Property owner will fight city over eminent domain
By Kara Chalmers
A property owner, whom Saratoga filed a legal action against to take part of his land for a public road, says he plans to appeal the court finding in favor of the city.
Lester F. Hinz Jr. lives at 14521 Quito Road. He said that his house is so hard to see from Quito Road that trespassers often picnic in his front yard. The house is screened by trees and shrubs on all sides, so people tend to mistake his 12-acre property for a public park. Hinz's property is located on the corner of the private Vessing Road, which connects Quito to another public road, Vessing Court, a dead-end street.
In September, the city of Saratoga said it needed to take over 6,511 square feet of Hinz's land bordering Vessing Road. The city plans to make the street wide enough to turn it into a public road. The city would have to pave over some of the trees and shrubs that screen his property, Hinz said.
"The resulting problem is that you take a little, quiet, private road like this, widen it, and make it look better and it's going to invite casual traffic," Hinz said. "And this gives way to casing and people getting a better look."
According to City Attorney Richard Taylor, the city had formed an assessment district, at the urging of some Vessing Road homeowners, to finance changing Vessing Road into a public road. According to acting public works director John Cherbone, these homeowners wanted the road improved and maintained by the city, and the best way to do that was to form an assessment district. The homeowners would pay for road improvements, according to a scale determined by the city.
As a general rule, if homeowners want to make a private road public, the city does not usually stand in their way, Taylor said. From the city's point of view, the more roads that are public, the more efficiently the city can be run, he said.
But the city has a rule that all public roads must be a minimum of 22 feet wide, not including curbs and gutters. Certain roads, such as the older Quito Road, may not conform to this standard in some locations (such as over bridges). According to Cherbone, if Quito road were built today, the city would make it wider. Vessing Road is only 17 feet wide.
Also, as part of the area's improvement, the Vessing Road homeowners in the new assessment district would receive a better water supply. According to Cherbone, San Jose Water Company would put in one or two new hydrants and new water lines beneath the road when and if, the project gets under way.
According to Taylor, when the city wants to acquire land, it asks property owners to grant easements voluntarily. But Hinz said he would not voluntarily give the land up. In September 1999, the city initiated condemnation proceedings against Hinz, claiming eminent domain.
In order for the city to file this action, it had to prove it was taking the property for public use and pay fair compensation for it, Taylor said. The city had the land appraised and offered Hinz $1,000 for it. Hinz said no.
In Hinz's opinion, the city should not have involved itself in a matter that he says is private. He does not agree that the city is taking the land for a public use. Vessing Road dead-ends into Vessing Court. Unless they lived on Vessing Road or Vessing Court, the public would have no reason to use the road.
"The city is obligating taxpayers to maintain a road that the public would have no use for," Hinz said. He grew up on the property, and Hinz said he wants Vessing Road's rural character to be preserved.
On Feb. 16, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Robert A. Baines ruled that the city had the right to claim eminent domain in this case. The second phase of the trial, in which a judge will decide how much to compensate Hinz for the property, will probably start next fall, Taylor said. No firm date has been set.
Hinz hopes the case never makes it that far. He said he is planning to appeal the Feb. 16 decision, and obtain a "stay," so that the city won't be able to begin construction until the appeal is heard. The basis of his appeal is that the assessment district was not legal in the first place.
"The City Council has said, 'there is a public necessity for this project because we say there's a public necessity,'" Hinz said. "They're saying we have the right to condemn any property we want ... but there's not a public necessity to a dead-end street just because they say there is."
Hinz attempted to challenge the legality of the district in the first phase of trial, but the judge would not allow it. The judge said Hinz should have challenged the district within 30 days of its formation.
"The assessment district was carefully reviewed and was fully in compliance with the law," Taylor said. "If [Hinz] wanted to challenge the assessment district, he should have tried to do it at that point. It's disappointing that a city project is being delayed because Mr. Hinz's objections to the assessment district weren't raised in the proper time frame."
|
Saratoga, California Since 1955
