City has no interest in using eminent domain power

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that cities have the power to seize private property through eminent domain for economic development, the opinion is not shared by members of Lodi's city government.

"This should be in the hands of free enterprise," said Councilwoman JoAnne Mounce. "If you want my house, pay for it. If you want the house of the little old lady next door and she won't sell, then you have to wait for her to die. That's how we should do it in America."

Mounce's opinion is shared by Mayor John Beckman who called the court's action "waging a war on private property rights."

Lodi residents expressed their distaste for eminent domain through a petition drive that garnered about 3,500 signatures from people who wanted to force the Lodi City Council to overturn a law that had established a redevelopment agency with eminent domain powers.

In the 5-4 decision reached last week, the court argued that cities can use eminent domain to secure property for development because of the economic benefit to the city. The case centered around a group of homeowners in New London, Conn. who were fighting that cities efforts to take their property to make way for new residential development, office space and a conference hotel.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority decision, argued that the U.S. Constitution allows eminent domain for the "public purpose" of pursuing economic development.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long-accepted function of government," he wrote. "Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose."

However, Justice Sandra Day O'Conner wrote in the dissenting opinion that in light of the decision "the spectre of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Mounce said it's obvious cities need economic development, but that should be done by the market and not by local government.

"If you want it, pay for it, but don't give the government the power to go in on a whim or a politician who is willing to sell out to the guy who gave him the most money during the campaign," she said.

Megan Taylor, director of communications for the League of California Cities, said the Supreme Court's decision does not expand cities' eminent domain powers but only affirms what has always been their right.

"We understand economic development is extremely appropriate and important for cities," she said, explaining that revitalizing an economy is key for cities to maintain a high quality of life for their residents.

She said because eminent domain is so unpopular, most cities do not enter into it without exploring all other options first. "It's not a process (cities) engage in without a lot of caution."

California state law already limits the use of eminent domain to only areas exhibiting blight. The Lodi City Council passed an ordinance creating a redevelopment agency in 1999 to tackle the city's blight, but council members then voted to repeal that law in 2002 after an outpouring of criticism against the redevelopment agency because it had the power of eminent domain.

And, an effort by city staff to revive the redevelopment agency in 2003 petered out when the state's budget crisis drained the amount of funding available for local redevelopment projects.

Former City Manager Dixon Flynn said he has never endorsed a plan to use eminent domain for economic development.

"People want to feel secure in their property," he said Monday. "To have their property taken away from them so somebody else can make money just doesn't seem like the right thing to do."

Flynn said the last time he could remember the city using eminent domain was in 2000 when it condemned a burned-out and abandoned house to demolish it for a new parking lot on Elm Street between School and Stockton streets.

Mayor Beckman said he could only see himself voting to support a plan using eminent domain for a municipal project such as acquiring land to build a bridge.

Beckman said he's not opposed to urban redevelopment, he just thinks it can be accomplished through special property tax allocation districts and low interest loans -- not through cities seizing property.

Beckman also said he supports a constitutional amendment being proposed by state Sen. Tom McClintock R-Thousand Oaks, that would require all land taken through eminent domain be either owned by the government or accessible to the public, and if relinquished by the government pass back to the former property owners or their heirs.

Contact reporter Andrew Adams at andrewa@lodinews.com.