12/19/2005

Oklahoma Group Urges Citizen Action Against Eminent Domain Threat: Agape Press, 12/16/05

By Allie Martin

A petition drive that seeks to prevent any government official from condemning and then seizing private property in Oklahoma for economic development under eminent domain laws is now in its final days in that state.

This past June the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Kelo v. New London that government can seize property and transfer it to another private owner if the change in ownership is for the "public good." However, a group called Oklahomans in Action plans to turn in a petition on Monday that would allow the voters in their state to decide the fate of an initiative that would protect Oklahoma residents' property rights.

Pat Highland, one of the people helping to coordinate the Oklahomans in Action petition drive, calls the Kelo v. New London ruling "a frightening expansion of government power." She says people are being asked to sign the petition so "we can stop this in its tracks in Oklahoma. Our state is one of the first that is dealing with this issue since the Kelo decision nationally."

That landmark court case pitted the city of New London, Connecticut, against Susette Kelo, who fought the city for years to keep her home from being seized to make room for a major commercial development. Critics of the decision in that eminent domain case note that it leaves individuals, churches, and other private property owners vulnerable to commercial interests.

Fighting Kelo is important, Highland explains, because private homes and churches generally do not produce a tax revenue. That means government can now legally seize their land pretty much whenever "any developer ... decides they want to come in and take that corner spot and that it's for the 'public good,'" she says.

"This is not the definition of eminent domain," the citizen activist asserts. "This about power and greed that can just come in and say, 'Okay, we want your home, we want your church,' and we really don't own our property, so to speak."

Oklahomans in Action must turn in its petition Monday. Members of the group are also gathering signatures for another petition, which supports asking voters to adopt a plan similar to Colorado's taxpayer bill of rights, or TABOR.


Agape Press: http://headlines.agapepress.org

No eminent domain? Reinforce the promise: Palm Beach (FL) Post, 12/17/05

Editorial

Today's first of several workshops of the Riviera Beach City Council, meeting as the Community Redevelopment Agency board, should confirm what members have pledged all along: They do not intend to use eminent domain to accomplish the city's downtown waterfront redevelopment.

CRA Director Floyd Johnson says he welcomes the opportunity to dispel rumors.

"We in Florida," he said, "are distinctly different in our ability to exercise eminent domain from what the Supreme Court approved in New London, Connecticut. We are required to demonstrate slum and blight before eminent domain can be entertained. It can't be just for economic reasons, and people have blurred that line between Connecticut and Florida."

That's important because residents such as Martha Babson have challenged the state-required blight study. "We paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for our study," says City Council and CRA Chairwoman Elizabeth Wade. "If it is flawed, the state's process is flawed." Although the study's coauthor acknowledges that every individual building in the undeniably blighted area need not be blighted, however, the Legislature is looking into cleaning up some of its criteria.

Ms. Babson is hardly the face of the redevelopment challenge in the predominantly African-American city. Why thousands more should be denied benefits so she and others can continue living comfortably near the waterfront is the redevelopment plan's politically incorrect question.

But Ms. Wade is correct that relocated residents and businesses "have to be made whole. Every consideration has to be given, and the city has already done what people are now telling the Legislature we have got to do. We have had a relocation package in place since Skypass," the port bridge which she says required no eminent domain.

It is encouraging that Mr. Johnson promises to update the board on how in the two months since being selected as developer, Viking Inlet Harbor Properties has reduced the number of properties needed by quietly amassing them. "We don't want to throw out the Babsons to make room for the rich. We're trying to use the assets we have to accomplish the greater good, and we hope to stay focused on that while being sensitive."

The lay board's infighting and lack of financial acumen have caused delay, thus keeping too many in limbo for too long. Potentially project-busting property prices, meanwhile, have risen. If eminent domain isn't to be an issue, Riviera officials' rosy vision needs to move toward redevelopment reality.


Palm Beach Post: www.palmbeachpost.com

Berks using eminent domain to take over disputed property: Pottstown (PA) Mercury, 12/16/2005

By Sharon Spohn

Berks County played its "trump card" Thursday and filed a petition in county court to take the Antietam Lake property by eminent domain.

The property has been the subject of much controversy after the Reading City Council voted 4-3 to sign an option to buy agreement with M.B. Investments. The lake once served as a reservoir for Reading and the area is presently used for passive public recreation.

The county commissioners voted unanimously Thursday to file the petition.

"I was probably the one least interested all along in filing eminent domain," said Commissioner Judy Schwank. "My hope is when the new council is seated in January, we can withdraw this and move forward."

Commissioner Mark Scott said the action takes the county to higher ground and gives it a position of strength.

"It’s a trump card that should have been played a long time ago," Scott said. "It has the ability to clear the decks of all parties and assures the city gets fair compensation."

Commissioner Thomas Gajewski Sr. had some concerns about wording in the eminent domain paperwork that said public baths may be one of the things the county can construct on the property.

"I doubt anyone would want to create a public bath anywhere," Gajewski said.

Scott said the document was created by professional attorneys the county hired to make sure it has the maximum effectiveness.

"My concern has always been the cost — the final cost of the property," Schwank said.

Berks County offered $4 million for the property and plans to add it to the county park system.

M.B. Investments offered $2.5 million for half interest in the property with the city with a promise to preserve it for 20 years. After that time, M.B. Investments and the city would jointly decide what to do with the land.

"Let’s not forget this property has increased in value considerably," Scott said. "By doing this now we can freeze a point in time, the appreciation."

The county has a 60-day revocation period where it can halt the eminent domain process.

"Let’s hope we begin the new year with the acquisition of this property," Schwank said.


Pottstown Mercury: www.pottstownmercury.com

Is Ardmore eminent domain battle over? Main Line Times (Ardmore PA), 12/15/2005

By Cheryl Allison

Could the eminent domain fight in Ardmore be over? There were signs this week it might just be.

While most followers of Pennsylvania's new eminent domain law effort were taking a cautiously optimistic view of the effect last week's unanimous Senate vote to pass SB 881 might have on the Ardmore situation, one person was ready to say it flat out.

That person was Lower Merion Board of Commissioners President Matt Comisky.

The eminent domain bill, if it becomes law as expected, "will completely change what we can do in Ardmore," Comisky said. "It will limit what our flexibility is."

While Comisky has been a supporter of the controversial redevelopment plan known as Option B, he has consistently pointed out that it never dictated that eminent domain would be used to take several businesses on Lancaster Avenue.

However, he was clear that under the provisions of SB 881, it would not be an option. The bill prohibits taking of private property and transferring it to another private owner for the purpose of economic development. (Exceptions were added late in the debate last week for the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and for Delaware County.) The bill, written by Senate Majority Whip Jeffrey Piccola (R-Dauphin), still has to go back to the House, which passed a stronger version in November by a vote of 172-25. It also has to go to Gov. Ed Rendell for his signature. But observers were confident, based on the Senate vote, there are enough votes for an override, even if he should veto it. State Sen. Connie Williams, whose 17th District includes Lower Merion, initially co-sponsored Piccola's bill, then withdrew her sponsorship. She wasn't convinced it would help communities like Norristown, also in her district, in need of redevelopment. Piccola had initially been reluctant to accept amendments to the bill, she said.

Williams voted in favor of the bill last week. "After all that, there was a lot of negotiation. I think we came out with a pretty good bill. It protects Ardmore," she said, but still provides for the use of eminent domain in some cases under a new, stricter definition of blight.

Williams said she expected action on a House version to come fairly quickly, and that it could go to Rendell and be signed "before the end of the year." Because of issues such as the legislative pay raise, "People want to get things done," she said, describing the mood in Harrisburg. The law would take effect 120 days after it is signed.

Comisky said, even with that gap, the Lower Merion board - five new members of which will be seated in January - is "not going to try to rush this" to beat a new law. "There's no possibility," he said. The township still must complete a required environmental assessment for the proposed new Ardmore train station, and it still has not finished writing a request for proposals from developers. That RFP won't go out until at least February or March. A new law "will clearly change the RFP," Comisky said. "Many of the projects [in the plan] will still continue," such as the train station and new parking, he said. "It will be a question of where and how we build it."

Can the township still come up with a successful plan to revitalize Ardmore? Comisky was asked. "I think we have to," he answered. "I view it as an alternative in our plan. We have to move forward."

Sharon Eckstein, president of the Save Ardmore Coalition, which has opposed eminent domain as a part of Ardmore redevelopment, said she is "very pleased and very heartened" by the Senate vote. She noted it was a bi-partisan vote that shows the issue "resonates with people and with our elected officials. ... I'm confident the House and Senate will reach together a bill that will protect Pennsylvania residents from eminent domain abuse."

Without having heard Comisky's comments, Ardmore business owner Scott Mahan, whose Suburban Office Equipment has been among the targeted properties, said that given SB 881's success, "It would make sense to take eminent domain off the table now and not slow down the progress of moving a better plan forward."

That would "channel the energy of SAC and its supporters toward advancing a plan that all could live with," he said.


