View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
Well, maybe the news isn't so bad after all. As I understood the ruling, the Supreme Court had the power to allow seizures of property. But, that is absolutely not true. In fact, there was only one reason why they ruled in favor of the city of New London -- because there were no local or state laws protecting the homeowners. This allowed the city government to play semantics games with the term "public use." In short, residents of New London trusted their government and didn't put specific restrictions on their eminent domain powers ... and now, some of those residents are paying a price for that trust. Because of the national attention given to this case, I doubt they will trust their government anymore.
As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the Court's 5-4 majority decision:
Far from being bad news, this decision may be a blessing in disguise. It may serve as a "wake up call." People who champion the rights of property owners in every state and locality will be checking out their OWN protections, I suspect. And if they find them lacking, they have the power to remedy that."We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power."
A lot of developers and city/county/state land-use planners were probably hailing the Supreme Court decision. But in reality, the decision could end up being their worst nightmare as voters pass new laws, restrictions, and state constitutional barriers that could end up being costly if not impossible to overcome.
Read the article in the Detroit Free Press:
http://www.freep.com/realestate/renews/landuse24e_20050624.htm
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 42 of 42
-
-
It's interensting in that this has come up in the local news recently, there's a old hotel in a small city near here that some non-profit developing firm wants to revitalize. It's part of a grand scheme to use the river waterfront area to attract people. The hotel is closed now for many years but in it's day it was quite nice, it still is but just needs a makeover. The trouble is that there is no off street parking except the adjacent parking garage that was sold off many years ago.Originally Posted by adam
Now that garage right now isn't worth a huge amount of money but if the hotel is rebuilt it would need it, no parking and it's going in the shitter. The owner is asking for X amount but the developers are offering 1/3 of what he wants. Much more than he originally payed but also far less than it would be worth if the hotel is rebuilt. The city is attempting to get it through eminent domain.
This also brings to mind the story I saw of a little old lady in A.C. who ended up fighting this, she won and they ended up building the casino around her house. I was looking for a picture but couldn't find one but it looked quite funny, a old house surrounded by a massive casino.
When it comes down to it this is quite whack as you put it Adam that a private for profit entity can essentially take your property with the right backing whether your getting a fair price or not. For public projects such as highways and the like I can understand but not for private developement. -
A similar story is brewing in New London. One of the people they're trying to kick out of her house is an old woman who was BORN in the house in 1918 and has lived there ever since. It occurs to me that if she was born in the house, it must have been built prior to 1918. If it is a significantly older house, she may yet have the last laugh. All she has to do is get her home certified in the National Historic Registry as an "historic place" ... and not even the city fathers can touch her home. They, too, would have to build around it. Here's the National Register of Historic Places website. They're a division of the National Park Service.Originally Posted by thecoalman
http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/
It worked in Vancouver, Washington. There are a group of turn-of-the-century (19th/20th) homes where officers stationed at Fort Vancouver used to stay. They call the area "officer's row" and it has been listed as an historic place in the National Historic Registry. Once a property is in the registry, no one can seize it (unless, hehe, they find oil on the property like the Arctic Wildlife Preserve).
Before this thing is over, I also suspect we will see some violence ... perhaps even extreme violence (ie., bulldozer drivers being shot, construction equipment and supplies being sabotaged or vandalized, etc., etc., etc.). If I was New London's City Manager, Richard M. Brown, I'd also start shopping around for private security guards to put around his OWN home. -
The Old Lady and the casino - makes for interisting reading -- she has had TWO casinos built around and even over her house (the first one failed and was torn down)
Public Power, Private Gain:
The Abuse of Eminent Domain
The Current Issue
For most of her 36 years in Atlantic City, Vera Coking, an elderly widow, ran a tidy little boarding house just off the Boardwalk. She convinced her husband to buy the property because she loved the house, the beach and Atlantic City. There, long before gambling was legalized and towering casinos rose up around her, she greeted guests from around the world with one of the six languages she speaks. She raised three children in the house, and one daughter still lives with her.
