Leaders question eminent domain

Redwood City mayor says mandate could be excessive

REDWOOD CITY — Downtown’s retail core is beginning taking shape, but city leaders continue to face fallout from the decision to acquire downtown land through eminent domain.

City leaders continue to grapple with the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury’s assessment of those eminent domain proceedings, in which the jury questioned Redwood City’s treatment of property owners. In response to a 2005 grand jury report, Redwood City adopted new guidelines for that treatment, but now Mayor Barbara Pierce objects to the grand jury’s recommendation that those guidelines be handed out to the other of any property that could be eligible for eminent domain.

“That includes an overly broad area,” Pierce said, echoing a response she drafted to the grand jury that was slated for City Council approval Monday night. Distributing the guidelines in that manner could “unnecessarily agitate a great many property owners,” according to Pierce’s letter.

Redwood City followed most of the grand jury’s recommendations, which included establishing the guidelines and appointing an ombudsman to field any complaints from local property owners in future eminent domain proceedings. That task is handled by the Redwood City mayor, a practice former grand jury foreman Ted Glasgow questions.

“It’s sort of like having the fox in the henhouse,” Glasgow said.

In 2001, Redwood City claimed downtown business owners’ property by eminent domain, kicking off a messy legal battle that ended when the city agreed to pay a $3 million settlement to property owner James Celotti. The grand jury accused the city — particularly City Manager Ed Everett — of behaving abusively during the process.

One downtown property owner, attorney Don Wilson, continues to pursue legal action against the city after one of his two complaints was refused a hearing before the CaliforniaSupreme Court Sept. 26. Another case, challenging the city’s action to build the downtown retail-cinema project, is still pending in San Mateo County Superior Court.

In 2005, the San Mateo County Superior Court upheld Wilson’s 2001 lawsuit, which claimed that Redwood City’s Redevelopment Agency was outside its 12-year time window when it took the property for redevelopment purposes, according to City Attorney Stan Yamamoto. The appellate court overturned that decision in July, nullifying Wilson’s suit.

bwinegarner@examiner.comBay Area NewsLocal

Just Posted

The Hotel Whitcomb on Market Street was one of many hotels that took in homeless people as part of The City’s shelter-in-place hotel program during the pandemic.<ins> (Kevin N. Hume/The Examiner)</ins>
Closing hotels could disconnect hundreds from critical health care services

‘That baseline of humanity and dignity goes a long way’

Pachama, a Bay Area startup, is using technology to study forests and harness the carbon-consuming power of trees. (Courtesy Agustina Perretta/Pachama)
Golden Gate Park visitors may take a survey about options regarding private car access on John F. Kennedy Drive, which has been the subject of controversy during the pandemic.<ins> (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)</ins>
Your chance to weigh in: Should JFK remain closed to cars?

Host of mobility improvements for Golden Gate Park proposed

Dreamforce returned to San Francisco in person this week – but with a tiny sliver of past attendance. (Courtesy Salesforce)
Dreamforce returns with hundreds on hand, down from 170,000 in the past

High hopes for a larger Salesforce conference shriveled during the summer

San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott said retail thefts in The City are underreported crimes. (Daniel Montes/Bay City News)
S.F. unveils initiative to tackle rise in retail thefts

Incidents are not victimless crimes, mayor says

Most Read