Eminent domain unanimously approved: The Connecticut Post, Bridgeport CT, 5/2/07

By Anne M Amato
When developers of the Crescent Village condominiums were presenting their proposal for the former Pinecrest Country Club site, part of the plan was to leave a wooded, 200-foot-wide buffer between the new construction and existing homes on Long Hill Avenue.

The land would remain open space, with nature and walking trails. At least, that was the intention.

But last week, heavy equipment began moving onto a 1.34-acre lot owned by Phoenix Housing, right in the middle of the buffer zone, which runs from the Pine Rock Park firehouse to Wintergreen Lane.

Trees were cut down and site preparation began.

Neighbors, like Michele Rosiak, quickly learned a house was being built there by former Pinecrest owner, Jonathan Zuckerman, for his son, Adam.

"There's already four machines on the property and I'm sure they'll bring in more," she said. "Is there anything we can do to stop them?"

Rosiak was one of a handful of neighbors attending a special meeting of the Board of Aldermen Monday night at City Hall where the board planned to vote to begin legal action to take the Phoenix Housing property by eminent domain.

But because there wasn't a quorum, the meeting was adjourned to Tuesday night when the board voted unanimously to do just that and set aside $175,000 for the land purchase.

More than a dozen neighbors attended the Tuesday meeting.

"We'll see what happens," said Eric Soto, a Crescent Village resident whose condominium abuts the site.

"It's a privacy issue," he said. "They've already taken down about a dozen trees."
"I wish it had never come to this point," added Patrick Cwanek, a neighbor of Soto's.

Mayor Mark A. Lauretti agreed.

"It was never the intention of the city to go this route," he said. "We tried the better part of a year to negotiate and were forced to get to this point."

Alderman John Anglace, R-3, board president, said having a buffer between the Crescent Village condominiums and existing homes on Long Hill Avenue was something the developer told neighbors he "would do his best" to provide.

The majority of land from the firehouse to Wintergreen Lane was eventually conveyed from the builder to the city, except for the Phoenix Housing parcel.

"We immediately passed a motion for the mayor to negotiate for the purchase of the property, and that's been going on for some time," Anglace said.

That's why the recent land clearing also took city officials by surprise.

Initially, the city tried to stop construction by a cease and desist order, said Tom Welch, the city's corporation counsel. "But there was no basis to stop it," he said.

The land is zoned residential and "meets all of the qualifications for permits," so the order was dropped, Anglace said.

---

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

Use eminent domain wisely: Pocono Record, Stroudsberg PA, 5/2/07

Opinion
This column warned nearly two years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court's narrow ruling on eminent domain could imperil property rights.

It's happening already. And the massive redevelopment case in Clayton, Mo. should serve as a warning to local government officials in the fast-growing Pocono area to use eminent domain rarely and wisely.

Clayton, Mo.'s thriving downtown business district wasn't strong enough to stand up to a large corporate entity that talked town fathers into a sweet deal. Now busy offices and favorite restaurants of Clayton will be gone thanks to a $190 million agreement between the city council and health care giant the Centene Corp.

Centene plans to build a new, 16-story headquarters and 15-story office building with retail space on Forsyth Boulevard. Project backers say the plan will create hundreds of jobs and add millions in new tax revenue. But it will also displace many long-standing businesses, among them a 40-year-old tailor's shop and a real estate office.

No surprise. In June 2005, the Supreme Court decided a case involving nine homeowners who lived in a working-class neighborhood in economically depressed New London, Conn. The nine were holding out against the city's eminent domain condemnation that would make way for a major redevelopment featuring a new drug research facility. Other property owners had already sold out and municipal officials argued that condemning the holdouts' properties would benefit the entire community through new jobs, businesses and tax revenues.

The Supreme Court agreed with the developers arguing that using eminent domain to spur private economic development was a legitimate use of the eminent domain process.

Eminent domain traditionally has been a tool governments have used only for public projects such as schools, parks, highways and airports. Much of the nation's school and transportation network could not have been created had government not been able, when necessary, to condemn property that stood in the path of public works. But the court's ruling in New London opened the city gates to any scheme that purports to "benefit" a community.

It's one thing to replace blight with development through condemning property, paying its owners what it's worth, and rebuilding. But in Clayton, the plan involves condemning functioning businesses in a healthy downtown simply because a new business can make more money and the town can collect higher tax revenues.

The ruling makes public officials vulnerable to developers who sometimes wield outsized political or economic pressure. Under the capitalist system, ordinary citizens and small businesses just don't have the same clout as a large developer with engineers, lawyers and glitzy plans.

That's exactly why the town fathers of Clayton, Mo. are handing the keys to the city to Centene Corp., forcing existing property owners to sell out for a higher amount of economic development.

So far Pocono residents haven't faced the kind of eminent domain case that would pit the little guy who wants to hang on to his business against a well-heeled corporation. But this fast-growing area could easily see such a proposal.

Government officials would be well advised to tread cautiously in cases where a developer requests them to use eminent domain not for a public project, but to enable private development. Officials should use eminent domain wisely, with clear targets in blighted areas only, and for obvious returns through new businesses, more jobs and a rejuvenated tax revenue stream.

Small businesses, residents and other tax-paying property owners should always find a rightful place in our communities.

---

Pocono Record, Stroudsberg PA: http://www.poconorecord.com

Jim Roos fights against eminent domain: St Louis MO Post-Dispatch, 5/2/07

By Jake Wagman
Jim Roos has a briefcase covered in bumper stickers and a box full of buttons featuring his signature issue — fighting eminent domain.

He's a nonstop activist: organizing protests at City Hall, testifying in Jefferson City and commissioning a two-story mural condemning the seizure of private property.

But Roos is also a property owner and real estate manager, and his own buildings — some cited for broken windows and crumbling porches — have been a target for the very thing he crusades against.

Critics say landlords such as Roos are part of the problem, the reason eminent domain is needed to revive struggling sections of the city. Yet those who have been threatened by eminent domain call him a relentless advocate for property rights.

Either way, Roos, 63, a seminary graduate, fights eminent domain with religious zeal, becoming a visible figure in one of the state's most contentious issues.

Questions have been raised over whether Roos' stance is for the greater good or to protect his own self-interests. It could be a little of both, he suggests.

"I don't like to get pummeled myself," he said, "but I hate to see someone else get pummeled."

Roos grew up on a farm in southwestern Minnesota and came to St. Louis to attend Concordia Seminary. Instead of becoming a minister, Roos formed a "housing ministry" — Neighborhood Enterprises Inc. — which today manages or owns about 200 moderately priced apartments in the city, most of them on the near south side.

He can be found on most days in his office in the Gate District — it's the building with the anti-eminent domain signs in the window — or in his pickup with his dog, Indy, in the back.

Roos represents something of a gray area in the heated fight over eminent domain.

Although the battle lines have been drawn along high-profile cases — such as the proposed condemnation of prime land in downtown Clayton that last week was sent to the state Supreme Court — eminent domain is often used to help urban areas on the verge of a comeback. Those are the kinds of areas in which Roos operates, where a handful of properties potentially stand in the way of larger development.

For Roos, using eminent domain for any private development is an "injustice." Let the free market do its job, he says.

"What eminent domain is is absolute power," Roos said. "You have the powerful joining the powerful — the developers and the politicians."

But St. Louis officials, working to restore a city with old housing stock and vast amounts of abandoned properties, think limited eminent domain is a key tool for redevelopment.

That's why Mayor Francis Slay's office has campaigned to keep eminent domain, telling a state task force in 2005 that "we can't let one owner stop a project that is wanted and needed by the rest of the city."

McRee Town acquisition
Roos had been battling eminent domain long before it reached the national stage, making it an issue in his unsuccessful run for alderman in 1987.

It wasn't until about 15 years later that Roos was the subject of eminent domain himself. A city-backed commission, led by the Missouri Botanical Garden, used eminent domain to acquire nearly two dozen buildings Roos owned or managed in the McRee Town neighborhood.

That's when Roos said he first became a "victim." To hear him tell it, McRee Town, left alone, would have been the next Soulard.

Not so, says veteran Alderman Joe Roddy.

"It was a neighborhood in a free fall," said Roddy, who cited the area's high crime rate.

Today, the neighborhood is home to a suburban-style subdivision — Botanical Heights, with homes listing for more than $300,000 — which Roddy points to as evidence that eminent domain can work.

The real problem, Roddy claims, is property owners such as Roos, who, Roddy says, "manages property so poorly that it becomes detrimental to the neighborhood."

"He is probably one of the best cases you can have for using eminent domain on occupied housing," Roddy said.

Indeed, Roos' properties have drawn complaints for graffiti and trash buildup. This year alone, city inspectors cited Roos' properties for several infractions, including broken or missing window panes, a collapsed fence, a collapsed porch, a partly collapsed wall and improper display of address numbers.

Even the "End Eminent Domain Abuse" mural, which can be seen heading north where Gravois Avenue becomes Tucker Boulevard, has been cited. Last month, the Department of Public Safety issued Roos a notice for having an "illegal sign" and ordered it removed.

Other than the mural, Roos says that the buildings cited by the city had the violations before he purchased them. Roos says his rental units are "decent," though not glamorous.

"It's ordinary housing," Roos said. "But durable, safe."

Bohemian battlefield
Roos has recently focused his activism on Bohemian Hill, south of downtown, where a building he operates is among a collection of homes that have been "blighted," a precursor to eminent domain.