Retired now, the house is her only residence and only asset. But if tycoon Donald Trump has his way, a New Jersey government agency will use its power of eminent domain to condemn Vera's property, take it away from her at a bargain-basement price, then transfer the ownership to Trump for a fraction of the market value. Trump then plans to park limousines where Vera's bedroom, kitchen and dining room now stand. In short, New Jersey will take from one private owner and transfer that property to another private owner for his exclusive gain.
Unfortunately, Vera Coking is not alone in this battle. Other private property owners in Atlantic City and nationwide find their property rights under attack from unethical marriages of convenience between developers, local governments and state agencies. The result is an erosion of a fundamental constitutional right. And the legal landscape-especially at the federal level-is stacked against the land holders.
On December 13, 1996, the Institute for Justice joined Vera's attorney, Glenn Zeitz, in asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to reverse an appellate decision allowing the condemnation of Vera's property and to hold that the condemnation violated the New Jersey and federal Constitutions.
Eminent Domain: How It Works, How It Is Abused
Unlike most developers, Donald Trump doesn't have to negotiate with a private owner when he wants to buy a piece of property because a governmental agency-the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority or CRDA-will get it for him at a fraction of the market value, even if the current owner refuses to sell. Here is how the process works.
After a developer identifies the parcels of land he wants to acquire and a city planning board approves a casino project, CRDA attempts to confiscate these properties using a process called "eminent domain," which allows the government to condemn properties "for public use." Increasingly, though, CRDA and other government entities exercise the power of eminent domain to take property from one private person and give it to another. At the same time, governments give less and less consideration to the necessity of taking property and also ignore the personal loss to the individuals being evicted. Most courts have declined to put limits on the exercise of eminent domain. For a local government and state agencies, all the benefits weigh in favor of using eminent domain.
The New Jersey and federal Constitutions state that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." This constitutional provision imposes two limits on the taking of private property: first, that the use must be public, and second, that just compensation must be paid. If private property could be taken for any use at all, the term "public" would not have been included.
Originally, eminent domain was a power that allowed the government to construct public works, like roads and aqueducts. Government was limited to taking only that property necessary for the public use. Gradually, though, government has come to ignore these limits. Now, local governments will take property and give it to a private person for their economic profit. Anything that a government might be allowed to do at all-storage, planting flowers-it can condemn property in order to do. And it does not need to show that it actually needs the property in question.
This erosion of the doctrine of eminent domain has led to predictably appalling results. In 1981, Detroit destroyed Poletown, the last racially integrated neighborhood in the city, and gave the property to General Motors to build a plant. The closely-knit, historic community could not be replaced, and the plant did not live up to its promise of bringing economic prosperity to the city. Likewise, when the city of Oakland decided that it didn't want the Raiders football team to move to Los Angeles, it tried to exercise eminent domain, take ownership of the team and force them to stay.
Now New Jersey has decided that large casino hotels are the road to prosperity for Atlantic City. Any homes or small businesses that happen to be in the way will be demolished. The Trump project is only one of several such instances. In another, CRDA has begun the process to take a small motel from Joseph and Gilda Ann Rutigliano, who have run it for the last 30 years, and give the property to the Tropicana Hotel across the street for parking. There are already three parking lots, one owned by Tropicana and two owned by the Rutiglianos, but CRDA doesn't have to consider that no additional parking lots are needed. Another proposed project will remove an historic block of houses, owned and occupied by African-Americans, and build a tunnel from one street up to a new casino.
In essence, Trump and other casino developers in Atlantic City shop for properties they want and CRDA does the buying for them at fire-sale prices.
A particularly interesting fact about the Trump development is that, although he claims he wants the land for a park-a so-called public use-nothing would stop him from removing the park and constructing another casino. If the proposed "public use" exists for a single day, the developer has satisfied his end of the agreement and the land is his to do with as he pleases without further consideration of the "public's" use.
Coveting Thy Neighbor's Goods
The prime location of Vera Coking's three-story house has attracted unwelcome interest before. In 1983, Bob Guccione tried to purchase the property for $1 million to construct a casino. Vera didn't sell, so Guccione built a steel and concrete structure all around (even over) her home. When Guccione's project failed, the land and its structural skeleton was purchased by Trump and razed. In the process of removing the frame, demolition crews started a fire on her rooftop, broke windows, removed her fire escape, and nearly destroyed the entire third story of her home by dropping concrete blocks through the roof. Now dwarfed by the giant 22-story Trump Plaza, Vera's little home certainly stands in disrepair, but through no fault of her own. (Coking has since filed a lawsuit against the demolition company seeking compensation so she can repair the damage.)
