Eminent domain bill passed in Md. Senate: Baltimore MD Sun, 4/3/07

By Laura Smitherman
Property owners whose land or buildings are taken through eminent domain could reap more compensation from governments under legislation approved yesterday by the Maryland Senate.

The bill, which passed unanimously, would allow for higher compensation packages for property owners, including relocation expenses. For instance, the bill lifts a $10,000 cap on costs to re-establish a farm, small business or nonprofit group, raising it to $60,000. The bill also forces state and local governments to move forward with eminent domain proceedings within three years of initiating the process.

"This certainly doesn't address all of the issues that we wanted, but this is a good first step," said Sen. James E. DeGrange Sr., an Anne Arundel County Democrat and sponsor of the legislation. "Sometimes you have to crawl before you walk."

DeGrange said objections from Baltimore City, which frequently uses its powers of eminent domain, derailed efforts to address instances in which governments use eminent domain for economic development. He said legislators would likely take up that issue again next year.

In the House, Del. Samuel I. Rosenberg, a Baltimore Democrat, has introduced a bill that would enable owners to get additional costs paid, but Rosenberg said yesterday that with less than a week left in the General Assembly session, his chamber would work to pass the Senate bill.

A provision that would pay a property owner "goodwill," or the amount in lost profit attributable to a relocation, has been dropped, the legislators said.

---

Baltimore MD Sun: http://www.baltimoresun.com

Eminent domain push for depot being dropped: Pawtucket RI Times, 4/2/07

By Douglas Hadden
The Pawtucket Redevelopment Agency is quietly dropping its nearly three-year push to seize the former train station property on Broad Street, which straddles the line with Central Falls, by eminent domain.

The City Council has voted twice, including late last year, to reject the move, which PRA again brought forward to the new council earlier this year.

Along the way the developer and owner, SMPO Properties/Warwick RICS LLC, which has a long term lease with CVS to build a 12,000 square foot pharmacy on the Central Falls side of the site, began demolishing a wing of the 91-year-old Beau Arts structure.

Pawtucket struck back in court by getting a temporary restraining order. That ultimately led to a compromise to save the vacant, decaying building that was announced March 20 by Mayor James E. Doyle and Central Falls Mayor Charles Moreau, SMPO and CVS.

Key to the compromise was abandoning part of the wide sidewalk and roadway area on the north side of Broad Street to create more vehicle access for the pharmacy without having to remove any of the depot structure.

Since then, PRA has been quietly negotiating with Thomas Moses, attorney for SMPO, on terms that would prevent the agency revisiting eminent domain - a process for land seizure for which the owner is compensated at appraised market value, and which can trigger extensive litigation - against the depot in the future, according to Michael Cassidy, PRA executive director and the city's planning and redevelopment chief.

"We have actually been corresponding with Tom Moses on an agreement whereby the mayor (Doyle) and Redevelopment Agency would agree not to go forward on eminent domain, and the developer would not go forward with certain things," Cassidy told The Times last week.

Cassidy declined to give details but said the agreement was "already in the fourth draft. I'd like to have an agreement with the solicitor (Margaret Lynch-Gadaleta) and mayor to present to the next meeting (of PRA)," on April 24.

Even as the legal machinations wind down on the depot, PRA is going ahead with an eminent domain initiative for another city property, and - five years after it was welcomed to town - has filed suit against the owner of the Silver Top diner.

"We filed suit. I have not received the answer," PRA attorney Kevin Horan told the agency at its monthly meeting last week. Horan said the attorney for diner owner Patricia Brown has indicated he will file a counterclaim within the allowed 60 days.

Amid much fanfare and a 15-year, $100,000 loan at 5 percent from PRA, Brown had the diner, which operated in Providence's Promenade area for 60 years, towed to a PRA-owned lot on Middle Street where it has sat since March 12, 2002.

Since then, $60,000 of the loan has been expended on various business plans but Brown, who bought the classic Kullman dining car for $1 from prior owner Bernard Bouncervello, has been unable to secure the projected $600,000 in financing needed to get the diner a new kitchen, shore up the steep site and reopen operations.

Brown has also been unsuccessful in attempts to interest a buyer or find a new site.

Meanwhile the diner has sat five years under a blue tarp that has become a veritable part of the streetscape in the Pleasant View neighborhood. Its only use in that time was as a set for a Rhode Island School of Design student sci-fi movie, "Space Theater," in January 2003.

PRA has been more successful in helping clean up the corner of Broad and Barton streets, where it will provide demolition funds for a vacant former restaurant building that the Pawtucket Business Development Corp., a city nonprofit development entity, is negotiating with its owner to buy, avoiding the need for PRA to seek eminent domain authority, according to Cassidy.

Funds for the purchase will come from Rhode Island Housing, Cassidy said. The site is across the street from a planned community garden, and north on Barton from the new $1.7 million Callaghan Gardens affordable housing project, 14 townhouse condo units now well under construction by the private, nonprofit Pawtucket Citizens Development Corp.

PRA is also on the verge of selling the former Laurel Hill Playground site on Lonsdale Avenue to the Blackstone Valley Community Action Program.

Cassidy said BVCAP will submit a subdivision application this month to the Planning Commission to construct two single family homes, with double driveways and parking in back, on the 20,000 square foot site.

If all goes as planned, Cassidy said the PRA could be asked to approve transfer of the property to BVCAP sometime this summer.

As for perhaps the longest delayed city project of all - the new hotel to be built off Division Street at a former car dealership site overlooking the Pawtucket River - Cassidy said the Carpionato Properties project is nearing construction start.

"They plan to start construction sometime in May," Cassidy said, with so-called 70 percent architectural plans for a 200-room Hampton Inn (100 rooms in each of two phases) now completed.

But Cassidy said construction cannot start until a new fire hydrant service is installed, and the attendant water lines work must await a tearup of Division Street by the Pawtucket Water Supply Board that is not allowed to seasonally start until April 15.

The hotel is on land the city acquired for $1 from the finance arm of General Motors. Separately, PRA itself owns a small parcel to the southeast that it has been in exploratory talks with Carpionato to sell and add to the footprint, Cassidy said.

Carpionato as part of the project is also responsible to widen part of Division Street to result in two through lanes plus two stacking lanes and a turning lane.
The site will also feature a free standing restaurant near the road, and a drive-up entry for the hotel that will be at the level of the second floor.

---

Pawtucket RI Times: http://www.zwire.com

Pizzeria's seizure sought for new development; new law too late: Centre County PA Daily Times, 3/31/07

By Michael Rubinkam, Associated Press
Four decades ago, Italian immigrant Mario Piccolino landed in Scranton via the Bronx and opened a pizzeria. He knew nobody and spoke little English - but his pizza shop not only survived, it thrived.

