Eminent Domain Land Grabs since June 23, 2005

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aucmSj8ixPu8&refer=us

Jersey Shore Residents Face Eviction After Supreme Court Ruling

June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Residents of the New Jersey seaside town of Long Branch, 50 miles south of Manhattan, may be among the first to feel the effect of a Supreme Court ruling allowing municipalities to seize property for private development.

Long Branch plans to bulldoze dozens of beachfront homes and businesses to make way for a 12-acre redevelopment zone that would include 350 condominiums and townhouses selling for $400,000 to more than $2 million. About 25 residents who have rejected buyout offers from the town face eviction.

``Sitting around waiting for someone to take your house is a horrible thing to endure,'' said Lori Ann Vendetti, who spent summers at the four-bedroom brick ranch house one block off the beach that her parents have owned for 45 years. She now rents a home across the street.

The Supreme Court ruled June 23 in a New London, Connecticut, dispute that local governments can use the power of eminent domain to take over private property to make way for developments including shopping malls, office parks and sports stadiums. Government agencies can take property as part of an economic development plan -- and even transfer it to another private party -- as long as the owner gets compensation.

A front-page article about Long Branch in the Star-Ledger, the state's largest paper, ran under the headline ``Eminent Domain's Line in the Sand'' three days after the court ruling.

Long Branch officials declared much of the five-square miles of the town, known more than a century ago as the summer White House when presidents ranging from Ulysses S. Grant to James Garfield vacationed there, as blighted to clear the way for the condemnation of properties of owners who rejected offers.

`Classic Example'

``This has really raised awareness of a terrible problem through out the country and New Jersey is one of the worst states,'' said Dana Berliner, a senior attorney Institute for Justice in Washington. ``In certain ways, Long Branch is such a classic example of the kind of abuse that goes on.''

Opponents to the plan said town officials are forcing out long-time and lower-income residents in favor of the developer, Applied Development Co., and offering below market prices for their properties.

``Ours really is a viable neighborhood,'' William Giordano, 40, said in a telephone interview June 28. ``It's not an area of falling down homes, vacancies and absentee owners. It's not an area I would believe the Founding Fathers had in mind when they came up with eminent domain.''

The Giordano family owns a two-story, three-unit brick multifamily home built by their great-grandfather 80 years ago. At least three other families in the neighborhood have owned homes there for more than 50 years, Giordano said. The developer assessed his ocean view property at $480,000, he said.

`Lucrative Offers'

Long Branch Mayor Adam Schneider said the holdouts fighting the redevelopment will have a hard time winning in court. He said the 33,000-resident community has made them ``very lucrative offers'' for their homes. He declined to provide an average price being offered.

``We would like to find a way to relocate them,'' said Schneider, 50. ``I doubt that will happen. Right now the holdouts won't even talk to us.''

Long Branch's city council created the redevelopment zone in 1996 to revive the fortunes of the town, which boasted a casinos and a racetrack in the 1880s. It underwent a steady decline since the 1920s after gambling was outlawed and storms eroded the beach.

About 15 percent of the city's 13,000 households were federally assisted or affordable housing as of the 2000 U.S. census and the poverty rate was 12 percent. The median household income was $38,651, or about 30 percent below the average in New Jersey, which has the highest in the U.S.

The holdouts there say they have been unable to fix up their properties because the city stopped issuing them permits or requires homeowners to agree to waive the value of any upgrade in their condemnation assessments.

`Forsaken'

The burning down of the town's 1,000-foot pier, the state's longest, along with its well-known Haunted Mansion tourist attraction in 1987 was nearly the city's death knell, the mayor said. Schneider wants to rebuild the pier with shops and add commuter ferry service to Manhattan.

Paul Fernicola, an attorney at Bowe & Fernicola, a Red Bank, New Jersey, law firm handling the city's eminent domain trial work, said most of the cases that have gone to court so far have been disputes over a property's selling price.

