Eminent Domain Watch

12/09/2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

150 landowners in Texas have yet to grant access to build the barrier
By Michelle Mittelstadt and James Pinkerton
Taking aim at the Texas holdouts refusing to allow surveyors onto their property, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff made clear Friday that he would use the government's power to seize land needed for the border fence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11/30/2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

news release
Experts Call Measure Flawed and Expose Deceptive Poison Pill Provision
Today, a broad-based coalition of eminent domain reform advocates condemned a ploy by redevelopment interests to qualify a deceptive ballot measure. These redevelopment interests drafted their measure to maintain the state’s abusive eminent domain practices and have financed their effort almost exclusively with anonymous campaign funds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Californians for Property Rights Protection: www.yesonpropertyrights.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mason wants to put 24 condominiums on the OK Tire land and 24 floating boat slips on Shem Creek. An appraisal obtained by SunTrust bank for the OK Tire property values it at $4.6 million.

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

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

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

Editorial
Eminent-domain reformers have submitted a million signatures for a June '08 ballot initiative
California is one of the few states that has yet to pass serious property-rights reforms following the U.S. Supreme Court's otherworldly 2005 decision affirming the "right" of cities and other government agencies to use eminent domain to take property from private owners and give it to big developers, who promise cities higher tax returns and "economic development" on the targeted property. Cities have long abused property rights this way, but the court's affirmation shocked Americans and propelled most states to pass additional protections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Branner Station neighbors organize: Petersburg VA Progress Index, 10/19/07

By Patrick Kane
There were many questions but few answers at a citizens’ meeting on the Branner Station development. A standing-room-only crowd at the Chester [VA] library heard from an eminent domain attorney and discussed the impact the massive development — and its promised roads — will have on its neighbors.

Organized by Mike Uzel, a local real estate agent, the meeting aimed to get information out to those in the impact radius of the mixed-use project located between Chester and Colonial Heights. No county officials or developer representatives were on hand to answer questions.

Branner Station passed in September on a 2-1 vote. Bermuda Supervisor R.M. “Dickie” King and Matoaca Supervisor Renny Humphrey voted for the rezoning, Chairman Kelley Miller was the lone opposition vote and Art Warren of Clover Hill and Donald Sowder of Midlothian abstained. The project calls for 5,000 homes, townhomes and apartments on 1,600 acres west of Branders Bridge Road. Developer H.H. Hunt promised to build major north-south and east-west connector roads, which will mean buying land from some in the crowd.

Eminent domain attorney Charles M. Lollar of Norfolk said only the government, not a developer, can take land. He said agents for H.H. Hunt would probably try to buy the land they need, and if unsuccessful, turn to the county. Chesterfield agreed to use eminent domain to take private property for the roads. Lollar questioned whether the roads were squarely “public use.”

“That public use has been watered down to maybe public purpose,” he said of recent eminent domain cases in Virginia and the country. The attorney said it was too early to know what defense could be mounted.

Lollar said that property owners in areas planned for redevelopment are in a “state of purgatory” because of the stigma of possible change, and advised them to live their lives as normally as possible and keep up their property.

The 2-1 vote by the Board of Supervisors was also discussed. Uzel presented a Code of Virginia section saying that board members should vote unless they have a conflict of interest.

“What that says to me is that unless there is some conflict of interest, the members should have voted,” he said.

Uzel said many factors — including where exactly the roads will go and when they’ll be built — are still up in the air.

“That line could swing to either side to try to miss as many homes as possible,” he said of the east-west road from Branner Station to Interstate 95.

Jeff Brown, who is helping the group, said the lack of information at this stage is troubling.

“That’s part of the problem. There’s no answers,” he said.

A second meeting for the still-coalescing group wasn’t announced. Attendees offered their contact information, signed petitions and many stuffed cash into a coffee can for the cause. They were asked to contact the media, candidates for office and speak at next Wednesday’s board meeting.

“As an organized group we should be able to do more,” Uzel said.

Petersburg VA Progress Index: http://www.progress-index.com

Winners and losers remain unclear in Newark's arena gamble: Newark NJ Star-Ledger, 10/19/07

NJ Voices
By Joan Whitlow
Yesterday, I found that the rough ways had been made smooth.

The smell of fresh asphalt hung in the air by Prudential Center, Newark's downtown arena, built in lopsided partnership with the New Jersey Devils hockey team. Roads that had been pockmarked with man-size holes and piles of dirt days before were paved, some glistening with new white lines and directional arrows, a transformation worked by men, machine and overtime pay.

The place was busy, with work crews putting on the finishing touches to the complex: building the concrete steps to the entrance, still fussing inside the parking deck.

I found a line of new arena employees waiting to take photos for their worker IDs. The security unit was passing out uniform shirts.

Speaking of security, there was talk last week about closing off the street next to the arena, Edison Place, to traffic as an anti-terrorism measure. Yesterday, I found Edison Place freshly paved and marked with turn arrows all the way to Mulberry Street and the arena entrance. The owner of Star Parking on Edison Place says she has been assured that the security plan won't block off the street until some point beyond her parking lot. She is betting the new red shirts that her parking crew wears on it.

I stopped to check on Virginia Duprey, who has lived in the area around the arena for 52 years and owns a home at the corner of Columbia and Lafayette. A few days ago, she showed me how the crews widening Lafayette into an arena-feeding thoroughfare had gouged up heaps of dirt around her house exposing her foundation. When she asked who was going to fix her house, she was told no one because her house was going to be demolished. That was news to her.

I e-mailed the Newark Downtown Core Redevelopment Corp., which is doing the roadwork, and asked about Duprey's house. I never heard back, but by yesterday, someone had neatly put back the dirt by her house where it was supposed to be. I'm sure that was the plan all along.

Duprey and her neighbor, Frank Eng, say they have lived with a wrecking ball over their heads since the arena was just a twinkle in an ex-mayor's eye.

The city slapped the neighborhood with a designation that allows the use of eminent domain to swap parcels of lands with developers. The official process, however, takes proper notice and time, adequate compensation and relocation expenses. A wrecking crew can't just slap an X on someone's house.

Eng and Duprey say they have been getting certified letters, some of them threatening, from real estate concerns that have no power to exercise eminent domain but imply that they do. One letter warned Eng to "avoid a hostile triggering of eminent domain which we will have to apply if you do not cooperate."

The neighbors have also heard from Edison Properties - owner of a sizable number of the parking lots around town and an official arena land swapper. The communications have all been pleasant and nonthreatening, I was told. Duprey said a representative from Edison has been trying to schedule an appraisal of her house.

There is nothing to stop someone from cutting through the eminent domain red tape by making the property owners an offer they can't refuse. Eng speculates that Edison may want to acquire the properties as soon as possible, then flatten them. One could make money on parking while waiting to see whether the arena takes off before investing in some other retail or commercial project.

The 71-year-old (but doesn't look like it) Eng is a retired Wall Streeter, so when he spoke finance, I listened.

I have tried to contact the owner of Edison Properties, Jerome Gottesman, to talk about the land swapping - and about a rumor that he may be planning to build a children's museum in the big yellow brick warehouse that still stands in the arena district.

In the meantime, the traffic plans for the arena have been revealed: new signage, systems for advising people about the good routes and bad, cops at the intersections holding devices that will let them change the traffic signals from red to green as need be.

Expect chaos - at least at first.

The great dilemma, the traffic planners explained, is that if they make things too comfy for the drivers, no one will do what they want people to do - take public transportation or park away from the arena area and walk.

Arenas are about competition, and there will be competition between those trying to get in or out of town for work and the arena-goers trying to navigate their way. In the long run, it should all even out. The city is betting its shirt on that.

Arenas are about winners and losers. Newark has to come out a winner on this one.

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

Running Horse deal could be risky: Fresno CA Bee, 10/18/07

If Trump pulled out, city would own the land; Autry says he would need commitment first
By Brad Branan and Robert Rodriguez
Fresno Mayor Alan Autry said Thursday that his plan to help Donald Trump buy Running Horse would require pledging city property as collateral.

In a meeting with The Fresno Bee editorial board, Autry and City Manager Andy Souza explained how the city will attempt to buy the properties that make up the unfinished course and resell the property to Trump.

Autry said he wants to expedite the sale of the bankrupt project before the PGA Tour gives up on the possibility of locating a tournament in Fresno.

The city has the legal authority to pull the deal together faster than Trump, including possibly using eminent domain if property owners won't willingly sell, Autry and Souza said.

Yet legal and real estate experts say the plan is tricky and could face legal challenges.

Walter Lauritzen, a real estate agent and part-time business instructor at California State University, Fresno, said the city must make sure Trump is willing to buy all the parcels.

