What do you do when too much bad publicity hinders your company from doing any legitimate business? Well, change your name of course! The New
London Development Corporation, the agency involved in the Kelo v. City of New London land-grab is seeking to do just that - change it's name to whitewash the bad rep.
Name changes are nothing new in the world of bad publicity. Some of us may remember when the now popular company "Nissan" went by "Datsun" in the U.S. during WWII to avoid public resentment that came with association of military manufacturing. Altria, formerly known as "Philip Morris Companies Inc." changed it's name to avoid the often negative image associated with previous tobacco endeavors. It wasn't so long ago that the Blackwater scandal was all over the news about possible criminal activities and abuses of its connections with the military. Blackwater quickly adopted a name change from "Blackwater Worldwide" to Xe Services.
The New
London Development Corporation (NLDC) seeks to change its name to Renaissance
City Development Association (RCDA). The real question is, will this name change allow NLDC to recover its business and prosper as a company? Most of those affected by eminent domain (as in the case of Susette Kelo) will most likely never forget the real identity of RCDA, however I have this gut feeling that the public will care less about the history of the company as time passes by.
Perhaps it would be less insulting if the name change didn't provoke comments by the NLDC's president Michael Joplin such as "Everyone in this room knows we’ve got baggage, and it’s spelled
K-E-L-O", yet we just couldn't be spared the self-pitty. Perhaps it is better to let the past be just that - the past, but try convincing a homeowner who has lost his or her house to eminent domain.
4/27/2012
3/19/2012
Mining Companies Could Use Eminent Domain in Minnesota
Source: Patch.com
A handful of northern Minnesota landowners are worried that mining companies may use eminent domain to take over land in order to mine minerals.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources owns the mineral rights which are now being offered for lease without notification to the property owners. Even though the residents who built cabins on their land own the surface rights, they are worried that the mining companies may ultimately seize land entirely through eminent domain.
Minnesota law prohibits the sale of mineral rights, however leasing them is perfectly legal, according to the DNR Factsheet.
To protect themselves against the possibility of mining companies using eminent domain, the landowners have requested assistance from Rep. Nora Slawik to sponsor a bill that would prohibit the use of condemnation to take land if no agreement is reached.
Residents like Gus Axelson, who own land that could be effected by rights leasing are pushing for a change in then 2006 law. Mr. Axelson appealed to the state’s Executive Council which oversees approval of mineral rights sales. For now, the Council has delayed the sale of leases, giving land owners an opportunity to push for changes in state law.
“These mineral leases are very scary,” Axelson said. “We didn’t know the extent to which the mining companies dominate and control the landowners.". Mr. Axelson also pointed out that the cabins are cultural icons in Minnesota and to take them away at will destroys the whole idea of what it means to own a cabin, thus ruining the cultural icon.
Slawik said that the bill didn't get a hearing because there was no companion bill in the Senate, and will most likely be handled by the Executive Council.
It is unclear whether the land owners at one point or another had an opportunity to purchase mineral rights and the reasons behind not taking such precautions.
Minnesota law prohibits the sale of mineral rights, however leasing them is perfectly legal, according to the DNR Factsheet.
To protect themselves against the possibility of mining companies using eminent domain, the landowners have requested assistance from Rep. Nora Slawik to sponsor a bill that would prohibit the use of condemnation to take land if no agreement is reached.
Residents like Gus Axelson, who own land that could be effected by rights leasing are pushing for a change in then 2006 law. Mr. Axelson appealed to the state’s Executive Council which oversees approval of mineral rights sales. For now, the Council has delayed the sale of leases, giving land owners an opportunity to push for changes in state law.
“These mineral leases are very scary,” Axelson said. “We didn’t know the extent to which the mining companies dominate and control the landowners.". Mr. Axelson also pointed out that the cabins are cultural icons in Minnesota and to take them away at will destroys the whole idea of what it means to own a cabin, thus ruining the cultural icon.
Slawik said that the bill didn't get a hearing because there was no companion bill in the Senate, and will most likely be handled by the Executive Council.
It is unclear whether the land owners at one point or another had an opportunity to purchase mineral rights and the reasons behind not taking such precautions.
3/16/2012
Almost a Year Later, Man Waits for $2.8M Eminent Domain Money
Source: The Queens Courier
Almost a year later, a Queens man is still waiting for payment for his appropriated property via eminent domain by the state of New York.
More than $2.8 million is owned to the business man who had to give up his rental property so that the Maspeth community could redevelop the Kosciuszko Bridge. The man claims to be facing hardships and is now suing for his money.
Married and with four children, Sass Sheena has had no income since his building was taken last June. “Obviously you want the money from your property so you can reinvest or go into another business,” said Sheena.
The money is being held in a comptroller’s account, but why it’s being held is the question Sheena posed to his attorney when he hired him to sue. According to the attorney, the state can place the funds in such account only if there is a conflict, however no such conflict exists in his opinion.
Sheena’s attorney has contacted Governor Andrew Cuomo, Senator Chuck Shumer and the attorney general to no avail. Apparently this type of behavior is common in eminent domain appropriation cases in New York and Sheena’s attorney is outraged, stating “It is incredible how they’ve gotten away with what they been doing, it’s extortion.”
Just how long will it take to figure out what's going on with the funds and whether another lawsuit will have to be filed is yet unclear.
3/12/2012
Eminent Domain Considered in Peekskill, NY
 |
| Photo Credit: Art Cusano, The Daily Peekskill |
Source: The Daily Peekskill
What happens when a city can't come to an agreement in the purchase of properties needed to build a new firehouse? The residents of Peekskill, NY will soon find out. The city is considering eminent domain action to acquire two properties adjacent to the already owned land plot because an agreement cannot be reached.
Negotiations have been under way with a shopping center which houses 14 businesses and another property - a house containing 2 businesses and 2 apartments. So far there hasn't been any agreements due to low appraisals on the properties.
When the city made an offer to acquire part of the shopping center, the owner replied with disgust at the lack of research on the city's behalf, stating - "I basically told them our family is insulted with their inadequate research," and proclaiming that the city has not "acted in good faith". The owner of the house on 1141 Main St. received two appraisals by the city - both over $160,000 short of owner's expectations. The city estimated the property's worth at $390,000 with the second appraisal, while the owner claims he paid $490,000 for the property six years ago and now estimates the value to be at $550,000 with additional renovations.
Business owners were not the only ones outraged with the city's behavior. At the notice of scoping hearing residents made clear that they were not happy with current course of action, expressing outrage at the proposal of eminent domain involvement. One resident says eminent domain is "unnecessary", while others point out that "Eminent domain is terrible" and "the mere thought of eminent domain is frightening."
"To take someone's house, to put more businesses out of business, I say
go back to the drawing board and work it out," said resident Leslie Lawler.
While residents agree that the firehouse is necessary, the proposed location is challenged by some. Other vacant locations have been considered by the city, however "the current site is the one that best suited the city’s needs and is the same one considered 40 years ago" - said mayor Mary Foster.
The next public hearing is scheduled in the summer, when purchasing agreements have to be reached or eminent domain will be pursued, the mayor said.
