[Ervntewc]

^ But, of course.

What do the poor need houses for anyway?

[sam]

GlobeSt.com UPDATE:

Eminent Domain Bill Sails Through PA House, Heads for Senate

Friday, November 4, 2005
By Marita Thomas


HARRISBURG, PA-House Bill 2054, which provides for limitations on the use of eminent domain throughout the state, won overwhelming approval of the state House of Representatives. It is expected to do the same when the state Senate convenes on Nov. 14.


Submitted in reaction to the now-famous Kelo case Supreme Court decision, this bill “is a little more tempered than some that have been submitted in other legislatures across the country,” David B. Snyder, a partner and eminent domain lawyer in the Philadelphia office of Fox Rothschild, tells GlobeSt.com. For information on eminent domain legislation on the federal level, click here. For previous eminent domain coverage, click here. To read about eminent domain case in New York, click here.


While the bill states, “eminent domain for private business is prohibited,” it sets forth some exceptions which essentially limit the use of eminent domain to abandoned properties or ones that are “blighted” by conditions that make them “unsanitary, unsafe, vermin-infested or … unfit for human habitation.” In order to acquire multiple units of property for eminent domain, the condemnor can declare an area within or outside of a redevelopment area to be blighted “only if a majority of the units of the property” meet the above exceptions.

“Some municipalities have introduced legislation that has no such exceptions,” Snyder says. “This bill is very focused and still allows government to take property for private use if it’s blighted, and it gives a more limited definition of blight than some bills introduced elsewhere.” Under this bill, “you could not do a Kelo in Pennsylvania,” he says, “because the Kelo property was not blighted.” Under previous Pennsylvania law, he says, the answer might have been “maybe.”

Snyder says this bill would have not have an impact on the planned expansion of the Convention Center in Philadelphia because the Convention Center Authority is not a private entity. Yet he questions whether it might not have an effect on a sports stadium, such as those recently built in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. “They are technically owned by the teams, which are private, but they are also community projects,” he explains and anticipates that minor league baseball stadiums planned in some municipalities in Pennsylvania may be litigated on that basis.

Clifford B. Levine, a partner with Pittsburgh-based Thorp Reed & Armstrong tells GlobeSt.com that the bill “will have dire and drastic repercussions. It would eliminate the necessary powers granted for urban development throughout the state and throw out 60 years of allowing one of the most important redevelopment opportunities available. It offers a restrictive and narrow view of blight,” He adds that “absolutely, this is an overreaction (to Kelo). If people are unhappy with the transformation of Pittsburgh as a smoky town into the Golden Triangle complex, which was done under the redevelopment act of 1945, they will like this bill.”


Copyright © 2005 Real Estate Media. All rights reserved.

[mr.supervideogoodfd]

...What about cases, in which the city has bought out all but a few of the properties, and these individual properties refuse to sell. Should these certain individuals be allowed to halt the progress of an entire city?

As a matter of fact, the answer is "yes". It is easy to sit there and make the theoretical statements, but, when they are coming for your house, you'll be sorry you didn't back other people up.

This ruling opens the door for the use of "discretion" by government entities. I know of no government official or entity that shows an ounce of it. We are in a society where money speaks and the more money you have the more your voice is heard. This is an absolute attack on small property owners and escalates the subversive class warfare already underway through our tax system revisions.

[TeftyJokip]

I think alot of people are simplu overacting to this verdict. In my opinion, this verdict simply affirms the rights of communities to develop areas which are blighted or not of much public use. Yes, while the argument can be made that cities are now able to buldoze low income houses for rich town houses, another equally compelling argument can be made. What about cases, in which the city has bought out all but a few of the properties, and these individual properties refuse to sell. Should these certain individuals be allowed to halt the progress of an entire city? The court did not pave the way for any paticular action, rather it left the powers of eminent domain to our elected officials. Officials, can now use their judgement, according to how they see fit. These elected officials will be kept in check by votes, if the power of eminent domain is abused then people will retaliate. The bottom line is.. all the judgment said is talk to your local officials not us... .

Excellent post. Couldn't have said it better myself. Simply a reaffirmation of the way things have gone for a century. A change in this ruling could have stopped the Nets arena.

[PHOTOSHOPoem]

PS - Thank you to my wife for telling me to buy the development in my backyard. Best move I ever made. I was making a ton in the stock market in the 90s and I was saying stocks, stocks, stocks and my wife was saying condo, swimming pool, gym, sauna, ocean, beach. I gave in and we bought December of 1999. Listen to your wives!

[ORDERCHEAPVIAGRASOFTWARE]

Theoretically, this opens things up to all sorts of seizures.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in NYC, as each attempt at "taking" will have to go through Community Boards and various other agencies.

The lawyers must be salivating... all those new billable hours!!

[forextradinginfo]

Alas no.... I am not a NIMBY or a NMH

Infact I believe Ratner's development is a exellent example of how this should be done. He went around the area, paying people off to avoid using emmient domain. His offers were so high that many of the people in the are could not refuse. This is why Ratner now owns most of the area. He has even offered the people who live in apartments (people that he has no obligation to) temporary apartments, and permanent new ones in the Atlantic Yards. However, for the few (an I mean few) people who stand in the way, simply on the premise of principal, this is when emminent domain should be used. If someone is forced out of their homes they should be compensated several times the value of their homes. However, as the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, these people with no reason besides belief (no financial reason) cannot be allowed to stand in the way of a MASSIVE development that could change the face of a city. Its like a mouse derailing a train.

[reiseebup]

November 21, 2005

After Eminent Domain Victory, Disputed Project Goes Nowhere

By WILLIAM YARDLEY

NEW LONDON, Conn. - They have still not moved out. Not Susette Kelo. Not the Derys. Not Byron Athenian or Bill Von Winkle or the others.
Five months after the United States Supreme Court set off a national debate by ruling that the City of New London could seize their property through eminent domain to make way for new private development, no one has been forced to leave.

No bulldozers have arrived to level the last houses still standing, and none are expected soon.

Even though the holdouts lost their case, and the development that would displace them finally seems free to go forward, construction has not begun, and some elements of the project have been effectively paralyzed since the court ruling prompted a political outcry.

"I felt relaxed enough to get my checkbook out and put the new roof on," said Mr. Von Winkle, who owns three buildings with a total of 12 occupied apartments in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood by the Thames River, where the city was sued for claiming 15 properties through eminent domain.

Ms. Kelo, also among the handful of holdouts, said, "We still have hope that we'll get to keep our homes."

It is not that Ms. Kelo and the others have chained themselves to their property in a final dramatic defiance of the law.

Instead, wary of public disapproval and challenges from groups like the Institute for Justice, the law firm that represented the holdouts in court, the state and the city have halted plans to evict the remaining residents. Investors are concerned about building on land that some people consider a symbol of property rights. At the same time, contract disputes and financial uncertainty have delayed construction even in areas that have been cleared.

With so many complications, some people are unsure whether the city's initial vision for the property - a mix of housing, hotel and office space intended to transform part of its riverfront and bolster a declining tax base - is even realistic anymore.

"Winning took so long," said Mayor Jane L. Glover, "that the plan may
not be as viable in 2005 or 2006 or 2007."

New London, founded in the 17th century as a port city in southeastern Connecticut, has a high unemployment rate and fewer residents today than it had in 1920. Its court battle over eminent domain started five years ago, when it claimed the property of six Fort Trumbull homeowners, a two-block area within 90 acres set for development. Homeowners challenged the move, and the matter eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled 5 to 4 in June that the city had the right to take the land to improve its financial health, even though doing so would eventually transfer the property to a private developer.

But in a dissent that echoed what property rights activists were saying, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote: "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."

Congress and state legislatures across the country have reacted by revisiting eminent domain laws. Over the summer, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the court decision. This month, the House voted overwhelmingly to deny federal economic development money for two years to local governments that seize private property for private development.

In September, Gov. M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut demanded that the New London Development Corporation, the city's development agency, rescind eviction orders delivered to tenants in rental units that belong to homeowners who have refused to give up their property.

