This land is our land

Eminent domain abuses in the Bay Area

By Robert Nathan Eberhart
From the October 2005 Print Edition

On the window of John Revelli’s store rests a sign that reads, “Eminent domain unfair. To learn all about the abuses of eminent domain, please go to castlecoalition.org. Educate yourself. Pay attention. You could be next.” Revelli, a local store owner, recently had his property seized by the Oakland City Council to make way for a proposed Sears Tire Center.

A spate of recent property seizures in the Oakland and Berkeley metropolitan areas has garnered significant media attention and community backlash. The seizures came as the Oakland City Council invoked its eminent domain powers, which were strengthened by the recent Supreme Court decision that made it easier for city governments to seize private property for the use of other private owners and tenants.

The Supreme Court decision of Kelo v. New London, which was handed down on June 23, holds that city governments can force private owners to sell their property to private developers if the proposed project could potentially be beneficial to the public.

The decision eliminated legal avenues property owners can use to protect their property. The Supreme Court determined that property no longer needs to be considered “blighted,” nor must it conclusively prove to benefit public functions to be transferred.

“Redevelopment is very easy to understand. It’s a land grab by corporate interests, ‘big-box retailers and developers,’ to grab land from people like you,” said Chris Norby, an Orange County conservative activist and eminent domain foe, to a meeting of redevelopment opponents last week. Norby attended the meeting, put on by a progressive anti-redevelopment group begun by Oakland residents Bob Brokyl and Alan Crofts.

The cooperation and coordination between Southern California conservatives and Alameda County progressives is indicative of the broad consequences of eminent domain. The recent seizures have unified activists from across the political spectrum in an effort to stop city and state agencies from capitalizing on their new legal powers of land seizure granted by the United States Supreme Court.

Currently, some 24 cities in California have city councils working in concert with local redevelopment agencies to either seize or approve the seizures of private property for private use of another tenant. Almost all of these cases have involved small, family, and locally owned businesses being given to large national and multinational corporations.

“I can’t say how stressful this has been for me and my family,” Revelli said in an interview. “I have personally operated this business for 46 years, and my father 10 years before that and was extremely happy. The property had the best location, the best area, we were right next to the BART station doing great. I couldn’t have asked for more,” Revelli said. “When, after working for 46 years in a family-owned business, one day you are told you can’t, it doesn’t feel very good, to say the least.”

Revelli added, “I have still not received financial compensation for the seizures. The City Council and redevelopment agency have presented three offers, but their definition of fair market price and reality are two different things.”

Two other property owners, Tony Fung and Alex Han, are facing the same situation. Fung, a first-generation immigrant and independent business owner, has apparently not been offered enough money to relocate his business and remains without work or livelihood. Meanwhile, the property that he used to occupy remains undeveloped and abandoned.

State Senator Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, has proposed legislation known as The Homeowner’s Protection Act, that will eliminate the ability for cities to seize private land for private development. “[The Kelo] decision broke the Social Compact that gives government its legitimacy and opened a new era when the rich and powerful can use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain,” McClintock states on his Web site.

McClintock continues, “Stripped of all the sophistries and euphemisms, this is what it comes down to. It used to be that if a widow didn’t want to sell her home to a developer, she didn’t have to. That was the end of the matter, unless the developer sent in a bunch of thugs to beat her up. And, of course, government was there to protect her from the thugs. Now government has become the thug.”

Oakland’s money problems explain the recent seizures. Proposed development along with many future land seizures could potentially bring in the necessary funds to fill the city’s coffers. The city of Oakland is currently strapped for cash, with a projected $45 million budget shortfall for 2003-2005. Lacking any reliable system of production or the political cache to reduce spending enough for a balanced budget, it must rely on increased taxation in combination with budget cuts.

Revelli explains, “We weren’t providing the government with enough money to meet its demands.” Now, Revelli is trying to make people aware of the actions taken by the Oakland City Council. “It is important that people get involved. As people become aware of the problem they will realize that it can happen to anybody, and that there is very little that you can do when it does.”

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot