CORRESPONDENCE - 75A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

QBALVARADOSMITH April 15, 2016 Page 5 and not just the public benefit. In reality, this consideration is the only stopgap measure protecting the constitutional rights of the property owner because the weight of the purported public good from a project will always seem to be of more import to a greater group of people than the injury to a single property owner. However, the check on the exercise of the power of eminent domain is the consideration of the private injury. In the seminal right to take cases, Norm's Slauson, Dusek and Izant, the focus has always been on the impact of the public entity's project (or the adoption of a RON) on a single property. This is lacking here, stripping any necessity. Third, and the most obvious failing in the Resolution of Necessity and staff report, is the lack of any description of the amount of property the City actually needs for the road widening. As a result, the City cannot show that the entirety of the Subject Property is "necessary for the project". Code of Civil Procedure §1240.030(c). Based upon the environmental documents, Project plans and the completed portions of the earlier phases, the City likely needs approximately 12 feet in width along the frontage of the Subject Property to widen the road. Accordingly, the amount of property potentially "necessary" is this small strip of the frontage. However, the City wants to acquire the entire parcel, an additional 120 feet of depth. Obviously, the City is using the small frontage strip as an anchor to acquire the entire parcel to accomplish its redevelopment goals. However, not only does it lack a public purpose to acquire the entire parcel, the City failed to even follow the statutory scheme in its attempt to do so. The portion outside of the road widening project area is known as a "remnant" parcel, and is more accurately described as "excess condemnation". Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1240.150; 1240.140-1240.430. However, like all condemnation, the authority to condemn excess property or remnants is limited by the constitutional requirement of a valid public use. Id. The City's prior Resolution of Necessity (set to be adopted in March 2016) lacked any discussion of a remnant parcel or the required statutory citations. Following the receipt of my objection letter, the City has corrected the citation error, but the resolution still suffers from the same failing — the Project is clearly a pretextual path to allow the City to use twelve feet of frontage depth for road widening purposes while acquiring the remainder parcel so as to be joined together and sold to a private developer. The City cannot acquire private property in the guise of a "public project" for an illegal purpose, however that is precisely what is occurring with the proposed Resolution of Necessity. Accordingly, the City cannot show that the entire parcel is necessary for the Project, and even if such an attempt had been made, the City cannot invoke the statutory power to condemn the remnant portion of the parcel. Thus, the City's Resolution of Necessity does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 1240.030(c). In summation, the Resolution of Necessity and staff report lack the materials, specific facts and other information necessary to make any showing of necessity. The Resolution is 4394867.2 -- N1477.1