7/19/2005

Eminent domain ruling fuels imminent concern: Milwaukee (WI) Journal Sentinel, 7/15/05

Falls redevelopment brings worries to Main St

By Reid J Epstein

The letter that scared Don Umhoefer arrived via certified mail earlier this month. On village stationery, it described a proposed Main Street area redevelopment plan in the works that encompasses his block of Fond du Lac Ave.

"Implementing the proposed Redevelopment Plan may involve the condemnation of private property within the Redevelopment Area for urban renewal purposes," the letter states. "Accordingly, you are hereby notified that your property might be taken for urban renewal."

Condemning private property for economic redevelopment, always touchy ground for local governments to tread, theoretically became easier last month when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that governments may buy property, blighted or not, as long as the owner is fairly compensated.

Menomonee Falls officials say they hope to not have to take property for the Main Street project, but they won't rule out the option.

"There aren't any particular parcels targeted and there aren't any parcels that are excluded," said John Fellows, the village planner. "It's left open. A parcel could be acquired or nothing might be acquired."

The Falls' Main Street, a depressed corridor dotted with vacant lots and empty storefronts, has long been the subject of redevelopment talks. Village officials contracted with urban planners RTKL Associates Inc. to develop a design for the neighborhood. Trustees hope to have a plan finalized soon and financing formalized by fall.

Last month's Supreme Court decision expanded the local governments' power to declare eminent domain.

In New London, Conn., residents whose homes are targeted for destruction to make room for an office complex challenged the city's condemnation. They claimed the city could not seize their land to turn it over to private developer, but the court ruled otherwise.

Car dealer owns parcels
Of the 80 parcels in the Menomonee Falls redevelopment proposal, car dealer Ernie von Schledorn owns 14, including six that are listed as vacant lots. Trustee Michael McDonald, who said he hopes the village does not have to purchase land in its redevelopment effort, acknowledged that the village could use eminent domain powers to turn von Schledorn's property over to developers.

"Hopefully, it won't be necessary," McDonald said. "Hopefully, Ernie von Schledorn and the other property owners will embrace the concept so we won't have to resort to that sort of thing."

Reached Friday at his dealership in Mayville, von Schledorn said he purchased the Main Street properties with the idea of expanding his flagship car dealership, which sits on Main Street east of Highway 41/45, adjacent to the proposed redevelopment zone.

Von Schledorn termed the redevelopment plan "all very promising."

"They will have my total cooperation," he said.

Next up is a July 26 public hearing, at which property owners within the proposed redevelopment zone can lobby to be removed from it.

Condemning private property to spur economic development is not a new function for local governments. Milwaukee purchased an old rail yard in the Menomonee Valley to develop it as a business park and Glendale's Bayshore Mall is being expanded into a mix of stores, restaurants, offices and condominiums.

Taxpayer rights advocated
State Sen. David Zien (R-Eau Claire), who announced last month that he would introduce legislation seeking to restrict local government's ability to seize private property for economic development, said Menomonee Falls should not turn property over from one owner to another.

"The rights of the taxpayers, the rights of the property owners, are paramount," Zien said. "Where is that fine line of demarcation where it is not public use, but public greed?"

Umhoefer said he is worried he will be forced to leave his home, which is assessed for tax purposes at $102,900.

"The guys with the money are going to win," he said. "If somebody came in there with a lot of money and said, 'I'm going to put up the next Wisconsin Dells,' they have the power to take anything within those boundaries and condemn it."


Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: www.journalsentinel.com





The following is a "Letter to the Editor" of the Menomonee Falls Express News by Don Umhoefer, one of the parties affected by the proposed 'taking' described in the above report.


I applaud the Village Board’s decision to intervene in the declining Main Street area. After an objective and thorough review of the entire northeast corner of the Village, the consultant’s recommendations have been presented and have now been called “The Dream” for Main Street. Job well done!

It’s great to have a dream… The business and home owners in the Main Street neighborhood also have dreams. No matter how much we try to buy into this plan, it is hard for the business and homeowners to not feel that their dreams are being threatened.

In order to create the redevelopment district proposed, an inventory of all the homes and businesses within its boundaries has been completed. (This also includes parts of Fond du Lac, Jefferson and Cleveland Avenues) Each and every property has been determined to be “blighted”. Vibrant, functioning businesses such as Auto Zone, Murf’s, Schlotzky’s, Pool Park, Emery’s Bicycles, and the Wauwatosa Credit Union, as well as many homes “Impair the sound growth of the community” simply because they do not fit into the proposed plan.

Instead of looking for one new business to provide the catalyst for change, why not acknowledge these current business owners as the cornerstones of Main Street and stimulate the revitalization with a controlled, planned infill of complementary residential and retail development?

Will the Village of Menomonee Falls use eminent domain to take private property from the existing home and business owners to benefit private developers?

Once this entire area is labeled “blighted”, the Village has the power to acquire properties through the use of eminent domain. Most people are aware that government has the power to take private property for “the good of the general public”. Primarily, this power has been used for roads, public buildings, and power transmission lines.

The recent Supreme Court split decision on Kelo-vs-City of New London has opened the door for government to liberally stretch this power to also take private property from one owner to give it to another private owner, usually a developer. In the words of dissenting Justice O Connor stated; “the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.” In other words, the little guy loses again!

Property owners in the proposed Main Street Redevelopment Area recently received a notification of a Public Hearing in the form of a Certified Letter which includes the statement; “Implementing the proposed Redevelopment Plan may involve the condemnation of private property within the Redevelopment Area for urban renewal purposes. Accordingly, you are hereby notified that your property might be taken for urban renewal.”

Will the Village of Menomonee Falls choose to abuse their power of eminent domain?

How are our taxes going to be used to pay for these “improvements” and the increased burden they place on the Village’s infrastructure?

Please attend the Public Hearing on July 26, 2005 to learn more and to voice your opinion.

Donald J. Umhoefer, Menomonee Falls WI 53051: oompa@worldshare.net

Group wants state amendment to limit eminent domain powers: Durham (NC) Herald-Sun, 7/17/05

By Ginny Skalski

It's unlikely North Carolina property owners will be affected by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning local governments and property rights, but a local organization led in part by City Councilman Thomas Stith wants to ensure it stays that way.

The Civitas Institute has proposed a state constitutional amendment to prevent North Carolina from changing its laws on eminent domain. The proposal is in response to last month's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says local governments may seize people's homes and businesses for private economic development.

The ruling is not expected to immediately affect North Carolina because existing state law does not list private use as a reason cities and counties can condemn private land. But some opponents of the court's 5-4 ruling worry that could change.

"Laws can be changed and laws depend on who happens to be elected," said Stith, who is vice president of the Raleigh-based public policy think tank.

David Lawrence, a professor at the UNC School of Government, doesn't recall a bill ever being introduced in the N.C. General Assembly that would add condemnation for economic development purposes.

"But things could change in the future, and if people want to cut that off, the constitution is the way to do it," Lawrence said.

In order to amend the constitution, three-fifths of the members of the House and Senate would have to approve the proposal. The final decision would be left to a majority of voters.

The Civitas Institute wants the Legislature to take up the proposal before the current session ends, according to the organization's president, Jack Hawke. The institute, however, is still researching a possible amendment.

Lawmakers in at least seven states have already introduced legislation to either limit the use of eminent domain for private projects or tighten existing procedures, according to the Institute for Justice. At least 11 other states intend to do the same in upcoming sessions, the Institute for Justice reported.

Rep. Paul Luebke, a Durham Democrat, said he doesn't see lawmakers "getting into that at all this session," adding that their "focus is on trying to pass the budget and go home."

While Luebke disagrees with the court's decision, he said state law provides enough protection against seizing property for private economic development.

"The constitution should be amended very carefully and only when absolutely necessary and this doesn't seem necessary," Luebke said.

S. Ellis Hankins, executive director of the North Carolina League of Municipalities, said he doesn't think league members would see a need for amending the constitution to specifically prohibit eminent domain for private use.

"I believe deference ought to be given to the elected representatives of the people," Hankins said.

Still, Hawke said an amendment is necessary to ensure state law isn't changed in the future and to protect the rights of property owners.

"[Otherwise] nobody ever owns their property," Hawke said. "There's no such thing as personal property rights and that was one of the basic foundations on which our nation was formed."

Hawke said the Supreme Court ruling could allow a local government to seize a homeowner's house so that a developer could build a larger house that would bring more property taxes to the community.

County Commissioner Chairwoman Ellen Reckhow said the court's decision centering on New London, Conn., was not based on a proposal for a "miscellaneous economic development." Instead, the court was asked to consider a large-scale project where economic growth outweighed the property rights of several homeowners.

"To liken it to just an individual developer coming in and saying: 'I want to put in a store on this corner please take this parcel through eminent domain' ? I don't think that's comparable," Reckhow said.

Durham County is currently involved in the eminent domain process with two downtown companies. The county wants to take property owned by the U-Haul Real Estate Co. at 247 S. Mangum St. and the Scarborough & Hargett Funeral Home at 306 S. Roxboro St. to build a courthouse and a parking lot.

The county is allowed to pursue eminent domain in that case because a new courthouse would be for public use. Since 2002, the city has filed six eminent domain cases, one of which is still pending, according to Assistant City Attorney Richard Weintraub.


Herald-Sun: www.heraldsun.com

CCM says suggested eminent domain moratorium too broad: (Long Island NY) Newsday, 7/18/05

By Susan Haigh, Associated Press

The largest organization of Connecticut municipalities said Monday that a suggested moratorium on seizing private property is unnecessarily broad.

