he read that Sacramento legislators, including Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, are trying to rein in eminent domain in the wake of the Supreme Court's June 23 decision allowing governments to take private property for private redevelopment. In California, such condemnation is permitted if blight is declared. Kehoe introduced Senate Bill 53, aimed at protecting homeowner rights, but Carey said her bill would not help him. He blamed Kehoe for a bill she spearheaded in 2002 that expanded eminent domain powers to an unelected agency planning a redevelopment project in City Heights. If it moves forward, Carey and others could face the loss of their homes without recourse to the San Diego City Council or other elected officials. "I'm a lifelong Democrat," he said. "I'm gay; she's one of five gay members of the Legislature. "I love her. Up until this day, I supported everything she's done." Now, Carey is supporting a state constitutional amendment, SCA 15, authored by a Republican, Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Northridge, to bar government agencies from taking private property unless it is for a public purpose. Supporters are hoping to place it on the June ballot. Dennis Wood (left) and Jody Carey, who bought a home in City Heights last year and spent $200,000 rebuilding it, received a notice from the San Diego Model School Development Agency that said their home might need to be demolished. Kehoe said her 2002 bill was intended to help revitalize a section of City Heights, not to reduce the property rights of affected homeowners. "Things have been delayed to a substantial amount," she said. "It proves my point that the uncertainty of redevelopment plans needs to be kind of tightened up." At the center of the growing controversy is the San Diego Model School Development Agency, created to guide revitalization around a new school planned in City Heights. The school is Florence Griffith-Joyner Elementary, a $47.5 million project for 700 students due for completion in fall 2006. Construction began last month at the site west of Fairmount Avenue at Myrtle Avenue. What is unnerving City Heights residents are plans to build replacement housing for the 120 homes that were demolished to make way for the school. The agency proposes to take 188 more homes on 30 acres and then build up to 509 apartments, condominiums and townhomes. Not only do the affected residents complain that they have not been kept informed, but they also argue that residents in the affected area are upgrading their homes. Archison Lazarus, 32, who immigrated from South Africa 10 years ago with $20 in his pocket and a Red Cross blanket on his back, said he has spent upward of $20,000 on the home he bought for $334,000 in 2003 without realizing he might face condemnation. "We do have to preserve our houses ˆ that's the main goal," Lazarus said. Nearby are three single-family homes built by Habitat for Humanity last year that also face demolition. Cheryl Keenan, executive director of the faith-based housing agency, said she would help the Habitat buyers relocate but would not have halted the project even if she had known about the redevelopment plans. "I'd love to see redevelopment," Keenan said. "That's how cities grow and get better." Echoing her thoughts was former San Diego City Manager Jack McGrory, one of the three school district appointees to the model-school board. McGrory cautioned against doing away with the power of eminent domain. "If all the public agencies say they're not going to do condemnation, that's virtually the end of urban redevelopment," McGrory said. "The comeback of American cities was largely the result of redevelopment efforts of the last 20 to 30 years that allowed blighted properties to be condemned and replaced with significantly enhanced properties that really revitalized the urban core." While they await further action, the homeowners' ability to sell their homes has been hurt by the threat of demolition. Linda Chase, the real estate agent who helped Carey, Wood and Lazarus buy their homes, said she is now steering clients away from the area. "I wouldn't sell to anyone if I know eminent domain is in the path," Chase said. "I'd recommend going somewhere else." The warning may last a long time. The latest schedule calls for new housing to open no earlier than 2009 and the cost, from $135 million to $250 million, is hampered by limited funding and rising real estate values. Environmental analysis is taking longer than anticipated. The consulting project manager, Greg Shannon, recently announced his resignation; a search for a master developer was suspended; and former San Diego Councilman William Jones, who submitted one of three development proposals as head of City Link Investments, was brought on to rethink the feasibility of the project. Jay Powell, executive director of the nonprofit City Heights Community Development Corp., has been following the rebuilding proposal closely and had hoped his agency would get the go-ahead to develop the block immediately east of the school site. "Especially in the last six or seven months, the process has just come down to a crawl," Powell said. Jones has met with residents over the past few weeks and tentatively decided to recommend excluding several properties from the plan, including those of Lazarus and Carey and Wood. A presentation on the proposed revisions is expected next month. Carey said he is not backing down from fighting the proposed demolition just because his house no longer may be affected. "What kind of person would I be if it doesn't affect me and I shut up now?" he said. "I wouldn't be a good person or neighbor if I allowed my neighbors, who don't speak English and don't understand their rights, to be taken advantage of." Sal Salas, chairman of the model-school agency board and the San Diego Housing Commission, said the plan may have to be scaled back. As for the question of eminent domain, Salas acknowledged that his unelected board has the power to condemn private property and owners have no right of appeal to the City Council or school board. "Are we cavalier about that? Absolutely not," he said. "I'm not that way. . . . You have the legal right (to condemn) and then there's the reality." Deputy Mayor Toni Atkins, who represents the area, said she has growing concerns about the project and may reassess her support after an upcoming briefing. Atkins also may ask the City Council or one of its committees to take a fresh look. "Now that we have all these discussions about eminent domain and the Supreme Court ruling, we can't create new situations (of unfair condemnation)," she said. "That wasn't the original intent of why this was set up."Eminent Domain A New Tool for Business to Use? By PAT BRODERICK, San Diego Business Journal - 7/4/2005 San Diego businessman Ed Plant is still bitter over losing his land and business to Petco Park. Predictably, Plant was not heartened when the U.S. Supreme Court recently gave local governments even more authority to seize private property. "It's what‚s been happening in San Diego already with the (Centre City Development Corp.) the past few years," said Plant, who owned a cold storage facility in the ballpark‚s footprint. "They were just ahead of their time, I guess. On June 23, the high court, in a 5-4 split decision, ruled that local governments have the right to take land and, in turn, give it to private developers to spur economic development and tax revenues for the community. The case in question, Kelo v. the city of New London, Conn., involved a group of local homeowners who resisted the taking of their property for commercial development to revitalize the economically depressed East Coast city. California‚s eminent domain law is stricter, requiring that seized property must be designated as blighted. Still, the ruling has stirred mixed reactions among a variety of camps. Encinitas City Councilman Jerome Stocks on June 29 ˜ alarmed by the ruling ˜ proposed an ordinance that would grant more power to property owners. Under his plan, Encinitas could not transfer private property to another private owner without first calling for a public vote in a regularly scheduled election, which would need a two-thirds majority to pass. The measure is scheduled to go to the City Council on July 13. Steven S. Wall, a partner in Luce Forward‚s San Diego office and an expert in condemnation and real estate litigation, is especially concerned about the definition of blight. "In California and San Diego, you will see redevelopment agencies feeling comfortable flexing the power they have under California law to do redevelopment projects, saying, " We are able to broadly interpret the word blight, to include inadequate parking, not enough big parcels that can be used for shopping centers or big-box projects,‚ " he said. " "We‚re going to redevelop the area, and buy or condemn, and it doesn't matter whether businesses or homes there are clean or well-kept.‚ That is what the decision really means." Plant agreed. "Who is going to be safe?" he said of the ruling. "Basically, all they have to do is say blighted.‚" What is the definition of blight? If someone has a home or business, the city can say blighted,‚ because it‚s not making enough tax revenues. But everything can‚t be about revenues going to the government agency. What happened to individual rights? Doug Barnhart, the chief executive officer and chairman of the board of the San Diego-based Barnhart Inc., whose firm is among the largest educational facilities builders in the nation, says the ruling will be good for business. "Yes, I do," said Barnhart, whose firm recently completed UC Riverside's digital library. "I'm a Republican and sensitive to property rights. But the problems we have in public facilities in California in general, and San Diego in particular, is not in my neighborhood.‚" I think this will work against that. We will be able to put in facilities for the greater public good and locate them where they should be located. Property owners will get fair market value, or they can go to court. "In any of these things, there is a lot of heartburn," Barnhart said. "Even with Petco Park, you had some of the companies who relocated not really happy. They'd been there for years and years and years. But now, you'd be hard-pressed to say it wasn't a benefit." Plant doesn't disagree with that sentiment ˜ up to a point. "They did a good job Downtown," said Plant, who continues to run another business, Harborside Refrigerated Services at the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal. "It's done more for more people in the long run, but I think the city and CCDC isn't looking for the individual, but the end of the rainbow. I think in the way I was treated, eminent domain has a tendency to be a bully. Plant, who contested the seizure of his property in court, ended up with $11 million, although he estimated that his property and business was worth $20 million. Then he was charged $1.6 million to clean up underground storage tanks that, "I didn‚t put there" and eventually got about $800,000 of that back. But he was never relocated, said Plant. Instead, he reinvested the money into expanding his Harborside operation, which brings in from 60,000 to 100,000 tons of perishable goods a year. But, said Plant, it hasn‚t made up for the demise of his Downtown business and the exodus of some of his customers to new competitors. "You work most of your life building something, and it‚s taken away," he said. "I had controlled about 80 percent of the market, and now I probably have 30 percent of the market. It derived me a good living, and my property was appreciating Downtown. I planned on putting two high-rises down there. We had people interested." There were other ramifications of the seizure, Plant said. It messed up my credit rating," he said. " When you go into eminent domain, the banks go crazy. We had a big moving expense. I am bitter because the CCDC tells half-truths. They tell you they're going to help you, but in the meantime, they don't. They just go their merry way. I'm not against the city. I just wish they would have a little more warm and fuzzy feeling for individuals." The CCDC is a city-run nonprofit corporation that coordinates redevelopment projects in the Downtown area. David Allsbrook, the manager of contracting and public works for the CCDC, has been involved in many of the city's major developments, including the venerable Horton Plaza. There was a feeling that Ernie Hahn (Horton Plaza developer) wasn't going to build the center when we were acquiring the property, that we didn't know what we were doing and wouldn't get it done, Allsbrook recalled of the project that is credited with revitalizing the Gaslamp Quarter in the mid-1980s. "The ballpark is the biggest example of where we had to use our power," said Allsbrook of another project credited for transforming Downtown. The Petco Park project resulted in 56 condemnation cases being filed, with all but six settled before trial and one during trial. "Everybody thinks their property is worth more," said Allsbrook."People want to play it out, getting more money. That's just the way it is." Some of the money paid during an eminent domain action is for "loss of good will," he said. "You go back and look at tax returns for the previous three years, and you come up with a number of what is the loss of business," said Allsbrook. "Most businesses will make a claim for loss of good will, and ultimately they get compensated for it." While Allsbrook says Plant and all the others affected by the ballpark were treated fairly, he also sympathizes with those targeted through eminent domain. Eminent domain is probably the most misunderstood, and is kind of frightening to people,"he said. "We all have property rights, and when we give government that power, it's a little scary. We‚ve always used it as a last resort for projects that have public purposes. Ninety percent of the development has been done without using the power of eminent domain. We have to pay fair market value." As for the Supreme Court ruling, Allsbrook said he does't think it will make much difference locally. "The opinion will have little, if any, impact on how property is acquired in the state," said Allsbrook." In California, the law is very clear that in order to take property, it must be in a redevelopment project area." But, said Allsbrook, that's not to say that there is no potential for abuse. I would never say that," he said." Years ago, National City declared its golf course blighted. They wanted to build a shopping center. That is a stretch, and it was overturned. But the likelihood of it being abused is very small. There are enough checks and balances. When we acquire property, it goes through a community advisory group before it gets to the redevelopment agency. No Threat State Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, chairs the Senate committee on local government, which includes redevelopment agencies. She said she doesn't view the Supreme Court ruling as a particular threat to San Diegans‚ property rights. "California law requires a finding of blight in order to execute eminent domain at the local level," she said. "You have to go through an open process of public hearings." While new development resulting in added taxes would be considered a public benefit, "There world have to be a finding of blight," Kehoe said. "Simply saying that you would be making more money on a shopping center than a house is not enough. I think that it would have to include areas that are severely underdeveloped or stagnant." "Where Petco was built, the general area was not experiencing the kind of growth many areas of San Diego were," she said. "The ballpark became an impetus for spectacular developments ˜ restaurants, hotels, residential." The ballpark is a classic example of how redevelopment should work. Kehoe said that, as a homeowner, she feels for the property owners in the New London case. "I think states that don't have protections that California has should consider that kind of legislation to protect against local abuses. I think that eminent domain is a tool that should never be abused, and every government body considering eminent domain should be careful to respect private property rights." Boon Or Bane? Jerry Livingston, staff counsel for the Building Industry Association of San Diego, considers the ruling "more of a boon to cities than developers." "Rarely do you benefit from this kind of ruling," he added. While more doors might now be opened to private developers under the ruling, Livingston said the downside is that those who already have built projects, paying considerable sums for permits and infrastructure improvements, also stand to lose if they're on the other side." The National Association of Home Builders filed a brief with the Supreme Court in the Kelo case, arguing that a ruling against the property owners could lead to abuses on the part of local governments. As for local impact, Livingston said, "I don"t know if it will happen immediately in communities here. The right of eminent domain is a two-edged sword for most politicians these days. I think the city will pay close attention to creating redevelopment areas and what the political implications are with eminent domain. Pointing to the city's dire financial straits, Livingston said "there could be a temptation to take advantage of economic development to increase money in city coffers." "We will watch what happens at the state level for any proposals to change the redevelopment law," he said. But, Kehoe said, for now at least, there is nothing in the pipeline to change the law. Donna Jones, special counsel in the real estate, land use and environmental practice group for Sheppard Mullin‚s San Diego office, has her hand in many of the major projects being developed in the county, including Black Mountain Ranch, a 4,700-acre mixed-use master planned development on the city/county boundary in North County. "It's rare that agencies try to condemn property and turn it over to private business, she said." "I don‚t think it will be used routinely." Politicians won't want to do something where their constituents say, You are in the hands of development, but only when it's necessary and in the community's best interest." "The potential for abuse exists," said Jones, especially in San Diego today with so much mistrust of the City Council and government in general. "Some will be concerned about abuses, that somebody makes a larger contribution, and they decide to do something in favor of that person," Jones said. "But I trust City Council more than most people. I think they're trying to do what's best. They will be careful, knowing that the media will be looking. Mitch Mitchell, the vice president of public policy and communications for the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, agrees that the ruling will spur more scrutiny against potential abuses. "Everybody’s saying, ŒProperty rights, property rights, property rights,‚ " he said. "We have a lack of land to build on and cities are always going to be looking at more tax opportunities. With all that, there will be scrutiny." "It‚s guaranteed, because of this ruling, that the watchdogs would be more vigilant. In the end, the government will be scrutinized and that public scrutiny is the best check-and-balance you can ask for." Attorney Wall added: "The bigger issue here is: What will we see in the way of social changes? Will it encourage redevelopment agencies to go beyond and take a more aggressive stand in the future in terms of a broad definition of public purpose and what is blight? There are challenges. It will come back to taking a hard look at officials elected to public office." But the public won‚t be the only sector keeping an eye out, predicted Wall. "The condemnation bar will be watching closely to see what happens," he said.Press Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media, Below is our letter to begin the development process. Read our letter starting the project here. <http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html> Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land. Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner. On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home. Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land. The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged." Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans. "This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development." Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others. By Mary Lynne Vellinga -- The Sacramento Bee June 24, 2005 Sacramento redevelopment officials Thursday cheered a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the right of a Connecticut city to demolish houses to build a commercial center. Private property rights advocates, meanwhile, called the decision a terrible mistake. Either way, the decision involving New London, Conn., won't have a direct impact on California, legal experts said. New London is planning to bulldoze homes and replace them with stores, offices and upscale townhomes in an area that has not been designated as economically blighted. City leaders envision a commercial development that will attract tourists to the Thames riverfront. California law, however, contains no provisions allowing cities or counties to seize private property through eminent domain and award it to another private owner - unless the property is in an economically blighted redevelopment zone. "I think it leaves things pretty much unchanged in California," said Brent Hawkins, general counsel to the California Redevelopment Association. "In Connecticut, they were operating under a statute that permits communities to adopt economic development plans that have to be approved at the state level. The statute authorizes the use of eminent domain to carry out those plans. We don't have a similar statute in California." Nonetheless, city and county redevelopment officials who rely on eminent domain to revitalize blighted neighborhoods said the court's action puts them on firmer legal ground. "We think it's a good decision," said Anne Moore, executive director of the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency. "It just allows us to preserve a tool we think is very valuable in community development," she said of the Supreme Court ruling. "Obviously, eminent domain is something you use as a very last resort. It's a tool that sometimes you need to bring economic development to blighted areas." The city of Sacramento has used eminent domain to assemble blocks of property used for some of its signature downtown projects, such as the Central Library expansion and the apartment building under construction at 9th and J streets. Outside downtown, the redevelopment agency has used eminent domain to overhaul the crime-plagued Franklin Villa development - now renamed Phoenix Park - and to build a new grocery store in Oak Park, Moore said. Sacramento's redevelopment effort has a good reputation statewide as following the spirit of the state redevelopment law, which is intended to help blighted areas, not build "big boxes" or auto malls to pump out sales taxes for local government coffers. But some cities and counties around the state have been heavily criticized for stretching the definition of blight so they can use redevelopment powers to assist a private project. State legislation passed in 1993 aimed to tighten the definition. But critics complain that some governments still abuse the law. In 2002 the city of Cypress in Orange County sought to use eminent domain to prevent a church from building on its property. The city wanted to put a Costco on the property. The church sued, and a federal judge temporarily halted the city's plans. Ultimately, the parties settled. The church sold its 18-acre parcel for $18 million and moved to a new site. Chris Norby, an Orange County supervisor and state chairman of Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform, said Thursday's court decision could embolden California's redevelopment agencies to use their condemnation powers more aggressively. "Under this Supreme Court ruling, every house of worship could be replaced by a Wal-Mart or a Costco," he said. Some local elected officials in the Sacramento area said the city of New London had gone far beyond what they would feel comfortable doing. "The decision to me is a little bit shocking," said Folsom Vice Mayor Andy Morin. "For a city to exercise the right of eminent domain in an instance like that case where it was really the transfer of property to another entity ... that seems to me to be overstepping the bounds of that piece of the law." "To take somebody's property, we need some really compelling, good-of-the-community reasons that do not include a commercial endeavor," he said. About the writer: The Bee's Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 ormlvellinga@sacbee.com. Bee staff writer Jim Downing contributed to this storyS.D. official to quit over budget cuts By Matthew T. HallUNION-TRIBUNE, May 28, 2005 The head of San Diego's Community and Economic Development Departmentannounced this week that he will resign July 1, when his budget is set to beless than half what it was two years earlier. After 51⁄2 years with the city, Hank Cunningham is leaving because the city's plans for his department don't match his own, he said. In an e-mail to City Manager Lamont Ewell, Cunningham called it "painful" that San Diego officials don't provide more for services he called "largely financially self-supporting." The department focuses on revitalizing neighborhoods, creatingjobs, supporting business and expanding the tax base. Cunningham had hoped to turn the entire department into a nonprofit corporation