UNO set to purchase property without using eminent domain : The Gateway (UNO — The Univ of Nebraska at Omaha), 9/20/05

By Crystal Reid
Area businesses spoke against the university administration using eminent domain to acquire 17 acres of land around 64th and Center Streets, at the open session of the Board of Regents meeting on Friday.

After closing the meeting for debate, the regents decided that UNO could not pursue eminent domain until all other options were exhausted, said President/Regent Elizabeth Kraemer. Even then, eminent domain must be presented to and passed by the regents.

The regents unanimously voted 8-0 for UNO to proceed with acquiring the land, which would be used for what Kraemer described as "Aksarben Village," a UNO community residential, shopping and entertainment area. Other acquired land could be used for expanding south campus and athletic fields.

The area businesses that addressed the board were concerned about what eminent domain would mean for their future.

Ann Amato, co-owner of Amato's Cafe & Catering, said that their business was their life insurance policy.

"This is the future for our children," Amato said.

Sam Amato, a liver-transplant patient, said that taking away his business would give him nothing to do.

The owners of the three businesses implied that the offers made to them for their businesses were well below what they were worth.

Nils Anders Erickson, owner of Rainbow Recording Studios, said that he felt threatened by two real estate agents who said that he had 30 days to take their "low-ball" offer. The Amatos said that they would not be able to pay off their business and live comfortably off of the rest of the money for the next 15 years as they had planned.

---

The Gateway: www.unogateway.com

FRC Calls on Congress to Rein in Eminent Domain Power: Family Research Council, 9/20/05

Press release
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony concerning the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London which greatly expanded the eminent domain power of government to seize private property for "public use." Senators heard testimony from several victims of the Kelo decision, including Susette Kelo and Wilhelmina Dery. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

"Today's Senate testimony revealed that the threat to freedom posed by the Supreme Court's Kelo decision is still very real. Hopefully still fresh in the Senate Judiciary Committee member's minds is the testimony they heard last week from Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Judge Roberts reminded Congress they have the power to challenge Supreme Court rulings they disagree with. Such advice needs to be taken seriously.

"Following the Kelo decision, the House of Representatives approved legislation to use the spending power of Congress to protect private property owners who are threatened by the misuse of eminent domain. I call on the Senate to join the House in protecting the fundamental right to private property."

---

Family Research Council: www.frc.org

Eminent domain dispute brewing: Cedar Rapids (IA) Gazette, 9/20/05

Associated Press
Some Iowa lawmakers want to restrict government's ability to force the sale of property for economic development.

Several legislators say the use of eminent domain can hinder a property owner's rights. Some city leaders in Des Moines say it promotes economic development.

The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year reinforced the authority of government to buy property against the will of its owner. Such authority allows cities and county's to run roughshod over property rights, some lawmakers said.

"What we're looking at is something that would prevent governments from condemning private property and then turning it over to another private property owner," said Rep. Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha.

Eminent domain is frequently used to acquire property for roads, but property rights advocates say it has been increasing used to push projects they think will boost property values.

"If it's for a public project, that's one thing, but to take it from one and give to another is a different issue altogether," said Iowa House Speaker Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City.

Des Moines officials say stripping away their authority could crush redevelopment efforts.

"If they want to shut down the development of our cities, that's the way to do it," said Rick Clark, acting Des Moines city manager.

Councilwoman Christine Hensley said Des Moines doesn't abuse eminent domain. She said it's one of the few tools the city has to push redevelopment.

Des Moines has threatened to use eminent domain on two downtown buildings owned by Brad Hamilton.

The buildings, city officials say, have not been updated to match others in the area, despite inspection reports that indicate there are no serious
defects.

"As long as their taxes are paid and it's not dangerous to the public, then they should leave them alone," said Don Roberts, owner of a nearby service station.

Nate Nicewanger, who owns a record store that is housed in one of Hamilton's buildings, said he wants the city to stop pressuring his landlord because he fears he will have to move his business.

"I'm just afraid the city is going to ask him to do some things that he might not be able to afford," Niceswanger said.

Tom Bredeweg, executive director of the Iowa League of Cities, said the group hopes Iowa "can find a middle ground" that ensures eminent domain "is used consistently with good public policy."

Sam Staley, policy director of the Los Angeles-based Reason Foundation, has worked with about a dozen cities and states to scale back the use of eminent domain.

He said property owners "shouldn't have to worry about other private owners coveting his property and using the government to seize it because they can't buy it on the open market.

"Essentially, what governments are doing is using the flimsiest of excuses, and everybody's property is at risk," Staley said. "It doesn't matter if it's a business or somebody's home."

---

Cedar Rapids Gazette: www.crgazette.com

Councilman proposes severe restrictions on eminent domain: The Boston (MA) Globe, 9/20/05

Members of the [Norwalk CT] Common Council will consider an ordinance that would severely restrict the use of eminent domain in Norwalk. Common Councilman Michael Coffey, as chairman of the Ordinance Committee, which was to meet Tuesday night, placed on the agenda an ordinance limiting the city's powers to seize private property solely to build public facilities, such as schools or roads; to preserve open space; or to address health or safety hazards.

City Attorney Louis Ciccarello had urged Coffey last week to delay discussions of eminent domain before the city's legal battle is resolved over taking the Maritime Motors, a South Norwalk Chevrolet dealership, for an office development.

The state Supreme Court was scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday on the Norwalk case. For more than two years, the car dealership has fought the forced sale of its showroom and storage yard.

"Any hearings or discussions by your committee on the subject of eminent domain may very well undermine or prejudice our position before the court," Ciccarello wrote Coffey. "I urge you to simply postpone discussion ... until the Supreme Court has acted."

Coffey said he had not received Ciccarello's correspondence and did not believe any eminent domain discussion would impact the Maritime Motors case.

If adopted by his committee and the full Democrat-majority council, the proposed ordinance would go into effect 15 days after publication in local newspapers.

Coffey began urging the Ordinance Committee to discuss eminent domain after the June decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that New London could take homes in Fort Trumbull to make way for a hotel and office space. But the justices added that states were free to ban the taking of property for economic development projects.

---

The Boston Globe: www.boston.com

Why The New York Times Loves Eminent Domain: Hawaii Reporter, 9/18/05

Elite Newspapers and Liberal Activists Embrace the Kelo Decision at Their Long-term Peril

By Matt Welch
On Sept. 24, 2001, as New York firefighters were still picking their comrades’ body parts out of the World Trade Center wreckage, New York Times Co. Vice Chairman and Senior Vice President Michael Golden announced that the Gray Lady was ready to do its part in the healing.

“We believe there could not be a greater contribution,” Golden told a clutch of city officials and journalists, “than to have the opportunity to start construction of the first major icon building in New York City after the tragic events of Sept. 11.” Bruce Ratner, president of the real estate development company working with the Times on its proposed new Eighth Avenue headquarters, called the project a “very important testament to our values, culture and democratic ideals.”

Those “values” and “democratic ideals” included using eminent domain to forcibly evict 55 businesses—including a trade school, a student housing unit, a Donna Karan outlet, and several mom-and-pop stores—against their will, under the legal cover of erasing “blight,” in order to clear ground for a 52-story skyscraper. The Times and Ratner, who never bothered making an offer to the property owners, bought the Port Authority-adjacent property at a steep discount ($85 million) from a state agency that seized the 11 buildings on it; should legal settlements with the original tenants exceed that amount, taxpayers will have to make up the difference. On top of that gift, the city and state offered the Times $26 million in tax breaks for the project, and Ratner even lobbied to receive $400 million worth of U.S. Treasury–backed Liberty Bonds—instruments created by Congress to help rebuild Lower Manhattan. Which is four miles away.

If you think the Times’ editorial division would be outraged to see the business side trampling the Little Guy, you probably haven’t been following the political evolution of the nation’s leading newspapers. For decades now, the country’s elite dailies and those papers that emulate them have deliberately eschewed individual stories in favor of broader “trend” pieces (especially when it comes to crime); routinely endorsed government action to cure society’s ills; and mocked the “tabloid” populism of the more right-leaning media organizations that dwell on single cases of outrage. Like the activist who loves The People but despises every actual person he meets, the Times’ editorial page takes liberal stands when the issue is safely abstract—but when it comes to the paper’s profits and political battles, the Little Guy can get bent.

Nowhere was this anti-populist, ends-justify-the-means approach on more naked display than after the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London. That June 23 decision upheld governments’ broad leeway to use eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to a richer one — in that particular case, from Connecticut homeowners to an upscale real estate development. While much of the country howled in protest at the fact that, in the words of dissenting Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, “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,” the Times, in an editorial entitled “The Limits of Property Rights,” let out a lusty cheer. Kelo, the paper declared, is “a welcome vindication of cities’ ability to act in the public interest” and “a setback to the ‘property rights’ movement, which is trying to block government from imposing reasonable zoning and environmental regulations.”

Even more interesting than the scare quotes around “property rights” (imagine replacing the word “property” with “civil”) was that the Times — normally the benchmark upon which other newspapers measure and model themselves — was almost completely alone in its judgment. The Richmond Times-Dispatch, for example, headlined its editorial “Court-Endorsed Theft.” The Hartford Courant went with “A Sad Day for Property Rights,” the St. Petersburg Times chose “Eminent Mistake,” and the Chattanooga Times Free Press thundered: “Your Home, Freedom Attacked.” Even The Boston Globe, owned by The New York Times, condemned the ruling. One of the few other newspapers to endorse the decision, and then grudgingly, was the other national daily that sees itself as a crucial player in the country’s professional political debate: The Washington Post.

“The vast majority of newspapers have editorialized against it,” says Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, who unsuccessfully litigated Kelo in front of the Supreme Court. “The only real exceptions were the elite-opinion papers.”

As the Post and the Times cheered on the government’s ability to break a few individual eggs in order to make a more perfect public-interest omelette, Kelo was prompting an ideologically diverse backlash against eminent domain abuse. The week after the decision, far-left California Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters joined far-right Texas Republican Rep. Tom DeLay in supporting an amendment to an appropriations bill barring federal Community Block Grant funds for any locale that doesn’t prohibit eminent domain seizures for private development. It passed 231 to 189, and a similar bipartisan bill has been introduced in the Senate.

Alabama successfully prohibited such transfers in nonblighted areas on July 27 (joining eight other states with similar laws); Texas is trying to get a ban on the November ballot, and several other state legislatures are contemplating quick action in the wake of Kelo. Supporting these efforts is a politically broad variety of groups, from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to RightMarch.com. Outrage at Kelo united columnists Molly Ivins and George Will, fire breathers Rush Limbaugh and Ralph Nader. “The only people who supported the decision,” Bullock says, “were cities who want the tax dollars, some developers who want to get their projects approved, and then a couple of random academics.”

But there was another group of eminent domain supporters: those liberal activists, who, like The New York Times, saw Kelo as a Trojan horse for rapacious capitalists and sneaky Republicans. “Eminent domain is the partial-birth abortion of property rights — a practice so evidently heinous that people who might otherwise not be sympathetic to the cause are drawn in,” warned Alyssa Katz on the Web site of The American Prospect, a magazine dedicated to “giving progressive political leaders the weapons they need for battle.”

The Prospect’s Matthew Yglesias also saw the case as a trick. “It speaks well of the intelligence of the libertarian legal community that when they try and establish precedents that will make it much harder to regulate large corporations and wealthy individuals in the public interest that…they pick cases like [Gonzales v.] Raich and Kelo, where liberal egalitarians may sympathize with plaintiffs ostensibly besieged by Big Government. ... [But they] have an extreme and pernicious view of property rights that, if implemented in full, would have disastrous consequences for the country.”

In his 1965 essay “On Evasive Thinking,” then-dissident Vaclav Havel identified the dangers of such hyperactive contextualizing by heaping criticism on a Czech newspaper columnist who reacted to two cases of pedestrians being killed by falling window ledges by waxing at length about the rosy future prospects made possible by the Communist Party. “The so-called prospects of mankind are nothing but an empty platitude,” Havel warned, “if they distract us from our particular worry about who might be killed by a third window ledge.”

Both Prospect-style liberals and the nation’s great newspapers have been falling off the ledge of popularity for some time now. If they don’t relearn the ability to locate outrage at individual cases of injustice, and cease subsuming them within the “bigger picture” of the struggle against evil Republicanism, it’s hard to imagine that trend being reversed.

“The malignant idea that governmental assertions about collective needs outweighed fundamental human rights was supposed to have died with the Soviet Union,” the Richmond Times-Dispatch editorialized, in what would make a fine epitaph for The New York Times. “On Thursday the Court proved that it not only lives, but thrives.”

---

source: www.HawaiiReporter.com

Activist’s fight is personal in scrap over eminent domain: New Jersey Jewish News, 9/19/05

By Enid Weiss
As a longtime activist with the National Council of Jewish Women, Michele Bobrow has fought for a bevy of national causes.

This time her cause is hitting a little closer to home.

Bobrow and her husband, Harold, live in Maplewood and — for now — have a townhouse in Long Branch. Keeping her beach home however, has required that she fight the proverbial fight against city hall: Hers is one of several townhouses slated to be bulldozed to make way for a new development.

The plans are part of the 12-year-old Long Branch Redevelopment Zone’s $1 billion project. It includes demolishing 140 homes to make way for nearly 300 townhouses and condominiums as well as retail and recreation spots. The first stage, Pier Village, is already up and the next stage requires bulldozing 15 homes, one of which is Bobrow’s.

“They’re going to take our home and put it to ‘better use.’ Number one, our home is not blighted,” Bobrow said. “Number two, who’s to determine better use? And number three, what happened to ownership rights and property rights?” The Constitution allows municipalities to condemn private property, she said, “but ethics and morality don’t.”

To defend her and others’ homes, Bobrow has formed a statewide coalition of property owners engaged in redevelopment battles with various municipalities. The group, called NAEDA, or Neighbors Against Eminent Domain Abuse, has lobbied politicians to support a state bill that would limit local condemnation powers.

The issue of eminent domain has become a hot-button one for many politicians since a June ruling by the United States Supreme Court that allowed New London, Conn., to condemn property for the town’s economic benefit. The decision gave the green light to municipalities to take property in order to spur economic development.

Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider defended the town’s redevelopment project, although he added that if he could, he would work around the 15 homes.

“This was no secret,” said Schneider, who is Jewish. “We’ve been working on this since 1993. I ran in three elections on this.” Schneider said the plan was part of his platform to turn around a town that had fallen victim to urban blight and high crime rates. Where there once were “go-go bars and liquor stores” there are now restaurants, he said.

“It’s the hypocrisy that gets me,” Schneider said. The plan “was okay until it affected [the homeowners]. We started buying properties along the oceanfront six years ago.… We did this the right way — slow planning; we involved the public, held hearings, and when we passed the resolution, only one of the 700 property owners challenged it. Unfortunately many property owners waited until too late to protest.”

While the Bobrows and other homeowners in the areas designated for redevelopment are able to negotiate price and other conditions regarding the purchase of their property, it’s not a fair bargaining table, Michele Bobrow said. The owners can contest the price but ultimately are forced to make a deal because retaining ownership is not an option. It’s an emotional issue, with people facing the loss of homes they’ve lived in for years.

“Their lives are shattered,” Bobrow said. “You put your faith in a government you elect and they turn around and betray you. It’s infuriating.”

Bobrow said hers is a personal battle and not connected with her longtime membership in NCJW, whose state public affairs committee she formerly chaired. But it follows her progressive politics in the sense that the situation “is unfair to the little guys; [homeowners] are fighting the large developers with deep pockets.”

The bill Bobrow supports, S-2739, is in committee and is sponsored by New Jersey Sens. Nia H. Gill (D-Dist. 34) and Diane Allen (R-Dist. 7). The Allen-Gill measure would exempt from condemnation legally occupied residential property that is maintained in accordance with applicable housing codes and standards.

“Taking private property from one private owner and transferring it to another seriously jeopardizes the security of all private property ownership,” said Gill. “Being able to own property is part of the American dream that is undeniably desired by everyone. It is a dream which must be protected.”

Added Allen: “We must take action that provides the necessary protections to ensure that the ownership of private property is not relegated to the whims of a powerful few.”

Gill said the bill is especially needed in the wake of the June Supreme Court decision. A bill similar to the Allen-Gill legislation, A4392, is in the Assembly, and two other Assembly bills would change the state’s constitutional amendments defining redevelopment regulations.

NAEDA also is calling on acting Gov. Richard Codey to put a moratorium on eminent domain activities until several cases on the issue in NJ courts are ruled upon. The group has scheduled rallies to promote its cause on Oct. 15 in Long Branch and Oct. 19 in Trenton.

But Schneider said Codey doesn’t have the authority to override local governments on the issue. He also doesn’t expect the bills infringing on urban redevelopment to make it to law, because their enactment would destroy the state’s cities.

“It’s saying you can’t do urban planning anymore; you’d have to do it on a block-by-block basis,” Schneider said. “If we can’t do urban planning and put it into play, what you’re saying is the poor areas stay poor and get worse.”

Despite the costly and time-consuming battle, Schneider said the redevelopment plan is a success. “Long Branch has become a destination for the first time in 30 to 40 years,” the mayor said.

Maybe it is good for the town, Bobrow said, but at what cost?

“We’ve been going to city council meetings but we’ve been stonewalled,” she said. “They feel it’s for the good of the town, but what about the residents and businesses that supported the politicians, paid our taxes, and now are being shafted?”

---

New Jersey Jewish News: www.njjewishnews.com

Legislative panel seeks proposals to limit eminent domain powers: Orlando (FL) Sentinel, 9/19/05

By Ludmilla Lelis
Backlash is building over the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gave governments a green light to seize private homes and businesses to make way for more-lucrative private development.

Government officials who think the ruling gave them too much power are pushing political reforms to rein in local cities or counties that might try to start a land grab.

During the past few weeks, a few local governments such as Palm Bay and Polk County have voted to limit the use of condemnation or to support private-property rights.

Now the Florida Legislature is wading into the issue. On Wednesday a newly created legislative committee began work to develop recommendations to give property owners more protection under state law.

The groundswell of opposition to expanding the use of eminent domain offers hope to some property owners such as Daytona Beach resident Peter Colt, who fears his beachside neighborhood could be targeted for a future condemnation.

"Nothing has stirred people as much as this decision on private-property rights," Colt said. "Now the pressure is on to do something about it."

In June, a sharply divided Supreme Court approved a plan that forces a group of Connecticut homeowners to sell their houses for a future business development, because that new development promises more jobs and higher tax revenue.

Though decades of legal decisions had been building toward that ruling, it was the first time many people became aware that governments could use the power of eminent domain to go beyond the traditional use: condemning land for roads, schools or other public needs.

"The fact that land could be taken at all, and given to another private entity, is just very troubling," said Scottie Butler, general counsel for the Florida Farm Bureau Federation.

However, the justices made it clear that their June 23 ruling does not prevent any local limits on eminent domain.

"After the decision, there was a wave of outrage that swept the country," said Dana Berliner, senior attorney for the Washington-based Institute for Justice, the nonprofit law firm that supported the Connecticut landowners in the Supreme Court case. "What the court said was that you, the landowner, have no protection under the federal Constitution, and your only hope is in your state legislatures."

Several states already have responded, according to a survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures. As many as 30 state legislatures have passed or are considering changes to their eminent-domain laws.

In Florida, the new House Select Committee to Protect Private Property Rights plans to study the issue and come up with recommendations by January so that a potential bill or constitutional amendment could be ready for next year's legislative session.

"You'll find it is a complex issue ... in addition to being a passionate political issue," said the committee chairman, Rep. Marco Rubio, R-Miami.

The select bipartisan committee appears universally opposed to the Supreme Court decision. Although that high-court opinion has no direct impact on Florida law, the concern is about how judges may interpret the state law.

Several members suggested tightening the state law regarding what kind of private property can be taken and the reasons a government could condemn land.

"Economic development cannot be the sole purpose for the taking of property," said Rep. Jack Seiler, D-Wilton Manors.

Unlike Connecticut, Florida law doesn't specifically allow cities and counties to condemn private land for economic development. Local officials can condemn land for redevelopment if that land is "blighted." The state law lists 14 factors for a blight designation, from high crime rates to lagging property values.

"You could drive a truck through our blight regulations, it's that broad," said Carol Saviak, executive director of the Coalition for Property Rights, based in Orlando. "It's just prime for abuse."

Once a city declares an area blighted, that is enough to condemn land, which is what happened to three businesses on the Daytona Beach Boardwalk.

Quoting heavily from the Supreme Court decision, a circuit judge in Daytona Beach ruled last month that a 24-year-old blight designation is enough to empower the city to force the sale of those properties.

Daytona officials want to replace the outdated arcades with a $120 million condominium and retail development.

With this kind of power available to local governments, a few cities have taken the lead in setting their own limits on eminent domain.

"This is a basic fundamental right from our founding fathers," Palm Bay Deputy Mayor Andy Anderson said. "You've got to protect it in your own back yard."

All of this potential reform comes too late for the Boardwalk businesses, which are destined to be bulldozed.

"There's nothing in place to protect a small business," said Darrell Hunter, whose 50-year business run on the Boardwalk ends next month. "When the government can just kick you out, why would you bother spending your life building a business?

"Where is the American dream?"

---

Orlando Sentinel: www.sun-sentinel.com

Geneva may use eminent domain to build store: (Chicago IL) Beacon News, 9/18/05

By Michele du Vair
The [Geneva IL] City Council is considering the use of eminent domain to pave the way for a long-sought East Side development.

Geneva Economic Development Director Chris Aiston said the city has received an offer to build a grocery-anchored retail center on the northeast corner of East Side Drive and Route 38.

The development would include an 18,000-square-foot grocery store, an additional 10,000 square feet of commercial space and the expansion of the existing Orlando's Pizza into a 3,000-square-foot restaurant.

A 140-space parking lot and access roads would be built as well.

The project would require the acquisition at least part of five existing parcels owned by three individuals.

Two of the three owners are in favor of selling, said Aiston. Carl Safanda, owner of Safanda Law Firm, is not. The city needs about 7,000 square feet, or one-quarter of Safanda's existing law firm site.

And it needs to remove an existing easement granting Safanda access to both East Side Drive and Route 38.

This does not mean Safanda would have to move, but it does mean his parking lot would be smaller and that the firm would be a mere 25 feet from the back of the grocery and retail stores.

Aiston said an appraisal of the Safanda assets has been performed, and the grocer has made Safanda an offer that is in line with the appraisal.

Several of the city's aldermen expressed frustration with Safanda last week, saying he has been unwilling to even state what it would take to allow the project to happen.

"People are throwing money at them, and there's been no response," Alderman Dawn Vogelsberg said.

But Safanda, who did not attend this meeting, later said that all the East Side residents he has spoken with don't even want a grocery store there. He said he's answered the city with a firm "no."

"We don't want to sell," said Safanda. "We like it here. It's a nice property."

The real problem is that the property is too small for the kind of development proposed, Safanda said. The site has been the subject of development debate for years. In 2000, the city created the East State Street Tax Increment Financing District (TIF) which consisted of 34 acres primarily along Route 38 and includes both the Safanda law firm and the proposed grocery store parcels.

And because it is a TIF district, Aiston believes the city has the legal right to invoke eminent domain, which allows a governing body to force an owner to sell his property at fair market value in order to develop a piece of property for the "greater good of the community."

If developed, the stores would bring in an estimated $600,000-$700,000 annually in tax revenue.

Resident response
East Side resident Jim Kautz said he would like to see a grocery store on that corner, and said he'd prefer keeping his grocery store money in Geneva, instead of traveling to Kirk Road in St. Charles to shop. But he says East Side projects often seem to stall.

"I'm just frustrated that meaningful redevelopment projects on the East Side take so much longer than redevelopment on the West Side," he said.

Geneva resident Chuck Ellenbaum wants the grocery store development as well, but warns against using eminent domain to get it. He feels eminent domain should be invoked only when necessary and for noncommercial projects like the East Side fire station.

---

Beacon News: www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews

UAB in eminent domain scrap: Birmingham (AL) News, 9/18/05

By Russell Hubbard
For more than 80 years, Irvin Siegal's family has owned a nice block of land near the [UAB] University of Alabama at Birmingham, a school that didn't exist when Siegal's father opened an auto parts business just before the Great Depression.

Now, the university the family watched grow from scratch into the largest downtown landowner is hungrily eyeing the land, and there is little they can do to stop it. UAB invoked its eminent domain rights, and has the authority to take the property upon payment of compensation. Siegal won't go quietly.

"We wanted to leave this to our children as a legacy," said Siegal, 81, of the property that now houses Panda Buffet and McAlisters Deli on 18th Street South. "I'm passionate about this and ready to fight it all the way."

The case is scheduled to be heard in Jefferson County Circuit Court after Siegal appealed the taking, saying the UAB price approved by probate commissioners - $2.1 million for one of the prime restaurant sites in town - was far too low. UAB also appealed the decision on how much the probate panel ordered it to pay.

It's a problem that is apt to vex downtown landowners and the state's largest research institution for some years to come. The campus that was home to 365 students in 1939 now enrolls 17,000, and they have a voracious appetite for parking lots, office buildings, classrooms and health clinics that can come only from land that is now in private hands.

"We have a master plan for development of UAB and it does call for more limited expansion," said UAB spokesman Gary Mans. "We try to work with landowners as the campus grows physically and hope to come to mutual agreement on land purchases. We also look upon eminent domain as a last resort."

Siegal's land has been in the family since the 1920s, and for many years was the site of Alabama Auto Parts Co., the firm his father founded. It is just one of three parcels UAB wants for a women and children's health center. The school also wants the site of a nearby Arby's restaurant, and the historic Young & Vann Supply Co., built in the 1890s as a beer warehouse.

Arby's has also appealed being thrown off its land, saying UAB's price was too low. The owners of the Young & Vann building haven't appealed.

"We are just very unhappy about the way UAB has decided to compensate us," said Siegal, who owns the land with his sister. "The figure we would sell at is far greater than anything they offered."

UAB's price doesn't even come close to approximating the value of the land, Siegal said. It would be financial suicide, he said, to accept such a price, especially considering his sister, whose husband is disabled, depends upon rental income for survival. He said he would consider swapping his land for a similar property, but that hasn't been offered.

UAB has ambitious plans for the sites. The women and infants hospital will specialize in high-risk obstetrics and consolidate services now scattered across 11 blocks between Children's Hospital and UAB's medical centers. The proposed hospital would also house gynecological cancer services and intensive care wards for newborn children.

Last year, the University of Alabama System board of trustees' properties committee gave UAB approval to use its power of eminent domain to condemn land it needs for the project if it does not reach a sale agreement with owners.

Siegal has his own ideas. He has already planned it out with his children for when he dies: the property would be redeveloped into an retail/medical office project. That way, it stays in the family and serves the area, too, he said.

"That would perfectly suit the medical and health community," he said.

UAB doesn't want to deprive anyone, said spokesman Mans, but makes no apologies for fulfilling its mission.

"The offers that we have made to the owners are based upon appraisals that we have received," he said. "For UAB Hospital to continue to provide the high-quality patient care that people expect and demand, it is necessary for us to update our facilities."

Siegal is tough, too, and a has one of those vita's that command instant respect - World War II veteran, University of Alabama business school graduate, former Small Business Administration Businessman of the Year.

"It's a shame UAB has the power to do this to people and it could happen to anyone," Siegal said. "Sure, the have the right, but is it fair? If they want the right, they should pay fairly for it."

---

Birmingham News: www.al.com

A Vested Interest In Eminent Domain: Hartford (CT) Courant, 9/18/05

Op-Ed

By Laurence D. Cohen
The New London eminent domain case that roused the U.S. Supreme Court to encourage local politicians to seize your property and play economic development games with their developer pals horrified and agitated the Connecticut populace for about 3 minutes and 16 seconds.

Oh, the obligatory political press conferences were held to promise (cross their hearts and hope to develop a new hotel) that the eminent domain process would be "fair"; the make-believe public hearings were held so that "experts" could nod their heads wisely and tell the politicians what they wanted to hear: Go slow in "reforming" eminent domain.

Of course, nothing has changed. Gov. M. Jodi Rell noted, for one brief moment, that the discontent with the seemingly unfettered nature of eminent domain had created a "Boston Tea Party" sense of revolution among the great unwashed. But nothing has changed.

Short of marching in the streets and padlocking themselves to the front door of the state Capitol, the normal people aren't going to get protection from politicians who enjoy abusing eminent domain powers for their own amusement - and the profits of their developer pals.

The politicians aren't your friends on this issue. They don't "represent" you. You are the enemy that stands in the way of allowing them to bulldoze you out of the way to make room for "progress."

The National League of Cities and the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and other special-interest groups masquerading as your friends have had their discreet huddles on the eminent domain conspiracy. They have launched the public relations counter-offensive to guarantee that at the end of the day, you can be given a check (paid for with your own tax money) and sent packing to make room for that dreamy new economic development scheme.

The lobbyists poised to kill any eminent domain reform that manages to survive a committee vote next year in the General Assembly won't be limited to the paid gunslingers for the developers who find you all a nuisance. No, lined up to kill the reforms will be the municipal politicians elected to represent you. They will be up there in Hartford working against your best interests.

The local politicians will pretend that they are up there opposing eminent domain reform because they happened to wake up one morning and decide that it's simply too "dangerous" to protect our private property rights. But the campaign is already being orchestrated; the boys and girls who control the economic development loot have already begun to work their magic, in cahoots with one another.

Consider the September opinion essay written by First Selectwoman Dolores Schiesel of Kent, which appeared in the weekly Litchfield County Times. It is an impassioned request to "go slow' on changing eminent domain; it is a personal, anguished defense of this "essential tool" for local government.

Here's an excerpt from what she wrote: "To this end, I encourage our legislative leaders and the governor to consult with municipal officials as they consider modifications of state law concerning municipal acquisition of property for a public purpose." Doesn't it bring tears to your eye? Very heartfelt and personal.

Now, ponder another essay on eminent domain, written by Town Council Chairwoman Helen Bergenty of Plainville, which appeared in August in the Herald newspaper of New Britain.

"To this end, I encourage our legislative leaders and the governor to consult with municipal officials as they consider modifications of state law concerning municipal acquisition of property for a public purpose."

Yes, it's identical. Some flourishes and minor differences have been inserted in their pieces so they can pretend they are not part of the larger conspiracy to sabotage your property rights and lock them in some desk drawer at town hall.

This is war. Your local pols are not on your side. With the exception of a few brave state legislators, who will be squashed like bugs on this issue, the political interests are as one in their love affair with the notion that they can call in the bulldozers and play development games with your property.

You'll be seeing quite a few impassioned opinion essays on this subject.

The propaganda machine is already hard at work, writing "individual" pieces for the local pols to sign off on.

Connecticut won't reform its eminent domain laws. It's a disgrace.

---

Hartford Courant: www.courant.com

Laurence D. Cohen is a public policy consultant who served as special assistant to former Gov. John G. Rowland: cohencolumn@aol.com

City to use eminent domain for rail spur: Victorville (CA) Daily Press, 9/17/05

By Miguel Gonzalez
The [Victorville CA] City Council is set to vote next week on exercising its power of eminent domain to acquire five parcels that will be used for construction of a rail spur to Southern California Logistics Airport.

But not without a good fight first, according to residents and business owners affected by the construction.

For Victorville the construction of the rail spur has been touted as the final piece of the puzzle that will make the Southern California Logistics Airport a full intermodal location for companies that will bring thousands of jobs to the area.

Construction of the rail spur is slated to start construction by early 2006, according to city spokeswoman Yvonne Hester.

The five parcels in question are owned by three different people. One is Jeff Himmelrick, who on Friday said the city is trying to take his land without any compensation.

"They want 634 feet of my property and they don't feel they should have to pay anything. Now tell me, how is that fair?" Himmelrick said Friday.

Half a mile south of Himmelrick, a housing complex is almost vacant after the city reached agreements with residents living directly in the path of the rail construction. Richard Rogaischio rents a house in the same complex and said he has not moved because he thinks the city is trying to cheat him out of money.

"I don't want to leave, and the city is being as cheap as possible," Rogaischio said of the $14,000 offer.

A judge will set the prices the city must pay for the land it acquires under eminent domain.

The project also includes construction of an underpass under National Trails Highway, just before Turner Road, and the laying of rail at a cost of $25 million, according to Hester.

Deputy City Attorney Bill Medlen said all offers for the land have been made based on appraisals. Medlen added that because of the tight schedule for construction, the issue has been brought to City Council.

"If council decides to vote for eminent domain, it would allow us to get possession of the properties so we can start building," Medlen said. "Nobody is going to be displaced here, and we are negotiating with fair prices."

Victorville Mayor Mike Rothschild said that as many as 12,000 SCLA jobs could depend on how fast rail is constructed.

"I've always said that for the rail spur I would not hesitate to pull the trigger on eminent domain because it would benefit all 400,000 residents of the High Desert," Rothschild said. "We are offering more than fair price for the properties, and we can't cheat anybody because the courts set the prices we pay for land."

Himmelrick said he will attend City Council on Tuesday to plead his case.

"I bought that land three years ago for $108,000, I have paid taxes, and I am not going to give it away."

Rothschild said that Himmelrick had his facts wrong because it was impossible that "we could get away with not paying for a property."

Rogaischio said that although his boxes are packed up and he knows he will have to move soon, he will hold out until the city offers what he considers a fair price.

"I know this is coming but not without a fight," he said.

---

Victorville Daily Press: www.vvdailypress.com

Eminent domain is the law to beat: Bismark (ND) Tribune, 9/17/05

By Tom Rafferty
A citizens' petition drive to change North Dakota's eminent domain laws isn't stopping the Legislature from attacking the issue - even though it might be dead by the time lawmakers can fight it.

On Monday, the Judicial Process Committee will meet in the Capitol to study what can be done about a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in June that allows the government to take private property for economic development. The committee will discuss the issue at 1:30 p.m. in the Harvest Room during a meeting that is open to the public.

Former Attorney General Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat, is leading a petition drive to let people vote on an amendment to the state constitution. The amendment would prohibit the government from taking land for economic development purposes.

Heitkamp said she hopes the committee endorses the initiative Monday.

"We think this is a pretty good working product," Heitkamp said.

Although the Legislature can study the issue, unless a special session is called, lawmakers wouldn't be able to vote on legislation targeting eminent domain until at least January 2007.

By that time the initiative could be a done deal.

Heitkamp said her goal is to start this month on getting the 25,688 signatures needed to put the issue to a vote, which could come in June 2006.

"The plan is we want to get this on the ballot as soon as possible," Heitkamp said.

Sen. Stan Lyson, R-Williston, chairman of the Judicial Process Committee, said the committee wants to make sure they find the best way to address the issue.

"We're not opposed to the initiative," Lyson said. "We want to know: Is it the right way to go?"

Sen. Bob Stenehjem, R-Bismarck, who is chairman of the Legislative Council, called for the study soon after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling. Stenehjem has said he thinks the issue would be best worked out during the Legislature, where citizens can testify during committee hearings.

Lyson said the study might find that the Legislature is best suited to address the issue.

Rep. Lawrence Klemin, R-Bismarck, said it's premature to say what the committee plans to do, but that the meeting will provide people an opportunity to testify about the initiative.

"The legislative process is a public forum," Klemin said. "The initiative petition is what some private individuals are doing."

Sen. Connie Triplett, D-Grand Forks, said it is a good idea for the Legislature to look at the issue because there's no guarantee the initiated measure will pass.

Triplett hasn't looked at the proposed constitutional amendment, but she is in favor of some change to prohibit taking land for economic development.

"I think the public needs some assurance of what the limits are," Triplett said.

The Legislature is not alone in its bid to change eminent domain laws.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., introduced a bill in Congress to bar the use of federal funds for economic development projects involving land taken through eminent domain. Dorgan said he used the North Dakota initiative as a model for his bill because he believes this issue must be addressed on both the state and federal levels. Dorgan is supporting the North Dakota initiative as well.

Heitkamp, who has teamed up with the North Dakota Landowners Association in the petition drive, said the group has put many hours into the amendment and has asked several organizations to provide input.

"The Legislature isn't always the best forum for the people," Heitkamp said.

Heitkamp, who lost a bid for governor against Republican John Hoeven in 2000, has said she is not using the initiated measure as a way to get back into politics.

---

Bismark Tribune: www.bismarcktribune.com

This property is condemned - but why? (Central NJ) Home News Tribune, 9/1/05

Letter

By Ed Mueller, New Brunswick
The comments of New Brunswick planner Glenn Patterson in a recent article on the proposed Gateway development ("Gateway Plan Progresses") need to be addressed for the sake of balance and fairness.

I am a property owner on Somerset Street in the area that has been targeted for redevelopment by Mr. Patterson and the city's redevelopment arm - Devco. I have been at the location for 30 years. My buildings are well kept and so are those of my neighbors. The neighborhood is a thriving economic area.

Last February, Devco, the City Council and Rutgers University conducted a huge news conference to announce this over-ambitious $127 million project dubbed Gateway - but they didn't tell the public that in order to build this monstrosity, the city would have to forcibly take my buildings and many others - effectively putting us out of business.

Of course, the taking of our private property - which the city will give to Devco - was never mentioned at the press conference. Several months after the plans for Gateway were announced, the city planning board charged Mr. Patterson with the task of "investigating" the area for the proposed project to see if it is "blighted." And of course, Mr. Patterson came back with his results that showed indeed - the area is blighted and needs to be condemned. What else was Mr. Patterson expected to say after the politically connected Devco and the city council had already announced their redevelopment plans? If he had come back with any other finding, he probably would have been fired.

Mr. Patterson's findings are a clear example of "condemnation to order" - and further evidence that the eminent domain laws in New Jersey are being abused by the politically connected and need to be changed.

The fact is that the Somerset Street area is not a blighted area and that Mr. Patterson's report represents biased and shoddy work. For example, in one part of his report, he noted that my property was in disrepair because the "steps were crumbling." But he didn't note that the steps were crumbling because a few days before Mr. Patterson inspected the property, a car ran off the road and plowed into my building damaging the steps.

As for Mr. Patterson's defense of the process that resulted in condemnation, it has to be noted that the hearings before the planning board on Mr. Patterson's report were a complete sham. Questioning of Mr. Patterson by my attorney was limited, and frankly it didn't matter how many holes we found in Patterson's report because the Planning Board wasn't listening. The board was obviously under orders to recommend Somerset Street be condemned - and it did.

I will take the fight to keep my property to court. I won't give in to the strong-arm tactics of the city that thinks it can steamroll over small business owners just to fulfill the profit-driven desires of politically connected, big money developers.

---

Home News Tribune: www.thnt.com

Holladay turns down eminent domain: The Salt Lake (Salt Lake City UT) Tribune, 9/16/05

By Cathy McKitrick
Property owners and merchants in this affluent east-side city [of Halladay UT]expressed relief Thursday after the City Council, acting as the Redevelopment Agency board, voted to specify that eminent domain would never be used to obtain properties in the Village Center Redevelopment project.

The vote came down 4-1, with RDA board chairman Steve Peterson voting against nixing eminent domain.

“As a board, we hope we put the fear of eminent domain to rest. We want to use the carrot incentive rather than the stick. We won't be taking properties,” said Councilman Lynn Pace.

Public outcry earlier this summer against the threat of eminent domain in the future - should the Legislature choose to reinstate that power to Utah's cities - alerted Holladay officials that most residents and merchants opposed it.

Kerry Brown, owner of Olympus Pharmacy, felt the councilmembers made the right decision.

“Knowing the current council, I was aware that they'd be taking a huge political risk to use eminent domain for economic development,” Brown said.

The RDA board also pared down the 57-acre project area by removing 1.5 acres at the north end that are already under redevelopment, and also taking out the Holladay Villa Condominiums, another 4 acres.

Residents of the condos also had opposed the blight designation and feared the city had plans to force owners to sell.

“Blight is not anyone's favorite word, but there's no alternative that brings the benefits that the U.S. Supreme Court allows for RDAs. We're talking about a state definition of blight, not a street definition,” Pace said.

The council also approved a request for proposals for the 1.6 acres owned by the city at the historic heart of Holladay. This area has an awkward intersection where 2300 East, Holladay Boulevard and Murray-Holladay Road converge.

Today, the hulking Video Vern's building on this land purchased by the city in 2004 will be demolished.

The large structure was built in four stages between 1935 and 1951, and housed several businesses, including Erickson's Pharmacy, Color Tile, an Albertsons Grocery Store and of course Video Vern's, which touted a huge inventory of hard-to-find titles.

The city's intent is to remake the intersection into a pedestrian-friendly, unique market and gathering place with parking on the periphery.

Through September the city will receive written statements of interest from developers interested in the 1.6-acre parcel, and will view presentations during the month of October.

Come November, city officials hope to have a village center plan and budget to present to the residents of Holladay.

---

Salt Lake Tribune: www.sltrib.com

Eminent domain bills are stalled - except one for casino tribe: Sacramento (CA) Bee, 9/16/05

By Dan Walters
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this summer that governments could seize homes and other property to facilitate private development projects, it touched off a political firestorm throughout the nation - including California - and fueled demands for new barriers to misuse of governmental "eminent domain" powers.

California's version of the debate centered on the aggressive use of eminent domain -or the threat to use it - by city redevelopment agencies to assemble land for hotels, auto malls, big box retailers and other projects.

Although California law says that redevelopment powers can be invoked only to combat "blight," local officials have been quite creative in their application of the term. And when the Supreme Court declared that "there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purposes," it seemingly validated those aggressive redevelopment efforts.

The resistance to aggressive misuse of eminent domain is one of those rare issues that cross usually stark ideological lines. Conservative property rights advocates and liberal activists for the poor are equally concerned about seizing homes and small businesses and bulldozing them on behalf of politically favored developers.

It's a little known fact, for example, that Delores Huerta, a much-venerated leader of the United Farm Workers union, originally became involved in social and political causes by resisting a redevelopment project that destroyed an entire neighborhood of working-class homes and businesses on the edge of downtown Stockton.

Tom McClintock, a Republican state senator from Thousand Oaks and a leading conservative political figure, took up the eminent domain crusade in the Legislature after the Supreme Court's ruling, saying that it "breaks the social compact that gives government its legitimacy and opened a new era when the rich and powerful can use government to seize property of ordinary citizens for private gain." He and others introduced bills, including constitutional amendments, to restrict such seizures to purely public projects.

Predictably, local government and redevelopment officials reacted with alarm that eminent domain could be severely restricted. The California Redevelopment Association and other advocates geared up to kill the measures and in the closing days of the legislative session, Democratic leaders ginned up a strategy to cool off the anti-eminent domain fervor. They unveiled legislation that would place a two-year moratorium on the seizure of private homes (but not commercial property), and authorize a study of the practice, thus giving their members a chance, or so it seemed, to side with the anti-eminent domain sentiment without doing any real damage to redevelopment agencies.

Quietly, however, the moratorium bills were themselves put on the shelf as the session ended - with Democrats blaming Republicans. "With every vote, they tried to derail this prudent response," said Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, who carried one of the moratorium bills.

Kehoe's finger-pointing, however, was more than a little disingenuous since the stalled bills required only simple majority votes and thus needed no Republicans to go along. Clearly, this was a Democratic action, not a Republican one, perhaps just a feint to pretend to do something about eminent domain without actually doing anything to upset the apple cart.

Ironically, the only eminent domain-related bill to reach Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk was a measure that allows the Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians, which operates the Cache Creek Casino in Yolo County, to join a joint powers consortium with local governments and the University of California to manage the 17,300-acre Conaway Ranch. While the county would purchase the land - or acquire it through eminent domain - the Rumsey Band has agreed to help finance the transaction.

Whether the tribe's interest in the Conaway Ranch is just an expression of civic involvement, or it has some other, more commercial interest is yet to be discovered. But allowing a casino-owning tribe to even indirectly participate in an eminent domain action sets a potentially worrisome precedent.

---

Sacramento Bee: www.sacbee.com

Legislators to tackle eminent domain issue: Laconia (NH) Citizen, 9/16/05

By Colin Manning
The issue of eminent domain will be tackled by a joint effort between the [New Hampshire] House and Senate on more than one front.

On Thursday, House Speaker Doug Scamman and Senate President Ted Gatsas announced there will be a constitutional amendment introduced in the House and a proposed changed in statute started in the Senate to ensure the state of New Hampshire doesn't see a similar case as the one that appeared in Connecticut recently.

"We're certainly going to go down the road united. We will propose a constitutional amendment to make sure this slide doesn't continue any further and we protect people's rights in the state of New Hampshire," Scamman said.

The issue of eminent domain is a major policy discussion at the Statehouse in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the taking of private land for private development, known as the Kelo case out of New London, Conn. Scamman and Gatsas said the Legislature will focus on narrowing the law so that eminent domain will only be instituted in instances of a "public use" as opposed to a public benefit.

"We will be defining what a public use is. We'll also propose an amendment to the constitution to make sure any future interpretation is clear," Scamman added. Both lawmakers said they do not want to introduce changes which would halt so-called urban renewal. "If someone's property is turned over to a developer to have a strip mall built, that's not what people are looking for," Gatsas said.

The newly named Senate president also said a proposed constitutional amendment will be simply worded. "We want to be precise and to the point ... so when my mother goes to the polls she can read it and make a choice," Gatsas said. Neither Scamman nor Gatsas could offer any details as to what the language in the proposed bill or amendment will say. The Legislature convenes in January.

---

Laconia Citizen: www.citizen.com

Eminent domain ordinance moved for public hearing: Stratford (CT) Star, 9/14/05

By Fred Musante
The Town Council moved closer to approving an ordinance prohibiting the town from taking any property by eminent domain for economic development when it voted unanimously to send the proposed ordinance to its Ordinance Committee for a public hearing, the first step toward approval.

Curiously, the ordinance was revised so that it was virtually identical to a rival ordinance proposed by a mayoral candidate, a version that the council previously had rejected.

The revision deleted language that limited the scope of the ordinance to only owner-occupied residential property of four or fewer units, so that it now applies to all property, including commercial or industrial.

That was the language proposed by Republican mayoral hopeful Dominic Costello last month at a press conference a few days after Councilwoman Jennifer Hillgen-Santa, R-1, submitted the more limited ordinance without his knowledge.

At the council's meeting on Aug. 8, Councilman Michael Henrick, R-10, who supports Costello, tried unsuccessfully to put Costello's version on the agenda for consideration alongside Hillgen-Santa's. It was rejected by a 5-4 vote.

Hillgen-Santa was absent from that meeting, so her ordinance was tabled until this week. The council members also voted that the ordinance would be sponsored by all of them.

Strong voter sentiment favors the ordinance, which is a response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in July that the city of New London had the authority to condemn 10 private homes and businesses and turn them over to a private developer for a riverfront development project.

Norman Aldrich, R-8, cautioned that the more restrictive language might not be in the town's interest in the future. The town has very limited economic development options, and this would tie its hands, he said.

James Feehan, R-9, argued that "redistribution of wealth" was the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire, and he wanted to ensure that people get fair value for their property if it is turned over to a private developer to make a profit.

Aldrich noted that the revision doesn't address the "fair value" issue, but voted with the rest of the council members.

The Ordinance Committee will consider the eminent domain measure on Sept. 26.

---

Stratford Star: www.zwire.com

When is The Use of Eminent Domain Appropriate? Inside INdiana Business, 9/15/05

Commentary

By Larry Gigerich
The use of eminent domain by governmental entities has always been a very emotional and challenging issue for all parties involved.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court ruled that governmental entities can seize private property for economic development purposes when elected officials decide it would benefit the public. The eminent domain case which brought about this ruling, Kelo vs. City of New London, initiated in Connecticut and ultimately made its way through the local, state and federal court process to Washington D.C. In the case, Ms. Kelo argued that her Fifth Amendment rights had been violated due to the actions of the City of New London.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the taking of property by the government except for “public use.” Most citizens disagree about what the term “public use” truly means. For some people, “public use” is thought of as constructing public schools, buildings or highways, but for others “public use” means completing a redevelopment project which results in the creation of new jobs and collection of new tax (income, property and sales) revenues.

When a piece of property is acquired through the eminent domain process the property owner must be compensated based upon the appraised value of the property. Laws in some states require a property owner to be compensated at the appraised value, plus an additional amount of money, if the property is being used for private development purposes. The recent ruling by the Supreme Court states that economic development activities can be considered a “public use” for the purposes of using eminent domain to acquire property.

Citizens whose homes are being bulldozed, however, do not think that building a hotel, mall or office space should be considered “public use.” For example, Ms. Kelo extensively remodeled her house and enjoyed her water view, but she was told her house would be acquired and demolished so the city could complete a new waterfront development project. The project includes office buildings, residential units and a new marina - not exactly a “public use” in the eyes of many folks, particularly Ms. Kelo.

Hearing about situations such as Ms. Kelo’s, where homes are being acquired and demolished makes one wonder about the appropriateness of using eminent domain to spur economic development. Most people would agree that redevelopment activities that result in the creation of new jobs and tax base are positive things for a community, but they tend to be overshadowed by the human interest and emotion of related issues. Very often, people do not make the connection between redevelopment activities and the use of eminent domain. More importantly, when eminent domain is used in an appropriate manner, it benefits the vast majority of citizens in the community where the project is being completed. Most people in a community are pleased with the results of redevelopment projects when they are completed, but often the steps that must be taken to achieve the desired goals of a project create distress among certain individuals and groups.

In most cases, elected local officials act responsibly when deciding what, if any, properties must be acquired through the use of eminent domain. It only makes sense for these officials to make these types of decisions on behalf of the greater community because they can evaluate the opportunity in terms of the impact on the entire area. These officials must decide whether the negative impact on a relatively small group of individuals is worth the benefits created for most of the residents in an area. If citizens do not like how these elected officials handle these types of matters, they have the ability to vote them out of office during the next election. This form of accountability is an important factor in the process.

The village of Lake Zurich, Illinois, has been involved in a dispute regarding the use of eminent domain. The village board decided it was in the community’s best interest to revamp the downtown area, which has few stores and shops, limited public parking spaces and does not currently attract visitors to the area. The local elected officials determined it was in the community’s best interest to complete a redevelopment project and transform their downtown area into a multi-use environment.

As a part of this initiative, the village needs to acquire a handful of older apartments in the downtown area to complete the redevelopment project. The owners of the apartments have not been willing to sell the property, even though the community has made several efforts to compensate the property owners for more than the appraised value of the property, an amount which is now higher due to other redevelopment efforts already completed nearby.

The redevelopment of downtown Lake Zurich is very important to the livelihood of the community. Most of the citizens in the local community support the project, even though it adversely impacts a small number of individuals. The local community needs to complete the redevelopment project in order to generate new tax dollars to fund their local schools, public safety and construction of a new public library. Without this redevelopment project, the local community risks the loss of population and tax base, and more importantly, cannot fund important community needs.

Clearly, the redevelopment of this land is of more significance to the community as a whole, and it should not be stopped because a handful of property owners do not want to sell their apartments. It appears as if the local elected officials have been quite reasonable in their approach to this issue, and the use of eminent domain seems appropriate.

As a result of working in economic development for over 15 years, I have clearly seen the “public benefit” of the limited and appropriate use of eminent domain to create jobs and expand the local tax base. It is irresponsible for critics of the use of eminent domain to say that it should be banned. At the same time, it is reckless for proponents of the use of eminent domain to think that eminent domain should be used in all situations where the governmental entity wishes to acquire real estate in support of economic development projects.

So how should the potential use of eminent domain be approached by governmental entities? First and foremost, common sense should always be employed when considering the use of eminent domain. Every proposed economic development project is different in some way from another project. It is very important for the local community to truly understand the economic impact of a proposed project prior to taking any action that may adversely impact any individuals and/or organizations.

Clearly, a case must be built in order to justify the use of eminent domain. Every effort must be made to acquire the property through a traditional real estate transaction. Only after this, should eminent domain be considered as a vehicle to acquire property, if circumstances merit this type of action.

A critical step in the eminent domain process is to determine what is the best way to establish value for someone’s property. Today in most states, governmental entities secure independent appraisals and then make an offer for the piece of property in question. If the property owner decides to reject the offer, then the local community may begin the process to acquire the property through the use of eminent domain.

In most states the governmental entity is required to go through a deliberate, public process to acquire property. Very often, this process leads to several public meetings and in some instances, court hearings where both parties have an opportunity to present their respective cases. The acquisition of real estate by governmental agencies is usually completed without ever going to a courtroom.

Understanding the appraised value of real estate is an important component of the property acquisition process; however, there are other key factors that should be considered when constructing a purchase offer for a property owner. In almost every example of property acquisition, the current property owner will incur some relocation costs. If the acquisition of real estate impacts a business, often there is also an operational disruption cost impact. Another consideration is what, if any, additional amount of money should be paid for property that the owner was not previously interested in selling.

One potential solution to this difficult issue is to structure a formula to determine the amount of money that should be paid to a property owner when the property is acquired through the eminent domain process. First, the process of establishing an independent appraised value of the property in question must be completed. A minimum of two appraisals should be completed in order to establish value. Second, the costs of relocation (whether it is a residential or commercial property) should be determined by an independent firm and paid for by the governmental entity. As an example, the costs of moving personal property for a home owner or business can be quite expensive.

For commercial properties, an independent evaluation of the operational disruption costs for the business should also be established and included in the government’s purchase offer. Often, a company has to set-up its new operations prior to closing down existing operations. This duplication adds costs for the company during this period of transition. For residential properties, the costs associated with securing a mortgage or lease for a new place for a resident to live should be paid by the governmental entity. While this type of an approach may not represent a perfect solution, it provides a starting point for policy makers to debate the issue on a local and state level.

Some communities and states have already placed limits on the use of eminent domain. Several more are considering new restrictions due to the recent Supreme Court ruling, which many Americans felt was unfair. While this issue is a very important one for policy makers to discuss, it is critical that elected officials avoid a knee-jerk reaction that significantly limits the ability of governmental entities to complete redevelopment projects.

In the vast majority of cases, the acquisition of property by governmental entities is handled in an appropriate and fair manner. There are certainly cases where government has overstepped its bounds in this area, but it does not mean that elected officials should lose the ability to use this vital redevelopment tool when necessary. In the case of eminent domain, the tool needs to be honed, not reinvented or eliminated.

---

Inside INdiana Business: www.insideindianabusiness.com

Larry Gigerich serves as Managing Director of Ginovus, an Indianapolis-based economic development advisory services firm. Ginovus is a leading provider of national site selection, community comparative analysis and economic development incentive procurement services to private sector organizations throughout Canada, Mexico and the United States.

Parties meet on eminent domain: Roanoke (VA) Times, 9/15/05

If the meeting is any indication, state legislators may be asked to consider a sweeping reform of the state's condemnation laws.

By Todd Jackson
Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, Virginia property owners may soon have new and substantial protections when it comes to governmental takings of their land.

A state group that studies eminent domain issues met Wednesday in Roanoke and the discussion included representatives from an array of stakeholding groups that don't always see eye-to-eye - politicians, utility executives, lawyers, business owners and average citizens.

But there was no disagreement Wednesday: All generally concurred that Virginia must do something in the wake of the Supreme Court's Kelo v. City of New London decision in June.

"We don't think we need Kelo to do business in Virginia," said Rand Cook, a lawyer representing the state's two largest governmental umbrella groups, the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Counties. "We're not here to fight about Kelo."

Reform of Virginia's eminent domain laws - which some described Wednesday as archaic - will likely be a major issue during the 2006 General Assembly session. If the Roanoke meeting is any indication, state legislators may be asked to consider a sweeping reform of the state's condemnation laws that could go well beyond direct ties to the Kelo decision.

That 5-4 high court ruling upheld New London, Conn.'s taking of private property so a portion of it can be conveyed to another private interest for development.

The ruling touched off a national debate where property rights proponents fear it will expand governmental power of eminent domain so private homes can be taken simply so a shopping mall can be built. But other legal scholars and governmental officials have criticized the opposition to Kelo as a knee-jerk, emotional reaction perpetuated by politicians and the media. They also argue that the case allowed economically depressed New London to pursue needed improvements while allowing other states to legislate such issues as they wish.

The eminent domain group that met in Roanoke, a subcommittee of the Virginia Housing Commission, is chaired by Del. Terrie Suit, R-Virginia Beach. It discussed a number of proposals that have been suggested in recent weeks. A number of them focus on changes in Virginia code and the state Constitution that would, in one way or another, prohibit governmental taking of private property for both pure economic development purposes and for conveyance to another private interest.

"I think that is pretty much the meat and potatoes of what we've been talking about all summer," said Suit, who has become a General Assembly leader on eminent domain and sponsored two successful bills last year that benefit private property owners.

Suit said House Speaker Bill Howell has asked her Housing Commission subgroup to formulate some consensus recommendations that the state legislature could consider during its 2006 session. Suit and other legislators expect several bills to be filed on the main issues related to Kelo.

But there could be additional legislation filed that could have a far more meaningful impact on eminent domain issues in Virginia. Over the years, many state localities have used housing authorities as their vehicles to invoke eminent domain proceedings. Many of those cases hinged on the government's accepted use of "blight" as a legitimate public use.

Suit's group indicated Wednesday that it may propose a rewrite of the state's blight definition - a change, with General Assembly approval, that could make it harder for housing authorities and related governmental organizations to condemn land. That could potentially make it tougher for Virginia's land-locked cities to take property for redevelopment.

Chip Dicks, a Richmond lawyer representing development interests, said Virginia's existing definition is "so nebulous that anything can be blight."

The group may formulate its recommendations as soon as its next meeting in October in Richmond. The day and time of that meeting hasn't been determined.

Several Roanoke property owners thanked the group Wednesday for its work and urged it to try to send extensive eminent domain reform to the General Assembly for consideration. They included Walter Claytor, who has been fighting the city's housing authority for years over a condemnation declaration on property he and his family own in Gainsboro.

Claytor praised the subgroup's consideration of better defined eminent domain laws.

"We all see things differently," he said. "That's why you have to spell things out."

---

Roanoke Times: www.roanoke.com

Dutchess GOP legislators support prohibition of eminent domain: Mid-Hudson News (Newburgh NY), 9/15/05

Republicans on the Dutchess County [NY] Legislature have announced their support of a resolution that prohibits Dutchess County from acquiring private property for the sole use of private development, for the ability to increase tax revenues, or that would give advantages to one private party. The resolution is in response to the recent ruling by the US Supreme court in the Kilo versus City of New London Case. The issue is regarding the use eminent domain.

“Many county residents have worked long and hard years to acquire their land and are very proud to call it home,” said legislator Shannon Martin-LaFrance of Fishkill. We must ensure that their property cannot be taken for the use of private development that would be unfair and violates the principles of justice.”

The resolution sets a policy that the county can only execute the power of eminent domain for public use that is consistent with the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment. As set forth in Justice Sandra Day O’Conner’s opinion in the Kilo v City of New London Case, local governments must always justify and compensate those individuals whose property was assumed through eminent domain.

“There are many property owners in Dutchess County whose property has been in their family for generations,” said Legislature Chairman Bradford Kendall of Dover and Union Vale. “To see this property taken simply to benefit development by one party would be unjust. It is not right, and we can do something about it.”

The resolution which was passed by the legislature’s government services and administration committee will be before the full legislature on Monday, September 19th.

---

Mid-Hudson News: www.midhudsonnews.com

Republican leaders to work together on eminent domain: Boston (MA) Globe, 9/15/05

[New Hampshire] House and Senate Republican leaders pledged Thursday to work together to strengthen private property rights in eminent domain cases. House Speaker Douglas Scamman and Senate President Ted Gatsas said lawmakers will consider putting a constitutional amendment before voters in 2006 and make changes to existing laws to better define when eminent domain will be allowed.

Gatsas said private property should not be taken and turned over to a developer for a strip mall, but the proposed changes are not intended to prohibit urban renewal projects if they enhance an entire community.

House and Senate task forces studied eminent domain this summer after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling permitted New London, Conn., officials to take a group of older homes along the city's waterfront for a private developer who plans to build offices, a hotel and convention center. The court said states can pass more restrictive laws.

The panels struggled with how to write a law that balances the landowners' rights with the public's need to take their property in some circumstances.

Lawmakers are considering emphasizing the taking must be for a "public use" and not just a secondary "public purpose." That could preclude taking property for private redevelopment while allowing it for public uses such as highways, schools and the like. Some legal experts say that also could block urban renewal projects that aren't built and owned with public money

---

Boston Globe: www.boston.com

Congress can trump Supreme Court on eminent domain, Roberts says: Long Island (NY) Newsday, 9/15/05

Associated Press
Republicans and many Democrats were angered this year when a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled that New London, Conn. could take homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to build a privately owned hotel and office space.

The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as favoring rich corporations, and Republican lawmakers have criticized it as infringing on states' rights.

In Connecticut, Republican House Minority Leader Robert Ward has been calling for a special session of the legislature to address eminent domain.

He renewed that call this week after the New London Development Corp. defied a voluntary moratorium on property seizures and told property owners in Fort Trumbull to vacate their homes in 30 to 90 days. The moratorium was designed to give lawmakers time to reconsider Connecticut's eminent domain laws.

"He's absolutely right," Ward said of Roberts. "It's what I said all along, that the Supreme Court said the legislatures can rein in the use of eminent domain, and I believe it's our job to do so, and that's why I've been calling for a special session, to take away the power of municipalities to seize property. Judge Roberts' statements simply confirm that we have clear legal authority to do so."

Scott Bullock, a senior attorney at the Institute For Justice, a Washington-based group representing the Fort Trumbull homeowners, said Roberts' comments are a wake-up call for lawmakers.

"He certainly highlighted what is desperately needed now, and that is action at the congressional and state legislative levels to stop the use of eminent domain for private development," Bullock said. "It is good that he reminded the legislatures that they do in fact have the power to put a stop to eminent domain abuse."

Congress has been working on legislation that would ban the use of federal funds for any project that gets a go-ahead relying on the Kelo v. City of New London decision.

"It's not simply a question of legislating to address particular needs, but you obviously have to also be cognizant of the people's rights and you can protect them in situations where the court has determined, as it did 5-4 in Kelo, that they are not going to draw that line," Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

---

Nwesday: www.newsday.com

Eminent domain use OK'd: Asbury Park (NJ) Press, 9/14/05

Protesters jam city meeting

By Carol Gorga Williams
The [Long Branch] City Council voted Tuesday to reaffirm its use of eminent domain for the 23 remaining properties in the Marine Terrace-Ocean Terrace-Seaview Avenue area, also known as MTOTSA.

The council voted 4 to 1 to approve a resolution invoking its power to take homes after paying "just compensation." The city's use of eminent domain has been widely criticized by neighborhood residents and their supporters who for two years have been urging the council to abandon its plans for redeveloping the 6-acre parcel.

"My home is not blighted. I can't say that enough. Tell me where the hell I can find a home for $400,000 (with) this access to the beach," said Denise Hoagland, who lives with her husband and three children at 68 Ocean Terrace.

Council President John "Fazz" Zambrano voted against the resolution, saying emphatically, "No." While other council members who supported the measure said it was difficult to do so, they said it was best for the city as a whole.

The resolution, which sets forth conditions of the entire redevelopment proposal, also includes the right to use eminent domain in contested negotiations, City Attorney James G. Aaron said. The city originally authorized the use of eminent domain in 2001 but put off acting upon that until after the redevelopment plan was finalized.

Under the city's waterfront redevelopment plan, Hoagland's home and others in her neighborhood would be replaced by upscale condos under Beachfront North Phase 2. The project is proposed by MM-Beachfront North II, LLC, which comprises Hoboken-based Applied Development, and Matzel and Mumford, a subsidiary of K. Hovnanian.

They vow not to sell
The MTOTSA residents' association, which represents more than half the property owners in the area, according to longtime member William A. Nordahl, has vowed not to sell at any price and instead plans to sue the city challenging its right to take the homes. They argue the city has undervalued the homes and have raised concerns about the tactics of the city-appointed appraiser, Hugh McGuire.

Aaron said Tuesday night no taxpayer money would be used defending the city in a lawsuit, and the developers will pick up the cost.

The council also was to authorize the issuance of so-called 14-day letters, which will give homeowners two weeks to begin serious contract negotiations with the city, before eminent domain proceedings begin. The delivery of those letters, which was not authorized Tuesday night, is "imminent," Aaron said.

David Barry of Applied Tuesday night reiterated the company's proposal offering a condo swap with homeowners in the Beachfront North zone at a discounted rate. The deal also includes prepayment of property maintenance fees for 10 years, and offsetting of real estate tax increases. People living in the neighborhood prior to 1996 who are being displaced will receive an extra $2,000 a month for 36 months for a total of $72,000, in addition to compensation for their home, he said.

Applied's Gregory S. Russo said Friday that the developer has settled amicably with 12 of the 35 property owners, including two who swapped properties for condominiums in the yet-to-be-built development.

Officials' views changed
During a lengthy public comment session accompanied by cheers and clapping prior to the council vote, Hoagland read several letters written by Councilman Michael DeStefano in the 1980s before he took office, which were submitted to area newspapers in which he appeared to oppose replacing single-family homes with condominiums.

She also quoted Mayor Adam Schneider in a 1986 newspaper article in which he opposed condo and town house buildup.

"I'm in a single-family area, and my home is not blighted, and the people who elected you anticipated something different," Hoagland told the mayor and council.

Anna DeFaria, 45 Marine Terrace, also said she couldn't buy a house near "dirty water" at $325,000, which she says is what she was offered for her home.

A widow, DeFaria, who will be 80 next month, said her husband died nine years ago.

"If he could look down, he's probably crying that you're taking his house away from him," DeFaria said.

Comments from Al Mattia of 700 Ocean Ave., who has lived in Long Branch for 10 years, were shouted down by the audience.

"This is an extremely sensitive situation, with people's homes being taken away from them. However, I am looking at the big picture," said Mattia, who has visited the city for 50 of his 59 years.

Mattia talked about improvements in the area over the last 10 years.

"Safety issues and quality of life — where was that? Why doesn't anyone talk about what they've (the council) done in that area? . . . This is progress, it's quality progress," Mattia said. "I don't see amusements or fortune tellers. I don't see any of that. . . . They've (Applied) done a phenomenal job. Of course they want to make money. We all want to make money."

Condo plans detailed
Earlier Tuesday night, Thomas B. Bauer, a landscape architect with the Point Pleasant Beach firm of Melillo and Bauer, gave a presentation on Beachfront North Phase 2, saying there would be three buildings compatible in design with the Grand Resorts section in Beachfront North Phase 1.

Building 1 would have 45 units, Building 2 would have 65 and Building 3 would have 75, for a total of 185 units. Parking for residents would be below the units.

The proposal includes a two-story public pavilion at the end of Seaview Avenue, which would include public concessions, dining, space for public meetings and restrooms. There would be new handicapped and regular beach access, as well as pedestrian and bike paths, and a nearby boat ramp.

A 1-acre site that previously had been allocated for a restaurant is now being given to the town to add to the Great Lawn at Madison and Ocean avenues.

Seaview Avenue would be widened and include 97 public parking spaces. There will be 171 public parking spaces throughout the project.

Earlier Tuesday, Assemblymen Michael J. Panter and Robert L. Morgan, both D-N.J., called on Schneider to delay any further use of eminent domain for private redevelopment purposes until the state Legislature has had a chance to consider its bill to prohibit such steps.

Schneider said Tuesday the two legislators have never spoken to him about redevelopment in Long Branch.

"I'm very easy to get ahold of. They could have contacted me at any point in the process," Schneider said.

City officials maintain the redevelopment here was not solely for economic development purposes.

---

Asbury Park Press: www.app.com

Eminent-Domain Battle Flares in Connecticut: Washington (DC) post, 9/14/05

Associated Press
A group that won a Supreme Court victory allowing it to seize property for private development is telling some residents to vacate their homes in the latest flash point in a nationwide controversy.

Representatives of the homeowners accused the quasi-public New London Development Corp. on Tuesday of reneging on a promise not to seize the properties while lawmakers considered changing the state's eminent-domain laws.

State House Minority Leader Robert M. Ward (R) called for a special session to enact a moratorium on property seizures, and homeowners vowed to continue fighting.

"They're going to have to pry my cold fingers from the house," said Michael Cristofaro, who received one of several vacate notices sent this week.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell (R) and state lawmakers had urged local governments to refrain from seizing property for development. Rell also favors a special session on the issue, a spokesman said.

But because the state had previously sanctioned the city's use of eminent domain for the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, it was unclear whether lawmakers could make New London delay its plans.

The notices order the property owners and tenants to vacate within 30 to 90 days and start paying rent to the development corporation during that period, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based group representing the homeowners. If residents do not comply, the agency has the option of pursuing an eviction in court.

The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in June that New London could take homes in Fort Trumbull to build a privately owned hotel and office space. The court also said states are free to ban the taking of property for such projects.

---

Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com

City to review how eminent domain has been used: San Diego (CA) Union-Tribune, 9/14/05

Council panel hears from backers, foes

By Martin Stolz
After hearing tales of government abuse, two San Diego City Council members Monday ordered city officials to research procedures used in condemning and acquiring private property in redevelopment areas.

Donna Frye and Brian Maienschein, members of the council's Government Efficiency and Openness Committee, listened to three hours of testimony from redevelopment officials and opponents of eminent domain, the procedure that enables the government to force the sale of private property for other uses.

The order comes after a controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision upheld the right of local authorities to use eminent domain in redevelopment. Several states have enacted new limits on its use.

Redevelopment in California is designed to clean up blighted areas where government or private efforts alone are not expected to alleviate the problems. In San Diego, eminent domain has been used for such projects as highways, schools, affordable housing, the Horton Plaza shopping center and Petco Park.

In San Diego, City Council members sit as the redevelopment agency. While redevelopment projects and negotiations are carried out by city staff members and two nonprofit city corporations, the authority for eminent domain remains solely with the council.

Karen Frostrom, an attorney who represents a client fighting the Centre City Development Corp. in an eminent domain case, described a process rife with abuse and stacked in favor of developers.

Under state law, the property owner is invited to participate in a redevelopment project. However, Frostrom decried the way property owners are left out for months or years of "secret negotiations" with developers eyeing a property.

In other instances, she said, officials have issued vague – and possibly bogus – environmental cleanup orders to pressure reluctant owners to sell their property.

Speakers following Frostrom described fearing the loss of their homes or businesses after redevelopment project areas were designated as blighted, an initial step in the process. Others said developers view eminent domain as a cheaper way to acquire property than through negotiations.

However, David Parsons, a planning consultant, said redevelopment has worked, partly because of the judicious use of eminent domain. In one area, a redevelopment project area was adopted with an exemption for owner-occupied homes, he said.

"Essentially, that's how the process should work," he said. "I ask that you not remove that tool" of eminent domain.

For intransigent property owners, though, eminent domain is sometimes needed.

Peter Hall, president of Centre City Development Corp., who didn't appear at yesterday's meeting, has said he supports proposed state legislation that would impose a two-year moratorium on the use of eminent domain against homeowners and collect data on its use and abuse over the past 10 years.

The committee ordered the Redevelopment Agency staff to evaluate the effects of 10 proposed changes to San Diego's use of eminent domain in redevelopment. The proposals aim to rein in the use of eminent domain – using mediators, requiring large deposits from developers and making the process more transparent, among others things. The City Attorney also was asked to draft an ordinance.

Some of the proposed changes to eminent domain would require time to study, Frye said. However, she asked for staff reports clarifying the definition of "public use" within 45 days.

---

Union-Tribune: www.signonsandiego.com