CALIFORNIA EMINENT DOMAIN LAW BLOG

Press Release

A.J. Hazarabedian, Managing Partner of California Eminent Domain Law Group, APC, has been named a Super Lawyer of Southern California.

Glendale, CA — February 17, 2010 — California Eminent Domain Law Group, APC is pleased to announce that A.J. Hazarabedian has been selected as a Southern California Super Lawyer in the field of eminent domain by Super Lawyers Magazine.

The Super Lawyers’ website explains, “Super Lawyers is a listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.”

Mr. Hazarabedian is the founder of California Eminent Domain Law Group, APC and is the firm’s most experienced eminent domain trial attorney.  The vast majority of his over twenty years of experience has been almost exclusively in eminent domain, inverse condemnation and appellate litigation.

Mr. Hazarabedian has been a speaker at local, national and international legal conferences on the subject of eminent domain, including the American Bar Association and International Right of Way Association’s annual meeting.  He has been interviewed on the topic of eminent domain on both regional and national news broadcasts, including on CNN Headline News and Fox News Channel.

In addition to this new honor of being selected as a Super Lawyer, Martindale-Hubbell recognizes Mr. Hazarabedian as an AV® Rated attorney, the highest ranking available to any individual lawyer.

To learn more about A.J. Hazarabedian, please visit http://caledlaw.com/html/aboutAJH.html.

About California Eminent Domain Law Group, APC

California Eminent Domain Law Group, APC is a boutique eminent domain law firm serving all of California from offices in the Los Angeles area.  The firm has received an AV® rating for legal and ethical standards by Martindale-Hubbell.  The attorneys at California Eminent Domain Law Group are California’s premier eminent domain lawyers, with extensive experience in all facets of eminent domain law.  For more information, visit www.caledlaw.com.

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

We reported on this project back in November and have since found another news article, providing updated information on the situation in Lemon Grove.

Property owners are not taking property acquisition lightly in Lemon Grove.  Businessman Salvatore D’Anna plans to fight the city, according to an article in the San Diego Reader entitled, “Sour Situation in Lemon Grove.”  The situation is that the city is planning a highway realignment which, as planned, requires D’Anna’s commercial property, as well as the neighboring businesses within the small strip mall.  The article explains, if the city wins the fight, “the multimillion-dollar project to realign the Lemon Grove Avenue exit ramp from highway 94 is on and an initiative to redevelop and improve the look of downtown Lemon Grove is one step closer.”

Mr. D’Anna believes “city officials are using the highway realignment project as a ruse to seize the properties” and that the project would make traffic worse.

Things aren’t looking too good for the affected property owners, however, as the article mentions they were served with a Motion for Order of Possession by the Lemon Grove Development Agency.  The hearing is scheduled for March 19, 2010 at the county courthouse in El Cajon.  Mr. D’Anna will be heard in an attempt to “quash the city’s request to seize any properties.”  We’ll stay tuned.

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

As a follow up to our last post, the Tulare County Board of Supervisors have decided to commence eminent domain proceedings against one of four property owners for the Road 108 widening project.

Jenna Chandler of the Porterville Recorder wrote, “they voted to acquire a 42 by 960 feet piece of William C. Hahesy’s land unanimously, continued two of the decisions to next week and the third was settled with landowners before the meeting started,” in her article, “Supervisors push forward on Road 108 project.”

At this stage, “commencing eminent domain proceedings” means that the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of necessity to acquire the property by eminent domain.  A “resolution of necessity” is the government agency’s formal decision to acquire property by eminent domain and is the last step they must take prior to filing an eminent domain action.

In the article, Britt Fussel, an assistant director with the Resource Management Agency, explained, “even though we are pursuing resolutions of necessity…staff still wants to meet with property owners to negotiate purchase prices before ending up in court.”

The article also mentions that two of the other properties, which were to be discussed, were postponed until another public hearing as the county and landowners needed more time to negotiate.

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

At Tuesday’s Tulare County Board of Supervisors meeting, the board will decide whether or not to begin eminent domain proceedings to acquire four parcels for the widening of Road 108.

As reported in the Visalia Times-Delta article, “Eminent domain on county board’s agenda,” funding for the project was approved in Spring 2009.  The county needs to move quickly because the funding came from the federal stimulus which requires the projects be “shovel ready” and also requires that the money be used within a certain period of time.

The affected homeowners are mostly farmers and are upset with the quick timeline and feel “the county isn’t offering enough money to stem losses from lost product, moving fences or taking out equipment.”

The county is also working on another project along Road 80 and it seems they are experiencing similar problems as the widening of Road 108.  The article mentions that city officials began eminent domain proceedings in September to acquire 14 parcels along Road 80 as negotiations with property owners were unsuccessful.  Now, the article says, “a breakdown in negotiations on both projects has the county moving toward a court order that would allow it to move forward with the eminent domain process on the property owners who haven’t signed agreements with the agency.”

The Tulare County Board of Supervisors meets tomorrow, Tuesday, February 2 at 9am.

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

The city of Imperial Beach has decided to initiate eminent domain proceedings in order to acquire two businesses in a run-down shopping center on Palm Avenue.

The businesses, Wylde Sydes and Inner Visions are owned by James Sides and Deborah Sides, respectively.  According to the San Diego Union Tribune article, “2 shopping center tenants won’t budge,” the city offered a combined amount of $63,357 which “included the value of relocating both shops and their fixtures and equipment costs.”  The owners, however, were not satisfied with the city’s offer and have submitted a counter offer of $1.4 million.

Being that a settlement through simple negotiations appears unlikely; the city has decided to proceed with eminent domain.

The city has already taken some action, adopting a resolution of necessity at last month’s council meeting.

The plan is to redevelop the run-down Miracle Mile Shopping Center on Palm and Ninth Street.  The city has entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with Sudberry Development who has “proposed a drugstore, grocery store and three smaller shops at the site.”

According to the article, besides Wylde Sydes and Inner Visions, four small shops in the center have relocated, one plans to close, and “the city is confident it can work out a deal” with the eight remaining stores.

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

An eminent domain case filed in September 2007 was finally resolved in Cathedral City this month.  As reported in the Desert Sun article, “Cathedral City council votes to pay $535,000 in eminent domain land deal,” the city wants the land for a 23-acre project which would include a 39-unit commercial center.

The article states, “the City Council unanimously voted in closed session on Jan. 13 to pay a landowner $535,000 from the  redevelopment fund for two parcels on Grove and Dawes streets east of the Civic Center.”  Eminent domain proceedings began September 26, 2007 and the lawsuit was filed in May 2008 against the landowner.  According to the article, negotiations had been ongoing for months between the city and the landowner.

However, Cathedral City has some concerns about the timing of the project, as redevelopment funds to the state were cut to help balance the state budget.  Cathedral City City Manager Don Bradley explained, “This ($535,000) was money that was set aside and was budgeted, and so it’s not directly affected by the state’s (action).  However, the state’s action of taking additional money is where we run into the problem of going forward.”

Councilman Greg Pettis mentioned it was too late to delay court proceedings once everything had been put into place.  Also, property values were noted, as real estate values could potentially increase in the future,  thereby costing the city even more money.

The land being acquired has about 10 tenants in apartments, some of which have lived there for 35 years.  A relocation company has been hired by the city to provide relocation assistance to the tenants as required by state law.

The two other lawsuits have mandatory settlement conferences scheduled for April 5, 2010.

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

Glendale’s City Council adopted a resolution of necessity Tuesday, to acquire a five foot easement for the East Garfield Neighborhood Rehabilitation project.  The property is located at 820 S. Maryland Avenue in Glendale and is owned by Kathleen Rosenberry.

The Glendale News Press article, “Council OKs eminent domain attempt,” explains that Ms. Rosenberry has previously denied the city’s offers to acquire her property, and therefore the city has now initiated the eminent domain process.  The article states that the city council has allocated $17,500 for the strip of land, which is the city’s estimated value of the land including fees.

This specific piece of land will be used to widen “H-alley” which has been an area of high crime in recent years.  According to the city, the widening will make it easier for police cars to drive in and out of the alley.

Widening “H-alley” is part of a larger rehabilitation project, “which is aimed at revitalizing the densely populated neighborhood in response to residential concerns about crime, lack of open space, parking, lighting and other substandard conditions,” according to the article.

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

Annie Burris, The Orange County Register

The County of Orange may consider using eminent domain to acquire a portion of property from Huntington Apartments on Edinger Avenue in Huntington Beach.  The County indicates it needs to acquire 20 parking spaces in order to tunnel under the 405 for a storm drain project.

According to the article, “O.C. may force sale of property for tunnel,” from the Orange County Register, the County has offered the property owners “$96,500 for use of about 7,200 square feet of the parking lot for about a year or whenever the construction is completed.”

Debbie Kroner, a spokeswoman with the County Public Works Department said, “eminent domain would only be used if negotiations with the owner of the Hungtinton Apartments at 8400 Edinger Avenue fall through.”

The County is planning these storm drainage improvements because of a flood which occurred in 1995, bringing about a series of lawsuits.  The flood resulted in 138 ground floor units of the complex having to be evacuated due to waist-high water flooding the apartments.

Debbie Kroner states, “…unless improvements are made, when heavy storm conditions similar to what we had in 1995 occur, this property will no doubt be flooded again.”

County supervisors may decide Tuesday whether or not to use eminent domain.

Comments(0)

By A.J. Hazarabedian

Property owner Fred Jast is fighting the Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority (“ACE”) regarding the amount of money they’re offering for the acquisition of his property.  Mr. Jast’s property is needed for an underpass project at Baldwin Avenue in the city of El Monte.

According to the article, “El Monte man fights eminent domain claim,” from the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Fred Jast believes his property is worth hundreds of thousands more than what the City has offered.  Jast had his property appraised at $745,000 and ACE is offering $550,000 which includes moving expenses.

Mr. Jast claims, “[ACE has] the right to take my property, but they don’t have the right to steal my property.”  The article indicates that Fred Jast’s property has declined in value as real estate prices, in general, have fallen significantly.

His property consists of 7,300 square feet and houses his home as well as a workshop he uses for his electrical contracting business.

Mr. Jast has not agreed to the offer and has yet to leave the property.  ACE’s real estate manager, Mark Mendoza, explained in the article that ACE, “went to court [last week] to get permission to forcibly remove Jast from the property, with the help of the sheriff.”

Once this hurdle is overcome, ACE will be one step closer to beginning construction as both project design and environmental reviews have been completed.

Commentary from A.J. Hazarabedian:

Mr. Jast’s issue is perhaps the most common issue in eminent domain: the property owner disagrees with the Agency’s appraisal.  Mr. Jast is correct that the Agency cannot steal his property.  If he disagrees with the Agency’s value, he is entitled under the California Constitution to have a jury decide the fair market value of his property.  Mr. Jast would also be entitled to relocation benefits, and possibly loss of business  goodwill, since he apparently was operating a business on the property.  With the right experienced eminent domain counsel, owners like Mr. Jast can ensure that they receive all items of compensation to which they are entitled by law, and can often obtain significantly greater compensation that that offered by the public agency.

Comments(0)