Vacant lots near the Ontario Airport will remain in private possession.
The Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal, Division One, published a ruling July 31 that said Ontario had no reason to seize the lots through eminent domain.
Ontario attempted to seize land at 942 E.State St., 1048 E. State St., 1058-1064 E. State St., 1128 E. State St., 948 E. Main St., 954 E. Main St. and 1018 E. Jefferson St. on April 26, 2021.
The stated purpose of the seizure would be for “airport mitigation” and “blight elimination,” and that lots did not conform to city requirements for development. The city did not outline a specific project for the land to be used for.
The land was owned by We Buy Houses Any Condition, a company based in the City of Industry, according to their official filing.
San Bernardino Superior Judge Khymberli Apaloo ruled against Ontario on April 21, 2022. Her ruling said that the city needed a project to validate the seizure.
“There is nothing in the Eminent Domain Law which states that just because a city would be using a property for a ‘public use,’ they do not have to have a ‘proposed project’ supporting the condemnation. The law requires both,” Apaloo ruled.
Ontario appealed, arguing that the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) authorized local governments to seize dilapidated land for the purpose of development.
The Court of Appeal found that eminent domain cases done through the CRL had the same requirements as other eminent domain cases.
“The Legislature has decreed that any exception to the eminent domain law must be ‘specifically provided by statute.’ Nothing in the language of (the CRL) suggests that it creates an exception to the eminent domain law’s requirement of an adequate project description,” the ruling says.
A land seizure without a development project for the land would not work towards the CRL’s redevelopment goals, the ruling said.
“In the absence of a proposed redevelopment project, a government’s acquisition of property does not itself eliminate blight,” the ruling said.
The city also argued that it was empowered to make use of land to mitigate problems from the airport. The city cited California law that granted it authority to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise around airports, and to improve air navigation.
The Court of Appeal said the cited law did not circumvent the Eminent Domain Law, and that it was unclear how the city’s acquisition of the land would mitigate the effects of airport noise or improve air navigation.
Case information
Mark Easter and Guillermo Frias of Best Best & Krieger represented Ontario.
Patrick Hennessy and Erin Naderi of Palmieri, Hennessey & Leifer represented We Buy Houses.
Justice Martin Buchanan wrote the opinion, which Justices Richard Huffman and Julia Kelety joined.
The slip opinion was released July 19, and the ruling was officially published July 31.
Case No. CIVSB2111984
Appellate Case No. D083080
Read the ruling here.