operating outside city government. "I've seen the department whittled away and thought that was just somethingI couldn't live with," Cunningham said in an interview yesterday."I understand his concerns," Ewell said, "but the city as a whole has revenue shortfalls. "Ewell proposed a $5.7 million budget for the Community and Economic Development Department in fiscal 2006, down $3.5 million from the current year. The 2006 proposal is down $6.8 million from two years ago.Ewell also wants the council to consider making the city's Redevelopment Agency, whose 25 employees make up about half of Cunningham's department, aseparate agency next year.Cunningham, who is paid nearly $144,000 a year, said he would have over seenthat agency if he had stayed. The City Council has until June 30 to approve the fiscal 2006 budget. Ewell said transferring the Redevelopment Agency outside the city would save more than $330,000 in the first year. Under the plan, the City Council would serve as a board of directors in the same way it oversees the Centre CityDevelopment Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment arm. As part of that plan, Ewell also suggested the council consider shifting the economic development duties of Cunningham's department to the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corp. to "eliminate redundant efforts." That corporation is a nonprofit that receives about a third of its funding from the city through transient occupancy tax revenues, which come from a taxpaid on hotel and motel rooms.In his letter to Ewell, Cunningham said his department's economic development duties are not duplicative and called them "critically important." Mr. Honorable Governor: My name is Moses Abiola, I represent Mandira Investments, (we are a minority owned Real Estate Investments Company) we are located at the above stated address with 19 employees with a substantial yearly revenue.The purpose of this letter is to inform you that our business is faced with an unnecessary obstacle which I hope that your office can request for clarity from San Diego Counsel members at this juncture. I came to this country twenty three years ago. All we have achieved is about to be taken away from us because the location that is said to be a “blight” are predominantly minority owned businesses. The city council at its direction appointed a research group to conduct a “research” of this area of San Diego. (It is called the Grantville which is also known as Mission Valley/Del Cerro) It is a strip of land along freeway 8 from intersection of College Avenue towards Waring Road. According to the report submitted to the city council official, the conclusion of the report is that “it will ease the flow of traffic in the ”During my speech to the council member in the council chamber on May 3, 2005, I asked for an explanation why some investors had advance knowledge of what the city want in that area. Because as far back as three years ago, some unknown developers already designed a condominium units in compromise to the city’s final report findings and requirements, a findings which was made known recently. No respond so far, but I want an answer to the question in the true spirit of our democracy. Our property is an “L” shape building which has a 96 newly renovated units which we rent out as an extended stay facility fully equipped with kitchen. We’ve carter for various out of state client who move to San Diego on a job assignment. Our previous clientsare such as Stu-Segal Production, Disney Production, Ingersoll-Rand just briefly. The property ownership has changed over the years. As the current owner, we are open to any suggestions from the City regarding possible improvements to our facility. I cannot even begin to tell you the impact of loosing this property will mean to a lot of people around the world. If you’ll ask me, with the income from this property, I have a foundation which Provide tuition for 18 poverty-stricken children in Africa and I have never mentioned it or claimed it for a tax benefit, just to be brief. On May 17, a final vote will be taken by the Council which may result in an eminent domain of this area. I am hopeful that you can direct your office to take an in-depth look at this situation before this date. Thank you for your time and assistance. Very Truly, Moses Abiola, Mandira Investments Grantville redeveloping plan wins OK By Jeanette Steele, Union Tribune, May 4, 2005 Grantville will become the city's newest redevelopment area. The San Diego City Council made that decision yesterday despite protests from merchants and property owners who said the area is not blighted and who fear eminent domain will run longtime establishments out of business. Graphic: Grantville Councilman Jim Madaffer, who has championed the issue, said the money generated from a redevelopment area is the only way flooding, traffic and outdated buildings will get fixed. "There is no question in my mind this area is economically and physically blighted . . . I know people don't like hearing it, but the whole point of this redevelopment area is to eliminate blight and to do what we can to improve the area," said Madaffer, whose district includes Grantville, a neighborhood along Interstate 8 around Mission Gorge Road. A redevelopment project allows the city to capture new property tax dollars for use in the area. The vote was 7 to 1, with Donna Frye as the lone dissenter. Councilman Michael Zucchet was absent. Frye criticized the city's environmental impact report for not looking at the cumulative effects of development on the river. Frye, whose family owns a Bay Park surf shop, also said she is opposed to the city taking private property to sell it to another person to redevelop. "I'm a small-business owner," Frye said. "And it really bothers me to think that you could just come in and essentially relocate me, and tell me that where my business is you don't like it, because it's an irregularly shaped parcel . . . and that somehow that's blighted." A city official and consultants said Grantville qualifies as blighted because of small and odd-shaped lots, low lease rates, code violations and high crime in some, but not all, sections of the designated project area. Grantville merchants and landowners have complained about that definition, saying the area is home to many viable businesses. It's also something that county government has refuted. A letter from San Diego County administration last month said the city didn't provide "legitimate evidence" of blight. City officials said yesterday that, after meeting with county officials, they are standing by their findings. As for Grantville property owners, city officials tried to calm their fears about eminent domain. They said guidelines for Grantville redevelopment say the city must give current landowners first opportunity to provide a redevelopment proposal for their land before outside proposals will be considered. Annette Rountree, who depends on income from her Grantville commercial property, said that scenario doesn't work for her. "I'm not going to take the money they want to give me and build another property someplace else. . . . I couldn't, with all the permits. Who wants to go through this at my age?" said Rountree, 80, interviewed after the meeting. "Whether you join with firms that are going to build, or they relocate you, you're going to have to do the same thing." Gadfly Lloyd von Haden never surrendered to growth Union Tribune, May 14, 2005 A bouquet – the Gadfly Emeritus Award – to Lloyd von Haden, the former Vista councilman who fought downtown redevelopment all the way to the state Supreme Court. In North County's history, no one labored harder to preserve the region's rural quality of life. In his book – "Redevelopment – Boon or Boondoggle?" – there was never a doubt which side von Haden came down on.The last time I talked with von Haden was five years ago, when Vista Village had hit a dramatic roadblock. The project's developer was calling it quits. Von Haden, who was 85 at the time, was feeling frisky as a pup."I predicted it would be a failure," he said.Well, as anyone can see, Vista Village eventually did get built, as did Shadowridge, another development von Haden resisted as runaway growth. Von Haden, who died last month, was often a voice in the wilderness, but it was a strong, smart, tireless voice. He supported recycling long before it was in vogue. He opposed nuclear power. A resident of Vista for the last 60 years of his life, the self-taught gadfly never surrendered to the bulldozing economics of growth. Though they may hang out in different celestial neighborhoods, I like to think von Haden, who played with the San Diego Symphony and inlater years tuned pianos, might bump into his old adversary, Mayor Gloria McClellan, who preceded him in death by some three years.I can just see Mayor Glo hard at work in the downtown area. Seeing von Haden walk through the Pearly Gates, she'll say, "Go tune up the harps, Lloyd. They need the help. But leave my redevelopment project alone!" Redevelopment Abuse Info MORR, 214 N. Yale Ave., Fullerton, CA 92831 For more info, call 714-871-9756 or 323-567Tim Keller Executive Director, Institute for Justice, and San Diegans Rallied to Support Our Neighbors in New London, Connecticut and Expose Eminent Domain Abuse RIGHT HERE IN SAN DIEGO at the Gran Havana Café and Cigar Loungein San Diego's historic Gaslamp Quarter San
Diego Rallies To Prevent Eminent Domain AbuseOn the evening of Monday, February, 21, 2005, home and small business owners from across San Diego will rallied in support of the homeowners in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London; the homeowners in the case hope to set an important precedent establishing some outer limits on the use of eminent domain. Participants coming together to highlight the abuse of eminent domain here in San Diego. Sadly, the City has demonstrated an insatiable appetite for taking private property and transferring it to private developers for their private gain. For example: The City is condemning the Gran Havana Café in order to make way for a luxury hotel that the City hopes will be able to generate more tax revenue. The City is preparing to begin negotiations with a developer in the North Bay Redevelopment Area to take a dozen small businesses in order to transfer the land to a developer who plans on building condominiums. Eminent domain abuse is rampant in San Diego, declared Institute for Justice Attorney Tim Keller, who will speak at the rally. Rather than protecting the fundamental rights of their citizens, local government officials are abusing their powers by taking property from small business and home owners and transferring it to politically connected developers in the name of increased sales tax revenue. If that is justification to take someones property, then literally no home or small business would be safe.Stop! That's My Property By Joe Deegan, San Diego Reader, April 7, 2005 Bert Decker remembers calling Midway area tenant Vic Maidhof in early November 2003 to warn him that the San Diego Redevelopment Agency was about to "chop up" his business. Maidhof did not believe it and told Decker he must be crazy. But the retired Navy commander convinced Maidhof to attend a meeting of the redevelopment agency's North Bay Project Area Committee the following day. Maidhof refused to talk with me about his story. But as Decker tells it, when Maidhof got to the meeting on the morning of November 5, he witnessed a PowerPoint presentation of plans to build condominiums on property he was subleasing to other businesses. As a nine-year occupant of the property behind the Sports Arena (recently renamed ipayOne Center), Maidhof stood up in the meeting and objected to the plans. The condominiums were the main fixture in a redevelopment proposal by the Pacifica Development Corporation. The redevelopment agency supported Pacifica's proposal. During the meeting, the redevelopment agency's project manager, Alex Greenwood, declared Maidhof had no "owner participation rights" because he, too, leased the property. But private citizens on the North Bay Project Area Committee were flabbergasted that Maidhof, 52, had received no notification of the proposal to redevelop the property he hoped he could pass on to his children. Greenwood said he had not known how to reach Maidhof before the meeting but sent notification to the property's owner. It turned out that the owner was 92 years old and lived in a nursing home. It also came out that Bert Decker took the phone number off a banner on the building Maidhof was leasing and used it to reach him. The committee voted to delay action on the proposal and give Maidhof a month to come up with a counterproposal. In the following days, Maidhof contacted Vince Bartolotta, the attorney who won a $98 million lawsuit against the city on behalf of Roque de la Fuente. Bartolotta advised Maidhof to buy the property he was leasing as soon as he could. With great strain on his finances, Maidhof did just that. He then produced a plan at further expense to develop his own property. To this date he has been able to keep the city's redevelopment agency from his door. On March 21, private citizens on the North Bay Project Area subcommittee have turned thumbs down on condominiums proposed by developer Bill Kenton in the same neighborhood on Kurtz and Hancock Streets behind the Sports Arena. The city's redevelopment agency supports Kenton's proposal. Joe Fritzenkotter, president of Vanard Lithographics on Kurtz Street, says that in December he received a letter from the redevelopment agency demanding that he choose whether to sell his property to Kenton, redevelop it himself, or move to another location. The letter allowed a fourth choice called "other." Fritzenkotter checked the "other" box and wrote a note underneath it saying he wanted to remain in the printing business at his current location.In June of last year, Kenton told Fritzenkotter that he wanted to develop the two blocks on Kurtz and Hancock between Riley and Sherman Streets. Kenton claims to own 40 percent of the area. In July, Kenton sent Fritzenkotter an offer of $1.7 million to buy his property. The printer says he ignored the offer but later met Kenton outside on the sidewalk. "Then he hinted," says Fritzenkotter, "that if I didn't sell my property to him, the city would take it." The redevelopment agency's North Bay Project Area Committee held the first public discussion of Kenton's condominium proposal at a "workshop" on February 23. Fritzenkotter says a PowerPoint presentation that morning focused on his property first, then quickly moved on. Fritzenkotter said he yelled out, "Stop! That's my property! I want to talk about it!" only to be told to "shut up" by someone in the audience. To the private citizens on the committee, the proposal came as a surprise; they had heard nothing about it. So, they forced the group to convene a subcommittee to evaluate the proposal. It was that subcommittee that rejected the Kenton redevelopment proposal on March 21. Kenton presented his proposal at the meeting, telling area property owners he wanted them to become his partners in the venture. But the most important component of his pitch was that the condo project would eliminate three adult-entertainment businesses at the area's entrance, including the Body Shop and Les Girls nude-dancing nightclubs. Those businesses, he argued, were part of the area's current blight, which makes redevelopment mandatory. Kenton also contends they are an eyesore leading into the Midway area, at the Rosecrans entrance off I-8. As soon as Kenton finished, most of the meeting attendees condemned his condominium plan. The most impassioned argument against it came from Chris Clifford, who has a financial interest in one of the Hancock Street properties. Clifford argued that Kenton was working with the redevelopment agency to develop his proposal as far back as spring of last year. "We, the property owners," Clifford told the meeting, "should be given the same kind of process and equity that Kenton was given. We deserve six months to put together our own proposals." The redevelopment agency had given those owners who chose to develop their own properties 30 days to outline their plans. The agency also denied the right to present proposals to owners who originally did not make that choice but later changed their minds. Clifford was one of them. He now wants to propose a plan that includes both industry and art in the redevelopment area. He calls it an "arts of industry" plan. A majority of the owners in the redevelopment area do not favor the condominium plan, insisted Clifford. "Kenton now says, 'Oh, be a partner.' That was not what we were offered when the original proposal letter was sent to property owners. No one said, 'Partner with us.' "And the redevelopment agency's Greenwood," continued Clifford, "seems to have ignored his fiduciary duty to the property owners to inform us when he was first contacted by Mr. Kenton. What I got from [Greenwood in an earlier conversation] was that December 14 was the date of the official proposal. Yet the agency has never explained what an 'official' proposal is versus the nonofficial one that says, 'We'll work with you for five months while we sandbag everybody else.' The rest of the property owners don't deserve to be sandbagged." Clifford went on to suggest that Greenwood initiated the collaboration between Kenton and the redevelopment agency. Later in the meeting, Greenwood denied it, saying that Kenton's proposal to the agency was unsolicited. He did acknowledge, however, that he had seen its earlier versions. But he had sent Kenton back to rework the proposal before accepting it as "official" on December 14. The most serious allegation of the day came when Clifford noted Kenton's participation on the Sports Arena Ad Hoc Committee "since last summer." Kenton had a conflict of interest, said Clifford, since he was already putting together his proposal for the blocks behind the Sports Arena. On the Ad Hoc Committee, Kenton "took votes on the general area, not only the Sports Arena complex. Many of his motions covered the commercial zones and commercial byways [surrounding the Sports Arena]," said Clifford. "Kenton voted on the road that ran through his own property. He said, 'No, don't bring the stadium traffic along my road,' because obviously he wants to build condos on his road. He didn't tell the people on the Ad Hoc Committee that he was doing this project. That is an ethics-code violation. "Kenton also voted for multifamily housing in the Sports Arena area, knowing full well that that would influence areas outside the stadium property. And if you sit here and buy into his proposal," Clifford told the subcommittee, "you're putting a rubber stamp on unethical behavior. And you're allowing a city department to sandbag 60 percent of the property owners in the area." When Clifford had finished, subcommittee member Gail Cole spoke up. "I'd like to correct your mathematical equation," she said. "There are ten of you property owners [in the proposed redevelopment area]. Only one advocates the condominiums. That means 90 percent of you don't want the project." But no one on the subcommittee is sure that its rejection of Kenton's redevelopment plan will prevail. On March 29, Kenton, Greenwood, and Rene Coons of Vanard Lithographics appeared on the KPBS-TV program Full Focus. Host Gloria Penner asked Greenwood how the local community was responding to the Kenton condominium proposal. Greenwood launched into a filibuster on "suburban sprawl" and "the need for more housing" in the city of San Diego, conveying an impression of great community support. Only minutes earlier, he acknowledged that he had decided on a 60-day "cooling-off period" to allow property owners a chance to make proposals of their own. The owners are now worried that Greenwood will use the 60 days to delay a vote on the Kenton plan that was scheduled for yesterday's meeting of the North Bay Project Area Committee.CBS Sunday Morning March 6, 2005, ran a feature on eminent domain abuse that put the spotlight on the attorneys and clients of the Institute for Justice. Videos & transcripts of the program available from CBS. Online Coverage: Feature on Kelo v. New London and property rights: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/07/sunday/main678427.shtmlMidway between old and new, Redevelopment has some people on uneasy street By Angela Lau, Union Tribune, March 17, 2005 Employees at Vanard Lithographers are keeping an eye on their work and proposals for redevelopment of the Midway district. Here, Tom Kopkowski made sure this press run was on the money. Businesses such as Vanard could be displaced by development. A redevelopment proposal for a section of the Midway district has some property owners concerned they might lose their businesses or investments. They fear the city might resort to eminent domain if they refuse to sell their properties to make way for what some officials describe as the most significant redevelopment project proposed for Midway. The proposal includes 124 condominiums in an area where civic leaders have lamented a lack of residences. Although officials with the city Redevelopment Agency emphasize they have not decided whether to accept the proposal and are waiting for competing plans from property owners, several of the seven landlords within the project area have organized to oppose the project. That followed a letter the Redevelopment Agency sent to property owners informing them of the proposed development. The agency invited alternative proposals and notified property owners that it might seek to acquire their property for development. The Midway district has been declared blighted by the city. Joseph Fritzenkotter, who founded Vanard Lithographers on Kurtz Street in 1969, fears he might lose the business if he is forced to sell. "There's no reason for someone to take it away. It's ridiculous," Fritzenkotter said. "We would have to go out of business. Printing companies are heavy on equipment, and equipment is hard to move. Finding a building would be very expensive. "We have dedicated power for our presses here. We'd have to go through a lot of permitting that maybe we couldn't get." The condo project was proposed by Bill Kenton, an engineer and a member of the Midway Community Planning Board. He identified a two-block area bounded by Hancock, Riley, Kurtz and Sherman streets for the North Bay Gateway Project. Joseph and Annette Fritzenkotter of Vanard Lithographers on Kurtz Street fear they might lose the business if forced to sell to make room for redevelopment. It would be at the entrance to the Midway area and Point Loma from Interstates 5 and 8. Kenton owns 40 percent of the site. "We feel that this area needs to be redeveloped, particularly with reference to the girlie joints that are up here and the houses and the metal buildings," Kenton said. The condos would be priced at about $400,000 to $500,000, he said. About 10 percent of them would be affordable housing. Fritzenkotter sees no need for redevelopment. "It is not blighted. It's light industry," he said. "This is the lousiest place for housing. It's industrial property." John Drumel, who owns property on Hancock Street, said he would lose a steady source of income if he had to sell. He leases it to a custom machine shop. "I have that and Social Security," he said. The concerns arose after the Redevelopment Agency sent a letter to property owners Dec. 15. The letter, which the agency said is a standard one sent to property owners, indicated that redevelopment officials are considering exclusive negotiations with Kenton and that the agency might acquire property for the project. The agency invited counter proposals. AdvertisementAlex Greenwood, project manager for the North Bay area, which includes the Midway district, said three other property owners have indicated interest in submitting proposals. However, he has not received formal competing proposals. The letter was routine, said Hank Cunningham, the Redevelopment Agency's assistant executive director. "In California, you have to go through stringent criteria to demonstrate physical and economic blight. It's hardly comparable to what's going on in Connecticut." Cunningham was referring to an eminent domain lawsuit in Connecticut that has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs are represented by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian nonprofit in Washington, D.C. Tim Keller, executive director for the institute's Arizona chapter, is reviewing the grievances of Midway property owners but said he is not yet representing them. In Connecticut, a group of New London homeowners sued the city and the New London Development Corp., a private nonprofit, for condemning properties for private development to produce tax revenue and jobs. Property owners are appealing a Connecticut Supreme Court decision that ruled in the city's favor. The Institute for Justice argues that governments cannot take private property and give it to a private party just because it can produce revenue for the city. Keller said the institute doesn't oppose the taking of private land for public use, such as roads or schools. Councilman Michael Zucchet, whose district includes Midway, said the area is ripe for redevelopment because its adult entertainment businesses give visitors a rude entry into Point Loma. "Whether it's a good idea and whether it makes sense is a process that is just beginning. To skip ahead and say eminent domain is happening is not true," he said. "Eminent domain is needed very, very rarely. There is a negotiation process . . . and an attempt is made to work it out to everybody's satisfaction."