Lawmakers consider proposals to limit eminent domain and TIF: Kansas City (MO) Star, 4/12/06

By Kelly Wiese and Chris Blank, Associated Press
Legislators in the [Missouri] House and Senate took initials steps Wednesday toward limiting the use of eminent domain and tax breaks in certain redevelopment projects.

The Senate gave first-round approval to legislation [SB832] that tweaks how tax breaks for redevelopment projects can be used. The House later voted 150-7 to give initial approval to a bill [HB1944] designed to limit the use of eminent domain.

The general issue of how the government intercedes on behalf of developers gained attention nationally after a U.S. Supreme Court decision last summer allowing the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another for economic development purposes.

Gov. Matt Blunt and legislative leaders made the enactment of new eminent domain restrictions a top priority for the 2006 legislative session. With that has come a re-examination of tax increment financing [TIF] districts, which often rely on the same "blighted" designations used in eminent domain to declare an area eligible for developer tax breaks.

TIF districts allow a portion of the future taxes generated by a development to pay for the project's costs instead of going to schools, cities and other government entities.

In the House, members overwhelmingly defeated an amendment that would have barred the use of eminent domain for projects "primarily" designed for economic development. Lawmakers instead opted for the lower standard of barring eminent domain for projects "solely" for economic development.

Rep. Mike Daus, D-St. Louis, said the lower standard welcomes the return of past abuses of eminent domain, because developers or their attorneys "will always be able to come up with an excuse" to justify how a project is not solely for economic development.

But others, Democrats and Republicans, said barring the use of eminent domain primarily for economic development purposes would stifle economic development and kill jobs.

"The reality is that in the real world it's simply an unworkable definition," said Rep. Bryan Pratt, R-Blue Springs.

The eminent domain bill, sponsored by Rep. Steve Hobbs, R-Mexico, would give a bonus to landowners whose property is taken - on top of any other compensation - based upon how long they owned their land. It also would require that property owners facing eminent domain proceedings be given written notice of their rights. But it would not require that property taken through eminent domain be for a public use or declared to be "blighted."

The House considered but rejected by a 134-21 vote a new definition for blight.

Even so, "the development community is going to have difficulties with this bill, because they will not willy nilly be able to secure some stretch of the definition of blight," said Rep. Tim Flook, R-Liberty.

Although lawmakers from both parties backed the bill, even some supporters said it didn't do enough. Rep. Rick Johnson, D-High Ridge, said "too often in recent years, eminent domain has been eminent demise for our families, homes and history and heritage."

Lobbyists for organizations on opposite sides of the debate - such as utilities and rural landowners - expressed disappointment with the bill, either for going too far or not far enough.

The Senate legislation generally requires approval by a special commission for TIF districts to proceed. If a local government wants to press on despite the commission's opposition, it would need a public vote or a two-thirds vote of the local government body.

The bill prohibits using tax increment financing on greenfields, or vacant areas outside city limits, in the St. Louis region. It also bars using it on vacant land for solely residential developments. It allows projects to have a residential component, but in those, two-thirds of the local government must sign off on the projects. Otherwise, the taxes generated from the residential piece of the project go to schools and other local entities as they normally would, rather than to a fund to pay off development costs.

That provision was a compromise worked out to appease rural interests. Previously under the bill, the prohibition referred to predominantly residential developments, and local school district interests on the special commission had to agree to the projects.

The bill by Sen. John Griesheimer, R-Washington, does not alter the definition of "blight," one of the criteria local governments use to seize property in redevelopment projects, because the senator said it was too controversial.

Some lawmakers wanted to scale blight back to what they said was its original intent, basically limiting its use to improving areas of urban decay.

Sen. Chuck Gross, R-St. Charles, proposed that to be found blighted, a property would need to be in an area of high unemployment and low income, compared to the surrounding area, and have a lower property value.

"If we want to take TIF back to what it was originally designed for, then we'd pass this in a heartbeat," Gross said.

Others, however, said Missouri can't be shortsighted in removing that option when it's competing with surrounding states for business.

"It's being driven by a competitive nature and it's a national problem," said Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Lee's Summit. "If we take a unilateral step back I fear that we've closed our eyes to the market reality we're immersed in."

Gross withdrew the amendment without it coming to a vote.

---

Kansas City Star: http://www.kansascity.com

House passes eminent domain restrictions: Columbia (MO) Daily Tribune, 4/13/06

By Josh Flory
If nothing else, the speaker was impressed.

The Missouri House this morning approved a measure that would impose new restrictions on the government’s ability to take private property through eminent domain. The issue has been a top priority for legislative leaders after last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in a Connecticut case that upheld a municipality’s right to seize property for private developments that generate tax revenue.

The measure won first-round approval yesterday on a vote of 150 to 7. Rep. Steve Hobbs, a Mexico Republican who represents part of northern Columbia, sponsored the bill and helped direct traffic during more than six hours of debate.

Shortly after last night’s vote, House Speaker Rod Jetton approached Hobbs in a side gallery. "Who would have dreamed that you could" get "this bill passed with seven nos?" Jetton said.

There’s still plenty of work to do. The bill likely will face changes in the Senate. After the debate yesterday, Hobbs said the effort was a good start.

"Is it perfect?" he said. "No. Is it what everyone wants? No. But is it the best we can do here today? I believe so."

The bill clearly wasn’t what the Missouri Farm Bureau wanted. In a statement, Charles Kruse, president of the influential organization, said the bill didn’t answer the call of Missourians to stop eminent domain abuse.

The House, Kruse said, had "bowed to the pressures of developers, utility companies and other special interests in tentatively approving a watered-down version of eminent domain reform legislation."

The bill makes several changes, including a ban on the use of eminent domain solely for economic development purposes or to take property where a place of worship has been located for at least 10 years. The bill does allow the use of eminent domain to take property in blighted areas, even specific parcels that are not blighted.

Rural and urban lawmakers clashed over the exact terms used in the portion of the law that bans taking property "solely" for economic development, defined as boosting the tax base, tax revenue or jobs. Rural lawmakers, including Rep. Wayne Henke, D-Troy, pushed for language banning the use of eminent domain on projects that are "primarily" for economic development.

Rep. Rachel Bringer, D-Palmyra, argued that the "solely" standard was too narrow. For example, she said, it would be easy for a developer to condemn a group of homes to build a mall, then dedicate a small space - such as a community meeting room - for public use.

But urban lawmakers said the "primarily" standard would inhibit economic development in cities.

Hobbs had previously called for the "primarily" standard, but said last night that he changed his mind after talking to eminent domain lawyers who said that wording would cause more cases to go to condemnation proceedings.

The bill includes a premium for sellers who have owned their property for a long time by requiring that the calculation for damages caused by eminent domain take into account a property’s "heritage value." An amendment offered by Hobbs added 1 percent to the fair market value for every year the property has been owned by the same family. The heritage value of a property would be capped at 100 percent.

Legislators kept intact the definition of a blighted area that can be targeted for redevelopment using eminent domain. The definition includes outmoded design, age or obsolescence that contribute to health problems or crime.

All five lawmakers who represent Boone County voted in favor of the bill.

---

Columbia Daily Tribune: http://www.columbiatribune.com

Columbia Heights meets eminent domain: Duluth (MN) News Tribune, 4/15/06

City officials in the Twin Cities community believe the use of eminent domain is vital to improving the area
By Patrick Condon, Associated Press
This small suburb [Columbia Heights MN] contains the highest elevations in the Twin Cities, with hilltops that offer smashing views of the Minneapolis skyline just to the south.

But there's not much else to attract new residents or businesses to Columbia Heights. High crime rates, crumbling buildings and vast swaths of grimy industrial wasteland have helped to make property values lower on average than in any other Twin Cities community, and its main business corridor along Central Avenue is pocked with vacant storefronts, dingy discount outlets and trash-strewn parking lots.

"We're at the bottom of the food chain here," said Bob Streetar, the city's director of community development.

It's Streetar's job to change that. That's why he's so worried about bills barreling through the Legislature to put strict limits on government's ability to seize private property through a process called eminent domain. Streetar said eminent domain is the most important tool he has in trying to make Columbia Heights a better place.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government has wide power to seize private property and turn it over to other private owners. Since then lawmakers in states like Minnesota have rushed to make it harder, as critics bring forward story after story of homeowners and businessmen forced under government's thumb by eminent domain.

Take Gary Graham, who with his wife has operated a quilting shop for the past five years in Rosemount, another Twin Cities suburb using eminent domain to spiff up its image. The Grahams face eviction as Rosemount seeks to tear down several houses to make room for a large residential, retail and office development.

The owner of several properties that include the Grahams' business doesn't want to sell, but the city can force it by using current eminent domain laws. It's that power that most angers critics of eminent domain, who say it's unfair that government can force a private owner to sell his property to another private owner.

"We're just disappointed that the city is basically saying we're not as important as new development," Graham said. "We don't want to move. We don't want to be in a strip mall."

But city officials in places like Columbia Heights say there's another side to the story.

In the past few years, Columbia Heights has used eminent domain — or the threat of it — on several major redevelopment projects aimed at improving the city and boosting its tax base. Currently, one-fifth of the city's population is older than 55 years old, and 50 percent of its housing was built before 1960.

"We're a community that is wearing out," Streetar said.

The city has claimed large portions of a former industrial park just south of its downtown that was once home to Honeywell and a steel foundry. Now, it's a barren eyesore and an environmental hazard.

