Sail-Inn owners sue DOT; Merrill tackles eminent domain: (Waldo ME) Village Soup, 10/5/05

By Christine Parrish
The former owners of the Sail-Inn restaurant near the new Penobscot River bridge crossing in Prospect [ME] are suing the Maine Department of Transportation, saying it did not pay fair market value when it acquired the property through eminent domain.

Bob and Paul Dyer, former owners of the Sail-Inn restaurant, contend they were not adequately compensated for their five-acre property when the state took it by eminent domain two years ago and paid them $225,000.

According to the Dyers, the State Claims Commission reviewed the amount and increased it to $470,000.

The Dyers said that figure is also inadequate because it did not take into consideration the commercial value of the property, nor the unique location and views.

The Dyers are suing the DOT in Waldo County Superior Court for the amount they believe the property is worth — $1.6 million.

The restaurant is located on the bluffs above the Penobscot River and has expansive views of the river and the old Waldo-Hancock Bridge. When the new bridge is completed, it would be the closest restaurant to the new observation tower, which is expected to draw more visitors to the area.

“Everybody knows that most businesses pay dearly for location, location, location,” said Dick Dyer, spokesman for his brothers, Bob and Paul, at a press conference held at noon Monday in front of the closed Sail-Inn restaurant

“To discount the location entirely is just plain wrong, and my brothers need just treatment, and landowners in Maine deserve better treatment under eminent domain law,” said Dick Dyer as he tried to shout over the sound of whining truck brakes. “We know now that MDOT never needed to take the entire parcel.”

According to Dick Dyer, the DOT used less than one acre of the property for bridge construction, which did not affect the building or the parking lot for the Sail-Inn.

Rep. Merrill said she became concerned about eminent domain takings in Maine after a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Kelo v. New London, in which the court upheld the right of the state of Connecticut to take private property under eminent domain, even if it was then transferred into other private ownership, as long as that ownership was “for the greater public good.”

She said the Kelo ruling left it open for individual states to pass legislation preventing such takings.

“My concern with the Kelo case has prompted me to submit legislation to protect Maine property owners from Maine’s government ever doing what was done in New London,” said Merrill. The case, she said, also prompted her to research how Maine has handled eminent domain takings.

Merrill said the state “overstepped its bounds” when it took the Sail-Inn property, and that legislation could limit the state to taking only what is absolutely necessary to accomplish a state project.

“It is clear as we stand here that the state DOT did not need to take the part of this property where the actual business was located,” she said at the press conference.

Merrill said her legislation, which will be scheduled to be heard when the Legislature reconvenes in January, would apply statewide and would apply retroactively to the owners of the Sail-Inn restaurant.

“My goal … is to have the restaurant restored to its owners and see this family business back in operation, maybe as soon as next summer,” she said.

But the former owners, who have sold all the kitchen equipment, estimate it would take a half million dollars to refurnish the restaurant so it is ready to operate.

“I would never say never,” said Bob Dyer, when asked if he wanted to operate the Sail-Inn again at the current location. “We had a lot of locals and return tourist clientele.”

“My mom still hears from people who used to come to the restaurant,” said Paul Dyer.

The two brothers bought the business from their parents, Eddie and Vera Dyer, 15 years ago and shared the duties of running it. Together, the Dyer family owned and operated the Sail-Inn for more than 50 years.

“It was busy, really busy,” Paul said. The restaurant seated 77 people in the summer and 53 in the winter, when the outside deck was closed. Paul Dyer said it was nonstop business in the summer from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.

“We also had great winter clientele,” he said. “As you can see, there is quite a bit of traffic going by our door right now, and it’s October.”

The case of Paul Dyer and Robert Dyer v. the Maine Department of Transportation has not yet been scheduled, according to Dick Dyer.

---

The Village Soup: http://waldo.villagesoup.com

Eminent Domain — Is It the Only Hope For Inner Cities? The Wall Street Journal, 10/5/05

By Ryan Chittum
[East St Louis IL] doesn't scream "build here" to most real-estate developers. One of the poorest urban areas in the U.S., its median household income is $21,324, and nearly 32% of families live below the poverty line, more than triple the national average.

Jim Koman looks at the numbers another way. He sees a city, like many other downtrodden places, with few quality stores to serve its residents. East St. Louis has just 3 square feet of retail space per person, compared with the national average of 20 square feet.

In 1999, after pharmacy chain Walgreen Co. came to him looking for retail space, Koman Properties Inc., of Clayton, Mo., built the city's first new shopping center in several decades. Now, amid street after street of trash-strewn lots and broken-down buildings, it is a commercial oasis stretching for several blocks, including a grocery-anchored strip mall with a beauty salon, a Foot Locker, an Auto Zone and other chains. About 95% of the shopping center's workers are from East St. Louis, bringing the city much-needed, if low-paying, jobs.

When the Walgreen's opened, then-President Clinton showed up to visit. The State Street Shopping Center "is night and day for these people that don't have anything," Mr. Koman says.

But to build in an urban area like East St. Louis, Mr. Koman must rely on eminent domain — the government's power to force a landowner to sell property at what is considered a fair price. The State Street project wouldn't have happened if the city hadn't used the threat of eminent domain to clear about 40 houses and a gas station, Mr. Koman says. Of those properties, only two owners held out for long periods, and one of those buildings was condemned and appropriated through eminent domain after the owner refused to settle.

In East St. Louis, developer Jim Koman faces opposition to his expansion plans from the owner of U.S. Nails, who refuses to give up a lease on a nearby property.

Such cases have received new attention following the Supreme Court decision in June upholding the use of eminent domain to seize property for private use. Opponents of the eminent-domain doctrine have pointed to high-profile cases such as arenas and other big urban-development projects as evidence of abuse. But situations such as Mr. Koman's are far more common and in some ways knottier.

Many builders say eminent domain is the only way to bring services and jobs to areas like East St. Louis. Mr. Koman says he wants to show a different side of the "big, bad developer." But to the people who are losing their homes and their businesses, Mr. Koman is exactly that.

He is currently involved in several disputes with property owners. Across the Mississippi River, on the north side of St. Louis, another struggling area, Mr. Koman plans to expand a shopping center he owns, with a regional urban-wear store, a fish-and-chicken restaurant and a men's hair salon committed to going in. But he is running into local opposition.

To get the land he needs, Mr. Koman wants to buy a trash-strewn lot and an old brick building that are located across the street. The building is owned by St. Louis Housing and Service Corp., a nonprofit group that bought it for $1 a few years back. "They have a business plan, and we have a business plan," says the group's chairwoman, Leeora Daniels, a 63-year-old retired schoolteacher. Mr. Koman's plan "is a strip mall. Our building has social programs along with storefronts to support what we're trying to do." The group plans to house day-care centers for children and adults among other social services, she says, adding that her group has hired a lawyer to fight the developer.

Mr. Koman says the roof is caving in and the building is a hazard. He contends there was no activity there until he came around looking to purchase it. The mayor's office agrees with him. "I think this would clearly qualify as blighted under pretty much anybody's definition," says Barbara Geisman, the mayor's executive director for development in St. Louis.

Next door, Mr. Koman is facing a fight over a postage-stamp-size vacant lot appraised at $7,000. The sale is being held up by one of six heirs to the property, who lives in Atlanta and wants $50,000 for his share alone. "It's all about greed," Mr. Koman says. "How much free money can I get from this developer?" The holdout didn't show up in court recently and couldn't be reached for comment.

Situations such as this, rather than those in which people are pushed out of their homes, make up a large percentage of cases in which St. Louis uses eminent domain, Ms. Geisman says. "There are always going be those poster children, but the reality is a whole lot more complicated than that. We can't let one person hold up something that the entire city wants and needs." It wouldn't be possible to do widespread redevelopment in an old, historic city like St. Louis if the Supreme Court hadn't upheld eminent-domain rules in its Kelo v. New London decision, Ms. Geisman adds.

Eminent-domain opponents, such as the Institute for Justice, the Washington nonprofit law firm that represented the homeowner[s] in the Kelo case, beg to differ. "The idea that private development in cities can't happen without eminent domain is crazy," says Dana Berliner, senior attorney at the institute. "Private development happens all the time without eminent domain. People buy the property: If it's difficult to buy the property, they work around that person or they buy another property."

Why get involved in messy development battles? Mr. Koman doesn't deny it is a way to make a good profit, although he declines to say how much money he has made in the East St. Louis development. His properties there are 100%-occupied, and he hasn't had a tenant go out of business since opening. "Please come invest in the inner city," he says. "We are making money in East St Louis."

Mr. Koman's background, however, lends ammunition to critics who say eminent domain often benefits the powerful at the expense of the less well-off. Mr. Koman's father, Bill, played pro football for the old St. Louis Cardinals in the 1950s and '60s and then went into development. Jim Koman and his brother followed their father into the business. Now, the brother has a separate company that builds offices, and Jim handles retail development. He currently has 18 shopping centers under construction within 180 miles of St. Louis. Six of them may require the use of eminent domain to get the necessary land, including a big cornfield in Troy, Ill, just outside St. Louis.

Mr. Koman isn't averse to using hardball tactics. He tells people who don't want to settle that he will take them to court, where they will get much less than what he is offering. As he drives through a trailer park he is currently trying to buy out, he mocks the people who fight his efforts. "Oh my God, you're ruining my life!" he quotes them as saying. "But half these people can't even find jobs or are alcoholics or whatever," he adds. "Most people are just ecstatic [with the buyouts]."