Today, Buona Pizza has a large, loyal following, and remains a downtown landmark even as many other stores have fled to the suburbs. The Piccolino family - Mario and his brother, and now their sons - thought they'd stay in business another 40 years.

But the city has other ideas.

Mayor Chris Doherty wants to seize Buona Pizza ("The best in town since 1966") through eminent domain and give the real estate to a politically connected developer as part of a $20 million redevelopment project along Lackawanna Avenue, one of the city's main thoroughfares.

Customers are outraged, calling it a blatant land grab. About 1,200 people have signed a petition demanding that the city back off. Meanwhile, Buona Pizza has vowed to fight the city in court.

"It's not for a wider road, or a flood project. It's just a private developer trying to enrich himself and his friends," said Giovanni Piccolino, 31, a second-generation owner. "We've been there 40 years. We don't owe anything to anybody."

City leaders note that the pizzeria anchors a dilapidated - and highly visible - section of Lackawanna Avenue. Most of the rest of Lackawanna has already been revitalized, making the crumbling buildings along the 500 block stick out.

The plan by developer Donald Rinaldi calls for boutiques, offices, loft-style apartments and other amenities - and a new four-story building where the pizza shop now stands.

"It is a blighted block, and it's our job to keep improving and making things better," Doherty, who did not return phone calls from The Associated Press, told The Times-Tribune of Scranton.

The city believes it has Supreme Court precedent on its side.

In a landmark 2005 case, Kelo v. City of New London, the justices ruled that New London, Conn., could seize homeowners' property for private development, siding with city officials who argued that tax revenues and new jobs from the development would benefit the public.

The court's ruling sparked a nationwide backlash and prompted at least 34 states, including Pennsylvania, to examine their laws regarding eminent domain, the legal process by which the government takes private property for the public's benefit, paying fair market value to the owner.

Last year, the Pennsylvania Legislature approved a bill that generally prohibits local governments from seizing property for private enterprise. But the law, which was signed by Gov. Ed Rendell in May, did not take effect until September - a month after Scranton filed a "declaration of taking" against Buona Pizza in Lackawanna County Court.

"They are certainly violating the spirit of the law," said Steven Anderson, director of the Castle Coalition, an Arlington, Va., group that advocates for private property rights. The coalition is a project of the Institute for Justice, which represented homeowners in the Kelo case.

But Doherty said the pizzeria owners rejected the city's offer of compensation, leaving the city little choice but to condemn it. "At the end of the day, this is eminent domain, and usually eminent domain is about money," he said.

The Piccolinos said the city made an initial offer of $265,000 for the Buona Pizza building, which they found as appetizing as a week-old slice of pepperoni. Giovanni Piccolino said it didn't take into account the value of the business.

They do not yet know the price the building would fetch through eminent domain. Their attorney has challenged the condemnation on several legal grounds and a judge has yet to rule.

In any case, the family said it doesn't want money. "We just want to be left alone," Giovanni Piccolino said.

The pizza shop itself is nothing much to look at. It's housed in a drab cinder block building with a dated white-brick facade; inside, there are 12 booths, a few arcade games and not much else. But it is a structurally sound building and people drive for miles to sink their teeth into the chewy, tangy $10 pies.

Customers having lunch there recently said they are solidly behind Buona Pizza.

"You take a 40-year-old business that has faithfully stayed downtown through good times and bad times, and now you tell them, 'You don't fit into our project'? I can't comprehend the arrogance of the leaders of the city," said Daniel Hubbard, 35, munching on a slice.

Piccolino pointed out that Rinaldi and his family contributed $27,000 to Doherty's two mayoral campaigns. The Rinaldis also gave to Gov. Ed Rendell, who traveled to Scranton in 2004 and awarded the project a $9 million state grant.

"It's pay-to-play politics around here," Piccolino said.

Back in the kitchen, his uncle Mario, 66 and semiretired, said he can't understand how the city could take his business.

"Everybody loves Buona Pizza and now you want to throw me out?" he said, kneading 100-pound blobs of dough. "That's not fair. That's not America."

---

Centre County PA Daily Times: http://www.centredaily.com

Leader of push for change in eminent domain resigns: Dallas TX Morning News, 3/30/07

Official with nonprofit was criticized for legislative proposal
By Scott Goldstein
A lead official with the nonprofit that is lobbying for controversial legislation to allow the use of eminent domain for private development in South Dallas resigned this week.

Nat Tate, president and chief executive officer of Frazier Revitalization Inc., the development arm of the Foundation for Community Empowerment, was the public face of the push for eminent domain in the Frazier Courts neighborhood in recent weeks.

The plan was met with staunch criticism from community leaders who said they feared that eminent domain would be misused to displace longtime residents.

But the resignation also follows criticism from some who said Mr. Tate and his organization failed to include the broader community in discussions about their proposal.

Mr. Tate and his boss, FCE founder and chairman J. McDonald "Don" Williams, vowed until recently to continue their push for legalizing the use of eminent domain in objectively defined "blighted" areas for residential and commercial redevelopment.

Mr. Tate and Mr. Williams, former chief executive of Trammell Crow, did not return calls seeking comment Thursday evening.

Victoria Loe Hicks, senior writer for FCE, said she was unaware of a reason for Mr. Tate's resignation.

"I could only speculate that he didn't want to continue working on the project," Ms. Hicks said.

The Foundation for Community Empowerment had hoped to broaden eminent domain powers in the Legislature. The organization was pushing for changes in law that would allow a municipality to designate a wide area as blighted based on objective criteria, including the male unemployment rate, crime rate, property value and percent of unfit and undeveloped parcels.

After public hearings and in accordance with a City Council-approved development plan, the local government could initiate eminent domain in the designated blighted area to acquire commercial property, vacant and abandoned lots, rental property and multifamily units. Eminent domain, however, could not be used to acquire single-family, owner-occupied residences.

Mr. Tate defended the plan to sometimes raucous crowds at two town hall meetings on the topic, including one hosted by state Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, a week ago.

Mr. Tate continued to defend the Frazier Courts project as a way to clean up the community while protecting homeowners' rights. He gave no hint of any intention to resign during his public comments at that March 23 meeting.

"I ask the one question: Are you satisfied with what you have now, and do you want to see change?" he asked the hundreds of residents who attended.

But after the proposed changes met with community resistance, project supporters had vowed to go back into the community to better frame the issues at stake.

"I think it goes back to having discussions with the community," said Antong "Kiddo" Lucky, an ex-gang member who sits on the Frazier Revitalization Board.

Frazier Revitalization Incorporated Board members received official notice of Mr. Tate's resignation Thursday.

Though legislation probably would have applied to broader areas of the state, the proposal was prompted by the organization's development plans for the Frazier Courts neighborhood of South Dallas. The area comprises over 1,100 acres, roughly bounded by Scyene Road, Fitzhugh Avenue, South Haskell Road and Parkdale Lake.

