12/17/2007

Town to pay $6M for land: Charleston SC Post and Courier, 12/6/07

Mount Pleasant planned to condemn a 1-acre tract near Shem Creek known as the OK Tire property
By Prentiss Findlay

[The Mt Pleasant SC] Town Council voted Wednesday to spend $6 million to acquire 43 acres of Shem Creek property, thus settling its condemnation lawsuit against the owners of about an acre of the land known as the OK Tire property.

"We're glad it's behind us," said Town Administrator Mac Burdette.

After an executive session, council voted unanimously to authorize Mayor Harry Hallman to sign the agreement with property owners Mark Mason and Phillip Smith.

The town and the property owners will meet to close the deal Dec. 18, said Town Attorney Allen Young.

Under the agreement, the town will acquire a section of creekfront known as the Bailey Docks.

"Getting the docks is very important," Burdette said. It means the town could build a public creekfront that goes from a park at the OK Tire property near Coleman Boulevard down to the Bailey Docks just past Vickery's all the way to the harbor, Burdette said.

"It's a great day. It will allow us to have true water access for the general public," he said. Funds for the purchase will come from the town Tax Increment Financing District. He said the town would likely want to talk to other creek property owners about acquiring more property for public use.

If the town and the property owners had not reached agreement, a circuit judge was scheduled to hear arguments Dec. 19 on the property owners' motion to dismiss the town condemnation suit.

Young said that Hallman will sign the documents agreeing to the purchase today. "It ends the lawsuit completely," Young said.

On Oct. 10, Young issued a statement that under the authority council had delegated to him, he would file a $2,285,000 condemnation action for the OK Tire property. Mason and Smith countered that the property was worth $4.6 million. Earlier, council made a $6 million offer for the OK Tire property and the Bailey Docks. Mason and Smith wanted more than $7.6 million. Council did not specify how much the town will pay for the OK Tire property.

OK Tire Documents: Click here to download PDF documents pertaining to the condemnation and purchase of the disputed OK Tire property. The acrimonious negotiations were marked by Mason's threats to obtain the hard drives of council members' computers to reconstruct e-mails he said had been purposely deleted because they concerned town business. He alleged that town business was being done under the radar by e-mail. Mason, an attorney, also alleged other violations of the state Freedom of Information Act. He was not immediately available for comment late Wednesday night.

Mason planned to put 24 condominiums on the OK Tire land and 24 floating boat slips on Shem Creek. In 2005, the town offered $2 million for the OK Tire property and the Bailey Docks on Shem Creek, which are small docks shrimpers use.


Charleston SC Post and Courier: http://www.charleston.net

Baldwin Park Residents Figh Eminent Domain Abuse: Californians for Property Rights Protection, 12/6/07

Hundreds of Homes and Businesses at Stake

Last night, a hundred of Baldwin Park homeowners and property owners attended a standing room only city council hearing to express their opposition to the city’s plan to seize around 600 properties to benefit the Bisno Development Company. As reported by KTLA News and other media sources, the developer has demanded that the city seize local properties before voters consider an eminent domain measure slated to appear on the June 2008 ballot.

Find out what this diverse community is doing to fight back! Visit KTLA News’ website (news section) for its live coverage of the contentious public hearing -- http://ktla.trb.com/. The video can be found within the “News” tab/section, scroll down to 12/5.

Background
As illustrated in a letter from the developer to the city (see links below), Baldwin Park is proving to be a classic case of how a public agency works with a wealthy and politically connected developer to use eminent domain to seize homes and small businesses from unwilling sellers. Should the city continue its course, our campaign to reform eminent domain abuse will certainly highlight Baldwin Park as one of the worst cases of eminent domain abuse in the state. It is not everyday that a city will consider a project that displaces hundreds of homeowners and small businesses!

The Alliance is one of the proponents of the “California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act,” an eminent domain reform ballot measure slated for the June ballot, as referenced in the developer’s letter. The ballot measure prohibits the use of eminent domain for private to private takings, while allowing the use for public projects. In short, if our measure passes in June, local property owners will be safe from the reach of the Bisno Development Company and its allies on the Baldwin Park City Council.

Referenced Letters
See www.calpropertyrights.com for the Alliance’s letter to the city council and the developer letter urging the city to expedite eminent domain proceedings.

Property Owners from three LA cities, all just several miles apart, are fighting cities and developers wishing to seize their property – a geographic “Triangle of Eminent Domain Abuse”!

City of Baldwin Park: http://www.sgvtribune.com/rds_search/ci_7613475?IADID=Search-www.sgvtribune.com-www.sgvtribune.com

City of Duarte: http://www.sgvtribune.com/ci_7642839

City of Azuza: http://www.calpropertyrights.com/pdf/11-3-07_SGVN.pdf


Californians for Private Property Rights Protection: www.yesonpropertyrights.com

On Exchange Street, eminent domain becoming imminent: Akron OH Buchtelite, 10/25/07

By Brandon Welk

The University of Akron has had plans for a new stadium in the works for a while now: The $55 million contract was approved several months ago. Groundbreaking and excavation for the InfoCision Stadium is expected to begin in January. It will replace the decrepit Rubber Bowl and will include rooms for classes and more parking spaces. Completion of the stadium is scheduled for the 2009 Zips' football season, when they will have a new place to lose to the Buckeyes.

There are several issues regarding the construction of the new stadium, including the campus community's acceptance of increased traffic, estimated costs incurred and whether it is justifiable to replace the Rubber Bowl and most notable, the biggest issue: eminent domain.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, eminent domain refers to the power of the state to assume ownership of private property for public use, with compensation to the owner. To build a stadium, the university needs to buy much of the property surrounding campus to make room.

There have already been students displaced from the residence halls next to the Rec Center to the new Exchange Street dorm because the property will be needed for the stadium. Though the university owned that property already, move a little farther out from campus and there's plenty of property they didn't.

The job of buying property isn't over yet, but plans for demolishing buildings on the property aren't expected to be delayed. Though there are multiple businesses located on Exchange Street that will be affected by eminent domain, none is more noticeable or popular than Manny's Pub across from Europe Gyro and Campus Book and Supply.

And no business owner dislikes the prospect of being forced to move more than Manny does. He doesn't want to have to move the business he's worked so hard to maintain, and when asked about how he felt about eminent domain and the new stadium, he replied, "I'm still here, aren't I?"

Why would he want to move? He's got the perfect location: accessible by students and those living walking distance of the university, a loyal customer base and features that keep people coming back.

Featuring nightly drink specials, a $2 shot of the night, three pool tables, a dart board and an Internet jukebox, Manny's has plenty to offer. It also offers a touchscreen game machine, plenty of bar space, tables, and booths, an outdoor patio that welcomes smokers, friendly employees and Friday night's legendary Power Hour.

Manny's Pub has more to offer than the bars downtown with a more personal atmosphere and the advantage of being close enough to campus to not worry about needing a cab.

Not to mention, if Manny is forced to leave, he's not only losing one business, he's losing three, as he owns the neighboring Aroma Coffee & Tea and leases the Chopstix Chinese restaurant next to that.

But it seems that, sadly, eminent domain is becoming more imminent. The university wants that property.

Ted Curtis, the vice president of capital planning and facility management, has recently stated that the first phase of the drawing for the new stadium isn't completed yet, it hasn't delayed groundbreaking.