Despite protests organized by Roos, the developer who is building on the land around the area said that using eminent domain "is not even in our thought process. Period."

"That's what's been so frustrating with people like Jim Roos," said Chris Goodson, who is bringing a grocery and a Walgreens to six vacant acres in the area. Goodson, president of the city Police Board, was also on the governor's Eminent Domain Task Force.

"I find it curious," Goodson added, "that where you find blighted areas in the city, you usually find Jim Roos' properties."

Still, it's easy to understand why Bohemian Hill residents are confused.

In January, property owners received a "notice of intent to acquire" from a development firm working for the city. Though the letter emphasized it was only a "preliminary statement of interest," it came with an enclosure titled "When A Public Agency Acquires Your Property."

One of the residents who received the letter was Christie Hutchins, who purchased her home about five years ago. She praised Roos as a "tireless" advocate who "fights for the little man," helping neighbors understand the complex process of eminent domain.

"I can see why the city people hate him so much," Hutchins said.

So can Roos, who has proved a politically savvy adversary. He requires his tenants to register to vote and is helping circulate a petition for a state constitutional amendment limiting eminent domain.

If the past is any indication, Roos will be a tough opponent to shake. He says that many years ago, an angry ex-tenant once riddled Roos' house on Lafayette Avenue with bullets.

"One of the members of our church asked, 'Why are you still there?'" Roos recalled. "Well, they missed."

---

St Louis MO Post-Dispatch: http://www.stltoday.com

Property rights pact forgotten? Daytona Beach FL News-Journal, 5/10/07

Florida Voice
By Andrew Brigham
Last year, Florida went on record in support of private property rights protection, passing one of the most comprehensive eminent domain reforms in the country. As a result, eminent domain cannot be used by community redevelopment agencies to take property from one private owner and give it to another in the instance of "slum" or "blight." A constitutional amendment also passed prohibiting the use of eminent domain to accomplish any private-to-private transfer of ownership and control unless approved by a three-fifths vote of the Legislature.

Now, just one year later, the Legislature is on the verge of giving money to government to do what it said last year should not be done. The question is: Will our legislators stick to their guns on private property rights?

Senate Bill 432 is a proposed appropriation bill that on its face seeks to fund seaport projects that improve moving goods and people to enhance global trade at Florida's 14 deepwater ports. These monies will come from the redirection of $10 million annually from vehicle registration fees or revenues outside of those generated by the ports themselves. The problem is that, unless modified, the legislation would enable seaports to use funds in eminent domain for private-to-private land takings, and we know at least one would.

The Jacksonville Port Authority is in fact currently pursuing a condemnation lawsuit to take approximately 65 waterfront acres from Keystone Coal Company, just to lease it to a competitor, Drummond Coal Sales, Inc. Jaxport, like many public port authorities, is a "passive landlord port," meaning it does not operate facilities leased to others. Of further note, Jaxport's revenues are not put back into the general revenue funds of the community, but instead are used to fund further port expansion as part of "economic development." Is this an example of how state funds should be used? Is "economic development" really accomplished by government choosing one private entity over another who through private ownership sought to do the same thing?

---

Daytona Beach FL News-Journal: http://www.news-journalonline.com

Andrew Brigham is a partner at Brigham Moore LLP, a law firm in Florida that represents owners in property rights and eminent domain cases: http://www.eminentdomain.com

Fears of eminent domain arising: Ft Worth TX Star-Telegram, 5/1/07

By Jay Root
Officials say two words are striking fear in the hearts of Texas landowners who have been contacted in recent days about handing over their riverfront property for a massive border wall: eminent domain.

That's the term for the government's power to condemn private land for public use, and some say it's being thrown around in South Texas, where federal authorities are actively planning to build more than 125 miles of fencing, officials say.

"Right now, landowners are very, very reluctant to have this happen," said U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo. Cuellar met with landowners last week in tiny Roma, in the Rio Grande Valley, where officials are eyeing numerous private tracts for the wall. He said officials with the Department of Homeland Security mentioned its condemnation authority "within the first 15 words" spoken to landowners in recent meetings in the district he represents.

"Keep in mind we can take away your property through eminent domain," the officials said, according to Cuellar. State Rep. Ryan Guillen, a Democrat who represents Roma in the Legislature, said landowners in his district want Congress to halt the wall before their land is seized.

But Border Patrol spokesman Xavier Rios said he is not aware of any current discussions about condemnation of private land for a border wall. He said that authorities are reaching out to private landowners and seeking their cooperation and that forceful condemnation "is not even being considered right now."

"Our goal is to work with the landowners. They are our partners in this, and we work on their property on a daily basis," Rios said. "The amount of property that would be used for this is only the property that has been identified as essential for completion of the project." Rios also said environmental assessments could be conducted before construction begins.

700-mile wall
President Bush signed legislation last year calling for a 700-mile border wall, which has strong backing from many conservative immigration activists. About $1.2 billion has been appropriated so far to build the first phase of the wall, officials said.

For now, southern Arizona is the only place where new physical barriers have gone up, along with heavier patrols and increased technological surveillance, according to Rios.

But in Arizona, much of the land is already owned by the federal government.

In Texas, where most of the riverfront is in private hands, landowners have expressed fears that a wall will disrupt cattle and ranching operations, block access to the Rio Grande and - unless they agree to the government's financial terms - spur nasty court battles over the condemnation of private property.

In recent days, federal authorities have begun contacting wary landowners about moving forward with plans to build more than 125 miles of barriers, according to federal records and political leaders. How much will actually be built is not clear.

Documents obtained by the Star-Telegram, including a color-coded map, show areas along the Texas-Mexico border where authorities are looking to install physical barriers. All told, they are hoping to build 370 miles of fencing in the four border states before the end of 2008, officials said.

Nearly 90 miles of it is planned for the Rio Grande Valley area, south of Laredo, most of it on private land; in the El Paso area, authorities are eyeing the installation of some 25 miles of fencing on federal land, records show.

Apprehensions down
Chad Foster, the mayor of Eagle Pass, is one of several border-area officials who met with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff a few weeks ago to discuss the border wall. He said Chertoff stressed that the Border Patrol would seek alternatives to walls and considers the new map and proposals to run "contrary to what the secretary led us to believe."

Foster said he supports greater security and federal manpower on the border, and he noted that the number of immigrants caught trying to sneak across the border has dropped significantly in recent months.

"If we're seeing the numbers go down, why are we jacking with it?" Foster said.

Rios, the Border Patrol spokesman, said apprehensions along the Mexican border dropped 30 percent through March from the same period in the previous year, and even more for immigrants who come from somewhere besides Mexico.

Advocates say a border wall will help stem the flow of illegal immigrants and possibly stop terrorist attacks. The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a private border watch group, has sent volunteers to build fences for willing ranchers, promoting a design modeled after Israeli walls designed to keep militants out of the West Bank and Gaza.

But in Texas, a top Minuteman acknowledged that landowners are concerned about losing their land or river access, even though they want more protection from human trafficking and drug violence.

"There's some concern about water rights and eminent domain," said Pat Byrne, deputy director of the state Minuteman chapter. "I think what they would like to see is good, solid, firm protection on their property without the financial obstruction that would result from the fence."

---

Ft Worth TX Star-Telegram: http://www.star-telegram.com

Anti-eminent domain group backs Penn couple: Hanover PA Evening Sun, 5/1/07

By Ashley Adams
Rounds of applause filtered out of a back room at Bill Bateman's Bistro in Hanover.

Behind a large white sign proclaiming their message, members of the organization Citizens Against Eminent Domain Abuse brought their campaign to the Hanover area Monday.

"Everyone is here for the same reason," said group member Russ Robertson. "We don't agree with eminent domain in particular situations."

Robertson mentioned the Heston family of Penn Township as an example of eminent domain being abused.

Dana and Bill Heston are in a battle with local developer Paul Burkentine over their home at 823 York St. Burkentine plans to build homes on a tract behind the Heston property, but can't move forward on the project unless he acquires the Hestons' home so a traffic signal can be installed at York and Center streets.

The Hestons have said they will move, but haven't yet been offered fair-market value for their home. And they say the township has threatened to use eminent domain to take their home – a claim township officials deny.

The Hestons attended the meeting and were the main reason the group of eminent-domain opponents came to Hanover. Among the 10 or so residents who attended was Ron Kohr, of Lower Windsor Township, whose family is also facing the seizure of their property by eminent domain.

York County Commissioners Lori Mitrick and Doug Kilgore voted in November 2005 to condemn 411 acres of the Kohr property – Lauxmont Farms – to build a park. The Kohrs are fighting the taking.

The meeting served to spread the organization's message to Hanover and showcase candidates endorsed by the group for Penn Township and York County commissioner.

Robertson said eminent domain has been a major issue in York County over the past year. But by electing the right candidates, he said the issue "can be beat in 15 days."

The organization is endorsing Craig Prieber, Walt Rewa and Dan Goldsmith, all of whom attended Monday's meeting, for Penn Township commissioner.

Dana Heston said she knows the candidates will elicit positive change in the community and be good replacements for incumbent Joe Klunk whom "many of us have problems with."

Klunk has been the only commissioner to speak on the issue of eminent domain, and he only did so once, during a public meeting by making a statement on behalf of the board of commissioners.

Klunk said in the statement the township has not considered using eminent domain on the Heston property, but Dana Heston said that is a lie.

"That statement still stands. It's been a private matter between them and the developer," Klunk said this morning.

