City abused eminent domain to steal property, California court rules

February 20, 10:23 AMCivil Liberties ExaminerJ.D. Tuccille

Previous Next

Comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Civil Liberties Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Calling Stockton, California's 2003 seizure of Marina Tower a case of “condemn first, decide what to do with the property later,” that state's Third District Court of Appeals ruled that the city had no right to take the property and that municipal officials grossly abused their discretion with what amounted to a naked land grab. While a firm slap at Stockton's misconduct, the decision is less than a full victory for the property owners who have been awarded legal expenses but must go back to court for a final outcome in the case.

In its decision (PDF), the court pointed out that California eminent domain law requires government bodies to specify the public use to which they plan to put seized property. Instead, though, the city council "passed nondescript, amorphous resolutions of necessity" that named the taking of the land as the whole purpose of the eminent domain action.

But to say that the project is the “acquisition of additional land” is the same as saying the project is the condemnation itself.

At the time of the taking, the only project that seemed to be in play was the awarding of the property to a private developer for the construction of apartments. As such, the land-grab came close to being the sort of sweetheart "economic development" deal that received the U.S. Supreme Court's seal of approval in the controversial Kelo case, and which has been roundly condemned across the country ever since. Ultimately, though, the taking was even more egregious, with no actual purpose specified at all to justify the condemnation. As the court noted, "to say that the project is the 'acquisition of additional land' is the same as saying the project is the condemnation itself."

Only months later did the city decide to use the site for a parking lot and a baseball field.

Simply saying, "we want your land, so give it to us" apparently isn't enough to satisfy the requirements of the law even in a state like California, where property rights are largely eroded. As the court went on to say:

We shall conclude that the project description in the resolutions of necessity was so vague, uncertain and sweeping in scope that it failed to specify the “public use” for which City sought acquisition of the property. This crucial defect precluded an intelligent inquiry into whether City had a legal right to condemn the property and fatally flawed the condemnation process. For this reason, Marina’s challenge to the facial validity of the resolutions was meritorious and City had no right to take the property.

Unfortunately, while the court ordered Stockton to pay the Marina Tower owners' legal expenses, it left them hanging when it came to the remedy. The owners requested that their property be returned, and too bad if the city loses out on the money it sank into the stolen property "because it has no one to blame but itself for failing to proceed according to law." But the court demurred, deciding instead that Stockton "should be afforded the opportunity to adopt new resolutions of necessity for the Marina property containing an adequate description of the proposed projects."

The decision leaves open the possibility that Stockton might resolve the issue simply by filling in the blanks on the appropriate forms with details of the baseball park and the parking lot it built after the fact, penalized only by the cost of the property owners' legal costs.

That's a property-rights victory, California-style.

Contact J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com