3/02/2012
House Intends to Change Eminent Domain Law
source: CBS News
WASHINGTON - House is seeking to pass a bill that would undercut a 2005 Supreme Court ruling that allows state and local governments authority to take over private property for the purpose of economic redevelopment.
Sponsors of the bill do not agree with the Kelo v. City of New London ruling which "justified the government's taking of private property and giving it to a private business for use in the interest of creating a more lucrative tax base" - according to Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.
Proposed changes include withholding of federal aid to states or locales that exercise the eminent domain power for redevelopment purposes. The bill also aims to disallow the federal government from using eminent domain for redevelopment, and allows those affected to take legal action if the rules are broken.
Maxine Waters of California, a liberal Democrat supports the bill, claiming the eminent domain power has been abused by powerful interest groups for long enough, all at expense of the little guy.
Law makers oppose the decision, criticizing the "dangerous interpretation of the taking clause" in the Constitution's 5th Amendment that lets government seize property for public use, with just compensation.
Rep. John Conyers of Michigan also opposes the bill, pointing out that the states have done their own duties in amending eminent domain laws to prevent abuse and that Congress should not barge in and assume a "national zoning board" position. He also pointed out that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is except from eminent domain restrictions. The pipeline was rejected by President Barack Obama, however republicans have been backing its construction with vigor.
There is no indication as to the Senate's stance on this bill.
Article comments include several outbursts at the pipeline exemption, as well as support for both sides of the proposed bill.
1/01/2008
Condo Commercial Plan May Require Eminent Domain
The city of Vista [CA] could consider using its eminent domain powers to help a developer acquire four parcels on North Santa Fe Avenue for an 8.9-acre residential and commercial project.
The City Council voted unanimously last week to enter into exclusive negotiations for land purchases with Vista-based RA&B Development LLC.
While the company owns some of the land at the northeast corner of North Santa Fe Avenue and Cananea Street, it wants to buy an adjoining city-owned parcel at market value.
The company also is seeking the city's help in buying four properties whose owners have declined to sell, said Jalal Rahman of RA&B.
“We've contacted all of them many, many times,” Rahman said.
The firm's proposed three-story project calls for 315 condominiums and 127,000 square feet of office and retail space. It could also include underground parking.
The land is in the city's redevelopment zone, which targets blighted areas.
“This represents a great opportunity for us to have a tremendously positive impact on this part of town,” said William Rawlings, the city's redevelopment director. “It's on my list of priorities.”
The city and RA&B have 90 days after the council's action last week to work out a Disposition and Development Agreement that would spell out whether the city would use eminent domain.
“Theoretically, we might use eminent domain there,” Rawlings said. “We're a long way from entering into a contract, much less laying that out.”
The site is bordered by homes to the east and commercial properties on the other three sides. The site is a few blocks southwest of Vista High School.
Most of the land is vacant, but one parcel is home to a spa retailer, Pacific Coast Spas & Accessories, at 1309 N. Santa Fe Ave.
Barry Hayes, the owner of Pacific Coast, said he rents his building from a property owner who lives in Africa. He said if a sale goes through, he would want help finding space with similar rent and be compensated for moving expenses.
“I just don't have the funds,” Hayes said.
The business, which sells new and used spas, has been on the site since 1987. “This is an established business in the city of Vista,” he said. “I pay taxes like everybody else.”
None of the property owners could be reached for comment.
On Oct. 11, the city notified property owners of the developer's proposal. According to the proposal, RA&B has been trying to acquire the five parcels for about two years.
Without them, Rahman said, the project would have to be scaled back and could be financially infeasible.
Rahman said the owner of the Pacific Coast Spas property wanted money over time rather than at once. A payment plan over 10 to 15 years was proposed, but the owner opted out, Rahman said.
The others, Rahman said, have asked for too much money. “Everyone is holding out thinking they're going to get four or five times what the property is worth,” he said.
San Diego CA Union-Tribune: http://www.signonsandiego.com
Family Receives Millions In Eminent Domain Dispute
A jury has awarded an Otay Mesa family that sued Caltrans in an eminent domain dispute $26.7 million, it was reported Friday.
The Anderson family was approached by the California Department of Transportation in 2006 about purchasing 2.8 acres of a 58-acre parcel off Otay Mesa Road, east of Interstate 805 and south of Brown Field.
Caltrans offered $172,410 but a Superior Court jury concluded Wednesday that the land is worth $1.3 million, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported.
The award includes money that the jury found the family lost as a result of the majority of the remaining parcel being frozen by Caltrans activity.
Caltrans reportedly wanted to use the land to build Route 905 through the area. It was a project first announced in the early 1990s with an initial completion date of 1997. To date, it has not been built.
Family attorney Vincent Bartolotta Jr. told the San Diego Union-Tribune that the award was "truly a victory for the little guy. The justice done in this case shows that Caltrans can't just come in and bulldoze people."
Ed Cartagena, a Caltrans spokesman, told the newspaper that the agency likely will appeal.
KGTV-TV10, San Diego CA: http://www.10news.com
The Anderson family was approached by the California Department of Transportation in 2006 about purchasing 2.8 acres of a 58-acre parcel off Otay Mesa Road, east of Interstate 805 and south of Brown Field.
Caltrans offered $172,410 but a Superior Court jury concluded Wednesday that the land is worth $1.3 million, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported.
The award includes money that the jury found the family lost as a result of the majority of the remaining parcel being frozen by Caltrans activity.
Caltrans reportedly wanted to use the land to build Route 905 through the area. It was a project first announced in the early 1990s with an initial completion date of 1997. To date, it has not been built.
Family attorney Vincent Bartolotta Jr. told the San Diego Union-Tribune that the award was "truly a victory for the little guy. The justice done in this case shows that Caltrans can't just come in and bulldoze people."
Ed Cartagena, a Caltrans spokesman, told the newspaper that the agency likely will appeal.
KGTV-TV10, San Diego CA: http://www.10news.com
Farmland Could Be in the Path of New Electric Wires
Opponents of a controversial newly established national electric corridor say farmers may see the most impact if the plan is allowed to move forward.
The U.S. Department of Energy recently approved a plan that places most of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York; parts of Ohio and Virginia; and the entire states of Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey in a newly designated Mid-Atlantic National Corridor, which would give electric companies the right to use eminent domain to build new electric power lines and transmission facilities anywhere in those areas to provide more power to the congested East Coast.
The plan, which was made effective on Oct. 5, gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the right to grant construction permits to developers if they can’t get state approval or if a state withholds approval of a construction permit for more than one year.
A developer would still have to negotiate right-of-ways with landowners in order to start construction. But they would be given the right to use eminent domain powers to get them.
The plan was developed in accordance with the 2005 U.S. Energy Act.
Carl Shaffer, president of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, recently wrote a letter to U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman expressing concern over the energy department’s designation of the corridor, iting fear over the fact farmers could lose land in the event brand new electric transmission lines are built.
The corridor encompasses 52 of Pennsylvania’s 64 counties, including some of the most productive agricultural counties in the state.