The Connecticut General Assembly has asked cities to delay using eminent domain while it considers revising state law. Some city and state officials cite the difficulty in finding a balance between using eminent domain to rebuild blighted areas and preventing the potential for abuse that concerned Justice O'Connor.

"We're not writing a law to solve the New London problem," said State Representative Michael P. Lawlor, a Democrat who is co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "We're writing a law to fix the Sandra Day O'Connor problem."

Amid all the debate, the Fort Trumbull project has stalled.

"This lawsuit put a chill on the development of the whole 90 acres, no doubt in my mind," said Thomas J. Londregan, the city's director of law. "Any developer knew that whatever they did would most likely be appealed to the courts."

Contentiousness led to stalemate and stumbles. At one point the city severed ties with the New London Development Corporation, only to reverse itself days later under pressure from the state. A key corporation executive was forced out.

Pressure to go forward is considerable, even if momentum is not. The state has already invested $73 million on environmental cleanup and sewer and road improvements. Elegant street lamps, intended to illuminate a gentrified new riverfront, instead shine over empty lots
where buildings have been leveled but not replaced.

In recent weeks the city, the state and the developer, Boston-based Corcoran Jennison, have begun discussing ways to jump-start construction in empty areas. Details are not firm.

"We are currently working our way toward what I believe will be something fruitful," said Michael Joplin, president of the New London Development Corporation.

One point of contention: Corcoran Jennison is resisting pressure from the city to build a waterfront hotel first, as was initially planned, out of concern that there is no market for one.

Corcoran Jennison says that Pfizer, which built a major research center next to the site in the late 1990's and pushed for the Fort Trumbull development, backed away from a commitment to help pay for the hotel as the lawsuit dragged on. And the prospects for a Coast Guard museum, which under one plan could be built on the holdouts' land, are also unclear.

Still, Ron Angelo, deputy commissioner of the state's Department of Economic and Community Development, insists that the project, at least in some form, will get under way soon. "I think for the first time in a number of months, if not years, we have come close to beginning with the project," he said.

If any construction begins soon, it will happen away from the area where the holdouts remain, said Marty Jones, president of Corcoran Jennison, which has been under contract on the project since 1999.

"We need to have some positive things happening so that every lender and investor I go to doesn't say, 'I want to be 100 miles away from here,' " Ms. Jones said. "Eminent domain in Fort Trumbull has been on the front page of every newspaper in the country, and it has not put New London in the most positive light."

Despite losing in court, the holdouts have gained political leverage, largely through the public relations effort led by the Institute for Justice, Mr. Joplin said.

Scott G. Bullock, a lawyer for the Institute for Justice who argued for the resistant property owners before the Supreme Court, said, "We might have lost the battle, but the overall war is really going in our favor."

"What developer is going to want to build on land that was received through probably the most universally despised Supreme Court decision in decades?" Mr. Bullock asked.

Governor Rell has hired a mediator to meet with the holdouts. The goal is to see what, if any, financial terms, beyond the outdated appraised value they have been offered, might persuade them to leave.

"I'm on the road to search for the proverbial win-win," said the mediator, Robert R. Albright. "It's an extraordinarily complex situation. It's not a two-party situation by any means. I'm not sure I can honestly give you an option set or even fully describe the obstacles."

The property owners have their critics in New London. They have been accused of delaying the city's resurgence, and even of taking payoffs from property rights advocates in order to keep up the fight. But at least a few, after seeing most of their neighborhood leveled, say they will consider coming to terms with Mr. Albright if the money is right. Others, however, have not ruled out new lawsuits.

Meanwhile, some renters are moving in, not out. Michelle Cerrato arrived from Pennsylvania in September and found her two-bedroom apartment on Walbach Street through a newspaper ad. Unaware of the fuss over eminent domain, Ms. Cerrato, a 30-year-old casino hostess with three children, soon figured out why neighbors have signs in their windows that say, "Not for Sale."

Confused and concerned that she would be evicted, she called her landlord, Sue Dery, one of the holdouts.
"She said it's not going to happen," Ms. Cerrato said. "It's been going on for eight years."

• Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[Soadiassy]

Florida city considers eminent domain
By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published October 3, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.
"This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.
He defends the use of eminent domain by saying the city is "using tools that have been available to governments for years to bring communities like ours out of the economic doldrums and the trauma centers."
Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach is doing what the city of New London, Conn., is trying to do and what the U.S. Supreme Court said is proper in its ruling June 23 in Kelo v. City of New London. That decision upheld the right of government to seize private properties for use by private developers for projects designed to generate jobs and increase the tax base.
"Now eminent domain is affecting people who never had to deal with it before and who have political connections," Mr. Brown said. "But if we don't use this power, cities will die."
Jacqui Loriol insists she and her husband will fight the loss of their 80-year-old home in Riviera Beach.
"This is a very [racially] mixed area that's also very stable," she said. "But no one seems to care ... Riviera Beach needs economic redevelopment. But there's got to be another way."
In the Kelo ruling, a divided Supreme Court held that private development offering jobs and increased tax revenues constituted a public use of property, but the court held that state legislatures can draft eminent-domain statutes to their satisfaction.
Dana Berliner, senior lawyer with the Institute for Justice, which represented homeowners in the Kelo case, said "pie in the sky" expectations like those expressed by Mr. Brown are routine in all these cases.
"They always think economic redevelopment will bring more joy than what is there now," she said. "Once someone can be replaced so something more expensive can go where they were, every home and business in the country is subject to taking by someone else."
Last week, the Riviera Beach City Council tapped the New Jersey-based Viking Inlet Harbor Properties LLC to oversee the mammoth 400-acre redevelopment project.
"More than 2,000 homes could be eligible for confiscation," said H. Adams Weaver, a local lawyer who is assisting protesting homeowners.
Viking spokesman Peter Frederiksen said the plan "is to create a working waterfront," adding that the project could take 15 years and that "we would only use condemnation as a last resort."
Viking has said it will pay at least the assessed values of homes and businesses it buys.
Other plans for the project include creation of a basin for megayachts with high-end housing, retail and office space, a multilevel garage for boats, a 96,000-square-foot aquarium and a manmade lagoon.
Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach wants to highlight its waterfront.
"We have the best beach and the most attractive redevelopment property anywhere in the United States," he said.
Mr. Frederiksen said people with yachts need a place to keep and service them. "And we want to develop a charter school for development of marine trades."
Mr. Brown and others said this could be one of the biggest eminent-domain actions ever. A report in the Palm Beach Post said it is the biggest since 1954, when 5,000 residents of Washington were displaced for eventual development of the Southwest D.C. waterfront, L'Enfant Plaza, and the less-than-successful Waterside Mall.
The fact that Riviera Beach is so financially downtrodden may seem ironic because as Mr. Brown notes "it sits right across the inlet from Palm Beach," one of the nation's wealthiest areas.
"Palm Beach County is the largest county east of the Mississippi, and we have the second-highest rate of poverty in the county," the mayor said.




Copyright © 2005 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

[PebydataFeents]

Excellent post. Couldn't have said it better myself. Simply a reaffirmation of the way things have gone for a century. A change in this ruling could have stopped the Nets arena.

You are using an arbitrary project as an example. The law is not arbitrary. It applies to everyone. As much as we might support a particular project, it places the "absolute ownership" of any property in question. In effect, we are allowing the state to decide what happens with property everywhere and whether it is in its interest to seize it. The interest of state and citizenry is not always mutual.

I do believe that in your argument as well as BKMONKEY's you two are lining up as the NIMBYs. You agree with this ruling as long as they aren't coming to seize and bulldoze your homes. That's a NIMBY position.

[TeNuaTe]

Proposal: Replace Souter's home with 'Lost Liberty Hotel'

June 29, 2005

WEARE, N.H. --Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments power to seize private property, someone has suggested taking over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turning it into a hotel.

"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.

Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community.

The letter dubbing the project the "Lost Liberty Hotel" was posted on conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh's Web site. Clements said it would include a dining room called the "Just Desserts Cafe" an a museum focused on the "loss of freedom in America."

A message seeking comment from Souter was left at his office Wednesday morning. The court has recessed and Souter was still in Washington, one of his secretaries said.