In East St. Louis, Mr. Koman wants to expand his shopping center but has run into opposition from the owner of a beauty salon who has refused to give up his lease on a neighboring property. Tony Ngo, who owns U.S. Nails, has strong feelings about eminent domain. "Eminent domain is a horrible law...I feel that it's a little bit worse than communism," he says. "The communists — you know they're going to come in and they're going to take. This is a business that I plan to grow."

He is negotiating with Mr. Koman, and the two sides appear to be close to a deal. "The question is, Is it faster for me to buy this guy off, or quicker to go to court and condemn it?" Mr. Koman says.

---

The Wall Street Journal: www.wsj.com

Eminent domain is target in St. Charles: St Louis (MO) post-Dispatch, 10/3/05

By Mark Schlinkmann
An effort to put new restrictions on the use of eminent domain in unincorporated areas of St. Charles County began Monday night at a County Council work session.

Council Chairman Doug Funderburk and Councilman Joe Brazil submitted separate proposals after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that said governments can take private property for purposes of economic development.

Any council action would be largely symbolic because St. Charles County - unlike various municipalities across the St. Louis area - has rarely if ever used eminent domain to force a property owner to sell for anything but a direct governmental purpose, such as a new road.

Brazil, however, said a formal county ban on using the process to help developers acquire property for shopping malls and other projects could influence a statewide task force on the issue that was appointed by Gov. Matt Blunt.

"I think it sets up a standard of what our expectations are as a government," said Brazil, of the 2nd District.

Funderburk, of the 4th District, said he, too, wanted to limit using eminent domain. However, he said he also would support adding an exception for new private developments that would replace areas of "open blight." The challenge, he said, is to craft a definition of blight.

He said he worried that Brazil's proposal wouldn't allow such exceptions. Brazil's measure would allow the county to use eminent domain to achieve the removal of "structures that are beyond repair or that are unfit for human habitation or use."

The two also differ on how soon they want the council to act. While Brazil wants the council to move quickly, Funderburk said he would prefer waiting until after the state task force has made its recommendation to the Legislature.

Funderburk added that he had invited one of the task force members - state Sen. Chuck Gross, R-St. Charles - to meet with the council on the issue. Funderburk and Brazil also are Republicans.

Councilmen Jeff Morrison, 1st District, and Dan Foust, 6th District, said they supported Funderburk's timetable. Morrison added that the county shouldn't be more restrictive than the state nor put itself at a competitive disadvantage with St. Louis County.

He said "knee-jerk overreacting" to the Supreme Court ruling could brand the council as "anti-business and anti-growth and anti-development and anti-jobs."

---

St Louis Post-Dispatch: www.stltoday.com

Bills set to revisit eminent domain: Youngstown (OH) Vindicator, 10/3/05

The Senate proposes a constitutional amendment to address the issue

By Jeff Ortega
Critics of government's ability to take private property for limited uses are fearful in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that opponents say allows government to take property and give it to a private business.

There are at least two measures pending in the Ohio Senate and one in the Ohio House of Representatives that backers say would help prevent this kind of decision in Ohio.

Bills filed in the Senate and House would place a moratorium on eminent domain in Ohio that would take property from one owner and give it to another private owner, and would create a task force to study the issue further.

The Senate measure, a proposed constitutional amendment, would ban eminent domain except where it's granted by state lawmakers.

"We believe ... that we need to act to slow down the process," said state Sen. Timothy Grendell, a Chesterland Republican who sponsored the bill that would create an eminent domain for private development moratorium. The bill is co-sponsored by state Sen. Kimberly Zurz, an Akron-area Democrat.

Grendell said time must be taken to study eminent domain and its use in Ohio in wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling June 23.

The Supreme Court decision upheld the right of the New London, Conn., city government to seize property for private development that city leaders say would generate more tax revenue.

What's in the proposal
According to a legislative analysis, the Senate bill would place a moratorium on eminent domain for private development until Dec. 31, 2006.

Under the measure, any state or local government during that time may not take, without the owner's consent, private property that is in an unblighted area if the primary purpose is economic development that would ultimately result in giving the property to another private owner.

The bill also would create a legislative task force to study eminent domain and its impact on land-use planning.

The proposed task force would examine eminent domain from three perspectives: impact on land use; the specific impact of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on the use of eminent domain in Ohio; and state laws related to the issue, according to the bill analysis.

The proposed task force would have to report its findings to the state Legislature by April 1, 2006, under the Senate measure.

The proposed constitutional amendment would eliminate the Ohio Constitution's grant of eminent domain authority to cities and villages, according to an analysis by researchers.

The proposal would instead provide that cities and villages don't have the authority to take private property for public use through eminent domain unless state lawmakers confer that authority.

To get a proposed constitutional amendment before voters through the Legislature, a proposal requires approval from three-fifths of each legislative chamber: 60 of 99 members in the Ohio House and 20 of 33 members in the Senate.

Temporary situation
The Ohio Municipal League, which represents the interests of cities and villages, isn't opposed to the House and Senate bills.

"It's a temporary moratorium," said John Mahoney, OML deputy director. "I don't think it'll harm ongoing projects."

But the league is concerned about the proposed constitutional amendment, Mahoney said, saying it's too broadly drawn. Mahoney said the power of eminent domain is vital to cities and villages, adding that it's not an option local public officials take lightly.

Last week, several people spoke out at a Senate hearing on eminent domain.

Joe Barker, a farmer from rural Paulding County in northwest Ohio, said he has been battling what he described as threats of eminent domain to take a portion of land from one of his farms for a railroad spur.

"How can a railroad, CIC [Community Improvement Corporation], County Economic Development office or municipality determine that one person's small business is more important than another's business?" Barker asked the Senate State & Local Government & Veterans Affairs Committee, which had hearings on the Senate bill and proposed constitutional amendment.

House Speaker Pro Tem Charles Blasdel of East Liverpool, the No. 2 House Republican, said he believes something needs to be done to protect property owners.

House GOP leaders are to meet next week and Blasdel said he believes the eminent domain-related proposals will likely be discussed.

"Given the U.S. Supreme Court decision, I think it's something we need to look at and make sure property owners in Ohio are protected," Blasdel said.

Gov. Bob Taft has not taken a position on any eminent domain-related measures pending in the Legislature, Taft spokesman Mark Rickel said.

But, in general, the governor believes a study of eminent-domain laws is necessary, Rickel said.

---

Youngstown Vindicator: www.vindy.com

Missouri issues eminent domain report: Kansas City (KS) Business Journal, 10/5/05

The Missouri Task Force on Eminent Domain has issued a preliminary report suggesting that "abuse of eminent domain has occurred" in the state and that "several things can be done" to make the condemnation process more fair.

Gov. Matt Blunt and most of his colleagues created eminent domain task forces in response to Kelo v. New London, a U.S. Supreme Court case from June in which the court ruled for the first time that condemnation of private property solely for economic development was constitutional.

Economic development officials throughout the state fear a backlash from the ruling, which left the door open for eminent domain reform on the state level. And the preliminary report just issued provides some justifications for those concerns.

A final report is scheduled to be filed with Blunt on Dec. 31, and after convening in January, Missouri lawmakers could follow suit with colleagues in 28 states who have introduced more than 70 bills to restrict the use of eminent domain.

Some legislators have introduced constitutional amendments in their states to prohibit the use of eminent domain for private projects or to tighten eminent domain procedures. For example, Alabama Gov. Bob Riley signed a law that prohibits the state, cities and counties from taking private property for retail, office, commercial, industrial or residential development.

The "key considerations" listed in the Missouri task force's report are not that specific.

But one consideration calls for "a different condemnation process," including more public input and planning, when the use of eminent domain is proposed for economic development purposes.

"Providing an interlocutory appeal process to allow the courts to review the decision before the property is condemned" for economic development purposes also "could be helpful," the task force said.

The task force also suggested new guidelines to ensure good faith negotiations between the condemning authority and the landowner, a more fair valuation process and "some form of penalty ... if a condemning authority is found guilty of 'low-balling' on value."

---

Kansas City Business Journal: http://kansascity.bizjournals.com

Arundel senator takes aim at eminent domain decision: Baltimore (MD) Business Journal,10/2/05

By Juleka Dash
A Maryland state senator plans to introduce legislation that would make it tougher for governments to seize private property to make way for shopping malls and condominium complexes.

Sen. James E. DeGrange Sr., an Anne Arundel Democrat, wants to keep the state from broadening its power of eminent domain as a result of a recent controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision that has pitted urban renewal proponents against private property advocates.

DeGrange said any legislation he crafts — the exact language of the bill is still being considered — would not harm any current projects or change current practices throughout the state. Baltimore City has used eminent domain for a host of landmark projects, most recently for redevelopment of downtown's west side.

But after the Supreme Court ruling, DeGrange said he fears this scenario: "There might be a developer who wants to put a shopping center in and the government says it's a good thing to take properties under eminent domain," he said.

In July, the Supreme Court determined that the Connecticut city of New London could seize private homes for a multimillion-dollar commercial project that would house high-end townhouses and pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. Private property advocates say the decision gives the average citizen little recourse to safeguard their property from the government's hands.

