Eminent domain is the power of government to “take” private property for public purposes. Governments do have that power, and have used it, historically, to acquire property that the community needs to construct new schools, streets and highways, parks, and other similar public projects. Of course, when a government does “take” private property, it has to pay “just compensation.” The government can take your private property for a public purpose, even if you object, but if the government does take your property it has to pay you, and give you a fair price.

As I said, the power of eminent domain has historically been used to acquire property needed for a specific public project to be carried out by the government itself, like a road widening. In a case decided in 2005 (Kelo v. City of New London), the United States Supreme Court broadened that historic understanding. The Court held that a public agency also has the right to take private property (in that case Mr. Kelo’s home) to transfer the property to another person (in that case a developer) to advance a development scheme (in that case a big shopping center) that the government thought was good for the public.

There was a lot of very negative public reaction to the Kelo decision, and various efforts have been made, across the United States, to change the rule that the Supreme Court announced in Kelo. Tomorrow, I’ll talk about two propositions on the June ballots that are reactions to that Kelo decision here in California.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Kelo v. City of New London, a brief explanation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Kelo_v._New_London

Sentinel Editorial: No on 98 / Yes on 99
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/
opinion/ci_9149303?source=rss

No on 98 Campaign Analysis of Land Use Impacts
http://www.monterey.org/ccncl/
packets/2008/080506/4a.pdf

No on 98 Campaign Side-By-Side Comparison
http://landwatch.org/pages/news08/
SidebySideProp98Prop99.pdf

Proposition 99, on the June ballot, would reverse the Kelo decision, which I discussed yesterday. Proposition 98 would amend the California Constitution radically to change the ability of government to use its regulatory powers to advance the public interest.

The text of Proposition 99 says that its purpose is “to prohibit government agencies from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home to transfer it to another private owner or developer.” In other words, Proposition 99 is a straightforward reversal of the Kelo decision.

Proposition 98 is different. It prohibits the “regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.”

Please be aware that the legal effect of these words, contained in Proposition 98, would prohibit rent control (which is the reason that the landlords are funding the Proposition 98 campaign). And these words would also make unconstitutional many of the environmental protection regulations that govern land use. Proposition 98 is not a straightforward reversal of the Kelo decision. It’s a trick. It would fundamentally alter the power of government to regulate land use, and unless that’s what you want, you should vote “NO” on Proposition 98.

There is more information below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Kelo v. City of New London, a brief explanation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Kelo_v._New_London

Sentinel Editorial: No on 98 / Yes on 99
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/
opinion/ci_9149303?source=rss

No on 98 Campaign Analysis of Land Use Impacts
http://www.monterey.org/ccncl/
packets/2008/080506/4a.pdf

No on 98 Campaign Side-By-Side Comparison
http://landwatch.org/pages/news08/
SidebySideProp98Prop99.pdf

Voters Guide on Proposition 98
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/
title_sum/prop_98_title_sum.shtml

Voters Guide on Proposition 99
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/
title_sum/prop_99_title_sum.shtml

I’ve noted that the votes cast on Propositions 98 and 99 will be critically important for the future of land use in the state of California. More locally, voters in the Ben Lomond Fire Protection District may want to review their options with respect to a proposed bond authorization election listed as Measure S on the June ballot.

If passed, Measure S will allow the Fire Protection District to borrow up to $10 million dollars to construct a new fire station. Since borrowed money must be paid back, with interest of course, it’s a kind of bond issue “rule of thumb” that the ultimate cost of a bond issue is about twice the amount borrowed. Thus, if Measure S is passed, it will probably obligate the property owners in Ben Lomond to pay about $20 million dollars over the next thirty years.

If there are 924 households that would be paying this sum, and that seems to be the correct number, then each household would have to pay roughly $22,000 over the next thirty years, or slightly more than $700 per year, or about $60 per month. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to know exactly what the cost will be, and the ballot pamphlet doesn’t provide much guidance. But as you can see, and whether it’s Proposition 98, Measure S, or some other ballot proposition, figuring out what the real effect of your vote will be, before you cast it, is something that every informed voter should be doing.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

The Ben Lomond Ballot
http://www.votescount.com/jun08/
root0603/ballots/bt000021.pdf

The City of Santa Cruz Planning Commission will be meeting tonight. The meeting begins at 7:00 o’clock, and will be held in the City Council Chambers, in the City Hall downtown. The ultimate decision making power of the city is vested in the City Council, but where land use issues are concerned, the Planning Commission has a great deal of authority. Often, the decisions made by a Planning Commission will really determine what happens with respect to a particular planning policy, or with respect to a particular development project.

Tonight’s Planning Commission meeting will focus on a proposed development at 215 Beach Street, right across the street from the Beach Boardwalk. The property is currently the site of the La Bahia apartment complex, which is listed on the City Historic Building Survey. The La Bahia property has not been well maintained in recent years, and the proposal is to demolish La Bahia, delete it from the Historic Building Survey, and to authorize the construction of the “La Bahia Hotel Project,” which would be a new hotel with 125 rooms, a restaurant, meeting space, and a parking garage that would be partially underground and partially above ground.

If this planning decision is one you care about, my advice is not to wait until the City Council holds its hearings on the proposal. Start participating now! Again, the meeting is tonight, at 7:00 p.m. A link to the City website, where you can get more information is below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

City of Santa Cruz website
http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/

If you care about land use and transportation issues (and I truly hope you do), you should mark your calendars ahead for a forum to be held on Thursday, May 22nd, at the Live Oak Grange. The forum is titled: “Designs for a Green Future – The Transportation-Land Use Connection.” The Grange is at the corner of 17th Avenue and Capitola Road, in Live Oak, and the meeting will run from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Speakers will include Lois Fisher, who designs walkable neighborhoods and towns, and was the person who directed the team that designed the Central Petaluma Specific Plan and Smart Code, the first adopted “Smart Code” in the United States. A “Smart Code” is a set of development rules that help promote an alternative to the car-based planning codes that sometimes produce exactly the opposite result of what a community would really like.

Also speaking will be Amanda Eaken, a land use specialist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Christopher Pizzi, an Associate at WRT/Solomon E.T.C., a San Francisco based design firm. Mark Deming, Assistant Planning Director for Santa Cruz County, will be moderating.

The sponsors of the forum note that climate change and peak oil provide a “compelling urgency to transform society’s dependency on automobile transportation.” I’d have to say, I think they’re right about that. You can get more information on the forum below.

For KUSP, this is Gary Patton.

More Information

Sensible Transportation website
http://sensibletransportation.org/

People Power website
http://www.peoplepowersc.org/

Forum flyer
http://sensibletransportation.org/
pdf/GreenFuture_4.pdf

For more information on the transportation-land use forum, contact Rick Longinotti at Longinotti@baymoon.com, or Micah Posner at People Power – micah@peoplepowersc.org; Telephone: 831-425-8665.