Klunk acknowledged interrupting Heston at a recent meeting, saying the public-comment portion of the meeting is for comments, not a question-and-answer session with the commissioners.

He said that's because public comment is a time for the public to comment on whatever is on their mind; it's not a time for discussion. If someone has an issue they can bring it up at a committee meeting where discussions can take place, he said.

Klunk feels the issues that have been brought up by the Hestons were politically motivated.

"There's three positions open and I'm the only incumbent. I have the target on my back," Klunk said.

Goldsmith said he has been working with the Hestons for quite a while, trying to find a solution to their problem.

"Hopefully, in the future, if all three of us get elected, there won't be a problem," Goldsmith said. "Some already on the board have lost sight that they are doing their job for the people. I am willing to listen to the people, their ideas and beliefs. To be a leader, you have to listen to the people."

Prieber and Rewa agreed with Goldsmith. The three candidates are running as a team.

Rewa said Commissioner Mike Johnson is the reason all three candidates are running for commissioner and he has helped the hopefuls run their campaign. His leadership, Rewa said, earned Johnson the title of "mother" to the three men.

"I voted for Mike every election he ran," Rewa said. "He always did exactly what he said he was going to do."

York County Commissioner Steve Chronister was upset that more residents didn't attend Monday's meeting.

"Where's all the Hanover people?" Chronister asked. "They should be here."

Citizens Against Eminent Domain Abuse is endorsing Chronister of West Manchester Township, Chuck Richards of Dover Township, Ned Grove of Windsor Township and Doug Hoke of Dover Township for county commissioner.

"My dream is to wake up the day after the primary and see the headline Mitrick and Kilgore defeated," Robertson said.

Richards, Grove and Hoke also attended the meeting and said every resident they talked to is concerned with the commissioners' views on personal-property rights.

"Use your voice," Hoke said. "Go talk to people. Tell them to vote for people who have your same beliefs."

Robertson advocated for everyone to spread the word and vote for the candidates the group is endorsing.

"I think we can all see the wheels of change starting to turn here," Robertson said.

---

Hanover PA Evening Sun: http://www.eveningsun.com

Supreme Court denies Macy's and Lord & Taylor petition: Syracuse NY Post-Standard, 4/30/07

The case involved the Carousel Center mall expansion and the Industrial Development Agency's eminent domain petition.
By Rick Moriarty
The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to hear an appeal by the Macy's and Lord & Taylor department stores against the Syracuse Industrial Development Agency.

The stores asked the court earlier this year to hear an appeal of a lower court decision granting the agency's eminent domain petition to acquire various lease rights from the stores. The lease rights taken by eminent domain removed the stores' veto power over developer Robert Congel's expansion of the mall into a megacenter called Destiny USA.

Macy's and Lord & Taylor said the agency went far beyond removing their veto power over the project. They contended that the agency imposed new financial obligations on the stores.

The Supreme Court refused to take up the case, however.

"This means the challenge to the validity of the condemnation by SIDA of the tenants' leasehold rights necessary to develop Destiny USA is over," said attorney Mark McNamara, partner in the Hiscock & Barclay law firm, representing the development agency. "There can be no further challenges."

---

Syracuse NY Post-Standard: http://blog.syracuse.com

La Puente files its first eminent domain case: Whittier CA Daily News, 4/29/07

By Tania Chatila
For more than two decades, Anthony Li's hobby shop has been a tradition of sorts.

"I've seen third generations now," Li said sitting inside his tightly packed 2,000-square-foot storefront, Tony's Hobbies and Toys, on Hacienda Boulevard.

Li's shop is crammed with nearly every tool imaginable to create, decorate or upgrade toy planes, cars and boats, and it attracts die-hard enthusiasts from all over - Santa Monica, San Diego, Arizona.

But that may soon change if La Puente officials have their way.

Attorneys for the city filed paperwork Monday with Los Angeles Superior Court to acquire the 2.7-acre parcel where Li's shop sits through eminent domain for the construction of a commercial retail center. The filing marks the first time in La Puente's 50-year history the city has attempted to take land through these means.

Eminent domain allows cities to obtain private property to eliminate blight or for redevelopment.

The property, at 1313-1335 N. Hacienda Blvd., includes a strip mall where Li's shop and nearly a dozen other small businesses front the main thoroughfare. Behind the retailers, a patch of open land - making up about two-thirds of the entire property - has been vacant for more than 40 years, Assistant City Manager Gregg Yamachika said.

Since September, city officials have been trying to buy the land from Victor Gudzunas. According to assistant agency counsel Catrina Archuleta, the city originally offered $3.5 million. She said the land is now appraised at $3.8 million.

Negotiations were unsuccessful.

"We made an offer to purchase the property and he was not willing to negotiate with us," Yamachika said. "And we needed the property ... in order to make the project work."

Gudzunas did not return calls for comment.

The lawsuit states the property's seizure is necessary in order to eliminate blight - namely the undeveloped patch of land behind the strip mall - and to complete an 11.5-acre commercial center with retail shops and mezzanine parking along Hacienda Boulevard at Fairgrove Avenue.

On Tuesday the City Council voted 4-0 to approve a 180-day exclusive negotiating contract with the Los Angeles-based Charles Co. to develop the project.

Councilman Louie Lujan was absent from the meeting.

At the site of the redevelopment project, the city has already demolished the former La Puente Lanes bowling alley in an effort to move forward with plans.

"This project has been in the works for the last two years ... Without that particular parcel of land the project is in jeopardy," Lujan said Monday. "It's not to say that a project will not get done, but it is to say that the project we have in mind will not get done."

At the strip mall, JRCRealty and Financial Services owner Jose Cabrales admits a move would be a major inconvenience for businesses. But he also said he understands the city's stance.

"I can understand their position," Cabrales said. "Obviously, they want to get as much revenue as they can."

Other business owners were not as sympathetic.

"Just because someone owns land and doesn't want to build on it, does that give the right to the city to come in and take it?" asked Ed Lara, who owns Henry's Shoe Experience.

Lara said the patch of land behind the strip mall is only an eyesore now because the city tore down the old bowling alley, making the area visible from the street. He believes a strip mall in La Puente would not work.

"People drive through La Puente, they don't stop in La Puente," Lara said.

But the biggest concerns come in the hardships businesses will face if forced to relocate, Li said.

"Where can I find this kind of rent with this kind of frontage?" he asked.

Li said he will have to find another location for his shop, but a move will probably amount to a substantial financial loss.

The city will offer some sort of relocation assistance to businesses if it comes to that, Lujan said, adding that the city understands the troubles business owners may face if forced to leave.

"I wish we could make everyone happy, but I think what we can do rather than looking at it as a win-lose situation, we have to look at it as a compromise," he said.

Eminent domain is a tool that has been around for decades used to build everything from freeways and schools to redevelopment projects, said Ken MacVey, an attorney with Best Best and Krieger who specializes in eminent domain law.

"It's not unusual, but not a common practice in that the vast majority of land acquisition is handled by negotiation," he said.

He estimates about 98 percent of eminent domain filings settle out of court.

---

Whittier CA Daily News: http://www.whittierdailynews.com

Eminent domain debated: Warren OH Tribune Chronicle, 4/29/07

By Stephen Oravecz
The sponsor of a bill making it harder for government to take private property through eminent domain said last week he will amend the proposed legislation to satisfy concerns raised by Warren’s mayor.

Sen. Timothy Grendell, R-Chesterland, said he expects a committee to make that and possibly other changes Tuesday, and the Senate could pass the bill this week or next.

In part, the bill would require governments to state why they are taking a property and giving the previous owner the right to buy it back if it is not used for that purpose. Warren Mayor Michael J. O’Brien, who is planning aggressive use of eminent domain for downtown renovation, objected to that language.

O’Brien said he expects the city to be able to prove certain properties are blighted even under the bill's tougher definitions of blight. Warren then plans to tear down dilapidate structures and sell the property to a developer to enhance the neighborhood.

‘‘I want to prevent a property owner who has been for decades preventing blighted property’’ from falling under the city’s control from being sold back to that owner.

‘‘If the property owner doesn’t take responsibility, then I feel government should step in and demolish a building to eradicate blight,’’ O’Brien said.

Grendell, a staunch supporter of private property rights, said his goal is to protect private property and make eminent domain a tool of last resort for cities that must deal with blighted areas.

Nevertheless, Grendell said O’Brien has a valid point. They spoke two weeks ago in a conference call that included Sen. Capri Cafaro, D-Hubbard.

Grendell said he would agree to remove urban renewal projects from the buy-back provision to make sure cities like Warren can use eminent domain for economic development.

On another issue, Cafaro and others have expressed concerns about the way blighted areas are selected. Under the bill, 90 percent of an area must be blighted before a government or agency can use eminent domain.

John Boccieri, D-New Middletown, called the 90 percent figure ‘‘arbitrary,’’ and he would like to see the figure set at 50 percent.

To address that concern, Grendell said he is willing to amend his bill to make it clear that the government using eminent domain draws the boundaries of the blighted area.

Grendell said he plans one other amendment to the bill that would help property owners who agree to sell land for an economic development project. Currently they have six month to reinvest profits from the sale without being required to pay capital gains taxes. Grendell wants to make Ohio conform to federal law which gives property owner three years to roll over the money.

Cafaro, who sits on the committee reviewing the eminent domain legislation, said she will propose one other amendment. She wants the bill to make it clear that port authorities have the right to use eminent domain for projects related directly to an airport, such as lengthening a runway.