Here's a solution: If the architectural designs aren't done yet, why not include Manny's in the design? If the land is needed anyway, why not keep Manny's there, but incorporate the physical structure into the new stadium somehow? Have Manny's be a part of the same building as the stadium, but with a separate entranceway facing Exchange Street.

That way, the building isn't moving far. It can retain the same customers and features that make it one of the best bars in Akron, and even more people can enjoy Manny's because of its direct proximity to the stadium. Having a bar like that built into a stadium isn't unheard of, so why can't we make it work?

One of the goals of eminent domain is to compensate the owner of the private property for the fair value of the property taken. But who can place a fair value on all of the hard work that Manny has put into building the business he loves so much or on all the countless nights of fun had there?

That sum might be difficult for the university to muster.


Akron OH Buchtelite: http://media.www.buchtelite.com

Settlement OK'd in eminent domain case: Boston MA Globe, 10/25/07

Family to receive $2.8m for farm

By Melissa Beecher

A seven-year battle is over after the Groton-Dunstable Regional School Committee approved a $2.8 million settlement and agreed to drop any further appeals on an eminent domain case that took a former family farm for the site of the new regional high school.

The payment is in addition to a $1.8 million purchase price the board made for the 177-acre Casella family property in 2001.

"The Casellas were paid an unfair price for the land by the School Department, and when a jury agreed, they filed an appeal," said George McLaughlin III, the attorney from Boston-based McLaughlin Brothers who specializes in eminent domain and represents the three Casella families.

"After the school district lost two times, they have wisely decided to stop the bleeding," McLaughlin said. "It has been a long time coming."

Cindy Barrett, chairwoman of School Committee, said the decision was ultimately a financial one.

"It took two years for our first appeal to be heard," said Barrett. "Even though we still believe there is a valid reason to clarify the expert testimony, we had to take into account how much per month would be accrued due to interest."

Superintendent Alan Genovese concurred with the board's vote.

"Even if we won the appeal, all it meant is that . . . we would start over from scratch. This could have gone on for another 20 years," said Genovese.

"We've reached the point where we need to put this behind us," he said.

The vote to drop the case was 6 to 0, with School Committee member Charles McKinney abstaining. McKinney has abstained from all votes regarding the Casellas because he was a friend and neighbor of theirs.

The vote means the district will issue a $2.5 million bond, which was approved by Groton and Dunstable's Town Meetings in 2005. The remainder of the balance will be found in the High School Land Acquisition Fund, where $198,000 will be drawn, and High School Building Fund, where $135,000 will be used.

Genovese said the borrowing would not have a financial impact on taxpayers until fiscal 2009. No money will come from the district's operating budgets.

The settlement concludes a saga that began in 2000, when the school district voted to take the Casella land on Chicopee Row for $1.8 million. The schools had been reviewing several parcels, but after topography testing, determined the Casella farm was the only property of its size in either community that could accommodate a new high school.

The Casellas sued, claiming the district significantly undervalued the land, which they believed should have been sold for $4.8 million. While the case was in the courts, the high school was built. It opened in 2003. The $36 million project took advantage of the School Building Assistance Funding, receiving 67 percent state aid reimbursements, school officials said.

The eminent domain case went to trial in June 2005 and a jury determined the value of the property was $4.1 million. The district was instructed to pay the difference.

The school district appealed that decision, saying that the expert testimony of two law firms - one of which gave a high valuation of the land - should not have been admissible in court. The appeals court rejected this argument in August.

At that time, the district was ordered to pay the original $2.5 million plus accrued interest, which is approximately $250,000.

In a prepared statement, school district leaders said that the director of business and finance, Timothy Sheehan, would be working to expedite the bonding process so the settlement could be paid "as quickly as possible."

Genovese said he believes that it worked out for the district in the end. Given escalating construction costs over the last five years and the moratorium of state aid for school building projects, the high school project continues to make financial sense, he said.

"It's unfortunate that this had to go through the eminent domain taking, but the fact remains that we have a beautiful new school in a great location," said Genovese. "If you go back to that point in time, it was the right thing to do."


Boston MA Globe: http://www.boston.com

Eminent domain discussions raise questions over land owner rights: Amador County CA Ledger-Dispatch, 10/23/07

By Kelly Enos

Recent eminent domain proceedings flying around Amador County - and a particularly controversial case in Plymouth - have some property owners concerned that they could lose what they have worked to keep for years.

"I wasn't really sure what it meant when I first heard the term," said Shenandoah Valley resident Jose Villa, "but with all this going on in Plymouth I started wondering if any city could obtain any property because they wanted to."

Eminent domain, also referred to as "condemnation," is the power of local, state or federal government agencies to take private property for public use as long as the government pays a just compensation. The government can exercise this power even if the property owner does not wish to sell, as outlined in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and in article 19, section one of the California Constitution, which uses examples such as schools, roads, libraries, police and fire stations as a guideline for public use.

According to Arthur J. Hazarabedian, an attorney with the California Eminent Domain Law Group, the term "public use" is interpreted very broadly by the courts.

"The project need not be actually open to the public to constitute public use," he said. "Instead, generally only a public benefit is required to the courts and satisfies the public use requirement of federal and state constitutions."

Hazarabedian adds that although government agencies have the power of eminent domain, successful challenges to the government are occasionally made.

"Such challenges, however, are the exception, not the rule. Most usually result in a delay rather than an outright prevention of the governments right to take," he said.

The city of Plymouth has jostled the eminent domain issue from agenda to agenda regarding an easement that is needed to complete a pipeline project that will allow treated water to be brought into the city via the Tanner reservoir.

The properties in question are owned by Ron and Linda Matulich and Russell and Doris Evitt. Although the Matulich family had agreed to the terms of the easement contract, according to the city's legal counsel Shasta Greene, the contract cannot be completed since part of the Evitt property is located on the Matulich side. The matter of the easement and eminent domain proceedings will once again be heard during the city council meeting tomorrow.

Proposition 90 that ran on the 2006 ballot would have banned the use of eminent domain seizures for private developers but was rejected by voters. According to Brian Heaton, a communications specialist with the League of California Cities, an adoption of statutory and constitutional reforms are the strategic focus for the board this year.

"The board voted unanimously to continue supporting its strategy of pursuing eminent domain reform," he said, "both legislatively and in an initiative processes."

The League of California Cities intends to ensure that federal legislation addressing the issue of eminent domain does not impact states such as California.

"California has strong laws that limit the use of eminent domain and have protection for property owners," Heaton said. "We will oppose the federal private property rights implementation act that is being promoted as a response to a recent supreme court ruling since it does not address condemnations, eminent domain or economic development projects in any way."

An June 2008 ballot initiative that will be known as the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act would prohibit public agencies from taking private property from one owner to give to another, while preserving the government's right to utilize eminent domain under specified conditions.

In an attempt to contact those who are immediately involved with the proceedings in Plymouth, the Ledger Dispatch was unsuccessful.

Villa plans to attend the meeting in Plymouth to better understand how the city can control property owners in that manner.

"This is of interest to me since I know that the county is planning to develop all around Plymouth and I'm not sure if that will include my land," he said.

He added that if future development begins to infringe on his area, he and his family will relocate.

"We moved here from the Bay Area 13 years go," he said. "We wanted to see open spaces and trees instead of malls and concrete. What a shame that the government can use something like this to turn tables in their favor."


Amador County CA Ledger-Dispatch: http://www.ledger-dispatch.com

Activist homeowner ready to negotiate: Asbury Park NJ Press, 12/16/07

Eminent domain foe in Long Branch

By Carol Gorga Williams

A key member of a citizens' group lobbying to stay in their ocean-view homes here is dangling an olive branch.

Lori Ann Vendetti - moved by the holiday season, concerned over the impact the long fight is having on her own mother and dealing with grief following the death of a beloved member of their tightknit group - said she is tired and would like to find a way to end the fight.

Vendetti is a member of the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace, Seaview Avenue Alliance [MTOTSA], the group of residents that many credit with turning the city's reputation for successful oceanfront redevelopment into an examination of the morality behind the use of eminent domain.

The group lost its right to keep the city's redevelopment from its enclave in trial court; attracted the help of the Institute for Justice, a national public interest law firm taking the case for free; and now is waiting for a date in appellate court.

Since the group began its fight in 2003, it has attracted widespread media attention and has helped tarnish the image of longtime Mayor Adam Schneider, who by his own admission has become the poster child for the national movement against eminent domain abuse.

Schneider says the neighborhood needs to be taken to make way for the second phase of Beachfront North, a redevelopment project that could bring another 185 high-priced homes into the area. But opponents say the MTOTSA enclave is one of the last surviving Shore cottage communities, and that many of its residents did not learn about the potential for redevelopment until it was too late to stop the bulldozers.

At Tuesday's City Council meeting, Vendetti came forward and said maybe it is time to find a way for everyone to get along. She would like to stay in her seasonal home in the enclave, her parents would like to stay in their year-round one, and other residents feel the same way.

But maybe there is a way for the developer to go forward with some plan, even if it is not the original one, Vendetti said, suggesting a limited compromise. This is the first time a MTOTSA member has publicly considered settlement, which Schneider tried to pursue last year, only to be accused of politicking in the wake of an upcoming municipal election. (Schneider won re-election.)

"Maybe one of you can look into your hearts and see how we can stop this," Vendetti told the mayor and council Tuesday.

Vendetti believes market forces ultimately will see the oceanfront redevelopment to fruition, but she also noted the market clearly is changing and perhaps there is no longer such a demand for high-density housing. She still holds on to the concept that the developer, Applied Development of Hoboken, can make a tidy profit by building on the property of willing sellers without forcing others from their homes.

Currently, Applied owns nearly half the 38 properties in the community.

The concept she is referring to is known as "infill" by some, even though Schneider has a different definition. He believes "infill," as it was discussed for Beachfront North, always meant taking all the homes, and just building smaller projects than Applied initially proposed.

Vendetti also appealed to the council to consider an ordinance to stop the use of eminent domain in the city. "I think this is the time," she said.

Councilman Brian A. Unger said he was working on some form of legislation, but acknowledged getting another council member to second his motion would be difficult. "I'm sorry it has taken so long," said Unger, adding he is having trouble finding a lawyer in Monmouth County to review his work because so many make their living on condemnation cases. "I"d like to do something credible that has some" teeth, he said.

The other four council members have said that while they do not like the use of eminent domain, it is a necessary tool for urban areas that need to assemble properties for large redevelopment projects.

"We've been stagnant for three or four years," said Vendetti. "It is not going to end," she said, noting each side faces potentially years of further legal appeals.

"I think it is time to look at other alternatives where we can stay and other people can build, and let's get on with our lives," Vendetti said.

Schneider said he did not respond Tuesday to her appeal because he did not want to infringe on her time at the microphone. (The city enforces a strict five-minute rule for public comments, and that includes any give-and-take with officials.)

But he expressed a willingness to try to find a solution to the emotional issue. And just as Vendetti said any compromise would have to include the right to stay for those who wish it, Schneider said any settlement would have to include the provision to build more than on just isolated lots.

In the earlier settlement meeting, Schneider offered a plan that would relocate the homes of long-time, full-time MTOTSA residents to another location within the same area. By grouping them together, more property for development would become available.

Schneider said the city has never gotten a response to some of the ideas it put on the table at that meeting.

"If they want to sit down and talk about it, let's talk," Schneider said later in the week. "You want to talk about it in a public meeting, I'll talk; you want to talk about it in a private meeting, I'll do that. With attorneys there or without, I'm willing."

Contacted later in the week to see if she still felt the same way, Vendetti said she did. A number of MTOTSA residents who were elderly have passed away since the dispute began, the most recent of whom was Anna DeFaria, and Vendetti said she is having trouble just looking at DeFaria's empty, dark cottage.

"It's been long enough," said Vendetti of the dispute. "It's in litigation but that doesn't mean we can't work something out. . . . It is not right to have this hanging over their heads," she said of the community's elderly residents.


Asbury Park NJ Press: www.app.com

12/16/2007

Proposition 7 - Eminent Domain Amendment: About.com, Austin TX, 10/21/07

By Jacci Howard Bear

Summary prepared by Eminent Domain Watch

HJR 30, aka Proposition 7, (click here for full text: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HJ00030F.htm) is an amendment to the Texas State Consitution that requires government entities to sell property acquired through eminent domain back to the previous owners at the original price paid, if it is not put to the prescribed use within 10 years. Under previous law, the original owner could repurchase the property for fair market value at the time the public use is cancelled.

The proposition was approved by voters in the November 2007 election.

The amendment was necessary because selling the property back to the previous owner at the original price, were it below market value, could be considered a grant of public money and would be in violation of current law.

Conditions under which the new law applies are:

  • the public use for which the property was acquired by the entity is canceled,
  • no actual progress is made toward the public use during a “prescribed” period of time
  • the property is unnecessary for the public use for which it was acquired.


Arguments favoring the law were that it treats property owners more fairly and discourages indiscriminate use of eminent domain. Arguments against it were that it gave previous owners an unfair financial windfall, and was unnecessary legislation
because 10th anniverary cancellation for property acquired through eminent domain is extremely rare.


About.com, Austin TX: http://austin.about.com

Seaside protesters say no to eminent domain: Monterey County CA Herald, 12/16/07

Seaside petition precedes City Hall vote

By Andre Briscoe

Nearly a dozen protesters met early Saturday in Seaside to gather signatures on a petition expressing opposition to the extension of the use of eminent domain in that city.

Property owner Tim Cunha organized the meeting at the rear of Acme Coffee & Roasting Company just days before an election at City Hall to form a committee to advise the City Council on whether to extend its authority to impose eminent domain.

For the past week, Cunha has been distributing a flyer about the Dec. 18 election and what he believes it will mean to the community.

"I just want the general public, who are going to be impacted by this, to be aware of what's going on. I don't think the majority of them know what is happening," he said. "So really, we are encouraging them to participate in the process."

The first petition signers arrived at 10 a.m. Several grabbed clipboards and copies of the petition and made their way through the neighborhood that would make up the project area affected.

The city got the authority to use eminent domain to acquire land for development in 1996, when it adopted a redevelopment plan by merging several redevelopment projects. A 2006 state law puts a 12-year limit on the use of eminent domain by city redevelopment agencies, meaning the authority will expire in April 2008 unless an extension is approved by the City Council.

David Henderson, an associate professor of economics at the Naval Postgraduate School, was one of several signers who canvassed the neighborhood with petitions.

"When you look around here you see a community. You see all kinds of mixed uses. They can call it blighted, but they are destroying a community," he said.

Land grabbed by force is usually taken for less than market value, Henderson said.

