11/27/2007

Ventnor's changes offer new-look redevelopment: Press of Atlantic City NJ, 11/27/07

By Martin DeAngelis

Two years ago, Alba Borland was a poster girl, a human symbol for people convinced of the dangers of Ventnor's redevelopment plans. She even showed up in a TV commercial, a political ad in which she pleaded with city officials not to "take away my small business."

But last week, Borland and that business, Alba Boutique, were the stars in a photo opportunity arranged by officials working to revive redevelopment in Ventnor. City Commissioner Joe Schafer and others showed up at the women's clothing store to present her with a certificate that noted the excellent condition of her property and formally released Borland from any worries that the city will take her home and business by eminent domain.

And after that little ceremony, as she showed off her new certificate, Borland also showed she can make a good representative for either side of this long-running fight. Because the truth is, she sees both sides of the redevelopment debate - very clearly.

She's relieved that she doesn't have to worry anymore about losing her property, which also houses another storefront business. But she also believes that her northeastern Ventnor neighborhood truly needs the help that redevelopment's backers hope it can bring.

"I went through, excuse me, hell," says Borland, whose English is still thickly spiced with an accent - she's Italian by birth (as Alba Luciana Bottacci), but she spent most of her life in Turkey - even after 19 or so years of living above the Ventnor Avenue shop. "And then they give me this beautiful thing and make me very happy. ... They don't come and take my home away from me."

And now that she has that in writing, she wants to see her neighborhood be what it can be - or what it was when she and her late husband moved to New Jersey from Turkey in 1988, to be closer to their children.

"When we bought this building, this corner of Ventnor was beautiful, not like it is now," Borland says, tightly wrapping and then immediately unwrapping a measuring tape as she talks. So, she adds, "I hope they're going to do something about all the ugly buildings, because there are a lot of ugly buildings. ... Why should it be nice at the other end of Ventnor Avenue and ugly here? Atlantic Avenue is nicer: Why should it be nice there and ugly here?"

She still draws a hard line against eminent domain, against the local government having the power to take property from one private owner to give to a private developer. New Jersey's redevelopment law allows that, but opponents of Ventnor's plans protested against it bitterly from the start more than eight years ago, despite city officials' repeated assurances that it would only be used as a last resort to prevent greedy speculators from blocking rebuilding efforts.

"The city has to do something," Borland continues, walking out her front door and pointing to nearby apartment buildings that she says cause many of the neighborhood's problems.

Supporters of restarting redevelopment say that the city's new plan, passed earlier this month, sharply cuts the number of possible eminent domain targets, from 17 parcels of land between Jackson and Little Rock avenues down to seven. And most of those aren't residential, adds Julie Mealo, a member of the Planning Board committee that proposed the new plan; they include the now-razed Lou's Restaurant site, the former Twin Glass building and the boarded-up Ventnor Twin movie theater.

Also, the new plan encourages property owners to "earn" their way out of the chance of eminent domain - as Borland just became the first to do - by having their properties inspected and certified that they meet all legal codes. Mealo says several other residents are already in the process of getting certified that they're no longer subject to eminent domain, and she says officials are available and ready to consult with owners in the targeted parcels on what they need to do to get the same document Borland did.

The main thrust of the plan is to use code enforcement and financial incentives to get individual owners to rehabilitate their properties, since the city's designated redeveloper, Pulte Homes, backed out of a project that had included plans for 375 townhouses and 55,000 square feet of new commercial space.

Still, redevelopment critics aren't exactly sold on that smaller, less ambitious version of it.

"She never should have been in eminent domain," says Annamarie Dion of Jagielky's Homemade Candies, a neighborhood institution across the street from Alba's Boutique - and itself recently removed from the possibility of eminent domain, according to the new redevelopment map.

Richard Gober, whose home is near the redevelopment zone and who led an unsuccessful court fight against the old plan, credited the city with a positive step by shrinking the new one - but criticized it for waiting too long to do that.

"They eliminated a lot of people from the area, and that was a good start," Gober said. "It's a little too late to be thrilled, but better late than never. ... And they should be ashamed of themselves for allowing people to miss the hottest real estate market in history of the United States."

Gober also says he won't be satisfied until the city removes all threat of government taking private property to give to private developers - the power the city insists it needs to be able to get anything done in the troubled area.

So even if an Alba Borland can now see both sides of the redevelopment debate, the argument still may not end anytime soon.


Press of Atlantic City NJ: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com

Glassboro group to hold protest on eminent domain: Cherry Hill NJ Courier Post, 11/27/07

By Jeanne Ridgway

Glassboro United, a group of local [Glassboro NJ] residents, plans to demonstrate at 7 tonight at 213 W. High St., a property the borough took from its former owner, Suliman Arifi, by condemnation proceedings earlier this year.

The group will conduct the demonstration to show its concern about the public taking of private property, particularly by eminent domain, said Eric Morales, a member of Glassboro United, which formed earlier this month.

After the demonstration, the group will attend a borough council meeting to ask the governing body to relinquish its right to use eminent domain as an option to obtain private property for redevelopment. The meeting will begin at 8 p.m.

Morales said the group also will ask questions about an $8 million bond ordinance the borough plans to use to acquire property within the planned Rowan Boulevard redevelopment area. A public hearing on the bond will be conducted tonight.

Glassboro is involved in an ambitious project to create a thriving downtown retail district, a plan expected to cost $140 million in public and private investment. Phase one requires the borough to acquire about 40 properties in the Rowan Boulevard area.

To date, no Glassboro property has been taken by eminent domain, borough Administrator Joseph Brigandi Jr. said. Instead, the borough is entering into contracts with individuals to buy targeted properties at mutually agreeable prices, he said.

Some residents, however, say they want eminent domain to be taken off the table completely, Morales said.

Arifi, owner of the condemned West High Street property, at first accepted and then refused a borough offer to acquire his building, Brigandi said.

The building, which is not in the Rowan Boulevard area, was eventually condemned because Arifi did not adequately address code violations, Brigandi said, adding Arifi is now pursuing the matter in court.

Arifi's attorney, Frank W. Thatcher, did not return a phone call seeking comment.


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

11/26/2007

Johnston council to discuss Merle Hay plan: Des Moines IA Register, 10/14/07

By Juli Probasco-Sowers

Johnston City [IA] Council members will consider Monday whether to adopt a plan to guide development along a section of the Merle Hay Road north of Interstate Highways 35/80.

A recommendation to approve the plan came last week from a joint meeting of Planning and Zoning Commission and the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee.

The plan, which primarily looks at an area north of Northwest 62nd Avenue, was drafted following a series of meetings and a land use design workshop. Planners have said they want to create a hometown feel with a metropolitan edge by making the area more pedestrian-friendly.

Officials could accomplish that by creating a destination shopping area smaller in scale but similar to Jordan Creek Town Center in West Des Moines. The metropolitan feel would continue in the residential developments, with more urban-type townhouses on the east side of Merle Hay Road, north of Northwest 63rd Place, for people who want a city-type setting.

City officials and planners assured more than 80 people at a September public meeting about the plan that eminent domain will not be used as a way to improve commercial or residential property in the area. Eminent domain is a practice of condemning property for city use.

"This is not about taking your property," said Gary Lozano of RDG, the company which put the proposal together. "It's about creating a vision."

David Wilwerding, Johnston's community development director, said the Merle Hay Road corridor guidelines will become part of the city's comprehensive plan. City officials use the comprehensive plan to guide development decisions.


