City Of American Canyon Online Community Forums

Court: Homes can be seized for private development

With this decision, I would expect a number of developers to go after prime pieces of real estate that prior to this decision they would have never dreamed of.

This is a Supreme Court decision in favor of redevelopment. Now cities and counties can target prime pieces of real estate for a higher and better use( that being the one that brings in the most revenue to cities and counties). Water front homes will give way to water front resorts with room taxes as an example.

Perhaps one of the biggest impacting decisions for redevelopment ever.

The City of AC already utilized Eminent Domain (a right of the government to take private property for public use) in order to have the land for their sewage treatment facility. It will most likely become an issue with the Oat Hill Project. They seem to be able to get what they want regardless of the land/home owners unwillingness to sell.

now this really sucks

The difference here is cities have always had the right to take property by eminent domain for streets, public buildings. This decision allows cities to take property for PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT that has some benefit to the public- BIG DIFFERENCE!

Hey Folks,

The New London decision is about ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NOT REDEVELOPMENT.

The City Council appointed a non-profit "Economic Development Association" who recommended that 70 homes be used for a conf center and hotel. Just add the words "Napa Valley" to the front of this and guess what you have? Who runs ours? Anything to do with Wal-Mart?

This case is BIGGER than you think it is.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

Also New London, Conn. was written up in the Chronicle as the Number One "best city" to live in with the balance of housing, jobs and amenties.

Do your own research on the internet!!!

MeadowsGuy seems to have a good understanding of all this!

I'd like to know what he thinks.

Guest, thanks for the above information I looked at the site you suggested and found out ...

The case dealt with the limits of eminent domain, and specifically ruled that, under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, local governments may condemn private houses in order to use the land for uses that are primarily commercial, so long as such use serves a demonstrated "public use."

What homes do you think the city are interested in?

The Couch family who owns the paintball jungle. The city took part of their land and now the couch family has had a problem with the water sewage plant backing up on their land. The city says the couch's have to pay to have it cleaned up. Go figure, 1st they take the mans land, then mess up the land he has left and now they want him to pay for it.

Agree about the Couch property. In my day, it was home to cock-fights, meth labs and other activities that shall be nameless. YES, It was in need of cleanup and the City did the best they could. It is still a problem. It is not a "natural" grove of trees. The owner was trying to corner the market on Eucalyptus Wood as a fuel. Well give him credit for the old college try... but if he went to college he would have known that burning Eucalyptus produces ketones and methyline chloride... MONSTROUS CARCINOGENS now regulated by Prop 65.

Everyone take a deep breath please!

On the New London decision... "guest" is correct.

NEW LONDON, a town in Connecticut, DOES NOT HAVE A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY !! THIS was about Economic Development and I won't torture the readers with the history but essentially Pfizer Pharmecuticals is pushing real hard to put housing in New London to support its regional operations and housing will not happen without a nice waterfront. Go figure...

So here we are... a drug company promising REAL jobs to REAL people at REAL salaries and a waterfront that was doing nothing but attracting drug dealers, hookers and scum.

At the other end of the spectrum, waterfront landowners who could not sell but did not want anyone "forcing" them to sell. In fact, of the 70 odd homes that were affected, 50 of them gladly took the City's offer of "just compensation" and it seems they were very happy to do so. There are 15 landowners who did not want to move AT ANY PRICE. Thus the court battle... as a democratic vote? 50 AYES, 15 NEYS.

What the court has done here is what I call a "democratization" of Eminent Domain. More people in this area of New London wanted it than those that did not. Had the anti-side more people than 15 landowners, the decision may have been different. I don't believe the "liberal" side of the Supreme Court (AKA the "swing" vote) would have made this decision lightly but it really SHOCKED me that they sided for the City. It could only have meant that the City did due dilligence on the matter and their case was pretty solid.

Economic Development has been given the same legal footing now as Redevelopment but with one major difference.

In my opinion, Redevelopment now has much more protections from abuse by Cities than Economic Development. There are 465 pages of legal codification on redevelopment... which includes the formation of a PAC (Project Area Committee aka Citizens) to oversee the Redevelopment agency.

The number of legal pages on Economic Development? ... wait for it.... ZERO. In California, Economic Developement has been about forming a non-profit agency, pointing it in some direction and lighting the fuse.

Be it Economic Development, Redevelopment or something new that has not been invented yet, Cities must set reasonable expectations TO THE CITIZENS on what they intend as Land Use Policies.

It can be argued that IF Vallejo had good land use, the closure of Mare Island would not have even "dented" their economy. Like our Wal-Mart issue, they put all their eggs in one basket... the basket was called Mare Island and the eggs went there because it was a big basket full of money. There is a moral somewhere here.

This is one reason I have taken the side of being against Napa Junction. It is really not MIXED USE at all... not even by a moderate interpretation. If Wal-Mart does fail here and LEAVE (I know the court case is pending), American Canyon could face a New London problem...

1) Time for us all to get serious about who we elect as Council.

2) Time for us to get serious about the General Plan.

3) Time for us to get serious about respecting each other.

I know I'll try to do more of #3 from now on. I know how I feel about # 1 and #2.

Whether I agree or disagree I have respect for my fellow neighbors. We all want to see our community be the greatest.

I have a great idea. Why doesn't each community get a couple of people to represent their subdivision to the City Council requesting what they want and give their thoughts on how to achieve it.

Also am can citizens should be getting the agending for Planning & City Council meetings so when garbage comes up we can fight it as a community. Not just a few who have concerns.

I do have to say one thing. Wal-Mart has brought this community to the City Council Meetings. Instead of 2 people attending each meeting their is steadily about 20. It should be much higher than that, but many people watch it on channel 28 if your one the west side of HWY 29.

I second that motion. I have moved to Vintage Ranch and have just recently been informed that a Home Owner's Association is being implemented. I was not informed of this when I purchased my home. However, I am willing to support it and see that the City Council recognizes it as well.

Any thoughts? Hopefully someone that's a Vintage Ranch resident.

I have moved to Vintage Ranch and have just recently been informed that a Home Owner's Association is being implemented. I was not informed of this when I purchased my home. However, I am willing to support it and see that the City Council recognizes it as well.

Prior to this subdivision being built the assessments were discussed at City Council. Vintage Ranch was supposed to give you the option of paying the $24,000 assessment up front or paying $150.00 a month over 30 years which translate into $54,000. Yeah, that is right they are making a killing off you on the assement if you got suckered into paying it monthly. I would contact the builders and take out a personal loan to pay the amount in full. Even at 10% for 10 years you would still be paying less.

My advice talk to your neighbors and find out if they were given the option to pay in full or make monthly payments. Then file a complaint with the builder, then bring it up at the next city council meeting which is the 1st and 3rd thursday of each month. Public comments start shortly after 7:30pm. Good Luck!

Tom McClintock is trying to stop this Supreme Court decision. You can find more info at his site:

http://www.tommcclintock.net/eminentdomain.htm

Here the city claims it needs the owners mountain top for a secondary water supply tank while it refurbishes its old one. They take the county assessors value(really really low), double it, and say thats what its worth.

The owner, with planning experience, is getting the shaft from Calistoga- and with the new Supreme Court Ruling, this owner will lose his land, sooner rather than later. See the story on the link below.

http://www.weeklycalistogan.com/templat ... D2BCF29277

During the last council meeting the old "Eminent Domain" word came up when council was considering new underground tanks for the waste water treatment facility. Don't tell me Mr. Couch is going to be the victim again.

With Don Callison & Ed West both making City Council, landowners better beware!

The last City Council meeting Buzz Butler mentioned redevelopment and how we don't have it here in American Canyon. That could all change with the addition of Don Callison and Ed West on City council who are both for redevelopement and eminent domain. It is no secret they are huge supporters of developer Buzz Butler and are willing to do anything to ensure all of his projects go through even break laws of American Canyon as Don Callison did while sitting on the planning commission for the last 8 years. It is also no secret that Buzz Butler has been eyeing the Reid property for sometime.

So I say wake up American Canyon! Let the City Council know your not for stealing landowners property for redevelopment and eminent domain.