Eminent domain urged to acquire properties for Heart of Boynton: (South Florida) Sun-Sentinel, 3/18/05

By Ushma Patel
Almost half of the properties involved in the Heart of Boynton's first redevelopment phase may be taken by eminent domain.

After about six months of negotiation, the Community Redevelopment Agency voted Thursday to ask the city to move forward with eminent domain proceedings against 15 of the 31 properties involved in the first phase at Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Seacrest Boulevard. The CRA does not have authority to take properties by eminent domain.

Roberts Restaurant, the EZ Market and Triumph the Church of Kingdom of God in Christ are among the 15 properties.

Starting eminent domain proceedings could invigorate a project that began almost four years ago, CRA Director Doug Hutchinson said.

"We need some way to forecast a timetable," he said. "The community's been waiting and watching."

The Urban Group, which is conducting the contract negotiations, said it has made numerous contacts with property owners. Even after the city initiates eminent domain proceedings, the CRA can continue to negotiate with owners.

But some board members were hesitant.

"I'm not in favor of eminent domain for an individual's house, regardless of the greater good of the project," board member Don Fenton said.

All of the properties that serve as homesteads have been taken care of, Hutchinson said.

Of the 16 other parcels involved in Phase 1, the CRA has purchased eight properties, has one contract pending, one is involved in legal proceedings, and six properties are designated as self-assembly areas, meaning they will join with the CRA in the Heart of Boynton redevelopment.

While property owners will get fair-market value for their homes under eminent domain, those who sold to the CRA have gotten better values.

For instance, Thursday the CRA approved the purchase of a home on Northwest Eighth Avenue. The home's assessed value was $53,563, and the fair-market value was appraised at $100,000. The owners received that amount, plus $100,000 to relocate to a comparable home in the area.

---

Sun-Sentinel: www.sun-sentinel.com

Eminent domain urged to acquire properties for Heart of Boynton: (South Florida) Sun-Sentinel, 3/18/05

By Ushma Patel
Almost half of the properties involved in the Heart of Boynton's first redevelopment phase may be taken by eminent domain.

After about six months of negotiation, the Community Redevelopment Agency voted Thursday to ask the city to move forward with eminent domain proceedings against 15 of the 31 properties involved in the first phase at Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Seacrest Boulevard. The CRA does not have authority to take properties by eminent domain.

Roberts Restaurant, the EZ Market and Triumph the Church of Kingdom of God in Christ are among the 15 properties.

Starting eminent domain proceedings could invigorate a project that began almost four years ago, CRA Director Doug Hutchinson said.

"We need some way to forecast a timetable," he said. "The community's been waiting and watching."

The Urban Group, which is conducting the contract negotiations, said it has made numerous contacts with property owners. Even after the city initiates eminent domain proceedings, the CRA can continue to negotiate with owners.

But some board members were hesitant.

"I'm not in favor of eminent domain for an individual's house, regardless of the greater good of the project," board member Don Fenton said.

All of the properties that serve as homesteads have been taken care of, Hutchinson said.

Of the 16 other parcels involved in Phase 1, the CRA has purchased eight properties, has one contract pending, one is involved in legal proceedings, and six properties are designated as self-assembly areas, meaning they will join with the CRA in the Heart of Boynton redevelopment.

While property owners will get fair-market value for their homes under eminent domain, those who sold to the CRA have gotten better values.

For instance, Thursday the CRA approved the purchase of a home on Northwest Eighth Avenue. The home's assessed value was $53,563, and the fair-market value was appraised at $100,000. The owners received that amount, plus $100,000 to relocate to a comparable home in the area.

---

Sun-Sentinel: www.sun-sentinel.com

Group holds 1st meeting to fight eminent domain abuse: Atlanticville (Long Branch NJ), 3/16/05

By Christine Varno
A group of residents living in one of Long Branch’s redevelopment zones held the first meeting of its newly formed coalition on Sunday, which the founder said was a “great turn-out”.

“I thought it was a very positive meeting,” said Harold Bobrow, Ocean Boulevard.

The two-hour meeting was held at Bobrow’s home on Ocean Boulevard and was attended by 16 people. Bobrow said four others called and said they were interested but could not make it.

“We had an agenda and we opened every topic up for discussion,” he said.

The following topics were on the agenda; The abuse of eminent domain; The Kelo vs. New London, Conn., case, a case before the Supreme Court where a homeowner is fighting to save her oceanfront home from being taken through eminent domain and redeveloped by a private development company; and the importance of attending the twice-a-month council meetings.

The coalition was formed to accomplish two goals, “to stop eminent domain abuse and to obtain equitable compensation for property if taken,” Bobrow said.

“People are very anxious and do not want to be displaced.”

The next meeting of the coalition is scheduled to be held April 10 at 1 p.m. at 295 Ocean Blvd., Unit 5.

Beachfront South is a 12-acre tract of land that extends from Bath Avenue to Morris Avenue between Ocean Boulevard and Ocean Avenue, which is slated for eminent domain.

In August, K. Hovnanian Shore Acquisitions LLC, Middletown, was designated as the redevelopers of the zone and plan to construct a $300 million project that includes razing the existing neighborhood of approximately 30 properties and constructing five buildings with 350 units in its place.

The new units will range in cost from $400,000 up to over $2.2 million,

At a January council meeting, Mayor Adam Schneider said the city is 80 percent of the way to signing a contact.

Bobrow said he is currently arranging a meeting between the residents of Beachfront South, Mayor Adam Schneider, council President Anthony Giordano and representatives from K. Hovnanian.

“We [Beachfront South] want to be part of the [redevelopment] process,” he said.

Bobrow will present three possible dates for the meeting to the mayor, at which point the mayor will have to schedule the meeting for the date that all representatives can attend.

Bobrow said he intends to give the mayor the dates by the end of the month and is hoping for an April meeting.

“I want input before they sign the final documents,” Bobrow said. “Maybe we can amend, change or discuss various issues.”

