|
Home
Up
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
Back to Top
| |
Eminent Domain page:
|
WIN OVER EMINENT
DOMAIN ABUSE IN FLORIDA
In a major triumph for property rights, Pacific Legal
Foundation (PLF)
was able to declare victory last week for hundreds of homeowners in
Riviera Beach, Florida, who had been threatened with having their houses
confiscated by local government.
City planners had concocted a plan to seize potentially hundreds of
homes and small businesses for use by private development interests. The
plan for mass property condemnation was going forward even though the
state had enacted a law to prevent such abuse of the eminent domain
power.
PLF stepped in and launched a lawsuit on behalf of Riviera Beach
residents Jerry and Rene Corie, who were in danger of losing the house
they bought 13 years ago for $70,000. "I feel like my home has been held
hostage these last years," Rene Corie told the Miami Herald. "It just
makes me so mad to think that because [government and the private
developer] have more money, I have to give up my home. This is really
legalized stealing."
PLF's intervention helped generate momentum that first stalled, and then
killed, the city's scheme. "The Cories' lawsuit succeeded in raising
awareness of the City's illegal scheme to violate the right of its
citizens to be secure in their own homes," said Valerie A. Fernandez,
managing attorney with PLF's Atlantic Center, who represented the Cories
and the Coalition for Property Rights in the litigation. An aroused
public ousted the mayor and the City Council members who supported the
abusive eminent domain plan, and the City's agreement with the private
developer was allowed to lapse. As a result, PLF was able to withdraw
its litigation and announce a win for all property owners who had been
targeted by the city's seizure strategy.
"We went to court with the PLF Atlantic Center to stand up for property
rights, for state law, and for the taxpayers," said Rene Corie at a
press conference announcing the victory. "We were determined to stop the
City from acting as if it was above the law."
"Eminent domain abuse is still too common around the country -- in fact,
it remains a national disgrace," said PLF Attorney Steven Gieseler, part
of the plaintiffs' legal team. "But this victory in Riviera Beach is a
national success story for constitutional liberties and homeowners'
rights."
Media outlets throughout Florida reported on PLF's win for property
rights. Read coverage in the
Palm Beach Post.
Watch a TV
report featuring PLF's Steve Gieseler and Valerie Fernandez, along with
their clients, the Cories, on Palm Beach's ABC affiliate.
|
____________**___________
- 12 May 06
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Florida
Enacts Meaningful Eminent Domain Reform,
Bill One of
Strongest Passed Nationwide
Arlington, Va.-Florida
Governor Jeb Bush yesterday signed into law House
Bill 1567, which provides home and business owners
across the state with meaningful protection against
eminent domain abuse. The bill, which passed the
legislature with overwhelming support, prohibits
localities from transferring land from one owner to
another through the use of eminent domain for 10
years-effectively eliminating condemnations for
private commercial development. HB 1567 also
forbids the use of eminent domain to eliminate
so-called “blight,” instead requiring municipalities
to use their police powers to address properties
that actually pose a danger to public health or
safety.
“With this
bill, Florida lawmakers provide meaningful and
comprehensive protection for their constituents from
eminent domain abuse,” said IJ Senior Attorney Dana
Berliner. “Florida now offers some of the best
protection in the nation for homes, businesses and
churches that could have been threatened by eminent
domain for private development. This bill is a
model for what other state legislatures should
enact. It prohibits eminent domain abuse while
still allowing the government to condemn property
for public uses just as the Constitution allows.”
IJ Senior
Attorney Scott Bullock, who argued the Kelo
case before the U.S. Supreme Court, agreed and
added, “Florida legislators understand what
defenders of eminent domain abuse still do not-that
Kelo created a big problem for the states to
fix, that economic development will undoubtedly
continue without eminent domain, and that every
home, business, farm and place of worship needed
protection against condemnation for private gain.
This is one of the strongest reform bills passed in
response to Kelo. Let’s hope other states
follow in Florida’s footsteps.”
In
Kelo,
the nation’s highest court permitted the use of
eminent domain for economic development. A Florida
court was the first to rely on
Kelo
in upholding a municipality’s plan to take land from
one person and give it to another private party.
Since the Supreme Court’s June 2005 decision,
legislators in 47 states have introduced, considered
or passed legislation limiting the government’s
eminent domain powers in instances of private use.
“For years, Florida
municipalities and redevelopment agencies have
aggressively threatened and used eminent domain to
acquire prime waterfront real estate for private
development,” said Castle Coalition Coordinator
Steven Anderson. “Development will no doubt
continue in Florida’s hot real estate market. Only
now, developers must purchase land from willing
sellers the old-fashioned way-through private
negotiation, not government force.”
Florida homeowner
and Castle Coalition member Princess Wells, who has
resisted Riviera Beach’s attempt to condemn her home
and as many as 2,200 other homes for a proposed
400-acre project that includes luxury residences and
a yacht complex, said, “I am just so thankful to be
able to keep my home and my business. People now
have a choice as we should have. This is the way
America is supposed to be.”
“It’s fortunate that
the Governor signed the bill so quickly,” added
Berliner. “Riviera Beach tried to rush its plans to
condemn for private development earlier this week,
and other municipalities may have tried to do the
same thing. Riviera Beach’s actions clearly
illustrate why this reform was so desperately needed
in Florida.”
The Florida
House and Senate also put a proposed constitutional
amendment on the November ballot. If passed by
voters, the amendment would require a three-fifths
majority in both legislative houses to grant
exceptions to a state constitutional prohibition on
eminent domain for private use. It would take
effect January 2, 2007.