"It is risky," Lauritzen said. "If, for whatever reason, Trump decides he does not want to buy the property, then the city could end up owning it and taking a big hit. I'm sure the city has attorneys that will make sure that doesn't happen, but it is still a risk."

Trump attorney Michael Cohen has said his employer supports the city's plan.

Autry said he won't commit city funds to the project until he has a binding agreement with Trump: "We will have a contract that says he will buy this."

Autry said he will provide details of the proposal to the City Council in a closed-door session Tuesday. Five of the seven City Council members would have to give the proposal their support to approve the financing.

The administration wants to use a loan to finance the purchase of the properties, Souza said. The city would use the Running Horse property and some of its own, such as the Saroyan Theatre, as collateral.

The city could pull the deal together by January, and possibly secure the PGA tournament for 2009, Souza said.

Autry held two fingers a short distance apart and said, "We're this close to having Tiger Woods tee off in southwest Fresno."

The city's plan depends on buying 33 of 38 lots Trump needs from whoever acquires them in a foreclosure auction scheduled for Oct. 26. The remaining lots would have to be acquired from separate owners.

The city plans to negotiate directly with property owners and hopes to buy land without the use of eminent domain, Souza said.

The city hasn't made "any promises to use eminent domain. It's an option," Souza said. Only three properties have homes, and only one owner is firmly holding out, Souza and Autry said.

Legal experts said the proposal raises questions.

Attorney Richard Harriman of Fresno said state law allows cities to use eminent domain for public-use projects, such as extending sewer lines or creating a city park.

"But what we are talking about here is the taking of property from a private landowner and transferring it to a private developer without competitive bidding," Harriman said. "I don't think that is fair and I doubt it is legal."

Autry said he doesn't see any problem working solely with Trump because no else has come forward with a credible offer.

There is also a question of whether it is proper for the city to commit to eminent domain before holding a public hearing.

"If a landowner says they are not going to put up with this, the city is looking at two and a half years of litigation," Harriman said.

Development consultant Dirk Poeschel of Fresno said the issue of fairness in the bidding process can be worked out by structuring the bid in a very specific way.

"The city could develop a process where they can ask for someone who is interested in developing a PGA course," Poeschel said. "Those who can do that, submit your proposal."

Poeschel said the advantage for the city to buy Running Horse is that it has a vision for that piece of property and will work to see it realized.

"The disadvantage is that they can overpay or buy something that the marketplace does not want," Poeschel said.

Fresno CA Bee: http://www.fresnobee.com

Plan targets Urban League site for library: Springfield MA Republican, 10/18/07

By Mike Plaisance
Calling it a moral issue, a City Council candidate and an incumbent councilor want the city to consider taking the Urban League of Springfield property at 765 State St. by eminent domain and returning it to a full-fledged library.

The proposal has drawn sympathetic but cautious reactions, given the costly legal battle that likely would ensue, as well as a "no comment" from the Urban League.

Council candidate Morris Jones said on Wednesday the 2003 sale of the branch library at 765 State St. from the private Springfield Museums and Library Association (now the Springfield Museums Association) to the Urban League for $700,000 was wrong and should be corrected.

Jones and Councilor Timothy J. Rooke, who is running for re-election, want a city Law Department evaluation about possibly taking 765 State St. City Solicitor Edward M. Pikula didn't return calls seeking comment.

"We can do that and I support that," Jones said.

Jones, who was on the City Council from 1983 to 1992, said the people who live and work in Mason Square deserve the return of a full-fledged library at 765 State St.

"That's a moral question," he said.

The library association reported in 2003 that the Mason Square Library had the lowest circulation of the branch libraries, but very high program attendance.

Library Director Emily B. Bader said today that except for a period in the year or so before the 2003 sale in which renovations put some of the library off limits, attendance was always high from Mason Square users.

"That library was being extremely well used," Bader said.

Space for a library still exists at 765 State St., but officials and Mason Square residents dismiss it as only a part of a room that is inadequate as a library.

In December, Mayor Charles V. Ryan appointed a search committee to study sites for a new Mason Square library branch.

The search committee examined a dozen locations and voted unanimously on July 13 to recommend the city begin negotiating to buy Muhammad's Mosque 13 at 727 State St. - with committee members maintaining during the study that the best spot remained 765 State St.

But a month later, mosque officials told Ryan they had reconsidered and won't be selling the site.

Rooke said it is clear the Mason Square area wants 765 State St. to be its library and other possible sites have been reviewed, so that warrants a possible taking by eminent domain.

The Urban League was emphatic with the mayor's search committee that it won't sell 765 State St.

Still, Rooke said it is worth risking a legal battle to look into eminent domain.

"I'm hoping they would reach some spirit of cooperation for the sake of the kids," Rooke said.

A. Craig Brown, of the league's board of directors, said in a voice-mail message the league had no comment on the eminent domain proposal.

Ryan, who said he believes 765 State St. remains the best site for a library for Mason Square, said he would have to study the issue before he could give his position on the eminent domain possibility.

City Councilor Domenic J. Sarno, Ryan's opponent in the Nov. 6 race for mayor, also said he would need to do a review before commenting.

Elizabeth B. Stevens is on the Mason Square Library Advisory Committee and was on the mayor's search committee. She would love to get 765 State St. back as a library, and while she doubts the chances of the eminent domain plan, she said, "I wish them well."

Springfield MA Republican: http://www.repub.com

Eminent Domain Lives... In Williamsburg: The Gothamist, New York NY, 10/18/07

... according to a recent court ruling, the city [of New York] is taking two Williamsburg properties via eminent domain for Bushwick Inlet Park. The properties are located along the East River between North 9th and 10th streets. According to one real estate expert, the city will only pay about $100 per square foot, compared to the $200 per square foot it could garner on the open market, even though the owners are entitled to the fair market value.

Other area properties on the eminent domain chopping block include the Greenpoint Monitor Museum (its president called the taking a "disgrace.") The city has offered to make the property part of a park and to relocate the museum off the waterfront to an undetermined street. We hate to say it, but [renderings of the proposed] park actually looks sort of pretty.

It's no secret that there's been an increase in use of the eminent domain power. High-profile projects that have resorted to it include Atlantic Yards, Willets Point in Queens, the Second Ave. subway project, the New York Times Building and Columbia's Manhattanville campus (although the university later renounced its use). All these takings have spawned a new term: eminent domain abuse.

This month, the city actually abandoned a plan to use eminent domain to secure properties for a parking garage and public plaza on a Duffield St. block in downtown Brooklyn - due to a technical oversight. Some of the homes were abolitionist homes involved in the Underground Railroad. While preservationists declared a victory, we're not really sure that the city is going to run away from this one just yet. In other words, another "blight" determination could be just around the corner.

Last week a federal appeals court heard arguments in the lawsuit filed by Atlantic Yards opponents, who claim the taking of their properties is not for public use, but, rather, to benefit a private developer. The suit was dismissed earlier this year, but plaintiffs want it reinstated.

The Gothamist, New York NY: http://gothamist.com

Eminent domain: Used properly, it's a tool of last resort: Bay City MI Times, 10/18/07

Our View
The legal doctrine of eminent domain is rearing its ugly head around here again.

This time, MBS International Airport is suing in court to claim 155 acres of farmland for a new, $50 million passenger terminal.

It's always a touchy subject, when the government tries to take away someone's land.

But, sometimes, it's the only way to accomplish something that will benefit hundreds of thousands of people.

Out at MBS Airport near Freeland, airport officials have been in negotiations with farmer Ronald F. Krauss to buy his acreage to build a 75,000-square-foot terminal.

It has been a perfectly reasonable approach by a public airport - jointly owned by Bay County and the cities of Saginaw and Midland.

As Krauss told local newspapers in February, the two sides have been dickering over price.

With negotiations at a standoff, the airport is suing to have a court determine the fair market value that the airport should pay for the land it needs.

That's exactly how eminent domain ought to work.

The government pays a fair price for the property that is needed for the greater public good.

But in the Land of The Free - ''Don't Tread on Me'' - a lot of people get queasy when it appears that government is forcibly taking away private property.

Yet, the alternative would be to let a single person stand in the way of projects intended to benefit the majority of the people.

MBS wants a new terminal so it can get the more than 400,000 people in its service area to use the airport. That would entice more airports to use the field, and, just maybe, offer competitive fares.

That's the greater public good.

Eminent domain was used to clear wide swaths through the countryside and cities to make way for our interstate highways.

It was used to move three businesses in downtown Bay City to accommodate the new Wirt Library.

Basically, it's a legal tool of last resort.

The city of Bay City, for example, did not use eminent domain to clear the 48 acres of now-vacant land along the Saginaw River for redevelopment.

That strategy kept the city out of what was a legal gray area for eminent domain - government taking private property for private projects, such as shops and condominiums.

Yet, in several projects out East recently, government used eminent domain to take property for private development. In Kelo vs. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the practice constitutional.

That decision ignited a national political firestorm over fears that government can take any land for almost any reason.

It gave eminent domain a dirty name.

Not that it was ever a very attractive way to acquire property.

Though, when haggling over the fair price of property stands in the way of public projects, it remains a useful way to seal a deal - well within the bounds of hundreds of years of legal custom.

For the project to expand and improve MBS International Airport, it remains a reasonable approach.

Bay City MI Times: http://www.mlive.com/columns/bctimes

Bulldozing the American Dream: The American Magazine, 10/18/07

‘Urban renewal’ schemes that rely on eminent domain disproportionately harm the poor
By Timothy B. Lee
For the first four decades of his life, Joseph Erondu lived the American dream. He moved to the United States from his native Nigeria in 1976, received a dentistry degree from Washington University, and opened a dental practice in the Gaslight Square neighborhood of St. Louis. At the time, the area was, in the words of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “a haven for drug dealers and prostitutes.” But Erondu persevered. He brought a small measure of order to the community, and provided much-needed dental care to an underprivileged clientele that had trouble getting out to suburban dental offices. “Gaslight Square was his love,” says Erondu’s wife. “He and his children and I would pick up trash from around dilapidated buildings; he thought of it as a lifetime opportunity.”

Erondu was later thrilled to learn that the city was planning to redevelop the area — until he learned that he wasn’t welcome in the new Gaslight Square. St. Louis wound up acquiring his land using eminent domain, forcing Erondu to rebuild his practice from scratch in another neighborhood. Perhaps as a result of the stress, Dr. Erondu fell ill while his new practice was being constructed. He died on June 23rd, 2005, the same day the Supreme Court handed down its infamous Kelo decision.

Erondu’s property loss is a story that has been repeated across Missouri and across the United States. Entrepreneurs purchase property in a marginal neighborhood and struggle to build a viable business, only to have the city take their property and give it to a wealthier business with better political connections. Every time that happens, it sends a powerful message to future entrepreneurs that they should think twice before setting up shop in low-income communities.

That’s just one of the ways in which urban renewal policies designed to help the poor do just the opposite. Many urban planners argue that the power of eminent domain is needed to combat “blight” in urban areas. But closer examination shows that eminent domain only shifts the problems of poverty to another neighborhood, while destroying the social fabric that is essential for a genuine revitalization of poor neighborhoods. States that truly care about the welfare of their urban poor should prohibit the use of eminent domain for private urban redevelopment projects.

Consider the McRee Town neighborhood, which was one of the most notorious slums in St. Louis during the early 1990s. In 1998, the city began drawing up plans to “redevelop” the neighborhood by demolishing the existing housing stock and replacing it with more expensive single-family homes.

Local property owners and social advocates alike pleaded with city officials to spare well-maintained properties that were providing much-needed affordable housing.

In a 2003 letter to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Reverend Gerald J. Kleba, a Catholic priest whose parish included many McRee Town residents, charged that the redevelopment plan “moves hundreds of poor families from McRee Town into the larger city where hundreds of families with Section 8 vouchers already have no place to live.” In 2000, Jestene Bowen, a resident of one of the buildings slated for demolition, said, “I guess it’s good for the community.” But she worried that her $16,000 bus driver salary would “put me in an area that’s worse.”

The developer had originally said it would construct low-income housing to accommodate residents like Bowen. But the first homes have now been completed, and a quick glance at the builder’s website tells a different story: the cheapest homes are priced at $209,900, far beyond the financial reach of residents who had been struggling to pay rents as low as $275 per month. The Riverfront Times noted in 2003 that many residents had originally come to McRee Town after they “had been displaced by other neighborhood redevelopment efforts over the years.” With the McRee Town evictions, the cycle began all over again, further undermining poor residents’ sense that they had any control over their destinies.

Prohibiting the use of eminent domain for slum clearance would certainly be inconvenient for urban planners. But it would be good for low-income residents. It would preserve affordable housing and reassure entrepreneurs like Dr. Erondu that it’s safe to establish businesses in poor neighborhoods. Most important, it would force city officials to come up with redevelopment plans that are actually good for the residents of underprivileged neighborhoods, instead of merely evicting the city’s poorest residents to make room for wealthier ones.

Since Kelo, some states have moved decisively to protect property rights. But Missouri has not. In 2006, the state legislature passed a bill that made modest procedural changes to eminent domain law and increased the compensation paid to certain property owners. But the bill still allows land takings to fix “blight”—and the definition of blight is still so vague that it can be used to justify almost any property seizure. Only an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting property takings for private use will prevent the kinds of abuses that have occurred in Gaslight Square, McRee Town, and dozens of other Missouri communities.

The American Magazine: http://www.american.com

Timothy B. Lee, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, is the coauthor of a new study from the Show-Me Institute on eminent domain abuse in Missouri

Families March to Save Threatened Nabe: Downtown Brooklyn Star, Brooklyn NY, 10/18/07

Pols Lead Discussion About Emminent Domain and Luxury Development in Downtown Brooklyn

By Jeffrey Harmatz
Tackling a process that has already begun, a convention was held on Saturday to promote discussion among residents about eminent domain and the possibility of being priced out the Downtown Brooklyn neighborhoods that they call home.

The Downtown Brooklyn Plan calls for several million square feet of new retail space and luxury housing in the middle of what has been an affordable residential neighborhood for the past few decades. These new construction projects, many of which have already broken ground, provide no affordable housing or services that will cater to the established community, and critics say that they are being built in an effort to squeeze out the current residents and change the character of the of the neighborhood.

Local politicians spoke alongside neighbors at the convention, which was organized by Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (FUREE). The event culminated in a march down the streets of Downtown Brooklyn to protest the new construction and inform Brooklyn residents of the upcoming changes. Council members Charles Barron and Letitia James, assemblymen Hakeem Jeffries and Karim Camara, State Senator Velmanette Montgomery, and a representative from Borough President Marty Markowitz were on hand at P.S. 67 to discuss the issue with residents and hear their stories.

"Displacement is on the way up and affordable housing is on the way down, and it’s so plain that even Stevie Wonder can see it," said Jeffries. "Public housing is an important part of the fabric of this neighborhood and a big part of what initially attracted developers."

The changes that are coming to the Downtown Brooklyn area are symptomatic of a trend that is taking hold of the entire city. In the past decade, eager developers are quick to seize working-class neighborhoods steeped in local character and charm and develop them without consideration for the original residents. Such neighborhoods all over Brooklyn are being redeveloped, leaving the established community with even fewer options than they originally had. Organizations like FUREE hope that by uniting the neighborhoods, they can protect and preserve them.

"We demand to get what we deserve," said Arnetha Singleton, who has lived in the neighborhood for 30 years, "and what we deserve is affordable grocery stores, laundromats, and check cashing stores. We are human beings and we pay taxes. We have to really unite."

Not everyone who spoke placed the blame for the displacement on the developers and government.

"I’m ashamed of this neighborhood," said Claire Bradley, a sergeant in the NYPD, raising the ire of the gathering. "People on the outside look and say, ‘I’d be willing to pay a million dollars to live there,’ and they see that the people who do live here, who pay reduced rent, leave garbage and trash all over the place. I respect this neighborhood, and the first thing we need to do is clean up our own buildings."

Many people in the audience also expressed their dismay at the plague of violent crime in the neighborhood, and cited it as another obstacle to overcome if the neighborhood is to resist development, as well as what was termed a job crisis.

"We need to make sure that as these buildings go up, some of our young people have jobs on the construction sites," said Jeffries.

At the conclusion of the discussion forum, the families left the P.S. 67 campus and, led by the Approaching Storm Marching Band, marched through the Fulton Street Mall carrying anti-eminent domain signs and handing out literature.

Joy Chatel, who owns a house widely regarded as being an integral part of the Underground Railroad that may be taken away through eminent domain, said, "They’re changing the fabric of this downtown area, and the new fabric does not include us."

Chatel was joined by James on Tuesday on the steps of City Hall to protest the use of eminent domain in Downtown Brooklyn. Chatel and others have filed a lawsuit against the city, which caused the city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development to withdraw its original eminent domain determination. Another hearing will be held on October 29, and another 60-day determination period will follow.

Downtown Brooklyn Star, Brooklyn NY: http://www.brooklyndowntownstar.com