MEDIA ADVISORY

Community Alliance for Redevelopment Accountability

For IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Cruz Baca

Wednesday, January 9, 2008 (626) 806-9583

baldwinpark1@gmail.com

Home and Business Owners to March on City Hall

Property Owners protest Eminent Domain - To Burn City Eviction Notices

Baldwin Park, CA – While city council members publicly claimed for weeks that there were no immediate plans to seize over 500 homes and businesses by eminent domain to benefit the wealthy and politically connected Bisno Development Company, over the Christmas Holiday over 100 of the 500 threatened property owners received notices from the city informing them that they stand to lose their homes and jobs by eminent domain. The city has also been criticized for sending English only letters to Spanish speaking property owners.

According to campaign finance reports posted on the city's website, the Bisno Development Company and other development interests contributed thousands of dollars to city council candidates in the 2007 election, all of which support displacing hundreds of local residents.

WHO: Community Alliance for Redevelopment Accountability (CARA), a group of concerned homeowners and small business owners have organized to stop the City of Baldwin Park from using eminent domain to seize their homes and small businesses to benefit the politically connected Bisno Development Company and their investors.

WHAT: Property owners to march on city council meeting and burn eminent domain letters sent to over 100 of 500 property owners.

WHEN: Wednesday, January 9, 2008

WHERE: March will commence at 6:00 p.m. on the corner of Clark Avenue and Maine Blvd.

Council Meeting will commence at 7:00p.m., Baldwin Park City Hall, 14403 E. Pacific Avenue, Baldwin Park, CA 91706

BACKGROUND: Baldwin Park home and business owners have united as CARA to fight the proposed demolition of homes and businesses to make way for a project the size of about 125 football fields by Century City-based Bisno Development. Local property owners are concerned that the city is working to expedite eminent domain proceedings in order to acquire over 500 homes and businesses prior to the June Election. A 1/5/2007 letter from the developer to the city reveals that the developer's investors are concerned that their project, that requires the use of eminent domain, is threatened by the "California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act," an eminent domain reform ballot measure slated for the June ballot that protects all private property from eminent domain abuse.

There are two different amendments out there being proposed. The above mentioned one puts renters at risk. It's a property rights land grab by business interests to totally privatize natural resources.

http://californiapropertyownersandfarmlandprotectionact.com/

http://www.markleno.com/home/?q=node/54

http://calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4367

There's a competing proposal that protects homes, but is less restrictive. I will eventually find that one.

The Homeowners Protection Act is the laws that protects homeowners without falling into the trap of giving property owners the power to undo rent control, and give them absolute power to extort the public.

http://eminentdomainreform.com/


The basic difference is that this proposed law is much more limited in scope, to protect owner-occupied housing. This will cause the ultimate value of owner-occupied housing to rise, relative to rental housing, and relative to commercial property. That is, it'll encourage apartment owners to go condo (thus lowering the price of condos), and could encourage mixed use development because the owner-occupied properties would have increased political protections.

The law does not extend protection to landlords or commercial properties (which tend to be owned, not by the business owner, but by a landlord.) Thus, within the scope of the BP project, it would not protect the commercial zones from redevelopment, but would protect the residences that are owned by the occupant.

The shortest path to protecting renters would be to protect landlords from eminent domain. However, this is not a sure fix -- if development proceeds, then, the landlords will raise rents. (There is no rent control there.) Renters who could not afford the rise would be forced out. The longer path to protecting renters would be to implement some kind of rent control, or a means-tested residential subsidy that operates in the city.

There are some vagunesses in both proposed amendments that are beyond my ken, but neither look very good. This latter act is far more conservative (moderate), and is a safer amendment than the "farm" amendment.