(a) "Public entity" includes the state, the Regents of the University of California, a county, city, city and county, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the state or any entity acting on behalf of these agencies when acquiring real property, or any interest therein, in any city or county for public use, and any person who has the authority to acquire property by eminent domain under state law.
(b) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or association.
(c) (1) "Displaced person" means both of the following:
(A) Any person who moves from real property, or who moves his or her personal property from real property, either:
(i) As a direct result of a written notice of intent to acquire, or the acquisition of, the real property, in whole or in part, for a program or project undertaken by a public entity or by any person having an agreement with, or acting on behalf of, a public entity.
The real question is: Is the aquisition of this property for public use?
That's just it right there. If Costco is for public use so is a church. I don't understand how one agent of the governement can take away property from someone and then turn around and sell it to someone else. This is nuts. No one is safe if this is actually legal.