July 7, 2006
Issue #27-2006
WANT MORE DETAILS
ON BILLS?
Visit the League of
California Cities
website at
www.cacities.org/
billsearch.
MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS DEPARTMENT SEEKING APPLICANTS FOR MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS DEPARTMENT SEEKING APPLICANTS FOR MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS DEPARTMENT SEEKING APPLICANTS FOR MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS DEPARTMENT SEEKING APPLICANTS FOR MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS DEPARTMENT SEEKING APPLICANTS FOR
LEADERSHIP POSITIONS LEADERSHIP POSITIONS LEADERSHIP POSITIONS LEADERSHIP POSITIONS LEADERSHIP POSITIONS
SSO WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENT COLLECTION SYSTEM TRAINING SSO WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENT COLLECTION SYSTEM TRAINING SSO WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENT COLLECTION SYSTEM TRAINING SSO WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENT COLLECTION SYSTEM TRAINING SSO WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENT COLLECTION SYSTEM TRAINING
UNHAPPY WITH YOUR CABLE PROVIDER’S SUPPORT OF AB 2987? TELL THEM! UNHAPPY WITH YOUR CABLE PROVIDER’S SUPPORT OF AB 2987? TELL THEM! UNHAPPY WITH YOUR CABLE PROVIDER’S SUPPORT OF AB 2987? TELL THEM! UNHAPPY WITH YOUR CABLE PROVIDER’S SUPPORT OF AB 2987? TELL THEM! UNHAPPY WITH YOUR CABLE PROVIDER’S SUPPORT OF AB 2987? TELL THEM!
CANDIDATE’S GUIDE TO ETHICS LAWS CANDIDATE’S GUIDE TO ETHICS LAWS CANDIDATE’S GUIDE TO ETHICS LAWS CANDIDATE’S GUIDE TO ETHICS LAWS CANDIDATE’S GUIDE TO ETHICS LAWS NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE
JULY ISSUE OF JULY ISSUE OF JULY ISSUE OF JULY ISSUE OF JULY ISSUE OF FOCUS ON HOUSING FOCUS ON HOUSING FOCUS ON HOUSING FOCUS ON HOUSING FOCUS ON HOUSING NOW AVAILABLE NOW AVAILABLE NOW AVAILABLE NOW AVAILABLE NOW AVAILABLE
PHOENIX OFFICIALS WIN APPROVAL FOR SMALL HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING PHOENIX OFFICIALS WIN APPROVAL FOR SMALL HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING PHOENIX OFFICIALS WIN APPROVAL FOR SMALL HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING PHOENIX OFFICIALS WIN APPROVAL FOR SMALL HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING PHOENIX OFFICIALS WIN APPROVAL FOR SMALL HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING
BOND BOND BOND BOND BOND
Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2
Page 3 Page 3 Page 3 Page 3 Page 3
??????????????????????? ???????????????
??????????????????????? ???????????????
Page 4 Page 4 Page 4 Page 4 Page 4
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) are asking for comment on the new proposed implemen-
tation guidelines of the latest environmental review procedures for transporta-
tion projects enacted in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transpor-
tation Equity Act for the 21st Century (SAFETEA-LU).
For more, see Page 5.
FEDERAL AGENCIES SEEK COMMENT ON FEDERAL AGENCIES SEEK COMMENT ON FEDERAL AGENCIES SEEK COMMENT ON FEDERAL AGENCIES SEEK COMMENT ON FEDERAL AGENCIES SEEK COMMENT ON
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES FOR UPDATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES FOR UPDATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES FOR UPDATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES FOR UPDATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES FOR UPDATED ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW PROCESS UNDER SAFETEA-LU REVIEW PROCESS UNDER SAFETEA-LU REVIEW PROCESS UNDER SAFETEA-LU REVIEW PROCESS UNDER SAFETEA-LU REVIEW PROCESS UNDER SAFETEA-LU
The League is continuing to work on cable franchising measures in Con-
gress and the state Legislature, even as both bodies are currently on summer
recess. For more, see Page 6.
WORK CONTINUES ON CABLE FRANCHISING LEGISLATION WORK CONTINUES ON CABLE FRANCHISING LEGISLATION WORK CONTINUES ON CABLE FRANCHISING LEGISLATION WORK CONTINUES ON CABLE FRANCHISING LEGISLATION WORK CONTINUES ON CABLE FRANCHISING LEGISLATION
The League has been tracking several bills throughout the legislative
session that would undermine the ability of redevelopment agencies to carry
out their role of correcting blighted conditions and restoring economic vitality
to California communities. These bills were introduced in the aftermath of last
year’s U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision to address what some perceived as
the inequity of local governments’ ability to take and transfer property from one
private party to another for economic development purposes.
For more, see Page 7.
UPDATE ON REDEVELOPMENT BILLS UPDATE ON REDEVELOPMENT BILLS UPDATE ON REDEVELOPMENT BILLS UPDATE ON REDEVELOPMENT BILLS UPDATE ON REDEVELOPMENT BILLSVisit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 2 - PRIORITY FOCUS
July 7, 2006 - Issue #27
The Mayors and Council Members Depart-
ment of the League of California Cities is seeking
enthusiastic, committed elected officials who are
interested in becoming second vice president of
the department.
Due to a vacancy, two second vice president
positions are currently open, with one to be filled at
the department’s business meeting at the Mayors
and Council Members Executive Forum in
Monterey this month. The second vacancy will be
filled at the Annual Conference in San Diego in
September.
Both positions have a one-year tenure, and the
League is asking for all applications for both
positions to be in by July 14.
The second vice president acts in the place
during the president’s and first vice president’s
absence or inability to act. The second vice
president is responsible for overseeing the Mayors
and Council Members’ Academy (MCA) and for
performing any other duties assigned by the
President.
