BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator Dave Cox, Chair
BILL NO: SB 1042 HEARING: 3/17/10
AUTHOR: Walters FISCAL: No
VERSION: 2/12/10 CONSULTANT: Detwiler
COUNTY CONDEMNATION POWERS
Background and Existing Law
During World War I, the Legislature gave counties the power
to condemn private property and turn it over to the
Secretary of War for military bases. With 2/3-voter
approval, counties can issue general obligation bonds to
raise the capital needed to pay compensation to the private
landowners (SB 1152, Luce, 1917).
After the Cold War ended, the Pentagon and Congress closed
or realigned nearly three dozen military bases in
California. The armed forces are unlikely to ask counties
to take more private property by eminent domain. If the
Pentagon needs private land for military purposes, federal
officials will use their own eminent domain authority.
Further, it is unlikely that voters will pass general
obligation bonds and raise their property taxes to pay for
condemning private land.
Some observers say the 1917 law is archaic and they want
legislators to repeal it.
Proposed Law
Senate Bill 1042 repeals the state law that allows counties
to condemn private property for military bases and pay
compensation with general obligation bonds.
Comments
1. To everything there is a season . More than 90 years
ago, it may have made sense for county supervisors to use
their eminent domain powers to condemn private property for
Army bases and Navy shipyards. Military bases attract
federal investment and create civilian jobs. Further, it
may have made sense for county voters to pass general
SB 1042 -- 2/12/10 -- Page 2
obligation bonds and shoulder higher property taxes and
long-term debt as a way of investing in the local economy.
But counties' political and fiscal realities in the early
21st Century are considerably different than what county
supervisors faced during the Great War. If the Pentagon
wants to condemn private property for military uses, why
should local property owners pay?
2. No consensus, no omnibus . An identical proposal was in
SB 113, the Committee's 2009 omnibus bill. The California
State Association of Counties, the Regional Council of
Rural Counties, and the Urban Counties Caucus did not
object to repealing the state law. However, because the
State Military Department which manages and oversees the
California National Guard objected, the Committee removed
the item from last year's consensus bill. The Department's
legal staff says that the U.S. military may --- at some
time in the future --- need larger training areas in
California and the military may want to partner with
counties. They want to keep the law on the books.
Support and Opposition (3/11/10)
Support : California State Association of Counties,
Regional Council of Rural Counties, Urban Counties Caucus.
Opposition : Unknown.