"There is no market test. The neat thing about when (a person buys property) is that there is a market test," he said. "Do you really value the land? Then prove it. Buy it. Persuade the person to sell it to you."

Local businessman Joe Vierra called the threat to use eminent domain an attack on small businesses.

"This is just another example of big government pushing out people who are trying to grow their own small businesses, do their own redevelopment and improve the neighborhood," he said.

Property owner Lawrence Samuels and his wife Jan Heider said City Hall should let property owners improve their own properties as part of a redevelopment program.

"You see new houses here in Seaside. It seems to be improving really well by letting people do what they want to do with their own property. I don't see that the government has to get involved," said Heider.

"Redevelopment is fine," said Samuels. "Just don't use the gun to get what you want."

Eugene Lee, chairman of the Seaside Taxpayers Association, agreed with Samuels.

"I'm not against redevelopment, I'm against eminent domain. This is private property and they are robbing the poor to give to the rich. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around."

City officials have maintained that using eminent domain would be a "last-resort scenario."

"It is in (the city's) best interest that we create a win-win proposition for all concerned, something that would be satisfying financially, emotionally and otherwise for everyone," Assistant City Manager Jill Anderson said in August.

In October, the council approved the election to form the 15-member project area committee to represent the Laguna Grande, Gateway and City Center redevelopment areas, portions of which make up the West Broadway Urban Village project.

That project would encompass 40 acres of primarily privately owned land stretching from Canyon Del Rey and Del Monte boulevards past Fremont Boulevard to the upper Broadway Avenue area.

Cunha will present the petitions to the City Council at its next meeting in January, regardless of the outcome of the election, he said.

"This local government has to be accountable to its people," he said.

If the authority is extended, the advisory committee will remain active for up to three years and will review the progress of proposed developments.


Monterey County CA Herald: http://www.montereyherald.com

12/09/2007

Withdrawal of Eminent Domain Findings Gives Hope to Duffield St. Preservationists: Brooklyn NY Daily Eagle, 10/17/07

But City Says It’s Only a Technical Error

By Sarah Ryley

Advocates for the preservation of homes allegedly once involved in the Underground Railroad are viewing the city’s recent withdrawal of eminent domain findings concerning one of those homes as a renewed opportunity to save them. City officials, on the other hand, say the reversal was due to a technical oversight.

Seth Donlin, spokesman for the city’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development, said a blight determination that included the 21 lots on three blocks in Downtown Brooklyn in question was prepared for the department by environmental consulting firm AKRF in November 2003. But it was mistakenly not entered into public record at last May’s eminent domain hearing, requiring the reversal of the findings and a new public hearing scheduled for Oct. 29.

He said the blight determination would have to be obtained by making a formal Freedom of Information Law Request before it’s entered into public record.

“It is something that was produced specifically for the proceedings for eminent domain, and there is a specific time for which it is supposed to be made public,” he said. “Unfortunately, because of some oversight, it was not entered as it should have been [at the first hearing in May].”

Track Data, a financial firm with 150 employees; a rent-stabilized apartment building that houses 40 families; a handful of parking lots; and Amber Art and Music Space are also at risk of being displaced. Attorney Jennifer Levy, who represents one rent-stabilized tenant, and Joy Chatel, the partial owner of a home allegedly involved in the Underground Railroad, said she doesn’t believe there were any specific blight findings. Levy said the original urban renewal plan for Downtown Brooklyn found blight in very specific properties, but was later expanded to include a general area deemed blighted. This may not be substantive enough, in the eyes of the court, to justify the seizure of personal property. “I guess we’ll have to see what they have that they haven’t produced.”

“I was never briefed or given a copy of any blight study,” said Councilwoman Letitia James, a supporter of the Duffield Street homeowners. James said AKRF did a study in 2003 determining that the area was in need of redevelopment as part of the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning, which City Council enacted, authorizing the use of eminent domain to achieve that goal. “Separate and apart from that, one has to do a blight study,” she said. “I don’t think they did any study at all.”

The city plans to seize half the block bounded by Duffield, Gold, Fulton and Willoughby streets to build a one-acre public plaza and an underground parking lot, which would eventually be walled in by high-rises if the Downtown Brooklyn rezoning manifests itself as envisioned. The two other blocks under consideration for eminent domain are within the BAM Cultural District.

The public parking lot would also be used by the 500-room Aloft/Sheraton hotel duo now under construction on that block.

Gene Kaufman, president of Gene Kaufman Architect PC, which designed the hotels, said underground parking is an enormous cost for hotel developers — at least $25,000 per space when considering excavation, and more if the water table needs to be broken — that provides little return since many spaces go unused. “Fortunately, we’re directly across the street from an 800-space underground parking garage and one-acre public plaza that the city is building at no cost to us. We see that as an ideal parking solution.”

“That certainly explains more than the strange allegiance to the idea of having the park right there,” Levy quipped.

Although a perk for some customers, Kaufman said there would be little effect on the hotels if the parking lot is not built, since most visitors to the city take mass transit.

The City Council made one contingency on the seizure of the Duffield Street homes when it passed the rezoning plan — that a study look into claims that the seven homes on Duffield and Gold streets were once used by fugitive slaves as safe havens along the Underground Railroad.

AKRF also conducted that study, but found no conclusive evidence to support those claims.

Advocates of preserving those homes for a museum have questioned the findings, although the study was by all accounts the most extensive done on Downtown Brooklyn’s abolitionist activity.

“I think it was wrong for [the City Council] to say that the area needed further study, yet signed off on eminent domain,” said Levy. “I don’t think they should have approved the expansion of the urban renewal area without determining that each specific site was blighted.”


Brooklyn NY Daily Eagle: http://www.brooklyneagle.com

Selah dispute over trees' worth leads to eminent domain action: Yakima WA Herald-Republic, 10/20/07

By Erin Snelgrove

For the past three years, Maxine Schreiner has felt like a prisoner in her own home. She can't leave it. She can't find a buyer. And now she has to watch while Yakima County levels her front yard to expand Selah Loop Road.

"It's hard to see your property destroyed when you can do nothing about it," said Schreiner, who's lived at the Selah house for 29 years. "I have my good days and my bad days. It's emotional."

Schreiner and Yakima County are at odds over a 35-foot strip of land in front of Schreiner's house at 1100 Selah Loop Road, which is needed for a $3.25 million expansion project.

Since negotiations have proven unsuccessful, the county started eminent domain proceedings and the case is heading to Yakima County Superior Court on Oct. 30. At the conclusion of the expected three-day trial, a jury will decide what Schreiner will be paid.

Through eminent domain, public agencies are legally allowed to acquire a citizen's private property for public uses, such as railroads, utilities and highways.

"There's not a meeting of the minds," County Engineer Gary Ekstedt said. "There's no way to narrow the gap, so we have to use the legal process."

Schreiner said the county's offer falls in the low five figures, while she's seeking a six-figure settlement. She said the road improvement project will destroy her drain field and irrigation system. It will leave her property cut without a retaining wall, and she'll lose her landscaping, shrubs and fencing.

Just fixing these things will cost $60,000 to $80,000, and the county has not offered to make her whole, she said.

"I want to be compensated for the loss of the value of my property," she said. "If they can't replace it, they're obligated to pay the difference."

The land is at the site of the former Selah Central School, which operated from 1910 to the early 1940s. What remains are pipe-rail fencing, sidewalks and a stand of five sycamore and maple trees that are nearly a century old.