#
# #
Christina Walsh
Assistant Castle
Coalition Coordinator
Institute for Justice
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite
900
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 682-9320
www.ij.org
www.castlecoalition.org
|
The property rights fight is over and the people have won. The
legislation that Dana Berliner, Institute of Justice, has called
the best eminent domain protection law in the country has been
signed into law by Governor Bush. It is effective immediately.
I can think of only a few times in my life that I have been more
pleased. This is a great day for every property owner in
Florida. It also comes with a bit of sadness because during our
fight, it became apparent that so many of the people we elected,
and put our trust in, were working against us. Even as I write
this, Mayor Fred Costello and the Ormond city commission are
going forward with eminent domain against property owners in
their city. Others, with no respect for fundamental American
property rights, will do their best to change or circumvent the
new law. Have they forgotten, or don't they care, what makes
America great.
I want to thank everyone who worked so hard to make this day
happen. Maybe we can get together later today for a small,
impromptu celebration. I'll let you know if we can work it out.
- 05 May 06
Gov. Bush receives measure
that limits eminent domain opportunities
|
TALLAHASSEE
- Legislation
limiting the ability of local governments to
condemn homes and other property for private
redevelopment received final approval from
Florida lawmakers Thursday after they refused to
make an exception for a massive renewal project
in Riviera Beach. The House and Senate
put a proposed state constitutional amendment (HJR
1569) on the Nov. 7 ballot and sent a bill (HB
1567) to Gov. Jeb Bush, who has said he opposes
all taking of people's property for private use.
Rep. Marco Rubio, R-Miami, filed both
measures in response to a U.S. Supreme Court
decision that last year upheld condemnation for
economic development in a Connecticut case.
That unleashed a firestorm of outrage across
the nation. Florida is among 47 states that have
passed or are considering measures to limit or
ban condemning property and turning it over to
developers.
"There is probably nothing hotter in the
minds of the folks (back home) than the Supreme
Court decision on eminent domain," said Sen. Jim
King, R-Jacksonville. "They accept the fact that
property rights is a God-given, by our
forefathers, right."
The Senate voted 38-2
for the amendment and 37-3 for the bill. Both
went back to the House, which previously had
approved them, because the Senate made some
modifications.
The biggest change was to narrow the
amendment, which originally contained the same
detail as the bill, to a concise ban on taking
private property and conveying it to another
private entity. It also lets the Legislature
make exceptions by a three-fifths vote in each
house.
The bill
would go into effect immediately upon becoming
law and put a halt to projects already under way
or in the planning stages. The amendment would
take effect Jan. 2 if approved by voters.
A proposal to also put
a delayed effective date in the bill failed on a
voice vote. It was offered by Sen. Mandy
Dawson, D-Fort Lauderdale. She argued it would
be unfair to Riviera Beach to force the city to
give up a $2.4 billion plan to redevelop
blighted areas into upscale condominiums and
shops and a marina after years of work on it.
Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown said the
city is prepared to challenge the bill in court,
if it becomes law.
"I think we can make a strong argument that
we are entitled to follow the old rules," Brown
said. "Communities like ours always seem to get
the short end of the stick."
Riviera Beach is a pocket of poverty with a
largely minority population in otherwise
affluent Palm Beach County. Brown said the
condemnation-limiting measures would help
destroy cities such as his.
Hurricane "Katrina did that to New Orleans
and the Legislature is doing that in Florida,"
Brown said.
Riviera Beach's
situation received little sympathy in
Tallahassee.
Sen. Nancy Argenziano, R-Crystal River,
argued that if private developers want land for
their projects they should pay owners what they
want to sell instead of getting it at a
bargain-basement price through condemnation.
"This bill only deals with the transfer of
property . . . taking property from one person
and transferring ownership to someone else,"
said Sen. Daniel Webster, R-Winter Haven, the
Senate sponsor.
Webster stressed that
it would not affect the ability of local
governments to condemn property for roads,
utilities and other traditional public uses.
Dawson and two other
Democrats, Gary Siplin
of Orlando and Frederica Wilson of Miami, voted
against the bill.
Sen. Les Miller, D-Tampa, and Argenziano
voted against the amendment. Argenziano said she
was sticking to her policy of opposing changes
in the Florida Constitution although she is a
strong supporter of property rights.
|
BILL KACZOR,
Associated Press
|
___________**____________
- 03 May 06 It appears we have
a decent Florida Eminent Domain law approved
This morning, I received the message below from a reliable source. As
of now, 5:30pm, I have not been able to confirm, but the article that
follows the message would seem to indicate it is correct. I will email
everyone when I am able to confirm this good news.
When the greedy want to take
from the needy, they will stop at nothing. I borrowed
this truism from a speaker at the Dickerson Center.
It appears that we do have a bill that we can support.
Andy Brigham, from the law firm, Brigham Moore, has
worked tirelessly on this bill. He is still concerned
about when it takes effect. He wants it to effective
date to be pre passage of the bill, March 7, 2006, to
avoid a "race to the courthouse" where cities file
eminent domain takings to beat the deadline.
The law passed is the Senate version,the Bennett amendment was defeated,thanks
god,(riviera beach project is DEAD)
Now will go in conference to resolve differences between House
and Senate bills and then to Jeb's desk.
WE HAVE A DECENT LAW structured on House version
Pete Colt, Daytona Beach
Senate move may kill Riviera redevelopment
By
Alan Gomez,
Kevin Deutsch
Palm Beach Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
TALLAHASSEE — The legislature may have dealt a fatal
blow to Riviera Beach's $2.6 billion redevelopment plan
when the Senate refused to exempt the plan from a bill
that would restrict eminent domain powers in Florida.
Immediately following the decision, a lobbyist for
the city's likely master developer said it might pull
out of the project because of the massive increase in
costs it will face without the power of eminent domain.
