While we can argue what public use is, I know what it’s not. It is not taking land from one private individual to turn over to another just because they may open a business.

Jen Chung reports that Pataki and Bloomberg are trying to take control of Ground Zero from its developer through eminent domain. Disgusting.

Seems a lot of property rights issues come out of that state:

The Long Branch City Council took the first steps toward condemnation of properties in the Beachfront North Phase II redevelopment zone at Tuesday’s meeting.

The council approved two resolutions authorizing the city to retain two law firms to “perform services of redevelopment counsel for the Beachfront North Phase II project of the city of Long Branch.”

“[The resolutions] are obviously for acquisition of the property,” city Financial Director Ronald Mehlhorn Sr. said in an interview prior to Tuesday’s meeting.

Another case of taking private property and giving it to a private developer. The SCOTUS needs to get off its ass and rule on Kelo soon, though I don’t have much faith that the SCOTUS will make the right decision.

NY Republicans are arguing with each other over eminent domain:

“I would never support the taking of private property by government, for purposes other than obvious public good,” said Blew. “A highway, or a life-saving facility,
perhaps but never for a public park.”

Blew said he believes landowners in the township are the ones who are best able to plan for the future.

In Nevada, a developer-backed bill that limits eminent domain has the approval of the senate:

A developer-backed bill that would limit use of eminent domain powers by government entities to preserve open space won approval on a 16-to-four vote in the state Senate.

[snip]

The bill would help a developer tied up in a lawsuit over plans to build upscale homes on the old Ballardini ranch just south of Reno, but Care says he doesn’t want to interfere with that litigation.

Another case of the powers that be using eminent domain to handle zoning and code issues:

Boca Raton city government is taking steps to permanently eliminate problems with a trash-strewn home on Palmetto Park Road.

The City Council this week initiated eminent domain proceedings against Albert Schulz, 57, the owner of a house at 600 W. Palmetto Park Road that city officials say has been a filth problem for about nine years.

Boca cannot foreclose on the house because it has a homestead exemption. So it chose the more aggressive step of taking the dwelling by eminent domain.

I’m not sure what a homestead exemption is but it seems that enforcing zoning ordinances is more appropriate.

Looks like residents of Hell err New Jersey are becoming resistant to Eminent Domain:

This week, it was announced that a group is forming for owners of commercial properties who are concerned about their properties in the city’s redevelopment zones.

Against this backdrop of growing advocacy, the city is pushing ahead with redevelopment plans and last week met with developers who presented plans for the Broadway triangle, or gateway, zone.

Last Sunday, the Beachfront South Coalition, formed just last month, met for the second time to discuss the next steps in fighting what they say is an abuse of eminent domain, according to coalition founder Harold Bobrow.

In Groton:

With little discussion, members of the Groton Dunstable Regional School Committee voted last Wednesday night to seize by temporary eminent domain property located in East Groton for possible use as the site of a future elementary school.

What is temporary eminent domain? Do they give it back when they’re done? I read the article and still have no idea what is meant by temporary.

The city of Maryville has annexed a portion of land to build a Wal-Mart. WATE says they can’t confirm that it will be a Wal-Mart but my inside sources tell me it’s pretty much a done deal and there will be a Wal-Mart put there.

Aside from offering tax incentives, I’m not sure why the city would annex it.

Eminent Domain hurting businesses:

A local business that has served the Huntington community for 59 years is being forced out by Marshall University. Eminent domain, the law that allows government to seize private property for public use, has been a buzz word around the Tri-State recently.

Glaser Furniture, a business located on Third Avenue, is being forced to close so Marshall can expand. What message is this sending to other local businesses? How can one business, who has helped the Marshall community, simply be forced to close? Huntington was founded before Marshall was a university, and although Marshall makes Huntington the city it is today, there needs to be some limits to where Marshall can go.

And I really don’t think a university expansion qualifies as public use.

In Norwood, the powers that be want to demolish a math and reading center for some upscale offices and condos.

Another group in New Jersey is fighting for their homes that are slated to be bulldozed for redevelopment. Of note to me was this quote:

“I have been representing property owners all over New Jersey for 30 years in eminent domain cases,” Wegener said. “It is my entire practice.

Fighting for property rights is enough to keep a full time lawyer in New Jersey busy.