If you are interested in these leadership roles
within the League’s Mayors and Council Members
Department, or for more information, please visit
the Department’s webpage (www.cacities.org/
mc). For an application form, visit the webpage or
contact Robb Korinke at rkorinke@cacities.org or
(916) 658-8258.
Again, the deadline for both positions is July
14 at 5 p.m.
MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
DEPARTMENT SEEKING APPLICANTS FOR DEPARTMENT SEEKING APPLICANTS FOR DEPARTMENT SEEKING APPLICANTS FOR DEPARTMENT SEEKING APPLICANTS FOR DEPARTMENT SEEKING APPLICANTS FOR
LEADERSHIP POSITIONS LEADERSHIP POSITIONS LEADERSHIP POSITIONS LEADERSHIP POSITIONS LEADERSHIP POSITIONS In the May 5 edition of Priority Focus, we
reported on the adoption of regulations regarding
monitoring and data collection for Sanitary Sewer
Overflows (SSOs) by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB). Last week, as a follow-
up to that adoption, SWRCB and the California
Water Environment Association (CWEA) entered
into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) for
collection system agencies training.
The training concerns the recently adopted
general waste discharge requirements for pub-
licly-owned sanitary sewer collection systems.
With the MOA in place, compliance with the newly
adopted reporting requirements will be phased in
by region over a 16-month timeframe.
Regions 4, 8, 9
Enrollment
November 2, 2006
Electronic Reporting Compliance
January 3, 2007
Regions 1, 2, 3
Enrollment
November 2, 2006
Electronic Reporting Compliance
May 3, 2007
Regions 5, 6, 7
Enrollment
November 2, 2006
Electronic Reporting Compliance
September 3, 2007
CWEA is working on putting together training
on the new electronic reporting. The training will
also include an introduction to the sewer system
management plan requirements. The League and
the California Association of Sanitation Agencies
(CASA) are working closely with CWEA and will
get more information out about the training as it
becomes available.
A copy of CASA’s letter announcing the agree-
ment is available on the League’s website at
www.cacities.org/eq.
SSO WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENT SSO WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENT SSO WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENT SSO WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENT SSO WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENT
COLLECTION SYSTEM TRAINING COLLECTION SYSTEM TRAINING COLLECTION SYSTEM TRAINING COLLECTION SYSTEM TRAINING COLLECTION SYSTEM TRAINING
For more information on this and For more information on this and For more information on this and For more information on this and For more information on this and
other League issues, visit other League issues, visit other League issues, visit other League issues, visit other League issues, visit
www.cacities.org. www.cacities.org. www.cacities.org. www.cacities.org. www.cacities.org.PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 3 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
July 7, 2006 - Issue #27
The Institute for Local Government (ILG), the
League of California’s non-profit research arm, has
recently published Success in Public Service: What
You Need to Know Before You Are Appointed or
Elected - a pamphlet designed to give information
on public service ethics laws before those seeking
public office are elected or appointed.
The pamphlet provides answers to three
questions:
• What are the basic principles of public
service ethics laws?
• How can I determine the impact of these
laws on me?
• Where can I get additional help and sup-
port if I still have questions?
Success in Public Service: What You Need to
Know Before You Are Appointed or Elected is the
brainchild of Andrew Massey, a student from
Hastings College School of Law working with ILG.
An updated electronic version of the guide is now
available at www.ca-ilg.org/candidateslawpamphlet.
Due to the overwhelming positive response to
the publication, ILG is working on making a profes-
sionally-designed version in hardcopy form that will
be available for purchase for future elections.
ILG thanks the firm of Best, Best and Krieger
for their support of the Success in Public Service:
What You Need to Know Before You Are Appointed
or Elected pamphlet.
CANDIDATE’S GUIDE TO ETHICS LAWS CANDIDATE’S GUIDE TO ETHICS LAWS CANDIDATE’S GUIDE TO ETHICS LAWS CANDIDATE’S GUIDE TO ETHICS LAWS CANDIDATE’S GUIDE TO ETHICS LAWS
NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE NOW AVAILABLE ONLINE
City Manager David Jinkens (South Lake Tahoe)
recently took his lobbying efforts against AB 2987
one step further. In addition to contacting his
legislators, Jinkens wrote to his local cable provider,
Charter Communications, regarding the cable
industry’s sudden switch in position on the bill from
“oppose” to “support,” based on recent amend-
ments that allow cable companies to “opt out” of a
local franchise agreement if a new provider obtains
a state franchise allowing them to enter the market.
Jinkens’ letter explained that not only is the
cable company’s support of the new contract
abrogation provisions potentially damaging to his
city, but also a show of bad faith and an expression
of the company’s unwillingness in the future to
comply with terms and conditions of its existing
franchise agreement with South Lake Tahoe.
Jinkens further informed Charter that South
Lake Tahoe and other communities would explore
avenues of response to Charter’s bad faith perfor-
mance under its existing franchise agreement.
Demonstrate your unhappiness with your cable
provider’s support of AB 2987! Contact Comcast,
Cox, Charter and other providers serving California
cities that have endorsed AB 2987 with a similar
message against the bill and how the cable
industry’s support of it will hurt your city and its
residents.
UNHAPPY WITH YOUR UNHAPPY WITH YOUR UNHAPPY WITH YOUR UNHAPPY WITH YOUR UNHAPPY WITH YOUR
CABLE PROVIDER’S SUPPORT OF CABLE PROVIDER’S SUPPORT OF CABLE PROVIDER’S SUPPORT OF CABLE PROVIDER’S SUPPORT OF CABLE PROVIDER’S SUPPORT OF
AB 2987? TELL THEM! AB 2987? TELL THEM! AB 2987? TELL THEM! AB 2987? TELL THEM! AB 2987? TELL THEM!
