Council President Sean Elo-Rivera recently suggested seizing private property – or even threatening to – could give the city more leverage as it sets out to replace the hundreds of shelter beds it’s losing in the near term.
By early 2025, four city-funded homeless shelters must shutter for reasons ranging from expiring permits to planned redevelopments. Another already closed in July. The forced closures mean the city will be down 732 beds by early next year.
Officials agree they need to find replacement options fast, especially for two large Father Joe’s Villages shelters set to close by the end of the year. But they differ on tactics they should use to address the gap.
Elo-Rivera argues the city shouldn’t dismiss any potential tools – including potentially taking private property to address the crisis – as it urgently seeks shelter options. The way he sees it, this tool, typically referred to as eminent domain, could serve as leverage in negotiations with property owners of future shelter sites.
Mayor Todd Gloria isn’t interested.
Gloria and his team, who are urgently trying to push another large shelter proposal that wouldn’t deliver new beds until at least the second half of next year, are pushing back on Elo-Rivera’s idea. They argue eminent domain is a complex, lengthy legal process that won’t deliver shelter as fast as they need it.
The policy dispute began with dueling memos – and was punctuated by a City Attorney’s Office memo siding with Elo-Rivera.
On June 28, Elo-Rivera sent a memo to Gloria proposing, among other tacks, that city staff work with the City Attorney’s Office to potentially seize properties or formally urge property owners to sell to secure shelter options with priority given to vacant, blighted sites.
In his own July 12 memo, Gloria rejected that idea.
“Due to the complexity involved with eminent domain actions in the state of California, funding and resource limitations, and timeframe considerations, this option will not be pursued by the administration,” Gloria wrote.
The City Attorney’s Office wasn’t cool with that call – or the fact that the mayor was so publicly turning it down. In other words, he was telling property owners the city has no plans to use one of a city’s most powerful tools.
Assistant City Attorney Jean Jordan wrote in a July 19 memo that the city’s bargaining position in lease negotiations for a mega shelter in Middletown – a deal that’s been criticized as unfavorable to the city – was hampered when Gloria declared he wouldn’t pursue that option.
Jordan wrote that the Gloria memo declaring that his administration opposes eminent domain to acquire alternative shelter sites amounted to a decision to forgo “the city’s most effective, legally permissible tool to obtain fee title ownership of land at a fair price equal to the land’s appraised fair market value.”
Jordan’s conclusion didn’t change the Gloria’s administration position. Elo-Rivera hasn’t backed down on his, either.
During a July 22 City Council meeting where city officials laid out the upcoming shelter closures and considered the mega-shelter lease, Elo-Rivera noted that the city pursued eminent domain to secure property for the Coastal Rail Trail bike lane project in the La Jolla area, a plan the City Council received updates on the week before.
“There were six properties that the eminent domain process was utilized for, four of them were completed in the first year of engagement,” Elo-Rivera said. “Why are we willing to pursue this option for bike lanes but not for homelessness shelter?”
“I understand,” replied Kohta Zaiser, the mayor’s City Council liaison. “It still took three years to embark on that process for the remaining properties as well.”
“But two of them, the offer was accepted immediately and the other two were accepted within that calendar year,” Elo-Rivera said. “So why would we at least not try?”
Zaiser said Gloria’s office saw eminent domain as a long, drawn-out legal process.
The mayor’s deputy chief of staff reiterated that position in emails with Voice of San Diego.
Deputy Chief of Staff Nick Serrano wrote that the formal eminent domain process ultimately wasn’t necessary for four property owners along the bike path and that negotiations with the other two were continuing. Serrano also made a distinction between eminent domain projects on vacant land and those with existing structures “that may already be underutilized, blighted, or fraught with penalties due to public health and safety.”
Serrano argued issues tied to those properties would only prolong the process to open new shelters.
“Using eminent domain to acquire the property can be a long process in and of itself (keep in mind any legal challenges that arise from doing so), but so will the subsequent processes for environmental mitigation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction,” Serrano wrote. “Then we will have to go through a process to program the space, secure a lease, procure goods and services, and conduct public outreach.”
He also cited the city’s years-long battle with a downtown cigar store owner in a past eminent domain case as evidence. Notably, the city then used eminent domain to try to replace the cigar shop with a hotel.
Elo-Rivera isn’t convinced of the Gloria team’s argument. He thinks the city should be doing all it can to find new shelter sites – and that eminent domain should be seriously considered.
