Volume 9, Issue 7 - Bundle of Writes INSIDE APRIL 2014 Features 2 - President s Message 5 - Article 7 - Past President Letter 11 - Case of the Month 13 - March Luncheon Pictures 16 - Membership Spotlight
PRESIDENT S MESSAGE As you have hopefully heard by now, Chapter 67 will be hosting the Region 1 Fall Forum on October 11, 2014. And, in light of the fact that members from throughout Region 1 will be in attendance, the Board has decided to schedule a one-day seminar for October 10, 2014 focusing on railroad right of way issues. Rudy Romo is the head of the Forum/Seminar Committee, so if you would like to get involved or have any ideas please feel free to reach out to Rudy or anyone else on the Board. The Forum and Seminar will be held at our standard meeting location, the Santa Ana/OC Airport Holiday Inn. As we close the book on March, and all the Madness that it brings, it is time to start thinking about Chapter elections. If you have any interest in a Board or Committee position, I encourage you to attend the next Board meeting so that you can get more information on the different positions and their related responsibilities. Our next monthly meeting is on April 8, 2014, at the Santa Ana/OC Airport Holiday Inn, located at 2726 South Grand Boulevard, Santa Ana, CA 92705. The cost is $15 for those who RSVP to Joe Munsey at JMunsey@semprautilities.com by April 4, and $20 for everyone else. The speaker this month will be Ricky Rodriguez from the Office of Right of Way, District 12. Ricky will be speaking about the new Caltrans acquisition incentives as well as Buy America. This should be a great presentation with some very timely information. Thanks, Ben, Chapter President BENJAMIN RUBIN, ESQ. PRESIDENT NOSSAMAN, LLP (949) 833-7800 brubin@nossaman.com
IRWA Chapter 67 Officers KIRSTEN BOWMAN, ESQ. PRESIDENT ELECT RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON (213) 626-8484 kbowman@rwglaw.com ARTEMIS MANOS, SR/WA TREASURER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. (714) 256-163 agmanos@semprautilities.com STUART DUVALL, MAI SECRETARY GEORGE HAMILTON JONES, INC. (949) 673-6733 EXT. 13 stu@ghj-inc.com RUDY ROMO, SR/WA PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR & PAST PRESIDENT CITY OF IRVINE rromo@ci-irvine.ca.us Results Oriented and Focused on Success... Results Count Attorneys You Can Count On John C. Murphy Douglas J. Evertz Jennifer W. Dienhart Jennifer Riel McClure Brad B. Grabske Emily L. Madueno Katherine K. Meleski Lisa J. Lambert Ali V. Tehrani Sheereen Javadizadeh 650 Town Center Drive, Ste. 550 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 277-1700 www.murphyevertz.com
Bundle of News If you are interested in becoming more involved in the chapter, please consider joining the board. The Seminar Chair position is still available. See any board member for any more details. The boards meets immediately following the monthly lunch meeting. Everyone is welcome. For those new to the chapter, please find our website at www.irwa67.org for more information about upcoming events, membership, and classes. I encourage all members to be involved with chapter activities and leadership so we can make this the best year yet! Next luncheon - Tuesday - April 8, 2014-11:30am Drawing Sponsors If you d like to donate to the drawing, please bring a donation to the luncheon. We would like to express our sincerest gratitude to the donations from last month s raffle prizes. Attendance Raffle Any member who comes to lunch is eligible to win prizes!! Just show up for your chance! Hope to see you there! Education Coupon Bring the coupon with you to lunch and ask Artemis Manos, our Treasurer, to sign your coupon and you will be one-third of the way to your $100 off. A great way to save money for presents for Christmas! IRWA CHAPTER 67 UPCOMING SPEAKERS April 8, 2014 Ricky Rodriguez, Office Chief, Office Chief of Right-of-Way of District. He will be discussing Incentive Payments for Acquisition for Caltrans and Local Entities and the current status of Buy America and FHWA projects. May 13, 2014 Webster Guillory, Orange County Assessor. He will be discussing the real property valuation trends in Orange County. June 10, 2014 Noemi Cruz, Esq. Luna & Gushon. She will be discussing the creation and identification of easements in the pipeline industry. Tentative.
California Court of Appeal holds that Precondemnation Environmental and Geological Testing May Constitute an Unlawful Governmental Taking Thus Requiring Eminent Domain By: Kirsten R. Bowman, Esq. Richards Watson Gershon The Third District Court of Appeal, in the published decision, Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin, has found that certain precondemnation activities pursuant to the entry statutes (CCP sections 1245.010 et seq.) may constitute a taking because the entry statutes do not afford the property owners the protections of article I, section 19(a) of the California Constitution as it applies to intentional takings of private property. In this action, the State Department of Water Resources petitioned the trial court to authorize precondemnation activities pursuant to the entry statutes to allow the State to conduct both geological and environmental testing on certain private property to determine their suitability for the construction of a tunnel to transport water from the north to the south. In its petition for the geological testing, the State indicated that it would obtain soil and boring samples from certain private properties. The boring samples ranged in diameter from one to one-half inches and would bore to ground depths of up to 200 feet. After completion of the testing, the State would then fill the holes with a permanent cement/bentonite grout. In its petition for environmental testing, the State indicated that it would enter private property for the purpose of biological and hydrological testing approximately 60 intermittent 24-hour days spread over a two year time period. The trial court granted the petition to authorize the precondemnation activities for the environmental testing but denied those activities associated with the geological testing, concluding that the geological activities were a taking per se. The State appealed from the trial court s denial of the geological activities, and the property owners appealed from the trial court s granting of the environmental activities. In its analysis, the Court of Appeal first considered whether the environmental and geological testing being proposed constituted an intentional taking. After consideration of U.S. Supreme Court case, Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) 458 U.S. 419, 426, which held that, [A] permanent physical occupation authorized by government is a taking without regard to the public interests that it may serve, the Court of Appeal concluded that because the geological activities will result in a permanent physical occupation of private property after the boring samples have been completed, this was a taking per se. The Court of Appeal, then considered whether the environmental activities would result in an intentional taking. The Court considered Loretto, recognizing that Loretto applied to physical takings, whereas the proposed environmental activities were temporary. However, after consideration of several factors of significance such as, inter alia, the degree to which the invasions are intended, the character of the invasions and the invasions economic impact on the property owner, the Court concluded that environmental testing will result in a temporary property interest of sufficient character to constitute a taking such as in a temporary construction easement. The Court then reviewed the entry statutes to ascertain whether they afforded the property owners in this action the Constitutional protections of section 19(a) of article I in the California Constitution. After considering the legislative history of the entry statutes and the precondemnation procedures identified in the entry statutes, the Court concluded that the entry statutes cannot be used to accomplish these intentional takings because it does not provide for a determination of the value of the property interests being sought to be taken and to do so in a noticed hearing, and it fails to provide for a jury determination of just compensation.
Therefore, the Court of Appeal concluded that the both the geological and environmental testing, constituted intentional takings, and that the entry statutes, under these circumstances, did not afford the property owners the protections of article I, section 19(a) of the California Constitution as it applies to these intentional takings, and is thereby, unconstitutional. In a very lengthy dissent, the Dissent indicated that [t]he majority opinion eviscerates the entry statutes by effectively concluding that any entry that is not significant or innocuous constitutes a taking and by invalidating the entry statutes, the majority opinion would force a public entity that initiates a large-scale public project, either to put up the money for the property before determining its suitability for a project, or engage in two complete condemnation proceedings with their attendant jury trials and costs. The Dissent emphasized that the property owners have provided no evidence that the entry statutes are unconstitutional on their face or as applied. The Dissent further argued that article I, section 19 authorized the Legislature to divide the Eminent Domain Law into two sections, one for precondemnation entries to determine the suitability of a property for a public project, and the other to condemn the property it deemed suitable. In its review of the legislative history, the Dissent determined that the phrase eminent domain proceedings of article I, section 19 includes both the precondemnation and condemnation proceedings set forth in the Eminent Domain Law. The Dissent further indicated that article I, section 19 authorized the Legislature to provide a mechanism by which a condemnor may take possession of the property after commencing eminent domain. [However] [i]t does not dictate the specific procedure, let alone require a complaint, other than to require the court to determine the probable amount of just compensation and require the deposit and prompt release for the limited purpose of allowing precondemnation testing. Therefore, according to Dissent, the entry statutes already function as an eminent domain proceeding. It is uncertain whether the State will appeal the decision even though it will have statewide impacts on CEQA and NEPA compliance, and on project timing and funding. In the interim, if an entity requires precondemnation testing, it must either prove that the proposed activities do not constitute a taking in accordance with this opinion, or it may now be required to file eminent domain proceedings in order to conduct precondemnation environmental and geologic testing.
