Don't abuse eminent domain: The Daily Athenaeum Interactive (West Virginia University), 5/1/06

Opinion
Pocahontas County residents are fighting a proposed sewage treatment facility that would require seizing one family's land via eminent domain, according to a report on West Virginia Public Radio's "Inside Appalachia."

The facility would primarily serve Snowshoe Mountain, which needs a larger sewage treatment facility in order to grow. According to WVPR reporter Emily Corio, about 1,800 of the 2,000 customers of the plant would be at Snowshoe.

The facility would be located near Snowshoe on nine acres of land which currently belong to the Sharp family, who run a bed-and-breakfast adjacent to the proposed site. The Sharps claim their business will suffer if the plant is built.

Tom Shipley, who runs the bed-and-breakfast, says 60 percent of the land in Pocahontas County is owned by the state and federal governments, yet the county wants to seize private land for the project.

The county offered the Sharps about $100,000, but the family won't sell. County officials will have to use eminent domain to seize the property.

When Pocahontas County State Senator Walt Helmich heard about the controversy, he asked the governor to make state land nearby available. Gov. Manchin agreed, and a plot of land near the current site could be transferred to the developer for at $1 fee to the county commission.

The county says the alternate site would increase the overall price tag of the project by $3 million dollars from its current $17 million.

While we understand that $3 million dollars is a lot of money - approximately 18 percent of the project's current budget - we think the county should use the state's land instead of seizing private land.

The land itself may not be worth the $3 million, but eminent domain should only be used in cases when no alternative is available and when the project is essential to a community's survival.

In this case, other land is available and the plant is to foster growth, not sustain an existing community. We think the project is a worthy one, but it is absolutely not appropriate to seize private land to save money.

---

Daily Athenaeum Interactive: http://www.da.wvu.edu

North Topsail Beach using its eminent domain power: New Bern (NC) Sun Journal, 3/21/06

By Chrissy Ingram
Owners of condemned homes on the north end of North Topsail Beach vied to retain control of their homes at a meeting Monday night.

But fear of danger to passersby, as the front row of homes now sits precariously in the ocean at high tide, led the town’s Board of Aldermen to vote to use eminent domain to tear the homes down.

The eight homes were condemned after being destroyed by Hurricane Ophelia in September 2005. One of the homes was moved off the island this week.

“I really suspect we may have a serious tragedy up there,” town attorney Robert Kilroy said. “Some kid may get killed or seriously injured. This is a lose-lose situation for everyone involved.”

If another storm came through, he said, the houses would be “like a barge floating around, knocking out everything in its path until it is disintegrated.”

Choosing to use eminent domain will allow the town to file a summons and complaint against property owners, thereby transferring all rights to the town, Kilroy said. The town would then have to provide “just compensation.”

Aldermen voted to have an appraisal done as soon as possible to determine the compensation. The Onslow County Tax Office recently revalued the homes at $100 each.

“It’s been a long, long journey for me in the past seven months,” homeowner Janice Forster said. “I’m sitting behind my house watching it every day. I don’t want anybody to get hurt on my property, but if you think you can come in and offer me $200 on my property, you’re kidding yourselves.”

Property owners were notified by the town last year that they had 30 days to present a plan for their homes — whether it be to have the homes demolished, moved or otherwise.

That deadline was extended by 30 days before the town held a public hearing on the matter. No action was taken until Monday.

But attorney Ron vonLembke, representing property owners of four of the homes, said in a letter read to the board that owners needed more time to receive aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to tear the homes down. He strongly urged the board not to use eminent domain.

“Once the structures are declared a total loss, my clients will each receive $30,000 ($60,000 for each duplex structure) from FEMA to demolish and remove the buildings as desired by the town,” the letter read.

But due to hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA’s adjustment process has gone from an average of 60 to 90 days to nine to 12 months, vonLembke wrote.

“As a result, victims of Hurricane Ophelia in North Carolina are being treated as an afterthought with inadequate resources,” he added.

FEMA has not yet come to a conclusion on coverage or compensation for the homes. Some home owners said they still had not gotten compensation from their insurance companies.

One homeowner, who said it took him four months to get an insurance adjustor to his home, even wanted to keep his home on its current lot.

“There is technically nothing wrong with my house, except I need to straighten the pilings,” said James Ewalt of New Jersey. “I can hook up my sewer and water. I have done everything you people asked me to do.”

Ewalt said that upon his recent return, he found his home robbed of all valuables.

“Don’t just say we’ll get rid of these seven houses and our problems will go away,” he said. “We need beach maintenance. You know, sooner or later this island is going to go — the big kahuna is coming.”

Property owners will soon receive a 30-day notice of the town’s intent to use eminent domain. Homeowners will then be able to file an injunction against the town.

“At a minimum, this would extinguish or significantly delay the town’s taking and demolition of the structures,” vonLembke wrote.

The property owners’ structures have an insurance value in excess of $800,000 each, he said.

“It seems to me we are being driven to take action,” Alderman Dan Tuman said. “They represent a threat to public safety.”

---

Sun Journal: http://www.newbernsj.com

Bill curbs eminent domain use: Wichita (KS) Eagle, 3/21/06

Senators rewrite a compromise version that would have restricted governments less
By Steve Painter
[Kansas] State senators moved Monday to sharply restrict the ability of cities and counties to take private property — for a price — to be used by other private interests for economic development.

Along the way, they discarded most of a compromise bill negotiated by city officials, chambers of commerce and farm groups seeking to protect property rights.

"Do we truly believe that property ownership is a right?" asked Sen. Pat Apple, R-Louisburg, who proposed changes to the negotiated bill.

Under the plan as tentatively adopted, local governments could use eminent domain only for public works projects such roads, bridges, parks and water treatment facilities.

Any future effort to take private property for economic development would require approval from the Legislature.

A final vote on the bill is planned today. It advanced Monday on a voice vote.

The bill, 323, and several other bills and constitutional amendments pending in the Legislature resulted from last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision in a Connecticut case.

The court's 5-4 ruling upheld a move by the city of New London, Conn., to buy several properties from unwilling sellers. The city's action cleared the way for construction of a large redevelopment project, which was to include a pharmaceutical research facility, a hotel, upscale housing, shops and restaurants.

In Kansas, officials have used eminent domain in at least half a dozen instances, including for the Kansas Speedway and the adjacent Village West development in Wyandotte County.

Most eminent domain cases are handled locally, but lawmakers authorized the speedway project.

"The people of Wyandotte County have not forgotten what eminent domain did to our county, despite the success of the speedway," said Sen. David Haley, D-Kansas City. "I'm proud that I voted no on that speedway deal."

In addition to the speedway, eminent domain was used to take property for Manhattan's downtown redevelopment, a Target distribution center in Topeka, a Home Depot store in Pittsburg and two smaller projects in Merriam.

Without the power of eminent domain, "none of those economic development projects would have occurred," said Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, the chief proponent of the compromise bill.

In south-central Kansas, some residents of Cowley County have feared that eminent domain could be used for a proposed lake on Grouse Creek.

Although the idea has failed to reach the stage of a feasibility study, property owners hope to put the issue to rest for good.

"We really need something like this to be passed," rancher Kelly Williamson said in a telephone interview before the Senate debate.

"With what we've been through the last two or three years, it's hard for me to be trusting."

If built, the lake would flood much of his property.

City officials in Wichita have said they want to preserve the ability to clean up blighted areas. However, that language was struck from the bill with Apple's amendment.

Property rights advocates say the blight exemption is a loophole for developers to obtain land from unwilling sellers.

Also struck were requirements for a two-thirds majority vote by governing bodies seeking to obtain property, automatic court review of the taking and requirements to pay from 125 percent to 200 percent of market value.

"This bill does provide an abundance of protection for private property owners," Vratil argued, unsuccessfully.

---

Wichita Eagle: http://www.kansas.com

San Ramon Planning Commission likely to discuss eminent domain: San Jose (CA) Mercury News, 3/20/06

By Scott Marshall
The San Ramon Planning Commission may consider a plan to move service-industrial businesses on the north edge of town out of that area to make room for more housing there.

The voter-approved Crow Canyon Specific Plan, tabled indefinitely last summer, is coming back before the Planning Commission as the city moves to re-establish eminent domain to give it the right to force such moves. San Ramon staff planners have recommended moving these businesses elsewhere.

The city regards the area, west of Interstate 680 near the Danville border, as being economically blighted, because land and structures are not being used to what city leaders consider the area's fullest potential.

Service-industrial business owners who rent their spaces along Beta Court are fighting eminent domain and efforts to move them, saying that relocation would be an economic dagger into their livelihoods.

No homes exist in the 128-acre specific plan area. Planning Commissioners have disagreed about whether to approve a residential overlay for Beta Court, home to more than a dozen automotive businesses.

Another reason San Ramon leaders want houses there is the city must make good on its housing element, a plan which — among other things — requires that for every house or apartment project of 10 units or more, 25 percent of those units be set aside for very low-, low- and moderate-income buyers.

The number of affordable units required in each jurisdiction is based on increasing population projections. The state Department of Housing and Community Development requirements are that housing supply must be increased, with a mix of housing types and affordability levels; that infill development and socioeconomic equity be promoted; and that a regional jobs-to-housing balance be improved.

City planners anticipate that, by 2007, the number of affordable units required in the city will increase from the 3,789 now required, according to a city staff report. Thus, planners recommend the Planning Commission increase the number of units in the specific plan from 580 units to 735.

The 128-acre specific plan area also includes portions of San Ramon Valley Boulevard, Old Crow Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Court, Deerwood Road, Omega Road, Perdue Road, Hooper Drive and Beta Court.

The General Plan 2020, approved by voters in 2002, established the Crow Canyon Specific Plan as a mixed-use neighborhood integrating hundreds of multifamily housing units and about 570,000 square feet of floor space for retail, office, service commercial and other uses.

---

Mercury News: http://www.mercurynews.com

Lawmakers take up bill to limit eminent domain takings: Boston (MA) Globe, 3/16/06

By Cara Rubinsky, Associated Press
After months of discussion, [Connecticut] lawmakers are considering dueling bills that would limit when cities and towns can seize property to make way for private development. The Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing on two bills at noon Friday. The Planning and Development Committee has already held a hearing on a third bill.

Lawmakers said they're confident eminent domain reform will pass this legislative session, but they're not yet sure what form it will take.

Connecticut is one of 47 states re-examining eminent domain laws after the U.S. Supreme Court sparked national outrage by ruling last summer that the city of New London could take homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to make way for private development.

Scott Bullock, an attorney with the Virginia-based Institute for Justice who represented the Fort Trumbull homeowners, said his group supports a bill proposed by House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford.

That bill, one of the two scheduled for consideration Friday, would prevent any taking of private property for private development.

"People don't feel safe in their homes when they know the government can take them to give to somebody who'll pay more taxes," Ward said.

Bullock said his group opposes the other bill, which was proposed by the Judiciary Committee.

It would require development agencies to determine that seizing property benefits the public more than any private entity. It would also prohibit agencies from seizing property only to increase local tax revenue.

Bullock said New London would have met that bill's criteria because the New London project, a riverfront development, will create jobs in addition to increasing tax revenue.

"It is bogus eminent domain reform, and it will not protect home and small business owners," Bullock said.

The bill would give the original property owner the first chance to buy back a property if it is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. It would also require agencies to pay property owners at least 125 percent of the market value of their properties.

Judiciary Committee Co-Chairman Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, said the committee's bill makes meaningful changes, and would prevent taking property just to make way for private development that would generate more tax revenue.

"They're just against eminent domain period, which is OK, but not everybody agrees with them," Lawlor said.

Ward says he is confident his bill would win passage by the full House, but he isn't sure Democrats who oppose it will allow it to get that far. He said the other bill has good elements but may not go far enough.

"The law that allowed the takings to occur in New London should be changed if it's real reform, and one of the bills being proposed doesn't do that," he said.

Ward's bill would also create a state Office of Property Rights Ombudsman to educate property owners about their rights and help them in disputes. He said such an office has been helpful in Utah.

Meanwhile, the six Fort Trumbull homeowners who have refused to leave are in negotiations with New London to stay in their homes.

---

Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com

Veto of eminent domain restrictions shameful: (Carlsbad NM) Current-Argus, 3/19/06

Editorial
Ownership of private property is a basic tenet of the American way. Eminent domain is the taking of property from its owner, by the government. These two phenomena have co-existed in natural tension for years.

In New Mexico, there are allowances within state law for eminent domain that address the safety of the citizens. There are also allowances within the law that border on greed.

Here's an example of the use of eminent domain for public safety: When a house is abandoned and falling in — and the affected municipality has exhausted all avenues to contact the absentee owners and request the property be repaired or structure removed — a municipal government can follow a legal process to take that lot and structure and proceed to make it safer.

But a darker use of eminent domain is emerging. And, in New Mexico, Rep. Richard Cheney, R-Farmington, is trying to do something about it. Cheney introduced House Bill 746 in the most recent legislative session. He was trying to address the use of eminent domain for greed in the name of progress.

His wording was brief:

"The state or a local public body shall not condemn private property if the taking is to promote private or commercial development and title to the property is transferred to another private entity within five years following condemnation of the property."

This bill would have prevented a municipality from, for example, condemning a working farm or ranch, taking it by eminent domain and then handing it to a private developer to build opulent showplaces or a new mega mall. As hard as it is to believe, New Mexico's laws currently support this kind of action.

While Rep. Cheney tried to stop just such takings, a review by New Mexico's Department of Finance and Administration analyzed the implications of the bill during the session and reported that "The promotion of Economic Development, even if it means allowing public purpose to be advanced through transferring title of private property to another private entity, which HB746 prohibits, is a long standing though unused power of New Mexico municipalities. Eminent domain has been a long-standing tool in the economic toolbox. While it may be a last resort, its presence enables marketplace-set levels of just compensation to rule, not exorbitant or unreasonable rates that can prevent community desired development or redevelopment from occurring."

In simpler terms, it means that if the town leaders want Mr. Smith's 640-acre ranch at the edge of town for high-class homes or a snazzy new strip mall, they can take it for fair market value — even if he doesn't want to sell it at any price.

Now, the city would certainly benefit from those new homes or storefronts — through local property tax, gross receipts tax and increased population. The only people really squashed in this deal are Mr. Smith, Mrs. Smith and their heirs. While the "Smith Ranch" hypothetical scenario is not imminent in the Carlsbad area, it's certain to happen elsewhere in New Mexico given the enormous push this governor has made for economic development.

The New Mexico Legislature, through the democratic process this country was built on, rightly shared Rep. Cheney's concerns and tried to remove the use of eminent domain to move land from owner to private economic developer. Then, Gov. Bill Richardson vetoed the bill.

That's a disgrace. The use of eminent domain for the benefit of a few private individuals getting wealthy on something they couldn't acquire on the open market is just plain wrong — no matter what kind of trickle down economics are prophesied.

When the Supreme Court recently supported this type of taking, it was shocking. Many states have responded to the public outcry, just like the New Mexico Legislature did.

With Richardson's veto of HB 746 comes a shameful erosion of our founding values in the Land of Enchantment.

Our forefathers — who came to this country and settled this land to avoid just such government abuses — must be rolling over in their graves. Let's hope the bill is revived in veto-proof fashion in the 2007 session.

---

Current-Argus: http://www.currentargus.com

Eminent domain: vital urban tool: The Commercial Appeal (Memphis TN), 3/19/06

Opinion
By Henry Turley
Last week four good, local homebuilders started work on 78 new homes in the old area of North Memphis that is now known as Uptown.

These homes are being built for families who need them. Some have been living in public housing projects and earned their way out. Some have incomes too modest to buy homes solely through the private sector, but they still want to live close to their work, their friends or their extended family. Some of the houses will be available to other families, no matter their income.

The families that fill these new homes will live along rebuilt streets that they will share with other residents who never left the neighborhood but deplored the decline it suffered over the past 50 years.

Go look at Uptown. Try to remember what that area was like five years ago. If you can't remember, ask the police officers who patrol the neighborhood or the pastors of its various churches or any of the neighbors in its older homes.

Uptown's better now — for all its residents, and for Memphis. And this part of North Memphis could not have been resurrected without the use of condemnation, known to lawyers as "eminent domain." That tool is necessary in redeveloping any pre-developed place, as it allows the city to assemble enough contiguous property to make the area suitable for new investment.

When The Commercial Appeal's Viewpoints editors asked me to write a column justifying the need for local governments' condemnation authority against the sacred concept of private property rights, I almost wished they had asked me to defend al-Qaida instead. One concept — the forced taking of property from its owners — is so ugly, so un-American, while the other is linked to our most precious liberties.

The only thing I knew to do was to outline some results of the inner-city redevelopment that has been made possible by Memphis' use of eminent domain authority, and to tell how condemnation really works — whose property is taken, why and how.

First, the city can't just buy property from unwilling owners on a random basis. It can initiate eminent domain procedures only in neighborhoods that suffer from the prevalence of slums and blight. And then only if the properties taken are used in ways that serve the public good. And then only after a plan for achieving that betterment has been laid out and approved by the city and county administrations, the City Council and the County Commission. All of this must be done in accordance with the principles of the state legislation called the Community Redevelopment Act.

You begin to wonder how it's done at all.

Here's what typically happened as we assembled the property to develop Uptown. (And by the way, the Belz-Turley partnership that was the master developer for the Uptown revitalization project didn't buy the property; it was bought by the Memphis Housing Authority through its land bank. The Belz-Turley partnership works in the same way accountants and lawyers do; we provide our expertise and experience and are paid fees. I call it working for wages.)

We sent agents into the neighborhood with instructions to buy vacant lots so we could build new houses where the old ones had been abandoned, burned or deteriorated beyond repair. These lots are easy to find: That's where the weeds and junk accumulate. Fully half of the area lots in Uptown were abandoned when we started.

Who owns such property and why don't they build a home on it? Most frequently the owners are descendants of someone who lived on the lot years ago. Often, there are so many fractional owners that rebuilding is impossible. In many cases, the owner is just long gone, having moved out of Memphis.

The MHA, under court supervision, finds these people and pays them full market value for their lot. Most of the time the property owners are surprised and pleased. But others assert that their lots are more valuable than the appraisers believe, provoking a round of reappraisals and negotiations that usually lead to agreement. Court-supervised condemnation is rarely used.

But then there are speculators and slumlords. Their methods are complicated and sometimes devious. Suffice it to say, they anticipate the city's rebuilding plan for the neighborhood, buy property and manipulate — to their advantage and the public's detriment — the rules that protect property owners.

Without government's right of eminent domain I believe that substantially all development would be forced to the far perimeter of the city where parcels of land large enough for significant development can be easily found. When development occurs there we all pay for the roads, utilities, schools and other public functions to serve that new area. At the same time we continue to pay the increasing cost of infrastructure maintenance for the city's older, blighted areas.

Developing at the far reaches of the city's perimeter while ignoring and abandoning its core neighborhoods continues to be Memphis' dominant development pattern. Unless that pattern changes, it will lead ineluctably to the city's decline. Drive the city's older neighborhoods, read about its budget crises and then consider why eminent domain power is an urban revitalization tool Memphis cannot afford to do without.

---

Commercial Appeal: http://www.commercialappeal.com

Henry Turley is a Memphis developer and a partner with Jack Belz in developing the public-private Uptown revitalization project in North Memphis

Organizers circulate petitions to limit eminent domain in state: Eureka (CA) Reporter, 3/19/06

By Rebecca S. Bender
In the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that approved the use of eminent domain for a private development project in Connecticut, a bipartisan group of volunteers is mobilizing to prevent similar situations in California.

“Despite what some legislators and lobbyists would like you to believe, the kind of abuse faced by Susette Kelo in Connecticut can and does happen in California,” explained Annette Hipona, the proponent of Measure 1198, the California Eminent Domain Limitations Act. Signatures are now being gathered to qualify the initiative for the November ballot.

The measure says simply that private property can’t be seized for economic development purposes, including private commercial enterprises and any projects designed to increase tax revenue, employment or housing density. It also sets up additional steps to ensure just compensation and clarify procedures in the exercise of eminent domain for public uses.

Its language is modeled on the Private Property Rights Protection Act (HR 4128), a bill passed overwhelmingly by the U.S. House of Representatives last November, which rescinds federal funding to any state and local governments that exercise eminent domain for economic development purposes.

Leo Sears, president of the Humboldt Taxpayers League, said that the initiative is appealing because it crosses political lines.

“This protects the public against having their property taken and given to private enterprise — it’s that simple,” he said. He and other league members are circulating petitions locally to gather signatures by April 30.

Loraine Wallace Rowe, chair of the Initiative Steering Committee in San Jose, said that the group has set itself the goal of collecting 800,000 signatures — “just to be on the safe side.” As a constitutional amendment, the initiative needs 598,105 registered voters to sign on.

Another, similar initiative is also in circulation: Measure 1204, the Protect Our Homes Act. It, too, limits the power of eminent domain for private uses and sets out detailed definitions of public use, procedural requirements and limitations.

Describing the difference between that initiative and hers, Hipona said in a news release, “Nothing has been added to our initiative by Sacramento lobbyists or power-brokers; we are nonpartisan, and all-volunteer.”

“That one is very lengthy,” Wallace Rowe said. “Ours is very simple.”

Humboldt County Community Development Services Department Director Kirk Girard said that the initiative does not have any immediate relevance at the county level.

“Our Redevelopment Agency doesn’t have eminent domain powers,” he said. “It wasn’t ever an issue from day one.”

County Redevelopment and Housing Coordinator Paula Mushrush seconded Girard’s assessment. “This ballot measure should not affect Humboldt County,” she said.
Eminent domain abilities are determined in the formation of a redevelopment agency.

“You can’t change that once you’ve formed an agency and identified redevelopment areas,” Girard said. “You’d have to go through the whole process again.”

Every jurisdiction has the right to exercise eminent domain for public uses, Mushrush pointed out, but only redevelopment agencies can use it for private projects — and because the county made the choice not to give its Redevelopment Agency that power in the first place, “I don’t think we’re going to go back to step one again,” Mushrush said.

---

Eureka Reporter: http://www.eurekareporter.com

Showdown looms over eminent domain: NorthJersey.com (Hackensack NJ), 3/16/06

As [North Arlington] officials try to remake the town's image through redevelopment plans that could rely on taking property through eminent domain, some Porete Avenue business owners are digging in, saying they don't want to sell and shouldn't be forced out.

Industrial buildings along Porete Avenue are targeted for redevelopment in a project commonly referred to as the Arlington Valley development.

The borough has supported redevelopment, saying it would improve the tax rate, help clear the borough's $20 million debt and clean up contaminated industrial properties.

"Eminent domain is always a last resort," Mayor Russell Pitman said. "You have a project that's going to benefit 15,000 people, going to be an economic engine, clean up contaminated land and create some [tax] ratables. You have to look at the whole project. Will it provide a greater benefit? I think the answer is yes."

But business owners disagree. They have organized the North Arlington Property Rights Coalition, hired attorneys and started a public information campaign and are trying to convince Borough Council members to ban the condemnation of property for private projects.

The business owners worry about losing employees and customers in the move to a new location. Many of the businesses involved are construction or distribution companies that rely on access to major roads such as the New Jersey Turnpike, said Peter Goodman, who owns a plumbing supply distribution company on Porete Avenue.

Others say they might have trouble finding new locations that would allow the type of outdoor equipment storage and other practices permitted on Porete Avenue. The street has some new buildings, such as a distribution warehouse for the trendy H&M retain outlet, and the businesses generate $1 million in taxes for the town.

The coalition, which consists mostly of Porete Avenue businesses, says it is starting out with a war chest of more than $50,000.

"They called us a blighted area, which we're not. We're operating businesses down there," said Salvatore DiBlasi, owner of Cobra Construction on Porete Avenue. "It's a shame the people we elected to protect us, we have to spend our own money to defend ourselves against ... we're going to give them a fight for their money."

The borough has signed an agreement with Cherokee Porete, a subsidiary of Cherokee Investment Partners, outlining the 110-acre revitalization project. It calls for 1,625 homes, town houses and condominiums, including 160 "active-adult" units and 90 affordable senior units; 50,000 square feet of shops and restaurants; biking and hiking trails and other green space.

EnCap Golf Holdings, another Cherokee Investment Partners subsidiary, is working with the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission to cap and clean nearby landfills and create an 18-hole public golf course and other recreational facilities.

Cherokee expects to complete the permit process and plans for the Porete Avenue project by the end of 2006 and begin construction in 2007. It already owns about 50 of the 110 acres it needs.

The borough and Cherokee have gone to court to get access to Porete Avenue sites to appraise the properties and test for contaminants. Property owners are fighting that effort.

Though some property owners disputed claims of contamination, at least five Porete Avenue properties have some level of it, according to a 2005 report by the state Department of Environmental Protection on known contaminated sites.

Cherokee has said it will negotiate to buy property in good faith, but business owners said they come to the table with a weak negotiating position since Cherokee knows borough officials support the project and the use of eminent domain.

"If we don't come to an agreement, they'll kick it back to the town," said Porete Avenue business owner Goodman.

Cherokee will pay the borough $17.3 million in development fees, and the project will generate about $16 million in taxes, said Rich Ochab, a project spokesman.

While others have voiced concerns about traffic and the burden on schools from the development, the agreement being worked out between the borough and Cherokee will have provisions to review the project if the need for services increases.

Another area slated for redevelopment is northern Ridge Road, but the specter of eminent domain is not as apparent there.

Ridge Road salon owner Robert Palumbo had proposed redeveloping several properties, including the Art Roberts Studio. Arthur Miller, who owns the photo studio and also lives in the building, has since gotten assurances from the mayor and Borough Council that private residences will not be taken through condemnation.

In addition, developer George Capodagli has an agreement with the borough to redevelop the shopping center at Ridge Road and Jauncey Avenue, home to Sanborn's Deli and the Jade Lee Restaurant but little else. Capodagli wants to turn the empty storefronts with peeling paint into a four-story condominium building. The owner of the property, Susan Pinkus, said she is willing to sell the property if the price is right.

Meanwhile, the Porete Avenue business owners are hoping to reverse the council's actions by reaching out to members sympathetic to their cause. Councilmen Steven Tanelli and Peter Massa are against exercising eminent domain for private development. Tanelli has suggested letting residents decide whether the borough should restrict the use of eminent domain.

"Eminent domain should not be used by government as a weapon to relocate property owners or seize private property," Tanelli said. "I see no public purpose, and that is a problem."

But most borough officials have backed the Porete Avenue project.

"North Arlington has been the armpit of Bergen County for some time, so it's time it was cleaned up," Councilman Patrick Roche said.

---

NorthJersey.com: http://www.northjersey.com

Eminent domain bill may slow I-73: Myrtle Beach (SC) Sun News, 3/19/06

Clause may have unintended effect
By Zane Wilson
Interstate 73 right-of-way acquisition could be set back two years by an unintended result of a change in condemnation law in the House version of an eminent domain bill.

State Rep. Alan Clemmons, R-Myrtle Beach, unsuccessfully tried to change the wording as requested by the state Department of Transportation.

It's up to the Senate now to fix it, Clemmons said. He said Thursday he had talked to some senators who said they will do their best.

The problem, according to DOT staff attorney Deborah Durden, is a change in condemnation procedure in the eminent domain bill.

"We're just kind of getting caught in the crossfire," she said.

Under existing law, when there is a dispute over the price of property that is being condemned, an agency can go ahead with the project while the courts are considering the owner's compensation.

The House bill changes that to forbid projects from going forward until the case is settled. Those cases can take up to two years in Horry County, said Clemmons, who is a lawyer. If there is an appeal to a higher court, it could take several more years.

Meanwhile, a major project such as I-73 could be stalled while construction prices continue to rise, he said.

Durden said the DOT estimates the price increases on I-73 alone would be $134 million. In addition, the procedural change would affect other planned projects such as completion of the Carolina Bays Parkway and widening of S.C. 707.

Clemmons, who is president of the S.C. I-73 Association, said he is worried over the delay in construction that could be caused.

A final proposed route for the first interstate to connect to Horry County is expected to be presented in May, and right-of-way acquisition could begin soon after.

Clemmons said the procedural change will affect any project across the state that involves condemnation, not just roads.

He said the authors of the bill did not foresee the impact of the change, which was intended to make sure property owners get compensated before a project goes forward.

Clemmons said existing law ensures they are compensated but does not hold up projects.

He was unable to persuade the House on Wednesday during the debate on the bill. His motion was tabled 53-18.

He was able to get a change in the bill on a minor measure that could help I-73 or other large future projects. A provision in the bill allowed the original owners of condemned property to have the first chance to get it back if the land was not used after 10 years. Clemmons got in a change that exempts road corridors from that provision because it can take more than 10 years to build a major road.

The Senate already has passed an eminent domain bill that does not include the most controversial part of the House bill. The House measure includes compensation for property values lost because of zoning or other land use controls.

Senators have said they are not interested in dealing with that issue in a bill that was intended to solidify state policy that condemnation can be for public use only, not simply for public benefit.

The eminent domain bills are a response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that said local governments can take property and turn it over to private developers if the result is in the public benefit.

The two bills will have to be worked out, most likely by a conference committee.

---

Sun News: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com

Petition for Eminent Domain Amendment Approved for Circulation: digitalBURG.com (Warrenburg MO), 3/18/06

Secretary of State Robin Carnahan announced March 14 that a Missouri constitution amendment ballot initiative petition designed to limit eminent domain abuses met state standards for circulation.

In order for the state to place the issue on the November 2006 ballot, those circulating the petition must collect signatures equal to eight percent of the total votes cast in the last governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts. Depending on which congressional districts are used, approximately 145,000 valid signatures are required for a proposed constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot through the initiative petition process. The ballot language for this constitutional change reads:

"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change the power of any constitutionally chartered city or county to:

Prohibit their use of eminent domain to acquire and resell property found to be blighted, substandard or unsanitary for the purpose of clearance, redevelopment or rehabilitation; and

Allow them to require owners of property which is found to be a public nuisance to abate or clean up the nuisance and, if the property owner fails to do so in a reasonable time, allow the local government to pay for the abatement and impose a lien to recover the cost?

The fiscal impact to state and local government is unknown.

Ballot language in full text for the issue is available on the Secretary of State's website.

Before circulating petitions, state law requires that groups must first have the form of their petition approved by the Secretary of State and Attorney General. The Secretary of State then prepares a summary statement and the State Auditor prepares a fiscal impact statement, both of which are subject to the approval of the Attorney General. When both statements are approved, they become the official ballot title.

The petition was submitted by Ron Calzone of "Missouri Citizens for Property Rights" (573-368-1344).

---

digitalBURG.com: http://www.digitalburg.com

Developer turns to eminent domain for Hazelwood business park: St Louis (MO) Post-Dispatch, 3/16/06

By Eric Heisler
The developer of a 200-acre business park in Hazelwood is clashing with a handful of small business owners who stand in the way of the $250 million project.

Hazelwood Commerce Center is set to rise in a troubled area just northwest of Lambert Field.

McEagle Development of O’Fallon, Mo., has acquired most of the property at the site.

But six years into the project, McEagle is in court using eminent domain in an attempt to buy out a group of businesses.

“We don’t want to move,” said Susan Woltering, president of Select Drink Inc., a beverage distributor whose property Mc Eagle is attempting to acquire. “But if we have to move, we want just compensation.”

Under a condemnation ruling made in December by a courtappointed commission, McEagle could acquire the group of properties for between $5 million and $6 million.

But neither side thinks that’s a good deal, and both the developer and businesses have appealed. The matter now will go to a jury, unless a settlement is reached.

Hazelwood Commerce Center has been in the planning stages for more than two decades. The land is part of the former Robertson area, a black neighborhood that mostly was cleared in airport buyouts in the 1980s.

St. Louis County has been eyeing the site for new industry since the 1980s, but planning for an airport expansion held up the process.

McEagle was selected by Hazelwood to develop the site in 2000 and now plans to build distribution or light manufacturing buildings.

McEagle has bought much of the property through condemnation.

But an auto shop, a restaurant and other small businesses remain on the area’s eastern edge.

McEagle wants the land because it represents an entrance to Hazelwood Commerce Center. For Select Drink, that creates a problem. The company was founded at 5401 Lindbergh Bouldevard in the 1970s by Woltering’s father.