These trees offer privacy and comfort, Schreiner said. Saying goodbye to them will be hard.

"I will miss my trees," she said. "My kids went off to the university and never came back. My trees remain. They are kind of personal for me."

The county and Schreiner do agree her property is essential for the road expansion project, which will widen Selah Loop Road from two to four lanes between Goodlander Road and Gore Road.

It also calls for a roundabout at the juncture of Gore Road and Selah Loop Road, and a traffic signal at the intersection of Selah Loop Road and Goodlander Road. The roadwork will also include curbs, gutters and sidewalks.

Due to the county's dispute with Schreiner, Ekstedt said, the project is experiencing "significant delays" - an assertion Schreiner's attorney, Jamie Carmody, categorically denies.

He said his client doesn't want to go to trial but has no choice because county officials have neither responded to her proposals nor have been willing to sit down and talk with her.

"It's patently false that she has delayed or caused any delay in this project. It's unconscionable for the county to even suggest that," Carmody said.

"I didn't cause this," Schreiner added. "I don't want to be blamed for something I didn't do."

The county has already acquired 43 right-of-way parcels, including five houses. Three of the houses will be demolished in the next few months, while the other two will be sold after the road expansion concludes.

After the verdict, Ekstedt said, he plans to advertise for bids and begin the work in February or March. He estimates the project will be finished by next October.

He said the county instigates eminent domain proceedings in an average of one out of every 200 cases. It was not required for any of the other property obtained for this road expansion.


Yakima WA Herald-Republic: http://www.yakima-herald.com

Mt. Pleasant's eminent domain tests: Charleston SC Post Courier, 10/20/07

There are two tests ahead for Mount Pleasant officials now that they have decided to exercise their power of eminent domain to condemn property near picturesque Shem Creek. First they have to convince a court that the property is being condemned for a bona fide public use. The second is in the court of public opinion. Has council correctly judged public sentiment regarding the importance of public access to one of the town's best-known locations?

The first test has some very definite criteria, made even tighter by a constitutional amendment approved last year. While the S.C. Supreme Court has been very strict in its interpretation of the state's eminent domain powers, a constitutional change approved by the voters last November ensures that will continue to be the case.

The amendment was a cautionary reaction to a highly controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a Connecticut law that allows private economic development to be considered a legitimate eminent domain "public purpose." Not so in South Carolina. The state Constitution now makes it clear that when it comes to eminent domain, the only legitimate "public purpose" is "public use." Thus, in this state, private property may only be taken for public use, period.

In terms of public use, Mount Pleasant's plans for the OK Tire property seem to meet the test. Town Administrator Mac Burdette contends his town's goal for the property is to provide additional public access to the Shem Creek area as well as developing a park there and maintaining open space. According to our report, the property owners plan 25 condominiums on the site.

According to Mr. Burdette, public access to the Shem Creek vistas is now limited, and the property in question is one of the last near the creek that isn't the site of an ongoing business. He said the town first tried to buy the property more than two years ago, resumed negotiations this year and finally concluded that the parties were at an impasse. He pointed out that the town's comprehensive plan calls for more access points to the water and that council's decision to condemn the land was unanimous.

After the town filed the proceeding, one property owner was quoted by our reporter as saying town officials were in "for the fight of their lives" and questioned whether the town had followed proper procedure. That's a decision for the courts.

Town officials also answer to the voters. This will be the first time other than for road projects the town has condemned private property. Town council's unanimous decision to exercise such a powerful and controversial tool speaks to the confidence it must feel that there is an overriding public interest in taking the property for public use. If officials are wrong on that score, the ultimate test of public sentiment is at the ballot box.


Charleston SC Post Courier: http://www.charleston.net

Revisiting the Trans-Texas Corridor: Waxahatchie TX Daily Light, 10/20/07

Editorial

By Paul D. Perry

Some readers have asked me to re-visit a few of my concerns regarding the Trans-Texas Corridor or TTC, because I have mentioned the project in my last two columns. Recently, I introduced what I like to call Nosygate. I think that is an appropriate name for the advertising campaign and subsequent information gathering effort, by a private company, on behalf of the Texas Department of Transportation or TxDOT.

A brief re-cap is probably in order. Unsuspecting motorists had their license tag numbers photographed while traveling and minding their own business. Their tag numbers were then traced to their home address. Their home address was provided to a private company that sent a questionnaire through the mail.

Junk mail or a survey - you call it, reader — was then mailed to the motorist asking nosy questions in excess of what the state needs to know if their purpose was merely to project traffic flow. The questions submitted to the homeowners were obviously designed to collect data for a recently announced $9 million advertising campaign initiated by TxDOT. This taxpayer funded propaganda blitz is being made to justify the unpopular Trans-Texas Toll Road. More simply, $9 million of your tax dollars are paying for propaganda that will serve the private interest of a foreign contractor.

The TTC is a proposed 1,200-foot-wide toll way that will bisect the state of Texas through its heart and will be built and operated by Cintra-Zachery, a private company that is Spanish owned. The Texas Department of Transportation will use the state government’s power of eminent domain to force folks off their land - at a court ordered price - and in so doing support the profits of Cintra-Zachery as well as their supporting cast - the consultants, lobbyists, and camp followers — who have little or no regard for the rights and property of average citizens.

I like the Mel Brook’s spoof of western land grabs “Blazing Saddles,” but I do not want to see a modern land grab of that nature. Rest assured that I do not oppose new road construction or even the limited and thoughtful use of toll roads in Texas. I do oppose foreign meddling in our state government as well as the looting and abuse of average taxpayers.

Our state government through TxDOT is quick to point out that the underlying ground will still be owned by the state and merely leased for 50 years or so by Cintra, gee thanks.

That brings us to some of my concerns. Perhaps the most galling to me is the provision in the enabling legislation, HB 3588 (section 370.165), and the follow-up legislation, HB 2702 (section 203.066 and 203.067), allowing private property to be taken prior to any litigation. One of our protections in the case of a government taking property (eminent domain) in Texas is a right to trial in order to assess value and even the appropriateness of the taking under the state code. A value on your property can be set in a court of law by a jury or you can elect to accept a value placed beforehand by a special commission of taxpayers from your area appointed by the presiding judge.

The original bill that passed both houses about this specific project included language allowing homesteads to be taken by “the authority” after 91 days from the date of initial service and even before you have your day in court. You still get your hearings and court-assessed value, but in some cases after you have been evicted from your own home. Raw land can even be taken immediately upon service and before any court hearings. This puts the land or homeowner at a disadvantage. Families will find themselves under a lot of pressure to relocate prior to their initial hearing, if they do not accept the initial offer from Cintra/TxDOT.

The pressure may force many to make a quick settlement with the authority. Make no mistake: The conquistadors at Cintra are driving the bus in the “authority.”

Some people assume the government’s right of using eminent domain to forcibly buy land (a taking) is limited to property to be used for government-owned and -operated projects referred to as “public use” in the federal constitution, such as highways and reservoirs. Over much of our history, the government’s “power” of eminent domain was defined narrowly along those lines.

Over time court rulings have broadened the definition of the government’s powers in this area. These rulings have even allowed private property to be taken and conveyed through government entities to private developers for other private development. The common good is said to be served by the enhanced tax revenue that will then go to the governing entities: municipalities, counties and school districts for instance.