Main Line Times: www.zwire.com

Officials — Eminent domain initiative likely in Missouri: Kansas City (KS) Business Journal, 12/16/05

By Jim Davis

Missouri voters probably will see an initiative next year on eminent domain, according to a presentation the Economic Development Corp. of Kansas City's board heard Friday.

Spencer Thomson, a member of a state-appointed task force on eminent domain, said the property rights issue has become inflammatory. Property rights advocates, led by the Institute for Justice in Washington, are "exaggerating facts" and "playing to emotions," Thomson said.

Thomson, a lawyer at Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP in Kansas City, said the institute has targeted Missouri. He predicted that a ballot measure on eminent domain could be slotted in August or November.

The issue came to the forefront in June, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the city of New London, Conn., was entitled to take homeowners' property for an office, hotel and convention center complex. Since then, Thomson said, public opinion has galvanized against eminent domain.

Greg Williams, an aide to Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes, said he's confident the General Assembly won't take draconian action in 2006 after receiving the task force's recommendations.

EDC board member Peter Yelorda said that lobbying needs to extend to labor unions, construction companies and other groups that sway public opinion.

"We can't win this with the dialogue we usually have," said Yelorda, who also chairs the Tax Increment Financing Commission of Kansas City. "We need to have the public understand our position."

Eminent domain regularly enters the TIF Commission's purview, Yelorda said. On Wednesday, property owner Old Republic Title Co. urged the commission to prevent the Power & Light Building's owner from using eminent domain because Old Republic wanted more money than the building owner had offered. The commission didn't accept the argument and voted to let the redevelopment proceed.

Gary Sage, chairman of the EDC's legislative committee, said he expects unprecedented heat next year in Jefferson City on eminent domain and tax increment financing.

"This spring will be the most dramatic shift in economic development priorities in the last 20 years," Sage said.


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

State constitutional amendment on eminent domain to be on 2006 ballot: Craine's Detroit (MI) Business, 12/14/05

would strengthen private-property rights

By Amy Lane

A constitutional amendment designed to strengthen private-property owners’ rights will go before Michigan voters in 2006, in the wake of legislative passage on Tuesday.

Senate Joint Resolution E, if approved by voters, would insert new language into Michigan’s Constitution that would make it more difficult for governments to condemn blighted property.

The measure increases governments’ burden of proof to show why the condemnation is needed, and it creates a higher test of public use that governments must meet in using eminent domain to remove blight.

Governments condemning private property would have to demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that the taking is for a public use. That’s a higher standard than the “preponderance” of evidence required for a general condemnation of private property.

Such groups as the Michigan Municipal League have said the language would stifle redevelopment efforts and make it “prohibitive” for municipalities to use eminent domain in attempts to clear blighted property.

But supporters say it’s appropriate that governments must meet a high standard when taking private property to eradicate blight. Patrick Wright, senior legal analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said in a news release that the constitutional amendment “would significantly strengthen private-property rights in Michigan.”

Among other things, the amendment will require “that when government officials base a taking on ‘blight,’ they provide clear and convincing proof of blight on a property-by-property basis, thereby preventing them from casually condemning entire neighborhoods,” he said.

The amendment would also require any entity taking residential property to pay the home owner at least 125 percent of the property’s market value.

Spurring the legislative action is the June U.S. Supreme Court decision in an eminent-domain case from New London, Conn.

In that case, Kelo v. New London, the U.S. Supreme Court said economic development was a legitimate government reason to invoke eminent domain, but states can set their own restrictions on condemnation that give greater protection to property owners.

The court cited Michigan’s 2004 Wayne County v. Hathcock ruling as an example of how states can set stricter standards on takings. Property-rights supporters say further restrictions are needed.


Craine's Detroit Business: www.crainsdetroit.com

Barnitz to sponsor eminent domain legislation: Rolla (MO) Daily News, 12/13/05

By Janese Heavin

Sen. Frank Barnitz plans to sponsor eminent domain legislation and to oppose the governor’s 65 percent plan in the upcoming legislative session.

Barnitz’s bill would allow eminent domain to be used for public infrastructure like roads or utilities but would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic purposes. It would also redefine how an area is deemed “blighted” and would include a penalty provision for public entities that do not offer a fair price.

Barnitz expects his to be one of numerous eminent domain bills proposed this session.

“Everybody wants to get on the bandwagon,” he said. “There’s no doubt there’s been abuse of eminent domain the past.”

Barnitz said he is 99 percent sure that eminent domain legislation will be approved in the coming year, but he is not sure what the final version of a bill will look like.

Developers testified during Gov. Matt Blunt’s eminent domain task force meetings, touting the benefits of economic development and the need for eminent domain to make those projects a reality. Blunt and the Republican majority have been sympathetic to businesses in the past and have made economic growth a top state priority.

“It’s questionable how strong an eminent domain law will become because of strong issues and interests surrounding the Republican Party,” Barnitz said.


Rolla Daily News: www.therolladailynews.com

12/18/2005

Eminent Domain to Benefit Slots: Buffalo (NY) Pundit, 12/12/05

By Jack Davis

Our ne’er-do-well governor and our inept state legislature, with its typical noblesse-oblige way of dealing with Western and Upstate New York, decided that the best thing in the whole wide world to revitalize our moribund economy would be casinos. Indian casinos.

The New York State constitution prohibits Vegas-style gambling (although, apparently somehow Keno, Lotto, MegaMillions, Racetracks, OTB, and video racinos are hunky-dory). Federal law, however, trumps State Law, so we can’t prohibit a federally recognized Indian tribe from setting up casinos pursuant to a compact with the State.

Pataki executed such a compact with the Senecas, granting them the exclusive right to operate casinos in WNY [Western New York]. Specifically, three of them, only one of which is actually located on an Indian Reservation. The other two - one in Niagara Falls, and the other in Buffalo - are sited on little exclaves. Little portions of New York State territory have been carved out and ceded to the sovereign Indian nation, which isn’t technically part of New York.

In return, the State gets 25% of the slot revenues from the casinos. Not the tables, not anything but slots. The State is then supposed to give about 25% of its share to the host municipality.

Buffalo’s casino will be in the Cobblestone District. That’s a whole separate story.

Niagara Falls’ casino was located in the old, leaky Convention Center. It’s the place to go to see septuagenarians smoke cigarettes in a public indoor setting. If you miss walking out of a place stinking like a carton of Lucky’s, this is your go-to place. If you can’t get enough of tan Buicks making right turns at 2 mph, get thyself to the Falls.

Snark, snark, snark, right? Well, until now probably most people in WNY haven’t really given a shit about the casinos. They see them as not the greatest thing, but at best a necessary evil to get some jobs going and some money in local coffers.

Here’s something to piss off even the most die-hard Sandy Beach caller: Eminent Domain.

We all remember the Kelo v. New London SCOTUS decision from earlier this year, which permits governments to take private property under eminent domain and then sell it to a preferred developer for newer, more lucrative private development. Lots of people were extremely upset about that decision. Since then, legislatures across the country have acted to counterbalance Kelo’s ruling.

Now, we have the State of New York taking private property in Niagara Falls by eminent domain and then ceding it to a foreign sovereign nation for casino development.

Patricia Van Egmond’s Fifth Street home has been in her family since 1937. It breaks her heart to imagine a bulldozer knocking it down to make room so a casino can expand.

Van Egmond, 71, opposes a controversial plan by New York State to force property owners to sell 26 acres of Niagara Falls land for use by the Seneca Nation of Indians.

The land - including homes, a hotel, restaurants and a multimillion-dollar water park - would be purchased by the state and turned over to the Senecas.

The Senecas plan to tear it all down and build at least one new hotel, parking facilities and other amenities for their Seneca Niagara Casino. One hotel owner, facing the state’s threat, sold his hotel to the Senecas last week.

The state casino agreement with the Seneca Nation has different provisions for Buffalo, so most people dismiss the idea of a similar situation occurring as the Senecas build a casino in the Cobblestone District.

But in Niagara Falls, the state said it intends to use eminent-domain powers to obtain property for the Senecas. Eminent domain refers to the constitutional power of government to force people to sell their property for use in projects that benefit the public.

According to several experts, the Niagara Falls case is extremely rare - possibly the first time in the United States that a government has used eminent domain to obtain land for a Native American casino.

This makes the facts in Kelo look downright benign by comparison. In that case, the public benefit was more taxes from new waterfront condos. In this case, the public benefit is cash from slot machines. (Assuming the taken property would actually be used for a casino purpose that would benefit the State).


Buffalo Pundit: http://buffalopundit.wnymedia.net

Eminent Domain Revisited: Gotham Gazette (New York NY), 12/12/05

By Mark Berkey-Gerard

Three proposed development projects in NYC that may involve the condemning of private property: Columbia University expansion, Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, new Mets stadium in Willets Point, Queens.

Joy Chatel fears she will lose the house that has been her life for decades.

The four-story brick building on Duffield Street in Brooklyn serves as her home, a classroom where she home schools her seven grandchildren, and a business where she operates a hair salon.