A spokesman for the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities [CCM] said towns and cities using eminent domain laws for traditional public uses, such as building schools and roads, should be able to proceed.

Lawmakers suggested the moratorium after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last month that New London can seize homes for a private economic development project. They want time to consider changing Connecticut's laws to provide more protection for property owners.

But in a letter sent Monday to legislative leaders and Gov. M. Jodi Rell, CCM said there are many categories of eminent domain that have not generated the same concern as the proposed property takings in New London.

"If they've begun eminent domain proceedings within the letter of the law ... they should be able to still go forward," said Kevin Maloney, a CCM spokesman.

New London wants to take homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood for a waterfront redevelopment initiative. The Supreme Court decision sparked public outrage and last week prompted majority Democrats in the legislature to urge municipalities and the state to put any eminent domain plans on hold.

CCM, which backed the New London project in court hearings, said that case deals with transferring occupied residential property to a private owner for economic development.

And CCM maintains the legislature is unlikely to curtail justified and fair uses of eminent domain, which the organization calls a long-recognized and essential tool for state and local governments.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said his office last year handled 40 eminent domain cases. Most involved the state Department of Transportation seeking land for highway projects. His office does not, however, handle municipal cases. CCM doesn't have statistics on how often municipalities use eminent domain to take property.

House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, and other Republicans want the legislature to pass a bill later this month that would create a moratorium. He said CCM's objection to the proposal proves that a law is needed.

"I think the letter underscores why the legislature should act sooner rather than later," he said.

Ward, who proposed legislation that would have curtailed the use of eminent domain, said he believes CCM is attempting to leave open the possibility of small businesses being taken to make way for larger businesses.

Ward said he finds that as offensive as taking residential properties.

"There's no question that big city mayors want to retain, in almost all respects, the current economic development taking laws," Ward said.

Ward said it's unlikely the Democrat-controlled legislature will vote on a moratorium later this month. That's when the General Assembly is scheduled to return to consider overriding any of Rell's vetoes.

Democrats have said they want to hold public hearings, possibly as early as this month, inviting national experts and state and local government officials to testify on eminent domain.

While they expect to make some changes to the law, Democrats said they want to proceed carefully because eminent domain powers are referenced in at least 80 state statutes.

If lawmakers reach a deal on eminent domain reforms, they could hold a special legislative session before the next regular session opens in February.


Newsday: www.newsday.com

More eminent domain legislation: Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch, 7/18/05

By Greg Edwards

Republicans [in Virginia] said today they will introduce legislation that prohibits the government from using its condemnation powers for private economic development projects.

In taking that stand against a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, House Speaker William J. Howell, R-Stafford, and other delegates joined Sen. Bill Bolling, R-Hanover, and Del. Robert F. McDonnell, R-Virginia Beach, who last week proposed legislation and a state constitutional amendement to restrict the use of eminent domain power to projects with a clear public use. Bolling and McDonnell are the GOP's candidates this fall for lieutentant governor and attorney general respectively.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the city of New London, Conn., was within its rights under Connecticut law to condemn private property for a redevelopment project that promised to increase local tax revenue, revitalize the downtown area and create new jobs.

Condemnation powers have been used in Virginia to improve blighted areas but have not been used purely for the purpose of economic development, although some condemnations may have been for that use. Lawmakers are concerned that, because of the court ruling, condemnations for economic development may occur in Virginia.

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, said if lawmakers don't protect private property rights, "citizens are no different than serfs or slaves." Marshall unsuccessfully sponsored legislation in this year's General Assembly to limit eminent domain powers but plans to reintroduce it next year. --


Richmond Times-Dispatch: www.timesdispatch.com

Homeowners Ask U.S. Supreme Court: Rehear Eminent Domain Case: The Free Liberal, 7/18/05

The U.S. Supreme Court has one final chance to correct one of its most-despised decisions in recent memory-its ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, which allows the use of eminent domain for private development. Today the Institute for Justice will file a petition for rehearing on behalf of New London, Conn., homeowners asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its 5-4 ruling from June 23 that has already opened up the floodgates to eminent domain abuse.

“We will be the first to admit that our chances of success with this motion are extremely small, but if there is any case that deserves to reheard by the Supreme Court, it is the Kelo case,” said Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice. “This is the worst Supreme Court decision in years. Hopefully the Court will see the abuse of power that it has unleashed and will reconsider its misguided and dangerous opinion.”

Forget Hypotheticals: Floodgates are Opened With Ruling
As the petition points out as the first basis for the rehearing, the floodgates to eminent domain abuse have already begun to swing open. “Justice O’Connor predicted a world in which a Motel 6 can be taken for a Ritz-Carlton, and homes for a shopping mall,” said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the Institute and co-counsel in the Kelo case. “The majority wrongly dismissed these as hypotheticals when in fact such takings are already occurring throughout the country.”

Among many other examples of lower-tax producing businesses being taken for higher-tax producing ones just since the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Institute for Justice cited:
  • Hours after the Kelo decision, officials in Freeport, Texas, began legal filings to seize two family-owned seafood companies to make way for a more upscale business: an $8 million private boat marina.
  • Homes are already being taken for shopping malls. On July 12, 2005, Sunset Hills, Mo., voted to allow the condemnation of 85 homes and small businesses. This is the first step in allowing the private Novus Development Corp. to use eminent domain against the property owners to build a planned $165 million shopping center and office complex. Also in Missouri, the City of Arnold plans to take 30 homes and 15 small businesses, including the Arnold Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) post, for a Lowe’s and a strip mall.

The Poor & Middle Class Will Be Targets
The Institute for Justice pointed out to the Court that because property owners must pay their own litigation costs in eminent domain, many eminent domain abuse cases will never make it to court because property owners will simply be unable to afford the legal and other costs associated with challenging an eminent domain action on public use grounds.

For less wealthy individuals and businesses, the cost of litigation will very quickly exceed the value of the property, which is why nearly all appellate public use cases in the state courts involve challenges by larger business owners.

Homeowner and small business cases, when they are brought at all, typically involve rare pro bono or public interest litigation. The Institute for Justice wrote in its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, “As a result, eminent domain for economic development purposes directed at poorer individuals, minorities and the politically powerless will rarely make it to the courts for evaluation on a case-by-case basis [as the Court suggested in its Kelo opinion] and those individuals and groups will in large part bear the brunt of these takings. Petitioners respectfully ask this Court to rehear this case so it may prohibit the use of eminent domain for private economic development or, at a minimum, provide greater protections to property owners.”

“Rarely does a Supreme Court decision generate such uniform and nearly universal outrage,” said Chip Mellor, president of Institute for Justice. “Clearly, Americans understand just how threatening the Court’s decision is for ordinary home and small business owners everywhere.”


Short of actually rehearing the entire case, the property owners ask the Court as the second basis for the rehearing to at the very least “vacate” the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court and allow more evidence to be submitted about the takings in this case. The Court announced new standards in the use of eminent domain for economic development in Kelo and four years have passed since the trial in the case. Petitioners ask the Supreme Court to allow for reexamination of facts in the trial court in light of the new standards it announced.

Hands Off My Home
In addition to asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rehear the Kelo case, less than one week after the decision, IJ and its Castle Coalition announced a $3 million “Hands Off My Home” campaign - an unprecedented financial commitment-to halting eminent domain for private profit. “Hands Off My Home” will focus the universal wave of opposition to the Kelo ruling to, among other actions, ask state courts to enforce the “public use” limitations found in every state constitution and to support citizen activists nationwide who are urging their state and local officials to set stricter standards for the use of eminent domain. Already, legislators in 25 states have introduced or promised to introduce legislation reforming the use of eminent domain for private development, but unless all 50 states enact such legislation, homeowners could be left in jeopardy. The U.S. Congress is also considering several bills to prohibit the use of federal funds for municipal projects that use eminent domain for private development.


The Free Liberal: www.freeliberal.com

Eminent domain up for vote: Bowling Green (KY) Daily News, 7/18/05

By Jim Gaines

A new ordinance that would establish strict limits on Bowling Green’s power to use eminent domain will be back for final consideration at Tuesday night’s city commission meeting.

The measure proposed by Commissioner Brian Strow passed a first reading July 5 by a 3-2 vote.

“I’m optimistic that the vote will go just like the first reading,” Strow said this morning. “I’m very proud of the city commission for limiting the potential abuse of government power.”

The ordinance would prohibit the city from using its power to condemn land for anything other than “the building, expansion or maintenance of public buildings, public parks, public utilities, public roads, public bridges, public rights-of-way and public projects.” The last phrase was added July 5 in an amendment proposed by Commissioner Mark Alcott. He said it would include other strictly public-use projects that commissioners couldn’t foresee.

Strow, who campaigned in 2004 on opposition to city use of eminent domain, proposed the ordinance in January. It was then tabled pending the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court case deciding whether eminent domain could be used to further economic development goals.

That court ruling came down June 23, granting governments sweeping latitude in using eminent domain. Strow renewed his push for the ordinance, and won narrow approval.

Kentucky law now allows the use of eminent domain for two purposes: strictly public projects such as roads and schools, and to clear “slum and blight,” not simply for big developments that would broaden the tax base. Both such uses require that property owners be paid actual market value as determined by independent appraisals.

A 29-block area of downtown was formally proclaimed to be blighted as part of Bowling Green’s 2003 redevelopment plan.

