Bill would ease restraints on cities' eminent domain powers: Wichita KS Eagle, 3/1/07

Local governments would get greater eminent domain powers under a bill being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee
The [Kansas] bill, SB 296, would give local officials the power to force the sale of blighted property without legislative approval. Under the bill, properties that are unsafe, abandoned, uninhabitable or the site of repeated illegal activities could be deemed blighted.

Under a law that goes into effect in July, local governments must seek approval from the Legislature before using eminent domain for redevelopment.

That worried officials in Wichita, Kansas City, Kan., and other areas who argue urban redevelopment efforts should have greater authority to use eminent domain when it comes to troubled neighborhoods. They say owners of run-down property who allow drugs or prostitution to go on aren't deserving of the same protections given to typical property owners.

Dale Goter, lobbyist for the city of Wichita, told a panel of lawmakers Thursday that the bill would allow the forced sale of property only "in a very limited fashion."

Because of initial concerns from agricultural lobbyists, agricultural land was exempted from the blight definition.

That bothered critics of the bill, which says all property owners "even owners of blighted property" deserve the same property rights.

"Are property rights important only in rural areas, or are they important across the state?" said Alan Cobb, state director of the anti-tax group Americans for Prosperity.

No vote on the measure has been scheduled.

---

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

Eminent domain race ripples: The Washington DC Times, 3/2/07

Commentary
By Mindy Fullilove
From the imposition of slavery to the modern trend of eminent domain in the name of economic development, African-Americans have suffered disproportionately from destabilizing trends forced upon them by the politically powerful. Through each upheaval, legalized "takings" - first of the person, and more recently of our homes -threaten African-American lives, homes and families.

From 1949 through 1973, under the Federal Housing Act, 2,532 projects were carried out in 992 cities, displacing 1 million people, of which African Americans accounted for two-thirds. African Americans - then 12 percent of the population - were 5 times likelier than whites to be displaced.

Understand that the neighborhoods and homes threatened with eminent domain abuse are not merely buildings; they provide social, political, cultural and economic networks that benefit individuals and society. Their loss is so massive and threatening to human well-being that I use the term "root shock" to describe it. (This term is borrowed from gardeners, who observed that a plant torn from the ground will go into a state of shock, and may well die.) Our homes and neighborhoods "root" people in the world. A home is a biological necessity.

In my research on the long-term consequences of urban renewal in five American cities, I found African-Americans experienced great hardship when their place in the world was stripped from them.

A gentleman named David Jenkins, whose Philadelphia neighborhood was bulldozed by the government, best illustrated this. He documented the magic of his neighborhood through the map he drew for me. Within the narrow domains of a boy's life - the area depicted was not 1 square mile - small notes highlighted the richness of his neighborhood associations. He could catch turtles in the swamp, buy candy at Miss Maggie's store or sing gospel with Patti LaBelle in the Young Adult Choir at Beulah Baptist Church. In neighborhoods like David Jenkins', we African-Americans started stores, fought for schools and fire stations and organized ourselves for all the activities of living. This was no small feat for any group: Much effort was required to create a functional community.

One of the most important units of organization in any African-American neighborhood has always been the church. Houses of worship organized people into many groups, and many churches were connected with each other. The regular rhythms of prayer meetings and choir rehearsals ordered daily life so intimately that people knew when something had gone wrong for a fellow parishioner and could offer help even without a word being spoken.

But most powerful of all was the real and symbolic value of a home: people who can buy a house have made it in some small way in American society. For Mr. Jenkins' parents - African-Americans who had relatively little money - buying a home moved them into a new stratum. This is what was lost when eminent domain clear-cut neighborhoods. Nearly 50 years since the events transpired in Mr. Jenkins' neighborhood, the heavy burden and deep grief remain for him and many others.

All across the United States, adroit use of eminent domain continues to threaten the homes of ordinary people. Cities have time and again used the power of eminent domain to clear so-called "blighted neighborhoods," including neighborhoods like West Harlem, New York, (an African-American neighborhood since the Harlem Renaissance of the early 20th century) that is now the target of Columbia University.

Eminent domain has become what the Founding Fathers sought to prevent: a tool that takes from the poor and the politically weak to give to the rich and the politically powerful. It is time for the pendulum to swing the other way, moving toward the all-out support of community and neighborhood life - the commons - as a source of well-being for every citizen.

What is the price of the commons? They are priceless: They are as necessary as air or water; they are the stuff of life itself and they should not be ripped from us merely to make some other private citizen more wealthy.

---

The Washington DC Times: http://washingtontimes.com

Mindy Fullilove is a research psychiatrist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute and a professor of clinical psychiatry and public health at Columbia University. This article includes excerpts from her report "Eminent Domain & African Americans: What is the Price of the Commons?," which was released this month and is available at http://www.castlecoalition.org/publications/index.html.

Eminent domain coalition notes success: High Plains Journal, Dodge City KS, 2/28/07

Coalition members observe collaborating is the Wyoming way
[Wyoming] House Bill 124 finally found passage Feb. 26, marking the grand finale of what some have described as a unique and unprecedented effort by a group dubbed "The Coalition." Officially titled the Eminent Domain Coalition, the members, made up of nearly 40 representatives from agriculture, industry and government spent approximately 27 hours in meetings negotiating on behalf of their respective positions and countless additional time participating in the legislative process on this issue.

The bill underwent some last minute changes that concerned the coalition, but following the final passage, the group noted that while HB124 did not represent the desired outcome of any individual members of the coalition, it significantly enhanced Wyoming's eminent domain process. "This bill is clearly the product of compromise," says Ken Hamilton, Wyoming Farm Bureau Executive Vice President. "We have some concerns with how everything might play out, but overall this was a considerable victory for the coalition." Carolyn Paseneaux, lobbyist for the Wyoming State Grange, adds, "There would not have been a bill if it hadn't been for the coalition. Agriculture and industry managed to work together while defending our individual positions."

"Industry, including electric and natural gas utilities, and the agriculture community have come together in a cooperative manner during the past six months -probably more than in the previous 60 years," says Rick Kaysen, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs for Cheyenne Light, Fuel, and Power Company and Black Hills Power Company. "There has been very pointed discussions and exchange of ideas and view points resulting in a joint effort in addressing an extremely important issue for all of Wyoming. The progress made from just six short months ago has been invaluable."

Industry and agriculture have held differing perspectives on this issue, with industry holding the position that Wyoming's current eminent domain laws have generally worked well and change is not needed. However, agricultural landowners argue that major changes to current eminent domain laws are needed to strengthen the position of all landowners in negotiations and to protect private property rights. In interim meetings of the Joint Agriculture Committee concerning eminent domain, chairman Senator Gerry Geis strongly suggested to those present that they needed to get together to find common ground on possible legislation.

