Time for eminent domain in downtown Fresno
It's time for the city of Fresno to get tough on the owners of downtown buildings that stand empty and decaying while the struggle to revitalize downtown gathers steam. That's the conclusion of our editorial Sunday.
Several large and historically important buildings right on the Fulton Mall sit in stagnation while their owners wait for prices to rise. These major buildings are crucial to downtown's rebirth. They stand as very visible signs of downtown's health, and currently that picture is not so good.
Building owners who won't get moving on refurbishing and reuse, or sell the buildings to someone who will, should be in the crosshairs of eminent domain proceedings. Rather than using eminent domain on small business people who have stuck it out in downtown through all the bleak years, the city ought to be going after the big guys. Drop the hammer.
Comments
The use of eminent domain by any Redevelopment Agency in California is controlled by a very stringent set of laws. Fresno is certainly no different.
Doing what the editorial described and using just the threat of eminent domain to get a property owner to improve their building would most likely put the Fresno Redevelopment Agency on the wrong side of state law. There is a long and deliberate process that must occur before eminent domain can be used. This process is not in place for the properties referenced in the editorial. The complicated nature of this process is why eminent domain is so very rarely used.
That said, we all share the frustration of what appears to be land speculation occurring in downtown Fresno and the lack of investment in these buildings.
To combat this, the City has adopted what is known as the “empty building ordinance” and has used it successfully to get movement on the McMahon Building which was on Tulare and Van Ness and the decaying Hotel Fresno.
We are also looking to soon have before the Council an ordinance that will prohibit any city tax incentive for a project if the owner has outstanding code violations on any property in the city. It is our hope that this will provide a significant incentive to stop the situation described.
As far as Cosmopolitan Tavern is concerned, the RDA never had any intent to use eminent domain on this property. It was just included in an area that was considered blighted and eligible for consideration. Just because a building is in an area doesn’t mean it will be subject to any consideration of eminent domain. The removal of this property from the area to be considered changes nothing for our hope for improvement in that area.
Posted by: Jerry Duncan | October 22, 2007 1:53 PM
Jerry,
What is the “empty building ordinance” and are you using it on the three buildings mentioned in the editorial?
Posted by: Wayne | October 22, 2007 5:03 PM
Downtown Fresno will NEVER have a rebirth until we get rid of all the illegal aliens and their anchor babies. Just look at FUSD and that is the future of downtown, FAILURE! And it ain't the teachers...
Posted by: Joe Smith | October 22, 2007 8:54 PM
It's an ordinance that allows the city to force a building owner to make their building meet code standards (or tear it down) if it can be demonstrated (usually through a series of code enforcement violations) that their building is a threat to health or safety. No, we are not currently using it in those three buildings. They are not in a dangerous condition and it is not against the law to own an empty building.
Posted by: Jerry Duncan | October 22, 2007 9:42 PM
Yea Joe thats the answer those pesky aliens contributing to the vacancy or our buildings, and the problems with FUSD.
If we get rid of them it will solve our problems.
See you at the clan meeting tonight.
Posted by: Rich | October 23, 2007 10:27 AM
Jerry,
Have you been through these buildings in the last few years? I have and it's not a stretch to say they might not be safe. Why wait until a rotting piece of cornice drops on someone’s head to take action?
Posted by: Wayne | October 23, 2007 10:42 AM
The property owners need to be put on a timeframe to get buildings up to code, sell them to someone who will do it or turn them over to the city for revitalization and use for government offices or housing for the homeless. The owners are getting no benefit with them just sitting there. Driving in to Fresno on the freeway is such an eyesore that nobody in their right mind would want to move downtown. On 180 east off 99 there are some delaidated buildings that need to be torn down. I am repulsed every time I drive that way.
Posted by: Jackie Krage | October 24, 2007 11:23 AM
Jerry must be too busy running for mayor to answer my question.
Posted by: Wayne | October 25, 2007 1:22 PM
Wayne, we have to follow the law.
Posted by: Jerry Duncan | October 26, 2007 3:03 PM
The City Council made mention of this in their meeting yesterday, Item B Vacant Building Ordinance and Adaptive Building Reuse Ordinance if my memory serves me correct. The most interesting part of this meeting I enjoyed was from council members Calhoun and Westerlund who both gave a fascinating perspective on speculation and the question of economics regarding downtown’s dilemma. A Real Estate Broker who I forget by name did refer to owner’s property rights.
Council member Calhoun made an attention-grabbing analogy of downtown’s 2 million square feet sitting vacant comparing these empty spaces as being equivalent to what was then New York’s World Center Towers.
Council member Duncan statement of what is being done downtown needs to be done city wide, I could not agree more, because as Council member Duncan pointed out the legal consequences.
To me the downtown discussion seems to be about incentives or enforcement.
Posted by: Jesse Reynosa | October 31, 2007 6:12 AM