“As it stands, we’re going to have to go into debt to build or acquire a new building,” Woltering said.

McEagle initially offered Select Drink $25,000 for the land, and gradually upped its offer to $375,000, said Robert Denlow, an attorney representing the businesses. Select Drink believes the land is worth more.

A court-appointed commission agreed. In December, the commission ruled McEagle should pay $1.6 million for the property.

Because both sides have appealed, a jury trial is being set to determine a final price.

Meanwhile, the developer and property owners continue to negotiate.

“I think everyone would like to avoid the cost and expense of a trial,” said Paul Puricelli, an attorney
for McEagle.

Puricelli said McEagle has been fair to the property owners.

“We saved these properties for last to give them as much time as possible to prepare for the move,” he said.

McEagle, he said, could begin to develop the site before the matter is decided because it owns most of the properties on the western portion of the project area.

---

St Louis Post-Dispatch: http://www.stltoday.com

Eminent domain proposal approved: The Kentucky Post (Covington KY) , 3/17/06

By Stephenie Steitzer
Both chambers of the [Kentucky] General Assembly have passed a bill tweaking the state's eminent domain law, but property rights advocates say it doesn't go far enough.

The bill passed by the Senate Thursday would bar government from seizing private property and transferring it to private owners for economic development, even if the transaction would increase the tax base or create jobs. The bill does not, however, restrict government from using eminent domain to eliminate blighted areas.

The Senate approved the measure 37-0 and it now goes back to the House, which had passed it earlier, for consideration of an amendment tacked on in the Senate.

The bill "doesn't go far enough," said Sen. Damon Thayer, R-Georgetown. "Cities need to be on notice there are a lot of questions out there regarding the blight issue."

That issue was at the center of Newport's fight to take property in the Cote Brilliante neighborhood to redevelop it into a shopping center.

The city struck a deal with Montgomery, Ohio-based Bear Creek Capital to develop a retail project on 55 acres just west of Interstate 471.

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

"That piece of property was not blighted in most people's view, it was just determined to be blighted to build development," said Sen. Jack Westwood, R-Crescent Springs.

But Newport Acting City Manager Tom Fromme said Cote Brilliante deserved the blighted designation. The city's engineer estimated that it would cost $3 million to $5 million to repair Grand Avenue and fix flooding problems in the neighborhood, Fromme said, and many homes had structural damage to their foundations.

People forget that the state highway department ruined the neighborhood in the 1960s when it demolished dozens of homes to make way for Interstate 471, he said.

That's why it's crucial that the bill the Senate passed Thursday maintain the exemption for blighted properties, Fromme said.

"The blighted area issue is what the older urban areas will be concerned about," he said. "It allows them to reinvent themselves and not slowly die."

The bill also satisfied the Kentucky League of Cities, which has defended local governments' rights to use eminent domain.

"We understand how important this issue is for many of our citizens and certainly hope that this bill begins to address many of those concerns by placing statutory limits on eminent domain," said Neil Hackworth, deputy executive director of the league.

But Thayer said a joint interim committee would study the blight issue after the session ends.

"We have to tackle the blight issue to make sure the rights of private property owners are preserved," he said.

Rep. Dennis Keene, D-Wilder, said he believes the issue will resurface.

"I'm sure in the next session it will be looked at again, but it does start the conversation," he said. "At least, it's got a lot of people on both sides of the fence realizing this is an issue we have to address."

Five other states - Alabama, Delaware, Ohio, South Dakota and Texas - have passed legislation limiting eminent domain as a result of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. Nearly every other state that hasn't yet passed such laws is considering doing so.

The precedent-setting court decision last year allowed a Connecticut city to seize property for economic development purposes under eminent domain laws. However, justices said nothing in their ruling would preclude states from banning the taking of property under eminent domain for such projects.

---

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

Judge OKs SIDA use of eminent domain: Syracuse (NY) Post-Standard, 3/17/06

City agency can seize rights of Carousel Center stores for mall expansion, court says
By Rick Moriarty
State Supreme Court Justice John Centra on Thursday approved the Syracuse Industrial Development Agency's use of eminent domain to seize the rights of 14 Carousel Center stores to block an expansion of the mall.

Centra dismissed claims by the stores that the agency took too long to file its petitions in court, that the expansion was impossible given the recent legal dispute between the agency and the developer, and that plans for the mall's expansion into Destiny USA were too vague to justify the use of eminent domain.

The judge said his ruling March 9 in another lawsuit that Destiny's developer had met the terms of a 30-year tax deal with the city settled the question of whether the expansion could go forward. In that case, mall owner Robert Congel sued the agency and the city Dec. 30, alleging they had wrongly refused to activate the tax deal.

The development agency will be required to compensate the 14 stores for the rights being taken from them. The amount of compensation will be determined in a separate proceeding if the agency and the stores cannot agree on the value of the rights.

Acting at Congel's request, the development agency asked the court to allow it to seize certain lease rights held by the stores. Those lease rights gave the stores veto power over any expansion of the mall and even a change in the mall's name to Destiny USA.

Congel wants to expand the mall into a retail, hotel and entertainment attraction that he says will attract tourists from around the world. Under a preferred developer agreement with the agency, he will have to pay the cost of any compensation given to the stores.

In 2002, three department stores J.C. Penney, Kaufmann's and Lord & Taylor fought the agency's intention to use its eminent domain power against them, arguing the agency was interfering in a contract between them and the mall's owner.

But the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court ruled the store's lease rights were the same as property rights and could be taken by eminent domain to advance an economic development project, just as government takes land to widen a road.

The stores say they do not want to stop the expansion; they only want the developer to negotiate with them over his plans and how those plans will affect their business.

The agency did not file the petitions to condemn portions of the stores' leases until Dec. 29, but Centra said that was within the three-year period allowed by law after the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, refused to hear appeals by the stores.

David Michel, city economic development director, said the agency's action is an example of how the city is cooperating with Congel to "move the project ahead." Congel has accused Mayor Matt Driscoll of trying to scuttle the project to force him into renegotiating the tax deal.

Destiny USA said Centra's decision was "yet another example of the far-reaching and broad support for Destiny USA, and the important public benefits associated with it."

The company urged the development agency to immediately issue bonds to help finance the expansion - something Centra ordered the agency to do in his ruling last week on the tax deal.

"We remain prepared to move forward with the start of construction upon issuance" of the bonds, the company said.

The development agency's directors are scheduled to meet Tuesday, and Destiny said it hopes they will use that meeting to "confirm their intent to be a partner in moving this important project forward."

