Eminent domain debated: Baltimore MD Sun, 3/9/07

Legislators may increase compensation for seized property
By Laura Smitherman
As the courts wrestle with how much authority governments should have to seize private property, some Maryland legislators are uniting behind a proposal to boost compensation for owners whose property is taken.

Eminent domain became a hot-button issue last year - an election year - after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the economically depressed city of New London, Conn., could seize property to make way for a private developer. Last month, though, Maryland's highest court ruled that Baltimore City had no good reason to acquire a Charles North bar under a sped-up version of eminent domain called "quick take."

Legislators in Annapolis introduced more than 40 bills last year seeking to restrict condemnation powers, but they failed to reach an agreement.

By comparison, only a handful of bills dealing with eminent domain have been drafted this year. One is a constitutional amendment that would prevent state or local governments from seizing property for private use, specifically for urban renewal projects. Another bill that takes a more moderate approach, and that appears to have more backing, would bolster compensation packages for owners, including relocation expenses.

"There's a bit of wind out of the sails on this issue this year; however, everyone agrees that compensation needs to be increased," said Del. Maggie L. McIntosh, chairwoman of the House Environmental Matters Committee.

Del. Richard K. Impallaria, a Baltimore County Republican who proposed the constitutional amendment, acknowledged that his bill might not pass but said it still "sends a clear message." A fight over eminent domain launched his political career several years ago. After his auto body shop was slated for condemnation to make way for redevelopment in Middle River, he worked on a county ballot initiative that stopped the project.

"We hear about it across the country, that they are overstepping their bounds by taking homes and businesses that are not blighted to bring in a different class of people for what they call gentrification," Impallaria said. "And that's just wrong."

Under current law, a property owner must receive "just" compensation. If a bill by Del. Samuel I. Rosenberg, a Baltimore Democrat, is passed, owners could get additional costs paid, and a cap on relocation expenses would be lifted.

Some officials, including Baltimore City Solicitor George Nilson, object to a provision that would pay a property owner "goodwill," an accounting term that refers to the ability to make a profit. For example, a business might make more money at one location than it would at another, and under the legislation, the anticipated difference would be paid to the property owner.

David S. Bliden, executive director of the Maryland Association of Counties, said goodwill is "inherently speculative." And Harford County Attorney Robert S. McCord said that the process of calculating goodwill would draw out an already complicated process.

"In my mind, anything that causes delay or speculation so that my county will have to hire more experts is going to be a problem," McCord said.

Several property owners who have undergone the eminent domain process testified yesterday, including James M. Gillin, whose manufacturing plant has twice been targeted by Baltimore City for seizure. He moved to his current site in Poppleton 23 years ago after the city took his plant in South Baltimore for a school athletic field. Now the city wants to seize his current property for a housing project.

"We deserve compensation for all the turmoil that we as businesses go through," he said.

---

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

Newmarket confronts eminent domain: Foster's Daily Democrat, Dover NH, 3/9/07

When Newmarket [NH] voters go to the polls Tuesday they will be asked to authorize the School Board to seize land by eminent domain, land owned by fellow residents Michael Weit and Debbie Hale. Voters will not, however, find the words "eminent domain" in any of the warrant articles printed on the ballot.

Voters will see warrant articles relative to the possible construction of a new high school. Article 1 would allow the board to begin architectural and engineering work. A second deals with land acquisition.

A literal reading of Article 3 would simply allow the School Board to spend up to $1.65 million to acquire land for the $20-plus million project. If approved by voters, it would give the board the green light to attempt to take the Weit/Hale property by eminent domain should the family decide not to sell — something Mike Weit recently emphasized for the umpteenth time he will not do.

The board's most recent interest in the Weit/Hale property stems from the latest incarnation of plans to build a new school. Previously, the board had eyed the same property for acquisition, but stepped away from the eminent domain issue when it proposed building a $35 million complex on the Rockingham Country Club property. That vote failed miserably, bringing the School Board back to the Weit/Hale property.

This year voters will be asked to sign off a reformulated plan, one that will all but certainly include using eminent domain to acquire the Weit/Hale property, while purchasing the nearby Carpenter land.

The reason for invoking eminent domain is twofold. First, Mike Weit and Debbie Hale won't sell. They want to preserve their farm, one that has been in the family for generations. The other reason is that the School Board is proposing to create a campus, one that would eventually connect the old high school with the new one and the current elementary school. In order to do this they need the Weit/Hale property.

Or do they?

Eminent domain is serious business. Taking someone's property by eminent domain should only be done as a last resort and only if fairly compensated. Weit and Hale have challenged the school district on both counts.

According to Weit and others, the current building program that will go to voters March 13 comes up short in many ways. While the campus concept is attractive, it is incomplete. The School Board, at least publicly, has not settled the issue of acquiring the Carpenter property nor how it will be used in the overall program.

A recent public presentation was filled with if's and maybe's. School officials admitted they hadn't worked out all the kinks, but were looking for concept approval from the public before moving ahead.

What makes eminent domain so certain in this case is how married the School Board appears to be to the campus concept, to the exclusion of other suggestions.

One suggestion would see a school built on the athletic fields behind the current school. The proposal would see the fields moved elsewhere in order to preserve recreational opportunities originally funded by the federal government.

Supporters of this plan argue it would forgo the need to acquire the Weit/Hale property. Use of the ball fields might also allow expansion of the current school by opening up land for parking. Or perhaps even the construction of a less expensive middle school. When School Board Chairman Chris Hawkins was asked recently if the federal government had been approached about moving the fields in a land trade, he said no. This, despite the question having been raised myriad times before.

Then there is the issue of fair compensation. The school district's first offer was below assessed value and assumed the parcel was landlocked. When Mike Weit argued the property was not landlocked, the town upped its offer from $50,000 to $400,000, a number arguably below the going rate for the number of building lots the land would support.

Asking Newmarket voters to spend $20-plus million on a new school is tough enough. But asking them to take their neighbors' land is even tougher.

Newmarket voters need to consider seriously the issue of eminent domain in deciding how they will vote on Articles 1 and 3 — it's a matter of more than just dollars and cents.