Robert Healy, chairman of Viking Inlet Harbor, has
not yet signed a contract with the city to become its
master developer. But he has traveled to Tallahassee
frequently in recent months to warn legislators that a
lack of eminent domain powers would allow speculators to
swoop in, purchase properties and force his company to
pay exorbitant amounts for them.
Healy was traveling Tuesday, but a Viking lobbyist
said he already has discussed backing out of the project
if the legislature did exactly what it did Tuesday.
"We think it'll destroy any opportunity we had to
redevelop Riviera Beach," said David Ramba, a lobbyist
for Viking. "We don't know if we're going to stay in the
project or not."
Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown said he would not
comment on Viking's future role in the project until he
spoke with one of the company's principles.
Legislators have been meeting for 10 months in
response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that made it
easier for government agencies to take private
properties for purely economic development reasons. That
decision has prompted states around the country to
respond with a tightening of their eminent domain laws.
In Florida, that has resulted in a bill (HB 1567, SB
2168) that would prohibit governments from taking a home
or business and handing it over to a private developer
with very few exceptions.
Government agencies would still be able to use
eminent domain for traditionally accepted purposes, such
as parks, schools, roads and other public utilities.
Brown said he believes his city can make a successful
legal challenge that would allow it to continue
redevelopment under old eminent domain laws. He plans to
make that recommendation to the city council.
"Here you have a community that was playing by the
rules and doing things the right way, but just when it
was time to benefit our community, the legislature
changed the rules," he said.
Brown said Sen. Daniel Webster, R-Orlando and Senate
sponsor of the bill, and certain other legislators
"really don't care about poor people, or the plight of
the poorest people in Palm Beach County.
"This legislation is going to be devastating to urban
communities, and it's going to be devastating to poor
rural communities. It's shameful that these folks don't
care about that."
Last week, Brown gave an impassioned plea to a Senate
committee to provide an exemption from the new rules so
that he could continue the "rescue mission" of his
impoverished, crime-ridden city.
Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, agreed at the time,
successfully amending the eminent domain bill to exempt
Riviera Beach until 2010 to complete its redevelopment
project.
"If there's ever been a blighted area in Florida...
that would be it," Bennett said on the Senate floor
Tuesday.
Webster said one exemption could open the door for
others to jump through and that the legislature needed
to be concerned more with homeowners worried about
losing their properties than economic development
proposals.
"There is a call out there to say, 'It was this way
before, and now it's this way after,' " Webster said.
The House has approved its version of the bill and
the Senate may vote on its version today.
|
__________**______________
- 24 Apr 06
Eminent domain bill clears Senate panel
Spurred by a June 2005 U.S. Supreme Court
decision, lawmakers are moving toward passing a law that bars
community redevelopment agencies, cities and counties from using eminent
domain power to seize slums and blighted areas for economic development.
Instead, local governments would be allowed to
use the condemnation power only to build roads or sidewalks or to lay wire
or pipe for utilities.
"It's a hard-line stand, but it's a good stand,"
said Sen. Daniel Webster, R-Winter Haven.
States across the country have reacted to the
Kelo v. City of New London ruling by passing similar legislative rebuttals.
In Kelo, the court said that local governments could take private land from
one owner and give it to another for economic development projects.
The Florida Senate version, along with a proposed
constitutional amendment stripping eminent domain powers from the state
Constitution, cleared their last Senate committee stop today, but not
without complaints from one city official that the move would destroy his
town's attempt to revitalize itself.
"Let us complete this rescue mission," said
Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brow. His city is in the midst of $2.4 billion
waterfront redevelopment that he hopes will raise property values and create
new jobs in one of Florida's most impoverished and crime-ridden cities.
Members of the Senate Community Affairs committee
took Brown's side today, amending the bill to allow some eminent domain
projects still in court to proceed regardless of the new playing rules the
bill would enact.
That riled property rights advocates in the
audience, and Webster hinted he would work to remove that provision on the
Senate floor.
Andrew Brigham, a property rights lawyer who
testified along with several of his clients fighting eminent domain
proceedings in Florida, complained the compromise would create a "Kelo
incubator" where local governments would race to press forward with
condemnation projects.
But Kraig Conn, with the Florida League of
Cities, argued the restriction would prohibit local governments from taking
land for legitimate public purposes such as building affordable housing,
mass transit systems and ports.
The Florida House has
already passed a version of the eminent domain bill, along with
constitutional changes that voters would have to approve. But
several senators
said Monday they couldn't support such a sweeping plan on the Senate floor.
One of those was the Community
Affairs Committee chairman, who voted for the constitutional fix but said he
wouldn't support it on the floor.
"We create this, and there's no
way out of it," said Sen. Michael Bennett, a Bradenton developer.
"We can carve out situations
where it's true blight and true need," he said. "And yet, we can't take
someone's home and then give it to Wal-Mart."
By Aaron Deslatte
CAPITOL BUREAU
____________**_____________
- 02 Apr 06
Eminent domain bills go to
Florida House
| Three bills restricting government's eminent
domain powers will be introduced onto the floor of
the Florida House of Representatives this week.
All three diminish
community redevelopment agencies' abilities to
condemn private property for public uses.
And all three are opposed
by local governments, including Charlotte County.
But Commissioner
Matt DeBoer
told fellow commissioners last week that continued
opposition to the house bills "could undermine our
credibility."
"Don't throw yourself under the bus," he warned.
"It's just not worth fighting for."
DeBoer said the county
would need all the credibility and political clout
it can muster to derail a bill still being pondered
by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
That bill -- Senate Bill
2168 -- not only limits CRA powers, but
would be retroactive, meaning it could imperil the
county's Murdock Village Redevelopment Project.
The county borrowed $82 million to buy nearly
3,000 lots it condemned within the 1,132-acre
Murdock Village CRA.