The July edition of Focus on Housing, the League of California Cities’ monthly newsletter cover-
ing affordable housing issues statewide, is now available at www.imakenews.com/focusonhousing.
This month, Focus on Housing features part one of a two-part story that discusses regional
collaborative efforts in affordable housing, two affordable housing success stories, recent affordable
housing news and a listing of upcoming events/workshops in California.
In August the newsletter will contain the second part of the regional collaborative efforts article,
along with an additional feature on preserving affordable housing stocks in the state. If you have an
idea for a future article, or have an affordable housing success story to contribute, please contact
League Communications Specialist Brian Heaton at bheaton@cacities.org.
JULY ISSUE OF JULY ISSUE OF JULY ISSUE OF JULY ISSUE OF JULY ISSUE OF FOCUS ON HOUSING FOCUS ON HOUSING FOCUS ON HOUSING FOCUS ON HOUSING FOCUS ON HOUSING NOW AVAILABLE NOW AVAILABLE NOW AVAILABLE NOW AVAILABLE NOW AVAILABLEVisit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 4 - PRIORITY FOCUS
July 7, 2006 - Issue #27
Following a concerted campaign by city lead-
ers, Phoenix, [Ariz.] recently won approval by
voters of a $6.8 million bond that will provide seed
money to support the construction of four or five
small high schools across the city.
A team of city and school officials from Phoe-
nix has participated for the past two years in a
National League of Cities (NLC) technical assis-
tance initiative to expand options and promote
innovation at the high school level. By taking a
leadership role in passage of a bond issue to
support the construction of small high schools, the
city has established itself as a national leader and
set an exciting precedent for other cities.
Through a competitive process, the city now
will solicit proposed plans for small schools from
its nine school districts that currently have high
schools within the city limits. Each new high
school is expected to have an enrollment of 300 to
500 students and reflect the city’s growing popula-
tion of Hispanic youth and families in poverty.
In addition, the new schools are expected to
target workers of highly needed occupations such
as nursing, medical technology, engineering and
teaching.
Mayoral Leadership
At a recent meeting with city officials and staff,
school district leaders, local businesses and NLC
representatives, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon
stressed the importance of education for his family
as well as for the vitality of the city.
He discussed how a city’s quality of education
affects public safety, economic development,
workplace skills and the overall health and well-
being of a community.
“I believe that we’re going to fail if we don’t give our
kids the best education and the ability and desire
to keep learning,” said Gordon.
PHOENIX OFFICIALS WIN APPROVAL FOR SMALL HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING BOND PHOENIX OFFICIALS WIN APPROVAL FOR SMALL HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING BOND PHOENIX OFFICIALS WIN APPROVAL FOR SMALL HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING BOND PHOENIX OFFICIALS WIN APPROVAL FOR SMALL HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING BOND PHOENIX OFFICIALS WIN APPROVAL FOR SMALL HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING BOND
(Reprinted with permission from the National League of Cities’ Nation’s Cities’ Weekly.)
By Lucinda M. Dugger and Audrey M. Hutchinson
In order to create better public schools,
Gordon recognizes that no single entity will be
successful if it acts on its own.
“It takes many resources,” he said. “Whether
fiscal or human, we must work together with what
is available to provide a variety of options for our
students.”
Deborah Dillon, director of youth and educa-
tion programs for the city of Phoenix, said that
conversations are just beginning on how best to
allocate the money as well as the criteria that will
be used in selecting sites for the new high
schools. Finalized guidelines will be approved by
the mayor and city council.
“We’re not doing to schools, but we’re working
with schools,” Dillon said. “It is important that we
talk to schools before decisions are made on how
to move forward.”
Small Is Not Just About Size
Experts say small high schools tend to be
successful with more students who attend these
smaller institutions — especially low-income and
minority students — passing core classes and
going on to college.
However, Larry Rosenstock, CEO of High
Tech High, a nonprofit organization that develops
small public schools in communities across
California, said that the success of small schools
also depends on factors other than the total
number of students.
He emphasized three key elements that make
successful schools: personalization, adult world
connection and common intellectual mission.
These design elements ensure the needs of
students are met on a variety of levels through
home visits, peer learning and exchange, a one
on one connection with an adult and one agenda
for all students.
Continued on Page 5PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 5 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
July 7, 2006 - Issue #27
How City Officials Can Help
Research by NLC’s Institute for Youth, Educa-
tion, and Families shows that mayors and council
members can be engaged in local efforts to
improve public high schools by:
• Promoting a portfolio of options available
for young people, including small schools, and
being willing to allocate funding or facility re-
sources to support these efforts;
• Highlighting dropout and graduation rates
and engaging the public on potential solutions
through focused community conversations;
• Using their leadership roles to recognize
successful schools and students in their cities;
• Partnering with school leaders to promote
best practices and models that have proven
successful; and
• Convening school, college and university
leaders to develop strategies that bridge high
school and college and ease the transition for
students entering postsecondary education.
Leaders Expand Options
Phoenix is one of five cities engaged in the
“Helping Municipal Leaders Expand Options and
Alternatives for High School” technical assistance
initiative, sponsored by NLC’s Institute for Youth,
Education, and Families with funding from the Bill
& Melinda Gates Foundation.
Other cities participating in the initiative in-
clude: Corpus Christi, Texas; Hartford, Conn.; San
Antonio; and San Jose, Calif.
Details: For more information, contact Audrey
M. Hutchinson at (202) 626-3053 or
hutchinson@nlc.org or contact Lucinda Dugger at
(202) 626-3052 or dugger@nlc.org.