Shaffer is not alone. Several politicians have expressed their concerns over the plan and a Pennsylvania state representative has even started a petition on his Website to stop it.
The outpouring of opposition has led the DOE to reconsider holding additional hearings on the proposal, according to Michael Smith, spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
He said the DOE earlier this month requested additional time to review letters they have gotten on the issue and to possibly schedule new hearings.
Julie Ruggiero, DOE spokesperson, said Tuesday the department is taking additional time to thoroughly evaluate the basis of all parties’ requests for a rehearing but that no rehearing had been scheduled as of yet.
She said the department designated the corridor in accordance with that they were tasked to do as part of the 2005 Energy Act. She added the department allowed for a 60-day public comment period and held seven public meetings on the issue before making their decision.
Smith, speaking on behalf of Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, said Rendell is outraged by the proposal, stating it is an abuse of federal authority and that it disregards state’s rights.
“We felt they (DOE) overstepped their bounds on this,” Smith said.
Mark O’Neill, spokesperson for PFB, said the concern doesn’t necessarily lie around the fact eminent domain may be used. He said the bureau is worried farmers will not be able to participate in negotiations on where power lines will be placed and that it will force farmers to change their farming practices because of it. Not to mention, it could affect farmers financially if they are forced to sell their land at prices dictated to them.
“This is an issue that has been in our sight at the national level. Our biggest concern is how they are going about doing this,” O’Neill said. “The potential is they are going to put a lot of good farmland out of production because of this.”
Smith said the plan may also affect land values, which he said could drop because of power lines located in residential areas.
“Looking out a back window and seeing a high tension power line isn’t attractive to potential buyers,” he said.
Lancaster Farming, Ephrata PA: http://www.lancasterfarming.com
Apollo May Seize B&W Property
Frustrated by unsuccessful attempts to secure the former Babcock & Wilcox site along Warren Avenue, [Apollo PA] borough council wants to take the property by eminent domain.
According to council President John Ameno, the borough needs the 4.6-acre parcel for parking and green space situated, ideally, next to some light industry and a river trail. Council is expected to discuss the eminent domain issue during its next regular meeting.
"We contacted B&W several years ago, and they didn't show a whole lot of interest to donate the property at that time," Ameno said. "We asked them again and didn't really get a response. Our position now is to get the property."
The B&W site was home to the nuclear fuel manufacturing operations of the Nuclear Material and Equipment Service in 1957. The company continued under its successors, the Atlantic Richfield Co. and B&W, with operations ceasing in 1983. The buildings were demolished and thousands of tons of radioactive debris and soil were removed. The cleanup was completed in 1995.
Although the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission designated the site as suitable for unrestricted use, the B&W land, surrounded by a green fence, has remained dormant. The borough's tax base has withered ever since, according to Ameno, who estimated that the town has lost potential tax dollars of about $300,000 since the B&W facilities were demolished.
Ameno and others are looking for ways to raise revenue.
"There's no place to go or to grow the tax base," he said. So the town has embarked on an ambitious redevelopment plan that includes the use of the B&W land and an adjacent parcel, the 14-acre Metal Services property, which was contaminated by uranium dust from NUMEC.
According to Ameno, lead contamination in the Metal Service's soil is the primary concern and the borough plans to complete cleanup of the site with grant money.
"That combined 20 acres is substantial for a town that is less than a square mile in size" Ameno said.
"The land has been deemed clean, I'm tired of the black cloud painted on our town," said Councilwoman Debra Schrecongost. "It's time to move on. We're among the poorest communities in Armstrong County and we're landlocked. We have to have that property to do anything here."
Although the town needs to boost its tax base, Leechburg environmental activist Patty Ameno and the council president's sister, doesn't want the borough to touch the B&W property.
"I would strongly recommend that a governing body not pursue that reckless path because of the potential for overwhelming and surmounting legal costs to the borough and for the future liability and health and safety for generations to come," Patty Ameno said.
According to borough solicitor Allan Opsitnick, the environmental liability of the B&W site is an issue.
"I'm unsure as to the borough's legal exposure," he said. "The borough knows already that there are some restrictions on use of the property and our plan is to use it for green space or a parking lot - there's no structure planned for the property."
During a property tax appeal case in Armstrong County in early 2004, according to Opsitnick, "the sticking point was that B&W has no need for the property, they wanted a restriction that there would be no excavation." B&W and the court concurred that the property was without value but the company agreed to pay about $130 a year. B&W representatives did not return calls for comment.
Because the borough intends not to dig on the site, John Ameno and Opsitnick said that the borough might not be open to liability.
Patty Ameno disagrees: "Common knowledge tells us that you would have to dig into that ground to do a platform for a parking lot."
According to Opsitnick, he will notify B&W sometime in January about the eminent domain action and could resolve the issue between mid-year and the end of year.
"Until B&W responds back, we don't know what any of those issues - like liability or indemnification - will be," said Councilman Brian Johnston. "And I suspect there will be restrictions and limitations on the land use."
Pittsburgh PA Tribune-Review: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib
Dump Site Suit Settled for $2.6M
A local property owner received about $1.5 million more than the county originally offered after a battle over his dump site, which was taken through eminent domain to expand San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport.
The Nov. 20 settlement, in which the county agreed to pay $2.6 million to property owner Jim Filbin, ended more than a year of legal wrangling, according to court records.
A San Luis Obispo real estate appraiser hired by the county had valued Filbin’s 13-acre parcel heaped with concrete, asphalt and detritus at about $1.15 million, according to court records.
Counterappraisals came in at more than $4 million, said an attorney representing Filbin.
The county and Filbin’s dumping and recycling outfit on Santa Fe Road have been at odds for years.
He has been convicted twice for operating without permits and has a litany of dismissed charges related to allegations of illegal storage.
The property also had been investigated for ground and groundwater contamination. An environmental study in 2004 for county airport officials determined diesel and motor oil found at the site amounted to levels less than hazardous but more than the state allows. Groundwater was also tested and found to be not contaminated.
When the county offered Filbin $1.15 million to take the property in spring 2006 to expand the airport, Filbin wasn’t ready to sell.
“He said ‘No thank you,’ ” said Filbin’s attorney, Daral Mazzarella of San Diego. “His land was near and dear to him and he had no interest in selling it.”
After a jury was seated and testimony had started in the case filed on June 6, 2006, the county and Filbin agreed to settle the dispute over the property at 4398 Santa Fe Road for $2,609,804.36.
“Some of the factors were just a dispute between the experts on the value, various rulings in the court,” and both parties wanted to end the matter, said Mazzarella on what contributed to the settlement.
Attorneys representing the county did not respond to messages seeking comment.
Eminent domain refers to the condemnation actions taken by a government agency to take private land for public projects. Under state law, property owners are to be compensated with the fair market value of the land.
In many of the eminent domain cases heard in San Luis Obispo Superior Court, judges allow the county to take possession of the land before a purchase price is determined.
St Luis Obispo CA Tribune: http://www.sanluisobispo.com
California Eminent Domain Attorney
Judge Backs Cape's Effort to Take Land
A judge has granted Cape Coral the right to condemn a property for use as a park expansion by Sun Splash.
