HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 06-45
RESOLUTION NO. 06-45
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA SUPPORTING THE ORANGE
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISOR'S BALLOT MEASURE
A ON THE JUNE 6, 2006 PRIMARY ELECTION
WHEREAS, Measure A is a County Wide Ballot Measure. Measure A is a
proposed ordinance limiting the County of Orange's eminent domain powers to only
public projects. It was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors, and all five
Board Members signed the ballot argument, which will appear in the Voters' Guide.
WHEREAS, Measure A would prohibit the County of Orange from exercising the
power of eminent domain to acquire property from a private owner, without that owner's
consent, when the purpose of the acquisition is to convey the property to another
private party. The owner of the property is defined in the measure as the owner of fee
title interest in the property to be acquired. In a widely reported decision last year, the
U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Connecticut law that allows local governmental entities to
exercise the power of eminent domain for so-called "economic development" purposes.
Such use of the condemnation power is designed to put property in the hands of private
parties who will put it to what those government entities consider to be more
economically beneficial uses. Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005). The
proposed measure would ensure that the County will not exercise the power of eminent
domain for the purpose of conveying private property to any other private party.
WHEREAS, The government's power to take your land, your home or your
business by eminent domain must be used only for public uses. Eminent domain should
never be used to take one person's property and transfer it to another private party.
WHEREAS, Measure A prohibits the County of Orange from using eminent
domain to take one person's property to transfer to another person. Measure A will
guarantee that the County of Orange will use eminent domain only for public uses, such
as roads, parks or flood control projects.
WHEREAS, In the Supreme Court's 5-4 Kelo vs. New London decision, the
Court ruled that eminent domain could be used to take Suzanne Kelo's home and
transfer it to a private developer. This decision has focused public concern about the
increasing abuse of eminent domain for private uses. The Court further ruled that state
and local governments may place their own restrictions on eminent domain powers.
Homeowners and business owners need guarantees that their property rights will be
respected.
WHEREAS, The House of Representatives voted 376-38 to deny federal funding
for projects using eminent domain for private use. State legislatures, including
California's, are considering constitutional limitations against eminent domain abuse.
Resolution No. 06-45
Page 1 of 3
Here in Orange County, a growing number of cities are considering their own November
ballot measures. Measure A will be an example to others of Orange County's
commitment that all share equally in the right to own and enjoy their property.
WHEREAS, The Orange County Board of Supervisors have not used eminent
domain for private use. The tenure of current Board and Council Members, however, is
limited. Measure A will assure that the protection of property rights will be an ordinance
of the County of Orange and the permanent policy of future Boards of Supervisors.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the City Council of the City of Tustin
supports Ballot Measure A, a proposed ordinance limiting the County of Orange's
eminent domain powers to only public projects, such as roads, parks or flood control
projects, and urge voters to vote in support of this important legislation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Tustin on the 1th day of April, 2006.
M
RT,
ATTEST:
~T~~
City Clerk
Resolution No. 06-45
Page 2 of 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the
City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 06-45 was duly passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 17'h day of April, 2006 by
the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
Amante. Davert. Kawashima. Haaen (4)
Bone (1)
None (0)
None (0)
~~
City Clerk
Resolution No. 06-45
Page 3 of 3