"You had a guy storing old snowplows back there, abandoned semi-trailers, boarded buildings covered by gang graffiti," said Randy Schumacher, the city official overseeing the area's conversion into a condominium complex. "We called it little Afghanistan."

The city also claimed a vacant Kmart store on Central Avenue, now the site of the Grand Central Lofts.

Under the changes to eminent domain now being considered in the House and Senate, Streetar said, those two projects would have been difficult or impossible. He said standards are set almost impossibly high for getting property designated as blighted or environmentally contaminated — a necessary designation if property is to be transferred to new private owners, like those undertaking the condo projects.

Columbia Heights officials are also worried about projects under way right now, particularly a ramshackle strip mall on top of a former dump site that they'd like to see torn down. They also would someday like to tackle a neighborhood of run-down rental houses and duplexes, across the street from the former Kmart site, that they said has long been a magnet for drug dealers and prostitutes.

Without strong eminent domain capabilities, Streetar said, he fears that the mostly absentee landlords who own those properties will be able to hold out for inflated sale prices.

But Streetar knows his side is losing the argument at the Capitol.

The challenges facing Columbia Heights are not unusual, and can be found in inner-city neighborhoods, aging suburbs and small cities in the rest of Minnesota. Laura Harris, a lobbyist for the League of Minnesota Cities, predicted that lawmakers are setting up the state for years of litigation over the types of economic development projects that cities say they need to survive.

"I don't see the long-term view being taken," Harris said. "There are going to be unintended consequences."

---

Duluth News Tribune: http://www.duluthsuperior.com

Camden Council affirms eminent domain powers: Philadelphia (PA) Inquirer, 4/14/06

By Dwight Ott
By a 4-2 vote after spirited debate, [Camden NJ] City Council last night killed a measure that would have put a two-year halt on Camden's use of its eminent domain powers in its redevelopment plans.

The vote drew hisses and boos from some of the nearly 40 people in the audience.

The use of eminent domain - which forces property owners to sell their land for public use - has become a major tool in Camden's efforts to implement its multimillion-dollar, state-funded, five-year Recovery Act.

Camden is adopting redevelopment plans that cover the entire city, potentially exposing all property owners to displacement via eminent domain, according to Councilman Gilbert "Whip" Wilson, who proposed the moratorium.

But he mustered support only from Councilman Ali Sloan El.

In a statement last night, Council President Angel Fuentes said the ordinance would have damaged revitalization efforts. He said Wilson and Sloan El were playing to residents' fears.

"To put a stop to everything with a rashly enacted moratorium... would be an incredible disservice to the residents and business entities," Fuentes said.

Councilwoman Dana Redd and Councilmen Frank Moran and Curtis Jenkins also voted against the moratorium.

Furthermore, Camden's state-appointed chief operating officer, Melvin R. "Randy" Primas Jr., had indicated he would have vetoed it.

Redd said last night: "No one wants to take anybody's property by eminent domain. We want to do it in a responsible way... . Responsible redevelopment is what we stand for."

Several lawsuits have tied up massive projects that call for the use of eminent domain in the Cramer Hill and Bergen Square neighborhoods.

Wilson said last night that he did not oppose redevelopment, but still had questions. He said he was especially concerned about seniors and others on fixed incomes who might not be able to afford the taxes if property values rose rapidly.

Sloan El said last night that governments across the country were reconsidering their use of eminent domain. "Thirty of the 50 states are putting together legislation against eminent domain," he said.

Although voting against the moratorium, Moran and Jenkins said Council needed to pay closer attention to the issue, particularly how it affects seniors and those on fixed incomes.

---

Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer

Eminent domain in motion: Branson (MO) Daily News, 4/14/06

By Cliff Sain and The Associated Press
The Branson Board of Aldermen this week approved a bill that would force property owners along a portion of 76 County Boulevard to sell portions of their land.

City officials said they need the land to make improvements at the intersection of 76 and Fall Creek Road, where the city wants to realign Fall Creek Road as part of a $7 million project to extend the street to Roark Valley Road.

“Negotiations have been under way for several weeks for the additional right-of-way needed for the project from some remaining property owners, but an agreement has not been reached despite good-faith negotiations,” City Engineer David Miller said.

The properties affected are the former California Bar & Grill, Ramada Inn, Travelodge, Dogwood Inn, a parcel of land owned by James P. Keeter and Thomas W. Schaefer, and Silver Fountain Inn.

Despite the approval of condemnation proceedings, Miller said the city would continue to negotiate with the property owners.

“The court date will not occur for several weeks and so, until that time, negotiations will continue,” he said. “There may still be a holdout, but hopefully we can get them all resolved.”

Wayne Kennedy, owner of Travelodge, said the city was too quick to use its power of eminent domain, which allows the city to force a property owner to sell land for public use.

“I’ve known some of you for years,” he told the aldermen. “You could have sat down with some of us to talk about our property, but that never happened. That hurt. I’m a little frustrated and angry that you would do this.”

As with the other property owners, the city needs just a portion of the property. In the case of the Travelodge, Miller described the needed portion as “a sliver” along the highway, and that the city needs to construct a new driveway for the business. He also said the city has been in contact with the Kennedy family.

“I’ve talked to his son five times in the last month,” Miller said.

Miller also said the city’s quick action is due to time constraints imposed by the Missouri Department of Transportation, which owns 76 and is sharing some of the cost with the city. The city also could not make an offer until it had appraisals on the property, which the city received a few days earlier, Miller said.

The subject of eminent domain has been a hot-button issue at the state level this year. The House voted 150-7 to give initial approval to a bill designed to limit the use of eminent domain.

The general issue of how the government intercedes on behalf of developers gained attention nationally after a U.S. Supreme Court decision last summer allowing the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another for economic development purposes.

Gov. Matt Blunt and legislative leaders made the enactment of new eminent domain restrictions a top priority for the 2006 legislative session.

In the House, members overwhelmingly defeated an amendment that would have barred the use of eminent domain for projects ‘‘primarily’’ designed for economic development. Lawmakers instead opted for the lower standard of barring eminent domain for projects ‘‘solely’’ for economic development.

Rep. Mike Daus, D-St. Louis, said the lower standard welcomes the return of past abuses of eminent domain, because developers or their attorneys ‘‘will always be able to come up with an excuse’’ to justify how a project is not solely for economic development.

But others, Democrats and Republicans, said barring the use of eminent domain primarily for economic development purposes would stifle economic development and kill jobs.

‘‘The reality is that in the real world it’s simply an unworkable definition,’’ said Rep. Bryan Pratt, R-Blue Springs.

The eminent domain bill, sponsored by Rep. Steve Hobbs, R-Mexico, would give a bonus to landowners whose property is taken — on top of any other compensation — based upon how long they owned their land. It also would require that property owners facing eminent domain proceedings be given written notice of their rights. But it would not require that property taken through eminent domain be for a public use or declared to be ‘‘blighted.’’

---

Branson Daily News: http://www.bransondailynews.com

Eminent domain claim could be savior for Flats: The (Case Western reserve University) Observer, 4/14/06

By Jeffrey Verespej
In June 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of eminent domain used by local and state governments for economic development, even if the seized property was not considered blighted. This ruling opened the floodgates for land-hungry developers looking for real estate and citizen activists to fight the overpowering government. Since then, there have been multiple court cases where local governments have battled to seize valuable property from citizens who claimed their rights as landowners. As has been proven, there needs to be further clarification on this ruling before any property owner can lose their land for a shiny and new shopping mall. One case, however, can benefit from the Supreme Court's decision – the situation in the East Bank of the Flats.

The Flats were Cleveland's hotspot from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. Drawing national attention as a music and nightlife hotspot, the prosperous properties were synonymous with a good time in Northeast Ohio: Shooters, Peabody's, and the Powerhouse. As the trendy crowd moved up the hill and into the Warehouse District, the business owners attempted to stretch their success by offering many 18-and-over nights, as well as being known for sketchy bars where illegal activities went unnoticed. This change in clientele sent the Flats into a downward spiral to where they are today: deserted and dangerous. A majority of the buildings are abandoned, and those that remain pride themselves on their young clubbing crowd or strippers. Just months ago, a local teenager from Glenville was murdered in a violent riot that was the nail in the coffin for the once great Flats.

Local developer and philanthropist Scott Wolstein has a greater vision for this land – instead of bars and nightclubs, he envisions a riverfront neighborhood with condominiums, apartments, a river walk, bookstore, and cinema. Having worked for several years, Wolstein has acquired nearly 75 percent of the property on the East Bank. However, the few holdouts are causing quite a commotion, preventing this development from happening.

These landowners, knowing the incredible potential for this land and the depth of Wolstein's wallet, are trying to finagle more money for their land than they should receive. For the past several years, these businesses have appealed their taxes to the Internal Revenue Service, claiming that their property is not worth the government appraisals due to the lack of business in the Flats. However, now that Wolstein is attempting to acquire the land, these same businesses are demanding compensation for their property that are higher than the government appraisals that were too high for their taxes. This clear and disgusting game playing is selfish and dishonest. The Flats business owners claim that if they continue to be "slighted," they will create their own redevelopment and make an "entertainment Mecca" out of the Flats. To clue them in, that was already tried – the Flats were an "entertainment Mecca," but then fell into disrepair and poor management.

The Flats East Bank neighborhood would have a spill-over effect that would benefit more than just that area, and it should be pursued quickly and completely. To keep the Flats as is would be a waste of the most precious land Northeast Ohio has to offer – if those land owners do not acquiesce to Wolstein's requests, then a case for eminent domain should be made. Anyone from Cleveland, either as a lifelong resident or a fourth-year student from Michigan, can clearly see the sad shape of this land. This would not be a case of local government overstepping their boundaries, as the Flats are in clear disrepair and do not show any signs of improvement without a distinct change. Abandoned and blighted property has negative effects on an entire area. The Flats are no different – in this situation Cleveland should act as a mediator and solve the issue with eminent domain.

---

The Observer: http://observer.case.edu

Candidates Agree On Eminent Domain: Harrisonburg (VA) Daily News Record, 4/14/06

Takings, Threats Of Condemnation Are ‘Last Resort’
By Jeff Mellott
Eminent domain should be the tool of last resort, candidates for Harrisonburg City Council said on Thursday during a forum at Massanutten Regional Library sponsored by the Harrisonburg-Rockingham Chamber of Commerce.

The question came to the candidates in the context of last year’s eminent domain decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled that the city of New London, Conn., could condemn privately held land for future private development to promote the city’s tax base.

Candidates were also asked if they supported James Madison University’s board of visitors’ decision to threaten condemnation of the Kyger Funeral Home to make way for a new performing arts center on South Main Street.

Harrisonburg Mayor Larry Rogers, who is also a member of the board of visitors, said he had to support the law of the land because of the Supreme Court ruling. He added that Kenny Kyger, the funeral home’s owner, eventually received twice what the land was worth based on a state assessment.

Vote to Condemn
As a member of the board of visitors, Rogers voted for the resolution that said the university was prepared to take whatever action was necessary to acquire the Kyger property. At the time, Rogers said that the university had to look at all its options. Rogers had hoped that condemnation would not be necessary.

"It makes sure taxpayers are treated fairly," he said. Asked about private property owners, Rogers said, "It’s our responsibility to treat them fairly."

In the end, condemnation was not necessary. Kyger and the university reached an agreement, Rogers pointed out. The funeral home owner was paid $5.5 million, when the value of the property was established during negotiations at $2.7 million, Rogers said.

Carolyn Frank, running as an independent, said the funeral home had no price on it because Kyger did not want to sell.

"I think it was appalling what happened to Kenny Kyger," said Frank, who served on the council from 2000 to 2004. She served as mayor from 2000 to 2002.

"No amount of money matters if you don’t want to sell," she said.

"Last Resort"
Republican Dorn Peterson, who also served on the council from 2000 to 2004, said the city will need eminent domain from time to time, but the locality needs to be careful when it is used. He could not support the use of eminent domain to increase the tax base.

"A tool of last resort," Peterson said.

As for the Kyger Funeral home, Peterson said the matter was decided by the board of visitors and not the council.

Republican candidate and political newcomer Ted Byrd said the university had treated Kyger fairly.

Harrisonburg, he said, was a small community where negotiation should take place when it comes to land. Eminent domain should be considered as a last resort, he said.

---

Daily News Record: http://www.dnronline.com

Sonoma Hospital Board Votes to Drop Eminent Domain Bid: CBS-TV5 (San Francisco CA), 4/13/06

With the overwhelming support of Sonoma residents, the Sonoma Valley Hospital District's board of directors voted unanimously tonight to begin negotiating the purchase of 15 acres of land at Broadway and Napa Road to build a new hospital.

The five members of the board also voted unanimously to rescind the board's support for Measure C, a $148 million bond measure. If passed, the measure would have authorized the seizure through eminent domain of 16 acres of farmland owned by the Leveroni family in order to construct a 70-bed, 150,000-square foot hospital.

"The whole Leveroni chapter is over," said Steve Page, co-chair of the Save Our Hospital Committee.

The vote followed two hours of public comment in meeting so well attended it had to be moved to a larger room, Sonoma resident Bruce Stephens said.

Three of the five parcels of land now set to be the site for the new hospital were purchased by Stephens on April 4 solely for the purpose of making possible an alternative site for the facility, he explained tonight.

The two other parcels are owned by the Sarafini and Zepponi families, according to Page. They contain a home and the Moose Lodge.

The new site is on the southwest corner of Broadway and Napa Road, just outside the city limits.

Stephens has signed contracts with the hospital board to assign the properties to them, he said.

Overall, there's a huge sigh of relief in this town, Stephens said. "Now we can start to bring the community together" and talk about what we need in a hospital and how big it should be, he added.

Environmentalists and conservationists had sided with the Leveroni family in opposing Measure C, claiming a new facility on Leveroni land would be located in a greenbelt around Sonoma and would open the door to urban sprawl.

Tonight's vote makes the results of the Measure C election moot, although Sonoma County Election officials have said the election can't be stopped. The voters' mail-in ballots were mailed out April 3 and will be counted May 2.

---

CBS-TV5: http://cbs5.com

San Jose RDA pledges not to use eminent domain: Silicon Valley/San Jose (CA) Business Journal, 4/14/06

By Timothy Roberts
Faced with a backlash against the use of eminent domain, California's largest redevelopment agency is taking the unusual step of repeating its promise that it will not take single-family homes away from their owners in 19 neighborhoods in San Jose redevelopment areas.

"We understand that people may fear that their homes will somehow be taken through eminent domain for commercial purposes," Harry Mavrogenes, the executive director of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency, the state's largest, said in a statement. "Although this has not been the case in San Jose Strong Neighborhood Initiative areas, we want to reassure our residents that it won't happen."

The Strong Neighborhood Initiative has directed $45 million in redevelopment money into 95 projects in 19 San Jose neighborhoods since the program began in 2002.

The redevelopment agency has raised fears about the use of eminent domain in the past, in particular when it sought 40 sites for residential development in the downtown San Jose in 2001 and threatened to use eminent domain.

Concerns that cities might take privately owned property for purposes that have not traditionally been considered in the public interest took on heightened national concern last year when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, in fact, cities could take property for economic development purposes. That court ruling spawned ballot initiative proposals and possible legislation in California that would reign in powers of eminent domain, although in California, a government agency must show that a property it would like to take is blighted.

The redevelopment agency is now asking the city council, which also serves as the board of directors of the agency, to "reconfirm its practice to not use eminent domain authority for any single-family, owner-occupied properties in the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative Project Area," according to a statement. The recommendation is on the agenda for the May 2 city council meeting.

---

Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal: http://sanjose.bizjournals.com

Senate approves eminent domain bill: Des Moines (IA) register, 4/13/06

The legislation toughens rules on when cities can confiscate property
By Jonathan Roos
The [Iowa] Legislature moved a big step closer Wednesday to restricting local governments' power to confiscate property for business development.

"For the grandmother in Waverly or the grandmother in Des Moines, this makes sure their house is protected," said Sen. Bob Brunkhorst, a Waverly Republican, in calling for Senate approval of an amended version of House File 2351.

Opponents warned of unintended consequences that could hamstring cities and hurt the state's economic development efforts.

The legislation threatens to tie the hands of city councils "to satisfy a political opportunity that you all think you're going to get out of this" in the next election, said Sen. Jack Hatch, a Des Moines Democrat.

Sen. Brad Zaun, a Republican who is a former Urbandale mayor, said no one had shown that governments' use of eminent domain had been abused in Iowa. "I want to hear the horror stories in the state of Iowa," Zaun said.

The legislation was sparked by a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that found it permissible for governments to seize private property to make way for business development. The Connecticut case involved a city's seizure of property for a project to develop offices, a riverfront hotel and health club.

The Senate's version of the bill is designed to avert a conflict between proposed condemnation restrictions and a major industrial project in Clinton.

Archer Daniels Midland Co. plans to build a new plant next to its wet corn mill in Clinton. The plant would make biodegradable plastics from corn. The industrial expansion involves a residential urban renewal area established in 1981.

The legislation toughens requirements for a city to take property within urban renewal areas. The areas would have to be heavily blighted for condemnation powers to be used.

However, lawmakers made the effective date of the change Oct. 1, thereby enabling the Clinton project to move ahead, said Sen. Keith Kreiman, a Bloomfield Democrat.

House File 2351, passed by the Senate on a 43-6 vote, returns to the House for more debate.

---

Des Moines Register: http://desmoinesregister.com

International Kelo Days, June 23 & 24, 2006

I and my group, some Cramer Hill [section of Camden NJ] Residents Association members, joined a statewide group of abused citizens on eminent domain. We are called the New Jersey Coalition Against Eminent Domain Abuse: www.njcaeda.com.

I hereby wholeheartedly suggest strongly that we announce to our country, the United States of America, that on INTERNATIONAL KELO DAYS, June 23th and 24th of 2006, we are protecting our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in this national demonstration of solidarity in defending our homes, businesses and churches from the hands of "the private use" clause of the Supreme court decision.

Let's march around our city halls on Friday the 23th with signs against eminent domain abuse. On Saturday the 24th, we will paper up our neighborhoods with all signs of disapproval like the "Hands Off My Home" sign, the slashed-circled redevelopment posters, the "Don't Tread on Me" stickers, etc.

Many people have come up with this idea, so let's make it happen.

Undocumented immigrants have shown their defiance to fear, yet we can't even take a day off from work to save the very roof we are working for. We don't even defend our neighbors' homes because ours are not on the list. Businesses have no real say because very very few homeowners live in commercial strips and won't fight "so-called-progress-not-for-public-use".

Quick rich schemes and prosperity dreams have increased greed out of proportions. Hearts have hardened. Eyes have narrowed. Ears have grown deaf to cries of despair. All for the mighty dollar, filthy lucre. Had our local government honestly managed taxpayers' monies correctly, we need not take — snatch — court order families out of their penny-pinched four walls and a roof.