Judge Jay Rosman earlier this month ordered the city had eminent domain ability and could seize a property owned by Adolph and Anita Viets of Connecticut for $34,200, an amount determined by a city-hired appraiser. Eminent domain powers allow a government to take land if it can prove a necessary public need for the property and pay the previous owners fair market value.
"The estimate of value in this case ... was made in good faith and based upon a valid appraisal," Rosman wrote.
But Anita Viets said the couple has hired an attorney and demanded the matter go to a jury trial.
"We are not challenging them putting in the park," she said. "I am challenging them saying my land is not valuable."
The city's appraisal came after it made an offer of $129,900 for the property, then retracted that offer after the local real estate market crashed.
In an October hearing, Rosman told the Viets his responsibility was chiefly determining if the city had the right to condemn the property, and a jury may need to settle disputes over costs.
City broker Dawn Andrews said the city is still open to settling the cost matter out of court.
"Just because a judge has issued an order of taking does not mean we stop negotiating," she said.
Mark Lupe, the attorney representing the city, said the Viets property is one of four properties in the proposed Lake Kennedy park expansion in which the city could not negotiate a deal before beginning eminent domain proceedings. Those four property owners, including the Viets, had previously turned down offers from the city to buy the land before the city moved forward in seeking a judge's permission to seize it.
The total expansion area includes 42 properties north of Southwest 5th Street next to the Lake Kennedy Community Park area on Santa Barbara Boulevard.
The Viets came to Fort Myers to argue the case during a court hearing last month.
In that hearing, Rosman questioned city officials about how the land would be used. City parks director Steve Pohlman said it was only planned as park land and could house anything from a Sun Splash expansion to an ice rink to a picnic area.
Pohlman also said the city has a deficit of park land.
While Rosman pressed at the hearing for details, he ruled the city had done what was necessary to justify using the eminent domain ability. "The pleadings in this cause are sufficient and the City is properly exercising its delegated authority," he wrote.
Anita Viets said she remained troubled the city has placed such a low value on the land.
"If the land is not valuable, put a fence around it," she said. "Build your park and let me build on my land.
"But they said they can't do that, and they need it. If that is the case, then my land is valuable."
Ft Myers FL News-Press: http://www.news-press.com
Business Owners Fear Eminent Domain
Fear of eminent domain is spreading among a group of Derby business owners.
Brian Calvert, the owner of a Derby safe and lock business, told Eyewitness News that he didn't come to this country in 1968 and build up a business for 35 years to have it all torn down by eminent domain.
"There are people unfortunately all over the U.S. today hearing those two words: eminent domain, and that's so un-American," he said. "Stealing is stealing where I come from."
Calvert is one of a few business owners who are negotiating relocation terms and buyout possibilities with the city.
The city tore down several blighted downtown buildings this past summer, but a few with living businesses remain.
Derby city officials told Eyewitness News that they would prefer not to have to take people's property by court order, but a multimillion dollar downtown revitalization project hangs in the balance.
Negotiations between the business owners and the city are ongoing.
WFSB-TV10, Hartford CT: http://www.wfsb.com
Eminent Domain Could be Used on Alpha Drive
ASU [Arizona State University] could enact eminent domain to demolish fraternity housing on Alpha Drive and replace it with residence halls, according to an ASU official and sources close to the project.
The University is "prepared to aggressively work toward a negotiated agreement" to demolish and rebuild Alpha Drive, said Carol Campbell, ASU chief financial officer, in a Nov. 12 letter to Alpha Drive representatives and University officials.
"It was obvious what she was threatening," said Jeff Abraham, a spokesperson for the Alpha Drive property owners. "It is certainly our hope that we don't get to a point where eminent domain is required, but it is something the University will keep in its back pocket."
Eminent domain is a term that describes the state's power to appropriate property to be used by the public.
ASU has the power of eminent domain with approval of the Arizona Board of Regents — who govern the state universities — and for educational or university purposes, Campbell said.
"I'm not saying we'd exercise (eminent domain) in this case," Campbell said. "We have used it in other instances to assemble land that was needed."
Campbell said the project would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, though it would depend on what was agreed upon.
The Nov. 12 letter was the first time ASU officially stated that the project would replace the fraternity houses with residential properties under control of ASU, Abraham said.
But ASU had hinted before the letter that their preference was to house Alpha Drive fraternities in University-controlled housing, he added.
The letter also marked the first time ASU suggested eminent domain in writing, but the threat had been hinted at before, Abraham said.
Abraham said he could not provide the letter.
But the letter was obtained by The State Press on Monday from another source close to the project who wished to remain anonymous.
In the letter, Campbell said, "It is imperative that all housing supporting the Greek system be within the University's residential housing programs and be governed by its regulations and support structures."
Davey Breitman, the newly-elected Interfraternity Council President, said about 300 fraternity members currently live on Alpha Drive, and about 725 fraternity members are part of the Alpha Drive houses.
"Basically, nothing's official yet," Breitman said. "After discussing the matter with members from every Alpha Drive fraternity, I can wholeheartedly say that there is tremendous support to continue the status quo of Alpha Drive living."
Breitman said eminent domain is not the best option for ASU, and neither is implementing Residence Hall policies for fraternity housing.
The letter offered the fraternities the option of a land exchange.
"The one option that (Campbell) has presented is that the fraternities exchange their six acres for another six acres within the site," Abraham said. "That one way is nowhere close to what the fraternities originally presented with the Threshold Project concept."
The "Threshold Project" is the name given to the original proposal by the fraternity property owners to rebuild Alpha Drive, which was first presented to ASU President Michael Crow in 2004.
The San Diego-based Pierce Company was originally chosen by the fraternity property holders to develop new fraternity housing after Alpha Drive was demolished, but another developer, American Campus Communities, would be the sole developer of any student housing, Campbell said in the letter.
"This comes as a shock," said Andrew Burns, the treasurer for the alumni board of Sigma Phi Epsilon and a 2001 ASU graduate.
Burns said he only could speak for Sigma Phi Epsilon, and not the other fraternities.
"ASU, to sum it up, is saying 'we are essentially going to redevelop that land, and we're going to redevelop that land with ASU, you can either give it up, or have a little bit of input,'" he added. "We understand (Alpha Drive) is run down, we understand the crime rate is high.
"We want to protect the Greek system."
Breitman said he had gotten "tremendous feedback" from many of his constituents who oppose the project.
"Residence style living would not be in the best interest of fraternities on campus," Breitman said. "I believe it would hurt recruitment, as well as our ability to function in day to day operations."
Arizona State University Web Devil: http://www.asuwebdevil.com
Overreacting On Eminent Domain
Susette Kelo is gone but not forgotten.
The New London woman and some neighbors lost their battle before the U.S. Supreme Court to save their homes in the city's Fort Trumbull neighborhood. But since the high-profile Kelo v. New London case was decided in June 2005, numerous legislative actions and ballot initiatives designed to limit and redefine the government's eminent domain power have been proposed in states from New Hampshire to California.