The ruling prompted reaction from federal lawmakers and state legislatures, but DeGrange's proposal represents the first such move in Maryland.

DeGrange is making a step in the right direction, said U.S. Rep. C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger, a Democrat who represents the Baltimore suburbs. He said the U.S. Supreme Court decision made government's condemnation powers too broad.

"People need to feel secure in their homes and their property," Ruppersberger said.

The former Baltimore County executive made his own failed attempt to condemn private property for revitalization efforts. In 2000, Ruppersberger pushed for Senate Bill 509, which sought to transform the Middle River area into a tourist attraction with a marina, shops and restaurants. The bill went to referendum and was defeated.

In Baltimore City, the struggle between government and property owners was witnessed recently over the play for property in midtown, which includes the Chesapeake Restaurant, vacant since the mid-1980s. This month, the Baltimore Development Corp. chose Station North Development Partners LLC to turn the building into a mixed-use project, including townhouses, retail and office space.

BDC officials said they had no comment until they review DeGrange's proposed legislation.

In the case of the Chesapeake property, the city hopes to transform what has been an idle section of the city, said Councilman Bernard C. "Jack" Young, a Democrat who represents the midtown area.

Young and other urban renewal advocates say that while they are not familiar with DeGrange's proposal, they would oppose any legislation that would change Maryland's existing law.

"Any bill that forbids the taking of property which is declared to be and is blighted could have an adverse impact on future redevelopment," said Morton P. Fisher Jr., a real estate attorney with Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll LLP.

Joshua Auerbach, assistant solicitor for the city, said property rights advocates' fear the Supreme Court ruling would pave the way for governments to turn a Motel 6 into a Ritz-Carlton, for example, are overblown. The ruling simply allows elected officials and urban planners to decide each project on its own merits. "Urban planning is a real body of knowledge that is entitled to some deference," he said.

Though not familiar with DeGrange's proposal, Ronald M. Kreitner, executive director of WestSide Renaissance Inc., doesn't think the Supreme Court ruling has any real impact on the use of eminent domain.

"There are a lot of safeguards already in place within the law that prevents government from seizing any private property," he said.

---

Baltimore Business Journal: http://baltimore.bizjournals.com

Connecticut towns, cities seek ways to limit eminent domain: (Long Island NY) Newsday, 10/2/05

Cities and towns in Connecticut are taking the lead in seeking to block their own officials from seizing private property for the benefit of developers.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June allowed New London to raze a neighborhood to build a privately owned hotel and office space that officials say could add millions of dollars to the tax base. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that states may enact additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened.

The General Assembly has yet to act, with Republican lawmakers seeking a binding moratorium on property seizures until the state's eminent domain laws can be reviewed. Democrats held two public hearings during the summer and called on state and municipal leaders to voluntarily halt any eminent domain proceedings.

Some municipalities are taking action.

Milford has limited the use of eminent domain with an ordinance that prevents local officials from seizing property to be turned over to developers. It allows officials to condemn property for public projects such as new schools or roads.

"Of all the issues people call about, this one raised the greatest clamor," said Milford Alderman Thomas Beirne.

Trumbull and Monroe are considering similar restrictions and a Stratford Town Council committee recently approved an ordinance modeled after Milford's.

Bridgeport and Stamford are not restricting eminent domain authority. Officials say not much land is available for tax-generating projects because of densely developed areas in the two municipalities.

Seizing smaller properties, therefore, is often the only way to make land available for redevelopment, local officials say.

The Stratford Town Council's ordinance committee last week approved a proposal that makes it difficult to take land for private economic development purposes. The plan, which heads to the Town Council for action, is based on the ordinance adopted in Milford.

"Anything that serves as a roadblock to the town taking private property is something we should do," Town Councilwoman Jennifer Hillgen-Santa said.

Republicans on the Trumbull Town Council have introduced a resolution that would prevent officials from seizing property for developers. A two-thirds majority vote of the council would be required when the power is used for public projects such as new schools or roads.

A similar proposal on the Monroe Town Council also would restrict the town's power to use eminent domain.

---

Newsday: www.newsday.com

MU professor advises eminent domain panel: Columbia (MO) Daily Tribune, 9/30/05

He suggests setting standards for agencies

Associated Press
A law professor yesterday told a group studying eminent domain issues that it should set standards for government agencies to use when seizing property.

Dale Whitman, who teaches at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said those standards should include defining the public benefit, establishing the value of that benefit and holding public hearings.

Those standards could be used and assessed by a court if someone challenged the taking of his or property, Whitman said.

Gov. Matt Blunt set up the committee earlier this year in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision giving local governments broader powers to seize private property for tax revenue-generating private developments such as shopping malls.

The task force is charged with studying Missouri law to see whether changes need to be made to protect private property owners. Its goal is to offer criteria defining appropriate public use for when state and local governments consider seizing property.

Members asked Whitman how the definition of "public use" should change.

"Where’s that line cross to be a good project for a community?" asked Chris Goodson of St. Louis, a developer and owner The Goodson Co., a promotional products business.

Whitman said the task force should be careful in spelling out what public use is. Relying on specific details such as amount of revenue or jobs created isn’t wise because projects and benefits can vary widely, he said.

Whitman said the decision should be left to the agency condemning the property.

He also said getting consultants involved wouldn’t solve much.

"Consultants will find what they are paid to find," he said.

But critics said that public use should not involve taking private property to give to another private entity and that the power of eminent domain should be more restricted.

"The focus should be on use and not compensation and not procedure," said Steven Anderson, an attorney with the Institute for Justice in Washington. "The Constitution isn’t a document to make it easier for developers to make money."

The task force is expected to make recommendations by the end of the year so lawmakers can consider any recommended changes in law when their regular session begins in January.

---

Daily Tribune: www.columbiatribune.com

Caught in the snare of eminent domain: The (Westchester NY) Journal News, 9/29/05

By Phil Reisman
Once upon a time in the blue-collar era of lunch pails and time clocks, the people of Port Chester could smell the sweet aroma of peppermint that wafted from the Life Savers plant on North Main Street.

No longer, of course. The old candy factory was the last of the village's great manufacturers, and after it was closed in 1984 somebody converted the building into condominiums. With the factory's passing went about 650 jobs and that great smell of peppermint.

Needless to say, the nut-and-bolt foundries, forges and assembly lines will never return. Like the buffalo, they're gone for good. And so for at least two decades, Port Chester hasn't sought to make a comeback in the sense of returning to its industrial past, but has struggled to reinvent itself through the mass demolition and dislocation of urban renewal and the importation of outsize retail stores with national brands.

To meet this end, the village signed a Faustian deal with a developer, whose slick lawyers drafted the standard contract in invisible ink which said, in effect, "I will bring you a Costco, a Stop & Shop supermarket and movie theaters and more, but I will only do it my way.

"I will intimidate and bully. I will play hardball with your merchants, restaurateurs and small landlords. I will confuse and frighten your poorest citizens, who speak little or no English and work two jobs to pay the rent. And in the interest of private profit, I will seize 27 acres of downtown property through the process of eminent domain, which means that I will turn every legal trick and pulverize every ethic to wring the cheapest deal out of those who have no recourse but to cave in, take what they can and get out of town. I may be a destroyer of dreams, but I also will be the creator of new ratables, low-paying jobs and billable hours."

Sadly, these days a different kind of odor hovers over the village — it's the stench of corruption and greed.

"My story is so strange," village resident Bart Didden wrote in a letter to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, "that everyone who hears it agrees that I've been robbed."

The congressional committee recently convened to hear testimony about eminent domain abuse, and Didden wanted his experience "as a victim of government policies and laws" to be put into the official record.

"I am talking about eminent domain," he wrote, "and takings that are planned in backroom negotiations and sweetheart deals made between developers and elected government officials so hungry for renewal development that would do and say anything, including violating my civil rights and the natural laws of our society."

Didden, who is married and has two children, has lived in Port Chester for 45 years. Since 1982, he has been president of U.S.A. Central Station Alarm Corp., a firm that employs 60 people.

In 1993, he and his business partner, Domenick Bologna, purchased for $300,000 about 35,000 square feet of property in the Port Chester downtown urban renewal area with an eye toward helping the village "come back to what it once was." (A couple of years ago, the town of Rye of which Port Chester is a part, valued the property at $564,000.)

Even though he had plans to maximize the use of his property by selling it to CVS Corp., which wants to build a store on the site, Didden discovered that he had fallen victim to a ruthless application of New York's eminent domain law. He found that he had no real right to challenge the seizure of his property by the village and its "preferred developer," G&S of Old Bethpage, Long Island.

Didden went ahead and signed a deal with CVS and got planning commission approval to go ahead with the project. At that point, he claims, G&S came to him with an offer: He could keep his property if he paid them $800,000 or let them share in it on a 50-50 basis.

Didden told them to get lost.

"That's extortion," he said in his letter to Congress and repeated to me in a phone interview yesterday.

Last year, the village offered Didden $250,000 for his property — and he rejected the offer for the insult that it was.

The village's lawyers said, "Well, tell it to a judge." But the judges in this county have shown they are not on the side of the small property owners.

Eminent domain meant taking property to build bridges, highways and other things for the greater "public good." The modern-day interpretation of eminent domain says that property can be transferred into private hands now, and the new public good is the supposed windfall of greater sales and property taxes.