Under the city’s plan to rezone and develop downtown Brooklyn, approximately 130 residences and 100 businesses, including Chatel’s, would be condemned. The city says the plan to replace them is a key element in a larger strategy to retain jobs that are leaving for New Jersey and elsewhere – and that it will ultimately benefit the residents of Brooklyn and the entire city.

Chatel argues there is more at stake than her private property. She and several other building owners in the area say that their houses are historic treasures where slaves found sanctuary as part of the “underground railroad,” a claim the city disputes.

“Oral history is all we have to prove there was an underground railroad,” she told the Daily News. “It’s not like they have a neon sign outside.”

In New York City, the government's power to take over private property — eminent domain — is a factor in so many pending development projects that the one involving Joy Chatel’s home is actually among the least-known current battles.

In Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, the real estate developer Forest City Ratner Companies has a proposal to take over private homes and businesses and replace them with the Atlantic Yards project, a basketball arena, thousands of condos, and 16 towers.

In upper Manhattan, Columbia University is considering eminent domain as an option in its efforts to expand its campus.

And in Willets Point, Queens, the city is looking to replace a 13-block area that is home to scrap metal yards and auto shops with a waterfront shopping district to complement a new stadium for the New York Mets.

New York City’s landscape has been remade over and over again, and in the process hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers have lost their private property so that the government can build roads, bridges, public housing, parks, playgrounds, and hospitals.

The concept of eminent domain – and debate surrounding the practice - dates back to the founding of the nation.

“Eminent domain means the power of the crown over his or her domain,” said Dwight Merriam, author of the book Eminent Domain Use and Abuse. “The theory is that the government really owns all of the property and can take it back whenever it wants.”

The nation’s founders tried to address the issue in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizens “just compensation” when private property is taken for “public use.”

But what exactly is a “public use”?

Until the case of Berman vs. Parker in 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that it was for such clearly public physical structures as bridges, highways, schools, and train tracks.

Today, in an era when government and private developers often work closely with one another, the term “public use” is used for sports stadiums, corporate headquarters, office buildings, museums, and even shopping malls.

NEW YORK’S EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS
In New York State, eminent domain can be used to remove areas of “blight” – which means deteriorating, vacant, or obsolete buildings or even oddly shaped parcels of land. Historically, the courts and lawmakers have used the term “blight” rather liberally.

For 40 years, “master builder” Robert Moses, made use of the power to level entire neighborhoods for projects like the West Side highway, Lincoln Center, and the Triborough Bridge

An entire downtown neighborhood, including a string of small electronics shops known as "Radio Row," was demolished to make way for the World Trade Center.

In the 1980s, the city and state condemned property in Times Square to rid the area of sex shops and other abandoned buildings. Currently, on 43rd Street, the New York Times is building a new headquarters on a property obtained through eminent domain.

In 2001, the state took over several buildings on Wall Street in order to make way for an expansion of the New York Stock Exchange, an idea which never became a reality.

And recently in Harlem, a dozen businesses were demolished to make way for a Home Depot.

THE KELO vs. NEW LONDON CASE
The issue of eminent domain gained a new level of attention last summer when the United States Supreme Court ruled that the government could use eminent domain to take away private property and then sell it to a private developer.

In the case, known as Kelo vs. New London, the court ruled in a 5 to 4 vote that the city of New London, Connecticut could take the property of 15 homeowners for the purpose of economic development. The city plans to transfer the property to developers who will build office space, a hotel, housing, and a riverfront esplanade.

The Kelo case has sparked new debate among legal and planning experts.

Some say that while eminent domain is appropriate to build schools or hospitals, it should not benefit private developers, because it can too easily abused.

“We never hear that eminent domain should be used to take a Hyatt and build mixed-income housing,” said Susan Fainstein a professor of urban studies at Columbia University. “It is always about taking property away from poor people and give it to someone who is much better off.”

Others say that if a project produces tax revenue and jobs, economic development can be considered legitimate “public purpose.”

“We shouldn’t think that these projects are `bad’ just because they are the work of private developers,” said Jerilyn Perine, who served as housing commissioner under Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

BACKLASH AGAINST EMINENT DOMAIN
Concern over the Kelo case has also inspired a flurry of legislation at the national and local level.

In Congress, a bill, dubbed the “Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, has already passed the House and is awaiting a vote in the Senate. It would withhold federal aid from states that Congress believes abuse eminent domain.

In New York, there are several bills being considered in Albany, including a package of legislation drafted by Assemblymember Richard Brodsky which would slow down local eminent domain proceedings, create an ombudsman to oversee the use of the law, and require 150 percent of market value be paid for private property that the government takes over. This week, the New York City Council will hold hearings on the subject.

And recently opponents of eminent domain claimed victory when the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the city of Port Chester, New York failed to properly alert a businessman of his right to challenge an eminent domain decision before the government seized his four buildings to make way for a convenience store. The court’s decision, some said, was a warning to local governments who may be tempted to take private property without properly notifying the people who own it.

THREE CURRENT EMINENT DOMAIN PROJECTS IN NEW YORK CITY
While the experts debate how eminent domain should be used, residents and businesses in neighborhoods where it is being considered struggle to preserve the future of their communities.

Atlantic Yards and Prospect Heights, Brooklyn
In December 2003, developer Bruce Ratner, along with Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Governor George Pataki, unveiled plans for a massive project in downtown Brooklyn, known as the “Atlantic Yards.” The latest version of the plan would build a Frank Gehry designed basketball arena for the New Jersey Nets and 16 skyscrapers with office space and 7,300 apartments.

In order to acquire the 22 acres of land needed for the project, New York’s Empire State Development Corporation is planning to use the government’s power of eminent domain to condemn two parcels of land.

Opponents of eminent domain say that the state would take over approximately 53 properties. Local groups, which oppose the plan, say more than 330 residents, 33 businesses with 235 employees, and a 400 person homeless shelter will be displaced by the project.

And Daniel Goldstein, who works for the group Develop Don’t Destroy [Brooklyn] and lives in the area of the proposed development, warns that the definition of “blight” could apply to any neighborhood in the city.

“On any six square block in this city you will find a property that might be `dilapidated’ or `structurally unsound’ or `vacant,’ and all throughout the city nearly every property could be considered `economically underutilized,’” said Goldstein.

However some in the area, including many local officials, have praised the development, in particular for the "community benefits agreement" with neighborhood representatives that promises that 50 percent of the 4,500 rental apartments will go to low and middle-income residents, with 10 percent of these set aside for seniors. The project also sets aside 35 percent of the jobs for minority workers and another 10 percent for women.

But even some supporters of the project, like Assemblymember Roger Green, question the use of eminent domain.

“Under the definition of blight, as related to poverty or environmental degradation, this definition is not related to Prospect Heights,” Green said at recent state hearing.

Columbia University Expansion, Manhattanville
Columbia University plans to build a new campus in Manhatanville.

Last summer, Anne Whitman, who runs a moving company out of her building on Broadway and 129th Street, received a letter from Columbia University informing her that the institution planned to build a biotech research center where her business stands.

Columbia offered to help Whitman find a single-floor building outside of Manhattan; she rejected the offer.

“Since then,” Whitman said, “it has been all out war.”

Columbia University plans to spend $5 billion over the next 25 years to build a new campus in upper Manhattan. The 18-acre complex would stretch from West 125th Street to West 133rd Street between 12th Avenue and Broadway and would house biotech research facilities, a building for its art school, student and faculty housing, and administrative buildings.

The university says the campus will create 14,500 permanent jobs in the area.

Columbia hopes to convince area residents and businesses that there is a mutually acceptable resolution. Failing that, it has suggested that the state could use eminent domain to transfer control of these properties.

However, local businesses, community board members, and students at Columbia University oppose the plan and criticize its approach to the negotiations with the community.

For some of the area’s landowners, the talk of eminent domain has poisoned negotiations.

“They say ‘deal with us now or deal with the state later,’” said Whitman, who also sits on Community Board Nine. “It’s like having a gun to your head.”

Willets Point, Queens
The area of Willets Point, Queens may become a shopping area next to a new Mets Stadium.

For decades, city planners have had their eye on Willets Point, a 13-block area on a peninsula on the Flushing River that is home to scrap metal yards and auto shops.

In the 1960s, Robert Moses attempted to force out the local business owners to make way for the World’s Fair. In the 1990s, the New York Mets wanted to build a new stadium on the land. Recently, some have proposed a new stadium for the New York Jets football team or facilities for the now-defunct 2012 Olympic bid on the grounds. All of these plans failed.

Now, the city is determined to transform the area to include an attractive waterfront shopping and residential enclave, which would complement another proposed stadium for the New York Mets.

Although the city will not discuss the details of its plans at the current time, scrap metal yard owners fear that eminent domain may be used to move them out.

“Sounds to me like they’re going to pull a sneak attack,” said Richard Musick, president of the Willets Point Business Association.

There is little doubt that the area – which is riddled with large potholes and abandoned cars, and even lacks plumbing in some areas – will meet the definition of “blight.” And some local officials, like Councilmember John Liu expresses confidence that the owners “will be given fair compensation, and relocated, if necessary.”

But the scrap metal and auto shop owners say that it will be nearly impossible to find other neighborhoods that would welcome their businesses.