Some didn't pass and some did (Connecticut's new law narrows, but does not prohibit, the use of eminent domain for economic development). The states that passed laws restricting the ability of state or local governments from seizing a person's home for economic development purposes — the issue raised in the Kelo decision — may have created unforeseen but far-reaching impacts for zoning and urban planning.
One clear example of this is Proposition 207 in Arizona.
Proposition 207 passed as a statewide Arizona ballot initiative in 2006 with the official title of Private Property Rights Protection Act, garnering 65 percent of the vote in the process. Ostensibly, its intent was to limit government's eminent domain power by redefining "public use" to specifically exclude "economic development" from the definition.
The law has other provisions, one of which entitles property owners to seek just compensation for the reduction of "the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess private real property" that result from the application of any land-use regulation.
While certain regulations of land use such as fire codes, building codes and health codes were exempted from this clause, land-use tools such as zoning regulations were left unprotected.
This has triggered a contentious debate. Opponents of Proposition 207 say the legislation has severely limited not only municipal zoning powers, but also other de facto forms of land-use regulation such as the formation of historic districts.
Proponents insist the new law has not limited governmental land-use powers, but has simply ensured that property owners are compensated for a wider range of government actions that may hurt property values.
Regardless of who is right, Proposition 207 has had immediate planning and zoning impacts that have taken many observers by surprise. Relatively straightforward municipal actions such as rezoning an area of a city have become complex exercises where individual property owners must consent to the municipality's action.
If an owner does not consent and the municipality moves forward with the proposed action, the municipality runs the risk of the aggrieved property owner filing a lawsuit claiming loss of property value and demanding compensation.
Nervous municipalities across Arizona have quickly resorted to obtaining individual property owner signatures on "Prop 207 waivers," which the law allows, to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. However, acquiring these signatures can be a daunting task; for example, the creation of a special business district in Phoenix may eventually require 1,300 individual landowners to sign such waivers.
The potential impacts of Proposition 207 have already significantly changed the plans for historic districts in Phoenix, Tempe and Flagstaff, as well as several zoning and urban design initiatives. Municipalities have become so concerned about potential legal battles that they are having property owners sign Prop 207 waivers for even very minor zoning and planning actions.
While the debate between private property rights and government land-use regulation will continue indefinitely, it is important to question how well the public is being served by legislation such as Proposition 207.
The law gives property owners greater protection of their rights to just compensation. Most people, regardless of their political or ideological leaning, would agree that protection of private property rights is a positive objective.
However, the public costs associated with such legislation often gets short shrift. While an individual property has its value protected, there is no accounting for the loss to communities from stalled historic preservation efforts, lack of orderly zoning districts and incongruous urban design. The inherent value of these public goods, which are often much more difficult (if not impossible) to quantify than individual property value impacts, should at least have some calculus in the just compensation debate.
The protection of private property rights is a cornerstone of our American democratic system of government; it is articulated in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. However, as the enactment of Proposition 207 illustrates, the expansion of property protections can have a substantial impact on the public realm. One is left to ponder how society can best balance the private and public interests involved in land-use laws.
The turmoil stemming from laws such as Proposition 207 can best be prevented by engaging in more thoughtful debate and public discourse on eminent domain and zoning powers, rather than rushing through ballot initiatives on a wave of popular discontent. When our laws create situations which were not intended, it is the legislative process, not the law, that is flawed.
Hartford CT Courant: http://www.courant.com
Michael Looney is a senior associate with Harrall-Michalowski Associates Inc., a planning and development consulting firm in Hamden: http://www.hmaplan.com
Fear of Eminent Domain Grips PG Hamlet
Residents of a working-class neighborhood near the New Carrollton Metro station say Prince George's County is trying to bring the area into a sweeping redevelopment project that could replace their homes with high-end condos, shopping and restaurants.
County officials are considering a zoning change to West Lanham Hills to include the neighborhood in an 18-year-old project known as the Transit District Overlay Zone, created by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission to develop roughly 71 wooded acres around the busy Metro Orange Line station.
The nine-member County Council unanimously agreed Oct. 30 to have the commission present a plan to expand the zone into the neighborhood, which residents say has caught them by surprise and has included bullying tactics.
"They're calling our neighborhood deteriorating and blighted," said Kate Tsubata, a West Lanham Hills resident and former president of the citizens association.
The 66-year-old neighborhood has no mayor or council, and the association is the closest thing it has to a government.
West Lanham Hills resident Bob Nelson, 43, said he fears the next step will be the county trying to take property through eminent domain.
"I'm always skeptical any time somebody tells me the neighborhood should look like this or that," said Mr. Nelson, who in his youth was the neighborhood paperboy. "We're ripe for the picking."
County Council member Eric Olson, a Democrat who co-introduced the proposal, did not return a phone call Thursday on whether the county would seek to use eminent domain. However, he said last week that no final plans have been made and that public hearings are starting Dec. 5.
"This is the beginning of a public process," he said. "It is very important that the citizens are involved."
Mr. Olson also said that the hearings could continue for a year before a final zoning plan is approved, and that other Annapolis Road communities — including Hansen Oaks and Landover Hills — are part of the plan.
Mrs. Tsubata said the commission has a clear-cut plan, despite what Mr. Olson and others say.
"They've gone from wanting to put 2,400 luxury condos, offices and retail units in a 71-acre parcel to now wanting to put 8,000 units in a 640-acre area, wiping out stable and environmentally low-impact, single-family houses," she said.
Mrs. Tsubata said she has walked the 256-home neighborhood and collected 150 signatures against the zoning change.
Residents acknowledge the region is a potential target for development. In addition to being near the Metro station, which also is an Amtrak stop, West Lanham Hills is surrounded by major highways, including the Capitol Beltway and U.S. Route 50. Also nearby are the new Internal Revenue Service and Computer Sciences Corp. buildings, built as part of the original overlay zone and serving thousands of employees.
Ted Booth, a West Lanham Hills homeowner for 13 years, also said the situation concerns him.
"I've worked hard to have something of my own," he said. "The zone concerns me, and eminent domain concerns me. After that, you have no choice."
Some residents also think they are being bullied into leaving. They say Olson staffer Wanda Brooks, the acting president of the West Lanham Hills Citizens' Association, canvasses the neighborhood looking for such violations as cracked sidewalks and uncut grass, then prepares suggested warrants for police and other county agencies.
"I'm very concerned," said a resident who asked to remain anonymous for fear Miss Brooks also will target her. "She called the neighborhood a slum. She works for Olson; she becomes the association president. All of the bricks are falling into place to the possibility of eminent domain."
Reached by telephone last week and asked about the accusations, Miss Brooks directed a reporter to write the questions in an e-mail. She did not respond to an e-mail sent to the address she specified.
"Suddenly, the community began getting notices of violations with hefty fines of $150," Mrs. Tsubata said. "Virtually every citizen in the neighborhood got a notice. ... In 21 years of us living here, nothing like this ever happened."
Washington DC Times: http://washingtontimes.com
K Street Fight Will Resonate on State Ballot
Even if the city of Sacramento wins a court battle to wrest a key part of the K Street Mall from property owner Moe Mohanna, it could lose the war on another front: the state ballot.
