Opinion ID: 1197615
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: blight

Text: (2a) To allow redevelopment under CRL, the proposed area must be blighted. A finding of blight requires (1) that the area suffer either social or economic liabilities, or both, requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare and (2) the existence of one of the characteristics of blight. (§ 33030 (fn. 3).) (3) In addition, section 33030 and the sections set forth above clearly establish that it is not sufficient to merely show that the area is not being put to its optimum use, or that the land is more valuable for other uses. While rejecting constitutional attacks on CRL, the court in Redevelopment Agency v. Hayes (1954) 122 Cal. App.2d 777, 793 [266 P.2d 105], recognized `[o]ne man's land cannot be seized by the Government and sold to another man merely in order that the purchaser may build upon it a better house or a house which better meets the Government's idea of what is appropriate or well designed.' The court stressed: Public agencies and courts both should be chary of the use of the act unless, as here, there is a situation where the blight is such that it constitutes a real hindrance to the development of the city and cannot be eliminated or improved without public assistance. It never can be used just because the public agency considers that it can make a better use or planning of an area than its present use or plan. (122 Cal. App.2d at p. 812.) By requiring a showing of liabilities plus a specified characteristic of blight, the Legislature made clear its intent that a determination of blight be made  not on the basis of potential alternative use of the proposed area  but on the basis of the area's existing use. [6] (2b) In determining whether an area is blighted within CRL, we are mindful of related constitutional and statutory provisions dealing with land use. Article XIII, section 8, of our Constitution recognizes the need to promote conservation of open space land  including that used for recreation  and authorizes the Legislature to limit its valuation for tax purposes. (See Associated Home Builders etc. Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1971) 4 Cal.3d 633, 638-639 [94 Cal. Rptr. 630, 484 P.2d 606, 43 A.L.R.3d 847].) In Government Code sections 65560-65570, the Legislature provides for local open space plans by stating that preservation of open-space land ... is necessary ... for recreation among other needs and that discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion of open-space land to urban uses is a matter of public interest. (Gov. Code, § 65561.) Similarly, Government Code sections 51070-51097, providing for open space easements and the Williamson Act (Gov. Code, §§ 51200-51295), providing for reduced tax assessment benefits, reflect the legislative judgment that the maintenance of open space land for recreational purposes is in the public interest. The real property subject to this action has not become an economic liability within the purview of section 33030; nor is there evidence of social blight. Drainage and soil problems  and even condemnation of part of the golf course  while no doubt burdening the property, have not ended its present economic use. To the contrary, the evidence reveals the golf course is at least marginally profitable. While the costs of removing the easements and solving the drainage problems make private redevelopment infeasible, that issue arises only after first finding the subject property is blighted. In the circumstances, the golf course being economically profitable  in combination with its open space nature  the property constitutes neither an economic nor a social liability. Therefore, it is not blighted. The judgment is reversed with direction to enter judgment for petitioner.