Didden sees no logic in this. He pays his ever-rising property taxes like anyone else and he doesn't get a break on the sales tax for construction materials.

But he points out that as the preferred developer, G&S does get substantial tax breaks because the village's scheme is to lease the property back to them for 20 years under a fixed rate. So who's getting the benefit here?

But here's the best part, according to Didden. Guess what the preferred developer wants to put on Didden's property, where CVS wants to build.

A Walgreens.

You can't make this stuff up.

---

Journal News: www.thejournalnews.com

Local Governments Bracing For Eminent Domain Fight: CBS4 (Denver CO), 9/29/05

Representatives of cities and counties across the state [of Colorado] are bracing for an expected onslaught of legislation restricting their ability to use eminent domain to condemn property following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that left regulation of the practice to state and local governments.

On Thursday, a coalition of citizen groups applied for a spot on the 2006 ballot for a proposed constitutional amendment that would ensure that private property cannot be taken for economic improvement, to increase sales taxes or to provide economic gain.

The coalition includes a group fighting a proposed "Super Slab" toll road on the Eastern Plains.

"We are fighting for the private property rights of every Colorado citizen," said Marsha Looper, a member of the Eastern Plains Citizen Coalition fighting the project.

Steve Nadler, a member of Colorado Citizens for Property Rights, said he's fighting attempts by officials in Sheridan to seize his property for a strip mall.

"I'm really mad as hell about this and it's not right," he said, as the coalition prepared to deliver its initiative to legislative staffers to review before setting out with petitions.

Once the language of the initiative is approved, the coalition would have to gather 67,829 valid voter signatures to get it on next year's ballot.

Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park, who has promised to introduce his own legislation limiting the use of eminent domain, said he supports the initiative and will also ask lawmakers to approve a referred measure from the Legislature, to make sure one of them gets on the ballot.

"Eminent domain is completely out of control," White said.

Last year, lawmakers approved a law that allows business owners who think their land has been unfairly taken by the government and turned over to another company to take officials to court and have the municipality foot the bill. White said a stricter law is needed following the Supreme Court's ruling.

In June, the court ruled 5-4 that New London, Conn., had the authority to take homes to make space for a private development project. But in its ruling, the court noted that states are free to ban that practice.

Larry Kallenberger, executive director of Colorado Counties Inc., which represents most of the state's 64 counties, said he expects more proposed legislation before lawmakers convene in January for their 120-day session. He said landowner rights will be a big topic next year, including a continued debate over limiting the rights of mineral owners to claim property.

"I think there is going to be more than one approach. I think it will be a good session for people who own property to keep an eye on," Kallenberger said.

Kallenberger said county commissioners are divided over the issue, including some who want more limits and others who fear too strict a limit on their powers.

Sam Mamet, executive director of the Colorado Municipal League, which represents cities and towns across the state, said lawmakers have already dealt with the issue with the bill approved last year. He said if lawmakers want to deal with lingering issues from the Super Slab project, a 210-mile toll road proposed for the Eastern Plains that has irked residents in the path of the project, they should deal with that as a separate issue.

"I think it's an emotional reaction to a problem that really doesn't exist in Colorado. However, next year is an election year, and I know there will be some efforts to pass restraints," he said.

---

CBS4: http://cbs4denver.com

Eminent domain OK'd for farm: (Camden NJ) Courier-Post, 9/29/05

By Erik Schwartz
The township can use eminent domain to acquire a 64-acre Sicklerville farm for the expansion of adjacent Frank Donio Memorial Park, according to an ordinance approved by the township committee.

The move is expected to trigger a lawsuit by AST Development Corp., which has an agreement to buy the land from the Jennings family. AST wants to build an over-55 community of 436 residential units on the property, parts of which sit on Berlin-Cross Keys, Sicklerville and Chews Landing roads.

Mayor Sue Ann Metzner "was able to dupe these residents into believing this is about a park," said Edward L. Stutz, vice president of AST. "This is not about a park. This is about an election."

Four seats on township committee are up for election in November, although Metzner's is not.

Tuesday's vote by the township committee was cheered by a crowd of about 100 residents who had expressed concerns about AST's plan, citing fears that it would result in more automobile traffic and reduced property values in their booming area.

Robin Still of Sicklerville decried the proliferation of suburban sprawl around her house.

"All I see is supermarkets and homes. I did not come to Winslow six years ago to look at that," Still said.

AST originally applied to build nearly triple the 169 housing units permitted by the zoning law. In response to the residents' protests and what officials said is a growing need for more recreation facilities in the Sicklerville section, the township committee voted unanimously last month to give the eminent-domain ordinance its preliminary approval.

AST estimates that its proposed mix of condominiums, town houses, duplexes and a shopping center would provide the Winslow school district some $2.4 million in annual property tax revenue, or more than 3 percent of the district's total budget, while not increasing school enrollment.

In addition to the cost of taking the land off the tax rolls, the township would have to spend money to buy the property at fair market value. Financing for the purchase -- expected to come from state, county and township sources — would have to be lined up for Winslow to successfully sue and take the property through eminent domain.

---

Courier-Post: www.courierpostonline.com

2 downtown Delray businesses set to resist eminent domain: Palm Beach (FL) Post, 9/28/05

By Rani Gupta
Two long-standing downtown [Delray Beach] businesses say they will fight a city agency's eminent domain action that could force them to move during the height of the lucrative winter season.

The Community Redevelopment Agency agreed last week to pay $2.75 million for the former Love's Drugs building, the final piece of property needed for a 523-space parking garage planned at Old School Square.

Although the building's owner has agreed to the settlement, a CRA attorney plans to file eminent domain papers today to force the building's two tenants, Hugh Jorgan's: The Dueling Piano Bar and Costin's Trellis Garden, to vacate the building at 96 N.E. Second Ave.

Janice Vaccaro, owner of the flower shop, said she could be put out of business if she has to move before the busy Christmas and Valentine's Day holidays.

"They've waited this long, they can wait a couple more months," Vaccaro said. "Everything I own is wrapped up in this business."

Hugh Jorgan's owner Mike DiBartolo said he hopes to keep his bar, which has been open for six years, in downtown Delray Beach. He said he needs six months to find and prepare a new location.

"The season is coming up now and it's a bad time for us to have to relocate," DiBartolo said.

CRA Executive Director Diane Colonna said that, although the agency will negotiate with the tenants, it is unlikely the city will wait that long.

The city plans to start construction on the $11.4 million, five-story garage in February but wants to demolish the buildings as soon as possible to complete the garage by fall 2006, said Richard Hasko, the city's environmental services director. The CRA has bought a nearby building that now houses the Toussaint L'Ouverture charter school, and plans to buy the old Craige's Furniture store, which the agency will sell to the city.

Mayor Jeff Perlman said the city has a duty to voters, who approved a bond in January 2004 that included money for the garage. Since then, rising property values and construction costs have doubled the price of the garage.

"Our goal would be to work with them as best they can, but we have to look at the public's interest," Perlman said. "We have to balance the very legitimate needs of the businesses, but also the public's interest and the public's pocketbook, which is equally important, if not more so."

If negotiations fail, CRA attorney Bill Doney said he hopes to bring the case to court within two months. It would be up to a judge to decide when the tenants would vacate the building and how much money they would receive. The flower shop's lease runs through April. The bar's lease ends Friday, when it will revert to a month-to-month lease.

Vaccaro said she tried unsuccessfully to get out of the lease so she could relocate before the season starts. An attorney for property trustee Roberta Love Kendall did not return a call for comment late Tuesday.

The $2.75 million price is 45 percent above the property's appraised value. CRA officials said the price, which includes attorney fees, is justified because it avoids the costs of taking the building through eminent domain and because rapidly increasing land values would negate the March appraisal.

The charter school's application to move to a spot at Atlantic Avenue and Military Trail was rejected because the 150 students were deemed too many for the building. The school, which must vacate the building in November, plans to resubmit the application this week.

---

Palm Beach Post: www.palmbeachpost.com

Council gives OK for eminent domain: (Fall River MA) Herald News, 9/28/05

By Daniel Fowler
If Samuel Shapiro won’t sell his land on the former Kerr Mill site to the software company pledging to create 600 jobs, he may lose his property anyway.

Fall River moved a step closer to acquiring Shapiro’s 4.62-acre property Tuesday when the City Council voted to give the city’s Redevelopment Authority permission to take the land by eminent domain if necessary.

The City Council unanimously approved a Major Plan Change to the Kerr Mill Urban Renewal Plan, which paves the way for a takeover pending state approval of the change.

Roughly 18 acres of the 33-acre former Kerr Mill site houses the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Advanced Technology and Manufacturing Center.

Meditech wants the remaining 15 acres, including the Shapiro parcel, for its 110,000-square-foot facility. The Massachusetts Development Finance Agency owns the rest of the site, and will sell its portion of the 15 acres to Meditech.

"I think that this is the type of economic development Fall River needs," City Councilor Alfredo Alves said. "I’d have no problem taking this land by eminent domain."

Kenneth Fiola Jr., executive vice president of the Fall River Office of Economic Development, presented the plan change to the council Tuesday, acting as an agent for the Fall River Redevelopment Authority.

"I don’t think anyone jumps up and down for eminent domain, but sometimes there is a need for eminent domain," Fiola said. "We are still going to work toward a friendly purchase and sales agreement."

