Lockyer Files Papers Opposing Kelo-type Taking In Kern County
The reaction against the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision has reached Southern California. From the SF Chronicle:
In a move that suggests the use of eminent domain by local governments might be coming under closer scrutiny by state officials, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said in court papers Tuesday that a
Kern County city abused its authority under redevelopment law when it declared 15,000 acres of vacant desert land to be blighted and moved to force the owners to sell the property.California City, located in southeastern Kern County near Edwards Air Force Base, used the threat of eminent domain to get most of the owners of the desert land to sell so the property could be turned over to Hyundai Motor America for construction of a 4,340-acre test track facility.
… “Including a large vacant rural expanse of land in a redevelopment project is totally inconsistent with legislative intent,” Lockyer argued in the court papers.
This type of taking is exactly why the Legislature needs to pass Tom McClintock’s bill that will prevent public agencies from using their power of eminent domain to transfer private property to a new private owner.
Similar Independent Sources posts:
- On Topic (Kelo), Minus Our Usual Witty Commentary: The California State Association of Counties published a list of bills currently in the Legislature that address eminent domain post-Kelo. You can see ...
- Harry Reid’s Desert Land Deal Still Under Scrutiny: Back in November as the Democratic Party was celebrating it's election win it came to light that Harry Reid, the new Senate majority leader, had a cou ...
- Forced Property Sale Decision Puts Real News Back on Front Page: Pretty much any paper (or political blog) you look at today will likely have a story about the 5-4 vote Supreme Court ruling giving cities broad power ...
- “How Many Government Agencies Does it Take to Screw in a Light Bulb?”: It almost sounds like a corny joke, “how many government agencies does it take to screw in a light bulb?” Here is a hint, it took 15 years ...
- Three Reasons Arizona Is Looking Pretty Good: In our earlier post on the proposed "free" universal preschool initiative here in California, we had to go dumpster-diving through the Secretary of St ...
July 27th, 2005 at 4:17 pm
A day after the Kelo decision was delivered, Freestar Media LLC submitted a proposal in the town of Weare, New Hampshire where majority opinion writer, Justice Souter, owns a farm house. They requested that the town board condemn the land and give it to them, as private developers, who promise to construct the Lost Liberty Hotel in its place. Their tax revenue would no doubt be higher than the reported $2,500 that Justice Souter paid in property taxes last year. It would create employment and attract tourism. The town has a website, and an economic development committee, which has identified its two main goals: 1) Encourage the formation of new businesses, and 2) Promote tourism. However, contrary to its stated goals and the legally sanctioned purpose of economic development, the town’s board turned down the proposal.
So much for poetic justice. Justice Souter’s influence in his community shielded him from his own ruling. No other rational justification can be found.
Thankfully, the legislative branch is now busy at work attempting to shield private property rights from the Supreme Court ruling. It seems that the two may have switched roles, with the House defending the Constitution, and the Supreme Court writing new laws.
I thought I saw Alice the other day! Or maybe it was Justice Souter –skipping in Wonderland, immune to and above the laws he passes.
July 28th, 2005 at 6:43 am
wrote his Prop. 77 summary from the version that was not circulated and said he will not prepare a new one unless ordered by the court to do so. Lockyer will at least take the right side of the Kelo battle and will support the landowners in a Kern County eminent domain case. In other ballot news, the state Supreme Court reinstated Prop. 80, stating that “it would be more appropriate for opponents to challenge the measure if and when it is approved by voters.” Re-regulating