---

Dallas TX Morning News: http://www.dallasnews.com

Wither Willets Point redevelopment: Queens Courier, Bayside NY, 3/29/07

By Pete Davis
For nearly 75 years three generations of the Bono family have been waking up every morning to go to work at their sawdust supply store on 127th Place in Corona, a few short blocks from Shea Stadium. Back in 1933, Jacob Bono scouted locations for the store and custom-built Bono Sawdust Supply Co. Inc. on the Corona Street because of its strategic location and easy access to the highways.

Now, the current owners, Jacob’s son Jack and grandson Jake are gearing up for a fight to save their property from a takeover by the city.

Bono Sawdust Supply Co. Inc. is one of more than 200 businesses located in the Willets Point corridor, commonly referred to as The Iron Triangle, which the city wants to acquire so it can begin a massive, private development project at the 75-acre site.

At a recent town hall meeting organized by City Councilmember Hiram Monserrate, representatives from the city’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC) presented their vision for the site as a mixed-use facility complete with affordable housing, office space, a first class hotel, convention center, school and open space for the community to enjoy.

However, business owners, local representatives and EDC officials acknowledged that this is only the beginning of a long public approval process that is bound to have bumps in the road along the way.

THE CURRENT SITE
The Willets Point area, which is home to approximately 250 businesses with nearly 225 in the auto-related industry, encompasses the area east of 126th Street right across from the new Citi Field, north of Roosevelt Avenue and south of Northern Boulevard going up against the Van Wyck Expressway on the East.

One of the biggest factors at the site concerns environmental problems. There is no sewer system, rampant illegal dumping, open petroleum spills and poor infrastructure.

“When you look at the spectrum of its history literally starting off as an ash dump, it could end up to be a national model for environmental stewardship and responsibility,” Bill Walsh, Vice President, Real Estate Development for EDC said.

However, some community members at the meeting criticized EDC officials for only recently taking an interest in the poor environmental conditions in the area now that they are looking to develop the region.

“Anything down here that comes along with them saying it is blight or a destroyed neighborhood is due to neglect from the city,” said Jake Bono. “The city caused all of this.”

Currently, the city is working on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which will be available to the public that would describe and analyze the effects a development would have on the environment.

PLANNING FOR DEVELOPMENT
When Mayor Michael Bloomberg took office in 2002, he began looking at the Flushing area as a prime spot for redevelopment and looked at development in the area in a three-step process: Reconnect downtown, revitalize the waterfront and redevelop Willets Point.

Two years later, the city formed an advisory committee, chaired by Queens Borough President Helen Marshall, to explore the development of Willets Point. They issued a Request For Expressions of Interest (RFEI) for the area, and in 2006, they issued a targeted Request For Proposals (RFP).

In the targeted RFPs, developers submitted plans that included more than 1 million square feet of retail and entertainment space, 500,000 square feet of office space, 5,500 units of mixed-income housing as well as community and public space that would make Willets Point a regional tourist destination.

“Hopefully, by creating this new destination at Willets Point, we can not only keep them [tourists] in Willets Point, but get them out in the surrounding communities in Flushing, Corona and Elmhurst,” Walsh said.

Currently, the city is in the process of reviewing eight proposals from prominent development groups for the site as well as soliciting input for the community before it goes back to the developers with more specific requests.

The new development would have tremendous economic impact creating nearly 20,000 construction jobs, 6,000 new permanent jobs and more than $1.5 billion in additional tax revenue for the city over the next 30 years, according to EDC officials.

City Councilmember John Liu, who represents the Flushing area near the proposed development site, said that while the development would generate billions of dollars in tax revenues for the city, which is EDC’s job, he wanted to make sure that the community’s input into the project was heard.

“For our community it’s not just about tax revenues,” Liu said. “It’s about making sure that we have the jobs, making sure affordable housing is part of the equation, more school seats for youngsters.”

THE EMINENT DOMAIN DEBATE
During the town hall meeting, EDC officials announced that within the next few months they would be rolling out their comprehensive Business Assistance and Workforce Development Plan to all businesses that lie within the proposed area.

“It’s very important for us to work with these businesses as we move forward,” Walsh stressed.

The expected plan will set up a ‘one-stop shop’ for businesses and workers who have questions about what is happening in the Willets Point area as well as provide individual relocation assistance, financial and technical assistance to all parties in the area.

However, those plans did not satisfy some Willets Point business owners at the meeting including Jake Bono, who told EDC officials repeatedly that he was not interested in selling his land to the city and relocating his business.

“This is not about money,” Bono said. “This is about not being strong-armed out of something that is supposed to be protected by the Constitution and an abuse of eminent domain.”

That is where the eminent domain debate comes into play. There has been conjecture that if existing businesses do not reach an agreement to sell their property to the city, it would entertain the use of eminent domain.

According to New York State law, eminent domain is used to give due regard to the need to acquire property for public use as well as the legitimate interests of private property owners, local communities and the quality of the environment.

“Eminent domain is not a pleasant process that the government likes, nor certainly do those that are subject to the use of eminent domain,” Walsh said.

If the city could not reach an agreement with all the property owners to acquire their land, they would need to receive approval from the City Council to grant them the power to use eminent domain - something that Monserrate said is not a guarantee.

“I clearly am not a fan of eminent domain,” he said. “I have a lot of very grave concerns in particular when government enacts these policies that take away people’s property by compelling them to do so.”

---

Queens Courier, Bayside NY: http://www.queenscourier.com

Eminent domain hold-outs give up: Cincinnati OH Enquirer, 3/30/07

By Steve Kemme
Joy and Carl Gamble Jr. have reluctantly decided to give up plans to move back into the home that they spent three years fighting to save from demolition in the landmark Norwood eminent domain battle.

Because of serious health concerns, the Gambles have agreed to sell their house in Norwood to the Rookwood Partners for $650,000 – $370,000 more than the value a jury had placed on their property in the early part of the eminent-domain court fight.

Carl Gamble Jr. has been hospitalized since December for cancer and heart and lung problems, said Bert Gall, attorney for the Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C., civil-liberties law firm that represented the Gambles and two other property owners for free in the successful fight to stop Norwood from taking their properties through eminent domain.

“The main thing that’s kept us going these past couple of years is the thought of moving back into our home,” Joy Gamble said in a statement released by the institute. “Now, however, Carl will never be able to go back there because of his health, and I just can’t go back there without him.”

The Gambles, who lived in their Norwood home for 35 years, were forced to move out two years ago when a Hamilton County judge ruled in Norwood’s favor. They moved to an apartment in Northern Kentucky.

Last July, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against Norwood and the developer and ordered the properties returned to the Gambles and two other property owners.

The Rookwood Partners had bought and demolished all but those three properties in a 75-parcel piece of land on 11 acres at Edwards and Edmondson roads when the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision.

The ruling delighted eminent-domain opponents in Ohio and throughout the nation. It forced Ohio legislators to consider making it more difficult for cities to use eminent domain for economic development.

It was the first eminent-domain case to reach a state supreme court since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in 2005 that supported the right of New London, Conn., to take private property for commercial development. But the court said each state could decide how restrictive to make its eminent-domain laws.

In the Norwood case, the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision prevented Rookwood Partners from building a $125 million office-retail-condo development on 11 acres at Edwards and Edmondson roads. The three structures still standing on the large site – the Gambles’ home, the rental home of Joe Horney and the home that Sanae Ichikawa-Burton and Michael Burton converted into a math and reading learning center – are situated so that the Rookwood Exchange could not be built as planned.

Horney and the Burtons, whose houses have been vacant for more than two years, have indicated in recent months that they’re keeping their options open. But they have not agreed to sell, Gall said.

The Rookwood Partners declined to comment on its purchase of the Gambles’ property.

Norwood Mayor Tom Williams said he hopes Horney and the Burtons sell their properties so that the Rookwood Exchange can be built. That development would generate about $2 million a year for Norwood.

“It’s good news for us,” he said of the Gambles’ decision to sell. “I hope it’s a positive indication of things to come.”

Tim Burke, an attorney for Norwood, said the sale of the Gambles’ property “removes one of the roadblocks to seeing that entire area redeveloped.”

Joy Gamble was unavailable for comment Friday because she was at her husband’s side in a hospital, Gall said.

“This is a very difficult time for her,” Gall said.

“The Gambles are true American heroes,” he said. “They took a courageous stand for homeowners and small business owners. Their lasting legacy will be the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision.”

---

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

Eminent domain raises ire: Norristown PA Times-Herald, 3/30/07

By Carl Rotenberg
Preliminary plans for the proposed, $250 to $300 million, six-lane widening and reconstruction of the Pennsylvania Turnpike's Northeast Extension from the Mid-County to Lansdale exit were presented to several hundred local residents Thursday night at St. Helena School.

Construction on widening the 10.5-mile, four-lane highway, the busiest four-lane section of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, will start in 2008 and be completed in 2014, said Carl DeFebo, a Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission spokesman.

Residents of the Timberfare Circle cul-de-sac in Plymouth loudly objected to the proposed, "total taking" of two homes owned by Yves and Joretha Bourjolly and Anne Marie King on the circle for a required storm-water detention basin.

The commission plans to take nine properties "completely" and 150 to 200 properties "partially" to widen the roadway, said Gerald H. Rollman, commission reconstruction program coordinator.

"We're just going to lose property value with a detention pond on our street," said Dennis McGlinchey of Timberfare Circle. "We're OK with the widening. But we didn't know they were going to take down homes in the middle of our block."

"It's going to be a huge area," said Cynthia Kopaci of Timberfare Circle. "It seems it is dividing the neighborhood. It's just a shame that they can come in and do this."

One man asked if the detention basin could be built on the other side of the turnpike in the Valley Square Corporate Center.

Rollman said the original construction of the N.E. Extension more than 50 years ago did not include storm water management. The commission is required to design storm water management for the existing turnpike and the additional lanes to be built.

The six-lane roadway will have three 12-foot travel lanes northbound and southbound, a 26-foot median and 12-foot shoulders. The widening requires the replacement of seven overhead bridges at Walton Road, DeKalb Pike, Morris Road, Bustard Road, Bethel Road, Kriebel Road and Sumneytown Pike.

Construction of the Bethel and Kriebel Road bridges will require local detours around the bridgework for seven to nine months in the 2008 construction season. The one-year construction of the Walton and DeKalb Pike bridges in 2008 will require no detours.

Ten "mainline" bridges that take the turnpike over local roads will be replaced as reconstruction work on the roadbed and widening occurs from 2011 to 2014, DeFebo said.

Members of WhitpainResidents.org, a nonprofit advocacy group organized to oppose the move of Montgomery Hospital to Whitpain, gathered contact information from residents Thursday night as they arrived at the public open house.

"Our goal is to represent responsible development," said Amy Fruncillo, a WhitpainResidents.org board member. "We want the least amount of land taken and the least intrusive development."

Dave Miller, president of the Whitpain group, wanted the commission to design the detention basins with "the least impact" on the neighborhood.

"We're not sure they looked at all the alternatives," Miller said.

DeFebo said the 10.5-mile turnpike segment, with 24 million vehicles traveling north and southbound in 2006, was the busiest 4-lane section of the turnpike.

"The number of total acquisitions is amazingly low given that it is a 10.5 mile project," DeFebo said.

He said Rollman's estimate of 150 to 200 "partial takings" was made because the construction design had not been finalized yet.

A dedicated informational section of the commission's www.paturnpike.com Web site is expected to be activated this week, DeFebo said.

The proposed location and design of noise walls was questioned by several residents.

"A noise sensitive area (on the design maps) does not mean that a wall will be built there," Rollman said. "It has to meet the 'warranted, reasonable and feasible' rules for construction."

The criteria requires that a noise reduction of five dBA benefit the majority of impacted residences. The cost per residence to receive a three dBA (or greater) noise reduction cannot exceed $50,000. A community consensus is required to build a sound barrier.

"I think after this meeting that no one will be able to sell their homes," said Donna Maines of Whitpain. "Our property values will go down."

These plans will be presented again at an April 10 meeting at Pennbrook Middle School in North Wales from 6 to 9 p.m.

---

Norristown PA Times-Herald: http://www.timesherald.com

Bill Would Make It Harder To School Districts To Exercise Eminent Domain: KWTX-TV, Waco TX, 3/28/07

Public school districts would be required to study at least three different properties before they can forcibly buy private property to construct new buildings, under a measure tentatively adopted by the Texas House Wednesday.

Such a feasibility study would force school districts to prove to landowners ``that that's the right piece of property,'' for them to build on, said the bill's author, Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford.

Under King's bill, the study would have to be conducted by a licensed engineer or architect and must include costs and benefits to the district.

The district could study just one site if the district shows that it is the only location suitable.

Supporters say the use of eminent domain in Texas is widespread with few rules to ensure fairness.

Critics argued that the requirement is too burdensome and costly to the school districts, which would probably pass the costs on to taxpayers.

---

KWTX-TV, Waco TX: http://www.kwtx.com

Uh'ville OKs eminent domain action: New Philadelphia OH Times-Reporter, 3/28/07

Uhrichsville [OH] City Council voted 7-0 Tuesday to proceed with an eminent domain action against the owner of a property at 315 S. Water St. after failing to reach an agreement with the owner during an executive session.