Commissioners will award the contract to develop
the 871-acre CRA redevelopment project on April 11.
However, there are 73
Murdock Village landowners who can still appeal the
condemnation one more time before the 2nd District
Court of Appeals, DeBoer said.
If SB 2168 is approved by
the state Legislature, those Murdock Village
landowners will have incentive to file their appeal
and, perhaps, win, he said.
DeBoer has testified several times before the
15-member committee chaired by Rep. Marco Rubio,
R-Coral Gables.
The committee has been meeting since September,
following the U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling in
Kelo vs. the city of New London.
That decision essentially upheld economic
development as a public benefit that justifies
government seizure of private property through
condemnation procedures.
Previously, public benefit was restricted to
acquisition of private property for community uses,
such as schools and roads.
The ruling sparked a nationwide backlash. Florida
is among 47 states pondering changes in eminent
domain statutes.
DeBoer said his emphasis in
testifying before Senate and House committees has
been to discourage retroactive legislation.
"We have commitments from
two senators (on the subcommittee) to hold us
harmless," he said. "I think in that part of the
legislation, we are in good shape."
The three house bills -- HB 1567, HJR 1569, HJR
1571 -- emerged from the House Select Committee on
Private Property Rights last week without
opposition.
The legislation would change the state's 1969
Community Redevelopment Act, redefining how property
deemed "blighted" can be condemned through eminent
domain.
A CRA could take private property only when
necessary to eliminate a threat to public health or
safety. Local government would have to prove that to
a judge -- property by property.
"You can't declare areas
blighted anymore," DeBoer said. "Basically, what
they are doing is they are making it so eminent
domain must be applied property by property and
putting a heavier burden of proof" on local
governments.
You can e-mail John Haughey at jhaughey@sun-herald.com.
By JOHN HAUGHEY
Staff Writer |
|
|
|
____________**___________
- 14 Mar 06 Fl House
Bill severely limits developers access to seized land
By
Alan Gomez
Palm Beach Post Capital
Bureau
TALLAHASSEE — Riviera Beach's community
redevelopment plan took a hard hit Monday when
House members studying
Florida's eminent domain laws approved a bill that
would make it nearly impossible for private
developers to get their hands on property taken by
eminent domain.
Riviera Beach's master developer, Viking Group
Chairman Bob Healy, conceded that eminent domain
could not be used under the proposal approved by the
House Select Committee to Protect Private Property
Rights.
With the Senate
version of the bill considered even more protective
of homeowners' rights, Riviera Beach and other
communities in Florida may soon have to learn to
live without eminent domain.
"It's light years different," said Rep. Bill
Galvano, R-Bradenton and an eminent domain attorney.
Florida homeowners
"are going to wake up to a whole new world of
property rights."
State lawmakers have been working to restrict the
use of eminent domain for privately-owned economic
development in Florida since the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in June that such use by local government
agencies is allowed.
The Senate bill (SB 7102) would allow government
takings only for traditionally-accepted public
projects such as government buildings, parks,
schools, roads, bridges, airports, seaports and
utilities.
But the House committee had been considering a
more flexible bill (HB 1567) that would allow a
government to take a home and turn it over to
aprivate entity if the government could meet a very
high level of proof that the house was a threat to
public health or safety.
On Monday the state House
shifted its stance and expressly restricted
transfers of condemned land from private homeowners
to private entities. The only exception is when a
government agency takes a property, holds it for
five years and then determines it's no longer
needed.
Healy said losing eminent domain powers won't
directly affect his part of Riviera's $2.4 billion
redevelopment plan — partly because he hasn't used
or threatened to use condemnations.
But he said it could indirectly cause some
damage, because he believes that speculators —
knowing that he and Riviera Beach won't be able to
use eminent domain to take needed properties — would
buy the remaining plots of land and increase the
price for the builder redeveloping Riviera Beach.
"You can buy so much, but then you get to the
stage where the economics are such that they don't
work," Healy said. "They should have legislation
that does not condemn homeowners. But they should
condemn speculators."
|
- 23 Feb 06 Georgia
Governor Perdue Announces Legislation to Limit Eminent Domain Abuse
 |
On Wednesday, February 8,
2006, Governor Sonny Perdue announced legislation regarding the
restriction of eminent domain.
The Private Property
Protection Amendment to the Georgia Constitution seeks to protect
private property rights of Georgia citizens, and we are pleased with
many aspects of the Governor’s proposal. The proposed legislation
includes the following:
Only
elected bodies will have the power to exercise eminent domain.
The definition of blight
is much more narrow than current law. We are working to further
tighten this key component of the bill.
Eminent domain could be
used to condemn individual blighted properties, but could not be
used to condemn blighted areas. This is a major step foreword in
that property owners will have an opportunity to defend their
property against allegations of blight.
The bill clearly states
“the public benefit of economic development shall not constitute a
public use.” This is a direct response to the Kelo decision and
ensures that the citizens of Georgia are not subject to having their
property condemned to make way for a private development.
The bill makes clear
that there is no presumption that the exercise of eminent domain is
for an appropriate public use. This means the burden of proof is on
the condemning authority to demonstrate that your property is
blighted.
Again, we are pleased to
see that the legislation to protect private property rights is
moving forward, but the fight is not finished yet. Please log on to
www.garealtor.com
periodically for the latest developments on this issue.
|
Anne Gault
Chair, GAR State
and Local Governmental Affairs Committee
|
|
___________**____________
- 22 Feb 06
SUPREME COURT HEARS "TITANIC" PLF LAND USE
CASE
The Christian Science Monitor calls it "a landmark case
over the scope of federal power" to regulate private property. An expert quoted
by the Legal Times terms it one of the most "important environmental
cases in a decade." The Inman Real Estate News service describes it as a
"titanic land use battle."