????????? ? HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL from page 4 from page 4 from page 4 from page 4 from page 4
Released on June 29, the document provides
an overview of the review process and offers
guidance in process management. It also fea-
tures five appendices, including the text of the
statutory provision, sample invitation letters for
participating or cooperating agencies, interagency
guidance on transportation funding, guidance on
integration of planning and NEPA processes, and
guidance on issuing statute of limitations notices.
FHWA is seeking comments on the issues of:
flexibility in requirements, adequacy of guidance,
lead agency responsibilities, project analysis
methodologies and coordination of participating
agencies.
FTA is also asking for input on whether it
should require a development schedule for all FTA
projects that require an environmental impact
statement, and whether the FTA should continue
allowing New Starts Alternatives Analysis to be
developed as a non federal planning document or
be merged with the NEPA document.
The agencies will issue a Federal Register
notice announcing the issuance of the final guid-
ance, complete with changes made based on the
comments received. The comment period will
end July 31, until which time the agencies will
interpret the law as set forth in the proposal.
To access the guidance language, visit
www.fta.dot.gov/Section6002.doc.
Comments (which must be identified by the
docket number FTA-2006-24905) may be submit-
ted by any of the following methods:
• Online: Visit http://dms.dot.gov and follow
the instructions for submitting comments on the
DOT electronic docket site.
• Fax: Fax comments to (202) 493-2251.
• U.S. Mail: Mail comments to:
?????? ? ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1
Continued on Page 6Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 6 - PRIORITY FOCUS
July 7, 2006 - Issue #27
????????? ??????????????
ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL from page 5 from page 5 from page 5 from page 5 from page 5
Docket Management Facility
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, SW., PL-401
Washington, DC 20590
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Room PL-401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building at 400 Sev-
enth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
CABLE CABLE CABLE CABLE CABLE from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1
As we reported last week in Priority Focus,
the state Legislature’s Senate Energy, Utilities
and Commerce Committee held two hearings on
AB 2987 (Núñez/Levine), focusing most of its
time and attention on discussion of further
amendments needed to clarify the “build-out”
requirements. While the addition of these re-
quirements represents an improvement in the bill,
they will do nothing to address the serious digital
divide issues that will, in all likelihood, persist in
rural areas of the state, and in communities
outside of telephone or cable companies’ self-
selected service areas. Local agencies will lose
the ability they currently have with a cable fran-
chise to require build-out into all areas of a com-
munity.
The astounding adoption of amendments that
will allow cable companies to “opt out” of their
franchise agreements with local agencies re-
ceived little discussion. The amendments pro-
vide that a cable company can unilaterally abro-
gate a local franchise agreement when a com-
petitor announces that they have obtained a state
franchise to offer competitive service in the cable
companies’ service territory. The cable company
can then apply for a state franchise to serve the
same territory. The League’s strong opposition to
this amendment essentially fell on deaf ears
during the committee hearing. (See also “Un-
happy with Your Cable Provider’s Support of AB
2987? Tell Them!”, p.3).
The question remains as to how expansive
the abrogation of contractual agreements will be,
and what will happen to a cable company’s
support for existing “PEG” (public, education and
government) channels and I-Net services. More
discussion on this issue will occur with the
Senate E, U & C staff and members over the July
recess, as specific language regarding abroga-
tion is fleshed out.
Other Key Issues: PEG, I-Net and Local
Issuance of State Franchise
The League also will continue discussions on
several other issues of key importance to cities.
These include support for PEG and I-Net services
under the new state franchise and pressing for
local agency issuance of a state franchise. We
believe this approach would solve many technical
issues that would inevitably arise when a state
agency is given the responsibility of issuing a
franchise that is implemented locally.
Federal Legislation
Discussions on federal legislation also con-
tinue. A telephone company-sponsored measure
(H.R. 5252) has passed out of the House of Repre-
sentatives; a Senate measure (formerly S. 2686,
now re-numbered to H.R. 5252) passed out of the
Senate Committee on June 28, and now awaits
action on the Senate floor. Both bills establish a
federal franchise system. Neither contains spe-
cific requirements on build-out of services, but the
Senate-passed measure does include language on
PEG, I-Net and other issues supported by the
League and other local government organizations.
Notably for efforts on AB 2987, at this point,
both federal measures would pre-empt state
legislation.
A key criticism of both measures is that they
undermine “net neutrality.” The measures do this
by allowing Internet providers to establish priorities
for Internet content, based upon fees paid by
content providers. While the battle on this issue
appears over in the House, in the Senate these
provisions may prevent passage of federal legisla-
tion this year.
???????? ????????????????????????????????????????PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 7 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
July 7, 2006 - Issue #27
The bills, however, go far beyond the issues
raised in the Kelo case, and if enacted, will signifi-
cantly impair the abilty of redevelopment agencies
to carry out their role of cleaning up blighted
conditions and restoring economic activity in
California cities.
The following provides an update on the status
of these measures.
SB 1206 (Kehoe) would revise definitions
relating to blighted areas and the conditions that
apply to redevelopment plans. The League op-
poses this measure because of the constraints it
would put on the ability of redevelopment agencies
to carry out their responsibilities.
SB 1206 (Kehoe) passed out of the Assembly
Housing & Community Development Committee
during the last week of June, but the author was
forced to take several amendments which remove
several provisions that were opposed by the
California Redevelopment Association (CRA) and
its members. The bill was also approved by the
Assembly Judiciary Committee. It now goes to the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
If this bill is passed by that committee and then
approved by the full Assembly, it will go to a con-
ference committee between the two houses. We
can assume that the author will make every effort
in the conference committee to restore those
provisions deleted from the bill last week.
The following are the major amendments to
the bill:
(1) Sections 2 and 4 of the bill were deleted.