Council President Mick Donato said council took action at the special meeting and provided the property owner notification that the city will get an appraisal of the property on Friday. The eminent domain action could be halted if an agreement is reached, he said.

Donato said the house would be razed as part of the S. Water St. project, which is slated to begin in late summer or early fall. The project would eliminate a blind spot for drivers when the road is widened and drainage issues are addressed.

The city will pave S. Water St. to the corporation limit, where it becomes Moravian Trail Rd., Donato said.

---

New Philadelphia OH Times-Reporter: http://www.timesreporter.com

Lake Zurich can’t use eminent domain to take downtown welding shop: Chicago IL Daily Herald, 3/28/07

By Madhu Krishnamurthy
In a reversal of fortune, Dave and Laura Majkowski may not have to move their welding shop out of downtown Lake Zurich after all.

The couple’s landlord, the village of Lake Zurich, tried to condemn the welder’s lease at 16 W. Main St. under the Tax Increment Financing Act and under provisions in the Illinois Municipal Code. The property figures prominently in the village’s downtown redevelopment plans as a future retail building.

On March 16, a Lake County Circuit Court judge dismissed the village’s eminent domain lawsuit against Comet Welding.

Eminent domain allows governments to seize private property for public use with just compensation based on fair market value.

Judge Raymond McKoski ruled that while the village made a “good faith attempt to agree on the amount of compensation,” it does not have authority to use eminent domain in this case.

The ruling came as a relief to Laura Majkowski, who said Tuesday the couple is open to either staying at the site until the lease expires in 2013 or selling the lease to the village for the desired compensation.

“We’ve lost business because of what the village has already done to us,” she said.

The village has 30 days from the ruling date to appeal. Both parties say they want to settle the matter.

Acting Village President John Tolomei said he is inclined to let the welder stay and back off on the eminent domain fight because he never was a fan of eminent domain.

“I feel we had to use it to jumpstart the downtown,” he said. “It (the Majkowskis’ case) made me rethink seriously if we really need to keep using it.”

Tolomei said the village could design its redevelopment around the Majkowskis’ shop and allow them to stay until the end of the lease.

Village Attorney Mark Burkland said the Majkowskis’ latest demand of more than $500,000 for their lease and other costs is too high.

The village is also liable for the Majkowskis’ attorney’s fees and costs of about $75,000.

A larger question raised by the judge’s ruling is whether it could affect past or future use of eminent domain by the village.

McKoski ruled the village made legal errors when establishing its tax increment financing district.

“You have a detailed statutory scheme to go through to ensure that the property is being taken for a valid public purpose,” said Margaret Borcia, the Majkowskis’ attorney.

The village is now five years into its tax increment financing district, which allows it to capture taxes from increased property values since the district was established in 2002 into a 23-year fund to be used for redevelopment purposes.

The village in its plan said the district funds could be used for other redevelopment areas not within the district.

McKoski ruled the village’s plan should have stated “the incremental revenues would be used exclusively for development of the project area.”

Burkland contends municipalities can use revenues from one redevelopment area for eligible costs in another as long as it is contiguous, or separated only by a roadway or forest preserve. Burkland said McKoski’s ruling will not have a broader effect.

---

Chicago IL Daily Herald: http://www.dailyherald.com

Protection from eminent domain abuse is coming: WIchita KS Eagle, 3/28/07

Opinion
By Steven Anderson
Real eminent domain protection is about to come to Kansas.

Home and small-business owners across the state have this year's Legislature to thank for beating back an effort by the beneficiaries of eminent domain abuse.

Last year, Kansas enacted historic reforms that prohibit local governments from taking property by force for private economic development. This problem gained national attention and infamy after the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Conn.

Kansas was one of more than 30 states that enacted protections against the use of eminent domain for private gain in the aftermath of the dreadful Kelo ruling, though the Kansas law does still allow the Legislature to approve condemnation for economic development, unfortunately.

One important provision of the Kansas property-rights legislation, however, was its effective date: July 1, 2007. So while Kansas was widely known as one of the worst abusers in the country of the power of eminent domain - tellingly called the "despotic power" by the Supreme Court - the commonsense property protections do not begin until this summer.

This legislative session, Senate Bill 296 threatened to take away some property protections by allowing the use of eminent domain for the removal of so-called "blight."

For far too long, local governments have claimed blight removal - or its sibling, urban renewal - as a backdoor method to forcefully transfer property from one private individual to another.

As I told both the Senate judiciary and commerce committees last session, it is a place to tread very carefully, especially in Kansas, whose constitution does not contain a public use clause and whose Supreme Court has ruled that economic development is a proper use of the eminent domain power.

But because the power of eminent domain was abused so often in Kansas, the Legislature joined a number of other states, such as Florida and the Dakotas, to make sure home and small-business owners would not lose their properties for the purpose of removing blight.

To its credit, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not send S.B. 296 to the full chamber, so the threat this year is gone. Soon there will be meaningful and near complete protection against eminent domain abuse for all landowners in Kansas. Beginning in July, all Kansans, regardless of where they live or what they own, will be far more secure.

That does not mean, however, that threats will not arrive again. As they did this year, those who benefit most from the use of eminent domain for private profit - notably land-hungry private developers and tax-hungry government officials - will be back in the Legislature with even further efforts to roll back the protections.

Sadly, entrenched special interests will continue to use their money and power to chip away at eminent domain reforms. This has already occurred in Utah, which passed comprehensive reform in 2005 only to see those protections cheapened in 2007.

To prevent that from happening in Kansas, you will need to remain vigilant. Otherwise, local governments easily may be able to snatch away what is rightfully yours.

---

WIchita KS Eagle: http://www.kansas.com

Steven Anderson is an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a law firm in Arlington, Va., that litigated the Kelo case: www.ij.org

City Commission takes first step toward using eminent domain in south redevelopment: Kansas State Collegian, Manhattan KS, 3/28/07

By Willow Williamson
The city commission voted unanimously on the first reading of an ordinance to allow the city to use eminent domain to acquire certain properties within the South End Redevelopment Area.

The commissioners agreed that though it was not something they wanted to do, it was necessary for continuing the redevelopment project.

"As an elected official, this is truly a test we are faced with in terms of our commitment to our vision of recreating the downtown area and trying to be fair to everybody and all parties involved," said commissioner Tom Phillips.

Mayor Bruce Snead said he hopes the city will not need to rely on eminent domain.

"I am optimistic that the number of properties will be secured by successful neutral negotiations, and hopefully we don't need to use eminent domain at all," he said. "That will remain our priority, but if necessary, we have to take these steps at this time frame."

Negotiations are ongoing between Dial Realty and the seven property owners who still have not accepted Dial's offers. During any time of the condemnation process, the property owners still can negotiate, according to city staff.

