Escondido council members oppose eminent domain proposal

By: DAVID FRIED - Staff Writer | Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:37 AM PDT ∞

ESCONDIDO ---- A recent City Council decision to start eminent-domain proceedings on a local restaurant has two council members saying the city is skirting dangerously close to condemning property in order to benefit private development.

Sunset Centers plans to build a Lowe's home improvement store and 164 condominiums on an 18-acre site that used to house a K-Mart and an entertainment center with a miniature golf course and arcade.

The council approved the project in April. And last week, a council majority agreed to hold a public hearing on Aug. 16 that would clear the way for the city to seize a 1.4-acre parcel at 700 W. Mission Ave. in order to widen the street and clear the way for a cul-de-sac planned as part of the development.

Council members Ed Gallo and Marie Waldron, who voted against holding the public hearing, say they support the overall project, but believe the city is drifting down a dangerous path by considering eminent domain on the property.

"The only way you can put the cul-de-sac in is to take out the restaurant," Gallo said. "The way I'm looking at it, we're going to do eminent domain for a private project, and that doesn't sound right to me."

Pat Thomas, director of public works, said that, even if Sunset did not install the cul-de-sac, the city would need a portion of the property that houses El Mexicano taco shop as part of a long-planned widening of Mission Avenue. That would require the city to acquire a roughly 14-foot-wide strip across the front of the property and relocate the taco shop.

Under the terms of the approved project, however, the developer agreed to be responsible for widening Mission, installing traffic signals and adding the cul-de-sac, which would be a public street, and thus "end up being a public improvement," Thomas said.

Sunset Centers has also agreed to cover any costs associated with the eminent domain proceedings, according to city documents.

Attorneys representing the developer could not be reached for comment Monday.

Waldron said that, based on how the cul-de-sac project has been explained to her, she is not comfortable with the idea of starting eminent domain proceedings ---- which could force the owners to accept the appraised value and vacate the property ----- on behalf of the developer.

"If it's for private development, then I would not support this," Waldron said. "It would be the same thing as the Kelo decision."

Waldron's reference was to a Supreme Court decision last year that cleared the way for local governments to force property owners to sell out in order to make way for private development.

The ruling stoked considerable controversy and has resulted in cities and states around the country trying to enact legislation to limit the use of eminent domain, including a proposed ballot initiative that will go before California voters in November.

The council will decide at the August hearing whether to follow through with the eminent domain proceeding. But Waldron and Gallo said that the council has already gone too far.

"To me, it's very clear that just the threat of eminent domain is as serious as going through with it," Waldron said.

City officials said condemnation may not be necessary, since the parties are still negotiating a voluntary sale.

Margaret Peterson, whose family has owned the property for nearly three decades, said she was prepared to sell, albeit reluctantly.

The Lakeside resident said she and her siblings are not against giving up the building, so long as they get enough to purchase a similar commercial property that would net them at least $3,700 a month, about what they collect now from the restaurant.

So far, the developer has appraised the property at a little more than $500,000, and offered to pay about $700,000. But Peterson's family would have to pay half of the closing costs on the sale, and end up losing a valuable source of income, an unacceptable proposal, Peterson said.

Since beginning negotiations with Sunset, the developer has pushed the family to accept the deal, saying that otherwise the city would pursue eminent domain, according to Peterson.

However, that may not be such a bad thing, she said, as eminent domain could keep the family from having to pay any fees or taxes on the sale, among other benefits.

"It's progress, and we don't want to stop progress," Peterson said of the Lowe's project. "But we don't want to end up getting screwed, either."

-- Contact staff writer David Fried at (760) 740-5416 or dfried@nctimes.com.

Next

More Stories

Tags:

Bookmark and Share

Ads by Yahoo!

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

Dear Landlord wrote on Jul 25, 2006 7:44 AM:Wouldn't this be better handled as a private transaction between the developer and the owners of the restaurant? Let the realtors work out the taxation, come up with another property (for a Stryker transfer), and then present it to the city for approval and permits? Is the developer trying to get the city to leverage its project and make its deal go down? Yep. And it is our tax dollars being spent on this. If you want redevelopment, then declare it blighted, and do more than a Texas two step and dance around issues. If the developer wants to use other peoples' money (ours) let them pay full value. IF this were a CoCos or Dennys or other All American Family restaurant, and not just another taco shop, I'm sure the negotiations would be more fruitful, especially in Escondido, that city with an oh-so-big heart....

no surprise wrote on Jul 25, 2006 8:25 AM:As usual, our two genius Council members, Waldron and Gallo, didn't think to see that what is best for the property owner might indeed be what has been recommended - Emminent Domain.

