Eminent Domain Watch

Eminent Domain Watch is now dormant

2011-12-01T17:38:00.002-05:00

Pressures of time – and maybe tides – have made it impossible for me to keep adding to the news items on Eminent Domain Watch. It's been dormant for a while. And, although I can't justify adding to it any longer, there seemed to be no sense in removing it from the Internet. There may be things people confronting eminent domain issues will find useful in some manner.

So, sorry it's not being kept up-to-date.

And, if you're being threatened with an eminent domain taking, you certainly have my best wishes for success in what you've undoubtedly already found is a difficult battle.

Alan Krigman
KRF Management
Philadelphia PA

Condo-commercial plan may require eminent domain: San Diego CA Union-Tribune, 12/21/07

2008-01-01T12:21:00.000-05:00

By Matthew Rodriguez
The city of Vista [CA] could consider using its eminent domain powers to help a developer acquire four parcels on North Santa Fe Avenue for an 8.9-acre residential and commercial project.

The City Council voted unanimously last week to enter into exclusive negotiations for land purchases with Vista-based RA&B Development LLC.

While the company owns some of the land at the northeast corner of North Santa Fe Avenue and Cananea Street, it wants to buy an adjoining city-owned parcel at market value.

The company also is seeking the city's help in buying four properties whose owners have declined to sell, said Jalal Rahman of RA&B.

“We've contacted all of them many, many times,” Rahman said.

The firm's proposed three-story project calls for 315 condominiums and 127,000 square feet of office and retail space. It could also include underground parking.

The land is in the city's redevelopment zone, which targets blighted areas.

“This represents a great opportunity for us to have a tremendously positive impact on this part of town,” said William Rawlings, the city's redevelopment director. “It's on my list of priorities.”

The city and RA&B have 90 days after the council's action last week to work out a Disposition and Development Agreement that would spell out whether the city would use eminent domain.

“Theoretically, we might use eminent domain there,” Rawlings said. “We're a long way from entering into a contract, much less laying that out.”

The site is bordered by homes to the east and commercial properties on the other three sides. The site is a few blocks southwest of Vista High School.

Most of the land is vacant, but one parcel is home to a spa retailer, Pacific Coast Spas & Accessories, at 1309 N. Santa Fe Ave.

Barry Hayes, the owner of Pacific Coast, said he rents his building from a property owner who lives in Africa. He said if a sale goes through, he would want help finding space with similar rent and be compensated for moving expenses.

“I just don't have the funds,” Hayes said.

The business, which sells new and used spas, has been on the site since 1987. “This is an established business in the city of Vista,” he said. “I pay taxes like everybody else.”

None of the property owners could be reached for comment.

On Oct. 11, the city notified property owners of the developer's proposal. According to the proposal, RA&B has been trying to acquire the five parcels for about two years.

Without them, Rahman said, the project would have to be scaled back and could be financially infeasible.

Rahman said the owner of the Pacific Coast Spas property wanted money over time rather than at once. A payment plan over 10 to 15 years was proposed, but the owner opted out, Rahman said.

The others, Rahman said, have asked for too much money. “Everyone is holding out thinking they're going to get four or five times what the property is worth,” he said.

San Diego CA Union-Tribune: http://www.signonsandiego.com

Family Receives Millions In Eminent Domain Dispute: KGTV-TV10, San Diego CA, 12/21/07

2008-01-01T12:18:00.000-05:00

A jury has awarded an Otay Mesa family that sued Caltrans in an eminent domain dispute $26.7 million, it was reported Friday.

The Anderson family was approached by the California Department of Transportation in 2006 about purchasing 2.8 acres of a 58-acre parcel off Otay Mesa Road, east of Interstate 805 and south of Brown Field.

Caltrans offered $172,410 but a Superior Court jury concluded Wednesday that the land is worth $1.3 million, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

The award includes money that the jury found the family lost as a result of the majority of the remaining parcel being frozen by Caltrans activity.

Caltrans reportedly wanted to use the land to build Route 905 through the area. It was a project first announced in the early 1990s with an initial completion date of 1997. To date, it has not been built.

Family attorney Vincent Bartolotta Jr. told the San Diego Union-Tribune that the award was "truly a victory for the little guy. The justice done in this case shows that Caltrans can't just come in and bulldoze people."

Ed Cartagena, a Caltrans spokesman, told the newspaper that the agency likely will appeal.

KGTV-TV10, San Diego CA: http://www.10news.com

Farmland Could Be in the Path of New Electric Wires: Lancaster Farming, Ephrata PA, 12/21/07

2008-01-01T12:13:00.000-05:00

By Chris Torres
Opponents of a controversial newly established national electric corridor say farmers may see the most impact if the plan is allowed to move forward.

The U.S. Department of Energy recently approved a plan that places most of Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York; parts of Ohio and Virginia; and the entire states of Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey in a newly designated Mid-Atlantic National Corridor, which would give electric companies the right to use eminent domain to build new electric power lines and transmission facilities anywhere in those areas to provide more power to the congested East Coast.

The plan, which was made effective on Oct. 5, gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the right to grant construction permits to developers if they can’t get state approval or if a state withholds approval of a construction permit for more than one year.

A developer would still have to negotiate right-of-ways with landowners in order to start construction. But they would be given the right to use eminent domain powers to get them.

The plan was developed in accordance with the 2005 U.S. Energy Act.

Carl Shaffer, president of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, recently wrote a letter to U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman expressing concern over the energy department’s designation of the corridor, iting fear over the fact farmers could lose land in the event brand new electric transmission lines are built.

The corridor encompasses 52 of Pennsylvania’s 64 counties, including some of the most productive agricultural counties in the state.

Shaffer is not alone. Several politicians have expressed their concerns over the plan and a Pennsylvania state representative has even started a petition on his Website to stop it.

The outpouring of opposition has led the DOE to reconsider holding additional hearings on the proposal, according to Michael Smith, spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

He said the DOE earlier this month requested additional time to review letters they have gotten on the issue and to possibly schedule new hearings.

Julie Ruggiero, DOE spokesperson, said Tuesday the department is taking additional time to thoroughly evaluate the basis of all parties’ requests for a rehearing but that no rehearing had been scheduled as of yet.

She said the department designated the corridor in accordance with that they were tasked to do as part of the 2005 Energy Act. She added the department allowed for a 60-day public comment period and held seven public meetings on the issue before making their decision.

Smith, speaking on behalf of Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, said Rendell is outraged by the proposal, stating it is an abuse of federal authority and that it disregards state’s rights.

“We felt they (DOE) overstepped their bounds on this,” Smith said.

Mark O’Neill, spokesperson for PFB, said the concern doesn’t necessarily lie around the fact eminent domain may be used. He said the bureau is worried farmers will not be able to participate in negotiations on where power lines will be placed and that it will force farmers to change their farming practices because of it. Not to mention, it could affect farmers financially if they are forced to sell their land at prices dictated to them.

“This is an issue that has been in our sight at the national level. Our biggest concern is how they are going about doing this,” O’Neill said. “The potential is they are going to put a lot of good farmland out of production because of this.”

Smith said the plan may also affect land values, which he said could drop because of power lines located in residential areas.

“Looking out a back window and seeing a high tension power line isn’t attractive to potential buyers,” he said.

Lancaster Farming, Ephrata PA: http://www.lancasterfarming.com

Apollo may seize B&W property: Pittsburgh PA Tribune-Review, 12/22/07

2008-01-01T12:07:00.000-05:00

By Mary Ann Thomas
Frustrated by unsuccessful attempts to secure the former Babcock & Wilcox site along Warren Avenue, [Apollo PA] borough council wants to take the property by eminent domain.

According to council President John Ameno, the borough needs the 4.6-acre parcel for parking and green space situated, ideally, next to some light industry and a river trail. Council is expected to discuss the eminent domain issue during its next regular meeting.

"We contacted B&W several years ago, and they didn't show a whole lot of interest to donate the property at that time," Ameno said. "We asked them again and didn't really get a response. Our position now is to get the property."

The B&W site was home to the nuclear fuel manufacturing operations of the Nuclear Material and Equipment Service in 1957. The company continued under its successors, the Atlantic Richfield Co. and B&W, with operations ceasing in 1983. The buildings were demolished and thousands of tons of radioactive debris and soil were removed. The cleanup was completed in 1995.

Although the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission designated the site as suitable for unrestricted use, the B&W land, surrounded by a green fence, has remained dormant. The borough's tax base has withered ever since, according to Ameno, who estimated that the town has lost potential tax dollars of about $300,000 since the B&W facilities were demolished.

Ameno and others are looking for ways to raise revenue.

"There's no place to go or to grow the tax base," he said. So the town has embarked on an ambitious redevelopment plan that includes the use of the B&W land and an adjacent parcel, the 14-acre Metal Services property, which was contaminated by uranium dust from NUMEC.

According to Ameno, lead contamination in the Metal Service's soil is the primary concern and the borough plans to complete cleanup of the site with grant money.

"That combined 20 acres is substantial for a town that is less than a square mile in size" Ameno said.

"The land has been deemed clean, I'm tired of the black cloud painted on our town," said Councilwoman Debra Schrecongost. "It's time to move on. We're among the poorest communities in Armstrong County and we're landlocked. We have to have that property to do anything here."

Although the town needs to boost its tax base, Leechburg environmental activist Patty Ameno and the council president's sister, doesn't want the borough to touch the B&W property.

"I would strongly recommend that a governing body not pursue that reckless path because of the potential for overwhelming and surmounting legal costs to the borough and for the future liability and health and safety for generations to come," Patty Ameno said.

According to borough solicitor Allan Opsitnick, the environmental liability of the B&W site is an issue.

"I'm unsure as to the borough's legal exposure," he said. "The borough knows already that there are some restrictions on use of the property and our plan is to use it for green space or a parking lot - there's no structure planned for the property."

During a property tax appeal case in Armstrong County in early 2004, according to Opsitnick, "the sticking point was that B&W has no need for the property, they wanted a restriction that there would be no excavation." B&W and the court concurred that the property was without value but the company agreed to pay about $130 a year. B&W representatives did not return calls for comment.

Because the borough intends not to dig on the site, John Ameno and Opsitnick said that the borough might not be open to liability.

Patty Ameno disagrees: "Common knowledge tells us that you would have to dig into that ground to do a platform for a parking lot."

According to Opsitnick, he will notify B&W sometime in January about the eminent domain action and could resolve the issue between mid-year and the end of year.

"Until B&W responds back, we don't know what any of those issues - like liability or indemnification - will be," said Councilman Brian Johnston. "And I suspect there will be restrictions and limitations on the land use."

Pittsburgh PA Tribune-Review: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib

Dump site suit settled for $2.6M: St Luis Obispo CA Tribune, 12/22/07

2008-01-01T12:01:00.000-05:00

Eminent Domain Dispute
By Leslie Parrilla
A local property owner received about $1.5 million more than the county originally offered after a battle over his dump site, which was taken through eminent domain to expand San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport.

The Nov. 20 settlement, in which the county agreed to pay $2.6 million to property owner Jim Filbin, ended more than a year of legal wrangling, according to court records.

A San Luis Obispo real estate appraiser hired by the county had valued Filbin’s 13-acre parcel heaped with concrete, asphalt and detritus at about $1.15 million, according to court records.

Counterappraisals came in at more than $4 million, said an attorney representing Filbin.

The county and Filbin’s dumping and recycling outfit on Santa Fe Road have been at odds for years.

He has been convicted twice for operating without permits and has a litany of dismissed charges related to allegations of illegal storage.

The property also had been investigated for ground and groundwater contamination. An environmental study in 2004 for county airport officials determined diesel and motor oil found at the site amounted to levels less than hazardous but more than the state allows. Groundwater was also tested and found to be not contaminated.

When the county offered Filbin $1.15 million to take the property in spring 2006 to expand the airport, Filbin wasn’t ready to sell.

“He said ‘No thank you,’ ” said Filbin’s attorney, Daral Mazzarella of San Diego. “His land was near and dear to him and he had no interest in selling it.”

After a jury was seated and testimony had started in the case filed on June 6, 2006, the county and Filbin agreed to settle the dispute over the property at 4398 Santa Fe Road for $2,609,804.36.

“Some of the factors were just a dispute between the experts on the value, various rulings in the court,” and both parties wanted to end the matter, said Mazzarella on what contributed to the settlement.

Attorneys representing the county did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Eminent domain refers to the condemnation actions taken by a government agency to take private land for public projects. Under state law, property owners are to be compensated with the fair market value of the land.

In many of the eminent domain cases heard in San Luis Obispo Superior Court, judges allow the county to take possession of the land before a purchase price is determined.

St Luis Obispo CA Tribune: http://www.sanluisobispo.com

Judge backs Cape's effort to take land: Ft Myers FL News-Press, 11/22/07

2008-01-01T11:56:00.000-05:00

Dispute continues over value of property
By Jacob Ogles
A judge has granted Cape Coral the right to condemn a property for use as a park expansion by Sun Splash.

Judge Jay Rosman earlier this month ordered the city had eminent domain ability and could seize a property owned by Adolph and Anita Viets of Connecticut for $34,200, an amount determined by a city-hired appraiser. Eminent domain powers allow a government to take land if it can prove a necessary public need for the property and pay the previous owners fair market value.

"The estimate of value in this case ... was made in good faith and based upon a valid appraisal," Rosman wrote.

But Anita Viets said the couple has hired an attorney and demanded the matter go to a jury trial.

"We are not challenging them putting in the park," she said. "I am challenging them saying my land is not valuable."

The city's appraisal came after it made an offer of $129,900 for the property, then retracted that offer after the local real estate market crashed.

In an October hearing, Rosman told the Viets his responsibility was chiefly determining if the city had the right to condemn the property, and a jury may need to settle disputes over costs.

City broker Dawn Andrews said the city is still open to settling the cost matter out of court.

"Just because a judge has issued an order of taking does not mean we stop negotiating," she said.

Mark Lupe, the attorney representing the city, said the Viets property is one of four properties in the proposed Lake Kennedy park expansion in which the city could not negotiate a deal before beginning eminent domain proceedings. Those four property owners, including the Viets, had previously turned down offers from the city to buy the land before the city moved forward in seeking a judge's permission to seize it.

The total expansion area includes 42 properties north of Southwest 5th Street next to the Lake Kennedy Community Park area on Santa Barbara Boulevard.

The Viets came to Fort Myers to argue the case during a court hearing last month.

In that hearing, Rosman questioned city officials about how the land would be used. City parks director Steve Pohlman said it was only planned as park land and could house anything from a Sun Splash expansion to an ice rink to a picnic area.

Pohlman also said the city has a deficit of park land.

While Rosman pressed at the hearing for details, he ruled the city had done what was necessary to justify using the eminent domain ability. "The pleadings in this cause are sufficient and the City is properly exercising its delegated authority," he wrote.

Anita Viets said she remained troubled the city has placed such a low value on the land.

"If the land is not valuable, put a fence around it," she said. "Build your park and let me build on my land.

"But they said they can't do that, and they need it. If that is the case, then my land is valuable."

Ft Myers FL News-Press: http://www.news-press.com

Business Owners Fear Eminent Domain: WFSB-TV10, Hartford CT, 11/20/07

2008-01-01T11:51:00.000-05:00

Derby Negotiates For Downtown Property
Fear of eminent domain is spreading among a group of Derby business owners.

Brian Calvert, the owner of a Derby safe and lock business, told Eyewitness News that he didn't come to this country in 1968 and build up a business for 35 years to have it all torn down by eminent domain.

"There are people unfortunately all over the U.S. today hearing those two words: eminent domain, and that's so un-American," he said. "Stealing is stealing where I come from."

Calvert is one of a few business owners who are negotiating relocation terms and buyout possibilities with the city.

The city tore down several blighted downtown buildings this past summer, but a few with living businesses remain.

Derby city officials told Eyewitness News that they would prefer not to have to take people's property by court order, but a multimillion dollar downtown revitalization project hangs in the balance.

Negotiations between the business owners and the city are ongoing.

WFSB-TV10, Hartford CT: http://www.wfsb.com

Eminent domain could be used on Alpha Drive: Arizona State University Web Devil, 11/20/07

2008-01-01T11:43:00.000-05:00

By Matt Culbertson
ASU [Arizona State University] could enact eminent domain to demolish fraternity housing on Alpha Drive and replace it with residence halls, according to an ASU official and sources close to the project.

The University is "prepared to aggressively work toward a negotiated agreement" to demolish and rebuild Alpha Drive, said Carol Campbell, ASU chief financial officer, in a Nov. 12 letter to Alpha Drive representatives and University officials.

"It was obvious what she was threatening," said Jeff Abraham, a spokesperson for the Alpha Drive property owners. "It is certainly our hope that we don't get to a point where eminent domain is required, but it is something the University will keep in its back pocket."

