PG Politics notes that the Prince George’s County is proposing an amendment to the Maryland Constitution to authorize the County Council of Prince George’s County to provide for the immediate taking of private property situated in Prince George’s County under certain circumstances. The purpose, of course, is for economic development so they are authorizing taking land to give to private developers.

John D. Crosier notes that the city of Nashua is abusing the Hell out of eminent domain:

FOR MORE than two years, the city of Nashua and Pennichuck Corp. have been at odds over the city’s professed intention to acquire the company by eminent domain.

Yes, the city just wants to take over operations of a private company. So far, the company has spent $2M defending itself and its investors are getting shaky. John D. Crosier nails it:

The city is not only attempting to take the company’s water works inside the boundaries of Nashua, but also is laying claim to Pennichuck subsidiaries that provide water service outside of Nashua through systems that are entirely unconnected to the one serving the city. The power of eminent domain is not being used for any overriding public benefit, but to block a legitimate business decision made by Pennichuck’s board of directors to merge with another company. City leaders have essentially admitted as much.

Such abuses are an egregious violation of property rights and an indicator of state as nanny going way too far.

Here’s an article that looks at another case of Eminent Domain abuse cases headed to the Supreme Court. It also addresses the problem:

Court rulings have stretched the definition of “public use,” adding urban blight and job creation to the original goals of acquiring land for highways, public schools, and the like. Ohio law says eminent domain in the name of economic development cannot be used solely to expand the tax base. It must create jobs and the positive effect must happen in a reasonable amount of time.

Some examples:

Among the most egregious examples of abuse of eminent domain, the institute and other critics say, occurred in Lakewood, Ohio, where the city council deemed a neighborhood of 200 homes to be “urban blight” to make way for a condominium and retail development with a movie theater.

In Mesa, Ariz., the city wants to remove Randy Bailey’s Brake Repair Shop to make way for a larger, more valuable Ace Hardware store.

In New London, the city has condemned private homes on a 90-acre tract to make way for a waterfront hotel and conference center, and mixed-use development of offices and residential units. The project is designed to build upon pharmaceutical goliath Pfizer’s decision to open a research facility in the area.

The Connecticut Supreme Court said New London had a valid public use, claiming the redevelopment would raise the tax base and create thousands of jobs. But an appeal to the highest court on behalf of seven property owners said they seek “to stop the use of eminent domain to take away their most sacred and important of possessions: their homes.”

The fact is that using ED as an economic development tool tramples the property rights of others. Hopefully this Spring, the Supreme Court will rule that way. Given some of their horrendous rulings lately, I’m not feeling too good about it.

XRLQ alerts us to an eminent domain ban in Anaheim:

It is the policy of the City of Anaheim that the power of eminent domain not be used by the City Council or Redevelopment Agency to acquire property from private parties, for the express and immediate purpose of conveying such property to any other private person or entity for commercial uses, when there is no public purpose for the acquisition except the generation or increase of sales tax or property tax revenues to the City.

Good.

Here’s a good rundown of the pending eminent domain case that is to be heard by the Supreme Court.

The IJ ranks Kansas and Missouri among the worst land grabbers:

You think you own your home or land until a developer comes along and wants it. The watchdog group Institute for Justice says cities in Kansas and Missouri are the worst in the nation when it comes to taking private property for another person’s private gain.

On the criteria for ED:

“Anything is blight if the city legislature says it is,” said Sherwin Epstein, an eminent domain attorney.

Epstein said blight, by Kansas City’s definition, can be found just about anywhere and is. Flink said the new federal courthouse still sits on blighted land, along with parts of the Country Club Plaza now under development.

The Institute for Justice is taking the case:

“Well, if property is being taken for someone else’s private benefit, that is not a public use. That not only mangles the words of the Constitution, but it mangles people’s basic property rights. And it’s outrageous,” said Bert Gall, of the Institute for Justice.