Gotham Gazette: www.gothamgazette.com

Masters of their domain? St Louis (MO) Post-Dispatch, 12/11/05

By Jason Lee

St. Charles could join ranks with O'Fallon by outlawing the seizure of private property for economic development projects such as a shopping center.

City Councilman John Gieseke, Ward 8, wants the city to forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development without the property owner's consent. The proposed legislation would bar the controversial practice for projects meant to "increase tax revenue, tax base, employment or general economic health."

"If the city wants to redevelop an area, this ordinance will make the developer understand that they're going to have to pay fair market value and work with people who own property in St. Charles," Gieseke said.

However, the city could still approve eminent domain for public uses, such as a road, hospital or military base. The ordinance also wouldn't restrict the transfer of land for use by railroad or utility companies as well as to remove abandoned or uninhabitable properties.

In July, O'Fallon officials unanimously passed an ordinance limiting the use of eminent domain for streets, parks and public water and sewer systems, but not for economic development.

That decision came after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on June 23 that the Constitution requires only the possibility of economic gain for government to acquire private property from one individual for the benefit of another. The decision was interpreted as meaning a developer building a strip mall would be providing as much public benefit as a government organization taking land to construct a new road.

The St. Charles County Council also weighed in by passing a resolution July 11 stating it "sternly disagrees" with the court's decision.

In October, St. Charles officials granted eminent domain power to Lindenwood University to acquire a 4-acre site for construction of its long-planned fine and performing arts center. The parcel included three vacant buildings as well as a heating and air conditioning business. In the end, Lindenwood officials avoided using eminent domain by negotiating sale of the properties, but that didn't deter residents from speaking out against the controversial practice.

One of those was Kevin Rogers, who last month told the council he's concerned the city could eventually force the sale of his Dairy Queen at 2195 First Capitol Drive for redevelopment. Rogers said the restaurant has been at that location since 1962.

"I'm strongly opposed to somebody coming and taking away my Dairy Queen to develop it and make some developer rich," Rogers said.

Gieseke said Rogers' comments weighed heavily on his decision. Gieseke said he wants to offer some comfort to residents and "bring the worry out of people's minds." He said other council members could join him in sponsoring the bill.

"Right now it doesn't matter if a business is successful or not," Gieseke said. "It can still be taken and that's not right."

Limits to eminent domain also could come from Jefferson City. A task force appointed by Gov. Matt Blunt recently recommended 18 changes to state law. Blunt plans to review and present those recommendations to legislators for consideration in January.

Among the recommendations, the report argues property should only be condemned for public use, such as for utilities or tearing down blighted property. The task force also said legislators should tighten the state's standards for declaring property as blighted when eminent domain is used.


St Louis Post-Dispatch: www.stltoday.com

Eminent domain abuse in Colorado

The Colorado Citizens for Property Rights has established a website at www.theccpr.com. The site has links to a number of specific eminent domain abuse cases in Colorado and Texas.

12/17/2005

Eminent domain fears are exaggerated: Minneapolis (MN) Star-Tribune, 12/9/05

Editorial
They're mostly red meat for the talk-radio crowd

What seemed a routine Supreme Court decision affirming the land-condemnation powers used by cities for 50 years and rooted deeply in the Fifth Amendment has ignited a national firestorm.

Few object to the justly compensated "taking" of private property for roads, schools and other direct public purposes. What bothers people is the use of eminent domain to benefit private development and the public tax base. But while that sounds alarming at first hearing, it's much ado about not very much. Mostly the case has provided an opening for right-wing property-rights groups to sow fears about big, bad government. "Your home could be next!" is a popular warning. Left-wing activists, too, have joined the chorus, vilifying cities as co-conspirators with wealthy developers to gentrify urban America.

Truth is, the court's decision in Kelo vs. New London, issued last June, changed federal law not one iota. What has changed is the fearful hype on both extremes. Already the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill to dissuade local governments from using eminent domain powers if developers benefit. Texas, Alabama and Delaware have passed new restrictive laws; 30 other states, including Minnesota, are eager to follow.

But everyone should take a deep breath and consider the consequences. Yes, some abuses have occurred, but there is no epidemic of abuse. Eminent domain is used sparingly in most states, including Minnesota. Its real value lies not in its execution but in its leverage. Just having the authority to condemn blighted land has been enough to help hundreds of cities reclaim abandoned industrial waterfronts, derelict warehouses and substandard residences for the greater good.

Those in Minnesota eager to impose new restrictions must explain why it's not in the state's best interest to have redevelopment projects like St. Louis Park's $150 million Excelsior & Grand. "We didn't condemn property, but everyone knew we had the big stick," said former Mayor Gail Dorfman, now a Hennepin County commissioner.

Opponents must explain why similar projects in Anoka and Chaska shouldn't happen. Anoka is condemning six properties to move ahead with a $90 million conversion of an old industrial area near a future commuter rail station. Chaska is using eminent domain to replace six derelict, flood-prone houses with 51 condos as part of downtown revitalization. Officials say neither project could go ahead without eminent domain. Private developers will profit in both cases, but so will most citizens. Is it responsible to let one justly compensated holdout prevent a wider public benefit? That's the main question.

Since 1998, only 5 percent of Minnesota cities have condemned property for redevelopment purposes, according to a recent survey from the League of Minnesota Cities. During that span, condemnations accounted for 0.037 percent of all real estate transactions. What critics really have here is a solution in search of a problem.

Here's the biggest consequence: Reducing eminent domain's value will tip the balance even further toward sprawl. That means saddling the state with extra costs for infrastructure, adding to the private costs of driving and traffic congestion, and sticking taxpayers with the social costs of urban neglect.

Before jumping on the property-rights bandwagon, Minnesota lawmakers should put aside the fears of a few and consider soberly whether they really want to make it harder for their hometowns to revive and renew themselves.


Minneapolis Star-Tribune: www.startribune.com

Lawmakers take aim at eminent domain: Atlanta (GA) Journal-Constitution, 12/11/05

Opponents say law requires restrictions

By Christopher Quinn

Mark and Regina Meeks don't relish their roles as poster children for the rights of landowners whose property is being taken by government for private development.

They'd really rather just be left alone.

Store co-owner Mark Meeks helps Gina Gibson at Stockbridge Florist and Gifts, which the city of Stockbridge is trying to force Meeks and his wife, Regina, to sell under the power of eminent domain.

But the city of Stockbridge is invoking the power of eminent domain to force the Meekses to sell their little Stockbridge Florist and Gifts shop to the city, saying the government has a pressing need for their property. Stockbridge wants the Meekses' land and 21 other acres to build a new downtown, including public buildings and privately developed townhomes, offices and shops. And the way Georgia law stands, backed by a U.S. Supreme Court decision, the city may be able to take the land whether the Meekses like it or not.

"If that's the way the law is written in Georgia, then the law absolutely needs to be changed. If what [the city] is doing is legal, then nobody's property is safe," Meeks said.

The Stockbridge case is held up by some legislators as an example of why they should change Georgia law quickly when the General Assembly session starts in January.

Government has traditionally taken land for public projects, like roads and schools. But vaguely written 50-year-old laws meant to hasten urban redevelopment and aid in slum-clearing give government the right to claim citizens' land for economic development — sometimes at the hands of private developers.

Those laws were upheld in June by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said governments could take land for economic development, but invited state and local governments to change that by writing more restrictive laws.

That's exactly what Georgia legislators such as state Sen. Jeff Chapman (R-Brunswick) want to do. Chapman believes landowners' rights are being trampled. He heads up the Senate Eminent Domain and Economic Development Study Committee, which is considering changes to the law.

A government should never take a person's property to turn it over to another private interest so that interest can build something bigger, more expensive or to generate jobs, he said.

The laws need to be changed and property protection should be reinforced by constitutional amendment, said Chapman.

"This thing is so important, that you want to double check it, so to speak," he said.

On the other hand, supporters of using eminent domain for redevelopment, such as the Association County Commissioners of Georgia, say the law should be strengthened to protect landowners and give them more ways to appeal, but eminent domain is a necessary part of a government's ability to improve communities.

Savannah redevelopment
Neighborhoods like Cuyler-Brownsville in Savannah are often cited as an example. The city used eminent domain to buy and clear more than 80 run-down homes and lots. Only a few of the condemnations were contested. The city created a public square and sold lots to small developers to build affordable homes. The formerly scary slum has come back to life as a vibrant community.

Martin Fretty, director of Savannah's Housing Department, said protecting individual homeowners' rights must be thought of in terms broader than the person whose property gets condemned.

"When properties are in that condition, [like those had been in Cuyler-Brownsville] whose rights are you protecting?" he asked.

The rights of nearby home-owners are put at risk if they must live in a slum created by absentee or uncaring landlords or landowners who could not improve properties because they inherited them without clear title, he said. Condemning a property clears the title.

Doing away with uses of eminent domain for community improvement or economic development "will end neighborhood revitalization as we know it," Fretty said.

Chapman is unconvinced. He wants to do away with all uses of eminent domain except for traditional public uses like roads.