Eminent domain is a term that describes the state's power to appropriate property to be used by the public.

ASU has the power of eminent domain with approval of the Arizona Board of Regents — who govern the state universities — and for educational or university purposes, Campbell said.

"I'm not saying we'd exercise (eminent domain) in this case," Campbell said. "We have used it in other instances to assemble land that was needed."

Campbell said the project would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, though it would depend on what was agreed upon.

The Nov. 12 letter was the first time ASU officially stated that the project would replace the fraternity houses with residential properties under control of ASU, Abraham said.

But ASU had hinted before the letter that their preference was to house Alpha Drive fraternities in University-controlled housing, he added.

The letter also marked the first time ASU suggested eminent domain in writing, but the threat had been hinted at before, Abraham said.

Abraham said he could not provide the letter.

But the letter was obtained by The State Press on Monday from another source close to the project who wished to remain anonymous.

In the letter, Campbell said, "It is imperative that all housing supporting the Greek system be within the University's residential housing programs and be governed by its regulations and support structures."

Davey Breitman, the newly-elected Interfraternity Council President, said about 300 fraternity members currently live on Alpha Drive, and about 725 fraternity members are part of the Alpha Drive houses.

"Basically, nothing's official yet," Breitman said. "After discussing the matter with members from every Alpha Drive fraternity, I can wholeheartedly say that there is tremendous support to continue the status quo of Alpha Drive living."

Breitman said eminent domain is not the best option for ASU, and neither is implementing Residence Hall policies for fraternity housing.

The letter offered the fraternities the option of a land exchange.

"The one option that (Campbell) has presented is that the fraternities exchange their six acres for another six acres within the site," Abraham said. "That one way is nowhere close to what the fraternities originally presented with the Threshold Project concept."

The "Threshold Project" is the name given to the original proposal by the fraternity property owners to rebuild Alpha Drive, which was first presented to ASU President Michael Crow in 2004.

The San Diego-based Pierce Company was originally chosen by the fraternity property holders to develop new fraternity housing after Alpha Drive was demolished, but another developer, American Campus Communities, would be the sole developer of any student housing, Campbell said in the letter.

"This comes as a shock," said Andrew Burns, the treasurer for the alumni board of Sigma Phi Epsilon and a 2001 ASU graduate.

Burns said he only could speak for Sigma Phi Epsilon, and not the other fraternities.

"ASU, to sum it up, is saying 'we are essentially going to redevelop that land, and we're going to redevelop that land with ASU, you can either give it up, or have a little bit of input,'" he added. "We understand (Alpha Drive) is run down, we understand the crime rate is high.

"We want to protect the Greek system."

Breitman said he had gotten "tremendous feedback" from many of his constituents who oppose the project.

"Residence style living would not be in the best interest of fraternities on campus," Breitman said. "I believe it would hurt recruitment, as well as our ability to function in day to day operations."

Arizona State University Web Devil: http://www.asuwebdevil.com

Overreacting On Eminent Domain: Hartford CT Courant, 11/18/07

2008-01-01T08:10:00.000-05:00

Opinion
By Michael Looney
Susette Kelo is gone but not forgotten.

The New London woman and some neighbors lost their battle before the U.S. Supreme Court to save their homes in the city's Fort Trumbull neighborhood. But since the high-profile Kelo v. New London case was decided in June 2005, numerous legislative actions and ballot initiatives designed to limit and redefine the government's eminent domain power have been proposed in states from New Hampshire to California.

Some didn't pass and some did (Connecticut's new law narrows, but does not prohibit, the use of eminent domain for economic development). The states that passed laws restricting the ability of state or local governments from seizing a person's home for economic development purposes — the issue raised in the Kelo decision — may have created unforeseen but far-reaching impacts for zoning and urban planning.

One clear example of this is Proposition 207 in Arizona.

Proposition 207 passed as a statewide Arizona ballot initiative in 2006 with the official title of Private Property Rights Protection Act, garnering 65 percent of the vote in the process. Ostensibly, its intent was to limit government's eminent domain power by redefining "public use" to specifically exclude "economic development" from the definition.

The law has other provisions, one of which entitles property owners to seek just compensation for the reduction of "the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess private real property" that result from the application of any land-use regulation.

While certain regulations of land use such as fire codes, building codes and health codes were exempted from this clause, land-use tools such as zoning regulations were left unprotected.

This has triggered a contentious debate. Opponents of Proposition 207 say the legislation has severely limited not only municipal zoning powers, but also other de facto forms of land-use regulation such as the formation of historic districts.

Proponents insist the new law has not limited governmental land-use powers, but has simply ensured that property owners are compensated for a wider range of government actions that may hurt property values.

Regardless of who is right, Proposition 207 has had immediate planning and zoning impacts that have taken many observers by surprise. Relatively straightforward municipal actions such as rezoning an area of a city have become complex exercises where individual property owners must consent to the municipality's action.

If an owner does not consent and the municipality moves forward with the proposed action, the municipality runs the risk of the aggrieved property owner filing a lawsuit claiming loss of property value and demanding compensation.

Nervous municipalities across Arizona have quickly resorted to obtaining individual property owner signatures on "Prop 207 waivers," which the law allows, to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. However, acquiring these signatures can be a daunting task; for example, the creation of a special business district in Phoenix may eventually require 1,300 individual landowners to sign such waivers.

The potential impacts of Proposition 207 have already significantly changed the plans for historic districts in Phoenix, Tempe and Flagstaff, as well as several zoning and urban design initiatives. Municipalities have become so concerned about potential legal battles that they are having property owners sign Prop 207 waivers for even very minor zoning and planning actions.

While the debate between private property rights and government land-use regulation will continue indefinitely, it is important to question how well the public is being served by legislation such as Proposition 207.

The law gives property owners greater protection of their rights to just compensation. Most people, regardless of their political or ideological leaning, would agree that protection of private property rights is a positive objective.

However, the public costs associated with such legislation often gets short shrift. While an individual property has its value protected, there is no accounting for the loss to communities from stalled historic preservation efforts, lack of orderly zoning districts and incongruous urban design. The inherent value of these public goods, which are often much more difficult (if not impossible) to quantify than individual property value impacts, should at least have some calculus in the just compensation debate.

The protection of private property rights is a cornerstone of our American democratic system of government; it is articulated in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. However, as the enactment of Proposition 207 illustrates, the expansion of property protections can have a substantial impact on the public realm. One is left to ponder how society can best balance the private and public interests involved in land-use laws.

The turmoil stemming from laws such as Proposition 207 can best be prevented by engaging in more thoughtful debate and public discourse on eminent domain and zoning powers, rather than rushing through ballot initiatives on a wave of popular discontent. When our laws create situations which were not intended, it is the legislative process, not the law, that is flawed.

Hartford CT Courant: http://www.courant.com

Michael Looney is a senior associate with Harrall-Michalowski Associates Inc., a planning and development consulting firm in Hamden: http://www.hmaplan.com

Fear of eminent domain grips PG hamlet: Washington DC Times, 11/18/07

2008-01-01T08:01:00.000-05:00

By Arlo Wagner
Residents of a working-class neighborhood near the New Carrollton Metro station say Prince George's County is trying to bring the area into a sweeping redevelopment project that could replace their homes with high-end condos, shopping and restaurants.

County officials are considering a zoning change to West Lanham Hills to include the neighborhood in an 18-year-old project known as the Transit District Overlay Zone, created by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission to develop roughly 71 wooded acres around the busy Metro Orange Line station.

The nine-member County Council unanimously agreed Oct. 30 to have the commission present a plan to expand the zone into the neighborhood, which residents say has caught them by surprise and has included bullying tactics.

"They're calling our neighborhood deteriorating and blighted," said Kate Tsubata, a West Lanham Hills resident and former president of the citizens association.

The 66-year-old neighborhood has no mayor or council, and the association is the closest thing it has to a government.

West Lanham Hills resident Bob Nelson, 43, said he fears the next step will be the county trying to take property through eminent domain.

"I'm always skeptical any time somebody tells me the neighborhood should look like this or that," said Mr. Nelson, who in his youth was the neighborhood paperboy. "We're ripe for the picking."

County Council member Eric Olson, a Democrat who co-introduced the proposal, did not return a phone call Thursday on whether the county would seek to use eminent domain. However, he said last week that no final plans have been made and that public hearings are starting Dec. 5.

"This is the beginning of a public process," he said. "It is very important that the citizens are involved."

Mr. Olson also said that the hearings could continue for a year before a final zoning plan is approved, and that other Annapolis Road communities — including Hansen Oaks and Landover Hills — are part of the plan.

Mrs. Tsubata said the commission has a clear-cut plan, despite what Mr. Olson and others say.

"They've gone from wanting to put 2,400 luxury condos, offices and retail units in a 71-acre parcel to now wanting to put 8,000 units in a 640-acre area, wiping out stable and environmentally low-impact, single-family houses," she said.

Mrs. Tsubata said she has walked the 256-home neighborhood and collected 150 signatures against the zoning change.

Residents acknowledge the region is a potential target for development. In addition to being near the Metro station, which also is an Amtrak stop, West Lanham Hills is surrounded by major highways, including the Capitol Beltway and U.S. Route 50. Also nearby are the new Internal Revenue Service and Computer Sciences Corp. buildings, built as part of the original overlay zone and serving thousands of employees.

Ted Booth, a West Lanham Hills homeowner for 13 years, also said the situation concerns him.

"I've worked hard to have something of my own," he said. "The zone concerns me, and eminent domain concerns me. After that, you have no choice."

Some residents also think they are being bullied into leaving. They say Olson staffer Wanda Brooks, the acting president of the West Lanham Hills Citizens' Association, canvasses the neighborhood looking for such violations as cracked sidewalks and uncut grass, then prepares suggested warrants for police and other county agencies.

"I'm very concerned," said a resident who asked to remain anonymous for fear Miss Brooks also will target her. "She called the neighborhood a slum. She works for Olson; she becomes the association president. All of the bricks are falling into place to the possibility of eminent domain."

Reached by telephone last week and asked about the accusations, Miss Brooks directed a reporter to write the questions in an e-mail. She did not respond to an e-mail sent to the address she specified.

"Suddenly, the community began getting notices of violations with hefty fines of $150," Mrs. Tsubata said. "Virtually every citizen in the neighborhood got a notice. ... In 21 years of us living here, nothing like this ever happened."

Washington DC Times: http://washingtontimes.com

K Street fight will resonate on state ballot: Sacramento CA Bee, 12/30/07

2008-01-01T07:55:00.000-05:00

Eminent: Mohanna says he will join ballot measure's campaign
By Mary Lynne Vellinga
Even if the city of Sacramento wins a court battle to wrest a key part of the K Street Mall from property owner Moe Mohanna, it could lose the war on another front: the state ballot.

Mohanna has thrown his support behind an initiative headed for the June election that would forbid local governments in California from using eminent domain to buy property from one private owner and award it to another – exactly what the city is seeking to do on K Street.

"We'll be spending a lot of money on that, and I'll have a series of fundraisers in my buildings," Mohanna said on Christmas Eve.

Mohanna has aligned himself with a coalition of anti-tax groups and property rights advocates led by the California Farm Bureau Federation and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the force behind California's landmark property tax cutting measure, Proposition 13.

Last month, the group submitted more than 1 million signatures to qualify its anti-eminent domain measure for the ballot.

Mohanna said he'll be a champion of the statewide effort that he describes as a flesh and blood example of the heavy-handed use of eminent domain.

"I'll be going to different cities, and talking about private property rights, and the taking of private property for private use," Mohanna said.

"Today it is my buildings, tomorrow it is your home," Mohanna said, adding that local governments might even "take every church and turn it into a Costco."

On the other side of the debate stands Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo and other local officials in California who view eminent domain as a crucial tool for fighting urban decay in places like the K Street Mall.

Fargo said her constituents applauded the City Council's unanimous vote to authorize eminent domain against Mohanna.

"People come up and say, 'Good for you, K Street is such a public street, and it's so tied up in people's perception of downtown, that it's just really a critical place for us,' " she said.

Fargo supports a rival initiative, which also has gathered more than enough signatures to qualify for the June ballot. Backed by the League of California Cities, the League of Conservation Voters and the California Redevelopment Association, it proposes more limited changes to current law.

The measure would prohibit local governments from using eminent domain to acquire owner-occupied homes and transfer them to a private developer. It would not affect the taking of commercial properties such as Mohanna's.

"There's some room and a need for some eminent domain reform to give homeowners some sense of security that they apparently don't now feel," said Fargo, who in September will start a term as president of the League of California Cities.

"In our city, we haven't done a lot of that, but in some communities there has been a real concern. We're hoping to get some reform done that people will think is meaningful, and will put this issue to rest."

State law has long given cities – acting through their redevelopment agencies – the right to exercise eminent domain to acquire land in areas defined as "blighted."

Sacramento used these powers to build the new Central Library in downtown Sacramento, as well as a new apartment complex that occupies a former hole in the ground at Ninth and J streets.

Outside downtown, the city used eminent domain to overhaul the crime-plagued Franklin Villa development – now renamed Phoenix Park.

On Dec. 18, the City Council authorized the use of eminent domain to acquire nine properties owned by Mohanna in the 700 and 800 blocks of K Street – an area with a high retail vacancy rate, crime, and gaps where buildings have been demolished.

The city plans to award the properties in the 700 block to Joe Zeiden, owner of the Z Gallerie furniture chain, so he can create a retail row in the historic buildings just outside the entrance to Downtown Plaza.

Mohanna had agreed to a voluntary property swap that would have left Zeiden in control of the 700 block, and him with the 800 block. But he has balked at completing it since a fire in one of his buildings last year resulted in the demolition of much of the 800 block.

It's unclear what stage in the eminent domain process against Mohanna the city would have to reach to avoid the impact of the Howard Jarvis ballot measure, should it pass. Would simply filing the eminent domain case be enough? Or would the city need a final judgment in the entire case? The measure contains no language clarifying this question.

Marko Mlikotin, a spokesman for the coalition pushing the far-reaching ballot proposition, opined that possession of the properties is the key. If the city doesn't gain possession of Mohanna's properties before June, and the measure passes, it would not be able to move forward, Mlikotin said.

"They would be under pressure to seize the property prior to June," Mlikotin said.

Assistant City Manager John Dangberg said it will likely take at least six months before a judge rules on the city's right to force the properties' sale. The city will likely go to court in January to start the process, he said.

An eminent domain case has two phases. First, a judge decides if a city has the right to acquire properties through eminent domain. Then a jury sets the price.

The law allows a city to take possession of a property while the value phase of the trial is ongoing. Doing so is a risk, however, because property owners have the right to appeal, which can add years to the process.

Pressure to scale back eminent domain power has been building since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2005 decision, Kelo v. City of New London, which found that the city of New London, Conn., was justified in demolishing houses owned by Susette Kelo and her neighbors for a commercial development.

On its face, the decision strengthened the hand of local governments. But it also ignited a backlash against the use of eminent domain, giving property rights advocates an issue to rally around.

It isn't the first time the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has tried to persuade Californians to scale back eminent domain. In 2006, voters narrowly rejected Proposition 90, which was similar to the measure the group is now promoting.

Mlikotin said the new measure stands a better chance of passing because, unlike Proposition 90, it doesn't require local governments to compensate property owners every time they adopt a regulation that could hurt property values.

Private polling shows public support for scaling back eminent domain powers, Mlikotin said. "With those results we felt comfortable going forward."

The League of California Cities has highlighted what it says are deceptive provisions of the measure, including language that would abolish rent control.

Sacramento CA Bee: http://www.sacbee.com

Blaine is wary of using eminent domain: Minneapolis MN Star Tribune, 11/9/07

2007-12-31T08:36:00.000-05:00

A developer with a vision for a more than $150 million sports and entertainment complex seeks the city's help to secure nearby properties
By Eric M. Hanson
The developer who wants to bring a new sports and entertainment complex to Blaine [MN] is asking for the city's help to force nearby property owners out by using eminent domain if necessary.

Developer John Donnelly told the City Council on Thursday night that his company won't be able to attract investors to the more than $150 million project without removing five light-industrial properties next to the site.

"There's a reluctance to spend that kind of money when this is on your front door," Donnelly said at the council meeting, where he discussed drawings and some details about the SportsTown USA proposal.

Donnelly Development Group, of Edina, described the project as an asset to "Blaine's identity as an amateur athletics center for the Midwest." Plans include a hotel and indoor water park, fitness center, restaurants, indoor go-carts, a lake and a public square for sports ceremonies, even indoor surfing and skydiving.