They're talking about Rapanos v. United States, Pacific Legal
Foundation's (PLF) latest case before the United
States Supreme Court. The Court heard oral arguments in Rapanos this past
Tuesday, with PLF's Reed Hopper making the opening presentation. In Rapanos,
PLF is challenging an astonishing federal power grab over land use regulation
nationwide.
Traditionally, zoning has been the prerogative of local governments, in keeping
with the Constitution's limits on the national government in our federal system.
But in recent years, federal regulators have attempted to become arbiters of
land use, through a contorted interpretation of the Clean Water Act. The act’s
plain language gives the federal government oversight only over property that
abuts "navigable waters"--major rivers that flow between states. In defiance of
common sense, the feds have now defined that term to mean almost any water,
anywhere. As Investors Business Daily puts it, "If collected rainwater
drains into a gully, thence into a ditch, thence into a river, it's now deemed
under government control."
Thus, the predicament of PLF's client, John Rapanos: The feds claim the right to
nix his plans to develop his property in Michigan--even though it is miles from
the nearest "navigable water."
States and localities have the authority to safeguard water quality, and they
are exercising it. There is no need for Washington to push them aside and assume
powers not authorized by the Constitution, which limits the federal role to
matters of "interstate commerce." Indeed, PLF and Mr. Rapanos are supported by
friend of the court briefs from the nation's largest urban water district (the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California), and groups representing
hundreds of water agencies around the country.
These agencies fear the danger articulated by Investors Business Daily:
If the federal regulators' argument prevails, "that means the feds can move in
on virtually any private property."
On Tuesday, PLF's Hopper urged the justices to insist on an interpretation that
is more honest about what the Clean Water Act says, and more faithful to the
meaning and mandate of the Constitution.
Read the New York Times'
background article
on PLF's case; New York Times' report on
Tuesday's oral argument;
coverage of the argument
by the Washington Post; and the
editorial in
Investors Business Daily.
________________
The PLF Sentry is published by Pacific Legal Foundation and may be
redistributed in its entirety with proper attribution to PLF. If you have been
forwarded this e-mail message from a friend and would like to subscribe to
receive future issues of The PLF Sentry, visit our
home page.
Established in 1973, PLF is the oldest, largest, and in the
words of the Washington Post, "perhaps most influential" public interest
law foundation of its kind. PLF is a tax-exempt, charitable organization under
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and relies entirely upon private
donations for its support.
__________**__________
Banks should not support eminent domain
|
|
If evil King John had been inspired by the liberal wing of
the U.S. Supreme Court, he would have used eminent domain to
steal from the poor and turn Sherwood Forest into a mini-mall,
leaving Robin Hood and his merry men out of business.
|
| The Fifth
Amendment used to say private property can not be taken except
for public use. Once upon a time, public use meant something
that benefits everyone like a new highway, elementary school, or
library. After the Supreme Court's ruling last summer, it could
mean an office park, upscale condominiums, or maybe even a
parking lot to benefit the developer of an attraction in Sevier
County. When the government takes property and gives it to an
individual, the public no longer has a legal right to use the
property. If the Founding Fathers wanted the government to be
able to take land for private use, they would have said so.
The original intent was to limit the power of government from
taking property from Peter and giving it to Paul, and not to
allow a well-heeled developer to plunder in the name of economic
development or enhanced tax revenue in the future. They
envisioned a country where owning property is a natural,
fundamental right, and not a place where providing for the
"general welfare" used elsewhere in the Constitution is confused
with "public use." This right is part and parcel of the American
dream. The idea that a government "of the people, by the people
and for the people" would allow a big corporation to tear down a
family's home in favor of an office complex is an abomination to
"life, liberty and pursuit of the happiness."
BB&T Corp. has taken the lead against this white collar
form of legalized theft by refusing to loan money to developers
who plan to build commercial projects on land taken from private
citizens by the government through the power of eminent domain.
Like good King Richard coming to Robin Hood's rescue, John
Allison, BB&T's chairman and CEO, has taken a stand against
this type of tyranny that masquerades in the name of the public
good.
"The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by government
solely for private use is extremely misguided, in fact it's just
plain wrong," he said in a recent press release.
The company's principled stance should score a bullseye with
investors and customers. Since BB&T is among the top 10 of the
largest financial institutions in the country in terms of
assets, this policy should serve as notice to any developer in
the future.
We urge other major financial institutions in Sevier County and
the nation to join BB&T in protecting the rights the individual
property owner.
"Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty." -
John Adams, Founding Father; a point which Robin Hood would
surely agree.
|
|
©The Mountain Press 2006
|
__________**__________
"You bought it, you paid for it, you kept
the taxes up, you kept the appearance up, but it wasn't yours."
The Florida Legislature, along with legislatures in at least 40
other states, is working on changing the eminent domain/blight/CRA
laws, hopefully in a meaningful way that will return property rights
back to the private property owners of Florida. As it currently
stands, Florida property owners are only renters, waiting for the
government to find someone, usually a developer, who will pay higher
taxes for their property.
There continue to be a very few groups who what to maintain the
status quo, The Florida League of Cities, some elected public
servants, sadly many in our area, developer groups. The
groups fighting for property rights include almost every other group
you can think of. The AARP, NAACP, the Becket Fund, Brigham Moore,
Inst. of Justice, Pacific Legal Foundation, National Realtors
Assoc., Car Dealers Assoc., ACLU and many many others.
If you value your property rights, now is the time to make your
position heard. Locally, no elected public servant should escape
questioning on this critical issue. The same is true for the county
and state level if the opportunity presents itself. In many cases
they have been suspiciously silent.