The holdouts may take a new approach and fight the actual taking of the property rather than disputing the offer prices by seeking a ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court said such disputes should be handled at the state level, said Berliner of the Institute for Justice, an organization that opposes the use of eminent domain.

``We feel Long Branch has forsaken us,'' Vendetti said in a telephone interview June 27. ``Even if they offer us $2 million, I'm keeping the house. The money is not a factor, it's personal.''
-------------------------------------
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/02/BAGO4DI6GJ1.DTL
OAKLAND
City forces out 2 downtown businesses
Action follows high court ruling on eminent domain

Jim Herron Zamora, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, July 2, 2005

Tony Fung watches John Revelli carry inventory away from ...

* Printable Version
* Email This Article

Last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling approving a Connecticut city's plan to take private land by eminent domain may seem far away.

But to John Revelli, whose family has operated a tire shop near downtown Oakland for decades, the implications hit home on Friday.

A team of contractors hired by the city of Oakland packed the contents of his small auto shop in a moving van and evicted Revelli from the property his family has owned since 1949.

"I have the perfect location; my customers who work downtown can drop off their cars and walk back here," said Revelli, 65, pointing at the nearby high- rises. "The city is taking it all away from me to give someone else. It's not fair."

The city of Oakland, using eminent domain, seized Revelli Tire and the adjacent property, owner-operated Autohouse, on 20th Street between Telegraph and San Pablo avenues on Friday and evicted the longtime property owners, who have refused to sell to clear the way for a large housing development.

The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last week paved the way for local governments to buy out unwilling property owners, demolish homes and businesses, and turn that land over to new owners for development. Last week's ruling expanded on earlier decisions that allowed agencies to take property only if it is considered "blighted" or run-down.

"The city thinks I cause 'economic blight' because I don't produce enough tax revenue,'' Revelli said. "We thought we'd win, but the Supreme Court took away my last chance."

The two properties, which total 6,500 square feet, were being forced to move or sell because their businesses are on a larger section of land that is slated for the Uptown Project, a city-subsidized real estate development that is expected to include nearly 1,200 apartments and condominiums.

The project's wedge-shaped lot, just west of the 19th Street BART Station, includes several blocks roughly bounded by 20th Street, 17th Street, Telegraph Avenue and San Pablo Avenue.

Both Revelli Tire and Autohouse, owned and operated by Tony Fung, are on the northern edge of the project in the 400 block of 20th Street, which is also called Thomas L. Berkley Way.

The eviction came as no surprise to Revelli and Fung. The city has designated their block as a redevelopment area for about 20 years. Before approving the Uptown Project last year, the city considered putting in a shopping mall, then an arena for the Golden State Warriors and later a ballpark for the Oakland Athletics.

The decision to build market-rate housing on the site, subsidized by $61 million in city redevelopment funds, is the keystone in Mayor Jerry Brown's plan to revitalize downtown Oakland by putting in homes for 10,000 new residents there.

"This is the part of redevelopment everyone hates," said Hamid Gami, who is coordinating the relocation for Oakland's Community and Economic Development Agency.

"It's tough. They're good people. We've offered them fair compensation, and we hope to come to an agreement. But this is a really important new development. The city has been trying to do this for years. It's good for all of Oakland. It's going to be a great project."

Gami said he hopes to work out a settlement with Revelli and Fung.

The business owners said they clung to hopes that the eminent domain decision might be overturned in court or that they could persuade the city to build the project and leave them alone.

"All those new residents will need someone to work on their cars," said Revelli, who has been working in the shop since he was in third grade helping his dad and uncle. "I don't want their money. I don't want to move. I just want to work right here."

Most of the other businesses closed their doors and left in the past two years. The only other holdout, Chef Edward's Barbeque, is expected to reopen about a block and a half away.

Fung and Revelli said the money offered by the city, about $100 per square foot plus relocation costs, was insufficient, saying the real estate boom has priced them out of nearby properties. They own their properties outright and have operated with low overhead.

"John works alone; I have one technician working with me -- that's it, '' said Fung, who bought his 2,500-square-foot shop in 1993. "The cost of buying or leasing a new site is prohibitive. The money the city offered me does not cover it."

Revelli, who has worked alone for the past 35 years, said no other location is as good as what he is losing.

"My customers are mainly women who work in the offices downtown. They can take BART if they have to leave their cars overnight," Revelli said. "There's really no equivalent location around here."

Both men said Friday that losing their businesses was like losing a piece of themselves.

"I've worked here full time since 1959, and I looked forward to coming to work every day," Revelli said. "I'm not ready to retire, but the city forced me into this. I don't have many options."

Fung, who is in his late 40s and raising his children, said retirement is not an option.

"I'm an immigrant from China, and this has been the fulfillment of my American dream," Fung said. "I worked hard. I played by the rules. But now it's all gone. I've got to start all over."
-----------------------
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
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.
------------------------------------
Freeport moves "aggressively" to seize waterfront property
Court's decision empowers the city to acquire the site for a new marina

Houston Chronicle | June 28 2005
By THAYER EVANS

FREEPORT - With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.

The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cities may bulldoze people's homes or businesses to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The decision gives local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

"This is the last little piece of the puzzle to put the project together," Freeport Mayor Jim Phillips said of the project designed to inject new life in the Brazoria County city's depressed downtown area.

Over the years, Freeport's lack of commercial and retail businesses has meant many of its 13,500 residents travel to neighboring Lake Jackson, which started as a planned community in 1943, to spend money. But the city is hopeful the marina will spawn new economic growth.

"This will be the engine that will drive redevelopment in the city," City Manager Ron Bottoms said.

Lee Cameron, director of the city's Economic Development Corp., said the marina is expected to attract $60 million worth of hotels, restaurants and retail establishments to the city's downtown area and create 150 to 250 jobs.

http://www.local10.com/news/4645612/detail.html

Family May Lose Business To Court's Eminent Domain Decision
City May Take Building Family Owned For 35 Years

POSTED: 6:04 pm EDT June 23, 2005
UPDATED: 11:59 am EDT June 29, 2005

HOLLYWOOD, Fla. -- A landmark decision by the Supreme Court regarding eminent domain paves the way for local government to take your home or business to make way for private development -- and that's exactly what's happening to a business owner in downtown Hollywood.

Do you agree with the court's decision?

For 35 years, the Mach family has been cutting hair and doing nails in their building on the corner of Harrison Street and 19th Avenue.

George Mach and his wife Kaitlin purchased the building in 1971. Their son says the couple not only ran the business, they raised their family there.

David Mach said, "I worked here when I was a kid. I worked the register and met all the old customers."

He says his folks rejected several requests to sell the building over the years, but the latest offer is one the family can't refuse. The city of Hollywood is moving to seize the building through eminent domain, which allows governments to take private property for public use. The city plans to put a $100 million condominium on the site.

Property rights attorney Charlie Forman says he is worried about how city leaders will interpret the Supreme Court's decision

Forman said, "As long as they're doing something good for the community it's OK to take people's property."

Daniel Abbot, the city of Hollywood's attorney, says city leaders do sympathize with the Mach family.

Abbot said, "They're long time residents and we're working with them, but at the end of the day, that area has been targeted for restoration and redevelopment and we need to get to that point somehow."

George Mach lost a long battle with leukemia six weeks ago.

His son says the family is more committed than ever to save their store.

(CBS) Just about everyone knows that under a process called eminent domain, the government can (and does) seize private property for public use - to build a road, a school or a courthouse.

But did you know the government can also seize your land for private use if they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good"?

Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing.

Under eminent domain, the government buys your property, paying you what's determined to be fair market value.

But now, people who don't want to sell their homes at any price - just to see their land go to another private owner - are fighting back. Correspondent Mike Wallace reports on this story, which first aired last fall.

Jim and Joanne Saleet are refusing to sell the home they've lived in for 38 years. They live in a quiet neighborhood of single-family houses in Lakewood, Ohio, just outside Cleveland.

The City of Lakewood is trying to use eminent domain to force the Saleets out to make way for more expensive condominiums. But the Saleets are telling the town, "Hell no! They won't go."

“The bottom line is this is morally wrong, what they're doing here. This is our home. And we're going to stay here. And I'm gonna fight them tooth and nail. I've just begun to fight,” says Jim Saleet.

“We talked about this when we were dating. I used to point to the houses and say, 'Joanne, one of these days we're going to have one of these houses.' And I meant it. And I worked hard.”

Jim Saleet worked in the pharmaceutical industry, paid off his house and then retired. Now, he and his wife plan to spend the rest of their days there, and pass their house on to their children.

But Lakewood's mayor, Madeleine Cain, has other plans. She wants to tear down the Saleets' home, plus 55 homes around it, along with four apartment buildings and more than a dozen businesses.

Why? So that private developers can build high-priced condos, and a high-end shopping mall, and thus raise Lakewood's property tax base.

The mayor told 60 Minutes that she sought out a developer for the project because Lakewood's aging tax base has been shrinking and the city simply needs more money.

“This is about Lakewood's future. Lakewood cannot survive without a strengthened tax base. Is it right to consider this a public good? Absolutely,” says the mayor, who admits that it's difficult and unfortunate that the Saleets are being asked to give up their home.

The Saleets live in an area called Scenic Park, and because it is so scenic, it's a prime place to build upscale condominiums. With great views, over the Rocky River, those condos will be a cinch to sell.

But the condos can't go up unless the city can remove the Saleets and their neighbors through eminent domain. And to legally invoke eminent domain, the city had to certify that this scenic park area is, really, "blighted."

“We're not blighted. This is an area that we absolutely love. This is a close-knit, beautiful neighborhood. It's what America's all about,” says Jim Saleet. “And, Mike, you don't know how humiliating this is to have people tell you, 'You live in a blighted area,' and how degrading this is.”

"The term 'blighted' is a statutory word," says Mayor Cain. “It is, it really doesn't have a lot to do with whether or not your home is painted. ...A statutory term is used to describe an area. The question is whether or not that area can be used for a higher and better use.”

But what’s higher and better than a home? “The term 'blight' is used to describe whether or not the structures generally in an area meet today's standards,” says Cain.

And it's the city that sets those standards, so Lakewood set a standard for blight that would include most of the homes in the neighborhood. A home could be considered blighted, says Jim Saleet, if it doesn't have the following: three bedrooms, two baths, an attached two-car garage and central air.

“This community's over 100 years old. Who has all those things? That's the criteria. And it's ridiculous,” says Jim Saleet. “And, by the way, we got up at a meeting and told the mayor and all seven council members, their houses are blighted, according to this criteria.”

Cain admits that her house doesn’t have two bathrooms, a two-car garage and the lot size is less than 5,000 square feet.

The Saleets may live in a cute little neighborhood, but without those new condos, the area won’t produce enough property taxes to satisfy the mayor and city council.

“That's no excuse for taking my home. My home is not for sale. And if my home isn't safe, nobody's home is safe, in the whole country,” says Jim Saleet. “Not only Ohio. But this is rampant all over the country. It's like a plague.”

Dana Berliner and Scott Bullock are attorneys at a libertarian non-profit group called The Institute for Justice, which has filed suit on behalf of the Saleets against the City of Lakewood. They claim that taking private property this way is unconstitutional.

“This is a nationwide epidemic,” says Berliner. “We have documented more than 10,000 instances of government taking property from one person to give it to another in just the last five years.”

“It is fundamentally wrong, and contrary to the Constitution for the government to take property from one private owner, and hand it over to another private owner, just because the government thinks that person is going to make more productive use of the land,” says Bullock.

“Everyone knows that property can be taken for a road. But nobody thinks that property can be taken to give it to their neighbor or the large business down the street for their economic benefit,” adds Berliner. “People are shocked when they hear that this is going on around the country.”

And it's not just people's homes that are the targets in these eminent domain cases. The Institute for Justice has also filed suit against the City of Mesa, Ariz., to save Randy Bailey's Brake Repair Shop - the shop he got from his father and hopes to someday pass on to his son.

The City of Mesa, citing the need for "redevelopment," is trying to force Bailey to relocate to make way for an Ace Hardware Store that would look better and pay more taxes.

"Redevelopment to me means work with existing people who are there and redevelop. Not, 'You get out! We're bringing this guy in,'" says Bailey, whose business has been on the same corner for more than 30 years.

Business has been awesome, Bailey says. But now, he says they’re going to turn his business into dirt. In fact, the city has “made dirt” out of three restaurants and four businesses that once stood on a five-acre lot.

“And it's not just business properties that they're going this on. You know, they wiped out eight people's homes over here. Your home ain't even safe,” says Bailey, who told 60 Minutes that his neighbors let the city buy them out.
But he’s refusing to sell: “I’m standing in their way. I’m their thorn in their side.”

And he’s a thorn in the side of Ken Lenhart, who owns the Ace Hardware Store a few blocks away. Lenhart wants a much bigger store. He could have negotiated with Bailey, but instead, he convinced the City of Mesa to try to buy Bailey's land through eminent domain and then sell it to him.

“The City of Mesa wants to move Mr. Bailey about a block away, and from what I understand it's gonna be a new building, new equipment, moving expenses and everything set up for him,” says Lenhart. “I don't see how Mr. Bailey is gonna get hurt.”

“You can't replace a business being in the same location. This place was built in 1952 as a brake and front-end shop,” says Bailey. “I don't care where you move it in the City of Mesa, it would never be the same.”

So Bailey went to Lenhart looking for a way to stay on his corner.

“I tried to go to him and see if we couldn't work something out on this. And he told me, 'No, there ain't room for you there. We're gonna let the city just take care of you,'" says Bailey.

Lenhart admits that he never tried to negotiate with Bailey: "It happens all over the country. In practically any town you want to go to, they're redeveloping their town centers. Now, we are going to sit in Mesa, Arizona and have our town center decay? As a citizen of Mesa, I don't want that to happen."

But Bailey says his business was on private property, and not for sale: “If I'd had a 'For Sale' sign out there, it would have been a whole different deal. And for them to come in and tell me how much my property's worth and for me to get out because they're bringing in somebody else when I own the land is unfounded to me. It doesn't even sound like the United States.”

And this isn't happening just in small towns. In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what's going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times.

The world's most prestigious newspaper wants to build a new home on that block, but Stratford Wallace and the block's other property owners didn't want to sell. Wallace told 60 Minutes that the newspaper never tried to negotiate with him. Instead, The Times teamed up with a major real estate developer, and together they convinced New York State to use eminent domain to force Wallace out. How? By declaring the block blighted.

“I challenge them,” says Wallace. “This is not blighted property.”

But New York State's Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the newspaper's new headquarters would eliminate blight - and that even though a private entity (The New York Times) is the main beneficiary, improving the block would benefit the public.

Executives from The New York Times wouldn't talk to 60 Minutes about it on camera.

Back in Lakewood, Ohio, Jim and Joanne Saleet are still waiting for their court decision. Most of their neighbors have agreed to sell if the project goes ahead. But the Saleets, plus a dozen others, are hanging tough.

“I thought I bought this place. But I guess I just leased it, until the city wants it,” says Jim Saleet. “That's what makes me very angry. This is my dream home. And I'm gonna fight for it.”

He fought, and he won. In separate votes, Lakewood residents rejected the proposed development, removed the "blight" label from the Saleets' neighborhood, and voted Mayor Cain out of office.

In Mesa, Ariz., Randy Bailey can keep his brake shop right where it is. The week after this report aired, Arizona's Court of Appeals ruled that turning his land over to a hardware store would not be a proper use of eminent domain.
But in New York City, tenants and owners have been forced off their land so The New York Times can begin building its new headquarters.