Mohanna has thrown his support behind an initiative headed for the June election that would forbid local governments in California from using eminent domain to buy property from one private owner and award it to another – exactly what the city is seeking to do on K Street.
"We'll be spending a lot of money on that, and I'll have a series of fundraisers in my buildings," Mohanna said on Christmas Eve.
Mohanna has aligned himself with a coalition of anti-tax groups and property rights advocates led by the California Farm Bureau Federation and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the force behind California's landmark property tax cutting measure, Proposition 13.
Last month, the group submitted more than 1 million signatures to qualify its anti-eminent domain measure for the ballot.
Mohanna said he'll be a champion of the statewide effort that he describes as a flesh and blood example of the heavy-handed use of eminent domain.
"I'll be going to different cities, and talking about private property rights, and the taking of private property for private use," Mohanna said.
"Today it is my buildings, tomorrow it is your home," Mohanna said, adding that local governments might even "take every church and turn it into a Costco."
On the other side of the debate stands Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo and other local officials in California who view eminent domain as a crucial tool for fighting urban decay in places like the K Street Mall.
Fargo said her constituents applauded the City Council's unanimous vote to authorize eminent domain against Mohanna.
"People come up and say, 'Good for you, K Street is such a public street, and it's so tied up in people's perception of downtown, that it's just really a critical place for us,' " she said.
Fargo supports a rival initiative, which also has gathered more than enough signatures to qualify for the June ballot. Backed by the League of California Cities, the League of Conservation Voters and the California Redevelopment Association, it proposes more limited changes to current law.
The measure would prohibit local governments from using eminent domain to acquire owner-occupied homes and transfer them to a private developer. It would not affect the taking of commercial properties such as Mohanna's.
"There's some room and a need for some eminent domain reform to give homeowners some sense of security that they apparently don't now feel," said Fargo, who in September will start a term as president of the League of California Cities.
"In our city, we haven't done a lot of that, but in some communities there has been a real concern. We're hoping to get some reform done that people will think is meaningful, and will put this issue to rest."
State law has long given cities – acting through their redevelopment agencies – the right to exercise eminent domain to acquire land in areas defined as "blighted."
Sacramento used these powers to build the new Central Library in downtown Sacramento, as well as a new apartment complex that occupies a former hole in the ground at Ninth and J streets.
Outside downtown, the city used eminent domain to overhaul the crime-plagued Franklin Villa development – now renamed Phoenix Park.
On Dec. 18, the City Council authorized the use of eminent domain to acquire nine properties owned by Mohanna in the 700 and 800 blocks of K Street – an area with a high retail vacancy rate, crime, and gaps where buildings have been demolished.
The city plans to award the properties in the 700 block to Joe Zeiden, owner of the Z Gallerie furniture chain, so he can create a retail row in the historic buildings just outside the entrance to Downtown Plaza.
Mohanna had agreed to a voluntary property swap that would have left Zeiden in control of the 700 block, and him with the 800 block. But he has balked at completing it since a fire in one of his buildings last year resulted in the demolition of much of the 800 block.
It's unclear what stage in the eminent domain process against Mohanna the city would have to reach to avoid the impact of the Howard Jarvis ballot measure, should it pass. Would simply filing the eminent domain case be enough? Or would the city need a final judgment in the entire case? The measure contains no language clarifying this question.
Marko Mlikotin, a spokesman for the coalition pushing the far-reaching ballot proposition, opined that possession of the properties is the key. If the city doesn't gain possession of Mohanna's properties before June, and the measure passes, it would not be able to move forward, Mlikotin said.
"They would be under pressure to seize the property prior to June," Mlikotin said.
Assistant City Manager John Dangberg said it will likely take at least six months before a judge rules on the city's right to force the properties' sale. The city will likely go to court in January to start the process, he said.
An eminent domain case has two phases. First, a judge decides if a city has the right to acquire properties through eminent domain. Then a jury sets the price.
The law allows a city to take possession of a property while the value phase of the trial is ongoing. Doing so is a risk, however, because property owners have the right to appeal, which can add years to the process.
Pressure to scale back eminent domain power has been building since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision, Kelo v. City of New London, which found that the city of New London, Conn., was justified in demolishing houses owned by Susette Kelo and her neighbors for a commercial development.
On its face, the decision strengthened the hand of local governments. But it also ignited a backlash against the use of eminent domain, giving property rights advocates an issue to rally around.
It isn't the first time the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has tried to persuade Californians to scale back eminent domain. In 2006, voters narrowly rejected Proposition 90, which was similar to the measure the group is now promoting.
Mlikotin said the new measure stands a better chance of passing because, unlike Proposition 90, it doesn't require local governments to compensate property owners every time they adopt a regulation that could hurt property values.
Private polling shows public support for scaling back eminent domain powers, Mlikotin said. "With those results we felt comfortable going forward."
The League of California Cities has highlighted what it says are deceptive provisions of the measure, including language that would abolish rent control.
Sacramento CA Bee: http://www.sacbee.com
12/31/2007
Blaine is wary of using eminent domain: Minneapolis MN Star Tribune, 11/9/07
The developer who wants to bring a new sports and entertainment complex to Blaine [MN] is asking for the city's help to force nearby property owners out by using eminent domain if necessary.
Developer John Donnelly told the City Council on Thursday night that his company won't be able to attract investors to the more than $150 million project without removing five light-industrial properties next to the site.
"There's a reluctance to spend that kind of money when this is on your front door," Donnelly said at the council meeting, where he discussed drawings and some details about the SportsTown USA proposal.
Donnelly Development Group, of Edina, described the project as an asset to "Blaine's identity as an amateur athletics center for the Midwest." Plans include a hotel and indoor water park, fitness center, restaurants, indoor go-carts, a lake and a public square for sports ceremonies, even indoor surfing and skydiving.
Donnelly's group asked for the city's help in getting the nearby property owners to sell, saying industrial properties would be a detriment to the visual appeal of the project.
"What you're asking is for us to condemn these [properties]," City Council Member Russ Herbst said. "I'd have to think long and hard about that."
Herbst was joined by virtually every council member in voicing concern about using eminent domain as a development tactic, although support for the project's goals and features was unanimous.
Donnelly's group is a spinoff of a previous developer that proposed a smaller version of the complex in 2005. The current project represents 30 developable acres on a larger site that encompasses 63 acres, he said.
James Determan, who owns between three to four acres of the industrial property at the heart of the issue, said he is willing to move if the price is right. So far, it hasn't been, he said.
"If they want to use eminent domain, I'll fight them to the end," he said. "I don't think it's legal to use eminent domain unless it's for a public use, and that's not a public use. It's a private development project."
Also at issue is the amount of public subsidy the developer is seeking. The group wants a property tax break that is estimated at roughly $13 million over 15 years.
Council Member Dick Swanson called that figure "awe inspiring."You're asking for the moon," Herbst said.
Still, city leaders were interested enough in the proposal to direct the city's staff to meet with the developer over the next few months to get closer on an agreement.
Minneapolis MN Star Tribune: http://www.startribune.com
Money pit on North Queen: Lancaster PA Newspapers, 11/11/07
The conversion of the former Armstrong building to county offices is running late and over budget, but the newly elected county commissioners think it's too late to pull the plug on the project.
"I have said I would walk away from this project in a heartbeat if it were feasible," Republican Scott Martin said last week.
But he and the other two commissioners-elect, Republican Dennis Stuckey and Democrat Craig Lehman, agreed that the county probably could not recoup its investment in 150 N. Queen St. if the new commissioners halted the work.
Through the end of October, the county had spent more than $25.4 million, including the $8.3 million paid to the building's owner through eminent domain, and county Administrator Mark Esterbrook estimated another $13.5 million is needed to finish the renovations.
If no additional expenses pop up, that would put the project about $3.5 million over the original total of $35.4 million for purchase and remodeling.
That doesn't include an estimated $38 to $40 million to renovate the county courthouse at 50 N. Duke St.
The Armstrong building could end up to be even more expensive; former owner Dr. Ira Trocki has sued in federal court, contending the $8.3 million is far below the actual value of the property.
Trocki said last week that he would have rented the entire building to the county for $3 million a year, the same price that Armstrong World Industries paid before moving out.
"Their interest payment [on the renovation costs] is going to be more than what they're going to pay me in rent," Trocki said, "and they wouldn't have to go to court."
Commissioners Dick Shellenberger and Molly Henderson, who voted along with former commissioner Pete Shaub to take the property by eminent domain, last week said they still think 150 N. Queen was the best option for a county government desperately in need of more office space.
Even though the job will "take us a little longer than we anticipated," Shellenberger said, "I think it was the right move."
Lehman isn't so sure.
"It may be one of those things that it's simply too far down the road to turn back now," he said.
"I hate to say that. I really do."
Growing pains
Space problems at the courthouse, mostly related to the rapid expansion of Lancaster County Court offices, led to the commissioners' decision late in 2004 to take 150 N. Queen by eminent domain.
The commissioners said at the time that their other option was building offices on land the county owns on Sunnyside peninsula — an unattractive alternative because it would have taken hundreds of county workers out of downtown and would have blocked a planned housing development on the Sunnyside property.
But troubles have plagued the project, from Trocki's lawsuit to a series of complications with the renovations — holes in floors and walls, fires, fumes and other safety concerns — that led the city fire department to shut down work in May.
Tenants in the building went to court, resulting in the county paying $753,000 so far for safety monitors, lease terminations, legal fees and relocation costs. County workers whose offices are already at 150 N. Queen — about 300 now — also complained about conditions.
Some county offices were scheduled to move into new space this month and in December, but because the renovations aren't finished, the timetable has been pushed back.
"A new master schedule will be forthcoming in the next two weeks," Esterbrook said.
About 15 offices, and another 400 employees, are shifting to 150 N. Queen to make room for court expansion; two new judges are joining the bench in January. Esterbrook said moving expenses are budgeted at $150,000 in 2007-08.
He said the court will "work with us to accommodate new judges temporarily until the fifth floor can be made available for temporary use by the judges." The commissioners, controller, Congressman Joe Pitts and the district attorney now have offices on the fifth floor of the courthouse.
With $25.4 million spent through October and an estimated $13.5 million remaining to finish the work at 150 N. Queen, the total would be $39 million, about $3.5 million more than the original estimate.
Once the other county offices have relocated, renovations must be done at the courthouse itself. Esterbrook said estimates for that work are $38 to $40 million.
The newly elected commissioners questioned the project during the campaign. Last week, they said the county probably has no option but to finish the relocation.
"It's difficult to halt the project with the money we've sunk into it," Stuckey, the current county controller, said.
"It's certainly something I will be taking a close look at," Lehman said. "It seems to me at this point … that it's probably too far along to backtrack."
"I've always had my doubts about the project," Martin said.
He suggested that a public-private partnership to redevelop buildings on the first block of East King Street, with a long-term lease for the county, could have kept properties on the city tax rolls and been more efficient in terms of proximity to the courthouse.
"If there was a way it could be worked out that [150 N. Queen] could be returned, and be a return on our investment as well … I would definitely be open to discussing that," he said.
"The bottom line is, we're accountable to the taxpayers."
Friendly, not so friendly?
Henderson and Shellenberger, though, contend that for the square footage available at 150 N. Queen, the cost of the project is reasonable.
On a tour of projects funded with county contributions before Tuesday's election, Henderson repeated what she had said in other campaign appearances: that the eminent domain proceeding was a "friendly" takeover.
Henderson said Trocki asked for his assessment to be lowered prior to the takeover, contributing to the $8.3 million compensation, which she said was the legally mandated average of three appraisals.
"He is the one who set the bar lower," she said. "That figured into the ultimate price years later."
Trocki hotly contested Henderson's assertions, saying last week that he didn't fight the eminent domain process because his lawyers said it was an unwinnable battle.
Instead, he is arguing the county undervalued the building, which he bought for $12.1 million in 1998.
He also said the county offered a settlement of the assessment appeal, which he said was originally filed by Armstrong. He now believes the assessment settlement of $8.3 million was a tactic to drive down the value of the property — along with leaks to news media about plans for eminent domain, which Trocki said succeeded in scaring away tenants.
"No tenant wanted to move in and then get thrown out shortly thereafter," he said.
Trocki said he had been negotiating with county officials about leasing space in the building ever since Armstrong World Industries, which had been renting the entire structure, filed for bankruptcy and notified Trocki it was moving out.
The county needed about 50,000 square feet then and much more later, Trocki said, so he agreed to $11.50 per square foot, plus covering all renovation and cleaning costs, with the understanding that when the lease was up for renewal, the county would pay market rates.
Trocki also said he discussed selling the building to the county for $20 million, although he said he might take $18.5 million.
He said he had the building under agreement of sale for $15 million, and had another pair of buyers, Pat Egan and John Meeder, willing to give him a slightly better deal, when the eminent domain action occurred.
"They still went ahead and eminent domained," Trocki said, and ended up paying Egan nearly $1 million to terminate his lease and relocate.
Trocki's attorneys said "it was highly irregular that an agency would take a building for the exact same use it has," and he suggested it's the first time such an eminent domain taking has happened in Pennsylvania.
The renovation costs, he said, are "absolute craziness."
Trocki is asking for another $10 million-plus in the federal lawsuit.
"We hope somebody will be reasonable and get this over with," he said.
"... It was not a friendly eminent domain."
Lancaster PA Newspapers: http://local.lancasteronline.com
Rosemount divided over new project with old look: Minneapolis MN Star Tribune, 11/10/07
The birth pains, in the creation of a new downtown Rosemount, are audible in the voices of Wallace Johnson and Mark DeBettignies.
Johnson, president of Apple Valley-based Stonebridge Companies, is developing a huge new building that is supposed to ignite a Stillwater-like, revitalized downtown in the city's historic center.
DeBettignies is a City Council member fighting off opposition to the project. "I get tired trying to answer all the questions," he said. "People just don't see the big picture."
