- 15 -
possessed this power.4 We conclude that the body threatening
condemnation possessed the power of eminent domain.
2. The Threats
The taxpayer must have received a threat to acquire property
through condemnation. The taxpayer may receive threats orally or
in writing.
Respondent points out that the gravamen of the case at bar
is whether Lancaster threatened Mr. Johnson with condemnation of
the 23d Street property. Respondent argues that the testimony of
the multitude of witnesses who stated that numerous Lancaster
city officials threatened Mr. Johnson with condemnation of the
23d Street property is not believable.
After considering the record as a whole, and determining the
weight to be accorded to the testimony of the various witnesses,
we conclude, as we have found as facts, that several Lancaster
city officials made very clear threats of condemnation to Mr.
Johnson. Mayor Pursley, Mr. Rodio, Mr. Root, Mr. McEwen, Mr.
Dukett, and Mr. Asturias all credibly testified that, after Mr.
Johnson terminated his agreement with Palmdale, the LCC and the
LRA repeatedly threatened Mr. Johnson with condemnation of the
23d Street property. Mr. Asturias testified that threats of
4 We note, however, that based on the facts of this case
and the law of California the LRA did possess the power to
condemn the 23d Street property or it could have readily obtained
such power.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011