---

Mary Cortes: Cortescamden@aim.com

Newport Beach moves forward with eminent domain law: Orange County (CA) Register, 4/12/06

The city plans to restrict its ability to seize private property to allow different commercial development
By Jeff Overley
[Newport beach CA] Officials late Tuesday voted to move forward with a law that would curb the city’s use of eminent domain.

The City Council unanimously backed a plan that would bar Newport Beach from seizing private property to allow different commercial development.

It’s a response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision where justices said condemning private property to allow new business could in some cases provide a larger public benefit and was therefore lawful.

Under the proposed Newport Beach law, condemnations that pave the way the way for purely public projects, such as roads or water pipelines, would still be legitimate.

In the short-term, the council aims to adopt a law banning the practice. But wary that future councils could overturn the vote, officials plan to place a measure on the fall ballot to amend the city charter and enshrine the law for good.

---

Orange County Register: http://www.ocregister.com

Eminent domain not cut and dried: Shreveport (LA) Times, 4/11/06

Protect from abuse but don't overreach
Efforts to protect private property from government seizure while worrying about its impact on community economic development is tying the Louisiana Legislature in knots.

After the U.S. Supreme Court legitimized a Connecticut economic development agency's power to take property then turn it over to a private, for-profit venture, it certainly is prudent for each state to review its laws and ensure safeguards against abuse.

The danger is, as the chancellor of LSU's Paul Hebert Law Center said in March hearing reported by The Advocate, that a "blunderbuss" approach unintentionally could harm communities. John J. Costonis argued against blanket bans on land expropriated for private development.

Much of the current debate surrounding Senate Bill 1 by state Sen. Joe McPherson, D-Woodworth, has to do with port facilities needing room to grow and create more terminal space that, in turn, creates jobs. Of course, a huge looming arena of concern is recovery in hurricane-devastated areas as local governments there seek to rebuild, sometimes envisioning tracts differently than their pre-storm uses.

But seeking compromise threatens legislative convolutions. A number of local government associations and public entities are opposed to the proposed constitutional amendment or at least fretting about the potential roadblocks it could raise to economic development. Among the fears is that trying to list or bar private or public-private exceptions in existing eminent domain laws — laws normally used for public uses such as roads or schools — could, in fact, open up loopholes.

In public-private ventures, is there an acceptable percentage of private use? If some of the property is open to the public as a museum or boat launch, what about the private areas leased to gift shops or marinas?

It perhaps may be possible to list some worst-case ventures into state law. Banning expropriation for a golf course could probably find support. But what about a venture such as Bossier City's Louisiana Boardwalk. The city, in part, used its legal powers to help accumulate a tract of land for the popular retail and entertainment venture although the city built and continues to operate a public parking garage.

Enlightened urban planners urge caution particularly for communities trying to breathe new life into older neighborhoods, for which assembling sufficient property for redevelopment is a key. Rather than rewriting the law, perhaps more tests and hurdles could be added to keep government in check. It should be noted, according to the Louisiana Municipal Association, that only three economic development projects, including the Shreveport Convention Center, have used expropriation power in the past 10 years.

While a consideration of the legal implications of the Supreme Court decision is prudent, the state needn't get caught up in a prairie fire of overreaction along with the rest of the nation's state legislatures. The issue of property rights is such a bedrock American concept that its focus nationwide nevertheless is subject to political exploitation no less than the issue of gay marriage or flag burning.

What's needed is a sober, studied review and careful tinkering. The governor, who has offered limited support for the bill though presumably with modifications, would do well to urge reason and deliberative caution.

---

The Shreveport Times: http://www.shreveporttimes.com

House Prepares for Debate on Eminent Domain Reform: digitalBURG.com (Warrensburg MO), 4/10/06

Representative David Pearce, R-Warrensburg (121st District), believes that House Bill 1944, passed out of the [Missouri] House Judiciary Committee by a bi-partisan 9-1 vote, will significantly improve landowner protections against eminent domain abuse.

"I am a full supporter of eminent domain reform," said Pearce. "Many constituents of the 121st District have encouraged me to vote for this legislation." Eminent domain legislation unanimously passed out of the Rules Committee on April 7 and is expected to be taken up this week.

Representative Steve Hobbs, R-Mexico (21st District) and sponsor of HB 1944, is confident that the bill restores the right balance between competing interests, although he anticipates engaging in thoughtful, serious debate with his colleagues before the bill becomes law.

"A lot of work has gone into this bill," said Representative Hobbs, "and I believe that work will pay off in helping us meet our number one goal: Giving Missouri property owners the protection they deserve."

Last year, the Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v New London expanded government power to take property from individuals and give it to developers in the name of economic development.

The Court's ruling drew anger from citizens across the country, but allowed state legislatures the freedom to restrict eminent domain. Governor Matt Blunt responded by establishing a Task Force on Eminent Domain. The resulting bill repeals nine sections of Missouri law and enacts twenty-three new sections in their place.

"Reforming eminent domain law in Missouri is no simple matter," Representative Hobbs admitted.

In a direct response to Kelo, HB 1944 stipulates that private property can be taken through eminent domain only for public use or blight. Farmland cannot be declared blighted and, therefore, is protected from eminent domain. Churches and non-profit organizations, both of which could be threatened under Kelo's "economic development" justification, will be protected. The bill allows authorized entities, like governments and utilities, to continue using the power of eminent domain to build public schools and libraries and to provide vital infrastructure like highways, railroads and electricity.

The bill also proposes a number of pro-landowner measures to further protect property owners' rights when their land is condemned. The condemning authority must give the landowner thirty days written notice both before beginning negotiation for the land and before filing a condemnation petition. The condemning authority also will be required to provide a "Landowner's Bill of Rights" that gives a plain understanding of the condemnation process.

"The Kelo decision was unfortunate," said Speaker Rod Jetton, R-Marble Hill (156th District), "but this bill provides a reasonable and firm solution. It covers all the bases."

---

digitalBURD.com: http://www.digitalburg.com

City appeals ruling in condemnation: Henry (County CA) Daily Herald, 4/10/06

By Michael Davis
The city of Stockbridge [Georgia] is taking its high-profile condemnation of a local flower shop to a higher court.

The City Council voted Monday to appeal a judge’s order throwing out its attempt to force the sale of Mark and Regina Meeks’ Stockbridge Florist and Gifts. The vote is the second affirmation in as many weeks by the council of its attempt to take the property for the city’s downtown redevelopment project.

The council voted unanimously to ask the Georgia Court of Appeals to overrule Henry County Superior Court Judge Arch McGarity’s dismissal on April 3, which came a week after the council moved to continue with the case.

City leaders say the couple has been unreasonable in negotiating for the property, but the Meekses claim the city only offered a fraction of what a private developer was willing to pay.

“I don’t have the right to vote,” said Mayor R.G. “Rudy” Kelley, who asked the council last week to back down. “I have the right to recommend and they chose to go the other way.”

Stockbridge plans to include the flower shop in its current redevelopment project, which includes a new city hall and parking deck, as well as land that will be turned over to private developers for shops and residences.

The Meekses say they were offered a spot in the redevelopment project for a condo and a new shop, but the city has said the deal, made by a hired envoy, was unauthorized.

In a September condemnation hearing, a special master awarded the Meekses $421,500 in buy-out and relocation expenses. The couple’s attorney argued they had a deal with a private drug store developer for nearly $750,000 before an ordinance change limiting the size of pharmacies in the city soured it.

The case has caught the attention of state lawmakers, who in light of last June’s U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming the taking of several homes in Connecticut to boost the town’s tax base, passed laws this year somewhat restricting local government’s seizure power.

But the new rules, which were signed into law last week, don’t apply in the Meekses’ case, which was already in the courts.

The Meekses’ attorney, Scott Jacobson, asked the city to reconsider its appeal Monday.

“We don’t consider [the vote] to be final so we’d like to continue with that request,” he said.

He argued the city already has plenty of property in its so-called downtown redevelopment district to complete its project.

“With the current property demolition and grading, it appears the city has amassed a significant site ... ” he said.

But because litigation has begun, the courts will have to decide the outcome according to City Councilman Steve Moon.

“We’ve started a project and we’ve started a process and we feel like (it’s a valid project),” he said.

The city, which has fought legal battles with several property owners in the redevelopment district over takings, has tried to be reasonable from Moon’s perspective.

“I understand why people would be up in arms about eminent domain and that’s why we went to each of the property owners and asked them to buy in,” he said. “For right now, our plan, we’re staying true to it.”

---

Henry Daily Herald: http://www.henryherald.com

Camden councilman wants to block eminent domain: Philadelphia (PA) Inquirer, 4/11/06

By Dwight Ott
A Camden city councilman plans to introduce an ordinance Thursday calling for a two-year moratorium on the use of eminent domain - a move that could stall the city's multimillion-dollar recovery effort.

Councilman Gilbert "Whip" Wilson's proposed measure was discussed during last week's Council caucus. President Angel Fuentes reportedly read a letter from Melvin R. "Randy" Primas Jr., the city's state-appointed chief operating officer, opposing the moratorium.

"We had a heated discussion," Fuentes said. Wilson, he said, "is not going to have support of the majority of my colleagues. A moratorium for the next two years is going backwards. We're experiencing a renaissance in the city. A moratorium would just hurt the city. ... It's not going to pass."

Primas said he would veto the ordinance if it did. As the city's financial czar under the five-year, state-funded Recovery Act, Primas has been given that power by the state.

