EMINENT DOMAIN RULING MULLED OFFICIALS TO CONSIDER LEGISLATION IN COUNTY.

Byline: Susan Abram Staff Writer

PALMDALE - County officials plan to discuss whether legislation is needed to protect private property owners as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision that would expand the government's use of eminent domain proceedings.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich, whose district includes the Santa Clarita and Antelope valleys, will introduce the motion to the board Tuesday, asking the panel whether research should be conducted on any impact the federal ruling may have on municipalities.

The issue arose after the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 last week to allow local governments to take private property for the purpose of economic development.

The ruling was a result of a case known as Kelo v. the City of New London, Conn., in which seven homeowners fought the city to save their waterfront homes from being condemned. City officials there called New London a ``distressed town,'' and made plans for a conference center, hotel complex, offices, condominiums and an aquarium, according to published reports.

California law requires that a property in question be determined to be blighted - though the state's definition of ``blighted'' is loose enough to take in vacant land, shopping centers with lots of empty stores and areas with bad drainage - but Antonovich plans to question if the Supreme Court's ruling will supersede state law.

``Eminent domain should be used both sparingly and judiciously, as the government's seizure of an individual's property is a serious matter, one that has a tremendous potential for hardship on the property owner,'' Antonovich said is a recent statement. ``While the taking of private property for a road, library, school, or other infrastructure that is needed for the common good has obvious public benefits, the public benefit of taking of private property solely in the name of economic development is wrong.''

Meanwhile, some lawmakers nationwide are trying to blunt the Supreme Court decision.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Thursday that the high court had made ``a horrible decision'' and he hoped it would cause a backlash.

At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

There were more than 10,000 instances of private property being threatened with condemnation or actually condemned by government for private use between 1998-2002, according to the Institute for Justice.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Susan Abram, [phone]

susan.abram(at)dailynews.com