Thursday, August 18, 2005
Calif.: Property rights vs. battling blight
Property rights vs. battling blight
Lawmakers hear proposals to keep a lid on home seizures after a key U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, August 18, 2005
Quotes:
Copyright © The Sacramento Bee
Lawmakers hear proposals to keep a lid on home seizures after a key U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, August 18, 2005
Quotes:
A smorgasbord of proposals for protecting California homes surfaced Wednesday as the Legislature began examining the effects of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has shocked private property owners across the nation.
The high court ruled in June that New London, Conn., was entitled to condemn well-kept private homes and then sell the land to a private developer to improve the city's tax base.
The decision has touched off a scramble to erect new legal barriers against such land grabs from Connecticut to California.
Because California allows property to be condemned where there's an official finding of blight, witnesses at the Senate Local Government Committee hearing disagreed about the significance of the Connecticut decision. Yet there seemed to be wide support for enacting something to shore up homeowner rights here.
The question was what. Concerns were raised about protecting the legitimate powers of local agencies to guard health and safety and encourage economic growth.
"It may be my home; it may be yours," Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, said, voicing the alarm being heard from people who fear their homes have become vulnerable.
McClintock has introduced a state constitutional amendment that would halt redevelopment as it commonly has been used in revitalizing blighted cities for a half-century. The amendment has dozens of co-sponsors but also has powerful opposition.
Copyright © The Sacramento Bee
Comments:
One commentator on the recent Supreme Court eminent domain decision expressed concern about the court ". . . searching through obscure European legal decisions in hopes of finding a new constitutional right to recognize . . ."
A new constitutional right? For half a century we've been building new "public" roads posted with signs reading "Pedestrians, bicycles and non-motorized vehicles prohibited." That's certainly a valid public safety concern, but the same words also accurately describe the kind of new urban and suburban development we’ve been getting ever since we started building freeways.
Post World War II flight from the cities is a primary cause of the urban blight that triggered early renewal programs. Then we did not seek out a "new constitutional right" which could have prevented the kind of urban renewal that warrants scrutiny by the courts. Civil rights protests against sprawl development in its early stages would have had a hollow ring when compared to the vicious racial discrimination prevailing then.
But we’ve known all along that driving a motor vehicle on a public road is a privilege, not a right. Local and county governments violate the rights of citizens who cannot, should not, or choose not to drive, when they approve new urban and suburban development that is accessible and functional only for those who drive motor vehicles. Motor vehicle users are required by law to use seat belts, air bags and/or crash helmets. Development that forces us to depend on motor vehicles is in violation of our right to life.
Suppose Congress or a state legislature proposed a law prohibiting any new urban or suburban development that is not at least as accessible and functional for non-motorists as it is for those who drive. Would anyone challenge it in court? Would liberals and progressives support it as eagerly as California's Democratic legislators supported legislation to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants just before the recall election?
Post a Comment
A new constitutional right? For half a century we've been building new "public" roads posted with signs reading "Pedestrians, bicycles and non-motorized vehicles prohibited." That's certainly a valid public safety concern, but the same words also accurately describe the kind of new urban and suburban development we’ve been getting ever since we started building freeways.
Post World War II flight from the cities is a primary cause of the urban blight that triggered early renewal programs. Then we did not seek out a "new constitutional right" which could have prevented the kind of urban renewal that warrants scrutiny by the courts. Civil rights protests against sprawl development in its early stages would have had a hollow ring when compared to the vicious racial discrimination prevailing then.
But we’ve known all along that driving a motor vehicle on a public road is a privilege, not a right. Local and county governments violate the rights of citizens who cannot, should not, or choose not to drive, when they approve new urban and suburban development that is accessible and functional only for those who drive motor vehicles. Motor vehicle users are required by law to use seat belts, air bags and/or crash helmets. Development that forces us to depend on motor vehicles is in violation of our right to life.
Suppose Congress or a state legislature proposed a law prohibiting any new urban or suburban development that is not at least as accessible and functional for non-motorists as it is for those who drive. Would anyone challenge it in court? Would liberals and progressives support it as eagerly as California's Democratic legislators supported legislation to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants just before the recall election?
