4/05/2006

Jury favors 93-year-old tenant in hospital's eminent domain case: KESQ-TV3 (Palm Desert CA), 2/10/06

A jury has sided with a property owner and her 93-year-old tenant in a Georgia eminent domain case.

A hospital in Albany, Georgia, condemned the rental house last year so it could expand a child development center for employees' children.

The jury has decided that the hospital will have to pay nearly five times what it offered for the house. And it must give the tenant $51,000 to help her move from her home of nearly three decades.

About 40 states are also re-examining their laws in response to a Supreme Court eminent domain ruling last June. The ruling gave officials of New London, Connecticut, the authority to condemn a group of waterfront homes for a private developer.


KESQ-TV3: www.kesq.com

N.H. lawmakers OK eminent domain limits: Seattle (WA) post-Intelligencer, 3/22/06

Associated Press

New Hampshire lawmakers gave preliminary approval Wednesday to a constitutional amendment that would limit government's ability to seize private property.

The measure was prompted by U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that allowed New London, Conn., to take a group of older homes along the waterfront and turn them over to a developer who plans to build offices, a hotel and convention center.

The state House and Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of identical resolutions. For the measure to win approval, both chambers must pick one resolution and pass it.

Then the amendment would be put to a statewide vote, probably in November. Two-thirds approval would be needed for ratification.

The amendment would prohibit the taking of private property for use by private developers.

After the high court's eminent domain ruling, activists tried to seize Supreme Court Justice David Souter's 200-year-old New Hampshire farmhouse in retaliation for voting with the majority.

Earlier this month, voters in the town of Weare decided to leave Souter's house alone and instead urged the Legislature to take action.


Seattle Post-Intelligencer: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com

4/02/2006

Riviera Beach eminent domain case draws national spotlight: Palm Beach (FL)Post, 12/11/05

By Pat Beall

Martha Babson used to enjoy obscurity with a water view. She lived quietly — just Babson, her dog and birds sharing a green cottage perched off the Intracoastal [Waterway in Riviera Beach FL].

Wednesday night, she was featured on FOX News.

Babson's grass-roots fight to stop the planned billion-dollar redevelopment of Riviera Beach has gone prime time, from CNN to MSNBC to the Los Angeles Times.

The hot-button topic is eminent domain and Riviera Beach's right to force people to sell their homes to make way for a massive, privately led redevelopment. If the plan pans out, Babson's neighborhood will sit at the bottom of a Disney-esque harbor for yachts.

Late Wednesday, as Babson stood in her yard, she announced exactly how far she was willing to go to help stop the bulldozers.

"I'm going to wear makeup tonight," said the self-proclaimed "old hippie," who has been known to go straight from gardening to city council meetings.

A few hours later, Babson was at a neighbor's dining room table as a FOX News makeup artist readied her for her close-up. Outside, FOX News star Sean Hannity was readying a live broadcast of the Hannity & Colmes talk show direct from the Riviera Beach back yard of Rene and David Corie.

The Cories had lived in the stucco house for just five years before a Riviera-funded 2001 study included it in an area declared as slum and blight — rendering it a possible bull's-eye for bulldozing.

"I kept asking the community redevelopment agency what they were going to do with our house," says Rene Corie. "We were told a park, maybe a parking lot, then maybe a marina. Then they told me, 'We're going to let the developer decide what to do with your property.'

"That's what really set me off."

Now, Riviera Beach has emerged as the poster child in a national debate over when and how — or if — homes and businesses can be seized to make way for privately funded redevelopment. FOX's Hannity has virtually adopted the issue.

Babson, who has lived in Riviera Beach for 23 years, got there first. Within months of the 2001 study's findings, she did her own parcel-by-parcel analysis. Data was missing from Riviera's analysis, she discovered. "Vacant" parcels had homes. Sturdy houses were declared dilapidated.

But under Florida law, even good homes can be formally labeled blighted and thus targeted for redevelopment — an issue a special state legislative panel is now reviewing. The panel is to suggest reforms by the time the legislature convenes next spring.

"We go knocking door-to-door, asking people, 'Do you know what can happen?' " says Rene Corie. "And they all say, 'Not my house.' "

Plan allows taking property
For months, Riviera Beach City Council Chairwoman Liz Wade has tried to assure residents their properties are not in the cross hairs of condemnation, even if they are in areas declared blighted. A newly tapped master developer has pledged to rehab homes instead of taking them whenever possible.

However, Wade recently changed her stance from never taking homes or businesses through eminent domain to doing so only as a last resort.

That's because Riviera Beach's ambitious vision needs private developers to build the condos, waterfront businesses, housing and stores that can breathe new life into the waterfront city, home to 34,000. And private developments need land.

As a result, Riviera's $2.4 billion redevelopment plan allows for taking private property, and plenty of it. Early estimates were that up to 5,100 people — the population of the area declared blighted — could be displaced. Because the city won't need to take the entire area and because some homes can be rehabbed, Riviera's actual figures will probably wind up much lower, according to one developer on the project: an estimated 1,000 renters and 347 homeowners.

On paper, though, the plan rivals Washington, D.C.'s displacement of more than 5,000 residents in the mid-1950s, still the largest eminent domain action in the country. And this June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Connecticut city could force homeowners to sell their land to make way for economic development.

Florida's rules are different. A city's redevelopment agency cannot take private property solely to create jobs or broaden the tax base. But it can force the sale of private property to cure blight.

Dina Berliner, the property-rights attorney with the Washington-based Institute for Justice who represented homeowners in the Supreme Court case, said Riviera's blight study results were a foregone conclusion.

"Everybody knows the purpose (of blight studies) is to find the area blighted," Berliner says. "They assume no one will really go through the study itself with a fine tooth comb."

Babson did.

Mayor defends study
Marty Murphy, owner of Riviera's Cracker Boy Boat Works, Inc.; Buddy Andre, a Singer Island cafe owner, and Gerald Ward, a consulting engineer, also questioned whether the study might be flawed. Murphy and Andre both had a personal interest: The newly declared area of slum and blight might affect their businesses. The trio scraped together $350 to pay Babson to document suspected mistakes.

Armed with a borrowed digital camera, clipboard, pen and the CRA's colored-coded map, Babson walked street by street, up one block, down the other.

"I did about 250 homes a day," she recalls, "because that was how many pictures the digital camera would hold. It took three weeks."

When she sat down and analyzed the data, she was incredulous.

It looked like "it was done by two guys sitting in a bar and saying, 'let's throw this in,'" Babson says.

She offered to share her findings at a June 2001 city meeting. No one took her up on it. So she wrapped the study in plastic and put it on her kitchen shelf. It gathered dust for a few years. When silverbugs started chewing on her paperwork, she says, "I figured I had better take it out."

Until The Palm Beach Post inquired, she had shown it to no one.