The Legislature is considering two eminent domain bills.

Grendell’s legislation, Senate Bill 7, sets the rules for eminent domain. The other, Senate Bill 1, calls for a ballot issue that would require home-rule cities to follow the state regulations.

---

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

Colorado may say no to Fort Carson expansion: Army Times, 4/28/07

By Colleen Slevin, Associated Press
Colorado, a state that has long been friendly toward the military, is poised to try to stop the Army from using eminent domain to vastly expand a troop training ground on the southeastern Plains.

At the urging of ranchers who live near Fort Carson’s Pinon Canyon maneuver site, state lawmakers approved a bill that withdraws Colorado’s “consent” for the federal government to acquire more land for Pinon Canyon.

The measure is now on the desk of Gov. Bill Ritter. Spokesman Evan Dryer wouldn’t comment Friday on whether Ritter will sign it but said the governor has “very serious concerns about the use of eminent domain” for the expansion.

While military bases have faced closure elsewhere, Colorado Springs’ Fort Carson is adding 10,000 soldiers and will be home to 25,000 troops by 2009. It will also be a training site for National Guard units from around the West. The post has sent over 13,000 soldiers to Iraq, many on multiple tours, and many of the new soldiers arriving from Fort Hood have served in Iraq.

The Army, which has kept out of the debate at the Legislature, has said expanding Pinon Canyon will give soldiers the chance to replicate the distances and pace they experience in battle, using new technology like unmanned small aircraft. Telephone messages left for the Pinon Canyon liaison weren’t returned. Officials have said they can’t rule out the possibility of using eminent domain.

But southeastern Colorado ranchers, many of them descendants of homesteaders, fear they’re being asked to sacrifice their way of life. Up to around 80 ranches could be lost depending on how the expansion is laid out, and they say that would not only affect the cattle business and the state’s agricultural industry — its second largest — but also have a ripple effect on the region’s businesses and communities.

Ranchers also don’t think the Army has proven why it has to have more land as the nation’s emphasis shifts to fighting terrorists.

“These are things that make Colorado special and to just say it’s a pile of dirt, surely there is a better place for the Army to expand,” said Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, who despite the bill’s passage isn’t sure the state can stop the expansion.

The bill sent to Ritter cites a provision of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution that requires states to give permission before land can be purchased to build forts, arsenals and dockyards. It seeks to apply that to Pinon Canyon’s proposed 654-square-mile expansion — about two-thirds the size of Delaware.

The bill explicitly states that Colorado can’t stop the federal government from using eminent domain to claim land from unwilling landowners. But it also says that “consent is not hereby given to the acquisition of, or exclusive jurisdiction over, land sought by the United States Department of Defense” to expand Pinon Canyon.

Larry Daves, a lawyer for the ranchers, argues the bill will bolster any state efforts in court to stop the use of eminent domain to expand the training ground. He said it also would give the state the authority to stop owners from willingly selling their land to the Army, but he doesn’t think the state would try to do that.

Opponents call the bill a “feel-good” measure that could backfire by sending a negative message to the Pentagon and making Fort Carson — the state’s largest employer — vulnerable to a future downsizing or closure.

Brian Binn, president for military affairs at the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, said Fort Carson emerged as a winner in the 1995 round of base closures partly because of the availability of Pinon Canyon.

He said the expansion would generate another 400 to 500 jobs beyond the post, for a total of 24,000 civilian jobs linked to Fort Carson. He estimates that the state and local governments would receive nearly $180 million a year in tax revenue.

“It’s an asset the state needs to protect,” Binn said.

Besides Fort Carson, established a month after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Colorado Springs is home to two Air Force bases and the Air Force Academy. Together they help bring in $3 billion into the economy every year, according to the chamber.

Daves said the Army likely won’t try to take land for another two years, and if it tries to use eminent domain, the state could go to the courts.

Rancher Lon Robertson, president of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site Expansion Opposition Coalition, hopes the publicity generated by the opposition will persuade Congress that expansion isn’t needed.

“I think what this bill has done is foster so much help and awareness that our message is being carried out to the rest of the nation,” said Robertson, who owns a ranch near Kim, a town of some 65 people 140 miles southeast of Colorado Springs.

Many area ranchers have been wary of their Army neighbor since the 1980s, when Fort Carson acquired 250,000 acres — about half by eminent domain — to create Pinon Canyon. They’re still bitter about how property owners were treated then.

A military map showing a proposed 2.5 million-acre, multiyear expansion — covering much of the state’s southeastern corner — was leaked last year, fueling more suspicions. Fort Carson said the proposal was an old one.

Criticism of the handling of the war in Iraq, including a lack of equipment for soldiers, and poor conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center have helped the ranchers gather support beyond rural Colorado, Robertson claimed.

“We consider ourselves extremely patriotic, and because of that we are asking the questions we need to ask,” Robertson said.

---

Army Times: http://www.armytimes.com

Ti loses second appeal on road lawsuit: Plattsburgh NY Press Republican, 4/28/07

By Lohr McKinstry
The Town of Ticonderoga [NY] has been denied an appeal of a court decision that barred the town from seizing a half-mile-long back road by eminent domain.

The Ticonderoga Town Council tried to appeal a loss in the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals.

But, because the Appellate Division decision was unanimous, the town needed permission from that court to appeal, and permission was denied.

"They ruled they were not going to hear it," Town Supervisor Robert C. Dedrick said Friday. "This was the last step for the appeal."

The Appellate Division had ruled that a 50-foot-wide section of Killicut Mountain Road owned by Georgia Hargett could not be seized using a highway superintendent's eminent-domain powers, since the action was chiefly for recreational purposes.

By a split vote, the Town Council decided to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals. Special Counsel William Scott handled the appeal for the town, with the cost placed at about $7,000.

Mrs. Hargett erected a gate barring public access to that section of Killicut Mountain Road, which the town contended has always been a public road.

It eventually began eminent-domain proceedings through Town Highway Superintendent Phillip Huestis to take title to the road.

Killicut Mountain Road connects to Bullrock Road to the south, where landowner Lee Catlin has now closed the road in front of his South Ticonderoga farm to public use, including snowmobiling.

The town says that is also a public road, but no determination has been made yet on the closure issue there.

Property-rights advocate Richard Holroyd has been working on behalf of Mrs. Hargett and her husband, Raymond.

"The town lost its appeal," he affirmed. "On this particular eminent domain, that ends it."

The Hargetts "are in seventh heaven," Holroyd said. "They're ecstatic."

Holroyd said the town's only option would be to start eminent domain all over again, this time using the Town Council's statutory authority instead of the highway superintendent's.

Dedrick said he doesn't know if that will happen, but the town could start the eminent-domain process again using the necessary criteria the Appellate Division cited in its decision.

"Our attorneys will bring it up at the next board meeting. We'll go into executive session to decide what we're going to do."

---

Plattsburgh NY Press Republican: http://www.pressrepublican.com

Urban Renewal? The Weekly Standard, 4/27/07

Why Maxine Waters and John Cornyn agree on eminent domain
By Duncan Currie
Maxine Waters and John Cornyn don't agree on much, but they do agree that government should not be acquiring private property for private economic development via eminent domain. They were both unnerved by the 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, which gave such takings a constitutional imprimatur. Soon afterward they teamed up to curb the reach of eminent domain laws and prevent Kelo from unleashing a raft of similar condemnations.

That Rep. Waters, a fiercely liberal Democrat from Los Angeles, and Sen. Cornyn, a dependably conservative Republican from Texas, should find such common ground might seem surprising. Indeed, Waters recognized that eminent domain reform would garner her some unlikely allies. As she testified to a House committee in September 2005, citing her work with local officials in California, "People are looking at us and saying, 'What is it that brings liberal Maxine Waters together with this conservative supervisor out of Orange County?' Well, you're right, you won't see that very often, but on this issue I think that you're going to see a lot of it because . . . we all basically share a basic value of the right to ownership of our land and our homes."

To better understand her position, consider a recent report published by the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that litigated the Kelo case. Its author, Dr. Mindy Thompson Fullilove, is a Columbia professor whose 2004 book Root Shock examined the history of urban renewal projects. Under the Federal Housing Act of 1949, "which was in force between 1949 and 1973," she writes, "cities were authorized to use the power of eminent domain to clear 'blighted neighborhoods' for 'higher uses.' In 24 years, 2,532 projects were carried out in 992 cities that displaced one million people, two thirds of them African American."

According to Fullilove, "African Americans - then 12 percent of the people in the U.S. - were five times more likely to be displaced than they should have been given their numbers in the population. Given that African Americans were confined because of their race to ghetto neighborhoods, it is reasonable to assume that more than 1,600 projects - two-thirds of the total - were directed at African-American neighborhoods."

These projects got a huge legal boost early on. In the 1954 case Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court held that "blighted" urban property could be condemned even if "such property may later be sold or leased to other private interests." The Court found that city officials did not need to demonstrate a strictly defined "public use" of the property in order to exercise their eminent domain power; a "public purpose" would also suffice. This logic led directly to the Kelo ruling, which affirmed that "economic development" was a valid public purpose.

"We aren't just talking about expanding highways anymore," says Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau. "We've moved from real community need to profit. That criterion becomes even more exploitive." Shelton is not a categorical opponent of eminent domain: He stresses that urban renewal ventures can benefit (and have benefited) inner-city neighborhoods, if properly married to genuine community interests and legitimate public functions. "There are clearly some successful projects out there," he says. But there are also many failures - and many examples of exploitation. Impoverished minority communities "lack in political power," notes Shelton. "They're the most vulnerable."

The NAACP actually co-authored an amicus brief in the Kelo case. "The history of eminent domain is rife with abuse specifically targeting minority neighborhoods," it argued. "Indeed, the displacement of African Americans and urban renewal projects were so intertwined that 'urban renewal' was often referred to as 'Negro removal.'" Joining this brief "was, in many ways, a no-brainer for the NAACP," says Shelton.

House Republicans responded swiftly to Kelo. And when they did, some prominent African-American liberals, such as Waters and John Conyers, broke with the majority of House Democrats, including caucus leader Nancy Pelosi, to support a measure introduced by conservative Republican Scott Garrett, which amended a transportation bill to prevent federal funds from being used for Kelo-style seizures. As John Fund of the Wall Street Journal wrote at the time, "A companion resolution condemning the Kelo decision was approved 365-33. Only 10 of the 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus and only two members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus voted against the latter measure."

Later that year, the House approved legislation barring all state and local governments that received federal economic development aid from exercising eminent domain power "over property to be used for economic development or over property that is subsequently used for economic development." If any state or local entity violated the ban, it would lose its federal economic development funding for two years. This provision passed the House by a vote of 376-38. Only seven Black Caucus members voted against it, while supporters included Waters, Conyers, Charlie Rangel, Jim Clyburn, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Yet due to the Senate's inaction, it never became law.

One recent eminent domain battle occurred in Riviera Beach, Florida, where the mayor sought to displace several thousand residents near the waterfront to make way for a $2.4 billion redevelopment plan, which included a yacht club, an aquarium, and luxury condos. "Most of the people uprooted are going to be black," reported the Palm Beach Post in December 2005, "as the city is mostly black. Many will be among the city's poorest residents." But after Florida enacted landmark eminent domain reform in May 2006, the project stalled. The mayor has since lost his bid for reelection.

Defenders of such projects often argue, correctly, that eminent domain has proved a vital "last resort" tool in cleaning up squalid slums. Yet by treating it as a virtual hunting license, politicians and developers have bred cynicism about the law. They have also produced increasingly comical definitions of "blight." As Shelton puts it, "One person's 'blight' becomes another person's 'palace.'" You eventually wind up with well-maintained beachfront houses being declared "blighted," as happened in Long Branch, New Jersey.

At the very least states should, as a May 2006 report from New Jersey Public Advocate Ronald Chen recommended, "revise the statutory criteria for designating an area as 'blighted'" and "offer property owners a meaningful opportunity to appeal the blight designation." The "burden of proof," said Chen, should rest with the municipality. Truly blighted or vacant areas should not be conflated with neighborhoods that just happen to fall within the parameters of a lucrative real estate project.

"I am encouraged by the attention that's going to eminent domain now," says Shelton. But in those states that failed to pass meaningful post-Kelo reforms, the confluence of wealthy developers and revenue-hungry city councils continues to cast a shadow over basic property rights.

Dissenting from the Kelo majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more." In fact, this phenomenon began long before the saga in New London. Just ask Maxine Waters.

---

The Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com

Ariz. Seeks New Check on Eminent Domain: Forbes Magazine, 4/27/07

By Paul Davenport, Associated Press
Spurred by controversy over Union Pacific's expansion plans, a bill approved by the Arizona Senate would require new state regulatory oversight of use of eminent domain by railroads to acquire property.

The Senate voted 26-0 on Thursday for the bill, which now goes to the House. The House originally passed the bill when it dealt with an unrelated topic.

Omaha, Neb.-based Union Pacific and Fort Worth, Texas-based Burlington Northern Santa Fe, the other major railroad operating in Arizona, oppose the bill.

Supporters include agricultural groups and land owners of property in two areas being eyeballed by Union Pacific for planned or possible projects.

One is near Picacho Peak in Pinal County where the railroad wants to build a new switching yard off a stretch of its Sunset Route mainline. The second is a possible new spur line that might cross farmland near Yuma to reach Mexico to serve a proposed new seaport.

A cotton farmer now leasing state land at the Picacho site objects to possibility of being evicted, and there is also concern about an underground water-recharge facility operated by the state under the farmer's fields. Meanwhile, Yuma-area farmers say their operations and their crops could be damaged economically and environmentally by the line to Mexico and exhaust from trains running on it.

When initially proposed in the Senate, the bill would have required that railroads obtain approval from the state Corporation Commission to use existing eminent-domain authority to compel land sales.

Union Pacific objected that the requirement to obtain state approval conflicts with federal law giving exclusive authority to approve railroad projects to the Surface Transportation Board.

In an attempt to deal with the railroad's objection, the Senate earlier this week to delete the requirement to obtain state approval. Instead, the bill requires a railroad seeking to use eminent domain to hire experts to brief the Corporation Commission on economic, natural resource, water and other possible impacts and to allow the commission to suggest alternatives.

---

Forbes Magazine: http://www.forbes.com

Court addresses eminent domain: Cherry Hill NJ Courier Post, 4/27/07

By Richard Pearsall
Is land subject to government seizure merely because it has lain idle for many years?

That was one of the key questions that arose Thursday as the state Supreme Court took up the thorny issue of eminent domain.

The case pits the borough of Paulsboro against the owner of a 63-acre tract of vacant land.

The high court was asked Thursday to step in and find the state's 1992 law dealing with redevelopment and eminent domain unconstitutional, even as the Legislature wrestles with the law in its own terms, considering two proposals to amend it.

The law is so broad, state Public Advocate Ronald Chen argued in court Thursday, it "could be applied to virtually any piece of land in this state."

On the contrary, responded Robert Goldsmith, an attorney representing the League of Municipalities, the 1992 redevelopment law is a necessary tool to spur development.

"This is about the greater good," Goldsmith said. "You can't let a property owner stand in the way."

At issue in the case of Gallenthin Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro is a tract, mostly wetlands, that Paulsboro designated for redevelopment as part of its broader plan to build a port facility on its riverfront.

While it has no specific use in mind yet for the land, borough attorney James Maley said the borough is entitled to designate it "in need of redevelopment" on the basis of the "lack of proper utilization" clause in the 1992 law.

"Its only use was that it was being farmed," Maley said, a reference to the landowner's sale of reeds that grow on the land as feed for cattle.

Chen and Peter Dickson, the attorney for landowner George Gallenthin, noted the state Constitution refers to "blighted areas" in authorizing the use of eminent domain for redevelopment and asked how Gallenthin's land could be made to fit that definition.

As for lack of proper utilization, Dickson asked the court to consider the value the state places on both farmland and wetlands.

Justice Barry Albin asked Dickson pointedly about what he called the "larger picture."

"Isn't this about more than your client?" Albin asked. "Even if his property standing alone doesn't meet the definition, doesn't it fall within a larger scheme?"

Dickson praised Paulsboro's plan to redevelop two former industrial tracts on the river as a port, saying "we hope it succeeds."

But, he said, pointing to a map, his client's property is "disconnected" from the port area.

"They have no idea what they want to do with this property," he said.

The access road to I-295 that has been talked about would "only nick the northernmost end of the property," a segment he said could be obtained if necessary by conventional means.

Paulsboro argues the proper venue for changes in the 1992 redevelopment law is the Legislature, not the courts.

Assemblyman John Burzichelli, a Democrat who also serves as mayor of Paulsboro, is the sponsor of a reform bill that passed the Assembly last year.

State Sen. Ronald Rice, D-Newark, has introduced an alternative bill that is under consideration, along with the Burzichelli initiative, in the committee that Rice chairs.

The Public Advocate supports the Burzichelli version, which redefines blight but grandfathers projects already in the pipeline.

But he also believes the issue of eminent domain should be pursued in the courts and is involved in cases involving Long Branch and Lodi as well as Paulsboro.

"Do you want us to address the constitutional issue head-on?" Chief Justice James Zazzali asked the advocate.

"There would be a public benefit" if the court did, Chen replied.

---

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

Schools Do Need Oversight: Los Angeles CA Downtown News, 4/30/07

Editorial
...

Los Angeles Downtown News has applauded the LAUSD [Los Angeles Unified School District] school-building efforts on many occasions, and recently the paper gave the district an important award at its Downtowners of Distinction event. But that doesn't mean we approve of everything they do. Somewhere in their process an essential truth gets lost that city ordinances should not be disdained. They are the laws made by representatives of the people of the city, a very different reality that ought to be an imperative. Our representatives should have the right to control what happens here.

If it makes sense for you and me to be required to follow the regulations as we build a playhouse for our kids in our backyard, and if it makes sense for a developer to follow the law while, say, building low-income housing, it makes sense for the school district to follow the rules, too. They do not. They do not even pay lip service to the rules. They swagger their way toward their school-building goals.

LAUSD has the right of eminent domain, and they have used it ruthlessly.

Two quick cases in point: the Ambassador Hotel site and the Belmont Learning Complex site. Carefully thought-through and vetted land-use policies had sensibly and obviously designated the Ambassador site for high-rise development because it is on Wilshire, the city's most well known metropolitan street, one with sky-high land values. The school district snapped up the Ambassador with appalling disregard for any kind of good urban planning or the dollars involved. They decided it should be reassigned as a school site, and there was nothing the city could do to stop them.