A few police cruisers were parked on the edge of Souter's property Tuesday.

"It was a precaution, just being protective," said Lt. Mark Bodanza.

Clements is the CEO of Los Angeles-based Freestar Media that fights "abusive" government through a Web site and cable show. He plans to move to New Hampshire soon as part of the Free State Project, a group that supports limiting government powers, the Monitor reported.

The letter was passed along to the board of selectmen. If the five-member board were to endorse the hotel project, zoning laws would have to be changed and the hotel would have to get approval from the planning board.

"At this point, the Board of Selectmen are taking no action," said Laura Buono, board chairwoman. The board met Tuesday night.

"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," said Charles Meany, Weare's code enforcement officer. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."

"I have to offer him the luxury of due process," Meany said Wednesday, adding that he planned to tell Clements that "he has started the process backwards." Meany said he will tell Clements he first must petition the selectmen, next the planning board, then the zoning board before "he comes to me for a building permit."

Souter's two-story colonial farmhouse is assessed at a little more than $100,000 and brought in $2,895 in property taxes last year.

The Supreme Court case involved the city of New London, Conn. The justices ruled that City Hall may take over property through eminent domain to make way for a hotel and convention center.

In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He said the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

At least eight states -- Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington -- forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

© Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[agildeta]

The new American pastime?

Landowners must yield to ballpark

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
By Tim Lemke
October 6, 2005

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...0902-5838r.htm


The District will begin using eminent domain to acquire parcels of land at the site of the Washington Nationals' ballpark by the end of this month, after unsuccessful negotiations with nearly half of the landowners.

City officials said they expect to file court documents to take over at least some of the 21-acre site in the coming weeks and have $97 million set aside to buy the properties and help landowners relocate.

The city made offers to all 23 landowners on the site last month but received no response from 10.

"We think there are some that we'll have good-faith negotiations with," said Steve Green, director of development in the office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. "There are some we haven't heard from at all."

Many property owners on the site said the city's offers are inadequate. Others are suing the city on the grounds that it has no right to use eminent domain to acquire land at the site, despite a Supreme Court ruling affirming the right of municipal governments to take private property for the purpose of economic development.

In April, the city notified property owners on the site that they would be required to move out by Dec. 31.

City officials said the District is on target to have title on all of the land by that date, but they don't expect to have full possession of the site until early next year, with construction on the $535 million stadium to begin in March. That would give the construction team, led by Clark Construction Group of Bethesda, about two years to build the ballpark in time for Opening Day of 2008.

Officials said that timetable remains realistic. Clark built the 80,000-seat FedEx Field, home of the Washington Redskins, in less time.

"Twenty-four months is not bad," Mr. Green said. "There's always the possibility of doing it in 22 or 23 months."

Meanwhile, the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission has been sparring with the new Anacostia Waterfront Corp. (AWC) on the location of ballpark parking.

The AWC, which the city created to promote development along the Anacostia River waterfront, said it prefers an underground parking garage beneath 600,000 to 800,000 square feet of office and retail development.

The commission said that would run up too many costs and take too long to build.

"We're not going to do it," said Mark Tuohey, chairman of the sports commission. "We don't care what they say. There's no money."

In order for parking to be built above ground, the commission must change a zoning requirement. A hearing before the zoning board on the issue is scheduled for Oct. 17, but could delay the process further. If the commission is denied a zoning change, it would have to turn to the D.C. Council for legislative permission or take the case to an appeals court.

"If we lose and it goes to the court of appeals, that takes years," said commission board member Linda Greenan. "That's not a good strategy."

Any discrepancy over development of the stadium site could affect ballpark financing negotiations, which have reached a sensitive stage.

"It could cause confusion on Wall Street, which is exactly where we don't want it right now," said John Ross, a special adviser for the city's chief financial officer and a commission board member.

City officials insist on below-ground parking because it would fit with plans for a retail and entertainment district near the ballpark. They are considering removing parking entirely from the cost of the stadium and paying for it separately, using tax-increment financing or other revenue streams.