Section 2 contained objectionable changes to
Health & Safety Code Section 33031 which de-
fines “blight.” Section 4 would have repealed the
provisions of SB 211 (Statutes of 2001) which
allow agencies to eliminate time limits on estab-
lishing indebtedness for pre-1994 plans. (Note:
Section 4 of the bill was added on June 19 to
replace another objectionable provision in the bill,
Section 16, which required agencies to make new
findings of blight in order to issue new indebted-
ness.)
(2) Eliminated the “dire inner-city slum”
language as a requirement for blight findings.
However, the amendment left in the requirement
that conditions in the project area be worse than
conditions in the community as a whole. (Note:
We have previously pointed out that this disadvan-
tages the communities that most need help and
will greatly increase the cost of plan adoptions for
all agencies by requiring a survey of conditions in
the entire community [not just the project area] in
order to make a meaningful comparison.)
(3) Replaced “clear and convincing evidence”
language as a requirement for blight findings with
“clearly articulated and documented evidence”
language. (Note: CRA supports this change, but
thinks the language should be in the section of
current law that deals with the contents of the
agency’s report to the governing body [Section
33352] rather than the section describing the
contents of the ordinance approving the plan.)
Although these are significant and necessary
changes to the bill, the League and CRA maintain
oppose positions because of the particularly
problematic provision that each blight condition
must be shown to be significantly worse within the
proposed project area than in the rest of the
community, a concept not now in the definition of
blight.
As stated above, this requirement will present
a hardship to those communities most in need of
redevelopment and increase the expense to
taxpayers for conducting blight findings. In addi-
tion, we oppose the extension of the Attorney
General’s authority to intervene in challenges to
redevelopment agency actions.
AB 2922 (Jones). This bill would expand the
definition of those who can bring about enforce-
ment of affordability covenants placed on projects
by redevelopment agencies to include “a person
or family of low or moderate income who is
eligible to reside in the property.” The bill also
includes a requirement for recording a notice of
re-sale or transfer on property encumbered by
affordability restrictions.
REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1
??????????????????????????? ?????????????
Continued on Page 8Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 8 - PRIORITY FOCUS
July 7, 2006 - Issue #27
The recent amendments return the ability of
agencies to aggregate the housing set-aside
among project areas and remove the burdensome
time-keeping requirements regarding housing fund
administrative costs.
AB 2922 was not heard in the Senate Judiciary
Committee during the last week of June, as
expected, and has been reset for a hearing on
August 8. (Note: It was granted a rule waiver
making that possible since the bill will miss the
legislative deadline for being heard in its policy
committee.)
In the meantime, the League and CRA have
worked with Assemblymember Dave Jones and
the bill’s sponsors to achieve a compromise on
AB 2922 that addresses affordable housing
without weakening redevelopment. As a result,
CRA has removed its opposition to the bill.
SB 1210 (Torlakson). This bill would revise
provisions relating to settlement offers when a
redevelopment agency is acquiring property as
part of a redevelopment plan. The League has
been opposed to the measure, although the
League board of directors is expected to recon-
sider its position in light of recent amendments.
CRA is no longer opposed (although it is continu-
ing to work on technical problems in the bill).
The bill passed the Assembly Housing & Commu-
nity Development Committee and the Assembly
Judiciary Committee last week. It was amended
again on June 15 and currently, its provisions do
the following:
• Makes it more time-consuming and difficult
for agencies to obtain orders of prejudgment
possession. An exception is provided for public
utilities which are allowed an accelerated process
in the event of an emergency situation. (Note:
Discussions continue on broadening this emer-
gency exception to cover more public agencies.)
• Adds a definition for litigation expenses,
which are “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs,
including reasonable expert witness and appraiser
fees,” which is current practice. (Note: In current
law, when a court determines that the public
entity’s offer was unreasonable and defendant’s
demand was not, the public entity is responsible
for the defendant’s costs including litigation ex-
penses.)
• Following a notice of condemnation or an
offer to purchase “under a threat of eminent
domain,” this bill requires the public entity to pay
for the independent appraisal of the property by a
licensed appraiser. Another proposed amendment
will cap the appraisal cost at $5,000.
• Prohibits an officer who is also a member
of the governing body of an organization that has
an interest in, or to which the public agency may
transfer an interest in, property that the public
agency may acquire by eminent domain from
voting on any matter affecting that organization.
A provision in the bill that required an amend-
ment to a redevelopment plan extending the time
limitation on exercising the power of eminent
domain to include findings of substantial remaining
blight was deleted.
SB 53 (Kehoe) (Redevelopment Eminent
Domain procedures). The League has a
“Watch” position on this bill. CRA’s position is
“Neutral.”
The Assembly Local Government Committee
amended SB 53 to codify the finding in the recent
“Blue” court case, which concluded that agencies
must make new findings of blight to extend the
use of eminent domain past the initial 12-year
authorization in plans.
SB 53 was further amended to restore the 12-
year time frame to use eminent domain and to
clarify that agencies must have a plan on how they
intend to use eminent domain within the project
area. CRA has removed its opposition to the bill. It
has been referred to Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
SB 1650 (Kehoe) (Eminent Domain,
Change of use, lease back rights). Both the
League and the CRA have a “Watch” position on
REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT from page 7 from page 7 from page 7 from page 7 from page 7 ??????????????????????????? ?????????????
Continued on Page 9PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 9 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
July 7, 2006 - Issue #27
this bill.
SB 1650 (Kehoe) would do three things. First,
where property acquired by eminent domain or
under threat of eminent domain is proposed to be
used for a different purpose than that stated in the
resolution of necessity, the condemning public
agency would first have to adopt a resolution by a
two-thirds vote declaring the new public use.
Second, it would require a public agency that
does not use property acquired by eminent do-
main or under threat of eminent domain within 10
years to either adopt a new resolution declaring
the public use, or offer the former owner a right of
first refusal to purchase the property at fair market
value. If the new resolution is not adopted and the
former owner declines the right of first refusal,
then the property must be sold as surplus and any
financial gain must be paid to the former owner.