"We came together based on diversity," says Wyoming Stock Growers Association Executive Vice President Jim Magagna regarding the initial meeting of the coalition that was organized by Magagna and Jody Levin, Director of Public Policy, Qwest Communications. Magagna adds, "We have had to respect that diversity and accept we are not all in the same place on this issue. However, we have managed to work together and, while it is certainly not ideal, the resulting bill is something we can all strive to make work." At the initial meeting of the coalition, 25 participants reviewed the Committee Bill and identified four areas where they felt some agreement might be achievable. These areas were: notice, good faith negotiation, reclamation, and a response to the U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision, a case in which the court upheld the action of a public government entity which condemned private property and transferred it to a private entity for development. Participation in the coalition ultimately grew to nearly 40 members.

"Agriculture and the mineral industry have found common ground on many issues in Wyoming for over 100 years," notes Bruce Hinchey, president, Petroleum Association of Wyoming. He adds that with continued good faith effort the legislation should work for everyone. "I think the coalition has served its purpose," states Margo Sabec, a representative for Devon Energy. "Everyone compromised to get here and we all got and lost a few things in the process." Participants representing state and local government interests emphasize that, while provisions in the bill will require some adjustments in the manner in which they pursue land and right of way acquisition, they feel that the bill represents a reasoned approach to addressing concerns caused by the Kelo decision.

The bill now awaits the signature of Governor Freudenthal.

---

Plains Journal, Dodge City KS: http://www.hpj.com

Tenant sues to block eminent domain: Atlanticville, Long Branch NJ, 3/1/07

By Christine Varno
A Long Branch tenant is taking legal action in an attempt to save his home, and ultimately his neighborhood, from condemnation for a private redevelopment project.

Attorney Barbara J. Gonos, West Long Branch, filed a letter brief in Superior Court Feb. 20, to block the city's use of eminent domain to acquire the home of Melrose Terrace resident Bill Nordahl.

Nordahl, 69, a tenant for more than 40 years in the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue neighborhood known as MTOTSA, said this week that although he is not a homeowner, he still has the right to remain in his home.

"My neighbors have a case to fight the takings, but I am not a property owner, so I was left out," said Nordahl Monday.

"I have been here for 40 years," he said. "It is my home and I just believe that tearing down this neighborhood to build condominiums is wrong.

"This is a nice neighborhood," he said.

Nordahl's arguments are expected to be heard before Judge Lawrence M. Lawson in Freehold tomorrow at 10 a.m.

Approximately 22 property owners in MTOTSA have retained William J. Ward of Florham Park, Peter H. Wegener of Lakewood, and Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice (IJ) to appeal a June 22 Superior Court decision that permitted the condemnation of the neighborhood for a private redevelopment project.

Plans for the three-street MTOTSA neighborhood call for developer MM Beachfront North II - consisting of Matzel & Mumford, a division of K. Hovnanian, Middletown, and the Applied Cos., Hoboken - to raze the modest homes and construct luxury condominiums in their place.

Nordahl said he has remained involved with the MTOTSA mission to fight the takings of the homes, but as a renter, he was excluded from taking formal legal action.

That was until mid-February when the water company attempted to turn off Nordahl's water.

"My utilities were going to be turned off," Nordahl said. "I called my landlord and he told me he had agreed to a friendly condemnation."

A friendly condemnation allows the city to acquire property through eminent domain without objection by the homeowner, Nordahl explained.

"I heard my landlord might be selling, but no one told me anything," he said.

Property owners Mark and Kathleen Suave sold their Melrose Terrace home to the city last month. Nordahl has been a month-to-month rental residential tenant since the 1960s.

Nordahl said the developers told him that they would keep the utilities connected and advised him to look into relocation assistance from the city.

"I have been offered relocation benefits, but I did not take them," Nordahl said. "I am fighting this. This is my neighborhood."

Attorney Paul V. Fernicola, of Red Bank, will be representing the city in the case and could not be reached for comment.

Gonos explained Tuesday that Nordahl did not start this legal action, that in fact the city started it.

"On Friday, Feb. 9, Bill was served with papers by the city," Gonos said explaining that the papers were "an eminent domain condemnation action."

"If Mr. Nordahl did not have a proper right to take this action, then the city would have never named him as a defendant," Gonos said, adding, "But they had to name him as a defendant because he has a property interest."

Although Gonos said Nordahl has every right to sue the city, she did add that if the court finds that he doesn't have standing because he is a tenant, he still has a case.

"He has the standing to bring a counterclaim, where he asks the court to enforce the redevelopment plan of 1996," she said, explaining that the original plan includes Nordahl's home remaining intact.

Nordahl said he has two objectives for the suit: to remain in the apartment that has been his home for more than four decades; and to stop the redevelopment of his home and his neighborhood.

In the brief, Gonos asks the court to dismiss the condemnation complaint served on Nordahl's home. Additionally she seeks a plenary hearing to determine whether the city is acting in the best interests of the people it serves.

Gonos argues several points in the brief, including that the city's use of eminent domain to take some homes in the MTOTSA area and allow other properties to remain is "arbitrary and capricious."

According to the brief, the six-unit Seaview Park Condominium complex at 152 Ocean Ave. is in the MTOTSA neighborhood, but was excluded from the city's plans to seize properties through eminent domain.

The complex also lies in an area where residential uses are prohibited, according to the brief.

By ordinance, the city reserved all Ocean Avenue fronting tracts in the sector from Ocean Place Resort & Spa to Seven Presidents Park for public beachfront recreation uses, according to the brief.

"Why the city exempted the homes on this lot from the eminent domain taking of all other homes in the neighborhood, especially in light of its nonconforming use, is inexplicable in terms of the city's plans and corresponding goals, and is, therefore, arbitrary at best," Gonos states in the brief.

Gonos also argues that Nordahl was never given the opportunity to object to a redevelopment plan that would demolish his neighborhood.

The city adopted a redevelopment plan in 1996 that designated Nordahl's neighborhood as Beachfront North Phase II, and called for "infill" of the lots in the zone, according to the brief.

In 2005, the city's redevelopment plan called for the neighborhood to be replaced by three luxury condominium buildings.

"I did not get notified of the [1996] plan," Nordahl said. "And I never got notified of the changes. [The city] did not send anything to the renters, so I did not have a chance to object."

Gonos said in the brief, "The city bases its authority to demolish Mr. Nordahl's neighborhood and replace it with three luxury condominium buildings, on its 1996 redevelopment plan.

"Yet, nothing in the plan indicates the neighborhood would be demolished, and everything in the plan indicates the homes therein will remain in tact," she said.