In another part of town, the City West Specific Plan locked in the corner of First and Beaudry for a massive residential development, one essential element that made all the other aspects of the plan work. The City West Specific Plan took years of discussion, planning and compromise among neighbors, landowners, political leaders and stakeholders of many descriptions.

After dozens of parcels had been assembled for the eagerly anticipated housing, the LAUSD sauntered in and took the whole thing for the new Belmont Learning Complex (now part of the Vista Hermosa project). Again, it didn't matter that City Council had approved the City West Specific Plan after years of wrestling with pertinent issues. The school district had the right under state law to take it by eminent domain, and they did. Yes, the school was needed, too, but LAUSD ignored serious effort and investment by the citizens of the city in plans for its own future. The fact that the district failed to adequately test the land for toxicity and earthquake faults - resulting in a school that is still under construction nearly a decade later and will cost more than $300 million once complete - only adds fuel to the fire.

Currently the district is in a huge brouhaha in Echo Park over a similar conflict involving eminent domain, so there is a new battle on the horizon.

The mayor and his policy makers should keep at it. They should continue to try to find ways to solve the issue of LAUSD oversight until they get it right. The behemoth is capable of great damage, as is the mayor if he doesn't pause, listen, think and try something new.

---

Los Angeles CA Downtown News: http://www.ladowntownnews.com

MTOTSA brief - City gave control to developers Long Branch NJ Atlanticville, 4/26/07

City's brief says eminent domain use is 'proper'
By Christine Varno
The city of Long Branch unlawfully ceded its power of eminent domain to a private developer, according to a brief filed by attorneys representing a group of Long Branch homeowners.

That is one of the challenges being made in an appeal of a court ruling that gave the city the right to condemn the homes in an oceanfront neighborhood for a private redevelopment project.

According to Institute for Justice (IJ) Attorney Scott Bullock, the public interest law firm filed briefs in an appeal brought on behalf of residents living in the Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue neighborhood known as MTOTSA.

The next step, Bullock said, is for the New Jersey Appellate Division to schedule a court date for oral arguments in the appeal, which, he added, could take a couple of months.

"We are very confident of our legal arguments," said Bullock, of the Arlington, Va.-based law firm, on Monday.

"Long Branch unconstitutionally delegated its power of eminent domain to the private redeveloper of the MTOTSA zone," he said, adding, "It is a government authority that should not and cannot be given away."

Bullock called the MTOTSA case a "leading example of eminent domain abuse."

"A lot of people in New Jersey and throughout the nation are watching this case," he said.

In a reply brief filed last Friday in response to one filed by the city, IJ argues that the taking of the homes in the MTOTSA neighborhood is not necessary to accomplish the city's overall redevelopment plan.

A group of some 18 homeowners in MTOTSA are being represented by Peter H. Wegener, of Bathgate Wegener and Wolf in Lakewood, and IJ, acting as co-counsel in the case.

IJ entered the case on Dec. 4 when the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division granted it "pro-hac-vice" status, which is a status required by the court for out-of-state attorneys seeking to be permitted to practice law in a state where they are not licensed.

The attorneys are appealing the Superior Court ruling of Judge Lawrence M. Lawson that permits the city's use of eminent domain to condemn the properties in the beachfront MTOTSA neighborhood.

Wegener and IJ filed the opening brief in the appeal on Feb. 8, and the city followed with its opening brief on April 9.

The last brief to be submitted in the case was the reply brief, which, according to Bullock, "strictly responds to the arguments made in the city's [opening] brief.

"But," he added, "the city did not really respond to most of the arguments set forth in our [opening brief]."

In addition to the claim that the city abused its power of eminent domain, Wegener and IJ argue three other main points in their reply, including that MTOTSA homeowners are entitled to a plenary hearing based on public use and statutory claims.

"We argue public use based on whether or not the takings in this case are for a public benefit or a private benefit," Bullock said.

"The developer is getting enormous private benefits with very little public benefit going to the city," he said, adding, "It raises a very serious claim under the U.S. and the New Jersey constitutions."

As far as the statutory claim, Bullock argues that the takings violate New Jersey redevelopment law because they are not based on substantial evidence.

"Judge [Lawson] got the law clearly wrong," Bullock said. "The judge took what the city said at face value. At the very least, the [MTOTSA] homeowners are entitled to a plenary hearing."

In the reply, the attorneys also argue that the city violated its own redevelopment plan.

"The [MTOTSA] property was designated as residential infill," Bullock said, adding that the determination to amend the plan to include the acquisition of the MTOTSA properties was not carried out in accordance with local redevelopment laws.

The MTOTSA homeowners, at the very least, according to Bullock, are entitled to their day in court.

"All of our arguments have a solid basis," Bullock said. "[Lawson] did not do what is required of him under New Jersey law. He did not take the claims seriously.

"We raised some very serious and grounded concerns and the condemnation of MTOTSA was rubber-stamped by Judge Lawson," Bullock added.

In the city's 120-page opening brief, it argues that the MTOTSA case is "not a case of eminent domain abuse.

"Rather, this case involved an unsubstantiated challenge to the proper exercise of eminent domain through a process procedurally correct, substantively sound and which is a necessary component for proper planning for the revitalization of an area in dire need of redevelopment," it reads.

The city's brief, which was prepared by Lawrence H. Shapiro, of Ansell Zaro Grimm and Aaron, City Attorney James Aaron's law firm, also states that the redevelopment process in the MTOTSA area has continued with the homeowners' knowledge and without objection.

"This appeal constitutes nothing other than a baseless challenge to an award-winning, properly studied and considered redevelopment plan, which is returning the city of Long Branch to economic stability, improving the general welfare of the city and providing heightened reputation as a destination to be visited," Shapiro states in the brief.

Bullock countered that the city's use of eminent domain to seize the MTOTSA properties is an abuse.

In the appeal, the MTOTSA attorneys are asking the appellate division to dismiss the condemnation complaints served on the residents in the MTOTSA neighborhood, Bullock explained.

At the very least, Bullock said, the attorneys are asking that the case be sent back down to the trial court to give homeowners the opportunity to provide further evidence in the hearing.

Lawson rendered his decision on June 22 after hearing a motion to dismiss the condemnation complaints served by the city of Long Branch on residents in the three-street MTOTSA neighborhood.

Plans for MTOTSA call for designated developer MM Beachfront North II - consisting of Matzel & Mumford, a division of K. Hovnanian and the Applied Cos., Hoboken - to raze the neighborhood and construct three buildings with 185 upscale condominium units.

---

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

High court hears Gloucester eminent domain case: Newark NJ Star-Ledger, 4/26/07

The [New Jersey] state Supreme Court heard arguments today in a Gloucester County eminent domain case that could shape the future use of condemnation for private redevelopment.

State Public Advocate Ronald K. Chen argued that because current state law defines "blight'' so broadly it could apply to virtually any property in New Jersey, the high court must narrow the definition to protect the rights of property owners.

"It has become a wild card definition of blight that can expand and contract to apply to any set of circumstances,'' he told the justices.

The case involves an attempt by the Paulsboro government to declare blighted and claim by eminent domain 63 acres of land on Mantua Creek near the Delaware River owned by George Gallenthin for possible use as part of a planned privately-operated deepwater port the borough plans to develop on the river.

Arguments center around the state's 15-year-old Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, which expanded the definition of blight to require that an area be declared blighted before a municipality can use eminent domain to take property and hand it over to private developers.

James Maley, counsel for Paulsboro, argued the borough is not doing anything improper and is following the law as it exists. One section of the law allows government to condemn land for private redevelopment if it deems the land to be "in need of redevelopment" because it is "not fully productive.'' The law also allows local governments to seize private property if it suffers from a "lack of utilization'' and could be put to a more beneficial use.

The Public Advocate entered the case as a friend of the court concerned about what it sees as the broad definition of blight. "Under such broad criteria there is no parcel of land in New Jersey that is safe from such pursuit,'' Chen argued.

The Public Advocate is currently involved in two other eminent domain cases that are moving through the state courts. The other cases involve property owners in Long Branch and Lodi. In addition, the advocate is working with legislators to craft a reform law that would prevent what it sees as abuses of eminent domain and protect homeowners and businesses.

---

Newark NJ Star-Ledger: http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates

Trapped in a box: University of Maryland Diamondback, 4/26/07

Editorial
The county should exact eminent domain to remold the Knox Box apartments into more safe and attractive student housing
If you didn't gasp in horror when you picked up yesterday's Diamondback, you should have - a fire ripped through a Knox Box for the second time in 16 months, wreaking $30,000 in havoc and displacing 13 residents who were, quite luckily, unharmed.

Sprinklers weren't there to smolder the flames. The saving grace for the students, some of whom were asleep at the time, was a gracious passerby, who smelled the smoke and kicked on doors until everyone was awake.

One such disaster could be attributed to bad luck, but the record of Knox Box blight reveals a disturbing trend. In 2005, student David Ellis died of smoke inhalation when a fire blocked the door of his Knox Road apartment. It was later discovered his windows weren't big enough to satisfy city fire code - a violation several Knox apartments were found to share. Box landlords, including Janet Firth, who oversees the majority of the apartments, complied with city-mandated renovations after Ellis' death, but Knox Boxes are still unnervingly unsafe. Not all the apartments have appropriate windows, and despite consistent requests from both the city and the county, most lack sprinklers.

