11/11/2005

Trashing Eminent Domain — Checker's latest film gets Niantic screening: The (New London CT) Day, 11/11/05

By Stephen Chupaska

Filmmaker Nick Checker is worried about people and homes ending up in the dustbin of New London's history.

“Trashed,' his latest picture is both a documentary and a short film about the intermingling of struggle of the Fort Trumbull residents and the city's homeless.

“I feel we had some important things to say,” Checker said.

The documentary part of the film, shot in color, features interviews with city leaders and is narrated in a chowder-thick accent by Father Russ Carmichael, head of the Grassroots Homeless Coalition in New London.

“Some people are just one paycheck away from the street,” Carmichael repeats several times in the film.

Former homeless woman Jennifer Jarvis said “Trashed” was a good project that let people know what it was like to be homeless.

Scott Sawyer, attorney for the seven property owners fighting against the development of Fort Trumbull, relayed the eminent domain story.

Republican City Councilor Rob Pero, the only member of the city government who agreed to be interviewed for the picture, commented on both the excising of social services and the legal kafuffle surrounding Fort Trumbull.

Pero soberly explained the reasons behind Fort Trumbull's redevelopment, tracing it back to both Pfizer's interest in the peninsula as well as the state's and city's hopes for economic capital.

Pat Serluca, former Social Services director, was impressed with the film.

“It was too good to end,” she said.

Pero, who voted to eliminate the social services department, said in the film that he hoped nonprofits could shoulder the burden.

The documentary includes footage of protests of both eminent domain and the loss of social services this past summer but does not provide the audience with a timeline of events leading up to the Supreme Court decision or information about the city's budget crisis.

The fictive portion of film, shot in black and white, stars Waterford native Kathryn Downie as Autumn, a young woman escaping an abusive relationship and arriving in Harbor City, a stand-in for New London.

Autumn soon finds work at a farm for abused horses, helping to rehabilitate a colt named In The Nick Of Time.

Due to a kindhearted landlord, Autumn finds an apartment in a house, which is soon padlocked by the Harbor City Blight Commission — a thinly-veiled reference to the New London Development Corp.

Checker, in the documentary portion of the movie, does not explain that none of the Fort Trumbull houses were blighted, one of the legal stipulations for the use of eminent domain.

"The neighborhood was never blighted," New London Deputy Mayor Bill Morse, who attended the screening at Niantic Cinemas, said. "There were only a few houses that were labeled that."

Morse added he appreciated the value of the movie's message.

In any case, the main character in the movie, Autumn, dressed in shabby thrift store clothes, is soon homeless, living in a box in the forest and lying about it to her saintly employers.

“I really fell into the character,” Downie said. “I related to her.”

Perhaps the unseen star of the film was editor Erik Hall, who managed to seamlessly marry the black-and-white and color footage.

“There was 12 hours of raw footage,” he said.

The film debuted last week to a packed house at Niantic Cinemas, which donated a screen.

Checker and his crew filmed “Trashed” during the late summer, shooting most of it in New London, even using a vacant house in Fort Trumbull as a location. In fact, Autumn can be seen walking past Susette Kelo's now famous pink cottage.

Hall said he plans to recut the picture to prepare for the national festival circuit.


The Day: www.theday.com

In domain of renewal, a bad law: Philadelphia (PA) Daily News, 11/11/05

By Elmer Smith

West Philadelphia's first full-service shopping center is about to break free of the red tape it has been mired in for years.

That is, it will, assuming that the last 10 vacant and blighted structures left standing in the 31-acre tract can be acquired through eminent domain.

Up to now, acquiring those last parcels wouldn't have even been an afterthought.

The Goldenberg Group, developer of the Park West Town Center project, acquired all of the other properties in the 308,000-square-foot tract by agreements of sale. The 10 it couldn't acquire that way are shells that meet any reasonable definition of blight.

Under eminent domain law in Pennsylvania, the city will acquire the properties at a fair-market value and the project will finally get under way.

But by next year, the city might be prohibited from acquiring the last 10 properties. A proposal in the state Senate, authored by Sen Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin, would prohibit taking any property through eminent domain unless at least 51 percent of the surrounding properties are blighted.

Furthermore, if a bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday becomes law, the city would lose all federal economic-development aid for two years if it used eminent domain to take any private property for transfer to another private owner for economic-development purposes.

All of this flurry of legislation comes from a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the right of New London, Conn., to acquire properties in a thriving, blight-free neighborhood and convey them to a private developer.

The resulting howl was understandable, and the quick response of lawmakers in at least 12 states and in Washington sounds like a textbook case of big government rushing to the rescue of little taxpayers.

But the issue is not nearly that simple. Which may explain why all three members of Philadelphia's congressional delegation have opposed HR 4128.

"The bill was hastily crafted," Congressman Chaka Fattah responded in writing yesterday when I asked him to explain his vote.

Fattah says he is sensitive to governmental intrusion against personal-property rights. But he argues that the bill "would impede local municipal efforts in advancing neighborhood revitalization."

Congressman Bob Brady agrees.

"This at first glance seems to make sense," said Stanley White, Brady's chief of staff. But it would have a substantial back-blast. "This law would stop the Redevelopment Authority from doing most of what it is doing under NTI," he said, referring to Mayor Street's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative.

Seen in its best light, it's bad law for a good purpose. It sounds good, until you examine how eminent domain has been used in Philadelphia.

"We've built more than 7,000 units of affordable housing by acquiring properties to assemble parcels," said Redevelopment Authority Executive Director Herb Wetzel. "We needed eminent domain to do that."

"Under the Piccola bill, you could have a block where every other house is abandoned and we couldn't acquire the properties because the block still wouldn't meet the 51 percent standard.

"In Harrisburg yesterday just about every redevelopment authority in the state opposed the bill."

But it might not matter, if the federal law passes.