Des Moines IA Register: http://desmoinesregister.com

When the state wants your land: Sandusky OH Register, 10/12/07

By Chauncey Alcorn

Jodie Logan of New London [OH] was filled with frustration and anger Wednesday morning as she stood staring at her dilapidated former place of business.

"You guys can go in and take pictures if you want," she said to a Register reporter and photographer. "I don't want to be charged with trespassing."

Since 1998, Logan worked at 2690 U.S. 250 as a photographer, taking scenic family photos on the Vermilion River.

But in December 2006, the Ohio Department of Transportation forced her to vacate her 2.4 acre property by threat of eminent domain, which allows government agencies to seize a private property if there is a compelling public interest.

Since 1998, Logan had invested thousands of dollars in renovations to her business.

In 2006, a Huron County Auditor's office appraiser valued her property at $104,300, including land and improvements.

But in February and April of last year, ODOT's appraiser only estimated the property's value at a total of $74,570, including the land and the building.

"We feel the value will be much less because they're not going to use the building on the property," ODOT Spokesman Brian Stacy said.

Stacy said Logan received a total of more than $90,000 for her land and property, including damages and moving expenses.

But what about the Huron County Auditor's office total estimated value of Logan's property - nearly $30,000 more?

"We're not permitted to use that as a value," Stacy said.

ODOT hires its own contracted appraisers to determine a "fair market value" for properties it acquires.

ODOT appraisers use three different approaches to determine this value: a market, cost, and income generator approach.

Taking the market approach, appraisers look at similar properties of similar size and type in the region and what they sold for and make adjustment on square footage and region to get a fair property value.

The cost approach is used to determine the depreciated value of a building.

"When you do the cost and the other approach, both came out at about $74,500," Stacy said.

But in 2006, Logan said, her attorney had her property appraised at more than $100,000, much closer to the Huron County Auditor's estimate.

During that year, Logan corrected an error in her property record card that raised the value of her property.

"Did she get the value higher because she was selling the property? I suppose you could say that, but she was correct in what she did," Huron County Deputy Auditor Annie Saunders said. "She didn't do anything unethical."

Huron County Auditor Roland Tkach said if two separate appraisers valued Logan's property at around $100,000, then that's what ODOT should pay.

"You would think a reasonable individual would say that's what it's worth and we'll do the right thing," he said.

"(Logan's) only remedy is court," Tkach said. "It's a dispute between a buyer and a seller."

But since her business has been shut down, Logan says she has run out of money and can't afford to sue ODOT.

She's sent letters to President Bush and to lawmakers.

She said Rep. Matt Barrett, D-Amherst, was the only one to come to her aid.

"I do believe Mrs. Logan kind of got the short end of the stick here," Barrett said.

Beginning in February, Barrett's office has been negotiating with Gov. Strickland's office and ODOT to come up with some sort of resolution for Logan.

Since that time, he helped pass Senate Bill 7, which specifically gives property owners such as Logan more power to fight against ODOT in eminent domain cases.

The measure forces ODOT to pay a plaintiff's legal fees if a court rules in favor of the plaintiff in eminent domain cases.

"If a final award of compensation was greater than 125 percent of the agency's offer, ODOT also has to pay penalties including the landowner's cost to litigate it," Barrett said. "We made a stronger incentive for ODOT to treat everyone fairly."

Barrett said lawyers who see eminent domain cases with blatantly unfair treatment will often take them on knowing they'll be paid after they win.

But Senate Bill 7 wasn't passed soon enough for Logan, who said she accepted what ODOT gave her because she didn't have the money for a legal battle.

Stacy said his department's eminent domain powers come from not only state law, but from the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Stacy said eminent domain powers are very rarely used by his department, partly because state eminent domain laws are so strict.

"Each modification of the Ohio laws have made Ohio laws more restrictive than federal laws to the betterment of Ohio property owners," he said.

Stacy said state agencies like ODOT are only able to acquire what they need for a project.

ODOT needs Logan's property to build a U.S. 250 railroad overpass, which is part of a railway improvement project started in 2001 under then-Gov. Bob Taft.

"We also guarantee payment of just compensation upon appropriation of private property," Stacy said.

"I feel totally defeated and depressed," Logan said. "I haven't even been operating my business because I have no place in my home to do it ... I am always thinking how am I going to get my business back (running)."

A proposed constitutional amendment to increase property owners' powers in eminent domain cases was shot down in the Ohio Senate earlier this year.

Logan said ODOT forced her to vacate her business in December because it needed to begin construction on its railroad overpass.

Since then the project has been delayed twice and Stacy said construction may not begin until next year.

From fiscal years 2004-2006, the Ohio Department of Transportation dealth with a total of 4,870 parcels of land.

Eminent domain enforcement was only necessary in 12 percent of those cases.


Sandusky OH Register: http://www.sanduskyregister.com

Aggressive use of eminent domain at issue in Riverside City Council races: Riverside CA Press-Enterprise, 10/13/07

By Doug Haberman

Since 2004, when Dom Betro, Art Gage and Steve Adams took seats on the City Council, the Riverside Redevelopment Agency has filed 18 eminent domain lawsuits to help spark revitalization downtown and in other parts of the city.

The council acts as a board of directors for the agency, whose mission is to eliminate blight and boost the city's economy.

Betro, Gage and Adams are all seeking reelection Nov. 6. Their opponents and voters have raised eminent domain as an issue in the races.

Developer Mark Rubin, who is building a 275-unit condo complex in Riverside, believes eminent domain serves a useful purpose. "If there weren't eminent domain, this thing would be in disrepair for another 50 years," he says of the land where he is building.

From 1990 through 2003, Riverside city councils voted 12 times to authorize the Redevelopment Agency's use of eminent domain, though the city was unable to say how many lawsuits the agency filed as a result of these votes.

Since 2004, the council has voted 13 times to authorize the agency's use of eminent domain. Sometimes an authorization involved several parcels and multiple owners, and the agency filed more than one lawsuit as a result.

The 18 eminent domain lawsuits filed since 2004 were to acquire a total of 13.33 acres. The city comprises almost 52,000 acres.

Nine of the cases have settled, often for more than the agency appraisal on the property. For example, the agency appraised 2.7 acres at the California Square shopping center at $1.8 million but settled its lawsuit by buying the land for $2.9 million.

The other nine cases are heading to trial on the amount the agency will have to pay the owners.

None of the parcels in the 18 cases held owner-occupied homes. The agency has never used eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied house. City law makes it difficult to do so.

Council members who vote to use eminent domain on an owner-occupied house to sell the land to a developer would be committing political suicide, Adams said.

Public agencies use eminent domain to acquire private property from owners unwilling to sell. They typically employ it to buy land for public uses, such as parks, libraries and street-widening projects, but they can also use eminent domain for redevelopment projects.

Council members and city staff said the Redevelopment Agency uses eminent domain almost exclusively after commercial properties have been problems - such as motels and liquor stores on University Avenue - or have been rundown or sat unused for years.

And it is used as a last resort after negotiations with property owners have failed, they said.

Without it, they said, important projects meant to improve life in Riverside, such as the renovation of the historic Fox Theater for use as a regional performing arts center, would never come to fruition.

"We only do it when we really feel there's a public benefit at the end of the road," Betro said.

This project at Market and Third streets was acquired by the developer without the use of eminent domain, the developer said.

Property-Rights Concerns
Property owners involved in the lawsuits and opponents of eminent domain for economic development said the city is taking away property rights and should work with landowners.

"It's just absurd to me, this idea we have to have eminent domain to make development happen," said downtown commercial property owner Rob Freeman.

He grew especially concerned about eminent domain when the agency threatened in 2005 to use it on Adams Plaza, which is not blighted, Freeman said.

City Manager Brad Hudson said relying on the private sector alone hasn't worked in Riverside.

"There's a reason why downtown sat there like it did for 20 or 30 years," Hudson said.

Developers on their own will do little in an aging city such as Riverside with historic buildings that are expensive to retrofit and restore, ground contamination issues, scarce land for parking, and small parcels held by many different owners, Hudson said.

The Redevelopment Agency can tackle these issues to make properties usable by developers, he said.

Under previous councils, the agency used eminent domain to assemble land for Riverside Plaza, University Village and the Riverside Marketplace.

Basis for Eminent Domain
Los Angeles-based developer Mark Rubin is building a 275-unit condominium complex bounded by Market, First, Main and Third streets, where used-auto dealers, mechanics' garages and a few rental houses used to sit.

He bought portions of the land himself. But some property owners set such high prices for their parcels that it made no economic sense for him to buy, Rubin said Tuesday as he walked around the property. That's when he asked for the agency's help.

"If there weren't eminent domain, this thing would be in disrepair for another 50 years," he said.

Across Market Street from Rubin's project, at Market and Third streets, another Los Angeles developer, Alan Mruvka, is building 10 live-work units on land he bought without the aid of eminent domain. He plans to build 109 condominiums on the block bordered by Fairmount Boulevard, First, Market and Second streets, which he purchased.

Because many of the properties were owner-occupied houses, Betro and the Redevelopment Agency insisted he buy them himself, Mruvka said.

But he said the agency's use of eminent domain to acquire commercial property is necessary at times if Riverside is to progress.

"Some people are unreasonable," Mruvka said. "They won't take a reasonable price."

Changes Sought
Freeman, the eminent domain foe, said the city never seems to pick local property owners to do major redevelopment projects. It gives the impression the council favors certain developers and cuts secret deals for them, he said.

For that reason, he favors changing the law to make the Redevelopment Agency wait 10 years after it acquires property through eminent domain before it can transfer it to a developer.

"That takes away the whole idea of the backroom deal," Freeman said.

Betro said the agency uses an open, competitive process to find developers for projects. It chooses them based on how closely their proposals fit the agency's guidelines, and it favors developers who ask for little or no agency subsidy, he said.

One of the agency's main eminent domain targets in the past three years has been property owned for dozens of years by the Garner family, including the former Ab Brown garage downtown and three parcels on Merrill Avenue across from Riverside Plaza that held boarded-up buildings, including an old blood bank.

Sarah Garner, a Carlsbad resident who helps manage her family's properties, said she has felt frustrated by the agency's move to acquire the property.

"We wanted to do projects on all those parcels ourselves," Garner said.

Gage said the Garner parcels and some of the motels on University were a clear example of blight. Eminent domain became necessary, he said, when the agency and the Garner family couldn't reach a deal.

"When you've got something really nasty, it's got to go," Gage said.


Riverside CA Press-Enterprise: http://www.pe.com

Couple vows to fight RTD over light rail, eminent domain: 9NEWS.com, Denver CO, 10/12/07

By Nelson Garcia

For the last 23 years, Galen Foster and his wife, Kim Snyder, have been building their dream at the corner of 14th Avenue and Wadsworth [in Lakewood CO]. It's their home and business, but now it's slated for demolition.

"Even the city council people say we are Lakewood, we are a landmark," said Snyder.

She says they've been working for years to revitalize their area. The couple says they often clean up the roadways and neighboring properties. They've rescued dogs before being euthanized. And they've been running one of the most successful window-tinting businesses in Colorado, Pro-Tint Windows, which also sells art - mostly totem poles.

But on September 28, RTD sent them a notice of intent that property will be purchased to make room for the development of the 12-mile west corridor of the light rail under the $4.7 billion FasTracks project.

"I have 90 days to get an appraisal and figure out what I'm gonna do with the rest of my life after being here 23 years," said Snyder. In the immediate future, they have figured out what they're going to do – fight.

"We're not anti-light rail. We're not anti-eminent domain," said Snyder. "We're not anti-any of that stuff. We're anti-abuse and misuse."

On Saturday, the couple is holding a bake sale from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. to raise money to start a foundation to help their cause and the cause of others who may feel abused by the eminent domain process.

"So this stuff stops happening to people," said Foster.

RTD spokesperson Pauletta Tonilas says the couple's land land is essential to the completion of the light rail.

"So there's a very fair process. The process is based on fair market value and due process," she said.

"You can't put a price on something that you've built, from almost nothing," said Foster. "We don't want to leave. I don't care for any amount of money. I don't want my life to change."

They dreamed of rebuilding their home and business within the next four years to a two-story plaza which can be home to several merchants on the first floor while they live on the second floor.

Right now, RTD is not even sure what it would do with the couple's land. It sits a block away from the where the light rail will actually go in. Tonilas says it could be used simply as a staging area for construction equipment while the light rail and stations are being constructed or it may also be a part of a parking structure.

"Why would you take out a taxpaying business and park equipment there?" said Snyder.

Foster says that uncertainty over their land and the fact that it is not next to the light rail is insulting. Plus, he claims RTD told them for years their property was safe.

"It's a direct slap in our face," said Foster.

Tonilas says it's for the greater good of the public who voted to build FasTracks.

"We understand this is a very emotional issue and explained to them why their property is needed," she said.

Foster says an explanation won't do.

"You know what, I'm gonna be here 'till I'm dead," said Foster.


9NEWS.com, Denver CO: http://www.9news.com

Eminent domain delayed: Carlisle PA Sentinel, 10/12/07

By Dale Heberlig

The owner of land on a ridge overlooking Shippensburg made a new pitch to Shippensburg Borough Authority members Tuesday, convincing the board to delay eminent domain proceedings for at least a month.

Lane Thrush — a real estate agent who owns an 80-acre tract on Timber Hill along Possum Hollow Road in Southampton Township, Franklin County — agreed to deed 2.25 acres and a half-mile right-of-way to accommodate a water line in exchange for $60,000 and assurances that the water system operators would not condemn a separate 5-acre tract and acquire the land by eminent domain.

The authority wants land as a site for a much-needed water storage tank to enhance water service in several areas — including Forest Ridge and the area east of Shippensburg along Routes 11 and 174. Thrush’s property was identified as an ideal site because of its location and elevation.

Last month, authority directors authorized condemnation proceedings on a 5-acre tract, saying negotiations to buy the 2.25 acres had failed.

Thrush attended Tuesday’s meeting to ask questions and “put this thing to rest, whatever it takes.”

Would prefer more acreage
Authority solicitor Forest Myers told Thrush that the authority’s first choice of land was a 5-acre parcel atop Timber Hill that would provide space for a potential second storage tower and where the tall tanks could be easily concealed in the trees.

“You were adamantly opposed to us having the 5 acres from the very beginning,” Myers told Thrush, “so we negotiated on the alternative 2.25-acre site that you suggested.”

However, when negotiations stalled, Myers said, the authority opted to use eminent domain to pursue what it originally wanted.

Thrush said he wants to retain possession of the 5-acre hilltop, because it provides the choicest potential building lots.

According to Tuesday’s discussion, an appraisal acquired by the authority established the value of the unimproved 2.5 acres to be $11,800 per acre, or $26,550.

Thrush offered the land for a $50,000 price tag, with additional charges of $10,000 for the water line right-of-way, $7,500 for engineering fees and 5 free taps thrown in for future use in developing homes near the location, bringing the total price to $73,565.

“That was not acceptable to the authority,” Myers said.

Myers argued that the construction of a water tower and a road to access the site improves the value of Thrush’s total acreage and “that should be worth considerable consideration.”

Space for second tank
Thrush objected to the authority’s decision to condemn a different tract than the one the two sides dickered over for months, but Myers said the 5 acres targeted for condemnation gives the authority far more flexibility.

“There is room for a second tank and there is more room to provide screening for the tanks,” Myers says.

Myers said if Thrush provides his offer in writing, the authority board will consider the proposal at its November meeting.

Authority members Christopher Woltemade and Tom Feeney were absent from Tuesday’s session, prompting members W. Edward Goodhart and Keith Swartz and Chairman Ken Morgan to forestall a decision.

Goodhart said, “There’s no way I’ll vote to buy 2.25 acres when 5 acres is a much better choice.”


Carlisle PA Sentinel: http://www.cumberlink.com

11/24/2007

California Black Chamber of Commerce Endorses Eminent Domain Ballot Measure: Californians for Property Rights Protection, 11/6/07

News release

Study finds ethnic and racial minority owned properties at greatest risk

Californians for Property Rights Protection announced that the largest African American business organization in California has endorsed the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA), an eminent domain ballot measure slated to appear on the June 2008 ballot.

“African American owned businesses serve a critical role in protecting jobs and keeping California’s economy strong,” said chamber President and CEO Aubrey Stone. “While small business owners continue to create 90% of all new jobs in our state, they are also the most frequent victims of eminent domain abuse. The Jarvis measure is the only measure appearing before voters that provides all property owners substantive private property protections.”

In June of this year, the Institute for Justice (IJ), the non-profit organization that litigated the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo vs. New London case, released a study entitled “Victimizing the Vulnerable” that found that ethnic and racial minorities were disproportionately impacted by eminent domain abuse. Among the American cities studied, more than a dozen are located in California.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, California is not among the more than 40 states that have reformed their eminent domain laws. IJ considers California “one of the biggest abusers of eminent domain in the country,” and small business owners to be among its most frequent victims.

In addition to prohibiting government from profiting by seizing private property from unwilling sellers for private projects that benefit wealthy and politically connected developers, the measure also requires public agencies to fully compensate property owners for all expenses and loss of business when their property is taken for legitimate public projects such as roads, schools and water supply projects. Today, reimbursements for loss of business are legally capped at a mere $10,000.

Other prominent business and farm organization endorsements include the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council and the California Farm Bureau Federation.

The California Black Chamber of Commerce represents over 65,000 small business owners and affiliates within the State of California. Since its inception in 1994, the organization has experienced considerable growth and has formed partnership alliances that encompass more than 55,000 civil politicians and faith based leaders throughout the state and country.

The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act is sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights. Having secured the financing required to qualify the measure, the Act will appear on the June 2008 ballot.


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

California Black Chamber of Commerce: http://www.calbcc.org

Small business owners fear losing their property to Pinnacle redevelopment: Press of Atlantic City NJ, 10/31/07

By Derek Harper

When Paul Steel's dad opened Steel's Fudge on the Boardwalk, Woodrow Wilson was president.

Now 88 years later, he and his son George Steel are worried that a glitzy new casino construction project would mean their small business is taken away from them.

Like other small business owners on the 1600 block of the Boardwalk, they recently received notice the city was contemplating designating 24 acres around the former Sands Hotel & Casino as "in need of redevelopment."

And like the others, they worried that this notice, coupled with what they considered unacceptably low offers for their business, could lead to eminent domain.

"Are you going to sell?" Steel, imagined being asked, "or are we going to hit you over the head with eminent domain?"

At its Oct. 3 meeting, City Council passed a resolution as new business asking the Planning Board to investigate and decide if three blocks around the proposed Pinnacle Atlantic City casino needed redevelopment.

The designation will be considered at the Dec. 19 Planning Board meeting, city Planning Director William Crane said. The board typically approves the designation.

The 24-acre tract is massive. On the beach block, it includes all the land between Indiana and Kentucky avenues. The next block in it includes land bordered by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Pacific, Indiana and Atlantic avenues.

The glitzy casino project zone could uproot a sampling of the resort's typical low-end tourist attractions. It includes five cash-for-gold stores, four T-shirt shops and "Peanut World," advertising $0.75 hot dogs.

Crane said the designation would allow the city to tailor zoning and planning legislation to the site. The city similarly drafted an ordinance this spring allowing the Revel Entertainment project in the South Inlet to soar above previous height restrictions.

The redevelopment designation also opens the door to possible eminent domain. Crane said this would give Pinnacle additional leverage as it negotiates for surrounding properties.

Casinos are ineligible for tax incentives tied to redevelopment, said City Councilman Bruce Ward, who helped draft the ordinance.

It is unclear what Pinnacle's intentions are.

Kim Townsend, chief executive officer of Pinnacle Atlantic City, was unable to respond by deadline Tuesday.

Dan Lee, Pinnacle's chairman and chief executive officer, has repeatedly said in public forums that Pinnacle already has enough land to build its proposed megaresort.

Acting Mayor William Marsh said casino officials had told him they were not interested in acquiring the businesses that front on Atlantic Avenue. And Crane said he understood that Pinnacle was not interested in either Indiana Avenue's La Renaissance condominium complex nor City Councilman John J. Schultz's 1616 Pacific Ave. building.

Furthermore, none of the land across Pacific Avenue is zoned for casinos.

City Councilmembers said they generally oppose using eminent domain except with speculators who own vacant land.

Pinnacle owns almost all of the land on the former Sand's block through Ace Gaming LLC, its local corporate name. Public records also indicate it has made recent purchases elsewhere in the zone under two Pinnacle subsidiaries.

In 2006, AREP Boardwalk Properties LLC spent $61.3 million on land owned by Caesars Atlantic City's subsidiaries, according to deeds registered with Atlantic County. Another Pinnacle entity, PSW Properties LLC, spent $6.585 million last year on a shuttered restaurant and a disused apartment complex.

City tax records also indicate the AREP also owns two Boardwalk stores on the 1600 block and a small tract off of Mt. Vernon Place. PSW owns other land on Mt. Vernon. It is not clear how much was paid for these properties.

The potentially affected properties on the Boardwalk's 1600 block stand out and look worn partially because they were not part of the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority's recent multimillion-dollar façade makeover. City tax records indicate Boardwalk barons Schiff Enterprises own eight of the 16 properties.

The privately owned companies complained that Pinnacle offered far too little. Vasilios Kakoulides said he paid $800,000 for Bill's Gyros when he bought the restaurant for 20 years ago. Pinnacle offered him $780,000.

He does not want to sell regardless. "There is no price," he said. "If I lose this, the next day I drop dead."

The Steels said they could sell, but $900,000 was far too little.

"Why wasn't the Sand's considered a blighted area" when it was open, Pier 21 Gifts owner Todd Lovitz asked. "It was a run-down hotel."

"Someone should take City Hall," he added, leaning against a rack of $3.99 tourist T-shirts. "It's an ugly building and it's definitely in a blighted area."


Press of Atlantic City NJ: http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com

Reaction varies in OK Tire land fight: Charleston SC Post and Courier, 10/13/07

By Prentiss Findlay

Anthony Noury's business, Sea Tow, works out of Shem Creek [in Mt Pleasant SC]. He supports public access to the waterway but thinks the town needs to reconsider condemning a nearby 1.05-acre tract known as the OK Tire property.

The town decided this week to use eminent domain to acquire the tract to provide increased public access to the marsh and water area and to develop a park for leisure pursuits and open space. How that would happen has not been spelled out.

"They (the town) went to the most aggressive level, condemnation, without putting out a public plan for the property," Noury said.

The owner, Mark Mason, plans 24 condominiums on the tract, which is about 100 yards from creek.

"I think access is critical," Noury said. But much of the creek can't be seen from the OK Tire tract, he said.

The tract, located on a frontage road off Coleman Boulevard, has a view of marsh and the backside of creek restaurants, bars and inns. It is between Mason's Tidewater office complex and sprawling parking lots for creek business patrons.

Planning Commission member Phil Siegrist addressed the situation Friday in an e-mail. "Should the landowners not want to negotiate in good faith a reasonable price for this property, then it should be condemned and brought into the town by eminent domain. Real estate greed is at work here," Siegrist said. "Preserving open space at Shem Creek is necessary and I'm glad

that the town is taking a strong position to preserve it," he said.

The options for public sightseeing at the creek are limited. The Shem Creek Bridge is scenic, but there's not much room for pedestrians. Creekside restaurant and inn patrons have a good view of the picturesque waters. And a boat ride is a way to get a close-up. But there's no designated public place to enjoy the historic spot, one of the most photographed in the Lowcountry.

Mason plans to remedy that situation with a public boardwalk on the north side of the creek. "He (Mason) was about to provide 1,200 feet of dock and boardwalk," Noury said. Mason would run a public marsh walk to the creek boardwalk.

A petition presented to Town Council bears the names of more than 700 people opposed to Mason's project. The petition states that the development "would not only clog and further pollute an already overburdened area, but spells the certain end of this historic center of Mount Pleasant."

Mason rejected the town's offer of $2.28 million for the OK Tire property, Town Attorney Allen Young said. Two years ago, Mason and partner Phillip Smith purchased the tract for $1.35 million. The town's offer was "fair and reasonable," Young said.

Mason received the town's condemnation notice on Wednesday, Young said. How much the town will pay for the property will be determined by the courts.

Mason, who could not be reached Friday, said by e-mail Thursday that before the town expressed interest in purchasing the OK Tire tract, Suntrust Bank obtained a property appraisal of $4.5 million in connection with a mortgage loan Suntrust made on the property. The town has named the project lender, Suntrust Bank, in the condemnation notice, he said.

Mason and Philip Smith plan to build a private 24-slip marina for boats up to 50 feet long. Those who own a condo at the OK Tire tract also would have a boat slip. Mason has a marina permit so construction can begin on that project.

On Sept. 12, Young, on behalf of the town, offered $6 million for the OK Tire property and the Bailey docks, Mason said. He said the properties are valued at $7.8 million. At the last minute, the town offered $2.2 million for the OK Tire property, a move he has described as "dirty tricks." Mason has said that he will fight the condemnation, which he described as illegal and unfair. He said he also will sue the town for damages.

In June 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

In the wake of that ruling, South Carolina voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2006 that allows private property to be condemned for public use only.

On Tuesday, Town Council voted to make a final offer for Mason's land and, if it was rejected, to exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire the property for public use. After an Aug. 14 closed-door session, council voted unanimously to enter into talks with Mason and Smith to acquire the property.


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

Court Hears Arguments In Brooklyn Eminent Domain Case: NY1, New York NY, 10/8/07

After losing their eminent domain case in June, opponents of the Atlantic Yards Project returned to court Tuesday to argue their appeal.

The lawyer for the 11 plaintiffs – who stand to lose their properties because of the project – argued their case before a three-judge panel. The plaintiffs say the project doesn't serve a public purpose, which is a requirement for seizing property under eminent domain.

They also claim the project was rubber-stamped by state officials who have a long-time relationship with the developer, Bruce Ratner.

The Empire State Development Corporation, which oversees the site, argued the $4 billion housing development and arena for the Nets serves multiple public purposes, including improving transportation and getting rid of blight in the area.

"The question is: what motivated the government officials who ultimately rubber-stamped this decision? Were they motivated by a desire to benefit the public? Is that what really is driving it,” said the plaintiffs attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff. “Or was it because somebody that they know and they have business relations with came to them with a good idea and they thought, ‘Why not? Let's do it, and we don't care whether or not it's really beneficial to the community.’"

The ESDC says it will not comment on the case until the court reaches a decision, which could take weeks. The plaintiffs say if they lose this appeal, they'll take their fight to the U.S. Supreme Court.


NY1, New York NY: http://www.ny1.com

Eminent domain law complicates disaster recovery in Kansas: KBSD-TV6, Dodge City KS, 10/8/07

Associated Press

A new eminent domain law has complicated the recovery process for Kansas towns hit by disasters.

The law bars local governments from seizing land and using it for private development without permission from the Kansas Legislature. Its impact was felt this year when Greensburg was hit by a tornado and flooding immersed Coffeyville and Osawatomie.

Lawmakers passed the law to prohibit instances in which private property was seized to build a commercial enterprise.

But the law applies to private housing as well. That makes it a problem because some residents walked away from their properties after the July floods and May tornadoes.

With no guarantee that legislators will approve a seizure, communities could be left with prime residential property that stays abandoned. Towns may not get back the housing they need.


KBSD-TV6, Dodge City KS: http://www.kbsd6.com

Property-rights advocates give ballot a new try: Redding CA Searchlight, 11/24/07

Editorial

Partisanship and overreach have stymied a post-Kelo reform of eminent-domain laws in California, but voters will have another chance next year

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that the public greeted with close to unanimous revulsion. Kelo v. City of New London allowed cities to seize property by eminent domain for the sole purpose of reselling it to private developers whose projects would boost tax revenue.

Since then, 42 states have put new restrictions on eminent domain to curb abuses. California, sad to say, is not one of them. The Legislature has deadlocked two years running, and an overreaching ballot initiative, Proposition 90, narrowly failed in 2006.

But the voters will have their say on another attempt to shore up property rights next summer with the "California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act." Proponents - including Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale - filed more than 1 million signatures this week to put the initiative on the June ballot.

On its face, the new measure should stand a better chance of passage. Proposition 90 included a controversial section that would require government compensation for "regulatory takings" - i.e., any law that reduced anyone's property value. Even some avid property-rights supporters thought that opened a door to paralyzing litigation about almost any government decision.

The new initiative is simpler, largely focused on eminent domain.

Unfortunately, it looks like it won't be the only eminent-domain measure on the ballot. The California League of Cities is promoting a separate initiative that would protect owner-occupied homes, but otherwise is a pretty weak brew. Critics call it a false reform that tries to go just far enough to ease the clamor for change, without seriously stalling aggressive redevelopment.

With dueling measures on the ballot, the one that wins the most votes will take effect. That means the political smoke will blow twice as thick, but for anyone wary of eroding property rights, the June election will hold a clear favorite.


Redding CA Searchlight: http://www.redding.com

11/23/2007

Landowners to challenge Willets Point redevelopment proposal, 11/20/07

Land and business owners will challenge the Economic Development Corporation's plan for Willets Point at NY City Council hearing

Group will question validity of the city's proposal to use eminent domain to force sale to developer

A group of land/business owners from the Willets Point section of Queens NY are gearing up for a battle with the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) at the final City Council oversight hearing on November 29, 2007, before the city files a Uniformed Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) that would allow the use of eminent domain to condemn and take private properties in Willets Point and sell the land to a developer for a sizeable profit. The commercial and residential redevelopment project in Willets Point and is projected to cost upwards of $3 billion. This will be the City's first Urban Renewal plan in close to 40 years.

Representatives from the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association (WPIRA), a group of the 10 largest land/business owners in Willets Point will testify before the New York City Council's Land Use and Economic Development Committees on November 29, 2007 at 1 p.m. in the Committee Room, City Hall.

The City Council is expected to examine the economic and technical viability of the city's redevelopment plan for Willets Point and seek answers to questions that were posed during the first oversight hearing in June 2007. The city issued an RFP in November 2004 but has not released results of their environmental impact analysis of the area in question nor has it presented a viable plan for the development of the area and/or identified a developer. "Unlike all other major rezonings during the Bloomberg administration, the EDC is asking the City Council to vote on a condemnation and rezoning of an area before a developer has even been selected and a plan has been presented. It's outrageous and it's undemocratic," said Daniel Feinstein of Feinstein Iron Works Inc.

In May 2007, Mayor Bloomberg announced the city's redevelopment plan for the area that includes building 1.7 million square feet of retail space, 500,000 square feet of office space, a hotel, 5,500 residential housing units and a convention center in the 60-acre neighborhood that is currently zoned for heavy industry. To execute this plan, it would require the condemnation and taking of approximately 45 acres of privately owned land.

Willets Point employs an estimated 3,000 highly-skilled workers in ironworking, construction, sewer parts production, auto repair and service businesses, and the manufacture of bakery and food ingredients that includes the largest distributor of Indian foods in the U.S. The area is mostly blue-collar and has provided a valuable opportunity for local residents to start up their own businesses and live the American dream. Willets Point business owners provide billions of dollars of economic activity and millions of dollars of tax revenue to the City of New York. In spite of this longstanding tax revenue, the city has blatantly neglected the area and withheld municipal services for decades.

"The city wants to redevelop land that has been in my family for three generations without giving us the option of expanding our profitable business that has thrived despite the fact that we've been operating without basic services. We don't have paved streets, sanitation services, street lights, sanitary or storm sewers," says Anthony Fodera, Senior Partner of Fodera Foods Inc. "We've pleaded with the city for the past 30 years and they just say no – we're not giving you these services. The city intentionally created blight in Willets Point, so they can steal our land from us. And to top it off, as soon as they kick us out they will provide the infrastructure and services that they have denied us to the developers."

"Former Queens Borough President Claire Shulman said that she wasn't going to invest in the area because we're not worth it," said Anthony Fodera, "If we're not worth it, then the city shouldn't take our tax dollars."

WPIRA representatives insist that if the city were to provide basic services, the current land owners would invest and expand their businesses and re-develop the area themselves. "The owners would develop the land and the junkyards that are eyesores couldn't afford to be here anymore," said Jerry Antonacci of Crown Container Co. Inc. "Give us a chance to develop the land where our grandfathers built these businesses over 70 years ago."

In April 2006, Dr. Tom Angotti of the Hunter College Center for Community Planning and Development conducted a land use study of Willets Point that described the area as a "unique business incubator that provides jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities to diverse new immigrant populations." The study recommended that the city establish a public-private planning partnership in which Willets Point businesses, workers and city agencies would be equal partners in a process that would develop plans that could accommodate existing businesses and promote new commercial and industrial development. "It's a disgrace the city didn't come to us first to discuss redeveloping this area—we could have worked together. We want it to change as well, nobody wants the status quo," said Dan Scully of Tully Construction Co. Inc.

At the November 29th hearing, WPIRA will question why the city has not considered the creation of an industrial business zone to accommodate the already profitable businesses in the area. While the city promises assistance with relocation, moving is simply not a viable option for most businesses that require M3-1 manufacturing zoning, which is quite scarce in all five boroughs. And for many of these businesses, their current location in Willets Point is essential for the daily operation of their business and the distribution and transportation of their products. Preliminary discussions have taken place, but the city has very little to offer the landowners.

WPIRA has produced a 15-minute videotape profiling the business/landowners whose livelihoods would be placed in serious jeopardy if eminent domain was to be instituted by the city. Moreover, it would have a major adverse impact on the employees who work at these corporations. WPIRA seeks to enter the video as testimony during the November 29th hearing.

To view the video, click here:
http://wpira.com/Behind%20the%20Curbline.htm




WPIRA: http://wpira.com

email: willetspoint@gmail.com

Eminent Domain in Denver: A first-person account, 11/21/07

By Steve Fesch

I own a property [in Denver CO] south of Invesco Field at Mile High. I was born in this town and have always been a loyal Broncos fan. In fact the Broncos fans voted my group www.orangeforceone.com tailgaters of the year in 2004 something that I am proud of.

A few years ago, I purchased [some] property. At the time I didn’t even know the property was near a proposed light rail line. I found out about the LightRail station as I did more research and with that information, I decided to buy the property and pursue my dream of building a life and a business. I was told by the city of Denver that they had a vision of a LoDo [Lower Downtown] atmoshpere similar to what you see surrounding Coors Field.

I purchased the property and signed a long tern lease with a very reputable and solid national company which now faces being removed from the property by the Denver regional Transportation District [RTD]. The company that leases my place has spent thousands of dollars in preparing in upgrading the site to suit their needs and they are now in danger of being forced out.

I went to many of the public transit oriented development meetings over the last few years and never once was I told my property was in danger of being taken via eminent domain by RTD.

It wasn’t until sept 24th that I received their notice of intent to purchase my property. I bought it first and foremost because I’m a Broncos fan and I had plans to have a Broncos Themed sports bar, an office for my business, and a place to live.

It’s been almost 60 days since the initial notice and RTD has yet to provide me with clear information as to why they need to take all of my land. They are telling me they need to widen the road and approximately 40 sq.ft. of my property is in their path. I own 12,000 sq.ft. yet they tell me the rest of my land will be “uneconomically viable” to me even though the city of Denver has agreed to work with me on my development plans with the remaining land which is over 11,960 sq ft. I am willing to work with RTD to give them what is needed for the project, but as of recently I have been unable to get any response from them other than “we are pursuing the aquisition of your entire parcel.”

I’m in favor of the light rail project as I believe it is good for the community of Denver. However I believe that the power of eminent domain is being abused by RTD for their own interests and not the greater good of community. RTD could easily purchase the land they need from me and save the tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra land acquisitions and legal fees, but it appears they have their own agenda for my land which is a very prime piece of real estate surrounded by city, stadium, and RTD land. I’m the only private land owner losing land at the Decatur Station (to my knowledge), but there are a lot more parcels in danger of being condemned. Anyone who lives or works in the path of development is in danger of being effected. There are people losing their homes and business because RTD needs places to store construction materials!

The citizens of Denver need to know the truth about what is happening. I’m reaching out to the pubic to seek out others who are concerned about the property rights we have as Coloradans. I want Coloradans and Americans to know that our property rights are in danger. The way the current laws are written leaves a lot of room for governments to abuse the power of eminent domain and we need to speak-out about this.

Please take a moment to review the information I have at EminentDomainSucks.com, and leave a message. I will be updating the site with new developments.


EminentDomainSucks.com: http://eminentdomainsucks.wordpress.com

Property Owners Deserve Better: American Homeowners Resource Center, 10/7/07

California Property Owners & Farmland Protection Act - genuine eminent domain reform

By Jon Coupal

For decades, California local elected officials have enjoyed a delicious privilege.

Under existing California law, they can use eminent domain to seize private property and turn it over to other private interests like shopping mall developers. This is why these officials were rocked back on their heels when legislation that would have enshrined this privilege in the state constitution was defeated in the legislative session just ended. This defeat by those who seize property for illegitimate purposes has thankfully opened the door for a citizens' initiative that would give California real property rights reform.

Officials had thought they were home free in 2005 when the United States Supreme Court concluded government could take private property, not just for traditional government uses like roads and schools, but to turn over to private interests. The only limitation, said the Court, is that officials must show there is "public purpose."

The Court went on to conclude that "public purpose" could be almost anything that a government declares, including increasing tax revenues. In California, the only additional requirement is that the property be declared "blighted," but this presents no significant obstacle - in one community a golf course was declared blighted for the purpose of redevelopment.

Needless to say, local elected officials jealously guard their perquisite. After all, when soliciting campaign funds, having power over property can be very advantageous. What better way to show gratitude to a major contributor than by rewarding them with the opportunity to develop a piece of prime real estate?

So when last spring, property rights advocates began a serious effort to reform California law to prevent eminent domain abuse, the politicians saw this as a serious threat. When those defending property rights began collecting signatures to qualify the California Property Owners & Farmland Protection Act (CPOFPA) for the ballot, officials countered by using their membership in the League of California Cities to rally behind a bill, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, that would have provided cosmetic reform but in reality preserved most of their existing ability to take property. A major newspaper editorialized that the League of Cities' bill was actually "worse than doing nothing."

The property takers pulled out all the stops, including flooding the Capitol with arm-twisting lobbyists to gain passage of the Leagues' bill. If they could convince the Legislature to pass their pet legislation, which would place their version of eminent domain "reform" before voters, they hoped to confuse the issue and defeat the CPOFPA. And if they could muddy the waters to the extent that both measures failed, so much the better, because their property taking privileges would continue unabated.

When the League's legislation was defeated, the property grabbers moved on to plan "B." They have begun to collect signatures to place their own proposition on the ballot that would pose as eminent domain reform, but would exempt homes occupied for less than one year, businesses, churches and farmland. These properties would all be protected by the CPOFPA.

For those who believe that eminent domain should be reserved for legitimate government purposes like roads, schools and fire stations, and limiting the taking of property for private use, then the California Property Owners & Farmland Protection Act is the real deal.

A coalition led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation, and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights is over half way to collecting the signatures necessary to put genuine eminent domain reform, including iron clad protections for homeowners, on the June ballot.

The greatest challenge for those who would protect their homes and property from seizure will be to blunt efforts by those who are trying to deceive the public, lest voters become so confused they end up rejecting real reform.


Jon Coupal is President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association -- California's largest taxpayer organization -- which is dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and promoting taxpayers' rights.


American Homeowners Resource Center: http://www.ahrc.com

Jon Coupal is President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: http://www.hjta.org

Builders Lose N.J. Eminent Domain Fight: Builders Magazine, 10/7/07

U.S. Supreme Court chooses not to hear MiPro case

By Steve Zurier

Builders were dealt a blow this week when the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to hear a case in which New Jersey builder MiPro Homes claimed the township of Mt. Laurel, N.J., unlawfully seized a 16-acre parcel that was under site development and had been legally zoned and approved for construction.

The case, which dates back to 2002, pitted the township, which claimed that exercising eminent domain to protect open space was perfectly legal, against the builders, who said the township's real goal was to halt residential development.

Home builder MiPro won the case in trial court, which agreed with the builder that Mt. Laurel sought to stop development that it determined would be a drain on municipal services. That decision was reversed on appeal and upheld late last year by the New Jersey State Supreme Court.

"The message to all future [site plan] applicants is that you can't rely on New Jersey's policies when it comes to residential development," said Patrick O'Keefe, CEO of the New Jersey Builders Association, which worked closely with the Builders League of South Jersey and the NAHB on the MiPro case.

"The mere mention of the word open space is sufficient justification to grab a parcel of land, irrespective of what the state or local government had planned," O'Keefe continued.

Of course, getting the U.S. Supreme court to hear the case was a real longshot, especially since the court accepts less than 1 percent of the cases petitioned.

O'Keefe said the builders hoped the court would view the MiPro case as a chance to clarify the opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens in the Kelo case, in which Justice Stevens said New London, Conn., was justified in condemning the Kelo property because it had conducted a rigorous planning process prior to the taking, and that redevelopment was an acceptable public use.

"Preserving open space is a proper public use, but in this case it was not part of a well-thought out plan," said Mary Lynn Huett, director of legal services for the NAHB. "The builders contend that it was an ad hoc reaction to residential development," she explained.

Michael Mouber, township attorney for Mt. Laurel said the notion that the township condemned the property in a vacuum is not accurate. He said at least seven months before the condemnation the township notified MiPro in writing that it intended to preserve the land as open space. He said the town council also stated its intentions publicly at a town meeting several months before the condemnation.

Mouber said the combination of a series of recent state laws that let municipalities hold referendums to raise tax money to preserve open space plus the state Supreme Court decision have put municipalities on a more even footing with developers.

"Up until the laws were passed and we won this case, municipalities were powerless to compete with developers for land because they didn't have the money," Mouber said, adding that by and large many taxpayers are willing to pay to preserve open space.

Bill Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities, said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on eminent domain for economic and redevelopment projects and now the state Supreme Court in New Jersey has ruled that eminent domain can be used to preserve open space.

"The courts have ruled on this so let's put it to bed," Dressel said. "The builders need to move on," he said, adding that "I'd rather see them redirect their energies to developing our urban areas," he concluded.


Builders Magazine: http://www.builderonline.com

Falls Council plans to begin eminent domain proceedings against State Road complex : Akron OH Beacon Journal, 10/1/07

By Betty Lin-Fisher

One way or another, the current State Road Shopping Center has to go, Cuyahoga Falls Mayor Don Robart said today.

To that end, the Cuyahoga Falls City Council voted tonight to begin eminent domain proceedings to force Beachwood-based owner GMS Management to sell the property to the city for redevelopment.

The vote by council was unanimous, with at-large Councilwoman Carol Klinger abstaining because she works for Goodyear, which operates an automotive tire shop at the plaza.

The city has been trying for years to persuade the owners of the plaza at State Road and Portage Trail to invest in the center or sell.

Several developers have expressed interest in the 30-acre parcel, but until the owners agree, nothing can be done, Robart said.

In the meantime, the plaza remains an eyesore and continues to decline, the mayor said. Discussions with the owners have been hot and cold, sometimes giving city officials hope.

But lately, discussions have been ''lip service,'' Robart said.

Time was of the essence for the vote at the specially called council meeting. On Oct. 10, a new state law will require cities to prove a property is 70 percent vacant in order to take it by eminent domain.

State Sen. Kevin Coughlin, R-Cuyahoga Falls, is pushing to take a stricter eminent domain issue to voters next year in an amendment to the Ohio Constitution.

The plaza has ''to be bulldozed,'' Robart said. ''People come back and say, 'Why can't we use Montgomery Ward for fill-in-the-blank? There's no hope for State Road Shopping Center, both north and south. It's gotta go. It's just a question of what does it become.''

Robart said he would like to see the plaza torn down by next year.

Falls officials believe the plaza could make the 70 percent vacancy threshold, but to be sure, the council last year passed its own definition of ''blight,'' requiring that 75 percent of any commercial property be vacant for at least six months or 50 percent be vacant for at least one year.

City officials estimate the State Road Shopping Center is at least 60 percent vacant and has been for some time.

The city plans to file its lawsuit on Oct. 9, the day before the state law takes effect. That would mean the city's eminent domain proceedings would not have to meet the new law's numbers.

The city made an offer last Thursday to GMS to purchase the plaza for $12.9 million, based on an appraisal the city received for the land and property. The city needed to make an offer before it could proceed with an eminent domain suit. The city said GMS indicated it needed an extension of time but got no other response.

''They've got to make a decision if they're going to fight this thing, or legitimately come to the table or sell it,'' Robart said.

Calls made today to GMS Management, the plaza's leasing agent and GMS' attorney for comment were not returned. Built in 1952, the State Road Shopping Center opened in 1953 and was touted as one of the ''most modern, up-to-date shopping centers in the state.'' Early tenants included W.E. Wright Co. hardware, Woolworth Co. and a Western Auto Store.

The center thrived for years. But in 2001, anchor Montgomery Ward was shuttered when the national retailer went bankrupt. City officials said that was the beginning of the plaza's decline, when current management seemed to stop investing and retailers began leaving.

Steve Meyer is the third-generation owner of the small DolenOre Keysmiths kiosk right outside the old Montgomery Ward. The business started in 1962.

Meyer took over in 1996 from his father, Gus.

Then, Steve Meyer said, the plaza around him was pretty well occupied.

''It was hard to find parking spaces. It's hard to find a car now,'' Meyer said.

Meyer hopes that the city is successful in either getting GMS to sell or taking the property. But Meyer said he's not sure the city will succeed. He doesn't fault the mayor, saying Robart has been trying for years to get GMS to improve the plaza, ''but he's been talking to a brick wall.''

Meyer said he has no contact with the plaza owners, other than mailing his monthly rent and when he's renegotiating his lease.

Jim and Karen Lucas, owners of Pro-Tec Electronics, which repairs small electronics, said something must be done.

''I think any kind of improvement is needed,'' said Karen Lucas. ''I would love to have this place full of people, like we used to.''

The Lucases have been in the plaza for about 10 years and are considering renewing their lease for another three years while moving a few doors down to a larger space.

Even though occupancy is low, Jim Lucas said his customers know where he is. But there's virtually no walk-in traffic anymore.

Robart said he envisions a mix of retail and housing in place of the plaza, but that will depend upon the developer. In the past, Robart had said he envisioned a lifestyle center, with mixed retail, restaurants and possibly upscale residential units, like Crocker Park in Westlake.

Today, Robart said he still envisions retail and housing, but added the lifestyle center would probably be more appropriate for downtown Cuyahoga Falls. Robart said an anticipated master plan would be unveiled in about 60 days and would lay out more State Road and downtown plans. A balance needs to be struck to develop retail at both sites, he said.

''When we get all done, State Road will be highly desirous and the place to be,'' Robart said.

The city has to do something to get GMS to act, said Councilman Ken Barnhart, R-3. Half of the plaza is in his ward.

''I can't see that we can do anything to salvage (the plaza),'' he said. ''Obviously, we've given them more than adequate time to make their move.''

Barnhart said he'd be more in favor of finding retailers for State Road that would appeal to middle-class residents of the area. He worries that an upscale lifestyle center wouldn't be supported economically.

There appears to be the potential for area residents to spend their money in the State Road corridor. A study last year showed that only 29 percent of area residents shop along the corridor. But a fully developed center could bring 626 new employees to the area and generate $1.2 million in annual municipal taxes, $871,500 in county sales tax and $6.4 million in state sales tax.

Robart said there could be room for some, but not all, of the retailers now in the plaza. Both Meyer, the locksmith, and Lucas, the electronic repairer, said they'd like to stay. But both also said they're worried that they'd be priced out if rent escalates.


Akron OH Beacon Journal: http://www.ohio.com

Urbanist Celebrated, Expansion Criticized in Tour: Columbia University Spectator, 10/1/07

By Juliana Richard

What began as a tour of Manhattanville for [a] celebration of renowned urbanist Jane Jacobs, quickly shifted into a discussion of the possible negative ramifications of Columbia’s proposed expansion plan.

“This is not an issue of whether or not Columbia University expands, but how they expand,” said Ron Shiffman, an urban planner from the Pratt Institute, an organization which helped Community Board 9 design a set of alternative guidelines for development in the area.

Following Jacobs’ philosophy about urban planning, the tour highlighted the destructive nature of eminent domain and the necessity of low-income housing and old buildings in maintaining a vibrant community.

Tour guide and author of Manhattanville: Old Heart of West Harlem, Eric K. Washington cautioned against Columbia’s possible use of eminent domain. “Eminent domain has in the past been used for good public projects such as creating Central Park,” he said. Shiffman added, “but when we chose one private owner like Columbia over all other private owners, it becomes dangerous.”

Shiffman questioned Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer’s decision to support Columbia’s expansion plan after the University committed to a $20 million affordable housing fund and $11.25 million to the upkeep of a public park. “His bottom line is fundamentally wrong and his report skirted the main issues,” Shiffman said. “The $20 million promised for housing will not create more than 60 apartments for low income housing.”

Kathy Andio, a social worker in the area who was on the tour, said she was worried about the real estate limitations for young people. “Lots of landlords are opting not to rent to new people, instead they are holding out to sell to Columbia.”

More than half of the tour group had never been to the Manhattanville area before. There were no undergraduate students on the tour.

“This is an immigrant community,” said Tom Kappner, a local resident and member of the Coalition to Preserve Community. Kappner, who originally came to the Harlem area as a Columbia College student, has continued to reside there because he said he felt immediately at home in its diversity.

Shiffman said he hopes that in the future, “the student body and faculty will come out and discuss why they chose this community, considering diversity is such an appealing factor of the area and the University.”


Columbia University Spectator: http://www.columbiaspectator.com

Ann Arbor not likely to take Tios property, officials say: Ann Arbor MI News, 9/30/07

By Tom Gantert

Ann Arbor won't likely seize a parcel of property east of city hall that houses Tios Restaurant under eminent domain to secure it for a parking structure, city officials say.

The restaurant owners don't want to move - but they don't own the property. And the property owners aren't saying much.

Eminent domain allows government units to seize private property against the land owner's consent for public use. It usually involves taking land for highways or railroads.

City Council members Stephen Kunselman and Chris Easthope said they won't support seizing the property. Easthope said e-mails some residents have received indicating the city is considering such an action are "ridiculous."

"That's a heavy hand for a parking structure," Kunselman said. "That's not a bona fide reason to be using eminent domain."

Mike Zahn, one of the owners of the Tios parcel, said he didn't have an opinion on the possibility of selling the land to the city.

Tios owner Tim Seaver has started a petition and said Friday that he had about 200 signatures supporting his fight to keep his restaurant there. He said he doesn't want to move his popular Mexican restaurant.

"I would have to start over completely," Seaver said. "Once you start a business, you are known for your location."

City Administrator Roger Fraser said exercising eminent domain authority would "be a hard sell."

"We don't have it in our toolbag of tricks to use," Fraser said.

City Council Member Wendy Woods said seizing the property would be the "ultimate last resort."

"I don't know anyone on council at this point who would be willing to do that," she said. "We'd like to look at a lot more options before doing eminent domain."

Woods said one possibility would be moving the parking structure to the city-owned lot near the Ann Arbor District Library's downtown location.

The city directed the Downtown Development Authority to explore the feasibility of adding a parking structure east of city hall.


Ann Arbor MI News: http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews