Eminent domain measures would have little effect, analysis finds

Two competing initiatives on the June 3 ballot claim to stop governments from abusing their power to buy private property from unwilling owners.

But in the Sacramento area, Propositions 98 and 99 would address a narrow problem because officials have been sparing in their use of eminent domain, a Bee analysis has found.

Very few landowners would need the protections offered by Propositions 98 and 99 – at least if the past is any indication. About 10 percent of the 120 or so eminent domain cases filed in Sacramento County during the past five years would potentially fall under those protections, according to a Bee analysis of court filings.

At the same time, redevelopment officials say they fear the effects of Proposition 98 – by far the more restrictive of the two – because even a single unwilling seller could block a needed project.

"I could see a scenario with 12 property owners," said Katherine Hess, community development director of the city of Davis. "No. 12 is sitting there holding out. It could be awkward. It could be expensive."

Even though the number of seized properties is small, some say the effects can be dire for those in the path of redevelopment.

Attorney Steven Belzer cites the case of a cleaning business condemned by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

"Capitol Cleaning was in business for 26 years, and they put him out of business," Belzer said, noting that the K Street site still sits empty.

Proposition 98 would bar governments from taking private property to transfer to another private party, most often done by redevelopment agencies to revitalize officially blighted neighborhoods. It also would ban rent control. Its backers include anti-taxers, apartment and mobile home owners, and some farmers.

Proposition 99 would prohibit only the taking of single-family housing, occupied by the owner for at least a year, for use in private development. It does not affect rent control and is backed by local governments, environmentalists and others.

The Bee's analysis found very few cases in which eminent domain was used locally in ways that would be prohibited by either initiative.

Agency's use is 'last resort'

By far the most active user of that kind of eminent domain in the region has been the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, which handles renewal projects for the city and county.

Since 1991, the agency bought about 1,200 parcels as part of its stated mission to remove blight, reduce crime, provide low-income housing and make neighborhoods more livable. Perhaps half of those parcels were for one project, Phoenix Park, an $84 million housing rehabilitation effort.

For 350 of those parcels, the agency took the first step in using eminent domain by passing a formal resolution that such a move was necessary, spokeswoman Angela Jones said.

But in only 30 cases did it have to resort to eminent domain. That adds up to fewer than two parcels per year.

"We typically only use it as a last resort," said Lisa Bates, the agency's deputy executive director. "It's an emotional issue, no doubt. We try to demonstrate a very fair and transparent process."

No seizures in four cities

The 14 other redevelopment agencies in Sacramento, Yolo and Placer counties are even more restrained.

West Sacramento's redevelopment agency last used eminent domain in 1995 to seize a supermarket that had become a crime magnet, said Val Toppenberg, director of redevelopment.

"We're talking about people buying a tall can of malt liquor and drinking it before they got off the property," Toppenberg said. The property was slated for a 550-unit housing project, but the developer recently walked away when the housing market hit the skids.

Among the agencies that have never resorted to seizing land are those in Lincoln, Roseville, Winters and Davis.

Many local agencies even have passed rules forbidding the taking of homes. That is the central provision of Proposition 99, so passage of that initiative would have no effect in those jurisdictions.

About the writer:

• Call John Hill, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 326-5543.