This is a city where eminent domain has been used to increase housing options for low-income families and to build projects like the shopping center going up at 52nd and Parkside.

Eliminating eminent domain may do more to hurt than to help the little guys that our lawmakers are rushing to rescue.


Philadelphia Daily News: www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news

11/10/2005

Supervisors agree to clarify policy on eminent domain: San Diego (CA) Union-Tribune, 11/10/05

By Leslie Wolf Branscomb

Because of the recent nationwide outcry over the prospect of homes being seized by the government, the Board of Supervisors decided it was time to review the county's policy on eminent domain.

The review found San Diego County already gives private property owners strong protection against the abuse of eminent domain.

However, the supervisors agreed that some of the county's policies could be changed to further strengthen them.

The supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to clarify the county's policy to specifically protect nonblighted, owner-occupied residential structures from being taken and given to another private property owner for economic gain.

"Eminent domain has been very much in the news lately," said Supervisor Ron Roberts, referring to a Connecticut case in which homes were condemned to make way for commercial development, and a more recent San Diego case in which houses might have been taken for other housing.

"It's true that unchecked government may abuse its powers," Roberts said, adding that's why he and Supervisor Bill Horn initiated the review of the county's policy in July.

"The county's policy already strongly favors property rights," Roberts said. "Eminent domain is not a power that this board takes lightly, because we place a high value on property rights."

Horn said: "It makes sense to use eminent domain when it comes to roads and public facilities. But it doesn't make sense to use it to take private property and give it to another.

"I would just like the public to know that we're taking a strong stand on protecting private property," Horn added.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June affirmed the powers of the city of New London, Conn., to take property for economic development.

The ruling caused a backlash at the federal and state levels.

Last week, the [US] House of Representatives approved a bill that would withhold federal money from state and local governments that used eminent domain to force businesses and homeowners to give up their property for commercial use.

The state Senate has introduced legislation to impose a two-year moratorium on taking homes for private projects, giving the state time to study whether to impose new limits on eminent domain.


San Diego Union-Tribune: www.signonsandiego.com

Eminent domain changes Westville board: Gloucester County (NJ) Times, 11/8/05

By Anne B. Jolis

Fear and anger over eminent domain remained a driving force in borough politics on Tuesday night as voters [in Westville] demanded new blood, ushering newcomers James Pennington Jr., Susan Rodgers and Woodrow Dooley into council and ousting incumbents Art Kelley and Fritz Sims.

Democrats Pennington and Dooley and Republican Rodgers all ran on the platform of opposing eminent domain abuse. The issue has polarized the borough since January when Council voted unanimously to include the homes and businesses in the Timber Park area in the borough's redevelopment zone.

The borough's developer, Fieldstone Associates, has yet to submit final plans for its projected waterfront shops, condos and townhouses. Council has said in the past that, if the proposal is acceptable, they stand ready to seize by eminent domain the properties of any home or business owners who can't come to an agreement with the developer.

By January, however, half of the six-member council will be made up of council members elected on the promise that they will oppose taking private property for this reason.

"It's a victory, but the people of Westville aren't safe yet," said Dooley, who will finish out the unexpired two-year term left open when former councilman Jay Renshaw moved out of state. "If there's a tie in the council, Mayor Packer acts as tie-breaker. He said he would use his vote to invoke eminent domain if he has to."

The Times was unable to confirm Packer's comments.

"The people don't want eminent domain as it stands today," said Rodgers who will step into a full three-year term. She added that whether she will support Fieldstone's plan at all remains to be seen. "They're against eminent domain abuse, against closed-door meetings, and they want to live in a democracy," said Rodgers of her supporters.

Over the summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a sharply divided vote that seizing private property for economic development is constitutional.

"Mayor and the rest of the council could still abuse eminent domain, but we sent out a great message today to local politicians," said Dooley.

"You take our homes, we'll take your jobs."

Dooley explained that he supports the redevelopment plan to save the borough from "financial dire straits," but not the use of eminent domain as a tool.

Pennington, also elected to a full three-year term, was not available for comment.

According to the unofficial election results, Dooley beat incumbent Kelley by 868 to 374, Pennington garnered 577 votes, and Rodgers took 578 against Independent incumbent Sims' 370. Republican challenger Mark Styan took in 465 votes and Democratic challenger Charles Robbins tallied 401.

Neither Kelley nor Sims returned calls for comment after the unofficial results came in.

Kelley stated earlier in the day that Tuesday's election was one of the most important Westville has ever seen.

"It's very possible that if the incumbents don't win, the redevelopment will not go through," said Kelley.

"This election could basically mean the life or death of Westville."


Gloucester County Times: www.nj.com/news/gloucester

Florida voters favor eminent domain restrictions: Jacksonville (FL) Business Journal, 11/8/05

An overwhelming majority of Florida voters favor tighter restrictions on the government's use of eminent domain to acquire private property, according to a poll conducted last month by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc.

In a poll of 625 registered voters, 89 percent said they supported having the state legislature adopt "increased protections for property owners," while only 9 percent opposed such a move.

The poll comes after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this year in a Connecticut case that found governments can use eminent domain to acquire private property and transfer it to a private developer. Eighty-eight percent of those polled disagreed with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The opposition to the ruling was nearly uniform across party lines, with 89 percent of Democrats, 87 percent of Republicans and 87 percent of independent voters disagreeing with the ruling.

Some legislators have suggested an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. Sixty-three percent of those polled favored such an amendment. Sixty-six percent supported federal legislation that would restrict federal funding for projects where eminent domain was used for economic development purposes.

The poll was commissioned by the Coalition for Property Rights. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percent.


Jacksonville Business Journal: http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com

11/07/2005

Legislators mull eminent domain: (Gallatin TN) News Examiner, 11/7/05

By Katrina Cornwell

State lawmakers will have no less than a dozen pieces of legislation to consider next year to limit the ways eminent domain can be used to take private property.

