Vacations - Easements, Reserves, Streets, Walkways - 1979-1981 pt1

Home

EAST BAY MUN. UTILITY DIST. V. RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 93 Cal.App.3d 346. — Cal.Rptr. — KI&I quoted from that case (i.e., "The apparent purpose of Health and Safety . Code sections 33390, 33391 and 33395 is to protect franchise holders, including utilities, from uncompensated seizures of property occasioned by redevelopment projects," id., at p. 794) is merely dictum, and it has no governing effect here for that reason alone. Two, the court in Richmond Redevelopment Agency indicated that EBMUD would have been entitled to recover only if the relocating costs had been incurred as an exercise of governmental power by the redevelopment agency through an eminent domain proceeding or by a taking established as compensable in an inverse condemnation action. As appears from the facts set out earlier, in the instant case the streets in question were vacated by the City and also the relocation of EBMUD facilities took place upon the direct order of the City. In short, the "taking," if any, was done not by the redevelop- ment agency, but rather by the City. Three, Richmond Redevelopment Agency was predicated primarily on cases decided in other jurisdictions and embraced the legal rationale propounded by outside courts. In light of Pacific Tel & Tel. Co., which reanalyzed the issue and set out the underlying California legal policy in considerable detail, the policy considerations voiced in sister state cases have less than decisive weight. (4) Respondent next argues that the City has police power to vacate streets only when it is necessary to make way for a proper governmental use of streets and that the promotion or implementation of a redevelop- ment project does not constitute proper governmental use and/or sufficient public purpose justifying the exercise of the police power of the municipality. As a consequence, continues respondent, the common law obligation imposing the burden of relocating cost of facilities upon the utility company fails to materialize. Respondent's argument flies directly in the face of both the statute and the case law. In declaring the state policy, the statute emphasizes inter alia that to protect and promote the sound development and redevelopment of blighted areas and the general welfare 'of the inhabitants of the communities in which they exist, "it is in the public interest to employ the power of eminent domain, to advance or expend public funds- for these purposes, and to provide a means by which blighted areas may be redeveloped or rehabilitated" (§ 33037, subd. (b)), and "That the redevelopment of blighted areas and the provisions for appropriate continuing land use and construction policies in them constitute public uses and purposes for which public money may be advanced or expended [May 19791