Nordahl said in an interview that if the city is going to pursue redevelopment plans, the courts should enforce the 1996 redevelopment, which would allow for his neighborhood to remain intact.

Gonos also argues in the brief that the neighborhood is not blighted and the razing of the properties in MTOTSA to make way for luxury condominiums serves no public purpose.

Additionally, Gonos claims that the redevelopment plan places a burden on the lack of affordable and low-income housing, both locally and statewide, according to the brief.

Nordahl said a couple of years back, when he learned his home was slated to be seized, he decided to fight the taking.

"I knocked on doors of all my neighbors," Nordahl said, "and we established a core group and a bigger group. We came up with the name MTOTSA.

"Since then it has been a group effort," he said.

---

Atlanticville, Long Branch NJ: http://atlanticville.gmnews.com

Eminent domain power expanded: Daily Herald, Provo UT, 3/1/07

By Jeff DeMoss
With time running out in the 2007 general session, the Utah Legislature restored and expanded the power of cities and counties to condemn, buy and clear private property for economic revitalization purposes.

The city of Ogden, which is trying to acquire additional land for the Ogden River Project, was among those eagerly awaiting the passage of House Bill 365.

The bill gained unanimous approval from the Senate on a 26-0 vote Wednesday after passing the House on a 64-3 vote last week.

Unlike a previous law that was repealed in 2005, where a single property owner could hold up an entire project, HB 365 requires an 80 percent majority of residential owners or 75 percent of commercial owners in a project area to give approval in petition form before redevelopment authorities can exercise eminent domain.

A project could also be cleared with approvals representing the equivalent of 70 percent of total residential property value or 60 percent of commercial value in the area.

Sen. Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City, replaced the original bill with one that increased the requirements for majority owner approval.

"What ends up happening a lot of times is the minority ends up trumping the majority," Jenkins said. "You end up in a situation where one person can make it so the rest can't get rid of their property. This sets a very, very high standard for the majority."

Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, said citizens can defer the money they receive from property sold under eminent domain on their tax returns.

"The tax benefit alone is worth it," Bell said.

Two years ago, the Legislature approved Senate Bill 184, which eliminated the ability of local governments to use eminent domain to acquire property in blighted areas for redevelopment.

The bill effectively killed a plan for the construction of a 206,000-square-foot Wal-Mart Supercenter on Wall Avenue between 21st and 22nd streets in Ogden.

In addition to the property owner petition process, House Bill 365 contains other safeguards against potential eminent domain abuse. For example, a two-thirds vote from an RDA board would be required before property could be condemned. Previously, only a simple majority vote was needed.

"We've tried to take an incremental step and see if there's a way to have a balance," said Senate Majority Leader Curtis Bramble, R-Provo. "Should this be abused, I'm sure we'll be back here tightening it up."

HB 365, Eminent Domain Authority of Community Development and Renewal Agencies, Rep. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George. This bill would allow community development and renewal agencies to acquire property by eminent domain in an urban renewal project area under certain circumstances.

---

Daily Herald, Provo UT: http://www.heraldextra.com

Prop. A is eminent domain in disguise: North County Times, Escondido CA, 2/28/07

Commentary
By John Chamberlain
As a resident of Solana Beach since 1979, I am compelled to offer my view of the pending Proposition A scheduled for a vote of the residents of Solana Beach on March 6. Proposition A is tantamount to the city of Solana Beach exercising (or, at least, attempting to exercise) its power of eminent domain over its residential property owners. Yet, while Prop. A proposes a partial taking of private property for public use, it does so without any notion or mention of the constitutionally required "just compensation."

In eminent domain proceedings, "just compensation" is typically calculated based on the fair market value of such portion of the property taken by the government for public use. It is worth noting that "public use" is interpreted very broadly by court systems - and typically, only a "public benefit" is needed to establish a "public use" standard. In this case, as both the text of Ordinance 357 and as Councilman David Roberts describe, the "public benefit" is maintaining the so-called "community character" and preventing the "mansionization" of Solana Beach.

But to achieve this objective, Solana Beach is purporting to partially take private landowners' existing entitlements by restricting such property owners' right to fully develop their property as land use laws and regulations currently allow. This restriction serves to significantly and adversely impact the value of residents' property - potentially into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per home, if not more.

As a result, Solana Beach is required, by law, to justly compensate property owners for this diminution in property value as required under the California Constitution. Failure to provide this constitutionally required compensation undermines the basic civil liberties afforded to property owners.

In reality, it is the "just compensation" component of eminent domain that imposes and drives market discipline on politicians and other government regulators as they attempt, in whole or in part, to enforce these takings against the owners of private property. I expect my view is shared by many homeowners of Solana Beach. Should this proposition be approved, I can only imagine it will be met with numerous lawsuits to challenge its constitutionality. I hope that before this community divides itself (again), its citizens will use their common sense and vote against this initiative.

Property ownership is a fundamental right of every American and is typically the most significant investment a citizen makes in his or her life. Allowing a local government and/or its current politicians to unduly limit this right without just compensation is not only unfair, it's unconstitutional. Politicians come and go; a lot of us are here to stay.

---

North County Times, Escondido CA: http://www.nctimes.com

Solana Beach resident John W. Chamberlain is chief executive officer of American Assets Inc., a San Diego-based real estate company specializing in development and management of retail, office and multifamily real estate throughout the United States.

Lawmakers halt eminent domain action: Today's Sunbeam, Salem NJ, 3/1/07

By Trish Graber
A [New Jersey state] Senate measure to amend the state's eminent domain laws making the process more transparent and ensuring better compensation for property owners was derailed after state lawmakers wrangled over which version of the legislation to push forward.

Sen. Ron Rice, D-Essex, expected to move a bill out of a Senate committee which would require that municipalities post redevelopment plans, including all properties included in the plan, on the municipal Web site. The bill would narrow the definition of blight, give affected property owners first consideration to live in any new project constructed in the redevelopment area, and require that at least 80 percent of the area meet criteria for redevelopment.

If it had cleared the committee, the bill could have headed to the Senate floor for a vote. However, a similar bill, sponsored by Assemblyman John Burzichelli, D-Paulsboro, had already passed the lower house in June by a vote of 55-18-11, and was delayed in the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee which Rice chairs.

If signed into law, either piece of legislation would have state-wide implications on a matter that has impacted elections on a local level across the state.

Rice said his legislation pulled sections from each of 13 eminent domain bills introduced after the Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., decision which allowed local government to use eminent domain for a private project. Previously, eminent domain procedures were restricted to public projects, like schools or highways.

Sen. Stephen Sweeney, D-3 of West Deptford, who sponsored Burzichelli's bill in the upper house, said the assemblyman worked extensively on the legislation, meeting with stakeholders from across the state.

"John Burzichelli worked extra hard on the bill, from the League of Municipalities to the Public Advocate," he said. "We just don't want to have John's work cast aside. We're willing to work with Sen. Rice."

After a closed-door meeting with Sweeney and Sen. Fred Madden, D-4 of Washington Township, who serves on the committee, Rice announced that he would take testimony but hold the legislation in order to sort out concerns with his colleagues.

Rice said he was willing to merge his measure with the already existing proposal.

"We're going to move this bill one way or the other," he said. "Or (the eminent domain process) is going to remain status quo."

Rice's bill would also establish a Land Use Court, which would hear land-related disputes within 90 days of a challenge. Decisions could be appealed to the Appellate Division.

The state's Public Advocate, who testified at Monday's hearing, endorsed Burzichelli's bill.

Public Advocate Ronald Chen said he takes issue with language that allows "a lack of utilization" of an area, and other broad criteria, to deem a specific property blighted in Rice's the first step in condemning land that can be taken through eminent domain.

"The blight criteria still fall short of imposing the kind of objective limitations that provide meaningful protections," he said.

---

Today's Sunbeam, Salem NJ: http://www.nj.com/news/sunbeam

Charlotte won't use eminent domain in airport issue: Battle Creek MI Enquirer, 2/28/07

By Rachel Greco
[Charlotte MI] City officials won't use eminent domain if they relocate the Fitch H. Beach Airport, according to a nonbinding resolution council members passed Monday night.

"I hope this resolution gives you assurance that we respect you," Mayor Deb Shaughnessy told a packed room of residents.

Several hours before the vote, about 100 people protested outside the Charlotte City Hall on Lawrence Avenue.

Waving signs and chanting, "Don't take our land," and "No airport in the country," they gathered to oppose to the city expanding or relocating the airport.

Last month, city officials said they were considering proposals to expand the airport's 3,500-foot runway to 5,000 feet or relocate the airport to accommodate corporate jets. Officials are currently awaiting a feasibility study in April before their decision.

Consultants have identified possible relocation sites for the airport in Eaton, Walton and Carmel townships.

The airport was not on the council's meeting agenda.

Council Member Dee Smith proposed and voted for the resolution "not because of pressure."

"I'm putting it forward because it's the right thing to do," she said.

The resolution passed 4 to 3. The measure only applied to using eminent domain if the airport is relocated, not if it is expanded at its current site.

Most protesters were from Eaton Township. Spiritual Episcopal Church in Eaton Rapids coordinated the event.

The Rev. Elle Desgrange said her church is on one of the proposed relocation sites.

"That's our business," she said. "That's our livelihood."

Protestor Janette Burzan lives on a centennial farm in Eaton Township.

"We will be affected because the farmers that rent our property stand to lose their property," Burzan said. "This affects our neighbors, our friends."

Eaton Township Trustee Ron Hunt said an airport is "not like a building, that's for sure. It changes the entire environment around it."

---

Battle Creek MI Enquirer: http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com

Fairfield limits eminent domain: Connecticut Post, Bridgeport CT, 2/27/07

By Andrew brophy
The town [of Fairfield CT] no longer can take a resident's property to benefit a private developer.

Russell Jennings, of Winnepoge Drive, thinks that's a good thing.

Jennings said a private developer who wants to buy a resident's house should pay what the homeowner wants — not what the town or developer thinks is a fair price.

"If it's so valuable to a developer, it's incumbent upon him to come up with a price that's agreeable to the homeowner," he said.

But Ken Camarro, of Carroll Road, said the town shouldn't give up its eminent domain power to benefit a private development.

Some neighborhoods that have single-family homes near commercial buildings might be better off with denser housing developments, Camarro said. "We may want to bring a different character to the neighborhood," he said.

The Representative Town Meeting on Monday night overwhelmingly sided with Jennings' point of view.

The RTM voted 35-9, with one abstention, to approve the law, which takes effect March 12.

The ordinance forbids the town from seizing land that has four or fewer houses for economic development purposes if the development to be built will be owned by a private or nongovernment entity.

The ordinance was enacted in reaction to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said towns and cities could force people to sell their homes to make way for a private development if the development brought in more tax revenue.

The debate among RTM members and the public in Osborn Hill School's gymnasium was brief but lively.

Mitchell Fuchs, D-8, said the town law would not be necessary because he trusts future RTMs to use the town's eminent domain power wisely.

"We have never passed an ordinance solely for the purpose of controlling this body. I for one believe in the people in this room," Fuchs said. "I trust, whether it be this town body today, 10 years from now, 30 years from now, that this body would do the right thing."

But Faith Dillon, R-9, said a future RTM might be tempted to seize someone's property if a large corporation wanted to come to town because that corporation would pay a lot of taxes. Dillon voted in favor of the ordinance.

James Millington, R-1, urged the RTM to send a "a clear message" by approving the law.

"Send a message to developers, if they're looking to exploit eminent domain in Fairfield and send a message to homeowners, that we're going to protect them in their homes," he said.

Brian O'Gara, D-5, said many residents in the Tunxis Hill area of town live in homes that could be sought by developers because they are near commercial properties. Tunxis Hill homeowners may not have the money to fight eminent domain in court, O'Gara said.

---

Connecticut Post, Bridgeport CT: http://www.connpost.com

"Domain" bills need rewrite: Asbury Park NJ Press, 2/28/07

Editorial
Two competing eminent domain bills produced a standoff on a Senate panel Monday. It's a good thing the vote was postponed. Both bills are flawed.

Sen. Ronald Rice, D-Essex, who chairs the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee, delayed a vote on a measure that had been previously approved by the Assembly. Rice was hoping to push a vote on his own bill. Rice and the sponsor of the Assembly bill, John Burzichelli, D-Gloucester, should sit down and come up with amended bills that combine the strongest elements of each — and then some.

They should ask for help from lawmakers who have sponsored other measures that would take their proposals further, including Sens. Ellen Karcher, D-Monmouth, and Loretta Weinberg, D-Bergen, who sponsored a measure that would limit pay-to-play in eminent domain cases. They also should involve Sens. Peter Inverso, R-Mercer, and Diane Allen, R-Burlington, who have proposed a constitutional amendment that would limit government's use of eminent domain to only "essential public purposes." Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen also should be seated at the table.

The measure before the Senate, a companion bill to one spearheaded by Burzichelli, was endorsed by Chen, even though it didn't include a pay-to-play ban or strong enough affordable-housing provisions. Adding them to the Senate version would go a long way toward protecting the state's property owners.

