Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - ANDERSON INITIATIVE (2)CONSENT CALENDAR 1DINV413 SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: June 27, 2006 PENDING NOVEMBER 2006 BALLOT INITIATIVE: THE ANDERSON INITIATIVE City Manager's Office RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council oppose the Anderson Initiative. BACKGROUND The Anderson Initiative, submitted by Anita S. Anderson, contains constitutional amendments to Section 19 of Article 1 of the California State Constitution dealing with eminent domain, regulatory takings, and compensation for property acquisitions. Mayor Pro Tem Marsha McLean is requesting that the City Council take action on this pending initiative. The measure has gained financial backing and has until July 17, 2006, to qualify for the November 6, 2006, statewide ballot. The required 598,105 signatures from registered voters to qualify the initiative have been gathered. Currently, the measure is going through the signature verification process by the Secretary of State to determine if the required numbers of valid signatures have been submitted to place the measure before the voters at the November 2006 statewide general election. Specifically, the Anderson Initiative would prohibit the use of eminent domain by all government agencies and public utilities unless the property is owned and occupied by the government agency which acquired the property, and is used for a stated public use. The term "public use" shall be more narrowly defined and would exclude property acquisitions on economic development or tax revenue enhancement grounds. Additionally, this measure includes the following provisions: "Public use" shall not include transfers of property acquired through an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party unless that transfer proceeds pursuant to a government contract, assignment or arrangement alis ihpyx 00 p0hod �'�m crin5�c�erc u�.�holcl,r,s:i' tewrl tt. Ckol�-- where the private party will perform a public use. 2. Redefines "just compensation" as the sum of money necessary to place the property owner in the same position financially, as if the property had never been taken. 3. Unpublished eminent domain opinions or orders shall be null an void. 4. In all eminent domain actions, prior to the government's occupancy, a property owner shall be given copies of all appraisals by the government and shall be entitled to a separate and distinct determination by a superior court jury, as to whether the taking is actually for a public use. 5. If a public use is determined, the acquired or damaged property shall be valued at its highest and best use, or if the private property is taken for any proprietary governmental purpose, then the property shall be valued at the use to which the government intends to put the property. 6. In all eminent domain actions, fair market value shall be defined as the highest price the property would bring on the open market. 7. Redefines "damage" to private property to include government actions resulting in substantial economic loss. 8. Property owners shall not be liable to the government for attorney fees or costs in any eminent domain proceeding. This measure does not prohibit property acquisitions under a declared state of emergency or to abate blight, hazardous substances, or environmental conditions. Blight determinations would have to made on a parcel -by -parcel basis instead of by designating a project area as current law provides. If this initiative is passed, it could only be changed by another initiative. The State's Legislative Analyst claims the measure could potentially impose major future costs for state and local governments to pay damages, modify regulatory policies, and to acquire property for public purposes. The passage of this measure and the subsequent amendments to the state constitution would likely impact a wide variety of city projects including roads and highways, affordable housing, and redevelopment efforts in Downtown Newhall. Costs associated with public works projects could significantly be increased at the expense of taxpayers' as a result of this initiative redefining just compensation and changes to property valuation requirements. Additional concerns are that provisions in this initiative would significantly erode environmental protections, and would limit the ability of government agencies to restrict sprawl and protect open space. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other actions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT The action to oppose the Anderson Initiative does not require any resources beyond those already accounted for in the City's proposed 2006/07 budget. ATTACHMENTS Anderson Initiative December 13, 2005 The Honorable Bill Lockyer Attorney General, State of California Office of the Attorney General ATTN:Initiative Coordinator 1300 I Street Sacramento, California 95814 Dear General Lockyer: 6MM05 F o l y to CEI VFQ DEC 2 12005 INITIATIVE COORDINATOR ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Pursuant to Elections Code §9002, I hereby request that your office prepare a title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the attached proposed initiative measure. I am registered to vote in the State of California at the address listed below. Included is my check for $200 as required by §9002. Thank you. Anita S. Anderson S19 2005 E0410 Section 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS (a) The California Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law and allows government to take or damage private property only foi a public use and only after payment to the property owner of just compensation. (b) Despite these constitutional protections, state and local governments have undermined private property rights through an excessive use of eminent domain power and the regulation of private property for purposes unrelated to public health and safety. (c) Neither the federal nor the California courts have protected the full scope of private property rights found in the state constitution. The courts have allowed local governments to exercise eminent domain powers to advance private economic interests in the face of protests from affected homeowners and neighborhood groups. The courts have not required government to pay compensation to property owners when enacting statutes, charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions, laws, rules or regulations not related to public health and safety that reduce the value of private property. (d) As currently structured, the judicial process in California available to property owners to pursue property rights claims is cumbersome and costly. Section 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE (a) The power of eminent domain available to government in California shall be limited to projects of public use. Examples of public use projects include, but are not limited to, road construction, the creation of public parks, the creation of public facilities, land -use planning, property zoning, and actions to preserve the public health and safety. (b) Public use projects that the government assigns, contracts or otherwise arranges for private entities to perform shall retain the power of eminent domain. Examples of public use projects that private entities perform include, but are not limited to, the construction and operation of private toll roads and privately -owned prison facilities. (c) Whenever government takes or damages private property for a public use, the owner of any affected property shall receive just compensation for the property taken or damaged. Just compensation shall be set at fair market value for property taken and diminution of fair market value for property damaged. Whenever a property owner and the government can not agree on fair compensation, the California courts shall provide through a jury trial a fair and timely process for the settlement of disputes. (d) This constitutional amendment shall apply prospectively. Its terms shall apply to any eminent domain proceeding brought by a public agency not yet subject to a final adjudication. No statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results or has resulted in a substantial loss to the value of private property shall be subject to the new provisions of Section 19 of Article 1. (e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact "The Protect Our Homes Act." Section 3. AMENDMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION Section 19 of Article I of the state constitution is amended to read: SEC. 19. ja I) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use and only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. Private pronertv may not be taken or damaged for private use. use by agreement with the condemnor, or may be leased to entities that are regulated by the Public Utilities Commission or any other entity that the government assigns, contracts or arranges with to perform a public use Koiect. All property that is taken by eminent domain shall be used only for the stated public use. (3) If any property taken through eminent domain after the effective date of this subdivision ceases to be used for the stated public use, the former owner of the pronertv oreneficiary or an heir, if a beneficiary or heir has been designated for this p=ose. shall have the right to reacquire the Property for the fair market value of the pronertv before theyrogerty may be otherwise sold or transferred. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) adiustments, as had been last determined in accordance with Article XIII A at the time the property was acquired by the condemnor. M The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation. (b) For purpose; of applying this section: M "Public use" shall have a distinct and more narrow meaning than the term enhancement grounds, or for any other actual uses that are not public in fact, even though these uses may serve otherwise legitimate public purposes. (2) Public use shall not include the direct or indirect transfer of any possessory interest in property taken in an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party unless that transfer proceeds ursuant to a government assignment, contract or arrangement with a private entity whereby the private entity performs a public use oroiect. In all eminent domain actions, (3) Unpublished eminent domain judicial opinions or orders shall be null and void. (4) In all eminent domain actions, prior to the government's occupancy, a pro erty public use. imposed by the government. If private property is taken for any proprietary governmental purpose then the property shall be valued at the use to which the government intends to put the property if such use results in a higher value for the land taken. (6) In all eminent domain actions, just compensation shall be defined as that sum of compensation shall include but is not limited to compounded interest and all reasonable costs and expenses actually incurred. (7) In all eminent domain actions, fair market value shall be defined as the highest (8) Except when taken to protect public health and safety. "damage" to pnvate property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to the down zoning of private property the elimination of any access to private property and limitations on the use of private air space "Government action" shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation. U9� A propertv owner shall not be liable to the government for attorney fees or costs in any eminent domain action. (10) For all provisions contained in this section government shall be defined as the (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the California Public Utilities Commission from conditions provided those condemnations are limited to abatement of specific conditions on specific parcels. Section 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT This section shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this section and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this section may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article II or Article XVIII. Section 5. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that finding shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE This section shall become effective on the day following the election pursuant to section 10(a) of Article II. The provisions of this section shall apply immediately to any eminent domain proceeding by a public agency in which there has been no final adjudication. Other than eminent domain powers, the provisions added to this section shall not apply to any staNte, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that results in substantial economic loss to private property. Any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that is amended after the date of enactment shall continue to be exempt from the provisions added to this section provided that the amendment both serves to promote the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden the scope of application of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation being amended, The governmental entity making the amendment shall make a declaration contemporaneously with enactment of the amendment that the amendment promotes the original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation and does not significantly broaden its scope of application. The question of whether an amendment significantly broadens the scope of application is subject to judicial review.