Each man sounds weary, despite what would seem good news: An influential Metropolitan Council advisory committee has found the project - by a decisive margin - the most impressive that any suburb offered up this year. The group recommended that Rosemount alone reap nearly $1.6 million of the $8 million available this year for innovative development.
City officials see the proposed Stonebridge project - more than 100 apartments atop ground-floor office space, with underground parking, all of it wrapped within old-time brick facades meant to recall a 19th-century downtown streetscape - as a model for the rest of the area.
A group called "Save Rosemount" sees it as an abomination. Among their reasons: The need to exercise the city's power of eminent domain to acquire one parcel, and the substitution of rentals for condos once the condo market went sour. In their literature, available on the Web, two unnamed residents say that apartment complexes "turn out to be ... all Junkies."
In reality, DeBettignies said, these will be high-quality units, built to condominium standards in hopes of converting them later. "You wouldn't believe the aesthetics," he said. "Wood floors, moldings - really nice."
Johnson, meanwhile, has had to produce version after version of his building, trying to satisfy city officials as they seek the right look, as though it were actually several older buildings.
"We've been going back and forth to get consensus," he said. "It's hard when you have six or seven people with opinions. But we're getting there."
Such projects are a recipe for migraines for all involved, said Carolyn Krall, an architect and urban designer with Landform, a Minneapolis firm that consults with cities on similar projects but is not involved with this one.
"It's been very hard for the city to attract a developer who can build the kind of traditional downtown buildings they'd like to see," she said. "Buildings that will enhance what's left of their original, historic downtown. It's very challenging.
"Developers can make a lot more money with a lot less trouble - barely a mile or two away - by adding to the miles and miles of strip malls from Savage to Rosemount."
Minneapolis MN Star Tribune: http://www.startribune.com
Save Our Village Holds Seminar To Discuss Eminent Domain: New Hyde Park NY Illustrated News, 11/9/07
Recently, Save Our Village (SOV), an activist group in New Hyde Park dedicated to "saving the village" from Metropolitan Transportation Association (MTA) and the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Long Island Railroad (LIRR) "Main Line Corridor Improvement Project" held a seminar at the New Hyde Park Road School auditorium. The group focuses on the environmental, social and economic effects it will have on the quality of life in the village. The seminar was to discuss Eminent Domain as it relates to the Village of New Hyde Park.
SOV President Robert Femminella, along with vice-presidents Diane Bentivenga and Christina Prieto-Maroney, introduced the guest speakers; Thomas Levin, a partner with the law firm of Meyer, Suozzi, English and Klein and Edward Gutleber, an attorney with the same law firm, both volunteering their time, spoke on various aspects of eminent domain law, and New York State Senator Craig Johnson, who reiterated that he is vehemently against the Third Track Project and will continue to be so until the MTA presents a clear plan to the community that is approved by the community residents and its civic organizations and its local government officials. Johnson pointed out that although Governor Eliot Spitzer appears to be for the Main Line Project, he is absolutely against it and has told the governor of his feelings many times explaining to him the drastic impact it will have especially on the Village of New Hyde Park.
The first speaker, Thomas Levin, received a laugh when he started his speech off by saying, "Don't kill the messenger."
He then went into the extensive background of eminent domain. He said, "Eminent domain first originated in England when the King or Queen could take property at will and when nobody had any rights."
Levin said, "In the United States, when we developed our constitution some 220 years ago, we took the concept of eminent domain as a power, but limit the power of the federal government and give those powers to the states. The only place there is an actual discussion is in the Fifth Amendment when it says no property shall be taken for public use without just compensation."
He explained that sometimes people refer to eminent domain as condemnation, but he said that carries with it the connotation that the property is blighted in some way, or a building is unsafe. But, "eminent domain," he said, "is much more than that." He said, "In New York State the power of eminent domain is in the state constitution to exercise the power to take private property for public use. The government can take property even though the owner is not willing to sell it. There is a statute called the Eminent Domain Procedure Law which spells out in great detail the process by which it gets done. For the much part any litigation about this law is usually fruitless because it just points out something the government has to do over and they do that and then take the property anyway."
Levin continued, "Eminent domain is essentially a government decision to take private property for a public purpose, and you will hear that phrase over and over again. There are limits on when and how the government does this. Ultimately, the courts do not second guess the wisdom or the merits of the decision because that is a political decision and any complaints about that do not go through the courts but through the political arena and that is why I am going to talk about the MTA."
He explained there are other statutes that have to be followed for eminent domain and the State Environmental Review Act is one. He said, "When anything has an impact on the environment this study must be done before any decision to take any property that has an impact. If that process is not done, that's a cause for a challenge."
He said the law that applies to this project is the Public Authorities Law in the State of New York that deals with the MTA and gives it various powers.
He said, "What we have in all eminent domain cases is one common key question. Is the taking of property that is proposed for a public purpose? It is not something that is put up for a vote. The government agency that proposes the taking is the one that gets to decide. The courts will eventually decide if it's a public purpose or a public use. When you look at the classic cases, the ones that the courts will spend only two seconds on are the ones where the government has claimed property to be owned for a public purpose. There is no condemning property to turn it over to a private owner. They are taking the property to turn it over to the government to own either temporarily or permanently. The examples given are military installations, government buildings, parking lots, public roads, railroads or public utilities. It would be hard pressed to make an argument that any proposal to take property to use as a railroad facility and the chances of the courts to rule that is not a public use is just about zero. The only thing the courts do in such cases is to look at the procedure to see that it has been followed correctly. To understand it more clearly read Title 11 of the New York Public Authorities Law, Section 1264, 1265 and 1267 that spells out exactly what the MTA can do."
Next up was Attorney Gutleber who spoke mainly about the compensation process.
He said, "The foremost principle is the concept of just compensation. Pursuant to both the United States and New York Constitution, a property owner is entitled to just compensation. The requirement states that the property owner be indemnified so that they are in the same relative position, as possible, as if the taking had not occurred."
He went on to say, "Just compensation, in its purest form, requires that the property owner be made whole by payment of the fair market value of the property valued at the date of the taking. The property owner will be compensated with damages to the real property that includes the land, building improvements, the building fixtures. There is no compensation for damages resulting in lost business. If only a portion of the property is taken, the property owner is entitled to indirect damages that may result in the diminution of the value of the remaining property. Another fundamental principal is that the property owner is entitled to fair market value taken at its highest and best use. For instance, if a single family owner, surrounded by all business property, can prove that there will be a change of zoning of his property to business, he can then claim the higher amount of compensation."
He continued, "The value of the property must be determined by an expert real estate appraiser. Initially, they will determine the amount of damages sustained and make an offer. The property owner may then accept or reject the offer, but may still file a claim for additional damages."
The entire seminar gave an insight to the residents of what they can expect to the process if and when the entire process gets underway.
However, since the LIRR or the MTA have not submitted any definite plans to the residents of the Village of New Hyde Park it is hard to come to any conclusion as to what is planned.
For further information or to keep in contact with the SOV group, please call 516-328-1171 or email the group at SOV.NHP@GMAIL.com.
New Hyde Park NY Illustrated News: http://www.antonnews.com/illustratednews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)