“It is a tool that the city can use to acquire property and by not utilizing that tool, not only are we limiting our options, we are potentially reducing our leverage in negotiations for every property because the (party on the) other side of the table knows we’re not using all the tools at our disposal to increase the number of options that we have,” Elo-Rivera told Voice. “Just like any negotiation, the number of options the other side has as at its disposal plays an important factor in determining how much leverage each side of the negotiating table has.”
He reiterated this position in another memo late last week.
If you want to set off a huge fire storm, then start an Eminant Domain process for a shelter during an election year. Especially when you have known these shelter were going to close for at least a year and waited until now to act.
I haven’t seen sombody commit political suicide in some time. This should be entertaining. Pass the popcorn, please.
If you want to set off a huge political firestorm, then start an Eminent Domain proceeding for a shelter during an election year. Especially since you have known the shelters were going to close for over a year and have waited until now to act.
I haven’t seen someone commit political suicide for some time, this should be entertaining, pass the popcorn, please.
Maybe Elo Rivera should use eminent domain to seize the Father Joe properties and keep the shelter beds?
Only in California would government consider taking from a tax paying business/homeowner to provide shelter for non taxpaying homeless people.
I don’t have an issue with adding eminent domain to the toolbox as leverage. But actually using eminent donain to procure a site for the unhoused would be extremely controversial and would undoubtedly wind up in protracted litigation.
Mayor Gloria’s track record when he ignores wise counsel of the City Attorney? Not so good.
He obviously didn’t ignore it. He acknowledged it, and decided that it wasn’t a good option. The city attorney can’t make policy. It’s not her job. She gave legal advice, and the mayor considered it.
Mayor Gloria’s track record when he ignores wise counsel of the City Attorney? Not so good.
Gloria and Elo do not deserve to ruin this city further. Really?! You are going to take people’s property to satisfy your seldom used bike lanes and no tax paying homeless population?
Why isn’t the City using the Chargers old practice facility to build shelter housing? Or at least use the playing fields as a place to put up tents for people being pushed out of the Barrio Logan Park. There are offices, showers, a lot of unused amenities.
Why doesn’t the city confiscate this property from themselves?
Eminent domain doesn’t mean confiscating property without compensation. They would pay for it at a reasonable market value. Whenever property owners try to lease property to the city, they jack up the prices and offer terrible deals for the city. It would be better if we owned that property instead of a ridiculously expensive lease agreement, and since he’s trying to exploit the city, I think eminent domain is warranted.
Please, your logic and common sense is just as horrible as Ego-Rivera’s. Get a grip and then get a job. It’s obvious you don’t contribute to society because you are advocating for taking the property of those who worked for it.
Maybe you could offer your property for confiscation then. Fair market prices do not account for the theft and disruption.
Purchasing a property or leasing for 30 years for homeless issues is a sign that none of the politicians have a workable plan to end the homeless problem, because they are institutionalizing it instead of trying to end it. A lease with 3- or 5-year op outs would send a sign that the plan should work soon, but with no guaranteed end date. A permanent facility, with at least a 30 year lifespan, indicates that there is no confidence in any plan, at any level of government, that will properly address the homeless problems. The old adage, failing to plan is planning to fail, applies to the City’s methods. Before spending huge sums building even larger empires to rule, the politicians should first scour the globe for workable homeless solutions that can work here and have small trial runs to see if they actually do.
If you want to ignite a political firestorm, then use Eminent Domain to seize property for a homeless shelter during an election year. Especially since the city has known those shelters would be closing for over a year and only now are they acting and want to seize someone’s property.
I haven’t seen someone commit political suicide in a while, this should be entertaining, please pass the popcorn.
Why not use un- and underused city and other government properties first? They should belong to the community, anyway. After that, I agree it may make sense to acquire additional unused, vacant, unkempt, and especially dangerous or condemned properties from corporations and private owners (in cases that will not cause hardship to or displace people) in order to rehabilitate or renovate and repurpose them for housing the unhoused. The best way to address the homelessness epidemic is with housing and economic relief. We have a ridiculous amount of abandoned, dilapidated buildings all over this city that could house everyone and anyone who wants housing. San Diego is not unique, either- we could show the nation how to end homelessness.
Two light weight, wanna be reelected plutocrats, are trying to please their developer donors by echoing the same failed strategy of paying developers to build high density schlock.
On Tuesday, November 5, 2024, San Diego will replace both of these incompetents with fresh faces.
Plenty of beds in jail where these worthless losers belong.