Editorial: Let's stick to facts, please, on eminent domain

Recall the 2006 election, when advocates for Proposition 90, the proposed constitutional amendment on eminent domain, ran highly misleading television ads?

An elderly couple, Verla and Leo Lambert of Garden Grove south of Disneyland said in one ad, "After 50 years in our home, the government tried to take it away from us. They call it eminent domain. Imagine our government taking our home and giving it to a developer. To build a theme park. We love it here; we didn't want to move. It happened to us; it could happen to anyone. We need to protect our homes; so please vote Yes on Proposition 90."

But the government didn't attempt to use eminent domain, and Verla and Leo didn't have their home taken. In part because of misleading campaign tactics like that, voters defeated the ballot proposition.

There is another eminent domain proposition, Proposition 98, on the June ballot. And, from a joint Assembly/Senate hearing April 24, it is apparent that advocates are presenting another slew of misleading examples of eminent domain. Voters beware.

At the hearing, Tim Bittle of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association asked, "What's to stop the government from going into older neighborhoods, condemning them and selling the property to new owners to increase tax revenues?" When pressed by legislators to provide examples or statistics, he indicated that he had come with members of the public who would tell their stories. But it turns out that there's no there there.

First came Ken Woods, owner of a small sewing-machine repair shop in Baldwin Park in Los Angeles County. He said his business property was taken by eminent domain in 1982 and he relocated four blocks away. Now he says, "They're going to take our business again."

Then came Cruz Baca Sembello. She said 100 homes and 200 businesses will be bulldozed in Baldwin Park. Her 80-year-old parents don't want to move, she said.

Both stories are misleading. The fact is that the Baldwin Park project will be built over 10 to 20 years. There's nothing immediate about it. The Bacas have received an offer from a developer to buy their home, which is within the ordinary course of business. No eminent domain proceedings are under way. As for Woods, there haven't been offers to buy commercial property in the project area, much less eminent domain proceedings.

Next came Jerome Hines, who lives in Vista in San Diego County. Hines said a developer who owns land in a redevelopment area wants to buy adjoining property, including property he owns. He doesn't want to sell.

The reality is that the city has plans to improve streets and other public works in that area, but has no plans for redevelopment projects where Hines lives. And the city of Vista has never taken any property through eminent domain for redevelopment. Hines has claimed that a property down the street was taken through eminent domain, but it wasn't. That home was a known drug house and when it came up for sale, the city bought it and demolished it.

There are legitimate points to be debated about eminent domain. As the election campaign proceeds, is it too much to ask that this debate stick to an honest accounting of the actual use of eminent domain in California?