If the city takes the property, Shapiro would receive compensation for it, relocation expenses and could get additional money if he takes the matter to court.

Fiola said the intention is to negotiate until there is "no possibility of a resolution."

"It won’t be a prolonged negotiation process," Fiola said.

After the Kerr Mill Complex burned down in 1987, the site and its owners couldn’t decide how to redevelop the land. Finally, in 1999, the Redevelopment Authority created the Kerr Mill Urban Renewal Plan and took the 33-acre site by eminent domain, with the exception of Shapiro’s land.

Though all councilors voted for the change, some such as Linda Pereira and Council Vice President Leo Pelletier said the city and Meditech should work to avoid using eminent domain.

"You have to be nervous when you take something by eminent domain," Pelletier said. "I want to make sure that if it does go by eminent domain, that (Shapiro) gets every opportunity from the city of Fall River to make sure he is satisfied."

"I regret having to take something by eminent domain," Pereira said. "But for the value we are going to get, I’d support taking it by eminent domain."

Fiola said he intends to submit the new plan to the state for approval this week.

---

Herald News: www.heraldnews.com

City Threatens to Take Private Property Using ‘Eminent Domain’ Law: WOAI News 4 (San Antonio TX), 9/29/05

By Jeff Coyle,
The owner of an east side communications company says the city of San Antonio threatened to take away his property and give it to a religious nonprofit group. Concerned that the city is violating Texas’ new eminent domain law, he contact the News 4 WOAI Trouble Shooters to investigate.

"I came here ten years ago,” Tommy Moore says, standing on his property on N. Mesquite St. “That building was vacant; it had graffiti all over it. This (lot) was all covered up with vines and everything."

Moore takes risks where most businessmen won't. He's opened a printing company on Hackberry St. and bought up nearby office space—all in a neighborhood that has been labeled "blighted" for more than 25 years.

His reward for being a productive tax-paying citizen, he says, is the city trying to take this parking lot away from him.

The San Antonio Development Agency (SADA) wrote Moore last month, saying "it is necessary for the agency to acquire your property," adding that if he doesn't accept the offer, "the Agency may exercise its legal authority to acquire the property through its power of eminent domain."

The land would be given to some members of the St. Paul Methodist Church who formed a community development corporation with plans of building a senior home next door to Moore’s lot. They want Moore's property for parking. Because the project meets the city's goal of revitalizing the area, the city is helping the group acquire the land.

"Taxpayer money,” laments Moore. “That's my money. I should not have my money fighting against me for my livelihood. I don't think that's the American way."

But Ernest Haffner, SADA’s project manager who wrote the letter to Moore, says the case is a big misunderstanding. Haffner says Moore has refused to negotiate with the city.

"We would like the opportunity to sit with him and see what his counter offer is and see if we can reach a compromise," Haffner says.

"But this letter,” replied News 4 WOAI Trouble Shooter Jeff Coyle, “doesn't make it sound like a compromise is even in the cards. It says if you don't accept it within 30 days we're going to take your land through eminent domain."

"Unfortunately, that's not the intent of the letter," responds Haffner. "The intent is to make an offer."

SADA’s offer, $11,500, is barely half the $22,600 value on the county tax roll. But Haffner insists Moore does not have to sell.

"It's not intended as a threat,” says Haffner. “It's just a way to advise people that yes, the agency has this (eminent domain power), but we do negotiate."

"The letter is not saying we have this power, just to let you know that,” says Coyle. “The letter is saying 30 days, give us an answer within 30 days or we'll use that power."

"It's unfortunate that that clause is in there,” says Haffner. “We are working to change that clause to make it more friendly."

Texas' new eminent domain law allows cities to condemn land if it eliminates a slum or blighted area. But Haffner says it's not worth the legal battle to pursue eminent domain in Moore’s case. The St. Paul Development Corporation plans to build its senior home without Moore’s lot for parking and considers the case closed.

---

WOAI: www.woai.com

Leaders Push for Eminent Domain Limit in Georgia: WTOC-TV (Savannah GA), 9/27/05

By Michelle Paynter
Homeowners and land owners are getting some support from Georgia lawmakers. The US Supreme Court recently ruled that cities can take over private property if they can find another use for the land that will help the economy or create jobs. But many of Georgia's state, county and local officials say that's taking it too far.

They are trying to pass Senate Bill 86 to limit the scope of eminent domain. There was a meeting about it today at the Coastal Georgia Center, where Savannah mayor pro tem Edna Jackson was one of the speakers who said eminent domain should not be allowed for economic purposes. She says it should only be allowed if it's for the betterment of the community.

Jackson used the revitalization of the Cuyler-Brownsville neighborhood as an example. "If you are going to change the quality of life in your city, then you need to make sure everyone has a chance of living in decent housing," she said. "And we have areas of blight and dilapidated houses and we want to improve neighborhoods. We need to be more proactive and put our residents in a decent city."

There will be several more meetings like today's across the state. Lawmakers plan to present Senate Bill 86 during next year's legislative session.

---

WTOC-TV: www.wtoctv.com

Senate panel OKs eminent domain bill: Nashua (NH) Telegraph, 9/28/05

By Kevin Landrigan
A [New Hampshire] state Senate panel approved legislation Tuesday that would block government from taking land by eminent domain for private development.

The Senate Task Force on Eminent Domain unanimously endorsed a proposed bill for the 2006 session that would only allow eminent domain takings for a “public use.”

The bill would replace language in existing law that allows such takings for a “public purpose,” a broader concept that could allow government to take land and sell it to a for-profit entity.

“I think we’ve struck the right balance here,” said Lempster Republican Sen. Robert Odell, who chaired the committee that’s been meeting every other week since August.

Gov. John Lynch, Senate President Ted Gatsas, R-Manchester, and House Speaker Douglas Scamman, R-Stratham, have all said the legislation will be a priority for them when lawmakers return in January.

Cornish Democratic Sen. Peter Burling asked if this could hamper the ability of city and town officials to improve a blighted area by selling land to housing developers.

“Are we setting up a situation where a community could not sell off lots privately?” Burling asked.

Former Senate legal counsel Richard Lehmann answered, “Yes, I believe you are.”

Eminent domain for private development could be used in a limited way if that private use was “incidental” to the total project. Lehmann gave the example of land taken for a municipal airport that had a Dunkin Donuts store inside.

Nashua Democratic Sen. Joseph Foster said the bill should take effect July 1, 2006, in light of the public outcry over this summer’s U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Committee members noted that private development could occur if a city or town purchased a property outright from a private owner rather than having to take it by eminent domain.

Lehmann said the new law may act as an incentive for government and private owners to negotiate a sale, as that allows the public buyer to have more options.

This panel – and one convened by the House – studied eminent domain this summer after the nation’s high court 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 high court’s narrow 5-4 ruling was so contentious that some critics launched a campaign to seize Justice David Souter’s farmhouse in Weare to build a luxury hotel. Others singled out Justice Stephen Breyer’s vacation home in Plainfield for use as a park. Both voted on the prevailing side.

The House committee is working on a proposed amendment to the state Constitution to enshrine these restrictions on eminent domain. The two committees are scheduled to meet together Oct. 11.

“I basically felt that both committees are very close in our approach,” Odell said.

---

Nashua Telegraph: www.nashuatelegraph.com

Teach Eminent Domain abusing politicians a lesson

Tom Picinich and Michael Cristofaro both lost their homes to the New London CT Municipal Development Plan (the subject of the landmark Kelo v New London Supreme Court case). They are now running for City Council in New London.

A political action committee (PAC) has been established to help raise campaign funds. The Free New London PAC website is
www.freeforttrumbull.com.

The candidates believe that their victory will not only help to redress the situation in New London. They state that they can "teach a lesson to every politician who contemplates using Eminent Domain to seize taxpayers' homes." And they urge concerned Americans to "join us in helping to throw out the corrupt New London City Council this November and make an example of them to every politician across the country who has designs on your property." They add, "If the New London city council is allowed to remain in place, the implications are chilling. Politicians across America will be sent a message - that it is okay to steal our homes and sell them off to the highest bidder."

Masters of their domain: (North Jersey) Herald News, 10/8/05

By Ashley Kindergan & Jaci Smith
Kendall Kardt was so sure he and other [Lodi NJ] trailer park residents would win their eminent domain lawsuit against the borough,that two weeks ago, he moved back into Costa Trailer Court.

Turns out he was right.

Superior Court Judge Richard Donahue ruled Thursday that the borough could not condemn the Costa and Brown trailer parks on Route 46 and use the land for redevelopment.

Donahue said the borough failed to prove that there was sufficient blight to warrant condemning the trailer parks, and the borough's redevelopment plan for the land was "vague."

"The (borough) attempted to replace a needy community, an elderly community, an affordable-housing community with upscale housing and the judge saw through it," said Michael Kates, the attorney representing the park's residents.

Borough officials said they planned to meet with their lawyers next week to review the court ruling and evaluate options for an appeal, said Gerald Salerno, attorney for the borough's Planning Board.

"It may be a setback, but we are not going to be deterred," said Mayor Gary Paparozzi."It's not over."

The 150 residents of Costa and Brown trailer parks filed the suit in 2004 to challenge the city's decision to designate the parks as zones in need of redevelopment.

The borough had claimed redeveloping the parks for commercial use would bring in needed tax revenue, while residents countered that their homes were not blighted and that providing affordable housing in the community was a productive land use.