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. DEVELOPER GREED, Any reasonable person knows, it is WRONG, for the City to felicitate the taking of private property owners businesses & land for a politically connected developer's profit$, as in the North Bay Gateway Condo Project and others throughout San Diego. Many of these businesses are needed well established and locally owned. Also, North Bay Gateway area is sitting on a flood plain and should not be used for housing. Eminent Domain, Imminent Theft By Pejman Yousefzadeh Published 03/01/2005 http://www.techcentralstation.com/030105E.html We believe that our homes are our castles, which is why it rightly angers us when someone invades the sanctity and privacy of our homes. Usually, we associate burglars and other criminals with this kind of invasion. But if you think that keeping your home and property safe from outlaws is your only concern, I have bad news for you. You also have to worry about whether the government can take your property away from you. On Tuesday, February 22, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Kelo v. City of New London. This bulletin gives a good accounting of the case, but to summarize, in November, 2000, petitioner Susette Kelo was informed of a notice posted on the door of her home that she had four months to vacate her home or else police would remove her and her belongings via the power of eminent domain -- a power that the city of New London had transferred to the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private non-profit organization. Eminent domain power extends from the Fifth Amendment's statement that property shall not be "taken for public use, without just compensation." In addition, the Supreme Court ruled in Berman v. Parker that private property can be seized through eminent domain when the property is blighted and the government wants to institute an urban renewal project. New London claims that it has offered Susette Kelo and other petitioners a fair price for their land, a claim which they say satisfies the "just compensation" requirements of the Fifth Amendment. But the "urban renewal" loophole is large enough to drive a truck through. Consequently, local governments have abused eminent domain by claiming that it is being done in the name of urban renewal. This editorial, written by lawyer and blogger Tim Sandefur (who wrote a brief in favor of Susette Kelo and the other petitioners), reveals just how far the abuse has spread: ". . . In the early 1980s, the General Motors Corp. persuaded the city of Detroit -- reeling from recession -- to condemn a neighborhood called Poletown (due to the many Polish immigrants there) and sell it cheap to GM to build an auto factory. "The Michigan Supreme Court held the condemnation was legal: If the government declared a condemnation would benefit the public, the courts would not stand in the way. In a whirlwind of litigation that lasted only a few weeks, neighbors watched as their community was pulverized. "The Poletown decision led to an epidemic of eminent domain abuse. In 1999, the city of Merriam, Kan., condemned a Toyota dealership to sell the land to a BMW dealer instead. "That same year, Bremerton, Wash., condemned 22 homes to resell the land to private developers. In one notorious case, billionaire Donald Trump convinced Atlantic City, N.J., to condemn an elderly widow's home so he could build a limousine parking lot." In Kelo, the attempted exercise of the NLDC's eminent domain power was spurred by the decision of Pfizer, Inc. to build a $270 million research facility in the city of New London -- a decision that caused the city of New London to adopt a redevelopment plan that would ultimately affect the land currently owned by Kelo and the other petitioners. But as University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein (who also wrote a brief on behalf of Susette Kelo and the other petitioners) informs us, "New London still hasn't found any viable projects to put on the nearly 90 acres of prime property it already owns." This -- as law professor Stephen Bainbridge points out -- means that it is not certain what the petitioners' land will be used for. Additionally, Susette Kelo has refurbished her home, and her neighborhood -- while depressed in value -- is not "blighted." As such, the NLDC is not trying to take land for a "public use" such as a public works project, but rather, it is taking land that is not blighted in order to institute vague and unformed businesses and development projects that will generate higher revenues for the city. If this is not an abuse of the eminent domain power, it is difficult to conceive of a situation that is. But conceive of a situation the Justices did during oral arguments in Kelo. At one point Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asked the attorney representing the city of New London whether eminent domain could be exercised in a situation where the government takes the property of a smaller business in order to give it to a larger one. The city attorney answered that under such a hypothetical, the government could indeed exercise eminent domain. Under this reasoning, not only will you have to lose your homes for development plans that are still up in the air, the local coffee shop may have to give way to a Starbucks, the local bookstore may have to surrender its property to the creation of the latest Borders outlet, and the local video store may have to vacate in favor of the creation of yet another Blockbuster franchise -- all because a Starbucks, a Borders and a Blockbuster could give local governments more tax revenue. In none of these hypothetical situations is the "public use" requirement satisfied. In none of these situations is an "urban blight" finding required. All that is required under the argument of the New London city attorney is that a local government must find that a current and existing business would yield less tax revenue than a potential incoming business would, and that government could exercise its power of eminent domain. While the public seizure of private real property is scary enough, the power of eminent domain can be abused still further. This article calls for the exercise of eminent domain by local governments to take away the patents drug companies own on their products and give those patents to companies that will agree to sell pharmaceutical products at lower prices. Never mind the already heavy financial burden on pharmaceutical companies to perform the necessary research and development on their products. And never mind that drug companies will be less inclined to engage in research, justly worried that their inventions could be appropriated under this newfangled vision of eminent domain abuse. After all, what incentive is there for drug companies to come out with new products and engage in costly and time-consuming research if their property rights are not respected? Millions of Americans will have their lives negatively impacted by additional barriers against pharmaceutical research, development and distribution. Blogger and attorney Marty Lederman reports that the oral argument session in Kelo appear to have gone poorly for the petitioners and that this could be the tiding of bad things to come when the Supreme Court ultimately rules. We should all hope that Lederman's impressions are incorrect. The abuse of eminent domain has reached worrisome levels, and if unchecked, will lead to disastrous policy consequences. It is heartening to see that a vigorous fight is being waged against such abuse, but such abuse can only be stopped by victories in cases like Kelo.Kelo v. New London: Specious arguments 2/24/05, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review <http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/pittsburgh/> Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer live in a warped parallel legal universe. The high court heard oral arguments Tuesday in what could become the seminal eminent domain case, Kelo v. New London. The Connecticut town wants to force private residences to be sold for a government-preferred private commercial development. The Fifth Amendment restricts government taking of private property to a "public use" with "just compensation." "Public use" was self-evident to the Framers; constitutional relativists corrupted the precept. From the bench, Ms. Ginsburg and Messrs. Souter and Breyer turned willing accomplices. "You're leaving out that New London was in a depressed economic condition," Ginsburg told attorney Scott Bullock, the Greensburg native who argued for the plaintiffs. But that's not germane. Government economic development "ought to qualify as a (constitutional) public use," said Souter. There's no constitutional warrant for such an oxymoron. Maybe cities should be required to show "reasonably foreseeable" public benefits, Breyer offered. Here come the trumped-up economic impact statements. The Fifth Amendment means what it says. Private development is not a "public use." Should the high court side with the relativists, government, as Justice Joseph Story wrote long ago, will be granted "an uncontrollable power over the private fortune of every citizen." And such tyranny we cannot accept. Tim Keller Executive Director, Institute for Justice, Arizona Chapterand San Diegans Rallied to Support Our Neighbors in New London, Connecticut and Expose Eminent Domain Abuse RIGHT HERE IN SAN DIEGO at the Gran Havana Café and Cigar Loungein San Diego's historic Gaslamp Quarter Landmark Supreme Court hearing Eminent Domain Watch http://www.emdo.blogspot.com/ The end of eminent domain abuse: Develop Don't Destroy Brooklyn, 2/21/05 Excerpt: Todays landmark Supreme Court hearing of Kelo v. City of New London a case that will determine whether its legal for states to confiscate private property and give it to other private interests for reasons of economic development. Excerpt: Joe Wright, representing the Institute for Justice, which will argue for Kelo to the Court, concluded, Individual rights are sanctified in the Constitution and are fundamental requirements for mans life. The Founders in this respect were ingenious. They said these rights are inalienable which means that they cannot be violated or regulated by anyone, at any time, for any purpose whatsoever. We believe the Supreme Court will make the right decision, Goldstein stated. If they do not, its open season on every property owner in America. Supporters rally for property owners, Eminent domain actions protested By Jennifer Vigil UNION-TRIBUNE, February 22, 2005 Opponents of the government's power to take private property rallied in the Gaslamp Quarter yesterday in support of a local landowner battling City Hall and the plaintiffs in a New London, Conn., case due to be heard today by the U.S. Supreme Court. About 90 people gathered at the rally, staged inside Gran Havana Coffee and Cigar Lounge, whose owner was ordered to give up his J Street building last year to make way for a hotel development. The proprietor, Ahmad Mesdaq, has obtained a court order to keep his business open as he fights the decision by the San Diego City Council. At yesterday's rally, speakers, including Mesdaq, expressed frustration that land can be seized to benefit private commercial ventures, rather than projects that benefit the public at large, such as roads, police stations or schools. "Governments take homes, businesses and livelihoods," Mesdaq said. "I think it's a violation of human rights." The ability of a government agency to condemn private property for the public benefit is known as eminent domain. Property owners then are offered compensation for the land. Tim Keller, an attorney with the Arizona chapter of the Institute for Justice, which opposes government intervention in private affairs, said use of eminent domain constitutes "a national crisis." Keller cited a 4-year-old case that could change the way eminent domain is invoked. Attorneys who specialize in property rights are eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on that case, Kelo v. New London, Conn., which concerns owners whose homes were condemned for a commercial project. Property-rights advocates argue that cash-strapped municipalities increasingly are using eminent domain to attract new businesses that pump up the tax base, not for revamping troubled areas. "It's unconstitutional to take property to create wealth for cities and developers," Keller said. Staff attorneys from the Institute for Justice's national office are representing the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case. The institute is involved in other eminent domain suits in Ohio and New York. "If the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to strike down use of eminent domain in New London, nobody's property is safe," Keller said. Leslie FitzGerald, the senior eminent domain attorney in the San Diego City Attorney's Office, said officials carefully weigh when to use eminent domain and that the law places strict limits on how it can be invoked. "The city takes its responsibility under eminent domain law very seriously and does not use the power lightly," FitzGerald said. John McNab, who heads Save Our NTC, a civic group that criticized the handling of the Naval Training Center redevelopment project, disagrees. McNab said he is familiar with potential eminent domain battles in at least four San Diego communities. "The whole taking and railroading of development in the city, people are fed up with it," McNab said. "People are furious." FitzGerald said eminent domain has attracted more public attention because of its use in some high-profile city developments, such as Petco Park, but use of the option is not on the rise. "It is not being used more often,"she said. "Sometimes there are bigger projects, such as the ballpark, that come along, but at any time there are numerous eminent domain actions proceeding."Kelo hearing 2/22/05- below are a few resources that offer a good "snapshot" view and summary of the arguments and events today. Also included is a must-see video and news story from Minnesota, just one of hundreds of moving stories around the country this week on vigils/rallies and local property rights battles. Visit http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/nl-argument_photo.html for a few photos from the hearing, and check back often to IJ's web site and www.castlecoalition.org <http://www.castlecoalition.org> for more photos, the latest on IJ's property rights cases, and information on property rights efforts in your state. A few news articles/radio spots on the hearing that give a good summary of the arguments presented: Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45249-2005Feb22.html NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4508927 CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/22/scotus.eminent.domain/ ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=522629 KARE 11 (Minn.) - Great video: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=75825. Eminent domain can tear apart the American dream: Homeowners take case to highest court - By Carol Lloyd, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE -It's a ragged old cliche, but when we lay our heads down at night, there's something to be said for the American dream. Even if not everyone can buy his or her own home, everyone can buy into the simple fairness of the idea. If you acquired a house and paid your mortgage and your taxes, you had a right to stay there until you decided to sell or were carried out feet first... http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/27/REG57BGPUB1.DTL More condos, more traffic Evidently, the plan is to blanket San Diego with condos to save the city from its financial woes ("Face-lift urged for Midway," News, Jan. 31). The article didn't mention the North Bay Gateway Project to develop 123 condos in the Midway area, but the city has already sent registered letters to affected property owners about the condos. More condos will definitely help city finances, but they also will cause more traffic and congestion for the people. Wake up, San Diego! JOHN DRUMEL, El Cajon, The San Diego Union-Tribune Letters to Editor, 2/10/5Something Happened to Michael By Joe Deegan Reader, February 17, 2005 'At the beginning of his term, [San Diego District 2 councilmember] Michael Zucchet stopped Sports Arena redevelopment, which already had requests for proposals out," says John McNab. "I'll give him credit for that. But later he comes up with his own committee, and who does he put on it? Groups that nominate people who own property around the Sports Arena. Something happened to Michael," McNab concludes without suggesting what that something might be. McNab calls the city-owned land the Sports Arena sits on "the next Naval Training Center." He is a member of the citizens' group Save Our NTC, which views transforming the Naval Training Center into Liberty Station as a city giveaway to developer Corky McMillin. According to McNab, at the start of that transformation process, former mayor Susan Golding claimed the training center was filled with "shacks and obsolete buildings." Now redevelopment proponents in the Midway area are screaming that the city makes less than half a million dollars on the lease of the run-down Sports Arena. In June of last year, Michael Zucchet created the Sports Arena Ad Hoc Committee, consisting of three representatives from the Midway Community Planning and Advisory Committee, two representatives each from the North Bay Association and the North Bay Project Area Committee, and one representative each from the Peninsula Planning Board, Point Loma Association, Ocean Beach Planning Board, and Ocean Beach Town Council. For four months, starting last June 25, the committee has met weekly at 7:30 a.m. in the Peninsula Community Service Center on Sports Arena Boulevard. According to the ad hoc committee's report, completed on January 5, Zucchet charged it with "the task of evaluating various land use and other issues relative to 95 acres of public land anchored by the 38-acre Sports Arena property." Ad hoc members chose former local business owner Joe Mannino, one of the North Bay Project Area Committee's two representatives, to be its chair. (The city requires the formation of project-area committees to advise all redevelopment efforts.) Mannino is also executive director of the North Bay Association, an affiliate of the city's Business Improvement District Council. In its first action on July 30, the committee recommended "that the Sports Arena be moved." Reasons cited for the recommendation include the facility's age (38 years) and low annual generation of revenue for the city ($460,000), competition from newer facilities such as Coors Amphitheatre and Cox Arena, poor area infrastructure, bad access by both pedestrians and vehicles, and the desire for suitable National Basketball Association and National Hockey League facilities in other parts of town. The Peninsula Planning Board's Jarvis Ross voiced the lone vote against the Sports Arena being moved. Since the reasons for his vote and the reasons for all subsequent votes against the majority received less attention in the ad hoc committee's final report, Jarvis and Vance Spurrier of the Ocean Beach Planning Board wrote a Sports Arena Ad Hoc Committee Minority Report. It appeared online (www.obpb.org), with councilmember Zucchet's blessing, shortly after the majority report came out in early January. The minority report states, "There are many reasons why the [current Sports Arena] should be retained. (1) Among those are a versatile entertainment venue with close and convenient access by large numbers of San Diego residents. (2) Aside from serving the Sports Arena building events the large parking lot serves a multitude of uses from a swap meet, a training area for city bus drivers, used auto sales, and visual relief from nearby commercial buildings. Yes, it can be enhanced by planting some islands with trees or shrubs as is done in other commercial parking lots. (3) The current usage is low-impact at critical traffic hours. (4) Its useful life can be extended through creative reuse and proper maintenance. (5) Perhaps the most important use is...[its] being a cell-phone tower for multiple installations. These might otherwise have to be dispersed into residential neighborhoods where they are unwanted." The minority report goes on to make several additional points: "(1) If the leaseholder has and does perform proper ongoing maintenance, the structure has many years of useful life left. (2) Competition has and will alter events but will not necessarily [reduce] revenue and profitability. Not everyone wants to travel to Coors Amphitheatre and Cox Arena for entertainment...." The minority report blames all the excesses of the ad hoc committee on "multiple layers of city-sanctioned entities that exert influence over the subject study area.... The overlapping jurisdictions of the Midway Community Planning Board, the North Bay Association, and the North Bay Project Area Committee [with its total of] seven representatives...outnumbered the remaining four." But if the Sports Arena does move, new housing construction is likely to replace it. The minutes for the August 6 ad hoc committee meeting report chairman Mannino saying, "The Committee might want to review and use as a guide the section in the Ad Hoc [instruction] book which lays out the [city] Redevelopment Agency's recommendations. [Mannino] notes that one of [those] recommendations...is North Bay five-year goal, which suggests 987 housing units including 148 affordable units. Chairman Mannino...notes that... additional residents...would provide for a softening of the current hard-edged commercial community and would generate a need for schools, churches, and parks, all of which would help to limit adult entertainment in this community. The Chair states...his belief...that if this neighborhood is to improve, housing is a necessary component." Eventually, in two separate motions on two dates, the committee recommended both reducing adult entertainment in the North Bay (September 10) and including affordable housing in any residential development on the 95-acre city property (October 22). The minority report supports both of these recommendations. But it criticizes a September 10 committee recommendation to support large-scale, profitable residential development. The motion "gives the lessee the ability to terminate Kobey's Swap Meet," the report states, "remove the Sports Arena, and eliminate several active community-serving businesses. The blighted conditions, referred to in support of the motion, have...been artificially created by rent manipulation and short-term subleases. This has resulted in sub-lessees being unwilling to invest in the upkeep of their locations. The act of the principle [sic] lessee voting in support of this motion which directly benefits his interests is the basest form of conflict of interest." The "principle lessee" is a reference to Ernie Hahn. Hahn's father Ron Hahn heads a business group that owns the arena and the San Diego Gulls hockey team, which plays there. If a decision to develop residential units on current Sports Arena property is made before the group's lease with the city runs out in 2017, the Hahns stand to profit handsomely. Minutes of the August 6 Sports Arena Ad Hoc Committee state: "Mr. Hahn notes that...