CORRESPONDENCE - 75E - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

U/1/Z017 7:21.1 : O1 PM Melissa Hammond PTWWW Page 4 Maria a Huizar June 1, 2017 Page 4 an opportunity to assess the adequacy of the offer) or be named as a defendant in a condemnation action. The power of eminent domain is the most coercive power granted to the government under the Constitution relating directly to the ownership of private property. However, with such coercive power comes the responsibility to exercise it appropriately and to seek impartial justice for both the government and private property owner. (See, City ofI os Angeles v. Decker (1977) 18 Ca1.3d 860, 871 ("Decker"}.) Here, the City is ignoring its affirmative obligation wider the Government Code. Rather, the City seeks to force the property owner to accept a knowingly inadequate offer or be involved in a lawsuit, In this instance, the City's conduct Mils below its affirmative duty imposed under the Government Code and higher ethical duty to seek impartial justice. (See, Decker, supra, 18 CaL3d at p, 87I; See also, Gov, Code, §§ 7267.1., et seq.) 3. 1Rased0n00 C.nf rririattlaraa C urre;rztiv.t noavta,the C"tty,cs: ooposetl 1'rtetis 1Yot Planne t Or.L.oca.ted.,in The Manner That Will Be Most,Corrapatible.With the Leadt„Private In'att. The City's consideration and adoption of a resolution of necessity requires a finding that the Project as proposed is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. (Code Civ, Proc., § 1245,340, subd. (e)(2)) In this case, however, the City has not provided adequate information to the property owner of any viable Project alternatives that may exist and enable the City to obtain all of the amenities of the Project as proposed. As far as we can tell, based upon the scant information provided, there maybe other viable project alternatives that will less disruptive and damaging to the Subject Property, the specifics ot'which, however, have not been disclosed to property owner. The City must consider all alternatives before an informed determination can be made as to whether the Project as proposed is "most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.” 4, The.Pro ter .&oaawlut To I3..AeA euiii d.Is Not Neces a .For the Pro lett, One of the mandatory components to the necessity determination is that the property sought to he acquired must be necessary for the project, (Code Civ. Proc. § 1240,030, subd, (c).) The Eminent Domain Law defines "property" to include real and personal property and any interest thereon, (Code Civ. Proc., § 1235.170.) Thus, the City must not only consider whether the property is necessary for the project but also 21197.1.94,t