But only in that half-ass, they don’t really mean it kind of way:

The Virginia state legislature has passed SB301 which will protect some owner rights when property is seized by the state or its divisions through eminent domain.

Property owners, however, will have to wait a while before they obtain any kind of relief. The bill provides that when property is seized by any state government agency and has not been put to the public use for which is was seized after a period of 15 years; the property owner must be offered a chance to repurchase it. The offering price must be the original sale price plus interest at 6 percent per year.

Or how about, you know, just not taking it in the first place if the project isn’t ready to go?

A bill is in the works to curb eminent domain abuse in Nevada:

Care’s 2-page bill would bar the use of eminent domain by government agencies to get property for open-space use or for “protecting, conserving or preserving wildlife habitat.”

The measure also says an agency could exercise eminent domain powers to get property for a redevelopment project only after making a written finding that “a condition of blight exists for each individual parcel of property” being acquired.

Not the best but it’s a start. Of course, since the federal government owns 92% of Nevada, they’re probably running out of room.

We keep seeing more bills against eminent domain lately. I’m guessing people are getting mad enough to contact their representatives or they figure the Supreme Court will not rule in favor of property owners.

First, a jury sides with a landowner regarding just compensation:

After a one week trial, the jury found on March 10 that the MBTA underpaid Ricky Bernasconi, the owner of the former Landing Auto Sales property on 25 Quincy Ave., by approximately $325,000.

Attempts to obtain comment from the MBTA about the verdict were unsuccessful.

On Jan. 29, 2002, the MBTA took the land from Bernasconi, who operated a used car sales and repair business on the property.

At that time, the MBTA valued the land at $350,000.

Bernasconi filed suit on Sept. 29, 2002 through his attorney, George McLaughlin III of the McLaughlin Brothers law firm of Boston, claiming that the MBTA undervalued his land.

The jury concluded that the land was worth $673,000, resulting in damages of approximately $700,000 after interest, almost double the value initially determined by the MBTA.

Excellent. Also, citizens fight city hall in opposition to eminent domain and win.

And a politico was pitching eminent domain at a meeting and almost everyone disagreed with him.

A good day for property rights, I’d say.

The fifth amendment specifies that owners of land taken by the .gov for public use receive just compensation. How just is just? A bill in Indiana may specify that said compensation is 150% of assessed value. I don’t find it unreasonable that just compensation include potential earnings on property as well.

GOB and land grabs in NY. Lobbygow is on it.

People are starting to notice and get a little mad:

An opinion piece reporting that ED caters to developers:

Mayor Adam Schneider claims Long Branch citizens just don’t understand the need to use eminent domain to take property. Unfortunately, we understand all too well. No property is safe from being stolen if a developer comes up with a plan for high-end condos and better ratables. Most homes in the affected area were well kept and family owned. Only a few rentals could be called blighted.

More residents are taking up the fight:

According to the Bobrows, the new coalition will have two goals, “to stop eminent domain abuse and to obtain equitable compensation for property if taken.”

The coalition is open to all interested parties, including individuals who do not live in the Beachfront South area or any redevelopment zone he added.

“If other people want to join who think eminent domain abuse is wrong, they can come too,” he said.

And what would you expect from a town called Liberty:

Under this nation’s original property law, the Fifth Amendment, “A man’s home is his castle” carried the weight of Scripture, but present laws suggest, “A person’s home is his government’s, which can buy and sell that home to anyone for a profit.”

The situation is an injustice perpetrated upon Northlanders and other people nationwide by the government’s unrestrained, oppressive use of eminent domain.

People who used to live around Kansas City International Airport learned that fact the hard way.

The Star-Telegram notes that the SCOTUS may be leaning toward the city:

The justices — two were absent — seemed reluctant to stop local governments from taking private property and then turning it over to other private property owners for development. Because the new development will pay more taxes and perhaps create jobs, the reasoning goes, it’s an appropriate public use.

If it’s public use, why is it going to private developers? Do we all get free condos?

Wal-Mart’s bid was defeated and there’s this, which could prevent this type of thing from happening in the future:

Legislation by Rep. Jack Venable, D-Tallassee, seeks to prevent governments from taking land through “eminent domain” to build commercial retail space.