[the city] determined that the best thing would be approximately 40 to 60 units per acre. He notes that with the current 30-foot height limit [in the coastal zone], we would be limited to approximately 23 to 24 units per acre." Several paragraphs later, the minutes continue, "[Mr. Hahn] notes that by leaving the height limitation as is, we are condemning this community to remain the same." On October 8, the ad hoc committee voted seven to three, with one abstention, "that the City Council support placing an initiative on the ballot to allow a variance to the 30-foot building height limitation" in the Sports Arena area up to 85 feet. Committee members stipulated that revenue generation from this recommendation must result in various benefits to the surrounding community. But the minority report calls the recommendation "the worst motion made and approved. It was made solely to enhance the value of the lands owned or controlled by a majority of the supporters. It would result in further degrading of the coastal area." In the past, Michael Zucchet consistently rejected any change of the 30-foot building-height limitation in the coastal zone. According to a January 31 article in the San Diego Union-Tribune by Angela Lau, Zucchet recently supported the height limit again, saying that "exceptions should be few and far between." This time, however, "He said the committee's reasoning was 'absolutely valid and cogent,'" writes Lau. "It may be only a matter of time before Zucchet no longer protects the 30-foot height limit." Lau goes on to note that Zucchet supports many of the committee's other recommendations, including "the development of residential and commercial projects." But that means he favors the Sports Arena moving. "It's very clear that Zucchet's got this thing up for a giveaway," says Save Our NTC's McNab. "And now he's playing these games, saying, 'I'll save you from going over 30 feet.' Well, how about our public property? We own it. The Sports Arena is not only public property, but it's some of the most valuable because it's in the coastal zone. Everybody in the county wants to come to the coastal zone." In McNab's estimation, Ernie Hahn makes lots of money on the Sports Arena site through subleases, Kobey's Swap Meet, the cell-phone tower, and other ventures. "At the same time," says McNab, "Hahn is not reinvesting in the site. He's making it look blighted, and he's doing what they did at the Naval Training Center: making the Sports Arena look like an obsolete shack. Yes, it may not be the prettiest sports arena ever built, but it's functional and it's paid for. And Zucchet is saying that public lands are supposed to make money. They're not supposed to make money; they're supposed to allow the public to do things at a very low cost. Protection of public lands for public purposes should be the goal. That's the philosophy of public service." But Joe Mannino wants to revitalize the Sports Arena neighborhood. "The city is not likely to do it," he says. "Only the profit motive can make it happen."A Bowl of Business, San Diego Sports Arena has a rich history hosting sports events Excerpt: In 2001, the San Diego Sports Arena was voted the No. 1 arena in the nation for facilities with 10,001-15,000 seats by Billboard Magazine. In 2002, the San Diego Sports Arena received the No. 2 ranking. Excerpt: As the Hahns continue to make regular upgrades to the existing facility, the next chapter in San Diego sports history should be the development of a state-of-the-art sports arena, a vision that the Hahns have had since they took over the management of the arena in 1992. "The Sports Arena continues to be an extremely busy and successful facility, and our overall vision is to help in the redevelopment of the North Bay Area and hopefully see the completion of a new arena and bring an NBA sports franchise back to San Diego," said Ernie Hahn. Full Article: A Bowl of Business, San Diego Sports Arena has a rich history hosting sports events National City Spotlight: Links in the Chain By Ted Godshalk, La Prensa San Diego, February 25, 2005 Since the New Year, the National City City Council/CDC has discussed and voted on several significant issues, which will have a lasting influence on the community. Let us review these issues, thinking about them as links in a chain, and consider the interests which tie them together. The first chain link is the Downtown Specific Area Plan, which was approved over the objections of some residents who wanted to see a guaranteed percentage of affordable housing included. Some people, including myself, wanted full documentation on how the city will deal with harmful impacts like air pollution, heavy traffic, and loud noise, and ask how expensive increased city services will be paid for. But in the end, even after a day-long workshop in which numerous concerns were raised and corrective actions suggested, CDC staff admitted it had neither analyzed the publics comments nor made any changes to the plan. When it came time to vote, to his credit, Councilman Luis Natividad made a series of motions requiring 15% affordable housing in all new downtown residential developments. His motion failed and Councilmembers Zarate, Morrison, and Parra voted to approve the Specific Plan with no requirements for affordable housing. So whats going on people? Do we not want to build homes downtown for families and for single income couples who currently rent? Or is it that the campaign donors are coming home to roost? The objections of the residents were completely ignored with respect to this plan, and the developers, including the several who spoke in favor of the plan, simply got their way. It really is no wonder they like this Specific Plan. It can save them thousands, if not millions, of dollars by clearing the way for them to avoid environmental review and public scrutiny, and by giving them public subsidies associated with their properties. The second link in the chain is Impact fees. After a one-year study, consultants found that in almost all cases, cities like National City undercharge for development services. In fact, there has never been a true Impact fee. The recommendation to the Council was that the city starts recovering the full cost based on the notion that if someone is making a profit then the taxpayers should not foot the bill. The Council and Mayor approved the new fees. The key thing to note here is that new development can be required to pay fees for things like parks and new fire and police substations. Whew! I guess its a good thing the voters didnt support Prop. S last November to raise their property taxes now that we have this better source of funding. I have to wonder about the timing of that proposition and the sense of urgency some of the proponents were claiming at election time. The third link is eminent domain. Always hearing the claim that eminent domain is the tool of last resort and it has not been used, we now know that the process of eminent domain has been initiated at least twice in recent years. Two property owners in the Harbor District (24th Street and I-5), including the owners of Ace Metal, were forced into negotiations with the CDC. You see, the power of eminent domain is in its use as a threat, as in: "If you dont sell to us (the developers) you will lose your house (or business). It will be condemned and you wont get very much for it." Eminent domain is used to force someone to sell. At this weeks City Council meeting, two NC Blvd. property owners told the Council that they had been threatened in this fashion. Natividad, Morrison, and Zarate (Inzunza and Parra are disqualified as property owners in the redevelopment area) heard more public testimony this week and have now agreed the scope of the proposed eminent domain power is too long (12 years) and too broad (805 to San Diego Bay). It is refreshing to see this more measured approach. They ordered staff to revise it for their reconsideration on March 22. If any of this affects you, you should get down to City Hall in advance, ask questions, and move to protect yourself. We see how these three issues are certainly coupled together. Eminent domain is a hammer, which is held by the redevelopment agency on behalf of developers. Impact fees are used to "put out fires" when trying to keep up with the impacts from the new developments they encouraged in the first place. And a Specific Plan greases the skids so that the whole thing slides along without the hindrance of things like public participation and environmental impact reports. Furthermore, there are many more links in this complex chain. Campaign contributions, ethics, other Specific Area Plans, and of course, personal agendas and interests are all fastened together in a entangled relationship; but alas, these are the stuff of another Spotlight commentary. Ted Godshalk can be reached at paradisecreek@mac.comNoGRAB Supports Homeowners in US Supreme Court case On Feb.21, 2005, home and small business owners, as well as concerned neighbors, will rally in support of the plaintiffs in the US Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London. This is the first time in 50 years that the Supreme Court has taken a serious look at the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court will decide whether increased tax revenue and economic development are proper reasons for a municipality to exercise the power of eminent domain, a power the Court called "despotic" in the early days of the republic. Should the Court rule against the property owners, no one's property will be safe, because everyone's home can make more money as a luxury condo; everyone's small business can make more money as a big box store. The Court has the opportunity to make the Fifth Amendment finally mean something. The rally is not just about the Kelo plaintiffs. We are also getting together to highlight the abuse of eminent domain here in California. The issue of eminent domain abuse is a national one - it doesn't affect just property owners in New London, Connecticut or here in California. Our rally will not only connect us with the good folks in New London, but all those property owners around the country whose property is threatened.Gran Havana owner given until Dec. 28 San Diego Union-Tribune, May 4, 2004 A Superior Court judge yesterday gave the owner of a recently condemned cigar and coffee lounge in downtown San Diego until Dec. 28 to relinquish his property to the city. The City Council last month voted to take the Gran Havana Cigar and Coffee Lounge at Fifth Avenue and J Street by eminent domain to make way for a four-star hotel. The Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment agency, asked the court to grant it the property in 90 days. The judge instead set Dec. 28 as the day the owner, Ahmed Mesdaq, must get out. Mesdaq has filed two lawsuits in the matter: one in Superior Court complaining that the city denied him the full use of his property; and the other in federal court, alleging that the city violated his constitutional rights.The council admitted that Ahmed Mesdaq's business is not in a blighted area, a requirement for condemning the property, yet condemned it anyway so Marriott can have its four-star hotel. This is typical of our city's disregard for the small business owner and its kowtowing to big business. Once again, Donna Frye was the only sane voice on our council. TERRI OKERLUND San Diego Published on Greedy City Targets Grantville By Joe Deegan, San Diego Reader, April 22, 2004 It was the winter of 1980, and the employees of the now-defunct Hafer Steel Company in Grantville had to go onto the roof. "A helicopter came and asked whether or not we wanted to be evacuated," says Ken Bernard, who now runs his own steel-reinforcement business several doors away. "We said no, because we knew that [the water] would be going down soon. It was five or six feet deep in the office." Behind his office, Bernard shows me the cause of the flooding that for decades -- and as recently as last year -- has plagued the area not far from where Mission Gorge Road goes under Interstate 8. I climb onto a pile of clay to see water meandering between two banks of bamboo. It is Alvarado Creek, and on this sunny spring day, the stream is nothing but a trickle of water at the bottom of a tiny ravine. But when it rains, the creek rises and becomes a torrent. And should it rain half an inch or more in an hour, raging waters overflow the creek's banks and turn this site of several small industries into a lake. Bernard remembers the time he had an old 6000-pound station wagon parked on a slope leading up to one of the buildings; the waters lifted the car and it floated away. Mission Gorge Road is built so high as it passes through Grantville that it acts as a dam on the southwest side of the site. A box culvert takes Alvarado Creek under the road and down toward Qualcomm Stadium, where it joins the San Diego River. "But the creek backs up," says Bernard. "The box culvert under Mission Gorge Road has two barrels, but it should have three to take care of increased drainage that has come about over the years." As land at higher elevations was paved over, drainage became heavier. Near College Avenue, Alvarado Creek starts at Adobe Falls, whose waters originally come from Lake Murray drainage. Years ago the city of San Diego built a wide channel parallel to Interstate 8 below Adobe Falls to contain the water. Because of a sharp downgrade below College, water cascades rapidly through that channel during wet weather. The widely constructed channel suddenly ends in Grantville, right before it reaches the narrow ravine behind Bernard's business. Excessive water has nowhere to go but up and over the creek's banks. Business owners in the low-lying area repeatedly asked the city for help. Then, in 1989, says Bernard, "The property owners here filed a suit against the city to clear up the situation. We lost the suit in superior court." The owners wanted the city to put another box culvert in the one link of the drainage system that had remained untouched since it was surrounded by farmland: the 600 feet of creek behind Bernard's business. Bernard says the estimated cost of the culvert at the time was $600,000. And now, after refusing for years to lift a finger to help these Grantville business owners, the city is contemplating a redevelopment plan for the entire area. Redeveloping an urban area in California allows local officials to reclaim tax revenues that have been going to the state. In redeveloping Grantville, San Diego can look forward to receiving more sales and property taxes than the area now receives. At its meeting on March 30, the city council allocated $635,000 for a Grantville redevelopment study. The first phase of the study determines whether the community has sufficient blight to justify a redevelopment plan. California's Health and Safety Code, which governs such matters, requires that an area be "blighted" before it qualifies for redevelopment. Bernard drives me around Grantville and points out the small businesses, from light manufacturing and auto repair to fast food, financial services, and car dealerships. "To planners," he says, "having all these little businesses is inefficient as hell. 'Let's get rid of all this stuff and get something orderly and beautiful.' " A few properties we see do look a bit slovenly. But as Bernard sees it, Grantville overall is hardly blighted. "Euphemisms," he says, "are the favorite tool of government." The idea for redeveloping Grantville originated in the Navajo Planning Area, composed primarily of residents of Allied Gardens. Both Grantville and the more residential and populous Allied Gardens are part of San Diego's District 7. Jim Madaffer represents the district on the city council and has been behind the redevelopment plan from its inception. What irks many Grantville business owners is that they learned of the redevelopment agenda for their area after the Navajo Planning Area had talked the city of San Diego into spending between $15,000 and $20,000 on a preliminary feasibility study. According to Bernard, the Navajo group did not invite the people most affected by the plan to their meeting. But once the City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency commissioned Rosenow Spevecek Group, Inc., to do the feasibility study, Grantville business owners found out about the plan and founded their own group, Grantville Property and Business Owners Association. Philip Teyssier, whose property is a short distance from Bernard's company, leads the group of 53 business owners. Teyssier created and maintains a website (www.gpboa.com) to assist the organization's members. The small-business owners' biggest fear is losing their properties to a new redevelopment district through eminent domain. "In eminent domain," says Bernard, "it's my appraiser against your appraiser, and no consideration is given to the legal costs you may incur in fighting the whole thing or even in engaging experts. The weakest suffer the most. And generally, they lose everything, because that's their life, that particular property -- whether leased, rented, or owned." I inquire into the people behind the inception of the redevelopment plan for Grantville. "I don't know who's behind it. I'm not hurling any accusations," says Bernard, who nevertheless calls the actions a "stealth campaign." He does suspect that Kaiser Permanente -- which has a hospital, a major medical facility, and several other buildings in the area -- supports the plan. Philip Teyssier agrees, adding that H.G. Fenton Building Materials and the large area landowner Caster Development also support it. On his website, Teyssier posts a letter he wrote to the city council on March 19 objecting to the Grantville redevelopment plan and "the covert manner in which the City has proceeded thus far." Included in the letter is a critique of the initial feasibility study by the Rosenow Spevecek Group. Among other complaints, the critique counters the study's assertion that 80 percent of the study area is urbanized (California's Health and Safety Code requires this percentage in order to qualify an area for redevelopment). To reach that percentage, according to Teyssier, the feasibility study included as "urbanized" a large sand-mining operation in Grantville. The reality, Teyssier argues, is that with the mining grounds, a golf course, and Mission Trails Regional Park, 65 percent of the proposed redevelopment area is not urbanized. "On this fact alone," writes Teyssier, "the study area does not meet the criteria for urbanization and therefore cannot be considered as a redevelopment area." At further issue between the Grantville Property and the Business Owners Association and Jim Madaffer is the role of lot sizes and traffic congestion. Anyone driving along Mission Gorge Road before it reaches Friars Road is aware of traffic congestion. Teyssier and Bernard insist that redevelopment is already causing congestion in the area. They're referring to the recent building of Home Depot and Sav-on Drug stores right off the intersection of Mission Gorge and Interstate 8. Madaffer, speaking at the March 30 city-council meeting, implied that the redevelopment plan would eventually improve traffic conditions. Regarding lot sizes, Madaffer contends that small parcels of land make economic growth in an area more difficult and contribute to physical blighting. But on his website, Teyssier writes, "A simple visual review of the proposed study area shows a large variety of parcel sizes, none of them being so ill-configured that [they] would constitute blight and prevent proper development." He also points out that Grantville is already "a very viable economic force." "Redevelopment proponents minimize our concerns," says Teyssier. "They say that eminent domain is a last resort." They also maintain, he says, that it is not their intention to condemn properties. But a new Grantville redevelopment district may do it anyway. "And that threat of condemnation hanging over the owners' heads is intimidating," says Teyssier. At the March 30 city council meeting, Teyssier gave a 15-minute PowerPoint presentation, and Ken Bernard spoke for two and a half minutes against the Grantville redevelopment plan. Afterward the council voted nine to nothing in favor of studying it further. "That's what happens," says Bernard, "anytime you have a councilman get behind a plan without consulting beforehand with the people the plan is going to affect." Officials seeks to expand eminent domain, National City issue up for vote Tuesday By Tanya Sierra, Union Tribune, February 19, 2005 NATIONAL CITY City officials want to double the area where they can use their eminent domain authority, an option that might be key to their quest to revitalize the city with new homes and retail businesses. In a joint meeting Tuesday, the Community Development Commission made up of City Council members will vote whether to expand the eminent domain area from National City Boulevard and the Harbor District to include Highland Avenue, the city's west side, East Plaza Boulevard, parts of the 8th Street corridor and parts of 30th Street and Sweetwater Road. Several residents have spoken against expanding the city's eminent domain authority, which would ultimately allow the city to take over certain properties by court order if landowners do not want to sell their properties for redevelopment. The city can use eminent domain to obtain property within its redevelopment area. Those properties include those zoned for commercial or industrial use and all vacant or abandoned properties regardless of their zoning designation, said City Attorney George Eiser. Residential property will not be targeted, he said. City officials seldom reach the point where a court order is necessary. Instead, they try to negotiate until the owner sells, said redevelopment director Ben Martinez. Eminent domain authority lasts 12 years, then expires. If the expansion is successful Tuesday, the city can use eminent domain for another 12 years where it is already allowed and will add the new area for 12 years, as well. When the proposal was first announced, about 250 residents showed up at city meetings in October and November to speak against it. They were concerned that with so much development, National City would lose its small-town feel and that small businesses would be forced out. Martinez said previously, in response to those concerns, that "there are winners and losers in redevelopment," but he would "try to limit the losers" to businesses that don't fit with the city's plans to bring in more retail and improve its image. The Constellation Property Group, for example, has offered to invest $130 million in a high-rise condominium and retail project on National City Boulevard between 11th and 12th streets. The development would oust businesses on that block, including Lourdes Family Restaurant, the first Filipino restaurant in National City, according to owner Lourdes Barrera. After 33 years in the same building, Barrera said she is negotiating with Constellation to reopen her business in the retail space on the first floor of the proposed 21-story building. "As long as it's fair, I'm all for beautifying National City," she said. "It's time. For so long it's been stagnant." Not everyone in the redevelopment area is as welcoming to developers. Some property owners have spoken at public meetings about being bothered by developers or their representatives who want to build on their property. Daniel Ilko, who owns the property next to Lourdes restaurant, told city officials at a meeting this month that a real estate agent trying to acquire his land for Constellation harassed him and his family. "They threatened us saying if we don't sell now, we'll lose the property," Ilko said during a Community Development Commission meeting. "They accosted my 9-year-old daughter." Ilko wouldn't elaborate on his contact with Anthony Napoli, of Anthony Napoli Real Estate Group in Little Italy, who was representing Constellation. A message on Napoli's voice mail indicated he is out of the country, but representatives of Constellation said Napoli's behavior was not inappropriate. "He was just trying to get the offers out," said Mark Astone, who is in charge of Constellation's marketing firm. "His intentions weren't to harass anyone. Two children answered the door with the maid. He just left the offer with the daughter. I don't think that's accosting." City project manager Gerard Selby said Napoli's behavior was unprofessional. "The behavior of the representative was overboard completely," Selby said at the meeting. Barrera, who also dealt with Napoli, said she wasn't bothered by his approach. "He has an attitude, but it didn't bother me because I threw back what he gave me," she said. Condos in Constellation's project would sell for $400,000 to $750,000, according to a city report. Tuesday's meeting is at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 1243 National City Blvd. Developer clashes with city over park McMillin wants bonds issued for head start on NTC amenity By Ronald W. Powell, Union Tribune, February 7, 2005 The developer of the former Naval Training Center does not want to start building a 46-acre waterfront park unless San Diego issues a repayment bond, which the city attorney is refusing to authorize. Under the city's contract with Corky McMillin Cos., the developer must be reimbursed for constructing the park and other public improvements through city bonds, which property owners at the former boot camp will pay off. McMillin is obligated to start the park work by January, but company officials say construction could begin in May, if the city would issue $15 million in bonds to repay the company now, rather than when the work is completed. If the construction starts in May, the developer would build the park in two phases, completing it in 2008. Without the bonds, the company would not start the work until December and would complete it in three phases, ending in 2012, said Walter Heiberg, McMillin's vice president. That schedule follows the agreement the city has with McMillin for building the 361-acre Liberty Station redevelopment project west of Lindbergh Field. Heiberg said the city's financial problems make the company hesitant to obtain private financing and get an early start on the park without the bonds. "We want to be assured there is a refunding source," Heiberg said. "We want to work with the city in the current situation they're in, and to be a good partner. If we can start the park early, it will be good for us and the community." Liberty Station homeowners are angry that the park work may not start early, because they already are paying the property tax assessment to cover the future bond debt. The annual assessments for homeowners range from $2,138 to $4,307, depending on the size of their houses. The money goes into a fund collected by the county and administered by the city. There is about $441,000 in the fund, which is expected to grow to more than $1 million by the end of the year. The park is one of the few amenities that benefit the general public at the project, and residents and San Diego Councilman Michael Zucchet, whose district includes Liberty Station, believe it should be built without delay. "He stands to make a huge profit on this project," Liberty Station homeowner Greg Finley said of Corky McMillin, owner of McMillin Cos. "But now that it's showtime to build the park, there are excuses. I think he's morally obligated to get this park going right now." Cynthia Conger, chairwoman of the Peninsula Community Planning Board, said the 62,000 residents of neighboring Point Loma are in dire need of park space and are eagerly awaiting the park at the former Naval Training Center. Conger said McMillin stands to make a substantial profit on the development because the developer is receiving 81 acres for free. She said he should put the park on a fast track as a show of appreciation to the city's taxpayers. "He's put very little of his own money into this project," Conger said. City Attorney Michael Aguirre is refusing to sign the documents that would allow the bond issue, saying the city's financial picture is too cloudy. Aguirre said he cannot vouch for the city's