Below is a case that could have national ramifications that is
before the Ohio Supreme Court. It addresses the "bogus blight"
question that is currently bedeviling Florida. In this case, the
city actually took "bogus blight" a step further and used "crystal
ball blight". That could be the next step in Florida.
As a footnote, I would question the section that says many
homeowners "willingly sold their homes". When the onus of eminent
domain hangs over your head, "willing" is not part of the equation.
One wonders how many would have sold if they still had the
right to say no.
_________**_________
 |
|
Ohio court hears case on
eminent domain
COLUMBUS, Ohio
- Long before the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled last summer that municipalities could seize
homes for a private economic development project,
Joy and Carl Gamble filed a lawsuit to save their
house.
The couple contests the city's decision to
declare their neighborhood in the Cincinnati suburb
of Norwood as blighted so it can be redeveloped.
They believe the city is misusing its power of
eminent domain.
"Our home meant everything to us," said Joy
Gamble, who is fighting Norwood with another couple,
backed by the Institute for Justice, a Washington,
D.C.-based organization that supports private
property rights.
Their case goes before the
Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday. It is the
first challenge of property rights laws to reach a
state high court since the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision that the city of New London, Conn. could
take homes to build a privately owned hotel and
office space.
Property rights advocates,
business groups and backers of city planning are
watching the Ohio case because of the precedent it
could set as more than a dozen states consider bans
against governments taking homes to boost economic
development.
Legislatures are rushing to pass their own laws
because Justice John Paul Stevens, author of the
majority decision in the federal court's 5-4 ruling,
also noted that states have the ability to pass laws
with stronger protections if they want.
So far Alabama, California,
Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and
Wisconsin have proposed bills, according to the
National Conference of State Legislatures.
In Ohio, a new law stops local governments from
seizing unblighted private property for use by
private developers while a committee studies the
issue. The Gambles' lawsuit also was filed before
that law was passed.
The city and a private developer contend that
Norwood had the right to acquire the property. They
also argue that eminent domain applied
not because the area
is "blighted," but because it is "deteriorating."
How the Ohio court deals with the issue of blight
has important ramifications for municipalities
around the country, said Steven Eagle, a George
Mason University law professor who studies property
rights.
"Every jurisdiction allows condemnation to
relieve blight," Eagle said.
"If blight is going to be vaguely defined, then it
could be open season for condemnations for
redevelopment."
A ruling in favor of the Gambles would be an
important first step in setting limits that courts
around the country could follow, said Karen Harned,
executive director of the National Federation of
Independent Business' Legal Foundation. The group
worries that the small businesses it represents
could be overtaken by bigger development.
A decision in favor of
Norwood would help slow the knee-jerk reaction of
many states to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, said
Daniel Lindner, a lawyer representing the American
Planning Association.
The Gambles, in their 60s, hoped to live
comfortably in their home after selling their small
Cincinnati grocery store, Tasty Bird Poultry, and
retiring five years ago.
Instead, they watched their neighborhood
disappear as neighbors sold willingly to developer
Rookwood Partners. The Gambles temporarily left
their home to live with a grown daughter in Kentucky
but vow to return should they win the case.
Joy Gamble speaks bitterly about the couple's
ordeal and what it meant to see their home of 35
years, purchased after years of savings, in danger
of demolition.
"When the municipalities
and the people that have lots of money decide they
want what you have, you don't own it," Gamble said.
"You bought it, you paid for it, you kept the taxes
up, you kept the appearance up, but it wasn't yours."
ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS
Associated Press
ON THE NET
American Planning Association:
http://www.planning.org
National Federation of Independent Business:
http://www.NFIB.com
Ohio Supreme Court:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us
|
|
____________**_____________
Kelo’s Aftermath:
Eminent domain runs amok in Florida
The Monitor View
Perhaps the
Riviera Beach abuse will remind lawmakers of the real consequences of
eliminating property rights.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Kelo vs.
the City of New London (Conn.), upholding the "right" of local
governments to take property from private owners and give it to
developers, Congress and state legislatures have been debating
proposals to limit the impact of the decision. The Fifth Amendment
to the Constitution allows eminent domain — the government’s taking
of private property, upon compensation to the owner — for public
uses, understood historically to mean needs such as highways and
schools. But the highest court OK’d its use to take property from
homeowners and business owners to benefit private interests, i.e.,
to turn property over to other private owners.
In the debate over these laws, supporters of the Kelo decision —
a ruling overwhelmingly derided nationwide by conservatives and
liberals — have warned that restoring traditional constitutional
property-rights protections could have "unintended consequences."
Such consequences mainly revolve around limiting government
regulations and planning, which are consequences we, and most
Americans, certainly would be glad to live with.
The real unintended consequences come not from protecting
property rights, but from the Kelo decision itself and other efforts
by the courts to undermine the idea that a person’s home is his
castle. For an idea of what the Kelo decision has wrought, Americans
would do well to pay attention to a massive eminent-domain plan now
taking shape in Riviera Beach, Fla. The predominantly
African-American beachfront city, just north of West Palm Beach, is
a nice place, albeit one that is far less upscale than many nearby
coastal communities.
It’s a mostly blue-collar area, and residents have enjoyed the
fact that one needn’t be wealthy to live near the ocean and the
intercoastal waterway. City officials, however, do not like the
area’s downscale image. They want it to be more like tony Palm Beach
and other wealthy coastal cities. So they have approved a $1 billion
plan that would move 6,000 residents out of their homes and
businesses and sell the land to a yacht company and Australian
builder for a planned fancy resort.
The modest ranch houses would give way to high-rise condos. The
mostly blue-collar and black residents would no doubt give way to
other sorts of residents. It’s a classic case of Robin Hood in
reverse and an example of what happens when government officials are
given power over other people’s lives and when property rights are
not treated with the respect afforded in the Constitution.
In a free society, individuals get to choose where they live. If
a developer wants the property, then he is free to try to buy it.
But he has to walk away if the owner refuses to sell. When the
government steps in to take the land on behalf of the developer
because the government covets the promised new tax revenue, it
distorts the market in favor of those with the most political clout.
Freedom evaporates, as individuals are forced to leave their dreams
so others can benefit from their property.
This is the world the Supreme Court has endorsed. The Kelo
decision allows individual states to pass laws restricting
eminent-domain abuse. Perhaps the
Riviera Beach abuse will remind lawmakers of the real consequences
of eliminating property rights.
______________**____________
- 03 Nov 05 US House weighs in
(WASHINGTON) - Congressman Ander Crenshaw (R-FL), a member
of the House Appropriations Committee, hailed the passage of H.R. 4128, the
Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, which prohibits state and local
governments that receive federal funds for economic development from seizing
private property for economic gain. The bipartisan bill passed by a vote of
376-38. The bill was introduced as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
in Kelo v. New London earlier this year.
"The Supreme Court erroneously ruled that it is fair for local governments to
seize private land for economic use if it increases their tax base," Crenshaw
said. "By approving the Private Property Rights Protection Act, Congress is
protecting private property owners all over America and denying federal funds to
developers and local governments that seize private property."
In the Kelo v. New London decision, the Supreme Court ruled private development
corporations can now seize private property if a court rules a developer could
offer a superior revenue source for the local government. The ruling stands in
contrast to the Constitution's Fifth Amendment "takings clause," which had been
previously interpreted by the Court to protect property rights for more than 200
years.
"The previous eminent domain laws restricted government condemnation powers and
the Kelo ruling undermines those laws, granting government entities the ability
to condemn private property," Crenshaw said. "A man's home is his castle and
should not be turned into a shopping mall or fast-food restaurant unless he
wants to sell his property."
The Private Property Rights Protection Act prohibits states and localities from
using eminent domain powers for economic development purposes if the state or
local governing jurisdiction received federal economic development funds during
the same fiscal year. Any violation of this prohibition would result in the
state or local government being ineligible for federal economic development
funding for two years.
"I have always supported a less intrusive, limited government that does not
interfere in people's lives and there is something gravely wrong when our
government can seize private property at will," added Crenshaw. "With another
round of Supreme Court confirmation hearings coming up, I urge my Senate
colleagues to raise the property rights issue during their questioning of Judge
Alito. It is my hope that he feels the same way about property rights as Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor, whom he will replace." This is our automatic e-outreach
system. In the event you do not wish to receive messages with information from
Congressman Crenshaw, click here to <a href=http://crenshaw.house.gov/crenshaw-web/proc/?pa=customer&sa=unsubscribe&email=rerothrock@juno.com>unsubscribe
</a>from this service.
- 19 Aug 05 State Rep's weigh in
Yesterday, I was a guest of my favorite property rights law firm,
Brigham Moore, for a property rights forum held, appropriately
enough, in the ballroom of the failed and boarded up CRA disaster,
Church Street Station in Orlando.
The keynote speaker was Allan Bense, Speaker of the House of
Representative. The 100+ audience was full of other state, county
and local elected officials as well as activists, victims, and
property rights attorneys from Brigham Moore, Gray Robinson and
other law firms.
It was clear that the elected officials were w ell
aware that the public is outraged over the Supreme Court decision
and something is going to have to happen. The question, which
remains unanswered, is what changes are going to be made and to what
degree. With polls showing that ninety percent of the people are
opposed to governments using eminent domain to transfer private
property from one person to another, in Florida using CRA's, the
pressure is on. It is our job to insure the pressure for drastic
changes in the Florida "blight", CRA, eminent domain statute to
restore property rights to the people doesn't diminish.
Peter Colt, CRA opposition
spokesman in Daytona Beach
_________**___________
Here is what the opposition is claiming :
|
The Washington Times
By Dana Berliner
Published August 19, 2005
After the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Constitution allows homes to
be taken for potentially more profitable, higher
tax uses, the defenders of eminent domain abuse
already have begun desperate attempts to keep
the power to take homes and businesses and turn
them over to private developers. And they are
struggling to convince outraged Americans that
they shouldn't care.
The U.S. Congress and legislatures in more
than 30 states have either introduced reform
legislation or announced they will do so. The
beneficiaries of the virtually unrestricted use
of eminent domain -- local governments,
developers and planners -- will frantically
lobby and try to scotch any attempt to diminish
their power. Here's what they are saying:
• "Nothing's changed. We've been doing this
for years." Many commentators have tried to
minimize the Supreme Court's decision by saying
it didn't change the law.
Typical was Matthew Greller, executive
director of the Indiana Association of Cities
and Towns: "It is important to understand that
this decision does not provide 'new' or
'unprecedented' powers to government."
Far from comforting readers, this should
frighten home and business owners even more
because those commentators are right: Government
has used eminent domain regularly to assist
private developers for years. I documented more
than 10,000 properties either taken or
threatened with condemnation in a just five-year
period by counting properties listed in news
articles. In Connecticut, the only state that
keeps separate track of redevelopment
condemnations, I found 31, while the true number
was 543. My research documents merely the tip of
the iceberg; there are thousands more
condemnations for private businesses and many
more people forced to sell "voluntarily" under
threat of eminent domain.
• "We'll only use eminent domain as a last
resort." According to the eminent domain
apologists, like Donald Borut, executive
director of the National League of Cities,
everyone should calm down because... our public
officials have everyone's best interests at
heart. Mr. Borut said, "Local elected officials
are often called upon to make tough choices
between the long-term community good and the
property rights of individuals. ... Eminent
domain is not a tool to be used lightly. In
fact, it is most often used as a last resort."
