Vedic City could force farmers to give up land for park: Des Moines IA Register, 6/23/07

By Megan Gordon
Maharishi Vedic City [IA] officials will meet at noon Sunday to discuss developing a park proposed on land owned by farmers who are unwilling to sell it.

The land is owned by Bob Palm and his two brothers, and it borders the city, said Maureen Wynne, attorney for Maharishi Vedic City. She said the city wants to buy 149 acres of the farmland for a state-of-the-art park that would include windmills, soccer fields, a swimming pool and a place to charge electric cars.

“The city council is considering whether or not to go forward with the park plan and to send a negotiator to speak further with the Palm brothers,” she said in an interview Saturday. “At this point, we’re not condemning anyone’s land. If it reaches that point, it won’t be for a while.”

She said the government has a right to take private land for city use. She cited New York City as an example of eminent domain.

Eminent domain is the term for the government’s ability to take or force the sale of private property in the name of public improvement.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 refused to overturn a Connecticut law that, like laws in Iowa and other states, allows governments to seize private land to help economic development. Iowa lawmakers in 2006, in reaction to the Connecticut case, toughened restrictions on cities’ ability to use eminent domain. Cities must now prove that at least 75 percent of the property is blighted.

Maharishi Vedic City appraised Bob Palm’s land at $2,675 per acre, Wynne said. Palm said the farm has been in his family for 115 years. He said he and his brothers don’t want to sell it.

“It’s not for sale. It never has been for sale and it never will be,” he said. “I live in the house I was born in. My grandfather built this house in 1894.”

Maharishi Vedic City city council members on Sunday are expected to either move forward with the park or scrap its plans, Wynne said. If the council votes in favor of moving forward with the park plans, they will have to file a court action to exercise eminent domain, she said.

Palm said he and his brothers will fight the city for as long as they can afford it.
“About all we can do is respond to every step they take,” he said. “We’re going to fight as hard and as long as we can.”

---

Des Moines IA Register: http://desmoinesregister.com

Pirolli offers insight into Ifshin extension: Bucks County PA Courier Times, 6/22/07

By Gema Maria Duarte
Tullytown [PA] council President Beth Pirolli wants to inform residents about council's decision to grant a two-year extension to developer Stephen Ifshin to complete the Levittown Town Center.

“[The council] wants the residents to understand what is going on,” Pirolli said Thursday afternoon. “[The council] wants [residents] to know that after much discussion, the decision wasn't made lightly. The developer came to us and said, "If I don't get the extension, there's no contract with Wal-Mart or any other store.' [The council] knows that residents want the shopping center, so if we didn't give him the extension, the shopping center wouldn't get built.”

In May, Ifshin signed a contract with Wal-Mart for a superstore that would sell everything its regular stores sell plus meats and produce.

Wal-Mart spokesman Jim Davis said Thursday construction is expected to start by June 2008. He also said it usually takes about a year to finish construction, depending on the scope of the project.

For Pirolli, the council's June 5 decision to give Ifshin the extension is a “win-win” for Tullytown residents.

“If construction [at the shopping center] is not going on by June 2008, he will not get the extension,” she said.

Building Inspections Underwriters of Feasterville, the company hired by the borough, will figure out the construction percentage that Ifshin will be required to have completed by June 2008, Pirolli said.

“[Ifshin] needs to have a significant amount of the construction completed for [the council] to grant the extension,” she said. “We also need to define "significant' and be fair.”

In a news release dated June 14, Pirolli listed eight requirements Ifshin will have to follow to get the extension, including the replacement and maintenance of Kenwood Drive North before the opening of the Super Wal-Mart, the cleaning and maintenance of a drainage area near the Kenwood section of Tullytown, construction of Wal-Mart under way by June 2008 or the extension would be withdrawn and construction of the other stores to occur as early as fall. Ifshin will also need to submit monthly progress reports on the project to the council. The reports will be released to the public during council meetings.

Pirolli said the release was approved by all council members, but Councilman Ed Czyzyk said he didn't approve it. He said he wasn't part of any research or discussions with the council about the challenges of eminent domain. Neither was Councilman Joe Shellenberger. He said he didn't get the release in time to request changes, and that the council usually leaves him in the dark.

Pirolli's release said, “Because we were advised that it would take many years to fight an attempt to take this property using "eminent domain' guidelines, the council researched extensively before arriving at our decision.”

“I know nothing about the research [the council] did,” Czyzyk said. “I wasn't told about these research or discussions.”

Czyzyk and Shellenberger voted against the extension. Council members Rick Adams, Mary Ann Gahagan, Matt Pirolli and Beth Pirolli voted for it. Councilwoman May Kucher wasn't present at the meeting.

Beth Pirolli said most of the council's discussion on the extension request occurred at the June 5 meeting and not before it.

She also explained that most of her eminent domain research came from the Internet. Borough solicitor William Salerno advised the council that eminent domain cases take a long time to be resolved, she said Thursday.

In the press release, Pirolli points out that if the borough were to obtain Ifshin's 50-acre property at Route 13 and Levittown Parkway through eminent domain, “it would be very costly and it could then only be used for public projects: roads, parks and government buildings.”

She further explained that if the borough “chose to use the Bucks County Redevelopment Authority to attempt to take this property, we, the residents, would not have the final say in what would be on that property, although we would pay for the land and all attorney and court fees.”

That's not the way it works, according to Mike Savona of Friedman, Schuman, Applebaum, Nemeroff & McCafferty, P.C. in Elkins Park, Montgomery County. Eminent domain procedures are “case by case,” said Savona, who represents the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission with eminent domain cases.

If the redevelopment authority took the case, then the agency would be responsible for the legal fees, unless there's an agreement between the borough and the agency leaving the municipality responsible for the legal cost, he said.

The redevelopment authority hasn't been approached by the council to help obtain the property at Route 13 and Levittown Parkway.

---

Bucks County PA Courier Times: http://www.phillyburbs.com

Residents - Don't use eminent domain: Minnesota This Week, Burnsville MN, 6/22/07

By Tad Johnson
By a show of hands, there was nearly unanimous opposition to eminent domain among an overflow crowd at a Tuesday, June 19 public hearing of the Rosemount [MN] Port Authority.

The Port Authority set the hearing that an estimated 150 people attended to receive testimony regarding the city’s intent to use eminent domain to acquire the Ratzlaff Service Station, 14630 S. Robert Trail.

Acquiring the property would clear the way for redeveloping Core Block East (see plan).

Of the 14 residents who spoke, nearly all opposed the idea of using eminent domain though a few urged the city that redeveloping downtown is needed.

While the Port Authority is considering using eminent domain to acquire the Ratzlaff property owned by Dr. Kurt Walter-Hansen, negotiations continue in an effort to end the stalemate.

Hansen and his attorney, Len Levine, met with the city’s Core Block East contracted developer, Wally Johnson of Stonebridge Cos., June 11 to discuss a possible partnership. The city has met with Hansen and/or Levine eight times since Feb. 5, 2007.

After receiving about an hour’s worth of testimony, the Port Authority continued the public hearing to 6 p.m. July 16 in the City Hall Council Chambers.

When the public hearing process is completed, the Port Authority will decide whether or not to use eminent domain, at the earliest, during an August meeting.

Eminent domain
Pat Walter, who co-owns the Ratzlaff property with her husband, was concerned that using eminent domain would cast a negative tone for downtown redevelopment.

Don Ratzlaff, who operates the service station and truck rental business, says using eminent domain would create an atmosphere of distrust to take something out of his pocket and give it to someone else.

Gary Graham, co-owner of Quilter’s Haven located south of the proposed redevelopment building, asked if any building in the city’s downtown tax-increment financing (TIF) district could be obtained by eminent domain.

Corrine Thomson, the city’s legal counsel, confirmed that the city could use eminent domain for properties in the TIF district until 2009.

When passing new law in 2006, the Minnesota Legislature granted an exception to cities that had already certified redevelopment TIF districts prior to May 1, 2006, that those cities could use provisions of the old law. The city’s TIF district was certified July 29, 2004.

The old law permitted use of eminent domain for redevelopment projects.

Residents encouraged the Port Authority to work with Hansen to negotiate a sale, rather than using eminent domain.

“We expect the city to work with property owners and not against them,” said Vivian Smithburg.

“The end doesn’t justify the means,” said Rosemount resident Dan McNulty. “Do the right thing: Say no to eminent domain.”

Prior to selling his property to Hansen, Ratzlaff said negotiations with the city’s developer were poor at best.

The city reported that offers to purchase the Ratzlaff property above its appraised value of $275,000 were made in November and December of 2005. Hansen purchased the property for $450,000 in September 2006, according to the city.

While negotiating with Hansen, the city made an April 13 purchase offer for the Ratzlaff property and three other sites in Core Block East.

Hansen had until May 14 to respond to the offer after he was granted two-week extension from the original deadline.

In a letter to the city, Hansen wrote that he is a willing seller, but did not indicate whether he accepted or denied the offer or made a counteroffer.

---

Minnesota This Week, Burnsville MN: http://www.thisweek-online.com

Riverside eminent-domain foes take a hit on appeal: Riverside CA Press-Enterprise, 6/20/07

By Doug Haberman
A Riverside resident may lose his battle against the city over an anti-eminent-domain ballot measure.

In fall 2005, Ken Stansbury began gathering signatures on a petition for a proposed city ballot measure. The initiative would have barred the city Redevelopment Agency from using eminent domain to acquire private property to transfer it to a developer.

The city filed suit, saying eminent domain is a state issue, not a local issue. It asked a judge to rule on the validity of Stansbury's measure.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal has issued a tentative decision reversing a trail court judge's ruling that found the city of Riverside tried to stifle Ken Stansbury's First Amendment rights. Stansbury's attorney, Richard Reed, says the ruling is "profoundly anti-democratic." The judge threw out the city's suit, finding it was meant to squelch Stansbury's First Amendment rights to petition the government.

But a state appeals court has issued a tentative opinion that would reverse the trial-court ruling.

"If the trial court's ruling is allowed to stand, no one could ever challenge an initiative's constitutionality prior to the election, which is contrary to law," the appeals panel wrote.

On Wednesday, City Attorney Greg Priamos called the appeals court opinion "a clarification of existing law."

The law now allows asking a judge to review a ballot measure for its legality before it goes to the voters.

Stansbury's attorney, Riverside-based Richard Brent Reed, said existing law needs to be corrected.

If people considering whether to put a measure on the ballot know a city might sue them over it, it could scare them away from the attempt, Reed said. That is profoundly anti-democratic, he said.

The tentative ruling will become final if neither party requests oral arguments - the chance to argue their case in front of the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division 2, in Riverside. The hearing would likely take place within 90 days of any request, and the final ruling would come after that.

Reed said he will request oral arguments.

Stansbury and Reed vowed to take the issue to the state Supreme Court, if necessary, because they see it as a battle for constitutional rights.

"I'm in it for the long haul," Stansbury said.

Controversial Acquisitions
Eminent domain has been an especially hot topic across the nation since a June 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Public agencies use eminent domain, also called condemnation, to acquire private property from owners unwilling to sell. It is typically employed to buy property for public uses, such as parks, libraries and street-widening projects. The agency condemning the property must pay fair market value for it.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling upheld the government's right to use eminent domain for another purpose: to acquire land for private developers whose projects would create jobs and boost tax revenues.

Many people, including Stansbury, saw the ruling as an affront to private property rights.

Soon after he began circulating his petition in Riverside, the city filed a lawsuit that said eminent domain is a state issue and city voters could not strip it away except through a statewide ballot measure. The city asked a judge to rule on the validity of Stansbury's proposed measure. In response, Stansbury and the group he fronted, Riversiders for Property Rights, filed a motion saying the city suit was a blatant attempt to stop the signature-gathering drive, thus depriving residents of their right under the First Amendment to petition the city government and their right to vote on the measure. In March 2006, Riverside County Superior Court Judge E. Michael Kaiser granted the motion by Stansbury and Riversiders for Property Rights and threw out the city suit.

Kaiser said eminent domain is a local issue. He also said any ruling he might make on the ballot measure's legality before the public voted on it would be premature because the measure might not pass.

The city appealed Kaiser's decision. The appeals court issued its tentative opinion June 13, saying Kaiser's ruling was in error.

Riversiders for Property Rights disbanded after Kaiser's ruling and reached an $11,000 settlement with the city in which the group gave up any further legal challenge. The anti-eminent-domain measure never made it onto a city ballot. The appeals court's tentative decision said that, under California law, a pre-election review of a ballot measure is acceptable when the validity of the proposal is in serious question.

That's because, the appeals court said, "there is no constitutional right to place an invalid initiative on the ballot."

Right To Sue
Reed said he would argue before the appeals court that the city had no right to sue over the proposed ballot measure unless it did so with someone who had a real interest in what the measure would accomplish.

A developer hoping to build a project on land the city Redevelopment Agency was looking to acquire through eminent domain would be one such partner, he said.

"The city doesn't have anything to lose" with passage of a ballot measure, "because their interests are supposed to be their voters' interests," Reed said.

Priamos said the appeals court's tentative opinion makes cities' rights clear.

---

Riverside CA Press-Enterprise: http://www.pe.com

Village may exercise eminent domain rights : MyWebTimes, Ottawa IL, 6/21/07

Seneca officials are near taking legal action over land for the NovaBiosource plant
The village [of Seneca IL] has been trying to work with Canada-based Pipe & Piling Supplies to obtain an easement agreement for a right of way off Union Street that goes east to the fence on the west side of the company's property. The company, located at 501 Shipyard Road, has not been returning phone calls resigning Mayor Kim Hill said.

"Getting an easement agreement with Pipe & Piling has been very difficult," Hill told the Village Board this week. "I've tried calling their Detroit spokesperson several times. My latest phone call was on Monday. None of them have been returned."

Hill said he would give the company until next Monday to respond. If an easement cannot be worked out, the board will begin eminent domain proceedings.

Eminent domain is a legal term that describes the power of the government to take private property for public use, even if the property owner objects. The Constitution's Fifth Amendment gives government the right to take private property if it is for public use and the property owner is paid a fair market value. Public use may include roads, parks, schools, hospitals or other public buildings.

"The lack of right-of-way easement is holding up the construction of the NovaBiosource plant." Hill said. "We need this agreement so that water and sewer services can be extended to the biodiesel plant. If Pipe & Piling doesn't talk with us, eminent domain will be our only option."

---

MyWebTimes, Ottawa IL: http://mywebtimes.com

Website chronicles Long Branch NJ eminent domain controversy

Greater Media Newspapers, publisher of several community newspapers in northern New Jersey, has provided extensive coverage of the eminent doamin controversy in Long Branch and other parts of the region. The company has just launched a website that chronicles the issue - including photographs and podcasts as well as news stories and opinion columns. The website is:
www.gmnews.com/eminentdomain

Eminent domain extension facing strong opposition: San Diego CA Union-Tribune, 6/20/07

By Tanya Sierra
Dozens of community members last night spoke against National City's proposed extension of its eminent domain authority, but officials said the tool is crucial to their redevelopment plans.

Several speakers before the City Council said the extension, which tightens up language to exclude all residential property, is too broad and lasts too long.
The council's public hearing was required before it could renew the city's condemnation power. The council will vote on the eminent domain extension next month.

In response to three hours of complaints last night, during which not one person spoke in favor of the renewal, Councilman Luis Natividad suggested the power be reduced from 12 years to six.

It was the only sign Natividad showed that he was moved by comments that otherwise irritated him. Most speakers, who were rallied by members of the city's popular youth boxing program, blasted officials as being against youth and characterized the council as wanting to force the program out of the city.

Officials have said repeatedly they want the program to stay and have provided more than $200,000 in funding over the years.

The Community Youth Athletic Center's building is targeted for replacement by a 24-story condominium tower.

“I don't scare very easy,” Natividad said. “So if anyone thought bringing 1,000 people was going to scare me, they're wrong. I'm not going to sit here and get insulted by anyone.”

The city can use eminent domain to obtain blighted commercial, industrial or vacant and abandoned properties. It negotiates to buy at fair-market value. If an owner refuses to sell, the city can get a court order forcing a sale. The city's eminent domain authority expires in August.

---

San Diego CA Union-Tribune: http://www.signonsandiego.com

Domain bill's effect unclear on Lynchburg plan: Richmond VA Times-Dispatch, 6/20/07

By Conor Reilly
A bill yanking federal money from localities that abuse their eminent-domain power recently passed the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture.

But it's unclear if the legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte, R-6th, would affect an important tool used in Lynchburg to improve run-down properties.

Goodlatte said in a news release that the bill responds to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision that allowed an economically depressed Connecticut town to take private land and give it to a private company.

"The court essentially erased any protection of private property as understood by the founders of our nation," he said in a news release.

Called the Strengthening the Ownership of Private Property Act, or STOPP, Goodlatte's bill would prohibit federal economic-development assistance that "uses the power of eminent domain to obtain property for private commercial development or . . . for economic-development purposes."

The proposed law does not specifically allow localities to take a property because it is a blight, according to Goodlatte spokeswoman Kathryn Rexrode.

"It's my understanding that local governments have other tools at their disposal to address blight," Rexrode said.

Lynchburg and its housing authority are looking into whether the bill would stifle the city's "spot-blight" program, designed to get run-down properties out of the hands of irresponsible owners and into the hands of responsible ones.

Lynchburg City Attorney Walter Erwin said Thursday that the language in the bill is muddy and could jeopardize key federal grant money used for projects, including the Bluff Walk Hotel, and funding for the Lynchburg Community Action Group and the housing authority.

"I just can't figure out why the federal government wants to protect blighted properties," Erwin said.

Although it is a concern, he said, the bill says eminent domain would have to be used to further "economic development." Spot blight would likely not qualify under that definition, so the federal money might not be at risk.

The city began using its program in 1999 and has dealt with 60 blighted properties in and around downtown Lynchburg. The city had to resort to eminent domain in seven of those cases.

Spot-blight elimination, Erwin said, raised the assessed values of those 60 properties by $1 million.

Lynchburg officials have said eminent domain is important because it can help preserve the city's historic character.

Localities can already take and demolish houses when safety is a factor. But spot blight allows the city to intervene before the houses must be razed.

Losing the threat of eminent domain could mean losing the last available method localities have to compel property owners to take care of their properties.

---

Richmond VA Times-Dispatch: http://www.inrich.com

Bill requires panel to review auction, eminent domain requests from railroads: Yuma AZ Sun, 6/20/07

By Howard Fischer
[Arizona] lawmakers gave final approval Tuesday to legislation that could throw roadblocks in the path of railroads that want to build new lines and switching yards. The measure now headed to Gov. Janet Napolitano allows the Arizona Corporation Commission to review any effort by a railroad to take land by eminent domain or by auction, the latter apparently referring to the purchase of state land.

That review would determine if the company has explored alternate sites as well as the impact it would have on everything from water quality and the area's economy to geographic landmarks. The commission also could have a public hearing.

But the review would be just that: In the end, nothing would block the railroad from going ahead with its original plans.

Despite that, Rep. Jonathan Paton, R-Tucson, who crafted the measure, said he believes it will make a difference.

"The citizens in this state are finally going to have a chance to comment on what the railroads are doing in their community,'' he said. And Paton said it must mean something, as the railroads "sent 40 lawyers to sit in my office to ask me to kill this bill.''

HB 2020 is aimed primarily at Union Pacific, which wants to construct a switching yard on state trust land near Picacho Peak. The company also plans to double its tracks on its main line from San Simon to Yuma.

The company apparently has dropped plans to build an entirely new line through Yuma south to the U.S.-Mexico border. But Paton said he is not convinced that Union Pacific or some other operator might not resurrect the plan, which has alarmed farmers in the area.

But the legislation is crafted so it will affect other railroads that operate in the state - assuming it is legal.

Attorneys for several railroads testified that they answer solely to the U.S. Surface Transportation Board. They said states may not impose their own requirements, even if those simply involve additional studies.

Union Pacific lobbyist Allan Stanton told lawmakers a lawsuit is likely.

The Pinal County Board of Supervisors already has sent a letter to Napolitano saying the switching yard is necessary and that they believe Union Pacific will be "an excellent asset to our community and a good neighbor,'' even agreeing to shield the lights to comply with the county's "dark sky ordinance.''

Board Chairman Lionel Ruiz, who wrote the letter, also poked fun at those who complained the rail yard would ruin the aesthetics of the area. He said there are multiple service stations, a recreational vehicle park and even a Dairy Queen near the peak.

---

Yuma AZ Sun: http://www.yumasun.com

Campaign to Reform Eminent Domain Abuse Kicks Off Signature Gathering: California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, 7/3/07

News Release
Legislature Continues to Consider Meaningless Property Rights Legislation
A broad [citizens'] coalition announced it is launching its efforts to begin the signature gathering process to qualify the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA) for the June 2008 ballot. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Kelo v. New London decision two years ago, 41 states have enacted eminent domain reforms to protect the private property rights of citizens, with 20 states passing meaningful protections, but true reforms have eluded California so far.

Supporters of eminent domain reform cite the State Legislature’s consideration of the redevelopment industry’s ACA 8 as further evidence that no meaningful reform will be considered this year. ACA 8, submitted by Assemblyman Hector De Le Torre (South Gate), has been roundly criticized by private property rights experts, small business, taxpayer, farm and faith based groups as meaningless legislation. The Institute for Justice, who litigated the Kelo case, says of ACA 8 that, “the act will do little to prevent the actual taking of private property in California – and this flaw is fatal.”

“Laws that allow government to seize private property from California homeowners to build shopping centers and industrial parks must be changed,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “Since the legislature has failed to protect private property, voters will.”

Unlike ACA 8 which is riddled with loopholes, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act outright prohibits government’s ability to profit by taking private property from one property owner and giving it to another.

“Family farmers and ranchers are very concerned about abuses of the government’s power to condemn land. It’s not right that court decisions allow the government to take your property and give it to someone else.” California Farm Bureau Federation President Doug Mosebar said. “This ballot measure helps assure that farmland continues to produce food and agricultural products, and offers much-needed protection for home and business owners throughout California.”

Major provisions of the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act include:

• Protect all properties from being taken for private development – including homes, businesses, family farms, places of worship and rental property.
  
• Continue to allow property to be taken for true public uses, such as highways, parks and schools.
  
• Prohibit government from seizing property for the same use as that of the original owner.
  
• Require that the property be offered for sale to the original owner if the public use for which a property was seized is ever abandoned.
  
• Provide agricultural and open space protections (aka Conaway Ranch Provision).
  
• Entitle property owners who are evicted by eminent domain to compensation for temporary business losses, relocation expenses and other reasonable expenses.
  
• Prohibit government from determining the price a property owner can charge to sell or lease their property.

While Prop. 90 was defeated by a slim margin last year, a survey conducted by Public Opinion Strategies earlier this year indicated that over 67% of potential voters would support another ballot measure to protect their property from developers looking to build shopping centers and industrial parks. Since the CPOFPA does not include Prop. 90’s regulatory takings and has no limitation on government’s ability to take property for legitimate public projects, proponents are confident that this measure will qualify for the June 2008 ballot.

“Our campaign to restore private property rights protections for all Californians will be one of the state’s most ambitious campaigns ever” said Senator Jim Nielsen, ret., president of the Alliance. “Voters must stand united against special interests that seek possession of their homes, businesses and family farms.”

Opponents of ACA 8 have questioned the motivation for the League of California Cities effort to introduce a poison pill provision (amendment) later in the legislative process that would undermine passage of the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act. Should both ballot measures win voter approval next year, the poison pill provision would dictate that the measure with the most votes becomes law. Conceivably, the measure with no real protections could become law, leaving voters with the impression that they have been provided property protections when in fact they have not.

The proposed initiative will require 763,789 signatures to qualify for the June 2008 ballot.

The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act is sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation and California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights.

---

California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights: http://www.yesonpropertyrights.com

City might use eminent domain to take over historic mansion: KVIA-TV7, El Paso TX, 6/18/07

The [El Paso TX] city government has taken another step towards taking over the historic A.B. Fall mansion.

The mansion, formerly the property of Albert B. Fall, is located at 1725 Arizona in Central El Paso.

Fall's granddaughter, Marthana Bethune, tells ABC-7 the city has set aside $633,000 to buy the mansion pending a decision. Bethune believes the mansion should become a museum.

A series of complaints and failed inspections during the past ten years has made city officials debate taking control of the mansion.

Three commissioners appointed by a judge have determined the value the city will pay for the historic building if the eminent domain proceedings go through.

A hearing is scheduled for July 18th to determine if the city can go through with the purchase.

---

KVIA-TV7, El Paso TX: http://www.kvia.com

San Bernardino County scrambles to protect power of eminent domain: Riverside CA Press-Enterprise, 6/19/07

By Duane W Gang
San Bernardino County is moving to pass new laws to protect its ability to use the power of eminent domain to acquire property. Other cities and counties across the state are doing the same.

To meet the requirements of a state law approved last year, local redevelopment agencies must outline their programs to use the often controversial land-acquisition tool. If not done by July 1, the agencies could lose the power of eminent domain.

San Bernardino County supervisors take up ordinances today, while the city of San Bernardino passed similar measures Monday.

Kathy Thomas, head of the county's redevelopment agency, was unavailable Monday for comment.

But county spokesman David Wert stressed that passage of ordinances for the Speedway, Cedar Glen and Mission Boulevard redevelopment areas does not mean the county has plans to use eminent domain to acquire land.

"It's controversial when ... the government goes in and takes a person's home and forces them to relocate when they don't want to," Wert said.

"The redevelopment agency has never done anything like that," he said. "When the redevelopment agency has used eminent domain in the past, it is to acquire portions of people's property to put in place infrastructure improvements."

Eminent domain allows a government to take property without an owner's consent as long as a fair market price is paid.

The proper use of eminent domain has become a more heated topic of debate since a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that the city of New London, Conn., could use eminent domain to take private land and turn it over to another private entity if it would result in a more economically beneficial use.

A local voter-approved change in San Bernardino County's charter, known as Measure O, prohibits the county from using eminent domain to turn land over to another private entity. But the measure, approved in November, does not apply to the redevelopment agency, a separate legal entity that supervisors oversee.

Wert said the ordinances do not contain any specific properties targeted for acquisition. And he said Measure O, placed on the ballot by supervisors, shows how reluctant current supervisors are to use their eminent domain power.

Wert said county officials believe if no action is taken by July 1, the redevelopment agency would no longer be allowed to use eminent domain.

"It is not prudent to slam the door on that by not filing a plan," he said.

Each of the county ordinances up for a vote contain time limits on the use of eminent domain, ranging to 2016.

---

Riverside CA Press-Enterprise: http://www.pe.com

Rich vs. Poor — San Diego Gym’s Eminent Domain Fight: North Country Gazette, Chesterton NY, 6/19/07

SAN DIEGO — Kick out the poor, bring in the rich
Kick out the poor, bring in the rich: those are the goals of a bogus “blight” declaration that National City, Calif., is expected to move forward Tuesday night.

In renewing a declaration that two-thirds of National City (a predominantly Hispanic San Diego suburb) is “blighted,” the city government’s goal is not to remove blight, but rather to remove the poor and minorities who have managed to purchase property and replace them with the rich and politically powerful.

But National City did not count on the Institute for Justice (IJ) — a public interest law firm with a long and successful history of fighting eminent domain for private gain — taking up the cause of National City property owners and fighting back.

On June 19, the Community Youth Athletic Center (CYAC) — a gym in National City that helps low-income, minority kids stay off the streets and avoid gangs — announced it would join the Institute for Justice to challenge the decision by National City, Calif., to target the gym, as well as many other properties, for eminent domain.

“We’re going to fight the city’s outrageous plan to take away our gym so a developer can build condos for rich people,” said Victor Nuñez, vice president of the CYAC and a San Diego County Deputy District Attorney. “We’re doing what we teach our kids to do; we’re standing up for what is right.”

“With its bogus blight designation, National City is laying the groundwork to destroy flourishing small businesses, churches and service organizations like the CYAC,” warned Jeff Rowes, a staff attorney with the Institute for Justice. “Each of these pieces of property may not be put to its so-called ‘highest economic use,’ but each provides the owner with the opportunity for a better life. If that property is taken, only to be handed over to someone else with more wealth and political influence, these industrious but poor individuals will lose their American Dream.”

What is happening in National City is part of a nationwide trend of eminent domain abuse where the vulnerable are victimized. In a study released Tuesday analyzing U.S. Census data, the Institute for Justice documented that eminent domain abuse disproportionately takes land from the poor, less-educated and minorities across the nation. The study, “Victimizing the Vulnerable: The Demographics of Eminent Domain Abuse,” vindicates the warning offered by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who wrote in her dissent in the infamous Kelo case that eminent domain would be used “to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more.”

The first-of-its-kind national study systematically examined U.S. Census data to determine the demographic profile of people subject to eminent domain abuse in 184 projects. It found that 58 percent of those targeted with the threat of eminent domain were minority residents and their annual median income was less than $19,000. Moreover, people living in areas targeted for eminent domain for private development are significantly poorer and more likely to be minority than people elsewhere in their own cities. The report is available at: http://www.ij.org/publications/other/demographic_study.html

Not only does National City hope to kick out current property owners and replace them with wealthier ones, but it also plans to take on more debt, according to IJ. A “blight” designation enables a government redevelopment agency to incur huge debts and capture property taxes that would otherwise go to the county. California redevelopment agencies collectively owe more than $60 billion and are the exclusive recipients of property taxes on more than $380 billion worth of property. Overall, redevelopment agencies capture about 10 percent of all property taxes collected in California.

Demonstrating one of the many ways the blight declarations are unconstitutionally stacked against property owners, National City’s City Council did not even release any of the documents necessary to challenge the blight designation until just a few days before Tuesday’s Council hearing, making it impossible for property owners to effectively challenge what the city is doing at the meeting—the only opportunity the law provides for them to do so, IJ officials said.

“California’s new eminent domain statute must be vigorously enforced by the courts if the poor and ultimately all Californians are to be protected from eminent domain abuse,” said Dana Berliner, an Institute for Justice senior attorney. “The courts must allow property owners the opportunity to review and challenge so-called blight designations. That is what this case is all about.”

“If you believe eminent domain is needed for redevelopment, look around you; virtually everything in America has been built without it,” concluded Rowes. “Development can be done, but it shouldn’t be done through government force. It should be done through private negotiation.”

This Saturday, June 23, marks the second anniversary of the Kelo ruling. The backlash against the Kelo ruling was swift and nearly unanimous. Public opinion polls consistently show that more than 80 percent of Americans disapprove of using eminent domain for private gain, as is going on in National City. Already 41 states, including California, have reformed their statutes to some degree to afford property owners greater protection against the wrongful seizure of their property. The two state supreme courts that have squarely considered the Kelo question unequivocally rejected the use of eminent domain for economic development.

The California Supreme Court has not taken a case in three decades addressing statutory and constitutional limitations on redevelopment. With so many Californians, many of them economically disadvantaged and minority, facing gross eminent domain abuse, the time is ripe for the California Supreme Court to consider this important issue and rein in this awesome power of government

---

North Country Gazette, Chesterton NY: http://www.northcountrygazette.org

Strength of Griswold eminent domain rule questioned: Norwich CT Bulletin, 6/15/07

By Julie A Varughese
At a special [Griswold CT] town meeting Tuesday, residents approved an ordinance, 15-3, designed to protect private property from being usurped by the municipal government for economic development.

Residents who spoke against the ordinance were concerned about its ability to protect property owners adequately and provide fair compensation when land is taken.

"I think this is weak," said Norman Higgins, who voted against the ordinance. "When we all go to sell our property, we ask for a greater price."

The ordinance stipulates the owner of residential, vacant, industrial or commercial property will be compensated at 125 percent of the appraised value, which would be calculated by a certified appraiser.

Resident Ron Ward said that amount could be negotiated, or it would be battled through the court system if a property owner is not satisfied with an offer.

Resident Harry Hansen asked if the town could sell usurped private property to a private entity.

Selectman Bill Stetson said he didn't know.

The ordinance was drafted in response to the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision in 2005, which ruled a government could transfer private property from one owner to another for economic development.

In New London's case, the Fort Trumbull neighborhood will be eliminated to build condominiums, a hotel and offices.

The decision upset property owners and politicians throughout the state and nation, and several towns in Eastern Connecticut looked into drafting ordinances protecting property owners. Griswold selectmen looked at these ordinances for guidance when drafting their own.

Stetson and First Selectman Anne Hatfield said the town's ordinance can provide more protection for property owners than a state law.

The ordinance does not limit the town's right to use eminent domain for public purposes, such as construction of sewers, highways, sidewalks, rights of way, flood and erosion control, or for any other transaction where the property rights acquired will be held or controlled by the town.

Resident Ron Ward spoke in favor of the ordinance, saying it is only meant to be taken as a policy stance, and it may really not provide much protection at all.

"We do not have the ability in the town of Griswold to control what the state wants to do," Ward said. "We just have to take what comes down the way."

He speculated before any decision is made on a case of eminent domain, public hearings likely would be held.

---

Norwich CT Bulletin: http://www.norwichbulletin.com

Wal-Mart proclaims win in Hercules fight: Contra Costa CA Times, 6/15/07

By Tom Lochner
A Contra Costa judge, confirming her earlier tentative ruling, has invalidated a Hercules ordinance that underpinned the city's effort to acquire by eminent domain a tract owned by retail giant Wal-Mart.

The ordinance, adopted by the City Council in September, sought to confirm the continued existence of the city's eminent domain authority in the so-called Dynamite Project Area and extend it for another 12 years.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley this week proclaimed "a clear win for the many thousands of customers who know Wal-Mart saves them money so they can live better" and said it would resume the process of applying to the city to build a store.

But City Attorney Mick Cabral said Hercules is considering other legal avenues for possibly using eminent domain.

In late spring 2006, the City Council authorized the invocation of eminent domain to seize the property for its fair-market value, contending Wal-Mart had shown bad faith by filing application after application for a store that would exceed the size limit under a 2003 development agreement with the previous owner of the tract. The parcel remained fallow, leading to a finding of economic blight by the city. The Dynamite Project Area refers to a dynamite plant that closed several decades ago, leaving behind physical blight.

Wal-Mart's latest, scaled-down application last year was for a 99,000-square-foot store, down from the 140,000-plus square feet of two earlier applications. The city contends the maximum size for any individual store on the tract is 64,000 square feet. Wal-Mart says its store falls within the approximately 168,000 total square footage of store space allowed for the tract.

The Wal-Mart tract is the 17-1/4-acre future Bayside Marketplace off John Muir Parkway roughly midway between San Pablo Avenue and San Pablo Bay.

Wal-Mart attacked the ordinance adopted in September on two main grounds: first, that the city's eminent domain authority in the project area had lapsed and therefore could not be extended; and second, that the city could not back up its finding of blight, a necessary condition for asserting eminent domain. Blight must be both physical and economic under current redevelopment law.

Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Judith Craddick, in striking down the September ordinance amending the redevelopment plan, ruled that Hercules had not made the case that the property is blighted. The ruling did not address whether the city's eminent domain authority had actually lapsed at the time the council adopted its ordinance.

"We're pleased with the judge's decision confirming that the city's ordinance was not valid," Simley said. "We're looking forward to working with the city to complete the application process and bring a very distinctive new store to the community."

Cabral did not elaborate on what basis the city might yet try to seize the Wal-Mart tract by eminent domain. The council discussed the Wal-Mart-eminent domain issue in closed session earlier this week, but Mayor Ed Balico said there was nothing to report when the council reconvened in open session.

Cabral expressed confidence that even if the city should decide no longer to pursue eminent domain, the terms of the 2003 development agreement would block the kind of store Wal-Mart has proposed.

Wal-Mart's announcement in late 2005 that it had purchased the Bayside Marketplace tract to build a store there has provoked stiff opposition from residents who say it would clash with the pedestrian-friendly concept of the Central Hercules and Waterfront areas by drawing automobile traffic mostly from out of town. Many residents denounced Wal-Mart at City Council meetings last year, accusing the company of paying low wages and providing lousy benefits to its employees while causing a net loss of sales tax receipts for host cities by destroying neighboring businesses. Wal-Mart has denied those charges and maintained throughout that it enjoys widespread community support in Hercules.

Craddick held in abeyance a permanent injunction to restrain the city from implementing a 2001 merged and restated redevelopment plan until the 2006 amendment is lawfully adopted, pending proof from the city of actions it has already taken to implement the 2001 plan. Cabral said the city expects to present the evidence by mid-August and that a final court ruling on the issue is likely in mid-September.

---

Contra Costa CA Times: http://www.contracostatimes.com

Articles from Texas about Governor Perry's June 2007 veto of eminent domain bill

• http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2007/06/its-regrettable-that-perry-
  cast-aside.html
  
  
• http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2007/06/now-government-is-in-business-of.html
  
  
• http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2007/06/with-this-veto-perry-has-left-every.html
  
  
• http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2007/06/hes-got-big-ag-background-but-since-hes.html
  
  
• http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2007/06/gov-perry-has-sent-message-loud-and.html
  
  
• http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2007/06/sen-hegar-im-confused-why-all-of-sudden.html
  
  
• http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2007/06/perrys-playbook-when-all-else-fails.html
  
  
• http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2007/06/taking-of-private-property-has-become.html
  
  
• http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2007/06/it-is-not-responsibility-of-individual.html
  
  
• http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2007/06/unfortunately-this-veto-exposes.html
  
  
• http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2007/06/perrys-desire-for-giant-limited-access.html
  
  
• http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2007/06/current-texas-law-allows-land-grabs-hb.html
  
  
• http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2007/06/txdot-and-toll-road-authorities-oppose.html
  
  
• http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2007/06/trans-texas-corridor-land-grabs-remain.html
  

Jury to City - Pay Up: Philadelphia PA Daily News, 6/25/07

By Dave Davies
When the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development told the city in 2005 that it had violated federal relocation law in dealing with Ed and Debbie Munoz, the city told the feds to take a hike.

The Munozes, whose Juniata Park business was in the path of a planned housing development, complained that they'd lost their business, home and savings in part because the city had kept them in the dark for two years about plans to take their property.

And they said the city had failed to apprise them of their legal rights to relocation expenses and business counseling at a time when it would have made a difference.

As the Daily News reported last year, the city told HUD and the Munozes it had followed the law in acquiring the land and owed them nothing.

But the Munozes took the city to court, and a federal jury saw it differently.

After a four-day trial in March, a jury concluded that the city indeed had violated the federal Uniform Relocation Act, and awarded the Munozes $497,230 in damages. The city also must pick up the Munozes' legal fees.

"We all cried. My daughters just sobbed," Debbie Munoz said of the moment she heard the verdict. "It was vindication for us hanging in there through this nightmare."

The Munozes bought a neighborhood grocery and garden center in August 2001 with high hopes for a second career. Debbie was a social worker with an interest in gardening. Ed had run a small business.

They got bank loans for $1 million to buy and improve the grocery, pledging their New Jersey home as collateral.

But soon after they opened the place, they started hearing from angry customers that the city was going to close the market and take the land for a planned housing development.

"People were coming in real hostile, accusing us of selling out to the project," Debbie Munoz said.

So while business deteriorated over the next 2-1/2 years, Munoz tried to get information from every city agency she could get on the phone about plans for the area.

She got nowhere.

"We had to make business decisions, and couldn't get any straight answers," Munoz said. "We couldn't sell without disclosing the possibility it might be taken, but didn't want to invest in something that had no future."

Ed Munoz became seriously ill in 2002 with ulcerative colitis and related complications, which the couple believe were stress-related.

The Munozes finally closed the business and declared bankruptcy in spring 2004, just as the city was moving to acquire the property.

Once the business was in bankruptcy, city officials said, the city was legally barred from offering the Munozes compensation for the property. The city got the parcel at a sheriff's sale, and the Munozes got nothing.

The Munoz property was taken for the Twin Homes at Frankford Creek, a 50-unit mixed-income development that city officials and the Frankford Community Development Corp. began planning at least as early as 2002.

City officials maintained that from 2002 through 2004, it wasn't clear whether the Munozes' corner lot would be needed for the project.

And they said they couldn't have legally informed the Munozes until that spring, when legislation authorizing the taking of their land went to City Council. But information developed in the civil case suggests the city had its eye on the Munozes' property much earlier.

For example, then-city housing director Deborah McColloch's notes of a September 2002 meeting on the Frankford Creek project contain the phrase "need to acquire the entire triangle," indicating an area that includes the Munoz property.

And an April 2003 letter from the Frankford CDC, which was developing the project, specifically asked the city's Redevelopment Authority to acquire the Munoz property.

There were other documents, including site plans and a state loan application, that referred to the Munoz property.

"The law requires that as soon as it's practical, the city has to tell property owners that the city is considering acquiring their land," said the Munozes' attorney, James Golden. "It's really common sense."

Golden said the evidence makes it clear that the city hid its plans from the Munozes, and they were harmed.

City officials declined to be interviewed on the verdict, though RDA spokesman Frank Keel said in a prepared statement that the city sees "no factual or legal basis" for the judgment, and the city has filed motions to challenge the verdict.

In court filings, city lawyers acknowledged that federal law requires early notice to property owners, and that a HUD handbook says that "as soon as an agency has identified properties it might be interested in . . . the agency needs to notify the owners in writing."

But they insisted that the city has good reasons not to tell property owners until it is sure it will acquire their parcels. If the city informs owners of a possible taking and plans then change, city attorneys argued, the city could be exposed to legal action.

Further, the city argued that the Munozes' business had failed for many reasons, including the closing of a nearby Acme, actions taken by the previous owner and Ed Munoz's illness.

The city's "forensic accountant determined from a review that [the Munozes'] business was worthless after December of 2002, nine months before the FCDC and the city had even obtained the requisite funding to make the project happen," city attorneys wrote.

Debbie Munoz agreed that her business had other problems, but said the uncertainty and ill will that the impending project brought hurt the business, and that the two years she spent not knowing what the city's plans were left her in a decision-making limbo.

Munoz said she was disappointed that the city appears determined to appeal the jury's decision.

"I wish I could get up tomorrow morning and just live my life," Munoz said. "I need to have this off my mind at 4 o'clock in the morning."

Three years after the Munozes lost their property, construction still hasn't begun on the Twin Homes at Frankford Creek.

City documents say that should happen later this year.

---

Philadelphia PA Daily News: www.philly.com

Husted Announces Passage of Eminent Domain Legislation: Campaigns & Elections Magazine, 6/13/07

Bill Will Protect Rights of Private Property Owners
Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted (R- Kettering) today announced the passage of House Bill 5, priority legislation aimed at protecting private property owners by restricting the use of eminent domain in Ohio.

"This bill establishes statewide standards for private property owners throughout the state of Ohio," Husted said. "It sets a clear standard for property owners and protects their rights without standing in the way of economic progress."

Eminent domain is the power of a state to seize an individual's private property to fulfill a public need without the consent of the property owner. House Bill 5 was introduced as priority legislation in the House to address the issue of eminent domain in more detail as a direct result of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Kelo v. New London. The ruling in Kelo stated that a city's exercise of eminent domain power in furtherance of an economic development plan was constitutional.

In response to the Kelo ruling, the Eminent Domain Taskforce was established in the last General Assembly to review eminent domain. The taskforce made recommendations on addressing eminent domain rights in Ohio, preserving the rights of private property owners and preventing Kelo-type eminent domain takings from occurring in Ohio.

House Bill 5 implements a number of the recommendations made last year by the task force. Among the highlights of House Bill 5 are provisions that prohibit communities from using eminent domain powers to acquire property except when necessary and for a public use. The legislation further requires communities to provide a development plan describing the public need for the property.

To address the issue of defining what property can be considered blighted, the bill provides a clear description of blight and a ‘blighted area' as being an area where 50 percent or more or the parcels are blighted. The legislation also protects farmland from being declared blighted.

In addition, the bill requires entities wishing to use eminent domain to provide a period for public comment as well as an appraisal of the property in question. The property owners would have the option of repurchasing the property if it has not been used within five years.

House Bill 5 passed the House today and now moves to the Senate for consideration.

---

Campaigns & Elections Magazine: http://campaignsandelections.com

Eminent domain: Cherry Hill NJ Courier-Post, 6/14/07

Re: "Cramer Hill plan won't take houses"
By Theodore Z Davis
I want to take this opportunity to describe the approach Camden will be pursuing in supporting redevelopment activities in city neighborhoods.

Whenever possible, the city will avoid displacing residents of Camden neighborhoods through the use of eminent domain. As reported in the "Courier-Post," the redevelopment plan proposed for the Cramer Hill neighborhood and presented at a neighborhood meeting on May 30 does not call for the acquisition of any occupied housing.

In other neighborhoods, city agency staff will work closely with community members to identify redevelopment goals and priorities and to implement redevelopment plans based on these goals and priorities. Eminent domain powers will be used to acquire vacant properties and may be used, as a last resort, to acquire occupied properties.

However, the city will do as much as possible to avoid residential displacement and, in those instances in which displacement is proposed to occur, will ensure that affected residents will be offered a choice of housing options that will be equal to or better than their current housing status.

---

Cherry Hill NJ Courier-Post: http://www.courierpostonline.com

Theodore Z Davis is Chief operating officer of Camden NJ

City Council divided on issue of eminent domain: Auburn CA Journal, 6/13/07

By Jenna Nielsen
The Auburn City Council will have to hash out its eminent domain policy within the city's redevelopment area at a future meeting.

After a split vote of 3-2, the council decided to direct staff to bring back a stricter policy that would limit the redevelopment agency's authority to use eminent domain in the redevelopment area for traditional public purposes only, not to transfer property from one private property owner to another.

The redevelopment plan already contains a provision restricting the use of residential eminent domain authority.

Once the policy takes effect, it will remain for 12 years.

Councilmembers Kevin Hanley, Mike Holmes and Keith Nesbitt voted to further restrict the ordinance.

"The controversial issue we have been dealing with is the use of eminent domain for private purposes and I would prefer that we use cooperation rather than coercion," Hanley said Tuesday. "There have been abuses with government using these tactics and this guarantees that a future council can only use eminent domain for traditional purposes."

Mayor Bob Snyder said he trusts future councils to make decisions that have the best interest of the city in mind.

"I trust the city council and the community values that would guide the city council," Snyder said. "Right now, no one on the council wants to use eminent domain, but who knows what the future will hold?"

Snyder said he couldn't think of an example of when it would be necessary to use eminent domain, but that he did not want to tie the hands of a future council.

"We really need to trust the city council and give them all the powers they might need in the future," he said. "To do otherwise doubts their ability to make decisions for the city." Hanley said when it comes to protecting property rights, even an honest council would not make a difference.

"Elections of good people cannot stop the problem by itself," Hanley said. "A lawyer from Wal-Mart could come in and tell a small property owner, 'if you don't take this price, the city can come in and take your property.' Even an honest councilmember may not know when those threats are happening because they aren't happening in the public."

Recent misinformation floating about the city's eminent domain authority resulted in some city staff members to go on damage control.

Many in the community had expressed concern that the city's recent approval to expand its redevelopment area to more than 480 acres could mean some commercial properties within city limits are targeted for eminent domain, specifically Eisley's Nursery.

But that's a harsh rumor city officials have said just isn't true, and is a gross exaggeration of what the redevelopment plan actually means.

Council members have said on repeated occasions that the use of eminent domain would be used as a last resort, and that no specific properties have been targeted.

In a March 28 Journal article, City Manager Bob Richardson said he had already begun receiving phone calls about the city's authority to use eminent domain within the redevelopment area.

"We have had some residents contact us concerned about what this all really means," Richardson said. "We are not going to go out and bulldoze anyone's property." The Auburn City Council unanimously voted to expand the existing redevelopment project area May 7. City leaders say that the project will help eliminate blighted properties and areas within city limits.

Eisley's Nursery was just one of dozens of area businesses that were labeled as "blighted" in a 131-page report conducted by the city and GRC Consultants, based out of Orange, Calif.

The report included dozens of photos of properties throughout the city, none of which were named, but were labeled as blighted.

Based on the city's definition, blighted areas include high crime, declining property values and unsafe conditions.

Asked last month whether he believes Eisley's has been targeted by the city, Earl Eisley responded that he has no way of knowing if that is true or not. "At this point, the city has taken pictures and published our business as blighted," Eisley said. "And even if this City Council can't take property through eminent domain, the next council can - there is no security for us down the road."

The council, during a joint session with the Auburn Urban Development Authority, voted to approve the expansion of the existing targeted area, which was originally approved in 1987. Parts of Nevada Street, Highway 49 and Blocker Drive are included in the new area.

The decision by the two agencies, which are governed by the City Council, will also increase the limit on the amount of tax percentage the existing area may receive. If the property values go up as the city works to beautify the area, the city would benefit and so would residents, officials say.

---

Auburn CA Journal: http://www.auburnjournal.com

Eminent domain a real concern if TAD passes : Camden County GA Tribune & Georgian, 6/15/07

Letters to the Editor
By Lou Eyerly, St Marys GA
Not only did Durango rape the mill and return to Mexico with millions by selling off parts of the mill and borrowing millions from a national banking system, now LandMar comes in and wants a tax allocation to basically pay for cleaning up the tremendous toxicity at the mill.

The letter from Greg Bird ("LandMar goes a TAD bit too far with our taxes") on Wednesday (June 6) has it correct, but the devil is also in the details. If you get a copy of Tax Allocation Districts [TADs] in Georgia, look on page 8 under: What restrictions apply if a county or municipality is not the redevelopment agency, sub paragraph (5) says "The power of eminent domain may only be exercised by the local legislative body of the country or municipality, or a downtown development authority."

The local legislative body, if the TAD passes on June 19, will place the authority of eminent domain in the hands of a board appointed and not elected to exercise eminent domain power over us. That is not advertised and probably will not be brought out to us before we vote. What a powerful tool to be used against the average citizen.

Also, why should the citizens of St. Marys and the county pay for the cleanup of the Gilman property? Billionaires have purchased the mill, why should they not pay for the cleanup instead of us? My grandmother used to say, "When you buy the dog, you also buy the fleas on the dog." Use some of Greg Bird's figures to see how much each and every one of us will pay for 30 years. So everyone must vote, and when you vote, be sure you understand the issue. Be careful you do not vote yourself into welfare.

---

Camden County GA Tribune & Georgian:
http://www.tribune-georgian.com

Property Owners Win One: Human Events, 6/13/07

By John Stossel
Opponents of eminent domain finally have something to celebrate. After a public campaign, Target Corp. has decided not to build a store on condemned property in Arlington Heights, Ill.

Five years ago, the Village trustees declared the International Plaza shopping center and other properties blighted, setting the stage for condemnation under eminent domain. The business owners who were to lose their stores fought the "blight" designation in court but failed.

Yet they didn't give up. They and their supporters held protests at trustee meetings. They were aided by the Sam Adams Alliance and Foundation, which launched a letter, telephone and flyer campaign that threatened to boycott Target if the company went through with its plan to occupy property seized by the government.

In late May, the Alliance triumphantly announced, "Target backed out of their contract with the Village. International Plaza tenants have saved the property from eminent domain abuse, at least for the time being".

The Village attorney said pending lawsuits by tenants of the shopping center were one reason for Target's decision.

It's only a reprieve. The trustees smell big bucks, so they may try to find another major chain to be the principal retailer in the 35-acre development area. In the past, several retailers have been more than willing to build on stolen property. So the residents of Arlington Heights and the Sam Adams Alliance may need to launch another campaign.

Nevertheless, Target's announcement is good news indeed.

The "takings" clause in the Constitution's Fifth Amendment says government cannot take private property "for public use without just compensation." I object to anyone having his property taken by force, but at least traditionally, this power of eminent domain ("superior ownership") was limited to the building of highways, bridges and parks - things meant for general public benefit. But over the last 40 years, governments have redefined "public use" to include private use that they argue has public benefit. Towns began to condemn properties said to be "blighted" and hand them over to private developers, who promised higher tax revenues and jobs.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court blessed this outrageous argument in the infamous Kelo v. New London case. Fortunately, a public backlash followed the ruling, and 41 states have put restrictions on eminent domain for private development. But many of these laws have loopholes for "blighted" property.

Blight is in the eye of the beholder. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public-interest law firm, says that "the definition of 'blight' has become so broad and unprincipled that governments regularly target perfectly fine homes in ordinary neighborhoods for the wrecking ball."

The use of eminent domain for private profit is the tip of the iceberg of an unappreciated threat to individual freedom. States and municipalities routinely engage in economic planning that would make the old Soviet Union blush. State and local planning boards manipulate the tax laws and hand out cash subsidies to favored retailers and manufacturers, while those without political connections bear the full tax burden or are shut out altogether. The favoritism escalates when governments feverishly compete with one another to attract an auto-assembly plant or a big-box store. Private businesses play each government off against the others to get the most corporate welfare possible.

Who pays? The taxpayers and property owners who are forced to sacrifice for the "common good."

Why do we assume that politicians and bureaucrats know better what's good for the community than people themselves? Competition within free markets benefits everyone. Voluntary exchange is always win-win. Political schemes - which always require force - benefit some at the expense of others.