fiscal health, as required in the documents, because the city does not have financial audits for fiscal 2003 and 2004. Preparation of those audits is hampered by the city's admission of errors and omissions in financial statements provided to prospective investors in San Diego's bond portfolio. The omissions included an inaccurate accounting of the $3.2 billion San Diego City Employees Retirement System's deficit, which now totals nearly $1.4 billion. The financial reporting problems have led to investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office. Without the audits, San Diego would have to pay exorbitant interest rates on any bond debt, which Aguirre said would be ill-advised. A spokeswoman for Mayor Dick Murphy said the council cannot vote on the bond issue without Aguirre's approval that the action is legal. "I have to sign opinion letters (involving the city's finances), and I can't sign them at this time," Aguirre said. "I won't do anything to put the city at further risk." An undated draft memo from the City Manager's Office says the city would not be put at risk by issuing the bonds. The memo, obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune, says the city's bond counsel recommends the City Council issue the bonds because they are backed by property owner assessments not the general fund or other revenues. City Manager Lamont Ewell did not return calls Friday for comment. Murphy said in a statement Friday that he believes the city should proceed with the bond issue. "I think it's unfortunate that this bond is being held up," Murphy said. "I hope to speak with Mr. Aguirre and convince him to put his stamp of approval on this matter, especially since there is no obligation to the city. The public deserves to have this park built without delay." With or without the bonds, the homeowners and Zucchet said McMillin should obtain private financing and start the park early. They said McMillin readily obtained private financing to build the 349 houses outlined in the city's redevelopment plan. About 250 of them are occupied. McMillin also has financed and built two office buildings and has two more under construction. The housing and office buildings make money for the company, the homeowners and Zucchet said. Liberty Station housing prices have ranged from about the mid-$400,000s to more than $1 million. McMillin sold one of the office buildings in June for $8.3 million. Rents in the other building, which the company owns, range from $2.35 to $2.45 per square foot. Heiberg said demolition of former Navy buildings, the widening of Rosecrans Street, and the construction of houses, streets and other infrastructure all were started earlier than agreed upon by the company and the city. If the bonds are issued, the company would like to do the same with the park, he said. The first phase would encompass 18 acres and include baseball fields, basketball courts, soccer fields, tot lots, restrooms, and hiking and biking trails. Heiberg said the company would like to be told in writing why the bond issue is not going forward. Aguirre said that since McMillin is obligated to build the park, it should proceed with private financing and expect repayment when the city obtains clean audits and is able to issue bonds. "McMillin's financial statement is impeccable, and I'm sure (Corky McMillin) can go into the private market and get this financing done," Aguirre said. "We wish him the very best." Dissension over the park construction looms as the largest public dispute at the redevelopment project since the council selected McMillin in 1999 to carry out the city's plan to convert the 75-year-old military property into a neighborhood. The 505-acre training center closed in 1997, and the Navy transferred title to most of the property to the city. The project is to include 349 homes, two hotels, seven office buildings, an educational district, a civic, arts and culture center, and the 46-acre park. Since the city did not have money to fix up the property, it selected McMillin to develop the property through private financing. To sweeten the deal, the city gave McMillin 81 acres to develop and sell, including 37 acres for housing and 22 acres for offices. The company also was given 118 acres to develop and lease, including the two hotel sites, a 22-acre golf course and 60 acres for commercial use. City officials expect taxpayers to derive economic benefit from the development. Room tax from the two hotels is expected to generate $4.8 million annually. Tax revenue from the developed property could bring in $2.4 million a year, including $750,000 annually for low-and moderate-income housing. Since taking on the project, Heiberg said, McMillin has spent $60 million in upfront costs for demolition, street construction, hazardous waste cleanup, parking lots, landscaping and infrastructure improvements. McMillin also provided $2 million in seed money to establish a nonprofit foundation that is responsible for operating the cultural center. Heiberg would not disclose how much McMillin has invested in building the houses and office buildings or reveal how much profit the company is making. Zucchet said he advocates McMillin developing the park early, even if the city can't issue the bonds in advance. "My view is they're obliged to build the park no matter what their concerns are about the city's finances," Zucchet said.Face-lift urged for Midway, Panel recommends new sports arena, street fixes By Angela Lau, Union Tribune, January 31, 2005 The San Diego Sports Arena anchors a 95-acre city-owned area that many say needs to be redeveloped. The Sports Arena and Midway area has long needed a face-lift, but it may have to wait a little longer. The future of the 95 acres of city-owned property anchored by the Sports Arena remains as uncertain as ever with another attempt to undo the blight in the Sports Arena and Midway area under fire. A citizens' panel recently presented recommendations for improvement, but the proposals immediately drew criticism. Differing redevelopment philosophies create some of the friction. So do concerns about a proposal to eliminate the 30-foot height limit in certain portions of the redevelopment area. In 2002, the city solicited proposals from developers interested in redeveloping the land. But City Councilman Michael Zucchet halted the process and formed the Sports Arena Ad Hoc Committee. The committee's recommendations included: Building a new arena in another location when the Sports Arena is no longer competitive. The current facility could be demolished to make way for redevelopment or used for other purposes. Building a new arena in the present location would be unlikely because existing roads already are congested and would not be able to cope with increased traffic from a bigger facility. Asking voters to decide whether to increase the 30-foot height limit to 85 feet for residential and commercial buildings in some of the redevelopment area. The rationale for the increase is that it could produce greater tax increments, which could be used to finance affordable housing, parks and infrastructure improvements. Retaining Kobey's Swap Meet in the neighborhood. It currently leases space on the Sports Arena grounds. Maintaining city ownership of the land and only selling individual parcels if it is proven to be beneficial to the public. Easing chronic traffic congestion by re-establishing a street grid connecting the north and south sides of Sports Arena now broken by Rosecrans Street and limiting new intersections with Sports Arena Boulevard. Retaining two affordable housing complexes, Stonewood Gardens and The Orchard apartments on Hancock Street and Midway Drive. Excluding big-box super stores of more than 90,000 square feet. Stifling the growth of adult entertainment businesses by building more residences, since city codes require adult entertainment to be located at least 1,000 feet from dwellings. The committee also recommended increasing the distance between adult entertainment and residences to 2,000 feet. Developing parks. The panel consisted of 11 representatives from planning boards, town councils and business organizations in the Midway area and the surrounding communities of Ocean Beach and Point Loma. The triangular redevelopment area is roughly bounded by Sports Arena Boulevard at the intersection with West Point Loma Boulevard, Interstate 8 and Rosecrans Street. It is just minutes from San Diego Bay, accessible by major freeways and close to the San Diego Trolley in Old Town. It is also marred by haphazard planning and traffic congestion and surrounded by adult entertainment businesses. "This is one of the most valuable pieces of land the city owns," said Zucchet, whose 2nd Council District includes the area. "It is one of the remaining large parcels of land . . . Developers are salivating over it." No longer competitive? Valuable as the land may be, it has produced little revenue for the city. Last year, the Sports Arena, which is on 38 acres, netted $497,813 in rent, which was based on its revenue from parking or activities held in the parking lot and not on activities inside the arena, said Will Griffith, the city's real estate assets director. The Sports Arena lease, which expires in 2017, was negotiated before Griffith joined the city. Arena Group 2000, led by businessman and developer Ron Hahn, took over the lease in 1992. His son, Ernie Hahn II, was a member of the ad hoc committee and is the general manager of the Sports Arena. Arena Group 2000 also owns the Gulls hockey team, which plays at the arena. The Sports Arena deal "is an example that we are not getting what we should be getting," the city's director of community and economic development, Hank Cunningham, said in an interview last year. "It is a lease that has been around for a long time." The lease is a popular target for critics, among them some ad hoc committee members. "It is not profitable for the citizens of San Diego," said Joe Mannino, the committee's chairman. "There are people who generate a half million dollars on a single building on one acre." Three businesses recently built by Arena Group 2000 on the arena parking lot Chili's, Arco AM-PM and Krispy Kreme brought the city $44,057 in rent last year. In all, the 95 acres which includes 14 leases held by 11 tenants generated $3.2 million in rent last year, Griffith said. Some of the other leases include Dixieline, Pier 1 Imports and Stonewood Gardens and The Orchard apartments, city officials said. Community watchdogs, however, are wary that some of the committee's recommendations would change the face of the peninsula forever. Chief among their complaints is the proposal to relax the height limit. The proposed change would be limited to 35 percent of a project's land mass and restricted to an area bounded by Midway Drive, Interstates 5 and 8 and Barnett Avenue and Witherby Street. "People who live on the coast are determined not to break the height limit," said Jarvis Ross, one of the ad hoc committee's 11 members. Ross, who represented the Peninsula Community Planning Board, voted against the committee's recommendation to change the height limit. "It was made solely to enhance the value of the lands owned and controlled by a majority of the supporters," wrote Ross and another committee member, Vance Spurrier, who represented the Ocean Beach Planning Board. They distributed a dissension document to counter some of the committee's recommendations. Ross was referring to committee members like Ernie Hahn II, who has expressed great interest in redeveloping the 43 acres that Arena Group 2000 operates. That acreage includes the 38 occupied by the arena and an additional five in an adjacent shopping center anchored by the Black Angus restaurant. That lease is up in March 2006. "We got involved (in leasing the arena) to make sure we got 43 acres of really good land we can redevelop over time," Hahn said. "The issue is looking at this land for the long term and figuring out how to address it. "We can create an unbelievable tax-increment base, re-create and re-brand this area," he said. "This 43 acres will set the tone and priority for the whole area." The 38-year-old arena is no longer competitive against new complexes such as Cox Arena and Coors Amphitheatre, Hahn said. He is looking for a new home for the arena. Hahn, however, said he had the city's best interest in mind when he voted in favor of increased height limits, moving the arena and restricting the growth of adult entertainment businesses. Mannino, who also is the executive director of the North Bay Association that represents businesses in the Midway and Sports Arena area, took issue with criticisms of the committee's work. "Just because the community agrees with the positions of Ernie Hahn, it does not mean that he influenced the community, but maybe his opinion was consistent with that of the community's," Mannino said. "It's easy for people to say 'Don't do anything' and complain about blight," Mannino said. "It's hard to come up with ways to make Midway a more livable, safer and cleaner community." Jere Batten, who represented the Ocean Beach Town Council on the ad hoc committee and who voted against the proposed height limit change, said any increase could open the floodgates for future high rises. But she agrees that varied building heights accompanied by parks and open space could be aesthetically pleasing. Contrary to popular belief, high-rises are not conducive to producing affordable units, said Dale Royal, a senior project manager for the Centre City Development Corp. He said buildings higher than four or five stories are constructed with steel and concrete, which cost more than wood frames. Zucchet, a staunch supporter of the height limit, defended it again, although he said the committee's reasoning was "absolutely valid and cogent." "The 30-foot height limit has served the coastal zone very well. Exceptions should be few and far between," Zucchet said. "It is such a huge piece of property that if we do something dense and tall, there'd be tremendous impact. I don't think the area can handle it." But Zucchet added that he supports many of the committee's other recommendations, such as retention of Kobey's Swap Meet, the development of residential and commercial projects, the attempt to stop the growth of adult entertainment businesses, the construction of affordable housing and the easing of traffic congestion. With redevelopment inevitable, community watchdogs, such as the San Diego Coastal Alliance and Save Our NTC, cautioned San Diegans not to allow a repeat of what they characterized as a giveaway of city land at the Naval Training Center to developer Corky McMillin. The Naval Training Center, renamed Liberty Station, is being redeveloped. "Sports Arena, we own it. They want it. Take a stand," stated a flier distributed in the community by the San Diego Coastal Alliance before an ad hoc committee meeting last year. Because of clashing opinions among his constituents, Zucchet said he will not advocate wholesale changes. Instead, he said, he is focusing on smaller improvements, such as changing the community's gateway on Rosecrans Street. He said plans are under way to build residences near Interstates 8 and 5 where adult businesses are currently located. Another redevelopment, a residential complex of up to 170 condominiums, also is being planned. It will be adjacent to Sharp Cabrillo Hospital, said Peter Fagrell, vice president of land planning and development for Lennar Homes of California.Legal Plunder By Doug Bandow, Published 1/4/2005 Abuse of Power:, How the Government Misuses Eminent Domain by Steven Greenhut (Seven Locks Press, 311 pages, $17.95) For more than two decades the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit allowed governments in that state to take most any property they wanted to transfer to most anyone they wanted for most any reason they wanted. The U.S. Constitution's "public use" restriction was satisfied, the court ruled, even when Detroit seized an entire ethnic neighborhood to hand over to General Motors for a new factory. Alas, this case was no anomaly. As Steven Greenhut, an editorial writer for the Orange County Register, observes in his timely new book, Abuse of Power: How the Government Misuses Eminent Domain, "governments increasingly use eminent domain to take property from one private owner in order to give it to another private owner." A small home owner or businessman then "must surrender his home or business because a wealthy developer -- perhaps a big campaign contributor and mover and shaker in the community, or an out-of-town corporation promising an expanded tax base for the city -- has bigger and better plans for it." The abuses are legion. But sometimes property owners -- "ordinary heroes," Greenhut calls them -- fight back and beat city hall. Today they often do so with the aid of the Washington-based Institute for Justice, which has made protection of property rights one of its most important objectives. So rank have been the outrages that in July the Michigan Supreme Court expressly overruled its Poletown decision "in order to vindicate our constitution, protect the people's property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law." The new case, Wayne County vs. Hathcock, barred use of eminent domain to construct an industrial and office park. Michigan may no longer seize private property for "economic development," that is, to hand to new private owners who might pay more in taxes. Although the case has no formal legal force outside of Michigan, it reflects a slow renaissance of judicial respect for property rights. The Poletown decision was oft-cited by other courts as they ruled that public officials could take land at their pleasure. Wayne County will help shift legal currents in the other direction. Indeed, all legal eyes now fall on the U.S. Supreme Court, which is considering a case involving the city of New London, Connecticut. The Connecticut Supreme Court, relying upon the reasoning of Poletown, upheld the plan by the New London Development Corporation to take scores of modest riverfront homes and businesses to build luxury houses, expensive office space, and a hotel. "How come someone else can live here, and we can't," asks Susette Kelo, one of the dispossessed landowners. It's a good question, and Steven Greenhut's answer is that someone else gets to live there when local officials decide to engage in social engineering for fun and profit. Not always, of course -- sometimes eminent domain is used for traditional purposes as road-building. But increasingly government deploys eminent domain in an attempt to create "high-valued," meaning taxable, development. That goal often supplements the desire to benefit local elites, usually with the connivance of the usual civic boosters, including the media. Greenhut dissects how journalists routinely fail to question even the most obvious eminent domain abuses. THE HEART OF GREENHUT'S book is a series of examples of government's routine misuse of power. There's abundant bad news. Public officials typically favor the wealthy and influential because they are wealthy and influential. But Greenhut also found good news: though property owners often lose, increasingly they are fighting back and winning. For instance, the city fathers of Garden Grove, a working class community south of Los Angeles, decided to turn a tidy neighborhood of 400 into a theme park. Explains Greenhut: "There was no developer in mind, just an idea in the head of the city's top planners and bureaucrats. They were going to do what they had been doing on a smaller scale across the city: play land developer by condemning property, then trying to market the acquired tracts to some big out-of-town development company." Officials attempted to deny the obvious, while treating the neighborhood as blighted. No normal person would have thought that but, writes Greenhut, "Blight, as advocates of redevelopment and eminent domain often point out, is a legal term rather than a descriptive term." Happily, homeowners organized effectively and forced the city to back down. Garden Grove removed the neighborhood from its "redevelopment" area, while proceeding with similar efforts elsewhere. Equally outrageous was the attempt by Cypress, another southern California city, to seize Cottonwood Christian Center in order to transfer the property to Costco. Churches don't deliver much in the way of property or sales taxes, a black mark in the view of city councilmen dedicated to the old principle of tax, spend, and elect. In Cypress, writes Greenhut, "City officials did not dress up what they were doing in legalistic language. They were brazen in their goals. They ridiculed church members at public meetings. They bragged about their ability to use eminent domain for whatever reason they chose, and they made it clear that the government's desires should take precedence over the desires of a narrow special interest,' which is how city officials repeatedly referred to the church." The 4,500-member interdenominational congregation fought back, aided by the Becket Fund, which specializes in defending religious liberty. To its credit, the church rejected an offer by Cypress to trade for the property next door -- which the city would seize from its owner through eminent domain. Eventually, Cypress, which lost a preliminary court ruling, agreed to a voluntary land swap which yielded the church more room for its new worship center. Adverse publicity helped derail an abusive taking by Atlantic City. Vera Coking, a widow, was unfortunate enough to live across from Donald Trump's casino. He asked the local redevelopment agency to take her property for a limousine parking lot for high rollers. With the help of the Institute of Justice, Coking won: the term "blight" could be most accurately applied to Trump's enterprise, which has veered towards bankruptcy. EMINENT DOMAIN WAS LONG thought to be justified for a genuine "public use," that is, something used by the public. That's why the framers of the Constitution included a limited power to take property in the Fifth Amendment. Yet today the public use requirement has almost disappeared, as officials, with judicial approval, regularly take property from Peter to give to Paul. Only if officials forget to invoke an alleged public interest could it be stopped. Although the courts have been more willing to enforce the provision requiring payment of compensation, they too often have allowed governments to take advantage of property owners. Moving expenses, business goodwill, advantageous locations, as well as real values often are lost or minimized when figuring compensation. The result would still be rank injustice even if the property was taken for a real public purpose. Instead, more often than not eminent domain is now used as a form of corporate welfare, intended to enrich billionaire retailers like Costco and millionaire real estate moguls like Donald Trump. Other favored beneficiaries are owners of hotels, race tracks, and sports franchises. Its "legal plunder," Greenhut writes, just like the historical experience of mercantilism, which featured "a powerful central state that worked in concert with established, private interests." Greenhut's worthy call to arms concludes with a practical primer on how individuals, families, churches, and communities can fight back. Most important is an aroused citizenry prepared to defend their rights. "Ordinary heroes" helped create this nation more than 200 years ago. They helped preserve America through many difficult trials in peace and war. They can help restore life to constitutional provisions that were meant to protect all of us from government misuse of its power of eminent domain.Cities Use Eminent Domain To Clear Lots for Big-Box Stores DEAN STARKMAN, Staff , WALL STREET JOURNAL, Dec. 8, 2004 Big-box retailers have a message for local landowners: Move. And the command has the force of law, much to the dismay of Darrell M. Trent, a part-time developer in Pittsburg, Kan. Mr. Trent thought he scored a coup this year when he leased part of a seven-acre parcel his family had owned since the 1960s to a local plumbing supplier. But the city took the property this spring through its powers of eminent domain and handed it to a developer with a different tenant: Home Depot Inc. Says Mr. Trent: "After having carried it all this time, for them to step in and take it away from me -- it really denies me my corporate livelihood," Mr. Trent says. Desperate for tax revenue, cities and towns across the country now routinely take property from unwilling sellers to make way for big-box retailers. Condemnation cases aren't tracked nationally, but even retailers themselves acknowledge that the explosive growth of the format in the 1990s and torrid competition for land has increasingly pushed them into increasingly problematic areas -- including sites owned by other people. The village of Port Chester, N.Y., is clearing an entire business district -- including a marina, a housewares importer, an antiques store and several other businesses -- to make way for Costco Wholesale Corp., Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. and others. Costco took over another site after the city of Cypress, Calif., condemned a vacant lot as a "public nuisance" to stop a Christian group from building a religious center there. After a public uproar, the city found another site for the church , which says it is satisfied with the ultimate outcome. The township of North Bergen, N.J., moved to condemn a store in a shopping center occupied by Kmart Holding Corp. in favor of a developer who plans another Home Depot. When the city of Maplewood, Mo., invited retailers to compete for a chunk of choice land, developers for Costco