Born and raised in Escondido wrote on Jul 25, 2006 8:40 AM:Are there only TWO moral and decent people on the city council or what? Using eminent domain to take land from someone who doesn't want to sell it for PRIVATE development is wrong. The supreme court decision was WRONG. The republican mentality of taking from the poor or middle class to give to the rich needs to be stopped! I hope some other city council members remember that they serve the public, the people. Find some morals and do what is right!

Good Eminent Domain? wrote on Jul 25, 2006 9:29 AM:The seller and the buyer seem willing. However, Taxifornia and the Federal Government's crazy tax policies may be providing a sizable economic benefit to chosing eminent domain over outright sale. Anyone who makes $700,000 during a year is "rich" and must pay most of that income as taxes for the "poor". I would test the waters of emiinent domain to avoid over $300,000 in taxes any day of the week!

Jon B. wrote on Jul 25, 2006 9:30 AM:Dangerously close to benefiting private developers? what a lame statement of the obvious. Does public safety require building another big box store. Doubtful. Am glad the council passed on taking it.

DC wrote on Jul 25, 2006 9:54 AM:too bad the City won't take their property! and we voted them in! Let's see what we can do at the next election..we won't elect them and we will let the City take their property! IT's wrong no matter how you look it! Everyone needs to vote against the other board members.

I hope all the idiots who wrote on Jul 25, 2006 10:01 AM:scream racist at Gallo and Waldron when they just want to enforce laws remember they are saving a Mexican restaurant!

Phewwww wrote on Jul 25, 2006 10:02 AM:Smells like Oceanside to me, did Melba get on your city council?

To Born and raised in Escondido wrote on Jul 25, 2006 10:38 AM:you're clearly not familar with the case out of New London, CT -- other than the one sentence you read in this article -- and you are going to make some broad statement about republicans robbing the poor and middle class? i actually agree with the idea that tax benefits derived through private development is an improper use of eminent domain, but the court didn't actually make that decision. the court yielded to YEARS of precendent which said that they don't have the authority to decide what a local municipality decides is proper application of eminent domain, the authority resides locally....so blame your local government...and by the way Waldron is a republican, so how does that work into your argument? research before you comment.

JJ wrote on Jul 25, 2006 11:04 AM:Whats the big deal? Ther are way too many taco shops in Esco anyways! We could use a few less!!

marie wrote on Jul 25, 2006 11:36 AM:I agree there are too many taco shops in Escondido, BUT that doesn't give a developer the right to just take advantage of the fact that it's "just a taco shop". El Mexicano has been in this city long before most of the others. Many of us who grew up here have eaten there at one time or the other. If the owners want to sell let it by their choice by not by being strong armed or under duress. I will miss that place if it goes as it is a part of my generation.

Negotiations wrote on Jul 25, 2006 2:50 PM:The threat of eminent domain is the developer using the city to intimidate the owner. Why don't they give them an equal amount of land within the new development with a new taco shop on it? Seems fair enough to me. Sure there are lots of taco shops in Escondido but there are lots of taco eaters in Escondido, including this gringo. It is all buisness negotiations and the city should stay out of it.

LP wrote on Jul 25, 2006 3:46 PM:eminent domain or not, I could careless about the new condo's they are proposing. The city officials just do not get it. We have said over and over, residents of Escondido do not want growth. What we want is to better our living standards. By adding this condo and another warehouse store, the traffic will be much worse along mission road. Turn it into a park like setting where the locals can go enjoy some peace and eat a burrito or a taco too.

TO NEGOTIATIONS wrote on Jul 25, 2006 3:56 PM:You are the only one with a brain. We need someone like you on city council.

To LP wrote on Jul 25, 2006 4:34 PM:I couldn't agree more!

For Growth... wrote on Jul 25, 2006 8:02 PM:But not for helping property developers by stealing from people who worked hard to build a family business. I for one, am tired of people in Escondido complain about our growth. Had we not grown to this livable size you wouldn't to live here.

local since 1955 wrote on Jul 26, 2006 1:26 PM:I hate the idea that the city is trying to take the property of hard working familes and give it to the rich. How would they like it if someone took their homes from them, and make them find somewhere else to go. Its the same thing with their family taco shop. I think not.

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos

Advertisement