IRWA CHAPTER 67 COMMITTEE CHAIRS CHAPTER ADVISOR MIKE RUBIN, ESQ. RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP mrubin@rutan.com PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SHARON HENNESSEY, SR/WA HENNESSEY & HENNESSEY hhllc@ca.rr.com PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT LAURA KANE, SR/WA OVERLAND, PACIFIC, & CUTLER lkane@opcservices.com EDUCATION FRANCI COLEMAN INDEPENDENT francicole@gmail.com EDUCATION MIKE WILLIAMS HDR ENGINEERING INC. mike.williams@hdrinc.com RELOCATION MICHELE FOLK, SR/WA OVERLAND, PACIFIC, & CUTLER mfolk@opcservices.com HOSPITALITY JOE MUNSEY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. jmunsey@semprautilities.com NOMINATIONS, AWARDS, & EVENTS KATHERINE CONTRERAS, ESQ. NOSSAMAN LLP kcontreras@nossaman.com CASE OF THE MONTH KEVIN DAY, ESQ. ALVARADO SMITH, APC kday@alvaradosmith.com NEWSLETTER/COMMUNICATIONS BRYAN DELOS REYES PHILLIPS 66 (CONTRACTOR) bdelosre@gmail.com VALUATION ORELL ANDERSON, MAI ORELL ANDERSON & ASSOC. orell@realestatedamages.com ENVIRONMENTAL MOHAMMAD ESTIRI, PHD ECO & ASSOC. mestiri@ecoinc.info PUBLIC AGENCY LAURA TANAKA CONVERSE CONSULTANT ltanaka@converseconsultants. com MEMBERSHIP MEREDITH MCDONALD OVERLAND, PACIFIC, & CUTLER mmcdonald@opcservices.com PIPELINE MONA D. HEBERT, SR/WA PHILLIPS 66 mona.hebert@p66.com SURVEY/ENGINEERING PETER FITZPATRICK PSOMAS pfitzpatrick@psomas.com SEMINAR CHAIR VACANT EDITOR S CORNER Dear Readers, Welcome back to another edition of Bundle of Writes! Thank you to Rick Rayl for doing a wonderful presentation on eminent domain. We also have a new member, Thomasina (Sina) Muckenfuss from Cox Communications. So please give her a big warm welcome. I personally would like to express my deepest gratitude to those who donate to our monthly raffle as well as our monthly newsletter. If you would like to contribute content to the newsletter or just want to message me, I can be reached at bdelosre@gmail.com or my cell at (714) 980-1118. -Bryan Delos Reyes
Note to Chapter 67 members, Larry Steven, SR/WA, Past President, 1999 When I received an email from my good friend Joe Munsey, I was thrilled by the possibility of rubbing shoulders once again with the old gang in Chapter 67 for Past President s Day. Unfortunately our travel plans were out of sync by a day. In my place I am send a note to assure those who haven t heard from me for some time that I am still alive and engaged in my favorite activities running, bicycling, traveling, writing, and last but by no means least spending time with family and friends. Over the last year our travel destinations have become fewer in number and not so exotic, but we have not been sedentary either. A weeklong October hiking trip to bottom of the North Rim offered me an unique perspective of the canyon as we hiked out my heart went into atrial fibrillation and brought me to a halt two thirds of the way up. Thank heavens the group behind us had a SAT phone; they called in the cavalry and I was air lifted out by the park service. Anyone want to venture a guess on the cost... how about zero, zip, nada. I complained to the Park Service and my elected representatives that my insurance would have paid; their response has been that I must be crazy complaining about a freebee. (Postscript: I m fine, living better chemically with a doctor prescribed drug to tame the beast.) Over the 2012-2013 school year we played in loco parentis to a wonderful young man from Spain who was eager to see the United States. Always ready to promote our country we traveled both the northern and southern routes to Southern California to visit family. Heading west for Thanksgiving, we toured Grand Canyon (you must hike in to legitimately claim a visit), the mighty cliffs of Zion and the hoodoos of Bryce Canyon (characterized by the canyon s first owner as a hell of a place to lose a cow ) and on the way home a
quick tour of Sin City Las Vegas, Nevada. We reprised our westward visit at Christmas by taking another route that included San Francisco, the rugged California coast line, Disneyland, Universal Studios and a special treat, a curbside seat for the Rose Parade. Spring brought the finale trip to Chicago, a place not visited by Patrice or I since we were teenagers I m not sure who was wider-eyed, Juan or us, as we rose to the heights of the Hancock Building, rode the rides on Navy Pier or wore the shoe leather off our shoes in a couple of walking tours of the city. We even tried out a Segway tour great fun! Perhaps the most memorable event of the year was our voluntary evacuation as a result of the Black Forest Fire that destroyed over 500 homes, most in my usual bike riding circuit. Sadly Juan left us shortly after the fire, and we turned our attention to our next adventure South America. We had visited Peru, Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands on a previous trip, but this time I was pressing for an in depth tour of the great expanses of Patagonia. The area is shared between Argentina and Chile and proved to be a great trip with fjords, glaciers, mountains to climb, wines to test and vast open spaces to roam. Did you know that Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid hid out in a quiet valley backed up to the Argentine Andes? In the last two weeks we sailed to Cape Horn, which I had always thought was named for its geographical shape, not so, it was named for a town in Holland. If not for the fierce winds and bone chilling cold that regularly torment this area I would return in a heartbeat it was stunningly beautiful and at the same time a wild, isolated and desolate place.
The purchase of a small travel trailer at the end of last season, has prompted us to try something new touring at a leisurely pace the great expanses of North America. Fall will bring a small boat cruise between Boston and Quebec for the brilliance of fall colors. And what is in store for next year? Israel, Dalmatian Coast, Rome, Spain, Portugal, Morocco... who knows? There is a word for us: wanderingstevens@msn.com Have Suitcase Will Travel EXPECTED PAST POTENTATES TO ATTEND Joe Munsey, RPL, Southern California Gas Company Hospitality Chair Chapter 67 is expecting the following Past Presidents to attend April s luncheon please join us to embrace those past leaders who gave heart and soul to lead our chapter during turbulent times. Name Year of Office Richard Riemer, II, Esq. 1978 Terry Swindle, SR/WA 1979 Robert P. Stolhand, SR/WA 1984 Michael N. Green, SR/WA 1986 Daniel Brennan 1987 Sharon Hennessey, MAI, SR/WA 1990 Sydney H. Hawran, MAI 1991 Mark R. La Bonte, SR/WA 1993 Linda Wilford 1995 Ray S. Armstrong, SR/WA 1996 John Murphy, Esq. 2000 Kevin Donahue, MAI 2001 Barbara L. Zachry, MAI 2002 Keith McCullough, Esq. 2003 K. Erik Rick Friess, Esq. 2005 Douglas Evertz, Esq. 2006 Michael D Angelo, Esq. 2009 & 2010 Michele Folk, SR/WA 2010-2011 Rick Rayl, Esq. 2011-2012 Rudy Romo, SR/WA 2012-2013
Case of the Month By. Kevin Day, Esq. Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court 2014 WL 978309 The April Case of the Month contains an in-depth examination of the entry statutes, set forth in Code of Civil Procedure 1245, which are often used by condemning entities to conduct project planning work during the siting and environmental review process that predates a formal eminent domain action. This case dealt with a water tunnel that was planned to divert fresh water from Northern California around the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta into Southern California. The State began filing early entry petitions to gain access to more than 240 parcels of land in various counties, many of which were improved and used for agricultural or ranching purposes. These petitions sought entry for two primary groups of activities, environmental activities (consisting of hydrology studies, plant and animal analyses, and mapping) and geological activities (soil tests and borings, some to a depth of 200 feet for soil coring). The trial court split the petitions into two groups, based upon the two activities, and ultimately concluded the State could obtain early entry for the environmental activities, but could not conduct the geological activities. Both sides filed writ petitions, which were ultimately converted into an appellate proceeding in 2011 the opinion was issued in March 2014, demonstrating that interim appellate review may be thorough, but is sometimes less than expedient. The appellate court held that neither activity could be conducted by the State without filing an eminent domain action, and split the opinion into a review explaining how both activities constituted takings. The State waffled throughout the briefing about the geological tests, but at one point conceded such activities were likely a taking. To prove the point, the appellate court cited to a United States Supreme Court case (Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) 458 U.S. 419, 426), noting that in Loretto a displacement of 1.5 cubic feet of space was a taking, which was less than the volume of fill material being inserted in each of the borings proposed by the State. Once the appellate court determined that the geologic activities constituted a taking, the focus turned to the early entry procedure. The early entry statutes require the condemnor to secure either a written agreement with the owner, or an order from the court before conducting the entry activities. If the entry will likely cause actual damage to or substantial interference with the property, and an order is necessary, the court can require the condemnor to deposit the probable amount of compensation for the property owner. If damage and/or interference occurs, the property owner then has two choices: (1) apply to the court for the recovery of the deposit, with the court determining the amount to be paid, or (2) file a new action. In the first instance, the property owner is not provided a jury trial (and the determination will likely occur well after the early entry), and in the second, the property owner is forced to bear the cost and time of maintaining a separate case to recover for the damage/interference that has already occurred. For the appellate court, neither option was palatable. The appellate court began by noting that Section 19(a) of the California Constitution requires that a jury determine just compensation when an intentional taking occurs. The court noted that the early entries contemplated here involved takings of an interest in property (albeit temporary in nature), and the deprivation of a jury trial was a violation of the property owner s constitutional rights. Further, the court noted that the property owner should not be forced to separately sue to recover for the intentional invasion of property by the government. The appellate court further attacked the application of the early entry statutes by noting that their application inappropriately shifted the burden of proof to the property owner to prove that damage/interference
occurred; such causation is not at issue in a direct condemnation action, and to force the property owner to litigate this issue was an offensive concept to the appellate court. Turning to the environmental testing, the appellate court was somewhat softer in tone. The environmental tests were not as easily classified as a taking (as opposed to a 200 foot deep 6-inch boring filled with concrete), but the property owners argued they amounted to a blanket easement, authorizing the State to occupy the properties for up to 66 days in a year. The appellate court then referred to a balancing test formulated by the United States Supreme Court in Loretto and Penn Central Transportation Co. under which the environmental activities would be studied, classifying the testing as an invasion : (1) The degree to which the invasion is intended; (2) The character of the invasion; (3) The length of the invasion; and (4) The invasions economic impact on the landowners; The court found that the environmental testing in this case was akin to a temporary easement, and therefore was a temporary taking. Similar to the geologic analysis, the resultant determination that the activity constituted a taking deprived the property owners of their constitutional rights, primarily because of the lack of a jury trial on the amount of compensation. The court noted that the early entry statutes as applied do not provide a constitutionally viable means to determine the fair rental value that should be paid to the property owner. The appellate court concluded the opinion by noting the ruling would increase both the time delay and project cost for the State, but noted that the judicial review of the constitutionality of the exercise of eminent domain is not subject to the convenience of the government. All in all, a very interesting opinion as the court used existing precedent to criticize a statute, despite acknowledging that the statute was both constitutional and valid. In other words, when you cannot change the statute (because that is not the branch of the government you work in), you can point out its flaws and bury your refusal to follow the legislative mandate in a lengthy opinion.
March Luncheon Pictures Artemis Manos, IRWA Chapter 67 Treasurer Kevin Day presenting the Case of the Month. Shameless luncheon food plug Joe Munsey passing out raffle prizes
Rudy Romo, former Chapter President Bryan Delos Reyes, Communications Chair.
Rick Rayl, Esq. presenting on eminent domain Members enjoying the luncheon Strawberry Cheesecake
Membership Spotlight Featuring Craig Farrington By: Michael Rubin [Craig Farrington, his wife Denise, and their sons, Jake, Shawn and Luke.] There is probably no one in Chapter 67 who better looks the part of the distinguished lawyer than Craig Farrington. If there is a remake of the popular 1970 s lawyer television show, Owen Marshall, Craig should play the lead. And Craig more than looks the part, but lives it, day after day, with the highest integrity, professional excellence, and uncommon common sense. Craig practices civil litigation with one of Orange County s premiere law firms, Woodruff Spradlin & Smart. He is an accomplished trial lawyer with over twenty years of experience in state and federal courts and has successfully handled mediations, binding arbitrations, bench trials, and jury trials. These have included hundreds of high stakes cases involving torts, business litigation, and eminent domain. He has represented public agencies in wrongful death and catastrophic injury cases with potential exposure well into eight figures. He has represented more than thirty public agencies, including the City of Irvine, the Orange County Transportation Authority, the Orange County Sanitation District, the City of Tustin, the City of Garden Grove, the City of Orange, and many others. Among other eminent domain matters, he oversaw the proper-
ty acquisition process for the recent expansion of the SR 22 freeway. Though born in New York, Craig has long roots in Southern California, having graduated from University of California, Irvine with a B.A. in 1983, and having received his law degree from Pepperdine University School of Law (J.D., 1986). The treasures of his life are his spouse of 25 years, Denise, and their three awesome sons. Below are Craig s responses to our list of provocative questions: How Work Relates to the R/W Profession: We advise agencies on right of way issues that arise in the planning and implementation of their projects. City of Residence: Trabuco Canyon Date of Birth & Birthplace: 9/7/61 --- Rochester New York Children: Denise and I have three awesome boys Jake 21, Shawn 18 and Luke 10 Favorite Foods: Homemade pizza Favorite Things To do: Watching my kids play sports and reading the paper in the back yard Hobbies: Mountain biking and surfing Pets: A Chesapeake Bay retriever named Howie, a cat named Sarge and a fish named Mike Trout Favorite Music: I like a wide variety of music but Van Morrison makes an appearance now and then Last Book Read: Flyboys Last Movie: Mr. Peabody and Sherman Education: UCI Social Ecology, Pepperdine Law School Favorite Restaurants: Harbor Grill, Yama Sushi Favorite TV Show: Modern Family Favorite Quote: Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure... than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat. - Theodore Roosevelt Pet Peeves: Not a big fan of pushy people. Most Influential Person in Life and Why: Father He is an honest hard working man who cared about the people around him. Proudest Accomplishment: Being part of the lives of three great boys. Secret to Success: Act with integrity, connect with people and work hard. Most Embarrassing Moment: So many to choose from.i was waiting for a friend to pick me up for lunch in
front of our office building. When his car pulled up to the building I jumped in. I then looked at the driver who was a total stranger. I apologized and we exchanged a laugh. I was fortunately able to leave the vehicle without being tasered or convicted. Biggest Challenge Faced: Coordinating with multiple parties for a common goal. Last Vacation: Portland Oregon What I look for in people: Good hard working people with a sense of humor. My Most Important Unrealized Goal: Still raising three boys but on a personal level I would really like to get into better shape. Other Highly Pertinent Information: I am a big supporter of mid day naps. Why I am involved in the IRWA: I enjoy getting to know all the people we do business with in a non-business setting.
State of Wyoming Enacts Wind Rights Law Chuck West, Esq., CCIM Permission to Re-Publish All Rights Reserved Originally Published in Westline Commercial Property News March 2014 The Wind Energy Rights Act was signed into law in Wyoming and became effective April 1, 2011 [no foolin ]. Wyoming Statue, Section 34-27-101 et. Seq. Under the Act a wind energy right means a property right in the development of wind powered energy generation. Wyoming Statue Section 34-27-102 (iii). the Wind Energy Right is an interest in real property and appurtenant to the surface estate. The Wind Energy Rights shall not be severed from the surface estate, except wind energy may be developed pursuant to a wind energy agreement. Wyoming Statue Section 34-27-103b. Therefore, unlike a mineral interest which is a severable estate from the surface estate, wind energy rights cannot be severed form the surface estate after April 1, 2011. Any attempted reservation of such wind rights is void. Mr. West can be contacted at cwestucla@yahoo.com. Bradford B. Kuhn, Chair Kevin T. Collins F. Gale Connor CALIFORNIA EMINENT DOMAIN REPORT nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Katherine A. Contreras Bernadette Duran-Brown David Graeler Amber M. Grayhorse Harleen Kaur Jennifer L. Meeker www.californiaeminentdomainreport.com David J. Miller Ivy A. Okoniewski Rick E. Rayl Ashley J. Remillard Benjmain Z. Rubin Michael G. Thornton Our blog follows all aspects of eminent domain in California. We keep track of project announcements, budget issues, and legislative reform efforts. We also follow current cases,reporting on both government and landowner/business owner success stories. Consider this your one stop source for everything new and noteworthy in eminent domain in California. MAKING IT HAPPEN.
Let s Get Your SR/WA By Rudy M. Romo, SR/WA Last month I pointed out reasons you should pursue your SR/WA Designation. This time, I d like to focus on why anyone gets involved in their professional organization. Every organization has a professional affiliation. The industry of a particular profession has individuals and groups who engage in industry matters and share their experiences with others in the same field. The IRWA is one of those industries. If you take a hard look at individual s who take the extra step to get involved, you can see a common denominator. That common thread becomes one of curiosity, interest, and pursuit of further education. People get involved because they feel there is something extra they can gain in their profession and perhaps, even private life. If you take a look at the articles published in the IRWA magazine, you can see where someone in our profession did something and wanted to share their experience with us. We learn from reading how they did it and how they dealt with It with their encounters of a given situation. We see it and think, oh yeah. It s easy to get caught up in daily routines of life and especially of your profession. However, unless you reach out and take that extra step to see how others are doing it, you limit yourself. I get amazed seeing and listening to issues that still arise, even after 30 years in the industry. You would think that after 30 years in the industry, you pretty much had experienced every issue thrown your way. But, such is not the case. The IRWA is always striving to gear our SR/WA program towards the needs of our members. We even have the RWIEF (Right of Way International Education Foundation) who continue development of IRWA s education program with classroom and online courses. The SR/WA gives you that extra interior benefit of knowing I completed the coursework program, I m now an SR/WA, I ve met other SR/WA s who do the same thing I do, and I m continuously expanding my education. So, take that extra step and work on your SR/WA today.
Elizabeth Kiley One of First to Receive New Appraisal Institute Review Designations, AI-GRS We are pleased to announce that Elizabeth M. Kiley, MAI is one of the first appraisers in California to earn the new Appraisal Institute General Review Specialist (AI-GRS) designation. The Appraisal Institute has initiated a new review designation program as of January 1, 2014. The AI-GRS designation was created out of a need for experts in the field of appraisal review, as appraisal reviewers play such an important role in risk management. The AI-GRS designation is awarded to those persons meeting experience and education guidelines. Of the over 12,000 review appraisers in the country, Ms. Kiley is one of the first to earn this designation. As always, the Kiley Company strives to be at the forefront of the appraisal industry. We endeavor to exceed our client's expectations by providing the highest quality appraisals and appraisal reviews. Elizabeth M. Kiley, MAI, SRA, AI-GRS IRWA Chapter 67 wants to welcome our newest member Thomasina (Sina) Muckenfuss Right of Way Agent with Cox Comunications