and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. fought a nasty legal and political battle. Wal-Mart's developer won -- and 150 homes and businesses were condemned. Next spring, Costco will face its second shareholder resolution in two years asking the company to "adopt a policy for land procurement and use that incorporates social and environmental factors," particularly, the wishes of local property owners and community groups. The resolution was brought by Christian Brothers Investment Services Inc., New York, which says its concerns include "reputational risk" from eminent-domain use. "If the company continues to operate in this manner, with the amount of publicity and protests, this could end up impacting shareholder value," says Julie Tanner, a Christian Brothers spokeswoman. Property-rights advocates say the use of condemnation for big boxes is an abuse of government power that subsidizes big retailers at original landowners' expense. "They're the new generation of robber barons, like the railroads of the 19th century" says Gideon Kanner, a professor emeritus at Loyola University Law School in Los Angeles. "They look upon this as the new way of doing business." The U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions allow the government to take private property, with compensation, for a "public use." But courts over the years have allowed cities and towns to stretch the definition to include economic-development projects, on the principle that one private owner can better create jobs and increase tax revenue than another. Retailers say they're doing nothing wrong. Costco, based in Issaquah, Wash., is the most outspoken of the big retailers in defense of the practice. In a candid letter to a concerned shareholder two years ago, the company's senior vice president for legal and administrative affairs, Joel Benoliel, acknowledged that "probably dozens" of its projects involved eminent domain "or the threat of it." He wrote that if Costco didn't do the deals, "our competitors for those sites, like Target, Home Depot, Kmart, Wal-Mart, BJ's, Sam's Club and many others, would ... and our shareholders would be the losers." Mr. Benoliel says the practice doesn't violate laws or any rules of the free-market economy and rejects as "simplistic" libertarian arguments that condemnations should be confined, as some property-rights advocates argue, to roads, bridges and purely public uses. He says communities, balancing their fiscal needs against the rights of a few, often clamor for a Costco store. "We are viewed as a solution to a problem," he says. Whether condemnees get full value for their property is a matter of bitter debate. Property owners invariably complain they are strong-armed into accepting low-ball offers. In New York's Port Chester, a working-class city on Long Island Sound, developer Bart Didden says that village redevelopment officials this year offered him $250,000 for a lot that a separate local taxing authority assessed last year at $560,000. He is challenging the village's condemnation in federal court in White Plains, N.Y. John Watkins, a special counsel for the village, says all offers were based on "highest approved appraisals," as required by state law. He says he understands Mr. Didden's reaction, but adds that tax assessments and appraisals serve different functions -- "apples and oranges," as he puts it. Also in Port Chester, property owners and tenants alleged in several suits filed since 2000 in state court in White Plains, N.Y., that G&S LLC, the town-appointed developers, tried to prod them into settling pending condemnation suits by, among other things, removing sidewalks in front of a restaurant and filling its parking lot with rubble; tearing out street lights around an antiques store and shearing off the roof of a still-operating coin laundry. Doug Riley, a partner with closely held G&S, Port Chester, says the allegations are both untrue and "100% frivolous." He says that under its agreement with the town, the firm was required to proceed with the project, while working around certain properties still the subject of litigation. "We were proceeding in due course with the project as we were required to do by the village," he says. Suits involving the restaurant, the antiques store and laundry are pending. Lately, cities' power to condemn property has come under increased legal scrutiny. In August, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed a landmark 1981 ruling, widely cited by other states, that effectively barred condemnations for purely economic purposes in that state. Then, in September, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a suit brought on behalf of New London, Conn., property owners challenging the city's plan to clear nonblighted homes and businesses to make way for an office-and-research park. The case, brought by Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C., property-rights law firm, is the first the high court has heard on economic-development condemnations since the 1950s. Last year, a federal judge sharply criticized Target Corp. for its role in a condemnation of a St. Louis site. The case began after Target, which was already renting a store on the site, asked its landlord for permission to knock down the store and build a larger one. When the landlord asked for higher rent, Target never called back and turned to a local alderman, who started condemnation proceedings, according to an opinion by Judge Charles A. Shaw in U.S. District Court, St. Louis. Judge Shaw also found that Target "falsely" threatened the city that it would abandon the store if the condemnation didn't take place. He also found that the Minneapolis retailer and the city commissioned a "blighting study" that found the store's electrical and heating systems had indeed deteriorated -- but failed to note that Target itself was responsible under the lease for keeping the systems up. Finally, the judge found, when the city scheduled a public hearing on the condemnation, in November 2002, it sent notice to Target, but not to the landlord -- a trust representing the Aaron family of New York and others -- which didn't learn of the hearing until a month later. Judge Shaw issued a temporary order halting the taking. Earlier this year, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the order, ruling the case should have been heard in state court. Edward M. Goldenhersh, a St. Louis lawyer for the landlord said the family was disappointed with the appeals-court ruling because the court "ducked the issue." The two sides settled afterward. A Target spokeswoman declined to comment. A spokesman for Mayor Francis Slay didn't return telephone calls. Mr. Trent, the Kansan, had a special hardship fighting his case: When it was filed, he was serving as a U.S. ambassador with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. He says the case began after he rejected a "low-ball" offer from Home Depot's developer, then flew to Baghdad. His lawyer tried to fend off the taking, but a state court in Pittsburg let it go forward this spring. Mr. Trent is challenging the compensation. That case is pending. Allen Gill, Pittsburg's city manager, says Mr. Trent was well compensated, receiving more than $1 million for his property -- a large sum for rural Kansas. He also says Mr. Trent and another owner's opposition blocked a badly needed project that has already sparked other development in town. "Does the greater good outweigh the inconvenience to the two?" Mr. Gill asks. In a statement, Atlanta-based Home Depot said the project would bring "good paying jobs and economic development," adding that "the City of Pittsburg identified this site as an area in need of redevelopment, and the Home Depot was receptive to working with the developer who was negotiating with the city."Supreme Court to hear eminent domain case important to San Diego By KEVIN CHRISTENSEN, The San DiegoDaily Transcript, 9/28/04 The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that will help establish the legality of whether cities can use eminent domain to condemn land for economic purposes. Local experts believe the ruling will have important consequences for the city of San Diego, where numerous properties were condemned to construct a new ballpark and, more recently, a private property was taken in the Gaslamp Quarter and given to a hotel developer. The court will hear an appeal by a group of Connecticut residents that allege the city of New London tried to condemn their property to make way for a five-star hotel, luxury condominiums and office buildings near a facility operated by Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE). The city claims it is trying to reverse decades of economic decline. The case could have a nationwide effect on what some are calling a problem where financially strapped cities are condemning private properties for sale to private companies or other economic interests that promise more tax revenues. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that government agencies could condemn a blighted property so long as they compensate the owner. A subsequent ruling cleared the way for municipalities to take property to break up an oligopoly on land ownership. The New London residents' appeal centers on the U.S. Constitution takings clause, which requires government agencies to pay just compensation when they take over private property. The 15 Connecticut homeowners contend in their appeal that the takings clause also requires a public use and that the government must do more than simply point to the possibility of economic revitalization. The ruling could affect San Diego because the City Council recently approved a 12-year extension for the use of the eminent domain by its Redevelopment Agency. The San Diego Centre City Development Corp., which serves as the liaison to developers, has played an important role in the successful redevelopment of downtown and designating properties for condemnation. David Allsbrook, manager of contracting and public works for CCDC, said that eminent domain has been a "vital tool in implementing the development plan" and bringing new life to downtown San Diego. Bruce Beach, attorney for Best Best & Krieger LLP and counsel for CCDC, said that this ruling will not apply to downtown San Diego because it is a redevelopment area and one of the explicit purposes is to remove blight. Other local experts believe that the ruling may have a major consequence on the city's ability to use eminent domain. "It could have serious repercussion if the court decides that (cities) do not have the right to take the properties," said Roscoe Keagy, an attorney specializing in eminent domain for Asaro, Keagy, Freeland, McKinley & Bartz. Dick Freeland, also an attorney with the firm, said that the city could lose the right to condemn even in development areas. "It would certainly be troublesome," he said. CCDC has recommended that the City Council use its eminent domain powers 14 times since the city began redeveloping downtown San Diego in 1992, according to a list of projects supplied to the council in March. The largest application of condemnation power occurred to make way for Petco Park, when 56 condemnation cases were filed for the ballpark, which opened this year. Forty-nine cases settled out of court, one is still pending and six cases proceeded to trial. Earlier this year the San Diego City Council followed a CCDC recommendation to condemn the Gran Havana Cafe and Cigar Factory to give the property to GRH LLC, a private developer. The owner of the cigar shop, Ahmed Mesdaq, operated the shop at that location for nearly three years and about 10 years in another location on Fifth Avenue. The city planned to sell the property to make way for the construction of the $70 million Marriott Renaissance hotel that will include 334 rooms, about 8,500 square feet of retail space, and a 13,000-square-foot ballroom and meeting space. The council approved condemnation on an 8-1 vote in April 2004, with Councilwoman Donna Frye opposing. Mesdaq has since filed a number of lawsuits in an effort to block the condemnation. Vincent Bartolotta, counsel representing Mesdaq, said this case strikes at the heart of the Mesdaq case. "In this particular case, the use to which the property is going to put is not for public benefit, it is going to a private owner that is going to make a profit," Bartolotta said. "It's going from a little guy to a big guy." Gregory Garrison, an eminent domain attorney for Garrison McInnis LLP, said that this case could either lie to rest all of these lawsuits or open up a lot of old wounds and hold the potential for more lawsuits. "It will end a lot of litigation if the Supreme Court says (a city) can do whatever they want to," Garrison said. "But it will start a lot of litigation if they say the city can't do it." Related Article: Supreme Court asked to review use of eminent domain (Jul. 27, 2004) The Associated Press and Daily Transcript staff writer Catherine Macrae Hockmuth contributed to this report. State says fairgrounds might fetch $1.4 billion, But report doesn't call for sale now By Ed Mendel, Union Tribune, November 6, 2004 SACRAMENTO A new report estimates that the cash-strapped state of California could sell the Del Mar Fairgrounds, 407 acres of prime coastal real estate, for as much as $1.4 billion. The report, issued by a unit created by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to recommend ways to improve state government, says the fairgrounds are "perhaps the state's most valuable commercially used property." But the report this week from the California Performance Review, which also estimates the value of two blocks of state-owned land in downtown San Diego at nearly $30 million, does not call for the immediate sale of the fairgrounds. Instead, the report recommends a planning and economic analysis to determine the "highest and best use" of the fairgrounds and whether part of the property could be redeveloped for other uses while continuing current operations. The Del Mar Fairgrounds is one of about 50 state properties listed in the report on "high-value urban properties," including the Los Angeles Coliseum, San Quentin Prison near San Francisco and the State Fair in Sacramento. "Based on our preliminary assessment, redevelopment or disposition of these properties would unlock $1.6 billion to $4.3 billion in value, depending on future zoning and entitlement provisions," said the report. The report said that some of the state property, including fairgrounds, are of "questionable relevance to the core functions" of state government and should be evaluated for consolidation or sale. In addition to fairgrounds in Del Mar and Sacramento, the report listed state-owned fairgrounds in Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Napa and Contra Costa counties. The state began backing fairs a century ago to promote agriculture. The Del Mar Fairgrounds, operating with a board appointed by the governor, is the home of a major horse-racing track and a number of year-round events. A history on the Del Mar Fairgrounds Web site says that a $500,000 federal WPA grant obtained in 1936 paid for building construction after the state acquired the first 184 acres for $25,000, and an additional 57.2 acres for $10,868. The operation of the Del Mar Fairgrounds provides no revenue now for the state general fund, said Steve Lyle, a spokesman for the state Department of Food and Agriculture. But he said a study done for the department by the KPMG accounting firm concluded that operations at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in 2002 had a $250 million impact on the local economy. Lyle said state records show that the fairgrounds had revenue of $45.4 million in 2003 and expenses of $41.4 million, producing an operating profit of about $4 million. A spokeswoman, Linda Zweig, said the fairgrounds are self-supporting and use profits for improvements and maintenance. She also said the fairgrounds sales taxes are one-third of total sales tax revenue for the city of Del Mar. But the state pays no property tax on the fairgrounds, which are a large part of Del Mar. The state report said that during the summer months, the Del Mar Fairgrounds "generates tremendous traffic, which has resulted in significant local concern." Del Mar's assistant city manager, Joe Hoefgen, said one problem is that traffic for the horse races tends to arrive and leave all at once. He said better management seems to have reduced complaints recently. Hoefgen said the city's only fire station is on the fairgrounds. And on occasion, he said, part of the fairgrounds has been flooded by overflow from the nearby river. Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, elected this week to a state Senate seat that includes Del Mar, said that when she toured the fairgrounds with the state Coastal Commission several years ago there was interest in creating an open-space buffer to protect wetlands on the site. "It's worthwhile to examine how valuable these properties would be," said Kehoe. "But developing them for maximum financial benefit may not be the highest public good." Kehoe said it might be easier to evaluate the sale of the state property in downtown San Diego, two adjacent blocks that include a vacant building, a garage and the State Building at 1350 Front St. The report said that, given the "unprecedented" demand for downtown residential development, the three parcels on the two full blocks might have a total value of $30 million. For San Diego County, the report also lists the Escondido National Guard Armory on a 5.1-acre site, worth as much as $1.4 million; a Caltrans maintenance station in El Cajon on a 1.2-acre site, worth up to $800,000; and a San Diego DMV field office at 3960 Normal St. on a 2.48-acre site valued at up to $1.9 million. The full state report, "High-Value Urban Properties in the State's Inventory," is available on the Internet at www.cpr.ca.gov.City planning commission rejects size limits on big-box retailers By THOR KAMBAN BIBERMAN, The Daily Transcript, Dec. 2, 2004 Wal-Mart, Home Depot and other big-box retailers are apparent victors after the San Diego City Planning Commission rejected a proposal to limit such stores to a maximum 150,000 square feet. On a 3-4 vote, San Diego City Planning Commissioners Dennis Osuji, Mark Steele, Gil Ontai and Tony Letierri rejected the limitation proposal Thursday. "I am happy that the consumer did not see choices limited today," said Peter Kanelos, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) community affairs manager. Kanelos argued that strict design guidelines will prevent certain projects from being built, and Home Depot (NYSE: HD) consultant John Ziebarth said there simply aren't that many parcels on which to build. Commissioner Steele said he voted against the 150,000-square-foot limit because he thought it was arbitrary. "There wasn't any flexibility. There wasn't an ability to go beyond it," he said. Wal-Mart officials are also pleased that a onetime proposal that would have limited its ability to build Supercenters, stores with large grocery sections, was effectively shot down by the commission last June. Wal-Mart's nearest Supercenter is in La Quinta, and Kanelos said it is one of the top Wal-Marts in the country. No immediate plans have been announced to open a Supercenter here. As recently as Oct. 28, the San Diego Business Improvement District Council overwhelmingly voted to support a motion that would have tied store size to taxable sales. Under that proposal, structures exceeding 90,000 square feet would not be allowed to have more than 10 percent of their sales come from non-taxable items. The commission found this provision too restrictive. The 150,000-square-foot limit may be dead, but the commission made it clear that every project of 100,000 square feet or larger will be subject to discretionary review. The commissioners asked that retailers who do build stores of that size be required to make certain improvements. Such improvements could include public spaces or plazas, a parking structure either above or below ground so visitors would not be confronted with a sea of parking, mixed-use development and linear buildings with separate individual entrances. Commissioner Carolyn Chase was concerned that the linear buildings are of a pleasing design. Steele, who is an architect, concurred that this is an important consideration and added that while he is against what he feels is an artificial limit on store size, he does want, whenever possible, stores of a scale that fit in with the City of Villages concepts. "I see some of these as being mini-villages into themselves... I would like to not only see pedestrian links between buildings, but I would like to see pedestrian links to the transit centers as well," said Steele. IN THE SHADOWS OF GIANTS, Rethinking the 30-foot height limit by Craig Tenbroekc, City Beat, 10/20/0k Thirty-two years ago, San Diegans approved an ordinance limiting construction of buildings west of Interstate 5 to 30 feet in height. Today, the city is staring down the barrel of an affordable-housing crisis, and some are questioning whether the North Bay, a hard-edged industrial zone, should be held to the same standards as San Diegos real beach communities. In June, San Diego City Councilmember Michael Zucchet formed an ad hoc committee to establish a vision for the redevelopment of 95 acres of public land anchored by the Sports Arena property. The group, which is composed of 11 community representatives, has spent the past few months debating seven specific policy issues, including superstores, infrastructure concerns, andyou guessed itthe 30-foot height limit. Its a question of priorities, said Joe Mannino, the committees chair. Eventually, the community will have to decide how much they value the 30-foot height limit when its stacked up next to some pressing community needs. If were to say that we want, for instance, housing or affordable housing, there does seem to be a tradeoff, Mannino said. When youre limiting the height in a development, you limit the economic benefit. Therefore, theres less economic benefit to spread around to get more open spaces and affordable housing. Some committee members, like Ernie Hahn, a lessee of the Sports Arena, argue that making the occasional exception to the height limit would help alleviate some of the communitys most egregious ills, especially adult entertainment. His logic is this: adult enterprises must be at least 1,000 feet from residences, schools, churches, parks and social-service facilities. If the district were to make housing more profitable (by allowing developers to go higher), the area would attract more residents, reducing the number of locations where adult venues could set up shop. Other members of the committee, like Jarvis Ross and Jere Batten, arent buying it, and it certainly wont be easy to convince a public still suffering the pangs of a Naval Training Center hangover. The community has been brutalized by NTC, in terms of traffic, in terms of the giveaways, the big developers, the fact that so much of it took place behind closed doors. The public was excluded, and now were paying the price, said Gregg Robinson, vice president of the Peninsula Community Planning Board. Its the once-burned, twice-cautious phenomenon. Thats why you get a very vitriolic and emotional response around the height limit. Given the scarcity of affordable housing in San Diego, dealing with a height restriction in the Midway area is a source of some frustration for Richard Lawrence, coordinator for the San Diego Housing Coalition. There was a point, I guess, when that site was seen as one of those for which you really needed to protect the view, Lawrence said. Well, there isnt any view there now. The 30-foot barrier restricts most residential development to three stories. When you start talking about mixed-usestacking residences atop of businessesyoure usually limited to two, because most businesses will balk at an 8-foot ceiling. While affordable housing can still be profitable within the constraints of a 30-foot height limit, Lawrence said, a 40-foot ceiling would offer the most bang for the buck. If I could build four stories, we could do some really very creative things with the way we design affordable housing in San Diego, Lawrence said. But people dont want to see four stories. Lawrence would support a revision of the 30-foot limit on a case-by-case basis, where economics requires it. He does, however, make an important caveat: I wouldnt want to encourage densities that are any higher than those that are required in order to make affordable housing work. For many in the community, its an issue of trust, rather than practicality. If were looking merely at affordable housing as the issue, we should increase the height limit so we can get in a full three stories and still have businesses underneath, Robinson said cautiously. But a lot of people, even on [the committee], are interested in using affordable housing as a battering ram to open up the height limit. Thats the thing we have to be aware of, he added. Im strongly supporting affordable housing, but Im not doing it with my eyes closed. The committee will release its recommendations soon; so far, the height limit has been the most contentious issue. That a strictly advisory body with no authority to make decisions is having difficulty reaching any sort of compromise proves the extent to which the ordinance has become San Diegos sacred cow. The height limit is one of the few victories that people who are trying to preserve open space and view corridors have been able to win, Robinson said. There is a general fear that if you back down on this, its going to open the gate. Eminent domain hearing gets rowdy, Overflow crowd forces suspension of meeting By Elizabeth