"This is a night and day issue," he said. "If you leave a crack in this, I can assure you, abuses will occur."

Concern sparked
The Supreme Court decision that drew attention to the issue of using eminent domain to encourage private development arose out of a case involving 15 homes in New London, Conn.

The city condemned the homes scattered along city waterfront property as part of a larger plan to build luxury hotels, offices and upscale condos. Several homeowners challenged the taking.

The justices narrowly upheld the state court decision in Kelo v. New London that said economic development also serves a public purpose, like a new road does, and is constitutional.

The idea that homeowners can be forced out and their land sold or given to someone who will increase the tax base, build nicer buildings or lure new jobs created a whiplash of public resentment.

The Institute for Justice, the libertarian law foundation whose attorneys argued the Kelo case for the homeowners, said that 39 states are considering tightening eminent domain laws.

Larry Morandi, a director with the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures, said there have been challenges to government condemnations for urban redevelopment going back for decades.

"So it's not a new issue. But Kelo got it from the back burner to the front burner of the stove," he said.

Dana Berliner, the Institute for Justice attorney who argued Kelo also testified before the Georgia Eminent Domain Committee in Savannah in September. She said having the laws on the books in Georgia presented a potential danger.

"Before Kelo, we knew that government could take property in deeply troubled, almost uninhabitable areas and transfer it to private developers. Now we know that government can take any property and transfer it to private developers," she said.

Some believe Berliner is overstating the case. The homes in Kelo were in an area surrounded by decaying streets, sewers and contaminated lots, and zoned commercial and industrial, said Tim Dowling, with the Community Rights Council. The council advocates for city and county governments and filed a brief in the Kelo case.

The landowners had property in an area ripe for redevelopment, which is far different from the average suburb.

"The suggestion that every church, house and synagogue is in danger of being condemned for a new Wal-Mart is just not true," he said.

Still, he and other supporters of eminent domain for economic development agree that steps need to be taken to protect landowners.

Safeguards to law
The Association County Commissioners of Georgia has recommended that terms like "blight" and "slum" that appear in the laws be clearly defined, said Jim Grubiak, the association's counsel.

It also is recommending that a property itself be blighted, not just in a blighted area, before it is condemned. The association also wants to delegate only to elected local officials — not appointed boards such as housing authorities — the power to condemn property.

"And we want to beef up the notice and due process procedures in law," Grubiak said, so that property owners have the time and the ability to contest the taking or choose to participate in a redevelopment plan by redeveloping their lot themselves.

"We are hopeful that enough legislators will see that what we are suggesting is reasonable and will fix the problem," he said.

Meanwhile, the Meekses are awaiting the ruling of a Henry County Superior Court judge on their challenge to Stockbridge's effort to take their property.

"I hope [the judge] rules in our favor," Meeks said, "but if not, we hope the Legislature will give us some help."

Meeks said he realizes the publicity brought by their case might save other Georgians from having to go through what they are going though. But his goal has always been more immediate.

"We are not doing some heroic thing. We are fighting for our lives here," he said.


Atlanta Journal-Constitution: www.ajc.com

City might drop eminent domain expansion: San Diego (CA) Union-Tribune, 12/10/05

National City plan will be discussed at meeting Tuesday

By Tanya Sierra

After spending nearly two years trying to persuade the public to support expanding the city's eminent domain boundaries, city officials will consider dropping the proposal altogether next week.

On Tuesday the City Council, acting as the Community Development Commission, will discuss whether to abandon the plan because it is "totally unnecessary and way ahead of its time," Councilman Ron Morrison said.

The proposal, which was first presented in February 2004, has drawn intense public opposition. Because so many people objected, the expansion was delayed more than a year and a number of changes in how it would work were made.

The proposal was Mayor Nick Inzunza's idea, Morrison said.

"This whole thing was the mayor's proposal," he said. "The problem was then he had to excuse himself from the process because he owns property in the area and the rest of us were stuck with it."

Inzunza did not return a call seeking comment on the issue. He had said last month that he would be on a family vacation in Big Bear from Dec. 1 through Dec. 21, but in the past week he has been at several social engagements, meetings and personal appointments in National City and Tijuana.

When he first proposed the idea, Inzunza said expanding the eminent domain area was an important tool in redeveloping the city.

"This is probably the biggest decision we'll make as an agency in a very long time," he said in 2004.

However, less than three weeks ago, Inzunza said that he believes the government has no business getting involved in private property issues and that he opposes using eminent domain.

"I have never voted for eminent domain," he said during a recent interview. "I'm in favor of private property rights."

Inzunza, Councilman Frank Parra and Councilwoman Rosalie Zarate have all had to recuse themselves from discussing or voting on the eminent domain expansion because they all own property in the redevelopment area.

With only two remaining council members able to participate in the vote, the three abstaining members drew straws to decide who would re-enter the debate. Zarate was chosen.

Eminent domain is a process by which the government forces private property owners to sell their land for redevelopment.

Property must be considered blighted in order for the city to seize it through eminent domain. In simple terms, law defines blight as property that is not economically viable and includes deteriorating physical conditions.

In the past, National City used eminent domain to clear out bars and the accompanying crime for an education center on National City Boulevard.

Councilman Luis Natividad, who was at a funeral yesterday, said he was not aware the eminent domain issue is on Tuesday's agenda but joked that the idea to possibly rescind the proposal comes at a critical time.

"It's election year," he said.

Morrison said the public has good reason to object to expanding the eminent domain territory, which currently consists of National City Boulevard and the Harbor District. The expanded territory would add East Plaza Boulevard, Highland Avenue and other business corridors.

"It was too blanket and it scared a lot of people," Morrison said.


San Diego Union-Tribune: www.signonsandiego.com

Eminent Domain Used for School Site: Gilroy (CA) Dispatch, 12/8/05

The [Gilroy Unified School District] is still ironing out the details in order to purchase the plot of land that will likely house the new high school.

The [district] is invoking eminent domain proceedings to purchase the northwest piece of property but in order to proceed with the deal they must get the go-ahead from the city.

On Friday, district officials will meet with city officials to coordinate the impact Christopher High School would have on transportation in Gilroy.

Christopher High would sit on about 40 acres of the 58-acre parcel of land. And because the district is invoking eminent domain the family has requested a two-acre life estate.

The elderly couple would live on the land until their death. If the land purchase is approved the district officials have to map out the high school and specify the boundaries of the life estate.

Christopher High will eventually cap out at 1,800 students. The preliminary sketch of the new high school shows classrooms, courtyards, parking lots and athletic fields and courts fitting nice and snug within the 40-acres. The high school will only have a practice football field. Football games will be played at Gilroy High School.

The high school is expected to be up and running for the 2009-2010 school year.

Construction for the first phase of the high school, which will house about 900 students, will be funded by Measure I, the $69 million bond approved by voters in 2002. The land and construction will cost the district an estimated $47 million.

Although the high school's namesake is Don Christopher, the local garlic producer actually donated 10 acres located off of Miller Road and Santa Teresa Boulevard.

The district will probably sell that land to generate funds for other projects.


Gilroy Dispatch: www.gilroydispatch.com

Missouri gets 18 suggestions: Kansas City (KS) Star, 12/8/05

Limits on eminent domain offered

By Tim Hoover

Private developers in Missouri should not be allowed to take land from property owners through the process of eminent domain, a task force recommended Wednesday.
Missouri property owners should have more rights and governments should have a greater burden when trying to take private property, it said.

“I think these (recommendations) go a long way toward stopping the abuses we heard testimony on,” said Terry Jarrett, chairman of the Missouri Task Force on Eminent Domain.

One of the most significant recommendations the task force made was to specifically reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s June decision in Kelo v. New London, Conn., in which the court ruled that taking land for economic development purposes qualified as a “public use.”

The decision riled public opinion nationally and in the Kansas City area, where governments took property to allow the development of the Kansas Speedway in Wyandotte County and a BMW dealership in Merriam. A 2003 report by the Institute for Justice called the Merriam seizure one of the 10 worst abuses of eminent domain in the nation.

The task force, composed of lawmakers, developers, lawyers and others, agreed that “the public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenues, employment, or general economic health, standing alone, shall not constitute a public use.”

But the task force also agreed that allowing government to take land that is “blighted” should still be allowed, something that could certainly have economic development benefits.

So what is “blighted”?
The task force had a harder time agreeing on that, ultimately deciding it would be best to say what blight isn’t. The panel agreed that a finding of blight couldn’t be based on whether a higher amount of taxes would be collected on a property or on whether there would be economic development benefits if the land were used differently.

Critics have said that Missouri is one of the worst states in the nation for abuse of eminent domain and that the definition of blight now is so broad that practically anything — including vacant land in the suburbs — qualifies as blighted.

The task force deliberately avoided defining blight because not everyone could agree on a definition and because the panel did not want to “mess up” current law dealing with tax-increment financing projects, said Jarrett, general counsel to Gov. Matt Blunt.

Missouri and New York are the only states that allow private developers to initiate eminent domain proceedings against property owners once a property has been declared blighted.

The panel specifically recommended that the practice stop.

