Eminent Domain Ruling Spurs Flurry Of Legislation: Mortgage News Daily, 7/25/05

The US Supreme Court's June 23, 2005 decision in Kelo et. al. v City of New London, Connecticut has put a burr under the saddle of legislators from Washington, D.C. to California.

Kelo v New London upheld the right of that Connecticut city to take, under the right of eminent domain, property in its Fort Trumbull neighborhood to enable construction of a large development containing a hotel and conference center, private residences, shopping and restaurants, a marina, offices and research facilities. The project is ancillary to an otherwise unrelated research park recently constructed for Pfizer Pharmaceuticals. The "condemned" area was largely residential and in no way blighted or crime ridden, conditions which, under a much earlier Supreme Court decision, was ruled as justification for taking property to further develop or improve for the public good.

A number of property owners fought the taking of their properties and, assisted by a non-profit legal center The Institute of Justice, brought suit against the city, ultimately arriving last winter before the Supreme Court.

The Court, in a 5-4 decision, largely deferred to the City of New London's judgment that the proposed development on the seized land would provide appreciable benefits to the community and thus "serve a public purpose...and ...satisfy(s) the public use requirements of the Fifth Amendment."

Flash forward almost exactly one month.

Most Supreme Court decisions go unnoticed. The exceptions, and we all know what they are, can rankle in the body politic for years. Kelo v New London ignited an instant firestorm. Talk show hosts, most of whom had obviously not read the decision, were all over it. A spokesman for Pfizer felt it necessary to call in to one weekend CNN program to (rightly) protest that his company had nothing to do with the proposed development; it was New London itself which was trying to build on Pfizer's presence. In any case, both federal and state lawmakers have hastened to draft bills to provide immediate relief.

In the last 30 days, at least five resolutions have been filed in the U.S. Congress either decrying the Supreme Court eminent domain decision or proposing legislation to reign in the government's eminent domain powers on all levels. House Resolution 3135, sponsored by several dozen members, seeks to prohibit any state or political subdivision of a state from using "economic development" as a reason for exercising eminent domain if federal funds would contribute in any way to the project or the exercise of that (eminent domain) power over the project, and likewise prohibits such "abuse" by the Federal Government.

The Institute for Justice, which funded the Fort Trumbull residents' court battle, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court on behalf of these petitioners asking the Court to reconsider its June decision and stating that it has "already opened up the floodgates to eminent domain abuse." According to the Institute, 25 states are moving toward limiting the authority of state government to so broadly exercise eminent domain procedures.

We cannot verify the number 25, but it is certainly a hot button issue. Missouri Governor Matt Blunt has appointed a task force to review his state's eminent domain laws and draft legislation that would establish criteria for Missouri state and local government to follow when they contemplate the taking of public property.

House Bill 4091 has been introduced in Illinois and the Illinois Association of Realtors is advocating for changes that would clearly define terms in the bill for "public use;" and add a prohibition on eminent domain when any of the property to be seized would ultimately be owned, leased to, sold, or developed by a private party unless endorsed by a 3/5 vote of both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly. The Realtors also want each parcel in a project considered as separate from the project as a whole.

California and Virginia are considering both legislation and constitutional amendments to limit their states' power to seize property. Among the features of the California legislation is one requiring that property must be sold back to its prior owners if it is not used for the reason for which it was acquired. One of the California sponsors, State Senator Tom McClintock, stated "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."

In Alabama, Governor Bob Riley's office announced this week that it is preparing legislation that would prohibit cities and counties from using eminent domain to take property for commercial, retail, office, or residential development. The legislation would still allow for tradition projects such as public roads and schools.

New York property owners, under proposed legislation would have 90 days to protest condemnation proceedings. Furthermore, displaced residents would have to be paid 150 percent of the market value of their property.

Both Tennessee and Iowa are also considering legislation to limit condemnation of private property.

However, not all of these bills are destined for success, at least not in the short term. In Texas anti-eminent domain legislation has already been deemed dead on arrival because the House refused to negotiate a final bill with the Senate, largely over a provision that would have required state and local governments to pay replacement costs for property rather than pay fair market value.

---

Mortgage News Daily: www.mortgagenewsdaily.com

Residents help limit powers of eniment domain: Galveston County (TX) Daily News, 8/1/05

By Sarah Viren
Looking over the West Ranch development plans [in Friendswod TX], Betty Felts, 75, saw a shopping plaza where her house should have been.

Neighbor Don Seyfert was surprised to spot a drainage channel running through his five acres. The properties of two others were shown submerged in detention ponds.

A handful of Friendswood residents say they learned nearly too late that a developer next to them had designs on their property.

And Friendswood Development could have taken some private land had a 17-page bill been passed through the state Legislature as first drafted.

John Hammond, president of Friendswood Development, did not return calls for comment.

The bill originally granted the power of eminent domain to a taxing district encompassing West Ranch. Felts’ brother and next-door-neighbor, Jim Hill, heard about the document in April, a week before a legislative hearing on it. Seyfert was notified the day of the hearing.

Through a barrage of letters and calls they say they got the eminent domain language removed.

Now they want local officials, who approved the bill before sending it to the state, to put restrictions on eminent domain powers into the city charter.

Council members voted unanimously July 25 to approve a resolution and ordinance curbing when and how the city can take land. Officials plan to address the charter next year.

The move comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments could take land for economic development projects.

Traditionally, eminent domain is used only in dire circumstances, such as when a road or sewage pipe needs to transverse a section of private property.

On the capital steps
West Ranch is a 760-acre residential and commercial development. Friendswood City Manager Ron Cox said it will include public parks and should have a “significant impact on the local economy.”

The bill creating the West Ranch Management District allows an appointed board to tax property owners in the district for improvements.

Seyfert said he and his neighbors were not included in the district, so no one notified them of the pending bill.

“They made a legally correct statement when they said all the people in the district were notified,” he said. “Our property is directly beside it. But when they did the legislation they did not limit the eminent domain to within the district. It was global. They could reach anywhere they wanted for drainage.”

Cox said the council approved the bill because it limited these powers. The eminent domain clause, for example, would have authorized the condemnation of Seyfert’s property for drainage uses but likely would have prohibited taking Felts’ home to build a shopping center.

State Rep. Larry Taylor, also a Friendswood resident, introduced the bill, which Cox said Friendswood Development lawyers drafted.

Taylor did not return calls. His chief of staff, Cari Christman, said she did not know if the state representative initially was aware of eminent domain language.

Once the bill reached committee review, however, Taylor and other lawmakers removed the eminent domain clause and approved the district without that power.

National debate
Those favoring eminent domain for economic development, including the National League of Cities, say the government power is needed to revitalize stagnant areas.

Opponents call it a violation of property rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

City council members — either to make amends for the West Ranch bill or to prevent future battles — are now voicing strong opposition to the power.

But residents near West Ranch are distrustful enough that they have begun monitoring all city council and board meetings.

They also set up a Web site and formed an organization — Friendswood Residents Against Eminent Domain — to watch for future threats.

Keeping land
Friendswood Development still needs final approval of its drainage, roadway and development plans for West Ranch.

As of this week, Seyfert said, the drainage map continues to show a cut through his land.

But Cox said the city would not approve any plan incorporating property not owned by the developer.

“The representatives said if they were not able to acquire the property they would simply go around it and provide drainage around the property to avoid any conflicts with those properties,” said Cox.

Seyfert has no plans to sell but wouldn’t rule out the possibility. He stresses that he is not against residential or commercial projects like West Ranch.

“No one in our group has said anything about not wanting the development,” he said. “We just don’t want to be run over in the process. We are now comfortable knowing that if Friendswood Development or anyone wants our property, they have to let the market drive it and not use the power of eminent domain.”

For her part, Felts plans to stay in her house until the end of her days.

She said she doesn’t understand the details of what went on this spring between the developer, the city, the state and her neighbors. But she’s been reassured she won’t have to move. That’s enough for her.

“That’s why we live out here,” Felts said of her rural neighborhood. “I’ve never lived in a subdivision. I can hardly breathe just thinking about it.”

---

Galveston County Daily News: http://galvestondailynews.com

State leader slams California City's eminent domain policy: Bakersfield (CA) Californian, 7/26/05

Attorney general alleges 'most serious violation' of redevelopment in state

By Joe Mullin
The state Attorney General's office denounced California City's use of eminent domain in a brief filed Tuesday, calling it "the most serious violation" of redevelopment law in the state.

In the brief filed in Kern County Superior Court, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer described the case as a "poster child for this abuse."

"There's tremendous economic incentive to condemn vacant land as blighted," said Deputy Attorney General Dan Siegel. "But redevelopment means what it says. It's conditional on finding urbanization and blight."

California City added more than 15,000 acres to its redevelopment area in 2003, saying the land was legally "blighted" and opening it to the use of eminent domain.

That addition is being challenged in a lawsuit brought by N.L. Neilson, a California City resident who owns land near the project — though not land condemned by the city. The state's brief supports his suit.

The suit has been a continuing headache for the city as it continued to force land sales on behalf of Hyundai, which built a test track in the city and began operations this year.

"My feelings about Mr. Neilson are not particularly good," California City Mayor Larry Adams said in an interview last week. "I don't think he cares about anybody's rights. He just likes doing this stuff. We followed the law."

All but 76 of 203 parcels the city eventually took possession of were forced to sell using eminent domain. About 16 parcels are still in lawsuits or negotiations, even though the test track has been in full operation for almost six months.

The case could set standards for the use of eminent domain in California following the Supreme Court's June ruling in Kelo v. City of New London (Conn.). In that decision, the court said redevelopment agencies may condemn land for private development.

"Kelo reinforces the importance of upholding California law because we have a higher bar, and that needs to be respected," Siegel said.

But California City attorney R. Bruce Tepper said the Attorney General's brief is based on statutes that aren't relevant to the city's case, and that he will challenge the filing in court.

Tepper added that eminent domain was necessary to make the plots usable. Without it, "it's impossible to do anything with this property, other than be a burden," he explained.

But Siegel said the city is abusing the law for its own gain.

When land is condemned by a city's redevelopment agency, taxes go to the agency instead of being shared with counties, special districts and the state. That can lead to misuse of the law, said Siegel.

"Agencies are especially tempted to abuse redevelopment law by improperly classifying undeveloped land as blighted," Lockyer wrote in the brief.

Increasing cities' tax revenue by condemning vacant land was not the Legislature's intention, Siegel emphasized.

Vacant land should only be condemned when the lots are "postage stamp lots," he added. Nearly all the lots in question are 2.5 acres or larger. A few are as large as a square mile, according to the brief.

After the filing, Lockyer said in a statement that redevelopment law should be used wisely — "not to chase the quick buck."

June Ailin, an attorney for Neilson, echoed that sentiment.

"They were counting on the fact that it's California City and no one is paying attention," Ailin said.

Hyundai representatives could not be reached Tuesday. The corporation isn't mentioned in the state's brief, though the city acknowledges it is the driving force behind eminent domain proceedings.

---

Bakersfield Californian: www.bakersfield.com

Limit on property seizure proposed: Milwaukee (WI) Journal Sentinel, 7/27/05

Brookfield alderman notes concern about use of eminent domain near 124th, Capitol

By Lisa Sink
An alderman [in Brookfield WI] wants to strip the city of its power to seize property for economic development, citing concern about that tool being used near Capitol Drive and 124th St.

Although Brookfield generally has used eminent domain to acquire land for only roads and utilities - not for commercial development - some city officials have raised the possibility of forcibly buying properties to facilitate redevelopment of an area a former mayor once dubbed "Schmuckville."

Ald. Cindy Kilkenny said Tuesday that she was strongly opposed to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that broadened governments' ability to seize private property to make way for new development.

"Property rights are just a very basic part of being an American, and I just very much disagreed with the ruling," Kilkenny said.

She said she wanted to change city rules on eminent domain "so that it will never be used for gathering property to be resold to a developer."

Mayor Jeff Speaker said Tuesday that he wanted to hear the specifics of her proposal before taking a position. But he said he had concerns about giving up the economic development tool.

"I prefer the private sector" to finance and assemble redevelopment, Speaker said. "But I'm not going to rule out any option."

"Using eminent domain would absolutely have to be a last-ditch effort, a last resort to use," he said.

Speaker said that he may support using eminent domain if, for example, a developer was able to assemble 30 of the 35 properties in the Capitol Drive-124th corridor for a "fantastic development that would knock our socks off" and needed city help in acquiring the remaining parcels.

Individual property rights would have to be weighed against the public good to the city as whole, Speaker said.

The U.S. Supreme Court last month ruled that governments may buy property, even when it isn't blighted, as long as the owner is fairly compensated.

That power, known as eminent domain, has existed since the United States was founded, and governments have used it to obtain land for public highways and schools. Also called condemnation, the tool allows local governments to take the land even if the owner isn't willing to sell, as long as the property owner is fairly compensated.

The power has been expanded to include projects for which governments would buy blighted buildings and sell them to owners who develop the parcels privately, which would create jobs and property tax revenue.

Brookfield city officials have been preparing a mini-master plan for the area along Capitol Drive at the Brookfield-Wauwatosa border. They are interested in seeing property owners redevelop the area into a regional home design center with a gallery of home improvement and decorating stores.

If the longtime businesses there don't buy into the concept, the city's second choice is to encourage development at the site of "medium-box" retailers, defined as smaller than 100,000 square feet, like the size of Circuit City.

City plan commissioners have stressed that the master plan is merely a guide for development and not a precursor to push out existing businesses.

The mayor said at a Community Development Authority meeting Tuesday that most businesses are not interested in relocating or selling.

"I think my nose has kind of healed (from) the slamming of the door," he said.

"What we have to understand is these properties up there are making money. They're very profitable," he said.

Dan Ertl, the city's Community Development director, said that retail brokers are interested in the city's ideas. But they want the city to assemble the myriad properties for resale to developers because of the complexity and cost of buying and relocating existing businesses.

The Community Development Authority directed Ertl to prepare a request for proposals for redevelopment.

Community Development Authority member David Raysich questioned whether developers would respond without knowing how much, if any, financial help the city would provide. The city also could create a tax incremental financing district.

Common Council President Richard Brunner suggested that developers be told the city will provide a "reasonable" amount of financial help.

---

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: www.jsonline.com

Confusion reigns at land-use meeting: Milawukee (WI) Journal Sentinel, 7/26/05

Menomonee Falls residents skeptical of Main St. development plan

By Reid J Epstein
A proposal to create a comprehensive land-use plan for the [Menomenee Falls] village's northeast corner was met with skepticism and confusion during an unwieldy and disorganized meeting Tuesday night at the Village Hall.

Residents, many of whom said they were unsure about exactly what the plan entailed, shouted down plan commissioners and trustees who attempted to explain the boundaries and ramifications of the plan, which calls for the village to dictate potential uses for land in an area bounded roughly by N. 124th St., County Line Road and the Menomonee River. So many people came to the meeting that village officials opened three other rooms for the overflow crowd to watch the proceedings on closed-circuit television.

Officials said they have no plans to use eminent domain to acquire property for private development and hope the area can be redeveloped without using public money, particularly a tax incremental financing district, which is one of the options available.

"Too frequently, people are looking for government to do everything," said Trustee Michael McDonald, who is chairman of the Plan Commission. "I hope not a penny of TIF money happens in this area."

There are 80 parcels in the Main St. redevelopment proposal, 14 of which are owned by car dealer Ernie von Schledorn. Six of those are vacant lots. Earlier this month, Von Schledorn said he will support the village's plans.

Others spoke against a proposal to redevelop Main St., a depressed corridor dotted with vacant lots and empty storefronts. 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.

The RTKL proposal imagines creating developments that combine residential and commercial uses. Paris Rutherford, an RTKL vice president who addressed residents and officials Tuesday, said the idea is to create a "unique experience" in Menomonee Falls that is distinct from other similarly suburban areas. He said the community should act relatively quickly or risk the neighborhood becoming commercially unviable.

"If we don't have new investment in a place like the Main St. corridor, the community becomes stagnant," Rutherford said.

But Lisa Tolfa, who lives on Jefferson Ave., just north of Main St., said the village should not seek to encourage a business district along the corridor.

"I don't know why we have to put more businesses there," she said. "It's like you want to make us another Brookfield."

Rutherford said that the Main St. plan would increase homeowners' property values because it would make the neighborhood more attractive for new homebuyers.

"The whole effort is to make it appeal to people like you," he said.

---

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: www.jsonline.com

Comment by Don Umhoefer of Menomenee Falls:

Meeting went well the other night. Very good turnout from the public so they had to open up overflow rooms and broadcast the meeting. We had handed out about 3500 flyers last weekend, and they started the meeting by bashing the flyer and accused it of exaggerations. Once I got to the podium, I told them that I wrote the flyer, that it was based on information in their draft redevelopment plan and that I would do it again!

Lots of confusion about the land use plan for a larger area of the Village at first, and that dragged on for so long that most of the press left before we got to the redevelopment plan and the topic of eminent domain. Once we did, it was great to see people from other areas of the Village had come to express their views against the taking of private property.

All in all, there was a good discussion between the citizens and the Village officials. I demanded that they take a stand against the use of eminent domain fro economic development and explained that they had an opportunity to be one of the municipalities that lead the reform of this type of governmental abuse of power. I asked them to adopt a charter ordinance defining blight and stating that the Village will not use their power of eminent domain to take property from the citizens for purposes other than roads, public buildings, and utilities, and will not take private property from one person to give to another private party, like a developer. They said that they would take it under consideration...

The land use plan for the larger area of the Village was allowed to move ahead. The Main Street Redevelopment Project approval was dropped for the evening and will be discussed further at a CDA meeting Monday morning.

Eminent domain legislation introduced in New York State

New York State Sen. John DeFrancisco has introduced legislation to restrict the use of eminent domain. The bill, S5938, is available online at:
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S05938&sh=t

Of particluar interest, the bill includes:

• a detailed list of items for which eminent domain is applicable, all involving "public use," and avoiding some "grey area" problems;
  
• a provision for reimbursement of expenses associated with the move, beyond the market value of a property;
  
• The requirement of a vote by a city or county legislature when a non-elective agency wants to do a 'taking.'

'This land is your land.' No -- your land is their land : San Francisco (CA) Chronicle, 7/28/05

By Debra J. Saunders
A LETTER on the front of what used to be Revelli Tires in Oakland warns: "Eminent domain unfair. To learn all about the abuses of eminent domain, please go to www.castlecoalition.org. Educate yourself. Pay attention. You could be next."

John Revelli wrote the note after the City of Oakland evicted him on July 1 from his own property — and a business run by his family since 1949 — so that a private developer could build apartments on his land. It especially galls him, Revelli told me over the phone Tuesday, that while he has been forced away from his livelihood for weeks, Oakland hasn't done anything with his property. Go look at the building, he said, and the sign will still be there because the city hasn't touched anything. Sure enough, the sign was up on Tuesday night.

Oakland also evicted Tony Fung, Revelli's next-door neighbor and the owner-operator of Autohouse on 20th Street. "I am a first-generation immigrant, " Fung told me. "This is my American dream."

To hell with Fung's dream — the City of Oakland seized it, so that someone else can build on it. And without offering enough money for Fung to relocate his business, he says.

The city has legions of lawyers to press its case, while Fung says he has to scrape together pennies to hire an attorney.

"There's no way a small guy like me is able to fight that," Fung noted. He has lost his business, his property and the belief that private property is truly private in the United States. That last item — belief in the system — was destroyed in June, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that governments can seize private property to give it to private developers. Somehow that sweetheart deal constitutes "public use" — maybe because city government grows richer through increased tax revenue.

That may explain why the Oakland City Council voted 6-1 to authorize this eminent-domain seizure. One vote and — voila — you see two small businessmen up against City Hall, the Big Bench and big developers. Talk about being outgunned.

Dana Berliner, a lawyer for the libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice, which fights government eminent-domain overreach, argued that the California Supreme Court and state law don't bolster eminent-domain abuses. But: "The laws are routinely ignored because local governments know most people can't afford to fight them."

"A constitutional amendment is the best way of protecting California citizens from tax-hungry local government and land-hungry developers," Berliner added. Please note — state Sen. Tom McClintock has drafted an amendment for just that purpose.

Meanwhile, Revelli and Fung have lost their livelihoods.

I plead guilty to gushing back in 1999 about Mayor Jerry Brown's plan to add 6,000 units of housing to the downtown area — and with private money. I never dreamed, however, that Oakland would evict successful, blight-free businesses so that private developers could make more money.

What to do? Outraged Oaklanders can contact those who voted to seize these two properties: City Council Members Jane Brunner, Henry Chang, Nancy Nadel, Jean Quan and Ignacio De La Fuente. (Danny Wan is no longer on the council. Larry Reid voted "no.")

I called the offices of Council Members Brunner and De La Fuente, Mayor Jerry Brown, and some city officials connected with what is called the Uptown Project. I heard many reasons why various biggies couldn't talk to me.

Brown — to his credit — did talk.

"I know Revelli," said Brown. "He fixed my brakes, twice." Brown lives seven blocks away from Revelli's shop. He admitted that Autohouse and Revelli Tires are not blighted, but told of other buildings nearby that were crime-ridden and vermin-infested before the city pushed for redevelopment.

"You cannot have a downtown with this kind of abandonment," said Brown. And: "There is a greater good here," in eradicating the blight and replacing it with homes.

The mayor also made a pledge: "It's not easy, but I personally pledge to do everything I can to get this guy located." Fung, too.

If that doesn't happen, it is not as if Oakland couldn't redevelop the land around Autohouse and Revelli Tires, which occupy about 6,500 square feet amid asphalt parking lots.

"I was very, very happy there," Revelli told me. "I had the best building, the best location — one block from the BART station. I couldn't have asked for better."

Well, there was one problem with Revelli's property: It was on such a prime location, the government virtually stole it.

You could be next.

Woody Guthrie wrote, "This land is your land, this land is my land, from California to the New York Island. From the redwood forest, to the Gulf Stream waters, this land was made for you and me."

As far as the U.S. Supreme Court and Oakland are concerned, alas, those lyrics are all wet. To the true believers in eminent domain, your land is their land, and all land was made to produce optimal tax revenue.

---

San Francisco Chronicle: www.sfchronicle.com

Eminent Domain Opponent Dies

Pat Kelly of the Park South neighborhood of Albany, New York died on July 21st of cancer. Pat was one of the founders of, and the principle force behind, the Park South Walk & Watch. She was also active in the Park South Neighborhood Association. Pat was in her 60's and had lived and worked in Park South for more than four decades.

She loved her neighborhood. She knew every inch of it. Her commitment to it was unshakable. Though a tenant who could have left at any time, Pat stuck by Park South as it became blighted by crime and neglect. She worked hard to reverse that decline. She also defended Park South in the last few years when the city of Albany launched a redevelopment plan that involved the use of eminent domain. Pat, more than anyone, wanted Park South to be revitalized. But in her words, "Bulldozers are not the answer."

Pat was the heart of Park South. She was everything good about blue collar neighborhoods. Though she appeared gruff at times, and could face down threats by drug dealers, slumlords and politicians (all of which she received) Pat had a kind and loving soul. She organized Christmas toy drives for the neighborhood children and tried to help provide them with activities other than hanging out on the street. She was a total softy for stray cats. When a building she'd lived in when the neighborhood thrived burned down, Pat sat on the curb and cried. As much for the building's slide downhill as for its sudden demise. One of the things that bothered Pat most about crime was how fear of it limited the lives of the neighborhood's elderly residents. All of whom she knew.

When Pat walked down the street all kinds of people would come up to her and tell her about problems they were having with things such as druggies hanging on their stoop or garbage left on the street. Pat would listen, sympathize and provide practical advice. And encourage them to become involved with changing the neighborhood. Saying not to give up or move out. Park South could be saved.

Pat Kelly had many many friends from many walks of life. Park South relied on her strength and presence. It's hard to imagine the neighborhood without her. But then, I doubt if Pat's spirit has really left. She loved Park South that much.

---

Carola Von Hoffmannstahl-Solomonoff: editor@mondoqt.com

Eminent domain abuse should worry Floridians: Tallahassee (FL) Democrat, 7/27/05

By Dana Berliner
Thousands of Florida home and business owners facing condemnation (or already displaced) by their local governments so their land can be given to a private developer must have wondered what on earth Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist was talking about.

After the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision upholding eminent domain for private development, Crist said in a widely reported statement that Florida property owners are in no danger from the ruling. Nonsense.

Florida home and business owners were in grave danger before Kelo, and they are even worse off now. Despite repeated claims by the attorney general and others, Florida citizens have very little protection against eminent domain abuse.

The U.S. Supreme Court took away what little protection they might have had by ruling that the U.S. Constitution is no barrier to the use of eminent domain for private profit.

Florida municipalities routinely use eminent domain to take property for private development or to intimidate the rightful owners into selling "voluntarily." Boynton Beach, Daytona Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville Beach, Jacksonville, Charlotte County, Riviera Beach and West Palm Beach all have used or threatened eminent domain for private development in the past five years.

The justification is always that the current homes and businesses are too shabby (i.e. "blighted"), and something newer and more expensive would be a better use of the land.

Thus, Riviera Beach plans to demolish more than 1,500 homes, including Conchtown, one of the fewer remaining affordable waterfront areas, and replace them with newer, spiffier hotels and businesses. West Palm Beach condemned a home so that it could be occupied by the manager of a new golf course. Daytona Beach wants to condemn much of its waterfront arcade strip for a new, fancy line of waterfront businesses.

It may not be called "economic development" in Florida, but it's basically the same as taking the Connecticut homes in the Kelo case to make room for an upscale office building.

Those who say Floridians are safe point out that in Florida homes and businesses can't be taken unless they're "blighted." An ordinary person might think she's safe as long as she keeps her home in good condition. Not so. In 2002, perhaps annoyed that local governments actually had to prove there was something wrong with property before taking it, the Legislature amended the definition of blight to make it easier than ever to call property blighted and then to take it.

Until 2002, blighted areas needed to have either deteriorated structures or a condition endangering life and property. Now, however, as long as local governments agree, an area can be declared "blighted" if it meets just one condition from a list of 14.

The broadest of these include "inadequate street layout," "inadequate and outdated building density patterns," and "faulty lot layout." Who decides if your neighborhood is blighted because it has cul-de-sacs instead of through streets, or if your business is blighted because the parking should be in the back of the building? The exact same local government that wants your property for private development.

The Florida Supreme Court initially offered some protection against this sort of abuse, holding in 1975 that under the Florida Constitution "eminent domain cannot be employed to take property for a predominantly private use." However, it hasn't looked at eminent domain for private development since, and lower Florida courts have largely ignored this ruling and show little interest in objections by owners that their land is being taken for another private party.

Worse, in a related context - the issuance of bonds for redevelopment projects - the court signaled an "anything goes" attitude in its willingness to defer to municipalities: "The wisdom of authorizing the cataclysmic demolition and redesign of neighborhoods or even whole districts is not for the court to determine."

If the Florida courts apply that reasoning to eminent domain, Floridians lying in the path of those bulldozers can kiss their homes goodbye.

Unless Florida's Legislature changes the law to ban government takings for private development or the Florida Supreme Court finally steps in to enforce Florida's constitutional protections, property ownership will become just as meaningless in Florida as anywhere else.

Florida citizens can fight back. In the wake of the Kelo ruling, the Institute for Justice and its Castle Coalition grass-roots arm launched a $3 million campaign, Hands Off My Home, to help ordinary Americans learn how to protect their homes and businesses and create legislative change in their states.

Citizens can learn how to get involved - including asking their elected officials to sign the Hands Off My Home pledge against eminent domain abuse - at [the website of The Castle Coalition]: www.castlecoalition.org.

---

Tallahassee Democrat: www.tallahassee.com

Dana Berliner is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represents the homeowners in Kelo, and she is the author of "Public Power, Private Gain," a state-by-state report examining eminent domain abuse. Contact her at dberliner@ij.org.

Eminent Domain Gone Inhumane

By Danny Orttell
How would you react if you had just paid off a 15-year mortgage, never missing a payment, on a lake home you had built yourself, yet had no home to go to? The last 6 payments were made after your home was bulldozed.

About a year ago, Danny Orttell, a 25-year resident of Oak Grove was forced by the Anoka County Sheriff to leave his home, business, and livelihood because of a legal process known as Eminent Domain. The objective was to condemn and demolish both his lakeside neighborhood and the neighboring Shoreside Bar & Grill using the “Blight Clause;” in order to build a 54 unit senior high rise there.

Then they took Mr. Orttell’s 7.2 acre tree nursery as an extension of the blighted neighborhood project.

Orttell contends that building the senior complex on his old neighborhood site was never feasible because of its proximity to the lake. The density of the structure requires that it be built 500 or more feet from the shoreline. “I believe the initial site plan was only used to successfully take the West Lake George properties,” Orttell says. The plan was later radically revised placing the structure completely outside the doomed neighborhood site. One top project official even testified during Orttell’s first Eminent Domain appeal hearing that the revised senior complex could be built in its entirety on the 7.2 acre tree nursery parcel, without requiring the use of the original lakeside neighborhood properties whatsoever.

Orttell owned three homes in an old resort community on the west shore of Lake George, on a street he named Paradise Alley. One of these homes had just undergone a $100,000 renovation. He built the other two in 1985 and 1989, both in compliance with existing city building codes.

In January, 2001 Orttell was informed that Oak Grove had retained the services of HKS & Associates to do inspections and appraisals of all the buildings in the Paradise Alley neighborhood. Orttell had no reason to think his homes were substandard. As any property owner would do in order to obtain the best opinion and appraisal of his property, Orttell began the usual cleaning, painting and repairs on his houses and garages. Forcing himself to work in sub-zero temperatures to meet the city’s deadline while battling pneumonia, Orttell suffered a paralyzed vocal chord ending his 20 year professional singing career. As lead singer of the Both Barrels Band, Danny shared the stage with such music greats as Bobby Bare, Mickey Gilley, Carl Perkins, Ricky Nelson, and Merle Haggard to name a few.

As it turned out, all of the houses in the neighborhood were deemed structurally substandard by HKS. Most of the inspections were completed without HKS representatives even entering the properties. One residence was used to meet the occupancy criteria necessary to initiate the project but that same residence was not actually included in the project. Several lots were allegedly deemed occupied that had been vacant for years.

In the spring of 2001 the city of Oak Grove held an Economic Development Authority (EDA) meeting allegedly to discuss the redevelopment of the West Lake George Community. The EDA voted 3-2 to go ahead with the project. The residents of West Lake George were then given just 15 minutes to discuss and argue the taking of their homes before the City Council (same as the EDA) voted 3-2 to pass the motion. The same people that proposed the project also voted on its approval. Is this democratic? Assuming that these “substandard” residents would become unruly after the predetermined motion was passed, Anoka County Sheriff’s deputies were on site to remove them. Residents most affected by the vote were given no advance notification of the meeting or its agenda other than word of mouth.

After the stunned residents were herded out of the city hall, at least two sources are said to have heard council member Ron Sivigny referring to West Lake George residents as “low lifes,” and calling Orttell a “slumlord who had no reason to be angered when he probably built his houses with illegal money anyway.”

In reality, when he built the homes, Orttell was working two full time jobs and built the houses in his spare time. Danny covered most utilities for his tenants including laundry and air conditioning. He’d often find work for his tenants when they had financial problems. Hardly the slumlord depicted by councilman Sivigny. Orttell has a history of donating to both local and overseas charities. As the owner of a tree nursery (half of which was taken by the Eminent Domain project) Orttell often donates trees and shrubs to schools and churches, and others who lack the funding to landscape their properties.“Danny works every day of his life,” his neighbor stated, and anyone who knows him would invariably agree.

Most of the residents who were removed from the project area were renters who received anywhere from $14,000 to $39,000 each to ensure they left quickly and peaceably. Orttell was the last to leave the area and is still fighting related issues today. Two tenants who leased from Orttell owed him in excess of $9,000 in back rent. He had made an agreement with the tenants that he’d wait for rent payment until they received their relocation settlements. Dan Wilson, Oak Grove Relocator, was to notify Orttell before the relocation money was distributed. However, Wilson failed to do so, and as a result, Orttell collected none of the debts owed to him. With the cost of attorneys and appraisers, along with his loss of rental income and nursery sales, Orttell is out well over $150,000 and to this date has yet to receive a single dime of compensation for any of his properties, outbuildings or over $130,00 in nursery stock.

Federal law states the owner of a property taken by Eminent Domain has first rights to salvage and/or purchase any buildings involved and that the buildings should be utilized as long as possible allowing residents to stay until demolition is inevitable. Orttell’s home could easily have been left standing without interfering with the demolition of the older cabins with the failing sewer systems. Oak Grove had even received a fax from the electric company stating that electricity could have remained connected to Orttell’s house and well while the demolition was done on the rest of the neighborhood. To date no construction has begun in the original neighborhood.

On May 7, 2004, while Orttell was still negotiating with Dan Wilson on having access and use of his home and water supply so he could water what remained of his nursery, deputies of the Anoka County Sheriffs department arrived with orders from Oak Grove to forcibly remove him and his family from the property.

Orttell had received several stays of execution which had apparently angered city officials. Although courteous, the deputies had been given orders to arrest anyone who refused to leave or attempted to return to retrieve their belongings.

On Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Orttell was allowed to return to his property with his attorneys, appraisers, and court appointed County Commissioners who would be appraising the properties. The amount of looting that had taken place at the former residential properties shocked Orttell. Oak Grove had not even closed the doors on Danny’s houses, much less secured them as they had done to the others in the neighborhood. Tim Smith, head of Oak Grove Public Works, asked Orttell about a licensed vehicle that was left behind when he was forced off his land.

Although Smith told Danny he had until May 24 to remove the car, the Anoka County Sheriffs department had it towed that same night. Unaware of this, Orttell reported the car stolen on May 22. The Sheriff failed to inform Orttell that they had declared the car to be abandoned and had it towed, costing Orttell over $2000 before he realized it had been impounded and destroyed. Oak Grove’s Administrator, Jan Olson, allegedly was enraged when Tim Smith agreed to sign a statement saying that he had given Danny permission to leave the car there.

Orttell’s personal and household belongings are currently in a storage facility that the city of Oak Grove is obligated to pay for. However, because the payments are frequently left unpaid by the city for months at a time, the storage facility has severely limited Orttell’s access to his property. One of Orttell’s storage garages was robbed of over $6,000 in belongings with no compensation. Add to this the fact that Orttell found his name listed in the Anoka County newspapers for delinquent taxes on the very same property that Oak Grove had taken from him! Apparently, Oak Grove never took the time to change the titles to the properties. According to county records, as of June 1, 2005, the properties remained listed in Orttell’s name.

In light of his legal, physical, and residential ownership struggles of late, Orttell has this to say: “If I can prevent even one family or business from going through what I have endured over the past five years, fighting Eminent Domain abuse will have been worth it.”

Because his houses were in such good condition Orttell contracted a house mover to relocate them. He received permission from the Oak Grove City Planner, Sam Lucas, to move the homes to another location. The demolition contractor also had no objection to the homes being moved as long as it was ok with the city. However, before he had the chance to actually move the houses, he received a visit from Sheriffs deputies again, this time telling him they had orders from the city that he could forget about moving the houses. Orttell contends that city officials, who were angered at his persistence in fighting the public’s purpose in the taking of his land, insisted the houses be destroyed even before they destroyed the cabins that had been polluting the lake for over 20 years.

When pressed for the real reason in pushing this project through, Mayor Oscar Olson allegedly told several sources, “This is a bad neighborhood and Orttell is a bad person.” Orttell’s response to this was “Mayor Olson’s statement is reminiscent of the white man deeming the Native Americans to be savages to justify the atrocities they brought against them.” Mayor Olson even ordered a criminal background search on Orttell hoping to find something to solidify his allegations. The sheriffs department found nothing. “I’ve never claimed to be no angel,” said Orttell, “but I am a taxpaying, registered, voting citizen who intends to keep fighting this injustice to the end.” Danny Orttell filed an appeal to the MN State Supreme Court in June of this year.

For the Sake of Progress
The alleged cover-ups and actions by the city of Oak Grove and Anoka County regarding the West Lake George Project would appear to be more criminal than controversial. They include, but are by no means limited to the following:

• Over the past twenty years residents have made many complaints about the three cabins on Lake George that were polluting the lake with outdoor toilets at lake level. In an attempt to fix this problem, Jim White, one of the cabins’ residents, asked to hook up to the community sewer system. The city denied his request stating that the system was at full capacity even though permits were being issued for additions and new construction on the lake at that time.
  
  
• In 1996, the Oak Grove City Planner, Sam Lucas, investigated a complaint made regarding an illegal sewer installation. This type of complaint would normally be handled by the City Building Inspector, however, because he was unavailable, Mr. Lucas responded to the complaint. In the presence of three witnesses during inspection of what was clearly an illegal sewer system that would without a doubt leak into the lake, Sam Lucas allegedly stated “just cover it quick”. Neighborhood residents contend that many complaints were ignored until the city could form an Economic Development Authority giving them power to take the whole neighborhood.
  
  
• In late April of 2004, Tenth District Judge John Hoffman ruled in favor of the city of Oak Grove on the Public’s purpose in taking Danny’s properties. At the time, Orttell was suffering from a series of severe migraine headaches and nausea. He was given only a short time to vacate his home. When told of Orttell’s condition, city officials offered him two more days to pack up and leave but only if he waived his right to appeal the court’s decision.
  
  
• When Oak Grove city council member Cindy Norling found out that a large number of potentially toxic transformers and capacitors had been discovered at a building project directly adjoining the West Lake George Project she requested a site investigation. Fellow City Council members, Ron Sivigny and Kristen Anderson, along with Mayor Olson, met her request with strong opposition. For Ms. Norling, this was nothing new for what had become a pattern of opposition and alienation towards her and councilman Gregg Roberts by the Mayor, Sivigny, and Kristen Anderson after they first voiced opposition to the West Lake George Project. The council reluctantly agreed to have the matter investigated by Anoka County Environmental Services. A representative of the agency, Laura Schmidt, was sent out to investigate the allegations. Upon inspection, Ms. Schmidt was said to have picked up a handful of the toxic components that were abundant throughout the site, looked them over quickly, and assumed because they were not rusty they posed no imminent threat. The investigation ended there. Who knows how many of these toxic seeping time bombs lie beneath the surface of this upscale neighborhood, where a number of lakeside houses have already been built? We’re talking toxic transformers and capacitors, found in or near the waters of Lake George. Since these items were dated prior to 1977, they are loaded with PCB’s.
  
  “Our children swim in this lake. How far will they go for the sake of progress?” stated an angry Lake George resident.
  
  
• Oak Grove Fire Chief, Tony Hennemann disregarded a call about the Shoreside Bar and Grill containing large amounts of asbestos. The building was scheduled for demolition by controlled burn and although they received a report of asbestos by an Oak Grove city council member, the burn took place during 20-30 mph winds resulting in a health hazard to both residents and firefighters. “The demolition was necessary to meet the project deadlines, so apparently that’s why there was no investigation,” an angry neighbor said. It is rumored that several Lake George residents and volunteer firemen are considering filing a lawsuit over this incident.
  
  
• To date, no environmental impact study has ever been done by authorities at any level on the West Lake George Project.
  
  
• Two elderly brothers who are both considered to be mentally challenged were owners of the remaining homes and cabins in the project area. Most of the project area had been owned by their family for over 75 years. According to neighbors, the brothers were coerced and badgered by their own attorney to relinquish their property, leaving all their personal belongings behind. Normally, when handling an Eminent Domain case, attorneys work on a contingency basis, taking a percentage of anything over and beyond what the acquiring authority offers. However, the Nelson brothers’ attorney allegedly took 20% of everything they owned. The entire neighborhood complained to the Anoka County Attorneys office, Adult Protection, and to the State Auditor’s Office. All complaints were ignored.
  
  
• In early December 2004, Orttell was told by his attorneys that they had received information that if Orttell failed to abandon his appeal and settle with the city before January, 2005, when newly elected council members began their terms, the city of Oak Grove would make it even tougher for him to receive fair compensation. However, this was not likely to be the case as the new council members are said to be extremely critical of the city’s previous actions in this matter. On December 7, 2004 Mr. Orttell suffered two grand mal seizures which are thought to have been brought on by electrolyte imbalance, dehydration, and extreme stress over this ongoing ordeal.
  
  Federal law states that the property owner in an Eminent Domain issue is entitled to a percentage of the escrowed money from the acquiring authorities original offer. The city of Oak Grove and Anoka County, however, still refuse to release any money to Orttell unless either he gives up his legal right to contest their purpose in taking his land and livelihood or he is refused or defeated at the MN State Supreme Court level.
  
  
• “We’ve made numerous complaints to many officials from many agencies. From the local to county, state, and even federal level, all to no avail. But this is a government spending project,” Orttell said, “It appears that the trend is to ignore, pacify, and if necessary, cover up for the sake of completing the project.” In order for Anoka County to release funds to build the 54 unit senior complex, the city of Oak Grove needed to acquire Orttell’s lakeside nursery. The only way to accomplish this was to condemn the adjoining properties using Eminent Domain.
  
  
• Oak Grove residents were told the senior complex was for low to middle income residents. However, they classified only one apartment as subsidized; all others will be rented for $850 to $1300 per month. For most seniors, this would hardly be considered affordable.
  
  
• The blighted property was to be sold to private builders at top dollar to increase the City’s tax base. The laws regarding Eminent Domain state that the acquiring authority should first attempt to negotiate with property owners on a fair price and when possible, involve the owners in the redevelopment. Although Orttell has been involved in home construction and land development for more than thirty years, no such attempt was made. “From the start,” Orttell contends, “I have been treated as if I were a criminal simply because I contested the taking of my home, my business, and my peace of mind. According to the rules of democratic procedure, the animosity, repeated public slander, and outright smear campaign launched against me by Mayor Olson and council member Ron Sivigny constitutes a bias vote, which would nullify the decision to go ahead with this project. The majority of Oak Grove residents were against it and many voters are still angry with Oscar Olson who originally campaigned against Eminent Domain in order to win their votes.”
  
  
• Mr. Orttell did not retain an attorney in this matter until it was absolutely necessary. “From personal past experiences, I view the immoral majority of them as “legal larcenists” who capitalize on ones misfortunes, molesting their hopes and dreams, often extorting a life savings under false pretense,” Orttell contends, “and as attorneys of law, they are virtually immune from prosecution for their crimes.”
  
  
• Eminent Domain litigation, unlike other legal matters, requires more than one attorney. One is required to contest the Public’s purpose in taking the property, another is needed to assure the value of the property involved, and yet another to recover the cost of relocating the homes and businesses involved. During a meeting with his three attorneys and two appraisers, Orttell brought up the probability of a civil suit resulting from the many civil rights violations surrounding the West Lake George Project. One of Orttell’s own attorneys responded, “Danny, you’re a middle-aged, middle class, Caucasian male. You have no civil rights.” “If I could find an attorney who actually believed in civil rights”, Orttell claims, “that would bring the number to four, and then I would probably have to retain a fifth to defend me against the others.”

---

Danny Orttell: dannyorttell@hotmail.com

The ongoing government outrage: Somerville (MA) Journal, 7/7/05

By Roger Kolb
Highland Avenue’s Jim Campano isn’t as famous as Elie Wiesel. But just as Wiesel has become a living reminder of the Holocaust, Jim, 64, is a symbol of another government outrage, this one ongoing: Eminent domain abuse. In 1958, Jim, a West Ender, was kicked out of his home by the City of Boston in partnership with its developer buddies, the Rappoports, in order to put up Charles River Park.

Applauding on the sidelines were Boston’s big-city dailies, Democratic as well as Republican, who cheerfully sacrificed the feelings and economic welfare of little guys like Jim on the altar of Progress.

With the highly-publicized Kelo vs. New London before the Supreme Court, I interviewed Jim in this space a few months ago in a primer about eminent domain abuse.

On June 23 the Kelo decision came down, with the Court, especially its liberals, siding by a 5-4 vote with Big Brother against you, me, Jim, and New London’s homeowners, including Suzette Kelo and Wilhelmina Dery, who, silly her, thought she had more right to her home of 87 years than Pfizer Pharmaceutical.

I asked Jim whether the Kelo decision surprised him.

“Well, yeah,” he said with an anguished look on his face, running his fingers through his tousled, salt-and-pepper hair. “I was surprised that not a single one of the Court’s liberals sided with the homeowners. They didn’t and today no one’s home or business is safe.”

The Supreme Court has the authority to declare unconstitutional state or federal statutes, as well as decisions handed down by state or lower federal courts. Judicial review, as it is called, isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, but fully 67 of our founding fathers, including Alexander Hamilton, in their utterances public and private, written and spoken, expected the Supreme Court to assume that authority.

In Kelo, what was at issue was whether a community (New London), could take private property away from someone (its homeowners) and give to another private party (Pfizer Pharmaceutical or whomever) in the interests of economic development. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment says that government can only take private property for “public use” and with “just compensation.”

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens declared that economic dvelopment is a valid reason for property taking because it has been going on for some time and with the blessings of courts, both state and federal. He added that the disputed property wasn’t being taken from one private party to be given to another because New London had its sights on the property before companies such as Pfizer entered the picture. It was being taken by economically-distressed New London for whatever purpose it deemed fit.

Neither Sandra Day O’Connor nor Clarence Thomas in a highly-detailed and informative second dissenting opinion bought the argument that Pfizer wasn’t being shown favoritism. (A check of the dates backs them up. Pfizer annnounced that it intended to build a global research plant in New London in February 1998 and it was after that, not before, that the nonprofit New London Development Corporation was created to, among other things, consider the possibility of property seizure by eminent domain.) The four dissenting justices added that if political entities were to be allowed to invoke eminent domain merely to broaden their tax base, the phrase “public use” was being re-defined to justify any taking under the sun.

Justices O’Connor and Thomas cited the sanctity in which our founding fathers as well as the reigning legal authority, William Blackstone, held private property, and declared that there was no way they would have approved of eminent domain for economic revival. To think that Hamilton, Washington, and Blackstone would have condoned, let alone applauded, the New London takings is preposterous.

But for a few passing references to the Fifth Amendment, Justice Stevens said nothing about the intentions of our founders. Elsewhere he declared the Supreme Court does not have the responsibility to see to it that any particular project on taken property comes to fruition.

“That,” said Jim, “is one of the most disturbing aspects of eminent domain. The most disturbing is that people are kicked out of their homes, often in exchange for a pittance, and that 90% of the businesses that have to re-locate fail. Another disturbing thing is the one Stevens and his like-minded justices don’t want to think about. Quite a few of the projects for which land is taken and property destroyed are never built. In 1981, Detroit took roughly 2,000 homes so that GM could build another plant. No sooner was the land taken and the houses leveled than GM decided it didn’t want to build on that site after all. Is that justice?”

---

Somerville Journal: www.townonline.com/somerville

Ruling Sets Off Tug of War Over Private Property: New York (NY) Times, 7/30/05

By Timothy Egan
More than a month after the Supreme Court ruled that governments could take one person's property and give it to another in the name of public interest, the decision has set off a storm of legislative action and protest, as states have moved to protect homes and businesses from the expanded reach of eminent domain.

In California and Texas, legislators have proposed constitutional amendments, while at least a dozen other states and some cities are floating similar changes designed to rein in the power to take property.

But at the same time, the ruling has emboldened some cities to take property for development plans on private land. Here in Santa Cruz, for example, city officials started legal action this month to seize a parcel of family-owned land that holds a restaurant with a high Zagat rating, two other businesses and a conspicuous hole in the ground and force a sale to a developer who plans to build 54 condominiums.

Far from clarifying government's ability to take private property, the 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision has set up a summer of scrutiny over a power that has been regularly used but little-discussed for decades.

"The intense reaction - this backlash - has caught a lot of people off guard," said Larry Morandi, who tracks land use developments for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In Connecticut, where the court case originated, Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, has likened the reaction to the Boston Tea Party and called for a moratorium on land takings until the legislature can revisit the law.

California's proposal would prohibit the use of eminent domain, a process in which governments force a sale of someone's property, in cases like Santa Cruz's.

"This decision opens a new era when the rich and powerful can use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain," said State Senator Tom McClintock, a Republican who proposed the amendment.

In Congress, liberals like Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, have joined conservatives like Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, in criticizing the ruling. The House voted 365 to 33 to pass a resolution condemning the decision, and proposals in both the House and the Senate would prevent the federal government from using eminent domain for private development, as well as local governments using federal money on such projects.

The Fifth Amendment allows the taking of land for "public use" with "just compensation," and governments have long used the practice to build roads and schools and to allow utilities to run service lines. In its June 23 ruling regarding efforts by the City of New London, Conn., to condemn homes in an old part of town to make way for a private development, the Supreme Court said public use could mean something that brings a public benefit - like jobs or increased tax revenue.

But at the same time, the court invited states to tailor their own laws. While only one state, Delaware, has changed its law, most states are likely to have a proposed change by next year, Mr. Morandi said.

"The initial outcry after the court case was: Nobody's house is safe, we've got to do something now," he said. "But as more states take a look at this they will respond in some form, but they won't want to take away a valuable tool."

In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry added the issue to a special legislative session initially called for education. Both houses passed bills limiting eminent domain with some exceptions, including one allowing the City of Arlington to condemn homes for a new Dallas Cowboys football stadium, a project already under way. The two versions of the bills were not reconciled before the session ended.

But some cities view the ruling as blessing their redevelopment plans; Arlington filed condemnation lawsuits against some holdout property owners this month. Officials in Sunset Hills, Mo., outside St. Louis, voted to condemn a cluster of homes to make way for a shopping center, despite the pleas of some elderly homeowners who said they had nowhere else to go and no desire to move. Officials in Oakland, Calif., evicted a tire shop and an auto repair shop to make room for a development that is part of Mayor Jerry Brown's plan to bring 10,000 residents to the central part of the city.

In Santa Cruz, the plans pit one family against the city's long effort to redevelop a downtown hit by the 1989 earthquake. With the Supreme Court's ruling, city officials here said they felt free to seize a 20,000-square-foot lot they considered a blight.

To the city, the lot owned by the Lau family is a drag on other businesses, because the hole, left by the earthquake, has never been redeveloped. To the family, the seizure is legalized theft and shows how the court decision can be used to take anyone's property under the broad rubric of public use.

"My family has owned this land for 36 years," said Eric Lau, who laid bricks to shore up the building that would become his thriving restaurant, which is adjacent to the hole. "And now they're trying to erase us from this place, to take it and say we don't have any choice."

The ruling has struck a chord; in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll this month, the legal issue that Americans said most concerned them was "private property rights," ahead of parental notification for minors' abortions or the right-to-die debate.

Property rights groups have united with more liberal organizations in arguing that taking property for economic use usually favors the rich over the poor.

"Typically, you have these corporate lobbyists who go down to a city council and say, 'Take this person's property and we'll build you a shopping center,' " said Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian-leaning legal group that helped draft the proposed California amendment.

Opponents of the Supreme Court decision also point to San Diego, where Ahmed Mesdaq lost his prosperous cigar and coffee shop in the trendy Gaslamp Quarter to a hotel project, which the city said would bring more tax revenue.

Many city officials say eminent domain is crucial for creating jobs, expanding tax bases and keeping their communities economically viable.

"Redevelopment is sometimes the only tool a community has to jump-start revitalization of downtrodden, blighted communities," officials at the California League of Cities wrote in a response to the proposed amendment.

Mayor Brown of Oakland said it was inevitable that some small businesses would have to be relocated, and he urged caution in any efforts to pass laws. "I understand the horror of urban renewal," he said. "But you don't want to take away a tool that a city has to reform itself. If you did, Oakland would suffer greatly."

During the 1970's, the Lau property, with its bookstore and cafe in the pre-Starbucks age, was a central hangout in funky Santa Cruz, neighbors say. Eric Lau watched his father's bookstore come to life and then die in the Loma Prieta earthquake, which destroyed the building.

The family's restaurant, Oswald, would not be considered blight by many standards. There is ivy on the outside walls, art on the inside, and the tables are covered with fresh-pressed linen. The restaurant is packed on most nights, neighbors say. And it has consistently been voted one of the best places to dine in Santa Cruz, a beach town of 54,000 people south of San Jose, known for its university and the carpet of redwoods on its fog-shrouded hills.

Ron Lau, who is 69, has long tried to build something on the undeveloped part of the property - the hole in the ground. The problem, city officials say, is that Mr. Lau has proposed hard-to-build, idealistic plans, involving alternative energy sources and unusual designs, that have never gotten off the ground, angering some nearby property owners.

"We do not use eminent domain frivolously," said Ceil Cirillo, executive director of the Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency. "I feel we have been very fair and very patient."

Taking the Lau property would serve the public good, Ms. Cirillo said, "because there is a hole in the center of our retail district."

Eric Lau and his sister Lani say the city is taking their property simply because their father took so much time to try to build something unusual.

"My dad was hellbent on getting his dream project built, nothing less, and that has been his biggest weakness," Eric Lau said.

The city agency has offered the family $1.6 million for the property, and the Laus plan to fight it. It is unclear whether the amendment would protect the Laus, but they hope to hang on to the property long enough to find out. A vote on the amendment would come no sooner than next June, legislative leaders say.

Meanwhile, the Laus say they are willing to modify their plans and build something close to what the city has agreed to with a developer.

But city officials say that they have run out of patience and that it is too late for the Laus to come up with new designs. They have an exclusive agreement, Ms. Cirillo said, with a developer, Bolton Hill, to take over the property and build on it.

"The project is moving forward," Ms. Cirillo said. "The Supreme Court gave us reassurance of our ability to proceed."

As for Laus and their restaurant, Ms. Cirillo said there might still be a place for them in the new development - after they sell out.

"Ideally, we would like to see them relocated in some way to the project," she said.

---

New York Times: www.nytimes.com

Shopowners cry foul: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 7/4/05

Stockbridge couple says city blocked sale to seize property

By Christopher Quinn
Mark and Regina Meeks' Stockbridge Florist and Gifts has been part of "downtown" Stockbridge for more than 20 years.

But there's no room in the Henry County city's future for the little refurbished house from which the Meekses operate.

Stockbridge, a sad-looking row of businesses and its loose conglomeration of nearby offices, houses, strip centers and restaurants, is about to get a town-sized makeover.

For the Meekses and other landowners, it looks more like a power play in which the city condemns their land — forces them to sell out using the power of eminent domain — in the name of redevelopment and the public good.

City leaders have laid out a well-planned future that looks a lot like the new and improved downtown Smyrna — new multistory townhomes, brick offices, cute retail shops, and in the middle of it all, a new City Hall and town green.

In their minds' eyes, it is all rising right there along East Atlanta Road and North Henry Boulevard, where the Meekses and 17 other landowners sit — looking a little too much like, well, old Stockbridge.

The owners can sell for what the city has offered, or, as an April letter from the city attorney to the Meekses reminded them, Stockbridge could use its power of eminent domain to force them to sell for that price.

Twelve owners have reached amicable agreements to sell to the city, according to A.J. "Buddy" Welch, the city attorney. Others have not, including Marilyn Gramm, who owns a real estate development and brokerage firm.

"We are all for growth and I know the area needs to be cleaned up," she said. "But they need to pay us what our property is worth."

Gramm, without using specific numbers, said the city's offer for her property is "several hundred thousand less" than what she believes it is worth.

Mark and Regina Meeks have what they believe is proof that the city is offering less than the market value for their shop. The city offered $205,000, according to a letter from Welch.

Not bad for a half-acre. But not nearly what they were offered by a development company in 2003 before the city undercut that deal by creating a zoning overlay and redevelopment plan.

The Meekses and several adjoining landowners had been negotiating with a company that was planning to build an Eckerd drugstore.

Mark Meeks, sitting in the florist shop, pulled out a signed copy of the option to sell his property.

The agreed-upon price: $388,000 — plus the company was going to give the Meekses a lot behind the Eckerd drugstore where they would relocate their shop.

A month before they were to close on the deal, the city passed its redevelopment plan — a plan that limited drugstores in the new town district to 5,000 square feet of floor space.

Eckerd had wanted a 14,000-square-foot store, Meeks said. The deal collapsed.

"This is what the ordinance did, diminish the value of our property so [the city] could get our property cheaper," Regina Meeks said.

Welch said the city is trying to be fair and has had two appraisals of the Meeks' land and house.

"Tax money is being used to buy their land, and we can only pay the fair market value of what we are taking from those people," not what they claim it's worth, he said.

Mark Meeks said he is getting his own appraisal done and has hired an attorney.

"We'll take this and let a jury decide, because we are not going to take a lot less for our property than we already had it sold for," he said.

GOP rethinks position
The case may never make it to a judge.

Stockbridge's plan might get condemned itself. And by extension, plans across metro Atlanta to rebuild, refurbish and reshine downtowns could suffer.

Gov. Sonny Perdue and legislative leaders are vowing to protect private property rights in the wake of last month's Supreme Court decision allowing local governments to condemn private property to make way for private economic development.

Many Republican leaders backed a bill earlier this year that critics said would have encouraged the use of eminent domain to acquire land for private development. But that bill died in committee.

And in response, Sen. Jeff Chapman (R-Brunswick) introduced a bill that would have prevented eminent domain from being used for the purpose of economic development and improving a government's tax base.

The bill passed the Senate but failed in the House.

The controversy got a fresh dose of fuel with the high court's decision and subsequent outcry from the public and talk radio hosts.

A justice noted that the ruling would not prevent states from writing stricter laws to limit the use of eminent domain.

Jim Smith, a law professor at the University of Georgia, said, "What [the high court's decision] tells Georgia landowners is that their only prayer is not going to federal court, but trying to get state courts to protect them and narrow the definition of what a public purpose is."

Chapman hopes his bill will be received more favorably by an election year Legislature, and it seems headed that way.

'Who has the right?'
Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson (R-Savannah) has appointed Chapman to head a committee to gather information on making his proposed Georgia law work.

Chapman said he hopes to hold a meeting within 45 days and take testimony from interested parties.

The Georgia Municipal Association is one of those.

It supports the use of eminent domain and feels the public is adequately protected by current law. Landowners can appeal condemnation cases to local authorities or go to court.

Many cities, like Smyrna, which has been praised as a model of urban redevelopment, used eminent domain to assemble parcels from unwilling owners.

Other cities, from Duluth to Marietta, are in the midst of similar downtown redevelopments designed to make them more compact and put people in new houses closer to jobs. The redeveloped cities are supposed to cut down on driving and smog, enliven areas that have been blighted and create new centers for jobs and entertainment.

Susan Pruett, the association's general counsel, said the group is concerned about restrictions that could tie cities' hands to do almost any kind of improvement.

"You could argue every time you use eminent domain that it is for economic development. Whether you are putting in a road or when a power company is extending utilities, it's all done to make a better, more prosperous community," she said.

Sen. Doug Stoner (D-Smyrna) said, "I know Smyrna would not have been rebuilt had [Chapman's bill] been the law in Georgia."

Chapman said he is not anti-growth, but he does think people's property rights should take precedence over the desire of a government to hand over property to private firms for redevelopment.

He plans to hold his hearing in Stockbridge.

The Meekses, he said, "have a clear example of a local government rough-treating these people and possibly costing them a lot of money."

"Who has the right to take it from them at a fraction of the cost so someone else could benefit from it? That is not the American dream."

---

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: www.ajc.com

Eminent domain: boon or bane? St Louis (MO) Post Dispatch, 7/23/05

By Tavia Evans
Developers are finding more corners of the metropolitan area ripe for retooling, and they're staking their claims to land for new projects.

Their plans include multimillion-dollar retail and commercial centers and industrial parks, aimed at creating jobs and revitalizing neighborhoods. And more often, those plans include the use of eminent domain to acquire the properties.

The recent Supreme Court ruling expanding the power of eminent domain has captured the interest of state governments and cities, and riled critics and property owners who say it is a violation of their constitutional rights. In Kelo vs. City of New London (Conn.) the Supreme Court ruled in June that the government can use the power of eminent domain to take private property for economic reasons.

Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt has created an eminent domain task force to review state and federal laws on its use, especially in connection with tax increment financing in large-scale developments, according to Gerard Carmody, a St. Louis attorney appointed to the task force.

City planners and municipalities defend the Supreme Court's ruling. They believe eminent domain is necessary to revitalize "blighted" areas and secure financing that will make redevelopment projects feasible.

John Brancaglione, an urban-development consultant with the architectural firm Peckham Guyton Albers & Viets, said eminent domain is commonly used as part of city planning.

"It's a natural evolution of cities who stay on top of their growth and development issues. They look at land use and try to figure out what's going on, what's happening to property values and what's the best economic use of the land."

But critics say the way eminent domain commonly is used in Missouri as an economic-development tool runs counter to its original purpose as a way for cities to acquire land for public use.

"None of the controversies have swirled around cases where the government needs to build a road, a school or a firehouse, where it's clearly a public use," said Jerome Wallach, a local attorney who represents home and property owners in eminent domain cases.

"Curing blight has become a public purpose now by city governments, and they're using private enterprise as their method."

Developers argue that tax increment financing is necessary to complete the redevelopment.

For example, Novus Development Co. will receive $42 million in TIF funds to build a retail lifestyle center in Sunset Hills; the total project is expected to cost $160 million. The land, at the southeast corner of Interstate 44 and South Lindbergh Boulevard, is a transportation development district. The project is expected to generate $20 million for highway and road improvements.

"Without TIFs, this would not happen. It levels the playing field," said Jonathan Browne, president of Novus Development. "The TIFs offset the costs, because you couldn't go and pay what we're paying for ground and develop it."

In return, Novus says, the redeveloped area will generate $2 million a year in property taxes for Sunset Hills, up from $400,000 in taxes produced by homes now in the Sunset Manor area. Novus also projects retail sales taxes of $200 million, up considerably from the $5 million generated by commercial property in the area. But developers aren't always the first to speculate on possible land for redevelopment. Cities often initiate the process.

The Hazelwood Commerce Center, a proposed $250 million business park, has been in the works for several years. The city of Hazelwood issued requests for proposals on the old Robertson neighborhood, just north of Lambert Field. Most residents left in an airport-noise buyout in the 1980s. The city had already designated the area blighted.

Financing details have not been completed, but McEagle Development expects to receive some form of TIF money for the business park.

"It's a tool that cities can use to attract or encourage developments," said Bruce Sokolik, president of McEagle Development. "In our case, the city had already gone through the process of blighting the land for eminent domain, so we responded to the offer to develop it."

However, five businesses and several parcels of land are standing in the way because the property owners say they're getting a raw deal.

"The developer convinces the city they can improve the tax base, create jobs and put the land to a more profitable use at the expense of happy and thriving businesses if they can receive tax increment financing," said attorney Robert Denlow, who is representing the businesses. "The city just jumped at it."

Susan Woltering is president of C.R. Frank Popcorn Co. and Select Drinks. Her father founded the businesses 34 years ago and bought the property at 5401 North Lindbergh. Woltering said McEagle's latest offer of $325,000 would not be enough to relocate and buy new property.

"They stand to make plenty off of this development, but we can't even buy ground for the amount they're offering," she said. "In order to continue business, we need a new building to go to. The way the law is written, everything is in their favor."

---

St Louis Post Dispatch: www.stltoday.com

Court expands eminent domain, but some states aren’t buying it: Enid (OK) News & Eagle, 7/23/05

The recent Supreme Court decision that could allow governments to take private property and turn it over to developers has state lawmakers across the country scrambling to thwart an overreaching power.

Oklahoma is one of those states working on such legislation. Lawmakers are alarmed by the prospect of local governments seizing homes or businesses for developers that might make a better offer on sales tax revenues for the community.

Many see the action by the Supreme Court in the Kelo vs. New London case as an attack on private property rights of individuals — and while that may seem somewhat alarmist — it is a valid concern.

Most people understand the rule of eminent domain, which allows governments to take property for “the public good.” That usually means roads or other infrastructure that is pubic in nature.

And, even in those cases, eminent domain usually is rare because governments work out satisfactory financial arrangements with the people whose property is needed.

However, what galls people is the latest decision seems to allow big corporations to get their hands in the pockets of local government with promises of big sales tax revenues. That’s a whole different ball game. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her dissent, “Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory.”

Most government officials, including those in Enid, say they would be extremely careful and exercise good judgment in handing such an issue. However, this ruling provides governments with an awesome power. In communities that have no or slow economic growth, it just might be too tempting to wield such a power without the proper perspective and concern for individual property rights.

We agree legislation probably needs to be written to address this issue and strengthen individual property rights, but we also are concerned too much emotional reaction could jerk legislation into an extreme position.

We advise legislators working on such proposals to make changes with careful reflection. They need to step back and look at the issue broadly. They should visit with local government entities and constituents, then make the appropriate changes.

Eminent domain is not necessarily a bad thing, but it’s a power that must be a last resort. Individual property rights are too precious, and they must be treated with cautious regard.

---

Enid news & Eagle: www.enidnews.com

Eminent domain bill’s failure stuns Janek: Galveston County (TX) Daily News, 7/22/05

By Nathan Smith
State Sen. Kyle Janek says he was stunned this week when his proposal to limit government from seizing private property was not approved in this special legislative session.

Janek’s proposal would have limited state and local governments from taking private property if the primary purpose for the seizure was economic development.

The bill was filed in response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that lets local governments take land for private development to generate tax money.

The court ruled 5-4 last month in a case involving the city of New London, Conn., which sought to take homes to make way for a private development.

The Texas Senate approved the bill first and sent it to the House. Representatives added provisions and kicked the bill back to the Senate. Senators agreed to negotiate with the House on the differences, but the House refused Tuesday.

“Some of the House amendments contained language that needed further study,” said Janek, a Houston Republican whose district includes part of Galveston County.

“For example, an exception was allowed for the taking for ‘industrial development’ and this, to me, is the same as taking for ‘economic development.’

“Condemning someone’s land because you’ve found someone with deeper pockets is wrong — whether that someone is a retailer, a country club or heavy industry.”

Janek called the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill major but solvable.

He pledged to try to have the issue of eminent domain added to the next special session, which began Thursday.

---

The Daily News: www.galvnews.com

House GOP urges Congress to limit eminent domain: The Kentucky Post, 7/23/05

By Feoshia Henderson
Kentucky's House Republicans are backing a resolution urging Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit the government's authority to take citizens' property for private economic development.

Louisville Rep. Scott Brinkman has pre-filed the resolution for the 2006 General Assembly session. The chamber's entire 43-member Republican delegation, including six Northern Kentuckians, has signed onto it.

The resolution, which if passed would not effect Kentucky law, is in response to the recent 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision that government could seize property for private development if it would result in higher tax revenues for the government.

"It goes beyond anything we have ever seen," Brinkman said. "What the court has said is you can take private property for economic development in the private sector if you can show you'll get more of a tax base and more revenue for local government."

Brinkman said he would work the Democratic majority in the House to help ensure passage of the measure.

"I think the Supreme Court decision was a huge mistake," said state Rep. Joe Fischer, R-Fort Thomas, who supports the House measure. "Public use should be only for the public itself, not for another private entity."

The resolution asks Congress to pass an amendment "prohibiting the use of eminent domain for private economic development purposes."

Historically eminent domain powers have been used for the public good for projects such as roads, railroads or utilities. Supporters of the Supreme Court ruling say the expanded authority gives governments a valuable tool in developing run down areas.

But Rep. Addia Wuchner, R-Florence, said the court overstepped its bounds and the resolution was a way for the legislature to affect change.

"It a joint resolution and we're asking (Congress) to act on behalf of the citizens of the United States," she said.

Lawmakers in two states, Minnesota and Texas, are working on legislation to limit eminent domain authority.

Kentucky is one of at least eights states that already curb that power. In the commonwealth property can be seized for public projects, or for private projects only if an area is declared blighted.

That's what happened in Newport, where the city has struck a deal with Montgomery developer Bear Creek Capital to develop a retail-office project on 55 acres between Memorial Parkway and Carothers Road, just west of Interstate 471.

The city declared the property blighted in 2002 and subject to private development under terms of eminent domain.

The project necessitated the razing of 96 houses, two churches and one business.

---

The Kentucky Post: http://news.kypost.com

O'Fallon states position on eminent domain: St Louis (MO) Post Dispatch, 7/23/05

header, if any

By Steve Pokin
O'Fallon [MO] aldermen last week assured residents that they will not use the city's power of eminent domain to take private property for economic development, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court decided that government can do just that.

"I think eminent domain is a touchy word in this city and I hope this resolution might put some of the residents at ease," said Lyn Schipper, a Ward 2 alderman and board president.

Aldermen voted 8-0 at the July 14 board meeting to pass a resolution that states that the proper use of eminent domain is for items such as streets, parks and public water and sewer systems — not for economic development.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on June 23 that the Constitution requires only the possibility of economic gain for government to acquire private property from one individual for the benefit of another.

In the eyes of the court, taking a home so a developer can build a shopping mall is as much of a public use as taking land to build an interstate highway.

In O'Fallon, a 2003 attempt by the city to use eminent domain has shaped city politics.

A different board majority gave tentative approval to a sweeping redevelopment plan, called Main Street Ventures, for Old Town O'Fallon.

The plan included eminent domain. Numerous residents and business owners would have been forced to sell their property.

Only one alderman — Bill Hennessy in Ward 4 — remains on the board since that time.

Alderman Randy Hudson, Ward 1, said his downtown business of 25 years, Randy's Jewelry, was targeted by Main Street Ventures.

"After that happened to us, I looked at the world differently," Hudson said. "I drove around St. Charles County and looked at different properties and thought to myself, ‘Gee, I bet I could replace that with something that would produce more taxes.

"We all think we have the right to own property and then we find out that we don't," he said. "I think the resolution sends a strong message that says we are no longer the same government we were two years ago."

Dennis Sherman, owner of O'Fallon Garage on South Main Street, said his business also was targeted by Main Street Ventures.

He said the fight to stop the plan is not something he wants to relive.

"It messed up my whole summer," he said. "Every week there was a meeting — whether it was with the Board of Aldermen or a fund-raiser to fight what was happening. There was all kinds of stuff going on. It took me away from my wife and kids."

---

St Louis Post Dispatch: www.stltoday.com

Ruling on eminent domain triggers a firestorm of ire : Minneapolis (MN) Star Tribune, 7/23/05

By Kenneth Harney, Washington Post Writers Group
Calling it a backlash would hardly do it justice. Calling it an unprecedented uprising to nullify a decision of the highest court of the land would be more accurate.

In the four weeks since the Supreme Court sanctioned the seizure of private homes by municipal governments for private "economic development," a firestorm of reaction has broken out in dozens of state legislatures and in Congress.

At the federal level, the House adopted by a 365-33 vote a highly unusual resolution deploring the court's ruling. The House also voted 231-189 for a bill that would prohibit expenditure of any federal housing, transportation or Treasury funds "to enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London." The court ruled that municipalities have the authority to determine what constitutes a "public purpose" for eminent-domain seizures — even if that means taking privately owned real estate away from one set of citizens and handing it over to private developers who promise to increase the local tax revenue base or increase employment.

In effect, the House told the court: You might have narrowly approved the Connecticut city's eminent-domain seizures of homes for a privately developed and owned urban renewal project, but we have a weapon in this fight too. If the appropriations amendment passes the Senate, the city of New London will not be able to use key federal funds in any way, directly or indirectly, to move that project forward. No transportation money, no housing subsidies, no assistance from the Treasury.

Meanwhile, bipartisan support is building in the Senate for the sweeping "Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2005," sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

That bill declares that it is Congress' view that "the power of eminent domain should be exercised only for 'public use' as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, and that this power to seize homes, small businesses and other private property should be reserved only for true public purposes."

Under no circumstances, Cornyn said, should local eminent-domain powers "be used simply to further private economic development." If passed and signed into law, the bill would prohibit all uses of federal funds in connection with any eminent-domain seizures for economic development purposes.

At the state level, legislative moves are under way in more than two dozen states to rein in — or at least clarify — the powers of municipalities to condemn and seize homes. Eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — already impose restrictions in some form.

In Connecticut, Gov. Jodi Rell has endorsed a moratorium on eminent-domain seizures and called the issue "the 21st century equivalent of the Boston Tea Party: the government taking away the rights and liberties of property owners without giving them a voice. But this time it is not a monarch wearing robes in England we are fighting — it is five robed justices at the Supreme Court in Washington."

The outraged reaction to the Kelo decision has erupted across the political and ideological spectrum, creating momentary bedfellows out of legislators who rarely agree on anything. Name another issue on which House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas; Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.; Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.; the House's lone self-described socialist, Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.; evangelical Christian groups; Rush Limbaugh, and Ralph Nader all are on the same side.

Waters denounced the decision — which she said would weigh most heavily upon minority and poor neighborhoods — as "the most un-American thing that can be done." DeLay called the ruling "a travesty."

A few Kelo opponents are looking to mount direct action — sometimes tongue-in-cheek. A California-based group called Freestar Media is organizing an effort to persuade the town council of Weare, N.H., where Supreme Court Justice David Souter owns property, to condemn Souter's land in order to give it to developers who promise to build a hotel on the site, substantially raising town revenue and employment in the process.

Souter voted with the majority in the case. The name of the proposed project: The Lost Liberty Hotel, which also will feature a restaurant called the Just Desserts Cafe.

Logan Darrow Clements, CEO of Freestar, insists, "This is not a prank. The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter, we can begin our hotel development."

"Just desserts" indeed.

---

Minneapolis Star Tribune: www.startribune.com

Kenneth Harney is a syndicated real estate columnist: kenharney@earthlink.net

Eminent domain reform tools from The Reason Foundation

In the wake of the Supreme Court's Kelo vs. New London decision, The Reason Foundation has been inundated with requests from individuals as well as local and state policymakers, asking about reasonable measures to prevent misuse of eminent domain — especially for economic development projects.

The Reason Foundation and The reason Public Policy Institute have prepared a variety of tools that can serve as a starting point toward eminent domain reform:

• Sample municipal resolution calling for state/federal action
  • PDF format
    
  • WORD format
  
  
• Sample municipal charter provision/ordinance language
  • PDF format
    
  • WORD format
  
  
• Sample state legislation language
  • PDF format
    
  • WORD format
  
  
• A variety of supporting information and updates
  • The Reason Foundation eminent domain page
    
  • The Castle Coalition

---

The Reason Foundation, Public Policy Institute: www.rppi.org