---

Foster's Daily Democrat, Dover NH: http://www.fosters.com

Susquehanna Health gets City Council backing for buyouts, including eminent domain: Williamsport PA Sun-Gazette, 3/9/07

By R A Walker
[The Williamsport PA] City Council voted 5-1 Thursday night to approve the Louisa Street Redevelopment Proposal and the use of eminent domain if necessary to keep Susquehanna Health’s regional medical center project on track.

To date the health system has acquired or has agreements to buy 81 homes.

Only seven properties on Walnut, High and Louisa streets are threatened with acquisition by eminent domain, and in five of those cases, negotiations are in process and acquisition without eminent domain is expected, according to comments at the meeting.

The session began with one of the impacted property owners expressing his concerns during the “limited courtesy of the floor” segment.

“I’ve traveled to many places in the world, but I’ve never found a better place than the Lycoming County-Williamsport area,” said Forest Hafer Jr., owner and resident of 712-714 Walnut St.

“Today, you’re not looking at a happy camper,” he said, “because the city of my birth is dispossessing me.”

Hafer told the Sun-Gazette this week he thinks the city and health system have moved “lightning fast” to the eminent domain stage, and is willing to go to court if necessary to protect his property rights.

His comments were followed by a public hearing during which John Grado, city director of economic and community development, outlined the eminent domain process. He said it involves an appraisal, a acquisition offer and the legal taking of the property if the owner opts to appeal and go to court.

The redevelopment area is bordered by Louisa Street on the north, High Street on the south, Green Street on the east and Locust Street on the west. Health system officials said about 20 additional properties — outside the current acquisition area — will be sought eventually.

Speaking in favor of the project and redevelopment proposal were Jerry S Walls, executive director of the county Planning Commission, and Mayor Mary B. Wolf.

Both extolled the economic benefits of keeping the county’s largest employer within the city.

Walls called the “$250 million reinvestment” at the Williamsport Hospital campus an important “economic stimulus.” Wolf said the project has “not been ... hurried or rushed” and said city and public input led to adjustments in the hospital’s relocation plan for displaced renters and property owners.

Those speaking against the redevelopment proposal included veteran city government critic George Kadash.

He said the city has lost 16,000 homes since the mid-1940s and was supposed to have abandoned, not resurrected, redevelopment initiatives, which he claimed are mainly used for “condemnation purposes.”

Susquehanna Health representatives present included the executive vice president for financial affairs, Charles Santangelo, who said eminent domain was needed because the health system needs to buy all the land it needs before initiating the design phase.

“It’s just not feasible to commit to a planning process unless you know you have the land,” he said.

Councilman Gabriel J. Campana cast the lone “no” vote, even though he said he supported the hospital staying in the city.

“I’m just not sure we’ve given people adequate time,” he said. “I don’t think this should even begin until July.”

Council Vice President J. Marlyne Whaley, who lived in the project area and sold her Walnut Street Home to the health system early, continued to voice support for the project.

The health system, she said, “can’t wait until the last minute.”

“We have to get real,” she added. “This is progress in the making ... Let’s just do what we have to do ... and move on.”

The rest of council agreed, and Council President Thomas P. O’Connor Jr. and Councilmen Patrick Marty and J. Michael Wiley joined Whaley to vote “yes” and pass the resolution.

Councilman James Gilbert abstained because he is an employee of the health system.

---

Williamsport PA Sun-Gazette: http://www.sungazette.com

Nevada’s constitutional amendment restricting eminent domain moves forward: Napa Valley CA Register, 3/9/07

By Amanda Fehd, Associated Press
All but six of Nevada’s 63 lawmakers have signed on to a compromise constitutional amendment to restrict the eminent domain powers of government but still allow for the taking of land for public works such as transportation projects.

Two nearly identical Assembly bills and one Senate bill also are moving forward to mirror in state law the language in the proposed constitutional amendment. A law change could take effect by October, while a constitutional change would take three years to complete.

Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury argued for the constitutional change, AJR3, on Thursday, saying he worked with several lawmakers, transportation departments, and eminent domain lawyers Kermitt Waters and Don Chairez to come up with a compromise that satisfied everyone.

“Each of our concerns has been addressed in reasonable ways, while each of the basic property-rights protections sought by Don and Kermitt and other associates have been preserved,” Woodbury told the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Question 2, called the People’s Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land or PISTOL by its supporters, including Waters, was seen by critics as being too broad and producing potential costs for legitimate public works projects that would be too high.

Assemblyman William Horne, D-Las Vegas, testified for AB102, which he said should match the language of the compromise constitutional amendment so both measures could move forward simultaneously. A measure being debated by the Senate, SB85, proposes identical language.

Freshman Assemblyman James Ohrenschall, D-Las Vegas, testified for AB129, which is similar to AB102, but also provides that defendants who prevail in eminent domain lawsuits can be compensated for their legal fees. The measure could conflict with AJR3, which says that parties in an eminent domain dispute would pay their own fees.

Ohrenschall said the measure would encourage people to stand up to public agencies trying to take their land, which he called a “formidable opponents.”

“Many citizens of limited financial resources will prefer to walk away from their homes because they cannot afford the legal fees and costs to, in effect, ’fight city hall,”’ Ohrenschall said, adding, “The government agency is well-funded, employs lawyers on staff and has financial and other resources that dwarf the average citizen’s.”

Ohrenschall also is sponsoring a separate constitutional amendment, AJR2, that would prohibit the seizure of property for any private use.

---

Napa Valley CA Register: http://www.napavalleyregister.com

The eminent domain debates: Madison County News, Jefferson GA, 3/8/07

Legislation could give pipeline companies more authority to take private land

By Zach Mitcham
Four out of five Georgia state senators want to make it easier for petroleum pipeline companies to seize private property through eminent domain, a move they say is simply practical planning for growth, a way to ensure that Georgia has enough access to oil.

But critics say legislators who support the bill are simply putting citizens’ private property rights aside and bowing down to the powerful oil lobby.

Two major petroleum pipelines traverse Madison County: Colonial Pipeline and Plantation Pipeline.

Colonial Pipeline has acknowledged plans to run a 500-mile pipeline from Baton Rouge to holding tanks in Cobb County. This expansion project would, of course, occur west of Madison County.