That news was encouraging to Sumner County property owners who are fighting federal approval of a 30-mile natural gas transmission pipeline.

Linda Roddy said the efforts of Sumner Trousdale Opposing Pipeline (STOP) have shed light on how eminent domain can be used for private gain.

“We’re not just fighting just for us. We’re fighting against eminent domain,” said Roddy, whose family owns land in the path of the proposed Midwestern Gas Transmission Company (MGT) pipeline.

“That’s every property owner’s right to have property. MGT is a big company and they think they’re just going to bully us around and it’s not going to happen. We’re tired of being run over by big companies,” she said.

Two members of the Sumner County delegation have filed pieces of legislation that will be introduced to the Tennessee General Assembly Jan. 10, 2006.

State Rep. Mike McDonald, D-Portland, has filed House Bill 2432 while State Sen. Mae Beavers, R-Mt. Juliet, has filed Senate Bill 2419 and Senate Joint Resolution 501.

McDonald’s bill proposes to narrow the definition of a “public use” for which eminent domain can be used to take private property.

The bill also aims to prevent a governmental or other authorized entity to take property and transfer it to a private developer, corporation or other non-governmental entity.

“I feel strongly about the principal that it should be used only for the public good,” McDonald said. “The only examples I know to give are schools and roads that benefit the public at large.”

McDonald said governments should not be in the business of taking private property and giving it to a private entity.

“I just think that is contrary to what the founding fathers intended in the constitution,” he said. “People work hard to pay for their homes, their property, whatever it may be...We don’t need to let one entity profit by taking private property of another entity.”

Beavers’ bill also attempts to eliminate the power of government bodies to take private property and transfer it to another party for commercial use.

Her resolution specifies that eminent domain should only be used for public roads or streets, public transportation, railways, utilities, government-owned and used buildings and public facilities for the general use of government or its citizens.

State Sen. Diane Black, R-Gallatin, said she supports measures to limit the scope of the eminent domain law.

“There are a great number of bills that were filed because of Sumner County,” Black said. “I will be a big supporter of keeping private business from coming in and taking people’s property for the sake of private development.”

Linda Webster who owns a 249-acre farm in Bethpage, is glad state lawmakers are focusing on eminent domain.

“We’re all for it,” said Webster, who is a member of STOP. “The big bad wolf will just eat you up.”


News Examiner: www.gallatinnewsexaminer.com

Eminent Domain Roll Call: H.R. 4128: New Jersey Eminent Domain Law Blog, 11/4/05

By Bill Ward

Voting 376 for and 38 against, members of the [US] House of Representatives passed the Property Rights Protection Act on November 3, 2005. Under the House bill, federal funds would be denied to the states or political subdivisions to acquire property for economic development.

The bill gives any aggrieved property owner the right to bring an action to enforce the provisions of the Act in the appropriate Federal or State court. The law puts the burden of proof on the defendant to show by clear and convincing evidence that the taking is not for economic development.

The Act further provides that a prevailing plaintiff shall be allowed reasonable attorney’s fees as part of cost of the action including expert fees as part of the attorney’s fee.

Interestingly, the only “no” vote in New Jersey’s delegation was Rep. Steven R. Rothman (D) of Fairlawn, NJ. View the House of Representatives Roll Call here.

The bill now goes to the Senate for approval where Senator John Cornyn has proposed legislation.

It’s show time in New Jersey!
Both gubernatorial candidates Jon Corzine and Doug Forrester have said they will take steps if elected to protect New Jersey’s home owners from eminent domain. The [newark] Star-Ledger gives us the essence of the candidates in its Perspectives section:

Corzine: The state must strengthen its laws to guarantee homeowners are protectors.

Forrester: Would create a task force to study possible remedies to the current system.

Acting Governor Codey, soon to relegate to Senate President Codey, does not have eminent domain reform on his agenda. Codey’s position is of paramount importance if any eminent domain reform legislation is going to be considered by the New Jersey State Senate.


New Jersey Eminent Domain Law Blog: www.njeminentdomain.com

11/06/2005

Mayor won't seize restaurant to aid school: Newark (NJ) Star-ledger, 11/5/05

Jersey City withdraws eminent domain for football-field expansion

By Matthew Reilly

Jersey City Mayor Jerremiah Healy pulled the plug yesterday on the city's role in the proposed condemnation of a restaurant and bar to make way for an expanded football field at a Catholic high school.

The city's redevelopment agency was attempting to seize the Golden Cicada and backroom apartment where owner Cheng Tan lives so the city could then turn the property over to St. Peter's Prep, which wants to expand its practice football field. Healy said he was withdrawing the city from the eminent domain action.

"I support eminent domain where it is necessary and benefits the community as a whole," he said last night. "There are instances when the city's taking of private property for public purpose is appropriate, but this is not one of those instances."

Tan said he is happy the city has dropped its effort to condemn his property, but is still worried that changes in the property's zoning will limit what he can do with it.

"It's a good first step, but the issues are not resolved yet," Tan said. "The zoning was changed to prevent me from doing anything. That's the whole problem. My property will never have its highest and best use. I don't know who would benefit from the property other than St. Peter's. It's another thing I have to talk to my attorney about."

The school argued it had spent $4 million and years acquiring property for needed athletic fields and was being unfairly held up by Tan. St. Peter's built a new football field adjacent to the Golden Cicada, but the field is seven yards shy of regulation and must be lengthened for the varsity team to play its home games there.

The president of the school, the Rev. James Keenan, has said he had offered to buy the garages in the rear of the property, which would have given the school the needed room without affecting the restaurant and bar, but Tan refused.

Keenan could not be reached for comment last night.

The school is still free to negotiate with Tan to buy the property and extend its field, but it no longer has the backing of the city redevelopment agency — and the threat of eminent domain — behind it.

The redevelopment agency had offered $550,000 for the property, plus relocation costs. The liquor license could also be sold for about $150,000, city officials said. But Tan believes the 5,000-square-foot property is worth much more, as it is located next to booming real estate.

Tan said he has considered building condominiums there, and thousands of units are under construction or planned in the neighborhood.

Bill Matsikoudis, the Jersey City corporation counsel, said with the school and the redevelopment agency formally declaring they will not proceed with the eminent domain action, the agency can withdraw from the litigation and Tan will have title to the property.

Tan was represented by lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union and Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic, who argued the city redevelopment agency was violating the constitutional prohibition on favoring a religion.

Ed Barocas, ACLU legal director in New Jersey, said it is inappropriate for the government to take land from one person to give to another, and even more inappropriate to benefit a specific religion.

Healy said he was eager to settle the issue, which he said he inherited from a past city administration.


Newark Star-Ledger: www.nj.com/starledger

State lawmaker wants eminent domain limits: Billings (MT) Gazette, 11/5/05

By Jennifer McKee

A Republican lawmaker wants to change the Montana Constitution to prohibit government from condemning private property for urban renewal or economic development projects. However, his efforts would leave untouched government's ability to seize private property for railroads, mines or smelter dumping grounds.

Rep. Rick Maedje, of Fortine, submitted to legislative lawyers Thursday his proposed change to the Montana Constitution. The move is the first step toward getting a proposed constitutional amendment placed on the ballot for voter approval or disapproval.

"You don't lose private property rights by one cut," Maedje said. "It's by a thousand nicks of the blade."

His proposal prohibits all nonfederal government entities from seizing and buying private property for the following reasons:
  • To increase tax revenues.
  • For economic development.
  • For urban renewal projects.
  • To create or preserve natural areas, recreation areas or facilities.
  • To protect viewsheds.

Maedje said the motivation behind the amendment was a June U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed the town of New London, Conn., to condemn and buy downtown homes to build a private real estate development. The development would generate more tax revenues for the town than the older homes. The nation's top court ruled against the homeowners, creating controversy nationwide.

Montana law allows state and local government to condemn and buy private property for a long list of public and private uses, a power called "eminent domain." Protecting viewsheds, increasing tax revenues and economic development are not listed among allowable eminent domain uses in Montana.

However, the state and local governments can use eminent domain to take private property for roads, sewers and other projects. The law also allows government to take private property for railroads and dumping grounds for mines and smelters or temporary logging roads.

Under eminent domain, the government must pay the original property owners the fair market value of their land, plus legal fees.

Maedje said that because Montana already has a long list of allowable uses of eminent domain, it made more sense to list the five things he thinks should be constitutionally prohibited. If people later decide more things should be prohibited, they can change the constitution then.

He said he picked those five because they have the most potential for abuse.

House Democratic Leader Dave Wanzenried, of Missoula, said he supported Maedje's early efforts because they will prompt a good discussion among lawmakers and Montanans about eminent domain and whether something like the Connecticut situation could ever happen here.

Alec Hansen, executive director of the Montana League of Cities and Towns, said he didn't think Montanans had much to worry about. The Connecticut case stemmed from a Connecticut law that allowed eminent domain seizures for economic development.

That's already prohibited here, he said.

"It doesn't really apply," Hansen said. "Montana is one of a group of states that do not have the power of eminent domain for economic development."


Billings Gazette: www.billingsgazette.com

Eminent Domain May Be Used If Flats Owners Don't Sell: News Channel 5 (Cleveland OH), 11/2/05

Developer Hopes To Begin Demolition By Early 2006

Property owners in the Flats will soon be getting sales offers from developer Scott Wolstein.

If owners reject the deals, the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County port authority stands ready to take the land through eminent domain.

The Wolstein group wants to start demolition for the development plan by early next year.

Both sides say they hope negotiations will win out over what could become lengthy court battles over eminent domain.


News Channel 5: www.newsnet5.com

Gingrey Amendment to Protect Houses of Worship from Eminent Domain Abuse: Christian News Today

U.S. Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA) today introduced an amendment to H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, to protect houses of worship and non-profit organizations from eminent domain abuse. Gingrey's amendment would make it illegal for state and local governments to use tax-exempt or non-profit status as a consideration for the taking of property under economic or public use plans.

"In the wake of the Supreme Court's Kelo ruling, religious and non-profit organizations are at particular risk of becoming targets of eminent domain abuse," said Gingrey. "Churches bring guidance to our communities, but they don't bring revenue to the government. Unless we act now, they will become an easy mark for money-hungry developers and governments. I fear for our country if we allow shopping malls and other revenue-raisers to evict our religious organizations simply because God doesn't pay enough in taxes."

The Gingrey Amendment prohibits the consideration of non-profit or tax-exempt status during the economic evaluation of a proposal using eminent domain. The amendment text is attached in PDF format.

The House is expected to consider H.R. 4128 and the Gingrey Amendment on Thursday, November 3.


Christian News Today: www.christiannewstoday.com

11/05/2005

Hollywood commissioners embrace right to seize property belonging to residents: (S Florida) Sun-Sentinel, 11/3/05

By John Holland

The Hollywood City Commission adopted an eminent domain resolution Wednesday that strongly mirrors a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision giving cities the right to take a private citizen's property and give it to developers.

While cities, states and federal legislators are working on laws to soften the court's actions, Hollywood leaders voted 6-0 to embrace major portions of the ruling. City Commissioner Cathy Anderson did not attend Wednesday's meeting.

The Hollywood resolution allows the commission to take any person's land or buildings if it decides that the taking serves a "public purpose." Five of seven commissioners would have to agree and the vote could only follow a public hearing.

The resolution calls on city leaders to make "all reasonable efforts to acquire the property through negotiations." The city would then be free to take the property and hand it to developers building more expensive projects in the name of "rehabilitation and redevelopment of neighborhoods," according to an explanation accompanying the resolution.

The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo vs. New London, Conn. outraged legislators and private citizens around the country who feared governments would be free to take land at any time.

Hollywood this year made the controversial decision to take the longtime downtown business owned by the Mach family and hand it over to developers of a downtown condominium project.

Several years ago, several city commissioners backed a deal to take beachfront homes worth millions of dollars and give the land, at a large discount, to developer Michael Swerdlow. That deal eventually fell apart.

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives is tackling a bill that would prohibit any city that takes a private home from receiving federal redevelopment dollars.


Sun-Sentinel: www.sun-sentinel.com

Eminent domain limits pass House: Pittsburgh (PA) Tribune-Review, 11/2/05

By Mike Wereschagin

The state House voted Tuesday night to curb local governments' power to take private property and give it to another private owner, a controversial practice that has been used several times in Pittsburgh and was deemed legal by the U.S. Supreme Court in June.

"That's one of the big problems, that developers are simply using the government to take private property for their own use," said Kathleen Walsh, 62, of Ridgemont in Pittsburgh's West End.

Five years ago, the Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority considered labeling part of her verdant hillside neighborhood "blighted," the first step in condemning the homes and making way for a Home Depot adjacent to the Parkway Center Mall, Walsh said.

"This is a neighborhood of nice, middle-class, well-maintained homes," Walsh said. "We have a couple of people here who have been living here since the 1950s. It was just unbelievably terrible for some of the older people."

If the Senate passes the bill, the URA wouldn't be allowed to start the process that haunted Walsh and her neighbors for nearly a year, said Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, a co-sponsor of the bill.

The bill provides for a few exceptions, such as if the property is abandoned or unsafe, or if the owner consents to having the land condemned. Property can be taken for use by a nonprofit hospital or medical center.

"It will help to stop a lot of the abuses that's occurred around the state," including Mayor Tom Murphy's threats to use eminent domain to oust Downtown businesses to make way for a major developer in the Fifth and Forbes corridor, Metcalfe said.

The public opposition that helped derail Murphy's revitalization plan also caused the URA to back away from its plan to condemn Walsh's neighborhood, she said.

Twelve states have considered laws limiting local eminent domain authority since the Supreme Court, in Kelo v. New London (Conn.), declared it constitutional for local governments to take property from one private owner and give it to another if it would result in increased tax money for a community.

"We need to restore private property rights," Metcalfe said. "I think Kelo v. New London was a wake-up call to the states."


Tribune-Review: http://pittsburghlive.com

St. Charles may limit eminent domain: St Louis (MO) Post-Dispatch, 11/01/05

By Mark Schlinkmann

The [St Charles] City Council may take steps to bar use of its eminent domain authority to force the sale of homes to make way for commercial development in many neighborhoods.

The proposed resolution was introduced Tuesday night. One of the sponsors, John Gieseke, 8th Ward, said he wants to reassure residents, despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last June that said governments can take private property for economic development purposes.

Under the resolution, the city could still use eminent domain to acquire vacant, abandoned or dilapidated homes. The measure would not restrict the city's ability to force property owners to sell for a direct government purpose such as a new or widened street.

Nor would it keep the city from forcing the sale of businesses to make way for newer commercial developments. That prompted criticism from Kevin Rogers, who told the council that he was worried that he could eventually lose the Dairy Queen that he owns on First Capitol Drive to a redevelopment plan.

In response, Gieseke said he agreed that viable businesses should not be forced to sell either in such circumstances and that he expected the council to discuss that later.

The resolution would not legally bind the council in the future, but it could make it be politically difficult for current members to act counter to it after passing it.

Last month, the council gave eminent domain power to a redevelopment corporation formed by Lindenwood University to acquire land needed for the school's long-planned performing arts/fine arts center.

Supporters said that was justified because the goal was something that would benefit the city as a whole.

Lindenwood's chief operating officer, Julie Mueller, said the school reached a tentative agreement Tuesday with owners of a heating and air-conditioning firm in the buyout area without having to file an eminent domain lawsuit.

She said the school also has worked out a deal to buy two of three vacant commercial buildings on the site. She said an agreement has not been reached with the owner of the third vacant structure. Eminent domain could still be used to force that sale.


St Louis Post-Dispatch: www.stltoday.com

Preston outlaws eminent domain: Norwich (CT) Bulletin, 11/2/05

By Greg Smith

Voters in Preston showed their overwhelming opposition Tuesday to the idea of private land being taken by the town for economic development. At referendum, voters adopted an ordinance against taking land by eminent domain.

The vote comes on the heels of an unpopular Supreme Court decision backing the city of New London in its bid to condemn homes and allow private developers to boost economic growth there.

"I think it was misused in New London. The Supreme Court made a judgment error," said Penny Herring of Preston.

"I think people really became aware of the problem after New London," said Florence Prue, of Preston, who voted in favor of the ordinance. "Not only here in Connecticut, but all over. So when the petition started, there was no way I was not going to get down here and vote."

Putnam passed a similar ordinance in August.

Tuesday's vote was brought to a referendum by the efforts of Teresa Schulz, 72, of Preston. Her son, Tim Schulz, said she wanted a townwide vote to give everyone, especially the elderly, a chance to vote.

"We don't have enough people in the world like her," Schulz said. "It's a shame that, after the decision in New London, people had to petition their government to do the right thing. Leaders in every town should bring this to their voters."

First Selectman Robert Congdon said eminent domain is likely to become a statewide issue.

"I think it sends a message to legislators at the state level about what the sentiment of the town is," Congdon said.

Even before Tuesday's vote, the town could not take land without a town meeting vote, Congdon said. Without opposition, the new ordinance goes into effect in 15 days. It does not stop the state from using eminent domain, however.


Norwich Bulletin: www.norwichbulletin.com

Officials Mull Eminent Domain


SB 1099 would limit use of practice by agencies

By Dania Akkad

Two members of the state Senate agriculture committee held a listening session on Tuesday in Salinas focused on the potential impacts of government use of eminent domain on California agricultural land.

The meeting, attended by several growers, cattle ranchers and representatives of the state and county Farm Bureau, follows a decision in the spring by the Supreme Court that gave local governments broad eminent domain power to take private property for private development.

Committee member Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Murrieta, who was at the meeting with chairman Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Merced, has proposed legislation, SB 1099, that would limit the use of the practice by government agencies to acquire agricultural land.

"The U.S. Supreme Court suddenly convinced every homeowner that their property is at risk," said Bob Perkins, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau, who testified Tuesday. "It's raised new questions about eminent domain... and that's why we are here today."

Farmland, said Perkins and a representative from the California Farm Bureau, is vulnerable to eminent domain transactions because it is relatively inexpensive compared to other land.

Between 1991 and 2003, according to Dennis O'Bryant, division chief of the division of land resources protection with the Department of Conservation, more than 25,000 acres of agricultural land protected under the Williamson Act was acquired by public agencies.

The Williamson Act, administered by the state's Department of Conservation, provides agricultural landowners with tax breaks in exchange for their promise not to develop the land. More than 16 million acres are now enrolled in Williamson Act contracts.

"It is extremely disturbing," said John Gamper, director of land use and taxation for the California Farm Bureau, of the increase in agricultural lands being acquired by public agencies.

After the meeting, Perkins said he couldn't cite any example of an agency taking Williamson Act land with eminent domain and giving the land to a private property owner.

But he said that though he hadn't seen it happen in Monterey County, he was concerned that there isn't a mechanism between local and state agencies ensuring that agricultural land under Williamson Act isn't scooped up by local entities.

"These are all little pieces of the picture. It's not that one is exactly related to the other," he said referring to the Williamson Act and the use of eminent domain. "But the issue is there is a pattern that we believe could lead to that."

Also testifying at the meeting was Tim Hearne, a South County ranch owner who lives near Long Valley, where the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority is considering building a landfill. Eighty percent of the valley, he estimated, is preserved under the Williamson Act.

"Eminent domain law does not have enough precautions to prevent public agencies from taking over ag land," Hearne said. "It doesn't seem that the Williamson Act carries any substance at all with these agencies."



Monterey County Herald: www.montereyherald.com
What is Eminent Domain?

Unfair to blast Supreme Court for eminent domain ruling: Rochester (NY) Democrat & Chronicle, 11/1/05

Guest Essay

By A. Vincent Buzard

There has been a great deal of debate about the impact of Kelo v. New London, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on the power of municipalities to take property for economic development purposes under the doctrine of eminent domain.

Both houses of the New York state Legislature are holding hearings on the impact of Kelo. One of the roles of the New York State Bar Association is to aid public understanding of the legal system and to answer unwarranted attacks on the courts. Hopefully these thoughts will help in that effort.

A debate over the role of government in bringing about economic redevelopment, and the circumstances under which it should invoke its eminent domain powers, is entirely appropriate until it rises to the level of provoking attacks on the U.S. Supreme Court based on misreading the Court's decisions.

In Kelo, the U.S. Supreme Court held that New London, Conn., could condemn property for the purpose of economic development even though the property itself was not blighted.

The decision was based on the principle that taking the Kelo property was part of a well-designed, comprehensive economic plan.

One of the parties, Suzette Kelo, owned a home on the New London waterfront, in the heart of a redevelopment zone established by the city to create economic growth in an area that had fallen on tough times. A libertarian organization called The Institute for Justice challenged the city's move on Kelo's behalf.

The Kelo decision has been criticized for creating new law because the "taking" of the Kelo property falls outside the scope of such time-honored uses as building a public park, courthouse, or highway. Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 50 years ago that economic redevelopment could be deemed a valid public purpose. In fact, economic development projects have taken place in Rochester as a result of those earlier decisions.

The redevelopment of the area bounded by Main, State, St. Paul and Andrews streets, which includes two hotels, First Federal Plaza, the Crossroads office building, and other office buildings is all a result of an economic redevelopment project, and some of the property was taken by eminent domain even though it was not blighted.

Unfortunately, Kelo has resulted in a renewal of what appears to be a continuing pattern of misunderstanding, misrepresenting and mistrusting U.S. Supreme Court decisions. In referring to the decision recently, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., stated: "We can fight by getting involved in an effort to confirm judges who will interpret the law rather than make it." Lott went on to further chastise the justices for having "taken it upon themselves to write their own laws, essentially bypassing you and your elected representative."

Sen. Lott has it backward. The U.S. Supreme Court was not making new law, but rather relying on a 50-year-old precedent. Contrary to the senator's statements, Kelo gives state legislatures great latitude in defining the parameters of economic development projects in their states.

The role of eminent domain in the redevelopment of communities is an appropriate issue for debate, but not an appropriate excuse for judge-bashing.

As president of the State Bar Association, I am appointing a task force of experts in the field to review existing and proposed legislation regarding eminent domain in New York and make recommendations regarding appropriate legislative and regulatory considerations.

Hopefully, the work of this task force and the legislative committees that hold hearings can shed public light on the real issues while removing some of the hysteria from the debate process and, above all, stop blaming judges for simply ruling on the law to the best of their abilities.


Rochester Democrat & Chronicle: www.democratandchronicle.com

A. Vincent Buzard is president of the New York State Bar Association

11/01/2005

Seizure of land leaves Londonderry residents fuming: (Manchester NH) Union Leader, 10/20/05

By Margaret Menge

At least two property owners in north Londonderry have been notified in recent months that the state has taken their land by eminent domain for the airport access road project.

Jim and Lorayne Pincence, who own 112 acres on Hall Road, said they came home one day three weeks ago to find a notice thrown up on their porch saying that all but 3 of their 112 acres were being taken for wetlands mitigation.