Now Babson's dog-eared report has taken on new significance, given the controversy over Riviera's potential for massive eminent domain.

Among the findings:
  1. The city's blight study reported that the north side of a 10th Street block was vacant. It wasn't. Four- and five-year-old homes dotted the street.
  2. Where some homes had double lots, the second lot was listed as vacant, inflating the number of unused properties.
  3. Homes in good condition were classified as dilapidated and beyond repair.
  4. Hundreds of mobile homes, including some that later weathered Hurricanes Frances, Jeanne and Wilma, automatically were classified as blighted due to undocumented safety problems or criticism such as "a tendency to blow over in storms."
  5. There were no findings of high crime rates or fires, a key justification of blight. City computers were being tweaked to accommodate a new system, according to the city's study, and so the numbers could not be retrieved.
  6. Buildings in good shape were declared "functionally obsolete," defined generally as a structure which, if torn down, could be replaced with something that generated more money.


None of Babson's findings sways Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.

Elected four times — always on a redevelopment platform — Brown is the person mostly closely identified with the redevelopment plan. In recent days, he's twice defended it on TV to FOX News' Sean Hannity.

Back at his Singer Island law office, Brown grows impatient with criticism of the redevelopment. Eminent domain almost always involved poor or black people, he says. "Now, not all of the faces are black. Now, all of a sudden it's tyranny."

Most of the people uprooted are going to be black, though, as the city is mostly black. Many will be among the city's poorest residents. But Brown and other advocates insist those homeowners will be relocated to better, government-subsidized housing that will be built as part of the redevelopment.

As for gaps in the blight study, "If they did 100 houses and got two wrong, what does that mean?" Brown asks. "Seriously, is there any question that this is a blighted area? This is the most impoverished city in the county."

At the time of the 2000 U.S. Census, one out of every four homes in Riviera Beach had three rooms or less, a figure associated with overcrowding. Eighty had no plumbing; 327 had no source of heat at all.

"You drive the mainland, and it's a disgrace," former city council member David Schnyer said recently.

Redevelopment on track
It's a sentiment echoed by Steve Siskind, a respected Miami architect and co-author of the 2001 blight study. "Nobody can deny there is blight in Riviera Beach."

Siskind readily admits there are plenty of individual houses in areas designated as blighted that are fine. But that does not violate state laws governing blight. "Every single building within a 'blighted' area does not have to be blighted," he notes.

That's the problem, say critics of Florida's law: Blight is in the eye of the beholder.

"Given the breadth of the definition as it currently exists, virtually any piece of property in Florida could be declared blighted," says John W. Little III, an attorney specializing in eminent domain with the West Palm Beach firm Brigham Moore.

Florida's criteria for determining blight "are so vague they can mean anything," agrees property-rights attorney Berliner.

For instance, even Florida neighborhoods in good condition qualify as blighted if they are in an area with higher-than-average numbers of police calls, the traffic layout is outdated or their neighbors' properties fall into disrepair.

This raises the hackles of homeowners and property rights advocates. They claim the practical definition of "blight" boils down to this: If a structure can be replaced with something that generates more money, then it's blighted.

"What beachfront in Florida couldn't be knocked down and rebuilt with something that would generate more tax revenue?" Little asks.

Further, if a city or county decides blight exists, then just one of 14 blight criteria have to be met in order for that government's redevelopment agency to exercise eminent domain. The criteria are general: Unsafe and unsanitary conditions are one, so is substandard structures.

It's not clear whether legislative changes to Florida's definition of blight or rules on eminent domain would help opponents of Riviera Beach redevelopment or those whose homes have already been determined to be in a blighted area.

"You can't unring the bell," says city council member and retired Circuit Court Judge Edward Rodgers.

For now, then, redevelopment remains on track.

Her cheeks blushed by a FOX makeup artist, Martha Babson sums up her battle plan for her Hannity & Colmes appearance: "I'm like the Indians, and the white man wants my land."


Palm Beach Post: www.palmbeachpost.com

Florida city considers eminent domain: The Washington (DC) Times, 10/3/05

By Joyce Howard Price

Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.

"This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.

He defends the use of eminent domain by saying the city is "using tools that have been available to governments for years to bring communities like ours out of the economic doldrums and the trauma centers."

Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach is doing what the city of New London, Conn., is trying to do and what the U.S. Supreme Court said is proper in its ruling June 23 in Kelo v. City of New London. That decision upheld the right of government to seize private properties for use by private developers for projects designed to generate jobs and increase the tax base.

"Now eminent domain is affecting people who never had to deal with it before and who have political connections," Mr. Brown said. "But if we don't use this power, cities will die."

Jacqui Loriol insists she and her husband will fight the loss of their 80-year-old home in Riviera Beach.

"This is a very [racially] mixed area that's also very stable," she said. "But no one seems to care ... Riviera Beach needs economic redevelopment. But there's got to be another way."

In the Kelo ruling, a divided Supreme Court held that private development offering jobs and increased tax revenues constituted a public use of property, but the court held that state legislatures can draft eminent-domain statutes to their satisfaction.

Dana Berliner, senior lawyer with the Institute for Justice, which represented homeowners in the Kelo case, said "pie in the sky" expectations like those expressed by Mr. Brown are routine in all these cases.

"They always think economic redevelopment will bring more joy than what is there now," she said. "Once someone can be replaced so something more expensive can go where they were, every home and business in the country is subject to taking by someone else."

Last week, the Riviera Beach City Council tapped the New Jersey-based Viking Inlet Harbor Properties LLC to oversee the mammoth 400-acre redevelopment project.

"More than 2,000 homes could be eligible for confiscation," said H. Adams Weaver, a local lawyer who is assisting protesting homeowners.

Viking spokesman Peter Frederiksen said the plan "is to create a working waterfront," adding that the project could take 15 years and that "we would only use condemnation as a last resort."

Viking has said it will pay at least the assessed values of homes and businesses it buys.

Other plans for the project include creation of a basin for megayachts with high-end housing, retail and office space, a multilevel garage for boats, a 96,000-square-foot aquarium and a manmade lagoon.

Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach wants to highlight its waterfront.

"We have the best beach and the most attractive redevelopment property anywhere in the United States," he said.

Mr. Frederiksen said people with yachts need a place to keep and service them. "And we want to develop a charter school for development of marine trades."

Mr. Brown and others said this could be one of the biggest eminent-domain actions ever. A report in the Palm Beach Post said it is the biggest since 1954, when 5,000 residents of Washington were displaced for eventual development of the Southwest D.C. waterfront, L'Enfant Plaza, and the less-than-successful Waterside Mall.

The fact that Riviera Beach is so financially downtrodden may seem ironic because as Mr. Brown notes "it sits right across the inlet from Palm Beach," one of the nation's wealthiest areas.

"Palm Beach County is the largest county east of the Mississippi, and we have the second-highest rate of poverty in the county," the mayor said.


Washington Times: www.washtimes.com

Days appear numbered for Allenton MO: St Louis (MO) Post-Dispatch, 2/20/06

By Margaret Gillerman

For 40 years, folks in Allenton have come regularly to Janet Delmain's bright blue house with white shutters on Main Street for their haircuts.

As she clips, Delmain, 66, hears her customers' stories, celebrates life events with them and shares their joys and sorrows.

But most of that will be gone soon - not just Janet's Barber Shop, but most of Main Street, as the core of this one-time farm and railroad community is bulldozed to make way for a 1,000 acre project that includes 1,200 houses and a shopping center. The $539 million Eureka South I-44 Redevelopment also would include parks and land for at least one school and a new Eureka recreation center. The city annexed the Allenton area, directly south of Interstate 44 from Six Flags, several years ago

The Eureka Board of Aldermen is expected to vote tonight to approve a redevelopment agreement that will allow the project to proceed. The agreement allows the use of eminent domain, if needed. Two weeks ago, complaints prompted the board to postpone a vote to give the residents more time to negotiate with the developers. At the time, Eureka officials estimated that only ten of the dozens of property owners had not signed sales contracts.

Critics of the project also are unhappy with its potential impact on I-44 traffic and with the use of tax increment financing, which has been approved.

Supporters say that the redevelopment will bring needed tax revenue and customers for Eureka businesses. The developer also is building a new, safer bridge over railroad tracks and into Allenton. The late Don Breckenridge donated 400 acres for a park.

Most of what remains of downtown Allenton, consisting of about two dozen houses and trailers, an antique store, pawnshop and churches, will be replaced by a shopping center anchored by a Lowe's Home Improvement Center. The Word of Faith Church will remain for now.

Many of the new houses would be built on the old Wallach Farm in the Allenton bottoms - and east of Allenton on city-owned land.

Delmain's parents' old house, which her brother Bill now rents to tenants, is staying - for now.

A few blocks away, David Bradshaw, 18, says he and his whole family are sorry to go, as most longtime families are. His great-grandmother, Gladys Ray, sold the property because she believed she had no choice, he said.

For Delmain, deciding to abandon her family homestead has been wrenching.

"Better, I decided, to go peacefully, than with eminent domain and lawyers. My nerves couldn't handle that," she said


St Louis Post-Dispatch: www.stltoday.com

Gas Pipelines Don't Make Good Neighbors: Residents Against Rockies Express Pipeline

By Ron and Wendi Cambron

The city of Agency MO. is suddenly facing an uncertain future due to the The Rockies Express Pipeline (REX) project.

This proposed 1,323 mile natural gas pipeline system will run from Colorado to Ohio. The westernmost portion of the system will traverse 710 miles from Weld County, Colorado, to Audrain County, Missouri. This 42" diameter pipeline will carry between 1.5 billion and 2.0 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day.

Directly in the path of this monster gas transmission line sits a quiet little community. There are fewer than 600 people that have the privilege of calling this place home. No, there isn't a Walmart, there isn't a bank, and there aren't any fast-food joints, just plenty of natural beauty. That beauty however has already been marred by newly planted stakes dotting the landscape that wave red and blue ribbons.

As this new tenant settles in, it will not only consume yards and trees, but it will displace at least one family from their residence of 41 years. There are two other families that will likely see the same fate, as the blue ribbons wave less than 50 ft from their homes. Concerned residents have written letters to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)in hopes of modifing the proposed path to include nearby agricultural land and avoid the city. By utilizing the land to the south the number of affected property owners would be reduced by 80% and the number of people living within 100 ft of the pipeline would be reduced by more than 95%.

We understand the importance of having natural gas available to the Eastern United States; however we do not feel that our community should have to suffer in the process. Our mission is simply to get the Rockies Express Pipeline Company to utilize an alternate route. One that would not displace homeowners and devaluate an entire neighborhood due to a possible catastrophe and, of course, easement issues.

Eminent domain is the right of a government to take private land for public use. The Rockies Express Pipeline Company must, by law, make a resonable attempt to negotiate a settlement with affected property owners. (What is a resonable amount to offer for something that is not for sale?) If an agreement cannot be reached, however, REX may invoke eminent domain. A court would then determine the landowner's compensation, based on state and federal laws. When determining fair market value does the court consider that they are not compensating for a house but, rather a home? A home where people have chosen to live, chosen to raise their children, chosen to be a part of that particular community. Does the court also consider that they not only chose this piece of America , they also paid for it! (The American flag stands tall proudly proclaiming "Liberty and Justice for All" in front of one newly endangered home. Isn't it a shame that in America there's even a need for the sign.)


Residents Against Rockies Express Pipeline: www.freewebs.com/residentsagainstrex

Ballot proposal seeks eminent domain restrictions: Bellville (MO) News Democrat, 2/8/06

By David A Lieb, Associated Press

A new ballot initiative proposed Wednesday would restrict the use of eminent domain [in Missouri] while also providing compensation to people whose property values decline because of government regulations.

The proposed constitutional amendment was filed with the secretary of state's office by Kansas City resident Patrick Tuohey, who formed a group called Missourians in Charge to push for the ballot measure.

Other property rights activists also have been pursuing potential ballot measures on eminent domain.

State legislators are seeking to rein in the condemnation of private property after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year upheld the government transfer of property from one private owner to another who could generate more tax revenues.

"Missouri property owners are at the mercy of the government now," Tuohey said. "If government wants to bulldoze your house or business to make way for an office park or a strip mall, they now can."

All of the proposals considered so far in Missouri would allow eminent domain to take property for public uses such as roads or government-owned facilities.

The proposal submitted Wednesday generally would prohibit the use of eminent domain to transfer private property to another private owner. But it includes several exceptions, including properties used for drug dealing or that are nuisances, or land needed for use by utility companies.

The proposed amendment also would allow property owners to seek compensation if any land use regulation or law enacted after Oct. 7, 2006, results in a reduction of the fair market value of their properties. Laws and rules to protect the public's health and safety would be excluded from that provision.

"Sometimes a city can zone a property near you and affect your property value," Tuohey said.

Another group, calling itself Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, previously submitted two proposed constitutional amendments to the secretary of state's office. Those proposals were withdrawn to make technical corrections but are being resubmitted, said the group's chairman, Ron Calzone.

Calzone said the eminent domain restrictions in the newest proposal appear to be weaker than in the proposals by his group.

If their measures are approved for petition circulation, supporters of the proposed amendments would need to get at least 145,000 signatures from around the state to qualify for the November ballot.


Bellville News Democrat: www.belleville.com

Eminent domain rules Tempe council debate: East Valley (AZ) Tribune, 2/9/06

By Garin Groff

A five-way race for City Council has challengers criticizing Tempe’s desired use of eminent domain to build a shopping center and its handling of an employee discrimination problem.

The amiable campaign for three seats in the March 14 election has brought out few major differences to date, but a Tribune-sponsored forum Wednesday revealed some divides.

Candidates Onnie Shekerjian and Corey Woods said it was wrong for Tempe to threaten eminent domain on dozens of industrial businesses that stood in the way of the Tempe Marketplace. The City Council promised to condemn land on behalf of a developer if owners refused to sell.

Tempe lost its attempt when the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of several property owners last year, but the developer convinced remaining owners to sell within months.

“It’s wrong to take people’s property,” Shekerjian said.

“It’s one of the things that pushed me into the campaign,” Woods said.

Candidate Shana Ellis said she wouldn’t automatically rule out condemnation for private developers. It would depend on the situation.

“If you had a toxic dump next to your house, would you want the city to do something?” Ellis said.

The Marketplace site was home to many substandard buildings and landfills. The land, on the southwest corner of the Loop 101-Loop 202 interchange, was once labeled a Superfund site.

The government was justified in condemning property because the pollution posed a public safety threat, incumbents Ben Arredondo and Len Copple said. Both supported eminent domain for Marketplace.

The free market ultimately resolved the situation, Copple said, because the property owners sold without the city taking their land.

“Those property owners were sitting on a toxic dump,” Copple said.

Arredondo said the landfill posed a hazard to police and firefighters, but said he would otherwise oppose condemnation when it involves transferring property to a developer.

“The day is over for us to take people’s property over for development,” Arredondo said.


East Valley Tribune: www.eastvalleytribune.com

Eminent Domain Must Have Clearer Lines: Tyler (TX) Morning Telegraph, 2/8/06

Editorial

Eminent domain always has been a process involving some controversy, but since a June 2005 United States Supreme Court decision that appeared to relax traditional domain limits, debate has intensified throughout the country.

Through eminent domain, governments have the power to appropriate private property without the owner's consent for public projects such as roads and lakes when the owner of the needed property is unwilling to sell. According to the Texas eminent domain law, the government pays the property owner just compensation for the property it uses eminent domain to acquire.

In Kelo v. City of New London (Conn.), the Supreme Court ruled that local governments also may use eminent domain to seize citizens' private property for economic development. That means the government can take a person's private property and give it to a private developer for an economic redevelopment plan if officials determine that the project would benefit the community as a whole or the government.

Since the ruling, reports of eminent domain abuses have emerged from several states, and some 40 states are reported to be re-examining their laws, and Congress also has indicated concern.

The Washington-based Institute for Justice that worked for homeowners in the New London case argues that state laws should be changed so property can only be seized for public uses such as a park or a school - not urban redevelopment that benefits private developers.

Bert Gall, an attorney with the institute, claims that abuses are widespread. But municipal leaders across the country argue that such charges are false and expressed fear that an emotional backlash to the court ruling is putting at risks an important development tool.

The Texas Legislature responded to the issue during the second called session of 2005 by approving Senate Bill 7 which attempts to narrow the power of government entities from using eminent domain to take private property for economic development. Authored by Sen. Kyle Janice from Houston, the bill went into effect on Sept. 1.

Specific criteria for use of the power is set forth in S.B. 7, and an interim committee is created to study the use of eminent domain.

"The (Supreme Court decision) opened the door for governments to seize private property to benefit private business," Janek said. "This bill will restore and further strengthen the right of Texas property owners to keep their land."

Observers have pointed out, however, that S.B. 7 provided some major exceptions by largely exempting the Trans-Texas Corridor [TTC], which would take large portions of land through a wide portion of the state to build a 4,000-mile rail, utility and road system.

David Stall, co-founder of a citizen group opposed to the TTC, said, "We have concerns about eminent domain being used to take excess land. We think the use of eminent domain is something that should be used extremely cautiously to meet immediate needs."

"We certainly recognize the legitimate use of eminent domain where it's required to provide roads and public transportation," he added. "Our concern is the use of eminent domain to enrich a concessionaire."

Numerous other exceptions to the protection of private property rights also are included in S.B. 7, observers note. These leave viable eminent domain for certain other favored economic development projects. The list includes transportation projects, port authority and navigation district projects, water supply, flood control, utilities and waste disposal projects, hospitals, libraries and parks, sports venues approved by voters prior to Dec. 1, 2005, and renewal efforts for slums or blighted areas.

Strong coalitions have been formed in other states to call on state judges and legislators to end eminent domain abuse.

Some in Texas who do not think S.B. 7 goes far enough are reported to be pushing for a constitutional amendment that would put stronger restrictions on the use of eminent domain.

"We think that's absolutely the correct approach," Stall said. Since S.B. 7 is a statutory approach, any bill passed by the Legislature subsequent to that can circumvent it, he added.

No matter how strong the case can be made that property needs to be taken for a necessary public project, there often are tragic cases involving long-term homeowners who simply don't want to give them up. Extending eminent domain to economic development projects is certain to compound the number of such scenes.

A rash of new examples of abuse likely would provide a much stronger drive for a constitutional amendment spelling out some clear eminent domain limits.


Tyler Morning Telegraph: www.zwire.com

Eminent domain bill spurs interest: Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, 2/8/26

By Bobby Harrison

Not too long after the government took 107 acres from Hershel McDuffy in northern Tishomingo County in the early 1970s, he was able to rent much of the same parcel of land for his farming activities.

McDuffy said the government, which took the land for possible industrial development associated with the Yellow Creek Port, has never used it, and he would like to buy it back.

Under legislation passed Tuesday by the Mississippi House by a 112-7 margin, McDuffy and others would have the right to rebuy their land at the same price they paid for it - plus any improvements. The bill, which now goes to the Senate, would allow the original owners of the land - or the children of the owner - to buy the land if the land has not been used by the government for 15 years and there is no plan by the governmental entity to use the land.

"The original property owner ought to have the opportunity to buy the land back if the government does not use it," said Rep. Jamie Franks, D-Mooreville.

Rep. Ricky Cummings, D-Iuka, said there are other people like McDuffy in Tishomingo County who would like to buy back land that they were forced to sell but was never used by the government. He estimated that more than 10,000 acres of land in Tishomingo County have been taken for various government projects, such as the Tennessee Tombigbee Waterway, the Yellow Creek Port, the never-finished Yellow Creek nuclear power plant and finally the failed advanced solid rocket motor plant.

Arguments
Rep. Greg Snowden, R-Meridian, and others argued that the former property owner should be required to pay the current-market price for the land.

"You can't give public land that belongs to the taxpayers back at a level less than fair market value," Snowden said.

But, Rep. Jack Gadd, D-Hickory Flat, said the original landowner should be able to buy it for the original price because they had lost the opportunity to earn money on the land when forced to sell it.

McDuffy said he went to court to fight the sale of his land, but was forced to give it up for $38,000. He said he would like to buy it back at that price.

"I mostly rented it to farm and to keep it from growing up," he said. "A lot of the land they bought has grown up."


Daily Journal: www.djournal.com

Senate committee stalls eminent domain again: Decatur (AL) Daily, 2/8/86

By M J Ellington

Eminent domain legislation took a detour in a[n Alabama] Senate committee again Tuesday when Democrats and Republicans failed to agree on the best way to protect private property from government seizure.

The disagreement came down whether a proposed bill and a substitute for that bill submitted Tuesday would really give enough protection to private citizens and also enable governments to acquire truly blighted land for redevelopment.

Members of the Senate Constitution and Elections Committee voted to put aside the bill that called for voters to decide if they want eminent domain legislation in the state constitution.

Alabama became one of the first states to adopt eminent domain protections for private property last July during a special session of the Legislature. The vote came soon after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing New London, Conn., to take private property for commercial development.

The Legislature and Gov. Bob Riley vowed last summer to make any needed changes before sending the measure to voters.

On Tuesday, the committee asked HB 136 sponsor Jack Biddle, R-Gardendale, and other committee members to make more changes before the committee votes on the issue.

Some committee members, including Sen. Tommy Ed Roberts, D-Hartselle, are not sure the bill with the substitute gives enough protection to keep governments from taking private property.

Private property owners in Connecticut lost property in good condition because their land fell within an area the city defined as blighted.

While Roberts found Biddle's original bill acceptable, he had concerns about a substitute to the bill submitted by Sen. Steve French, R-Birmingham.

French said his bill does not directly address blight, but it does include provisions to protect private property.

Sen. Zeb Little, D-Cullman, said whatever the committee passes must be able to stand a court test. And Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, asked members to consider the land-use plans of cities that need to redevelop areas that truly are blighted.

In a public hearing on eminent domain legislation in the committee three weeks ago, some private property advocates said they need more protection.

Economic developers felt they were too tough.

Committee Chairman Hinton Mitchem, D-Albertville, said he will put the bill at the top of the committee agenda for its next meeting if sponsors want to do that.

Roberts said people have concerns about the definition of blight in the law passed last summer, and they want to make sure everyone is treated equally in the bill that the Legislature finally sends to voters.


The Decatur Daily: www.decaturdaily.com

New London mayor proposes eminent domain compromise: University of Pittsburgh, School of Law, Jurist, 2/8/06

By Tom Henry

Beth Sabilia, the mayor of New London, Connecticut, has proposed a compromise for a group of four homeowners involved in the eminent domain case that went before the US Supreme Court last year. In Kelo v. New London, the Court held last June by a 5-4 margin that the local authority in New London, Connecticut could expropriate private land, homes and businesses for private redevelopment when the taking would confer economic benefits on the community such as more jobs and tax revenue as well as for the more traditional purposes of roads, schools, or renewal of urban blight.

Under Sabilia's plan, the homeowners would be allowed to remain in their homes provided they pay the city to continue to live there. The homeowners would also have to surrender ownership rights to the city.

The Court's decision ignited a firestorm of public protest for its apparent disregard for private property rights, and prompted legislatures in more than 25 states to consider measures that could limit the ability of city and county governments to invoke eminent domain to take property for retail, office or residential development. Two other homeowners, one who doesn't reside in the home and another who moved in after the court battle commenced, were excluded from the mayor's plan.


The Jurist: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase

Perdue enters eminent domain fray: Atlanta (GA) Business Chronicle, 2/8/06

Gov. Sonny Perdue on Wednesday proposed legislation that would prohibit governmental entities from using eminent domain for economic development or to increase tax revenue.

The proposal stems from a controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision in June (Kelo v. City of New London) that allows governments to seize personal property for private developments — an expansion of eminent domain authority historically used for utility right of ways, roads and other public facilities.

Perdue's Private Property Protection Amendment to the Georgia Constitution would secure private property rights by removing the power of eminent domain from non-elected housing and development authorities, the Governor's Office said in a release. This will ensure that eminent domain decisions are made by elected officials who are accountable to the people for their actions, the governor said.

The amendment also would prohibit the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes. A narrow exception is included to allow condemnation of blighted property that presents concrete harm to the community.

"The government's awesome power of eminent domain should be used sparingly and never be abused for private benefit," Perdue said. "I ask the legislature to submit a Property Protection Amendment to the voters and to return a strong bill to my desk that reflects the will of the people of Georgia. Government must always respect the property rights of its citizens."

Perdue also proposed the Private Property Protection Act. It would prohibit using eminent domain for economic development or to increase tax revenue. It will also provide private property owners with stronger due process rights in eminent domain proceedings. This would include increased notice requirements; award of attorney's fees to property owners who prevail on appeal; additional damages for property owners for relocation expenses and lost business revenues; and the right of owners to repurchase condemned land if it is not used for the public purpose for which it was taken within five years.

The bill also would put the burden of proof on the government to show a proposed use of eminent domain is legal.


Atlanta Business Chronicle: http://atlanta.bizjournals.com

Another Bank Refuses To Fund Eminent Domain Projects: North Country Gazette (Chestertown NY), 2/6/06

Montgomery Bank, which has six branches in St. Louis and five branches in Southeast Missouri, announced late last week that "it will not lend money for projects in which local governments use eminent domain to take private property for use by private developers."

In a press release issued by the bank, Chief Operating Officer Troy Wilson said, "The sanctity of private property ownership is one of the hallmarks of our individual rights as private citizens. Eminent domain should only be used for public projects, not to benefit private developers."

Joel Montgomery, vice-chairman and general counsel, added, "We've already witnessed the chaos unleashed on local communities when city councils and private developers threaten to use this type of legislation."

The century-old financial lending house with $800 million in assets is the first Missouri bank to take a principled stand against eminent domain for private development. One week earlier BB&T-the nation's ninth largest financial holdings company with $109.2 billion in assets-became the first in the nation to refuse loans to projects involving the threat or use of eminent domain.

"Banks refusing to fund eminent domain for private gain makes sense both financially and as a customer matter," said Institute for Justice President and General Counsel Chip Mellor. "As we've seen with the Kelo case, when eminent domain for private use occurs, years of litigation rightfully follow, which ties up financial capital that could be more productive. Also, surveys across the nation find an overwhelming majority of the public objects to eminent domain for private use, so by refusing to fund these deals, banks are adhering to the views of the vast majority of their customers. We hope other financial institutions will follow BB&T and Montgomery Bank's principled examples."

Steven Anderson, the coordinator of the Castle Coalition — a nationwide grassroots network determined to stop the abuse of eminent domain in their communities — said, "Missouri has one of the worst records of eminent domain abuse in the country. By taking this courageous stance, Montgomery Bank is helping to stop the railroading of individual rights in the Show Me State."

After Kelo, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt formed an Eminent Domain Task Force, which recently acknowledged Missouri has a problem, but the task force failed to offer many substantive solutions. Missouri is one of more than 40 states nationwide currently considering legislation to reform its eminent domain laws. Scott Bullock, an IJ senior attorney who argued the Kelo case on behalf of IJ, said, "Eminent domain abuse is wrong and unconstitutional. When citizens and businesses take these important stands, we're one step closer to protecting the rights of all Americans."


North Country Gazette: www.northcountrygazette.org

Eminent Domain Appeal Costing Taxpayers: WAVY-TV10 (Portsmouth VA), 2/6/08

Most 'eminent domain' cases you hear about are about how the government is taking land from people and not adequately compensating them.

This usually costs taxpayers thousands of dollars along the way in legal fees.

But in a Hampton Roads case, the landowners are the one's under fire. The landowners, Phillip and Theresa Young, believe their land is worth more than what the government is offering.

The case is hung up in the court system and it is costing taxpayers thousands of dollars.

VDOT Attorney Kelly Sheeran says they acquired a small sliver of the couple's land through eminent domain for the new Highway 17.

VDOT offered the Youngs $2,300 for the land based on an appraisal. The land acquired was about two-tenths of an acre.

The Youngs refused the offer. They claimed afterwards that losing that portion of their land prevented them from developing their property.

The city of Chesapeake confirmed that VDOT's acquisition did not prevent them from building a house on the remaining land.

VDOT increased their offer to $11,000 to save money and prevent the case from going to court. The couple refused that offer as well, and asked for $45,000.

In eminent domain cases, you can get a commission of area land owners to decide how much money you should get. The Youngs won the right to choose three of the five commissioners.

The commission unanimously voted in VDOT's favor, and said the Youngs were entitled to only $3,900.

The Youngs have appealed the decision.

WAVY News 10 tried to speak with the Youngs to hear their side of the story, but they refused the interview after speaking with their attorney.

Young's attorney Hank Howell said the appeal is based on a surprise VDOT witness he didn't know about. The witness claimed the company could tie into the drainage ditch to support their septic field in order to develop the property.

The Youngs court case could cost taxpayers more than $50,000 by the time it is resolved.

The appeal is pending.


WAVY-TV10: www.wavy.com

Mayoral candidates split over eminent domain: San Jose (CA) Mercury News, 2/6/06

By Phil Yost

San Jose's unsuccessful attempt to seize and renovate the Tropicana Shopping Center split the candidates for mayor Monday night in a debate at City Hall.

At the forum convened by a real estate group, the first question asked of candidates was how aggressive the city should be in using its power of eminent domain, which allows it to force the sale of private property for a public project.

"We are out there scaring our people who think the city might come in and take people's houses," said Councilman Chuck Reed, one of five candidates in the June 6 primary election who were invited to the forum sponsored by the Hispanic Association of Realtors and Affiliates.

Reed voted against the takeover when it came before the city council. The two other candidates on the council, Dave Cortese and Cindy Chavez, supported it.

Cortese was the only candidate to strongly defend the way the city had tried to remodel the shopping center on the East Side. It had become blighted, he said, and without the city's intervention, improvements visible there today would not have happened.

Reed, Cortese and Chavez were joined by local businessman Michael Mulcahy and East Side Union High School District school board president J. Manuel Herrera in the two-hour forum in the council chambers at City Hall, before an audience of more than 100.

The Tropicana takeover ultimately was undercut by an unfavorable court ruling. A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, however, has been widely seen as giving cities considerable latitude in taking private property not only for roads or parks, but for economic development projects such as shopping center renovations.

Mulcahy, whose business is real estate, and Reed were most critical of the city's Tropicana strategy. Mulcahy said Tropicana was an example of eminent domain being "irresponsibly wielded by the city council."

Chavez did not specifically address Tropicana, but praised the limits the city had placed on eminent domain when it extended redevelopment programs into neighborhoods. The loss of property to eminent domain was a prominent neighborhood concern when the city was considering the program.

On the other hand, Chavez said, as the city expands parks and libraries, "there will be times when eminent domain will be necessary."

Herrera said the city should always look for other options than taking property from an unwilling owner.

Candidates also took different positions on the question of how much public money should be spent for a San Jose dream — landing a major league baseball team.

Chavez said the city should look for partnerships that would lessen public expenses. Reed ruled out taking money from the city's general fund. Cortese favored a plan that would generate revenues from commercial development around a stadium.

Mulcahy and Cortese are members of Baseball San Jose, which aims to bring a team to town. Mulcahy said supporters need to prove it would be an overall economic plus. Herrera said the cost of a stadium "ought to rest on the private sector."

In answering other questions, the candidates covered familiar issues. All supported bringing BART to San Jose.

They expressed only slight differences over the issue of development of Coyote Valley, on the city's southern border.

The candidates stressed that the city cannot build housing there before finding businesses to put jobs into the northern section of the valley. Otherwise, in their view, the city will worsen its tax revenue shortage by having too many houses and too few jobs.


Mercury News: www.mercurynews.com

Weare, N.H.: Public Voted Libertarian in Eminent Domain Loss? The Hammer of Truth

By Stephen Gordon

I know, the title is a bit confusing, and I’ll explain. The explanation will probably piss a few of you off, too.

According to the NY Post ... the Lost Liberty Hotel is now a no-go as local voters just rejected the proposal to evict U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his farmhouse by the use of eminent domain.

A group angered by last year’s court decision that gave local governments more power to seize people’s homes for economic development had petitioned to use the ruling against the justice.

But voters deciding which issues should go on the town’s March ballot replaced the group’s proposal with a call to strengthen New Hampshire’s law on eminent domain.

“This is a game,” said Walter Bohlin. “Why would we take something from one of ours? This is not the appropriate way.”

Like most Americans, I’ve certainly been angered by the Kelo decision, but to use the concept of democracy to apply eminent domain is no better than using judicial means. To begin, if it is wrong for the local development company to take my land, it is just as wrong for me to take the land of another. Two wrongs don’t make a right, even when done in the name of something just.

Joshua Solomon, a member of the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights, was disappointed with the vote.

This seems a bit oxymoronic. How can someone who is allegedly protecting natural rights be upset when the attempt to seize the natural rights of another is thwarted?

Had the voters in Weare decided to use force to remove Justice Souter from his home, it probably would have have motivated votes to remove people from their homes and businesses in other communities. Like the Lost Liberty Hotel concept, the first vote or two might be a bit amusing — like forcing some corrupt mayor from his home or shutting down a local Wal-Mart. The next round of votes might be applied to shut down a strip club or porn shop. Then the local diner gets shut down to make room for a new chain restuarant. Then your neighbors can vote to kick you out of your house simply because you ran out of time to cut the yard or they don’t like the color of your house. This slipperly slope is a move away from individual rights and towards collectivist thinking.

The voters did the right thing by deciding to toughen eminent domain laws as opposed to applying eminent domain through the ballot box — which makes them more principled than the thousands of libertarians screaming for someone else’s private property.

Let the hate mail begin…


The Hammer of Truth: http://hammeroftruth.com

4/01/2006

Eminent domain challenged: The Boston (MA) Globe, 2/5/06

By Matt Gunderson

Saying that Groton misused its powers to take property, a developer has sued the town for giving selectmen the authority to seize land off Lowell Road by eminent domain at a special Town Meeting last fall.

In a lawsuit filed in Middlesex Superior Court last month, Washington Green Development says the eminent domain vote taken at Town Meeting in September was illegal because the town was using the measure to derail the company's 44-unit townhouse development.

The Groton Electric Light Commission had said at Town Meeting that it wanted to purchase the property because it was an ideal location for its department offices. The Light Department currently has its headquarters on Station Avenue.

"There is clear, abundant evidence that the impetus for, and dominant purpose of, the taking is to prevent the development from being built on the property," the lawsuit states.

Doris Chojnowski, manager of the Groton Light Department, said she had no comment on the lawsuit, except to say that the department has not altered its plans to locate its new offices on Lowell Road.

The department had agreed to pay $500,000 for the property as part of the land taking.

"Lowell Road is the best location for the Light Department, and that's where we are headed," Chojnowski said.

The lawsuit marks the second time in the last year that Groton has faced legal issues involving eminent domain.

In June, a jury awarded the Casella family more money after the family disputed what the school district paid for land it took by eminent domain.

That land is the site of the new high school on Chicopee Row, and the Groton-Dunstable Regional School Committee has opted to appeal the verdict. The case is awaiting a hearing.

Attorney Ray Lyons, who represents Washington Green, said his client still hopes to build the development if it prevails in the suit. It applied for the project under the state's affordable housing law, Chapter 40B. In communities that do not meet the state's threshold for affordable housing, the law allows developers to bypass local zoning if they set aside at least 20 percent of the housing units at below-market prices.

"I personally view it as a good site for the town to make headway on its 40B goals," said Lyons.

The special Town Meeting on Sept. 12 was well attended, and voters debated the eminent domain article at length. The measure ultimately passed with little opposition.

The townhouse plan had faced opposition from local officials since last spring, when Washington Green appeared before town boards.

Last March, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the permit on grounds that the housing plan created health and liability risks for the town because it was close to an electric substation.

Washington Green appealed the decision, and in September the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development's Housing Appeals Committee overturned the zoning board's decision, saying the health and liability risk for residents living in the housing was not a sufficient reason to deny the permit, according to the complaint.

Gloria Fuccillo, who owns the Lowell Road property, was angered by the Town Meeting vote, saying she had originally offered to sell her 13.5 acres to the Light Department, but had been refused. The Light Department had already taken steps to put its offices on Sandy Pond Road and didn't need her property for its offices, she said she was told.

"The only reason [the town] wants it is because of that 40B," said Fuccillo. "I'm definitely rooting for the contractor."

Because the case is pending, local officials interviewed on the issue were reluctant to comment specifically on the allegations. George F. "Fran" Dillon Jr., chairman of the Board of Selectmen, said that, generally speaking, "There is nothing that I know of that the town is doing illegally. But it's up to the court and the [Housing Appeals Commission] to decide."


Boston Globe: www.boston.com

The Eminent Domain Problem is Bigger Than Kelo: Upper Valley Free Press (Idaho Falls ID), 2/06

By Heather Anne Cunningham

The problem with current Idaho eminent domain laws goes far beyond the fact that existing statutes permit a Kelo v. New London type taking (for increased tax revenue) to occur here. These problems may not be apparent to those who have only occasional contact with eminent domain cases. But those who deal with eminent domain full time know that our laws need work, because citizens need protection from eminent domain abuses.

No statute can, or should, revoke the government's power of eminent domain, but we can and must act now to stop the abuses of condemnors. The laws so far have largely been written in favor of those with the power to take property. Some bills this session aim to change that.

Although condemnors are obligated to pay "just compensation," many attempt to acquire property for the lowest price they can, rather than a fair price. Condemnors know that most property owners can't afford to resist, since they could end up with even less than the low offer after paying costs and attorneys fees. While some states require condemnors to pay costs and fees for property owners in condemnation if the owner proves the value offered was unfair, in Idaho, your costs may or may not be paid. There should not be an out-of-pocket cost to prove the government wrong. (SB1248 would allow reasonable costs and fees to property owners if they prevail).

Some condemnors penalize property owners who resist their offers by firing their initial appraisers and hiring new ones, with far lower opinions. Sometimes higher appraisals are even hidden rather than disclosed to property owners. (SB1245 would require that a condemnor can't pay an owner less than they previously admitted was owing).

Condemnors decide what property they want to take, but if you spend money to prove that just compensation for that taking is substantially more than the condemnor anticipated, the condemnor may re-define the take, ignoring their previous express representations. (SB 1243 would require condemnors to clearly define what is being taken and stand by that).

If the government only needs one acre of your land, they can take twenty acres instead, and sell the other nineteen. (SB 1242 would require that condemnors only take what they need).

In Idaho, if your house is taken for a road, your relocation is paid for by the government, but if it's taken for any other purpose, relocation assistance isn't required. (SB 1246 would ensure all citizens are treated equally when displaced).

If your property is taken by an educational institution, you can be required to go through two court proceedings, not just one, doubling your costs for appraisers. (SB 1247 would allow single proceedings in all takings).

In all other types of cases, a jury decides all questions of fact, but in eminent domain, judges, not juries, decide facts and the jury only determines value. (SB 1273 would give you the protection of having a jury decide the facts one of the most important protections we have against abuses of government.) What jury would have approved of taking someone's home to give to a drug company as in the Kelo case?

Several proposals aim to address the public use problem at issue in Kelo, including SB 1244, HB 408, and HJR 3. It is time for Idaho citizens to start participating in the process of revising Idaho's eminent domain laws. Let your legislators know what bills you support, and ask them to look beyond Kelo and address the imbalances in our current condemnation system.


Upper Valley Free Press: www.free-press.biz

Heather Anne Cunningham is an attorney with Davison, Copple, Copple & Cox. For the past ten years, the majority of her practice has been representing property owners facing condemnation.

State bills aim to control scope of eminent domain: Contra Costa (CA) Times, 2/5/06

By Bonita Brewer and Scott Marshall

In June, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled government has the right to seize homes to make way for private redevelopment, it set off fear in the hearts of homeowners and lawmakers alike.

A flurry of bills and state ballot initiatives have been introduced in response to concern that the court's decision can put anyone's property up for grabs through eminent domain.

That case, Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., involved seizure of waterfront homes to allow the nonprofit New London Development Group to develop a hotel and health club near a new research center. It wasn't a blighted area, but redevelopment is expected to create jobs and economic gain for the city.

"The use of eminent domain has gotten totally out of control," said Ken Hambrick of Walnut Creek, president of the Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers. "The only way to fight it is to sue, and most people don't have the money to do that. They use our taxpayer dollars to fight us in court."

But several East Bay redevelopment agencies, including those of Pleasant Hill, Livermore and Contra Costa County, say eliminating eminent domain powers could seriously thwart their plans to revitalize "blighted" areas. They say California law is more stringent than Connecticut's, and that they use the power only as a last resort when owners refuse to sell at fair market value or, in some cases, at any price — standing in the way of progress.

Eminent domain is a power available to redevelopment agencies from San Pablo to Pleasant Hill to Pittsburg and the threat of losing it "is serious," said Kevin Roberts, Livermore's economic development director.

"It basically takes away one of the most powerful tools a redevelopment agency has to eliminate blight and help revitalize a city or a downtown or a neighborhood," he said.

A state constitutional amendment by state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, would allow the government to continue to apply eminent domain for public uses such as roads, schools and libraries, even while potentially driving up costs by redefining "just compensation."

But it would forbid redevelopment agencies from forcibly taking properties for private redevelopment, such as retail centers, condo projects or hotels.

"It means you can't take one person's property and give it to another for private gain," McClintock said. "It's a fundamental American freedom in the Bill of Rights that your house and shop are secure and nobody can take them away from you against your will for private gain."

He hopes to get it on the November ballot by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or through the ballot initiative process. A similar initiative has been filed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Max Neiman of the Public Policy Institute of California said eminent domain is such a hot-button topic that it likely would be easy for the initiatives to get enough petition signatures to qualify for the ballot. But he said getting voter approval is another matter.

"There would be opposition from every local government in the state of California," he said.

State Sen. Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, said he has introduced "a more balanced" constitutional amendment that would forbid application of eminent domain by redevelopment agencies to take owner-occupied, single family housing for private use. A separate Torlakson bill would provide more protections for land owners.

Critics say the Kelo decision allows big government to walk all over the property rights of the little guy, whose business or residential property can be confiscated — often without fair compensation — and then turned over to for-profit developers. They complain that although California law requires findings of "blight" for a property to be taken through eminent domain, that definition is too broad.

But Jim Kennedy, Contra Costa's redevelopment director, said the definition has been tightened over time.

In the 1980s, the county applied eminent domain to acquire some of the 250 primarily residential properties it needed near the Pleasant Hill BART station, where 2,400 homes and more than 2 million square feet of offices and hotels have gone up.

Under today's laws, the "blight" finding probably couldn't be made, he said.

But true blight does exist elsewhere. He said McClintock's proposal could thwart agency plans to acquire some 40 homes in a "blighted" Bay Point neighborhood for a high-density housing project near Pittsburg-Bay Point BART.

Concord is considering expanding its redevelopment area beyond the greater downtown. It would be the first such change in 25 years and would bring tax dollars — and the possibility of eminent domain to make it happen.

"I think some people like to characterize it as the big bad boogeyman," said Concord City Councilman Bill Shinn. However, "There's the other view, that eminent domain is a tool to develop for the betterment of the community."

San Ramon's redevelopment agency, just now considering re-establishing its eminent domain power, could be stopped in its tracks if McClintock's legislation is approved.

San Ramon business owners along Beta Court are worried the threat of eminent domain would force out service-industrial businesses on the city's north side, in favor of housing.

In Pittsburg, hundreds of homes have been razed and replaced with new ones in part through eminent domain. But City Manager Marc Grisham said he's not too worried about the legislation because most needed properties have been acquired, and he expects to have the rest soon.

Legislation might not come soon enough for Jack Caprio, who owns a 6,000-square-foot downtown building Pittsburg wants to demolish to make way for a condo/retail project. Caprio said he was offered $207,000 for the property, which he says is worth $525,000 and which a local group says is historically significant and should be preserved.

"I don't think that after 30 years, I should be going with a frown on my face," Caprio said. "I feel like I'd be walking away with nothing."

Livermore Cyclery owner Steve Howard, who owned a downtown Livermore building acquired for redevelopment, said he made out better than he might have because he fought hard and got legal help from a friend. But he said he still was not made whole in the deal, which took two years to resolve.

"It really burned through a lot of life energy, and I got some gray hairs over it," he said. "You feel beat up. It's the process, the nature of the beast."

John Shirey of the California Redevelopment Association says fewer than 3 percent of acquisitions by redevelopment agencies have to be resolved by a court.

While critics say even the threat can force people to accept the first offer, "If the threat is not there, there is no limit on how much you can ask for your property," Shirey said. "These initiatives will increase the cost of all property acquisitions by government."

According to the Center for Economic Development, in 2002-03, California redevelopment agencies generated $31.8 billion in total economic activity.



EMINENT DOMAIN


WHAT IS IT?
Government has long applied eminent domain to buy land for public uses, such as for libraries, roads and schools. It is constitutionally allowed if owners are "justly compensated" for property seizures through negotiations or, failing that, through a court ruling. But over time, "public use" was expanded to mean "public purpose," with redevelopment agencies using it to generate more tax revenue.

WHAT IS REQUIRED?
To take private property for private redevelopment, state law requires agencies make findings of "blight" that cannot be redeveloped through private investment alone. Physical factors leading to blight include buildings either unsafe or too small, lack of parking, and adjacent uses incompatible with each other, preventing economic development.

California law requires the initial offer of compensation be based on an independent appraiser's estimate of fair market value, and that tenant businesses and residents be paid relocation costs. The redevelopment agency must adopt a "resolution of necessity" before court action.

Roughly 40 percent of the state's redevelopment areas don't have eminent domain power in their charters. Another 30 percent have self-imposed limitations. Livermore's redevelopment agency, for example, gave up its power to apply eminent domain for owner-occupied houses.

WHAT'S PROPOSED?

  • SCA 20 — A state constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, would let the government continue to apply eminent domain for public purposes. But it would forbid forced sale of residential or business property and turning it over to a for-profit entity for redevelopment. Negotiated sales could continue.
  • SCA 12 — A state constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, would forbid taking owner-occupied single-family homes through eminent domain for private redevelopment.
  • SB 1210 — Also proposed by Torlakson, this bill would clean up the eminent domain process used for redevelopment. It would give property owners a say in who appraises their land, and require redevelopment agencies cover landowners' legal costs if the ultimate ruling favors the owner. It also would prohibit public officials from taking campaign contributions from private developers receiving redevelopment property through eminent domain.
  • HR 4128 — Resolution would withhold federal economic development money from governments that apply eminent domain to obtain or use private property for economic development.



Contra Costa Times: www.contracostatimes.com