Mover Mike

North Carolina's House passed an eminent domain bill by a vote of 104-15. The bill HR 878 has this language and would amend the state's constitution:

Private property shall not be taken except for a public use, including preservation for that use. Public use does not include the taking of property for the purpose of thereafter conveying an interest in the property to a third party for economic development. This paragraph does not apply to the taking of blighted properties as defined by general law, nor to takings for access by the owner to property. As used in this paragraph, blight includes only the physical condition of the property taken.

(My emphasis) Just compensation shall be paid and, if demanded by the owner, shall be determined by a jury."

To be sure, there are a lot of weasel words that can have a variety of definitions, but its intent is to preserve property rights in the state. It was sent to the Senate where it was referred to the Ways and Means Committee, a convenient place where bills are sent to die. Now with the General Assembly near its end, the bill's proponents want it brought to the senate floor.

Sen. Charlie Dannelly, the committee chairman, D-Mecklenburg, said Tuesday he wouldn't know the bill's fate until the committee meets. Sen. Tony Rand, D-Cumberland, who as Senate Rules Committee chairman controls the flow of legislation in the chamber, questioned whether the amendment was necessary: "I'm not aware that eminent domain has ever been abused in North Carolina."

Opponents argue that the amendment could discourage local governments from courting new businesses because it will be harder to accumulate large tracts of land. (My Emphasis)

That last sentence is exactly why many of us are against the Supreme Court decision on Kelo, and why we want specific protections written into the state constitutions. You can't trust some politicians to put your property rights above private interests who dole out campaign dollars. North Carolina Democrats, supposedly the party of the people, should be ashamed for bottling up this bill!

HR 878 North Carolina Mover Mike

How do we resolve the conflict between the City of Portland and private property owner Shawn Karambelas, owner of the Northeast Sandy Boulevard business of SK Northwest. Conflict that starts and ends with the "ragged gap" in the Eastside riverfront Trail and the Springwater Trail

The inventory of SK Northwest

includes Sea-Doo and Ski-Doo watercraft and snowmobiles. He wants to relocate to the Willamette River's east bank - precisely into part of the short gap that remains in the popular trail for bicyclists, runners, skaters and walkers.

[...]

The city's Bureau of Development Services last month denied SK Northwest's proposal to construct a building, an outdoor work area, a dock and parking, plus landscaping on part of the 1.8-acre site. Among the city's reasons: The applicant's description of the proposed structures and activities failed to give enough information, and because SK Northwest declines to draw in a trail.

For his part Karambelas wants to get away from his present land-locked location and buy privately owned property on the Willamette.

And despite the city's insistence, he says he does not plan to build a link in the trail. His stated reasons range from keeping trail users safe - keeping cyclists clear of his forklifts and trucks - to the costs of giving up part of his prospective land and installing a paved trail. He also says that his piece, even if built, would complete only part of the gap that remains.

So we have the classic confrontation that has led in other cities to the abuse of emminent domain. The city is more concerned with the benefits of the public use than his private property rights.

Karambelas says "If they wish to have something they can go out and buy it like the rest of us do."

To this writer, this conflict should be resolved with a checkbook not a court calender.

Go buy the property. Don't resort to blackmail!

BTW, I do not know Mr. Karambelas, nor do have any monetary interest in any property referred to in this post. I have riden my bicycle from the Eastside Trail to the Springwater Trail.

City of Portland Shawn Karambelas Eastside riverfront Trail Mover Mike

From Kentucky Law,among the new laws slated to go into effect July 12th

Eminent domain: HB 508 lays down specific conditions before the state may condemn private property under the state's eminent domain laws. The bill, a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's Kelo case, prohibits the condemnation of private property unless it will be used for an exclusive public use such as government purposes, public utilities or to eliminate blighted areas.

Who has the power to define "blighted"?

Hat tip to One Man's Trash. Take a look at the two versions of a bill in Virginia to limit the use of eminent domain. The first version where there is a strike through looks like you could drive a truck between the exceptions without any damage. The second version is concise:

The right to private property being a fundamental right, the term “public uses” mentioned in Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia is hereby defined in all instances to embrace only the ownership, possession, occupation, and enjoyment of land by the public or by public agencies, the use of land for the creation or functioning of any public service corporation or public service company, including but not limited to railroad companies, which has been granted or delegated the power of eminent domain, or the use of land for any entity that owns, operates, or maintains a road that is open to and services the public generally. In determining whether a use constitutes a public use, public benefits or potential public benefits including economic development or private development, an increase in the tax base, tax revenues, employment or general economic health and welfare shall not be considered. Any taking of private property must be necessary to achieve the public use, and the public interest must dominate the private gain. Except as stated herein, the taking of private property for the primary purpose of transferring or leasing to private parties shall not constitute a public use. Any taking under the pretext of an alleged public use shall be impermissible when the primary purpose is to bestow a private benefit.

How many times do they need to say it? Many times before the Supreme Court gets on the same page.

Any taking under the pretext of an alleged public use shall be impermissible when the primary purpose is to bestow a private benefit.

eminent domainVirginai Mover Mike

Louisiana Libertarian has a post that Louisiana has proposed a state constitutional amendment to ban the use of eminent domain for economic development. I am for the banning of eminent domain except for "public purposes" as is Louisiana. The bill, Senate Bill 53 and Senate Bill 10, defines "public purposes" which seems pretty clear to me, of course I am no lawyer.

(2)"Public purposes" shall be limited to a general public right to a definite use of the property: the use of the property for a utility or other common carrier; or the removal of a threat to public health or safety caused by the existing use or disuse of the property. Economic development or any other use of the property by a provate person which may result in an increase in tax revenue or any benefit to the public shall not be considered in determining whether the taking or damaging of property is a public purpose.

There is one other difference between the bills : Senate Bill 10 has a "," after "definite use of the property" and Senate Bill 53 uses a ":".

If you lawyers out there have any problems, they should be heard now. We need to monitor the final bill to make sure the language isn't changed by amendment.

From WaPO, Public Agency Faulted in Eminent Domain Case.

A city agency (using the power of eminent domain) violated the separation of church and state when it seized a woman's home to help a religious group build a private school in a blighted Philadelphia neighborhood, a state appeals court ruled Monday.

If the new use was a Muslim school or a liquor store or an adult bookstore, would that have been ok?

Eminent DomainMover mike

On Dec 8th, in Still Problems With Eminent Domain, I wrote about the threat by city officials to use their power of eminent domain in Riviera Beach in Palm Beach County to take property from up to 6,000 residents to develop a new marina.

Four-term Mayor Michael Brown, who grew up here, said the plan offers a singular shot at money, stability and self-esteem, the rebirth of a faded town that lost its way decades ago.

"I am using the tools available to me to try to get more jobs and build our tax base," he said. "I am trying to take our most valuable property and leverage it to benefit the entire city."

You will be happy to know that developers are offering 130% of appraised value to owners. Some have received up to 3 times appraised value and the city has not had to exercise its power.

See that's the way it's supposed to work. The developer knows he is going to have to pay up and he factors that in to his developing costs. He will not go ahead if it doesn't pencil.

It is not the job of the mayor to rob from the few to benefit the many.

Hat tip to Ogre's Politics and Views Riviera Beach Eminent Domain Mover Mike

After posting about "eminent domain", here comes an email from the Castle Coalition announcing their new website: www.CastleCoalition.org A new feature is an interactive map of the US. You can click on a state and find out what is going on regarding the use of eminent domain. Lo and behold, I clicked on Oregon and found that we have a case pending in Hillsboro.

The City of Hillsboro has teamed up with private developer Specht Development to build a new, $33.7 million civic center. Part of the facility will serve as City Hall, but most of the planned five-story development consists of residences and offices, with retail shops and other businesses occupying the ground floor and street-level storefronts. The developer and the City will jointly own the civic center, while the developer will manage the 113 affordable-rate apartments and 27 market-rate apartment units, as well as the commercial space. In order to gain ownership of a choice site in the middle of the Hillsboro business district, the City would have to remove the two stable, thriving businesses that already operate there. Terrance Hall owns the building from which he runs a law office, while the Christian Science Reading Room occupies the building next door.1

In October 2001, the City Council was set to condemn both properties, but decided at the last minute to delay the resolution after both owners vowed to challenge the takings. Among the deficiencies in the City’s development plan was that the City did not even bother to do a feasibility study looking at the need for the residential, retail and office space in the development. Also, the City made no formal offers to negotiate with either owner before threatening condemnation and made no provision to provide space in the new civic center for occupancy by existing businesses.2

In September 2002, the City Council finally voted to begin eminent domain proceedings. Both Terrance Hall and the Christian Scientists plan to take the City to court to protect their right to stay put.3

1. “Community Snapshot; Owners Argue Against Taking Properties for New City Hall,” The Oregonian (Portland, OR), Oct. 4, 2001, at B2.
2. William E. Dunn, “My Turn; Condemnation for City Building Bad Policy,” The Oregonian (Portland, OR), Oct. 11, 2001, at West Zones 13.
3. David R. Anderson, “Hillsboro Negotiates Deal to Build Civic Center,” The Oregonian (Portland, OR), Sept. 4, 2002, at C2.

Is this just plain arrogance! Imagine no feasiblity study and "no formal offers to negotiate". To hell with the property owner, let's just seize it!

Hillsboro, OR eminent domain Mover Mike

Update: RoguePundit reports June 30, 2005:

The Civic Center has since been built and occupied. Hall Law Firm has moved. (With the construction of the new Hillsboro Civic Center, the firm moved three blocks to the east to 400 East Main Street, remaining in close proximity to the courthouse.) and the condemnation of the Christian Science Reading Room was cited in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of Kelo.

Really! That's all it takes.

BB&T Corp., the second-biggest bank in the Washington area, said yesterday that it will not lend money to developers who plan to build commercial projects on land taken from private citizens through the power of eminent domain.

"The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided; in fact, it's just plain wrong," said John Allison, the bank's chairman and chief executive officer.

Congratulations BB&T for that stand.

Hopefully, many others will follow suit and recognize that this is not the way business should be done in America.

BB&T Corp. Eminent Domain Mover Mike

Update: Captain's Quarters has some extensive comments on BB & T

The politicians want you to think they are listening to you regarding "eminent domain", but they have constructed many loopholes for themselves and their friends.

In Missouri,

Under a recent proposal by a special task force for the governor of Missouri, eminent domain would not be used to take land within the state for the sole purpose of increasing tax revenue. However property that is declared blighted would be confiscated according to the Missourian News.

A judge must decide if in fact, the property is blighted before it can be taken. (Does the judge run for political office and does the judge solicit campaign funds?)

If the judge decides the property is blighted, Missouri doesn’t always require authorities to pay relocation costs to property owners when a property is condemned. How outrageous is that!

WorldNetDaily reports the mayor of Riviera Beach, Fla., wants to relocate as many as 6,000 residents...to rescue and save the remainder of the people of predominantly black Riviera Beach."

Riviera Beach is a growing harbor city located along the shores of the Atlantic Ocean in southeast Florida, USA. The City's municipal beach is one of the finest in the state. Our beautiful sandy beaches make Riviera Beach an appealing place for sporting events.

One state lawmaker has called the situation a "reverse Robin Hood," suggesting the city's poor are being robbed of their possessions to give to the rich. Is this why the officials want Riviera Beach, for properties like this:

eminent+domain Riviera Beach Mover Mike

From CNN, House passes bill that could prevent private industry from using land seizures.

The House voted 376-38 Thursday to approve the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005 --a bill cosponsored by 98 members of Congress that would prohibit states and local communities that receive federal economic development to invoke eminent domain as a means for private industry to build private businesses. A companion measure has been introduced in the Senate.

Eminent domain, under the House bill, would only allow federal funds for economic development such as building roads and hospital, acquiring abandoned property and revitalizing a blighted area.

The House bill would also allow private property owners the right to sue the appropriate government entity if they were stripped of their land through the use of eminent domain and later found that the land was given to a private developer.

(Hat tip to Constitution Death Pool)

eminent domain mover mike

Update: 'I support the Fiscal Watch Team Offset Package'.

Two stories recently on the the use of "eminent domain" in Oregon. The first,

The Port of Portland, unable to reach agreement to buy a Willamette River industrial property (owned by Mar Com), may use its eminent domain power to take the land.

The Port of Portland in 2000, sold its 57-acre shipyard on Swan Island to shipbuilder Cascade General for $30.8 million.

Mar Com's owner, Tom Maples, and others protested then that the price was too low and that the Port was subsidizing one competitor. The following year, Cascade General sold its biggest drydock to a company in the Bahamas for $25 million.

Now the Port wants Mar Com's property

The Port says the Mar Com property would allow for expansion of Toyota's auto-import operation at Terminal 4. Though the Port's container business is struggling, its car operations are booming. Toyota imports through Portland are up 11.6 percent from a year ago, to 110,184 vehicles through August.

The second instance, the Portland Development Commission (PDC) have wanted a convention center hotel for about 15 years, but no hotel chain has come in to build the hotel.

Officials contend convention organizers require large blocks of rooms -- 400 or more at a time -- for delegates attending big conferences. Proximity to the convention center, they say, would make the hotel attractive to event organizers who are influential in choosing destination cities.
[...]
The PDC has spent years planning the hotel, even using the agency's eminent domain power to force local real estate mogul Barry Menashe to sell it land for the project.

But Heywood Sanders, a national critic of taxpayer spending on convention center hotels, argues they

almost always fail to provide the convention boost cities seek. In an arms race of prestige, he says, dozens are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on expansions that flood the national convention market and hurt local hotels.

It appears to me that the Port is making decisions with no responsibility for its actions and using its power to take land to make more decisions and hurting competitors. In the second, the PDC is using its power to force land owners to sell it land based on a desire to have a hotel that apparently no hotel chain sees needed and if built, would hurt competitors. There is no freedom when eminent domain can be used like a pistol at one's head.

eminent domain Portland

From The Washinton Times, Florida city considers eminent domain.

Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.

"This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.

It's ok to take up to 2000 of people's homes, because this community is in dire need of jobs.

Eminent Domain Florida News and Politics

Update:

From Twincities.com,

And worrying about keeping your home just because it's in a nice location is a heck of a way for a person to live.

79-year-old Olive Taylor, has lived across from Loeb Lake and Marydale Park in St. Paul since 1905 and is safe today from the city's use of eminent domain only, because the developer had a heart and grew up in a neighborehood like Taylor's. But Taylor lives on a

nice piece of property. Too nice for a 79-year-old woman when it just happens to sit between a park, a 9-acre city lake and a proposed townhouse development. Sure would make a nice greenway to the park for the townhouse folks

There is only you and me that can stop the city and the next developer from using the power of eminent domain.

And worrying about keeping your home just because it's in a nice location is a heck of a way for a person to live.

eminent domain

As you know the City of Frepont is seeking to use eminent domain to "steal" land that is owned by private interests who have no interest in selling and turn it into a yacht club. Texas passed legislation to protect property from seizure through the use of eminent domain, but a neat little amendment was inserted that would exempt the City of Freport T.F.Stern has posted extensively about this issue.

"SECTION 4. Chapter 2206, Government Code, as added by this Act, applies only to the taking of private property by eminent domain for which a condemnation petition is filed on or after the effective date of this Act. A taking for which a condemnation petition is filed before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect immediately before that date, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose."

From The News & Observer, (Gov.) Perry (of Texas) signs law limiting property seizures

Texas' governor signed a law Wednesday strictly limiting the power of state and local government to seize private property for economic development.

The question is: Did Governor Perry get a lot of publicity for signing a bill that exempts the "steal" by the City of Freport?

In a related action, in California,

A Senate committee killed a constitutional amendment to ban the state's use of eminent domain to take private property for private use. But it supported a temporary ban against using eminent domain to seize owner-occupied homes.

...snip...

California last amended its eminent-domain laws in 1993. To use the condemnation process, a property first must be designated for redevelopment because of physical and economic blight. Officials must pay the fair market value for the property and owners have the right to go to court to appeal the condemnation.

Same old out - BLIGHT! It appears that the Pols are not going to protect your property rights. Eminent Domain

From WFTV, Judge Rules Daytona Boardwalk Property Can Be Taken From Owners

Late Friday afternoon, a judge ruled that the city had the right to take away property from three business owners. They were holding out from a developer that wants to turn the area into condos and hotels.

However, the judge also decided that the developer will have to pay two or three times the amount he originally offered for the properties.

The judge believes tearing down the old properties and redeveloping falls under the area of "public use."(emphasis added)

What's changed? It is still taking from one private owner and selling in to another!

Update:

TF Stern, in an update to his post about proposed legislation in Texas to stop the use of eminent domain, finds that an an amendment has been proposed to exempt the Freeport City land grab.

"we're well into the process."

You can say that again! Eminent Domain

From CNSNews.com, another look at Kelo v New London and how it might relate to church property.

"religious institutions that are, by nature, non-commercial and, by law, tax exempt, would be the first to be targeted by the bulldozers because of their alleged lack of economic contribution to the community,"

What will elected officials do if a religious institution wants to purchase property in a high growth area? Combine that desire to purchase with the church's moral stand against revenue raising gambling and you have another threat to the institution's plans, but also its tax exempt status.

It seems foolish in light of Kelo negating parts of the Fifth Amendment, to rely any longer on the First Amendment or on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)

Sekulow noted that the federal law most often used to fight encroachment on a church's property rights — the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) — has not been contested in the Supreme Court ... yet.

The major plus for America or any civilized society is the "Rule of Law". How quickly our foundation shifts, if we swap rock for sand. Eminent Domain

My friend TF Stern is off on a great rant, Eminent domain added to agenda in Texas. It's about an arrogant official, Freeport City Manager Ron Bottoms, when confronted by possible changes to the way Texas handles "eminent domain", that could interrupt the city of Freeport's plans to seize the property of two seafood companies to make way for an $8 million private marina”, said he isn't sure whether Janek's (Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston) bill would halt the city's plans, noting that "we're well into the process." Eminent Domain

From Newsday.com, now Kelo and fellow property owners have a fight over "just compensation".

The city believes a compensation fight might not require just a hearing before a judge. Because the city has technically owned the houses since 2000, its lawyers believe residents were living in the houses as tenants free of charge as the litigation proceeded.

More than a year ago, lawyers for the homeowners were informed that their clients could be liable for use and occupancy fees if the courts upheld the city's use of eminent domain. City lawyers said then they wanted to give ample warning about the potential costs.

So you take my property, illegally, I sue to keep it, five years later, I lose and not only do I lose my property, but the appreciation in those five years. The lesson is: just rollover, take your money and we'll do what is best with your property for the others. Eminent Domain