Al Baldasaro, a retired Marine Corps sergeant who lives at 41 Hall Road, was served notice in June.

He said he answered the door to see a Rockingham County sheriff's deputy on his doorstep holding a letter from the state Board of Tax and Land Appeals saying that almost 5 of his 6 acres had been taken.

The Pincences and the Baldasaros are among 70 property owners in north Londonderry from whom the state has been attempting to acquire land so that they can put construction of the access road out to bid.

Bob Barry, who's managing the mitigation for the Department of Transportation, said that the federal environmental impact statement for the new road required it.

Negotiations have been under way for more than year, with the state making offers of varying amounts for properties surrounding Little Cohas Marsh that add up to about 750 acres.

An impartial appraiser was hired by the state to determine the value of all parcels of land, as the law requires. The property owners must, by law, be given "just compensation." But the property owners interviewed for this article all said that the amount they were offered by the state was much less than market value.

Baldasaro said the state offered him $10,000 for 4.9 acres. He said he bought the property in 2002 for $287,000.

"My land's not for sale," he said. "But if you're gonna take it, you gotta pay fair market value."

Jim Pincence wouldn't say what the state had offered him but said, "It was a lot lower than anyone else has been offered in the area."

The state made John Goulet, of 18 Hall Road, an offer of $7,800 for 3 of his 5 acres.

"That's peanuts," said his son Mark, "For $7,800, I'd rather just keep it."

Mark said his dad hired a lawyer in the last two weeks and is looking at taking legal action.

Pincence, owner of Pincence Land Clearing, said that once they found out that the state wanted their land a couple of years ago, it put them in a tough place.

"It put a collar on us," he said. "Who would buy land they know they were gonna lose eventually?"

He said his wife, Lorayne, who holds the title on the land, just hired an attorney to look at taking legal action against the state.

Kathleen Kilroy, who lives down the road from Baldasaro and Pincence, grew up in the house where she now lives with her husband and 2-year-old son.

They have two horses in back that they ride on their 59 acres behind the house. The state wants all but 1.29 acres, which is short of the 2-acre minimum that Londonderry requires for horse owners. The state offered just $1,000 an acre.

"Now what are we supposed to do?" she said, "Get rid of the horses — something I've been doing since I was 7 years old?"

She and her husband David have retained the services of a lawyer ever since the state first mentioned that their land could be taken by eminent domain two years ago. But she's not hopeful.

"There's no way you're gonna win this because there's millions of dollars behind this."

She said you can't even bring up the subject with her father, from whom she bought the house. He's beside himself. She said she and her husband have been sick over it — nauseous, unable to sleep and losing hair. They're in the process of hiring their own appraiser to come out and determine the value of their land. They plan to counter the state's offer.

Much of the land that the state is taking for mitigation is wetlands. But Baldasaro and Pincence have been fighting the state on that account since last year.

They say that the land is being flooded by a dam the state was supposed to take down in April of 2004. Baldasaro said he thinks the state is doing this on purpose to devalue his property.

"New Hampshire is quietly taking people's land," he said, "They're taking 700 acres of land from people who can't afford to fight."

His attorney filed an objection at the end of August, saying that since his property is five miles from where the access road will be built, the state hasn't demonstrated why they need it for some public benefit — the standard that has to be met to allow taking by eminent domain.

Baldasaro's case has been referred to Rockingham County Superior Court.

He and his attorney are waiting for a court date.


The Union Leader: www.unionleader.com



Letter to local officials
by Al Baldasaro

Please Protect land owners' rights


Eminent domain has gone wild here in New Hampshire. The Department of Transportation (DOT)had a mitigation project going on in Londonderry and surrounding communities since 1997. A lot of people knew nothing about it, or don't want to know about it.

Recently, they have been quietly stealing over 700 acres for an access road to the Manchester Airport. The sad thing is that our land has nothing to do with the access road. They also claim our land is "wet" but this is because the NH Fish and Game Commission refused to take their dam out after their lease expired in April 2004.

Whether the land is wet or dry, we own it. So the DOT offers us a appraisal on manmade wetland, which they say has no value. It is the state's dam that is keeping it wet! They are not building anything on our land and the airport access road is 5 miles away. This has no financial gain to the state. As a matter of fact, the state does not pay taxes to the towns, and all the towns involved will lose property tax dollars if this goes through.

What is wrong with our State? I served 22 years Honorably in the US Marines (Desert Storm Vet/Disabled Vet), protecting our country, to come home to a Government that can take my property or that of any other NH resident, because the DOT says it's the right thing to do. Hello! Are the tax payers of NH that stupid? This is a sad day in our state, if our elected officials do nothing about this legal thievery.

Sadam did this in Kuwait and you see what we did. I was there and I have the memories of the Kuwaiti people, their happy faces, in my brain after we gave them their land back and their freedom. Something is wrong here in our "Live Free or Die" State! We are suppose to be leading the nation in setting the example on Living Free.

They know that we little people do not have the funds to fight them. I have no choice but to try to take this to court, since everyone else has turned their back on us. Especially the Executive Council and the Chairman of the Special Committee appointed by the Governor. The Chairman — Councilor Wieczorek, along with Councilors Wheeler and Spaulding, did not attend the Bedford-Manchester-Londonderry-Merrimack mitigation hearing but voted in favor of taking our property. They did not not care about the land owners' complaints.

The DOT has forced me to engage a law firm to fight this. Spending money this way takes food of my and many other residents' tables. We want to believe in the American Dream. Something needs to be done to protect all residents of NH.



Al Baldasaro: baldasaro@adelphia.net

Eminent domain threat alleged in Atascadero: St Luis Obispo (CA) Tribune, 10/31/05

An official reportedly called downtown property owners with the threat of litigation

By Stephen Curran

Atascadero City Manager Wade McKinney could have to answer today for a city official who allegedly threatened downtown property owners with eminent domain litigation if they refused to sell.

Marty Tracey, the city's deputy director of redevelopment, reportedly called landowners Pat and Sue Gaughan on Feb. 22 and left a message telling the couple that the City Council, in its capacity as the Atascadero Community Redevelopment Agency, planned to move forward in a closed session that night with eminent-domain procedures on their property at 6040 El Camino Real.

The plan Tracey is said to have described is illegal under a state law that requires eminent-domain votes be approved by a three-fifths majority of redevelopment agency board members in an open session, City Attorney Patrick Enright said.

It was unclear late last week if McKinney, who as the city's redevelopment director is Tracey's boss, directed Tracey to make the call, Mayor Wendy Scalise said.

McKinney is expected to field questions from council members in a closed-door session at noon today.

Enright and other city officials have denied any such plan is in place. Multiple calls to Tracey's office were not returned.

"The council wants to know what happened here," Scalise said. "It raises the question in my mind as to what direction, if any, was given by the city manager."

McKinney was unavailable for comment, a receptionist in his office said. As city manager, he is employed directly by the council.

The city has no definitive record of what went on at that meeting. Like most councils, the Atascadero panel does not record minutes during closed sessions, Enright said.

Reached Friday, Pat Gaughan said neither he nor his wife attended the closed session. According to an agenda from that day's meeting, the board was to review negotiations between Gaughan and McKinney.

"It almost looks like I was there," Gaughan said of wording on the agenda.

The Atascadero couple, who have owned the property since 1984, described Tracey's tone as "cordial" but his underlying message as threatening.

"His voice wasn't harsh," Gaughan said. "He knows he has me."

The Gaughan's property, a now-vacant gas station and auto shop, sits across from the recently renovated Carlton Hotel in the heart of Atascadero's downtown core. So it is considered ripe for redevelopment.

The couple says they are now fielding offers from developers looking to build projects with a mix of housing and shops on the property.

In a statement sent Thursday afternoon, McKinney said the redevelopment agency had been "actively referring developers to the Gaughan's (sic) to encourage them to develop the corner into a retail and residential use."

A single-page agenda posted Friday afternoon lists the council's business that day as a performance evaluation for a city employee followed by "public employee discipline/dismissal/release."

The board cannot directly fire or discipline Tracey, but can direct McKinney to do so, Councilman George Luna said.

Neither Scalise nor Luna would say whether they thought Tracey should lose his job.

"I think that's a possibility," Luna said. "... This is a very serious issue. We'd been making substantial progress (on downtown redevelopment) and this is a black eye."


St Luis Obispo Tribune: www.sanluisobispo.com

Council responds to tax claims, eminent domain: San Mateo (CA) Daily Journal, 10/29/05

By Michelle Durand

Recent allegations that Redwood City improperly used tax dollars on its downtown cinema project will likely be addressed at the council’s next meeting in November, according to one councilwoman.

On Nov. 14, the council will receive an ad hoc committee report on guiding principals for property acquisition, an attempt to avoid future eminent domain issues like those raised by the cinema project.

At that time, Councilwoman Rosanne Foust said, the tax accusations made by Jim Knapp will likely be raised publicly, too.

“We have to talk about at least some of it. We can’t expect any of this to just go away so we need to get through the rhetoric ... and take it all seriously. We can’t ignore it,” Foust said.

Mayor Jeff Ira, though, doesn’t expect any exhaustive discussion.

“It’s not something to bring up unless somebody really has something to discuss. It might otherwise be confusing to the audience rather than helpful,” Ira said.

Knapp, president of Citizens for Accountability, claim the city has been less than forthcoming about the project’s price tag and improperly used public money for a private project. Knapp also claims city charter requires two-thirds voter approval for the hefty bonds but did not take the issue to the ballot.

Foust, like other Redwood City officials, questioned why Knapp is bringing the matter up so close to the election. During her tenure on the Planning Commission, Foust said she has no record of Knapp or anyone from his group publicly speaking out against the cinema or other projects like the Marina Shores proposal.

Instead, he has sent a number of e-mails to public officials that Foust characterizes as insulting and libelous.

Ira told Knapp he would look at any documents he could provide on the alleged problems and, if needed, appoint a task force to research it.

Knapp’s accusations are just the latest bump in the cinema’s road to completion.

In April 2004, Judge Quentin Kopp ruled the city unlawfully seized private property and razed a building to make room for the 20-screen cineplex and parking garage on land bound by Broadway, Jefferson Avenue and Middlefield Road. James Celotti’s two-story building was taken on the grounds that a public parking lot would be built on the land but Kopp ruled it was in fact being used to benefit a private developer.

The city declared the block a blighted area and acquired it using eminent domain. Celotti later received a $3 million settlement.

The San Mateo County civil grand jury knocked the city’s lack of etiquette in the land grab and recommended the redevelopment agency create written guidelines. The jury did not tackle the details of the Celotti agreement but said all the property owners suffered “disproportionate injuries.”

The recommendation propelled the creation of the guidelines to be unveiled Nov. 14.

“It basically lays out the principals of how we expect the process to go and really sets the tone,” said Foust, who served on the subcommittee with councilmembers Barbara Pierce and Jim Hartnett. “We want to have a more sensitive approach to future redevelopment actions.”

Foust does take issue with the civil grand jury not seeking council input into its final report. Likewise, she said if Knapp has a true concern and valid complaint he should approach the city in a different way.

“I have no qualms about doing whatever sort of investigation needs to be done, in the most appropriate way possible,” she said. “But all we’re seeing is that we’re being attacked and he wants to run out names into the mud.”

Ira said it doesn’t matter so much if Knapp has a valid concern or is simply muckraking.

“He is a resident so we’re not just blowing him off. He just need him to follow the process for it to work,” Ira said.


San Mateo Daily Journal: www.smdailyjournal.com