It is tempting to champion sprinklers and inspections as the end-all solution, but this overlooks the fundamental problem: The 50-year-old apartments are more than beyond reasonable repair. Not only is it simply impractical to install costly sprinkler systems that could threaten the apartments' infrastructure itself, but the apartments are a poor match for the university's purpose. Besides being aesthetic eyesores that detract from our seriousness and attractiveness as a flagship institution, the Knox Boxes are an unwise use of a space that could house thousands of students.

It is time for the county to stop pushing for fruitless repairs and start looking at real solutions. A blessing called eminent domain is the county's golden ticket to both cooling the housing crisis and revamping the apartments. In June 2005, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that local governments can force property owners to give up their property to allow for private development that would benefit the public. The county could exact this domain to push out the less-prominent Knox Box owners and engage in a partnership with Firth to remold the Boxes into high-rise student apartments that are aesthetically pleasing, economically practical and, most importantly, safe.

Cooperating with one developer would not only lessen the cost of the development and avoid costly legal battles; it would allow for more uniform safety inspections. And the smart construction of more student housing could give this house-crunched campus a roof over its head while keeping students out of a student-hostile city. Now that's something we could all live with (and in).

---

University of Maryland Diamondback: http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com

Eminent domain flashpoint: St Louis MO Post-Dispatch, 4/25/07

By William C. Lhotka and Tim O'Neil
The condemnation of prime land in downtown Clayton [MO] for a $210 million redevelopment got a setback Tuesday and a fast-track ride to the Missouri Supreme Court for a review of the taking of private property for commercial use.

It was the first victory for three landowners who insist it was ridiculous to declare their upscale buildings blighted to make way for an office-retail project by the Centene Plaza Redevelopment Corp.

Although not conclusive, Tuesday's ruling of the Missouri Court of Appeals signaled a rethinking of the controversial development tactic. Three judges in an unsigned opinion said the southwest corner of Hanley Road and Forsyth Boulevard cannot be taken because it is not blighted.

Stan Wallach, chairman of the Missouri Bar Association Eminent Domain Committee, called it a "very significant" finding in the first court test of a new statute, passed in August, that he helped draft. Advertisement

The law permits local legislative bodies, such as the Clayton Board of Aldermen, to determine whether a redevelopment target is blighted.

"It's exceedingly rare or never that the Missouri courts will disturb a legislative finding on blight," Wallach said. "Any time the courts second-guess a local legislature on such an issue, it's big news."

Judges Clifford H. Ahrens, Mary K. Hoff and Nannette Baker stopped short of reversing the ruling in January of St. Louis County Circuit Judge James R. Hartenbach, who authorized the condemnation.

Instead, they stopped the project and sent the issue to the state Supreme Court "because of the general interest and importance of the issues presented in this case."

"This sends a clear message that the abuse of eminent domain is not to be tolerated," said Dan Sheehan, who with Debbie Pyzyk and David Danforth are suing to preserve their holdings. "Clayton is taking private property and giving it to a developer for his gain, and that's not the American way."

Pyzyk, a teacher and widow of developer Jon Pyzyk, said, "For the first time, someone has validated what we know is right."

In ordinances passed in December 2005, the Clayton aldermen gave land-taking power to Centene for a project that could create as many as 1,000 new jobs.

Centene Chairman and CEO Michael F. Neidorff warned Tuesday that the company will abandon plans to expand in Clayton, with 800 of those jobs, unless it prevails. "Make no mistake that if this project does not go forward, the real loss will be for the city of Clayton, the people that live and work in Clayton and the region as a whole."

He said he is "hopeful of an expedited and favorable ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court."

Centene bought the main parcel, the former Library Ltd. property, for $12.25 million in 2004 without condemnation. At $7.4 million an acre, it was the highest price ever paid for property in the St. Louis area, said Gerard T. Carmody, an attorney for Centene's opponents.

Of the three properties in dispute, two are fully leased and one is partially leased.

One tenant, Maharam Fabrics, remodeled its space at a cost of $300,000, or an amount comparable to what it paid for remodeling at its outlet in New York City, according to court testimony.

Of the 13 cars parked Tuesday in front of the "blighted" buildings in the 7700 block of Forsyth, two were BMWs, one was a Lexus SUV and one was a bright yellow Ferrari.

"I can cancel my therapy sessions, now that I'm no longer working in the slums," quipped F. Carl "Skip" Schumacher, at Financial Support Services. "We like being here — it's convenient for our clients. No one wants to have to move."

Said Aleksandr Grinberg, a Ukranian immigrant who runs Decker Tailoring Co. in one of the buildings, "It's not a bad neighborhood. It's a fancy location. It has good atmosphere."

Carmody had emphasized in oral arguments to the appeals judges that Clayton failed to show the current properties were both economic and social liabilities, a requirement under the statute.

Centene's attorney, Thomas Weaver, contended there was sufficient evidence of blight, and argued that judges reviewing a condemnation finding should be limited to determining whether the aldermen acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

Wallach said "the linchpin of this opinion" was a finding that the city did not establish that the area was a "social liability."

The appellate judges said social liability has never been specifically defined by statute or case law, but that a historical review led them to conclude it "focuses upon the health, safety and welfare of the public."

Based on that, they said, there was "insufficient evidence" for the Clayton condemnation.

A study for Clayton by PGAV, a planning firm, concluded the area was an economic liability because of the age and physical decline of some of the properties, but the study reached no conclusions about social liability, the appellate court noted.

City Manager Michael Schoedel, who had pushed for the Centene plan, issued a statement saying the trial court had been right to affirm the blight finding, and asserting that Centene "is a critical component of the long-term vitality of the City of Clayton and the entire St. Louis region."

The law calls for courts to expedite hearing of blight cases ahead of all litigation except election cases. The circuit court ruled Jan. 19, and the appellate court heard arguments two weeks ago.

"This is the first expedited appeal," Wallach said. "It's amazing how fast this went from Circuit Court level to the Court of Appeals and now to the state Supreme Court."

---

St Louis MO Post-Dispatch: http://www.stltoday.com

Lawmakers move toward compromise on eminent domain: Reno NV Gazette-Journal, 4/25/07

By Joe Mullin, Associated Press
A panel of Nevada lawmakers voted unanimously Tuesday for two compromise proposals that restrict government agencies' use of eminent domain proceedings to acquire property.

Supporters of the compromise told the Senate Judiciary Committee that AJR3 and AB102 will provide strong protections against government abuses of eminent domain powers while still providing the option for large public works, such as transportation projects.

"We want to make sure the people have a lane to drive on, a road to drive on," said Assemblyman Joseph Hardy, R-Boulder City, the chief sponsor of AJR3.

Hardy said that even supporters of last year's Question 2, called the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land or PISTOL by its supporters, recognize that their initiative can be improved. Along with establishing its own protections in eminent domain cases, AJR3 would supersede PISTOL if approved by voters.

PISTOL was one of several intiatives affecting property rights around the country bankrolled by Howie Rich, a New York real estate investor with ties to libertarian groups.

The author of PISTOL, Las Vegas attorney Kermitt Waters, represents landowners in eminent domain cases. Waters confirmed Tuesday he has agreed to the compromise being discussed in the Legislature.

PISTOL goes farther than the two legislative proposals, mandating the highest possible payments for blighted land that can be taken through eminent domain.

Lawmakers pushing the compromise say it includes more evenhanded terms for valuing property, agreed to by both government lawyers and Waters.

The compromise also allows state officials 15 years to complete projects on land taken under eminent domain, instead of the five years allowed under PISTOL.

"PISTOL on its own would have made it almost impossible for us to have used eminent domain," said Jacob Snow, general manager for the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada.

The compromise "will give us the flexibility we need" and still protect property owners' right to fair compensation, he said.

AB102, sponsored by Assemblyman William Horne, D-Las Vegas, has the same provisions as AJR3 but would take effect immediately. AJR3 is a proposed constitutional amendment, which would take three years to complete.

---

Reno NV Gazette-Journal: http://news.rgj.com

Commuter rail plan draws fire: Nashua NH Telegraph, 4/25/07

By Kevin Landrigan

BILL AT A GLANCE
BILL NO.: SB 75.

SPONSOR: Sen. David Gottesman, D-Nashua.

DESCRIPTION: This creates a New Hampshire rail transit authority to act as the public entity to operate any extension of commuter rail service from Lowell, Mass., to Manchester.

STATUS: The House Transportation Committee took more than two hours of public testimony Tuesday. The Senate approved the bill last month after changing its proposed name.

[New Hampshire] lawmakers and environmental activists offered more than 10 friendly and hostile suggestions about whether to create a rail transit authority that would oversee expansion of commuter train service from Lowell, Mass., to Manchester.

The senior House Republican on state finances – Weare Rep. Neal Kurk – said a proposed bill (SB 75) gives the authority too much unchecked power, too little government oversight and too easily may commit the state to a financial disaster.

“You think casino gambling would be bad? This would be worse,” Kurk told the House Transportation Committee.

“There is a potential monster being created.”

Kurk said the House Transportation Committee must decide if this project is affordable for taxpayers before it creates an entity that would run the train service.

“We are creating the equivalent of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and the Massachusetts Transit Authority,” Kurk said.

“If you want an agency in New Hampshire that will be responsible for the New Hampshire equivalent of a Big Dig, this is the way to go.”

He listed nine criticisms of the bill, which included no ban on hiring lobbyists or legislators and no oversight over this authority’s finances or its power to take private property by eminent domain.