The use of eminent domain to acquire land in the case of the quasi-private TTC probably falls under the latter, more modern logic, even though taxable value in many counties could fall immediately after a sale is forced for land to be used for TTC construction. The short term effect of such an eminent domain proceeding may be to remove giant swaths of easement from local tax roles because the property will then accrue to the ownership of the state. Those details seem to be in flux.

Knowing how things work in Austin, perhaps Cintra’s cash flow will be exempt from the new business activities tax as well. Rumor has it the improvements made by Cintra-Zachary to facilitate toll collection could also be exempt from property tax collection. However the corridor’s construction may increase values and taxes owed on private property over the long haul-in many areas, especially around the limited exits and entrances to the toll road. It sounds like average everyday Texans may get to pick up the bill.

There is a public need for more roads and transportation, but it can easily be argued that this project is first designed to profit Cintra-Zachery rather than benefit everyday Texans. While many who argue for this project use language that is designed to appeal to the public good, this is a private project designed primarily to move international trade through Texas, from Mexico to Canada. So far, Cintra-Zachery and TxDOT have done everything but wrap themselves in a Texas flag to sell this project, although this limited access road is certainly not designed with Texas taxpayers primarily in mind

We are allowing state employees and Cintra-Zachery to muddy the waters between a private project and public utility. Interestingly Cintra-Zachery even resisted the State Attorney General’s attempt to procure certain files via open records request, claiming particular files are exempt because they contain certain “trade secrets.” Cintra has objected to an open records act request from your government using language that might be appropriate for a private entity, but Cintra is going to operate a public thoroughfare on top of land owned by what is still your state, maybe.


Waxahatchie TX Daily Light: http://www.waxahachiedailylight.com

Border fence holdouts hit with eminent domain threat: Houston TX Chronicle, 12/7/07

150 landowners in Texas have yet to grant access to build the barrier

By Michelle Mittelstadt and James Pinkerton

Taking aim at the Texas holdouts refusing to allow surveyors onto their property, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made clear Friday that he would use the government's power to seize land needed for the border fence.

"We would, of course, like to reach an agreement with the landowner," he said. "But if we are not successful, we are prepared to use (the legal principle called) eminent domain."

On Friday, the Department of Homeland Security mailed letters to about 150 Texas landowners who refused to let surveyors onto their land or have not responded to requests.

The letters give them 30 days to come forward and negotiate, warning that the department will go to court to gain access to the land if they don't.

Federal officials say that government surveyors must examine by February land where a fence and a high-tech "virtual" fence will be built.

Chertoff pledged to complete 370 miles of fencing in Texas and other border states by October 2008. About 130 miles of fences are planned for Texas.

Leonard Loop, who farms hundreds of acres along five miles of the Rio Grande below Brownsville, expressed resignation. "I guess they can do it if they want to, but what is this country coming to?" he said.

Loop, who hasn't allowed surveyors on his property, said government officials still won't tell him where they want to locate the fence on the land where he was born 70 years ago and which his parents settled in the 1920s.

Edward Mathers and his father Robert are allowing the survey of the 2,000 acres their family has owned since 1880 on the river north of Brownsville.

''They're going to take it no matter what, so it's best to cooperate now or they make it harder later," said Edward Mathers, who contends the fence won't work.

Chertoff said that only 10 percent of the landowners who may be affected by construction of fencing, roads or lighting have refused access. Most of the holdouts are in Texas, where opposition to the fence has been the strongest. Texas, unlike Arizona and New Mexico, has most of its border land in private, not government, hands.

Some 408 landowners are affected in Texas. Sixty-three percent, or 258 property owners, have granted right of access to their land. Another 110 haven't responded or can't be located. Forty have refused to allow surveyors on their property.

Sen. John Cornyn, who met with Chertoff earlier in the week, said he is encouraging the government to keep the lines of communication open with the recalcitrant property owners. "His hope is that the vast majority of these cases could be resolved without litigation," Cornyn said.

Chertoff made clear that he's feeling pressure to build the fence swiftly.

"That is a big step forward in answering the public outcry to have some protection at the Southwest border," he said.


Houston TX Chronicle: http://www.chron.com

Going looney on Mooney: Visalia CA Times-Delta, 12/07/07

By Ernest Norsworthy

Maybe it’s unanswerable; in search of the meaning of the name “Mooney”, answers I found were as varied as “dumb” to “rich”. But what is obvious on Mooney Boulevard may be just plain dumb. Since Mooney makes up part of state route 63 through Visalia, that may be the answer.

Caltrans is big, very big and our part of their very big transportation picture is not as big as a pimple. One thing about pimples though, sometimes they fester and cause big sores. The latest eminent domain debacle on Mooney Blvd. was an example. When the heavy hand of government comes crashing down, we feel powerless to defend what rightfully is ours and guaranteed by our U.S. Constitution.

Eminent domain, that innocuous and high-sounding phrase, has been misused for so long in California it may be time for the state Assembly to just start over on the meaning of it and making clear that eminent domain is there to protect land and homeowners, not to help developers.

Typically, a Redevelopment Agency is formed to help a community in source funding for “public” projects to benefit the entire community.

Up the road a piece in the fair city of Fresno, a pied piper has descended on that community with a promise of wealth beyond belief to city tax coffers. There’s this fine piece of land well suited for a golf course and very, very upscale housing and other developments. The only problem is that another developer tried to do the same thing and went bust.

Enter the magnanimous developer par excellence Donald Trump. At first, the Donald plunked down a $30 million bid on the bankrupt property. But in a short time, he withdrew his $30 million because, and here’s the catch, the Fresno Redevelopment Agency did not extend the project property far enough away to suit him.

And why was that important? Instead of doing it the American way, getting in there and negotiating for all the property he needed for the project, Trump wants the city of Fresno to use their power of eminent domain to acquire it for him. This kind of improper action has been going on for a long time in California.

The Supreme Court decision two years ago in Kelo vs.. City of New London, really messed up the waters by saying that what Trump wants in Fresno is perfectly all right. At last count, most of the states have changed or are in process of changing their eminent domain laws more in line with the Constitution.

President Bush finally got one right when he issued Executive Order 13406 which states basically that property acquired or owned by a federal government agency must not dispose of property except for public use meaning for the traditional use: For roads, schools, hospitals and such and specifically not for commercial purposes. Presumably this would mean that financial assistance from programs like the Community Development Block Grant would not be available to Fresno as presently discussed.

Mooney Blvd. is not a bad road, only poorly traffic-engineered and hopefully by next Christmas it will flow much smoother. Meanwhile, like the rest, I may be Looney but I still use Mooney.


Visalia CA Times-Delta: http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com

Eminent domain cases for hospital debated: Springfield OH News-Sun, 12/7/07

By Samantha Sommer

Lawyers debated in court on Friday issues relating to some of the eminent domain cases in the downtown hospital area involving properties crucial to the development.

The city has filed eminent domain cases against a handful of property owners in the proposed hospital area near Buck Creek, including F. F. Springfield, and Jennifer and Garth Robinson.

The lawyer for the Robinsons, Matthew Fellerhoff, argued Friday that the case should be dismissed because negotiations with the Robinsons are ongoing and haven't reached a point where they were unable to agree.

The Robinsons have been waiting for the city's counter-offer since September, they said. The city offered about $1 million for the five acres with 39,000 square feet in seven buildings. The Robinsons' counter was $5.5 million, which Jennifer Robinson has said came from the average the city paid other businesses.

