From the Email InBox: Council and City Put on Notice

Grandpa,

I delivered this letter to city council last week. Actually there is some confusion, and Grand Terrace has to abide by it's own Redevelopment ordinances 25, 52, 87 as well as CA state law, health & Safety code sections. They don't go straight to the Supreme Court for their "property takings" right by Kelo, which is prohibited by the 5th amendment and will eventually be overturned, first by most states. The city has not followed much of any rules they are legally required to follow, which will lead to more lawsuits. But they don't "get it" yet, so we still have more work to do.

Grand Terrace City Council members & RDA 1.26.2006

There is no public USE proposed for the land subject to the appraisal before you. It is merely an expeditious taking from one private party for use and monetary gain by another private party or a big box corporation. “No eminent domain for private gain” should instead be your motto. The only purpose here is to take desirable land in a prime location and change it to another’s ownership, at a price arrived at by neither party to the transfer. How fair is that?

It is not “necessary” to construct a public improvement on Jo Stringfield’s land for the purposes of eliminating blight according to the meaning of the relevant CA state statutes. The city already HAS a library, and they also own sufficient land in multiple locations around town that is well suited to library use. Other sensible library sites would be near area schools and homes. Taking these homes and businesses would be excess takings, and break the social contract.

Area business and residents have not been notified of the RDA relocation plan or replacement housing required by CA state law at Health & Safety code Sections. Therefore value condemnation of homes & businesses is unlawful & premature. Alternative and temporary housing has not been provided as required by code. All homeowners, residents, business owners, land owners, tenants and trailer park owners or renters should be advised of their legal rights first, before you use the law against the citizens. Fair play demands no less of you in your position of public trust. Redevelopment relocation assistance should be openly discussed with owners before you proceed with any eminent domain actions, or values placed only on real property.

The RDA should not proceed with voting for “just compensation” for any proposed “takings” in Grand Terrace by eminent domain, because the city/RDA has not followed it’s own rules. You should review your own RDA rules for participation, re-entry and owner notification. False and misleading information has been provided to various land owners, and participation, disclosure of the rules and participation of owners had been subject to favoritism, secret negotiations, land swaps, sales and closed door meetings. You are a public agency, and CA state laws and/or city ordinances outlined in the Redevelopment Act, amendments, rules, ordinances & the Brown Act govern your behavior. You should read and review the applicable city ordinances before you vote. The city staff often tells folks there are no rules for RDA participation, so perhaps even you have never even seen these rules!

Most municipalities restrict the use of eminent domain, exempting any property in which any person resides. Your weasel words say it does not allow use on “residentially designated” property, meaning the zone change to commercial –while the property use remained residential, indicates that you could legally try to take Jo’s house after all. How is this honest communication of RDA intent?

Have you or anyone in your agency exhausted every other method of negotiation at your disposal? Have you hired an ombudsman or professional arbitrator? Have you requested an alternative view and values for the property? Have you have any discussion with the land owners or personal meetings? Have you heard their side of the debate? Has arbitration been tried? Are you only using the biggest hammer in your tool chest? Could you do better than this on behalf of the public?

Vote NO on this first step in taking your neighbor’s property for others to gain. You should represent the voters not city staff. No eminent domain for private gain” should be your motto.