Lawmakers already have filed bills they will push in 2006 that would limit eminent domain. One bill would require that government bodies muster a two-thirds vote before they could condemn a property. Another proposes a constitutional amendment to eliminate government power to declare properties blighted.

The bulk of the task force’s recommendations, if enacted into law, would impose a greater burden on those using eminent domain. Landowners affected by a project would have to be notified early in writing of the possibility of eminent domain, and condemning authorities would have to notify property owners of their rights in the eminent domain process, which would include an opportunity to mediate.

The panel also recommended that condemning authorities be required to act in good faith in negotiations with landowners, and it said courts should have the discretion to penalize the condemning authorities if they don’t.

Finally, courts would have the power to review findings of blight without having to rely on the condemning authority’s decision.

What’s next
It’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to incorporate the recommendations into legislation in the next legislative session, which begins in January.


Kansas City Star: www.kansascity.com

SBE Council Critical of Eminent Domain Attacks on Small Business, 12/8/05

Press Release

The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) published a new report today highlighting the dangers faced by small businesses when government abuses its power of eminent domain.

Writing in "Under Attack: Small Business Faces the Abuse of Eminent Domain," [available for downloading at www.sbecouncil.org] SBE Council chief economist Raymond J. Keating noted that especially in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, "Homes and small businesses — indeed, the 'American Dream' — stand vulnerable to being bulldozed by politicians and government bureaucrats coupled with powerful special interests."

SBE Council President & CEO Karen Kerrigan declared: "The first duty of government is to protect private property. Indeed, the future of entrepreneurship is in peril as certainty with respect to property rights is central to a vibrant small business sector, and in turn a growing economy."

Keating criticized the economics behind government initiatives to take property from one private entity in order to hand it over to another private entity, noting that government schemes for urban renewal, economic development or industrial policy have a long track record of failure. He added: "In reality, the only reliable economic development program is for government to keep taxes low, maintain the lightest of regulatory touches, and protect property."

The report highlights various examples of government abusing small businesses through misuse of eminent domain powers.

Keating concluded: "Small business owners must worry that some government officials think they can rake in additional tax dollars if they replace small businesses with other ventures. Small business owners need to get active on this issue at the local, state and federal levels of government. They need to push aggressively for legislative and constitutional changes that will crack down on eminent domain abuses."

The U.S. House of Representatives has been praised by the SBE Council for passing the 'Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005,' H.R. 4128. Now, it is critical that the U.S. Senate quickly do the same, according to the group.


The SBE Council, a nonpartisan, nonprofit small business advocacy group works to protect small business and promote entrepreneurship: www.sbecouncil.org

State eyes limits for eminent domain: Ashville (NC) Citizen-Times, 12/7/05

By Kerra L. Bolton

House Speaker Jim Black on Tuesday announced the creation of a special panel to examine whether North Carolina should do more to protect private property from public seizure.

This action comes in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June letting local governments take private property to make way for commercial development. The court ruled municipalities have broad power to bulldoze people's homes and put up malls or other private development to generate tax revenue.

The decision sprang from a Connecticut case in which residents fought against having their homes destroyed to make room for an office complex.

Rep. Wilma Sherrill, R-Buncombe, said the decision "greatly threatened the people of North Carolina's property rights."

"I believe that our (state) constitution needs to be changed to ensure that private property is not seized by governments in the name of economic development," she said.

Sherrill and Rep. Bruce Goforth, D-Buncombe, were tapped to lead the bipartisan committee.

"This committee will study what the (state) law is and write legislation that protects the property rights of people in Western North Carolina and across the state," Goforth said.

North Carolina law says local governments can mostly use eminent domain, or the taking of property with fair compensation, for public purposes such as building schools or roads. State law also allows municipalities to take property to redevelop blighted or unsafe areas.

Talk about using the powers in connection with private development is not without local precedent. Use of eminent domain came up in 2002 in considering widening Swannanoa River Road to handle traffic coming to and from a new Wal-Mart Supercenter.


Citizen-Times: www.citizen-times.com

Eminent domain restrictions fail: (St Paul MN) Pioneer Press, 12/7/05

By Steve Scott

Roseville's City Council has turned back an attempt by Council Member Amy Ihlan to pass an ordinance restricting the city's use of eminent domain.

Ihlan asked the council Monday to consider a policy barring the city from acquiring property for private development or redevelopment and to limit the transfer of such land to private uses for at least 10 years.

She sought to head off the next anticipated vote on the city's Twin Lakes project.
"I hoped a full policy discussion would happen first, before we're asked to actually vote on whether to use eminent domain in Twin Lakes," said Ihlan, a vehement opponent of that northwest Roseville redevelopment.

Mayor Craig Klausing asked Ihlan to frame Monday's council discussion as a formal motion, which was defeated 3 to 2.

Council Member Tom Kough supported Ihlan's proposal.

"There are valid concerns here, but you take action on eminent domain as a council when particular requests come before the council," Klausing said.

Controversy over eminent domain intensified after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that local governments could force out property owners to make way for private development.


Pioneer Press: www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress

N.Y. Court Ruling Raises Hopes on Eminent Domain: New York (NY) Sun, 12/7/05

By Julia Levy

Property owners angered by the Supreme Court's decision this year that the government can seize their homes and businesses received a psychological boost when a federal appeals court ruled that a New York village had overstepped its eminent domain authority.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit on Monday ruled that the village of Port Chester, N.Y., failed to properly alert a New York businessman of his right to challenge an eminent domain decision before it seized his four buildings on Main Street. It then gave a private developer the green light to erect a Stop & Shop parking lot where his four office buildings had stood.

The decision, which came after five years of litigation, doesn't mean customers will be forced to stop scouring the aisles of the new Port Chester Stop & Shop anytime soon. Nor does it mean that the plaintiff, William Brody, necessarily will be awarded damages.

It is, however, a warning to local governments tempted to take private property without properly notifying the people who own it, as required by the new state eminent domain law passed last year.

The ruling itself does not challenge the Supreme Court's extension of the powers of seizure, but the lawyer representing Mr. Brody said the ruling marked a victory for people looking to reform eminent domain laws in New York and across the country.

"Right now, the government holds all the cards, and the private citizen holds none," the lawyer, Dana Berliner, said. "This is an effort to restore some of the fairness to the process."

Ms. Berliner, a senior attorney at the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, said: "I think it's such a fundamental right that I can't believe any court would rule that someone wasn't entitled the notice. I'm incredibly happy because this why we brought it five years ago."

Ms. Berliner said current law in New York is far better for property owners than the law in 1999, when the village of Port Chester ran a legal notice in the newspaper, which was the only way Mr. Brody would have known his property was threatened by a sweeping economic development project.

The new law, which was championed by Assemblyman Richard Brodsky and was signed into law by Governor Pataki in September 2004, requires the government to notify property owners by mail or delivery if their property is at risk of being seized by eminent domain. It also requires the government to alert New Yorkers that they have only 30 days to challenge the condemnation.

The decision reached this week called the change in state law "a wise policy choice."

"This shows you that I was ahead of my time," Mr. Brodsky said yesterday in a telephone interview. "It's always nice to have the court of appeals say you did the right thing."

The Assembly member, who is fighting now for further reforms of eminent domain, said, "People have a right to really actually know when the state's trying to take their property, and they have the right to try to protect themselves."

While the decision was a partial victory for Mr. Brody, who did not return requests for comment yesterday, it was not a total victory.

Mr. Brody argued that the notice of condemnation should tell property owners not only that they have 30 days to challenge the decision but the procedures for challenging the condemnation. The ruling said that level of detail would not be necessary.

Mr. Brody also argued that due process requires "a full adversarial hearing" with the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses before a neutral arbiter. The court found, though, that due process requires no such thing.

The ruling also rejected Mr. Brody's claim that property owners are entitled to hearings before governments decide to use eminent domain. It explains: "Such a rule would impose an impossible burden on the contemnor and would represent an unwarranted judicial arrogation of the legislature's power to condemn."

The lawyer representing the village of Port Chester, Alan Scheinkman, viewed this week's decision as a victory for his side. "They lost on most of their claims," he said. "His claims have been whittled down, and whittled down and whittled down and the project has been allowed to move forward. At best this is a technical Pyrrhic victory for Mr. Brody."

In the next phase of the case, likely to begin early next year, the district-level court will decide if Mr. Brody is entitled to any damages.


New York Sun: www.nysun.com

12/16/2005

Eminent domain bill offers just compensation: Ft Wayne (IN) Journal-Gazette, 12/6/05

By Andrea Neal

If Rep. David Wolkins had his way, he’d end all use of eminent domain for economic development. As chair of the interim study committee on eminent domain, he will settle for the next best thing: making it harder for government to seize private property and, when it does, ensuring owners get compensated fairly.

“I don’t like takings at all, unless it’s for public use,” says Wolkins, R-Winona Lake. But Wolkins knew early on that lawmakers wouldn’t go for language that might slow down efforts to clean up blighted neighborhoods across Indiana.