Although none of the land sales for city projects now under way has been forced through eminent-domain proceedings, some downtown property owners say the threat of possible condemnation makes any negotiations inherently unfair. Strow said his ordinance would remove that threat.

Mayor Elaine Walker, who voted against the ordinance July 5, said then that she is concerned that land speculators could buy up key sites for redevelopment projects, and demand exorbitant prices for them – thus either halting the projects or costing taxpayers far too much – if the city doesn’t have the final resort of eminent domain.

“The biggest problem that I see with eminent domain in our community is the improper way that it’s threatened,” she said today. “This commission will not operate that way. I really do not see a reason for us to pass this ordinance; I think it can be more harmful than beneficial.”

Twice in the last six months, the city has slightly altered downtown plans or made other accommodations with reluctant property owners, rather than resorting to eminent domain, Walker said. That demonstrates commissioners’ determination to treat citizens fairly, whatever the legal standards, she said.

“The onus is on us to act properly, even if it is allowable under the law,” Walker said.


Bowling Green Daily News: www.bgdailynews.com

Eminent domain discussion is needed: Loveland (CO) Daily Reporter-Herald, 7/18/05

Opinion

Local governments should have the power to use eminent domain for projects that have a wide range of public benefits, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in late June.

The majority on the court based its ruling in support of the city of New London, Conn., on the notion that those decisions are best made at the local level.

In the case, city officials had identified a neighborhood of lower-value homes that were adjacent to an incoming pharmaceutical research facility. The city’s elected leaders approved a plan by which those property owners would be bought out, their land turned over to a redevelopment corporation, and upscale, tax-generating businesses would be brought in. The affected property owners fought back, saying the move violated their Fifth Amendment rights against unlawful taking.

A 5-4 ruling by the court upheld the city’s plan. Each time a city forcibly buys property from an individual shouldn’t be a federal case, they ruled.

With that, local and state governments nationwide have awoken to the fact it’s up to them to protect individual property owners’ rights.

In Colorado, a pair of lawmakers have announced their intent to make it illegal for communities to forcibly acquire land from one property owner to turn it over to another private owner who could produce higher tax revenues.

Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, said she will ask legislators to reconsider a proposal she placed before them last year that would restrict the use of “blight” designations that currently allow cities to begin eminent domain proceedings. That bill was defeated in the 2004 and 2005 sessions.

Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park, on the other hand, says he will ask lawmakers to refer a constitutional amendment to voters next year that would bar municipalities from turning over property gained through eminent domain to private developers.

The two proposals from Colorado lawmakers mirror trends nationwide to limit the circumstances under which eminent domain may be used.

In almost every state, a group has emerged trying to put a limit to city use of eminent domain as an economic development tool. It will put before local voters and legislators the issues that the Supreme Court ruled were local.

Before the June 23 ruling, the issue of eminent domain was nearly invisible to all but those affected directly. Now, thanks to a ruling that has kept the issue as a local matter, communities and states are starting important discussions on the role of government as not just a provider of basic services but as drivers of community growth.

Regardless of whether you agree with the specifics of the court’s ruling, these discussions are important to have.


Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald: www.lovelandfyi.com

Alabama joins national backlash to court's eminent domain ruling: Dateline Alabama, 7/19/05

By Phillip Rawls, Associated Press

Alabama will join a growing statehouse backlash over the U.S. Supreme Court's eminent domain decision when the Legislature convenes in special session Tuesday.

In addition to offering a state General Fund budget, Gov. Bob Riley's office announced Monday that he is preparing a bill that would prohibit city and county governments from using eminent domain to take property for commercial, retail, office or residential development.

The bill would still allow property to be taken for traditional eminent domain projects, such as public roads and schools.

Riley said he has "a severe problem" with the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling last month on the issue. The ruling said cities have broad powers to condemn people's homes through eminent domain to make way for shopping centers or other private development to generate tax money for the cities.

The ruling said states could enact stricter rules. But it came after most state legislatures, including Alabama's, had finished their regular sessions. Those that were still in session or that had special sessions have been quick to react. And others are making plans for their next session.

Jeff Emerson, Riley's communications director, said there is national trend developing, but "if this bill becomes law, Alabama citizens would have the strongest private property rights in the nation."

Some examples of what's happening elsewhere:
  • In Delaware, the House and Senate voted unanimously June 30 to impose restrictions on eminent domain.
  • In Texas, the House and Senate have passed differing versions of legislation to restrict eminent domain and are trying to agree on a bill.
  • In Georgia, Gov. Sonny Perdue has called it a "kitchen table issue," and he has joined top legislative leaders in promising to take action in the next session of the Legislature.
  • In Missouri, Gov. Matt Blunt created a task force to make recommendations for the next session of the Legislature.
  • Two states - Utah and Nevada - passed bills earlier in the year while the Supreme Court case was pending.

Some worry that the backlash will have painful consequences.

Charles Ball, Gadsden's city planner, said eminent domain is critical for older cities like his that don't have lots of open land for new development.

"We do not have the luxury of having thousands of acres available for new development like Hoover, Trussville and Gulf Shores. We have to recycle what we have," he said.

The Alabama League of Municipalities, the lobbying organization for Alabama cities, has no objections to Riley's proposal as long as it doesn't go beyond the issues in the Supreme Court's ruling, Executive Director Perry Roquemore said Monday.

Eminent domain law allows governments to acquire private land for public use from people who don't want to sell their property, but the owners must receive "just compensation."

The debate over eminent domain in Alabama is not new. It just didn't get much attention until the Supreme Court's ruling June 23 against homeowners in New London, Conn.

In the regular session of the Alabama Legislature in the spring, Rep. Jack Venable, D-Tallassee, and Sen. Jack Biddle, R-Gardendale, tried unsuccessfully to pass a bill preventing local governments from using eminent domain to obtain private property and turn it over to developers for retail development.

"Nobody cared before. Now everybody is jumping on the bandwagon," Biddle said Monday.

Venable was working with Riley on Monday to complete a final draft of a bill for the special session. He said it appears to have plenty of support to pass.

Some lobbying groups are pushing the Legislature to respond quickly to the Supreme Court's decision.

"The right to own property is such a fundamental principle of our democracy that it is un-American to allow or support this practice," said Randy McKinney of Gulf Shores, president of the Alabama Association of Realtors.

Passing such legislation is not always easy.

Larry Morandi, a land use expert at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said Minnesota had eminent domain bills introduced in its Legislature after the Supreme Court's ruling, and none passed.


Dateline Alabama: www.tuscaloosanews.com

Eminent domain ruling chills property owners: San Francisco (CA) Chronicle, 7/18/05

Fear of land grabs unites odd coalition

By Jim Herron Zamora

An Oakland auto shop owner wants to save a business his family has owned since 1949. The owner of a dilapidated Art Deco theater in Alameda is resisting plans to replace it with a multiplex, while a 70-year-old man who wants to erect a "green" building in Santa Cruz is fighting city efforts to seize his vacant lot.

Those and other property battles in Northern California have gained new attention since the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last month made it easier for local governments to force unwilling property owners to sell using eminent domain.

The decision, based on a Connecticut case in which a city wanted to tear down an older waterfront neighborhood and turn it over to a developer, makes it easier for cities and counties to help rebuild aging downtowns and construct projects such as BART transit villages. Emboldened by the high court's ruling, the agencies argue that economic development benefiting a region outweighs individual property rights.

But it has also led to a growing backlash and galvanized an odd coalition: Conservative property rights advocates see eminent domain as big government run amok, while liberals and minorities view it as a tool for powerful developers to tear up communities and bully the little guy.

"No one should have to worry about losing your home to some politically connected developer," said state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks. "There are 6,000 public agencies in California that now have the power to seize your home, pay you pennies on the dollar for it, and then give it to somebody else for their own personal gain and profit."

On Thursday, McClintock and state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter (Kern County), introduced a bill to prevent public agencies from taking land from one private owner and giving it to another for development purposes.

And conservative U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, is working with liberal urban representatives Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, and John Conyers of Michigan to deny federal funds to cities that use eminent domain to benefit private developers.

"It's kind of a strange coalition," Pombo said Friday. "But there is something about taking your property this way that makes lots of Americans angry. The reason that we have a Bill of Rights is to protect individuals from the majority."

If passed, the bills would stop projects in Alameda and Santa Cruz, and could force changes in Oakland and dozens of other cities.

Redevelopment is a process that allows cities to keep a bigger portion of future property tax revenues in a given area, which can amount to millions of dollars if businesses move in and new homes are built. That process has allowed San Francisco to rebuild much of the South of Market area and Emeryville to transform itself from an industrial slum to a regional shopping hub.

Cities with pending projects point out the long-term benefits of redevelopment. In Santa Cruz, the city has rebuilt much of downtown after the Loma Prieta earthquake devastated the area in 1989. In Alameda, city officials are using redevelopment to bring in new businesses, including what they hope will be the city's first multiplex theater.

Local government must declare the target zone to be blighted in order for it to become eligible for redevelopment. That once was relatively easy in many communities. Much of Oakland below Interstate 580, for example, has been a redevelopment area for decades.

But with property values skyrocketing in the Bay Area, many residents have become wary of redevelopment and panic at the idea of eminent domain.

"Redevelopment is good way to keep money in a community and fund improvements that we can't afford any other way," said Oakland City Councilwoman Jane Brunner, who has been meeting with skeptical residents and neighbors about plans to turn much of the North Oakland flatlands into a redevelopment area. "But I respect the concerns of people who worry about this. ... This is a discussion we need to have."

At a community meeting Wednesday, Brunner pointed out projects that redevelopment has funded in the city — new development adjacent to the Fruitvale BART station and attractive new sidewalks and bike trails along Mandela Parkway in West Oakland.

In Oakland, many of the properties that the city has bought and resold to developers in the past were nearly abandoned structures or buildings that were covered with graffiti.

But on July 1, John Revelli and Tony Fung were evicted from their profitable but small owner-operated auto repair shops near the 19th Street BART station to make way for the Uptown Project, which is expected to include nearly 1,200 apartments and condominiums. The development, which is receiving a $61 million public subsidy, is the centerpiece of Mayor Jerry Brown's plan to bring 10,000 more residents to downtown Oakland.

Revelli, 65, grew up helping his father and uncle in the family tire shop and worked there full time since he was 19.

"I just want to stay in business," Revelli said after giving his keys to a city employee. "But it's impossible for me to find another location that good in downtown Oakland. We owned the property and had low overhead. I can't match that at another site. They put me out of business."

Eminent domain has also left bitter feelings in San Jose and Redwood City, where property owners successfully resisted efforts to force them to sell.

In San Jose, a multiethnic group of merchants at the Tropicana Shopping Center won its court battle in 2003 and stopped a city effort to condemn the mall as blighted and turn it over to a private developer for redevelopment. City officials have not decided whether to try again in light of the Supreme Court decision.

In Redwood City, the Celotti family finally agreed last year to sell their downtown property to city's redevelopment agency — for about five times its original offer. Their decision followed a San Mateo County Superior Court ruling that the city could not use eminent domain to condemn the property. But the ruling came too late — the Celottis' building had been demolished in 2003. The city paid them $3 million and made a formal apology as part of the settlement.

Ron Lau of Santa Cruz and John Cocores in Alameda are fighting redevelopment efforts despite the Supreme Court decision.

Lau, 70, owns a now-vacant lot that formerly housed a popular downtown bookstore and cafe that were seriously damaged in the earthquake. Lau, 70, wants to create "a self-sufficient, fully green building" on the lot but has been unable to obtain financing for his project. In an effort to hasten development, the city is trying to force him to sell so another developer can take over.

"I don't like being pressured," said Lau, who rejected $1.6 million for his lot on Pacific Avenue. "I care about this property and what happens to it. Otherwise I would have sold out."

Cocores owns the 1932-vintage Alameda Theater and some adjacent storefront property on Central Avenue near Park Street in Alameda. The city offered him $1.5 million in May for the 33,000-square- foot concrete and steel-frame structure. But Cocores' real estate agent said the property would be worth more than twice that figure if not for the looming threat of eminent domain.

"We're real far apart on the price," said Cocores' agent, Don Lindsey. "That property was appraised at $3 million. It's not fair to force him to take less."

Pombo, who tracks local eminent domain disputes, pledges that help is on the way.

"A movie theater, a department store or a mall are not public uses," Pombo said Friday. "They are not taking this land to build roads to schools or parks; they are just helping politically powerful interests. I'd like to stop projects like these dead in their tracks. "


San Francisco Chronicle: www.sfgate.com

House approves limits on eminent domain use: Houston (TX) Chronicle, 7/18/05

By Polly Ross Hughes

Private property owners would be protected from state and local governments seizing their land for economic development purposes under a bill overwhelmingly approved by the Texas House Sunday night.

The bill, drafted in response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing eminent domain seizures for economic development projects, gained final passage 136-0.

...

The House version of the eminent domain bill was amended to stop the city of Freeport from seizing waterfront land from a family-owned shrimping company to make way for a private marina project.

The Senate has passed similar legislation, but differences must be worked out in a conference committee before midnight Wednesday when the special session ends.

The House bill also requires local approval from county commissioners courts for state use of eminent domain to seize land for gas stations, convenience stores, hotels and other commercial enterprises in the median of the Trans-Texas Corridor, Gov. Rick Perry's ambitious toll road project.

House sponsor Rep. Beverly Woolley, R-Houston, said the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. New London, Conn., "harms what we hold dear in Texas, the protection of private property rights."

That decision ruled in favor of the city of New London, which condemned 15 private properties for an economic development involving a private corporation.

"Ultimately, what the court decision said is, you are allowed to own property, pay your mortgage, pay your taxes and you can keep your private property until someone offers to pay more taxes on that property," Woolley said. "This decision has shocked and alarmed property owners across the country."

The Supreme Court, in making its decision, specifically said state legislatures and other local governments are free to restrict the use of eminent domain further if they don't want to allow its use for private economic development purposes.

Perry added the eminent domain issue to the special session's agenda after a flood of calls and letters from Texans seeking private property rights.

The House approved several other amendments,including one by Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, requiring governments to pay replacement value to property owners in certain land seizures.

Rep. Will Hartnett, R-Dallas, protested that the change would affect nearly every eminent domain seizure in Texas and undo 50 years of eminent domain law.

Corte, however, argued property owners have little say when governments seize their land, so it is only fair they get reimbursed for replacing it.

"Did those people ask to have their land taken away? No, they did not," he said.

The bill, which was passed in the Senate 25-4 before the House amended it, makes clear that eminent domain can be used for traditional purposes such as railroads, public roads, utility services, water and wastewater projects and drainage projects. It would allow economic development seizures if the land is blighted and harmful to the public.


Houston Chronicle: www.chron.com

7/17/2005

Grassroots Groundswell Grows Against Eminent Domain Abuse: Institute for Justice, 7/12/05

News Release

The public reaction to the Kelo decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has been widespread and nearly unanimous in its outrage. Homes and small businesses, churches and open pieces of land can now be taken by the government only to be handed over to private developers for their private gain, and the U.S. Constitution offers no protection, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

But that doesn’t mean the fight is over. It only means the fight, for now, has moved to the states. In just the past two weeks after that seismic shift, grassroots activists and ordinary citizens across the nation have risen up to stop eminent domain abuse, and legislatures are responding.

“Now is the time for Americans to demand their state and local lawmakers protect homes and small businesses from eminent domain for private profit,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Dana Berliner. “Rarely does a single issue generate such universal outrage. Americans understand that the U.S. Supreme Court has declared open season on home and small business owners.”

Membership in the Institute for Justice’s Castle Coalition - a nationwide network of citizen activists determined to stop the abuse of eminent domain in their states and communities-has nearly tripled since the Court heard the Kelo case. Instant polls on national news websites show widespread opposition to eminent domain for private economic development. MSNBC.com readers oppose government takings for private development 98 percent to 2 percent; CNN.com readers 99 percent to 1 percent. Letters pages of newspapers nationwide are filled with dismay at the Court’s ruling. One New Jersey state legislator alone has heard from more than 1,000 of his constituents expressing outrage at eminent domain abuse.

Responding to the public outcry, lawmakers in 21 states and counting have taken swift action to curb eminent domain abuse. In the wake of Kelo, legislation has been introduced in seven states (Connecticut, Delaware, Texas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island) limiting the use of eminent domain for private projects or tightening eminent domain procedures, while lawmakers in another eight states (Alaska, Oklahoma, Illinois, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Alabama and Wisconsin) have announced plans to introduce eminent domain legislation in upcoming sessions. Legislators in Georgia, New York and Virginia now hope to revive previously introduced bills.

In Connecticut, state legislators and Gov. Jodi Rell called for a moratorium on the use of eminent domain by all Connecticut cities until the legislature can revise the law to protect property owners. The moratorium should put New London’s plans to take IJ’s clients’ homes on hold.

Legislators in Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, New Jersey and Michigan are mobilizing to support state constitutional amendments prohibiting eminent domain for private development. Delaware, Missouri and Florida have created state commissions to study the use of eminent domain and ways of reining in abuse.

Texas, home to the first condemnations after the Kelo ruling, will also be among the first states to consider eminent domain reform. On Friday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry added consideration of statutory changes and a proposed constitutional amendment to the agenda for the legislature’s special session beginning this week. Hours after the Kelo ruling, municipal officials in Freeport, Texas, condemned two family-owned seafood businesses for a privately owned marina project.

“Already, the Supreme Court’s ruling has emboldened tax-hungry governments and land-hungry developers seeking to condemn land for private profit,” said IJ Senior Attorney Scott Bullock. “With no federal constitutional protection left, it is more important than ever for lawmakers to rein in unjust takings.”

The Institute for Justice is tracking condemnations for private profit moving ahead following the Kelo ruling at:
www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/6_29_05pr.html


Federal lawmakers have also moved to curb eminent domain abuse. Texas Sen. John Cornyn and Wisconsin Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., introduced legislation in Congress that would bar federal funding for projects involving takings for private profit. By a large margin, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the Kelo decision. The legislation has attracted bipartisan support, including from prominent Democrats such as California Rep. Maxine Waters, Michigan Rep. John Conyers and Florida Sen. Bill Nelson.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling has inspired not just outrage, but a clear call for an end to eminent domain abuse. Nearly 40 activists and property owners from across the nation traveled to Washington, D.C., this past weekend to learn how to combat eminent domain abuse in their states and communities. At a conference hosted by the Institute for Justice, they learned the tactics of grassroots activism against eminent domain abuse and prepared to push for legislative and constitutional change in their states.

The event, the fourth annual Castle Coalition conference, is part of the Hands Off My Home campaign, a $3 million effort by the Institute for Justice and the Castle Coalition to give ordinary citizens the means to protect their homes and small businesses from government-forced takings for private development.

Also last week, more than 300 protesters from around the country gathered for a rally in New London before City Council’s first meeting following the Kelo decision, demanding, “Let the homeowners stay.” Protestors urged the City to develop the other 90 vacant acres it already owns and leave Susette Kelo and her neighbors alone. In an email survey, The Day newspaper in New London found nearly 90 percent of its readers opposed government takings for private development.

The New London rally was the first of many protests against eminent domain abuse in the works by Castle Coalition activists nationwide.

“The Court’s ruling has galvanized people across the political spectrum,” said Castle Coalition Coordinator Steven Anderson. “Americans are appalled that their local governments can seize their homes and small businesses to benefit other wealthier people-and they are organizing to stop the abuse.”

As part of the Hands Off My Home campaign, the Institute for Justice and the Castle Coalition are calling upon state governors, state legislators and municipal officials to sign a formal pledge promising to oppose efforts in their state to use the government power of eminent domain for private development, and to support legislation and other efforts to ensure that citizens of their state are safe from eminent domain for private development. Citizens can view the pledges, contact their governors, join the Castle Coalition and learn how to get involved in Hands Off My Home at:
www.castlecoalition.org.



Institute for Justice: www.ij.org

Eminent domain vote by fiscal court is troubling: Bowling Green (KY) Daily News, 7/17/05

Editorial

We take the strongest exception to a recent Warren County Fiscal Court vote that provided for the use of eminent domain to take Matt Baker’s property to provide access to Beech Bend Park if it could not be purchased.

The county would be wise to look at the restraint the Bowling Green City Commission used last week when it approved the first reading of an ordinance to restrict the use of eminent domain except for public use and public projects. This would prohibit its use to benefit private developers.

The contrast in approach between these two governmental bodies couldn’t be more stark.

Kentucky law permits the taking of property by eminent domain for public use or if the property falls within an area that has been designated as blighted.

No one has argued that Baker’s property is blighted, nor will that argument be raised.

To argue that the property is being seized for public use when the primary beneficiary of that seizure is a private enterprise distorts in a grotesque way our forefathers’ view of what constituted public use.

The founders of our nation recognized that our rights and freedom came from our Creator, rather than being provided by a “benevolent” government, and “that to secure these rights, governments were instituted among men.”

The Bill of Rights was erected as a firewall to protect citizens from abuses by government.

Not withstanding that, a majority of fiscal court seems agreeable to a highly questionable use of eminent domain.

We certainly understand the importance of Beech Bend Park to the city and county. It brings thousands of tourists and millions of dollars into our community. Benefits flow to tourism-related businesses and taxes to local governments.

But does the importance of Beech Bend to the community rise to a level sufficient to justify the taking of an individual’s property to benefit a private enterprise? We think not.

Nor does the fact that former Kentucky Court of Appeals Judge Matt Baker is unpopular with many in the tourism industry and some others in the community over the stand he has taken regarding the disputed road justify the taking of his property.

The question of property ownership is now resolved pending appeal. Logan County Circuit Judge Tyler Gill carefully weighed all the evidence and based on that evidence, determined that the 228 feet of road in dispute was the property of Matt Baker and his relatives who own property on the other side of the road.

It is appropriate for the county to make an effort to reach agreement with Baker to purchase his property, but it is not appropriate to ride roughshod over Baker’s Fifth Amendment rights.

We commend Magistrate Cedric Burnam for his principled stand against this proposed action by fiscal court.

Magistrate Doc Kaelin abstained because of a possible conflict of interest.

If Warren County Fiscal Court is really interested in assisting Beech Bend, and we have no doubt they are, they should also look at widening Beech Bend Road as well as improving the county-owned portion of the roadway into the park.


Bowling Green Daily News: www.bgdailynews.com

Pacific Avenue property owners challenge eminent domain action: Santa Cruz (CA) Sentinel, 7/17/05

By Shanna McCord

Ron Lau and his family, in a fierce fight to hold on to the downtown property they’ve owned since 1969, vow to appeal their eminent domain case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"There are no words to describe how this feels. It’s totally unforgivable. We’re outraged," said son Eric Lau. "We have a right to own our property. We don’t break any laws, we pay taxes and there’s three businesses running there."

After years of watching Ron Lau fail to develop the 1547 Pacific Ave. plot, the City Council voted unanimously on June 7 to seize the property that was crushed nearly 16 years ago in the Loma Prieta earthquake. Through the years a large chunk of the site has sat empty and become what city officials call a "blighted hole in the ground," covered with graffiti and weeds.

The Redevelopment Agency began formal eminent domain proceedings Tuesday by filing for condemnation of the site in Santa Cruz County Superior Court — the first step in taking title of the land in an overall ordeal that could drag out several years.

Attempting to ward off the eminent domain — the power of government to condemn private property and seize title for public use, provided owners receive fair compensation — Ron Lau transferred the decision-making authority of the land to his two children Eric and Lani Lau, both of Santa Cruz. The irrevocable power of attorney, they hope, sways city officials to let the family keep the property and put their own project there.

The power of attorney, which Eric Lau said he and Lani signed Wednesday, strips Ron Lau — a devout environmentalist — of having any say of what happens at the site.

"Me and my sister are very different from our father," Eric Lau said. "We share his values to a large degree, but we are very, very practical business people."

Eric Lau, 36, owner of Oswald, an upscale restaurant located on the now-condemned property, and Lani Lau, 38, a certified nurse midwife, say they plan to develop the site in the same fashion as city-picked developer Bolton Hill — mixed use that includes retail and housing.

But they have no solid plans.

"How close are we?," Eric Lau asked. "We’re talking to a number of people and considering many offers. If the city were to give us a chance, we could build it faster than Bolton Hill could do it considering they’ll be tied up in a lawsuit for the next five years."

The 20,000-square-foot lot, on the north end of Pacific Avenue between Lulu Carpenter’s and World Savings Bank, has been appraised at $1.6 million.

Before the earthquake, the site was home to Bookshop Santa Cruz, now located across the street.

Several development proposals by Ron Lau since the earthquake have never made it beyond the drawing board. Frustrated that nothing has been built on the property, the city Redevelopment Agency agreed to take the land and sell it to local developer Bolton Hill, which envisions building a towering complex of condominiums, shops, a restaurant and parking.

Law of the land
The Laus plan to use the eminent domain ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in June to bolster their case, despite the 5-4 decision making it easier for local governments to force property owners to sell out and allow private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public.

However, if the public benefit is "merely a pretext" for selling to a "favored insider," according to the Laus’ attorney, William Markham, eminent domain is not allowed. Markham said he can convince the court that Bolton Hill is the "Redevelopment Agency’s crony and favored insider."

Markham, a former Capitola resident and Bay Area real estate lawyer who now practices in San Diego, described the Supreme Court ruling as "the very kind of central planning authority they used to have in the Soviet Union."

"The city should give the Laus one chance, one decent chance to develop their property," he said. "We recognize that Ron Lau is not the appropriate person to negotiate this development. "It’s appropriate now to give irrevocable and absolute authority to Eric and Lani Lau.

"Taking should be an absolute last resort."

Louis Rittenhouse, a former councilman who owns the other empty hole on Pacific Avenue resulting from the 1989 earthquake and is often criticized for not moving faster on his proposed project, disagrees with the city’s decision to condemn the Laus’ property.

"Is this the end of the city just because there’s a hole in the ground? No," he said. "If something isn’t built, it’s not like a number of underprivileged kids won’t be fed. I don’t see the urgency."

Still, Rittenhouse said his situation is vastly different from Ron Lau’s and he’s simply waiting for businesses to sign a lease before putting a building on the site.

"We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for design plans approved by the City Council," he said. "We just need tenants. Ron has no plans."

Rittenhouse refused to disclose details about which possible businesses might move in.

"We’re having discussions with a number of entities," Rittenhouse said. "Nothing has born any fruit yet."

Eric Lau said city officials haven’t dealt with the two vacant plots fairly and he feels there’s a "double standard here."

"That’s not to say I want them to condemn his property," Lau said. "But looking for a tenant is essentially what we’re doing. What everyone in the development business is doing is looking for a tenant."

Cindy Geise, owner of the Mission Street Italian restaurant Avanti, said the city’s move to seize Lau’s property makes her nervous about what could happen in the future.

"How can that be blight when there’s three viable businesses and a parking lot on the property?" Geise asked. "It’s scary for everybody. Property owners have the right to determine when they’re going to develop on their property."

Moving on
Redevelopment Agency Director Ceil Cirillo said she would like to resolve the Lau case without going to court, but the agency is not in a position to back out of the deal because of its contractual obligation to Bolton Hill — a deal unanimously backed by City Council.

"We’ll talk with (the Laus) about whether there’s an opportunity to resolve the ownership issue without going through a whole eminent domain," Cirillo said. "The Laus have been longtime members of this community and I want to be supportive of their interests."

Bolton Hill representatives say they’re bracing to follow eminent domain to the end and take ownership of the property. They say 18 months of public hearings and last-minute pleas from Lau to the City Council is enough.

Up to now city officials have been extremely patient with the "recalcitrant" downtown landowner, who ignored repeated offers by the city to purchase the property, said Norman Schwartz of Bolton Hill.

"I made a commitment to the elected officials and to many people in the community who want to see that property developed," Schwartz said. "We’ve spent a considerable amount of money to get this far. I feel an obligation to move forward."

If the city is successful with eminent domain, three businesses currently housed on the site — Oswald, Asian Rose Cafe and Artforms — would be forced to relocate.

Bolton Hill would pay for the cost to uproot and relocate the businesses.

"I’m looking at locations and investigating that whole relocation process," Eric Lau said. "To say I feel slighted is the understatement of the century."


Santa Cruz Sentinel: www.santacruzsentinel.com

Eminent domain protections mulled: (Loveland CO) Daily Reporter-Herald, 7/17/05

State lawmakers plan bills

By John Fryar

At least two state lawmakers plan to propose limiting local governments’ ability to seize private property to create sites for private development.

Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, said she intends next year to reintroduce a measure she failed to get approved in the Legislature’s 2004 and 2005 sessions — a proposed law that would restrict urban renewal agencies’ power to declare areas “blighted” and then subject them to condemnation proceedings.

Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park, wants to go even further.

Rather than just passing a new state law, White said, the Legislature should ask voters in 2006 to amend the Colorado Constitution to prohibit government agencies from using eminent-domain powers to condemn property and then turn it over to a private developer.

But Sam Mamet, associate director of the Colorado Municipal League, insisted that further legislation is not needed in this state after last year’s Legislature adopted a law imposing new conditions and requirements on the use of urban-renewal condemnation powers.

White said, “The citizens and small businesses in this state deserve protection from potentially abusive municipalities and corporations.”

White said Colorado property owners “should be confident that their rights won’t be violated simply because a city can make more money by using their land for a shopping complex or a hotel building.”

Tochtrop and White both said a June 23 U.S. Supreme Court decision firmed their determination to tighten up Colorado’s urban-renewal and eminent-domain laws.

The nation’s high-court justices, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld the authority of New London, Conn., to use its eminent-domain power to seize property from owners unwilling to sell, in order to proceed with an economic development project.

White warned that that ruling could allow local governments in Colorado to condemn any land if they decide its redevelopment would increase tax revenue, regardless of whether that property is actually “blighted.”

White said there is “a reasonable time and purpose” for government agencies to use eminent-domain powers “for necessary public-related activities,” such as when acquiring sites for government buildings, parks or libraries, or when assembling right of way for transportation improvements.

However, “I think we’ve seen in our country, certainly in our state, a tendency of local governments to use eminent domain simply for increasing revenues,” White said.

The Supreme Court majority suggested in its ruling that states can still impose their own restrictions or prohibitions on the use of eminent domain, even if Connecticut laws at the time did not bar New London from using an economic-development rationale to justify condemning property there.

Tochtrop failed last year to pass a bill that would have removed “economic liability” as one of the factors an urban renewal authority can use when declaring an area to be blighted.

This year’s unsuccessful Tochtrop bill could have blocked local governments from putting certain vacant properties or productive agricultural lands into an urban-renewal district.

The Colorado Municipal League, which opposed Tochtrop’s 2004 and 2005 bills, is also expected to oppose the measures she and White are proposing for next year’s legislative session.

CML’s Mamet said, “The Legislature dealt with this issue very comprehensively” in 2004.

“When they had the opportunity to specifically prohibit condemnation for redevelopment purposes, they rejected it,” Mamet said.

Mamet said, “The fact of the matter is, very few municipalities ever use condemnation for economic development-related purposes.”

He said that when it comes to eminent domain, “municipal leaders fully understand what the rules are, both legally, and more importantly, in the court of public opinion.”


Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald: www.lovelandfyi.com

Encinitas councilman defends restricting the use of eminent domain: North County (CA) Times, 7/16/05

By Adam Kaye

Despite skepticism from a colleague, [Encinitas] City Councilman Jerome Stocks on Friday defended his plan to restrict the city's use of the right known as eminent domain.

Stocks says his proposal would protect property owners from a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision last month that expands eminent domain power so cities can take property from one private owner and sell it to another.

In most cases, governmental agencies use eminent domain powers to take property needed for public projects. Laws require the government to pay fair market value for the land and in some cases, cover relocation expenses and other costs.

At its meeting last week, the council voted unanimously to draft an ordinance that would forbid condemning private property and selling it to another private owner without a two-thirds vote of the city residents.

In casting his vote, Councilman James Bond expressed his misgivings.

He said he had taken an oath to uphold all laws. The ordinance would probably fail the test of time, and a future city council could rescind it, he said.

The proposed ordinance was a "feel-good notion," Bond said, and if someone has a better lawyer and more money, it would lose a challenge in court.

Stocks brushed off Bond's skepticism in an interview Friday.

"The Supreme Court gave local governments the absolute and direct ability to condemn private property for economic benefit," he said. "Just because (Bond) doesn't see the threat the way I do doesn't mean the threat doesn't exist."

The court's decision stemmed from a case involving some Connecticut homeowners who refused to sell their land for private development supported by the city of New London.

California cities can condemn private property for public projects, such as road or sewer construction.

Cities may not take private property for the sake of economic development, however, and the court's ruling does not change that, said Steve Deitsch, a Riverside attorney specializing in eminent domain law.

In California, only redevelopment agencies can take land from one private owner and sell it to another, he said.

A city council can form a redevelopment agency to capture increased tax revenue to pay for public improvements, foster economic development and eliminate blight.

Encinitas recently considered forming a redevelopment agency in Leucadia but shelved the idea after residents objected. The possibility of condemnations underscored their concerns.

Redevelopment agencies can condemn private property only if a plan approved when they are formed allows it, Deitsch said.

"I don't believe that the (Connecticut) case gives any greater authority to California cities," he said. "California law is clear on this subject. It allows only redevelopment agencies to acquire private property for land assembly to eliminate blight."

Stocks disagreed.

"This ruling says you don't need to find blight, and you don't even need a redevelopment agency," he said. "The city can just do it for economic reasons."

Stocks said he is not alone in seeking to raise safeguards against the court decision.

State Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, and Sen. Dean Flores, D-Shafter, have introduced a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit governments from seizing private property for anything other than public use, according to The Associated Press.

The council last week appointed Stocks and Councilwoman Christy Guerin to a subcommittee to write an ordinance with City Attorney Glenn Sabine.

Stocks on Friday said a draft of the ordinance should be finished in late August or September. He said he would explore language requiring a vote of the people to rescind the law.

Encinitas has used eminent domain eight times, and five of them were to expand Leucadia Boulevard and Quail Gardens Drive. Five of the condemnations were by consent of the property owners.

Stocks floated what he called the Encinitas Private Property Rights Act of 2005 at a press conference last month, one week after the Supreme Court ruling.

Any ordinance Encinitas enacts would not prevent restrict "legitimate" uses of eminent domain for public projects, he said.


North County Times: www.nctimes.com

New outcry over eminent domain won't stop roadway: Stamford (CT) Advocate, 7/17/05

By Joy L Woodson

Multimillion-dollar plans for a new city road and housing are moving forward even as the Legislature plans to deliberate on eminent domain and some municipalities scratch rules that allow seizures of residential properties.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 vote to allow New London to bulldoze private homes for a commercial developer, Massachusetts-based Corcoran Jennison Co. The company also has a major residential and retail development in downtown Stamford.

Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy said the only current development that is using eminent domain to take properties is the Urban Transitway, a $49 million six-lane thoroughfare project in the South End. However, the land is being used directly by the city for public use, not a private developer such as in New London.

"The debate, the judgment and the case have no impact," Malloy said.

The Legislature plans to re-examine the state's 80 eminent domain rules. Some legislators have asked municipalities to hold off on developments. Milford passed an ordinance Monday night that bans the municipality from using eminent domain to take owner-occupied homes for private development.

It is premature to consider the court decision's possible effects on future projects, such as those surrounding the city's Mill River Corridor, Malloy said.

"We'll cross that bridge when we get to it," he said.

Stephen Osman, chairman of the Urban Redevelopment Commission, said the Urban Transitway and Corcoran Jennison's Park Square West near Curley's Diner are moving ahead. However, there could be long-term effects on city development, he said.

"Eminent domain is an important way to rehabilitate a city, but it must be used judicially," he said. "Property rights are sacrosanct, and I don't believe that any one should ride herd over them if it doesn't serve the purpose of the city and the people in the city."

The URC has negotiated with many business and homeowners for their properties, and relocation is ongoing.

"The Urban Transitway is a classic case of eminent domain," said city Rep. Harry Day, R-13. "Nobody likes eminent domain. You prefer not to use it, but it has always been OK for a public use such as a road. . . . I would strongly disagree with holding up the Urban Transitway."

Corcoran Jennison has designed around Curley's Diner, which appealed and won a state Supreme Court case in 2002 that prohibited the URC from declaring the diner blighted for redevelopment. Osman said the commission could have sought a new blight judgment but didn't.

In making its decision, the Supreme Court said states have the power to restrict the authority to seize property. State lawmakers said they will set up public hearings in response to the court's invitation.

Osman said there are no plans to wait on the Legislature's hearings before moving forward on the Park Square West layout. No other projects apparently are affected by the Supreme Court ruling, he said.

Stamford city Rep. John Zelinsky, D-11, suggested the Board of Representatives discuss eminent domain and consider Milford's ordinance. Members of the board's Steering Committee have informally decided to hold off and see what action the state Legislature takes.

Board of Representatives President David Martin, D-19, said there isn't time to get an ordinance passed before the November election, when all 40 seats are up. He said he supports waiting until the new board is sworn in this December.

"It's a complex legal topic and we're probably not going to be able to tackle that successfully in the next couple of months," Martin said. "If you look at the calendar, I think you'd see we'd run of time before we accomplished our objective or we would rush something through we would regret."

"If the state doesn't come up with something constructive, we'll revisit this topic this time next year or maybe sooner," Martin said.

Other land-use officials in Stamford and city representatives disagreed with the court ruling but hoped it would have no adverse impact on Stamford.

City Rep. Patrick White, D-1, called the ruling horrendous. Although he said he has objected to the scope of the transitway, it's not the same as what's happening in New London. He said he hoped the decision wouldn't give developers who are "champing at the bit" the power to squash residents' rights.

"There are some instances historically where it has been necessary to use eminent domain for a road, a school or some other public use," he said. "There are times when it is necessary, but not in New London."


Stamford Advocate: www.stamfordadvocate.com

Eminent domain reins: Albany (NY) Times Union, 7/17/05

Editorial
A Westchester legislator proposes a bill to protect the rights of property owners

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay should listen to Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, D-Westchester. Mr. DeLay is convinced that the House should undermine a recent Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain. That's the wrong remedy. Mr. Brodsky proposes the right way to protect property owner rights -- through state legislation.

The high court's 5-4 ruling last month set off an immediate and ill-informed reaction by advocates of private property rights. They denounced the ruling, which upheld the right of New London, Conn., to seize some homes through eminent domain and give the property to commercial developers for a sweeping waterfront project. The door was open, the critics warned, to seizing homes at will to accommodate private developers seeking to build everything from a cheap motel to an expansive shopping mall. Then the House got into the act by approving, largely at Mr. DeLay's behest, legislation that would deny certain federal funds to any locality that used eminent domain for the benefit of a profit-making venture.

But there are two good reasons why such apprehension is unwarranted. First, the high court's ruling made it clear that eminent domain could be used only for a public purpose. Building a big box store or a motel would hardly meet that standard. Second, the best safeguard against abuse by developers, or local officials eager to do business with them, has always rested with the state legislatures, which have the power to establish the standards under which property may be seized.

Mr. Brodsky's proposal would invoke that power wisely. He would give property owners more time — 90 days instead of the current 30 — to appeal condemnations. The bill also specifies that property owners who are displaced must be paid at least 150 percent of the market value of their homes, as a safeguard against developers seeking to turn a quick profit by buying up properties in declining neighborhoods. The key protection, though, is a requirement that would limit the use of eminent domain to comprehensive economic development plans that have been discussed in public meetings and approved by local legislators.

These are sensible requirements that will not hinder economic development in a community. At the same time, they will thwart abuse by developers and politicians who might be tempted to strike deals in private. The Legislature should put Mr. Brodsky's bill high on its list for approval in the next session.


Times Union: http://timesunion.com

Eminent domain stretched too far: Montgomery (AL) Advertiser, 7/17/05

Editorial

The concept of eminent domain, in which government can take private property for a public use, always has been controversial. But it is still necessary, because there are times when the public good overrides private concerns.

However, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows local governments almost unfettered power to seize private property simply to promote economic development goes way too far.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices said local governments have broad powers to condemn people's homes through eminent domain to make way for shopping centers or other private development simply to generate increased tax money for the cities.

Under that interpretation, a local government can seize your home just so some developer can build some mega-mart on the site. The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits your property form being taken "without just compensation," so you would have to be paid a fair price. But you could lose your home nonetheless.

In a state such as Alabama, most people think the concept of private property rights was handed down by Moses right after he delivered the Ten Commandments. (Or maybe even as part of the Ten Commandments; remember the part about not coveting thy neighbor's house or his field?) So we don't expect to see a rush to invoke this newly enshrined right. But it could happen even here.

For instance, a few years ago in Alabaster, just south of Birmingham, city officials tried to invoke eminent domain to take over private land near Interstate 65 for use as a large shopping center, including a Wal-Mart Supercenter. But landowners fought the effort, the price for their land was jacked up, they sold and the attempted takeover became moot.

Recognizing a good political issue, elected officials and political wannabes as well are falling all over themselves trying to get credit for closing the eminent domain avenue opened by the recent court ruling. The public can rest assured that the Alabama Legislature will end this expanded eminent domain right. Frankly, lawmakers should have passed earlier this year a bill sponsored by Rep. Jack Venable of Elmore County that would have addressed the issue.

But care needs to be taken that a remedy, although much needed, doesn't go too far.There are some legitimate reasons for using eminent domain even when a commercial enterprise is a prime beneficiary -- railroads or power-generating dams, for instance. Both examples can greatly benefit the general public, but there is no denying they also help private enterprises make money.

But well-written legislation that preserves the right of eminent domain for such purposes while limiting it for retail establishments is sorely needed.

That is especially true for large retail establishments that are notorious for taking advantage of public incentives, only to move on to a new site in a few years at the slightest shift in retail buying patterns. While alternative uses are sometimes found, in many other instances they leave behind empty buildings and seas of pavement that hurt the community, with a negative impact over the long haul that might offset completely the influx of tax revenue they generated while new.

While many politicians have been excoriating Supreme Court justices for their eminent domain ruling, in fairness it should be noted that what they basically did was say that the U.S. Constitution did not limit this expanded use of eminent domain, pointing out that the individual states had every right to do so. You would think that some "conservative" ideologues would applaud this as a states' rights decision and a refusal of a federal court to expand federal powers beyond what is enumerated.

Regardless, the Supreme Court decision shifts the pendulum too far from individual property rights. The Alabama Legislature needs to shift it back to where it was.


Montgomery Advertiser: www.montgomeryadvertiser.com

Eminent domain possible in farm buyout: Des Moines (IA) Register, 7/16/05

Pleasant Hill officials are ready to force the sale of a family's land for a school expansion

By Amanda O'Toole

The farm plot near Northeast 80th Street and Iowa Highway 163 has been in Jean Schmidt's family for more than 80 years.

Her father bought the land about 50 years ago. Before that, great-aunts and great-uncles raised hogs and chickens and grew corn and soybeans.

Schmidt, 69, didn't know much about the phrase "eminent domain" until a few weeks ago.

"I'd sort of heard of it," she said. "I found out it means you really don't have any rights."

Pleasant Hill city leaders are prepared to legally take Schmidt's 130 acres so Southeast Polk school officials can put up a new building to ease the district's growing pains. The process, called eminent domain, means that government has the power to force land sales when property is considered necessary for public improvements. The U.S. Supreme Court broadened that power last month to let cities seize property for private development.

The law is the law. Schmidt knows that.

All that's left is to put a price on her family's legacy, and that's where the real disagreement lies. Schmidt says the land is worth $1.5 million. City officials have been told the figure is closer to $860,000. They will prepare what will be the final offer.

"It's like a slap in the face," Schmidt said. "This was my retirement package."

School officials first approached Schmidt last fall. They wanted 42 acres.

"It's all about location, location, location," said Southeast Polk Superintendent Tom Downs. "This isn't about picking on one family farmer."

Schmidt was mulling the offer when city leaders stepped in and said they wanted to buy the entire farm.

Pleasant Hill would sell about 10 acres to the school district. About 30 acres would be leased to the schools for a parking lot. A sports complex and park are planned for the remaining 90 acres. The complex and park would share a parking lot with the new high school. A bond referendum is scheduled for February.

Enrollment in Southeast Polk schools has steadily increased for the past decade. It is the 14th-largest district in the state. The high school, built in 1963, was designed for 1,000 students. Enrollment topped 1,350 last year, and districtwide numbers are expected to grow by at least 200 each of the next five years.

"They could find other land," Schmidt said.

School officials said they looked elsewhere, but the Schmidt farm is perfect, in part because of its access to city services.

Downs said school and city officials are sensitive to Schmidt and her family's history, but the move makes economic sense for the community as a whole - the definition of eminent domain.

City officials will not divulge how much they are willing to pay, but the offer is more than $860,000, City Administrator Bob Fagan said.

"We hope we don't have to use eminent domain," he said.

Downs points out that Schmidt intended to eventually sell the property.

But Schmidt said she wanted to make that decision on her own time.

"In 1963, the state came in and took out the farmhouse, the hog house, the chicken house and the water tower to build the highway," Schmidt said. "It was very upsetting to my father to have that all wiped out.

"And this has become very upsetting to me."


Des Moines Register: http://desmoinesregister.com

Eminent Domain Is Not Simple: Town Times (Middlefield CT), 7/16/05

From The State Capitol

By Tom Gaffey, State Senator

Last month's Supreme Court ruling allowing New London to go forward with its power of eminent domain to seize private property for the purpose of economic development trespasses onto legal ground where I don't believe government has any business whatsoever. There is already a strong, swiftly moving, bipartisan effort among my colleagues to tighten Connecticut state laws to prohibit what I consider to be such over-reaching in the future.

Let me be clear: in my opinion the principle behind eminent domain statutes is a sound one. Throughout the history of both Connecticut and the United States important public works projects are the result of judicious use by government of eminent domain to adequately compensate landowners for property that is then transformed into things like railroads, highways and comparable, public sector development.

The difference in this New London case is that the city intends to seize privately-held property (albeit with compensation for the owners at fair market value), and transfer it through a quasi-public agency expressly set up for the project, the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), for another private development, all in the name of economic development.

Regardless of the extent to which investment in economic development projects is for the greater public good, and there are many, many instances when this is the case, the New London plan is for the purported tax benefits of the planned development where the greater good is not guaranteed and only projected, and in the private sector besides.

This important distinction in the New London proposal is the reason the legal challenge to it progressed through state and federal courts and wound up on the docket of the highest court in the land. And in my opinion, none of this yet adequately addresses the matter of what could be described as money laundering through the NLDC to benefit a private developer.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote the dissenting opinion in the narrowly divided (5-4) decision, succinctly described the major problem with the New London plan. "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

With this ruling my fear going forward is that homeowners statewide are at risk anytime officials of a municipal government decide there are potential economic or employment benefits from changing the character of a neighborhood from residential to commercial or industrial for a shopping center or business park or comparable project. In my mind this sets a very dangerous precedent.

In the wake of this decision, I'm eager to work with my legislative colleagues to revisit Connecticut's eminent domain statutes and work toward tightening their provisions. I'm confident we can do so while preserving their original, and justifiable, intent.

I don't, however, believe this should be attempted in a knee-jerk reaction to the June 23rd ruling, as some have suggested. In my view, we have a first-rate committee process through which members of the public can weigh in through public hearings, staff members can do the extensive research a complex issue like this one requires, and legislators can assess and debate the content of a bill as it moves through. I'm confident, and I expect, we will achieve this in a timely fashion.


Town Times: www.towntimes.com

Ensign hopes to curb eminent domain ruling: Parumph Valley (Parumph NV) Times, 7/16/05

Supreme Court Decision Rankles Nevada Delegation

By Steve Tetreault

Sen. John Ensign said late last week that he is forming a bill to blunt the Supreme Court ruling two weeks ago that expanded government's power to seize private property.

The measure would position the Nevadan near the front of a movement in Congress seeking to negate the landmark land-use decision.

Ensign, R-Nev., said he is writing legislation that would bar the use of federal grants and tax breaks on property acquired for economic development through eminent domain authority broadened by the court.

"The general principle is to try to take away any tax advantages for (eminent domain), and federal funding," Ensign said. "There are a lot of avenues to attack to do that."

Under the approach that Ensign is developing, a city, for instance, could not spend federal wastewater grants to extend sewer lines to property acquired through a forced sale made possible by the court's decision, according to advisers. It could also not tap mass transit funding to add a bus line to a new office complex on "taken" land.

Private individuals or companies benefiting from forced land sales would be denied tax deductions and credits for the improvement of land obtained through condemnation.

Ensign said he is researching the implications of strongly worded legislation. "What we would have to do is draft ours in a way where you could make exceptions to it," he said.

A sweeping bill would place Ensign in the company of property rights champions and advocates for city-dwellers who launched bids last week to negate the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

The court in a 5-4 ruling on June 23 broadened municipal powers to force the sale of private property for redevelopment, saying that economic development was a permissible "public use."

New London, a waterfront city in Connecticut, was permitted to force out the owners of 15 homes that had been holding up the development of office buildings and housing near a research center being built by Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceutical company.

Redevelopment advocates who said it would spur the re-growth of decaying cities and more orderly growth in suburbs praised the ruling.

Property rights boosters and advocates for city-dwellers and low-income people called the ruling an assault on constitutional protections embodied in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Dana Berliner, an attorney for the conservative [Editor's note: it's libertarian] Institute for Justice who has researched eminent domain issues, said many sizable developments resulting from land takings utilize federal funding, "Whether it is infrastructure or economic development money."

"Withdrawing federal money from projects that take people's homes and businesses for private development will certainly send a strong message to states and local governments who are counting on eminent domain as a tool," Berliner said.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said he is introducing a bill with Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., which is similar to what Ensign is developing. He said he plans to hold hearings on it this summer in the House Judiciary Committee, of which he is chairman.

"What all of us want to make sure happens is that federal government money will not be used to finance taking somebody's property from them to build a strip mall or a hotel," Sensenbrenner said at a news conference.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has submitted a bill that would narrow the definition of "public use" for land takings.

Meanwhile, other Nevada lawmakers have expressed unease over the court's ruling.

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., has sponsored the Sensenbrenner bill.

"This Congress has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and the rights of the American people to own property and not to worry that it will be taken for a greater 'private' good," Gibbons said.

Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., said the Kelo decision "represents a dangerous precedent that flies in the face of property rights" and he would back legislation "to constructively prevent this scenario from becoming widespread."

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said she was inclined to support withholding federal funds in order to discourage forced sales "but the devil is in the details."

"I would be concerned about overreaching," she said.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said she would oppose any bill that would withhold federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."

At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not clearly decided the issue.

In Nevada this year, the Legislature added new requirements that governments must satisfy before they can condemn private property for redevelopment. Under new laws, two-thirds of an area sought for seizure must be blighted as measured by four out of 15 factors such as inadequate sanitation.

Also, if land taken through eminent domain is not developed in 15 years it must be offered back to the original owner for the price that owner was paid.

There were more than 10,000 instances of private property being threatened with condemnation or actually condemned by government for private use between 1998 and 2002, according to the Institute for Justice.

An institute study concluded New York, Missouri and Kansas were the worst states for owners who want to avoid property condemnation for private parties.

Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming were the best.


Parumph Valley Times: www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com

Legislators will look at state eminent domain laws: Benton County (AR) Daily record, 7/16/05

By Gary Lookadoo

Prompted by a U.S. Supreme Court decision, a state legislative panel will take a look at state laws regarding eminent domain, said state Sen. Kim Hendren, R-Gravette.

In Kelo v. New London, several homeowners brought to the U.S. Supreme Court their challenge of a decision by New London, Conn., to use eminent domain to take their homes and allow for a planned economic development.

In a recent 5-4 vote, the court found New London’s plans constitutional. Eminent domain may be used for nearly any "public purpose," including economic redevelopment, under the federal constitution, the court majority found.

Soon after the decision was announced, some state legislators from Benton County — including state Reps. Shirley Borhauer, R-Bella Vista; Mike Kenney, R-Siloam Springs; and Hendren — took strong exception to the court decision. "I believe in eminent domain when it is for the public good. But I don’t think the Supreme Court should have done that to say, "OK, I’ve got a couple of million dollars and I thought I’d like to put some private industry somewhere. Where did you say you live?" Borhauer said.

They wanted to examine and, if necessary, change Arkansas law and regulations to discourage the state from too broadly applying its eminent domain power, Hendren and Kenney said soon after the decision. "(I) asked the (Legislative) Council to research that in the state of Arkansas and see what we need to do … (and) where the state fits with our current laws," Hendren said soon after the court decision.

On July 15, state lawmakers adopted a proposal for an interim study of the state’s eminent domain laws, Hendren said. "The eminent domain/condemnation procedures (study) … went to the legislative Agriculture and Economic Development (Committee)," Hendren said.

With interim studies, lawmakers examine issues between biennial legislative sessions. New state laws often follow completion of interim studies.


Benton County Daily Record: http://nwanews.com

NJ Deputy Mayor starts campaign for elected officials to pledge an end to eminent domain abuse

Kathy Hogan, Deputy Mayor of Haddon Township NJ, has started a statewide campaign for elected officials to pledge an end to eminent domain abuse. The pledge is a promise to:
  1. oppose any efforts by the government to use the power of eminent domain for private redevelopment, and
  2. support legislation and other efforts to ensure that citizens are protected from the governmental exercise of eminent domain for private development.


Elected officials can accept the pledge
  • via email:
    KathyHogan1@comcast.net,

  • or by surface mail:
    Kathy Hogan, Deputy Mayor of Haddon Township,
    7 MacArthur Blvd., N-806,
    Haddon Township, NJ 08108.

Illinois Bill HB4091 would limit eminent domain powers in the state

Bill HB4091 has been introduced into the Illinois General Assembly by representative Eileen Lyons; it is co-sponsored by representatives Ron Stephens, Bill Mitchell, Jim Sacia, Ruth Munson, Aaron Schock, Dave Winters, and Patricia Reid Lindner. The measure, which amends the Statute on Statutes with a new Section 10, would become effective immediately, It would require all takings under the power of eminent domain to be for a "qualified public use." In particular, it
  • provides that it is a "qualified public use" to exercise the power of eminent domain for the acquisition of property for public ownership and control;
  • prohibits the exercise of the power of eminent domain for private ownership or control, including for economic development, unless it is specifically and
    expressly authorized by law by the General Assembly;
  • preempts home rule powers.


Specific provisions include:
  • Neither the State, a unit of local government, nor a school district may take or damage property by the exercise of the power of eminent domain unless it is for a "qualified public use", as defined under this Section.
  • It is a "qualified public use" to exercise the power of eminent domain for the acquisition of property (i) for public ownership and control by the State, a unit of local government, a school district, or any combination of those entities and (ii) for a public purpose.
  • It is not a "qualified public use," however, to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire property for private ownership or control, including for economic development, unless acquisition of property for private ownership or control is (i) for a public purpose and (ii) specifically and expressly authorized by law enacted by the General Assembly on, before, or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 94th General Assembly.
  • "Private ownership or control" shall be liberally construed to prevent the use of long-term leases, options to purchase, and other mechanisms intended to defeat the purpose of this Section, which is to limit the acquisition of property by eminent domain when it is primarily for the benefit and use of private entities.
  • This Section is a limitation on the exercise of the power of eminent domain.


According to a report in the 7/16/05 Lincoln Courier, state Senator Steve Rauschenberger earlier indicated he planned to introduce a bill that would make it more difficult for local governments to use condemnation powers enabling them to clear private land for developers. Rauschenburger concept would be to require local governments to submit such plans to the Illinois attorney general then seek legislative approval.

The Courier also noted that Senator Susan Garrett has said she will conduct hearings — starting in Chicago on July 20 — to examine ways "to better protect the rights of Illinois property owners."


Information contributed by Walter & Joan McElligott: wmcauth07@yahoo.com