Eminent domain must describe project sufficiently

The Matteoni firm scored an important reform of government's ability to take private property in the case of City of Stockton v. Marina Towers (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 93. A boutique eminent domain defense firm, Matteoni & Associates represented Marina Towers against the City of Stockton's grab of the property to give it to a private apartment developer.

"There are many reasons why a failure to identify sufficiently the proposed project in a resolution of necessity must have fatal consequences to a public entity's right to take." Such reasons, the Court continued, include inability to describe why the taking is necessary and consistent with the public good, to comply with CEQA environmental review, and to provide the private owner with due process.

The City's resolution of necessity merely stated (with the usual mumbo-jumbo) that the property was needed for redevelopment. But--and key here--the City's taking was not done by the redevelopment agency. As the Court indicated, the ruling may have been different if the property were taken for a redevelopment project. Redevelopment law only requires a plan to remove blight, and the resolution of necessity only need refer to that plan's objectives.