BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1042
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 16, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
SB 1042 (Walters) - As Introduced: February 12, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 33-0
SUBJECT : Local government: counties: acquisition and conveyance
of lands for military purposes.
SUMMARY : Repeals statutory provisions that authorize a board of
supervisors to acquire and convey lands to the United States for
use for any military purposes authorized by any law of the
United States, including permanent mobilization, training, and
supply stations. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Repeals statutory provisions that authorize a board of
supervisors to acquire and convey lands to the United States
for use for any military purposes authorized by any law of the
United States, including permanent mobilization, training, and
supply stations.
2)Repeals statutory provisions that allow a board of supervisors
to use eminent domain to acquire any property necessary or
convenient for acquiring and conveying lands to the United
States for use for any military purposes authorized by any law
of the United States.
3)Repeals statutory provisions that authorize a board of
supervisors to determine that it is desirable and for the
general welfare and benefit of the people of the county and
for the interest of the county to incur an indebtedness with
general obligation bonds in an amount sufficient to acquire
land in the county for any military purposes authorized by any
law of the United States.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes a board of supervisors to acquire and convey lands
to the United States for use
for any military purposes authorized by any law of the United
States, including permanent mobilization, training, and supply
stations.
SB 1042
Page 2
2)Allows a board of supervisors to use eminent domain to acquire
any property necessary or convenient for acquiring and
conveying lands to the United States for use for any military
purposes authorized by any law of the United States.
3)Authorizes a board of supervisors to determine that it is
desirable and for the general welfare and benefit of the
people of the county and for the interest of the county to
incur an indebtedness with general obligation bonds in an
amount sufficient to acquire land in the county for any
military purposes authorized by any law of the United States.
4)Requires the issuance of these general obligation bonds to be
approved by two-thirds
of voters in the county.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)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 two-thirds voter approval,
counties can issue general obligation bonds to raise the
capital needed to pay compensation to the private landowners.
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.
2)An identical proposal was in SB 113(Local Government
Committee), Chapter 332, Statues of 2009, last year's local
government omnibus bill. The California State Association of
Counties (CSAC), the Regional Council of Rural Counties
(RCRC), and the Urban Counties Caucus (UCC) did not object to
repealing the state law. However, because the State Military
Department (Department), which manages and oversees the
California National Guard, objected, the author removed the
item from SB 113. The Department's legal staff says the U.S.
military might at some time in the future need larger training
areas in California and the military might want to partner
with counties. Thus, the Department wants to keep the law on
the books.
SB 1042
Page 3
3)According to the author, if the Pentagon needs private land
for military purposes, federal officials will use their own
eminent domain authority. Further, it is unlikely voters will
pass general obligation bonds and raise their property taxes
to pay for condemning private land.
4)Support Arguments : Supporters, CSAC, RCRC, and UCC, say the
federal government has its own powers of eminent domain and
need not rely on counties to acquire property from private
owners for purposes of the military. These provisions date
back nearly 100 years and are no longer pertinent.
Opposition Arguments : Opponents might argue California cannot
predict when there will be a need for additional military
bases and training facilities and repealing these provisions
would be short-sighted. It is up to individual counties to
decide whether or not to use these provisions so it harms no
one to leave the authorization on the books.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
CA State Association of Counties
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Urban Counties Caucus
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Jennifer R. Klein / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958