The city's attorney, Deputy Law Director Andrew Burkholder, said Springfield has acted properly and is glad to continue negotiating, which he said is customary in such cases.

The hearing covered a wide range of other issues including how much time to allow the property owners for discovery and depositions and if eminent domain can be used for a project involving a faith-based hospital.

Probate Judge Richard Carey said he would make a decision on the issues soon, but said he wasn't sure how long it would take.


Springfield OH News-Sun: http://www.springfieldnewssun.com

11/30/2007

Historic Duffield Street Home Saved from Eminent Domain: South Brooklyn NY Legal Services, 11/30/07

News Release

In settlement of a lawsuit filed by Joy Chatel and Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (FUREE) the City [of New York] has pledged that it will not use eminent domain to condemn 227 Duffield. The property has been the subject of controversy since 2004 when the City announced that it intended to take the property by eminent domain as part of their Downtown Brooklyn Redevelopment Plan.

The Downtown Brooklyn Plan is a massive redevelopment plan based on a rezoning of the area in 2004. The plan calls for over 4 million square feet of new retail, commercial and luxury housing in the middle of a historically low-income community.

On January 7, 2004, Joy Chatel, an owner of 227 Duffield Street was given a notice informing her that her home would be taken by eminent domain and demolished to make way for a new parking lot. Many believe that her home was a station on the Underground Railroad and a vital cultural treasure that should be preserved. The Underground Railroad was the network of people and places in which fugitive slaves sought refuge when escaping from the plantation system in the South.

The home, built in 1848, was owned by Thomas and Harriet Lee-Truesdell, prominent abolitionists of that era. Their role in the abolitionist movement, coupled with their relationships with other active abolitionists in Downtown Brooklyn, led the City’s own researchers to conclude that the property was “quite possibly” linked to the Underground Railroad and the majority of historians commissioned by the City to review its research advocated for the home’s preservation.

Despite this historical documentation and the presence of several unexplainable architectural abnormalities in the sub-basements from 227-235 Duffield St, the City of New York initially concluded that the home’s historic significance did not warrant its preservation. In response to litigation and years of advocacy on the part of those who support preserving the property, the City has agreed to re-draw its plans for Downtown Brooklyn so that the condemnation of 227 Duffield will not be necessary.

“I want to thank the Mayor for listening to our plea,” Joy Chatel, an owner of 227 Duffield Street said, “My vision is to continue the Cultural Center and Museum my daughter and I started years ago; so all people home and abroad can benefit from the rich history downtown Brooklyn has to offer. I am also thankful to the many people who have gone to great lengths to make sure that this vision comes to fruition.”

“So many of us in the community did not want to see the Underground Railroad become an underground parking lot,” said Randy Leigh, area resident and FUREE board member. “Too much of our history has already been lost, and we know the City did the right thing by listening to the community and protecting our history. “

The suit was brought by Jennifer Levy of South Brooklyn Legal Services who says: “I commend the City for their flexibility. They have shown that it is possible to do development thoughtfully, in a manner that is responsive to community concerns, and with an eye to preserving our history.”


South Brooklyn NY Legal Services: http://www.sbls.org

Phony Eminent Domain Ballot Measure Hard Pill to Swallow: Californians for Property Rights Protection, 11/28/07

news release

Experts Call Measure Flawed and Expose Deceptive Poison Pill Provision

Today, a broad-based coalition of eminent domain reform advocates condemned a ploy by redevelopment interests to qualify a deceptive ballot measure. These redevelopment interests drafted their measure to maintain the state’s abusive eminent domain practices and have financed their effort almost exclusively with anonymous campaign funds.

Independent experts agree that the so-called “Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act” - sponsored by taxpayer-financed organizations such as the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and the California Redevelopment Association - will not have any substantive impact on reforming eminent domain abuses in California. The measure will continue to allow government to seize homes, small businesses, farmland and places of worship from unwilling sellers to financially benefit other private interests. According to the State of California’s non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, the ballot measure “is not likely to significantly alter current government land acquisition practices.”

“Redevelopment interests are spending millions of dollars to qualify a ballot measure that simply protects the kinds of abusive eminent domain practices that threaten all private property,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “Clearly, these special interests that benefit from the forcible seizure of homes and businesses think that they can fool voters and derail legitimate reform efforts.”

“It comes as no surprise that the redevelopment industry’s ballot measure does not include any protections for business property, family farms or places of worship, while including a number of clever loopholes that render the purported homeowner protections meaningless,” said former Senator Jim Nielsen, chairman of the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights. “Californians should reject the deceptive measure paid for by the redevelopment industry and, instead, support the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act which provides real eminent domain reforms.”

“While small business owners provide 90 percent of all California jobs, they are also the most common victims of eminent domain abuse,” said John Kabateck, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)/California. “It is disappointing that this ballot measure excludes protections for employers who create jobs and keep our economy strong.”

And according to the Institute for Justice (IJ), the non-profit organization that litigated the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London decision, “In the end, the Act will provide insubstantial protection against the use of eminent domain for private commercial development. Small business owners will continue to lose not only their buildings, but also their incomes. All farmers and working class renters are vulnerable. Californians require real, substantive reform for everyone and the Act does not come close to providing it.”

Moreover IJ indentifies a poison pill provision that is clearly the only purpose of the ballot measure, “In addition, the Act contains a provision that would nullify any other attempts to amend Article I, Section 19 of the constitution-a clear attack on another ballot measure, which promises broad-reaching, non-discriminatory protection of homes, farms, business and houses of worship from the abuse of eminent domain. Filed by a group consisting of the California Farm Bureau Federation, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, the "California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act" ("CPOFPA") may appear on the same 2008 ballot. In the event that both pass, the Act's specific provision would wipe out CPOFPA in its entirety.”

Early this month, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and other proponents of private property rights uncovered that more than 80% of the funds used to support the “Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act” has come from taxpayer-financed groups using political accounts that do not disclose the source of contributors like traditional campaign committees. During the last two years, the taxpayer-financed groups have become increasingly dependent on these anonymous campaign accounts. This trend has raised concerns that taxpayer dollars may be a primary source of the millions of dollars spent in support of the so-called “Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act.” Evidence indicates that the redevelopment interests spent $3.75 per signature to qualify their deceptive initiative, more than twice the going market rate.

A competing ballot measure that provides legitimate eminent domain reforms, the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, is sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights. The measure prohibits private to private takings, while allowing traditional uses of eminent domain for roads, schools and water projects. It is endorsed by NFIB, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Black Chamber of Commerce and a diverse coalition of taxpayer, faith and good government organizations.


Californians for Property Rights Protection: www.yesonpropertyrights.com

More secrecy concerns in Mount Pleasant: Charleston SC Post and Courier, 11/28/07

Check for Shem Creek property issued days before council vote

By Prentiss Findlay

A town check for $2,285,000 to be used for condemnation of the OK Tire property was issued four days before Town Council voted to pursue acquisition of the property. That gives the appearance of an illegal, secret decision by council to use its power of eminent domain to buy the land, said Jay Bender, attorney for the South Carolina Press Association.

"It certainly appears that the town made a decision secretly to acquire that land. It appears to have happened in secret, which would be illegal," Bender said.

Town Attorney Allen Young requested the check in an Oct. 3 memo to Charlie Potts, director of administrative services. The check was issued Oct. 5. Town Council voted Oct. 9 to condemn the land for a public park if its offer of $2,285,000 was rejected. On Oct. 10, Young issued a statement that the town was condemning the land.