On May 6, 1994, Vera Coking received a letter from CRDA stating that her property had been "appraised" at only $251,250 (nearly $750,000 less than her earlier offer). CRDA offered her that amount to acquire the property and notified her that she would have 30 days to accept or CRDA would institute suit in the Superior Court "to acquire your property through CRDA's power of eminent domain." In a May 24, 1994, letter, CRDA Executive Director Nicholas Amato stated in capital letters, "You may be required to move within 90 days after you receive this notice. If you remain in possession of the property after that time, CRDA may be able to have you and your belongings removed by the sheriff." On July 28, 1994, Susan Ney, Director of Housing Development for CRDA "instructed CRDA's counsel to commence condemnation proceedings in the Superior Court of New Jersey."
Vera Coking opposed the condemnation in court, and while the case was pending, Trump continued with construction. The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino was completed; grass was put down on one side of Vera's property and parking lots operate on the other sides. The only part of the project left is razing Vera's house and two other buildings on the block. The final project included a new casino (even though Trump's original plan did not.) In March 1995, the Atlantic County Superior Court ruled that CRDA could not fund projects with new casino space and, because CRDA couldn't fund the project, it also couldn't condemn Coking's and her neighbors' properties. On November 13, 1996, however, the Appellate Division reversed this decision and stated that the condemnation should go forward.
Vera Coking and her neighbors, who have been similarly mistreated, cannot believe the government can throw them out of their homes and businesses in order to give the property to Trump. Vera Coking explains, "This is my home. This is my castle."
Vincent Sabatini lives on the same block as Vera. He and his wife own and operate Sabatini's Italian Restaurant, a family business that put four kids through school. When asked about CRDA's offer of $700,000 for their property-a figure that wouldn't even cover the cost of legal fees and starting up a new restaurant-he exclaimed, "I've been here for 32 years, and they want to give it to Trump. I don't want their money. If they left me alone, I'd be happy and sell a few spaghettis."
Peter Banin and his brother own the third building on Vera's block. A few months after they paid $500,000 to purchase the building for a gold shop, CRDA offered them $174,000 and told them to take the money and leave the property. A Russian immigrant, Banin says, "I knew they could do this in Russia, but not here. I would understand if they needed it for an airport runway, but for a casino?"
Litigation Strategy
The Institute for Justice is committed to a program of litigation that will help restore judicial protection of private property rights-the basic rights of every American to responsibly use and enjoy their property. As the Supreme Court recently stated, "Individual freedom finds tangible expression in property rights." The choices a person makes concerning her home or business are among the most personal and important decisions she will ever make. When government exercises eminent domain, it can take someone's home or livelihood, exacting enormous personal costs. The Institute is especially concerned with the way that government actions affect those who have relatively limited economic means to defend themselves against such outrages.
CRDA's attempts to take these properties violate the New Jersey and U.S. Constitutions. First, taking property from one person to give to another is not a "public" purpose.
"The necessity that the use shall be public excludes the idea that the property may be taken . . . and ultimately conveyed and appropriated to a private use."
Atlantic City won't own the limousine lot or grassy area; Trump will, and he can convert them into whatever he wants once this project is completed. Nothing can stop Trump from turning around the day after the park is completed to tear it up and build another casino.
Second, condemning these properties is totally unnecessary. Under New Jersey law, government may not take more property than it needs for the public use. Even the CRDA enabling statute states that it can exercise eminent domain only when property is "necessary" for project completion and "required" for a public purpose. N.J.S.A. 5:12-182(b). Because the casino and hotel project were successfully completed without these properties, they manifestly are not necessary.
Third, New Jersey has unconstitutionally delegated its condemnation power to private parties. The New Jersey legislature delegated the power to CRDA. CRDA then defers to casinos that apply for funding to determine which private homes and businesses will be torn down. It must get approval from the casino before issuing a notice of condemnation. If the casino decides it doesn't want that property, CRDA won't condemn it.