Many uninformed people think there can't be economic development without planning. That's another myth. Most of America's astounding economic growth occurred without government guidance [See "Kelo v. City of New London: Do We Need Eminent Domain for Economic Growth?."]

The Arlington Heights story shows that big companies respond to public protests. There is a lesson in that. Governments will stop stealing private property from the powerless when businesses refuse to cooperate in this larceny. So the next time one of those giants signs on to a development project made possible by eminent domain, give them an earful.

---

Human Events: http://www.humanevents.com

Mr. Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel - Why Everything You Know is Wrong"

Sugar Creek delays decision on Sugarland: Blue Springs MO Examiner, 6/12/07

Residents concerned about eminent domain
By Joe Parmon
As several residents facing potential relocation waited anxiously for a decision, Sugar Creek city aldermen last night tabled a vote to approve the proposed Sugarland Center redevelopment project along with a tax increment financing plan designed to entice a developer to begin construction.

If all three phases are completed, about 60 homes would be affected in the project area situated on about 40 acres at the northwest corner of Sterling Avenue and U.S. 24. A grocery store and other attractions are slated to be built, while residents fear eminent domain could be used to take homes and clear the way for the development.

Aldermen discussed several issues surrounding the project, including the purchase of property and negotiations with the developer, Sugarland, LLC, during an executive session following the regular meeting.

The eminent domain issue has raised the ire of citizens across the state and elsewhere. Resident Penelope Marth handed aldermen and others copies of a local newsletter which contained a press release dated May 21 in which a circuit court judge ruled in favor of an Arnold, Mo., dentist who had fought to save his dental practice from what he claimed was eminent domain abuse. Saying she doesn't want to sell her home, Marth remarked she and others object to eminent domain allowing cities to seize private property for the benefit of another private entity.

"I'm not against redevelopment, I'm against eminent domain abuse," said Marth, whose family has lived at her home on South Harris since 1920. Marth said there are better locations in the area for the redevelopment.

"To see land that has never been developed, and to see trees, streams, parks, and wildlife cemented over, that's wrong," commented Marth.

South Sterling Avenue resident Eleanor Miller said she has lived in her home for the past 48 years and doesn't want to move either.

"I've raised my kids in that home. I don't want them to take it," she said.

City Administrator Ron Martinovich has said the city doesn't have eminent domain authorization and is attempting to buy the homes, as the city is seeking to obtain the property for the first phase by Aug. 1.

The total redevelopment cost for the first two parts of the project is $42.3 million, with the developer asking for $23.5 million in TIF assistance.

---

Blue Springs MO Examiner: http://www.examiner.net

Losing Homes To the I-580 Interchange: Castro Valley CA Forum, 6/12/07

By Robert Souza
A timeworn proverb reads, “a man’s home is his castle”, and for a handful of Castro Valley residents, their castles will soon become a freeway exchange.

“I was lucky enough to buy my house at a time when the market was low,” said Dave Fulkerson, who’s lived in his Juniper St. home for a dozen years. “With this freeway coming, I feel like the county is trying to low-ball me on the price of my house.”

Fulkerson claims he’s seen other Castro Valley homes that are similar to his selling for upwards of $669,000. But he says he’s been offered just under $600,000 by the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) and the Associated Right of Way Services (ARWS )— less than what he feels his castle is worth.

“Signing that right-of-way contract is like putting your head in the noose.” Fulkerson declared.

ACTIA wants to purchase the homes on Juniper to construct a “diamond” interchange on I-580 near the existing Redwood Road off ramp and close an off-ramp on Center Street and the on-ramp from Castro Valley Boulevard across from Marshall Street.

“We’re going through the same negotiation process as regular home buyers do,” ACTIA Deputy Director Art that fair market value be offered to the owner, so similar to regular real estate purchases, these can go back and forth in negotiations.”

Dao said the county goes the “extra step” when it makes an offer for a house, offering an additional $5,000 for homeowners to retain their own property appraisal. In this instance, ACTIA is using Associated Right of Way Services, Inc. of Pleasant Hill to independently assess the four homes on Juniper.

“I don’t know where I will be able to buy a house like this for what they are offering me. They’re telling me if I think my house is worth more—I need to prove it to them,” said Fulkerson, who’s also upset by the inconvenience of the situation.

In addition to acquiring the four homes on Juniper, the project calls for eliminating some of the parking spaces at Spencer’s Mortuary at 21228 Redwood Road.

“We’ve known about this for at least three years,” said Wes Dao said. “It’s required by law," [noted James] Fisher, president of Spencer’s Mortuary. “There were meetings where projects were shown to us, each contingent upon funding.” At first, Fisher was uncertain how close the exchange would come to the mortuary, and he was concerned it might all have to go. But under the adopted plan, the loss will amount to just 25 of Spencer’s 75 parking spaces.

Fisher said ACTIA explained to him that after a parking lot reconfiguration and homes on Juniper are removed—up to 20 spaces might be recovered.

“We’re hoping we will end up not losing any spaces. There are times when we have 90 to 95 cars here for a service,” Fisher said, stressing the importance parking has on the mortuary’s business. Compensation for property is in the works and so far, no attorneys have been contacted. “I hope it will continue that way.” added Fisher.

Juniper resident Mike Bernardo has previous experience with eminent domain, and described the current state of affairs as being the least amusing of all for him.

“First, they told me I would be losing my house entirely,” Bernardo said. “Now all they want is to buy 15 square feet for $12,000 and to rent an additional amount of footage for two years at $6,100 a year.”

When he thought he’d lose his home, Bernardo said he went to Arizona to scout out real estate. “I’m glad I didn’t buy anything — I would have ended up owning two properties,” he said.

Dave Fulkerson plans on finding a property appraiser so he can determine what to do next. “I don’t trust or believe them at all. They just want to sweet talk us until they can buy us out,” he said.

Director Dao said eminent domain might be used if no agreement is reached between the property owner and ACTIA.

“In that instance, a court will determine the value of land and can issue an order of possession, which is a court order saying the property owner must sell and accept the terms,” Dao explained. Eminent domain dates back hundreds of years. In the U.S. it has traditionally been used to build railroads, streets, waterways, public and government buildings, and the interstate highway system.

Dao describes the land acquisition procedure as an all inclusive process that ACTIA acknowledges has its share of detractors. “It would be counterproductive for us to not give owners their fair market value,” Dao added. “But at the same time we need to safeguard the amount we spend as a stewardship of public funds.”

Construction of the I-580 interchange is due to begin in 2010. For more information on the project, please visit website:
www.actia2022.com/projects.com.
For more history on eminent domain, visit:
www.leginfo.ca.gov.

---

Castro Valley CA Forum: http://www.ebpublishing.com

Statement to Seven Devils Town Council: Go Blue Ridge, Boone NC, 6/12/07

By Justin Grimes
I rise to speak [at the June 11 Seven Devils Town Council Public Hearing} on behalf of many: in particular the 184 Seven Devils property owners and residents who have petitioned you town council members to drop this eminent domain process to purchase the Hawksnest golf course and on behalf of the owners of Hawksnest Ski Resort.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I’d like to debunk the untruths in a petition that was circulated by I presume the group calling themselves the save the Seven Devils golf course.

Number one, the petition does not mention this Eminent Domain public hearing, a needed meeting before municipalities can attempt to take private land for the public’s good. Was this an intentional omission?

When a normal, rational citizen thinks about a municipality using Eminent Domain Statutes to take private land for the public’s good, he or she normally thinks of the public’s need for a highway, railroad, or maybe a school; something that benefits all the people. To take a private enterprise like a golf course by eminent domain flies in the face of this established reason.

Maybe this consideration by the Town Council of Seven Devils is exactly why we have a new bill in the legislature in Raleigh that intends to strengthen our already strong statutes against municipalities from willy-nilly appropriations of private land and enterprises. The proposed amendment would prevent governments from using their power of eminent domain to take private property for commercial purposes: The bill reads that “private property shall not be taken except for public use,” and it prohibits municipalities from taking private enterprises. The bill has passed the House and is presently awaiting approval in the Senate.

This brings me directly to the save the golf course petition. The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph reads, “a year ago the owners of the golf course property in Seven Devils, for their sole benefit…”

Their sole benefit; they own the property folks, have owned the property for years, the town does not own this property and it has never owned this property and has no vested interest in this property.

Do you property owners want the Town Council of Seven Devils to tell you what to do in your backyard, if the town council decides that your backyard would make a good volleyball court, would you allow them to take your land by eminent domain?

The land in question is zoned for recreational use, and that’s exactly what it is and has been used for.

The second sentence says “citizens of Seven Devils have been denied access reducing the summer recreational acreage by 89%.” There is a presumption of ownership in this petition.

Listen carefully, the golf course is private property and when the golf course was open less than one percent of the Seven Devils property owners used the Hawksnest facility. I’ll say that a different way, out of the 1492 resort residents (census data) on ladies day, six women of Seven Devils played golf, on men’s day, a gracious number, 25 men of Seven Devils played golf: a total of 31 people, only 00.02 percent of the community. Or in other words, the save the golf course group is comprised of a very few and almost all are not qualified to vote in Seven Devil’s elections, they are not residents of North Carolina.