In pushing his own bill, Rice said, "We have a better product here, on everybody's account, including the public advocate's." But Chen has justifiable concerns with Rice's bill, which doesn't go far enough in defining blighted land or fairly compensating property owners. Jeff Tittel, director of the Sierra Club's state chapter, said Rice's measure would hasten the permitting process for developers.

Sen. Leonard T. Connors Jr., R-Ocean, who says the use of eminent domain used for private development is a "swinging door to corruption," sits on the panel chaired by Rice. Connors should push for a meeting of the minds on the related bills, culling the strongest points of each.

If they are added to the Burzichelli bill, sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Stephen Sweeney, D-Gloucester, New Jersey residents finally would have the long-overdue protections they need against abuse of eminent domain.

---

Asbury Park NJ Press: http://www.app.com

Bipartisan House Team Introduces Eminent Domain Bill: Wisconsin Ag Connection, 2/28/07

Despite a false start in the last Congress, a bipartisan team in the House reintroduced a bill to withhold federal funds to municipalities that seize private property for business.

Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) hope that H.R. 926 will be a disincentive for local governments to use eminent domain for economic revitalization. The 2005 Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. New London has received criticism from a broad coalition of property rights advocates and civil rights activists who have worked to push through state restrictions on eminent domain in 40 states.

According to the House bill, any property owner could sue the local government in federal court to prevent the seizure.

A similar bill was recently introduced in the Senate (S. 48) that will require any political entity who applies for federal funds to certify that the money will not go towards eminent-domain-for-economic-development actions.

Goodlatte emphasized that the bill is necessary to protect homes, farms and businesses from "abusive land grabs."

---

Wisconsin Ag Connection: http://www.wisconsinagconnection.com

Case of Palmetto's attempted, eminent-domain taking is to the judge: Bradenton FL Herald, 2/28/07

By Carl Mario Nudi
An early test of a new state eminent-domain law is now in the hands of a judge.

Attorneys for the owners of the Olympia Theater and the city of Palmetto presented final arguments Wednesday to Circuit Judge Peter Dubensky - both seeking control of the quiet entertainment venue.

At stake is who will own the historic building in Palmetto's downtown area on 10th Avenue West.

Cindy and Joel Jarvis purchased the theater from the city in 1995 for $1 and have renovated it, but have failed to open it to the public.

The city decided to proceed with an eminent domain taking and use the building for public recreation.

Dubensky did not say when he would issue his ruling in the legal case, which was heard in a Bradenton court Monday.

---

Bradenton FL Herald: http://www.bradenton.com

MTOTSA eminent domain case to be heard in Superior Court: Asbury Park NJ Press, 2/27/07

Owners sold house that was rented by a 40-year tenant
By Carol Gorga Williams
MTOTSA — the sequel — will play out Friday before Superior Court Judge Lawrence M. Lawson as the city faces off against William A. Nordahl, whom many credit as the creative force behind the anti-eminent domain lobbying group.

Nordahl, 69, a tenant who has lived in the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, Seaview Avenue area for more than 40 years, is fighting the city's attempts to get him to come to terms with the fact that his landlord has sold the building, effectively ending Nordahl's tenancy.

But according to Paul V. Fernicola, the city's attorney on the condemnation case, Long Branch is not seeking Nordahl's immediate eviction. Instead, it has offered to allow him to remain as long as the MTOTSA appeal remains an open question.

But Long Branch also wants Nordahl to agree that he will not use the city's willingness to let him remain temporarily as a defense when his eviction becomes a reality.

Nordahl, though his attorney, Barbara J. Gonos, is challenging the city's right to remove him and, in a lengthy brief, has raised many of the same issues raised last year by MTOTSA property owners before Lawson.

Nordahl claims he was not given proper notice that the plan for his area changed, from project where units would be erected on available land (called "infill") to planned residential community; he also claims the area is not blighted and that conflicts of interest on the city's side raise questions about the fairness of the eminent domain process.

"People expect the truth from their government," Gonos writes. "Without it, Democracy, government by and for the people, cannot function. People can only make good decisions about what's best for them and their community, and communicate those decisions to their representatives in government if they are told the truth. The city bases its authority to demolish Mr. Nordahl's neighborhood and replace it with three luxury condominium buildings on its 1996 redevelopment plan. Yet, nothing in the plan indicates the neighborhood would be demolished, and everything in the plan indicates that the homes therein will remain intact."

Fernicola said even though Nordahl is a tenant, not a property owner, he is not without rights under the state's relocation statute. Nordahl is on a "month-to-month" arrangement with his landlord, according to court documents.

"He clearly has rights, but I don't think his rights as a tenant take precedence over the property owner," said Fernicola, noting the owners have agreed to sell.

"That is why in this case, he has very limited standing," Fernicola said. "If the property owner were raising these objections, he could probably join in."

The city has made a deal with landlords Mark and Kathleen Sauve to sell two properties in the MTOTSA zone, 67 Marine Terrace, where Nordahl lives, and 72 Ocean Terrace. The city agreed to pay $450,000 for one and $680,000 for the other.

It is considered a "friendly condemnation" in which the owner acknowledges eminent domain can be used but also potentially receives tax benefits from the way the sale is conducted.

Gonos could not be reached for comment, and Nordahl declined comment. But Fernicola said the two sides will be before Lawson, who previously decided the MTOTSA case June 22 in the city's favor, at 10 a.m. Friday.

---

Asbury Park NJ Press: http://www.app.com

Eminent Domain to Condemn Water Rights Could Be Prohibited : Telluride CO Watch, 2/26/07

By K. C. Mason
With a little help from Western Slope Democrats, a northeastern Colorado Republican lawmaker is advancing his bill to prohibit government entities from using their power of eminent domain to condemn water rights.

The House voted 33-30 Friday to give preliminary approval to House Bill 1036, sponsored by Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg of Sterling. He said the two missing members – including Rep. Bernie Buescher, D-Grand Junction – are expected to support the bill when a final House vote is taken this week.

“Eminent domain should be used as a necessity and not as a convenience,” Sonnenberg said. “It’s getting to the point where we must do something to ensure that condemnation is not used as the path of least resistance.”

The measure is strongly opposed by the Denver Water Board and the Colorado Municipal League, whose lobbyists contend the power of municipalities to obtain water rights through condemnation is protected by the state constitution.

“A vote for this bill is a vote for violating the constitution,” said Rep. Randy Fisher, D-Fort Collins, who noted the bill also is opposed by the Colorado Water Congress. “Eminent domain is seen as a safety net for unforeseen circumstances. This bill leaves (government entities) with no flexibility.”

Sonnenberg countered that the constitution’s reference to the use of eminent domain was related to the infrastructure needed to convey water, such as ditches and drainages.