Finally, these condemnations are an unreasonable and abusive use of government power. Over the last ten years, New Jersey courts have begun to recognize that local governments can and do misuse their power over people's property. Atlantic City wants to take Vera Coking's home of 36 years, the Sabatinis' 32 year-old business, and the Banins' thriving jewelry and gold business and give them to Trump to install a place for limousines to wait for high-rolling patrons at the casino and a large lawn that few will ever use. It's hard to come up with a more frivolous use of the power of eminent domain.
The U.S. Supreme Court also has begun to notice some of the abuses of local governments. In a series of cases, the Court declared that the actions of local governments constituted takings. In each of the cases, the local government argued that it had not "taken" the property and so did not owe compensation. Before these cases, courts strayed from the text and read the Constitution in a way that maximized government power. The Court has not considered a major eminent domain case since its infamous decision in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, in which the it approved a large-scale transfer of land by Hawaii from property owners to property lessors. However, "Midkiff embodies the lavish deference to governmental regulation of property rights from which the Court has retreated" in the last ten years.
This case asks the New Jersey Supreme Court to read three important words of its Constitution-the requirement that a taking be "for public use"-and force local governments to comply. Until there is a ruling that returns substantive meaning to these words, government entities will continue to try to take property for any reason at all.
The appellate decision was the most egregious decision expanding eminent domain that a New Jersey court has yet constructed. The New Jersey Appellate Division treated the finding of public use as a foregone conclusion. It did not describe the home and businesses being taken, gave no consideration to the fact that the property would be privately owned, did not examine whether the taking was necessary, and did not weigh the costs of the taking against the benefits. If this condemnation ultimately proceeds, it is hard to see any constitutional limitation at all on the exercise of eminent domain.
Conclusion
If private property may be condemned and given to another private individual for private profit, and if the determination of which properties are to be condemned may be delegated to the person benefiting from the condemnation, and if the public purpose of the condemnation project may not be reviewed by the courts, and if the question of the necessity of the condemnation may be delegated to the beneficiary and may not be reviewed by the courts, then are there any limits on the exercise of this government power? In a system that does not require a governing body to weigh the necessity of the condemnation against the harm to be done, this type of analysis will not take place. Without accountability or constitutional constraints, all the incentives promote aggressive, unbridled use of the eminent domain power, regardless of the impact on innocent property owners. It is time to shift the balance away from government power and back to its citizens.
For more information contact:
John Kramer
Director of Communications
Institute for Justice
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 955-1300"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
The litigation strategy portion of above will now have to be re-written and now Trump can win this ...
"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
POSTED TODAY on CNN/Money
June 24, 2005: 12:32 PM EDT
By Parija Bhatnagar, CNN/Money staff writer
Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza?
Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The Supreme Court may have just delivered an early Christmas gift to the nation's biggest retailers by its ruling Thursday allowing governments to take private land for business development.
Retailers such as Target (Research), Home Depot (Research) and Bed, Bath & Beyond (Research) have thus far managed to keep the "eminent domain" issue under the radar -- and sidestep a prickly public relations problem -- even as these companies continue to expand their footprint into more urban residential areas where prime retail space isn't always easily found.
Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation.
Local governments have increasingly expanded the scope of public use to include commercial entities such as shopping malls or independent retail stores. Critics of the process maintain that local governments are too quick to invoke eminent domain on behalf of big retailers because of the potential for tax revenue generation and job creation.
The Supreme Court's decision Thursday clarified that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private and public economic development.
The ruling would seem to offer new opportunities to retailers. However, some industry watchers caution that with Thursday's decision thrusting the eminent domain issue into the national spotlight, companies using eminent domain risk a very public backlash.
Craig Johnson, president of retail consulting group Customer Growth Partners, said that retailers shouldn't interpret the high court's decision to be a green light to aggressively expand even into those neighborhoods where a big-box presence is unwelcome.
"Even with the Supreme Court's decision potentially in their favor, smart retailers would rather go into communities wearing a white hat rather than a black one," said Johnson.
The appropriate move for companies would be to selectively use eminent domain as a last resort, he said, not as a first course of action. "I think companies have learned a few lessons from Wal-Mart's public relations struggles," he said.