Does this Town Council really think that the public good is best served by indebting itself long-term by getting into a losing business on behalf of a privileged few?

The petition sentence continues by saying that “significantly reducing property values in the town.” There is no quantitative evidence to support this statement. A trip to our county’s tax appraisers offices will quickly debunk this untruth. We know we went to look and suggest that you folks do the same.

In 2005, when the golf course was open, the combined (Watauga and Avery) property valuation for the town of Seven Devils was $98,222,458. With the golf course closed in 2006, the combined property valuation was $100,777,556 and in 2007, the property valuation was $133,322,070.

In the middle of the 2nd paragraph, the petition reads “return it to the public recreational use…” HUH… that’s exactly what our resort provides, recreational use; thousands have and do enjoy our ski resort and tubing operation. Hundreds, maybe thousands more of Seven Devils residents, their extended families including a lot of grandchildren and their guests and renters enjoy our winter recreational facilities: compare the numbers to the handful who used to play golf.

That’s exactly what Hawksnest has been trying to communicate to you Town Council members for too long. The Ski resort greatly benefits your community. The golf course was a financial burden, the Ski resort had to underwrite the losses the golf course incurred.

This brings me to the logic of any municipality anywhere wanting to go into the golf course business. You had better have deep pockets. Golf courses are expensive to maintain and the general consensus in the golf business is that a good businessman would not invest in one unless the development had lots of additional land from which to make revenue or make the course private and let membership dues underwrite the costs.

*According to Superior Court Judge Downs in a judgment issued on May 21, 2007 against the Village of Sugar Mountain, His Finding of Facts number 60 dealt with the Sugar Mountain Golf Course. The judge stated “the golf course loses money each year and must be subsidized by the Village. According to the June 30, 2004 audit, the golf course lost $43,000 and received a $41,000 subsidy from the Village. According to the June 30, 2005 Village audit, the golf course lost $95,000 and received a $60,000 subsidy from the Village. According to the budget for 2005-2006, the Village transferred $60,600 from its general fund to subsidize the operation of the golf course.”

The Sugar Mountain Golf Course is a mature and well-maintained facility. It is surrounded with homes and lodging. With all this going for it, the golf course still loses money each year. The High Country is not a Myrtle Beach. What property tax hike would you expect if the Town purchases the closed Hawksnest golf course?

The golf course needs millions of dollars of work and the erosion problem from impervious town streets will need addressing, the cost to you taxpayers, enormous.

You already have one of the highest tax rates in North Carolina, adding millions of dollars in debt to purchase the golf course will not improve your tax rate, it will skyrocket when burdened with the deficits the golf course will likely incur.

The petition calls the property an environmental gem, and we agree. If you town council members were truly vested in what’s best for the environment, you would have already trashed the idea of taking the golf course property by eminent domain.

Aren’t you aware that golf courses are toxic waste pools? I am personally known for my past work as an environmental journalist. Environmentally, ski resorts are far friendlier to our environment than golf courses. Golf courses use tons of chemicals each year that percolate into local streams and ground water and in particular the biocides used on greens are so toxic that they also pollute the air.

Did you know that golf course superintendents suffer from an alarmingly higher incidence of cancers than the general population, source the United States Golf Association?

The environmental degradation evidence of golf courses is widely-held knowledge, I suggest you invest a little time and investigate for yourselves before damning Valley Creek to tons more petrochemicals.

If you, like us, really want to be an environmental friend to this property, I encourage you to look positively upon our desired long-term use of the property, we want to expand the ski resort, and in our plan, most of the land would be used for the ski resort and basically undisturbed.

Unlike the taking of the privately held golf course by an eminent domain purchase, an expansion of the ski resort makes good economic sense for the residents of Seven Devils!

Our new ski resort expansion will make what is already a good ski resort, a primo facility, arguably the best ski area in the south. The availability of new parking in the plan for expansion will ameliorate traffic congestion by providing quick and easy parking spaces.

With an expansion, Seven Devils owners who rent will see an increase in rentals and in turn, property values will rise and both counties and the town will benefit from increased revenue from local taxes and the town’s occupancy tax.

What unwritten obligations do the Town of Seven Devils have to our greater community’s good and prosperity? Our Ski industry is undeniably the economic engine for Watauga and Avery counties. Thousands of people with smiling faces enjoy our winter recreational facilities and annually provide rental revenue to the more than 100 rental unites located in Seven Devils. They also fill our area motels, restaurants and retail establishments; and hundreds depend upon Hawksnest for winter employment, many are Seven Devils’ residents.

Compared to surrounding counties that don’t have ski resorts, Watauga and Avery propser during the winter months; motels and condominiums are rented, gas is purchased, retail thrives; economic numbers across the board are favorable. The other counties drop off the map in the wintertime, unemployment skyrockets and motel rooms are dormant.

Sugar Mountain is prospering, the town and resort work together there.

Why can’t we work together on a development plan that can really benefit the residents of Seven Devils and the greater community?

This brings me to the most difficult part of debunking the save the golf course petition. The petition reads “the Town Council should not be coward by the bullying of a few…” What does this mean? The unfortunate political facts are these.

When Hawksnest informed the Town that the golf course was closing, the town did not step up and try to help save the golf course by offering any assistance or subsidy. The Town has never made an official offer or entered into negotiations with the owners to purchase the golf course outright.

It’s important to point out to the public and press that Seven Devils is a very small community, three of the town council members and the wife of the town manager sit on the Seven Devils board of adjustment, the mayor’s wife is an alternate member or in other words, power sits in the hands of a few.

This same board of adjustments voted down Hawksnest expansion plans? The question is really why, was there an ulterior motive? Are the same people acting on behalf of the primarily non-resident group calling themselves the save the Seven Devils golf course group?

Since members of the town council also sit on the board of adjustment that turned down Hawksnest expansion plans, do we now have the truth of why? Was their motive all along to take over the golf course? In good conscience, why did they so rapidly ignore the town’s zoning laws, why didn’t they work positively and in good faith with the owners of Hawksnest to mitigate any concerns they may have had over the expansion plans?

Is it true that initially, the save the golf course group attempted to raise the money privately to purchase the golf course? Is it true that they failed to raise the money? And regrettably for the community, could it be true that this save the golf course group has manipulated elected officials into attempting this scheme to take the golf course away from its rightful owners by eminent domain.

Should we call this what it is? “An Official Land Grab,” or in answer to the petition, WHO IS BULLYING WHOM?

Isn’t it time to bury old personal animosities that have been driving too many of the town’s decisions and work together on a development plan that will truly benefit all the people.

Again, on behalf of these 184 petitioners and Leonard Cottom, President of Hawknest Ski Resort, please vote tonight to end this Eminent Domain process.

---

Go Blue Ridge, Boone NC: http://www.goblueridge.net

Wareham plans to keep fighting eminent domain case: South Coast Today, New Bedford MA, 6/9/07

By Brian Boyd
The town [of Wareham MA] is pressing on with its legal fight to reduce the $1.1 million a federal jury said Wareham owes a landowner whose beachfront property the town took.

The town's attorneys took the first step to bring the dispute to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when they filed a notice of appeal Thursday.

In 2003, the town took 5.35 acres by eminent domain to expand Swifts Beach and paid $450,000 to owner Barbara Deighton Haupt, who later sued for more. Jurors decided in April the land was worth $1.55 million, leaving the town liable for the balance plus interest.

The town's lawyer, Richard Bowen, would not disclose the grounds on which the town is appealing the verdict.

"I would not give the other side any heads up until they get the brief," he said.

The court will establish a schedule for the case, and the two sides will submit their briefs. A three-judge panel would then hear oral arguments, Mr. Bowen said.

Selectmen Chairwoman Brenda Eckstrom deferred questions about the appeal to the town's attorneys.

The town had earlier filed a motion asking the U.S. District Court judge who presided over the trial to reduce the amount or grant a new trial. The lawyers argued there was no basis for the dollar figure jurors chose, but the judge rejected their argument.

Jeffrey Angley, Mrs. Haupt's attorney, said the town has no prospect for success in the appeals court, and he is disappointed it is unwilling to put the matter to rest.

"I'm surprised the town is willing to spend what will be considerable more amount of money to pursue an appeal in this case, when it already lost a motion for new trial," Mr. Angley said.

Mr. Angley has estimated the town owes a total of $1.2 million, including interest. He said Friday the interest will continue to accrue as the town wages its legal battle.

During the trial, the town argued the land was worth $730,500, assuming a duplex could be built there, based on a reappraisal.

Mrs. Haupt's legal team presented different potential values, ranging from $3.1 million, based on the assumption that a beach club with building could be constructed there, to $1.2 million if the best prospect was for a duplex.

The jurors decided the greatest potential was for a duplex with beachfront and assigned a value. In their unsuccessful motion to alter the verdict, the town's lawyers asked the judge to shave $350,000 off the verdict, bringing it down to the $1.2 million figure given by Mrs. Haupt's expert.

---

South Coast Today, New Bedford MA: http://www.southcoasttoday.com