Madison County’s State Senator Ralph Hudgens, who will leave his post after this legislative session to seek Georgia’s 10th District seat in the U.S. Congress, was among those voting in favor of the bill, which passed the senate by a 43-11 vote on March 1.

“Colonial Pipeline explained to me that they are at their capacity and all this (legislation) will do is allow them to put a third pipeline in their existing right of way that they have,” said Hudgens, adding that the expansion will help Colonial serve the Atlanta airport with necessary jet fuel. “It’s primarily for the airport.”

So could the legislation ultimately pave the way for easier seizure of property in Madison County if the petroleum companies eventually choose to run additional lines through the county?

Hudgens said he was assured by Colonial executive Sam Whitehead that this is not the pipeline company’s intent in pushing for the legislation.

“Sam Whitehead knows that I represent Madison County and he came to me on the Senate floor and said that this piece of legislation will not do anything in Madison County and won’t allow us to do anything in Madison County,” said Hudgens. “This is strictly for this pipeline coming out of Louisiana into Powder Springs.”

Hudgens said that restrictions were tightened on pipelines in the ‘80s due to political pressure from south Georgia plantation owners on the General Assembly. The current bill would relax some of those restrictions.

“In the 1980s there was an attempt to put a pipeline down in south Georgia to hook up to another pipeline and some of those big plantation owners in Thomas County started fighting this and they had enough political clout to go and get the General Assembly to put some legislation together to cause it to be impossible to put the pipeline in,” said Hudgens. “This (current bill) will take out some of those provisions that were passed back then. They had to take the provisions out of the existing codes in order to do this (expand from Louisiana to Cobb County).”

House Representative Alan Powell, who represents Madison County, said that he is not in favor of the senate bill.

“It would also allow pipeline companies to expand up to two miles outside their current easements,” wrote Powell in a column about the legislation published in last week’s Journal. “This bill appears expand the ability to condemn private property, and I am among many who are concerned it would lead to further improper use of eminent domain.”

Before it can be put into law, Senate Bill 173 must ultimately passed by the House and signed into law by the Governor.

Those favoring the move said it’s a simple matter. The state is growing. The state needs more oil. Proponents note that in the past 12 years the state’s population has grown from seven to 10 million. And more growth is expected.

“Now these next millions of people coming to Georgia — they ain’t going to be riding bicycles,” said Sen. John Bulloch, as quoted in the March 4 Thomasville Times. “We’ve got to have additional petroleum products in this state. The cheapest way to move them and the safest way to move them is through a pipeline.”

But critics say Georgians shouldn’t be eager to “give pipeline companies a blank check to condemn private property” in the state.

Georgia political columnist Bill Shipp said that “protection of private property rights from eminent domain takeovers” used to be a “bedrock tenet” of Republicans. He said the GOP is forsaking that old-time principle with the pipeline bill.

“The measure eliminates the current requirement that a pipeline company must show ‘public necessity’ to exercise eminent domain for a new or expanded facility,” wrote Shipp this week in a column titled “Return of the pipeline monster (see Page 4A). “…We Georgians are the shocked good guys about to be throttled. We thought we had driven a stake into the heart of the pipeline vampire. Alas, we failed. Senate Bill 173, which would effectively give pipeline companies a blank check to condemn private property in Georgia, is riding a cash-greased rail to becoming law.”

Colonial Pipeline has faced national attention for leaks along its lines. The company was fined $34 million in recent years by the federal government for spilling 1.45 million gallons of oil from its 5,500 mile pipeline in five states.

There have been spills locally, too. Colonial admits to six spills at its booster station just south of Danielsville off Colbert Grove Church Road between 1966-79. Contaminated residential drinking water was discovered in the area in the mid 1990s. The company provided $950,000 for a water line from Madico Park to the contaminant zone.

A group of Colbert Grove area residents has been meeting monthly for more than a year to discuss the spills, the company and issues related to pipeline safety. That group, Citizens Organized for Pipeline Safety (COPS), plans to meet again Thursday night at 6:30 p.m. at Colbert Grove Baptist Church.

Colbert Grove Church Road property owner Richard Bennett, an outspoken critic of Colonial Pipeline, said the senate’s legislation to assist Colonial is atrocious.

“More lies from Colonial Pipeline backed by mostly Republicans who have been bought and sold by the oil industry,” said Bennett. “Same old, same old.”

---

Madison County News, Jefferson GA: http://www.mainstreetnews.com

Kean calls for end to eminent domain abuse: Long Branch NJ Atlanticville, 3/8/07

Assemblyman Sean T. Kean (R-11) called for changes in the state's eminent domain laws - including a more rigorous standard for property condemnation - at a town meeting in Long Branch last week.

Kean hosted a town meeting Feb. 28 as part of an initiative to hold town meetings in each of the 25 municipalities in the 11th District.

The meeting was Kean's second town meeting in Long Branch.

According to a press release from his legislative office, Kean said the eminent domain statutes must ensure that the power of eminent domain is not abused.

"By carefully redefining the use of eminent domain and where it can be applied, we can end the practice of using eminent domain to seize homes that are not negatively impacting the community," he said in the press release.

Kean's remarks came in response to many questions from the audience concerning the city's use of eminent domain.

He stated at the meeting that legislation he has proposed would help to protect private property owners by requiring the municipality to determine that the property is detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of its residents in order for it to be condemned, according to the release.

"My legislation would propose a constitutional amendment that requires private property in a blighted area must be determined to be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of its residents before it can be condemned for development or redevelopment purposes," he said in the release.

"If this legislation were enacted and approved by the voters, peoples' homes could not be taken simply because they are located in a redevelopment zone."

In addition to eminent domain, members of the audience inquired about Kean's view on the Long Branch Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ).

Kean said he believes the UEZ program is a success and he is committed to working to keep the UEZ program operating.

"The Urban Enterprise Zone program is helping communities like Long Branch to stimulate business," he said, adding, "It would definitely negatively impact the businesses in Long Branch and Asbury Park if the UEZ program is eliminated."

Other issues addressed included the lack of affordable housing in Monmouth County, the governor's recently announced budget, homeowners insurance and proposals to reduce state property taxes.

---

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

Legislators tackle eminent domain reform: Stamford CT Advocate, 3/8/07

By Brian Lockhart
[Connecticut] Legislators last night resumed grappling with an issue that consumed much of last year's state General Assembly session - eminent domain reform.

The legislature's joint Planning and Development Committee held its first public hearing last night on two bills aimed at reforming existing state laws. One was generated by the committee, another by Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

Originally scheduled for 2 p.m., the hearing was delayed until about 6 p.m. because of lengthy House and Senate sessions.

"I think we're expected to get something through," state Rep. Gerald Fox III, D-Stamford, a committee member, said afterward. "And I believe we will."

Eminent domain reform became a priority in 2005 after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New London could take homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to make way for a waterfront project slated to include condominiums, a hotel and office space.

But legislators did not reach an agreement in the 2006 session. This year, the eminent domain rhetoric has been replaced by Democrats' and Republicans' calls to reform state energy, health care and education policies.

"This has been too slow a process," Tim Calnen, a lobbyist from the Connecticut Association of Realtors, told the committee last night.

Calnen said association members and the public have become more cynical about whether the state would ever act.

"Is anyone listening?" he said.

The Planning and Development Committee did for three hours last night, receiving testimony from more than a dozen people, including residents from throughout the state whose families had lost property to eminent domain; the Farm Bureau Association; a representative of the state Office of Policy and Management, speaking in support of Rell's bill; and a representative of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities.

And additional bills are coming. State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, said yesterday that the Judiciary Committee, of which he is co-chairman, will send legislation of its own to a hearing late this month. Fox also is on the Judiciary Committee.

"This must be the year we finally resolve this issue for Connecticut residents," Rell said in a statement yesterday.

The governor has proposed requiring municipalities to integrate private properties into their plans when feasible and making towns and cities prove that the use of eminent domain is "reasonably necessary" to accomplish redevelopment goals.

She also wants property owners compensated 125 percent of fair-market value and seeks a two-thirds or "super-majority" vote of the governing body or town meeting to approve a property seizure by a municipality.

The Planning and Development Committee bill also calls for public hearings on each proposed seizure.

Calnen suggested that the legislature should go a step further and also require a committee of "disinterested citizens" be established in a municipality contemplating eminent domain condemnation to review government actions.

Many members of the public yesterday urged legislators to go as far as possible to ensure their homes cannot be seized for economic development.

"Most of us who have been through it feel you don't take from us to give to someone else to use," said Mike Dudko, who in 2000 lost 40 acres his family had owned for years to Bristol for an industrial park.

But Ron Thomas, the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities' manager of state and federal relations, urged caution.

Thomas said it is worth reexamining the definition of "just compensation . . . to recognize the social and sentimental value of the property" beyond market value.

But he said if the state does decide to compensate businesses for "loss of good will" if they relocate, the burden of proof must be on the business, using "independent expert testimony on the effect the dislocation is likely to have."

Thomas said CCM is also concerned with a section of the Planning and Development Committee bill that would prohibit the taking of any properties that have tenants and that comply with local building and zoning requirements.

Thomas said the provision allows one individual to hold up an economic development project.

State Reps. Craig Miner, R-Litchfield, and Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, committee members, said the legislature at some point needs to say a resident's home cannot be taken for economic development.

"There should be a floor of property rights we're willing to protect," Candelora said.

Thomas said CCM backs reforms, but the General Assembly also needs to have faith in municipal governments to make the right decisions.

"We know these decisions are extremely difficult," Thomas said. "The prospect of having your home taken away is very disturbing."

Dudko, who attended public hearings on eminent domain reform last session, said he had more faith the Judiciary Committee would take action this year. And he plans to keep testifying.

"It's all over for my family, but I'm still here," he said. "I want to see a change. I want citizens rights protected."

---

Stamford CT Advocate: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com

Exeter votes to take farm by eminent domain: Southern Berks News, Boyertown PA, 3/8/07

Exeter [PA] Township School Board members cited onerous negotiations and a costly time extension when they voted 7-0 last week to take farmland by eminent domain in order to build new elementary schools.

In 2005, the district offered to buy 110 acres of Jordan Baucher's farm, which spans the length of Ritters Road between Route 562 and Oley Turnpike Road, for $3.7 million.

The offer was contingent upon approval to build up to three elementary schools. When the agreement expired, an extension cost the district $100,000.

Board President Ken Levan said board members Ken Hart and Robert Quinter had been at a closed session prior to the vote, but other obligations forced them to be absent from the meeting.

After the plan to build one school received township approval, the Concerned Citizens of Exeter Township successfully challenged the decision. Berks Judge Scott E. Lash ruled that the plans were incomplete.

The district is currently appealing that decision.

"It is my understanding that we submit the eminent domain papers, the Baushers have an opportunity to challenge it, and a third party determines the fair market for the property," Exeter Superintendent Dr. Nicholas Corbo said.

He noted the process will take time, citing the Reading Country Club as an example.
"And that's been going on for over a year now," he said.

Corbo reiterated that the school board believes the Bausher farm is the best location for the three schools needed to accomodate growing elementary student populations.

Corbo said the plan is to open the doors to the first school in 2009.

"This is the best-case scenario when everything goes smoothly," Levan said.
"But if things don't go exactly as planned, it will be 2010," Corbo said.

To keep the planning process moving forward, the board heard a report from Gary Bannon of EI Associates, Harrisburg, the district's architect.

Bannon said he has been touring similar school projects in the area, including the new Twin Valley Elementary School in Elverson.

As a result of increasing fuel costs, Bannon said he expects construction costs to rise at a rate of 8 percent a year, which would mean an additional $120,000 a month or $1.5 million a year for Exeter.

"That's the kind of numbers you have to add to your project," he said
"So the lawsuit is costing the Exeter Township taxpayers about $100,000 per month," board member Dr. David Bender said.

Jill Skaist, a member of the Concerned Citizens of Exeter Township, said the reason for the delay is not her organization's fault.

She laid blame on the district's architect because the courts through out the original application due to its deficiencies.

"Their architect should pay restitution," she said.

Corbo said the district is bringing in a relocatable class room to relieve overcrowding, calling this another financial cost forced by the lawsuit.

"We're in the process of having a doublewide relocatable classroom building delivered to Jacksonwald,"Corbo said. "That's in the budget."

The temporary building should be in place by August in time for the beginning of the 2007-08 school year.

As district growth continues with no new building in place, Corbo said, it is possible there might be a need for more relocatable buildings.

"The Jacksonwald buildings will get us though next year," he said. "Then it's a good possibility next year this time we'll be doing it again."

---

Southern Berks News, Boyertown PA: http://www.berksmontnews.com

Committee wrapping up eminent domain legislation: WIS-TV10, Columbia SC, 3/7/07

A committee is putting the final touches on legislation that would change how [South Carolina] state and local governments can take property from landowners.

Only a handful of state agencies like school districts, the Transportation Department and the Ports Authority would be allowed to take land without state approval, under the proposals, which are expected to be finished by the end of the month.

Local governments would have to have permission from a city or county council before using the power of eminent domain.

A committee of lawmakers and appointees from the governor have been hearing testimony about the bills this session after 86 percent of voters passed a constitutional amendment in November limiting the ability of governments to take land.

---

WIS-TV10, Columbia SC: http://www.wistv.com

Eminent domain process on hold: Glens Falls NY Post-Star, 3/8/07

Corinth Village, Philmet consider deal on former paper plant
By Charles Fiegl
The village of Corinth [NY] is close to an agreement that will end its pursuit to take a former International Paper Co. mill by eminent domain, according to a proposal discussed on Wednesday.

In exchange for dropping the condemnation, the owners of the mill property, Philmet Capital Group, would agree to prohibit industries related to trash and construction debris from operating at the 300-acre Corinth Mills Industrial Park. Industrial waste, however, would not be restricted.

"By (March) 21st, I want this put to bed," village of Corinth Trustee Leigh Lescault said. "I will ask to put this to a vote on the 21st."

About 100 residents attended a village Board of Trustees meeting Wednesday at which details of the proposed agreement were announced by Paul Levine, an attorney from the firm Lemery Greisler, representing the village.

Levine explained Philmet, the village and the town would sign a deed declaration banning municipal solid waste and construction debris industries from the site forever. The property owner would be restricted by the covenant unless it was released from it by the village and town.

The village had asked for industrial waste to be prohibited as well, but representatives for Philmet refused.

"We got two out of three," Levine said. "We can't get industrial waste; they won't give it to us."

The sides are also working on agreeing to a site proposal that would include upgrading the mill's power plant and constructing a 12,000-square-foot building that will be used to manufacture plastic dinnerware, Levine said.

The International Paper mill had produced paper for more than a century before it closed in 2002. Local residents have been concerned about the future of the mill since it closed and have fought against proposals that would bring a trash industry to their community.

In November, the village initiated the eminent domain process. In December, the municipality and Philmet began discussions to avoid the proceeding and answer the village's concerns.

The village Board of Trustees said it would like to move forward with the agreement soon, given nearly $60,000 in attorney fees mounting for the situation. Mayor Bradley Winslow has invited residents to continue submitting their comments on the proposal.

Corinth resident Barbara Weatherwax, who has rallied against trash being imported to the village, said the village would not gain anything under the proposed agreement if industrial waste is not prohibited.

John D'Alessandro, spokesman for the industrial park, said the proposed agreement would not permit industrial waste to be used as an energy source for the power plant. Gas, coal and wood are permitted, he said.

The company does not want to ban industrial waste because the definition is too broad, D'Alessandro said.

"Our goal is to have multiple tenants at the park," D'Alessandro said. "In order to be able to attract tenants, we can't sign a document that locks everything out for us.

"The definition for industrial waste is extremely broad, and what might be industrial waste for one company might be useful to others," D'Alessandro said.

Philmet is ready to sign the agreement, he added.

---

Glens Falls NY Post-Star: http://www.poststar.com

Overcorrecting on eminent domain: Roanoke VA Times, 3/7/07

Editorial
The [Virginia] General Assembly went too far in its attempt to rein in expansive powers to seize property after the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo decision.

The General Assembly overreacted to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that unreasonably expanded eminent domain powers.

A bill on its way to Gov. Tim Kaine's desk goes too far in restricting those powers.

Eminent domain - taking a citizen's property, even with just compensation required - is one of the most intrusive powers granted to government by the U.S. Constitution (behind only imprisonment and execution).

The Constitution limited the exercise of this power to instances when private property was needed for a "public use." But it didn't take long for the definition of public use to broaden, and court decisions soon began using the phrase, "public purpose."

Eminent domain has been approved for private developments that might improve blighted areas or some other broad public benefit and not just projects such as roads, bridges or schools actually used by the public.

Then, in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court took it even further, ruling in the infamous Kelo decision that government could take private property from unwilling sellers for the sole purpose of economic development.

The "public purpose" now included generating more tax revenue.

As former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her impassioned dissent, "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded - i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public - in the process."

This year, the Virginia General Assembly passed a bill to rein in those powers - but it overcorrected, restricting the ability of local governments to resort to eminent domain in ways that genuinely serve a public good.

The bill strictly defines public uses as things such as parks, public buildings and infrastructure.

There is a provision to use eminent domain to eliminate blighted property, but only if the property being taken is blighted itself, not just in a blighted area.

Originally, the Senate passed a bill that would have allowed governments to seize property in an area where 85 percent of the property is blighted. The House rejected that amendment.

But to make some redevelopment projects work, it is occasionally necessary to assemble large tracts of land, which could necessitate taking scattered properties within a parcel that aren't necessarily blighted. If local governments are stripped of eminent domain authority, a lone holdout could stop an entire project in its tracks.

Gov. Kaine should amend the legislation to reflect the more reasonable Senate language.

---

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

Eminent domain closed? Bridgeton NJ News, 3/7/07

By Jaime Marine
[Millville NJ] City commission will not adopt an ordinance banning the use of eminent domain.

Those were the words of Vice Mayor Joe Derella Tuesday night as he addressed recent concerns over the redevelopment tool and a petition submitted by watchdog group Millville First on Feb. 20.

The petition asked commissioners to pass an ordinance banning eminent domain for the benefit of a private developer or private development.

"Despite the vocal support for eminent domain by residents of our Center City neighborhoods, we have stated that we will not take a single-family house for private development," Derella said. "Eminent domain is an emotional topic.

"Select an emotional topic, wave the flag of fear and then point the finger of blame. That is what occurs when someone wants to play politics or has a personal agenda."

To finalize their position on the petition, signed by over 1,100 voters, the commission passed a resolution stating the proposed ordinance is not subject to initiative, the city clerk does not have to verify the signatures, and that the redevelopment process is not subject to ordinance through voter initiative.

The vice mayor cited a project 40 years ago which proposed the city acquire a 15.5-acre tract of land in the Middle Avenue-West Main Street area.

Known as the Riverview Redevelopment project, it displaced 57 families, 14 single individuals and eight businesses in an attempt to help rebuild and revitalize the most congested and decayed city areas, he said. The city had the responsibility to relocate the families and businesses into suitable locations.

During this project, William Shaw was the mayor and Paul Porreca, now a member of Millville First, was the commissioner of revenue and finance.

"You can look out of the windows of the commission chamber and see the riverview redevelopment project, a great example of private, public and commercial results," Derella said. "Similar to the Riverview Development project, the Union Lake Crossing Project required the acquisition of seven privately-owned properties.

"Unfortunately, after several months of negotiations, two properties were taken by eminent domain. One property, the animal clinic eventually came to terms and was not taken through eminent domain."

He noted Dr. Harold Blumenthal received two times the assessed value of his property and has been relocated to Sharp Street. The other property condemned was the site of a billboard.

"Similar to the Riverview Development Project, Union Lake Crossing will generate $22 million in tax revenue over 15 years vs. the $1.5 million that would have been generated by the seven existing businesses over the same period," he said. "This commission can only hope that Union Lake Crossing can be considered a successful project after 40 years."

Millville First President Emil Van Hook had questioned why the city couldn't pass their ordinance banning eminent domain after it passed what he said were similar ones for the motorsports park and single-family, owner-occupied homes.

Derella said these are all different situations.

"Once a redevelopment project has been completed in a particular area of a designated redevelopment area, the enhanced power of eminent domain provided by state constitution and statutes no longer exists, because that blight in that particular area has been eliminated," he said. "That is why state statute requires this language be incorporated in a municipal development agreement."

When contacted after the meeting, Van Hook said the group is not ruling out the possibility of legal action.

He said commissioners have still failed to address eminent domain in respect to privately owned businesses or other types of properties, aside from single-family, owner-occupied homes.

Van Hook said the city could still hold a non-binding referendum to see how the people feel about the issue.

Porreca said while he considers the issue closed, he took exception to the comment about personal and political agendas.

He said he is not running for office and was only concerned about the community and how things are done.

---

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

City may use eminent domain: Victorville CA Daily Press, 3/7/07

Nisqualli Road property owner is holding out on 1,800 square feet
By Tatiana Prophet
The city [of Victorville] is using eminent domain as "last resort" measure to capture a slice of turf along Nisqualli Road that would be needed to widen the thoroughfare.

In a unanimous vote Tuesday night, City Council members voted to take a roughly 1,800-square-foot piece of a half-acre lot at the northeast corner of Nisqualli Road and Seventh Avenue, which would be used to build a drain, sidewalk and street signal.

So far, owner Rodolfo Padilla has not responded to city overtures to buy the land, officials said.

"To refresh everybody's memory, the policy of this city has been that we would only consider eminent domain as a last, last resort," Mayor Terry Caldwell said before the vote.

To alleviate traffic, the city has been planning to build an interchange at Interstate 15 and Nisqualli Road for more than six years. It took the Federal Highway Administration four years to sign off the project, and the city just awarded a bid for Phase I of the project on Tuesday night.

After hiring a private appraiser to put a value on the land, the city has gone back and forth with the property owner and still has not reached an agreement on the land, said Deputy City Attorney Bill Medlen. The amounts negotiated are not public record.

"Out of the 70 parcels they needed for this road widening, this was the only one they were not able to settle with," he said.

Padilla did not claim his right to a public hearing and did not show up at the council meeting, which is required by law before the use of eminent domain. Attempts to locate him for comment were unsuccessful.

Taking property by eminent domain is an action that goes through the courts. If the owner chooses to appeal the action, the matter could conceivably reach a higher court, said Steven Frates, a senior fellow at the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College.

"If there's a legal shootout, it could have implications," Frates said.

He added the landmark Kelo vs. City of New London case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain could be used for redevelopment purposes, went all the way to the highest court because a woman decided she simply did not want to give up her house.

But Medlen pointed out that in the Padilla case, the use of eminent domain remains squarely for public benefit.

"The city wants to widen a road because everyone knows there's too much traffic on B.V., right?" he said. "And we have a situation where we've settled with 70 people and one person wants to hold out. So what do we do? We hold up a street widening because one person doesn't want to settle?"

Before the council vote, City Manager Jon Roberts seemed perplexed as to why a property owner would resist the improvement.

"If the parcel of land were to be developed privately, (the owner) would need to dedicate this portion to the city at no cost," Robert said, referring to the sidewalk and signal. "I think anyone in the industry would probably concur that the remaining parcel would increase in value once the improvements were made."

The taxable value of the land is listed with the assessor's office at $51,000, which translates to about $2.34 per square foot. Assessed values can be lower than appraisal values, especially if the property has not changed hands in a while.

According to tax records, Padilla bought the property in 2005, after which the assessed value jumped from $18,290 to $50,000.

---

Victorville CA Daily Press: http://www.vvdailypress.com

City uses eminent domain for first time in 16 years: Gillette WY News-Record, 3/7/07

By Christa Meland
The City of Gillette has decided to use its eminent domain powers to try and take land from a Jackson-based non-profit organization in order to create an extension between Kluver Road and Warlow Drive.

The last time the city sued for condemnation was 16 years ago, and the practice has been used by the city only a handful of times.

City Council members, most of whom generally oppose taking private land without permission, voted 6 to 1 in favor of using eminent domain earlier this week. They want to sue the Karl Johnson Foundation in hopes of acquiring a 2.28 acre parcel of land southeast of Cherry Lane.

City officials in 2002 listed the Kluver Road extension as a priority in the transportation plan they created. For the past two years, city workers have tried to move forward with the estimated $2.4 million project but have been unsuccessful in negotiating with the nonprofit organization that owns the land.

“We began in August 2006 in earnest to try to acquire (the property),” said Engineering Director Mike Coleman.

He added that city workers have created various road designs for the nonprofit organization to review and have tried to minimize the loss of trailer park lots that the extension would cause to the organization, but they have received no response.

The attorney for the Karl Johnson Foundation was not available for comment by press time.

---

Gillette WY News-Record: http://www.gillettenewsrecord.com

Eminent domain limits sought: Warren OH Tribune Chronicle, 3/7/07

By Stephen Oravecz
Legislation in the [Ohio] state Legislature could put limits on Warren’s plans to aggressively use eminent domain to acquire blighted property for downtown commercial development.

The sponsor of Senate Bill 7, state Sen. Timothy Grendell, R-Chesterland, said Tuesday that he does not want to stop the use of eminent domain for economic development, but he wants to make its use ‘‘the exception and not the rule.’’

How aggressive Warren can be could come down to the way lawmakers define a blighted property. Grendell said he expects that to be one of the major debates over his bill and for the first time offered his suggestion: Government could take property for development or redevelopment if 90 percent of the parcel is blighted.

To be declared blighted, it must meet three of nine requirements. They include any structure:

• That’s physical condition presents a public nuisance or attractive nuisance;
  
• That an agency has designated as unfit for human habitation;
  
• That is a fire hazard or is dangerous;
  
• Where the utilities have been disconnected or rendered ineffective;
  
• That is abandoned;
  
• Other criteria cover trash and rodents, delinquent taxes, uncorrected health or safety code violations, health threats.

Grendell said he would be willing to change the bill to require more than three of the requirements.

The bill adds other protections for property owners trying to fight eminent domain. For instance, it requires a public hearing, it requires appraisals be disclosed to property owners, and it prohibits port authorities or park districts from using eminent domain unless county commissioners or trustees give their approval.

The second bill proposed a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit home rule cities from making their own stricter rules for eminent domain. If approved by voters in November, the state rules would apply to all Ohio cities.

That amendment would not affect the situation in Warren, which is not a home rule city.

Sen. Capri Cafaro, D-Hubbard, questioned Grendell about who makes the final decision whether a property is blighted. That ruling, Grendell said, would be made by a judge if a property owner challenges the eminent domain action.

Cafaro said she agrees with Grendell that eminent domain laws should apply uniformly through Ohio, but she wants to make sure the final bill is fair to cities such as Warren that need it for redevelopment.

---

Warren OH Tribune Chronicle: http://www.tribune-chronicle.com

Eminent domain on docket: Bridgeton NJ News, 3/6/07

By Jaime Marine
[Millville NJ] City commissioners are expected to vote on a resolution tonight which gives them further direction on a petition submitted by local watchdog group Millville First.

The petition, which asks commissioners to pass an ordinance banning eminent domain for the benefit of a private developer or private development, was submitted on Feb. 20 during the commission meeting.

It also asked for a special election, should commissioners not pass the ordinance, but Millville First members say they now accept the fact that can't happen. No action was taken on the petition by commissioners during the February meeting.

"The city attorney, along with the redevelopment attorneys for the city, have advised that the proposed ordinance is not subject to initiative pursuant to NJSA 40A:12A-28 of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law," the resolution states.

Therefore, the resolution is proposing the city clerk be relieved of the responsibility to verify the signatures on the petitions, and the governing body accept there are sufficient signatures to satisfy the requirement.

It reiterates, "The redevelopment process is not subject to ordinance through voter initiative."

These proposals go along with Solicitor Rich McCarthy's statements on Feb. 20, where he said, "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, (the clerk's office) may receive and file them, but (they) are under no legal obligation to take further action."

Millville First President Emil Van Hook has 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 in addition they passed a resolution stating they would not condemn a single-family owner occupied home," he previously said.

"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 previously said the group is not ruling out legal action, but said they are hoping to avoid it.

Also during tonight's meeting, Vice Mayor Joe Derella is scheduled to talk about eminent domain issues. The agenda did not give specifics on his report.

---

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

Warren may use eminent domain: Warren OH Tribune Chronicle, 3/6/07

By Amy McCullough
[Warren OH] Mayor Michael J. O’Brien said he wants to use eminent domain to ‘‘aggressively’’ pursue several parcels of land downtown that he says are vacant and blighted.

O’Brien said he would like to acquire seven to 10 properties owned by three people off East Market Street as part what is called the Campbell Court Property. The hope is to market a larger piece of land for commercial development.

He declined to give the names of all the owners or the exact locations of the properties, but said the former Jackson’s Lounge, owned by Donald Guarnieri, is an example of the types of properties being considered.

‘‘I’m intentionally being vague because of the possibility of still negotiating prices,’’ O’Brien said.

A message left for Guarnieri was not returned Monday.

Warren Redevelopment and Planning Corp. already purchased and demolished 279 E. Market St, a partially burned, vacant structure, as part of the larger development project.

The mayor said last week that eminent domain has not been brought up in negotiations with the property owners.

‘‘When the law department is comfortable with moving forward, it is my request that we do the eminent domain issue aggressively in the downtown area,’’ the mayor said.

‘‘Once we capture the buildings and demolish them, we would then begin with the new enhancements (a list of business incentives and utility credits) that city council is proposing and we would be able to acquire development projects,’’ O’Brien said.

Repeated messages left for Law Director Gregory Hicks over the last week were not returned but O’Brien said the Law Department is still researching the issue.

He also acknowledged several pieces of legislation moving through both the Ohio Statehouse that would change existing eminent domain laws. One Senate resolution introduced by Sen. Kevin Coughlin, R-Cuyahoga Falls, would bring the issue before voters statewide and could eventually lead to the amendment of the state constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 to allow government to use eminent domain to take private property for public benefit with some safeguards.

As a result of that ruling, State Sen. Timothy Grendell, R-Chesterland, pushed to start a task force charged with clarifying Ohio’s eminent domain laws. He also sponsored one of two senate bills on the issue.

‘‘I believe Ohio voters want the opportunity to support private property rights at the ballot box,’’ Coughlin said in a statement. ‘‘Eminent domain should be used sparingly and only when it benefits the public as a whole. Our laws should reflect that and leave no wiggle room for government to abuse its power.’’

O’Brien said the Law Department is taking the proposed changes into consideration as it researches the issue.

According to Tribune Chronicle archives, the last time the city sued for eminent domain was in the mid-1990s. The lawsuit stated the city was unable to reach an agreement with any of the owners in connection to a Summit Street N.W. widening project.

Warren City Council passed a resolution on Dec. 14, 1994, declaring it necessary for the city to claim the land, according to archive reports.

---

Warren OH Tribune Chronicle: http://www.tribune-chronicle.com

Eminent Domain Law Bill Being Reviewed: KSL-TV5, Salt Lake City UT, 3/5/07

By John Hollenhorst
The governor [of Utah] has not tipped his hand yet on whether he'll sign a bill that restores the power of cities to buy your home, even if you don't want to sell. The legislation partially reverses a win by angry property owners two years ago.

The legislature undercut the power of eminent domain two years ago. But now they're bringing back a modified version as tool for urban development.

Some Ogden homeowners believe it benefits commercial interests at the property owners' expense.

This collection of modest homes is the neighborhood that stopped Wal-Mart in its tracks a couple of years ago. Some homeowners refused to sell.

Donna Marti, Ogden resident: "I mean it isn't a new, gorgeous home, but it's home."

Evo Marti was literally born in his house 83 years ago.

Evo Marti, Ogden resident: "All our life lived here, raised our kids, and grandkids and great-grandkids. It's home!"

In that old fight, the city wanted to force the deal, using the power of eminent domain to condemn blighted properties for resale to commercial development.

Mark Johnson, management services director, Ogden: "Increased revenues from property tax and sales tax benefit the entire community."

Wal-Mart eventually threw in the towel. The legislature two years ago banned eminent domain for commercial redevelopment projects. But the new bill brings it back in modified form. A homeowner could be forced to sell if 80 percent of his neighbors say "yes".

Mark Johnson: "So if there are 10 properties, of those, eight have to sign the petition."

The legislation sets the stage for a potential battle here where the city eventually expects to take out blighted homes and businesses and build the Ogden River project.

Mark Johnson: "We are trying to rebirth that area, to bring in some new housing projects, some new commercial and some retail."

A councilman from neighboring North Ogden opposes the new bill.

Steve Huntsman, member, North Ogden City Council: "The minute the government steps over and starts taking property, it affects all of us. I just think that it's wrong from a constitutional standpoint."

The Martis say it's wrong for a city to forcibly buy a property and then resell it to the highest bidder.

Donna Marti: "That's like stealing. Robbing Peter to pay Paul."

Governor Huntsman hasn't said if he'll sign or veto the bill. A spokesman said today he's still reviewing it

---

KSL-TV5, Salt Lake City UT: http://www.ksl.com

County to reconsider Scull bridge: Seguin TX Gazette-Enterprise, 3/6/07

By David DeKunder
A proposed bridge that would connect Guadalupe and Caldwell counties could get the thumbs-down from Guadalupe County commissioners.

County commissioners could reverse their previous support for the bridge when they meet at 10 a.m., today, at the County Administration Building.

County Road and Bridge Administrator Larry Timmermann said commissioners will decide if they want to rescind their previous support of the proposed Scull Road Bridge, which would be built over the San Marcos River in the northeastern part of the county.

Because of issues relating to eminent domain, commissioners seem to have second thoughts on supporting the construction of the bridge, Timmermann said.

“The project would require that the county take eminent domain against the [property owner],” Timmermann said. “Commissioners court is not willing to do this.”

Timmermann said the property owner has withdrawn his support for the bridge because of the eminent domain issue.

The proposed project, which has a price tag of $500,000, would be built with state funding and funding from both counties.

Last May, county commissioners passed a resolution supporting the bridge, which initially had the support of a property owner in the area.

For the project to go forward, Timmermann said the state requires that both counties pass a resolution supporting the bridge.

---

Seguin TX Gazette-Enterprise: http://seguingazette.com

Mishawaka takes legal step on project: South Bend IN Tribune, 3/5/07

Use of eminent domain OK'd to acquire property for underpass
By Sue Lowe
The owner of Loading Zone Liquor doesn't think the city of Mishawaka has offered him enough money to move his business out of the way of the North Main Street underpass.

"Their offer was almost 50 percent less than fair market value," Ray Buzalski said. "We're not averse to selling. But we want enough money to relocate."

His business on the northeast corner of Jefferson Boulevard and North Main Street and the billboard next to it are the only two remaining pieces of property the city needs for the underpass under the Canadian National Railroad tracks.

So members of the Mishawaka Board of Public Works and Safety voted to authorize use of eminent domain proceedings to get possession of those last two pieces of property last week.

The billboard is owned by Burkhart Advertising.

Representatives for the city have reached agreements for the city to buy an additional 40 pieces of property.

Gary West, director of engineering for the city, said the need to go through the courts to get the property won't slow the project down.

"They're at the north end," he said of the pieces of property.

Buzalski said representatives of the Indianapolis law firm representing the city told him in December that the city would use eminent domain.

He said he's not trying to block the project. But he feels the offer the city made for the property is "ridiculous."

"I don't think it's fair a city can bankrupt a small business by using eminent domain," Buzalski said. "All we're trying to do is get a sufficient amount of money to move."

Buzalski said that if he didn't own two other businesses, "the city would literally be putting me and my family in the street."

City attorney John Gourley said the city can acquire the property in four to six months even if there is a trial later to determine the value of the property.

Mayor Jeff Rea said the prices paid for property are based on appraisals from certified appraisers.

He said although assessments are now supposed to be based on market value, the assessments are still not keeping up with appraisals.

People who sell property to the city also get financial help with relocation.

Work on the underpass will begin when the railroad is moved south of its current location. The underpass will then be built at its current location.

The Board of Public Works and Safety already awarded a contract to Jackson Services of Rochester to tear down five buildings. That company bid $46,320 for the work.

The board will open quotes for demolition of the old Mishawaka Transmission building at 1204 N. Main St. at its March 13 meeting.

The underpass should be finished in about two years.

---

South Bend IN Tribune: http://www.southbendtribune.com