Finally, the bill would require an acquiring
public agency to enter into a lease-back arrange-
ment with the owner of property acquired by
condemnation or under threat of condemnation if
the agency is not going to use the property within
two years.
Proposed amendments would clarify the
situation where the original owner cannot be
located or there are multiple owners. SB 1650
has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
SB 1809 (Machado) (Real Property Disclo-
sures: Redevelopment). Both the League and
CRA currently have a “Watch” position on this bill.
The League board of directors will consider a staff
recommendation to shift to a “support” position at
its July 28-29 meeting.
Current law (Health & Safety Code Section
33373) requires the recordation in the county land
records of a notice that redevelopment proceed-
ings have been undertaken following the adoption
of a redevelopment plan. SB 1809 would require
the notice to describe the contents of the redevel-
opment plan related to acquisition of property by
eminent domain.
REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT from page 8 from page 8 from page 8 from page 8 from page 8
???????? ????????????????????????????????
For existing projects, a revised statement
would have to be recorded prior to December 31,
2007. SB 1809 has been referred to the Assembly
Appropriations Committee where it will be heard
on August 9.
AB 773 (Mullin). This bill would require all
cities and counties meet a 90-day timeline to
gather signatures to qualify referenda to challenge
the adoption of a redevelopment plan (Health and
Safety Code 33378). The requirement currently
applies only to cities and counties with a popula-
tion over 500,000. CRA supports the bill. The
League’s board of directors will take up a recom-
mendation from the League’s Housing, Commu-
nity and Economic Development policy committee
to support the measure when the board meets in
late July.
AB 782 (Mullin). Under current law, a local
agency can make a finding of blight on the basis of
lots being of “irregular form and shape” and
“inadequate size for proper usefulness.” This
provision is commonly referred to as the “anti-
quated subdivision” exception. This bill repeals
this exception to a statutory definition of blighted
areas. It also eliminates antiquated subdivisions
from the definition of predominantly urbanized
areas.
CRA supports the measure. The League’s
HCED Policy Committee has also recommended
a support position, which the League board of
directors will consider at its July meeting.
Restore and protect local control for cities
through education and advocacy to
enhance the quality of life for all Californians.
Our Mission
July 14, 2006
Issue #28-2006
WANT MORE DETAILS
ON BILLS?
Visit the League of
California Cities
website at
www.cacities.org/
billsearch.
AB 2987 WORK CONTINUES AB 2987 WORK CONTINUES AB 2987 WORK CONTINUES AB 2987 WORK CONTINUES AB 2987 WORK CONTINUES
FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE
FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF
FLYER: LUNCHEON, HOMELAND SECURITY IN YOUR CITY FLYER: LUNCHEON, HOMELAND SECURITY IN YOUR CITY FLYER: LUNCHEON, HOMELAND SECURITY IN YOUR CITY FLYER: LUNCHEON, HOMELAND SECURITY IN YOUR CITY FLYER: LUNCHEON, HOMELAND SECURITY IN YOUR CITY
Page 4 Page 4 Page 4 Page 4 Page 4
???????????????????????? ??????????????
??????????????????????? ???????????????
The No on Proposition 90—The Taxpayer Trap campaign committee
filed opposition arguments with the Secretary of State this week. The League
is strongly opposed to this measure, which will appear on the November
statewide ballot. The opposition arguments are signed by some of our strong
coalition partners, the California Police Chiefs Association, the California Fire
Chiefs Association, and the American Farmland Trust.
For more, see Page 3.
UPDATE ON PROPOSITION 90—THE TAXPAYER TRAP UPDATE ON PROPOSITION 90—THE TAXPAYER TRAP UPDATE ON PROPOSITION 90—THE TAXPAYER TRAP UPDATE ON PROPOSITION 90—THE TAXPAYER TRAP UPDATE ON PROPOSITION 90—THE TAXPAYER TRAP
Cities and counties are scheduled to receive their fourth quarter install-
ment of Traffic Congestion Relief Program (Proposition 42) funds. This will
be the final installment of Proposition 42 funds for fiscal year 2005-06.
For more, see Page 2.
FINAL INSTALLMENT OF FY 2005-06 PROP. 42 TRAFFIC FINAL INSTALLMENT OF FY 2005-06 PROP. 42 TRAFFIC FINAL INSTALLMENT OF FY 2005-06 PROP. 42 TRAFFIC FINAL INSTALLMENT OF FY 2005-06 PROP. 42 TRAFFIC FINAL INSTALLMENT OF FY 2005-06 PROP. 42 TRAFFIC
CONGESTION PAYMENTS SCHEDULED CONGESTION PAYMENTS SCHEDULED CONGESTION PAYMENTS SCHEDULED CONGESTION PAYMENTS SCHEDULED CONGESTION PAYMENTS SCHEDULED
Page 6 Page 6 Page 6 Page 6 Page 6
Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2
The League of California Cities is strongly opposed to Proposition 90, and
working with the “No on Proposition 90, Californians Against the Taxpayer
Trap” coalition. We urge city officials to become familiar with the sweeping
nature of this measure, to understand how it will affect your city’s ability to
carry out your zoning responsibilities, build affordable housing or protect the
environment. For more, see Page 4.
WHAT CITY OFFICIALS NEED TO KNOW WHAT CITY OFFICIALS NEED TO KNOW WHAT CITY OFFICIALS NEED TO KNOW WHAT CITY OFFICIALS NEED TO KNOW WHAT CITY OFFICIALS NEED TO KNOW
ABOUT PROPOSITION 90 ABOUT PROPOSITION 90 ABOUT PROPOSITION 90 ABOUT PROPOSITION 90 ABOUT PROPOSITION 90Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 2 - PRIORITY FOCUS
July 14, 2006 - Issue #28
The State Controller’s office (SCO) has
scheduled the payment for Friday, July 14.