Under a bill to be introduced in the 2006 session, cities could still condemn property and hand it over to a private developer for commercial purposes, if it is of economic benefit to the community. But they would have to prove up front that the property is a nuisance, unfit for human habitation or tax delinquent. There will be no more reverse Robin Hood incidents misusing eminent domain to give to the rich what belongs to the less-rich, the poor and middle class.

More than a dozen states have passed, or are on the verge of passing, laws to rein in the government’s constitutionally prescribed power to take private property for public purposes. Historically, the power has been used to make way for utilities, rights-of-way and other public facilities. Recently, however, it has become a tool for economic redevelopment.

The legislation was prompted by the June 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. In that case, the court held that 15 homes in a waterfront Connecticut neighborhood could be acquired by the city and replaced by a luxury hotel, upscale condos and office buildings. The city justified the project as a way to generate tax revenue and jobs.

Critics charged the taking was a blatant violation of private property rights since the homes and businesses to be leveled were not dilapidated, posed no health hazards and had not been classified as blighted. The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, said, “Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment.”

Since the decision, bills have been filed in more than a dozen states; several have taken preventive action:
  • Alabama passed a law that prohibits use of eminent domain for retail, commercial, residential or apartment development; for purposes of generating tax revenue; or in order to transfer property from one private party to another, except in the case of blight.
  • Delaware law now allows eminent domain “only be exercised for the purposes of a recognized public use as described at least six months in advance of the institution of condemnation proceedings.”
  • Ohio put a moratorium on eminent domain for economic development purposes until Dec. 31, 2006, and created a task force to study the issue. One of the more radical proposals pending before that legislature would amend the state constitution so cities and towns could not use eminent domain at all, unless approved by the legislature.

A report by the Institute for Justice found more than 400 instances of threatened or actual condemnations for private profit in Ohio cities in the five-year period from 1998 through 2002. In Indiana, the libertarian research organization documented 55 such cases. Wolkins said he understands why any eminent domain bill needs to have a blighted use exception in order to get through the General Assembly.

In Indianapolis, an acclaimed neighborhood redevelopment project, Fall Creek Place, could not have happened without the threat of eminent domain. The project has transformed one of the most crime-ridden parts of the city into a national model with housing opportunities that range from affordable to upper-end.

Wolkins’ bill is unusual in that it will essentially set the price at which government can acquire private property: 150 percent of market value for residential property and 125 percent of market value for farmland.

“That means, by the time all is said and done, they’re at least getting just compensation for it,” Wolkins said.

That is, of course, what the Fifth Amendment requires. Wolkins’ bill will put a check on a government power that was becoming limitless in the name of economic health.


Ft Wayne Journal-Gazette: www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette

Andrea Neal is an adjunct scholar and columnist with the Indiana Policy Review Foundation: aneal@inpolicy.org

Boro mulls pay-to-play and eminent domain: The (Red Bank NJ) Hub, 12/15/05

By Sue Morgan

...

An anti-eminent domain ordinance should also be crafted and passed as a means of addressing the concerns of [Sea bright NJ] property owners who could be affected by the borough’s plans to revitalize its downtown business district and beachfront, [Councilwoman Dina] Long said.

That plan is known informally among borough officials as “the Smart Growth plan,” a reference to the $50,000 state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Smart Growth grant received by the municipality to come up with building proposals.

Long called for the proposed anti-eminent domain legislation to prohibit the borough government from taking homes or businesses for “private redevelopment or economic development.”

However, the same law would still safeguard the borough’s ability to use eminent domain for public uses such as schools or running utility lines, Long said.

“We need to show good faith to the residents of Sea Bright,” Long said, “particularly with the Smart Growth process going on.”

Eminent domain has hit home for [Mayor] Kalaka-Adams, who is presently battling Long Branch officials attempting to squeeze her out of her antiques and furniture refinishing shop on Broadway in that city.

The first-term Republican mayor, noting that she campaigned against the taking of private property for private uses in Sea Bright during her 2003 mayoral campaign, expressed support for an anti-eminent domain law.

The mayor and her husband, Jim, are fighting to keep their 20-year-old business that Long Branch officials hope to take in redeveloping the city’s downtown into the Broadway Arts Corridor.


The Hub: http://hub.gmnews.com

12/15/2005

Eminent domain changes backed: San Diego (CA) Union-Tribune, 12/6/05

S.D. council panel OKs 60 days' notice

By Martin Stolz

The government's practice of condemning and acquiring private property in redevelopment areas of San Diego will be slightly modified, not eliminated, after city officials researched complaints.

In September, the City Council's Government Efficiency and Openness Committee heard three hours of testimony from redevelopment officials and opponents of eminent domain, which is the government's power to take private property for public uses, with just compensation.

Among other changes, the committee decided yesterday to give more notice to those who might be affected by eminent domain and to make sure the process is free of threats or intimidation.

"Redevelopment has many sides," Councilwoman Donna Frye said. "I don't think they are all good or all bad."

The emotional outpouring at the September committee meeting followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming the government's power of eminent domain.

Much of the testimony focused not on the court ruling but on a controversial redevelopment effort in San Diego's City Heights neighborhood.

That project aims to create housing, a school, stores, medical facilities and a day-care center under the control of a special "joint powers agency" led by an employee of the San Diego Housing Commission with representatives from the city school system and City Council.

The City Heights project is outside the City Council's control; the project's scope has since changed, records shows.

At the September hearing, the committee asked city officials to conduct research into the procedures used in the condemnation process in redevelopment and address perceptions of abuse.

The city's staff researched recommendations made by Karen Frostrom, a lawyer in an eminent domain lawsuit against the Centre City Development Corp., which advises the council on downtown redevelopment.

Redevelopment proponents, who say eminent domain is rarely used, feared the council might eliminate or severely curtail the use of eminent domain.

Linville Martin, a real estate professional whose East Village home was seized to make way for Petco Park, said his experiences through the condemnation process "were totally positive."

"These's a campaign of fear out there that government will take people's homes," Martin said.

In response to a claim made in Frostrom's report that eminent domain "breaks the sacred contract between a government and its citizens," Martin said: "I am here, and I am not tainted."

Frostrom attended the meeting but did not speak.

Frye and Councilman Brian Maienschein voted to adopt the staff report. Councilman Tony Young, the third committee member, did not attend yesterday's meeting.

The staff report calls for modifications, such as educating real estate agents about redevelopment; lengthening the notification period for property owners from 30 days to 60; and expressly prohibiting "threats, and/or intimidation during purchase negotiations."

Half of Frostrom's 10 recommendations needed no action because they reflect current practices.

A separate report by City Attorney Michael Aguirre recommended that city officials follow state legislation on eminent domain and establish certain guidelines on its use in San Diego. Five legislative committees in Sacramento are reviewing eminent domain issues.


San Diego Union-Tribune: www.signonsandiego.com

KO’ing Kelo: New Jersey Lawyer, 12/5/05

By William J. Ward

We’re witnessing the Kelo-Effect — a corollary to Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion which states, “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” The public, waking up to the possibility that homes and small businesses could be taken for private gain, is galvanized as never before against the abuse of eminent domain.

In fact, the Economist characterized the Kelo backlash as “potent as the anti-abortion movement.” More than any other contemporary issue, this one cuts across party lines and hits the mother lode: private property rights. Redevelopment attorneys are disingenuous when they express surprise at this reaction. There are, after all, more than 1,000 redevelopment projects in progress in 64 New Jersey towns.

And the words of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in her Kelo dissent continue to resonate: “As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.” Heightened awareness New Jersey court decisions, however, have evidenced a heightened awareness by trial judges to eminent domain abuse. The abuse for the most part comes about in redevelopment projects implemented under the Local Redevelopment Housing Law (LRHL) 40A:12A-1 et seq. through the relationships between developers and local municipal officials.

The New Jersey Constitution, Article VIII, paragraph 3, says takings for blight are a public purpose. The abuse has come about through the legislature’s broad definition of blight, most recently in the amendments to the LRHL in 1992: “Redevelopment area” or “area in need of redevelopment” means an area determined to be in need of redevelopment pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of P.L. 1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-5 and 40A:12A-6) or determined heretofore to be a “blighted area” pursuant to P.L.1949, c.187 (C.40:55-21.1 et seq.) repealed by this act, both determinations as made pursuant to the authority of Article VIII, Section III, aragraph 1 of the Constitution. A redevelopment area may include lands, buildings, or improvements which of themselves are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but the inclusion of which is found necessary, with or without change in their condition, for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part. An area determined to be in need of redevelopment pursuant to this section shall be deemed to be a “blighted area” for the purposes of Article VIII, Section III, paragraph 1 of the Constitution. If an area is determined to be a redevelopment area and a redevelopment plan is adopted for that area in accordance with the provisions of this act, the municipality is authorized to utilize all those powers provided in section 8 of P.L. 1992, c.79 (C.40A:12A-8).

This definition could include just about any property — and it has. “Blight is in the eye of the beholder,” Justice Kennedy said during the Kelo oral arguments. We have not seen a planning report yet where the consultant hired by the municipality rejected blight for the study area. Particularly problematic is the all-inclusive 40A:12A-5. Determination of need for redevelopment (section d): Areas with buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.