“There are certain things that I want to know and I am going to the horse’s mouth for that information.”

---

Atlanticville: www.atlanticville.gmnews.com

Eminent Domain and Government Giveaways: The Progress Report, 3/18/05

Special Guest Commentary

By Wyn Achenbaum

Can land speculators force entire communities to sprawl inefficiently, without bearing any liability? Does government have the right to seize non-blighted properties and give them to private corporations? Are there better ways to enable development without trampling property rights?

Today we bring you Wyn Achenbaum's first-hand commentary on the big eminent domain dispute called "Kelo versus New London," a case that is being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It seems to me that there are better ways than eminent domain to provide the incentives that will lead the private sector to develop choice land. I've walked the New London, Connecticut, neighborhood involved in the Kelo case (before I was aware of the case). It sits fairly high above the Thames River near Long Island Sound, overlooking Fort Trumbull, which has been restored in recent years. On the other side is the new Pfizer research facility and a manmade lagoon and wetlands, apparently quite carefully planned and planted, some of it on land reclaimed after being the site for a junkyard.

While at one time this area might have been an appropriate place for a neighborhood of single family homes, it appeared to me that that time had passed a decade or so ago. It seemed to me that the path of progress would — if the incentives were logical and the market responsive to signals — have caused the private sector to have redeveloped that site. Such re-development might have been painful to the residents of the neighborhood, but would have put now-choice land to a higher and better use than single-family homes.

But our system wasn't designed to send signals all that well — Connecticut law required properties to be reassessed once every decade (and I've heard that once in early '70s and once in the late 80's was construed to satisfy that requirement). Now assessments are required every 4 years (though my town decided it didn't like the 2003 revaluation and is keeping the 1999 for a few more years).

But if the properties had been reassessed on a regular basis, with market-based values assigned first to the land and the residual being assigned to the existing buildings, the homeowners themselves would have been in a position to make their own rational decisions on whether it was worth it to them to continue to occupy extremely valuable land (and pay the taxes on it), or more to their advantage to accept an offer from someone who was prepared to put it to a higher and better use, and take that equity and buy elsewhere.

I am sympathetic to those who want to occupy their homes forever, but if those homes are located on land that is valuable (because of its views or water access or transportation services, for example) or becomes valuable because of surrounding development, it seems fair that they compensate the rest of us for holding up progress, for continuing to occupy as single-family residences, land which it is now time to develop into something that produces good results for the entire community.

Most of us know of an older home, or perhaps a diner, or something else that was a highly appropriate use for its site — and typical of the neighborhood — 50 years ago, which stubbornly remains in the middle of a neighborhood which has been redeveloped with taller commercial buildings. The home or diner is something everyone else has to walk around, drive around. If that site were well developed, it could prevent the premature development of far less desirable sites on the fringe of town — an acre downtown well developed, can save 10 or so acres on the fringe.

Should we protect the right of elderly people to stay in their homes, at the expense of the rest of the community? Should we protect the right of a young person who shares that home to stay there for an entire lifetime, at the expense of the community? I'm comfortable with the idea of allowing the elderly person to defer payment of the property taxes, with interest-bearing debt accruing against the property until it is sold or transferred. It seems to me to be an acceptable tradeoff, even if it creates potholes in the redevelopment. But his heirs should not inherit it until the lien is satisfied, which will usually mean that at last it will be developed consistent with the neighborhood.

But unless the properties are regularly and correctly assessed, land first and buildings as the residual, we won't have the signals which tell us when it might be time to move on.

In the absence of such a system of regular revaluations and a property tax which is concentrated on land values rather than equally on land and buildings, New London turned to eminent domain. But eminent domain is not the problem here. Lack of appropriate signals is the problem.

I live at the other end of Connecticut, and near me is a beautiful parkway which runs about 40 miles. For most of its length, it is a rather straight highway. But near its westernmost end, the straight road has some huge curves, designed to take it around some properties which the builders of the highway did not seek to acquire via eminent domain after the owners chose not to sell. Every driver who uses the westernmost section of the Merritt Parkway must drive extra miles in order to protect those wealthy 1930s landholders and their successors. I estimate that at least 1.3 billion extra miles have been driven by the general public. Had the builders of the parkway exercised eminent domain, this mileage, and the pollution and expense involved, would have been saved. Instead, the costs are shifted onto every driver and onto the taxpayers who maintain the highway and its services. Eminent domain would, I think, have been an appropriate step to prevent that. Today, the properties are among the most valuable residences in Connecticut, but their owners don't compensate the rest of us for our inconvenience and expense.

Our land, particularly the best-located land, is a common asset on which we are all dependent. Allowing individuals or corporations to occupy it without compensating the rest of us for its value is the underlying problem, and solving that problem through good assessment and rational (that is, land value) taxes is the way to solve it. When we do that, a lot of problems will begin to fall away.

For more background and ideas, see these articles:

• Earlier discussion of eminent domain in Connecticut
  www.progress.org/emdom04.htm
  
• Lindy Davies on Ownership and the Law
  www.progress.org/2004/davies26.htm
  
• "Government Takings? What About Givings?"
  www.progress.org/archive/diamant.htm
  
• Reforming the Property Tax System
  www.progress.org/2003/sprawl11.htm

---

The Progress Report: www.progress.org

Eminent Domain and Government Giveaways: The Progress Report, 3/17/05

Special Guest Commentary

By Wyn Achenbaum

Can land speculators force entire communities to sprawl inefficiently, without bearing any liability? Does government have the right to seize non-blighted properties and give them to private corporations? Are there better ways to enable development without trampling property rights?

Today we bring you Wyn Achenbaum's first-hand commentary on the big eminent domain dispute called "Kelo versus New London," a case that is being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

It seems to me that there are better ways than eminent domain to provide the incentives that will lead the private sector to develop choice land. I've walked the New London, Connecticut, neighborhood involved in the Kelo case (before I was aware of the case). It sits fairly high above the Thames River near Long Island Sound, overlooking Fort Trumbull, which has been restored in recent years. On the other side is the new Pfizer research facility and a manmade lagoon and wetlands, apparently quite carefully planned and planted, some of it on land reclaimed after being the site for a junkyard.