"To keep throwing roadblocks at Camden's redevelopment doesn't make sense," he said.

Several lawsuits have already tied up massive projects that called for the use of eminent domain in the Cramer Hill and Bergen Square neighborhoods.

Camden has been one of the nation's most aggressive users of eminent domain, with thousands of families facing an uncertain future.

Primas said eminent domain was the power of government to take and redevelop private property for the "greater good." Detractors call it a "land grab."

Mayor Gwendolyn Faison said Camden officials trying to stop eminent domain should make sure of their facts.

"Eminent domain is not all wrong if used the right way," she said.

Wilson's ordinance would block the acquisition of about 2,200 occupied homes and 160 occupied businesses.

He said he did not oppose redevelopment, but had questions.

"Camden is in the process of adopting redevelopment plans covering the entire city, potentially subjecting every family business in the city to displacement via eminent domain," his ordinance states.

"We're being asked to go out here on a leap of faith," Wilson said. "I have a lot of faith. But I'm not leaping until I can see the plans."

---

Philadelphia Inquirer: www.philly.com

Eminent domain revision concerns economic development backers: Des Moines (IA) Business Record, 4/9/06

By Joe Gardyasz
After facing the threat of having his business properties taken away to make way for more upscale development in the East Village, Brad Hamilton is hopeful that proposed changes to Iowa’s eminent domain law will preclude any further efforts by the city to condemn the properties.

Hamilton, who owns storefront properties at 422 and 424 E. Locust St., said he believes the media attention surrounding his case was the reason the city “backed off,” but that the proposed legislation will provide him some assurance for the future.

“I think the thing to do is to ease up and give people incentives to fix up their properties, rather than threatening to take it away,” Hamilton said.

On the other side of the dispute, city and economic development groups remain concerned that proposed changes to Iowa’s law governing eminent domain may make it more difficult to condemn land for key projects, and that it could make it tougher to make a case for condemning blighted properties for urban renewal projects.

“At the end of the day when the dust is settled, we still think on balance this bill goes way too far and has a chilling effect on economic development,” said Tom Bredeweg, executive director of the Iowa League of Cities. “I think city officials are concerned that (legislators) need to back this off to a much more narrow bill. Whether they will do that remains to be seen.”

A possible exception to the bill’s provisions, which would enable Archer-Daniels- Midland Co. to proceed with development of a proposed plastics plant in Clinton, points to the need for legislators to think more broadly about how the legislation might affect future economic development projects, Bredeweg said.

“I cannot understand why legislators aren’t more sensitive about the next (economic development project) that’s going to happen a few months from now,” he said. “Occasionally these projects come along; there’s a consensus that they’re badly needed.”

Of particular concern to some city officials is language in the bill that would require that at least 75 percent of properties in an area must be considered “slum” or “blighted” before condemnation can take place.

“What that means is that property will deteriorate to a level that it will become quite an eyesore before you can utilize eminent domain,” said City Councilwoman Christine Hensley. “That’s not a win-win for any of us.”

The legislation, House File 2351, would allow eminent domain condemnation to be exercised only for projects involving a public purpose, use or improvement. It would tighten the definition of “public use” to exclude a broad range of economic development activities. It would also expand the requirements for public notice, expand the ability of property owners to challenge condemnation proceedings and enable landowners who were subject to eminent domain to reclaim properties not used for the intended public purpose within five years.

Amendments proposed in the Senate would also broaden the reach of the bill to restrict the use of eminent domain for creating lakes to projects large enough only for drinking water purposes, and which would prohibit lake developments from being transferred to private developers.

Virtually all state legislatures have addressed the eminent domain issue since June 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the use of eminent domain by the city of New London, Conn., to condemn a blighted area for economic development purposes was allowable because it served a “public purpose.”

By a 5-4 vote in Kelo vs. City of New London, the court held that a redevelopment plan devised by the city of New London to condemn and redevelop a blighted 90-acre neighborhood served a “public purpose” under the public-use provision of that state’s constitution, even though it would benefit private individuals.

The original suit was brought by seven landowners who refused to sell their property to the non-profit development corporation, saying the city’s use of eminent domain violated both the U.S. and Connecticut constitutions. The economic development plan was to create an area to complement a facility that pharmaceutical maker Pfizer Inc. was planning to build.

“This year, 43 states have come into session, and 42 of them have taken it up,” said Larry Morandi, director of state policy research for the National Conference of State Legislatures. “It’s a very prevalent issue, and so far this year, we’ve got six states that have passed bills that the governor has signed; two have passed bills that are still on the governor’s desk; and one has passed that the governor vetoed.”

The states that have enacted eminent domain revisions are Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, South Dakota, Utah and Wisconsin. Bills in Georgia and West Virginia are pending signatures by those states’ governors, while New Mexico’s governor vetoed that state’s bill.

“The three approaches that seem to be the most in vogue are defining traditional public uses of eminent domain, prohibiting it for economic development or added tax revenue, or redefining what blighted property is,” Morandi said. “So we see a lot of these statutes redefining what ‘blighted’ is. It’s got to really pose a problem to public health and safety to be blighted.”

According to a position paper the city of Des Moines provided to the Legislature in December, more than 90 percent of contested property cases reach a settlement without having to use eminent domain procedures. Some examples of past redevelopment projects include Guthrie Business Park, Central Place and Western Gateway.

“I still contend (legislators) are reacting to a situation that exists on the East Coast, not Iowa,” Hensley said.

Outside of Iowa’s cities, 1000 Friends of Iowa is advocating a move to apply eminent domain limitations to lake development projects. Under proposed Senate amendments, new lakes would be limited to the size necessary to provide a new source of drinking water, and local governments would be restricted from selling newly developed shoreline property to developers.

“The main context for our concerns is that we always want to make sure land use decisions are made that are fair to the individual as well to the community as a whole,” said Jonna Higgins-Freese, executive director of the group, which advocates environmentally responsible development. “From as far as we can see, there is no evidence that those projects will bring economic benefit to the entire community, not to just a few people.”

Doug Gross, a Des Moines attorney who has been a major advocate for recreational lake development for economic development in Iowa, could not be reached for comment.

Within the city, Hamilton said he believes the threat of using eminent domain for economic development purposes has had the effect of slowing improvements by property owners.

“There were a lot of people around me who weren’t fixing up their properties because they were waiting to see what was going to happen,” he said.

---

Des Moines Business Record: http://www.businessrecord.com

City has rights to land and business through eminent domain: Ventura County (CA) Star, 4/7/06

A Superior Court judge ruled today that two Oxnard [California] businesses cannot stop the city from buying them out through eminent domain to make way for a Highway 101 interchange project.

The city has been condemning properties and businesses near Rice Avenue at Highway 101 since 1997 for a future project to improve the interchange.

Under eminent domain laws, a government agency can force property owners and businesses to sell land and establishments at fair market value. The government must prove the project is necessary for the public good.

At a court hearing today, Mark Fox, a Los Angeles attorney representing Summit Pools and Spas West, asked why the city should be allowed to push out his clients now when it doesn't have the money to finish the project — and might not for years.

As of December, the city was $25 million short on the project's $33.7 million construction tab — a price that keeps rising because of nationwide increases in construction labor and material costs.

June Ailin, a Los Angeles attorney hired by Oxnard, countered that the city can't go out to bid for contracts until it first acquires all the necessary properties — even if it doesn?t have all construction costs and financing nailed down.

Judge Ken Riley sided with the city, saying it has the right to the land and businesses before it begins contracting the work out.

Oxnard can take possession of the businesses on May 1. Negotiations on the value of the businesses are ongoing.

---

Ventura County Star: http://www.venturacountystar.com

Committee puts eminent domain ordinance on hold: The Daily Independent (Ridgecrest CA), 4/7/06

By John V Ciani
The Ridgecrest City Council Economic Development Committee yesterday put a proposed ordinance on hold until the November election. Mayor Chip Holloway asked that the item be placed on the agenda.

He proposed an ordinance stating that the city will not use eminent domain to take any property for private commercial, retail, business or industrial development or redevelopment.

The proposed ordinance allows the use of eminent domain to acquire property for things such as streets, bridges, parkways, sidewalks, schools or public sewer, water, or waste disposal or transfer facilities.

The proposal also allows property to be taken if, after the failure of city regulatory enforcement, it poses a public-health or safety as a result of physical deterioration, pollution or contamination. It would allow property taken for the purpose of remediating such conditions or minimizing danger to the public. Any property would then be sold back to the original owner or heirs at the fair-market value plus any legal, administrative and remediation costs.

“There have been four initiatives brought to the state,” said Holloway. He said one, proposed by the Protect Our Homes Coalition, is far-reaching.

The organization’s proposal, the Protect Our Homes Act, limits the use of eminent domain to public-use projects such as roads, parks, public facilities, land-use planning, property zoning and actions to preserve public health and safety.

“It would be redundant for the city to spend a lot of staff time at this point to come up with our own ordinance when very likely, whatever the state comes down the pike with, will supersede anything we do,” he said.

“I certainly support putting it on the back burner until after the election,” said Committee Chair Dan Clark.

---

The Daily Independent: http://www.ridgecrestca.com

House eminent domain bill amended to offer exemptions to tax increment financing districts: ECM Publishers (Coon Rapids MN), 4/7/06

By T. W. Budig
Political fallout of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision became more tangible on Thursday (April 6) with the House passing eminent domain reform.

“I think when a lot of Minnesotans heard about that they were shocked,” said Rep. Jeff Johnson, R-Plymouth, of the recent U.S. Supreme Court Kelo v. City of New London ruling.

In the decision, the high court ruled private property could be taken by eminent domain and transferred to private ownership.

It sparked a nationwide reexamination of eminent domain — previously a sideshow at the Legislature.

Johnson portrayed the House bill as stricter than recently passed Senate eminent domain reform legislation.

He pointed to the treatment of urban blight — the imposition of court costs onto local government when a property owner successfully obtains a price 20 percent greater than last offer — of the burden of proof falling onto government that an eminent domain action hadn’t crippled a business, as examples of a tougher bill.

“But they’re both really strong,” said Johnson, speaking after the 115-17 House vote.

He indicated agreement between the House and Senate could readily be found in conference committee.

One of the big fights on the House floor was over lawmakers' attempts to amend the legislation as to protect local redevelopment efforts.

Rep. Barb Goodwin, DFL-Columbia Heights, attempted to amend the bill to allow projects greater than $750,000 to be exempt from the retroactive April 1 effective date of the legislation.

Off the House floor, Goodwin explained the City of Columbia Heights was engaged in a redevelopment project off Central Avenue.

She was worried, Goodwin explained, enactment of the legislation could leave the city with unsaleable property. “The best solution (to the quandary) is to get my amendment on,” she said.

But the House floor, Johnson argued that obviously the City of Columbia Height was looking to use eminent domain — something Goodwin downplayed — or Goodwin wouldn’t be offering the amendment.

It failed.

Several lawmakers raised the question of how much the eminent domain reform would cost state and local government — the Department of Transportation, for instance — but Rep. Mark Olson, R-Big Lake, spoke in defense of the bill.

“Current law is flawed policy,” said Olson. “I would suggest to members there’s cost because it’s owed,” he said.

The House eminent domain bill was successfully amended to offer exemptions to tax increment financing districts.

Johnson said his legislation doesn’t wholly prevent government’s use of eminent domain, but makes its application more difficult.

---

ECM Publishers: http://www.hometownsource.com

Eminent domain measures won't hinder Murdock Village: Charlotte (FL) Sun Herald, 4/07/06

By Barry Millman
The Florida House of Representatives approved three measures Thursday that supporters say will enhance protections for private property owners when local and state governments wield the power of eminent domain.

Advocates for Charlotte County say the legislation will likely have little or no impact on the county's use of that statutory power, which is used by governments to take private property for public purposes with just compensation to the owners.

The House bills will now be presented for consideration in the Senate, where a similar initiative was amended earlier this week to likewise shield from its impact existing redevelopment projects involving the use of eminent domain, like Murdock Village in Charlotte County.

"It should have no effect on Charlotte County's present or future use of CRAs or eminent domain," said County Commissioner Matt DeBoer of the House legislation. "Our main concern was the 73 lots in Murdock Village acquired through eminent domain that are not yet all the way through the appeals process, and the House legislation as written will not affect that."

Cari Roth, a lobbyist for the county who worked closely with lawmakers to ensure protections were included for ongoing projects like Murdock Village, said she would remain vigilant as the measures undergo consideration in the Senate.

"Charlotte County is in good shape for now," she said after Thursday's votes in the House. "We worked hard to make sure of that. We're not there yet though, and we'll be keeping a close watch in the Senate until it's done."

DeBoer, who has traveled to Tallahassee several times to lobby lawmakers on behalf of the county about the initiative, and Roth both said they had secured assurances from key senators that the protections for ongoing redevelopment projects like Murdock Village would remain in the final version of the legislation.

The first of the three measures approved Thursday, HB 1567, sets statutory limits on the use of eminent domain. The second and third, HJR 1569 and HJR 1571, propose amendments to the Florida Constitution concerning the use of eminent domain that would need to be approved by Florida voters when they vote in November elections.

HB 1567 and HJR 1571 passed the House with the approval of all 116 members present in the chamber. HJR 1569 passed by a vote of 92-23.

All three measures were sponsored by Speaker Designate Marco Rubio, R-Miami, who chaired the House Select Committee to Protect Private Property Rights, established by House Speaker Allan Bense, R-Panama City, following last summer's Kelo vs. City of New London, Connecticut decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

That decision was seen by many as a potential precedent for using eminent domain strictly for economic development purposes, and triggered a immediate review of relevant laws in nearly every state legislature in the country.

The measures approved by the House on Thursday were based on the recommendations of the Select Committee chaired by Rubio.

"We've heard from property owners across Florida who are rightly concerned that they may become the targets of government's economic development efforts through eminent domain," said Rubio in a statement released following the votes. "Today's action by the House affirms Florida's reputation as a state where private property rights are sure and secure."

Florida law allows its local and state governments to use eminent domain to acquire land for infrastructure, environmental and public safety needs, and bars counties and cities from utilizing its community redevelopment authority without first determining that an area to be redeveloped is either a slum or blighted.

"Some local officials may be loosely using terms like 'slum' and 'blight' to justify property takings which are actually economic development projects," said Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, who served on the Select Committee. "We want to prevent such abuses of eminent domain in Florida, and we believe that Floridians will join us in this cause with their vote at the ballot box."

Taken together, the three measures form a comprehensive strategy for ensuring that economic development projects cannot masquerade as projects of legitimate public interest, and protect homeowners affected by eminent domain from the loss of their Save Our Homes tax break.

HJR 1569 would amend the state constitution to prohibit the transfer of property taken by eminent domain to another private property owner within five years, with certain narrowly drawn exceptions.

HB 1567 puts the same restriction into state law, and lays out specific guidelines and limits on the use of eminent domain when used under the Community Redevelopment Act.

HJR 1571 would amend the state constitution to allow Floridians whose homestead property is taken through eminent domain to retain a property tax rate within three percent of their original assessment on their next homestead purchase.

---

Charlotte Sun Herald: http://www.sun-herald.com

City school board must submit to eminent domain: Asbury Park (NJ) Press:, 4/7/06

Redevelopment given precedence
By Nancy Shields
Asbury Park's Board of Education offices will have to relocate to make way for new townhouses and condominiums going up next to Wesley Lake, a state appeals court ruled in a decision made public Thursday.

The panel upheld a 2004 ruling of Superior Court Judge Lawrence Lawson, sitting in Freehold. That ruling said the city had the right to acquire the one-story building at 407 Lake Ave. by eminent domain because Asbury Park's waterfront-redevelopment needs outweighed the board's use of the former bank building as its central office over the past decade.

"Only administrative functions are performed at the board's offices on Lake Avenue; no actual instruction is conducted there," the appellate judges said. "And while we recognize that relocation to another office will inevitably involve some disruption, that assertion could be made by any party whose property is taken through eminent domain. We are confident that sound planning can minimize such disruption significantly."

School board President Robert DiSanto said Thursday he did not know where the board will relocate its offices.

"It's our administration building, and the city is putting our administrators out on the street for private development," DiSanto said.

A second property owner, H.D. Dunn Associates, a janitorial service, in the same block, also was a plaintiff in the suit.

"We concur entirely with the trial court that in the present situation, the greater public interest is served by permitting the city to proceed with its exercise of eminent domain against these two properties," the panel said.

The appellate court has ruled previously this year in favor of the city's 2002 plan to develop its waterfront on a block-by-block basis, the judges said.

"We did not deem it necessary to restate in this opinion the history of Asbury Park's efforts at redevelopment," the court said. "Those prior efforts have, for a variety of reasons, failed; we decline to place such a substantial obstacle in the city's current path, particularly when we cannot perceive a countervailing benefit."

The unanimous ruling allows Westminster Communities to move ahead with plans to build townhouses and condominiums on the Wesley Lake block. The company is currently building on an adjacent block to the east.

"The court had to answer a serious question as to whether or not a public entity, the city, has the right to take, by eminent domain, the right of another public entity, the Board of Education, and here it did so, very easily, based on the facts presented that the Board of Education property was an administrative office and not essential for the education of the students," said James Aaron, the city's redevelopment attorney who argued the case for Asbury Park.

"And the court felt that because a public purpose was being furthered — redevelopment — that outweighed the use of the property by the Board of Education as an office building," Aaron said. "Had the issue been different, had it been a grammar school or elementary school or high school, the result may have been different."

When the board announced it was buying the former Sovereign Bank building in 1996 and moved its offices from a site on Park Avenue, the move was seen as one that would bring more working people to a downtown that, at that time, had little activity and life.

---

Asbury Park Press: www.app.com

The U.S. Constitution enters the world of golf: National Golf Club Owners Association

Press release
By Mike Hughes
It's not often the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enters the world of golf, but it did so recently in the Village of North Hills, N.Y. That's where city officials are moving to claim eminent domain over a private golf club. While disturbing in this instance, the possibility that similar actions could spread to courses in other parts of the U.S. is what should have golf club members and non-golfing taxpayers alike very concerned.

The Village of North Hills is home to the Deepdale Golf Club, a highly regarded private club approximately 20 miles from Manhattan. The mayor of North Hills claims converting Deepdale to a municipal facility in the name of "economic development" would provide an amenity to village residents. It is also likely the conversion would boost property values, according to Mayor Marvin Natiss, although he didn't say anything about property taxes.

We believe the mayor is loosely interpreting the "Takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment, which allows taking private property for "public use" as long as just compensation is made to the private party. However, our quarrel is not with the Constitution or even the concept of eminent domain — it's with this interpretation of economic development.

We saw the eminent domain issue coming even before the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., ruling in June 2005 that confirmed the use of eminent domain in the name of "economic development." A pre-Kelo example occurred in Coatesville, Penn., where an attempt failed to condemn a family farm in order to construct a recreational complex that would have included an 18-hole golf course.