Donnelly's group asked for the city's help in getting the nearby property owners to sell, saying industrial properties would be a detriment to the visual appeal of the project.

"What you're asking is for us to condemn these [properties]," City Council Member Russ Herbst said. "I'd have to think long and hard about that."

Herbst was joined by virtually every council member in voicing concern about using eminent domain as a development tactic, although support for the project's goals and features was unanimous.

Donnelly's group is a spinoff of a previous developer that proposed a smaller version of the complex in 2005. The current project represents 30 developable acres on a larger site that encompasses 63 acres, he said.

James Determan, who owns between three to four acres of the industrial property at the heart of the issue, said he is willing to move if the price is right. So far, it hasn't been, he said.

"If they want to use eminent domain, I'll fight them to the end," he said. "I don't think it's legal to use eminent domain unless it's for a public use, and that's not a public use. It's a private development project."

Also at issue is the amount of public subsidy the developer is seeking. The group wants a property tax break that is estimated at roughly $13 million over 15 years.

Council Member Dick Swanson called that figure "awe inspiring."You're asking for the moon," Herbst said.

Still, city leaders were interested enough in the proposal to direct the city's staff to meet with the developer over the next few months to get closer on an agreement.

Minneapolis MN Star Tribune: http://www.startribune.com

Money pit on North Queen: Lancaster PA Newspapers, 11/11/07

2007-12-31T08:26:00.000-05:00

Too late to undo county office project that has budget, legal problems
By Helen Colwell Adams
The conversion of the former Armstrong building to county offices is running late and over budget, but the newly elected county commissioners think it's too late to pull the plug on the project.

"I have said I would walk away from this project in a heartbeat if it were feasible," Republican Scott Martin said last week.

But he and the other two commissioners-elect, Republican Dennis Stuckey and Democrat Craig Lehman, agreed that the county probably could not recoup its investment in 150 N. Queen St. if the new commissioners halted the work.

Through the end of October, the county had spent more than $25.4 million, including the $8.3 million paid to the building's owner through eminent domain, and county Administrator Mark Esterbrook estimated another $13.5 million is needed to finish the renovations.

If no additional expenses pop up, that would put the project about $3.5 million over the original total of $35.4 million for purchase and remodeling.

That doesn't include an estimated $38 to $40 million to renovate the county courthouse at 50 N. Duke St.

The Armstrong building could end up to be even more expensive; former owner Dr. Ira Trocki has sued in federal court, contending the $8.3 million is far below the actual value of the property.

Trocki said last week that he would have rented the entire building to the county for $3 million a year, the same price that Armstrong World Industries paid before moving out.

"Their interest payment [on the renovation costs] is going to be more than what they're going to pay me in rent," Trocki said, "and they wouldn't have to go to court."

Commissioners Dick Shellenberger and Molly Henderson, who voted along with former commissioner Pete Shaub to take the property by eminent domain, last week said they still think 150 N. Queen was the best option for a county government desperately in need of more office space.

Even though the job will "take us a little longer than we anticipated," Shellenberger said, "I think it was the right move."

Lehman isn't so sure.

"It may be one of those things that it's simply too far down the road to turn back now," he said.

"I hate to say that. I really do."

Growing pains
Space problems at the courthouse, mostly related to the rapid expansion of Lancaster County Court offices, led to the commissioners' decision late in 2004 to take 150 N. Queen by eminent domain.

The commissioners said at the time that their other option was building offices on land the county owns on Sunnyside peninsula — an unattractive alternative because it would have taken hundreds of county workers out of downtown and would have blocked a planned housing development on the Sunnyside property.

But troubles have plagued the project, from Trocki's lawsuit to a series of complications with the renovations — holes in floors and walls, fires, fumes and other safety concerns — that led the city fire department to shut down work in May.

Tenants in the building went to court, resulting in the county paying $753,000 so far for safety monitors, lease terminations, legal fees and relocation costs. County workers whose offices are already at 150 N. Queen — about 300 now — also complained about conditions.

Some county offices were scheduled to move into new space this month and in December, but because the renovations aren't finished, the timetable has been pushed back.

"A new master schedule will be forthcoming in the next two weeks," Esterbrook said.

About 15 offices, and another 400 employees, are shifting to 150 N. Queen to make room for court expansion; two new judges are joining the bench in January. Esterbrook said moving expenses are budgeted at $150,000 in 2007-08.

He said the court will "work with us to accommodate new judges temporarily until the fifth floor can be made available for temporary use by the judges." The commissioners, controller, Congressman Joe Pitts and the district attorney now have offices on the fifth floor of the courthouse.

With $25.4 million spent through October and an estimated $13.5 million remaining to finish the work at 150 N. Queen, the total would be $39 million, about $3.5 million more than the original estimate.

Once the other county offices have relocated, renovations must be done at the courthouse itself. Esterbrook said estimates for that work are $38 to $40 million.

The newly elected commissioners questioned the project during the campaign. Last week, they said the county probably has no option but to finish the relocation.

"It's difficult to halt the project with the money we've sunk into it," Stuckey, the current county controller, said.

"It's certainly something I will be taking a close look at," Lehman said. "It seems to me at this point … that it's probably too far along to backtrack."

"I've always had my doubts about the project," Martin said.

He suggested that a public-private partnership to redevelop buildings on the first block of East King Street, with a long-term lease for the county, could have kept properties on the city tax rolls and been more efficient in terms of proximity to the courthouse.

"If there was a way it could be worked out that [150 N. Queen] could be returned, and be a return on our investment as well … I would definitely be open to discussing that," he said.

"The bottom line is, we're accountable to the taxpayers."

Friendly, not so friendly?
Henderson and Shellenberger, though, contend that for the square footage available at 150 N. Queen, the cost of the project is reasonable.

On a tour of projects funded with county contributions before Tuesday's election, Henderson repeated what she had said in other campaign appearances: that the eminent domain proceeding was a "friendly" takeover.

Henderson said Trocki asked for his assessment to be lowered prior to the takeover, contributing to the $8.3 million compensation, which she said was the legally mandated average of three appraisals.

"He is the one who set the bar lower," she said. "That figured into the ultimate price years later."

Trocki hotly contested Henderson's assertions, saying last week that he didn't fight the eminent domain process because his lawyers said it was an unwinnable battle.

Instead, he is arguing the county undervalued the building, which he bought for $12.1 million in 1998.

He also said the county offered a settlement of the assessment appeal, which he said was originally filed by Armstrong. He now believes the assessment settlement of $8.3 million was a tactic to drive down the value of the property — along with leaks to news media about plans for eminent domain, which Trocki said succeeded in scaring away tenants.

"No tenant wanted to move in and then get thrown out shortly thereafter," he said.

Trocki said he had been negotiating with county officials about leasing space in the building ever since Armstrong World Industries, which had been renting the entire structure, filed for bankruptcy and notified Trocki it was moving out.

The county needed about 50,000 square feet then and much more later, Trocki said, so he agreed to $11.50 per square foot, plus covering all renovation and cleaning costs, with the understanding that when the lease was up for renewal, the county would pay market rates.

Trocki also said he discussed selling the building to the county for $20 million, although he said he might take $18.5 million.

He said he had the building under agreement of sale for $15 million, and had another pair of buyers, Pat Egan and John Meeder, willing to give him a slightly better deal, when the eminent domain action occurred.

"They still went ahead and eminent domained," Trocki said, and ended up paying Egan nearly $1 million to terminate his lease and relocate.

Trocki's attorneys said "it was highly irregular that an agency would take a building for the exact same use it has," and he suggested it's the first time such an eminent domain taking has happened in Pennsylvania.

The renovation costs, he said, are "absolute craziness."

Trocki is asking for another $10 million-plus in the federal lawsuit.

"We hope somebody will be reasonable and get this over with," he said.

"... It was not a friendly eminent domain."

Lancaster PA Newspapers: http://local.lancasteronline.com

Rosemount divided over new project with old look: Minneapolis MN Star Tribune, 11/10/07

2007-12-31T08:20:00.000-05:00

Although it receives high marks from a Met Council panel of experts, a key piece of Rosemount's downtown rebirth is drawing considerable flak
By David Peterson
The birth pains, in the creation of a new downtown Rosemount, are audible in the voices of Wallace Johnson and Mark DeBettignies.

Johnson, president of Apple Valley-based Stonebridge Companies, is developing a huge new building that is supposed to ignite a Stillwater-like, revitalized downtown in the city's historic center.

DeBettignies is a City Council member fighting off opposition to the project. "I get tired trying to answer all the questions," he said. "People just don't see the big picture."

Each man sounds weary, despite what would seem good news: An influential Metropolitan Council advisory committee has found the project - by a decisive margin - the most impressive that any suburb offered up this year. The group recommended that Rosemount alone reap nearly $1.6 million of the $8 million available this year for innovative development.

City officials see the proposed Stonebridge project - more than 100 apartments atop ground-floor office space, with underground parking, all of it wrapped within old-time brick facades meant to recall a 19th-century downtown streetscape - as a model for the rest of the area.

A group called "Save Rosemount" sees it as an abomination. Among their reasons: The need to exercise the city's power of eminent domain to acquire one parcel, and the substitution of rentals for condos once the condo market went sour. In their literature, available on the Web, two unnamed residents say that apartment complexes "turn out to be ... all Junkies."

In reality, DeBettignies said, these will be high-quality units, built to condominium standards in hopes of converting them later. "You wouldn't believe the aesthetics," he said. "Wood floors, moldings - really nice."

Johnson, meanwhile, has had to produce version after version of his building, trying to satisfy city officials as they seek the right look, as though it were actually several older buildings.

"We've been going back and forth to get consensus," he said. "It's hard when you have six or seven people with opinions. But we're getting there."

Such projects are a recipe for migraines for all involved, said Carolyn Krall, an architect and urban designer with Landform, a Minneapolis firm that consults with cities on similar projects but is not involved with this one.

"It's been very hard for the city to attract a developer who can build the kind of traditional downtown buildings they'd like to see," she said. "Buildings that will enhance what's left of their original, historic downtown. It's very challenging.

"Developers can make a lot more money with a lot less trouble - barely a mile or two away - by adding to the miles and miles of strip malls from Savage to Rosemount."

Minneapolis MN Star Tribune: http://www.startribune.com

Save Our Village Holds Seminar To Discuss Eminent Domain: New Hyde Park NY Illustrated News, 11/9/07

2007-12-31T08:05:00.000-05:00

By Margaret Whitely
Recently, Save Our Village (SOV), an activist group in New Hyde Park dedicated to "saving the village" from Metropolitan Transportation Association (MTA) and the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Long Island Railroad (LIRR) "Main Line Corridor Improvement Project" held a seminar at the New Hyde Park Road School auditorium. The group focuses on the environmental, social and economic effects it will have on the quality of life in the village. The seminar was to discuss Eminent Domain as it relates to the Village of New Hyde Park.

SOV President Robert Femminella, along with vice-presidents Diane Bentivenga and Christina Prieto-Maroney, introduced the guest speakers; Thomas Levin, a partner with the law firm of Meyer, Suozzi, English and Klein and Edward Gutleber, an attorney with the same law firm, both volunteering their time, spoke on various aspects of eminent domain law, and New York State Senator Craig Johnson, who reiterated that he is vehemently against the Third Track Project and will continue to be so until the MTA presents a clear plan to the community that is approved by the community residents and its civic organizations and its local government officials. Johnson pointed out that although Governor Eliot Spitzer appears to be for the Main Line Project, he is absolutely against it and has told the governor of his feelings many times explaining to him the drastic impact it will have especially on the Village of New Hyde Park.

The first speaker, Thomas Levin, received a laugh when he started his speech off by saying, "Don't kill the messenger."

He then went into the extensive background of eminent domain. He said, "Eminent domain first originated in England when the King or Queen could take property at will and when nobody had any rights."

Levin said, "In the United States, when we developed our constitution some 220 years ago, we took the concept of eminent domain as a power, but limit the power of the federal government and give those powers to the states. The only place there is an actual discussion is in the Fifth Amendment when it says no property shall be taken for public use without just compensation."

He explained that sometimes people refer to eminent domain as condemnation, but he said that carries with it the connotation that the property is blighted in some way, or a building is unsafe. But, "eminent domain," he said, "is much more than that." He said, "In New York State the power of eminent domain is in the state constitution to exercise the power to take private property for public use. The government can take property even though the owner is not willing to sell it. There is a statute called the Eminent Domain Procedure Law which spells out in great detail the process by which it gets done. For the much part any litigation about this law is usually fruitless because it just points out something the government has to do over and they do that and then take the property anyway."

Levin continued, "Eminent domain is essentially a government decision to take private property for a public purpose, and you will hear that phrase over and over again. There are limits on when and how the government does this. Ultimately, the courts do not second guess the wisdom or the merits of the decision because that is a political decision and any complaints about that do not go through the courts but through the political arena and that is why I am going to talk about the MTA."

He explained there are other statutes that have to be followed for eminent domain and the State Environmental Review Act is one. He said, "When anything has an impact on the environment this study must be done before any decision to take any property that has an impact. If that process is not done, that's a cause for a challenge."

He said the law that applies to this project is the Public Authorities Law in the State of New York that deals with the MTA and gives it various powers.

He said, "What we have in all eminent domain cases is one common key question. Is the taking of property that is proposed for a public purpose? It is not something that is put up for a vote. The government agency that proposes the taking is the one that gets to decide. The courts will eventually decide if it's a public purpose or a public use. When you look at the classic cases, the ones that the courts will spend only two seconds on are the ones where the government has claimed property to be owned for a public purpose. There is no condemning property to turn it over to a private owner. They are taking the property to turn it over to the government to own either temporarily or permanently. The examples given are military installations, government buildings, parking lots, public roads, railroads or public utilities. It would be hard pressed to make an argument that any proposal to take property to use as a railroad facility and the chances of the courts to rule that is not a public use is just about zero. The only thing the courts do in such cases is to look at the procedure to see that it has been followed correctly. To understand it more clearly read Title 11 of the New York Public Authorities Law, Section 1264, 1265 and 1267 that spells out exactly what the MTA can do."

Next up was Attorney Gutleber who spoke mainly about the compensation process.

He said, "The foremost principle is the concept of just compensation. Pursuant to both the United States and New York Constitution, a property owner is entitled to just compensation. The requirement states that the property owner be indemnified so that they are in the same relative position, as possible, as if the taking had not occurred."

He went on to say, "Just compensation, in its purest form, requires that the property owner be made whole by payment of the fair market value of the property valued at the date of the taking. The property owner will be compensated with damages to the real property that includes the land, building improvements, the building fixtures. There is no compensation for damages resulting in lost business. If only a portion of the property is taken, the property owner is entitled to indirect damages that may result in the diminution of the value of the remaining property. Another fundamental principal is that the property owner is entitled to fair market value taken at its highest and best use. For instance, if a single family owner, surrounded by all business property, can prove that there will be a change of zoning of his property to business, he can then claim the higher amount of compensation."

He continued, "The value of the property must be determined by an expert real estate appraiser. Initially, they will determine the amount of damages sustained and make an offer. The property owner may then accept or reject the offer, but may still file a claim for additional damages."

The entire seminar gave an insight to the residents of what they can expect to the process if and when the entire process gets underway.

However, since the LIRR or the MTA have not submitted any definite plans to the residents of the Village of New Hyde Park it is hard to come to any conclusion as to what is planned.

For further information or to keep in contact with the SOV group, please call 516-328-1171 or email the group at SOV.NHP@GMAIL.com.

New Hyde Park NY Illustrated News: http://www.antonnews.com/illustratednews

Rent control under attack: San Francisco CA Bay Guardian, 11/7/07

2007-12-30T15:37:00.000-05:00

Eminent domain reform measure on June ballot could kill San Francisco's rent-control and affordable-housing laws
By Steven T. Jones and Sarah Phelan
San Francisco's rent-control and affordable-housing laws could be struck down by a statewide initiative that appears to be headed for the June 2008 ballot.

The measure is sponsored by a coalition of conservative property rights advocates under the guise of limiting the government's ability to seize property by eminent domain.

Cities and progressive organizations are fighting back by trying to qualify a competing ballot measure that would restrict the ability of governments to seize owner-occupied homes but would invalidate the more radical initiative. Groups from the San Francisco Tenants Union to the League of California Cities are actively mobilizing to gather the needed signatures by the Dec. 3 deadline.

SFTU director Ted Gullicksen told the Guardian, "180,000 rental units stand to be affected in San Francisco," and argued that the invalidation of rent-control laws would rapidly gentrify the city. He noted that environmental groups have lined up against the measure because of ambiguous wording that "could also impact the revamping of the Hetch Hetchy Dam as well as the work on the levees and the delta."

