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 the status of each, the full text of the bill, status, and its history by searching here. This is pretty dry stuff — to read the list, click on “Read the rest of this entry” below.
Technorati Tags: California, kelo
—
Here’s the list, courtesy of CSAC:
AB 590 (Walters) is a statutory prohibition against using eminent domain to acquire private property for private business development. AB 590 has been referred to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.
SCA 12 (Torlakson and Kehoe) would prohibit government agencies from using eminent domain for the taking of “owner-occupied residential property” for private use. This measure is currently in Senate Rules Committee.
SCA 15 (McClintock) and ACA 22 (La Malfa) are identical measures that prohibit private property from being taken for private use. Under these constitutional amendments, property taken under eminent domain must be owned and occupied by the condemner and must be used only for the stated public purpose. If the property ceases to be used for that purpose, it must be offered to the original owner or the owner’s heirs for the amount of compensation originally received, or the property’s new fair market value, whichever is less. Both measures have not yet been set for hearing in their respective houses.
SB 53 (Kehoe) would require new redevelopment plans to declare whether eminent domain will be used, including prohibitions on the use of eminent domain, and a time limit for the commencement of eminent domain proceedings not to exceed ten years. For plans adopted prior to January 1, 2006, the plan must be amended by July 1, 2006 to include such declarations, including a time limit of January 1, 2009 for the commencement of eminent domain proceedings. SB 53 awaits hearing in the Assembly Local Government Committee.
We expect SB 1026 be amended to contain language that would impose a two-year moratorium on the use of eminent domain for the taking of owner-occupied residential property for private use. Authored by Senator Christine Kehoe, the bill would also require the California Research Bureau to report to the Legislature by January 1, 2007 on all condemnations of owner-occupied residential property for private use from 1996 to 2006 and what became of those properties.
SB 1099 (Hollingsworth) would prohibit the use of eminent domain for “agricultural property” unless the condemning government retains direct ownership of the property or the property is transferred to a private entity for health care facilities, public utilities, or transit facilities. SB 1099 is currently in the Senate Rules Committee.
—
It seems to our untutored eyes that AB 590 and SCA 15 / ACA 22 are both worthy, with the latter being more thought out.
Similar Independent Sources posts:
- 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 emi ...
- 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 ...
- A Real Pilgrim Story: Interesting observation from Benjamin Powell, a professor of economics at San Jose State University, about what really happened to the American Pilgri ...
- 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 ...
- Schwarzenegger To Dash Independent Sources’ Hopes?: The day after his re-election, there is speculation that Arnold Schwarzenegger's next race will be for Barbara Boxer's Senate seat in 2010. Which wo ...
August 22nd, 2005 at 9:55 pm
The politicians are out of control. I was in a Chinese restaurant in Sacramento the other night. A State Senator came by our table and walked off with our noodles, claiming “Eminent Lo Mein.”
August 22nd, 2005 at 9:58 pm
I had a similar experience. I was at Olive Garden when a State Assemblyman took my salad in what he claimed was a clear case of “Eminent Romaine.”
August 22nd, 2005 at 10:04 pm
I am not as funny as zippy or art. sigh.
I read that ACA 22 might be on the November ballot if the Assembly would not give it a hearing. Is that true?
August 23rd, 2005 at 10:59 pm
To Irish Lass’ question, I found this here:
“Talking about the mechanics of getting ACA 22 passed, LaMalfa said it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses to place an initiative on the ballot for a voter simple majority approval.
“We hope for the November special election ballot but it is a long shot,” LaMalfa said. “We have a four day window from August 14 to 19 to get that approval. It is more likely we will see it on the June 2006 ballot.”
I can’t find anything from last week indicating it had passed both houses — according to the Legislature’s website, it was scheduled for committee hearings 8/13, but no update on what’s next — so sounds like it’ll be next summer.