“It doesn’t say anything about the water right itself,” he said. “When that was challenged by home rule cities, the court said you can’t have water works without water rights so they can condemn for water rights. It was an expansion by the judiciary of what the constitutional says.”

Sonnenberg then amended his bill to state specifically that “water works shall not be construed to include appropriated water rights.”

Other opponents argued the bill wasn’t necessary because condemnation for water rights has rarely been used in Colorado.

“This bill chips away at the ability of locals government to provide needed services for cities and municipalities,” said Rep. Mary Hodge, D-Brighton. “There is no evidence of abuse. This is a bill in search of a problem.”

Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, said she was suspicious of the opposition.

“Why are they opposed to this bill if these folks are contemplation doing these takings,” Curry said. “The General Assembly has passed several measures than can be used as tools for governments to obtain water.”

Both Curry and Sonnenberg listed a number of recent laws that allow for flexibility in moving water from agriculture to cities without permanently drying up the land. They include leasing through temporary water supply plans, water banking and rotational crop management plans.

There are a variety of alternatives to condemning a water right,” Sonnenberg said. “Water rights don’t have the same quality as fixed real estate. The ability to use and develop water is not tied to specific location.”

Telluride’s representative in the House, Republican Ray Rose of Montrose, also supported the bill.

“We’re not talking about a gallon of water out of the Colorado River but very broad condemnation rights that could supersede such things as the (Colorado) River Compact,” Rose said. “If we allow this to happen, it will be a free-for-all for water in Colorado.”

Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park, said Colorado needed to be proactive to head off future water wars.

“I can envision a time in 20 years when the terms of fallowing and leasing contracts are over and a farmer says, ‘I want my water back,’” White said. “That’s when the municipality will come in with condemnation.”

Curry reacted strongly when Fisher claimed that “powerful interests on the Eastern Slope are going to get that water one way or another.”

“If that is true and that is their attitude, that reinforces the need for this bill,” Curry said. “Governments have other options. They don’t have to take water rights in a hostile action.”

---

Telluride CO Watch: http://www.telluridewatch.com

Eminent domain not over: Bridgeton NJ News, 2/27/07

By Jaime Marine
Representatives for Millville [NJ] First say they accept the fact a special election can't be held to deal with their eminent domain petition.

But President Emil Van Hook said during a press briefing Monday afternoon the city still needs to address the first part of the petition request, which asks commissioners to pass an ordinance banning eminent domain for the benefit of a private developer or private development.

The petition was submitted on Feb. 20 during the commission meeting.

"Contrary to what they would have you believe, the law does not forbid the commissioners from passing an ordinance," a statement issued by the local watchdog group said. "The commissioners should openly declare they will or will not adopt the petitioners' ordinance. That action is not only allowed, but required."

In a statement issued by Solicitor Rich McCarthy last Tuesday, he stated, "Any petitions which seek to adopt an ordinance or resolution, through initiative or referendum, to restrict or eliminate (eminent domain) in a designated redevelopment area are in direct contravention of state law.

"If presented with petitions of this type, you (the clerk's office) may receive and file them, but you are under no legal obligation to take further action notwithstanding any other law to the contrary."

Van Hook said any city commission should recognize a petition signed by over 1,100 voters.

"They have by ordinance banned condemnation at the request of the motorsports park, and they passed a resolution stating they would not condemn a single-family, owner-occupied home," the statement read. "There is no question, whatsoever, that if they had any desire to abide by the wishes of the signers of the petition, they have the power to do so."

Van Hook said they are not ruling out legal action, but said they are hoping to avoid it. The city has about 40 days to respond to the group's request.

"We really don't want to go there," he said, noting it would be costly.

Van Hook said the group disagrees with McCarthy's reported opinion that a non-binding referendum is prohibited by statute.

They added they would like to see the city use this tool to see how people feel about the issue.

"If it can be done for the developers, then why can't it be done for the people?" he asked. "The fact is, this issue will not go away."

McCarthy could not be reached for comment Monday.

City Clerk Lew Thompson said the petition is in the hands of the clerk's office, but said, under McCarthy's advice, they aren't required to take any further action on it.

---

Bridgeton NJ News: http://www.nj.com/news/bridgeton

Mayor seeks to take Crystal Lake site by eminent domain: Newton MA Tab, 2/26/07

By Christopher Loh
After nearly six months of failed negotiations to purchase a Crystal Lake-front property, Newton [MA] Mayor David Cohen wants to take over 20 Rogers St. from owner Pat Hannon by eminent domain.

“I have not come to this conclusion without a great deal of careful consideration,” said Cohen. “A taking by eminent domain is a very serious matter and it is not being done lightly. However, it is my feeling that this is a virtually once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the City of Newton.”

Eminent domain is the inherent power of the government to seize a citizen’s private property for a public reason. In the case of Hannon’s property, the city intends to use the property to extend the public beach at Crystal Lake.

Cohen informed the Board of Aldermen of his intentions in a letter dated Feb. 23.

The mayor said he is asking the Community Preservation Committee for $2.3 million of Community Preservation Act funding which he believes represents fair market value.

Eminent domain cannot be implemented until the money has been appropriated.

If the money is approved by the CPC, the issue moves before the full Board of Aldermen, which has final approval of the action.

Hannon doesn’t object to the idea, but he wants to be paid a higher figure than what is currently being requested by the Mayor.

“This guy’s unbelievable,” said Hannon who added that while he is not against eminent domain, he would prefer to have a “friendly taking” in which he receives more than the $2.3 million.

“It’s not the end of the world but what it is, is an unfair tactic to get the property for less than it’s worth,” said Hannon.

Hannon said he is willing to consider any offers between $3 million and $3.9 million.

The property is also laden with $12 million worth of liens - $6 million of those are back taxes Hannon owes to both the state and federal governments while the other half is to private organizations.

Cohen said that after speaking with government officials he is “100-percent confident” that the city would be released of those liens and not found responsible.

The mayor’s spokesperson Jeremy Solomon said the City will be taking the property by eminent domain based on four arguments.

First, Solomon said, the property is “unique” and is specifically “one that abuts a city facility on Crystal Lake.”

Solomon was referring to the city’s bathhouse used by swimmers.

The second argument was that Hannon has “shown a willingness to sell,” said Solomon. “We’re not trying to seize a property from a homeowner who wants to hang on to it.”

Third, the house located on the property is not habitable, according to Solomon. And fourth, taking the property would enable the city to “enhance and preserve the recreational facility already located there,” said Solomon.

“I have reached this conclusion after protracted conversations and six months of negotiation with the current owner to try to reach a mutually agreeable purchasing price,” said Cohen.