His group is mobilizing volunteer signature gatherers to qualify the competing measure — which would need more votes than the right-wing measure to quash the latter — and trying to educate the public through the Web site www.eminentdomainreform.com and a Nov. 14 rally planned for noon at the State Building at Van Ness and McAllister.

Eminent domain laws have been a hot-button political issue since 2005, when the US Supreme Court ruled in Kelo vs. City of New London that the Connecticut city could use eminent domain to seize land for a private development project. The furor over that decision triggered last year's Proposition 90, which would have restricted eminent domain and defined "regulatory takings" so as to cripple local governments' ability to enforce environmental laws and other restrictions on property use.

Prop. 90 was narrowly defeated (by 47.6 to 52.4 percent of voters statewide, but 29 percent in San Francisco), and advocates for the constitutional amendment titled Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property hoped to learn from the experience in crafting this new measure, for which they say they've gathered 850,000 signatures and plan to have one million by the Nov. 26 deadline for turning in 694,354 valid signatures of registered voters.

That measure "had a substantial amount of baggage in that it delved into regulatory takings," Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, told the Guardian. The latest proposal, he said, "is a fairly tightly drafted measure that deals with eminent domain."

Actually, as the Attorney General's Office has concluded in its summary of the measure, it would also strike down rent-control laws, a key source of affordable housing in San Francisco, Berkeley, and a couple of other California cities. The measure's broad prohibition on laws that "transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner" could also be interpreted as invalidating inclusionary housing laws, which require developers to create a set percentage of below-market-rate units, and other laws that regulate property.

Coupal admitted the measure attacks rent control and told us, "We think that's part and parcel of complete property rights protection." But he noted that units are only removed from rent-control protection when existing tenants move out. And he denied that the proposed act would affect inclusionary housing laws, citing a section that reads, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or impair voluntary agreements between a property owner and a public agency to develop or rehabilitate affordable housing."

Yet he also admits that it's an open question whether affordable-housing requirements for developers will always be deemed voluntary. He said, "The issue of what is voluntary is currently being litigated in a number of courts."

San Francisco CA Bay Guardian: http://www.sfbg.com

Motion to stay eminent domain case denied: Oklahoma State University Daily O'Collegian, 11/5/07

2007-12-30T09:44:00.000-05:00

By Michele Kraak
A Payne County [OK] judge denied a motion for stay pending an appeal in the ongoing Board of Regents and McCloskey Brothers’ eminent domain case Thursday.

District Judge Donald Worthington ruled earlier this year that OSU was entitled to the brothers’ property, which would be used in the university’s Athletic Village plan. The McCloskey Brothers’ attorney filed a motion for stay pending appeal so OSU would not be able to do anything with the property until the case has been settled. Harlan Hentges said in the motion that the potential harm to the brothers was irreparable because OSU intends to destroy the property.

Worthington refused to issue the stay, saying he didn’t think the court had the authority to issue it. In July, he ruled OSU could take the property using eminent domain for $84,000.

After the hearing, Hentges filed an appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. No date has been set as of now.

Plans for the Athletic Village began about two years ago, and the two sides have debated whether OSU has the right to take the property.

In November 2005, OSU announced its Campus Master Plan, which included plans for an athletic village north of Boone Pickens Stadium. The university began buying property, forcing many students and faculty members to move. The original plan was to have all of the property acquired by July 2006.

The McCloskey brothers’ house is the last of 87 property units OSU wanted to acquire for the village. Hentges said it comes down to being right and being wrong.

“The McCloskey brothers had bought a house just a couple of months before the announcement (of OSU’s plan), and they didn’t think it ought to be done that way,” Hentges said. “They would not agree to a price on this house, so the Board of Regents ultimately decided to try to condemn the house.”

One of Oklahoma’s statutes says universities can acquire property through condemnation only in certain instances. Hentges said parts of the athletic village are going to be used for a hotel and a convention center, which is not within their rights.

“They didn’t prove that they were taking it for either a stadium or a field house, which are the only things that come close,” Hentges said.

Randall Elliot, who is representing the Board of Regents, could not be reached for comment.

Hentges said the most obvious argument against the Regents is that they are not qualified to be regents under the Oklahoma Constitution. Nine regents serve on the board, including a president. The governor appoints the eight other regents. The constitution says a majority of the eight regents the governor appoints must be farmers, which means they must earn a majority of their income through farming. Hentges said none of the regents qualifies as a farmer.

“The regents aren’t qualified to be regents,” Hentges said. “The Board of Regents we have is not the Board of Regents provided by the Oklahoma Constitution, and the way they’ve used their authority is not valid.”

The Board of Regents’ response to the motion for stay notes the Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled a landowner is not allowed to stay in an appeal of a condemnation action. Worthington followed the Supreme Court’s precedent in his ruling Thursday, but Hentges said he thinks the ruling should be overturned.

“You and I could go out and file a lawsuit and say we’re the county commissioners, or we’re whoever we want to say we are, and we have the right of eminent domain,” Hentges said. “If the landowner doesn’t have standing to challenge that, that’s obviously a problem.”

Oklahoma State University Daily O'Collegian: http://ocolly.com

Blight removal: Savannah GA Morning News, 11/5/07

2007-12-30T09:38:00.000-05:00

Editorial
The state's eminent domain legislation has had the unintended consequence of making it more difficult to clean up blighted areas
WHEN THE U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2005 that local governments could seize a person's property for virtually any purpose - including turning the land over to private developers - alarmed state legislators around the country drew up rules corralling eminent domain powers.

In Georgia, a similar move was fired in part by the condemnation of more than 2,000 acres by Effingham County's Industrial Development Authority for a future industrial park.

In the 2006 legislative session, the General Assembly enacted strict new rules making it more difficult for local governments to seize property through eminent domain, and truncating the number of purposes for which land could be seized.

By so doing, however, the legislation has had the unintended consequence of making it difficult for cities to clean up blighted properties.

In Savannah, the problem is most common in houses owned by absentee owners who do not live in the area, and rental properties that landlords fail to maintain.

In a meeting with the area's state government delegation Thursday, Savannah alderman Tony Thomas rightly noted that because of neglect by landlords, "the quality of life is deteriorating in parts of the city."

Indeed, sagging, dilapidated houses are not only eyesores, but also contribute to the feelings of desperation and carelessness in a community that too often help to foster criminal behavior.

In its upcoming session in January, the General Assembly should consider targeted amendments to the state's current eminent domain laws, which will allow cities to take quicker action in cases where blighted properties pose health and safety hazards.

These amendments could include strict guidelines that nevertheless allowed cities a more expedited avenue for blight removal. In order to keep cities from taking homes solely for the purpose of economic development, the new provisions might also require any seized property to maintain the zoning level it had prior to seizure.

Such a provision would coordinate well with the city of Savannah's push to create in-fill housing in vacant or blighted areas.

Cities have a valid reason to want to keep blight at bay. State lawmakers should make it easier to guard against the wasting of vital housing stock.

Savannah GA Morning News: http://www.savannahnow.com

Neighbors unite to fix up homes of needy: Ventura County CA Star, 11/3/07

2007-12-30T09:27:00.000-05:00

By Anna Bakalis
Neighbors helping neighbors is how a group of Moorpark residents are characterizing their new project aimed at fixing homes for those who couldn't otherwise afford it.

The "Let's Make Moorpark Beautiful" project is in its beginning stages, and volunteers hope to fill the gaps for those who might not qualify for home rehabilitation loans from the city.

Painting, hauling, weeding, removing old junk and repairing fences are some of the services the group would like to offer that might lift property values and boost neighborhood morale, said one of the project's founders.

Many people in the low-income areas have applied to the city for funding but have been told they don't qualify, said longtime resident Ernie Bergmann.

"Some of them make too much money, but then they do not make enough to fix their home," he said.

Organizers want to bring in money from local, state and federal agencies, a process that will likely require a nonprofit designation for the group, said one city official.

They need to file an application every year to apply for government funds, said David Moe, city redevelopment manager.

"If they can get it off the ground — anything from the community that can help the city — the more leverage the better," Moe said.

The idea for the home rehab program came out of a recent eminent domain amendment that was rejected by the City Council in a 5-0 vote. Eminent domain is the power of a public agency to forcibly acquire private property at fair market value for public use. The amendment would have re-established a lapsed authority over about a 1,200-acre project area, mainly in the downtown area.

The authority worried residents enough that they packed the council chambers last month to protest the amendment.

A blight study, completed by a consultant who identified areas for possible rehabilitation, was part of the eminent domain discussion.

"There are areas in Moorpark that are eyesores," Bergmann said. "We are not blind to that."

Bergmann has been a Moorpark resident since 1977 and hopes the program will bring people together. It is good to empower neighborhoods and residents, he said.

"I think people have a responsibility to their community," Bergmann said. "I think of them as next door neighbors that live across town."

The group of volunteers has met once to talk about ways to get the project going, and members are looking for help and input on how to kick-start the program.

Ventura County CA Star: http://www.venturacountystar.com

Phoenix Owner of Downtown El Paso Parking Promises a Fight for his Property: Newspaper Tree, El Paso TX, 12/27/07

2007-12-30T09:20:00.000-05:00

By Rene Leon
Downtown redevelopment efforts may encounter another obstacle as one property owner has threatened to take an eminent domain-related measure to the voters.

Leon Woodward, a Phoenix resident and owner of U.S. Parking Systems, on Dec. 18 went before the El Paso City Council and warned he will bring forward a voter initiative calling for a 10-year wait on future uses of eminent domain if he feels his properties are in danger of condemnation.

Under Section 3.11 of the El Paso City Charter, Woodward can place an item on the City Council agenda with a number of voter signatures equal to five percent of those who voted in the last general municipal elections. Upon receipt of those signatures, the item must be placed on the agenda within 30 days. If the council votes down the proposed ordinance, Woodward would have the opportunity to again collect the appropriate number of signatures and submit them to the city clerk, who by law would be required to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot for the next general municipal election.

Woodward claimed he would need at least 2,018 signatures for his initiative to go before council, which would be five percent of 40,360 voters. However, Tony Rivera of the El Paso County Elections Department stated only 26,045 people voted in the May 2007 municipal general election, setting the required number of signatures at 1,301.

Anthony Washington, who is an assistant city manager in Phoenix, where Woodward had previously threatened similar voter initiatives when faced with condemnation of his properties there, said Woodward is a successful businessman who follows through on his commitments.

“He was prepared to exercise his rights. My experience with him is that he is a person who doesn’t make idle threats; he follows through,” Washington said of Woodward, who threatened but later withdrew his eminent domain initiatives after negotiations with Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.

Oddly, Woodward left the meeting soon after making his comment during the meeting’s Call to the Public session, even though an item was scheduled later in the meeting calling for the expansion of Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone, or TIRZ, No. 5, which includes the Downtown area. He said he scheduled his trip to El Paso two weeks prior to the meeting and was unaware of the TIRZ item.

Included in a document packet given to the media are several letters written by Woodward and addressed to Mayor John Cook and the council in which Woodard describes what he feels are instances of intimidation on the part of Bill Sanders, a principle member of the Paso del Norte Group, or PDNG. The PDNG was a key supporting organization in the development of the Downtown 2015 Plan, which has been criticized by some for not including input from residents and business owners in its creation.

“Billie Sanders and his associates approached me several months ago with the intention of purchasing my business and downtown properties. I refused to sell and Billie Sanders decided to even the score by canceling my parking contract at the Chase Bank building,” writes Woodward in his letter to the mayor and council. He further states that he was contacted in October by an attorney who he claims informed him that the reason for the contract’s cancellation was because he refused to sell his properties to the Borderplex Community Trust, which owns the Chase Bank building and Bassett Tower.

Sanders, though, said in a written statement that he has never dealt with Woodward.

“Up until the recent City Council press coverage, I had never heard of Leon Woodward - and certainly had never spoken with him,” Sanders said in the statement. “Mr. Woodward appears to have quite an imagination."

Also included in the document packet was a photocopy of a Phoenix Gazette editorial column written by Dennis Wagner and titled, “Crazy Leon.”

“He runs parking lots downtown. And when someone gets him mad he becomes the most relentless man in Arizona. Leon produces nasty buttons and bumper stickers. He wears out the phone calling talk radio. He researches his foes, uses the system to find a weakness, then files lawsuits or complaints. He hangs on like a pitbull.”

Scribbled in marker in the margin of the photocopy page (possibly by the boisterous and unapologetic Woodward himself) was one simple statement: “Leon won again!”

Newspaper Tree, El Paso TX: http://www.newspapertree.com

Philadelphia within law in condemning private land for a Catholic educational project: Philadelphia PA Inquirer, 12/29/07

2007-12-30T09:16:00.000-05:00

Court upholds church-state case
By Nancy Petersen
In Pennsylvania, it is now legal in some cases to condemn blighted private property and turn it over to a religious organization, the state Supreme Court ruled this week. The case, which blended the hot-button issues of eminent domain and separation of church and state, revolved around a North Philadelphia neighborhood that the city certified as blighted 36 years ago.

The city Redevelopment Authority condemned the property, in the 1800 block of North Eighth Street, in 2003 and transferred it to the Hope Partnership for Education, a Catholic religious organization that proposed building a nondenominational middle school on the site, among other projects.

One of the property owners, Mary Smith, appealed the condemnation, arguing that it benefited a private religious entity and was not for a public purpose as the law requires.

Common Pleas Court found the action lawful, Commonwealth Court said it wasn't, and now the Supreme Court has ruled that it is, provided the primary purpose is to remove blight. "The principal or primary effect of the redevelopment plan . . . is to eliminate blight in this particular neighborhood," said Justice Cynthia Baldwin, who wrote the majority opinion. A secondary effect could be the advancement of religion, but there is no evidence that is the primary goal, she wrote.

Justice Max Baer disagreed, calling the majority decision unfortunate. "I believe this is a case of direct government aid, in the form of a land transfer below market value, to a religious organization for the development of a religious school," Baer wrote in his dissent.

The result, he wrote, is the "direct financing of religious education with the primary effect of advancing religion." The city, the Hope Partnership and Smith's representatives could not be reached for comment.

Philadelphia PA Inquirer: http://www.philly.com

County facilities vote is Tuesday: Payson AZ Roundup, 11/2/07

2007-12-26T11:11:00.000-05:00

Storage owner at odds with county
By Erin Turner
Paul Pollock plans to live on Main Street for the rest of his life.

He and his brother, Robin, are building a home atop the Payson Mini Storage for themselves and their mother to share.

He likes the idea of having restaurants, shops and entertainment within walking distance.

His family has owned the mini storage for more than two decades.

There's just one problem with his dream - it coincides with the county's plan to acquire his land for the county facilities renovation project.

If voters approve the two ballot measures to fund the new jail and courthouse on the current site at Highway 87 and Main Street, the county would need to acquire land to the west, up to the Main Street Grille.

Pollock's mini storage sits between the Main Street Grille and Chris Smith Investments. His would be the last property acquired for the project.

"What they're asking the public to do is steal someone's private property, so they can save some money," Pollock said.

"We have future plans for this property. It is an ill-thought, ill-conceived plan. Why don't they put it somewhere where there isn't anything?"

Pollock said he opposes the county's plan to use eminent domain to acquire his land and the land to the east of his property, including the land Chris Smith Investments and Napa Auto Parts occupy.

"For eminent domain to work (the county) has to prove two things - that the project is essential and that where they want to build it, there is no other place to build it," he said. "They can't prove that. It's unthinkable." Gila County Supervisor Tommie Martin said besides Pollock, the other property owners are willing to relocate for the project.

"It's not about putting people out of business," she said. "It's about relocating them."

Pollock said he and his family plan to fight the county on the issue of eminent domain.

"We plan to vigorously challenge this thing," he said.

"If they pay me to leave, it's going to cost more than the whole budget they have for all of the properties," he said.

Martin said if the county is forced to resort to eminent domain proceedings and incurs that extra expense, the cost of the project would still be lower than other sites.

"It's still cheaper than buying another location and putting in the infrastructure and the 36,000 square feet that we're already in," she said.

Pollock said another issue he has with the plan is the lack of space for future expansion.

"(The county) is landlocked once they get this project done," he said. "Why can't they find a place where they're not landlocked?"

Despite the potential conflict with his property, Pollock said he supports the need for new facilities.

"I have nothing against the project," he said. "They just should've been planning all along. The objection is the county's bad manners, not the project."

Other objections from Citizens for Fair Taxation include:

The method of funding, or requiring taxpayers to foot the bill, rather than the county re-examining its budget.
The location on Main Street and the Beeline Highway.
Fair Taxation Chair Leon Keddington said the proposed location in Payson could be better used for commercial businesses or shops.

