Another move by a government to ban limit eminent domain abuse:

The Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday voted unanimously to pass legislation restricting the use eminent domain powers. Senate Bill 86, authored by Sen. Jeff Chapman (R-Brunswick), prohibits the exercise of the power of eminent domain for the purpose of transferring the condemned property to a private developer, corporation or any other private entity for the purpose of expanding the tax base or for economic development.

Good. This shouldn’t require a ban as it should already be illegal.

Every once in a while, a new twist on the government land grab really raises my eyebrows. A reader familiar with the case emailsone such case:

Some call it a Catch-22 situation. Others say it’s a bureaucratic nightmare that Janice and Gary Duclair have found themselves in as they try to sell their house at 4254 Vervais Ave. After living there since 1977, and with their children now grown, they have moved to Manteca and asked local Realtor Mike Carey to sell the house. Located in a commercially zoned area, or so he thought, since the Duclairs moved there, he had an offer of $850,000 from a buyer who wanted to use the house for a business venture. But City Hall turned him down when he sought assurances the buyer could get a business permit. It seems that unbeknownst to the Duclairs or almost anyone else in Pleasanton, the City Council had rezoned the land for a park.

Now, I can buy that a park is public use and as long as there is just compensation, there shouldn’t be any of the objections I normally have. But doing such a thing out of the public eye is questionable if not outright criminal. Additionally, it seems that no one was aware that anyone lived on the street in question as it was set aside for a new road.

When city planners attack from behind closed doors, something seems awry.

Norwood, a city trying to unconstitutionally use eminent domain to take land from one party to turn over to a developer, has had an interesting turn of events:

After the jury was selected Monday, the judge ordered jurors be given a tour of the property to give them a better sense of its worth. Once inside the building, though, the jurors, court workers and attorneys got a surprise.

The owners had festooned the interior with signs, banners and a mannequin dressed in clothes attacking the government’s use of eminent domain to seize private property.

That was done, Burke and Powell argued Tuesday, to convince the jury to award Motz a higher price.

“(Motz’s) outrageous conduct was calculated to serve no legitimate purpose, but rather to illegitimate(ly) injure the City of Norwood’s position in front of the jury,” Powell and Burke wrote in their request for a mistrial.

Inside one room of the building, the owner posted editorial cartoons attacking Norwood’s use of eminent domain and a photo of a group of protestors in the legal fight over the issue.

The building’s back door, which jurors passed to get to the basement, bore a sign reading, “Government Quit Selling Us Out to Developers.”

In the basement, jurors saw a banner proclaiming “Fight Eminent Domain Abuse in Norwood” next to a mannequin dressed in a T-shirt that sported an anti-eminent domain message. The dummy also was holding a sign that read “Being Forced to Sell is Just Not Right.”

This resulted in a mistrial.

No problem. Just annex a business:

The company contends the following: The annexation is not necessary to further promote the welfare of city residents; the city only wants the property for revenue purposes, and the property owner does not require city services; and the city “has not followed the required statutory procedures” in pursuing the annexation.

The city has vowed to vigorously defend the annexation. I drive past Vulcan every day. There’s really nothing there. I think it’s pretty clear the motivation is for tax revenue.

This potential eminent domain case seems pretty silly to me:

An agency backed by the city is preparing to take Day’s business by eminent domain to make way for something called a “Media Box.”

Day can take the offer of $67,500 for his property – less than the city says it’s worth – or continue with an already drawn-out court battle. Either way, he has little chance of keeping his shop on a triangle of land at Spring Avenue and Olive Street.

Critics say Day’s situation is a classic example of the abuse of eminent domain. A case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court could affect thousands of similar cases nationwide.

It’s part of a revitalization effort but no one was talking about what exactly a media box is. Someone finally came forward to clarify:

But last week, Michelle Cohen, a public relations executive recently hired by Grand Center, said the “Media Box” is a building that will hold a design studio and apartments or condominiums.

“The ‘Media Box’ is really the working title for the design studio piece of it,” Cohen said.

Another case of forced private party transfers.

Not only has Eminent Domain been used to take land from one private party to give to another private party for development, now an attempt to abuse it for natural resources is in the midst:

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission earlier this week asked a Senate committee for the power of eminent domain in the siting of liquefied natural gas facilities, a move which could potentially impact the city, Mayor Edward M. Lambert Jr. said Thursday.

Lambert said an LNG expert retained by the city believes the recommended vapor exclusion zone for Hess LNG’s proposed project is not large enough because a vapor cloud could extend beyond the property where the company hopes to build its LNG facility, meaning that the power of eminent domain might be needed to go forward.

More taking of property to make someone else money.

Also, here’s a case of a water district that is concerned about a bill that makes it harder for them to take land:

Beaver Water District officials are concerned about the implications of a bill making it harder for public water suppliers to use eminent domain to condemn private property to protect water quality.

The bill provides a voluntary alternative to condemnation and allows water utilities to use the power of eminent domain only as a last resort. Senate Bill 230 was filed Thursday and is assigned to the Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee.

In every case, ED should be used absolutely as the last resort.

And, again, in California:

Jo Stringfield knows her home is neglected. She hasn’t been able to muster the energy to finish projects since learning that the city wants the land and if she won’t sell, it will be taken by eminent domain.

“I was going to do a little repair work, a little upkeep,” Stringfield said. “But why do it, when I don’t know how long I’ll be able to stay?”

Grand Terrace officials want the 1.9 acres Stringfield’s house sits on in the 2200O (sic) block of Barton to build Town Center, a shopping complex with a grocery store, restaurants and a new city library.

Another case of transferring property to businesses.

The Good:

Town councilors unanimously voted Tuesday night to reject a request that they support the New London Development Corp.’s use of eminent domain.

The Bad:

An editorial notes the transition from public use to public good.

The Ugly:

As if to prove it’s nothing but a land grab, Houston will take your land either by foreclosing on delinquent taxes or eminent domain. Doesn’t matter, we want your land. It’s for a good cause.

Lobbygow on the OwnerSHIFT Society:

Make way for the OwnerSHIFT Society™, a kleptocrat’s paradise, where local municipalities and well connected developers are eager to help homeowners and small business entrepreneurs achieve that special warm glow that accompanies sacrificing your hard-won dreams for the greater good – developer’s fees and sales tax revenues!

Sadly, this cronyist utopia is threatened by an upcoming SCOTUS case, Kelo vs. New London. Apparently some selfish, petty homeowners with quaint notions of “property rights” and neighborhood integrity are questioning the Old Boy Network’s god-given right to do whatever they damned well please.

He also links to No Land Grab, which notes that a number of cities and municipalities are filing briefs in Kelo v. New London to defend the practice of abusing eminent domain to take from one private party to give to another.

Also, reader John emails this article about Eminent Domain in California. When city planners attack:

Sacramento officials want property owners of rundown buildings, struggling businesses or empty lots along portions of K Street to create thriving shops there – or else.

In a proposal to be presented to the City Council today, property owners in the 700 and 800 blocks of K Street would have 90 days to come up with viable redevelopment plans. If they don’t, city officials will begin negotiating to buy the property, and as a last resort take the sites through eminent domain, said Wendy Saunders, the city’s director of economic development.

“We haven’t tried anything like this before,” Saunders said. “We’d like people who own the properties who would like to be developers to be given the first shot.”

Nice of them to give owners the option of developing or else. However, taking the land to give to other developers fails the public use test.

First, Lobbygow reminds us that the Bush administration is considering filing a friend of the court briefing in Kelo v. New London.

Next up, my old friend Tearsa Smith has an article on how property is acquired through eminent domain. She left out the phrase usually unconstitutionally.

I am a bit annoyed that Wally, the owner of the property the county is looking to take, has apparently taken down most of the information on both his pages. He goes through the trouble of alerting local blogs, gets my panties in a bunch, then takes it down. What gives, Wally?

Update: Michael Silence notes: Board of Education chairman said Wednesday that he is going to return to the school system’s traditional method of negotiating for land.

Returning to the traditional method of actually negotiating in the first place?

Update 2: Info removed for now.

Update 3: For reader Steve K., Wally emails:

It’ll be back. It had nothing to do with anyone being upset about it. There were some inaccuracies that we were trying to get corrected.

Please let everyone know. I am not upset with the people on the School Board or in the School System. I believe that this is the “Wrong price, therefore, the wrong location” for a school.

The county wants to build a school and needs land. Via Bubba, comes the KNS round up:

The Knox County Board of Education will discuss Tuesday condemning three pieces of undeveloped land to use as the site for a much anticipated new high school out west, said board Chairman Dan Murphy.

“It’s my intent to discuss it, to debate it, to consider the process of condemnation and then in roughly 30 days call for a vote – unless, of course, we can negotiate a sale before then,” Murphy said.

After an “exhaustive search” for about 40 acres of flat land, Murphy said, school officials have found the three neighboring sites they want. Negotiations with the three owners – two individuals and one estate – have failed, he said.

However, one of the owners reports that no negotiations have occurred. The county seems to be jumping the gun on this. If I had to guess why, I’d say it’s because they want to rig exactly how much just compensation they have to pay. I have no issue with legally pursuing the land as it is for a school (which constitutes public use in my book). However, they should tender an offer for the property before getting all government on somebody.

Update: Here is more info.

Robert Santiago writes:

Long-time Collier County land owner Jesse James Hardy has a showdown with a state judge early next month to determine whether the government can force him off his 160 acres of mosquito-infested property.

Last year, the state filed court papers for eminent domain to force Hardy to take a lump-sum buy out. Eminent domain allows states to take a person’s property for the public good, giving them fair market value.

Actually, it’s for public use not public good.

For the last three years the government has been trying to get Hardy to sell his land to make room for its $8 billion Everglades restoration project, which will flood land from Lake Okeechobee south to the ocean, artificially turning it into wetlands and, theoretically, restoring a pollution-free water flow.

Having failed, the state filed for eminent domain.

So, they want to take a man’s property and turn it into unusable land? I really don’t think environmentalism constitutes public use. As Hardy says:

”It’s my home and it’s where I run my business and where I raise my family,” said Hardy. “Why should I leave just so the government can conduct its billion-dollar science project?”

Via Ned:

“The moment an idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” – John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787

Cato’s Doug Bandow calls Eminent Domain abuse legal plunder:

Alas, this case was no anomaly. As Steven Greenhut, an editorial writer for the Orange County Register, observes in his timely new book, Abuse of Power: How the Government Misuses Eminent Domain (Seven Locks Press, 311 pages, $17.95), “governments increasingly use eminent domain to take property from one private owner in order to give it to another private owner.” A small home owner or businessman then “must surrender his home or business because a wealthy developer — perhaps a big campaign contributor and mover and shaker in the community, or an out-of-town corporation promising an expanded tax base for the city — has bigger and better plans for it.”

The Institute for Justice, which takes on quite a few property rights case, will not defend a group of Tempe, AZ homeowners due to stressed financial resources.

I’m not one who usually pimps for people to donate to causes but if you have an extra nickel or two, consider donating to The Institute for Justice. You can do so here.

A ban on Eminent Domain for redevelopment (you know, the illegal kind of Eminent Domain) has been delayed in Kentucky:

The ordinance, introduced by Commissioner Brian Strow, would have prohibited the city from condemning land for the purpose of turning it over to another private entity, such as a development company. The ongoing plan for the city’s ambitious downtown redevelopment specifically allows that use, citing potential economic development as a worthwhile public purpose.

Toxic waste and Eminent Domain seem to be the only things coming out of New Jersey these days.

Eminent Domain in California put on hold. Good.

A reminder Kelo v. New London is heading to to the Supreme Court. Here’s a quick summary.

In (not so) Freeport, Tx, Eminent Domain is being used for the confiscation of private land to build a private yacht marina. A reader emails Scandal In Freeportwhich is keeping up with the Freeport case.

An editorial reminds cities that the use of Eminent Domain should be for well-defined public purposes.

And in New Jersey, it’s still OK to take from one private individual to give to another:

“What a wonderful Christmas present for the people of Sayreville,” Mayor Kennedy O’Brien said. “Five years of persistence and hard work have been vindicated in court.”

Yes, usurping the Constitution, breaking the law, and illegally taking someone’s property is a wonderful Christmas present.

It’s like they’ve got a deadline to meet or something.

This time, in Kentucky. A city plans to take commercial buildings, vacant lots, and private residences and turn them into more private residences. That is not public use. Apparently, this is also to preserve a historic area. Hats off to Commissioner Moorman:

Commissioner Bernie Moorman agreed the plan was a good one, but voted against it because it will allow the city to force the sale of property using the power of eminent domain — which he described as a “cruel and not necessary process.”

“The plan has good intentions, but it’s an evil process by which to execute the plan,” Moorman said.

Evil, indeed.

In February, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Kelo v. New London. This is an important property rights case that will hopefully restore the public use clause of the fifth amendment. That clause has been bastardized and public use has somehow been interpreted as the public good, which means a government can take your land and give it to someone else to increase tax revenue. Clint Bolick writes that the Bush administration is seriously considering filing a brief opposing property rights:

Ordinarily, an administration weighs in on other people’s cases only where a direct federal government interest is presented. Here, no such interest exists, because the federal government typically uses eminent domain only for public use.

So what is it that is impelling the administration to betray its principles?

Is it succumbing to pressure from federal bureaucrats born of solidarity with state and local power? Is it seeking to shelter big business interests that are beneficiaries of eminent domain abuse?

We can’t know because no one in the administration is saying. Even worse is the brazen disdain with which the administration has dismissed pleas from some of its staunchest allies to stay out of the case.

It is a bit questionable that no information is known as to why the administration would support such a thing but, given the big government Republican government we have, I wouldn’t find it surprising.

Mother Jones, which ordinarily isn’t worth the paper it’s not printed on, has an informative piece on Eminent Domain.

And another cash-strapped city (Daytona) is planning to rob citizens and give their property to developers.

Lobbygow has the details on (to use his various for euphemisms for dookie):

This Leviathan of a development firm has already shat two indescribably hideous piles of cement excrement into the heart of Brooklyn, Atlantic Center and Atlantic Terminal. Of course, these concrete coprolytes are only a warm-up for the big dump, the much ballyhooed Atlantic Yards Project, an orgy of neighborhood destroying crapola that adds insult to injury by introducing the specter of eminent domain.

Wal-Mart, with its tradition of trying to get politicians to take land, is at it again:

Ogden City wants Fernandez, along with residents of 33 other homes and owners of eight businesses, to move out to make way for a Super Wal-Mart.

“It’s not a palace. But it’s my home. It’s my home!” says Fernandez, a widow who keeps a big garden and lives on a Social Security check.

On summing up the issue:

“I don’t think in America we should ever be forced to do this,” says Hal LaFleur, who owns several of the area’s private parcels, including the 4-year-old building that houses his son-in-law’s welding business. “This is not for public use. This is for Wal-Mart.”

The SCOTUS will hear Kelo v. New London on February 22.

Fighting eminent domain abuse has rallied troops from both sides of the political spectrum:

The Institute for Justice has soldered progressive and conservative groups into a surprising coalition that is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to prohibit the taking of private property for economic development.

Twenty-five groups with assorted political views have filed briefs in support of the Fort Trumbull residents who are resisting the city’s effort to take their houses to make way for offices and a hotel that will strengthen the city’s tax base. The Institute for Justice is representing those residents before the high court, which will hear the case on Feb. 22.

The use of eminent domain riles libertarian groups, including the Cato Institute, because it infringes on an individual’s right to hold property. And it vexes progressive groups, including the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, because it undermines the strength of community.

The Boston City Council has officially sanctioned the abuse of eminent domain:

The City Council voted yesterday to extend the Boston Redevelopment Authority’s urban renewal powers until 2015, allowing the agency to continue using eminent domain in private development projects.

In Golden, Colorado a privately funded group has been set up to ensure water supplies are adequate. What is disturbing, however, is this:

Because the district has private backing, it won’t use voter-approved mill levies or taxes, as most special districts do, but it will have powers such as eminent domain.

Maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to grant any privately funded entity the powers of the state.

In addition to abusing eminent domain to take land from private parties to give to other private parties (which violates the constitutional criteria of public use), some governments try to use it to get an unfair price (so much for just compensation):

Capital Improvement Board members said Monday that the city has failed to negotiate a price with the current owner. The property is listed on a real-estate Internet site for $10 million.

“What we’re really talking about is a disagreement over its value,” said board President Fred Glass.

Other board members said the price was “two or three times” what the city is offering. Under eminent domain, the city can take the property and pay a value assigned by a third-party appraiser.

Big Box Bullies:

Mega-merchandisers such as Costco Wholesale Corp., Home Depot Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. try to control acquisition costs the old-fashion way — they have politicians take the desired land from property owners so it can be transferred to them.

“Legalized theft” is not an oxymoron to those familiar with eminent domain. Government’s right of eminent domain had been limited to taking private property, and offering compensation, for truly public uses. New roads. Fire stations. Courthouses.

Now government grabs private property on behalf of the big-box bullies. The confiscation is rationalized as being for the greater good, supposedly to create jobs and produce taxes. And the original owner is offered some money.

The jumbo-jerk arrogance was epitomized by Costco vice president Joel Benoliel. He told shareholders two years ago that “probably dozens” of its projects involve eminent domain “or the threat of it.” He also offered that this is not a corruption of the free market and that limiting government land-grabbing to genuine public uses was a “simplistic” libertarian argument.

So dozens of stores are planned to be taken through eminent domain. I find it offensive that respecting property rights and abiding by the Constitution are “simplistic” libertarian arguments.

And, in New Jersey, another case of taking from private citizens to give to private developers:

The city plans to knock down all the houses left on her street, Titus Avenue, along with one block of Pennington Avenue, to make way for 15 new houses officials hope will each fetch $90,000, nearly twice what Thompson stands to receive in compensation.

Taking from the poor to sell to the rich.

This time, in Ohio:

The Milo Grogan neighborhood is organizing against a proposal for a new shopping center that would wipe out 200 homes through eminent domain.

Another city taking private property to hand over to another private individual.

A Jersey legal firm has filed a friend of the court brief for the pending Kelo v. New London case:

An Atlantic City organization is getting involved in a Supreme Court case it says has ramifications for developments in South Jersey.

South Jersey Legal Services has filed an amici curiae – or friends of the court – brief in connection with a Connecticut eminent domain case being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, the organization’s deputy director, Douglas Gershuny, said Wednesday.

[snip]

South Jersey Legal Services’ suits also accuse Camden and Mount Holly of civil rights violations, as the two neighborhoods declared blights are minority neighborhoods.

I do wonder how much credence the SCOTUS puts in friend of the court documents?

In the first, a city tells a property owner to do something with his land or they’ll take it:

Downtown property owner Ron Lau vows he will fight the city’s attempt to seize his land for redevelopment.

“That’s unfortunate and misguided and just a flaw in how we as human beings operate,” Lau said of the city Redevelopment Agency’s plans to condemn his Pacific Avenue property that has been sitting empty since the Loma Prieta earthquake leveled much of the area in 1989.

A Hawaiian native who lives in Watsonville, Lau is a self-described free spirit who doesn’t like to be told what to do or when to do it. He owns the gaping concrete pit between Lulu Carpenter’s and the World Savings Bank branch — a spot many see as nothing but an eyesore and place for weeds to sprout in the heart of downtown.

The 20,000-square-foot lot has been appraised at $1.4 million.

Lau has 90 days to accept an offer by local developer Bolton Hill to buy the parcel. If a deal is not reached, the agency will attempt to negotiate with Lau. If that proves unsuccessful, the city says it will consider eminent domain.

The push to take the land came from a private developer. Another case of forced private party transfers.

In another case, the land has already been taken and given to a private developer. While the judgment is being appealed, another judge gave the developer the go ahead and tear down the building on it. The justification:

The financially strapped city has insisted it needs the property for the proposed Rookwood Exchange development — 200 condominiums, apartments, retail space and 550,000 square feet of office space — to bring an additional $1.8 million annually in earnings tax into the city’s coffers. The development also will generate an additional $300,000 per year for Norwood schools.

That’s pretty abysmal.

St. Louis residents getting kicked out for a new shopping center. Worse, is the shopping center will be taxpayer funded:

Smith’s south-city neighborhood near Carondelet Park is about to become the latest of many that the city is looking to grant a TIF, a thirteen-year-old tax-increment financing arrangement that allows developers tax breaks to raise new buildings in so-called blighted areas.

The Desco Development Group, a Clayton-based developer and the Schnuck family’s development company, plans to put a $40 million shopping center called Loughborough Commons on the 30-acre parcel of land at Loughborough and South Grand avenues, adjacent to I-55. Desco spokesman Steve Houston says the firm is looking to build a bigger Schnucks and a Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse, and to bring in some smaller retailers. The project has been in the works for eighteen months.

Another case of government taking private land to give to other private parties. That is not public use.