"Of the seven that are left, there are a lot of meetings going on, probably only one or two that have really been less communicative, but we keep chiseling away, and we keep trying and working pretty hard to get it," said Bob Welstead, president of Dial Realty.

Representatives from O'Reilly Auto Parts said they were not so satisfied with Dial's negotiations. Charlie Downs, who spoke on behalf of O'Reilly told commissioners that two years earlier during the first planning of the redevelopment project, they had given Dial three different sites where they would be willingly relocate.

However, he said Dial would not communicate with them during that time, and all but two of the sites were sold to other buyers. Later, he said Dial did offer them a relocation site, but it was not adequate.

"Through this whole thing, folks, money has not been an issue. All we've asked is to be kept whole," Downs said. "Were not asking for blue skies. We just want to have a quality location that our great team can continue the great sells that we've earned in the Manhattan area."

There was a heated discussion after the meeting between Welstead and the representatives from O'Reilly Auto parts. Robert Greene, director of real estate and legal services for O'Reilly Auto Parts, told Welstead that Dial did not do anything for them when Dial had the chance.

"We joined in the hunt three years ago," Greene said of the three properties. "If you want to force us out, have at it."

One of the three sites is still available, and negotiations are in the making to secure it for O'Reilly.

"The sky is the limit, and if need be, we'll pay the limit," Welstead told them.

---

Kansas State Collegian, Manhattan KS: http://media.www.kstatecollegian.com

Public advocate fights eminent domain misuse: Asbury NJ Park Press, 3/28/07

Officials want to improve their towns, build tax bases, says Chen, but he's opposed to taking people's homes against their will
By Carol Gorga Williams
State Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen took one look at last year's court decision that upheld Long Branch's right to take oceanview homes by eminent domain and knew he had to fight it.

Chen, appearing before the Asbury Park Press editorial board Tuesday, on the first anniversary of the reincarnation of his Cabinet-level office, described the motivation for choosing Long Branch's proposed redevelopment of the second phase of Beachfront North as one of three eminent domain cases in the state he opted to oppose.

"Many mayors — and I can't fault them for this — want their town to be the Emerald City," Chen said. "It is now a concept of increasing ratables and making your town look pretty. All things being equal, I don't think that is what eminent domain should be used for."

The other communities Chen is taking on are Lodi and Paulsboro. In Lodi, the municipality wants to seize 20 acres on Route 46, currently home to a 200-unit trailer park, and convert it into a strip mall and upscale senior housing.

In Paulsboro, the advocate is fighting the borough's decision to designate a 63-acre vacant waterfront parcel "underutilized" so it can give way to a commercial port on the Delaware River. Arguments before the state Supreme Court are scheduled for April 26.

And in Long Branch, Chen also has filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of property owners in the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, Seaview Avenue neighborhood where about 20 owners are fighting the city's plan to replace homes and vacant lots with about 185 upscale condominiums.

Mayor Adam Schneider has challenged Chen's fact-checking in deciding in August to support the MTOTSA community without meeting with city officials to review their methodology in declaring the neighborhood "one in need of redevelopment."

Schneider ultimately met with representatives of the advocate's office in December.

He reviewed the evidence
But Chen said Tuesday he does not need to see the city's materials because he reviewed the entire record before Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson, who issued the June 22 ruling permitting the city to proceed. The place for that evidence is before the court, not in his office, Chen said.

Schneider, contacted after Tuesday's editorial board session, said Chen was being "disingenuous."

"Oh, that's ridiculous," Schneider said of Chen's position. "He called me up a year ago and indicated he wanted to study the issue and understand it thoroughly. He wanted to meet with us. And the next time I heard from him (in August) was when he held a press conference" saying he would oppose the city's plan.

"He did that without reviewing 15 years of work" the city did, Schneider said.

"The fact is he's been intellectually dishonest in his approach to the issue and as it applies to Long Branch," the mayor said.

MTOTSA is appealing Lawson's decision, and briefs, due next month, are being prepared.

"If they are going to make the case, it's not me who needs to examine those documents, it is the court," Chen said after the editorial board meeting. "Every time Mayor Schneider says "I've got all this relevant evidence,' I say, "Why didn't you present it to the court?'

"On the issue of eminent domain, and on Long Branch particularly, I was completely and utterly informed," said Chen, noting Lawson should have permitted MTOTSA a hearing in which evidence could have been presented. Instead, Lawson ruled after listening to oral arguments and examining exhibits.

"Blight" label misused
Chen said the MTOTSA neighborhood is not blighted and criticized what he termed the "drive-by" examination performed by the city that researched whether the 38-parcel community met the definition of blight. (About half the property owners have settled with the city or the developer.)

Chen, who plans this year to issue a follow-up to his landmark May 18 report on eminent domain and its abuses, said he wants definitions for blight tightened, notice to property owners improved, and "just compensation" to include replacement value. In some cases, he added, owners should receive the enhanced value from the anticipated redevelopment project.

While he supports an Assembly bill that addresses some of his concerns, the Senate version is stuck in committee.

"I have not promoted an utter moratorium but obviously there are areas in dire need of reform if this is to survive," said Chen, noting that "expected sources" have opposed the reforms.

Chen has taken on other issues in his first year, advancing measures to help students in special-education programs and on behalf of people with mental illness and developmental disabilities. He also has advocated for voters' rights.

He said he is monitoring the costs of beach fees in coastal communities and is seeking ways to enter beach access issues — a traditional responsibility of the public advocate.

---

Asbury NJ Park Press: www.app.com

Allred sponsors eminent domain restriction bill: Burlington NC Times-News, 3/28/07

[North Carolina] State Rep. Cary Allred has sponsored a House bill restricting the power of state and federal government to seize private property for anything other than a public purpose.

Allred, who represents Alamance County, was joined by 95 colleagues in sponsoring HB 878. If passed, the General Assembly would place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments can condemn private property and then transfer it to another private owner for economic development.

“If approved by the voters, the constitutional amendment reverses the infamous Kelo decision for North Carolina, permanently forbidding government from taking private property for anything other than a public purpose,” Allred said in a press release.

The eminent domain restrictions measure would bring the state in line with the rest of the nation by requiring a trial by jury in all condemnation cases as a matter of constitutional law.

---

Burlington NC Times-News: http://www.thetimesnews.com

Lawmakers argue for eminent domain protection: New Haven CT Register, 3/24/07

By Gregory B. Hladky
Connecticut should follow the lead of 30 other states that have already acted to protect private homes from seizure by eminent domain for the purpose of commercial development, lawmakers were told Friday.

The General Assembly’s failure to act on this issue has "been something of a black mark against this legislature," said state House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk.

