Protecting Property Rights in California
For far too long, municipal governments have gotten away with trampling on private property rights by abusing the power of eminent domain. Although the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution mandates that land expropriated by eminent domain be used solely for "public use," municipalities across America have used eminent domain to seize privately-held property and give it to the rich, powerful, and politically connected. While a select few developers (as well as cities' tax coffers) have benefited, thousands of citizens have been deprived of one of America's most fundamental rights-the right to private property.
For a while, it looked like the same sad story would be repeated in National City, California, a predominantly Hispanic-American suburb of San Diego. But thanks to Jeff Rowes and the Institute for Justice, it seems this tale may have a much happier ending.
Under Threat: The Community Youth Athletic Center
A fixture in National City is the Community Youth Athletic Center (CYAC), a program started by Carlos Barragan and his son, Carlos Jr. The program, which began in Barragan's backyard, was designed to keep at-risk youth off the streets by providing them with boxing lessons.
The program quickly became hugely successful, and with the help of the San Diego District Attorney's Office, it became a registered non-profit. With the help of private and community donations, the Barragans were able to buy a building for the program, transforming it into a gym and community center for the youth of National City.
Today the CYAC maintains athletic, mentoring, and tutoring programs for its participants and has been acclaimed for its ability to bring stability and support to the lives of children in National City. It requires its participants to follow a code of conduct and stays in contact with educators to ensure that its participants attend school and maintain high academic performance.
Despite the CYAC's immense positive impact on the city, the city government has put the future of the program under threat. Unbeknownst to the CYAC and other property owners, the city was engaged in negotiations with real estate developer Jim Beauchamp to build an exclusive mixed-use, high-rise condominium complex on a site that includes the CYAC's gym. On February 2, 2005, the city and Beauchamp came to an agreement: the city would secure the land for the development, taking away the CYAC's gym and risking its future.
Although the city claims it wishes to protect the CYAC and uses eminent domain as only a "last resort," it has actually been using the threat of eminent domain since the very beginning. Just six days after its agreement with Beauchamp, the city sent the CYAC a letter outlining its plans and told the gym that if it did not negotiate a settlement to give up its property, it would use condemnation proceedings to forcibly take it.
After the CYAC rejected a low offer from Beauchamp, the city offered to move the gym to another property in the city. However, this new property was also in a blight zone, meaning the threat of eminent domain would still hang over the CYAC's head and its future would remain insecure. The CYAC turned the city down.
With negotiations failing and the blight zone that included the CYAC's property set to expire, the city held a public hearing on June 19, 2007 about whether it would re-declare the area blighted. Although the CYAC and numerous citizens voiced their objections at the meeting, the city unanimously approved the extension of the blight declaration on July 17, which means the city is free to condemn property in the zone and seize it with eminent domain.
Coming to the Rescue: Jeff Rowes and the Institute for Justice
Typically, this is where the story would end. California law is practically designed to foster eminent domain abuse by making it extremely difficult to challenge blight condemnations. The standard for what can be considered blight is very low, and any challenges to the blight status must be made within ninety days of its declaration. In addition, the challenge must be to the entire blight zone, not just one's own property. As these blight zones can be massive (the one in National City includes over 700 properties), the time and money needed to mount such a challenge is often simply too much for small property owners to bear, especially when faced with well-financed city officials and developers as their opponents.
Luckily for the CYAC, Jeff Rowes caught wind of the story. Rowes is an attorney at the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian-leaning public interest law firm that, according to its website, seeks to secure "a rule of law under which individuals can control their destinies as free and responsible members of society." As the protection of private property rights is key to this goal, Rowes and IJ took on the case and are defending the CYAC against National City's abuse of its eminent domain powers.
"We're feeling very optimistic"
The future now looks much brighter for the CYAC. According to Rowes, the media and general public have been overwhelmingly supportive of the CYAC and its fight to protect its property rights. The San Diego Union-Tribune has written editorials supporting the CYAC, and acclaimed sportswriter Rick Reilly recently featured an article in Sports Illustrated that attacked National City's efforts to seize the CYAC's gym, giving the story national attention.
With Rowes's and IJ's help, the CYAC is fighting back hard. After city officials extended the blight declaration, the CYAC filed a formal objection to the decision, paving the way for an upcoming lawsuit to remove the blight declaration. If successful, this would remove the threat of eminent domain against the CYAC once and for all.
"We're feeling very optimistic," said Rowes about the lawsuit.
Rowes' optimism extends to property rights across California and the nation as a whole. Although the Supreme Court's sharply divided decision in Kelo v. City of New London dealt a blow to property rights, the tide appears to be turning in favor of protecting private property.
According to Rowes, "The Kelo decision in 2005 was really a low-water mark for property rights," but the decision "really sparked a popular revolution in property rights across the country. States have been passing laws to protect property rights, and state courts are, for the first time in generations, coming down with decisions that are in favor of property rights."
In California, for instance, the new coalition Californians for Property Rights Protection is proposing a ballot initiative called the "California Property Owner & Farmland Protection Act," which would prohibit the government from seizing property through eminent domain for private use, such as with the case in National City. If approved by voters in the next election, it would give California one of the strongest property rights laws in the country. Although some have attacked the initiative, IJ has taken an active role in defending it.
"It feels like momentum has shifted," Rowes said, "and the Institute for Justice wants to take advantage of it and add our own momentum to the cause."
For more information about the Community Youth Athletic center, visit their website at www.cyacboxing.org.
For more information about the Institute for Justice and their efforts in National City, visit their website at www.ij.org.