Several months ago, Paparozzi was quoted in this newspaper saying that the trailer parks were "a poster child for redevelopment."

On Thursday, Donahue rejected the borough's arguments.

"The evidence put forth by the defendants in support of their designation of redevelopment can be summed up as vague criticism of the conditions at the complex upon superficial observations," Donahue wrote.

The judge also noted that although the borough supplied enough evidence to show that the land was being taken for "public use," required under state law, it failed to provide plans for the land's reuse that were specific enough to meet the standard of the law.

News of the decision spread quickly through the Costa Trailer Court Friday morning, as residents knocked on their neighbors' doors to share the news.

Ruth Mazza, 87, who lives on just a little more than $1,000 per month in Social Security payments, said she had been worried about finding a place she could afford and also managing to move without family to help her.

"Where was I going to go for $427 a month?" Mazza asked. "I'm all by myself. How the hell am I going to get myself out?"

Another resident, Donna Mulhall, 55, said she had lived in a recreational vehicle all her adult life and that she resented the implication that her living situation made the residents "trailer trash."

"It's like anyone else living in a community. Whether it's a $1 million community or the ghetto, it's still your community," Mulhall said.

"There are 500 people who live in the trailer parks," said Kendall Kardt, president of Save Our Homes, the group that fought with the trailer park owners to block the borough's use of eminent domain.

"This town was talking about displacing 2 percent of its residents. That's crazy," he said.

Donahue's ruling is one of several locally that suggests judges are making a harder interpretation of eminent domain lawsuits since a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, said William Ward, a lawyer specializing in eminent domain cases.

In Kelo v. New London, Conn., the Supreme Court ruled that a municipality could condemn land and use it for redevelopment as long as the reuse was proven to be in the public's best interest.

Experts have speculated that the ruling unfairly broadened the power of a municipality to take land and trampled property owners' rights.

Ward said in the past two weeks, judges in Union, Passaic and Essex counties have dismissed local government efforts to take property by eminent domain.

In Passaic County last week, Assignment Judge Robert Passero dismissed the city of Passaic's eminent domain complaint against property owned by Jan Havlicek, who had sought to develop the People's Bank Building at 585 Main St.

The city's redevelopment agency submitted a reuse plan for the building and began eminent domain proceedings against Havlicek. Passero ruled a week ago Friday that the city had not filed the appropriate paperwork to condemn the building.

"It's an unholy alliance," Ward said of some types of redevelopment plans. "It's taking land from one private owner and flipping it to a developer. That's private gain at the public's expense."

---

The Herald News: www.northjersey.com

Florida city considers eminent domain: The Washington (DC) Times, 10/3/05

By Joyce Howard Price
Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.

"This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.

He defends the use of eminent domain by saying the city is "using tools that have been available to governments for years to bring communities like ours out of the economic doldrums and the trauma centers."

Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach is doing what the city of New London, Conn., is trying to do and what the U.S. Supreme Court said is proper in its ruling June 23 in Kelo v. City of New London. That decision upheld the right of government to seize private properties for use by private developers for projects designed to generate jobs and increase the tax base.

"Now eminent domain is affecting people who never had to deal with it before and who have political connections," Mr. Brown said. "But if we don't use this power, cities will die."

Jacqui Loriol insists she and her husband will fight the loss of their 80-year-old home in Riviera Beach.

"This is a very [racially] mixed area that's also very stable," she said. "But no one seems to care ... Riviera Beach needs economic redevelopment. But there's got to be another way."

In the Kelo ruling, a divided Supreme Court held that private development offering jobs and increased tax revenues constituted a public use of property, but the court held that state legislatures can draft eminent-domain statutes to their satisfaction.

Dana Berliner, senior lawyer with the Institute for Justice, which represented homeowners in the Kelo case, said "pie in the sky" expectations like those expressed by Mr. Brown are routine in all these cases.

"They always think economic redevelopment will bring more joy than what is there now," she said. "Once someone can be replaced so something more expensive can go where they were, every home and business in the country is subject to taking by someone else."

Last week, the Riviera Beach City Council tapped the New Jersey-based Viking Inlet Harbor Properties LLC to oversee the mammoth 400-acre redevelopment project.

"More than 2,000 homes could be eligible for confiscation," said H. Adams Weaver, a local lawyer who is assisting protesting homeowners.

Viking spokesman Peter Frederiksen said the plan "is to create a working waterfront," adding that the project could take 15 years and that "we would only use condemnation as a last resort."

Viking has said it will pay at least the assessed values of homes and businesses it buys.

Other plans for the project include creation of a basin for megayachts with high-end housing, retail and office space, a multilevel garage for boats, a 96,000-square-foot aquarium and a manmade lagoon.

Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach wants to highlight its waterfront.

"We have the best beach and the most attractive redevelopment property anywhere in the United States," he said.

Mr. Frederiksen said people with yachts need a place to keep and service them. "And we want to develop a charter school for development of marine trades."

Mr. Brown and others said this could be one of the biggest eminent-domain actions ever. A report in the Palm Beach Post said it is the biggest since 1954, when 5,000 residents of Washington were displaced for eventual development of the Southwest D.C. waterfront, L'Enfant Plaza, and the less-than-successful Waterside Mall.

The fact that Riviera Beach is so financially downtrodden may seem ironic because as Mr. Brown notes "it sits right across the inlet from Palm Beach," one of the nation's wealthiest areas.

"Palm Beach County is the largest county east of the Mississippi, and we have the second-highest rate of poverty in the county," the mayor said.

---

The Washington Times: www.washingtontimes.com

Eminent domain is here to stay, A.C. panelists say: The Press of Atlantic City (NJ), 9/29/05

By Elaine Rose
It's every homeowner's worst nightmare. A letter arrives in the mail saying the city is planning a new development for your neighborhood and is taking over you home.

It's called the power of eminent domain, and governments have the right to do it if they compensate the owner fairly.

That power is here to stay, a panel of four speakers said Wednesday at the Governor's Conference on Housing and Community Development held at the Atlantic City Convention Center. Attracting about 1,100 visitors, the conference brings together municipal officials, housing authorities, property owners and others involved in rebuilding communities.

But governments taking over private property should keep the public informed about the entire process and treat everyone with respect if they want to avoid litigation and political repercussions, the panelists said in a how-to session for developers and municipal officials.

The U.S. Supreme Court created a stir earlier this year when it upheld the right of New London, Conn., to condemn private homes for a redevelopment project even though it was for private enterprise. Nationwide, responses ranged from new legislation to a group attempting to condemn Justice David Souter's New Hampshire home to build a hotel.

But the Supreme Court held a wide interpretation of eminent domain since 1896, when it allowed a mining company to run buckets across a farmer's property against his wishes, said James Maley Jr., mayor of Collingswood and an attorney that works with redevelopment projects. As long as the state has a reasonable purpose for the land, the project is in the economic interest of the community and due process is followed, condemning properties is legal.

As a consultant to municipalities, Susan Gruel said she often advises her clients to slow down the redevelopment process. Rather than just send out condemnation letters and let an irate public show up at meetings, Gruel takes a different approach.

Gruel said it is best for towns to go beyond the legal minimum, and seek public input at every step of the process. Invite residents to a meeting and ask them what kind of projects they want to see. Sometimes ordinary citizens come up with great ideas.

Having a specific developer in mind is a big no-no and could have the project thrown out in court, Maley and Gruel both said.

"Often the public is concerned there are deals being made behind closed doors, no one knows what is going on and the result will not be in their best interest," Gruel said.

But if done right, there is no doubt that redevelopment is a good thing, said Edward Einhaus, director of Housing Development for the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority. The CRDA has taken nearly 2,000 private properties using threat of eminent domain.

Einhaus showed the audience before-and-after photos of the Northeast Inlet section of Atlantic City to demonstrate the results.

If the CRDA wants to take over a property, it gives the owner a 13-page booklet explaining the process and their rights in clear language, Einhaus said.

Above all, treat the property owners with respect, and remember that they're human beings with a stake in the project, Einhaus said.

"If you're taking someone's home, you're uprooting them," Einhaus said. "You're really rocking their world."

---

The Press of Atlantic City: www.pressofac.com

Lodi's land grab: Bergen (NJ) Record, 9/28/05

Editorial
Lodi's attempt to condemn and close two longstanding mobile home parks - displacing 233 families - is a sad example of how arrogant government officials abuse their right of eminent domain.

A state judge is expected to rule soon on the attempted land grab, which has been challenged by the owners and residents of both the Costa and Brown trailer courts on Route 46.

But it should never have come to this.

Lodi should have dropped its idea of redeveloping the mobile home parks as soon as it saw the owners of those properties had no interest in selling.

Certainly, it should have backed off once it became clear that most of the several hundred low-income seniors and other residents in the mobile homes could not afford any other decent place in this area. Kicking them out of these trailer courts, where some have lived for more than 40 years, would effectively force them out of Lodi and possibly Bergen County.

But Lodi officials have stubbornly persisted in their plan to turn this land over to private developers. Apparently the lure of increased property tax revenues from a proposed senior condo complex has been just too great to resist.

You begin to understand how borough officials rationalize their heartless behavior when you listen to Mayor Gary Paparozzi.

• "They're not really homes," Mr. Paparozzi says.
  
  He says he means that mobile homes, unlike other kinds of homes, can be moved. But he acknowledges he doesn't know if there are other mobile home parks in this area with vacancies. (There aren't.) His callous comment also ignores the fact that many of these residents have lived there for decades, raising children and tending gardens. In what way are their residences not homes?
  
  
• "They've outlived their usefulness," the mayor says of the trailer courts.
  Outlived their usefulness to whom? Certainly not to the people in North Jersey who need affordable housing such as these trailer parks offer. Rent for the cement pads under the mobile homes runs about $400 to $500 per month, far cheaper than typical apartments.
  
  The mayor complains that Lodi already hosts more than its share of affordable housing compared to other Bergen County towns. But no one's asking the borough to build more low-cost homes. It only needs to try to preserve what exists.
  
  
• "It is potentially dangerous," the mayor says.
  
  The mobile homes have above-ground propane tanks for fuel, which Mr. Paparozzi says are a fire hazard. He also says there have been problems with trash accumulating in an adjacent brook, attracting rodents into nearby neighborhoods.

These are lame arguments. Lodi has never issued citations against either trailer park. If the borough has valid concerns about safety or property upkeep, it should take action to force the owners to make improvements. Until it does that, how can it use such concerns as a basis for condemnation?

Eminent domain is sometimes justified, such as for building schools, expanding roads or opening new train stations.

But condemnation should always be a last resort of governments, and it should be reserved for clear and compelling public uses. Increasing tax revenues is not enough of a public benefit to justify government taking of private property.
Unfortunately, local governments have been emboldened by the U.S. Supreme Court's mistaken decision this year expanding eminent domain rights. New Jersey legislators need to tighten the state's laws quickly to discourage more towns from following Lodi down this wrong path.

---

Bergen Record: www.bergen.com

Senator Seeks to Block Use of Eminent Domain for Private Gain: New York Law Journal, 9/27/05

By Terry Sheridan
U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), flanked by members of a family who expect a Florida city to seize their commercial property, vowed Monday that he is working to deny federal funds to any city or state project using eminent domain for private development.

The Florida Democrat, who is running for re-election next year, is co-sponsoring with Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas a bill that would reserve eminent domain only for public uses.

The measure introduced in late June would close an option permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Kelo v. City of New London case, which allowed the city to pursue eminent domain for a private project.

"I don't want someone's home taken for an economic development project that could be a Wal-Mart," Nelson said during a news conference at the law offices of Brigham Moore in Miami. The firm specializes in eminent domain litigation.

The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act would prevent the federal government from taking private property for economic development and bar the use of federal funds by local governments using eminent domain for private development.

The bill's sponsors will try to amend the Treasury Department appropriations bill next week to prevent the use of federal funds for projects that involve eminent domain for economic development.

The bill is before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held a hearing on it last week.

A similar measure in the House was approved in July, according to a report in The Washington Post.

The House bill would apply to funds administered by the departments of Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development. According to the Post's report, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri intend to push for a broader measure that would apply to all federal funds.

Nelson said he did not know how his bill compares to the House version.

The measure followed the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo ruling, in which justices voted 5-4 in favor of the Connecticut city, saying that the power of eminent domain could be used for private economic development. But the opinion also said states could close that opening.

The ruling set off a firestorm of opposition. Lawmakers in most states, including Florida, suggested limiting eminent domain and better defining rules for property takings.

In Hollywood, Fla., city officials are close to approving the taking of the Mach family's commercial building at Harrison Street and 19th Avenue to make way for a 19-story condo tower by developer Southern Facilities and its affiliate, SFD@Hollywood LLC.

The historic 1920s-era Great Southern Hotel also will be demolished for the project.

David Mach and his mother, Katalin Mach, said Monday that they expect to be served notice of the city's eminent domain filing any day. The City Commission is expected to vote on it soon, they said.

City officials "call this beautiful downtown area blighted," David Mach said. "But they are building a condo canyon out of a pedestrian, small-business district."

Neil Fritz, executive director of Hollywood's downtown Community Redevelopment Agency, questioned why the Machs were present at Nelson's news conference.

"The Machs were present because the senator wanted to meet citizens who have experienced the abuse of eminent domain in this context," said attorney Amy Boulris of Brigham Moore, who is representing the Machs.

"It's my understanding that there are no federal funds involved in the Great Southern Hotel project," Fritz said.

Boulris said it was unclear whether the city would request federal funding.

"The fact that the proposed federal bill addresses the issue by proposing to cut off federal funding is about all that the federal government can do given that redevelopment is usually conducted by local governments," she said. "The senator is proposing that Congress do what it can to take a stand."

When asked how much federal funding typically is used in local projects, Nelson said that in large-scale developments, "sooner or later, there will be federal funding."

But attorney and Florida Atlantic University economic development professor Frank Schnidman said Nelson's bill further confuses the eminent domain issue.

"There is no definition for 'economic development,'" he said. "It could be argued that at times a road-building project is for economic development to open an area for development that will increase the tax base or be done to attract business."

Schnidman, who wrote an amicus brief in the Kelo case on behalf of the Congress for New Urbanism, which favored the losing homeowners, said the Supreme Court ruling held that public use includes economic development.

"Therefore, the proposal needs to do better than just exclude economic development," said Schnidman, the newly approved director of the North Miami community redevelopment agency. "It needs to affirmatively define 'public use' as defined by Congress for the scope of this proposal."

---

New York Law Journal: www.law.com

Bristol could condemn, seize Belvedere Hotel by eminent domain: Bristol (RI) Phoenix, 9/30/05

By Ted Hayes
The Town of Bristol [RI] could take matters into its own hands if developers don't get the long-delayed Belvedere Court condominium and shopping project off the ground. Last Wednesday, the Bristol Town Council approved the first reading of the town's new Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Bristol, a 28-page document written by the Bristol Redevelopment Agency. Among other things, it lists the Belvedere Hotel and associated properties as one of four blighted downtown sites that should be cleaned up or rehabilitated within one year of the plan's passage.

Some town officials would like to move that deadline from one year to 90 days.

"You'll probably see that when the dust is finally settled, this project will probably be placed on the (90-day) fast track," said Bristol Town Council vice chairman David Barboza, who has been following the agency's moves with respect to the Belvedere plan.

"I wouldn't be surprised to see that (90-day deadline). I think everyone in town has had it with this development. Either they (the developers) are going to do it or we are going to come in and see that it gets done."

The redevelopment agency already rejected a proposal by member E. Keith Maloney to change the deadline to 90 days, but agency chairman Peter Calvet said he wouldn't be surprised to see the 90-day deadline brought up again at a public hearing on Oct. 26.

"It wouldn't surprise me at all, given everything that is going on with the property," said Mr. Calvet.

"It's not a bad idea, necessarily, but we rejected it from a practical standpoint," he said, adding that had the 90-day term been included in the final redevelopment plan, it would have given developers little time to get the project rolling. After all, he said, the project is essentially in limbo until the end of November (see separate story).

"This is serious business," said Mr. Calvet. "We don't want to put a deadline on it that might not be possible to meet. The public interest is not served if we jump into this."

Regardless of whether the deadline is 90 days or one year, that report spells out very clearly the town's avenues to get the properties cleaned up one way or another. Those avenues include acquisition of the land through condemnation and eminent domain.

"If ... private efforts fail," the report reads, "the agency will acquire all parcels ... and offer the site to developers through a Request for Proposals ... that will require the restoration of the hotel and carriage house, the operation of the hotel or conversion to housing, and access from State and John Street. Moreover the RFP shall require the restoration of parking for area businesses and sufficient parking to meet the needs of the restored hotel and/or housing/commercial structures."

Town solicitor Michael P. Ursillo said taking the land through eminent domain would be well within the town's rights.

"There's no question that if a property is 'blighted,' the local government can condemn it," he said. "Right now the redevelopment agency could condemn the property, but they would have to come up with the funding" to pay off the properties' owners.

Essentially, he said, the town would have to offer the owners — in this case Belvedere Developers LLC and Steven R. and Anne Marie Johnson — fair market value for all the properties comprising the blighted area.

"Then presumably they'd have to have somebody (another developer or contractor) who would be willing to take the project over," Mr. Ursillo said.

Mr. Calvet said he hopes eminent domain will be used only as a last resort.

"If you go in and take a property by eminent domain, you have to do it very carefully and make sure that every opportunity has been given to get things done by the developer."

Attorney files lien against Belvedere Hotel, other properties Barrows owns
An attorney who performed legal work for Bristol developer Ted Barrows has filed a lien against his client to recoup nearly $70,000 in legal fees he says he is owed.

Attorney Matthew F. Medeiros, an attorney with the Providence legal firm Little, Medeiros, Kinder, Bulman and Whitney, filed the lien in Bristol Town Hall in late August. He seeks $67,767.35 in unpaid fees, plus 12 percent interest, from Mr. Barrows for title work he did involving Bristol Developers LLC, Mr. Barrows' development firm. The lien was put against the four lots comprised of and surrounding the Belvedere Hotel on Hope Street, which Mr. Barrows' firm owns.

The lien isn't the firm's only financial problem. A Rhode Island Superior Court judge last week gave Belvedere Developers until Nov. 22 to repay some $1.3 million in unpaid mortgage payments it owes to Center Development Corporation, a New York City-based firm that had entered into a partnership with Mr. Barrows and Bristol developer Joseph Brito Sr. to develop the parcels into a shopping and condominium development. If the money is not paid by that date, Center Development will auction off the property to recoup its investment. Center Development attorney Jeffrey S. Brenner said his clients have set a Nov. 23 auction date in case the deadline is not met.

Redevelopment plan eyed
The Bristol Redevelopment Agency's draft Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Bristol will be discussed by the agency next week, and will also be the subject of a public hearing before the Bristol Town Council later this month.

Bristol's draft Redevelopment Plan for downtown Bristol lists the Belvedere Hotel and several associated properties — 423 Hope St., and three lots with two buildings on John, State and Thames Street — as a "blighted and substandard" area. Following is what the plan says about the area's importance to downtown Bristol:

If this (development) project is delayed or the reconstruction is not completed promptly, and not longer than one year from the adoption of this Redevelopment Plan, the Belvedere Hotel, which is currently a vacant and blighted property, will continue to impact adversely on Bristol's downtown. Given that this plan calls for a delayed implementation of up to one year following the adoption of this plan and ordinance, the condemnation of this site will not occur until such time during that year that the agency should determine that insufficient progress has been made, thereby giving the owners a clear opportunity to carry out their plans.

Note: The Bristol Redevelopment Agency may change that one-year deadline to 90 days.

The town's redevelopment powers
Under the state's Redevelopment Act of 1956, the Bristol Redevelopment Agency has the right to "undertake specific activities to reverse the cycle of deterioration within specific properties in Bristol's downtown," including the Belvedere Hotel. Those include:

• Working with current owners to upgrade and/or rehabilitate their properties.
  
• Property acquisition, by purchase or eminent domain, if private efforts fail within the time frame identified in the town's redevelopment plan.
  
• Clearance and re-grading of vacant parcels.
  
• Disposition of acquired property to achieve the goals of the redevelopment plan.
  
• Installation of public rights of way for the purposes of improving vehicular and pedestrian circulation.
  
• Other site improvements.

---

Bristol Phoenix: www.eastbaynewspapers.com

Eminent domain to secure land for Ace: Beloit (WI) Daily News, 9/30/05

Land declared blighted to begin process

By Rebekah Danaher
In planning to move Ace Hardware to a central downtown location, the City of Beloit's Community Development Authority (CDA) will acquire properties in the 400 block of Broad Street and 200 block of Pleasant Street through eminent domain.

The CDA voted Wednesday night to utilize eminent domain after declaring several properties blighted.

Ace Hardware will move from its Pleasant Street location to Broad Street by 2007 following action taken by the Beloit City Council Sept. 6. The city council approved a development agreement between Harris Ace Hardware and the City of Beloit, approving the city's purchase of the Ace Hardware property. The planned use for the property is to extend park property along the shores of the Rock River.

Both the City Council and the City Plan Commission recommended the project and the council authorized the CDA to acquire the properties on Broad Street through eminent domain for occupation by the new Ace store.

Stateline Properties, LLC - a Ken Hendricks company - owns the parcels at 210 and 214 Pleasant Street and 440 and 448 Broad Street. Martin Kades owns parcels at 430 and 434 Broad Street and 441 St. Paul. Roger Bryden's RVB Partnership owns the land at 426 Broad Street.

The City Council does not have jurisdiction to give land to a private company. The CDA can do so through eminent domain if it determines the properties are blighted. The CDA held a public hearing Wednesday, deciding that the properties are blighted.

According to 66.1333(2m)(3)(bm) State Statutes, an area may be designated as blighted due to a number of structural and conditional characteristics such as unsafe structures, obsolete platting, fire hazards or diversity of ownership - anything that "substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the community."

Labeling a property as blighted does not mean the structure is ready to collapse, Assistant City Manager Steve Gregg said, rather the city looks for any factors to qualify it for such a designation.

Gregg said obtaining the land by eminent domain as opposed to traditional means is preferred as it safeguards against any landowner refusing to sell and preventing the entire block from coming into the CDA's possession. Despite a "scary" connotation, Gregg said eminent domain does protect landowners by ensuring them the market value for their property.

Law requires the city to provide alternative sites for business owners displaced through eminent domain. The city will hire an appraiser to assess the land but must also pay for a second appraiser if the owners requests a second opinion. The city also will hire a relocation specialist to plan the move of the existing tenants.

Roger Bryden, owner of RVB Partnership, owns the land at 426 Broad St., previously occupied by Normington's Cleaners. Bryden said he had intended to sell the land to Blackhawk Bank if it chose to expand and said he isn't particularly thrilled with the CDA's intent to exercise eminent domain.

Bryden claims he never personally received a letter from the city and only had a casual conversation about the property with City Manager Larry Arft several months ago. Though expressing his confidence in Arft's plan, Bryden said he preferred to be talked to directly about the matter.

Bryden said he hoped the city would offer him a satisfactory price for his land "or we're going to have a good arm wrestling match," he said.

But Gregg said the city did send a letter to RVB Partnership and the other property owners. A letter dated Sept. 2 provided to the Beloit Daily News by the city includes details on the agreement with Ace and the intent to host a public hearing on Sept. 28, inviting the property owners to make known any concerns. The city also supplied the receipt from the letter delivered to RVB Partnership on Sept. 3.

Gregg said the city is not required to notify the store owners, but as a courtesy he spoke with the owners of La Belle Boutique and Bumper to Bumper at 430 Broad St.

Oscar Roman, owner of La Belle Boutique on Broad Street, said he never received a letter and does recall a brief phone conversation with a city staff person but only after he contacted the city. Roman said he will be sorry to leave his downtown spot where his clothing and accessories store has been for the past nine months.

"Most of these businesses are so big they can find customers anywhere," he said. "It's the smaller businesses that suffer"

Roman said he hopes to at least be moved to a desirable location as a result of the deal.

---

Beloit Daily News: www.beloitdailynews.com

Curb on eminent domain possible: The Kentucky Post, 10/1/05

By Stephenie Steitzer
Legislation that would curb the use of eminent domain likely will be on the Kentucky General Assembly's 2006 agenda when it convenes in January.

Northern Kentucky legislators think there is enough bipartisan support to pass a law in the next session that would limit how cities and counties can take private property for economic development projects.

"I think members of both parties are interested in reining in some of the powers that have been given to state and local governments to acquire property through condemnation," said Rep. Joe Fischer, R-Fort Thomas, a member of the joint legislative judiciary committee that heard testimony on the issue last spring.

A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in June has infused some momentum into the cause, he said.

In Kelo v. City of New London, the high court ruled that private property could be taken for a private good if it also benefits the public - building a shopping center, for example.

The 5-4 decision, however, also said states have the right to place further restrictions on the use of eminent domain.

Some Kentucky legislators said they are particularly interested in rescinding a provision in state law that allows cities to declare property blighted as a pretext to then acquire it by eminent domain for redevelopment.

That is precisely what has happened in Newport, where the city has struck a deal with Montgomery, Ohio-based Bear Creek Capital to develop a retail project on 55 acres just west of Interstate 471 in the Cote Brilliante neighborhood.

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

The city then set its sights on 123 properties needed for the project. Most of the owners negotiated sale deals with the city, but about a dozen filed suit in Campbell Circuit Court last year.

Circuit Judge Leonard Kopowski ruled in June 2004 that the city was entitled to use eminent domain, which allows governments to take property for a public purpose at a fair price to property owners, for the project.

The property owners who sued appealed the decision to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which ruled Friday in the city's favor.

Newport City Manager Phil Ciafardini said Kentucky "already has a lot of restrictions" on how eminent domain is used and taking away a city's ability to declare property "blighted" would hinder important redevelopment.

"There's no question that the revitalization of Newport and other urban areas would not be possible without our ability to look at blight issues in the community," said Ciafardini.

"Without that ability, we would not have projects like the Newport Aquarium or Newport on the Levee, and it would really thwart our redevelopment efforts. A city like ours needs to have that ability."

But Sen. Jack Westwood, R-Crescent Springs, called Newport's eminent domain action in the Bear Creek Capital development "un-American."

Westwood said he expects a legislator - who has yet to be determined - to prefile a bill limiting eminent domain before the session starts in January.

He said he would likely be a co-sponsor.

Ciafardini declined to reply to Westwood's characterization of Newport's tack in the Cote Brilliant redevelopment.

The Kentucky League of Property owners and other property rights groups have banded together to lobby the General Assembly.

The league would like to prohibit government from taking private property for any economic development purpose, said Tim Nolan, former Newport city attorney and founder of the Campbell County chapter of the league.

Property rights advocates also want legislators to stop cities from declaring property blighted for the purpose of eminent domain.

Nolan said eminent domain should be restricted to its original purpose of allowing for infrastructure like roads and sewers to be constructed.

Rep. Gross Lindsay, D-Henderson, co-chair of the judiciary committee, said he suspects a bill restricting eminent domain will be filed in the next session. He isn't sure, however, how far such a measure might go to limit cities' authority.

"I would think something would come out," he said. "What it would be I don't know."

The Kentucky League of Cities is lobbying legislators to preserve the use of eminent domain as an important economic tool for cities.

In Ohio, senators have introduced a bill that would establish a moratorium until Dec. 31, 2006, on the use of eminent domain to take property located outside a blighted area for the purpose of economic development.

During the moratorium, a legislative task force would study eminent domain and its impact on land use planning in Ohio.

---

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