In addition, the SCO website
(www.sco.ca.gov/ard/payments/traffic/
index.shtml) has been updated with the payment
amounts. If you have any questions, contact Bill
Byall at the State Controllers Office at (916) 323-
0740.
PROP. 42 PROP. 42 PROP. 42 PROP. 42 PROP. 42 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1
League legislative staff are continuing their
discussions with legislative committee staff on AB
2987 (Núñez/Levine), the telephone-sponsored
measure that would establish a state-issued
franchise for video service.
The bill passed out of the Senate Energy,
Utilities and Communications Committee on June
29 with a 9-0 vote. While amendments were
taken to address some local issues, a number of
concerns were not resolved. These include
funding for PEG (public, education, government)
channels and institutional networks (I-Net) for
schools and other public buildings.
The League is also strongly opposed to an
amendment that allows cable companies to “opt
out” of their franchise agreements 10 days after a
competitor announces that they have received a
franchise to deploy service in the cable company’s
service territory. The cable company can then
apply for a state franchise to provide service in the
same service territory under the new AB 2987
franchising rules.
As legislative discussions play out, League
regional representatives are continuing their
outreach efforts to educate local business and
community groups about concerns with the
measure.
What You Can Do: Write Your Senators,
Educate Your Community. City officials are
urged to participate in lobbying by sending letters
to their senators about these concerns. You can
also help educate your community about the
issues with this bill by writing to the editors of your
local newspapers. Sample letters are available
online at the League’s Advocacy Center
(www.cacities.org/advocacycenter). You can also
help with coalition-building efforts; contact your
League regional representative to learn more
about this work.
The Legislature is currently on its summer
recess. When it reconvenes on August 7, AB
2987 is expected to be taken up in Senate Appro-
priations. No hearing date has been set.
AB 2987 WORK CONTINUES AB 2987 WORK CONTINUES AB 2987 WORK CONTINUES AB 2987 WORK CONTINUES AB 2987 WORK CONTINUES
? ? ? ??????????????????????
Congress returned this week from its July 4
recess, but no action on federal telecom is antici-
pated.
In June, the House passed a federal franchis-
ing measure (H.R. 5252) that the League is
strongly opposing. The Senate Commerce,
Science and Transportation Committee approved
S. 2686 on June 28, and re-numbered the bill to
H.R. 5252. While an improvement over the House
bill, the League is still opposed to the measure —
newly named the Advanced Telecommunications
and Opportunity Reform Act of 2006. The bill now
moves to the full Senate, but we do not anticipate
action soon. We will keep you informed of new
developments.
FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE
Only Western City magazine brings you
practical ideas and information you need to
know about local government in California.
Western City magazine presents big-picture
policy issues and trends in a format suited for
busy professionals, with concise feature
articles and in-depth series that explore state-
wide issues. Stay informed about city issues
across California. Subscribe today. Visit:
www.westerncity.com/pf.
You Could Have Your Own
Subscription to
Western City magazine.
Subscribe Today!PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 3 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
July 14, 2006 - Issue #28
Arguments by the Proposition 90 proponents
are not yet available to us. When they are, the “No
????????????????????????????????????????????? ? PROP. 90 PROP. 90 PROP. 90 PROP. 90 PROP. 90 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1
The handful of wealthy landowners that
paid to put Prop. 90 on the ballot are trying a
classic bait and switch on California voters.
They want you to believe Prop. 90 is about
eminent domain. That’s the bait. But hidden
in the fine print of the measure is the trap – a
far-reaching section unrelated to eminent
domain that would lead to huge new costs for
all California taxpayers.
Prop. 90 would change California’s consti-
tution to enable large landowners and corpo-
rations to demand huge payouts from state
and local taxpayers just by claiming a law has
harmed the value of their property or business
– no matter how important the law may be or
far-fetched the claim.
According to William G. Hamm, formerly
California’s nonpartisan legislative analyst,
“PROP. 90 could require BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN NEW TAXPAYER COSTS
EACH YEAR, if communities and the state
continue to pass or enforce basic laws to
protect neighborhoods, limit unwanted devel-
opment, protect the environment, restrict
unsavory businesses and protect consum-
ers.”
With no limit on the total costs, Prop. 90
traps taxpayers into signing a blank check.
We all pay, while large landowners and
corporations reap windfall payouts.
Here’s an example of how the “taxpayer
trap” works:
If local voters pass a measure to limit a
new development to 500 houses – instead of
on Prop. 90” committee will file rebuttal argu-
ments as well.
2,000 houses that a developer wants to build
– under Prop. 90, the developer could de-
mand a payment for the value of the remain-
ing 1,500 houses. Even if local community
services and infrastructure would be
strained by the larger development, Prop. 90
would put taxpayers at risk for payment.
Prop. 90 is not just limited to land-use
laws. Read the official analysis. Statewide
consumer protection laws, restrictions on
telemarketing, and worker protections would
all trigger new demands for payouts.
As a result, Prop. 90 would lead to
thousands of expensive lawsuits that would
tie up our courts and result in added bureau-
cracy and red tape. The cost of these
lawsuits and payouts would rob local com-
munities of billions of dollars in limited
resources that fund fire and police protec-
tion, paramedic response, schools, traffic
congestion relief and other vital services.
That’s why the CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA POLICE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, and CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION oppose
Prop. 90.