This is not the first battle Hannon has had with the city.

Hannon has argued with Garden City officials over his right to snowmobile on the lake; over whose responsibility it is to fix an old retaining wall; and his right to tear down the house sitting on the property after it was twice damaged by fire.

In October Hannon asked the city for $4.5 million for the property. He was upset by Cohen’s counter offer of $2.3 million and pulled the property from the table.

Cohen has said all along that in order to use CPA funding for the purchase, he was legally bound to the $2.3 million figure that was the result of an appraisal the city had commissioned.

Eventually, with the help of Ward 6 Alderman Ken Parker, Hannon asked for $3.9 million but once again pulled the offer when the city sent him a letter saying it was preparing to come on to the lakefront property to fix the retaining wall.

“They’ve succeeded in taking away my emotional attachment to the property but I still want the money that it is worth,” said Hannon, who paid $3 million for the property that has been assessed at $2.7 million by the city.

While he has been looking into building 45 units of affordable housing on the site Hannon said he will wait a week to see what exactly happens.

“I don’t think [Cohen’s] bluffing, I think he is going to take it,” said Hannon but added that he was still not bothered by the news. “I was born at night but not last night and I’m just as good at mind games as he is. I’ve been married a long time and I have eight kids, I can take anything. None of this is a challenge for me.”

Adding to the drama of the saga around Hannon and his property is Cohen’s disclosure that 20 Rogers St. is encumbered by about $12 million in liens. According to Cohen, the city solicitor has determined that taking the land by eminent domain is the only way the city can get a clear title.

While Hannon downplayed the liens, saying he was confident the federal government would relieve him of them, Cohen said he has had conversations with officials on both the state and federal level and is “100-percent confident” the city will not be responsible for any of the liens if eminent domain is taken.

The mayor’s office provided a complete list of liens that have been taken out on the property since its purchase by Hannon in August 2002.

The liens include two federal tax liens of $2.7 million each within one week of each other in February 2003 and more recently an $871,000 lien from ACSTAR Insurance Company in September 2005 and a $2.4 million lien applied by the Middlesex Superior Court this August.

This isn’t the first time it has been reported that Hannon has had tax problems.

In November the IRS announced the seizures of seven different properties in Acton, Maine all owned by Hannon and his wife Elizabeth.

Hannon later said the seizures never happened and that the IRS made a mistake adding that the liens are an extension of what took place in November.

---

Newton MA Tab: http://www.townonline.com/newton

Panel delays eminent domain vote: Cherry Hill NJ Courier Post, 2/27/07

By Gregory J Volpe
A [new Jersey] Senate panel did not vote as planned on an eminent domain reform measure Monday, after an apparent standoff between an Essex County senator and Gloucester County lawmakers who are advancing competing bills.

Last June, the Assembly passed a measure spearheaded by Assemblyman John Burzichelli, D-Paulsboro, that aims to place more hurdles for redeveloping towns, limit what land can be taken and increase compensation for taken property.

Sen. Ronald Rice, D-Newark, chairman of the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee, hoped for a vote on his own bill, which has similar aims, but different mechanics. After an impromptu meeting with Burzichelli's district-mate, Sen. Stephen Sweeney, D-West Deptford, who sponsors an identical measure to the one passed by the Assembly, Rice announced he was postponing the vote for another meeting.

"We have a better product here, on everybody's account, including the public advocate's," Rice said after the hearing. "Take a look at it. . . . Some of the things in it are extractions from (Burzichelli's) bill."

Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen, who endorsed Burzichelli's measure even though it didn't include a pay-to-play ban or strong enough affordable housing provisions, had concerns with Rice's bill, saying it did not go far enough in defining blighted land that could be taken, placing strong burdens of proof on municipalities seeking to take land or providing fair replacement housing.

"There are certain provisions that I think are an improvement, but there are others that I still have some concerns about," said Chen, who wants to see a final version of the legislation before picking sides.

Chen said Rice's measure does go further with public notice and assistance for displaced tenants.

Burzichelli denied an adversarial effort to reform eminent domain.

"I don't think "standoff' is the right word," Burzichelli said. "We expect in this process work in the one house builds upon the other. We always expect if there's going to be changes, it's going to come back better."

Burzichelli said he didn't have a chance to study Rice's measure to compare the differences. Sweeney did not return phone calls Monday afternoon.

One of the major differences highlighted Monday was creating a land use court that would deal solely with eminent domain-related cases.

Dan Phillips, legislative liaison for New Jersey's court system, said that would cost about $10 million annually and won't speed up a process that resolves such cases in six to eight months.

"They are some of our highest priority cases and we try to move them quickly," Phillips said.

Rice, whose measure calls for the court to hear complaints within 90 days, said six months is too long. "When it comes to poor people needing representation, you say we don't have any money," Rice said.

Jeff Tittel, director of the Sierra Club's New Jersey chapter, said Rice's measure will hasten the permitting process for developers.

"Burzichelli's is a step in the right direction," Tittel said. "It still has a ways to go, but this is two steps backward."

Another difference is requiring municipalities to declare areas in need of condemnation to specify which parcels might be taken in redevelopment projects.

Bill Potter, chairman of the New Jersey Coalition Against Eminent Domain Abuse, said that's a positive step but decried the measure's grandfather clause, which allows any project with any stage of municipal approval to proceed under old guidelines.

"Here we are dealing with eminent domain abuse in New Jersey, which is ground zero in the country, and we've got this 60-page bill and it doesn't do anything for any of the cases that are out there," Potter said.

Some critics want to ban any eminent domain used for private redevelopment.

"This is a swinging door to corruption," said Sen. Leonard T. Connors Jr., R-Surf City.

---

Cherry Hill NJ Courier Post: http://www.courierpostonline.com

Eminent domain and the high cost of gasoline: Atlanta GA Journal-Constitution, 2/25/07

Opinion
By Tom Baxter and Jim Galloway
For two years, Republicans at the state Capitol have tortured themselves over eminent domain, the seizure of private property for the greater good.

GOP lawmakers and a GOP governor have dared the world and its courts to chisel away at individual rights in Georgia.

They’re about to tackle the topic again. But this time, the outcome is likely to be different. Senate Bill 173 pits the sacrament of land against your right to cheap gasoline for your cars, diesel for your tractors, and fuel for your jets.

In the past, outrage over eminent domain has been driven by government seizure of real estate for purposes of economic development. But in a sense, this has been something of a straw man.

Utilities, not the evil gummint, are the most common employers of eminent domain, in this state and elsewhere. And in Georgia, utilities generally get what they want - unless they screw up in horrible, horrible fashion.

Which reminds us of the story of Colonial Pipeline Co. It operates a dual set of underground pipes that stretch from Louisiana through Georgia and clear up to the New York City harbor, providing this side of the United States with all sorts of liquid petroleum products.

Back in the mid-1990s, the company hit an astounding stretch of bad luck. The federal government declared Colonial’s leaky pipes a hazard. Colonial pipes flooded the well water of a Bibb County pecan farmer with fuel. He turned out to be an influential state lawmaker.

And the company tried to muscle a new pipeline through the pristine plantations of some very, very wealthy landowners in south Georgia. These were the kind of people who could motivate then-Gov. Zell Miller to sign legislation in 1995 that subjected petroleum pipelines to a permitting system.

Before using eminent domain to expand, pipeline companies now are required to get approval from the state Department of Transportation and the state Environmental Protection Division.

But times change. Things happen, like Hurricane Katrina, the occupation of Iraq, and a near-nuclear Iran.

Five new refineries in Louisiana are set for completion in 2010. Colonial says it needs to construct a third, 500-mile pipeline stretching from Baton Rouge to holding tanks in Cobb County, to keep up with the demand. At an estimated cost of $1 billion.

S.B. 173, sponsored by Ross Tolleson (R-Perry), passed out of a Senate committee last week. Delta Air Lines, whose name is magic around the Capitol these days, spoke in favor of it. The added pipeline is specifically named in Gov. Sonny Perdue’s energy program.

The bill would strip away the requirements for DOT and EPD permits - for Colonial and one other petroleum pipeline company in Georgia. No other utility is subject to them, argued Colonial spokesman Sam Whitehead. (Sarcastic tree-huggers no doubt would point out that electricity and natural gas rarely leave oil slicks in groundwater.)

The permits cost time and money. “Our best estimate is that if everything went well, it would take eight to 12 months,” Whitehead said. But that’s only a guess. Though the legislation has been on the books for a dozen years, no company has actually gone through the process. Ever.

The bill would also let Colonial to relocate portions of its third line within a two-mile swath - one mile on each side of its current route - to avoid environmentally sensitive land, historic sites, and crowds.

“Oh, my God, that just might include anything,” said Robert Ray. He was the state House member with the pecan farm. A conservative Democrat, he retired from the Legislature last year. “I just can’t believe the new Republican Legislature is opening up these situations that were partially resolved,” he said.

Whitehead, the Colonial spokesman, said his company has changed with the times, and is more sensitive about deploying surveyors onto property it does not own. “Certainly, in these ensuing 11 years, we do these purchase of easements completely differently than was done at the time,” he said.

Republicans are handling S.B. 173 very carefully. So carefully that they’ve included two Democrats among the four top signatures, the better to spread the blame if things go wrong. Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle issued a statement on Friday acknowledging the balancing act that must be struck.

Cheap gas is a must. As is fuel for crop harvests. “However, he recognizes that private property rights are paramount,” said Cagle spokeswoman Jaillene Hunter.

Colonial recognizes GOP discomfort with the issue. “We understand it’s a sensitive issue, and we would prefer not to be doing this,” Whitehead said. “But it’s a matter of needing to expand the capacity for petroleum products into not just Atlanta, but the entire state of Georgia.”

If you still have any doubt about the ultimate fortunes of S.B. 173, remember one thing: You live in a state that, 18 months ago, shut down nearly every school in the state to make sure farmers had enough diesel to gather up their peanuts.

---

Atlanta GA Journal-Constitution: http://www.ajc.com

Assembly restricts eminent domain: Roanoke VA Times, 2/25/07

By Michael Sluss and Mason Adams
After more than a year of work on the issue, the [Virginia] General Assembly on Saturday passed legislation that restricts government's power to seize private property by invoking eminent domain.

The Senate and House of Delegates agreed on bills that define "public uses" under which government can take private property, stripping out a Senate provision that would give housing and redevelopment authorities greater ability to condemn property in blighted areas.

The passage of House Bill 2954 and Senate Bill 1296 nearly completes lawmakers' efforts to strengthen eminent domain restrictions in the wake of a 2005 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London. In that case, the court upheld a Connecticut city's condemnation of a homeowner's property for a private development project.

The bills define five "public uses" for which private property can be taken. The legislation allows eminent domain for eliminating blight, but only if the property itself is blighted.

The bills would not affect current plans of redevelopment and housing authorities if they file petitions for condemnation by July 1, 2009.

Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke, said the legislation should not pose a major burden on the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, but said the authority would have preferred no restrictions.

"I think the grandfather clause should allay most of their concerns," Edwards said. "I think they can live within the parameters of the statute, and if not we can come back and look at it another year and see if tinkering needs to be done."

---

Roanoke VA Times: http://www.roanoke.com

Griswold selectmen drafting eminent domain ordinance: Norwich CT Bulletin, 2/25/07

By Julie A Varughese
[Griswold] property owners could be protected from having the town take land for economic development if taxpayers approve an eminent domain ordinance being drafted by selectmen.

Selectmen are seeking guidance from ordinances in place in other towns as they work on the proposal for Griswold.

The move is in response to the Kelo v. New London case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 a government could transfer private property from one owner to another for economic development. In New London's case, the Fort Trumbull neighborhood will be eliminated to build condominiums, a hotel and offices.

The Planning and Zoning Commission will have to review the ordinance before the selectmen send it to a special town meeting, which will probably occur within two months, First Selectman Anne Hatfield said.

"We're not supporting the expansion of the eminent domain that took place in the Kelo case," she said of the ordinance she has been looking into since she was elected in 2005.

A bill to limit eminent domain by municipalities failed to make it through the General Assembly last year.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said in her State of the State address she plans to submit a bill to the legislature this session.

Her plan calls for a two-thirds authorization from a municipal legislative body, such as a Board of Selectmen, and property owners would receive 125 percent of their property's fair-market value.

Griswold farmer Bernard Laizer said he would show the proposal to attorneys for perusal.

"When the government gets involved, when it comes to anything regarding eminent domain, they need to put it under the microscope and really study it," he said.

Plainfield First Selectman Kevin Cunningham said Plainfield's ordinance, which was passed a few weeks ago at a special town meeting, does not protect properties from being bought by the town for building a school or for creating or re-routing utility lines and transportation systems.

Cunningham said the town's Eminent Domain Committee spent six months reviewing the pros and cons of creating such an ordinance.

"There were some concerned citizens who wanted to put things in writing to protect the town a little further," he said, regarding the General Assembly's inability to pass a bill last year. "It's not a slight to the state, but it was a matter of making sure we were protected as soon as possible."

A referendum will be held April 10 for Plainfield voters to decide if the ordinance should be included in the town charter.

---

Norwich CT Bulletin: http://www.norwichbulletin.com