White, Union Tribune, Sept. 23, 2004 NATIONAL CITY The city's public hearing on eminent domain grew a bit rowdy Tuesday when an overflow crowd got upset that it couldn't hear the testimony. About 100 people who couldn't fit into the City Council's chambers stood in the hall and yelled, "This is not democracy," and "We can't hear anything." The hearing's chairman, Councilman Ron Morrison, stopped the meeting and two officers from the National City Police Department were brought in as a precaution. There was no violence and no one was arrested. The meeting will resume Oct. 5, when it will be held at the Martin Luther King Jr. Center next door to accommodate a crowd. Tuesday's meeting was cut short after just six of more than 20 anticipated speakers. Morrison was in charge of the meeting because Mayor Nick Inzunza and Vice Mayor Frank Parra had a conflict of interest. They own property that could be affected by the city's proposed expansion of its eminent domain authority. "I do appreciate the 95 percent of the people who were respectful," Morrison said during the council's regular meeting after the hearing, reminding those who hadn't left that the eminent domain amendment is only a proposal at this point. The expanded eminent domain authority, if passed, would allow the city to acquire commercial or industrial property west of Interstate 805 for redevelopment. The amendment specifically excludes any type of residence, unless it is abandoned. "Eminent domain is a really big issue," said Councilman Fideles Ungab. "Let's be rational. Let's debate it and then let's make a decision on it." Once a full joint public hearing of the City Council and Community Development Commission is conducted, likely on Oct. 19 but perhaps as early as the Oct. 5 meeting, the amendment will receive a first vote, said Oliver Mujica, a CDC consultant. At the following meeting the amendment will get a second reading. The city's expanded eminent domain powers can take effect 30 days later. The voting members of the council and CDC are the same, and the groups usually meet separately. "There is a process. It's a rather lengthy and complicated process to complete," Mujica said. "I truly believe that in many cases there's misinformation that's disseminated through the community. There haven't been any discussions about acquiring people's residences." Of the six people who spoke Tuesday night, four expressed concern about the implications of the proposal on their businesses, one worried about a mobile home park and another simply cautioned the council to weigh the issues carefully. "I think for those that do understand," Mujica said, "it's an opinion that they don't want government to have the authority to acquire their property." But Mujica said eminent domain is rarely used and that since 1995, when National City gained the authority over some parts of the city, it has only been used once to build the Wal-Mart.Landmark Eminent Domain Abuse Decision Michigan Supreme Court Halts Eminent Domain For "Economic Development"Court States Poletown Was "Erroneous" 7/31/04 Washington, D.C. -In a case with nationwide implications to halt the abuse of eminent domain, the Michigan Supreme Court last night reversed its infamous Poletown decision, which had allowed the condemnation of private property for so-called "economic development." In a unanimous decision in County of Wayne v. Hathcock, issued at 9:30 p.m. on Friday, July 30, the Court decisively rejected the notion that "a private entity's pursuit of profit was a 'public use' for constitutional takings purposes simply because one entity's profit maximization contributed to the health of the general economy." In the 1981 Poletown decision, the Michigan Supreme Court allowed the City of Detroit to bulldoze an entire neighborhood, complete with more than 1,000 residences, 600 businesses, and numerous churches, in order to give the property to General Motors for an auto plant. That case set the precedent, both in Michigan and across the country, for widespread abuse of the power of eminent domain. It sent the signal that courts would not interfere, no matter how private the purpose of the taking. But in Hathcock, the Court called Poletown a "radical departure from fundamental constitutional principles." "We overrule Poletown," the Court wrote, "in order to vindicate our constitution, protect the people's property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law." According to Dana Berliner, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which filed a brief in the Hathcock case, the case has profound nationwide implications. "Poletown was the first major case allowing condemnation of areas in the name of jobs and taxes. It is cited in every property textbook in the country. The Court literally rewrote the book with this decision," said Berliner. The use of eminent domain for private development has become increasingly common throughout the United States. According to Public Power, Private Gain, authored by Berliner, there were 10,000 properties either taken or threatened with eminent domain for private parties in the U.S. between 1998 and 2002. And state supreme courts from Nevada to Connecticut have relied on the Poletown decision when upholding the condemnation of land for private parties. "The Court made an exception in Poletown because of the supposedly enormous benefits of the GM plant," said Berliner. "Instead, the exception swallowed the rule." The application of Poletown in Michigan produced disastrous results.Michigan courts tended to forbid small condemnations for private parties, but when the city and developer claimed the project would have a significant economic impact, lower courts upheld the takings. "Poletown gave cities and developers an incentive to make outrageous, wildly inflated predictions of the impact of the project," explained Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. "It was the worst possible incentive. The Poletown project itself also didn't come close to living up to the promises. In all likelihood, it destroyed more jobs than it created." The Michigan Supreme Court also decided another important eminent domain case, although one that has received less attention. In Detroit Wayne County Stadium Authority v. Alibri, the Stadium Authority told Frida Alibri it would condemn her property if she didn't sell "voluntarily." It promised, among other things, that it would not be given to a private party. After the sale, it was indeed transferred to a private corporation. At that point, Alibri sought to get her property back, because the Stadium Authority didn't have the power to condemn for that purpose, and it had told her that the purpose was not transfer to a private party. The trial court agreed with Alibri; the appellate court, however, agreed with the Stadium Authority. The Michigan Supreme Court returned the property to its rightful owner-Mrs. Alibri. "Most people end up selling under threat of eminent domain, rather than spend years in court fighting it, so these two decisions truly prevent the government from taking property for private parties," according to Berliner. "The government can't convince people to sell by telling them their property will be used for a public use, then turn around and transfer it to a private party." "The Poletown decision gave cities the green light to take property for private parties," said Chip Mellor, president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice. "It was a terrible mistake. Now, the Michigan Supreme Court has restored the rights of all Michiganders to keep their homes and businesses, even if another, politically connected private business wants them. This is a great day for property rights nationwide." The Institute for Justice and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed a friend of the court brief in the Hathcock case, co-authored by George Mason Law School professor Ilya Somin and IJ Senior Attorney Dana Berliner, discussing the disastrous effects of the Poletown decision in Michigan and the country, as well as the failure of the Poletown project to live up to its promises. The Institute for Justice also filed a friend of the court brief in the Alibri case. The Hathcock decision is available at: http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/Opinions-03-04-Term/124070.pdf Supreme Court asked to review use of eminent domain By CATHERINE MACRAE HOCKMUTH, San Diego Daily Transcript, 7/27/04 The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to consider the constitutionality of a widespread municipal practice: using eminent domain for economic development. The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to rule on whether local governments may use eminent domain for economic development when the property being taken is not blighted. In a July 19 petition, the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice asked the court to review a recent Connecticut state Supreme Court ruling that approved the taking of non-blighted homes for economic development. Officials in New London, Conn., want to take 15 homes and businesses owned by seven families and give the land to a private developer to create facilities to complement the nearby Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) research center. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case it could resolve an issue that has divided the states as more localities, including San Diego, use eminent domain powers in the pursuit of increased tax revenues and jobs. At question is when does a city's appetite for revenue and jobs crash head on with the constitutional rights of a private property owner? "If jobs and taxes can be a justification for taking someone's home or business, then no property in America is safe because anyone's home can create more jobs if it is replaced by a business and any small business can create greater taxes if it is replaced by a bigger one," said Dana Berliner, senior attorney with the Institute for Justice. The Fifth Amendment allows the government to use eminent domain to take private property for "public use." Institute for Justice lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to clarify the definition of public use, which historically has included amenities such as public roads, schools and parks. In a 1954 decision in Berman v. Parker, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the use of eminent domain to remove blight and for urban renewal. The issue is pending in court here as Ahmed Mesdaq, owner of the Gran Havana Cafe and Cigar Shop in the Gaslamp section of downtown, fights city efforts to condemn his newly renovated property. The San Diego City Council voted 8-1 on April 27 to condemn the shop in favor of a new $70 million, 334-room Marriott Renaissance Hotel. A Nov. 19 trial date has been set for the condemnation case brought by the city, according to Mesdaq's attorney, Catherine Richardson, a partner with the firm Thorsnes Bartolotta & McGuire. Richardson is also representing Mesdaq in a lawsuit against the city because it refused to consider his own development plans prior to the condemnation, and a separate federal claim to prevent the city from condemning the property. "Before, cities were using redevelopment to clean up blighted areas," Richardson said. "Look at the Gaslamp district and Mr. Mesdaq's property, it's not blighted in any sense of the word." Hotel developer Ramin Samimi, principal owner of GRH LLC, has agreed to cover the city's condemnation costs. Samimi has acquired nine parcels of land along Fifth, Sixth and Island avenues and J Street since the 1990s. Mesdaq has operated the cafe at its current location at the corner of Fifth and J Street for nearly three years and about 10 years in another location. Mesdaq has plans to add 10 loft condominiums to the property and claims he did not know of the hotel development plans when he purchased the land. The city approved an $800,000 renovation of the property shortly after it was purchased. The cafe is not blighted, but it is in an area that has been defined as such under the city's redevelopment plan, which includes about 1,500 acres of land in the downtown area, according to David Allsbrook, manager of contracting and public works with the Centre City Development Corp. (CCDC). State redevelopment guidelines allow local governments to condemn property and pay its owner market value. The city may then sell the parcel to a developer or use it for public use such as a park or road. CCDC has recommended that the City Council use its eminent domain powers 14 times since the city began redeveloping downtown San Diego in 1992, according to a list of projects supplied to the council in March. In four separate projects, eminent domain was used to take homes or businesses in favor of a larger private development, while the rest were taken to relieve a blight or nuisance, or for public use. The biggest use of this power resulted in the development of Petco Park. According to the CCDC's accounting, 56 condemnation cases were filed for the ballpark, which opened this year. Forty-nine cases settled out of court, one is still pending and six cases proceeded to trial. The document states that the redevelopment has generated significant taxes for the city and an "unpredicted physical transformation" of downtown. "We've used the power of eminent domain, I think, judiciously since the plan was adopted," Allsbrook said July 27. A national problem But cities like San Diego all across the country are taking their power too far, and too often at the behest of developers peddling convention hotels or national retailers like Costco (Nasdaq: COST) and Target (NYSE: TGT), according to Scott Bullock, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. He called the relationship an "unholy alliance" that frequently results in the developer paying for blight studies and condemnations. In a 2003 report titled "Public Power, Private Gain," the institute found that between 1998 and 2002 there were more than 10,000 filed or threatened condemnations that involved private-to-private transfers of property in 41 states. California is among the most active states that have condemned property for the benefit of other private parties, with San Jose listed among the "worst" cities engaged in the practice, according to the report. Bullock said the trend began in 1981 with the landmark decision in Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit by the Michigan state Supreme Court. The ruling allowed Detroit to condemn a Polish neighborhood so that General Motors (NYSE: GM) could develop a plant there. The city argued at the time that the plant would help turn around its deteriorating economic condition. The state court is reconsidering that decision and is expected to issue a ruling July 31. The Institute for Justice hopes the Supreme Court will be compelled to hear the case because of numerous conflicting appellate court decisions on the issue. Bullock said the court is likely to make its decision in October. Seven state supreme courts have upheld the right of cities to take non-blighted property for economic development, while eight states forbid private-to-private transfers where there is no blight. Another three are preparing to rule such condemnations unconstitutional, according to the institute's petition to the court. California is not included in any category. Let There Be Blight The Wall Street Journal, April 22, 2004 And, lo, the city fathers looked upon a choice piece of property and declared, "Let there be blight." And there was blight. And it was good too -- at least for the Ohio businessman who wants that land for a $125 million development, and for the city of Norwood, which wants that developer for the new tax dollars it hopes he'll bring in. There's just one hitch: A handful of small businesses and homeowners don't want to sell. Earlier this week, with the help of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice, they took their case to state court, arguing that the designation of their neighborhood under the city's blight ordinance was a sham. It sure didn't help Norwood's case that even the author of the study used by the city to justify that finding conceded in court that it would not be "reasonable" to describe the area as "blighted" or "deteriorated." Alas, this abuse of eminent domain is part of a larger pattern across America. We've written about some of these cases before, most recently the effort by a California city (rightly thwarted by a federal judge) to condemn land purchased by a church so it could be sold to Costco. Last month in Connecticut, the state's high court narrowly upheld the city of New London's right to transfer its powers of eminent domain to a private corporation for economic development. In New Jersey, owners of oceanfront property in the shore town of Long Branch are fighting city efforts to take their homes and replace them with condos and townhouses. And yesterday Michigan's Supreme Court reconsidered a controversial 1981 decision -- a landmark case in eminent domain law -- that saw the blue-collar neighborhood of Poletown condemned and delivered on a platter to General Motors. Notwithstanding the millions in taxpayer subsidies GM received, and the razing of 1,200 homes, the plant ended up delivering only about half the number of jobs promised. Notice anything similar about all these cases? Whereas years ago the "public use" provision of the Fifth Amendment meant invoking eminent domain for, say, a highway or school, expansive court rulings now allow local politicians to seize private property from Citizen A and hand it over to a Citizen B they believe will prove a better class of taxpayer. The slippery slope here is obvious. Because businesses will always pay governments more than homeowners (and large businesses will yield more than small), it's no coincidence that governments tend to invoke eminent domain powers on behalf of the rich and politically well-connected at the expense of the mom-and-pop shop or the family that simply wants to keep the home it's lived in for generations. We grant that in Norwood's case all but a handful of holdouts have agreed to sell their land to the developer. We might even concede that the city, now swimming in red ink, would do better fiscally with the Crate & Barrel it's hoping to entice to the spanking new mall it has planned. But the thing about Constitutional property rights -- the reason we have a Fifth Amendment -- is that they're not supposed to be hostage to what the majority wants. To the contrary, the Founders wrote the right to property into the Constitution not only to secure a citizen's right to his home and livelihood but to serve as a check on government power. At the very least, shouldn't the burden be on those who would take the homes and businesses of others rather than on those who want only to keep what's theirs? Eminent Domain, San Diego Union Tribune, May 2, 2004 Your April 27 editorial "Fair, reasonable" makes a case for eminent domain when it involves acquiring land for public use. Note the words "public use." To use the threat of eminent domain against the Gran Havana Coffee and Cigar Lounge for the benefit of a Marriott hotel is unconscionable. Will this hotel be owned by the public, the citizens of San Diego? Regardless of the hotel rooms (the need for which is debatable) or the additional revenues the city may receive, the project remains a private project not unlike Gran Havana and the investment its owner has made in his building and local community. In theory, we live in a democracy where justice prevails and all parties are equal under the law. In reality, we have government agencies eager to contort the laws to benefit big business at the expense of small business under the guise of revenue enhancement for the city. This is not a public project by any stretch of the imagination. ROBIN WEBER, Normal Heights Do you think you own your home and business? That property you purchased and into which you invested blood, sweat and tears is really yours? Think again. The San Diego City Council has now established a precedent whereby it can swoop in, take your land and give it to your neighbor if it feels your neighbor would produce a larger tax revenue ("City to condemn shop in Gaslamp to clear way for 4-star hotel," News, April 28). No longer is eminent domain reserved for activities like freeways and public infrastructure. Now it is applied to the almighty dollar. Does anything else show a more flagrant disregard for the foundations of freedom and capitalism? If the developer cannot afford to purchase the property legitimately, it should find another lot instead of turning to the council to solve its inability to properly develop a business. The council's reprehensible support of such predatory practices is one more example of poor leadership in our city. JARED JURGENSMEIER, San Diego City Council extends CCDC eminent domain powers for 12 more years By KEVIN CHRISTENSEN, The Daily Transcript, March 24, 2004 After passing a 12-year extension of the city's redevelopment agency powers of eminent domain on Tuesday, City Council members sought to look into ways to quantify and fund more public services downtown. Eminent domain was widely credited by staff of Centre City Development Corp., the city's redevelopment arm, for the renaissance of downtown, including Horton Plaza and most recently Petco Ballpark. "Eminent domain has been a very important tool," said David Allsbrook, public works manager for CCDC. Recognizing that its downtown vision is not complete, council voted 7-1 to support its extension for another 12 years. Councilwoman Donna Frye opposed and Councilman Jim Madaffer was absent. Supplied with a list of instances when CCDC used its powers of eminent domain, Councilman Michael Zucchet said that the powers were used "sparingly." "It's rarely used," he said, but "it's also a very important tool to have in order for a redevelopment agency to function as a redevelopment agency." Zucchet, whose district contains center city, also noted that the power can be revoked. According to CCDC's original charter, the power of eminent domain was set to expire on May 11, 2004. With the extension, the agency reserves the power until May 11, 2016. According to the state's redevelopment guidelines, eminent domain allows CCDC -- with approval of City Council -- to condemn land and pay market value for the property, and sell the parcel to a developer or use it for a public facility such as a park. Leadership of downtown organizations touted its effectiveness for the development of downtown, including the Downtown Partnership and the East Village Association. The Gaslamp Quarter Association and its land use committee supported the extension under the condition that its use be limited to public use improvements, non-conforming uses, facade easements and other limited circumstances, according to Jeremy Cohen, chairman of the committee. Donald Cohen, director of the labor think tank Center on Policy Initiatives, sought a nine-month extension. During that time, concerns from social service agencies, historical preservationists, small businesses and low-income downtown residents and workers could be addressed, Cohen said. Small business owners, like David Duea, showed up en masse to speak against the extension, each with horror stories of their experiences with the redevelopment tool. Duea said that his corporation, after selling its property to JMI, allegedly at the suggestion of CCDC, was not eligible for tax shelters because he sold to a private entity. "I would not wish eminent domain on anyone," he said. Duea said the agency "should be up-front with people it's trying to coerce." Others businesses claim that the money provided by CCDC for relocation does not cover all the costs for moving. Typically CCDC pays market value for the property and a sum for the cost of relocating a business. The CCDC payment does not account for the time the company is out of business or the costs of retrofitting a new building, said Frank Hartung, owner of Grah Safe and Lock Inc., in a separate interview. Hartung's business was moved from a location at 1044 Island Ave. for a parking lot near the ballpark. Another problem cited is when relocating businesses for the ballpark, portions of the properties contained high levels of lead, Hartung said. Upon leaving the properties, relocated owners were forced to pay for the remediation of the land. In most instances, the money taken directly from the settlements paid by CCDC, Hartung said. Reacting to earlier comments from Councilwoman Frye concerning downtown's disproportionate growth in population and the lack of growth of its public safety, the council requested three reports from CCDC. The first is a study on developer impact fees that are waived for developers in the redevelopment area. Developer impact fees (DIFs) are a charge paid by developers to mitigate the effects of the new construction on the areas such more police and fire department personnel, park space and traffic infrastructure. The DIFs are typically waived in a redevelopment area to attract developers to an otherwise unattractive area. Currently downtown residential redevelopers pay about $400 per unit in DIFs, while builders pay more than $7,000 per unit in other parts of the city. That report will appear back before council in 90 days. Councilman Brian Maienschein requested that CCDC appear before council with a study outlining how the agency is assessing new public service and capital improvement needs in light of the new development. Maienschein noted that CCDC could work with the city manager's office to identify these needs. "The time for coordination is now," he said. Zucchet also expressed concern that large buildings are being approved in the East Village without appearing before council. "It's