PROP. 90 would trap taxpayers in a
LOSE-LOSE situation. If communities act to
protect their quality of life, taxpayers could be
forced to make huge payouts. Or, if commu-
nities couldn’t afford the payouts, basic
quality-of-life protections simply couldn’t be
enacted. That’s why conservation groups,
including the CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF
CONSERVATION VOTERS and the PLAN-
NING AND CONSERVATION LEAGUE, warn
the measure would drastically limit our ability
Continued on Page 4
PROPOSITION 90 OPPOSITION ARGUMENT PROPOSITION 90 OPPOSITION ARGUMENT PROPOSITION 90 OPPOSITION ARGUMENT PROPOSITION 90 OPPOSITION ARGUMENT PROPOSITION 90 OPPOSITION ARGUMENT Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 4 - PRIORITY FOCUS
July 14, 2006 - Issue #28
to protect California’s coastline, open
spaces, farmland, air and water quality.
For more information on Prop. 90, visit
www.NoProp90.com.
When you vote, please join groups
representing California taxpayers,
firefighters, law enforcement officers,
educators, small businesses, land conser-
vationists, the environment and
homeowners.
Say NO to the TAXPAYER TRAP. Vote
NO on PROPOSITION 90.
Chief Michael L. Warren, President
California Fire Chiefs Association
Chief Steve Krull, President
California Police Chiefs Association
Edward Thompson, Jr., California
Director
American Farmland Trust
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s
Legislative Resources page
(www.cacities.org/legresources). You’ll
find a roster and contact information for
the League’s legislative staff; the online
Bill Search program, background
materials on lobbying your legislators,
and more.
FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG
COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF
???????
PROP. 90 OPP. PROP. 90 OPP. PROP. 90 OPP. PROP. 90 OPP. PROP. 90 OPP. from page 3 from page 3 from page 3 from page 3 from page 3
Continued on Page 5
CITY OFFICIALS CITY OFFICIALS CITY OFFICIALS CITY OFFICIALS CITY OFFICIALS from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1
?????? ? ? • Scope: Applies to all public agencies
and private entities such as utilities, all state
and local government property acquisitions,
and any state or local agency law, regulation,
resolution or other action. Includes new
federal laws that must be implemented at the
state or local level. Even statutory initiatives
passed by voters subject to measure’s provi-
sions.
• Compensation by Taxpayers for
New Regulations: Requires taxpayers to
compensate property owners for substantial
impacts of traditional state and local govern-
ment regulations on use of private property.
Attorney General says, as a result, measure
will “limit certain land use, housing, consumer,
environmental and workplace laws and regula-
tions.”
• Higher Costs for Public Works
Projects: Measure redefines “just compensa-
tion” to require higher payments for property
acquisitions for public works projects. Would
likely impact costs for a wide variety of public
Below is an educational fact sheet prepared
by the “No on Proposition 90” campaign that can
be used to educate individuals or organizations in
your community about this measure. Additional
materials can be found at www.NoProp90.com.
(Please note that at the current time the website
has basic information, but is still under develop-
ment.) If you are interested in how you can get
involved, please contact your League regional
representative.
PROPOSITION 90 PROPOSITION 90 PROPOSITION 90 PROPOSITION 90 PROPOSITION 90
Official ballot title: Government Acquisition,
Regulation of Private Property. Initiative
Constitutional Amendment
PROP. 90 FACTS AT A GLANCE PROP. 90 FACTS AT A GLANCE PROP. 90 FACTS AT A GLANCE PROP. 90 FACTS AT A GLANCE PROP. 90 FACTS AT A GLANCEPRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 5 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
July 14, 2006 - Issue #28
??????????????????????????? ??????????????
CITY OFFICIALS CITY OFFICIALS CITY OFFICIALS CITY OFFICIALS CITY OFFICIALS from page 4 from page 4 from page 4 from page 4 from page 4
projects and infrastructure projects including
schools, roads and highways, dams, levees,
and affordable housing.
• Significant Fiscal Impact: State’s
Legislative Analyst’s assessment of Prop. 90’s
fiscal impacts:
º Unknown, but potentially significant
future costs for state and local gov-
ernments to pay damages and/or
modify regulatory or other policies to
conform to the measure’s provisions.
º Unknown, but potentially significant
changes in governmental costs to
acquire property for public purposes.
• Can’t Be Amended By Legislature: If
approved, it could only be changed by another
initiative.
Prop. 90 Main Provisions
• Redefines “damage” to require
payment (at new and increased levels) for
any government action or action by voters
that results in “substantial economic loss”
to property. These changes to laws governing
compensation for regulatory action would
impact state & local governments’ ability to
enact and enforce a wide range of laws affect-
ing property, including environmental, land use,
consumer protection and housing laws and
regulations, or require new payments to prop-
erty owners for such actions. For example:
º If voters act by initiative to limit the
size of a new development to 100
houses, and the developer claims the
property could hold 200 houses, this
initiative could allow the developer to
make a claim for a payment from the
local government for the value for the
100 houses he wasn’t allowed to
build. Similar compensation claims
could be filed with state and local
governments for a wide range of
government environmental, con-
sumer protection, housing and land
use regulations.
• Redefines “just compensation.”
Under the new definition, property taken for a
proprietary government purpose would be
valued not at the current standard of “fair
market value,” but at the increased value of the
property as the government intends to use it.
º For example, if a county acquires
property for an airport, the owner
could seek compensation for the
value of the property as if an airport
were on it - even if the owner was not
legally allowed to construct and
operate an airport under the appli-
cable zoning.
º Prohibits use of eminent domain
unless the property acquired is
owned and occupied by a govern-
mental agency. Prohibitions on
public/private partnerships would
include those with non-profit organi-
zations, such as non-profit
homebuilders.
PROP. 90 FACTS AT A GLANCE PROP. 90 FACTS AT A GLANCE PROP. 90 FACTS AT A GLANCE PROP. 90 FACTS AT A GLANCE PROP. 90 FACTS AT A GLANCE