Michel said Destiny is not on the agenda for the meeting. He said the city and the developer are in discussions aimed at settling their dispute.

Edward Premo, a lawyer who is representing J.C. Penney, said the department store was reviewing Centra's decision and had not decided whether to appeal. Lawyers for the other stores could not be reached for comment Thursday afternoon.

J.C. Penney has given a strong hint it will appeal. Penney legal representatives asked Centra in February to stay any ruling against them to give them time to appeal. He refused Thursday to grant such a stay, but that will not prevent the store from asking the Appellate Division for one.

The development agency does not intend to kick any of the 14 stores out of the mall. It is taking only their ability to block the mall's expansion.

Destiny USA said the stores will remain in their current locations or, in some cases, can be relocated within the mall.

The other 11 stores are Borders, Arden B, Bath & Body Works, Bath & Body Works at Home, Bon Ton, Circuit City, Comp USA, DSW, H&M, Old Navy and Weathervane.

---

Syracuse Post-Standard: http://www.syracuse.com

Eminent Domain Issue Comes to North Hills: Manhasset Press (Manhasset NY), 3/17/06

Lawsuits Filed Over Future of Deepdale Golf Club
By Joe Scotchie
Last year, in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the US Supreme Court ruled that local municipalities may seize private property for development purposes.

That ruling has set off numerous controversies and conflicts throughout the country. Now, the implications of eminent domain have come to North Hills.

Two separate lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts in an attempt to prevent the Village of North Hills from condemning Deepdale Golf Club, a 175-acre privately owned facility.

"This proposed condemnation may be the most extreme abuse of eminent domain in the country," claimed John Wilson, a North Hills resident who initiated the lawsuit filed in state court. "North Hills is trying to seize a private golf course for the purpose of creating a private 'Village only' golf course. This has nothing to do with a master plan that promotes the public good or eliminating blight... Rather, it is a naked grab for private property in an apparent effort to satisfy the private desires of a few elected officials."

Marvin Natiss, mayor of the Village of North Hills has declined to discuss the lawsuits.

"In light of the pending litigation, he's [the mayor] been advised by the village attorney not to make any comments at the present time," said a statement by a village spokesman.

When filing the state lawsuit, Wilson added that the village's plan is "fiscally irresponsible as it is illegal," further claiming that the cost of acquiring the course will likely exceed $100 million.

"The cost will be borne by village residents in the form of higher taxes," Wilson said. "Moreover, the village will have to sell a portion of the property to developers in order to help pay the bill. That means more congestion in our already congested village."

In addition to the state suit, legal action has been filed in federal court. That suit, filed by the law firm of Wacthell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz on behalf of Deepdale's Board of Directors alleges, "The Village's threatened bad faith use of power of eminent domain to condemn Deepdale is unconstitutional and unlawful and should be enjoined."

The suit added that the planned condemnation of Deepdale would violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which, the attorneys' note, "[prohibits] the government from taking private property unless it is for 'public use.'"

"No court has ever held that it is 'public use' for a village to condemn a private golf course so that its residents can use it as their own de facto private golf club," the suit further states. "And no court has ever held that any government ... can take some one else's private property on the basis that it will further increase the property value of the surrounding multimillion dollar homes owned by private residences."

Meanwhile, the state lawsuit, filed by the law firm of Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C., charges that the village used "incentive zoning" regarding a condominium project in order to "build a financial war chest to acquire Deepdale."

---

manhasset Press: http://www.antonnews.com/manhassetpress

Resort plan won't need to use eminent domain: Asbury Park (NJ) Press, 3/16/06

Long Branch approves revamped redevelopment alignment
By Carol Gorga Williams
New potential plans for the Ocean Place Resort and Spa emerged during a [Long Branch NJ] City Council meeting Tuesday and could include provisions for a second tower, more hotel rooms, parking facilities and acquisition of more land.

Officials expect to see a more formal presentation within the next 30 days. Such a presentation would be made at a caucus meeting. A date has not been scheduled.

During the regular meeting, council members voted to authorize the assignment of the developer's rights currently held by Tiburon Ocean Place LLC to Ocean Place Development LLC.

That will allow the current owners to arrange a partnership with four men from Washington, D.C., officials said. The city originally entered into a developer's agreement with Gem Holding Inc. in 1986 for construction of what was then the Ocean Place Hilton Hotel, and Gem signed, with the consent of the city, its rights to Tiburon in 2000.

Now Tiburon wants to enter into a joint venture for the hotel/campus zone with Orr Partners-Op LLC. This would enable the hotel to refinance the property and will result in a redevelopment plan without the need for any further eminent domain proceedings or property acquisition, according to the resolution.

However, the plan could ultimately use land from Abbottsford Avenue in the project. In 2004, the city bonded an additional $1 million to acquire nearly 4 acres adjacent to the Ocean Place in the hotel/campus zone. However, the money also could be used to acquire property in the other oceanfront zones, Mayor Adam Schneider has said.

The hotel/campus zone, one of six redevelopment zones in the city, surrounds the conference center between Madison Avenue and Laird Street. The city wants the land for potential use as retail or office space, construction of structured parking or a smaller hotel or convention center, Council President Anthony Giordano has said.

City Attorney James G. Aaron and City Business Administrator Howard H. Woolley Jr. briefly reviewed plans for Ocean Place. They said the plan includes the second tower, additional rooms in the main building, additional infrastructure and parking facilities and acquisition of Abbottsford Avenue.

Also Tuesday, the council approved an ordinance limiting height in its RC 1 Beachfront Mixed zone, which involves the northern end of town, at the ocean, north of the present redevelopment zones.

Because city ordinances had previously permitted midrise apartment buildings no taller than six stories or seven stories when the first floor is used for parking, officials wanted a review to see if that should remain a permitted use. The new ordinance no longer permits midrise buildings in that zone.

---

Asbury Park Press: www.app.com

Voters Block Taking Of Souter’s Property By Eminent Domain: North Country Gazette (Chestertown NY), 3/15/06

There won’t be any “taking” of Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s farmhouse to make way for the Lost Liberty hotel.

By a 3-1 margin, voters in Souter’s hometown [of Weare NH] voted down a proposal Tuesday 1,167 too 493 that would have allowed the town to seize his 200-year-old farmhouse under eminent domain.

Angered by the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision last year in the property rights case of Kelo v. New London, activists sought to take Souter’s property as a payback.

Voters instead asked the town Board of Selectman to urge the state to adopt a law that would forbid seizures of property by eminent domain.

