January 2006

Yolo County Condemnation of Conaway Unnecessary

FWA, as a longstanding advocate for private property rights, remains firmly opposed to the eminent domain action on the part of Yolo County. FWA is opposed to any plan that permits a governmental entity to usurp the business enterprise of a rightful owner of property. Further we are deeply concerned with the long term impacts of the ‘condemn to conserve’ tactics being employed by Yolo County, and firmly believe that all conservation efforts should be based on the ‘willing seller’ concept. As such, we have started a petition to urge the Yolo County Board of Supervisors to enter into honest and open negotiations with the owners of the subject property to seek a settlement of this issue that will permit the land to stay in private ownership. We urge anyone concerned with private property rights to support this effort by signing the petition. See the petition.

Yolo County continues its efforts to seize the 17,000+ Conaway Ranch from its owners through the use of eminent domain. This action proceeds despite the overwhelming opposition from the agricultural community and taxpayer groups, despite the fact that other less intrusive means (well short of acquiring the ranch) are readily available to address the County’s stated concerns, despite the lack of a publicly disclosed plan to finance this purchase, and despite the fact that the cost of the Ranch is likely to have a dramatic impact on Yolo County’s budget. So many questions — yet few answers are provided by Yolo County.

In November, Judge Timothy Fall ruled in favor of Yolo County on the first phase of the eminent domain litigation, upholding the County’s right to take the property for a public purpose. However, Judge Fall was careful in wording his judgment, repeating several times that his ruling was not based upon the prudence of the action, but merely the legality of the taking. The valuation phase of the trial is slated to begin in June, wherein a jury will determine the fair market value of the property. Many feel that the value will be considerably higher than the current estimates of $50 million by the County, an amount that is $10 million dollars less than the price recently paid for the Ranch by the current owners.

The Conaway Ranch eminent domain issue has received considerable attention, particularly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Kelo v. New London, that held that it is a legitimate public purpose to take land from one private entity and give it to another private entity for the public purpose of economic benefit. This decision threatens the rights of all property owners.

If the Conaway Ranch owners’ property and water rights can be seized in Yolo County, what will protect any other ranch in the County from a similar action, or for that matter any property throughout California and the nation. On the property rights front, this issue should serve as a rallying cry, unifying farmers in rural communities and homeowners and business owners in urban sectors as never before. Farmers have been on the front lines of this issue for years, battling governmental and regulatory actions and pressures that have constantly threatened the family farm. However, after the Kelo case, the specter of eminent domain should be viewed with suspicion by all.

In Kelo, long time homeowners were ousted by the force of eminent domain to make way for a development project that would result in more tax dollars. Traditionally, this extreme power was limited to true public works: schools, military bases, highways, and the like. Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they could see this.

The stated purpose for the eminent domain action by Yolo County is to maintain the status quo. The County has clearly articulated it‘s goal to stop the development of this property, as well as water sales to out of county interests. A somewhat ironic allegation considering the fact that the County’s own resolution of necessity and internal documents illustrate that the County contemplates water sales to out-of-county interests. It should be noted, Supervisor Duane Chamberlain, who was elected after this decision was made, has been a stern critic of the action and has questioned the County’s ability to manage the Ranch.

The current owners of the property have not proposed to undertake any of the actions the County has claimed necessitate condemnation. In fact, it is the County that has conducted closed meetings on the issue, taking advantage of the litigation exception to the public meeting requirements of the Brown Act. Meanwhile, the Ranch owners have held public meetings, outlining their plans to continue the farming practices on the Ranch, selling conservation easements, and creating a mitigation bank. Further, the Ranch owners have clearly stated that is their intention to first and foremost dedicate the water rights of the Ranch to the farming and conservation activities undertaken by the current management If there is surplus water, it will be made available to the cities of Yolo County.

As such, the parties intentions for the property have clear parallels, at least based on the goals stated. Common sense dictates that the opportunity for a compromise is ripe, one that would address the County’s concerns, while also respecting private property rights and permitting the Ranch to stay in private ownership. Such a compromise would benefit the taxpayers of Yolo County by alleviating the need to finance the huge debt that will accrue by purchasing this property, while also keeping the Ranch in private ownership. The owners, who have been involuntarily put in this untenable position based on no misdeeds of their own, have been the ones to make such offerings. But to date, the County has rebuffed. Why would the concept of addressing your concerns without spending hundreds of millions of your taxpayer’s dollars seem unattractive? It begs the question, what is really motivating the County?

• Return to the Losing the Family Farm index

Home | Top