Beware when local officials say they will
use eminent domain as a last resort. What they
really mean is they'll come up with plans
requiring people to move and then take the
property "as a last resort" when residents
refuse to move "voluntarily."
When they take someone's home for a shopping
mall, they'll only do it for a successful
shopping mall. City leaders will feel really bad
about kicking those people out. They're not
acting to benefit a wealthy developer. They are
"bravely" making hard decisions to improve the
tax base and everyone's city services.
One might ask why it's so brave of city
leaders to decide someone else must sacrifice
his home or business. Where do city councils
offer their own neighborhoods, or their
parents', for private development to supposedly
revitalize the city?
But the bottom line is: If you're losing
your home so someone richer can have your
property, it really doesn't matter if your local
government officials were thinking about the tax
revenue or thinking about the developer.
• "But we need economic development." The
final stand for the defense of eminent domain
abuse is the specter the city somehow will go
down the tubes unless it can confiscate property
for large development projects. As the New York
Times (itself a major beneficiary of eminent
domain) editorialized: "Connecticut is a rich
state with poor cities, which must do everything
they can to attract business and industry. New
London's development plan may hurt a few small
property owners, who will, in any case, be fully
compensated. But many more residents are likely
to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base
and attract badly needed jobs."
These claims are at best disingenuous, at
worst outright dishonest. There are many, many
ways to encourage economic growth that do not
involve taking someone else's property. Will the
city be able to have condos and a Target on
exactly that corner? Maybe, maybe not. Will the
city be able to have business development if its
bureaucrats are willing to relinquish their
desire to say exactly what and exactly where
development will occur? Absolutely.
Despite these spurious claims, Americans are
not reassured -- nor should they be: City
leaders have in fact missed the point entirely.
The problem is everyone understands the
rationale of economic development -- less
profitable uses can be taken for more-profitable
uses -- goes against everything America stands
for. It enshrines power and privilege over hard
work and individual choice.
America is still the Land of Opportunity,
where people can work hard and buy a home or
start a business and provide better for their
families. Almost everyone in the country has
ancestors, often recent ones, who started out
dirt poor and worked so their children would
have more than they did. They bought small homes
and started small businesses -- things now
considered inefficient uses of property, to be
replaced by larger and fancier projects with
higher-income patrons.
The American Dream still rings true for so
many. And to the vast majority of Americans,
that dream, the soul of our country, is more
important than a successful shopping mall.
Dana Berliner is a senior attorney with
the Institute for Justice, which argued the
eminent domain abuse case before the U.S.
Supreme Court.
__________**_________
Petition to Overturn the Recent Supreme Court Eminent Domain
Ruling:
Click here to
protect American Citizens from future eminent domain violations Petition
_____________**_____________
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE www.ij.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 23,
2005
Homeowners Lose Eminent Domain Case
Institute for Justice Warns:
Supreme Court Leaves Homeowners
Vulnerable
To Tax-Hungry Bureaucrats &
Land-Hungry Developers
Washington, D.C.- Today, the U.S.
Supreme Court delivered a blow to home and small business owners
throughout the country by allowing the government to use eminent domain
to take homes so that businesses can make more money off that land and
possibly pay more taxes as a result.
The Institute and its clients
issued the following statements after learning of today’s decision.
Chip Mellor, the president of the
Institute for Justice, said, “The majority and the dissent both
recognized that the action now turns to state supreme courts where the
public use battle will be fought out under state constitutions. The
Institute for Justice will be there every step of the way with
homeowners and small businesses to protect what is rightfully theirs.
Today’s decision in no way binds those courts.”
“The Court simply got the law wrong
today, and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result,” said
Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice. “With
today’s ruling, the poor and middle class will be most vulnerable to
eminent domain abuse by government and its corporate allies. The 5-4
split and the nearly equal division among state supreme courts shows
just how divided the courts really are. This will not be the last
word.”
“One of the key quotes from the
Court to keep in mind today was written by Justice O’Connor,” Bullock
said. “Justice O’Connor wrote, ‘Any property may now be taken for the
benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision
will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens
with disproportionate influence and power in the political process,
including large corporations and development firms.’”
Dana Berliner, another senior
attorney with the Institute for Justice, said, “It’s a dark day for
American homeowners. While most constitutional decisions affect a small
number of people, this decision undermines the rights of every American,
except the most politically connected. Every home, small business, or
church would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office
building. And according to the Court, that’s a good enough reason for
eminent domain.”
Mellor said, “Today’s decision
doesn’t end the Institute for Justice’s fight against abuses of eminent
domain. We will work to ensure not only that the property owners in New
London keep their homes, but that all home and small business owners are
protected from these unconstitutional land grabs by governments and
their business allies. This is a terrible precedent that must be
overturned by this Court, just as bad state supreme court eminent domain
decisions in Michigan and Illinois were later overturned by those
courts.”
Susette Kelo, one of the homeowners
challenging eminent domain abuse, said, “I was in this battle to save my
home and, in the process, protect the rights of working class homeowners
throughout the country. I am very disappointed that the Court sided
with powerful government and business interests, but I will continue to
fight to save my home and to preserve the Constitution.”
Mike Cristofaro, another one of the
homeowners whose family has owned property in Fort Trumbull for more
than 30 years, said, “I am astonished that the Court would permit the
government to throw out my family from their home so that private
developers can make more money. Although the Court ruled against us, I
am very proud of the fight we waged for my family and for the rights of
all Americans.”
# # #
Elizabeth Moser
Outreach Coordinator
Institute for Justice
1717 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006
202-955-1300
fax 202-955-1329
emoser@ij.org
Litigating for Liberty:
www.IJ.org
_________________**________________
|
|