Leadership at the National Golf Course Owners Association believes this is a slippery slope. If government starts to condemn private property in order to build upscale municipal courses, or scout for "blighted" privately owned golf courses ripe for multi-million dollar renovations subsidized by taxpayers, where might it lead? That's why this is not only an issue for golfers. Undoubtedly, that's also why lawmakers in Washington and in more than 30 states have introduced legislation to curtail or require greater scrutiny of eminent domain in the name of economic development.

We believe local authorities need to ask whether their constituents are really clamoring for more high-end, public golf courses. There are currently some 70 public-access golf courses within a 25-mile drive of North Hills. Isn't the hue and cry much louder for investment in better schools, healthcare and roads?

The question that must be asked now in North Hills — and maybe soon in towns across America — is whether the need for further economic development justifies seizing some of the least-blighted property in the area. Is it more compelling than the Deepdale members' right to their private club? Further, might the property values enjoyed by North Hills — already among the highest in the nation — be due in part to the gem of a private golf club that already calls North Hills home?

---

National Golf Club Owners Association: http://www.ngcoa.org

Eminent domain's electoral fallout: St Louis (MO) Post-Dispatch, 3/31/06

By Clay Barbour
The U.S. Supreme Court's controversial eminent domain ruling came down almost one year ago. The fallout from that ruling - at least for some local politicians - could come down Tuesday.

In June, justices affirmed government's right to take private property for economic development. The ruling spurred renewed interest in the practice, which has long been used to fund city budgets and revitalize urban areas.

Officials say the use of eminent domain will figure prominently in elections Tuesday in communities such as Sunset Hills, Clayton and Manchester.

"It's the hot-button issue, that's for sure," said Sunset Hills Alderman Robert Brockhaus. "This election is starting to seem more like a referendum on eminent domain than it is an actual judgment on a candidate's job performance."

Brockhaus is one of four Sunset Hills aldermen running for re-election. Sunset Hills Mayor Jim Hobbs is also up for re-election. All five incumbents are facing stiff opposition from candidates running on an anti-eminent domain platform.

It seems to be a popular approach for challengers across the county, especially in communities where development deals created controversy.

In Manchester, officials approved the use of eminent domain for the $131.5 million Manchester Highlands shopping center.

There, Alderman Asa Wilson and former alderman Joe Mastroianni are vying for mayor. Incumbent Larry Miles is stepping down.

Wilson has made eminent domain a major issue of the campaign. He opposes using it for economic development. Mastroianni has said he favors restrained use of the tool.

"This is an important issue for the city," Wilson said. "There has been way too much abuse of eminent domain, and I think most of the people here would like to see that stop."

There seems to be a similar sentiment in Clayton, where earlier this year officials approved the city's first use of eminent domain.

The measure was made to help clear the way for a $190 million development project on Forsyth Boulevard. Headed by the Centene Corp., a giant in the health care industry, the project would include a 16-story headquarters building and a 15-story office building that would have significant retail space.

It would also displace several existing businesses, an issue that led two candidates to run for the Clayton Board of Aldermen.

Clayton lawyer Bret Rich is running for the seat being vacated by Jill Belsky. He faces write-in candidate Michelle Harris.

Another Clayton lawyer, Cynthia Holmes, is running against Alderman Judy Goodman. According to Holmes, eminent domain should never be used to help one business over another. According to Goodman, economic realities sometimes force a city's hand.

"No one likes to use eminent domain," Goodman said. "Sometimes you have to, for the good of everyone."

Clayton Alderman Beverly Wagner, who is not up for re-election this year, said she has been amazed by the anger eminent domain has engendered. She has heard from many people, a lot of them upset over the city's use of the controversial development tool.

"And people who are against it are very, very against it," she said.

No one knows this better than officials in Sunset Hills.

In a time when many cities struggle to make ends meet, Sunset Hills is the picture of prosperity. The city has the 13th-lowest property tax rate in St. Louis County, spends millions on public parks and roads and has $4.5 million in the bank for any unforeseen rainy days.

But spend an afternoon in town and you will hear again and again that city leaders have done a poor job. "It's maddening, maddening," Mayor Hobbs said. "It's like everything we've ever done right disappeared the moment the Novus deal fell through."

Sunset Hills had a very public, very embarrassing eminent domain failure. The city axed plans in February for a $184 million, high-end shopping center in the Sunset Manor neighborhood, located between Interstate 44 and Watson Road.

The deal fell through after the developer, the Novus Development Co., had trouble securing financing. The fallout has been economically devastating for many residents of Sunset Manor and politically devastating for the city's leaders.

Five anti-eminent domain candidates are vying for the board: John Hunzeker for mayor and Franklin Hardy, Thomas Hrastich, Lynn Flowers and Frank Gregory for the board.

And according to several sitting aldermen, the challengers have a better-than-average chance at winning.

"It's going to be real close," said Alderman John Tipton. "A lot of people are upset."

Tipton, Hobbs and Brockhaus have been spending a lot of time lately going door-to-door. They said the people they've spoken to seem supportive.

"But they could also decide to just run us out," Brockhaus said, "which would be a shame, I think, because we have done a lot of good for this town."

But according to Thomas Hrastich, past success is sometimes not enough.

"The Novus deal was such a big mistake that someone has to answer for it," he said.

---

St Louis Post-Dispatch: www.stltoday.com

NYSBA Wants Commission To Study Eminent Domain: North Country Gazette (Chestertown NY), 4/4/06

The president of the New York State Bar Association [NYSBA] has called on the Legislature to establish a commission to study all proposed amendments to the laws regarding eminent domain in New York, and not to make any changes to existing law or amend the law regarding the purposes under which the government can take property - until the study is complete.

In testimony before the state Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, NYSBA president A. Vincent Buzard of Rochester said "The law in this area is too complicated to amend piecemeal. Resolving issues involving eminent domain will best be accomplished through study by a Temporary State Commission on Eminent Domain to assure that all viewpoints are represented and that all the issues involved in this area of the law receive careful consideration," said Buzard.

In his written testimony, he added that: "Kelo is based on established legal precedent, it is not a revolutionary departure from existing law, and, in fact, would have been decided the same under New York law."

The position of the association stems from a report issued by its Task Force on Eminent Domain, which Buzard appointed in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The task force was formed to provide legal analysis and recommendations concerning appropriate legislative and regulatory considerations in the practice of eminent domain law.

The association's House of Delegates (the Association's policymaking and governing body), adopted the full report, and it is now the official position of the New York State Bar Association.

"In addition, our position is that unwarranted attacks on the Supreme Court's Kelo decision are based on misunderstanding, that they undermine public confidence in the judiciary, and are inappropriate," Buzard said.

Seven other areas of study, including the right of property owners to challenge the taking of their property for public purposes, were also adopted as recommendations of the Task Force by the House of Delegates.

---

North Country Gazette: http://www.northcountrygazette.org

In eminent domain, it's law that's flawed: The Cincinnati (OH) Enquirer, 4/4/06

Your Voice
By Dr. David Dahlman
The letter to the editor "City isn't "getting" house; it's stealing" (March 31) brings to light a common misconception with regard to the use of eminent domain. As one of the original "five holdouts" in the Norwood eminent domain case, I am not a friend of the way my or Emma Demasi's property was taken. It violates logic and what we all thought were our private property rights granted by the Constitution. What it doesn't violate is the Ohio law as it stands today, which is heavily weighted in favor of economic development.

Norwood and the city of Cincinnati did not steal my property or Demasi's. In both cases, the law was followed to the letter, and that's why we have a mud hole in Norwood and a soon-to-be wider street in Clifton. Appeals and quick-thinking attorneys can stall projects, but in the end the developers, following the law, will win. Watch for the Ohio Supreme Court to rule in favor of the developers in the Norwood case.

Ohio's Eminent Domain Task Force began hearings in March for the purpose of making a recommendation to the General Assembly as to whether the law in Ohio should be rewritten. In the first draft of their recommendations, it appears they have listened to those of us who described our experience with the taking of our property. They also have listened to our recommendations as to what the new law should say.

Elimination of the use of eminent domain for economic development except in cases of blight appears to where we are headed.

A clear-cut definition of blight is the necessary variable that, properly defined, will eliminate the ability of a developer to take any property they wish. A clear-cut definition of this variable would have negated the taking of the Norwood homes, as they were obviously not blighted. Without the hammer of eminent domain, the developer would have had to negotiate the old-fashioned way.

These recommendations are in no way certain to appear in any new law or constitutional amendment. For that reason, the fight is not over. Lobbying of each legislator is our next step to make sure the new law protects us all from the legal taking of our property by cleverly worded law sponsored by those with a financial stake in the outcome.

---

Cincinnati Enquirer: http://news.enquirer.com

Dr. David Dahlman is the owner of the Hyde Park Holistic Center, previously located in Norwood.

Eminent Domain Battle: KSLA-TV12 (Shreveport LA), 4/5/06

By Jeff Ferrell
Louisiana property owners could soon have more protection against forced government buy-outs. The state senate received a proposed bill that would ban such eminent domain buy-outs if the property is then handed over to a private company.

Soon after the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial ruling last year, which expanded the power of eminent domain, lawmakers in more than two dozen states rushed to "block" it. Back in June of 2005, Texas State Representative Frank Corte, Jr., of San Antonio, announced during a news conference, "this ruling has sparked a fire storm across the nation, and I cannot sit by - as well as my colleagues here today, in both the senate and the house - and let something happen to the citizens of my district and the rest of the citizens of Texas."