not appropriate that a 500-foot building is approved without approval from this agency," he said. Zucchet's motion included directing CCDC to investigate the possibility of City Council design review before final approval. These two reports will appear back before council in 120 days.City to open discussions on 12-year extension of eminent domainCity Council approves hotel, rattles eminent domain saber at cigar shop By KEVIN CHRISTENSEN, The Daily Transcript, March 31, 2004 The fate of the Gran Havana Cafeand Cigar Shop in the Gaslamp Quarter appears to be doomed. The property, owned by the Cafeoperator, must make way for a 334-room Renaissance Hotel following a series of San Diego City Council decisions on Tuesday. The council approved the design of the proposed hotel and authorized the city's Redevelopment Agency to move forward with a Development Disposition Agreement (DDA). The DDA authorizes staff to work with the hotel developers to purchase whatever properties are needed to build the hotel. The agreement is necessary because hotel developer Ramin Samimi, principal owner of GRH LLC, has assembled nine parcels in a block bounded by Fifth, Sixth and Island avenues, and J Street, but needs one more property. Samimi has been acquiring the land needed to construct the $70 million Marriott Renaissance Hotel since the 1990s. All that stood in the way of the hotel development was the Gran Havana Cafeand Cigar Shop and its owner Ahmed Mesdaq. Mesdaq has operated the shop at that location for nearly three years and about 10 years in another location on Fifth Avenue. The council directed the Redevelopment Agency to take a last crack at buying the property on the now very desirable corner of Fifth Avenue and J Street from Mesdaq. "I would strongly encourage both sides to try and try again," said Councilman Michael Zucchet. While the action from council does not automatically mean that the cafe will be condemned using eminent domain, it moves it closer to that possibility, Zucchet said. "It sets a course of action where the threat intensifies," he said. According to the state's redevelopment guidelines, eminent domain allows the city's redevelopment agency to condemn the land and pay market value for the property, then sell the parcel to the developer or use it for a public facility such as a park. The hotel will include 334 rooms, about 8,500 square feet of retail space, and a 13,000-square-foot ballroom and meeting space. The corner of the Fifth Avenue of J Street currently housing the Gran Havana Cafeand Cigar Shop is slated for a restaurant/bar. Mesdaq and later Samimi's lawyer, Cynthia Eldred, appeared before council on Tuesday, both telling different stories about what was known about the development of a hotel when the property was acquired for the Gran Havana Cafeand Cigar Shop in January 2001. Eldred said that the point is crucial because if Mesdaq knew that CCDC and her client were working on developing the site, he knew that losing the property was a possibility. The developers have spent $2 million over the past six years on the project, Eldred said. Mesdaq claims he did not know about the hotel project. He also said that CCDC approved an $800,000 renovation of his building shortly after the purchase. "If they knew about this hotel, why was my project approved?" he asked. Mesdaq said that the issue strikes at the very core of the misuse of eminent domain rights claiming that it is unfair to take a property and give it to another developer. "If you are not going to protect me from the abuse of eminent domain, then who will?" Mesdaq asked. The developers have presented Mesdaq with alternatives, including purchasing his property and leasing it for less than market rate until construction begins; or offering to move the shop farther down Fifth Avenue and allow for Mesdaq to develop loft condominiums as part of the hotel project, Eldred said. The offer will expire in the beginning of April, she said. However, Mesdaq has repeatedly asserted his commitment to keeping his Fifth and J Street location and have the hotel project built around it. The corner of Fifth and J Street, just blocks from the new ballpark, is increasing in value almost by the minute as a result of Petco Park. Other critics of the plan said that the structure does not have enough parking. "It can't handle users and workers," said Gary Smith, spokesman for the Downtown Residents Group. "Every parking (lot) in the Gaslamp is full, it's not going to work." Urging a no vote, Marsha Sewell, member of the Historical Resource Board, pointed out that two historic buildings will be destroyed or significantly altered to make room for the hotel and there has been mitigation put in place. Wilmer Cooks, vice president of the San Diego Convention Center Corp., said that there is currently a shortage of hotel rooms in the Gaslamp and the region is in danger of losing tourist dollars to other cites. "We need to develop this hotel in order to stay competitive with other conventions centers," Cooks said. Since 1999, the convention center has lost 44 conventions because of lack of hotels, he said.Across the nation, there is growing resistence to eminment domain. Contributed by Bryan Conn, Source: USA Today, Mar 31, 2004, Nation. "The use of eminent domain is meeting growing resistance in courts, legislatures and neighborhoods from Connecticut to Ohio and Colorado. The criticism targets local governments' efforts to spur economic growth by transferring land from homeowners and shopkeepers to developers or corporations," USA TODAY reports. "Local governments are using eminent domain to acquire land for Wal-Mart, Target and other retailers that need big sites for stores. Land also is being taken for manufacturing plants, hotels, condominiums and parking lots." The use of eminent domain is a despotic power, even when just compensation is paid. Eminent domain should be used sparingly and only for a truly public use -- broadly enjoyed by all, rather than by some narrow part of the public. For the federal government it means for a constitutionally authorized use. More precisely, it means for a use that is owned and controlled by the public. Condemnation, after all, transfers title -- either in part, for a regulatory taking, or in whole, for a full taking. If the condemnation transfers title from one private party to another, it is simply illegitimate. Full story: Pushing the limits of 'public use': http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-31-eminent-usat_x.htm City Council broke law on meetings, suit alleges Closed-door sessions illegal, activist says By Jonathan Heller, Union Tribune, March 1, 2004 A government watchdog has sued the San Diego City Council and the board of directors of Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment arm, over what he alleges are illegal closed-door meetings. Mel Shapiro, who successfully sued the City Council in 2002 for meeting in private illegally, filed the new lawsuit Tuesday, saying that the development corporation's board violated the Ralph M. Brown Act several times since 2003 when it met privately with attorneys for the City Council to discuss eminent domain proceedings. The board advises the City Council on downtown redevelopment matters. The council, sitting as the San Diego Redevelopment Agency, then makes the final decisions. The board's attorney, Helen Peak, said members did nothing improper or illegal under the Brown Act, which is the state's open-meeting law. Shapiro alleged that the board violates the law when it meets in closed session with the council's attorneys to act as a party in eminent domain litigation. Shapiro said only the council can do that. Shapiro also alleged that the board failed to make its meeting agendas available to the public 72 hours before meetings, as required by the law, and failed to post sufficient information in agendas about closed session topics. National City Eminent Domain Threat Spreads East to 805 By Ted Godshalk On March 2, 2004, the City Council of National City, acting as the Community Development Commission (CDC), was prepared to expand its power to use eminent domain on all properties in all commercial and industrial zones in the city. By means of an amendment to the National City Redevelopment Project Area. Eminent domain is simply the citys use of the court system to condemn property and remove residents from their homes against their will. This new power would possibly affect the lives of residents in over 900 homes in the redevelopment areas extending from the San Diego Bay east to Interstate 805. Concerned residents and homeowners from National City's Old Town presented the CDC with the signatures of thirty-seven residents on a petition declaring: No Eminent Domain and No Community Development without Community Involvement. Ruben Rubio de Old Town National City spoke at the CDC meeting. He described how the people of Old Town have fought the battle to save their homes many times since the middle of the last century. In the 1950s, Rubio helped form the Home Protective League to campaign for their rights. Rubio added that the city uses scare tactics and that he gets very worried every time the subject of home condemnation comes up. Another homeowner and petition signer, Linda Aguirre, pointed out that if someone was forced to sell their home they would not receive enough money to buy another home, especially so close to the bay. She made it clear she wants to stay in her home in Old Town. One of National City Mayor Inzunza's ten visionary goals is the promotion of neighborhoods we can all be proud of, complete with new housing opportunities. The residents of Old Town National City already have a sense of pride, which is felt by people like Ruben Rubio and Maria Avalos, a resident and homeowner for 80 years. The pride of Old Town is felt by the young students of Kimball Elementary, by the many parishioners of St. Anthonys Church, and by many other residents. It is their pride, their history, and their deep sense of community that moves them to defend their homes. But what is in store for National City and what do the residents what? If new housing is to be built in their neighborhood, the residents want to play a role in the planning process. If new commercial enterprises want to locate in the city, the residents want them to be environmentally safe and respectful to the surrounding neighborhood. These are reasonable wishes, common to all communities. People resent the plans of developers and city government when the plans are presented in the "final" form. All good urban planning is born from community input. In the last two years National City has seen an increase in new redevelopment. In fact, redevelopment now seems to have a run-away momentum unchecked by community input. Three new projects illustrate this. Wal-Mart hit town the behemoth it is with a new store on Highland Avenue. Whether you agree or not with Wal-Marts corporate policies, it is hard to dispute there are changes set in motion when this big-box store comes to town. One change everyone recognizes is that small neighborhood stores face an even tougher uphill struggle to survive. Second, Costco is proposing a new store near Plaza Bonita. The third example is a plan in the works to renovate Plaza Boulevard as a "Filipino Village" shopping district. The question is: how will this fast-paced redevelopment, unchecked by community input, serve our community needs? All redevelopment projects require CDC approval and some project require CDC financial assistance. In the future, the mayor and city council will exercise their power to sell municipal bonds of a value from $30 million to $100 million and use the money to condemn and purchase properties through eminent domain. The debt from the bonds may strain city funding of needed services. Will this serve our community needs? National City is not a collection of parcels on a map, divided up in zones to be bought and sold with government subsidies to developers. It is much more. This city is made up of real people, some from long established families and others recent immigrants. This city is not a coal mine where business people can come in, have an audience with a politician or staff member and be granted right to go out and capture resources. When the CDC staff wants t use our tax money to drive homeowners out of their homes it is a sickening and discouraging comment on our city government. When a property owner holds out, refusing not to sell at any price, then the city needs to be more creative with their approach to urban renewal. Bad planning is not an excuse for more power; it is a reason for a limit on power and a call for more community involvement. In the face of the delivered petitions and the speakers passionate defense of their homes, Councilman Ron Morrison said, "its obvious people have lost their trust... I dont think the confidence nor the need is there." Morrison made a motion to exclude any and all single-family owner occupied residences in all zones from the threat of eminent domain. Councilman Luis Natividad seconded Morrisons motion and noted that he was in the trenches with Herman Baca and Ruben Rubio when the battle for Old Town was fought in the 1960s and 70s. Natividad promised, "I dont blame you for being concerned. I will never take out a house as long as I am in here. You dont need to worry."First-term councilman Fideles Ungab added, "I feel for you."The mayor and council members sitting as the CDC voted unanimously to exclude single-family, owner-occupied homes from the Redevelopment Plans eminent domain powers in their amendment. Mayor Inzunza was silent during the discussion period of the meeting. While he voted in favor of Morrisons motion, it is not clear how he feels. Maybe he will add another goal to his vision for National City. Residents of Old Town think he needs to add: I will honor and respect the people who live in National City and I will ask them for their input before I sell out to real estate and development interests. Redevelopment Law in California has given local government many powers over private property; however, the voters still have a role to play in public policy. National City is an example of this. All people of National City not just those in Old Town you need to keep your ears to the ground. Listen for the early rumble of the redevelopment machine. Watch for hearing notices and access the citys website at www.ci.nationalcity.ca.us <http://www.ci.nationalcity.ca.us/> for agendas and minutes of the CDC, City Council, and Planning Commission. Demand that the city adopts policies for notifying property owners of meetings with much more than the minimum 24 hour notice required. Attend your Neighborhood Council meetings and bring your neighbor. If you dont have a Neighborhood Council in your area, you are welcome to come to the Old town Neighborhood Council at Casa de Salud (1408 Harding Avenue) on the fourth Thursday of every month at 6:30 pm. Be vigilant and work together to ensure city staff and elected politicians know what you want for the future of National City. Set the record straight, with a loud voice and as often you can. Let city government know that you have plans for the future that you want to see come to fruition. Settings goals if important too. Community Involvement in all Community Development is a good goal for everyone to start with. Ted Godshalk can be contacted at paradisesecreek@mac.com. The $1.3 billion solution The Orange County Register, February 4, 2004 Instead of taking money from local governments, use redevelopment funds. By CHRIS NORBY, Orange County fourth district supervisor Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes taking $1.3 billion in property tax revenues from local governments to balance the state budget. These funds would be transferred to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) for use by California's public schools. This would assure education its minimum funding as required by Proposition 98. City and county officials have attacked this proposed shift as a raid on revenues for essential public services. We all support schools, but we must not fund them on the backs of cities and counties. If this current tax shift follows the past ERAF formula, counties will lose $915 million, with Orange County being cut by $62 million. California cities will lose $189 million. [] Instead of complaining, however, county and city leaders should find the governor the money he needs without cutting vital local services. And the money is there, right in front of us: It's in the $2.5 billion in annual property tax revenue given to California's redevelopment agencies. This huge outlay is not funding any vital public services. Redevelopment agencies were originally created to alleviate "blight" but have become cash cows subsidizing private development. Stadiums, auto dealers, hotels, movie theaters, big-box retailers and even casinos have all received massive public grants. Costco alone has received $30 million in redevelopment subsidies just in Orange County. Statewide estimates range up to $300 million in total agency handouts for the giant retailer. In San Diego, $36 million has been paid to the Chargers for a ticket-sales guarantee. In Los Angeles, the failing Hollywood/ Highland Mall took $98 million, while Staples Center got $50 million - all from public funds. By law, redevelopment money cannot be used to pay police officers, firefighters, code enforcers, librarians, public health workers or for any local operations or maintenance. Redevelopment funds can only be used for development projects and to pay off the bonds that finance them. Far from alleviating blight, redevelopment is merely subsidizing development that would ordinarily be privately financed - or shouldn't be built in the first place. City officials may defend redevelopment as a tool to attract sales-tax-generating businesses, but retail giants and team owners are pitting city against city for more public handouts. Cities often give away future tax revenues in the form of rebates and land write-downs. The resulting fiscalization of land use has subsidized a vast overbuilding of commercial development. We can and must restore these public funds for public use. The math is simple: Redevelopment agencies annually consume $2.5 billion in local property taxes. Their current annual bond payment obligation is $1.2 billion (principal plus interest). That leaves $1.3 billion in discretionary spending. This is the $1.3 billion the governor can use to fully fund education, without touching city or county budgets. Some may claim that diverting this money will jeopardize redevelopment projects. But where is public money better spent? For Costcos or classrooms? For Wal-Marts or fire stations? For new malls or to fix our streets? To raise pro football salaries or pay police officers? Redevelopment agencies were never intended to be permanent. When an agency is created, by law it is supposed to exist for 30 years; this is so when the blight is alleviated, the agency would shut down. But few agencies actually do shut down. Instead, they continue to be extended indefinitely, and continue to divert property taxes into private development schemes. Even without subsidies, malls, auto dealers and hotels still will be built by private investors - if there is a market for them. That is a private, not a public, responsibility. If redevelopment is to relieve blight, we can use it now to end California's budgetary blight. By using this $1.3 billion in available redevelopment revenue, the governor can fully fund the schools - and do so without adding to the fiscal problems facing cities and counties. Sports Arena panel member is penalized, Fine over delay in filing fiscal reports By Caitlin Rother, Union Tribune, February 19, 2004 A member of the redevelopment committee for the Sports Arena area has agreed to pay a $300 fine to the San Diego Ethics Commission for failing to file two years' worth of economic disclosure reports on time. When Leslie Sanguinetti filed the forms last week, they were 316 days late. Sanguinetti, who was elected to the North Bay Project Area Committee in October 2001, didn't respond to repeated efforts by city officials to discuss her failure to file required annual reports for 2001 and 2002, according to a settlement agreement the commission released last Thursday. The City Clerk's Office sent her a letter last February, asking her to file the required report by the April 1 deadline. When she didn't, the clerk's office sent her another letter, requesting she file it immediately. In October, the commission began an investigation into why Sanguinetti still had not filed her report. According to the settlement, the commission sent her certified letters in October and December, asking her to file a report for 2002 and an amendment to her 2001 report. Commission staff also left four phone messages at her office. City records show Sanguinetti filed a report for 2001 on Dec. 12, 2003. It was not labeled as an amendment. On Feb. 10, she filed the correct forms after the commission published her name on the agenda for its meeting last Thursday and scheduled a hearing on the matter for April 16. The forms list her as "owner-partner" of Seacoast Video Productions in Point Loma, which she describes as a sole proprietorship worth between $100,001 and $1 million. Sanguinetti said she didn't want to discuss the investigation. "It's nobody's business," she said. "I have no comment." She is the only person other than former Councilman Byron Wear whose investigation reached the hearing stage before ending with a settlement agreement. This is the fifth fine the commission has issued since it began investigating complaints in spring 2002. The heaviest penalty was a $5,000 fine against Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. for reporting failures related to a campaign billboard. Each violation of the municipal code carries a fine of up to $5,000. A bit of good news on '60 Minutes', By TIBOR R. MACHAN, Oct 4, 2003, Freedom Way, YumaSun.com Often I am told that my observations are negative, and thats true. I protest the loss of liberty. But behind that lies my most positive idea, namely that free men and women are better at solving problems than those in chains š even in chains that are quite long. This time, however, there is some good news. Mike Wallace surprised me with a segment on the Sept. 28 episode of "60 Minutes" on CBS. The segment exposed without much mercy the dastardly way governments make use of eminent domain. This is the legal provision governments use to take private property for public use, one, however, thats been grossly abused over the years. "Public use" would normally mean building courthouses, police stations, military bases and a few other bona fide public projects, ones supposed to benefit everyone as citizens. Thats what "public" is supposed to mean in a free society. I argued this in my book, "Private Rights and Public Illusions" (Transaction Books, 1995). Nowadays, however, zealous politicians and bureaucrats have perverted the meaning of the term "public." Now what they use it to mean is anything that someone in government deems to be of benefit to more people than the owners provide. Thus, if you own a home š a perfectly decent, clean, livable home š but the mayor of your town believes that someone elses having it would make more money for the city, eminent domain may be used to take it and transfer it to another private owner. Courts throughout the country have been ambivalent about this, what with the idea of "the public" having become terribly ambiguous. Just imagine: You decide that your neighbors car is just not being used to its full value, so you take it. After all, the neighbor is using it only on and off, whereas you could make so much better use of it, driving all around town, getting all kinds of worthy things done with it. Or, say, the neighbor has a radio but rarely uses it, so you take it because, well, you would make so much more use of it, seeing how you love listening to music and news and everything. The idea, voiced by the various bureaucrats Wallace interviewed, was no different from this. They believed the public would benefit from taking the property, for redevelopment and such. To build more expensive homes that would result in higher property taxes. Or give the property to a business that promises to hire more people who will, then, spend more money in town and, of course, pay more taxes than the displaced modest establishment did. And, mind you, this isnt simply put forth as a rationale by government officials, people who certainly rarely show any respect for the right to private property. No, other persons, including people who own businesses, are often completely complicit in such schemes. As "60 Minutes" showed, an Ace Hardware store owner was egging on city officials in a town to take away the property on which someone else was conducting a perfectly solvent operation. But because the existing establishment didnt yield the level of taxes the new one was likely to, the city should use eminent domain laws and take it. What was so clear about the process is how corrupt it is. The mayor of one town where eminent domain was being misused like this openly
admitted that the term "blighted" had been used quite arbitrarily, to mean nothing more than that they dont want the place there any longer.
So, words can be distorted for the sheer purpose of getting away with out-and-out
robbery, to seize property that clearly belongs to someone, usually for some price
the victim does not want. (Fortunately, the Institute of Justice, a vigilant organization
in Washington, is going after these eminent domain abusers and standing up for
their victims.) |
|||
SD
COASTAL ALLIANCE MISSION POLITICS
SCORECARD ISSUES NEWS SCHOOLS
| |||