Is it justifiable for the government to take what belongs to you if it’s for the “greater good?” That’s the argument for eminent domain, the principle that gives the government the right to take your property, even if you don’t want to sell it. On the surface, it seems obviously wrong. I mean, it’s your property. You own it, bought it, inherited it—whatever. The point is, it belongs to you, so what gives the government the right to force you to sell it? The short answer is “public use.”
The idea is your right to your property is superseded by the needs of the public to use your land, whether it be for transportation, infrastructure, water supply, public parks, environmental protection, conservation efforts, historical preservation, and even military readiness. Trust me. The government has an endless supply of “good reasons” to seize what’s yours. In cases of eminent domain, the government is nothing if not utilitarian—what will be the greatest good for the greatest number of people? You’re just one person. You don’t matter, see?
In many cases, eminent domain make perfect sense. Currently in Arroyo Grande, for instance, the Traffic Way Bridge, originally constructed over Arroyo Grande Creek way back in 1932, is in desperate need of replacement, but three property owners—Adam Hideo Saruwatari, Raffi M. Kaloosian, and Pacific Fuel Group LLC—have yet to grant permission for a temporary easement to construct a replacement.
The current bridge is antiquated and unsafe. The 228-foot six-span bridge is held up by concrete posts driven 23 feet into the soil for support, but channel erosion has exposed the piles, and the bridge is now classified as “scour-critical” and in need of replacement. I’m sure the three hold-out entities would prefer not to have their properties disrupted by the proposed 36-month-long single-span construction project, which technically can only operate June 1 through Nov. 15 of the next three years due to flooding concerns in the creek, but literally thousands of people depend on this transportation route.
According to city engineer Shannon Sweeney, declaring temporary eminent domain is necessary because if the city doesn’t start the project by Aug. 1, Caltrans will deem the project not ready, stalling it until 2025.
“So, they’ll pull the funding for this year, and we’ll move it to the next year, and that’s problematic for a couple reasons,” Sweeney explained during the April 23 City Council meeting. “First one is, I don’t really want to go through into the rainy season if I don’t have to, with the scour potential on those piers. Second, there are other projects in the pipeline that if we slide the schedule on this one then we’ll miss the schedule … currently slated for the following year.”
Hence, on June 3, the city filed a lawsuit against the last three property owners, none of whom replied to New Times for comment. Sweeney added that if the bridge ends up failing due to a lack of timely repairs, the city would have to secure permanent easements from surrounding property owners. In a case like this, eminent domain seems justifiable. I get you “don’t wanna,” but a failed bridge isn’t an option.
Then there’s the case of the Bob Jones Trail, which has been flummoxed by recalcitrant property owners along the unclosed 4.5-mile gap of the trail along Highway 101 between San Luis Obispo and Avila Beach. The not-on-my-property cabal led by Ray Bunnell and a handful of other landowners including Robert Kruse, Edward Pollard, and James Warren has adamantly refused to grant easements and even sued SLO County over concerns that trail construction on their properties was incompatible with ranching operations, would cause flooding, damage fencing leading to escaped livestock, and become a magnet for the homeless population and hence a fire danger.
At one point, the county decided to find an alternate solution, namely moving from fully protected Class I bike lanes to Class II lanes that would narrow the frontage road along 101 and create wider bike lanes, but the plan was ultimately rejected because it didn’t meet the safety benefits of the original grant proposal for the project. There’s $18.25 million on the line, people! That’s money that can go away if it’s not tied to a construction contract by February 2025.
Here’s the thing. A protected bike lane from Cal Poly through SLO Town and down to Avila Beach would be awesome, a longtime dream come true, but unlike a potentially collapsing bridge through a city, does this dream rise to the justification of eminent domain property seizure? Jennifer Horstman-Chase—the widow of Damian Horstman, who was killed in a 2012 truck collision while riding his bike at the intersection of South Higuera Street and Ontario Road—probably thinks so.
Helene Finger, the president of Friends of the Bob Jones Trail, probably thinks so too. She believes the completed trail’s benefits—a safe commute route for those travelling between SLO and South County and an important wildfire safety corridor and potential firebreak—outweigh private property rights.
“Delaying this project … puts hundreds of thousands … at risk for injury or death from wildfire or being hit while traveling by bike between home and school or work,” Finger asserted.
So, seize or not? Good question. Δ
The Shredder has nothing to seize. Commiserate at shredder@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Jun 13-23, 2024.
The bridge issue needs to be handled. I can sympathize with the owners but it is truly something that is more important than their wishes. Bike trails? Not so much. Private property should not be seized for leisure activities.