Where's the space crunch?
According to industry watchers, retailers face a different type of expansion problem on the East Coast versus the West Coast.
"On the West Coast, land availability takes a back seat to labor union issues and that's why Wal-Mart has consistently run into problems in California," Johnson said. "On the East Coast, because of population density it's very hard to get big open space and the zoning is more restrictive," Johnson said.
Industry consultant George Whalin said that's one reason that Target, the No. 2 retailer behind Wal-Mart, (Research) has resorted to using eminent domain to set up shop in a few East Coast markets.
Target and Wal-Mart could not immediately be reached for comment.
"Wal-Mart and Target have both been criticized for their eminent domain use," said Burt Flickinger, a consultant with the Strategic Resources Group.
Meanwhile, eminent domain opponents called the high court ruling a "big blow for small businesses."
"It's crazy to think about replacing existing successful small businesses with other businesses," said Adrian Moore, vice president of Los Angeles-based Reason Public Policy Institute, a non-profit organization opposed to eminent domain.
"There are many, many instances where we've found that the cities that agreed to eminent domain use not only destroyed local businesses but the tax revenue that the local government had hoped to generate did not come to pass," Moore said.
But at least one retail industry analyst sees things a little differently.
"Expanding for big box store is a challenge, especially in the Northeast. Therefore, retailers will have to devise a strategy for using eminent domain," said Candace Corlett, retail analyst with WSL Strategic nRetail.
"Local communities may oppose Wal-Mart and Target coming to their area but as consumers, they also want to shop at these stores and they complain when they don't have these stores nearby," she said. "The fact is that shoppers ultimately vote with their dollars and retailers are very well aware of that."
CAN you loose your home? Read HERE if you think it can not happen to you.."Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
My Dad worked at a Gas Station when he was a kid. The city took and and put up a school. This is nothing new. It sucks but theres really nothing you can do about.
-
What differs here is that it's for private developement, we're not talking about building schools or highways. The story that I was talking about is a prime example, they are going to take a prime piece of realty off of one private entity and give it to another. This will give large corporations with deep pockets the power to take anything the city will allow. If I own a large tract of land that I'm considering developing in the future why should I have to give that right up to Wal-Mart or any other private entity. That's ridiculous....Originally Posted by spiderman2k1
-
That's why, as I said earlier, that this Supreme Court decision could end up being a nightmare ... not for property owners ... but for developers and land-use planners. The ONLY reason New London won their case is because there were no "specific" laws in place in the city, county, or state that protected the affected homeowners. This is why the majority decision statement mentioned the fact that it did not preclude voters in local jurisdictions from passing protective laws.Originally Posted by thecoalman
As the article quoted by BJ_M stated:
It ain't "under the radar" anymore ... is it. This could end up getting a LOT uglier than a mere "prickly public relations problem" for these companies. It could turn into a voter backlash that may hamstring these expansionists.Retailers such as Target, Home Depot and Bed, Bath & Beyond have thus far managed to keep the "eminent domain" issue under the radar -- and sidestep a prickly public relations problem -- even as these companies continue to expand their footprint into more urban residential areas where prime retail space isn't always easily found. -
Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."
Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
# # #"Each problem that I solved became a rule which served afterwards to solve other problems." - Rene Descartes (1596-1650) -
Cool.Originally Posted by BJ_M
-
Originally Posted by BJ_M
Probably the most iportant part of the whole article quoted above.
Quote
Similar Threads
-
Is Yahoo using more local news in its main news window?
By yoda313 in forum Off topicReplies: 3Last Post: 12th May 2010, 22:09 -
Deinterlacing Tips and Good news that i found out.....
By tinkyawoo in forum EditingReplies: 54Last Post: 12th Aug 2008, 19:58 -
Fixing troublesome mpeg files?
By Hatecrime69 in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 5Last Post: 4th Mar 2008, 16:41 -
Help with troublesome unpacking
By Blĺ_Mocka in forum ComputerReplies: 2Last Post: 29th Jan 2008, 15:34 -
Tool/download/upgrade to read troublesome DVDR?
By ecc in forum Authoring (DVD)Replies: 13Last Post: 3rd Oct 2007, 17:52