Eminent domain authorizes a government body to take land from private entities for public use if they pay just compensation. Eminent domain should not be used solely for the purpose of settling the disagreement over what just compensation is:

Negotiations between the city and owner Joe Zivnak of Azusa have been stuck for months, with the city willing to pay $1.75 million and Zivnak holding out for a package deal worth $2 million.

“The city budged a lot” from its earliest offers months ago, Michael Beck, the assistant city manager, said, adding that the amount was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Zivnak disagrees. “The city never budged at all,” he said.

Part of the disagreement is over cleanup costs, including the removal of asbestos and lead-based paint. The city received an estimate of $600,000, and Zivnak said it could be done for much less.

The reason the city wants the theater:

City officials envision a renovated Fox as an entertainment venue – preferably a performing arts center – that would attract thousands of people a week to downtown Riverside.

That doesn’t look like public use to me.

I don’t oppose all eminent domain. I do oppose its abuse, as illustrated above. Or as illustrated in the pending Supreme Court case involving the city of New London where the city is trying to take property from one private entity to give to a developer. However, a case like this one passes the smell test. In this case, the city is taking property to widen an intersection. That is definitely public use.

Even if we don’t value property rights, maybe we do value money:

Donald L. Correll, President and Chief Executive Officer of Pennichuck Corporation, announced today that for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 the Company earned $577,000, or $.24 per share, compared to net income of $1,022,000, or $.43 per share for the same quarter in 2003. Mr. Correll indicated that, among things, the results of operations for the three months ended September 30, 2004 were adversely impacted by nearly $250,000 of legal and other costs relating to the City of Nashua’s ongoing eminent domain efforts.

Bill Hobbs notes that Nashville is robbing the poor to pay the rich:

Nashville’s Metro Development and Housing Agency is threatening to use its condemnation powers under “eminent domain” to take property from two property owners, destroy two small businsses on the properties, and give the land to a well-heeled real estate developer. (sic)

Issues like this are why Kelo vs. New London is such an important case pending before the Supreme Court. Sadly, I don’t have much faith in the SCOTUS to do the right thing.

What to do with that property that you supposedly took for public use but then later change your mind about? Sell it, of course:

Three years after using eminent domain to take possession of a 24.7-acre parcel in Kearny Mesa, the San Diego Unified School District is selling the vacant land to Home Depot for $11.2 million more than it paid.

Wanda Allen, who I mentioned here, gets to keep all of her property:

State law allows cities to acquire property by eminent domain, if it will better the community, but residents and neighbors opposed the idea, and Wednesday night, the Mansfield City Council agreed to look for another place to build.

Good.

The Souderton Independent:

Tinner said the board would impose eminent domain, “a friendly condemnation” which gives the owner some tax breaks, if the landowners cannot come to terms with the district. “Hopefully this will end up friendly,” he said.

A friendly condemnation? You’re taking someone’s land.

Land Survey Blog details the most restrictive land use law in the nation:

Known as the 65-10 Rule, it calls for landowners to set aside 65 percent of their property and keep it in its natural, vegetative state. According to the rule, nothing can be built on this land, and if a tree is cut down, for example, it must be replanted. Building anything is out of the question.

That’s pretty horrendous.

The latest potential victim of eminent domain abuse:

The City of Mansfield wants to build a 100-acre project that will include retail shops, upscale apartments and a baseball complex.

To complete the project, the city wants two acres of Wanda Allen’s property.

Again, we have a city taking from one private individual to give to another. The article contains this snippet:

Eminent domain allows a government entity to convert private land to public land with reasonable compensation to the landowner.

There is also the important criteria of public use.

Reginald Shareef on the pending SCOTUS case regarding eminent domain:

I’ve watched with interest this fall as the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Kelo v. City of New London. The legal question here is whether a municipality, using the power of eminent domain, can take private property for economic purposes. The case is interesting because it will determine whether cities can seize a person’s property and transfer it to private developers to boost an ailing economy. At the same time, the case is redundant because economic development has been the catalyst behind urban renewal “takings” for the past 50 years.

As the French like to say, “the more things change, the more they remain the same.”