While at one time this area might have been an appropriate place for a neighborhood of single family homes, it appeared to me that that time had passed a decade or so ago. It seemed to me that the path of progress would — if the incentives were logical and the market responsive to signals — have caused the private sector to have redeveloped that site. Such re-development might have been painful to the residents of the neighborhood, but would have put now-choice land to a higher and better use than single-family homes.

But our system wasn't designed to send signals all that well — Connecticut law required properties to be reassessed once every decade (and I've heard that once in early '70s and once in the late 80's was construed to satisfy that requirement). Now assessments are required every 4 years (though my town decided it didn't like the 2003 revaluation and is keeping the 1999 for a few more years).

But if the properties had been reassessed on a regular basis, with market-based values assigned first to the land and the residual being assigned to the existing buildings, the homeowners themselves would have been in a position to make their own rational decisions on whether it was worth it to them to continue to occupy extremely valuable land (and pay the taxes on it), or more to their advantage to accept an offer from someone who was prepared to put it to a higher and better use, and take that equity and buy elsewhere.

I am sympathetic to those who want to occupy their homes forever, but if those homes are located on land that is valuable (because of its views or water access or transportation services, for example) or becomes valuable because of surrounding development, it seems fair that they compensate the rest of us for holding up progress, for continuing to occupy as single-family residences, land which it is now time to develop into something that produces good results for the entire community.

Most of us know of an older home, or perhaps a diner, or something else that was a highly appropriate use for its site — and typical of the neighborhood — 50 years ago, which stubbornly remains in the middle of a neighborhood which has been redeveloped with taller commercial buildings. The home or diner is something everyone else has to walk around, drive around. If that site were well developed, it could prevent the premature development of far less desirable sites on the fringe of town — an acre downtown well developed, can save 10 or so acres on the fringe.

Should we protect the right of elderly people to stay in their homes, at the expense of the rest of the community? Should we protect the right of a young person who shares that home to stay there for an entire lifetime, at the expense of the community? I'm comfortable with the idea of allowing the elderly person to defer payment of the property taxes, with interest-bearing debt accruing against the property until it is sold or transferred. It seems to me to be an acceptable tradeoff, even if it creates potholes in the redevelopment. But his heirs should not inherit it until the lien is satisfied, which will usually mean that at last it will be developed consistent with the neighborhood.

But unless the properties are regularly and correctly assessed, land first and buildings as the residual, we won't have the signals which tell us when it might be time to move on.

In the absence of such a system of regular revaluations and a property tax which is concentrated on land values rather than equally on land and buildings, New London turned to eminent domain. But eminent domain is not the problem here. Lack of appropriate signals is the problem.

I live at the other end of Connecticut, and near me is a beautiful parkway which runs about 40 miles. For most of its length, it is a rather straight highway. But near its westernmost end, the straight road has some huge curves, designed to take it around some properties which the builders of the highway did not seek to acquire via eminent domain after the owners chose not to sell. Every driver who uses the westernmost section of the Merritt Parkway must drive extra miles in order to protect those wealthy 1930s landholders and their successors. I estimate that at least 1.3 billion extra miles have been driven by the general public. Had the builders of the parkway exercised eminent domain, this mileage, and the pollution and expense involved, would have been saved. Instead, the costs are shifted onto every driver and onto the taxpayers who maintain the highway and its services. Eminent domain would, I think, have been an appropriate step to prevent that. Today, the properties are among the most valuable residences in Connecticut, but their owners don't compensate the rest of us for our inconvenience and expense.

Our land, particularly the best-located land, is a common asset on which we are all dependent. Allowing individuals or corporations to occupy it without compensating the rest of us for its value is the underlying problem, and solving that problem through good assessment and rational (that is, land value) taxes is the way to solve it. When we do that, a lot of problems will begin to fall away.

For more background and ideas, see these articles:

• Earlier discussion of eminent domain in Connecticut
  www.progress.org/emdom04.htm
  
• Lindy Davies on Ownership and the Law
  www.progress.org/2004/davies26.htm
  
• "Government Takings? What About Givings?"
  www.progress.org/archive/diamant.htm
  
• Reforming the Property Tax System
  www.progress.org/2003/sprawl11.htm

---

The Progress Report: www.progress.org

Eminent domain loopholes should be closed: WMVV Radio (Atlanta GA), 3/16/05

Commentary

By Sue Ella Deadwyler
The proposal that [georgia] government use the power of eminent domain to condemn private property for economic development was so bad that, when it was first introduced in S.B. 5, it didn't make it out of committee. But, we have the same song, second verse in S.B. 86 and it's moving toward becoming law. S.B. 86 passed the Senate 40 to 10 last Thursday and is now in the House Judiciary Committee where it needs to stay.

S.B. 86 has loopholes that must be closed before private property owners are secure on their own property. Consider this. S.B. 86 continues the notion that private property can be taken for economic development but says it this way: "[I]n no event shall a public purpose be construed to include the exercise of eminent domain solely or primarily for the purpose of improving tax revenue or the tax base or the purpose of economic development." Note the loophole "solely or primarily" that allows private property to be condemned if government decides to use some other excuse for taking property from those who don't want to sell.

The bill continues, "This shall include condemning property for the purpose of transferring, leasing, or allowing the use of such property to a private
developer, corporation, or other entity solely or primarily to attempt to expand tax revenue, increase the taxable value of the property, or promote economic development." Note that loophole "solely or primarily" again. Also, note that it allows the state to grab land to hand over to private developers, corporations or others. Does that give government the right to condemn more land than is actually needed for authentic public purposes and then sell or lease or give to a private developer the rest of the property? It sounds like that to me. So private property owners could lose their own property, simply, because government wants it transferred to a more prosperous private owner that could provide a more lucrative tax base.

S.B. 86 declares the intent of the General Assembly is that private property rights of residents and businesses should be protected over the interests of private developers and corporations. However, the last time I looked, "should" is a softer word than shall. Shall is a mandate. So, should private property owners be protected? Yes, they should, but shall should've been written instead of should if the General Assembly really intends to protect private property from predators, including government predators that would rather collect big business taxes than settle for lower personal taxes on the same property.

This bill went to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Representative Wendell Willard. Call him at 404-656-5124 and ask him to keep S.B. 86 in his committee. Not only is it bad news for private property owners, the U.S. Constitution prohibits the use of eminent domain to take private property for economic development. Eminent domain may be legitimately used for public projects such as roads, bridges and public buildings, but not to transfer land to other private owners. Private property ownership is a basic foundation of the free enterprise system and government should stop fiddlin' with it.

---

WMVV Radio: www.wmvv.com

More residents take up fight against eminent domain: (Long Branch NJ) Atlanticville, 3/10/05

Beachfront South Coalition forms to oppose taking of homes

By Christine Varno
A Long Branch couple living in one of the city’s oceanfront redevelopment zones is hoping to add to the voices opposing the use of eminent domain by the city.

Harold and Michelle Bobrow, Ocean Boulevard, are scheduled to host the first meeting of the Beachfront South Coalition this weekend at their residence at 295 Ocean Blvd., unit 5, at 11 a.m.

“We are anticipating a number of people will attend,” said Harold Bobrow. “If only two people show, that’s OK too. We will work with whoever shows.”

According to the Bobrows, the new coalition will have two goals, “to stop eminent domain abuse and to obtain equitable compensation for property if taken.”

The coalition is open to all interested parties, including individuals who do not live in the Beachfront South area or any redevelopment zone he added.

“If other people want to join who think eminent domain abuse is wrong, they can come too,” he said.

Beachfront South is a 12-acre tract of land that extends from Bath Avenue to Morris Avenue between Ocean Boulevard and Ocean Avenue, which is slated for eminent domain.

In August, K. Hovnanian Shore Acquisitions, Middletown, was designated as the redeveloper of the zone. Plans call for a $300 million project that includes razing the existing neighborhood of approximately 30 properties and construction of five buildings with 350 units in its place.

The new units will range in cost from $400,000 up to more than $2.2 million.

At a January council meeting, Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider said the city is 80 percent of the way to signing a contract with the developers.

The Bobrows, who have lived in their home for 15 years, say what is being done is wrong.

“I would have no problem if the city had to take my home for eminent domain to build a school, or a hospital, or even to widen a road for some reason,” Harold Bobrow said. “There are certain things that are for the better of the community.

“Telling me that taking the right of an individual to live in their home so other people can live in more expensive homes, I cannot agree with that. I think that is just wrong.”

The Beachfront South residents are not alone in their feelings.

Another group, MTOTSA (Marine and Ocean Terraces and Seaview Avenue), which is made up of residents living in the city’s Beachfront North, phase II, redevelopment zone, formed a coalition more than a year ago for the same cause.

MTOTSA recently hosted a rally to show support for the plaintiff in an eminent domain case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. The court has begun hearing arguments in Kelo vs. New London, Conn., a suit in which a homeowner is fighting the taking of her home on the New London waterfront through eminent domain for a private development corporation to redevelop the land.

The Bobrows were among 250 supporters at the local rally on Feb. 20, two days before the Supreme Court began its hearings.

“When you form together you can create a voice and be heard,” Harold Bobrow said.

For that reason, the Bobrows said they are ready to get their neighborhood involved and form a group of residents to meet monthly to fight eminent domain abuse.

One Beachfront South resident, who is the fourth generation living in her Ocean Avenue home, said she has high hopes for the coalition.

“We have been working closely with MTOTSA, but Beachfront South has yet to form a coalition of its own,” Katina Tsakiris said. “I am really happy that Harold is doing this because we have been running on the wake of MTOTSA.”

“We hope to get the word out and end the abuse of eminent domain.”

“We hope [the coalition] will have an impact on the city government and promote public awareness of the abuse of eminent domain,” Michelle Bobrow said.

“As Abraham Lincoln said, ‘If united we stand, divided we fall.’ ”

Harold Bobrow said the couple is trying to do something positive.

“If we can get people together to form a group to fight [eminent domain abuse], then we can have [the city] listen,” Harold said.

“I am not rolling over and playing dead,” he said. “I will not do it. I do not want to sell, and no one should be able to take my home by interpreting the law this way.”

---

Atlanticville: atlanticville.gmnews.com

Eminent domain use caters to developers: Asbury Park (NJ) Press , 3/10/05

By Kathleen E. Lo Pinto Vignolini, Long Branch NJ
Mayor Adam Schneider claims Long Branch citizens just don't understand the need to use eminent domain to take property. Unfortunately, we understand all too well. No property is safe from being stolen if a developer comes up with a plan for high-end condos and better ratables. Most homes in the affected area were well kept and family owned. Only a few rentals could be called blighted.

Profit for the few comes ahead of, and at the expense of, the many. The city is to blame for the blighted areas by not having enough code inspectors to keep after and penalize landlords.

The developer gives a homeowner, say, $200,000 fair market value, then builds four units there at $300,000 to $450,000 each. Thus he gleans a profit of $1 million to $1.6 million per property. That's when development doubles or triples the "sales value" of all Long Branch homes. Why is that bad? Every time home values increase, the taxes increase. At this inflated rate of growth, who can keep their homes for long?

Schneider's response to the Feb. 20 rally against eminent domain was, "They haven't wanted an honest dialogue ... yet." I take that to mean they haven't caved in to the developer's demands.

Long Branch's slogan is "The Friendly City." Friendly to whom: the citizens who have lived, worked, shopped and paid taxes for generations or to those with enough big bucks to afford living here now? Our rents are atrocious, house prices are perverse and taxes are outlandish. This development project exploits the citizens who have been paying the city's bills for decades.

---

Asbury Park Press: www.app.com

Supreme Court should rein in eminent domain: Liberty (MO) Sun-News, 3/10/05

Opinions
Under this nation's original property law, the Fifth Amendment, "A man's home is his castle" carried the weight of Scripture, but present laws suggest, "A person's home is his government's, which can buy and sell that home to anyone for a profit."

The situation is an injustice perpetrated upon Northlanders and other people nationwide by the government's unrestrained, oppressive use of eminent domain.

People who used to live around Kansas City International Airport learned that fact the hard way.

Liberty Triangle businesses, churches, charities and home owners are now learning that fact the hard way, too.

When New London, Conn., residents were about to learn the hard way, they rebelled. They united against letting city government bulldoze their houses for private development. They carried their fight to the U.S. Supreme Court, which last week heard both sides of the issue and could render a decision affecting all property owners by fall.

Taking the city's side are groups such as the National League of Cities. They argue that for cities to earn more income to benefit all citizens, cities must be able to take and turn over citizens' houses to private developers.

The argument makes sense at one level. Only a slumlord would defend run-down tenements - buildings with leaky roofs, faulty wiring and rats. Such buildings endanger a community and should be replaced by tax-producing houses or businesses. The law allowed such condemnations for decades and raised little concern until 1954 when the Supreme Court slightly adjusted the Fifth Amendment prohibition against the government's ability to snatch one person's private land for another person's private profit. The court granted cities the right to take non-blighted land, in an otherwise blighted area, so that private businesses could proceed with "urban renewal."

After that subtle change, some state courts and legislatures went wild, eroding the public's right to land ownership - a right Colonists fought for and wrote into the Constitution because the British, also, had a nasty, self-serving habit of taking private property. Five decades of tinkering by the government, and for the government, have brought eminent domain laws to their present tyrannical status, with varying degrees of "taking" allowed from state to state.

In Missouri, ranked by the Institute for Justice as one of the worst states for abusing private property owners, almost anything goes. Missouri courts find the slightest pretext sufficient for a city to take anyone's house, anyone's business. As an example, Kansas City grabbed private land around the airport in the mid-1990s. The city had no plan for how to use the land, just a foggy notion that maybe, someday, the land might be useful. Based on that quicksand foundation, the Missouri Court of Appeals in 1998 stomped on individual property rights and allowed the city to take the land.

"In Missouri, the (eminent domain) challenges have gone nowhere in the state court system, because the courts view it as a legislative decision and the legislature has invested the 'local legislatures' with virtually absolute discretion to declare something blighted as long as they follow the procedures," Stanley Wallach, chairman of the Missouri Bar's Eminent Domain Law Committee, told the Sun.

This means a city may offer a family $200,000 for a house, but if the family believes the house is worth $400,000, too bad for the family. An owner may dicker with city representatives over price, but if the two sides reach an impasse, the city wins. The average person might think, "I'd sue." But as Wallach observed, in all such cases the city has the upper hand because Missouri's court rulings are crystal clear - government rights trump individual rights.

Lopsided favoritism of the government vs. the public's Fifth Amendment right to protection from eminent domain can hurt a community. The Spirit of Liberty building in the Triangle is a case in point. The city wants to raze the building. Doing so would mean In As Much and Love INC, church-affiliated ministries that help the poor, would be left homeless. The situation is tragic and ironic. Liberty City Council, in a bid to help the community, wants to demolish a building that helps the community. Liberty City Council, to raise more tax dollars, has forced community members to start raising money, too - about $3 million to build a new home for the two ministries, which otherwise could be tossed into the street.

Eminent domain makes sense as a means to remove dangerous buildings, and for public projects such as highway construction, but the present use of eminent domain is out of control. According to the Institute for Justice in Washington, between 1998 and 2002, local governments either used or threatened to use eminent domain an incredible 10,000 times.

Unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise, there is no end in sight for what cities can and will do to take private property - homes, businesses, churches. No end nationally. No end in Missouri. No end in Kansas City. No end in Liberty. None.

The Supreme Court, which started on the slippery path of eroding the public's rights in 1954, should reverse the eminent domain trend not only for New London property owners, but for American property owners everywhere.

---

Sun-News: www.zwire.com

Newark's game of give and take: Newark (NJ) Star Ledger, 3/11/05

Use of 'eminent domain' is a big piece of Newark's redevelopment

By George E Jordan
The latest hip-hop thumped in sync with music videos on a dozen flat-screen monitors, as the chef imported from Manhattan filled plates in the kitchen and three bartenders poured drinks as fast as they could.

And more importantly, just about every seat was filled on a recent Friday evening in the Arena Bar in downtown Newark.

"We're going to maybe open a lounge upstairs," Antonio Rodrigues, the neo-sports tavern's managing partner, said. This, he said, is what redevelopment in Newark is supposed to be about.

But there's a hitch.

In the next breath, Rodrigues ruefully retold how he overspent to open a business last month that was doomed from the start — because the city plans to use its powers of "eminent domain" to seize the joint, and other nearby properties, for condominiums. He said he never knew eminent domain was a possibility.

"A month and a half after the start of construction, I find out about the Mulberry Street project," Rodrigues said over the clamor of a dozen tables filled with customers — some of whom include principals of the condominium development company, as well as Newark Mayor Sharpe James' senior bureaucrats.

"They've been here, they've come in for lunch," he said. " I told them just don't hurt me."

The Arena Bar's sticky wicket is hardly an isolated case. The use — and critics say abuse — of eminent domain has become an increasingly pressing issue in New Jersey and elsewhere. Late last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard its first eminent domain case in decades.

The resolution of that case, Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., could fundamentally change how, and whether, governments can seize private land for economic development.

Closer to home, eminent domain has been a vital tool in just about every New Jersey civic renewal for as long as anyone can remember.

Newark has aggressively uprooted property owners in the name of economic development. Since 1976, the state's largest city has displaced 300 families, 70 businesses and a dozen churches, according to city figures.

The Supreme Court decision, expected in summer, will be closely watched because of its potential impact on the $310 million Newark arena, the city's biggest development project in recent history, and an adjacent development of 2,000 condominium units.

Richard Monteilh, Newark's business administrator, said the Supreme Court case would probably not disrupt the June groundbreaking planned for the arena.

Eminent domain will be a small part of acquiring land for the city-owned facility, he said. The three major property owners — parking magnate Jerome Gottesman, restaurateur Jose Lopez and the First Presbyterian Church — have struck deals to sell, swap or develop their property in the arena zone, he said.

The Newark Housing Authority, meanwhile, has already bought out many small businesses and homeowners in the arena zone, bounded by McCarter Highway and Broad, Market and Lafayette streets.

"The project is being done with the greatest sensitivity to the property owners," Monteilh said. "Everybody is going to win financially. Nobody is going to get hurt."
Haydee Perez, a lifelong resident of Columbia Street in Newark's former Chinatown, voluntarily sold her house three years ago for $245,000 to the Newark Housing Authority and purchased an existing home in Belleville.

"We knew they were going to get us out sooner or later," she said. "Let me get out while the going is good."

Monteilh said the city and private builder of the proposed $500 million condominium development, Mulberry Street Urban Renewal, expect a spirited fight from a coalition of two dozen homeowners and businesses that have filed a lawsuit to stop the project.

In November, the Newark City Council declared as "blighted" 13 acres bounded by McCarter Highway and Oliver, Scott and Orchard streets. The designation authorized the use of eminent domain to seize homes and businesses, including the Arena Bar. Like the case heard by the Supreme Court, the properties would be transferred to a condominium developer.

George Mytrowitz, owner of Market Body Works, whose shop has operated from a quarter-acre on the west side of McCarter Highway since the early 1940s, said he would not leave without a fight. "We've got the best location in Newark," he said. "Where are they going to put us, in a back alley?"

In the Kelo case, New London condemned 90 acres for a private developer to build a waterfront hotel, high-tech research space, 80 upscale residences and retail shops. Connecticut's Supreme Court approved, maintaining such use of eminent domain constituted "public use."

Property owners in New London claimed it was wrong to transfer their land at discount prices to commercial builders.

John Buonocore, lawyer for property owners suing to stop the Mulberry Street condominium, said his clients would make the same argument.

"Whether or not it's a good idea, whether or not it's a nice project, or whether or not people are going to be paid, is besides the point," he said. "In this country, private property can only be taken for public use."

The Mulberry Street condominium's boosters said the upscale housing next to the arena would rejuvenate a long-neglected part of downtown and go a long way toward repairing the city's image.

Ironically, the Arena Bar is the type of business — it draws the suit-and-tie crowd on weekdays and fills with singles until the wee hours on weekends — city boosters said the condominiums and arena would draw.

"It's a beautiful place. It's a great job," said Emilio Farina, a principal in Mulberry Street Urban Renewal and former aide to Newark Councilwoman-at-Large Bessie Walker. He said he regularly eats and drinks at the Arena Bar.

"We're interested in anyone who wants to make downtown a better place to stay," said Farina, who sidestepped questions about relocating the bar and compensating its owners. "It's been our theme from the beginning. It's a goal to include everybody."

Rodrigues, a mid-sized real estate developer, insists he did not know about the Mulberry Street condominiums, publicly debated for two years. He claims it was not disclosed by the real estate broker, lawyers and seller of the Caverna Bar.
"I swear, I didn't know," he said, both palms turned upright in a plaintive gesture. "I'm not one to stand in the way of progress. If I had known, I would have spent a little less fixing up the place. I just don't want to get hurt."

---

Star Ledger: www.nj.com

Opportunity for graft: Newark (NJ) Star Ledger, 3/10/05

Reader Forum

By John C. Sementa, Coopersburg PA
Your Feb. 22 edition reported on eminent domain abuse in New Jersey and the landmark case before the Supreme Court. The next day's front page carried a story about 11 public officials in Monmouth County who were caught in an FBI corruption sting. How many property owners have been forced off their property by corrupt politicians acting on behalf of developers who bribed them? And let's not forget about James McGreevey and the Machiavellian land grab in Piscataway.

---

Star Ledger: www.nj.com

Arena foes: Where do Dem bigs stand? NY Daily News, 3/9/05

By Hugh Son
Mayor Bloomberg's Democratic rivals have come out swinging against the
proposed Jets stadium on Manhattan's West Side - but Brooklyn's arena project is another ballgame.

The Atlantic Yards project, also backed by Bloomberg, has prompted none of the outrage of the Manhattan project among the four top Democratic contenders.

"I am generally supportive of what Ratner and the city want to do there," Rep. Anthony Weiner told the Daily News, referring to developer Bruce Ratner's $2.5 billion project to build a Nets arena, housing and office towers in Prospect Heights over the train yards.

City Council Speaker Gifford Miller (D-Manhattan) said there were "positive differences" between the two projects and touted the Brooklyn project's affordable housing and smaller price tag, said spokesman Steve Sigmund.

The two other Democratic hopefuls - former Bronx Borough President Fernando Ferrer and Manhattan Borough President Virginia Fields - voiced some opposition to the project, but fell short of condemning it.

"There needs to be a full and open public debate before making a judgement," Ferrer's spokesman Chad Clanton said.

A Fields spokesman said the Brooklyn project should go through a rigorous city review process, but refused to say if Fields supported it.

"They all need to get off the fence and take a firm position by looking deeply into the details of this project," said Daniel Goldstein of the anti-arena group Develop - Don't Destroy Brooklyn.

The group sent candidates letters this week demanding they oppose the Ratner project on the same grounds they oppose the West Side development.

"I think every one of their answers are inconsistent to their position on the West Side stadium," Goldstein said.

The four hopefuls have bashed Bloomberg over the Manhattan project - and not Ratner's deal - because the West Side arena "has overshadowed the Brooklyn project," said political expert Hank Sheinkopf.

"The West Side [stadium] has become more of a lightning rod," Sheinkopf said. "There has been much more controversy surrounding it."

Ratner's project would require $200 million from the city and state and would allow the condemnation of homes and businesses on the 21-acre site that have not already been purchased by Forest City Ratner.

---

Daily News: www.nydailynews.com

The Jets vs. Nets: Brooklyn Arena Deal Template for Stadium: NY Observer, 3/9/05

By Matthew Schuerman
The Mayor’s after-hours announcement on March 3 of a deal on the Brooklyn arena for the Nets basketball team was first seen as a pleasant distraction from his troubled negotiations over the West Side football stadium.

Except the two projects sound remarkably the same.

It’s not just that a sport facility would go over Metropolitan Transportation Authority [M.T.A.] train yards—one in Brooklyn, the other in Manhattan. It is also that, in each case, the developer gets a nice check from the government, state override of local zoning laws and years of tax-free living.

The announcement came as something of a surprise. Fourteen months ago, Forest City Ratner Companies announced its plan to move the Nets to a Frank Gehry–designed arena at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic avenues in Brooklyn. Plus, in the part of the deal that would make real money, chief executive Bruce Ratner would erect 17 office and residential towers in the rapidly gentrifying Prospect Heights, for a
grand total of $2.5 billion.

Since that time, Mr. Ratner has been engaged in a little friendly "Mau-Mauing of the Flak Catchers," as Tom Wolfe would call it: offering jobs, affordable housing and a community center to gain support from community activists. Then, once the brouhaha over the West Side erupted this winter, little was heard about the 21-acre complex. Opponents thought the deal might even have fallen through.

Ka-boom! Out comes the press release from the Mayor’s office proclaiming "an historic project that will continue to energize the borough of Brooklyn" and bring 12,000 construction jobs and 8,500 permanent jobs. The city and state will chip in $200 million "in site preparation and public infrastructure improvements," the press release added.

That didn’t sound too bad compared to the $600 million that the public is supposed to ante up for the West Side stadium. But wait—there’s more!

The actual memorandum of understanding, which has so far escaped the notice of the press, shows that Mr. Ratner will be able to finance the arena through tax-free bonds. While he pays those bonds back, he will not have to pay property taxes or even payments in lieu of taxes. These PILOTS, as they are fashionably known, are what commercial developers of tax-exempt property often have to pay.

The city will even throw in a couple of lots that it owns, along with portions of streets and sidewalks, for $1—the mere price of a watery cup of coffee at a corner deli.

But wait—there’s more!

The state’s Empire State Development Corporation, which will take control of the project, will "consider" exempting Forest City from mortgage-recording taxes and from sales taxes on construction materials that it will use to build the towers and the arena.

"They are getting every tax break known to man," said City Council member Letitia James, whose district includes the proposed project and who has fought it from its inception. Bettina Damiani, project director of the nonprofit watchdog group Good Jobs New York, remarked, "I think the concern here is that sales taxes and other taxes are some of the reasons why we want development, because they are supposed to go back to the city."

Wasn’t it just a few months ago that Mayor Bloomberg called on Madison Square Garden, his enemy in the West Side negotiations, to give up its tax breaks? It was four months ago, in fact. But, City Hall says, the two situations are not the same. "After the bonds are satisfied, the PILOT will return to the city," said Janel Patterson, spokeswoman for the Economic Development Commission. "The Madison Square Garden legislation granted a tax break in perpetuity."

As for how long it will take before Forest City pays off its construction bonds and becomes a responsible, tax-paying citizen, well, no one quite knows.

Nevertheless, it will all be worth it, said Ms. Patterson. "This project will create about a billion in benefits for the city and the state, and it will create 8,500 jobs. It is a reasonable investment on our part."

Just how much of a payback the Brooklyn development will create is up to debate. A study paid for by Forest City put the total at $3.6 billion, while another study commissioned by neighborhood opponents found that the project would end up losing $500 million for the city. The city estimates a $1 billion return—which is good, because a new study by the Pratt Institute (the most objective source to conduct a study to date) finds that all these tax breaks could end up costing the city about $1 billion.

Local opponents, though, have even bigger problems with the notion of the state seizing their property through eminent domain and then turning it over to a private developer—albeit in exchange for fair market value.

The new deal makes clear that the state intends to do just that—and that the city may in fact even use some of its $100 million contribution to buy up properties that reluctant property owners refuse to sell.

The M.T.A., however, hasn’t gotten with the program. Just as on the West Side, it’s the M.T.A. which could end up making the whole project extremely expensive for the developer. The Feb. 18 agreement stipulates that Forest City Ratner Companies will have to pay market price—whatever that means—for the 10 acres of M.T.A.-owned property on which the towers will be built. The M.T.A., in a separate letter dated Feb. 24, said that it reserves the right to put the railyard out to bid—but that if it agrees to sell to Mr. Ratner, it will charge him for every sixpenny nail it has to use to renovate or relocate because there is something historic going on overhead.

Go, Nets!

---

NY Observer: www.nyobserver.com

Eminent domain has two issues: York (PA) Daily Record, 3/8/05

Courts are still feeling their way around the controversial power

By Tom Joyce
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution concludes with: "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
So there it is — a provision allowing for the government to take private property, expressed as a kind of embarrassed-throat-clearing negative. And to this day, government entities still take private land. Yet nobody seems to do it with a great deal of prideful enthusiasm.

In a recent deposition regarding the history of York County's attempts to take a former portion of Lauxmont Farms in Lower Windsor Township, Mark Platts, executive director of Lancaster-York Heritage Region, several times uses the phrase "last resort" to qualify the phrase "eminent domain."

Yet Platts still insists that the potential public benefit of obtaining the land justifies government exercising its power to do so without the consent of the owner, so long as the owner is compensated.

"Eminent domain has been used to preserve open space, parks and historical sites for 200 years now," Platts said.

But developer Peter Alecxih Jr., a builder who is resisting the county's attempts to take his land known as the "Highpoint," argues that need isn't compelling enough. And he'll never get the same kind of money from government compensation as he would have received from developing the land, as he originally planned.

"What I'm saying is the county has been capricious, they've been arbitrary, and they've dealt with me in bad faith," Alecxih said.

York County commissioners voted 2-1 in May to take Alecxih's property by eminent domain for a proposed park, known as the Susquehanna Riverlands Preservation Project. Alecxih has objected; he wants to build 51 homes at Highpoint.

York County officials want to acquire part of neighboring Lauxmont Farms for the park as well. The Kohrs, the family that owns that property, remain in reluctant negotiation with the county.

The nation's courts are still feeling their way around the issue of eminent domain, according to Mary Lynn Pickel, director of legislative services for the National Association of Home Builders.

Pickel said that any dispute concerning eminent domain comes down to two basic issues: Whether the public necessity is compelling enough to justify the government's taking of private property, and whether the property owner is being compensated what the property is worth.

By far, the majority of eminent domain disputes are about the latter issue, Pickel said.

Many states, including Pennsylvania, have a legal formula for determining compensation in eminent domain disputes, Pickel said. But the issue of what constitutes public necessity can still be tricky.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court is now considering a case in Connecticut, Kelo vs. New London, in which the issue is whether the government has the authority to seize private property and turn it over to a developer for the ostensible reason of boosting the local economy.

Pickel wouldn't comment specifically on the dispute between the county and Alecxih. But she said there is legal precedent for taking land in order to build a public park.

"A park is a public use," she said. "That's pretty standard."

Alecxih said that for the time being, he's contesting the attempt to use eminent domain on the issue of whether it constitutes public use. If he eventually loses the case on that argument, then he'll contest it on the basis of fair compensation.

Even if the county compensates him for the $17 million he contends the land is worth, Alecxih said, that won't reflect the amount he could have received once houses were built on it.

He said, however, that the argument against taking land simply in the interest of building a park is compelling enough in itself.

"Where's the survey from York County residents saying they need a park?" he said.

Platts, however, said that anybody who has actually seen the land in question and the natural beauty it overlooks wouldn't argue against the compelling public need for preserving it.

"Once you visit the site and see the uniqueness of it, you see the reason why people think it's so important," he said.

---

The Daily Record: www.ydr.com

Court will decide if property rights exist: The (Missoula MT) Missoulian, 3/8/05

The government shouldn't be able to boot you from your property to help someone else make a buck
Does a city government have the right to make you move, to take your home and give your property to someone else largely because the other guy has more money and will pay more taxes than you do?

Believe it or not, the answer is yes. At the moment, anyway.

Should governments have this power? That's something the U.S. Supreme Court is deciding.

The Supreme Court heard a case on Feb. 22 that will go a long way toward deciding how much respect local, state and federal governments have to afford the property rights of citizens - and, in fact, whether there really is such a thing as property rights in America. The right to own property really doesn't mean much if your neighbors can easily take it away from you.

The case in question is called Kelo v. New London. It involves a Connecticut city that used its power of eminent domain, forcing homeowners to sell their property to the city, so it could turn the land over to developers to build fancy condominiums and shops.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the government has the power to take people's property for public use as long as the owner is justly compensated. The "public use" claimed in the case before the Supreme Court is "economic development."

"Economic development," of course, boils down to generating more money. The whole idea of economic development is to increase economic activity, which translates simply into having more money change hands. The use of eminent domain for economic development boils down to taking land being used by one person for one thing so that it can be used by another person for another thing. It's a form of reverse Robin Hood - taking from the poor to give to the rich.

Our notion of "public use" has more to do with essential infrastructure - roads, sewer, runways and such. It seems a terrible abuse of government power to boot somebody off his land simply because you think someone else can put it to a higher and better use. Doing this also assumes government officials can correctly pick the highest and best use and that they can correctly guess what uses will produce the greatest economic activity over the long-term. That's provably wrong.

Reading up on this issue in recent weeks, we were surprised to learn, however, that the courts have for decades generally endorsed the use of eminent domain for urban renewal economic development. The Kelo case represents an opportunity to redefine - and limit - the government's ability to essentially redistribute property to suit its purposes. Keep your fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will honor the spirit of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution before ruling.

If a developer wants your house because he thinks he can make a buck with it, then he should make you an offer. If you say no, he should up the ante. If you still won't sell, the developer should find another piece of land. We shouldn't let the developer sic the government on you.

---

The Missoulian: www.missoulian.com

Councilman explains his vote on project: Newark (NJ) Star Ledger, 3/6/05

By Augusto Amador, East Ward councilman
Allow me to take this opportunity to address Mr. Juan Lijo's letter of Feb. 20 to the Essex Forum regarding the Mulberry Street Project and the potential use of the "eminent domain" law for private development.

As the councilman of Newark's East ward, where the project is scheduled to be built, I welcome Mr. Lijo's call for an investigation into the alleged relationship between the developers and some elected officials from Newark. Notwithstanding the fact that my campaign fund was the recipient of a donation from the New Jersey Redevelopment Corp. prior to the introduction of the project before the city council, I must remind Mr. Lijo and inform everyone that I voted against the project...twice.

The reasons for the way I voted were made very clear in all the opportunities we had to discuss the project and vote on it. I simply did not believe then, and I do not believe now, that the concept of "eminent domain" should be used for the benefit of private development. In addition, I suggested to my council colleagues that the matter should not be voted on by the council until the New London case is decided by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

As I stated publicly, the decision I made on this issue was based solely on a comparison between the interests of those most affected by the project: homeowners who bought their properties in the '60s and '70s and turned a deplorable area into a livable community, through their effort and perseverance, and the interests and intentions of the developers. And, although somewhat intrigued by the importance and benefits that a project of this nature can bring to the area and to the city, ultimately, I could not overlook the fact that those who have invested in that community in the past need to be treated with the respect they have gathered along the way.

---

Star Ledger: www.nj.com