A public school sits next to a large piece of private property in a downtown area. The school district requested the trial court to grant it a right to enter the private property to conduct certain investigations and environmental testing under Eminent Domain law, [Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.010, et seq.], with an eye toward potentially expanding the existing school and constructing other school facilities. The owner of the private property argued the school district’s request to conduct the tests, in and of itself, constitutes a taking requiring the school district to file a condemnation suit to litigate the need for the taking and provide the private property owner with a jury determination of compensation. The trial court rejected the argument of the private property owner and granted the school district’s request to conduct the testing. In affirming, the Court of Appeal stated: “District’s activities do not violate either the entry statutes or the state or federal Constitution, and they do not amount to a taking requiring a jury determination of just compensation. The superior court did not err by granting District’s petition for an entry order.” (Young’s Market Co. v. Sup. Ct. (San Diego Unified School District) (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 1; November 19, 2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 356.)“Governments Have Monopolies On Certain Things, Like Eminent Domain And Deadly Force,” P.J. O’Rourke.
A public school sits next to a large piece of private property in a downtown area. The school district requested the trial court to grant it a right to enter the private property to conduct certain investigations and environmental testing under Eminent Domain law, [Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.010, et seq.], with an eye toward potentially expanding the existing school and constructing other school facilities. The owner of the private property argued the school district’s request to conduct the tests, in and of itself, constitutes a taking requiring the school district to file a condemnation suit to litigate the need for the taking and provide the private property owner with a jury determination of compensation. The trial court rejected the argument of the private property owner and granted the school district’s request to conduct the testing. In affirming, the Court of Appeal stated: “District’s activities do not violate either the entry statutes or the state or federal Constitution, and they do not amount to a taking requiring a jury determination of just compensation. The superior court did not err by granting District’s petition for an entry order.” (Young’s Market Co. v. Sup. Ct. (San Diego Unified School District) (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 1; November 19, 2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 356.)