Souter, a long-time resident of Weare, home to about 9,500, was in the majority for the 5-4 eminent domain case of Kelo v. City of New London , Conn., last June in which the Supreme Court ruled that government entities can take private property if the land is for public use. In Kelo, the Court said New London could take private property through eminent domain for the development of a hotel and convention center.

The decision left room for the states to create their own legislation to deal with the issue.

A group of activists, led by California resident Logan Darrow Clements, wanted Souter's 200-year-old farmhouse and eight acres seized for the purpose of building an inn to be known as the Lost Liberty Hotel.

Clements is the CEO of Freestar Media, a Los Angeles based company that fights "abusive" government through his website and cable show.

Clements said his goal was to "try to put an end to eminent domain abuse by having those who advocate or facilitate it live under it so they understand why it needs to end".

Residents of the town had petitioned to put the issue on the town's March 14 ballot. However, in deciding what issues should appear on the March ballot, voters rejected the activists' proposal with an action to instead strengthen New Hampshire's eminent domain law. 3-15-06

---

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

National City ends legal scrap over eminent domain: San Diego (CA) Union-Tribune, 3/16/06

By Tanya Sierra
A resident's effort to limit National City's use of eminent domain has ended after National City dropped a lawsuit it filed against him that claimed his proposal was unconstitutional.

Though the issue is volatile, eminent domain has helped National City as it has slowly revitalized its downtown core in recent years. City officials have condemned several run-down businesses to make way for new developments, such as Education Village on National City Boulevard.

Over the last year several businesses have been bought by developers or condemned by the city to make way for upscale condominiums projects, which will begin cropping up within the next two years.

In December, Dean DeLibertis, a National City resident for six years, became involved with a group of business owners near 11th Street and National City Boulevard who are being forced to sell their properties to a developer. He began gathering support to place an initiative on the ballot to stop National City from using its eminent domain power “loosely.”

“I saw that the mayor and the redevelopment committee were using it to broker deals,” he said. “They were taking property from private owners and passing it on to large private corporations under the loose definition of public good.”

City Attorney George Eiser examined the wording of DeLibertis' proposal, then got City Council approval to file a lawsuit that would stop DeLibertis from putting the measure on the ballot.

“It was invalid in a number of respects,” Eiser said. “It dealt with redevelopment and eminent domain, which are subject to state law and not local law. If you're going to enact laws on the subject it has to be done at the state level and not the local level.”

DeLibertis' proposal would have severely limited National City's ability to use condemnation for economic development. That would have thwarted the city's aggressive redevelopment plan, which includes several high-rise condominium projects.

In Chula Vista, however, where the City Council allowed a similar initiative to be placed on the June ballot, officials said maintaining public trust was more important.

In the end, DeLibertis and his associates did not gather enough petition signatures to qualify the proposal for the June ballot, and he withdrew the petition last month.

However, at that point, the lawsuit had been filed. Eiser then asked DeLibertis to sign settlement documents saying the initiative was legally invalid. DeLibertis refused and hired attorney Steve Haskins because he did not want a judgment entered against him in court.

During a closed session meeting last week, the City Council decided to dismiss its lawsuit against DeLibertis since he had withdrawn his petition, Eiser said.

Nevertheless, Haskins responded to National City's lawsuit, saying it was invalid.

National City mayoral candidate Pearl Quinones issued a statement this week supporting DeLibertis.

“It is clear to me and others in National City that City Hall is way out of line,” she said.

Eiser said the action they took against DeLibertis was not malicious.

“We're not trying to pick on anyone or trying to keep anyone from putting something on the ballot,” Eiser said. “If laws are to be enacted, they should be valid.”

---

San Diego Union-Tribune: www.signonsandiego.com

Residents Fight City's Eminent Domain Order: WJLA-TV7 (Washington DC), 3/16/06

Residents of the District's troubled Sursum Corda community are fighting city efforts to redevelop the area through the use of eminent domain.

The city wants to seize property in the housing cooperative to force a compromise on plans to build new housing in several price ranges to the area.

Sursum Corda residents recently fought off federal foreclosure by agreeing with a developer on a plan to pay them $80,000 for their homes and give them $80,000 toward the purchase of a new home in the redeveloped neighborhood.

But the developer and city officials can't agree on how many new townhouses would replace the Sursum Corda complex.

Some residents who spoke Wednesday at a D.C. Council hearing on the matter say they don't want to give up their property. But others say they believe the city must take over the land to keep limit the influence of developers.

---

WJLA-TC7: http://www.wjla.com

Property Rights Foundation of America testimony in New York, 3/29/06

Press Release
On April 3rd, Carol W. LaGrasse, President of the Property Rights Foundation of America will testify before a hearing at the Legislative Office Building in Albany conducted by Senate Judiciary Chairman John A. DeFrancisco (R., Syracuse) on three eminent domain reform bills that are currently in the Judiciary Committee of the New York State Senate and another bill that is in draft stage.

In previous testimony before the New York State Legislature, LaGrasse has expressed the opinion that the Supreme Court’s June 2005 Kelo v. New London eminent domain decision was unconstitutional. The decision gave eminent domain carte blanche to government, she says, leaving property owners without the protection of the Constitution. She has been advocating that the state’s eminent domain law be reformed to prohibit any use of eminent domain to take property from one private owner to transfer it to another private owner, with no exceptions for blight or public health and safety, thereby requiring that eminent domain be used only for traditional public uses, such as highways, parks, or schools.

In addition, LaGrasse has been urging reforms to the eminent domain process to create a more level playing field for property owners, such as better compensation to property owners and the establishment of an eminent domain ombudsman, which is a property owner advocacy office.

The three bills in the Judiciary Committee are Sen. Marcellino’s S. 5936 to provide that the power of eminent domain only be exercised for economic development when the property being taken is blighted; Sen. DeFrancisco’s S. 5938/A.9079 to clarify the purposes for public projects for which property may be acquired by eminent domain and to subject eminent domain by an industrial development agency to a vote by the local legislature; and Sen. DeFrancisco’s S. 5961/A. 9710 to enact a Constitutional Amendment to permit eminent domain takings only when the taking is for a truly public use, prohibiting economic development takings or for the benefit of a private business, and prohibiting taking private property to transfer it to another private owner.

The bill in draft stage, by Sen. Alesi, would create an Office of Eminent Domain Ombudsman, would require a vote by a local government to endorse or reject a taking of private property by a private developer, require that the condemnee be reimbursed for relocation costs and require that the condemnor make a base officer of the highest appraisal plus replacement costs. The bill would also create a temporary commission on eminent domain reform.

---

Carol W. LaGrasse, Property Rights Foundation of America Inc,
Box 75, Stony Creek NY 12878, 518-696-5748
www.prfamerica.org