De La Torre Advances Key Eminent Domain & Ports Legislation

You recently introduced a package of eminent domain reforms in the California Legislature. Please share the critical elements of these reforms.

It's really simple. ACA 8 prohibits the use of eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home, including townhomes and condos, to convey to another private property. It's the first time ever in the constitution of California that we would have that kind of a blanket protection for individual homeowners. The second component is related to small business, and prohibits the use of eminent domain to take a small business property to convey to another private property except as part of a comprehensive plan to eliminate blight, and only after the small business owners are first given the opportunity to participate in the revitalization plan.

So, there's a two-part test for small businesses. First, it can't just be a one-off project; it has to be part of an overall plan to eliminate blight. Second, if that's the case, if there is an overall plan to eliminate blight, that small business would get an opportunity to participate in the new development, whatever that is.

ACA 8 also has a "right to re-purchase provision," where a home or a small business property that is acquired by eminent domain must be offered for resale to the original owners if the government doesn't follow through on whatever project they were going to develop in the first place. Overall, if you have those three protections-the one for the owner-occupant home, one for small business, and the right to re-purchase-our brand new constitutional right would be guaranteed through this measure.

In an interview for TPR last October, Glendale City Manager James Starbird said, "In California, we can't take a single family residence for economic purposes. It has to remove blight or other purposes, so the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision didn't expand any authority in California, and it didn't increase the threat to homeowners." If that's true, why is a constitutional amendment regarding this matter needed?

We need it in order to make it very clear to people that we have every possible protection for homeowners. Clearly, the public perceives a threat from eminent domain, and we need to respond to that threat. We need to make sure that people understand that something like Kelo cannot happen in California.

Last November, Prop 90, which was funded and primarily supported by one East Coast developer without support from inside California, came close to passing statewide. In your opinion, and that of the Legislature, is the ACA 8 reform package now before the Legislature likely to remove the threat of similar measures making the ballot in future years?

Unlikely. I think the extremists will always be out there. In the case of the particular instance of Prop 90, an extremist wanted to piggyback on the fears related to the Kelo decision, to eviscerate our environmental laws, and damage our ability to maintain completely legitimate government functions. And so, to the extent that there will probably always be millionaires or billionaires on the East Coast that are willing to put their money into tearing up California's long-held principles of law, we need to take that threat seriously by providing protection in a new way for homeowners and small business owners.

Who are the stakeholders and coalitions that are supporting the ACA 8 eminent domain reform package? Is it broader than the statewide group that opposed Prop 90?

I wasn't too engaged with Prop 90, so I don't know who the coalition included at that point, but I can tell you the coalition that we have nor is made up of small business groups, the League of California Cities, environmental groups, the building trades, and business groups throughout the state-so it is a very broad coalition.

We're still reaching to more folks out there to bring them into the tent and build a broad coalition that people will see and think, "This is the reasonable approach to having homeowner protection and business owner protection."

If ACA 8 passes, what will happen for the issues of smart growth, redevelopment, transit-oriented development, etc? Will the passage of your constitutional reforms make it more or less difficult to realize the project goals that modern planning efforts seek to achieve?

I think it will just clarify in what circumstances government can use eminent domain. For the homeowner sitting at home, worried about some redevelopment project coming into their area, it gives them some peace of mind.

Government shouldn't be in the place of threatening people in their homes, and this one way of clarifying that that's not the intention of government, whether it's a city or a county or any other government entity. If government is going to engage in eminent domain, it's going to do it for the benefit of the population without infringing on individual rights.

You've just assumed the role of Chairman of the Rules Committee of the Assembly. So that our readers better understand your work, what is this committee's jurisdiction and what is your role as chair?

It's two jobs, really. The legislative function is as the traffic cop for legislation. All legislation starts in the Rules Committee, and this is the only committee that sees every bill that is introduced. It all comes to Rules Committee. Sometimes we refer it to the appropriate committee or committees and then monitor it for any changes, because if any changes are made, then other committees need to have a say in the evolution of that legislation.

Part two is an administrative function. The Rules Committee manages the day-to-day endeavors of the State Assembly, everything from personnel matters, to vehicles, to office space, to litigation-it is like the Chief Operating Officer of the Assembly.

You represent a sizeable part of Southeast L.A. County, and your constituents feel the daily impacts of goods movement through the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Senator Lowenthal recently had his ports investment bill, SB 974, approved in the Senate. What are its prospects in the Assembly? And as the representative for that area, what interest do you have in that bill becoming law?

It's one of my highest priorities. As you probably know, last year I had the honor of having Senator Lowenthal ask me to "jockey" the bill on the Assembly side, which means to present it and to get the votes for it on the floor. I was able to do that against some pretty serious odds.

I've been asked to do the same again this year, and I will put every ounce of effort that I have into getting it out of the State Assembly.

And why is this container fee bill so important?

Here in Southern California, in the Los Angeles area and the Los Angeles Basin, the number one source of pollution is that port complex. It affects everybody. If you see a map of the particulate matter that can cause cancer and all kinds of other maladies, it's very clear that the main source of pollution for all of the Los Angeles basin are the ports.

It is absolutely important to everybody in terms of day-to-day life, above and beyond the health concerns. Also, in terms of goods movement and traffic, our economy, the products that we consume, and traffic patterns that are established as the result of the flow of products in and out, that port complex is extremely important in our day-to-day life.

It's not surprising that shippers, retailers, transporters, and rail interests are resisting this bill. How do you find the votes and consensus in the Legislature to move the bill through passage?

Well, last year, we had a hell of a time fighting against those interests. But at the end of the day, what won out was, again, the overwhelming impact of port complex on the day-to-day life of people in Southern California, juxtaposed with the great benefit that a fairly small surcharge or fee could shape.

When you're talking about a $30 per container fee, which is normally a double container, so $60, on containers that have $30,000-$40,000 worth of goods in them, it seems like a small price to pay, and that's what won out last year.

There have been reports in L.A. recently that legislators are getting testy as they push bills for approval so they can go on to the other House. How well is the Legislature grappling with the challenges of growth and the fiscal health of the state?

It's always testy when you have a deadline and people's goals are on the line either to pass or not pass. It's normal. We have a deadline in June and then we have the one at the end of the year-it's the nature of the beast. You have a deadline, everybody's trying to get bills out, and it's perceived as the time to either pass the bill or kill a bill. So that just brings a natural tension, it happens every year, and I don't think twice about it. If it wasn't at this deadline, it would be at another time when those bills would have to come up.

So, it's a normal tension, and the debates on some of the more controversial bills have been very civilized and straightforward this year. We haven't had a lot of the bluster that we've had in years past.