Mr. Green said the debate over parking is not delaying completion of a lease agreement for the stadium, which Major League Baseball says must be finalized before it announces the Nationals' new owner.

"There's no real holdup," Mr. Green said. "It's just a very complicated document."

[acneman]

Heard about this on another site.


the debate is whether or not the few that do not want to give up their housing in a depressed run-down area are entitled to stay there despite the ill effects of not being able to proceed with urban center renewal.

Nost of the people there took their offers for houses few wanted to buy and that was that. But some are stubborn.

Do they have a right to do this? If an area NEEDS redevelopment to make it viable again, SHOULD the government be able to step in and pay them out?

[strmini]

I do believe that in your argument as well as BKMONKEY's you two are lining up as the NIMBYs. You agree with this ruling as long as they aren't coming to seize and bulldoze your homes. That's a NIMBY position.

Wrong assumption. I would welcome the Nets arena in my backyard in a second.

My neighborhood is full of Nimbys. Not me. I have been in favor of every condo built on my avenue, in favor of Loehman's Seaport Plaza built on my avenue, in favor of Applebee's built on my avenue, in favor of 2 hotels built on my avenue, and in favor of the new Venice Marina project they are trying to build next to the United Artists theater that I was in favor of. A lot of people fight development in their backyard. I beg for development in my backyard. In fact a few years ago while everybody in this neighborhood was fighting development, I bought development in my backyard - A luxury condo in my neighborhood.

I am jealous of the people that live in the footprint of Atlantic Yards. They are getting a million bucks for their condos that aren't worth half that much on the open market. You can cry for those guys. Boo hoo!

[Viyzarei]

Rider - I think in essence you are saying that Ratner should condemn his own development (Atlantic Center) to build Atlantic Yards. Illogical in any development plan to say the least. Your opinion on Atlantic Mall may be the majority here, but lets get real on development please.

[NikolaAAA]

As a matter of fact, the answer is "yes". It is easy to sit there and make the theoretical statements, but, when they are coming for your house, you'll be sorry you didn't back other people up.

This ruling opens the door for the use of "discretion" by government entities. I know of no government official or entity that shows an ounce of it. We are in a society where money speaks and the more money you have the more your voice is heard. This is an absolute attack on small property owners and escalates the subversive class warfare already underway through our tax system revisions.

Totally disagree. For one or two Nimby's to have the ability to stop a borough's or city's progress absolutely scares the daylights out of me.

[intmarkworkk]

oh yes... and I would be completly for seizing the Atlantic Center, if another developer had a plan similar to Ratner's, which was dependant on that area. However, name a developer who has conjured such a development, and has the money, and the resources to get it done. This is New York... ideas and visions are constantly tossed around but never actually completed, however, Bruce Ratner has shown that he gets things done, (Metro-Tech, Atlantic Terminal, New York Times Tower etc). The fact that this is his brainchild forfills those requirements... he is the only interested developer. Need I remind you that those railyards (as well as the area that was above atlantic station) were vacent for years, and no one was interested...

[Emapymosy]

http://www.snopes.com/info/inthenews.asp Proposal Made to Seize Souter's Property


Jun 29, 6:03 PM (ET)
WEARE, N.H. (AP) - Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments power to seize private property, someone has suggested taking over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turning it into a hotel.

"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.

Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community.

The letter dubbing the project the "Lost Liberty Hotel" was posted on conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh's Web site. Clements said it would include a dining room called the "Just Desserts Cafe" an a museum focused on the "loss of freedom in America."

if ((typeof tag336_2) == 'function') {tag336_2();} A message seeking comment from Souter was left at his office Wednesday morning. The court has recessed and Souter was still in Washington, one of his secretaries said.

A few police cruisers were parked on the edge of Souter's property Tuesday.

"It was a precaution, just being protective," said Lt. Mark Bodanza.

Clements is the CEO of Los Angeles-based Freestar Media that fights "abusive" government through a Web site and cable show. He plans to move to New Hampshire soon as part of the Free State Project, a group that supports limiting government powers, the Monitor reported.

The letter was passed along to the board of selectmen. If the five-member board were to endorse the hotel project, zoning laws would have to be changed and the hotel would have to get approval from the planning board. Messages seeking comment were left with Laura Buono, board chairwoman.

"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," said Charles Meany, Weare's code enforcement officer. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."

Souter's two-story colonial farmhouse is assessed at a little more than $100,000 and brought in $2,895 in property taxes last year.

The Supreme Court case involved the city of New London, Conn. The justices ruled that City Hall may take over property through eminent domain to make way for a hotel and convention center.

In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He said the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

At least eight states - Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington - forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

[PetrZimin]

February 21, 2006

States Curbing Right to Seize Private Homes

By JOHN M. BRODER

In a rare display of unanimity that cuts across partisan and geographic lines, lawmakers in virtually every statehouse across the country are advancing bills and constitutional amendments to limit use of the government's power of eminent domain to seize private property for economic development purposes.

The measures are in direct response to the United States Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision last June in a landmark property rights case from Connecticut, upholding the authority of the City of New London to condemn homes in an aging neighborhood to make way for a private development of offices, condominiums and a hotel. It was a decision that one justice, who had written for the majority, later all but apologized for.

The reaction from the states was swift and heated. Within weeks of the court's decision, Texas, Alabama and Delaware passed bills by overwhelming bipartisan margins limiting the right of local governments to seize property and turn it over to private developers. Since then, lawmakers in three dozen other states have proposed similar restrictions and more are on the way, according to experts who track the issue.

The National League of Cities, which supports the use of eminent domain as what it calls a necessary tool of urban development, has identified the issue as the most critical facing local governments this year. The league has called upon mayors and other local officials to lobby Congress and state legislators to try to stop the avalanche of bills to limit the power of government to take private property for presumed public good.

The issue is not whether governments can condemn private property to build a public amenity like a road, a school or a sewage treatment plant. That power is explicit in the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, provided that "just compensation" is paid. The conflict arises over government actions to seize private homes or businesses as part of a redevelopment project that at least partly benefits a private party like a retail store, an apartment complex or a football stadium.

"It's open season on eminent domain," said Larry Morandi, a land-use specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures. "Bills are being pushed by Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and they're passing by huge margins."

Seldom has a Supreme Court decision sparked such an immediate legislative reaction, and one that scrambles the usual partisan lines. Condemnation of the ruling came from black lawmakers representing distressed urban districts, from suburbanites and from Western property-rights absolutists who rarely see eye to eye on anything. Lawmakers from Maine to California have introduced dozens of bills in reaction to the ruling, most of them saying that government should never seize private homes or businesses solely to benefit a private developer, no matter what compensation is paid.

The Supreme Court seemed to invite such a response in its narrowly written ruling in the case, Kelo v. City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, expressed sympathy for the displaced homeowners and said that the "necessity and wisdom" of the use of eminent domain were issues of legitimate debate. And, he added, "We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power."

Two months after the ruling, addressing a bar association meeting, Justice Stevens called it "unwise" and said he would have opposed it had he been a legislator and not a federal judge bound by precedent.

Plenty of legislators took the hint.

The issue was one of the first raised when Connecticut lawmakers returned to session early this month. There are bills pending in the Legislature to impose new restrictions on the use of eminent domain by local governments and to assure that displaced businesses and homeowners receive fair compensation.

(The New London project is essentially delayed, even after the Supreme Court go-ahead, because of contractual disputes and an unwillingness to forcibly remove the homeowners who sued to save their properties.)

In the New Jersey Legislature, Senator Nia H. Gill, a Democrat from Montclair who is chairwoman of the Commerce Committee, proposed a bill to outlaw the use of eminent domain to condemn residential property that is not completely run down to make room for a redevelopment project. The bill, which is pending, would require public hearings before any taking of private property to benefit a private development project.

State Senator John A. DeFrancisco of New York has proposed a measure similar to one in several other states that would remove the right to exercise condemnation power from unelected bodies like an urban redevelopment authority or an industrial development agency. Mr. DeFrancisco, a Republican from Syracuse, cited the case of a development agency in his hometown that has used its power to take valuable leases from existing mall tenants to allow a private developer to expand.

Texas was one of the first states to act after the Kelo ruling, taking up the issue in a special legislative session that was supposed to focus solely on education. Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, signed a bill on Sept. 1 that prohibits use of eminent domain to benefit a private party, with certain exceptions. Among those exceptions is the condemnation of homes to make way for a new stadium for the Dallas Cowboys.

The sponsor of the Texas measure, Senator Kyle Janek, Republican of Houston, said the state was weighing a constitutional amendment to cement the eminent domain restrictions, but that process can take years. He sponsored his bill, he said, because "We wanted something in place quickly that the governor could sign and would take immediate effect."

The bill could affect a huge highway project now in the planning stages known as the Trans-Texas Corridor, a public-private toll road and rail project that would require the taking of large swaths of privately owned land.

There are six proposed laws and five constitutional amendments before the California Legislature, as well as several proposed citizen initiatives to curb the eminent domain power. The bills are supported by, among others, the California Farm Bureau Federation, which fears that the Kelo ruling will empower cities to gobble up more farmland to build subdivisions and strip malls.

The lobbyist for California's local economic development agencies said the ruling and the resultant legislation had been a nightmare.

"My life hasn't been the same since June 23, 2005," said the lobbyist, John F. Shirey, executive director of the California Redevelopment Association, referring to the date the Supreme Court handed down the ruling. The group represents 350 local redevelopment authorities around California and believes such agencies need the eminent domain power to rebuild distressed cities.

"I've had to spend practically full time dealing with this issue and trying to get people to understand the Supreme Court decision didn't change anything in California law," Mr. Shirey said.

Ohio's legislature, acting swiftly and unanimously after the Kelo decision, declared a moratorium on all government takings until the end of 2006. The state has created a 25-member bipartisan panel to study the issue and make recommendations for changes, if necessary, in Ohio's eminent domain statutes. The sponsor of the moratorium measure, Senator Timothy J. Grendell, a Republican lawyer who specializes in property rights cases, noted that the Ohio Supreme Court was now weighing a potentially critical eminent domain case involving the city of Norwood, a suburb of Cincinnati.

In that case, city officials have approved a plan to condemn about 60 private homes to make way for an upscale office and retail complex. The homeowners are represented by lawyers from the Institute of Justice, a public interest law firm that litigates against what it calls eminent domain abuse and that represented the plaintiffs in the New London case.

Scott G. Bullock of the Institute for Justice described the Norwood case as an important test of property rights law in the post-Kelo era, but would not predict how the Ohio court would rule. He said he hoped to take another case before the Supreme Court in the next few years to determine whether the courts can curb eminent domain power further, even as state legislatures act on their own.

Mr. Bullock said he expected municipal officials and redevelopment authorities to try to fight the wave of eminent domain legislation by offering cosmetic changes to existing law, for example by requiring an extra hearing or an economic impact statement. But he said that major changes were coming in how the takings power of government is used.

"Our opposition to eminent domain is not across the board," he said. "It has an important but limited role in government planning and the building of roads, parks and public buildings. What we oppose is eminent domain abuse for private development, and we are encouraging legislators to curtail it."

More neutral observers expressed concern that state officials, in their zeal to protect homeowners and small businesses, would handcuff local governments that are trying to revitalize dying cities and fill in blighted areas with projects that produce tax revenues and jobs.

"It's fair to say that many states are on the verge of seriously overreacting to the Kelo decision," said John D. Echeverria, executive director of the Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute and an authority on land-use policy. "The danger is that some legislators are going to attempt to destroy what is a significant and sometimes painful but essential government power. The extremist position is a prescription for economic decline for many metropolitan areas around the county."

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

[Ceriopal]

With this as a precedent I don't see any reason why all tax exempt church and university property shouldn't be siezed and returned to the tax base as "...an economic development plan that [a city] believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue..."

Right on! God knows that I need one more Duane Reade around the corner and he wishes to sacrifice something more valued that his son - REAL ESTATE - to fulfill the prophetic vision. I mean, you can really pray anywhere, but, when it comes time to buy a pantyshield, the confessional becomes useless.