I may be in the minority, but I've never agreed with the use of eminent domain for "redevelopment" projects. IMHO, eminent domain is for infrastructure projects and mitigation of wetland impacts from those infrastructure projects. Period. I see too much abuse of the power used under the auspices of "economic development."
Another thing, eminent domain power should only be availible to government, not non-profit organizations (ie in the New London case).
"Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not. The question is not whether your part of the world is going to change. The question is how." -- Edward T. McMahon, The Conservation Fund
NHP
you and i don't seem to agree on much but here it seems like the abuse potential is unlimited. Actually, its now even the abuse that I am concerned with, its the everyday potential to trade up from say the burger king and gas station to the new power center or office campus....for government I find it unnerving, but for the private sector downright its beyond comprehension.
Yes its reasonable to extend or widen a critical road link.
A decision for New London would allow such trampling of individual property rights that we all should be up in arms.
Yet APA writes a brief in support....
Why am I a planner again???Really, just seems like there is no room for me or folks like me under the big planning tent.
Originally posted by gkmo62u
Off-topic:
Sorry gkmo62u, but the planner's code of ethics only requires us to make room for minorities. At least I think that's what it says. I threw out the copy I was sent.
Anyone want to adopt a dog?
You're right....we don't agree on a lot of things that have come up in threads here, but I think we're on the same page on this one for the most part.
I'm just glad that in NH we already have a 1980 State Supreme Court decision (see toward the beginning of the thread) that prevents this kind of ED abuse. (Wonder if Souter was on the NH Supreme Court at the time....)
"Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not. The question is not whether your part of the world is going to change. The question is how." -- Edward T. McMahon, The Conservation Fund
ED is a valuable redevelopment tool in parcelized urban areas. With out the use of ED for Econ. Dev. (public or private), redev. becomes close to impossible.
We're able to do it in NH without ED.
There are many redev. projects done in the larger communities of NH without using eminent domain. We also don't have tax incentives for economic development either, but it isn't stopping businesses from moving here. We just have to be more creative. TIF is probably the most used tool for redevelopment in NH.
"Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not. The question is not whether your part of the world is going to change. The question is how." -- Edward T. McMahon, The Conservation Fund
Eminent domain is an important tool for government to possess. We've had to acquire properties for a variety of public purposes and we've rarely had to use the power. But without it, we'd have had to substantially overpay to accomplish projects that truly did provide public benefit.
I'm familiar with an instance where eminent domain worked in the property owner's favor. He wanted an astronomical sum for a sewer easement, we were far apart. Stalemated, we went to the appraisals for the taking, and had the property appraised based on the increase in value by having the sewer line on the site (mandatory for all development here). Turns out the guy would have owed us a substantial sum if we took the easement. He ended up accepting out original offer.
I have seen
old ships sailing
like swans asleep
But this case before the supremes essentially takes property from one private owner and gives it to another private owner for a higher and better use.
Related action in Lincoln Nebraska... taking local businesses for a large hotel...
Currently City Council backed down on emminent domain.
Here's the link from the Lincoln Journal Star
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/...4065947368.txt
The airport authority in St. Augustine, FL has taken 11 homes (most of the adoining neighborhood) for its expansion of aircraft hangers. They are building the new hangers to increase revenue. It seems the FAA will not permit the airport to expand its flights in and out (too close to Jacksonville) so this is their ED tool.
Many fail to see how taking of people's homes for more hanger space is for the public good especially when they all know the airport is almost exclusively used by the very wealthy who live in nearby Ponte Vedra ( its like the Boca Raton of NE FL).
Our city is in the process of giving the power of eminent domain (and tax abatement) through Chapter 353 of the MO State Statutes, to a local developer. It is the second time it will be used in this city. The developer has done what they can to aquire the vacant/blighted property and cannot aquire it at all, not even for a high dollar. The city has stepped in and will be transfering the power to the developer to reviatalize the area. The city has offered numerous incentive to the property owners to do something with the property and still 10 years later it sits either vacant or as a junk yard.
Without this tool, the area would continue to decline. It is in the middle of a historic district at the entrance to the city. I believe each and every case needs to be looked at individually. An assumption cannot be made with regard to every development. I believe what I have spoken about here is different from the same developer coming in and taking peoples homes away without any alternatives. In this case the developer has offered money for the property, relocation money, etc. There are also no residential uses in this case. These are mostly vacant lots, or vacant structures.
Oral Argument Transcripts are now available.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_a...pts/04-108.pdf
Oddball
Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here?
Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
From Kelly's Heroes (1970)
Are you sure you're not hurt ?
No. Just some parts wake up faster than others.
Broke parts take a little longer, though.
From Electric Horseman (1979)
I don’t want this post to appear with out much substance, because this is breaking news. The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled with in the last hour that cities may seize private property for economic development. I know there has always been other means to do this, but this is against people’s will. Here is a link that just came out. This should be a good discussion.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/...izing_property
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html
Edit: see other thread: "Connecticut eminent domain case being considered by U.S. Supreme Court" Also.
Bill
_______________
“Last time I looked in the dictionary, my name's Ron Burgundy. What's your name?”
Ron Burgundy
Last edited by ICT/316; 23 Jun 2005 at 11:06 AM.
....the City of New London and eminent domain for Economic Development enthusiasts:
Some details on the decision from the The Associate Press."Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Last edited by SGB; 23 Jun 2005 at 11:13 AM. Reason: Updated AP article link
All these years the people said he’s actin’ like a kid.
He did not know he could not fly, so he did.
- - Guy Clark, "The Cape"
The goverment should not be given the absolute power to uproot families to make way for private development. Even though property owners will be justly compensated, they may still find it difficult to purchase a home in their neighorhood during this red hot market. Eminent domain should be used as a last resort for all communities and should be used only for public development. This private development will benefit the community in the form of greater tax revenues. However, if this is what cities have to do to increase their tax revenue, they need to get more creative and think out of the box instead of being so quick to bulldoze. Besides, does anybody actually think that this New London developer wont be getting tax incentives?? Who will pay for the infrastructrue needed to support the development. These are the questions that apply to all eminent domain cases like this New London case.
Even with the decision being handed down, I still agree with NH. Who gets to make the call that one use is better than another? What if the proposed development is yet another strip mall that ends up going dark? Who pays for the land, would the developer have to chip in?
*I meant that as a little more sarcastic, like "who gets to play God".
Last edited by Habanero; 23 Jun 2005 at 11:31 AM.
When Jesus said "love your enemies", he probably didn't mean kill them.
^-- It would appear from the news reports that the court was interested in keeping those questions out of the courts and leaving them up to local officials. But I'd really like to get ahold of the opinion and read their full rational.
(I agree with what I think is the majority opinion here though: this keeps the whole system open to the abuses we've been seeing with great frequency in the past few decades, that of cities condemning land simply to turn it over to powerful people on specious arguments about increased tax revenue).
DIdn't the supreme court mention in previous articles that this would be a tough decision for them because they didn't want to overturn decades of precedent?
Dude, I'm cheesing so hard right now.
I am glad to see the Court acting as it should, if it is a conservative court, and not trespassing on the power of state legislatures.
This does not excuse the abuses of the eminent domain for economic development but it is a legislative job to place proper restrictions on this power (which should not IMO be entirely removed). Perhaps legislatures need to specify that when homes are taken, fair market value is not the appropriate criterion. Perhaps in such cases, replacement value woudl be more appropriate.
Has Susette Kelo and the other property owners in New London, sold out already as of today? If not, I bet the bulldozers have already tore them down before I could even post this!
I’ve read all the post and I’m trying to read all the links provided to get caught up on the issue at hand.
______________
“You stay classy, San Diego.”
- Ron Burgundy
I'm not sure that was even an issue of discussion before the Court.
The question presented by the petitioners was:(Source)What protection does the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement provide for individuals whose property is being condemned, not to eliminate slums or blight, but for the sole purpose of "economic development" that will perhaps increase tax revenues and improve the local economy?
All these years the people said he’s actin’ like a kid.
He did not know he could not fly, so he did.
- - Guy Clark, "The Cape"
I think you sum it up, Lee. I am quite torn by this issue.
More reporting and analysis from the New London, CT newspaper.
All these years the people said he’s actin’ like a kid.
He did not know he could not fly, so he did.
- - Guy Clark, "The Cape"
Lee I don't think the decision is at all the workings of a conservative court. Its exactly the opposite. 5-4 with the more liberal court and Kennedy opting on the side of more government power while the conservatives (and O'Conner) opt for individual property rights.
Here is the written opinion:
KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...friend=nytimes
Oddball
Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves?
Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here?
Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
From Kelly's Heroes (1970)
Are you sure you're not hurt ?
No. Just some parts wake up faster than others.
Broke parts take a little longer, though.
From Electric Horseman (1979)
Quote
