California Property Rights

The Castle Coalition has released a report, grading each of the states based on their efforts to protect private property owners and their rights based on changes in their respective state laws.  The Castle Coalition is the Institute for Justice's nationwide grassroots property rights activism project that teaches home and small business owners how to protect themselves and stand up to abuse by governments and developers who seek to use eminent domain to take private property for their own gain.  Stated below is the letter grade, as given by the Castle Coalition, along with a description of the changes that have occurred since Kelo v. City of New London.

California Castle Coalition letter grade of

In 2006, Senate Bills 53, 1206, 1210, 1650 and 1809 were passed in the state of California, all of which simply added additional procedural requirements for condemning authorities to go follow through with prior to condemning private properties. Unfortunately, these bills do not address the issue of private party transfers or the state's definition of blight; meaning that condemning authorities are still able to use eminent domain for private economic development.

Summary

Because of the size and abundance of private properties in the state of California, the legislative reform passed within the last few years doesn’t provide enough security for private property owners. Private party transfers are still allowed by law, and the definition of blight is still addressed in a vague definition. As one of the states where higher numbers of properties are affected, not only does the state need stronger reform, it needs state constitutional changes that will permanently support property owners. Senate Bill 53, Senate Bill 1206, Senate Bill 1210, Senate Bill 1809 and Senate Bill 1650.

Recent Case Law

On June 15th, 2010, the Sixth District Court of Appeals of California issued it's decision in County of Los Angeles vs. Glendora Redevelopment Project.  In this case, Los Angeles County sued Glendora for not making proper blight findings when preparing their redevelopment plan.

The State of California has four requisites for blight finding that were evaluated by the Court of Appeals in this case:

1. The area must be ''predominantly urbanized";

2. The area must be "characterized by" one or more conditions of physical blight;

3. The area must be "characterized by" one ore more conditions of economic blight; and

4. These "blighting conditions must predominate in such a way to affect the utilization of the area, causing a physical and economic burden on the community"

The Court of Appeals determined that Glendora had not met the "physical blight" test by looking at each of the four statutory basis for determining "physical blight": (1) unsafe or unhealthy buildings, (2) code violations, (3) dilapidation or deterioration, and/or (4) defective design or construction.

The court agreed with the county that there was no substantial evidence in their redevelopment plan of any of these conditions.  The court upheld the trial court's invalidation of Glendora's Redevelopment Plan.

Viewpoint

While the trial court was willing to thoroughly evaluate the blight findings to determine they did not act in accordance with the law, what does this really mean for property owner rights?   It appears that the nature of this case relates only to the procedural requirements mandated by law.  Had Glendora included the necessary evidence for "physical blight", there would likely be no case, or the court would likely have ruled in favor of the Glendora Redevelopment Plan and therefore allowed the private to private transfer of land.

Public agencies planning a redevelopment project will likely use this case as a guide when developing their plans and submitting their evidence for blight determination.  Will CA's tightened definition of blight simply act as another procedural requirement agencies must follow in order get their plans approved, or will it prevent the use of eminent domain when it is unjustified?  With the statutory blight designations still vaguely defined, there is a high likelihood that private to private transfers of property will continue to occur in an unjustified manner.