“It would prevent municipalities from taking your home, your farm and giving it to Wal-Mart to build a new store using, as a reason for that, increasing tax revenue for the city,” Venable said.

Of course, the SCOTUS would do the right thing, this stuff wouldn’t be necessary.

Sumner County is asking the legislature to define just compensation:

The legislation asks that property owners be compensated for future damage and loss of use of the overall parcel as an element of damage, which could be considered when awarding damages for condemnation of property.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to factor in potential future earnings from the land either.

End the misuse of eminent domain

City’s Eminent Domain Stand Is ‘disgusting’

Eminent Domain Huge Threat To Homeowners

Newday:

If New London can seize people’s homes so private developers can build a hotel and convention center, what will cities do next? several Supreme Court justices asked during arguments Tuesday.

Can a city decide to get rid of the Motel 6 and put up a Ritz-Carlton, asked Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, because the luxury hotel would produce more taxes?

“That would be OK?” she asked.

“Are we saying you can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia.

Some good news in Indiana:

The Indiana House voted Tuesday to make it more costly for government to condemn private property for the sake of commercial development, as the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case that could lead to even more restrictions.

Supporters of House Bill 1063 complained that the wants of developers have trumped the rights of average citizens. They argued that eminent domain laws, which allow the government to buy property against the owners’ wishes, have strayed far from their original purpose of making it possible for roads and other necessities to be built.

Erin Durkin says ED’s future is unsure.

In Utah, homes are scheduled to be bulldozed to make room for a Wal-Mart:

Residents of a tucked-away downtown neighborhood and other Ogden residents angry at City Hall rallied Monday to protest a plan to bulldoze homes and businesses for a new Wal-Mart superstore.

At the peak of the rally, more than 40 carried signs showing a slash mark through the words “eminent domain abuse” and calling for reform of redevelopment laws. Passers-by honked and flashed protesters thumbs-up signs.

“Something is wrong with this picture,” said protester Bill Glassman, an Ogden real estate broker and investor. “Do not take homes and viable businesses away and give [the land] to a big company!”

Lobbygow, in All Your Home Are Belong to Us, notes:

In other words, “The Old Boy Network can do what they damned well please with regards to anybody’s property.” This moral sleight of hand involves a bit of misdirection by pointing out that the seized properties are paid for after all. So fucking what? A market that is not a matter of choice is neither free nor fair. If I am forced to sell my property at a time that is not of my choosing, and with no power to set my own price, then the payment cannot possibly be fair.

Yup.

Kevin notes that things are not going well for the plaintiffs.

ScotusBlog notes:

Marty reports that, based on the impression left by the oral arguments, the government-side is going to win today’s property rights cases overwhelmingly.

In Kelo, the plaintiffs may get as many as three votes: Scalia; Thomas (who did not ask any questions); and Rehnquist (who was not there). But it was clear to O’Connor and Kennedy that the Court would have to overrule Midkiff and Berman to rule for the plaintiffs, an approach for which there was no majority. The only possible silver lining for property-rights advocates was that Justices Kennedy, Souter, O’Connor and Breyer all expressed concern that the traditional measures of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment may be subject to reconsideration. Justice Kennedy acknowledged the question wasn’t presented in Kelo, but the Court’s opinion or a concurrence may raise the issue, opening a new avenue of property-rights litigation.

I hope not. It would really mark the end of property rights in this country.

With Kelo coming today (CNN has a summary), here’s what blogs saying:

Eric – Constitutional violations aside, something about this process would seem to invite political chicanery, if not outright corruption. Want a good deal on a piece of property? Contribute large sums of money to the right guy’s campaign, and it’ll be yours for a song!

Southern Appeal: – According to the Petitioner’s brief, the City and a private development corporation seek to take Petitioners’ 15 homes to turn them over to other private parties in the hope that the City may benefit from whatever trickle-down effects those new businesses produce. Petitioners argue that the majority opinion below incorrectly equated “public use” with the ordinary “public” benefits – taxes and jobs – that typically flow from private business enterprises. The Petitioners urge the Court to adopt a bright-line rule that the possible increase in taxes and jobs does not qualify as a public use.

Tim Cavanaugh has a link rich post that with too much info to quote. Go read.

Pejman Yousefzadeh offers checks to address abuse of eminent domain.

The Institute for Justice has more.

Stephen Green rightly calls it legalized theft.

And I’ve been all over it.

Update: Lobbygow is on it too.

It seems that one thing most sides of the political spectrum can agree on is that eminent domain abuse sucks.

Today, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Kelo v. New London, which is arguably the most important property rights case in recent years. The Post Gazette has two articles on the issue. The first notes:

It has been 50 years since the U.S. Supreme Court adopted an expansive view of the power of eminent domain in the case of Berman v. Parker, in which it upheld the condemnation of private property by the federal government as part of an urban renewal plan in the District of Columbia.

The other notes the confidence of one of the people involved in Kelo:

“How could we possibly lose this?” Von Winkle said in an interview. “You can’t do what they’re doing. If Pfizer wants property, they’ve got to buy it, not steal it.”

At issue is whether or not the .gov can take property from one person and transfer ownership to another private entity in the name of public use, which has very recently been bastardized to mean public good. A ruling for the property owners would be great and the right thing to do. A ruling against will likely mean the end of property rights as we know them. Seriously.

Good read at CNSNews on the tyranny of eminent domain and how the Kelo case will determine the future of property rights in America:

The seizures and transfers, the government says, are in “the public interest” — because they will lead to more jobs for New London residents and more tax dollars for the government.

This type of justification was given more than 10,000 times between 1998 and 2002, and across 41 states, to use eminent domain (or its threat) to seize private property.

The attitude behind these seizures was epitomized by a Lancaster, CA, city attorney explaining why a 99-Cents Only store should be condemned to make way for a Costco: “99 Cents produces less than $40,000 [a year] in sales taxes, and Costco was producing more than $400,000. You tell me which was more important?”

To such government officials, the fact that an individual earns a piece of property and wants to use and enjoy it, is of no importance–all that matters is “the public.”

But as philosopher Ayn Rand observed, “there is no such entity as ‘the public,’ since the public is merely a number of individuals…the idea that ‘the public interest’ supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others.”

The Supreme Court begins hearing it tomorrow.

So, you’re big oil and gas corporation and you happen to own an island. You decide you want to donate the land for a nature preserve. You’re wrong. You should develop the island. Actually, the city will take it and do it for you:

Pennsauken officials are poised to take a major step next week toward taking Petty’s Island as part of a $1 billion waterfront redevelopment project.

On Wednesday, the township committee is expected to pass an ordinance authorizing Pennsauken to begin acquiring the 292-acre island through eminent domain. The island’s owner, Citgo Petroleum Corp., is opposed to the development and wants to donate the land as a nature preserve.

And there’s some brilliant reporting:

The township has the right to take Petty’s Island through eminent domain because it is in a redevelopment zone.

My copy of the Constitution doesn’t mention redevelopment zones.

With five days to go before the Supreme Court hears what is arguably the most important property rights case in recent history, it’s worth noting that over 30 municipalities filed friend of the court briefs in support of taking private property from owners to turn over to private developers.

In one week, the Supreme Court will hear Kelo v. New London, arguably the most important property rights case of our time. With a week left, the seven families are preparing to go before the Supreme Court and plead their case. A recent account:

Fifteen houses are all that remain of Fort Trumbull, a once vibrant immigrant neighborhood on the southeastern Connecticut shore. For years, bulldozers have been leveling houses to make way for a city’s high hopes: a hotel and convention center, office space and upscale condominiums.

The homes, surrounded now by swaths of rutted grass and gravel, stand in defiance to the project. Refusing to sell or leave, seven families will go before the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 22, arguing their city has no right to take property solely in the name of economic development.

At issue is whether the government can take land from one private entity and turn it over to another private entity. To exercise Eminent Domain, the Constitution requires that the land be for public use and that the owners be given just compensation. The city will likely argue that it’s for the public good and that the projected increase in tax revenues are for public use.

Matthew Greene sums up the recent Connecticut Supreme Court decision:

What if the government could condemn your house and the rest of the houses in your neighborhood, and then give them to a development company to put a hotel and some office space in their place because your town had fallen on hard economic times?

Well according to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, that’s a perfectly acceptable use of the government’s eminent-domain powers.

He’s thankful that the Supreme Court will hear the case. I’m not so certain the Supreme Court will do the right thing.