Attorney Mark Mason, whose 1.07 acres on the northern side of Shem Creek is being condemned, obtained a copy of the memo through the state Freedom of Information Act. "Obviously, a decision was made in secret before the vote," Mason said.

Young disputed Bender's and Mason's interpretations of the sequence of events. Regarding his Oct. 3 memo, Young said, "I was lining up my ducks in case council decided to move in that direction."

Had the OK Tire property not been condemned, the money would have been returned, he said.

"It was an internal matter," Young said. He said that he was acting within his authority when he requested the check. "There's nothing nefarious about this process. It wasn't secretive. It wasn't a plot," he said.

The Oct. 3 memo from Young to Potts states: "These funds will be posted with the Clerk (of Court) as part of a condemnation action to be filed relative to property known as the OK Tire Property." An Oct. 4 town requisition form for the check states, "Mark Mason/OK Tire property/condemnation action to be filed relative to property known as the OK Tire property."

On Oct. 9, Council voted to "authorize a final offer and, if not accepted, pursue final legal action as discussed." At that time, Young declined to describe the piece of property involved but said he had been authorized to file a condemnation proceeding if the $2,285,000 were rejected.

Councilman Paul Gawrych said Tuesday that there was no secrecy involved in council votes on the OK Tire property condemnation.

Bender has said that Town Council violated provisions of the state FOIA when it voted Nov. 13 to go into an executive session on a matter related to Shem Creek property without adequately stating what the vote was about. On that date, council voted to enter executive session for "legal and contractual matters pertaining to properties near Shem Creek."

Afterward, council voted to have Young proceed as discussed in executive session. At the time, Young declined to identify the properties near Shem Creek that were discussed in executive session.

On Nov. 14, Young disputed Bender's claim that the town was in violation of the FOIA because of the vague wording of the public notice for the Nov. 13 executive session on the Shem Creek condemnation. Young has said that on Nov. 13 he gave council an update on the condemnation of the OK Tire property.

In a public notice for a Nov. 16 council meeting and executive session, the town more clearly stated that it was talking about the Shem Creek condemnation behind closed doors.

The town offered Mason and co-owner Phillip Smith $6 million for the OK Tire property and 43.5 acres that front the creek past Vickery's known as "The Bailey Docks" where a marina would be built. Mason and Smith rejected the offer, and the town came back with its $2,285,000 offer for the 1.07-acre OK Tire property, which the owners also rejected.

Mason and Smith have sued to have the condemnation dismissed. Among the grounds they claim for dismissal are allegations that the town has violated the Freedom of Information Act.

Mason wants to put 24 condominiums on the OK Tire land and 24 floating boat slips on Shem Creek. An appraisal obtained by SunTrust bank for the OK Tire property values it at $4.6 million.
OK Tire property time line
  • Oct. 3: Town Attorney Allen Young requests a check for $2,285,000 to be issued on or before Oct. 10 payable to Charleston County Clerk of Court. The funds will be posted with the clerk as part of a condemnation action to be filed relative to the OK Tire property, Young says in a memo to Charlie Potts, director of administrative services.
  • Oct. 4: A requisition form for $2,285,000 states that the money is for "Mark Mason/OK Tire property condemnation."
  • Oct. 9: Council votes to "authorize a final offer and, if not accepted, pursue final legal action as discussed" after an executive session to discuss Shem Creek contractual and legal matters. Young declines to name the specific piece of property that the council wants to buy because of ongoing negotiations. Council does not name an amount it is offering for the unspecified piece of property.
  • Oct. 10: Young issues a statement that the town is condemning the OK Tire property after owner Mark Mason rejects an offer of $2,285,000. Mason has an appraisal of $4.6 million for the land.
  • Nov. 16: OK Tire property owners Mason and Phillip Smith file suit against the town, asking for the condemnation to be dismissed. Among the grounds for their countersuit are alleged town violations of the state Freedom of Information Act, including a violation Oct. 9 when Town Council approved the condemnation.



Charleston SC Post and Courier: http://www.charleston.net

Ballot measure seeks to rein in cities' land grabs: Orange County CA Register, 11/27/07

Editorial

Eminent-domain reformers have submitted a million signatures for a June '08 ballot initiative

California is one of the few states that has yet to pass serious property-rights reforms following the U.S. Supreme Court's otherworldly 2005 decision affirming the "right" of cities and other government agencies to use eminent domain to take property from private owners and give it to big developers, who promise cities higher tax returns and "economic development" on the targeted property. Cities have long abused property rights this way, but the court's affirmation shocked Americans and propelled most states to pass additional protections.

It's one thing for a government to use its police powers to take a property to make way for a truly public project, such as a freeway, but quite another for it to bulldoze neighborhoods because a developer is coveting the property. The League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association, whose members benefit by the current lax standards for eminent domain, funded a campaign in November 2006 to stop Proposition 90, a statewide initiative that would have banned eminent domain for economic development and forced cities to pay compensation for "regulatory takings."

Fortunately, supporters of a more traditional, constitutional view of private property are back again with the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act. Its backers earlier this month turned in more than 1 million signatures to the California Secretary of State, which must certify 694,354 valid signatures to secure it a spot on the June 2008 ballot. The measure is similar to Prop. 90, but it doesn't include any restrictions on regulatory takings. The most controversial provision is one that stops the government from setting "the price at which property owners sell or lease their property." In a free society, that shouldn't be controversial at all. The measure would not end current rent-control statutes, but would simply allow property owners to set their rents at the market rate once a vacancy opens up.

Eminent domain supporters are not just using scare tactics to stop this initiative but are collecting signatures for their own initiative that claims to control eminent domain, but is so loophole-laden that it would do little more than convince the public that their rights have been protected while doing little to protect them.

It's looking like another battle is brewing for June. Let's hope the supporters of property rights have enough of a war chest to combat the scare tactics and deceptions that already are trotted out to stop them.


Orange County CA Register: http://www.ocregister.com

Disclosure of ballot campaign donors sought: Californians for Property Rights Protection, 11/29/07

News release

The California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) is demanding to know the source of $1.5 million being used to defeat Prop. 93, a California ballot measure that would extend the terms of State Legislators. However, they have not demanded the same transparency of their own campaign to defeat eminent domain reform in California.

The CLCV and taxpayer financed (non-profit) organizations such as the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the California Redevelopment Association are the principle sponsors of campaign to defeat the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection, a comprehensive eminent domain reform ballot measure slated for the June 2008 ballot.

Over the past two years, their coalition has spent over $7.5 million dollars to defeat eminent domain reform ballot measures in California by using anonymous campaign committees that don’t disclose the source of its revenue or contributors.

We appreciate CLCV’s new found interest in campaign disclosure and the need for greater transparency in the political process. However, they really should apply the same standard to their campaign by demanding a full accounting of every penny that their campaign has used to defeat eminent domain reform in California. California taxpayers in particular would welcome this noble gesture, after all, we are financing the organizations managing these anonymous campaign accounts!

The CLCV and the League of California Cities are co-sponsors/authors of the so-called “Homeowner and Private Property Protection Act,” a ballot measure drafted with a poison pill provision that would nullify protections provided by a competing eminent domain ballot measure, the California Property Owner and Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA).


Californians for Property Rights Protection: http://www.yesonpropertyrights.com