"We as a legislature have failed our citizenry," Cafero said during his testimony before the legislature’s Judiciary Committee, supporting a bill to restrict municipal and state authority to take private property.

Many municipal leaders, including New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Jr., have warned against placing too many restrictions on use of eminent domain. They argue that forbidding the taking of private homes for private development could preclude any real urban redevelopment projects.

The legislature’s Planning and Development Committee Friday also approved a bill providing more protections for property owners, but which falls short of prohibiting taking of private homes in connection with for-profit developments.

State Rep. Joseph Serra, D-Middletown, said there should be some mechanism for state or municipal action when a "small piece of private property stands in the way of a major development."

Cafero said it’s been 640 days since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision in a controversial New London case, ruling that there is no federal prohibition against the use of eminent domain to take private homes to make way for a massive for-profit project.

That decision created nationwide concern about the potential for abuse of eminent domain powers and a series of actions in various state legislatures.

The co-chairman of the judiciary panel, state Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, said he is "optimistic something is actually going to take place" this year on the issue of eminent domain.

Lawlor said local New London officials fumbled badly in their attempts to acquire private homes to make way for a development project that is scheduled to include a hotel, high-end housing and office space. The planned New London project is adjacent to the Pfizer Inc. complex.

"I can’t imagine they could have handled it any worse," Lawlor said of the efforts of the New London development officials.

State Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, said he would support even broader restrictions on eminent domain than are now being proposed with regard to private residences of four units or less.

"Taking a private business for a private purpose … I think that should be prohibited," Meyer said.

Carl Yacobacci, a businessman from Derby, testified in support of protections for small businesses. He said any eminent domain bill "should include commercial property … so we can be protected."

---

New Haven CT Register: http://www.nhregister.com

ACC can derail runaway power of Union Pacific: Tucson AZ Citizen, 3/27/07

Editorial
The Legislature has stepped into Union Pacific Railroad's attempts to run roughshod over Arizona landowners - a needed intervention on the side of those who are virtually powerless against the rail giant.

Union Pacific plans an enormous switching yard directly across Interstate 10 from Picacho Peak, a popular state park that is resplendent with wild- flowers each spring.

The plan has substantial opposition from farmers, landowners, visitors to the park and those who stay at a nearby RV resort.

That meant little to Union Pacific, which planned to ignore critics and use its power of eminent domain to take over state land and build the switching yard.

Now the Legislature has stepped in.

The Senate Natural Resources and Rural Affairs Committee voted unanimously last week to require that railroads receive approval from the Arizona Corporation Commission to use eminent-domain authority to compel the sale of land.

Under HB 2020, the commission would be required to consider whether the railroad had evaluated alternative routes and factored in economic and environmental matters before moving to condemn the land.

That clearly has not been done in the case of the switching yard near Picacho Peak.
While Union Pacific says the 585-acre rail yard would bring 200 jobs from Tucson to Pinal County, there are well-founded fears that its diesel residue will taint desert flora and fauna and infiltrate the aquifer.

The state Parks Board spent $265,000 and bought 10 acres last year to protect views from Picacho Peak. The board has deemed the railroad yard "clearly not compatible with a state landmark park."

The proposed switching yard also would be on top of a Central Arizona Project groundwater recharge site. A large number of standing trains that drip fuel and oil isn't compatible with water recharge.

It is understandable why Union Pacific picked the site. It's already level and lacks washes and riverbeds, making it inexpensive for the railroad to develop.

An independent review by the Arizona Corporation Commission is needed to ensure that any such decision is made on factors in addition to those most favorable to the railroads.

HB 2020 is a reasonable bill that would prevent the powerful, multistate railroads from using the power of eminent domain to cause havoc to people who otherwise would not have the means to fight them.

And it would ensure that factors such as the environment become part of what could easily be a money-only decision.

---

Tucson AZ Citizen: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com

Eminent domain looms over race: Chicago IL Daily Herald, 4/1/07

Arlington Hts. board incumbents keep quiet
By Sheila Ahern
A stalled special tax district at the south end of town is the one Arlington Heights election story few candidates are talking about — mostly because village attorney Jack Siegel told incumbents not to.

In 2005, the village board approved a plan to build a SuperTarget on the site of International Plaza on the north side of Golf Road just east of Arlington Heights Road. But three lawsuits have held up the plan.

Tenants at the International Plaza are mostly a mix of Chinese, Korean and Russian small-business owners. X-Sport Fitness currently anchors the U-shaped mall.

Assuming the lawsuits come down on the side of Arlington Heights, chances are the next step for the village board may be to condemn and start eminent domain proceedings to clear the area for the retail giant.

To do that, the board would need a majority vote, and depending on who is sitting on the board after the April election, plans for the area could change. A majority takes five votes. Seven candidates are running for four 4-year terms.

“The board would still need to adopt an ordinance to move forward with eminent domain,” Siegel said.

That’s even though village trustees already approved a redevelopment contract in 2005 saying they would use eminent domain if necessary.

The agreement directed developer Gershman Brown and Strategic Real Estate Services to get property owners to sell their land to make room for a 174,000-square-foot SuperTarget and up to 47,300 square feet of other retail shops at the site.

But Gershman wasn’t able to get any property owners to sell and gave up on negotiations in mid-August 2005.

According to the redevelopment agreement, village officials must now complete the job Gershman could not, which means voting in favor of eminent domain, where the government forcibly buys private property and pays the owner what a court determines to be fair market value.

Because of the pending lawsuits, Siegel told sitting board members not to discuss their position on eminent domain. Following Siegel’s advice, incumbents Tom Stengren and Tom Hayes declined to comment directly on the topic.

But while he wouldn’t predict his vote if the issue comes up, Stengren noted the International Plaza has “met almost every criteria set by state statute” to be considered for condemnation. He added “eminent domain is a legal tool which should not be used unless in extreme circumstances. In my years on the board, there has been no abuse of using eminent domain.”

Hayes likewise wouldn’t predict his vote, but said, “Generally, the use of tax increment financing districts has proven to be an effective tool to spur redevelopment in Arlington Heights. Eminent domain should be used on a limited, last-resort basis.”

Incumbent Helen Jensen, who also is running, stopped short of ruling out eminent domain but said she is against it.

“There’s a lot of problems down there, which is why I voted against the formation of the TIF,” Jensen said. “Maybe the board won’t have a choice, but I wouldn’t vote in favor (of eminent domain) unless it was forced on me.”

Candidate Phillip Walter called the use of eminent domain in this case “morally wrong.”

“I don’t think the village should be using it,” Walter said. “If Target wants to pursue that property on their own, that’s fine. If the village needed the land for a hospital or school, that would also be a different story.”

Candidates Laura Bartell and Keith Moens agree with Walter.

“I would not vote to take somebody’s property for a SuperTarget,” Moens said.

Candidate John Scaletta said “in my opinion, eminent domain should only be considered when every other avenue has been exhausted and only when it is clearly in the best interest of the community.”

But he added he was concerned about the redevelopment agreement, which says the village will clear the site and would consider voting in favor of eminent domain in this case.

“I would need to understand the liability of the village,” Scaletta said. “A lot of the facts haven’t been made public, but according to the redevelopment document, the village said they would use eminent domain.”

In October, the village board delayed eminent domain proceedings for about 10 properties, citing the litigation.

The only other trustee to talk publicly about the situation is Virginia Kucera, who is not up for re-election.

“I would vote against it,” she said.

Hayes, 50, and Stengren, 60, both are running for their fifth terms, while Jensen, 69, is running for her third term. The challengers are: Bartell, 44; Moens, 55; Scaletta, 37; and Walter, 40.

Scaletta is the director of operations for the Arlington Theater in downtown Arlington Heights. Hayes is a lawyer, and Bartell is a stay-at-home mom. Jensen is retired and the former village public health nurse. Stengren is a real estate broker, and Walter is a roofing contractor. Moens is a middle school math teacher in the Chicago Public Schools system.

The election is April 17.

---

Chicago IL Daily Herald: http://www.dailyherald.com

Eminent domain law still possible: The Hanover PA Evening Sun, 4/1/07

By Tim Pratt
Although the Tyrone Township supervisors last month said they are "not leaning toward" an ordinance that would fight eminent domain, the anti-land-taking measure is still a possibility.

Supervisor Margaret Barra said Wednesday she would still like to explore the ordinance before discounting it completely.

Barra said she wants to sit down with township Solicitor Henry Heiser and Tom Linzey of the of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund to further discuss the measure.

"I'm not sold on not using the ordinance," Barra said Wednesday.

The supervisors in December retained Linzey's services to draft the ordinance after Duke Energy said land for a proposed 16,000-horsepower natural-gas compressor station and its adjacent power lines could be seized if property owners don't sell.

Linzey in December said that since Duke Energy is classified as a utility company and makes natural gas available to the public, it has the right to seize the land.

But Supervisor Galen Smith said that, after speaking with Heiser, he doesn't think a corporation like Duke Energy even has the right to seize land.

And a Duke Energy official earlier this year said eminent domain might not even be necessary because the company is close to finalizing deals with landowners.

Still the plan has attracted opposition and the concern of many area residents.

The compressor station is proposed on 40 acres near the intersection of Route 234 and Oxford Road. Duke officials have said a compressor station is needed every 50 to 70 miles in order to boost pressure and deliver natural gas from Texas to numerous sites throughout the Northeast.

Officials said the existing natural-gas pipelines lose pressure because of friction in the pipes and increases in the number of locations at which the pipes are accessed. The nearest compressors are in Chambersburg and Marietta.

---

The Hanover PA Evening Sun: http://www.eveningsun.com

Owner of former Indian Springs files Chapter 11: Kansas City KS Business Journal, 3/28/07

By Jim Davis
The former Indian Springs Shopping Center's owner on Monday filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Kansas City, Kan.

The owner's agent said the filing was made to delay a proposed demolition of the long-struggling mall by the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kan. The Unified Government declared the area blighted in November.

Joe Vaught, president of the Vaught Group, the owner's commercial real estate agent, said the Unified Government isn't entitled to condemn the property.

"We want to protect the property by slowing down the eminent domain clock," Vaught said.

A new law will take effect in Kansas on July 1 that will require governments to get legislative approval before using eminent domain for economic development.

Vaught, a former county commissioner, said he thought this requirement would provide for "a much more fair" review.

Mike Taylor, a Unified Government spokesman, said the bankruptcy filing will complicate the government's purchase efforts but won't stop them.

"We are going to pursue the redevelopment," Taylor said.

The blight designation has disrupted a proposed conversion of the mall into an office park, Vaught said.

The Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services was negotiating to lease space for 300 employees, he said. The 10-year lease would have generated $11 million.

A $7 million lot sale was canceled, Vaught said. The buyer intended to employ 120 people on the 6-acre site, he said.

Indian Springs, now called Park West Business Center, is owned by Kansas City Mall Associates Inc. of Panorama City, Calif. The bankruptcy filing lets the company restructure its debt so it can continue operating.

---

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

Tacoma should approach condemnation cautiously: Tacoma WA News Tribune, 3/26/07

No doubt about it, the hulking eyesores called South Park Plaza and North Park Plaza in downtown Tacoma need to go. They’re ugly, crumbling and an obstacle to downtown revitalization.

That said, the City of Tacoma would do well to resist pulling out all the stops to accomplish the garages’ transformation.

The city, which eventually hopes to overhaul both of these downtown “tombstones,” is moving forward on a plan for South Park Plaza at South 13th Street and Pacific Avenue. The corrugated concrete monstrosity could look a whole lot different by 2009 if the City Council approves a $32.5 million plan to rehab it.

The plan, a public-private partnership with Pacific Plaza, LLC, would give the garage not just a new look, but also add 102 parking stalls to the existing 380 and build 67,000 square feet of office space and 36,000 square feet of retail.

The first step comes next week, when the City Council may consider authorizing city officials to buy the property underneath the garage.

The city owns the parking structure, but not the land, which it sold off after the garage was built more than 30 years ago in a failed bet that parking would be the key to urban renewal. Now the property is divided among five owners, some of whom operate businesses in the cave-like retail space at street level.

The plan calls for the city to reacquire the property and then sell it to Pacific Plaza for the project. Getting the property back is the trick; the city could move to condemn the property if it can’t negotiate sales with the existing owners.

Eminent domain — forcing a private property owner to sell at a fair price — is an important tool for the city to have in its arsenal. Just the threat of its use can bring reluctant sellers to the table and offer them incentives to sell.

But the city would be wise to proceed cautiously. Sometimes, as in the case of highway or other public infrastructure projects, the use of eminent domain cannot be avoided. But when government exercises its condemnation powers to advance private redevelopment of an area, things get sticky.

The national debate sparked by the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo vs. New London has led many states to put further limits on condemnation actions. Here in Washington, the state constitution forbids the taking of property for private use, but courts have given local governments wide latitude in determining what constitutes a public use.

In Tacoma’s case, the public benefit is tangible. The city would get a fix for a deteriorating building and additional parking fee revenues from an expanded parking garage once Pacific Plaza finishes rehabbing the structure. But there would be private gain as well, since the developer would keep the retail and office space.

The city has used eminent domain in the past to help spur downtown revitalization, but with that rebirth well under way, it’s harder to continue making the case for it. Here’s hoping the last resort won’t be necessary in negotiations with the existing property owners at South Park Plaza.

---

Tacoma WA News Tribune: http://www.thenewstribune.com