Sandefur Redevelops A Proposal To "Tighten The Definition Of Blight"

My Pacific Legal Foundation colleague and eminent domain scholar Tim Sandefur has posted an analysis of the legislation proposed by California's redevelopment agencies in reaction to Governor Brown's call to eliminate them ("California Redevelopment Agencies fight to defend their turf").

Sandefur deconstructs (or should we say "redevelops") the agencies' claim that the bill will "tighten the definition of blight" -- 

Section 33031 of the California Health and Safety Code defines the word “blight,” and AB 1250 does not change that section at all. This is problematic because the standards for “blight” are extremely vague: they include things like “nearby incompatible land uses that prevent the development,” “a high crime rate,” or “conditions that prevent or substantially hinder the viable use or capacity of buildings or lots.” What exactly do these phrases mean? Answer: whatever the government says they mean.

AB 1250 does not change these criteria. Instead, it says that before the redevelopers can take your property, they have to make a finding that blight exists and that this finding

shall be supported by empirical and, to the greatest extent feasible, quantifiable evidence demonstrating the prevalence of specific conditions set forth in Section 33031 on specific properties that are so substantial that they cause a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the entire project area. Evidence shall be reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value. Conclusions not based on documented evidence of specific conditions shall be deemed insufficient.

That all sounds nice, especially since we’ve seen so many cases of government passing blight designations on the basis of extremely flimsy pseudo-evidence like “windshield surveys.”  (Don't forget the snacks!) But note that it doesn’t require that blight exist on all the properties that are going to be condemned, and it doesn’t say what sort of “empirical” evidence is required. On the contrary, it uses the “reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value” language—which lawyers will recognized as the most lenient standard of review that courts use. This so-called “substantial evidence” rule—which is already the law in California—means that virtually anything short of pure speculation will qualify. And while it speaks of “specific conditions,” these “conditions” are the ones already listed in section 33031.

Worth reading.