Four months after Corte's comments, in October of 2005, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed new legislation to protect people from having their property seized to benefit another private interest.

Supporters argue emiment domain is important for revitalizing blighted neighborhoods. Bossier City's Louisiana Boardwalk involved one such "forced buyout". It's just one of many reasons why the city is against Senate Bill One in the Louisiana State Legislature that would forbid such actions. Bossier City City Attorney Jimmy Hall explained, "it would have a heavy impact on the city's ability to acquire land for economic development purposes."

Hall also serves on the commission governing The Port of Shreveport Bossier. He says banning such forced buyouts for commercial projects could badly hurt the port. "Oh, our port has a huge number of big projects. Right now, Steelscape, one of the biggest projects around in any port is being built and a lot of the property that's been acquired out there for all the projects that are going on at the port is expropriation property or property that was negotiated with the threat of expropriation."

An effort to exclude ports from Senate Bill One failed. Now the 270-thousand people employed statewide in the industry nervously await word on the fate of that bill, as do thousands of others who support it. Senate Bill One is just the first of 30-bills filed this legislative session in Baton Rouge that would limit eminent domain relating to commercial projects.

---

KSLA-TV12: http://www.ksla.com

Gov. Perdue Signs Eminent Domain Legislation: The Chattanoogan (Chattanooga TN), 4/4/06

Protects Georgians Against Abuse Of Eminent Domain
Tuesday in a ceremony at the State Capitol, Gov. Sonny Perdue signed the Landowner’s Bill of Rights and Private Property Protection Act (HB1313), protecting private landowners in Georgia against the abuse of eminent domain.

Gov. Perdue also signed HR1306, a constitutional amendment requiring that the condemnation of property be approved by a vote of the elected governing authority of the county or city in which the property is located.

“This legislation and constitutional amendment changes the whole presumption of eminent domain from the power of government to the power of the people,” said Gov. Perdue. “It is wrong for your house, your land and your property to be held in jeopardy at the sway of a powerful government.”

House Floor Leader Rich Golick and Senate Rules Chairman Don Balfour carried these measures in the House and Senate.

“I want to thank them for listening to the voice, the heart and the emotions of Georgians when we say that personal property rights are important to us,” said Gov. Perdue.

Landowner’s Bill of Rights and Private Property Protection Act (HB1313)
HB1313 requires any exercise of eminent domain by non-elected housing and development authorities be for public use. Public benefit from economic development shall not constitute a public use. HB1313 defines public use as:

• Possession, occupation or use of land by the general public or state or government entities
  
• Use of land for public utilities
  
• Opening of roads/channels of trade and travel
  
• Acquisition of property where title is clouded
  
• Acquisition of property where unanimous consent is received (friendly condemnations)
  
• Remedy of blight.

HB1313 defines economic development as economic activity to increase the tax revenue, tax base, or employment or to improve general economic health. Blight, or blighted property, is determined on a property by property basis, not on the basis of area and must be an urban or developed property. The property must also meet two of six dangerous conditions listed below:

• Uninhabitable, unsafe or abandoned structures
  
• Inadequate provision of ventilation, light air or sanitation
  
• Imminent harm to life or property caused by natural catastrophe where property owner has not taken reasonable efforts to remedy the problem after being notified by the relevant government agency
  
• Superfund site due to environmental contamination
  
• Repeated illegal activity on the individual property of which the property owner knew or should have known
  
• Maintenance of the property below code for a year after notice of the code violation.

According to HB1313, the former owner may buy back land at the condemned price or condemner must pay the former landowner additional compensation if the property fails to be put to a public use. The bill also prevents the condemning authority from condemning land for a public use only to sell that land to a private entity a short time later.

Additional notice is to be given to the landowners prior to the initiation of condemnation proceedings as required by HB1313. The bill requires the Department of Community Affairs to develop a written notice of rights form for use by all condemnors which shall include information regarding the right to contest the taking as well as a sample court motion to do so. In the case of a landowner prevailing in challenging the condemnation, the condemnors shall provide for the award of attorney’s fees. HB1313 provides for a ward of additional damages for relocation costs and lost business revenues where condemnation displaces the landowner.

Eminent Domain Constitutional Amendment (HR1306)
HR1306 requires a vote of the elected city or county governing officials to approve the condemnation of property for redevelopment purposes. The constitutional amendment also removes the power of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes other than for public purposes.

Approval of elected city or county governing bodies is required for non-elected housing and development authorities, including those housing and development authorities that possess the power of eminent domain via a local constitutional amendment.

The amendment will appear on the November 7, 2006 ballot.

---

The Chattanoogan: http://www.chattanoogan.com

New London city council nixes move of eminent domain homes: WTNH-TV8 (New Haven CT), 4/3/06

A new push to save some New London homes from eminent domain. has fallen short.

Fort Trumbull homeowners desperate for a solution stood by as the city council put it to a vote.

For the past five or six years people in one New London neighborhood have been fighting to get their homes back after they were taken by eminent domain by the city.

There was a glimmer of hope at tonight's city council meeting as a proposal to move the homes to an unused lot in the Fort Trumbull area was put on the table. The proposal would also give the resident's the titles back.

That proposal was defeated by a vote of 5 to 2.

Councilman William Cornish says,"I am disappointed. I think the city council is out of whack with the community. All the people I talked to said give them their homes back and not to keep going the way we are doing it."

Susette Kelo says, "I am not surprised. Right now I am waiting for the Governor's word on it. She supported us in June and then again in September."

The city will continue to negotiate with the people to get them out of the homes. The deadline is May 31, 2006.

---

WTNH-TV8: http://www.wtnh.com

Eminent domain issue on the table: Thief River Falls (MN) Times, 4/4/06

By Scott DCamp
The topic of eminent domain found its way to the Pennington County Board of Commissioners during the March 28 county board meeting.

A delegation that included Marshall County resident Jim Stengrim appeared before the board Tuesday in response to a bill that overwhelmingly passed through the senate, 64-2 on Monday (March 27) and a separate bill that is working its way through the Minnesota House of Representatives. Stengrim, Brian Jadeke, Wally Diedrich and Loren Zutz presented commissioners with a sample support resolution that was approved by the Marshall County Board of Commissioners the previous week and was to be presented to commissioners in Roseau, Polk and Pennington counties last week.

The board unanimously tabled the support resolution, following a 20-minute discussion on its necessity.

If approved, the resolution would have stated that “the Pennnington County Board of Commissioners, on behalf of Pennington County, Minnesota, hereby fully supports and encourages the Minnesota House of Representative and Minnesota Senate, including Senator LeRoy Stumpf and Representatives Bernard Lieder and Maxine Penas, to take all actions necessary to pass legislation expressly prohibiting Watershed Districts from using condemnation proceedings to acquire land for natural resource enhancements, wildlife enhancements, government farms, or any other purpose, which is not a specific statutory purpose of watershed districts, as those purposes set forth and codified at Minnesota Statue 103D.201 (watershed district purposes), subdivision 2.”

“Right now, under the landowners bill of rights, not even the DNR has the right, or power to condemn land by eminent domain, Stengrim said. “We want to make it absolutely clear by passage of legislation that watershed districts are not now authorized and should not be authorized to condemn land for natural resource and wildlife enhancement.”

Stengrim and other landowners present at the meeting oppose the Middle-Snake-Tamarac Rivers Watershed District (MSTRWD) use of eminent domain to condemn farm land for the $6.5 million Agassiz Valley Project. Within the project, farmland would be used as the location of a long dike, that would hold back snowmelt and rainfall that would typically end up in the Snake River and eventually flow through Warren on its way to the Red River.

Flood control is not what angers the Marshall County landowners. What angers them is that some of the 640 condemned acres would be used for wildlife enhancement and other acres would be used to generate income, through government farming. Stengrim said that eminent domain was used in lieu of negotiations. He said that he and other land owners were told that if they didn’t like the eminent domain final offer, they “could sue the watershed.”

Stengrim said he has spoken with Senator LeRoy Stumpf about the use of eminent domain in condemning land for projects. Stumpf, according to Stengrim, believes that eminent domain is something that should only be used for public use and not for economic development. Stengrim said he agrees with Stumpf’s thoughts, that there are practical uses of eminent domain.

“We’re not out there to stop counties from using eminent domain,” Stengrim said. “You guys need these rights – but there’s been an abuse of power. If they are truly doing it for a public use as the constitution states, there’s going to be no problem with it.”

Stengrim believes the new bill will not harm or hamper the county’s use of eminent domain for foreseen needs such as acquiring right-of-way for road improvements. Replying to a question from Commissioner Bob Carlson, Stengrim said he was unsure if the senate’s eminent domain legislation separated use for transportation from other areas.

Don Jensen, chairman of the Pennington County Board, sympathized with Stengrim, stating that he felt it was wrong to condemn farm land for wildlife enhancements or government farming. But he feels that limiting a governmental body’s ability to use eminent domain could eventually keep county governments from using eminent domain to serve a public need.

“I don’t disagree with you, I think that eminent domain was never intended to take land and make it for wildlife,” Jensen said. “I understand that, you understand that, but I think there are some people who feel there are exceptions to that. You start to wonder where is this going to stop. Are public roads going to be next? I know what you are trying to do here, but is it the wisest way to do it, to separate one or two things out?”

Discussion continued, but no action was taken. The support resolution was tabled until the April 11 Pennington County Board meeting.

---

Thief River Falls Times: http://www.trftimes.com