Recent cases
Justice Kennedy, in his concurring opinion in Kelo v. New London, said the following: “A court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible favoritism to private parties should treat the objection as a serious one and review the record to see if it has merit.” This is exactly what Essex County Assignment Judge Patricia Costello and Judge Richard Donohue cite in the recent cases Township of Bloomfield v. 110 Washington Street Associates, ESX-L-2318-05 and LBK Associates, L.L.C, et al v. Borough of Lodi, BER-L-8766-03 and Costa Realty Co., Inc. et al v. Borough of Lodi, BER-L-8768-03.

Although these decisions aren’t published, they are available online and frequently requested.

The 110 Washington Street case turned on two critical issues. Judge Costello found there was an impermissible conflict of interest in the Township of Bloomfield utilizing the services of the same attorney who represented the board of adjustment, the planning board, and the mayor and council. This is a blatant violation of the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL). Thus, the conflict tainted the whole process underlying the municipality’s eminent domain complaint. In addition, the court found that Bloomfield’s consultant, Heyer & Gruel, did not include in its study a finding that the conditions complained of were detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. All these defenses were properly raised with the trial judge on the return date of the order to show cause for the appointment of condemnation commissioners. The condemnation complaint and order to show cause were filed in a summary manner consistent with Rule 4:67-1.

Recent case law in Hirth v. City of Hoboken, 337 N.J. Super. 149 (App. Div 2001), and the unreported cases of Township of North Bergen v. Shiva Properties, et als, (HUD-L-6587-03) and Township of North Bergen v. Spylen of North Bergen, Inc (A-6868-03T2), clearly give a property owner the right to raise all these defenses to the eminent domain taking.

It should be noted there was a prerogative writ suit in the matter of 110 Washington Street v. Township of Bloomfield that was heard by Judge Claude M. Coleman and dismissed because it was filed beyond the 45-days to contest municipal action. Judge Coleman made no findings of fact or conclusions of law on the merits of the prerogative writ case, which effectively prevented Bloomfield’s counsel from arguing judicial estoppel.

In the consolidated Lodi cases — actions in lieu of prerogative writ contesting the municipality’s determination of blight — Judge Donohue found the municipality had not established by substantial evidence the premises in question were in need of redevelopment. The court concluded the municipality’s actions were arbitrary and capricious. The standard for judicial review of a blight declaration is limited to whether the municipality’s action is supported by substantial evidence. See Hirth v. City of Hoboken Supra 337 N.J. Super. at 161; Levin v. Township of Bridgewater, 57 N.J. 506 (1971).

Consistent with the decisions of Judges Costello and Donohue cited above, the Appellate Division approved for publication an opinion by Judge Parker in the matter of ERETC, L.L.C. v. City of Perth Amboy A-2035-04T2, decided Nov. 15, 2005. The plaintiff, ERETC, owns a light manufacturing building located in the proposed redevelopment area. ERETC uses part of the building, which is in good condition, and rents the remainder. The preliminary report of the city’s planner identified criteria D and E of the LRHL applicable to the area. At trial the plaintiff ’s expert testified she found the plaintiff ’s property to be neat, maintained and painted, with no apparent structural flaws. She concluded the city planner’s report was “inadequate and void of any information that would lead to the conclusion that was obtained by the City which was that the area was in need of redevelopment.” A mere recitation of the criteria of the statute without substantiation of the criteria is not enough to declare a property in need of redevelopment. In the appeal, the court states that nowhere in the report did the city planner “undertake an analysis of the statutory criteria as it applied to each of the properties in the designated area.” The court reversed and remanded to the planning board for reconsideration.

This is an example of a win, but the redevelopment plan could proceed once the errors and defects in the report are corrected. The developer behind the municipality will keep funding legal maneuvers. The power of eminent domain doesn’t go away. Even if municipalities such as Bogota pass resolutions that they are not going to use it, they cannot abolish it. Agencies can’t abolish it. Only the legislature can change it.

Federal legislative reform?
The U.S. House of Representatives Bill 4128 was passed Nov. 3, 2005. Also known as “Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005,” its purpose is to preserve property rights granted under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution following the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London. Some key provisions:

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE BY STATES.
(a) In General — No State or political subdivision of a State shall exercise its power of eminent domain, or allow the exercise of such power by any person or entity to which such power has been delegated, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is subsequently used for economic development, if that State or political subdivision receives Federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which it does so.

(b) Ineligibility for Federal Funds — A violation of subsection (a) by a State or political subdivision shall render such State or political subdivision ineligible for any Federal economic development funds for a period of 2 fiscal years following a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction that such subsection has been violated ...

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
The Federal Government or any authority of the Federal Government shall not exercise its power of eminent domain to be used for economic development.

SEC. 4. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.
(a) Cause of Action — Any owner of private property who suffers injury as a result of a violation of any provision of this Act may bring an action to enforce any provision of this Act in the appropriate Federal or State court, and a State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from any such action in a Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction. Any such property owner may also seek any appropriate relief through a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order.

The bill now proceeds to the Senate where its companion, S-1313, sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), will be taken up by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee conducted its last hearing Sept. 20, 2005. This act may be cited as the “Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act.” Its objective is similar: to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights by limiting the power of eminent domain.

NJ’s eminent domain reform bills
  • ACR 255 proposes a constitutional amendment to limit exercise of eminent domain to acquisition of land for essential public purposes. The amendment defines “essential public purposes” as transportation corridors, educational facilities, airports, correctional facilities, stormwater management facilities, in-patient health facilities and recreational facilities. The sponsors believe Kelo left New Jersey homeowners more vulnerable to overreaching government action that impairs private property rights. The resolution was introduced Nov. 10, 2005.
  • ACR 256 proposes a constitutional amendment to limit the use of condemnation to traditional public purposes; repeals constitutional provision allowing condemnation and long-term tax exemptions for redevelopment projects. Introduced Nov. 10, 2005 and referred to the assembly Housing and Local Government Committee, this resolution amends Article I, paragraph 1 and repeals Article VIII, Section III, paragraph 1 of the constitution. It restricts the use of eminent domain to condemn land and transfer the land to a private person or entity to projects that fulfill a traditional public purpose, and would repeal the provision that allows condemnation of properties in blighted areas for redevelopment purposes.
  • S-177 specifies bona fide negotiations in eminent domain proceedings and clarifies establishment of compensation for business owners. This amendment to the “Eminent Domain Act of 1971” would increase government responsibility and accountability in condemnation actions and clarifies how active businesses should be treated in condemnation actions. The burden would be on the municipality or redevelopment entity to demonstrate that the proposed use of the business property is of significant public interest to justify relocation or closure of the business at that location.
  • S-2739 prevents use of condemnation to acquire residential property under redevelopment laws. This bill seeks to prevent the taking of private homes and residential units by condemnation in order to accomplish economic development objectives, such as the construction of non-public office buildings, mega-stores and shopping centers. This amendment would require the governing body of the municipality to authorize the planning board by ordinance — not resolution — to undertake a preliminary investigation to determine whether a proposed area is a redevelopment area. All notices of hearings must be sent to the property owners by certified mail.
  • S-2832 places a temporary moratorium on use of eminent domain for economic development purposes; and creates Eminent Domain Study Commission to examine its use statewide.


More than 30 states are reviewing or planning to review their eminent domain laws during upcoming legislative sessions. Since June 2005, Alabama, Texas and Delaware enacted laws that have revised their eminent domain procedures. Gov.-elect Jon S. Corzine addressed the power of eminent domain in a statement issued last summer during his campaign:
“While there have been many legitimate and appropriate uses of eminent domain throughout history, we have also seen abuses of this power. We have seen a family lose their home and receive just $14,000, only to see the town quickly sell the property to a developer for $60,000. We have seen so-called redevelopment plans knock down housing that was affordable to long time community residents, only to displace them with luxury condominiums, without giving any thought as to where people with roots in the neighborhood would live. With dozens of New Jersey municipalities focused on redevelopment — we need to act decisively to protect our citizens as we revitalize our aging neighborhoods. A Corzine administration will not tolerate abuse in the name of economic development.”

The eminent domain issue is on the front-burner with state and federal legislators. There will be changes made to state eminent domain acts, and prospects appear good for federal legislation that would severely limit federal funds to municipalities in violation of the act. This is a big stick.

The ball now is in the U.S. Senate’s court. It is clear from the overwhelming vote in the House, which more closely reflects the will of the people, that representatives are ready for change. The Senate must be aware of this or they will risk the wrath of the voters when up for re-election.

In New Jersey, it’s time for the governor to appoint an Eminent Domain Revision Committee to review the entire Eminent Domain Act of 1971 and the Local Redevelopment Housing Law. These acts should not be amended piecemeal. It has been almost 35 years since the eminent domain law was approved — it is now time for a comprehensive new act.


New Jersey Lawyer: www.njlnews.com

William J. Ward has been practicing eminent domain law for 35 years. He is managing partner at Carlin & Ward in Florham Park and author of the New Jersey Eminent Domain Law Blog: njeminentdomain.com.