What is different about the Kelo case is the “fig leaf” covering the economic development component of government takings is stripped away as New London openly condemned property that will be used in a private development plan. Heretofore, governments have used their eminent domain powers to condemn property in “blighted” areas, ostensibly to improve them. What a hoax! What really has happened is that these properties were turned over to private developers for economic development.

He then addresses some redevelopment programs in Roanoke.

Lots of happenings with the pending Supreme Court case in New London. The Daily Journal advises caution on the use of eminent domain:

Millville Mayor James Quinn said he couldn’t “let the city down.” He said he wouldn’t be able to sleep if he didn’t support, and the City Commission didn’t approve, an ordinance giving the city power of eminent domain over businesses standing in the way of a new shopping center along Route 47.

Considering what the shopping center would do for this city — 1,000 new jobs and millions of dollars in property tax revenue — it’s easy to understand the mayor’s point of view.

The mayor says the facts are in black and white. We suggest, however, that before the city uses its eminent domain power, it not only calculate the numbers but also count and weigh the human cost and possible loss of trust that could accrue if the city were to relocate or shut down an established business in favor of a new one. City officials must consider the fact that these businesses have provided jobs to local residents for years and during tougher economic times for Cumberland County.

Or, you know, consider the fact that taking from one company to give to another is not public use.

The Institute for Justice is challenging an ED case in Ohio:

A nonprofit law firm today appealed a county court decision that allowed the City of Norwood to forcibly acquire a rental property to make way for a mixed-use development.

The mixed use property is offices, rentals and retail property. Again, not public use.

The News Herald says one thing is for sure:

Whenever you see the term “eminent domain” in the paper, you know one thing for certain – some governmental body is attempting to take property away from an unwilling private owner.

If the rightful owner were willing to sell his land, that person obviously would reach an agreement with the city, state or other governmental unit that is orchestrating the land grab.

The purchase price would be agreed upon, the governmental unit would write a check, and the deal would be closed.

And in Hell err New Jersey, residents ask the city to wait on the Supreme Court ruling:

Residents of Long Branch’s redevelopment zone pleaded with the City Council last week to put a hold on eminent domain proceedings involving their properties until the Supreme Court rules on the issue.

“The Supreme Court has taken the eminent domain case,” Harold Bobrow, of Ocean Boulevard, said at the Oct. 12 council meeting. “Put this [the redevelopment plan] on hold until after the decision of the Supreme Court. Once [the homes in the redevelopment zone] are down, they are gone, kaput, goodbye.”

A good read on eminent domain abuse and the pending Supreme Court Case:

When the Supreme Court announced in September that it would hear Kelo v. City of New London, it sent ripples through state and local governments everywhere. At issue in the Connecticut case is whether the city can exercise its right of eminent domain – the constitutionally based power to take private land for “public use” in exchange for “just compensation” – not for historical purposes such as a highway or flood control, but to bring in more tax revenue through private development.

The Court has decided a handful of related cases throughout its history, but it has always expressed doubts that a judicial rule-of-thumb can be applied to a process that is grounded in so many local variables, including a community’s economic needs and real estate prices. Its position has essentially been that the local governing entities are in the best position to decide those questions.

Despite its remove from direct electoral politics, the Court is not insensitive to the winds of change, and its willingness to take on Kelo v. City of New London reflects two trends: perceived abuse by governmental entities that have used the power to take private land for private development, and a conservative campaign to roll back eminent domain to the bare minimum by making the purchase costs too burdensome for local governments.

I’m don’t have much faith in the court to do the right thing but they may surprise me.

On the pending SCOTUS case:

Whether local governments are appropriately taking privately owned property for economic development projects is at issue in a case accepted for review by the justices of the nation’s top court. The case will mark the first time the Supreme Court has issued a ruling on eminent domain law in 20 years.

The case specifically challenges plans by a Connecticut town to condemn privately owned property so a private developer can build a hotel, a conference center, office buildings, housing and parking.

Taken state by state, court rulings have produced a patchwork quilt of case law addressing eminent domain. Seven states allow condemnations for private development alone. Eight forbid the use of eminent domain when the purpose is not to eliminate blight. Three states are ambiguous. And 32, including North Carolina, have not addressed the issue.

I’m rather surprised that many states forbid the use of eminent domain except in cases of blight. I’d like to see more of that. Of course, I’m sure the blight designation has been abused as well. This article mentions a couple’s dealings with eminent domain. The author provides an interesting snippet:

But over a span of about 50 years, the courts have inexorably changed the generally accepted justification of “public use” into a broader concept of “public benefit,” a critical distinction that opened the way for local governments in fiscal crisis to condemn whole neighborhoods as “blighted” and turn them over to private, profit-seeking developers and corporations. The rationale is contained in a kind of trickle-down corollary that presumes the public would benefit from the jobs and tax revenue generated by the redevelopment. That was the thinking behind the gigantic IKEA project in New Rochelle’s City Park.

By any definition, eminent domain for private benefit is corporate welfare. And it continues to spread at an alarming rate across the land, here and in most states.

According to the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based group that has waged numerous legal battles against this abusive form of eminent domain, 1,000 properties were targeted for condemnation between 1998 and 2002, but those stark numbers hardly tell the story of the individual lives that are disrupted or ruined by the heavy-handed process.

Often times, even if you win the legal battle, the costs are still significantly high.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of eminent domain in New London, CT (which I’ve written about a few times):

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to decide when governments can seize homes and businesses for economic development projects, a key question as cash-strapped cities seek ways to generate tax revenue.

At issue is the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain provided the owner is given “just compensation” and the land is taken for “public use.”

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. The residents refused to budge, arguing that it was an unjustified takeover of their property.

I’m not too optimistic, given how the court has generally let the people down lately. At issue is whether or not a city can take from one private individual and give to another (which is not public use) to develop businesses.

First, the good. There is some reform in eminent domain law in New York:

Nearly four years after a Port Chester property owner went to court to challenge New York state’s rules for taking private property, Gov. George Pataki has signed a law reforming condemnation procedures.

The new law means property owners in New York no longer need to pore over tiny legal notices, searching for clues of government plans to take their land; governments will need to notify each property owner by certified mail or personal delivery.

The eminent domain law reform was signed Tuesday by the governor and was announced by his office yesterday.

It grew out of a battle by Bill Brody, a 42-year-old businessman from Rye, to hold onto four sites in Port Chester’s downtown redevelopment area.

“I’m very glad that the governor agreed with what I have been saying all along and that the state is going in the right direction,” he said yesterday in front his building-supply business in the Bronx.

Brody said he never saw the condemnation plan announcement in a July 1999 legal notice, which neither named him nor identified his Port Chester property by address. Because of that, Brody said, he failed to challenge the condemnation in the 30-day period allowed.

Now, the bad. This article equates eminent domain with despotism:

The U.S. Constitution, properly construed by a vigilant Supreme Court, prevents untrammeled power, which is the definition of despotism. But the human propensity for abusing power — a propensity the Constitution’s unsentimental framers understood and tried to shackle with prudent language — is perennial. There always are people trying to carve crevices in constitutional terminology to allow scope for despotism. Such carving is occurring in Connecticut.

Soon — perhaps on the first Monday in October — the court will announce whether it will hear an appeal against a 4 to 3 ruling last March by Connecticut’s Supreme Court. That ruling effectively repeals a crucial portion of the Bill of Rights. If you think the term “despotism” exaggerates what this repeal permits, consider the life-shattering power wielded by the government of New London, Conn.

That city, like many cities, needs more revenue. To enhance the Pfizer pharmaceutical company’s $270 million research facility, it empowered a private entity, the New London Development Corp., to exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn most of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood along the Thames River. The aim is to make space for expensive condominiums, a luxury hotel and private offices that would yield the city more tax revenue than can be extracted from the neighborhood’s middle-class homeowners.

Given the Supreme Court’s recent travesties, I’m not particularly hopeful or encouraged by the fact they may visit the issue. They could surprise me, though.

With the goal of a shopping center in mind, city officials in Millville drafted an ordinance to take land from existing businesses. Tentatively, the ordinance has been tabled:

Over the last few months, city officials had prepared an ordinance authorizing condemnation proceedings in accordance with local redevelopment and housing laws and eminent domain.

Ah, the shotgun approach: throw many different condemnation plans and hope one sticks.

On abuses:

Those who follow eminent domain abuses were cheered by the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling this summer that it is illegal for the government to seize private land and transfer it to another private owner for public “benefit.”

But that’s one state. The abuses will not end until the U.S. Supreme Court stops the land-grabbers.

The predicate for these abusive eminent domain cases is that a private entity — the government’s good buddy, naturally — will make better use of the land by providing more jobs or greater tax revenue.

Hypocrisy, thy name is the Lancaster County Commission:

Three months after exercising eminent domain to take land for public use, the Lancaster County Commissioners this morning condemned their colleagues in York County for doing the same thing. Lancaster County Commissioner Chairman Pete Shaub today spoke in opposition to the York County Commissioners’ vote in May to take a 79-acre parcel near Wrightsville.

The land, formally a part of Lauxmont Farms, a 766-acre horse farm, was slated to be an upscale housing development called “Highpoint.”

More taking from one private person to give to another.

The Supreme Court will decide whether hear the case of the city of New London taking property from 15 homeowners and giving it to private developers. I don’t have much faith in the Supreme Court given their recent shortcomings in campaign finance reform and Silviera v. Lockyer.

An Illinois town is suing to take land for a new school.

Here’s a plug for a book that highlights abuses of Eminent Domain, entitled Abuse of Power: How the government misuses eminent domain, by Steven Greenhut:

Few phrases in the American lexicon seem as ominous, regal and potentially frightening as “eminent domain.” And that’s as it should be. The government’s power to condemn and forcibly take a person’s private property, even if compensation is paid, isn’t something to be taken lightly or used in a frivolous or indiscriminate way. The right to one’s property is a bedrock American principle. It should be waived only under narrow and rare circumstances – and when the power of eminent domain is invoked, it should be for clearly recognizable public benefit.

Private property rights are today under siege in many ways. But perhaps no more so than in the misuse of eminent domain by government officials dealing favors to private companies and interests. Evidence of these abuses has been anecdotal and fragmented until now. Thanks to the publication of Steven Greenhut’s “Abuse of Power: How the government misuses eminent domain,” we now have the most comprehensive, up-to-date look yet at this American scandal. Published by Seven Locks Press, it’s available through amazon.com.

Greenhut is a senior editorial writer and columnist at a sister paper, The Orange County (Calif.) Register. He casts a wide net in trying to get a handle on a national problem. “Eminent domain creates an avenue for corruption,” Greenhut points out, “as government officials get to play God with other people’s neighborhoods and businesses, and can therefore punish enemies and reward friends.”

I wonder if he means abuses like this:

Ms. Kelo and the Derys are among seven property owners who refused to budge after city officials approved an economic development plan to upgrade their 90-acre waterfront neighborhood, known as Fort Trumbull, by creating prime office space, a hotel, 80 units of housing and a Coast Guard museum.

Because these people would not sell their property, the New London Development Corporation took title to it through eminent domain, a decision upheld in March on a 4-to-3 vote by the Connecticut Supreme Court. The Fifth Amendment allows governments to take private property through eminent domain in exchange for “just compensation,” but only when it is for “public use.”

Or this one:

The city of Columbiana is attempting to have the Summer Classics property rezoned from light industrial to a retail shopping district. And the city is threatening the use of eminent domain to get the property at what it considers a fair price.

Columbiana Mayor Allan Lowe said the city is in need of public parking for its retail district. He also said the city does not want a manufacturing operation in the heart of downtown.

We’ve seen land taken via eminent domain to build a Wal-Mart before, but in a new twist, someone is trying to take land from Wal-Mart for a university:

Rowan University plans to take developers involved in a project to build a Wal-Mart in Harrison Township back to court in an effort to take 115 acres slated for the shopping center by eminent domain.

In a lawsuit filed in Superior Court last week, Rowan University claims it has offered $8.38 million for two rural properties near the interchange of routes 55 and 322 where the developers have proposed building the shopping plaza.

The documents seek to condemn the property and to allow the state university to acquire the land through eminent domain.

Rowan’s suit is the latest development in a legal battle between the Wal-Mart developers and Rowan University over the farmland that has drawn on for more than two years.

Last year, Superior Court Assignment Judge George H. Stanger Jr. denied a similar request by Rowan to condemn the property –then owned by a local farmer who had contracted to sell the land to the Turnersville-based American Continental Properties. Stanger ruled that the state university had failed to adequately negotiate for the land.

In Memphis, the request for using eminent domain to take expensive downtown property to give to developers is becoming an issue. The paper’s editorial on it contains this:

Some developers have complained that Downtown land costs too much. They want the city to use its power of eminent domain to seize property and then turn it over to them.

This is a power that’s best used sparingly, for a number of reasons.

Seizing a private property owner’s land should only be done in cases in which there’s a clear public benefit.

Indeed.

A National Taxpayers Union study indicates an increase in eminent domain use and abuse at all levels of government. A good read. Also, it has examples:

— Brooklyn, New York — Well-connected developer Bruce Ratner’s ambitious proposal (four office towers, 300,000 sq. ft. of retail, 4,500 housing units, six acres of parks, and a publicly funded stadium for the New Jersey Nets) to redevelop the “Atlantic Yards” area of Brooklyn will kick out 150 tax paying homeowners and ring up nearly $1 billion in subsidies on the taxpayer’s tab.

— Toledo, Ohio — City officials offered to acquire nearly 160 acres of residential and commercial property — including 83 homes — in an attempt to persuade DaimlerChrysler not to relocate their manufacturing facility elsewhere. But the 4,900 jobs the city hoped to save dropped to 2,100 since the new plant was fully automated. Toledo taxpayers are left to pay off a $26.7 million relocation loan and cover a $47,000 rebate for each worker now employed.

— Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — Using subsidies and city- financed loans adding up to over $50 million — $150 for every person living in Pittsburgh — Mayor Tom Murphy lured Lazarus and Lord & Taylor to relocate in the city. However, both upscale department stores closed before they even reached the sales target that would require them to start payments on their taxpayer- financed loans.

This American Daily Article writes:

In an unfortunate, but all too foreseeable event, the justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court, those stalwarts of individual liberty, decided that eminent domain should not be limited to merely public use of the land, but should now be expanded to the furtherance of a city’s economic plan.

Sadly, that has become a recent trend in the use (or rather abuse) of eminent domain. The details of the case are:

In Kelo v. City of New London, the plaintiffs were owners of various properties in the city of New London, an area that was targeted to be “revitalized” under a city development plan. 2002 WL 32372999 (Conn.) (soon to be recorded in the Atlantic reporter, second series) In conjunction with a city established development corporation, the plaintiffs were approached to sell their property in furtherance of this goal of rejuvenating the city. This proposal was underway because New London had recently experienced “serious employment declines”, much of which was attributable to the loss of 1900 government sector jobs. Id. at 4.

When the plaintiffs still refused to sell their properties, the government created development corporation, in October 2000, voted to use eminent domain to acquire the property from those refusing to sell. By November 2000, the development corporation began condemnation proceedings on those unwilling sellers.

It should be mentioned that the development corporation will own the area scheduled for development, but lease certain lands to private developers in order to carry out their plans. To add insult to injury, the court records state that one such developer, Corcoran Jennison, is in the midst of negotiations with the city on a ninety-nine year lease on three of the parcels for the staggering amount of $1 per year. Kelo at 3. In turn, the development corporation is forecasting the revitalization plan to create 518-867 construction jobs, 718-1362 direct jobs, and 500-940 indirect jobs, while producing between $680,544 – $1,249,843 in property taxes, all this despite 50% of the land area expected to be tax exempt. Id.

Another case of taking from one private party to give use to another private party.

An update to this post: In LA, city officials have declared a shopping center blighted and are seeking to use eminent domain to take the land. The land will then be used for a residential and retail project. The latest:

A U.S. District Court judge Thursday dismissed a lawsuit that claimed the city of Glendale did not have the authority to acquire land on the proposed Americana at Brand site.

Better Foods Land Investment Company, which owns the property occupied by Rite Aid and Big 5 Sporting Goods on Harvard Street and Central Avenue, argued that the city could not use eminent domain to acquire its land because the land is not blighted. Eminent domain gives cities the authority to seize land for fair market value when it’s deemed in the public’s best interest.

Judge S. James Otero dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the claim can be resolved in a Superior Court through normal eminent domain procedures. If a Superior Court judge grants eminent domain, the court would force the sale of the land for a set price.

Another abuse of the term blighted? No way to tell for certain. However, if it is blighted, shouldn’t the city enforce codes first to get the property in compliance? Also, the fact they plan on taking from one private party to give it to another wreaks of abuse.

Bubba reports (no local press coverage, go figure) that:

Reader A.C. Citizen reports that First Utility District “just condemned” the Calloway’s Landing property “about an hour ago.” (I didn’t know a utility company could do that).

[snip]

Yesterday FUD filed legal proceedings to condemn the 18 acres of Lee Johnson’s family land known as Callaway Landing.

Once the land is condemned only a court case can stop FUD from proceeding. Lee Johnson’s lawyer Charles VanBeke will file an appeal Friday.

Lee Johnson is meeting with Mike Arms today at 1:30 PM to see what the County Mayor will do concerning the condemnation.

More info on saving Callaway Landing is here.

Worth the read. A taste:

For years, municipalities and community development agencies have successfully argued that state and local seizures of private property for purposes of economic growth, job creation and tax revenue maximization are valid “public uses” of eminent domain powers under federal and state constitutions.

The argument greatly expanded upon the popular notion that eminent domain meant that government takings of private property would be solely for public projects such as roads, bridges, parks, schools, government installations, public buildings and the like. Courts have long bought into the broadened argument and sanctioned takings of private property for the benefit of other private entities.

Hence, Norwood, Ohio, declared some private homes “blighted” to justify their razing to make way for a more tax-productive mall. An Arizona town invoked eminent domain proceedings to replace a brake shop with a more favored hardware store (dispute featured in a TV news report). The New Jersey shore town of Long Branch is trying to take oceanfront homes from present owners and build expensive new condos for yuppies. New London, Conn., seized some perfectly fine waterfront homes to replace them with an office building (litigation now before the U.S. Supreme Court).

All over the country, localities have dispossessed one set of property owners to make room for builders of stadiums, auto assembly plants, racetracks, casinos and big box stores. If someone else could make more money with your property and pay higher taxes, the town would boot you off that property and give it to that other party.

But one court is saying, “Hold on there! Not so quick!” In a broad ruling delivered this July, the Michigan Supreme Court has caused all jurisdictions across the nation to rethink the use of government eminent domain powers to advance economic goals and better land use agendas.

In Michigan, the court decided that a private entity’s pursuit of profit does not constitute public use. Good.

This article details a property owner’s victory:

Despite the loss of three federal grants comprising 90 percent of the $7.4 million it would cost and the possibility of repaying $300,000 for already-spent funds, the Oakdale City Council voted down a proposal Monday night to expand the Oakdale Airport through condemnation procedures.

The action, made on a 3-2 split vote, also provided a win for JLG Holsteins, who opposed the Eminent Domain process on 2.7 acres of its property. The argument posed by an attorney for the firm was countered by the City Special Attorney for Eminent Domain on the grounds that it did not meet a “legal” definition for public necessity.

This article addresses the use of eminent domain as an economic development tool rather than a public use measure.

And this article addresses the use of eminent domain to make a lake.

It’s good to see some victories for property owners or eventually all land would be for public use.