Payson AZ Roundup: http://www.paysonroundup.com

Imminent Eminent Domain Rip-Off Threatens California's Environment: California Progress Report, 11/2/07

2007-12-26T11:05:00.000-05:00

By Gary A. Patton
Last year, Californians successfully fought off a statewide ballot initiative that used the rhetoric of eminent domain abuse to attempt to undermine a swath of laws protecting our health and environment. Well get ready; it looks like we'll have to fight even harder this year.

Wealthy owners of apartments and mobile home parks are currently collecting signatures to place another initiative on California's June 2008 ballot that they'd like you to believe is about eminent domain. And once again, they're hiding their anti-environment agenda. Tucked into the text of the initiative are provisions that would effectively prohibit laws and regulations that are intended to protect our air, land, water, and coasts from pollution, as well as laws that regulate development and prevent sprawl.

As if this weren't bad enough, the landlords are also using the populist issue of eminent domain reform in an attempt to wipe out rent control laws in California, hurting seniors, single mothers, veterans, and other working families who would lose the only housing they can afford.

A broad-based coalition of environmentalists, local governments, seniors, business, and labor has formed to defeat this measure – with PCL [the Planning and Conservation League] stepping up as an early coalition endorser and supporter. This coalition is promoting a strong, honest eminent domain reform proposal, which would prevent the government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a developer.

The California Homeowner Protection Act doesn't have the hidden agendas or negative consequences of the landlords' scheme. But here's the problem: In order to qualify this measure for the June 2008 ballot, the sponsors need 1.1 million signatures by November 20. Currently they are about halfway to that goal. And while the landlords have money to spare for their signature gathering efforts, the California Homeowner Protection Act supporters are relying on volunteers to help get it over the finish line. That's where you, our faithful readers come in.

Please click here to sign the petition! An official petition that your family, friends, and co-workers can all sign will be mailed to you. Just be sure to mail it back by November 20.

Qualifying this honest eminent domain reform measure for the June 2008 ballot is absolutely critical if we are to defeat the landlords' Hidden Agendas scheme and its devastating impacts on our environment.

For more information, please visit www.EminentDomainReform.com.

Planning and Conservation League: http://www.pcl.org

Gary Patton is the Executive Director of the Planning and Conservation League, a statewide, nonprofit lobbying organization.

Airport looks to eminent domain to acquire property: Meadville PA Tribune, 11/2/07

2007-12-26T11:01:00.000-05:00

By Jane Smith
Before the Crawford County [PA] Regional Airport Authority can remove obstructions at Port Meadville Airport, it needs a permanent easement from a property owner to take some of her land.

The authority filed an “eminent domain declaration of taking” in Crawford County Prothonotary’s Office Thursday, seeking the easement that will eventually allow pilots to have a clearer view of the runway when landing.

It plans to take over ownership of 6.6 acres of the approximate 29.25 acres owned by Marian Galbo along Cutter Road. The easement will allow removal of obstructions and provide air easements for navigational purposes.

In the petition for the easement, the authority noted it was not able to reach an agreement regarding just compensation for the land with the property owner.

“We offered the property owner $2,500 and we believe it is a fair price,” said Roy Brant, authority member. He said the airport authority is held accountable by the Federal Aviation Administration. One condition when the authority accepted the airport was the removal of trees that were obstructing the views of planes coming in from the west, said Brant.

He said there are restrictions on the height of the trees by the FAA and the trees on the land are higher than permitted. The offer made for the property was based on what the Bureau of Aviation was willing to approve, Brant said.

The property owner is exercising her right, and now the decision about how much she should receive will be up to the court, Brant said.

Galbo said Thursday she has “no comment,” and she referred questions to her attorney, Diane Adsit, who also declined comment.

Meadville PA Tribune: http://www.meadvilletribune.com

Council To Invoke Eminent Domain On K Street: CBSTV-13, Sacramento CA, 12/18/07

2007-12-26T10:49:00.000-05:00

Sacramento city leaders have decided to invoke the use of eminent domain to speed redevelopment on the 700 block of K Street.

The Sacramento City Council unanimously voted to start the process of forcing owner Moe Mohanna to sell his properties. Mohanna has vowed to fight any measures to force him to sell his property.

"I don't want the government to have the right to take my properties and give it to someone else for their private use," says Mohanna. "I'm going to fight it. I will be there at the door, with the chain, waiting for the police to come and arrest me."

CBS13 correspondent R.E. Graswich has reported that the city is already talking with a Los Angeles developer to build on the property. Graswich says that the developer would receive about $24 million in redevelopment funds from the city for the project.

CBSTV-13, Sacramento CA: http://cbs13.com

Residents In Historic Areas Bothered By Blighted Designation: WTVF-TV5, Nashville TN, 10/30/07

2007-12-26T10:45:00.000-05:00

Some Clarksville [TN] residents fear they will lose their homes.

The Clarksville City Council recently passed a redevelopment ordinance that lists six communities as blighted areas.

Don and Patsy Sharpe live in one of those areas.

The Sharpes fear the language in the ordinance gives the city the power to do what it wants with their historic home.

"By moving them into blighted that gives the subject powers of eminent domain," Don Sharpe said. "Private property can be taken from individual owners and transferred to the hands of private developers."

The communities are located in downtown.

City leaders said the term "blight" is required language in order for the city to receive special grant funding.

Frank Lott worked on the ordinance four years ago. The words "blight" and "eminent domain" can be found throughout the ordinance. The language is needed for future funding.

"There can't be any action that takes place without the property owners, essentially their consent and their willingness to say, 'I'm going to sell my property,'" Lott said.

Homeowner Lynnee Jellison agrees the language in the ordinance can be confusing but she doesn't believe the city wants to seize her property.

"No, no not at all because I own my home," she said. "No one is going to take my home and the city isn't interested in redevloping houses that are in good shape."

The Sharpes' home is also in good condition. If their home stays, they wonder what would happen to those that are made to go.

Individuals who drafted the ordinance said eminent domain exists regardless of the ordinance. City government has the power to deal with abandoned properties or those designated as "blight."

But the ordinance wasn't designed to buy homes.

Residents and city leaders attended a community meeting Tuesday night at the L&N Station. It was organized to help clear up confusion over the language in the ordinance.

WTVF-TV5, Nashville TN: http://www.newschannel5.com

Neptune's Shark River project dropped: Asbury Park NJ Press, 10/29/07

2007-12-26T10:36:00.000-05:00

Township shuns use of eminent domain
By Bill Bowman
A combination of recalcitrant property owners, a slowing economy and the [Neptune NJ] township's refusal to use its eminent domain powers has forced the unofficial redeveloper of the Shark River North Channel area to drop its interest in the project.

Billed as turning the area along South Concourse and New York Road into a "waterfront gateway," the project's plans include building 145 condominiums, restaurants, shops and a public promenade.

But difficulty in getting some property owners to agree to sell their land - exacerbated by the Township Committee's refusal to use eminent domain to acquire properties - forced Paramount Homes to walk away from the project, company president Jeffrey Fernbach said.

"Without eminent domain, it's never going to happen," Fernbach said of the project. He said property owners will not negotiate if they know their properties are not subject to be taken by the township.

Fernbach said he hoped that his company could still do the project.

"We spent a lot of time, money and energy on it," he said. "We hope that something changes."

Fernbach told Michael Bascom, the township's chief financial officer, about his decision on Monday, Bascom said.

Bascom confirmed that Paramount asked the township to consider using eminent domain to acquire several properties - including a vacant lot that was targeted for an access point to the promenade - but the township refused.

He said Paramount's decision did not kill the project.

"We don't consider the project over," Bascom said. He said that other developers have shown interest in it.

First, however, the township will meet with the property owners to "discuss other potential developers," Bascom said.

He said that the township has already had an informal meeting with one developer who had stopped by the municipal building on another matter.

Committeeman Thomas Catley, who was mayor at the time the Shark River channel area was declared an area in need of redevelopment, blasted the Democratic administration for the breakdown.

"This is a major failure of leadership for the current majority and calls into question their stewardship of the entire revitalization process in Neptune," he said. "What this means is Neptune will miss out on much needed improvements to the appearance and economic viability of our Shark River waterfront, and the Neptune taxpayer will not reap the benefits of the tax relief that was to be a by-product of this development."

The project is also threatened by a lawsuit filed by the owner of Midway Ice and Fuel on Route 35 challenging the redevelopment area designation. The state Department of Transportation is requiring that Midway's building be removed from the median before it will approve the necessary realignment of the highway.

Asbury Park NJ Press: http://www.app.com

Dacono abstains from eminent domain: Longmont CO Times-Call, 10/25/07

2007-12-26T10:32:00.000-05:00

By Kacia Munshaw
The Dacono City Council will not use eminent domain to seize 2 acres of land that is part of Clem Dufour Park, saying it doesn’t want to spend more taxpayer money on the issue.

Ron Warner purchased the property from Union Pacific in February for $6,400 after he discovered the city didn’t own it. The property cuts through the park, its ballfields and the parking lot of the BMX track.

The city originally offered to buy the land from Warner at an appraised value of $47,000. Warner declined, saying the offer was too low, considering he has $93,000 invested in the property.

“The biggest issue for council is that we don’t want to pay for another appraisal and we don’t want to pay his price,” town administrator Karen Cumbo said Wednesday. “No one else is going to buy this land.”

She said the city would rather not pay Warner anything and see what happens. The city has already found two locations for a new ballfield, which could cost between $60,000 and $100,000 to build, Cumbo said.

Through eminent domain, the city has the right to seize the land after a second appraisal of the property paid for by the city. The final price of the sale would be determined in a court hearing.

“In my opinion, there is only one buyer for this property, and that buyer is the city of Dacono,” Mayor Wade Carlson said during the council hearing Monday, when the council voted 3-2 vote to not use eminent domain.

Council members Kay Cole, Sandra Tucker and Michelle Burns voted against the motion to exercise eminent domain. Charles Sigman and Tom McCune voted in favor.

The council members in favor of eminent domain said the issue is a serious problem that needs to be rectified.

“Sooner or later, we are going to have to pay for this appraisal,” Sigman said. “I would rather take care of it sooner rather than later.”

However, his opinion was in the minority.

“We shouldn’t be spending the city’s money on this right now,” Burns said. “(Warner) bought it under speculation, and he should sit on it. We have other things to worry about than playing games with Mr. Warner.”

The council did not say if or when it will revisit the issue.

“We are all really in agreement that we should own the land,” Carlson said. “The only disagreement is how to proceed.”

Contacted Tuesday, Warner said he had no comment on the council’s decision. He also didn’t return a call Wednesday.

Longmont CO Times-Call: http://www.timescall.com

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

2007-12-17T08:13:00.000-05:00

Mount Pleasant planned to condemn a 1-acre tract near Shem Creek known as the OK Tire property
By Prentiss Findlay
[The Mt Pleasant SC] Town Council voted Wednesday to spend $6 million to acquire 43 acres of Shem Creek property, thus settling its condemnation lawsuit against the owners of about an acre of the land known as the OK Tire property.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-12-17T08:02:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-12-17T07:55:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That sum might be difficult for the university to muster.

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

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

2007-12-17T07:48:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Superintendent Alan Genovese concurred with the board's vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-12-17T07:42:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-12-17T07:35:00.000-05:00

Eminent domain foe in Long Branch
By Carol Gorga Williams
A key member of a citizens' group lobbying to stay in their ocean-view homes here is dangling an olive branch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Asbury Park NJ Press: www.app.com

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

2007-12-16T16:34:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

Conditions under which the new law applies are:

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

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

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

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

2007-12-16T16:26:00.000-05:00

Seaside petition precedes City Hall vote
By Andre Briscoe
Nearly a dozen protesters met early Saturday in Seaside to gather signatures on a petition expressing opposition to the extension of the use of eminent domain in that city.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2007-12-09T14:56:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-09T14:50:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-09T14:46:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-09T14:36:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-09T14:30:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-09T14:23:00.000-05:00

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

2007-12-09T14:18:00.000-05:00

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

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

2007-11-30T18:50:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-30T18:41:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-30T18:33:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-30T18:28:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-30T18:22:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-30T18:16:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-30T18:10:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-30T18:06:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-30T18:00:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-30T17:55:00.000-05:00

... 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

2007-11-30T17:51:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-30T17:41:00.000-05:00

‘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

2007-11-30T17:36:00.000-05:00

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

Study Points to Continuing Eminent Domain Abuses: Missouri Net, Jefferson City MO, 10/17/07

2007-11-30T17:30:00.000-05:00

By Steve Walsh
More than a year after eminent domain legislation was approved by the General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Matt Blunt (R-MO), eminent domain abuse is still a concern. And, a study by the Show-Me Institute finds the use of eminent domain for private profit has continued unabated in Missouri.

Tim Lee, co-author of the study, says HB 1944, the legislation passed last year, failed to address the financial incentives that spur cities to redevelop ordinary neighborhoods, often by designating the neighborhoods as "blighted." He says these abuses occur, for the most part, in the state's largest metropolitan areas.

The study concludes eminent domain abuse has had a negative impact on local communities, adding the abuses will only worsen until the Legislature passes a constitutional amendment strengthening property rights in Missouri.

Missouri Net, Jefferson City MO: http://www.missourinet.com

Guaranty Building dispute carries on: Buffalo NY Business First, 10/17/07

2007-11-30T17:26:00.000-05:00

DEA leaving Guaranty for new Buffalo home
The good news for Hodgson Russ LLP is that one governmental agency has exited the Guaranty Building. The bad news is a lawsuit against the federal government continues.

Hodgson Russ owns what is one of downtown Buffalo's landmark buildings, having acquired the 13-story structure five years ago. The law firm wants renovate the building and eventually bring all of its operations, spread out among three sites, under one roof. The firm employs some 350 workers.

The General Services Administration, however, has not fully complied. The GSA, responding to litigation launched by Hodgson Russ this past summer, filed eminent domain proceedings shortly thereafter. Gary Schober, president of the law firm, said both sides are trying to resolve the dispute amicably.

"The impact of what they've done won't go away," he said. "The firm is incurring economic damage out of pocket and is causing an interruption of business."

In the meantime, the Internal Revenue Service has all but vacated space it had been occupying on the fourth and fifth floors, having relocated to the Olympic Towers, according to Rep. Brian Higgins, D-Buffalo, who has backed Hodgson Russ in the dispute. Higgins has termed the GSA's position as "bureaucracy at its worst."

Though the IRS has left, Schober said the Drug Enforcement Agency remains and the GSA, invoking the right of eminent domain, has condemned the DEA's space on the second and third floors until July 2008.

A GSA official was not immediately available for comment but Higgins, in a statement, said the process of finding a new office site for the DEA is underway.

Buffalo NY Business First: http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo

In Eminent Domain Appeal, Yards Plaintiffs Face Skeptical Court: Brooklyn NY Downtown Star, 10/18/07

2007-11-30T17:00:00.000-05:00

By Norman Oder
The biggest challenge to the $4 billion Atlantic Yards arena-plus-towers project has always been the federal eminent domain lawsuit organized by Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn. While the plaintiffs - 14 residential and commercial tenants and property owners - may have gained some traction in an appeals court on October 9, they still have a tough road ahead.

In June, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis dismissed the case, ruling the public purposes associated with the project - among them subsidized housing, blight removal, new transit facilities, and a sports facility - trumped any inquiry into whether the project is, as plaintiffs charge, a sweetheart deal.

Garaufis, in fact, did not even address the plaintiffs’ claim that the use of eminent domain for Atlantic Yards differed significantly from previous cases, like the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo v. New London decision, because in Brooklyn case city and state officials publicly backed a developer before calling for any bids or trying to independently determine the outline of the area slated for redevelopment.

More than 60 people, mainly project opponents, listened closely as three judges of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case in a Lower Manhattan courtroom. The judges were skeptical but engaged, letting the argument extend for an hour-well more than the initial time allotted.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff relied on Kelo, which upheld eminent domain because the city “carefully formulated a development plan.” He also cited Justice Anthony Kennedy’s non-binding concurrence, which cited “evidence that respondents reviewed a variety of development plans and chose a private developer from a group of applicants rather than picking out a particular transferee beforehand.”

In court papers and outside the courtroom, Brinckerhoff also pointed to an obvious contemporaneous example: the city’s solicitation of multiple bids for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Hudson Yards site. In the Brooklyn case, the MTA put its 8.5-acre Vanderbilt Yard up for sale 18 months after Atlantic Yards was announced, and the entire 22-acre site was never put up for bid.

Arguing the appeal, Brinckerhoff didn’t get far before he was interrupted by Judge Robert A. Katzmann, who suggested that Atlantic Yards would include “classic cases of direct public use,” cited in Kelo, “that would foreclose much of your argument.”

Brinckerhoff responded that, in this case, the blight determination was made years after the decision to have Forest City Ratner develop this project.

Judge Edward Korman asked if there was “any dispute” that some 62 percent of the project site was blighted, given that land stretching from the north side of Pacific Street is part of the Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area, or ATURA. (It was established in 1968 during very different times, but reaffirmed by the City Council ten times, most recently in 2004.)

Brinckerhoff pointed out that his clients’ properties - on the south side of Pacific Street and the north side of Dean Street in Prospect Heights - are all outside ATURA. “Does that matter?” Katzmann asked. “Does there have to be a lot-by-lot determination?”

Brinckerhoff said no, as long as the sequence was legitimate. In the Supreme Court’s Berman v. Parker case, he pointed out, the circumstances were “radically different,” as a legislative finding that the area was in need of renewal was followed by a request for proposals.

In Brooklyn, however, there was no legislative determination, citing the role of the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), an “unelected body.” The ESDC is a defendant, along with Forest City Ratner, former Governor George Pataki, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and other city officials.

Korman cut him off, asking how this affected the question of public use or public purpose.

“It lessens the deference owed to decision makers,” Brinckerhoff replied. “The sequence gives a powerful inference,” he said, “that the taking was motivated to benefit a specific developer.” Forest City Ratner was the only developer considered, he said, and the after-the-fact blight study concerned only the footprint that Forest City Ratner had identified.

Katzmann asked if there was any specific relationship between the developer and public officials. Brinckerhoff noted that Pataki went to law school with Bruce Ratner, that Ratner was known as a past contributor to Pataki, and there were reports that they were friends. Still, he said, there was no need for evidence of a quid pro quo.

The plaintiffs aim merely to proceed with discovery, to gain pre-trial information through documents, depositions, and interrogatories. Katzmann asked how much discovery the plaintiffs sought.

Brinckerhoff was cautious, as if not wanting to suggest a fishing expedition. “Presumably rather limited,” he said.

Katzmann asked what the plaintiffs want to find out.

“To explain these anomalies” regarding the sequence, Brinckerhoff said.

Korman asked Brinckerhoff what, in the best case scenario, he wished to find.

“There’s every possibility,” Brinckerhoff responded, that there are documents “that make it clear the government was uninterested” in other developers and projects, and that the governor and mayor had relationships with Bruce Ratner that led them to favor him.”

(As for the city’s motive, part of it was answered by Andrew Alper, then president of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, who testified at a May 4, 2004, City Council hearing, “The developer came to us with what we thought was actually a very clever plan. It is not only bringing a sports team back to Brooklyn, but to do it in a way that provided dramatic economic development catalyst in terms of housing, retail, commercial jobs, construction jobs, permanent jobs.

“So, they came to us, we did not come to them,” he continued. “And it is not really up to us then to go out and find to try to a better deal. I think that would discourage developers from coming to us, if every time they came to us we went out and tried to shop their idea to somebody else. So we are actively shopping, but not for another sports arena franchise for Brooklyn.”)

Brinckerhoff told the judges that “the notion that a stadium is a public use is just wrong.” A stadium “is a private, money-making enterprise,” he said, not different from a hotel that offers public access.

Katzmann acknowledged that courts might want to say something “about the wisdom of a policy, but we’re constrained.”

Brinckerhoff reminded him that courts play a role in policing eminent domain when it seems to be motivated to benefit a specific private individual.

“There’s no explanation,” he said, for why an MTA spokesman, shortly after the project was announced, said that the property was going to go to Forest City Ratner, before later issuing an RFP.

“We have this area in Downtown Brooklyn,” Korman said, making the common error of not locating the project in Prospect Heights. “Somebody submits a proposal similar to Ratner. It goes through the hoops...” What if it benefits a private party?

“That in itself is not a problem,” Brinckerhoff responded. “It’s when the private party has driven the process.”

But what about a mixed motive, Korman asked, to benefit the public and the developer?

The previous cases, Brinckerhoff responded, differ significantly in the sequence: “All we’re asking for is that this case can be remanded so the public can know this particular decision was legitimate.”

ESDC attorney Preeta Bansal declared “the analysis of this matter begins and ends with Kelo,” contending that the “multiple public purposes” made it an open and shut case.

What about the after-the-fact blight study to which Brinckerhoff alluded, asked Katzmann.

Bansal focused on the ATURA designation, renewed in 2004. “It’s undisputed that the project would alleviate blight” in 63 percent of the site. “That is enough to basically to end the case,” she said.

Citing the benefits, she noted that it would “create a publicly owned sports arena.”
Publicly owned? asked Katzmann.

“And then leased” to a private entity, Bansal acknowledged. Several people in the crowd snickered, knowing that the lease would be for $1.

She cited the planned Urban Room, “a nice entrance to the subway” and transit improvements “that Brooklyn has been trying to do for decades.”

“What if the process is tainted?” Katzmann asked.

The constitutional analysis, Bansal said, does not depend on the sequence. Bansal then gave a hypothetical worst-case scenario in which a smoking-gun memo or video showed that a public official stated, “I want to do this for Bruce Ratner.”

It would not make a difference, she said, to the dismay of some onlookers. “The fact that there might be illicit motive,” she said, even if it’s the principal motive, if it results in public use, “that’s the end of the inquiry.” She said the issue was whether public officials could have rationally concluded there was some public purpose.

Katzmann tried to drill down to an inflection point. What if an area was 20 percent blighted, or 50 percent, or 80 percent - how much blight would be needed to assume that decision-makers acted rationally?

There’s no clear line of demarcation, Bansal said, suggesting the court’s inquiry would be “fact-specific. But we’re not close,” given the ATURA finding. “I don’t think this case is anywhere near the line.”

With respect to the sequence, she added, the “New York legislature has made a considered judgment that private enterprise-initiated projects...are to be favored.”

(Actually, when the ESDC, then called the Urban Development Corporation, was established in 1968, the effort to encourage “maximum” private participation in project was hardly focused on developments like Atlantic Yards, but instead intended to get the private sector to finally invest in low- and middle-income subsidized housing.)

Few developers can do these kinds of projects, she added, not mentioning the Hudson Yards example. “The fact that a private developer came to the city is of no constitutional moment.”

“Your adversary,” Katzmann said, “suggested that other developers could have done it for less money, and were not considered.”

That, Bansal declared, was not a federal issue. “Perhaps they have a claim under state law.”

Given brief time for rebuttal, Brinckerhoff, responding to Bansal’s hypothetical about how the presence of some public use trumps private benefit, asserted, “There’s no question that Kelo prohibits that fact pattern.”

Korman, trying to characterize Brinckerhoff’s argument, said, “you conclude we should reverse so the public will know the manner in which this project was developed.”

He added, “Is this lawsuit a pretext?”

Brinckerhoff said it was so “my clients can know, when their homes are taken,” that the process is legitimate. (He left out how some simply oppose Atlantic Yards.)

Before the day’s proceedings began, Korman announced that he had received an Atlantic Yards mailer “some years ago” and responded in the affirmative, expressing support for the project, but without any eye to any legal case. He said he’d recuse himself upon request.

The plaintiffs made no move to do so - Korman has a distinguished reputation - but as the argument wore on and Korman asked some tough questions, they might have had second thoughts.

It was unclear how long the court will take to rule. Also pending since May is a decision on a lawsuit filed in state court challenging the environmental impact statement for the project.

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

Use eminent domain on mills: South Coast Today, New Bedford MA, 10/17/07

2007-11-30T16:56:00.000-05:00

Letter to the Editor
By John Bullard
It seems to me that we have gotten to a point in New Bedford where certain mill owners feel they can hold the city up for ransom by threatening to demolish historic mills. The City Council bears a large measure of responsibility for this by routinely overturning the Historic District Commission.

Why the City Council takes the side of out-of-town real estate speculators over the interests of New Bedford citizens, present and future, escapes me. But I'm certainly not voting for any councilor who won't stand up for our heritage by protecting the Cliftex and Fairhaven Mills.

The owners of these mills turn down market-based offers to relieve them of the responsibility of property ownership in favor of a hoped-for and undeserved windfall from the city that wants to preserve the buildings. What have they done to deserve a windfall, and why does the City Council aid and abet this hostage-taking?

In his opinion piece, Mr. Giroux says the city should buy the property if it wants to save it. While I strongly disagree with Mr. Giroux's reasoning, I would suggest a variation of his idea. The city should use its power of eminent domain to condemn these properties, which the owners say have outlived their economic life. The New Bedford Redevelopment Authority could then purchase the properties at fair market value as determined by appraisers. Once the city acquired the properties, it could seek developers with more imagination and resources than the current in-over-their-head speculators.

This plan would require the City Council to work with the mayor. That may be too much to ask of the current council, but wouldn't it be nice if the council did something constructive about historic properties for a change?

South Coast Today, New Bedford MA: http://www.southcoasttoday.com

John Bullard is a former mayor of New Bedford

Owner on Mooney fights Caltrans on eminent domain: Visalia CA Times-Delta, 10/17/07

2007-11-30T16:50:00.000-05:00

Visalia man losing land to make room for bus stop
By Gerald Carroll
A Visalia property owner says he stands to lose more than $1 million if Caltrans follows through on the eminent-domain seizure of a strip of his Mooney Boulevard parcel.

Dave McWilliams' 33,000-square-foot property is located in the 3700 block of South Mooney Boulevard, near Costco and Circuit City. On Sept. 11, Tulare County Superior Court Judge Patrick O'Hara ruled that Caltrans could acquire a 4,874-square-foot portion of the property to make room for a bus stop.

The stop, which includes a bus bay, is part of an overall widening project for that portion of Mooney.

Caltrans would take the front 10 feet of a tile store but leave the rest to McWilliams.

"That bus stop will seal off any access to my property from Mooney," McWilliams said Tuesday, "rendering it worthless and impossible to sell."

Because of the parcel's proximity to a major retail center, McWilliams said, he's received "hundreds" of offers to buy that spot over the years.

"The offers have been anywhere from $700,000 to nearly $1 million," he said. "That's what I stand to lose here."

Caltrans offered $87,732 for the strip of property nearest Mooney. But its appraiser placed a value of zero dollars on the building, court documents say.

The building is insured for $224,000 and is "probably worth a lot more than that," the owner said.

The no-value appraisal represents "theft, plain and simple," McWilliams said.

The building now is rented by Rubio's Ceramic Tiles. McWilliams said he stands to lose $45,000 a year in rent.

No one will buy the property without direct access to Mooney, he said.

"It's a lost cause," McWilliams said.

Rubio's will be given a "relocation allowance" of $10,000 or more by Caltrans, Rubio's Manager Oswaldo Angulo said.

The tile shop will relocate to 1324 S. Mooney Blvd. by the end of the week, he said.

Caltrans relocation agent Rita Velazco-Dias visited McWilliams' property Tuesday with Walnut Creek-based appraiser Roland Burchard and other Caltrans officials. McWilliams, who said he was confused by the appraiser's presence, denied the officials access.

"Why bring in an appraiser when Caltrans has already appraised the value of the building as zero and has already seized the land?" McWilliams asked.

The Caltrans representatives called Visalia police. After extensive discussions with the parties involved, Visalia Police Sgt. Corey Sumpter advised McWilliams to seek legal advice.

"No appraisal will take place today," he told Burchard.

No arrests were made.

Caltrans spokeswoman Gloria Sammaniego said the legal process involved in the eminent-domain proceedings has not reached the point of physical eviction.

"The [judge's] ruling does allow us to enter the property at any time and take any actions deemed necessary," Sammaniego said. "We chose the most logical course today under the circumstances."

Sammaniego said Caltrans officials will meet today to decide what their next step will be.

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

Improve 'golden' area with zoning, incentives: Cherry Hill NJ Courier Post, 10/16/07

2007-11-27T18:07:00.000-05:00

Opinion
Cherry Hill officials should continue to avoid using eminent domain as a redevelopment tool at three underused sites.

Cherry Hill's so-called "golden triangle" - an area bounded by Routes 38 and 70, and Cuthbert Boulevard and Haddonfield Road - is certainly a planning nightmare.

Residents live amid the constant buzz of highway traffic and sit close to large office buildings and businesses. Soon, they'll have a county probation office as a neighbor.

One practically brand new shopping center, the Garden State Pavilions, is dying because a newer, fancier shopping center is springing up at the old racetrack next door. There's no road connecting the two shopping centers, although there is supposed to be.

And, occupying some of the most beautiful views of the Cooper River are a National Guard armory and a trailer park.

However, despite the haywire planning of years past that led to this eclectic mix of uses crammed into a small, traffic-choked area, we would urge Cherry Hill officials to continue to keep their finger off the trigger when it comes to using the power of eminent domain.

Three sites within the golden triangle - a stone business on Route 70 west, a car lot on Cuthbert Boulevard and a strip of stores next to the Wal-Mart on Route 38 - are designated redevelopment zones, where it would be particularly easy for the township to take the property from its owners and hand it over to a private developer.

David Benedetti, Cherry Hill's director of community development, says the mayor is not eager to use eminent domain, however, and that it should only be an absolute last resort. That's the right way to proceed. The township should work with the owners of these sites and others to find buyers who want to improve the sites. The township should also make it easy to change the zoning so redevelopers are more interested in the sites.

But neither Cherry Hill, nor any other municipality, should be in the business of forcibly grabbing one person's or company's property to give it to another. Eminent domain is a government power that should be rarely used and, when it is, there should be extremely clear public need, such as when land is needed for a new road or school.

We hope these underutilized sites are eventually redeveloped, along with other parts of the golden triangle that are being misused.

Certainly, Cherry Hill residents would benefit by seeing better stores or more jobs come to the township at these sites. The way to do it properly is to have smart planning and zoning, incentives for redevelopers to buy the properties themselves from current owners and a committment to not using eminent domain to grab land from one private owner and give it to another.

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

Brooklyn Residents Chant 'Save Our Neighborhood, Yo': The Village Voice, New York NY, 10/15/07

2007-11-27T18:03:00.000-05:00

By Neil deMause
A massive throng — well, let's say a spirited assemblage — of about 100 residents of Fort Greene and surrounding neighborhoods marched through downtown Brooklyn on Saturday, protesting what they say is the demolition of a traditional African-American shopping district to make way for high-priced condos. The marchers, organized by the Brooklyn-based Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (FUREE), chanted "Hell no, we won't go!" as they followed behind East New York's Approaching Storm marching band, which set off innumerable car alarms along Myrtle Avenue and Willoughby Street with its raucous beats.

The downtown that the marchers traversed has already seen significant changes since the Voice profiled the area in May. Many of the stores on the block of Willoughby between Duffield and Bridge Streets that was targeted by developer Al Laboz for his "Willoughby West" condo tower are now closed; Jack Fuzailov, who was pictured here fending off the forces of gentrification with an electric razor, has found a new space for his barber shop two blocks west.

The Albee Square Mall, meanwhile — the space made famous by Biz Markie and flipped by would-be Coney Island redeveloper Joe Sitt this spring for a 400% profit — is entirely depopulated, its stores empty, the doors of anchor tenant Forever 21 covered in plywood. In the now-desolate plaza outside, the Approaching Storm took a breather while Joy Chatel addressed the crowd through a bullhorn. Chatel, whose row house at 227 Duffield Street has been targeted by the city for demolition despite indications that it was a stop on the underground railroad, complained that the Bloomberg administration wants to have it both ways: "They renamed my block Abolitionist Place, but they're taking the descendents of Frederick Douglass out of their homes. How much evidence do they want, black people in the basement?"

Chatel and her supporters at least had one victory to cheer: Last week, the city abruptly withdrew its eminent-domain claim against Chatel and several other building owners, saying it had neglected to include the results of a blight study in its official filing. (By law, eminent domain can only be used to seize "blighted" properties — though in the famous words of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, "We don't mean 'blight' in the real sense of the word 'blight.'")

While happy enough for the breather, Candace Carponter, the attorney who had filed a lawsuit against the eminent-domain takings in part because of an inadequate blight study, notes that the city will be starting the process anew with a public hearing on October 29. "They've set themselves back probably 120 days," she tells the Voice.

Trombones or no, the mood on Saturday was very much one of folks shouting into a hurricane; behind speakers' heads rose the skeletons of apartment towers already going up on nearby Livingston Street. If downtown Brooklyn as we know it disappears, though, it won't be for lack of, um, fury.

"We're just going to let people take something from us," thundered Chatel outside the shuttered mall. "Harriet Tubman would shoot you in the back for that."

The Village Voice, New York NY: http://www.villagevoice.com

UA Goes to Court to Take Block of Land: Akron OH Beacon-Journal, 11/3/07

2007-11-27T17:29:00.000-05:00

Business owners say they don't want to go, plus offers are too low
By Carol Biliczky
The University of Akron has filed lawsuits in Summit County Probate Court to take more than a dozen pieces of property by eminent domain.

The actions target homes and businesses in a block bounded by East Exchange, Nash, Spicer and Brown streets i land that is needed to make way for a $55 million stadium east of campus and west of state Route 8.

Two of the holdouts say that the university isn't offering enough money and that they want to stay on this part of East Exchange, sometimes called the Zip Strip. ''We want to be compensated for our loss of business,'' said Joseph Nemer Jr., who owns a bar, warehouse and other businesses in the area. ''We want to find a nice spot. We want respect.''

The university also filed against Manny Nemer, who owns Aroma Coffee and Tea and Manny's Pub, just up the street at 445 and 451 E. Exchange. Manny Nemer rents part of 445 E. Exchange to Chopstix restaurant.

Manny Nemer said he did not want to relocate, but would do so if the university found him a location across the street. He said he wants to stay in the same area. The Nemers' properties run from 357 to 469 E. Exchange, which includes the Sun Bar and Grille, and 354 Nash St., Joseph Nemer Jr. said.

Also sued were the Odd Corner, a store at Exchange and Brown streets owned by Harry Jackson; houses at 444 and 446 Nash St. owned by Tamas Mesterhazy of Silver Lake; and four properties owned by Fred Fanning of Fairlawn at 425 and 431 E. Exchange and 430 and 424 Nash.

The university has come to agreements with dozens of other property owners, sometimes offering them relocation expenses and compensating them for loss of business.

One of the homes that the university purchased was owned by Jack W. Morrison Jr., son of university Trustee Jack Morrison. After two members of the Ohio Controlling Board questioned the $110,000 purchase this week, the university and the elder Morrison asked the Ohio Ethics Commission to investigate the transaction to ensure it was done in accordance with Ohio law.

Commission Director David Freel said Friday he has asked the university not to take any further action on the property - such as tearing the house down - until the investigation is completed.

He said that the commission could refer the purchase to the county prosecutor and could assist the prosecution if it comes to that, but has no power to directly fine or sanction public officials.

''We will investigate as soon as we can,'' he said.

University officials have said they want to buy all the property for the stadium by the end of the year, break ground for the project in January and complete construction in time for the first home football game in fall 2009.

University Officials May Face Hurdles in Getting Land to Build Proposed Football Stadium

Local business owners don't fear the 'Roo
As University of Akron officials ready plans for a new stadium, they may face hurdles - not the least of which may be a stout Lebanese businessman.

Manuel Nemer, 55, says he will dig in his heels to stop UA from taking his commercial property on East Exchange Street.

He's operated Aroma Coffee and Tea since 1994 and Manny's Pub since 1984, waiting for the day UA would unveil a new stadium near the campus and his businesses could be part of the action.

That time appears to be here. UA trustees are expected to act on a $55 million stadium proposal with 30,000 seats when it meets Aug. 1.

But building a replacement for the antiquated Rubber Bowl will mean buying up lots of parcels on 12 acres of the crowded urban landscape between the east side of campus and state Route 8.

UA already owns 86 parcels. Over the years, it has been quietly buying up land as it was available.

Last month it hired the real-estate services company CB Richard Ellis to negotiate the last 29 parcels that it needs, UA spokesman Ken Torisky said.

Ted Curtis, UA vice president of capital planning and facilities management, declined to comment about the process.

Most of the structures are turn-of-the-20th-century houses that have been converted to rentals on handkerchief-size lots. But a sprinkling are businesses situated on East Market Street's so-called "Zip Strip" of eateries, bars and stores that serve UA students.

The first step for the university's acquisition effort is an appraisal, to set the value of each of the properties - the amount the university would be allowed to pay by law.

One of the businesses that's been approached is owned by Harry Jackson, and he's none too happy.

He said he will fight to get the most he can for his small Odd Corner store at Exchange and Brown streets, ideally situated directly across from campus. He's been selling T-shirts, adult items and tobacco products for almost 35 years and is determined to stay in the area, be that in the same building or a nearby one.
He said he even offered to leave UA $2 million to $3 million for scholarships in his will if it would let the business remain.

But that proposal has fallen on deaf ears, he said.

"I'm quite willing to fight," Jackson said. "Be sure to let people know I do not intend to close."

As for Manny Nemer, he is keeping his fingers crossed that UA will back off.
"I want to pass this on to my children," he said in the cluttered back office at Aroma Coffee and Tea. "I'd like to leave my name around."

He paints himself as a hard-working immigrant in search of the American Dream. He came here as a teen with $6 in his pocket and has worked hard to put his children through Catholic schools and colleges.

"I had few hours of sleep, few hours to see my kids grow up. No time to join my wife for their school meetings and school activities and no time to even help during the nights of their sickness," he said in written comments prepared by his wife, Colette, on a manila folder.

Money won't buy him off, he said. Where would he rebuild?

He's willing - even eager - to abandon the renovation and expansion plans he has in hand for the coffee shop, pub and part of a building he leases to Chopstix restaurant in favor of one that suits the university. He will build whatever they want, he said expansively.

If UA takes him to court for eminent domain - the governmental right to acquire property for a public purpose - a jury would side with him, he insisted.

"We are optimistic and confident that we can deal with Akron U in a wise and fair way -- hopefully," he said.

UA Seeks State Ethics Probe of Home Sale
Son says trustee didn't advise him what properties school might want, or help him buy house later sold at profit to college
The University of Akron asked the Ohio Ethics Commission on Thursday to investigate UA's purchase of a house owned by a trustee's son.

UA officials say Trustee Jack Morrison didn't help his son acquire the property at 334 Spicer St. and abstained from voting when fellow trustees approved the purchase this year.

''We don't think we did anything wrong, and Jack doesn't think he did anything wrong,'' UA spokesman Paul Herold said. ''We're going to turn this over to the Ohio Ethics Commission just to be sure.''

A court document about another purchase in the university area says the elder Morrison has provided financial help for his son's business of buying properties, but not the Spicer Street home.

The university bought the 108-year-old home this year for $110,000, 40 percent more than Jack W. Morrison Jr., the son, had paid for it the previous year.

It is one of many the university plans to acquire either through a direct purchase or eminent domain to make way for a new stadium east of campus and west of state Route 8.

For almost two years, the younger Morrison, a 28-year-old attorney, or his company, Braymor Development, has accumulated 18 properties around the university valued at almost $900,000, according to Summit County records. His other properties are on Beltz Court and Allyn, Kling, Brown, Power, Rankin and Sumner streets. Those properties have not been sold to the university.

In a deposition he gave in January in a breach-of-contract lawsuit he had filed over an attempt to buy a house at 444 Kling St., he quoted another investor as calling the area ''beachfront property.''

''They want to expand the practice fields to Power Street, and this house is right on the practice fields,'' the younger Morrison said. ''That's why I was interested initially.''

On Thursday, the younger Morrison said he buys houses cheaply, fixes them up and rents them to students.

He said it was a coincidence that he bought 334 Spicer St. and it later was acquired by the university. He said his father did not advise him what properties might be of interest to the university.

Morrison, with his father as his lawyer, lost the lawsuit over the 444 Kling St. property and has appealed the case to the 9th District Court of Appeals.

In the deposition, he said his father provided financing for some of his projects. ''When I first started, I needed some money to put down on the first house,'' he said.

He cited homes at 355 Rankin, 331 Cross and 365 Rankin as ones his father helped finance.

In an interview with the Beacon Journal on Thursday, the senior Morrison said he loaned his son money from time to time, and he did not know how it was used.

''I don't know how he finances his properties,'' said senior Morrison, who is president of Amer Cunningham, the Akron law firm where the son is an associate. ''If he recalls I loaned him money, I wouldn't dispute that.''

He said he has nothing to do with his son's businesses.

In the deposition, the younger Morrison said he first visited the 444 Kling St. property with his father. In various projects, he said, he has ''had some help with doing some repairs with my father here and there.''

He also said in the January deposition that, for the Spicer street home, he invested $10,000 to $15,000 in improvements. That is significantly less than was reported in two appraisals conducted in the spring.

Appraiser Howard Myers said in his report that Morrison Jr. told him he invested $28,000 in improvements, excluding his labor.

The younger Morrison had hired Myers to do the appraisal, which became one of two that the university used in setting its purchase price.

UA spokesman Herold said the university accepts appraisals from property owners as long as it also obtains one on its own. In this case, the second appraisal was conducted by John W. Emig, who put the value of Morrison's improvements at $34,000.
Morrison's house was among 14 UA purchases approved Monday in a 5-2 vote by the Ohio Controlling Board, with one member questioning the property's steep appreciation in a declining market. The board has final oversight on capital acquisitions by state agencies and institutions.

Stadium Plan Approved
UA football facility to cost $55 million, seat 30,000
University of Akron officials said "Wow" a lot Wednesday as they plunged ahead with plans for a $55 million stadium, the linchpin of the second phase of their campus redesign.

The 30,000-seat stadium will be named for InfoCision and the field for Summa Health System, the two largest donors to the athletic project to date.

"This will be football the way it was meant to be," UA President Luis Proenza said. The construction of the stadium was one of two major items approved by trustees on Wednesday.

They also took early steps to find financing for more projects to come - a residence hall for 450 to 500 students next door to the stadium and a parking deck with 1,100 to 1,500 spaces somewhere on campus.

All the projects are part of UA's continuing Landscape for Learning, which has invested $350 million over the last decade to beautify and modernize the downtown campus.

The long-sought stadium will return football to the campus, and the university made the most of the announcement. At a balloon-festooned reception, officials gave out T-shirts emblazoned with "Roo Town," a play on the schools' mascot, Zippy the kangaroo.
Cheerleaders, a band and Zippy were on hand, as were colored render Please seeings depicting the look of the red brick, stone and glass stadium.

A stream of UA officials praised the proposed facility. Athletic Director Mack Rhoades said the goal is to "build the nicest stadium in the country."

The project will be funded through a $30 million campaign that launched Wednesday with almost $21 million collected or pledged to date, plus perhaps $25 million in general revenue bonds.

UA students will not be charged for the stadium unless they hold a referendum and vote to contribute to the project through special fees. Each student already pays $222.60 a semester to retire bonds and operate the Student Recreation and Wellness Center and Student Center.

The stadium will offer something for everyone, including a variety of seating options - from private boxes and loges to end-zone grass berm - office space and 45,000 square feet on two levels for classrooms.

The facility with artificial turf could be used for community events - everything from marching band activities to summer athletic camps to concerts. The club level of the press box, which seats 486, will be available to the public for meetings, receptions and more. Pricing has yet to be worked out.

UA officials say the stadium is critical to recruiting and retaining students, including student-athletes.

Ted Curtis, UA vice president of capital planning and facilities management, said the facility will bring something new to campus - the opportunity for students and alumni to hold tailgate parties, building camaraderie and team spirit.
Students gave that a big thumbs up.

"It's gorgeous, a striking design," said Adam Ferrise, a communications major from Cuyahoga Falls. "If that's the way it's really going to look, wow."

Ryan Bahill, a nutrition major from Akron, said the stadium would attract many more students to games - including her - because it would be much more conveniently located.

"I think it's a good way to get students involved more on campus and to get them to unite," said Teresa McQuaide, an English major from Warren.

At this stage, the project does not include its own parking deck, but Curtis said that won't be a problem.

About 10,000 campus parking spaces will be within walking distance of the stadium and 7,500 more are in downtown Akron, a short shuttle-bus ride away. As each vehicle typically carries three people, that should be more than enough for even a filled-to-capacity stadium, he said.

With construction to begin in October, the university is continuing to buy up residential and business property on the stadium's 12-acre footprint east of Lee Jackson Field and north of East Exchange Street. UA officials have said they will go to court to invoke eminent domain if they need to.

And the new stadium project does not include retail shops or restaurants, as was once envisioned. Proenza, the UA president, said it was deemed more cost effective to use the space for classrooms.

Over the next two years, the university also will continue to spend at least $375,000 a year to maintain the 66-year-old Rubber Bowl, which the university bought from the city of Akron for $1 in 1971.

Proenza said no decision has been made yet on the Rubber Bowl, but it will almost certainly be sold.

UA officials also refused to disclose the size of the gifts from Summa and from Gary and Karen Taylor, owners of InfoCision, citing their requests for privacy.

The Taylors also asked that the stadium be named for their company and not for them.
Later Wednesday, Gary Taylor said the gift included "multiple millions" spread over 20 years. UA named the Taylor Institute for Direct Marketing for him when he initially gave $1.5 million. He later gave another $2.1 million.

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

City could start eminent domain for K Street properties: Sacramento CA Business Journal, 11/26/07

2007-11-27T17:25:00.000-05:00

Michael Shaw
The city of Sacramento on Monday said it may initiate eminent domain proceedings as a way to acquire nine K Street properties owned by downtown landlord Mohammed "Moe" Mohanna.

Those addresses - located in the most blighted areas of K Street, the 700 and 800 blocks - have been the center of a dispute between Mohanna, the city and another developer.

The city sent Mohanna a letter stating that the council will consider a resolution Dec. 11 that would authorize the city's redevelopment agency to start eminent domain proceedings.

For the past few months, Mohanna and Mayor Heather Fargo have held discussions on resolving that dispute, but those talks have not produced any results. In addition to exploring eminent domain, the city will ask the Sacramento Superior Court to terminate an agreement with Mohanna or force him to abide by the agreement's terms.

Sacramento CA Business Journal: http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento

City Panel Approves Columbia’s Plan for Expansion in Harlem: New York NY Times, 11/27/07

2007-11-27T17:19:00.000-05:00

By Charles V Bagli
After a tumultuous and bitter meeting replete with heckling, the New York City Planning Commission voted yesterday to approve Columbia University’s much-debated plan for a 17-acre campus expansion in Harlem. The plan now goes to the City Council, which is expected to modify it before giving final approval.

The commission’s decision was an important step in the often-difficult process known as the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or Ulurp.

Of the 12 commission members present for a special public meeting, 10 voted in favor of the university’s expansion. One member, Karen A. Phillips, who represents the city’s public advocate and has been influential in Harlem as a former president of the Abyssinian Development Corporation, voted no. Another, Irwin G. Cantor, who represents the Queens borough president, abstained, citing provisions in the plan that would allow the university to press the government to use eminent domain to acquire land for the expansion.

Adding a wrinkle to the project, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a similar redevelopment proposal, a community-initiated rezoning plan known as a Section 197a document, which had been put forward by Community Board 9.

The differences between the Section 197a document and the Columbia University plan will have to be resolved, but Amanda M. Burden, the chairwoman of the Planning Commission, said in a statement that she did not think those differences were great.

Members of Community Board 9, local property owners, some community groups and residents of the affected neighborhood oppose the university’s proposal. They say small businesses and tenants would be displaced by a project that would create a private enclave.

“It’s wrong to take private property and hand it over to another private owner,” said Ann Whitman, whose property would be condemned by the state under the expansion plan. “We’re in the fight for our lives. My neighbors, black, white and Latino, are standing up for right against wrong.”

People on both sides of the issue expect further demonstrations and, possibly, lawsuits.

“We’ll stand in front of those bulldozers,” said Tom DeMott, a leader of the opposition Coalition to Preserve Community. “This battle is not over by a long shot.”

The City Council is expected to hold a hearing on the project next month and to vote on it in January.

Many people who crammed into the commission’s meeting room in Lower Manhattan booed and hissed throughout the proceeding. Critics have said that the scale, density and design of the project would overwhelm the neighborhood in Harlem, an area that has been subject to rapid gentrification and rising real estate values.

The commission did make some modifications to Columbia’s proposal before approving the planned expansion, between 125th and 133rd Streets, and from Broadway west to the river. Two research buildings planned for Broadway were eliminated and replaced with university housing. In addition, the height of the proposed buildings on the west side of Broadway, at the north end of the site, were cut to 180 feet from 260 feet. On the east side of Broadway, they were cut to 120 feet from 240 feet.

Columbia completed a draft environmental impact statement for the project in June, but the criticism had begun much earlier. The university intends to build academic and residential buildings, including space for its arts and business schools and research labs.

Columbia has defended the plan as necessary and promised not to seek the use of eminent domain to make people leave their homes. (The university has left open the possibility of asking the state to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property.)

But Columbia’s assurances have not had the intended effect. The expansion plan was sharply criticized at a public hearing last month and was one focus of a student hunger strike earlier this month. As part of the real estate boom, colleges and universities have been erecting new buildings around the city, straining town-gown relations.

New York NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com

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

2007-11-27T17:11:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-27T17:08:00.000-05:00

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

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

2007-11-26T18:52:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-26T18:46:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-26T18:40:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-26T18:34:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-26T18:24:00.000-05:00

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

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

2007-11-24T21:09:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-24T20:55:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-24T20:47:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-24T20:41:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-24T20:35:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-24T20:31:00.000-05:00

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

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

2007-11-23T18:15:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-23T17:21:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-23T17:14:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-23T17:09:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-23T17:04:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-23T17:00:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-23T16:54:00.000-05:00

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

City poised to go ahead with water plant: Indianapolis IN Star, 9/29/07

2007-11-23T16:48:00.000-05:00

Site to be atop mining operation; land's price unclear as 2nd legal fight goes on
By Francesca Jarosz
The city cleared the way this week to build a water treatment facility on land owned by materials supplier Martin Marietta.

After a yearlong legal battle over the property on the southeast corner of 106th Street and Gray Road, city and company officials agreed to let Carmel build the facility, while the sand and gravel mining operation continues underneath.

In September 2006, Carmel's Board of Public Works and Safety made an offer to Martin Marietta to buy 30 acres to build a treatment facility that would help serve the Carmel-Clay area.

But a Martin Marietta spokesman said the firm didn't want to give up the land or the mine operation underneath it.

Last October, when a deal hadn't been struck, Carmel sued to acquire the land by eminent domain, which lets municipalities condemn land for a public use.

This week, the parties approved a partial agreement. The price of the property remains unsettled, though. The city's initial offer was $960,000 for the 30 acres. Its current offer for 20 acres is $640,000.

If there is no price agreement in eminent domain cases, three independent appraisers are hired to estimate the value of the property. The average of those appraisals is the final price.

While what the city ultimately pays could be determined in court, it is moving ahead with plans for the facility.

As a next step, the city will inspect the property before advancing with plans for the facility.

"It's an ongoing process," said John Duffy, Carmel's utilities director. "This is one step in the process."

Pending inspections, Duffy said the treatment facility, which would cost an estimated $25 million, would be under way in about two years.

Duffy said the purpose of the eminent domain lawsuit was to set a timetable for acquiring the property.

The site, he said, was ideal for the treatment plant because of its proximity to a groundwater source and easy access to utilities.

But Wayne Phears, a spokesman for Martin Marietta, said the company never wanted to sell the property.

One of its major concerns, Phears said, was letting the city inspect the property while the company is engaged in another legal battle against the city's regulations of its mining operation.

"They said, 'We want to buy your property, but we need to go into your mine to see if it's suitable,' " Phears said. "It's like having your opponent come in and get all your information."

The company has pending litigation against the city in U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana and Hamilton Superior Court related to the city's denial of the company's request to expand its mining.

The lawsuits filed by Martin Marietta claim the denial by the city's zoning board was illegal and accuse Mayor Jim Brainard of playing politics to stop the company from expanding.

As part of this week's deal, both parties agreed that neither would use information they obtained for other purposes.

Indianapolis IN Star: http://www.indystar.com

St. Louis Attacking Free Speech, Property Rights: North Country Gazette, Chestertown NY, 11/16/07

2007-11-18T15:39:00.000-05:00

In a double blow to free speech and property rights, the city of St. Louis is not only threatening to take an entire neighborhood for private development — it wants to censor a powerful and highly visible mural protesting the city’s eminent domain abuse and building support for reform.

The Institute for Justice [IJ] filed papers in federal court this week defending the First Amendment right to protest government abuse on behalf of Jim Roos, whose striking mural—painted on a building threatened by eminent domain abuse and visible from the heavily traveled Interstates 44 and 55 — brought out the government censors. IJ, a public interest law firm that defends First Amendment freedoms and property rights nationwide, also defended homeowners in the infamous Kelo eminent domain case.

Fed up with seeing the affordable housing he owns and manages through Neighborhood Enterprises, Inc., and the non-profit Sanctuary in the Ordinary face condemnation for private development, Jim fought back. He helped found the Missouri Eminent Domain Abuse Coalition and has been an advocate for reform of Missouri’s eminent domain laws.

And he had a large mural painted on his building at 1806-08 S. 13th Street, in the Bohemian Hill neighborhood, target of a redevelopment ordinance authorizing eminent domain to make way for private development. Earlier this year, the city’s Land Clearing for Redevelopment Authority started the process of acquiring property in the neighborhood.

After the mural appeared in March, St. Louis bureaucrats told Jim he must apply for a permit. Then they denied his application. St. Louis insists the mural must be taken down as a violation of local “sign codes.”

“St. Louis’ censorship is a case study in how so-called ‘sign codes’ give local bureaucrats across the country license to stifle speech,” said Bill Maurer, executive director of the IJ Washington Chapter. “When the government has the ability to regulate speech, it also has the power to censor speech it does not like.”

Indeed, one of the two city agencies involved in denying Jim a permit for his mural is the LCRA — the same agency with eminent domain power over Bohemian Hill and the agency whose actions he is protesting.

Sign codes nationwide give overreaching local bureaucrats license to censor speech. Glendale, Ohio, threatened Chris Pagan with fines and jail time for putting a “for sale” sign on his car while it was parked on the street in front of his home. Redmond, Wash., clamped down on bagel shop owner Dennis Ballen because he hired someone to carry a sign pointing customers to his out-of-the way location.

“Jim’s mural is a powerful, unique and low-cost protest to the city of St. Louis’ repeated abuse of eminent domain,” said Nick Dranias, staff attorney at the Institute for Justice Minnesota Chapter. “The city wants to take away the most effective means he has of protesting the city’s own abuse and raising awareness of the need for statewide eminent domain reform.”

“The mural speaks volumes about peoples’ anger over eminent domain abuse,” said Jim Roos. “People are delighted that someone has stood up to the abuse. One supporter said we could chain him to the building, if necessary, to block the city from removing the mural. Another supporter insisted on donating his time and materials to light the mural at night.”

For Jim and other Missourians, the ability to protect their property is directly linked to their freedom to speak. Even before the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London gave the green light to eminent domain for private development, Missouri was one of the worst states for eminent domain abuse. Indeed, this is the third time property Jim owns or manages has faced the wrecking ball for private development. Relatively toothless reform after Kelo has left Missouri property owners without much protection from the courts or the Legislature.

As a result, the best avenue left for property owners to protect what is rightfully theirs is protest: rallying support to convince their local government to stop the abuse. Or they must take the issue of eminent domain abuse directly to the voters, as MEDAC and other reform advocates are doing by gathering signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that will provide real protection for home and small business owners.

Jim’s sign is a call to action for fellow citizens. But St. Louis wants to shut that down, too.

“We are fighting to vindicate the First Amendment right to protest government abuse and to stop petty censorship through sign codes,” concluded Maurer. “If the First Amendment means anything, it must mean that citizens like Jim Roos have the right to effectively protest government abuse and build support for meaningful reform—without having to get government approval.”

Jim and attorney John Randall of University Park, Mo., first challenged the city’s censorship in August in state court, and the case was then moved to federal court. On Nov. 14, IJ filed an amended complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in Neighborhood Enterprises, Inc. v. City of St. Louis. John Randall serves as IJ’s local counsel in the case.

North Country Gazette, Chestertown NY: http://www.northcountrygazette.org

Complex Running Horse Deal Brings Mixed Reactions: KFSN-TV30, Fresno CA, 11/16/07

2007-11-18T15:32:00.000-05:00

By Gene Haagenson
Fresno's mayor believes a new deal with Donald Trump will take the risk out of Running Horse.

Mayor Alan Autry says Trump has agreed to buy most of the land if the city picks up the remaining parcels and sells them to him.

Fresno's mayor and city manger feel this offer by Trump gets the city off the hook financially if the deal falls apart, but not everyone's convinced.

Mayor Alan Autry believes Trump's offer to put options, in effect his own money, on most of the Running Horse property makes it a deal worth doing.

"What we're dealing with now is absolutely the framework for a deal to be made that puts the city at a minimal risk," said Alan Autry.

Trump would put 90 day options to buy on the land held by the lenders who took 436 acres back in a bankruptcy auction.

The city would then have to secure another 50 acres owned by a few individuals and sell it to Trump.

20 of those are held by a Mr. Ho who has so far refused to sell. Trump wants the city to deal with him because the city can force a sale.

"That's why we retain the power of eminent domain, if it gets to the absurd. If somebody's property is worth say $3 million and they want to hold out for $20 million, it's clear the law was written for the greater good of the city," said Alan Autry.

City Council Member Brian Calhoun says he thinks the deal sounds good, except for the possible use of eminent domain.

"We're going to be the poster child for bad use of eminent domain because we'll be on national news. Your national networks will pick it up that Fresno California is using eminent domain to throw somebody off their land to buy Trump a golf course," said Brian Calhoun.

"I kind of resent it because it's silly and it's really denigrating to people who live in southwest Fresno to frame this as giving something to a billionaire developer," said Alan Autry.

Autry says the development would mean jobs and prosperity. Council Member Jerry Duncan thinks it all sounds promising.

"The bulk of risk has now been shifted to the Trump organization which has been my big concern. I was not going to put the taxpayers at risk," said Duncan.

But Council Member Mike Dages feels there are too many unanswered questions.

"You're just putting everything in place to maybe buy something. I don't do maybe transactions," said Mike Dages.

The memorandum of understanding between the city and Trump to make this deal will go before the city council on Tuesday. It needs five votes to pass.

If approved, the city expects to sign a contract with Trump next month and work on the Running Horse development, which will be renamed Trump National Fresno.

KFSN-TV30, Fresno CA: http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn

Roots mean little in path of progress: St Louis MO Post-Dispatch, 11/18/07

2007-11-18T15:22:00.000-05:00

Opinion
By Bill McClellan
Roland Young was born in 1898. His mother died in childbirth. His father remarried, but the new wife and Roland did not bond. So when Roland was 3 years old, he was sent to live with his grandmother in Valley Park.

Mary Duff was born in Valley Park in 1904. Her family had come from Pennsylvania with a promise of a job for her father in the glass factory in Valley Park. The factory got washed away in the flood of 1915, but the family stayed.

Mary and Roland got married. Mary worked in a cotton factory in Valley Park. Roland worked at the Copper Clad Stove Company in Valley Park. All nine of their children were born in their home in Valley Park. Their third child and first son, Roland "Bud" Young Jr., was born 76 years ago. He attended Sacred Heart Grade School in Valley Park and graduated from Valley Park High School in 1948.

So Bud Young has roots in Valley Park.

After high school, he worked for a couple of years, and then joined the Marine Corps. He saw combat in Korea. After he got home from Korea, he married his sweetheart, Marilyn von Gruben. She was from a farm just outside of Valley Park. Young went to St. Louis University and got a degree in history with minors in mathematics and philosophy. He got a job teaching math in Eureka.

In 1969, he learned that an ice cream stand in Valley Park — Brondino's Dairy Mart — was for sale. Young got a loan and bought it. By this time, the Youngs had two sons. The whole family worked at the dairy mart. In 1980, they opened a restaurant across the street from the dairy mart. Young quit teaching and became a businessman.

In 1987, the state decided to expand Highway 141, and those plans required the land on which the dairy mart stood. The state was required to pay for the land. Young thought the state's offer was too low. He took the state to court and lost.

He built a new building three blocks north. He put the restaurant and the dairy mart in the new building. In 2000, the state decided to expand Highway 141 again. The new plans called for the land on which the new building stood. This time, Young took the state's offer. "After that first time, I just kind of backed away," he told me.

He built a new building not far from where the first dairy mart had been, but this time, well off the road. He put his restaurant and dairy mart in the new building. It is near the southwest corner of Vance Road and Highway 141.

Earlier this summer, rumors began circulating that the city was interested in developing that corner. The subject came up at an aldermanic meeting in October. The local Press Journal quoted city attorney Eric Martin at the meeting: "The area right now is a hodgepodge screaming out for investment."

At an aldermanic meeting earlier this month, the aldermen gave preliminary approval to a bill authorizing a Valley Park Redevelopment Corporation. Actually, the aldermen split four to four. Mayor Jeffery Whitteaker cast the deciding vote in favor of the proposal.

"They're going to take my land again," said Young. He put out a sign Thursday. "Eminent Domain for Private Gain Alive and Well in Valley Park."

I visited his restaurant Friday. The corner is a hodgepodge of small businesses. The area includes an exotic bird store, a taxidermist, a shoe repair shop, a car wash, an auto repair shop, a restaurant and lounge, a tattoo shop and a convenience store. And the restaurant and dairy mart. Young told me about his long history with Valley Park.

I went to City Hall. A clerk told me the city attorney was out of town, and the mayor was out of his office. I called later and the clerk said the mayor had suggested I talk with attorney Tom Cunningham, the special redevelopment counsel. I called Cunningham and said I wanted to talk about the eminent domain issue in Valley Park.

"For starters, you're misinformed. There is no issue of eminent domain in Valley Park," Cunningham said. Well, there are people who think there is an issue of eminent domain in Valley Park, I said. "Then they're misinformed. Number one, the redevelopment corporation cannot exercise eminent domain. More importantly, what the city is trying to do through the device of the corporation is provide a clearinghouse for potential development proposals."

Can I write that Young does not face the prospect of eminent domain?

"First of all, there is no particular parcel of land that the redevelopment corporation is focusing on at this time. The city is trying to establish a vehicle for the orderly consideration and processing of redevelopment proposals. More transparency and, if you will, a public interest component in that process."

Can I write that Young does not face the prospect of eminent domain?

"It sounds like you have a preconceived idea, an agenda," said Cunningham. "I'm not going to argue with you. All the redevelopment corporation can do is review and recommend a development proposal to the city."

If it recommends a development proposal, does the developer have the power to use eminent domain?

"That's a lot of ifs, but yes."

So much for roots.

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

Dems oppose city's police station plan; Stewart blasts Wyskiewicz's finances: New Britain CT Herald, 9/28/07

2007-11-18T09:35:00.000-05:00

By Rick Guinness
During Wednesday's [New Britain CT] Common Council meeting, Democratic mayoral challenger James Wyskiewicz voiced his opposition to the city's downtown revitalization strategy, which hinges on downtown housing, and a new downtown police station on the corner of Main and Chestnut streets.

At the meeting, Mayor Timothy Stewart said anyone who would oppose the police station project is opposed to downtown revitalization.

The plan, which was endorsed by the Common Council in May, is to let New York-based Arete Group, a developer and master planner for the city, surround the new police station with retail, residential buldings and an event center - once the city acquires the existing 121-131 Main St. buildings, which now house a check-cashing service and a Subway sandwich store.

"We are trying to recreate what happened in Middletown," Stewart said Thursday in reference to the new police station in downtown Middletown, nestled right in the heart of a host of new restaurants, stores, theaters and other attractions.

Wyskiewiscz had previously voted with the majority of the council to take over the property through eminent domain when the city was willing to pay more than $700,000. But he voted against the council's motion to set a $1.02 million price tag with the court, which is based on fair market value, saying it was too much.

"On top of that," Wyskiewicz said, "the mayor is talking about selling to Arete Group. Arete is supposed to look at all downtown. Why didn't the mayor tell Arete to talk to the owners of 121-131 Main St.?"

Stewart said the answer is simple: "Arete is not a party to the eminent domain proceedings."

He scoffed at Wyskiewicz's accusation and called it just another attack from the Democrats. Then it got personal.

Stewart said the company holding Wyskiewicz's mortgage has filed foreclosure proceedings.

"He wants to run the city and he can't even take care of his own finances," Stewart said. "It's a difficult issue. I don't wish that on anybody. But it is created by the individual. The guy can't pay his bills."

Wyskiewicz would not comment on the court action that had previously been filed against him and his wife by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. in 2005 in New Britain Superior Court.

"It's not an issue," Wyskiewicz said. "We renegotiated it. It was not in foreclosure."

Wyskiewicz was joined by fellow Democratic aldermen Adam Platosz, Paul Catanzaro and Lawrence Hermanowski Wednesday, who have called themselves, fiscally conservative Demcorats.

Hermanowski is on the police building committee, which has studied a number of potential sites for a new police station. He said he thinks instead of the Main Street site that the mayor wants to acquire, the city should put it by the railroad tracks across from NewBrite Plaza.

He said the minutes to the meeting was wrong when it said the council voted unanimously in favor of taking the case to eminent domain.

"I have always opposed eminent domain of the Main Streeet property," he said, adding that instead of taking land through eminent domain, the city should take it for the $60,000 in back taxes that is owed on the property.

"Put a lien on it for back taxes," Hermanowski added. "Why should we end up having to pay for this building?"

Stewart said the building owner owes $57,258.

He said when $200,000 was owed by a previous owner, a bank sold it off to Garden Main Street LLC.

Neverless, "We should not be in the real estate byusiness," Hermanowski said. "Take it and get rid of it."

New Britain CT Herald: http://www.newbritainherald.com