Q: What’s big and orange, and sleeps 7?

A: A CalTrans truck.

OK, maybe that was a cheap shot, but something bad had to be said about the geniuses whose solution to the permanent congestion along I-405 is to expand the carpool lanes rather than the ones anyone can use.

West L.A. is one of the most densely populated areas in the country, so it prety much goes without saying that the expansion has resulted in a number of houses being condemned. I’ll leave it to Uncle to decide whether a carpool lane, which only a small fraction of the public can use, constitutes a permissible “public” use for purposes of the takings clause, but for what it’s worth, Caltrans does appear to have been pretty good to those whose properties were condemned in their entirety:

Residents living near the new San Diego Freeway widening project that runs through portions of Culver City and West Los Angeles initially resisted the idea of having their homes acquired through eminent domain. But some now say it was a financial boon.

Donna Thayer is one of them. In 2002, Caltrans offered her $379,000 for her three-bedroom, two-bath home on Purdue Avenue — $19,000 more than she had expected. On top of that, Caltrans paid $50,000 so she could afford a comparable home in the area and also covered moving expenses, she said.

Now, she, her fiance and her 15-year-old daughter live in Culver City in a newly renovated house, where she is happier with city services and schools. And since she moved, her new home’s value has shot up from $429,000 to $680,000.

“They were very fair and appropriate,” she said. “Caltrans was very good.”

Note, however, that I said “those whose properties were condemned in their entirety.” If you were a silly fool like me, you may have assumed that a parcel of land is a parcel of land, which either gets taken or doesn’t. After all, you can’t just up and sell part of your parcel on your own, so surely the government wouldn’t force you to, right? Wrong:

“If they take your property, you’re a winner,” said Roy Reel, who is contesting Caltrans’ proposed offer for a corner of his backyard, on which a 50-year-old Canary Island palm tree grows. “If they take a part of your property, you’re a loser.”

Culver City apartment complex owner Manfred Gerger said he would have preferred it if Caltrans had proceeded with its original plan to buy his building rather than acquire part of his driveway and lawn. Gerger said he worries how much his property might suffer in value and loss of tenants.

“They just took enough to make it inconvenient but not enough to relocate you,” said Raul Gonzales, 29, who lives with his wife and two children in Gerger’s building. “They do need to expand the 405, but I just wish they relocated the tenants to comparable housing.”

I could understand taking partial properties from a farm or a ranch, but West L.A. lots are not exactly known their unusually large sizes. While the article does cite one individual who was happy to sell part of his land but keep his custom-made house, it almost seems to be more the exception than the rule. At a minimum, one might think CalTrans would offer the resident a choice between selling CalTrans the portion it wants and treating the entire parcel as condemned. CalTrans spokesperson Mabel Tran non-explains the condemnations by half thusly:

“We only take what we need,”

Fair enough, when applied on a parcel-by-parcel basis. But if all you need is just enough land to convert someone’s nice house with a modestly large yard into the same house on a lot the size of a postage stamp, the least you can do is give the homeowner a choice between staying or going. CalTrans could always re-sell the remainder to someone who actually wants to live in that house, or maintain a business on it, or whatever. Better still, CalTrans could hang on to the property it doesn’t think it needs, just in case they find the need to add any real lanes a year or two later, should their quaint little carpool lane experiment fail to deliver as planned.