What is a Resolution of Necessity (RON)?
The California Transportation Commission adopts a resolution of necessity (RON), a formal document. Accordingly, an RON provides Caltrans with the authority to move forward with a condemnation action to obtain privately owned property for public use.
Condemnation is the legal proceeding that exercises the authority of the eminent domain. According to the California Code of Civil Procedure, before a public entity can begin an eminent domain proceeding, its governing body must first adopt a necessity resolution that fulfills the demands of the article of the law
The State Highway System acquires the required right-of-way at fair market value. Caltrans may request a condemnation action from the California Transportation Commission under California Streets and Highway Code, Section 102, and California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1245.230, if it cannot reach an agreement with a property owner on the value or quantity of land to acquire. A necessity resolution would authorize Caltrans to take condemnation action to obtain assets.
California Code of Civil Procedure: Section 1245.230
Specifically, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.230 states that a necessity resolution can only apply if:
- Officials consider the project requiring the property necessary.
- The estate serves the public interest.
- The project is located where it will provide the greatest public benefit with the least personal detriment.
- The company has made an offer to buy the property.
The organization must also hold a government hearing to address the resolution of necessity and the suggested eminent domain action after meeting these four criteria.
The agency must notify the present owners of the property of the hearing. Property owners may attend the hearing themselves or seek representation of an eminent domain lawyer from California.
The Review Standard for Resolution of Necessity
Most eminent professionals of the domain can rapidly state the fundamental rule on results for a Necessity Resolution.
Under section 1245.250 of the Code of Civil Procedure, subdivision (a), the findings of public use by a public agency. Additionally, it needs to establish those things in a conclusive manner. This means that the property owner cannot usually dispute the finding once the company concludes that the project is planned and placed in a position that best serves the largest public good and minimizes personal injury. However, most people rarely mention a possible twist. On the other hand, when gross abuse of discretion impacts the agency’s findings, the conclusive presumption under section 1245.250, subdivision (a), does not apply (CCP 1245.225, subdivision (b).
What Rights Does A Property Owner Have When A (RON) Is Issued?
Although a Resolution of Necessity (RON) grants Caltrans authority as a public body, it does not eliminate the property owner’s rights. On the contrary, owners retain a number of important legal protections. First and foremost, an owner has the right to be notified of an upcoming hearing. This includes the opportunity to familiarize himself or herself with the documents in the case, as well as to submit objections. Moreover, at the hearing, the owner has the right to be represented by an eminent domain lawyer, which can significantly affect the outcome of the case. In addition, it is worth understanding that the resolution of necessity procedure itself can take a long time. During this period it is important to:
- save documents
- keep correspondence
- record all contacts with representatives of state authorities
It is also sometimes useful to unite with other owners whose plots are located in the exclusion zone. To jointly hire a lawyer or initiate collective defense of interests. In some cases, discussion of other project options can influence the final decision of the commission. Therefore, owner activism, awareness, and legal support greatly increase the chances of a fair outcome.
How You Can Challenge a Resolution
Although California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.250 states that the agency’s findings of need for a project are final, an exception exists. Specifically, if evidence shows that the agency committed a gross abuse of authority. In that case, the presumption of finality may be rebutted (CCP 1245.225 (b). Thus, upon a showing of good cause, such as:
- the project does not have a significant public benefit
- someone violated the requirement to minimize personal injury.
The court may hear the case in favor of the owner. This plays a role when there are alternatives to siting the facility that do not affect private property.