A key supporter, Stephen Williams of the Nashua Regional Planning Commission, said most of Kurk’s concerns can be dealt with and this bill is not in jeopardy.

Supporters have no problem with hiring bans, and would support some legislative oversight over the authority’s financial accounting or its right to use eminent domain, Williams said.

Eminent domain may be necessary to acquire sites for train stations along the route, he said. Federal law prohibits using eminent domain to buy up rail line property, Williams explained.

Rep. James Ryan, D-Franklin, chairs the House committee considering the bill.

“We’ve got a lot of work to do,” Ryan said. “As someone just joked to me for the next month or so, I’ll be working on the railroad.”

This authority, through a board of directors, would operate the train service, collect fares, set schedules and be a conduit for any grant money to support it.

Opponents signed up against it included four other House Republicans including ex-House Speaker Gene Bartlett of Bartlett.

Democratic Gov. John Lynch offered his support and stressed in a letter this bill did not commit the state to operating or paying for the project.

“However, the establishment of the authority will allow New Hampshire to move forward in the planning and development of rail service,” Lynch wrote.

The Sierra Club offered a variety of changes, many suggested last month, which the state Senate rejected.

Arthur Cunningham, a retired lawyer from Gilmanton, said authority’s jurisdiction should be statewide and include transit options other than commuter rail.

Speaking on the Sierra Club’s behalf, Cunningham urged the Legislature to approve $5 million in “seed money.”

“It’s a bold venture but we need to take it not five years from now, not 10 years from now, we need to take it now,” Cunningham said.

Williams said the bill does not permit the authority to ask for a state subsidy.

Nashua has set aside $24 million in federal grants for the project and former Congressman Charles Bass secured another $3.5 million in 2005.

The authority would have to return to the Legislature for state support once the planning was completed in 2010, Williams added.

The House of Representatives and Gov. Lynch have approved $1 million in state-backed bonds Nashua would use to continue planning for this project and to leverage additional federal support.

This money is in a two-year public works budget (HB 25) now pending in the Senate.

---

Nashua NH Telegraph: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com

Shanahan calls on Hackney to Bring the Eminent Domain Amendment Up for a Vote: The Lincoln Tribune, 4/25/07

Property Rights Groups Says HB 878 Has 96 Sponsors, Bottled Up in Committee
By Jason Saine
Kieran Shanahan, Chairman of the N.C. Property Rights Coalition, today called on N.C. House Speaker Joe Hackney to bring House Bill 878, an eminent domain amendment, to the House floor for a vote. The bipartisan bill was introduced on March 15 and was referred to the Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House on March 19. The bill, which has 96 sponsors and co-sponsors, would prevent government entities from seizing private property for economic development purposes.

“It is increasingly apparent that the ‘new-and-improved’ legislative leadership, which pledged to usher in an era of fairness and openness, is conducting politics as usual when it comes to protecting our property rights,” says Shanahan in a news release. “The bipartisan eminent domain amendment introduced in the N.C. House should to be brought to the House floor for a vote, not bottled up in a committee.”

“More than 80% of House members sponsored or co-sponsored this eminent domain amendment, yet it has not seen the light of day since it was sent to the Rules committee,” Shanahan adds. “I call on Speaker Hackney to bring House Bill 878 to the floor for an immediate vote.”

“Private property rights are one of the fundamental rights of a free society,” Shanahan concludes. “We don’t need excuses or political games. We need to give the people the right to vote on this amendment, and we need to do it now.”

The North Carolina Property Rights Coalition (NCPRC) is a 501(c) (4) non-profit coalition of individuals, organizations, businesses and community leaders dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights and interests of property owners, as well as revealing misuses and threats of eminent domain throughout North Carolina.

---

The Lincoln Tribune: http://www.lincolntribune.com

For more information on the N.C. Property Rights Coalition: www.NCPropertyRights.com

Local firm wins trial: Ontario OR Argus Observer, 4/16/07

By Andy Gates
A jury decided Friday night that Poole Real Estate Corporation is entitled to $864,525 from the State of Oregon for four acres of land that was annexed through eminent domain for a large road project in Ontario.

Eminent domain is the power of a government to seize private property for public use, and the Oregon Department of Transportation used that authority to take four acres of land Jan. 10, 2006 in Ontario, owned by Poole Real Estate Corporation (PREC), according to a jury synopsis filed by the Oregon Department of Justice in Malheur County Circuit Court.

The verdict came through Malheur County Circuit Court around 5:30 p.m. Friday, Malheur County Circuit Court records show, and followed a trial that spanned all of last week.

Jurors determined the amount of money PREC should receive from the state for the land because amounts proposed by the two entities varied by around $1.4 million, according to the state’s jury synopsis.

The Oregon Department of Transportation asserted it should pay around $238,400 for the four acres of PREC land.

However, PREC claimed the land was worth $1.6 million, according to the state’s jury synopsis.

The PREC land will be used in a road project involving a newly constructed Yturri Beltline around Ontario that will connect to a new North Ontario Interchange at Interstate 84.

The purpose of the project is to reduce truck traffic through downtown Ontario — as traffic was a problem for city government and roadway maintenance, according to a trial memorandum from the Oregon Department of Justice on behalf of ODOT.

Prior to the roadway project, Poole Real Estate Corporation contended it had an integrated 15.19 acre parcel perfectly situated for the development of a truck stop travel center, according to a trial brief from PREC attorney John McCulloch Jr.

---

Ontario OR Argus Observer: http://www.argusobserver.com

Mulberry Street fight goes to court: Newark NJ Star-Ledger, 5/6/07

Newark aims to keep blighted designation
By Katie Wang
Ever since Newark officials announced their plans to seize private property for a downtown condominium project four years ago, property owners on Mulberry Street have been fighting City Hall.

But they believed they would have an ally in City Hall when Mayor Cory Booker was elected last year.

The Booker administration, however, defended in court Friday a city council resolution declaring the area blighted, which opens the door for condemnation and the seizure of private property. Those designations were made by former Mayor Sharpe James' administration and approved by the previous council.

"They ran on a platform of reform," said George Mytrowitz, the leader of the Mulberry Street Coalition, which wants the courts to toss out the resolution. "They wanted to change things."

Booker, in a statement released by his press secretary, defended the classification.

"The designation of this area as one in need of redevelopment is appropriate and was designated only after extensive investigation, discussions and public hearings," Booker said. "We have always maintained that the use of eminent domain is one tool in our toolbox for redevelopment and will only be used as a last resort."

As a candidate for mayor, Booker was often critical of "cozy relationships" between politicians and developers, a relationship he said opened the door for land grabs. This, say Mulberry Street residents, is what happened in this case.

According to the plaintiffs, attorneys, relatives and consultants affiliated with developers Bruce Wishnia and Emilio Farina donated an additional $53,325 to some council members when critical decisions were made on the project between May 2003 and January 2004.

The lawsuit singles out former councilwoman Bessie Walker, whom Farina worked for and councilman Hector Corchado, who accepted $900 from Farina to pay for a band at his birthday fundraiser in 2005.

Asked whether Booker is defending those relationships, his spokeswoman Lupe Todd said: "We're not looking at who gave political contributions to whom. We're looking forward. Looking forward is the best option for the city."

The crux of the case focuses on the 166 lots cast across eight blocks within walking distance from the federal courthouse, Newark post office and City Hall. According to a study conducted by the city, about 60 percent of those properties are parking lots that are occupying prime real estate that could be better used to boost the city's economy.

The parking lots, argued David A. Clark, an attorney from Gluck Walrath, hired to represent Newark, do not contribute to the economic value of the city.

"Newark is the largest city in the state," Clark said on Friday in arguments made before Judge Marie P. Simonelli. "Of the 14 acres here, 60 percent of the land is tied up."

John Buonocore, attorney for the Mulberry residents, said the redevelopment law does not allow the government to grab land simply because it feels the land could be used for higher and better uses.

Using that logic, said Buono core, would put landmarks such as Drumthwacket, the Princeton residence of the governor, at jeopardy.

"If this designation stands, the floodgates are open," Buonocore said. "Any area in any town in any state is subject to redevelopment. This is especially egregious because the people making the decision are biased because they were being paid large sums of money."

Buonocore disputed the city's figure about the parking lots, arguing only 30 percent of the land is used for that reason. The rest of the neighborhood, he said, is a thriving one of businesses, restaurants and homeowners who pay their bills and maintain the area.

"There are none of the conditions that the court holds forth that an area is considered blighted," he said.

The former administration, argue the plaintiffs, was in favor of the project even before the formal application process got underway and ensured that it would sail through the approvals process.

Simonelli said she will issue a detailed decision on the case, but is not sure when.

The courts have gone both ways on the issue of eminent domain. In Bloomfield, residents were successful in defeating the township's at tempt to condemn a Washington Street property for a condominium complex.

A Superior Court judge ruled in August 2005 the township redevelopment planning process was riddled with problems and failed to prove the Washington Street area was blighted. An appellate court upheld that ruling.

But in Long Branch, residents have not fared as well. Long Branch officials are proposing to build a $1 billion redevelopment project and are eyeing two dozen beachfront homes for the project.

So far, the courts have sided with Long Branch and residents say they are determined to take their case to the Supreme Court if necessary.

At the federal level, though, the courts have sided with the government on the issue. In Kelo vs. City of New London, Conn., the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that municipalities have the right to knock down people's homes to spur development and generate tax revenue.

---

Newark NJ Star-Ledger: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger