At the heart of the law of Eminent Domain, and the battles which have erupted, especially since 06/23/05 when the Supreme Court ruled in the case of "Kelo et al V. City of New London Connecticut et al", is the Fifth Amendment.
If you listen to talk radio (which I do a lot of), you have probably heard of many cases of cities now taking over peoples homes and small businesses in favor of bigger businesses/developers. Simply to raise their tax base.
We currently have a case going on in the city of Topeka, KS where an out-of-town development group has joined forces with a local commercial real estate agent, who (in my opinion only) is one of the slimier people I've ever had the displeasure to meet, to redevelop a small portion of Topeka known as College Hill.
The developers have acquired all the appropriate properties in the area, with the exception of two properties, Oscar's, which is a small bar, and Jerry's Bike Shop, which amazingly enough, is a bike shop. The owner of these two properties (also, Jerry owns his house which is located behind his shop) have refused the offers from the developers, stating that it was not sufficient money to cause them to want to move.
The offers ARE very nice, and if someone were to make a similar offer to me on property which I own, I would probably take it.
Since I have paid particular attention to the bike shop, I will focus specifically on it, and from here on it, if I say something like, "The Property", I am talking specifically about Jerry's house and his bike shop.
The County has assessed the property at about $74,000. The developer assessed the property at about $100,000. The developer has made an offer of $300,000 for the property, and is also willing to provide a set of similar (slightly bigger to tell the truth) properties, located just outside the development area. Jerry has made a counteroffer of $1.8MM, which is to cover relocating and reopening his business/house, and also a significant amount of money to help finance his retirement, in case the business fails in its new home (hmmm, it's just across the street from his current location).
However, here is where the usage of eminent domain is wrong.
The developer has gone whining to the city, that if this situation isn't resolved quickly, they will have to cancel the development project, because it would mean that they could not have the apartments open in time for the Fall, 2007 opening of our local University (Washburn University, about 2 blocks from the development).
So, the city is now threatening to use Eminent Domain to take these final properties, to turn over to the developer, so they can get the $25MM investment, and remove a section of older and run down buildings from the city.
In this case, the usage of Eminent Domain, as decided in the earlier mentioned supreme court decision is not appropriate, nor is it legal.
This is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, and there is no other way in which to justify the usage of Eminent Domain. Also, it is wrong. When you have to decide between right and wrong, and it is clear cut that this is wrong, you simply don't do it.
To Jerry: I hope that you can reach an acceptable value, as the city really does need this development.
To the Developers: I hope that you quit dreaming that people will bend over backwards for your money.
To the City: Keep your nose out of other peoples business. Make the city safe, don't get involved in private business matters!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You still need a little help on this issue.
However, I'm glad to see you are still standing your ground, not bowing down to pressure.
You'll need that if you make it to the city council.
Your rep has had a problem with that one. So have most of them.
Actually... over the next 14 months you should be seeing a lot more about me, to know exactly where I stand on a lot of the issues, and why I actually cannot bend on this one.
I don't think that eminent domain in itself is bad, and that it does have a required use, however, when eminent domain is not done with the appropriate planning by the government body concerned, than it is nothing more than a tool to move property to a more desirable owner.
I'm working on my website now, which should be up in another two or three weeks, however, I'm preparing my friends for their expected help when I actually start to campaign.
Good summary Fangers. Do I understand correctly that Eminent Domain is to be used to take private property for public uses like schools, hospitals, highways, military bases, etc...and not for "public uses" owned by individuals or corporations which are public in that the public will shop/dine/cheer there?
Also, was the fine detail on Kelo that the town was truly dying economically, and the land taken for development was necessary to keep the town alive?
Good luck when you run!
When the case of Kelo was originally decided, and I heard the talk points on the radio, I was extremely offended. Offended enough I actually made the mistake of trying to call Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly!
Before the college hill case hit, I was totally convinced that ANY takings that took land from one private individual and gave it to another as forced by the government was wrong.
However, after reading all of the oral arguments, the case briefs, and the various opinions of the SCOTUS Justices, I actually came to see that the Kelo decision was actually a good decision, based upon the process the city of New London, CT followed, AND the fact that they were trying to save the city.
The reason I feel so strongly in the college hill case is due primarily to the fact that the decision to utilize eminent domain (thankfully avoided) was based upon:
1) A development plan created by the developers;
2) Lack of any city created plan for this area;
3) The request for use of eminent domain was made by the developers to the city, not by the city on it's own behalf.
So, now, when do I believe in eminent domain?
I believe in eminent domain in the case where the government entity receives the DIRECT benefits, rather than indirect "higher tax base" benefit; or
In the case where a public plan for general improvement is in the process of being implemented.
This is based upon my reading of Kelo.
Also, I have sent an e-mail to Brendan Long, the city of Topeka's attorney, to specifically ask him how the one particular passage in the Kelo decision impacted the applicability of Kelo in the College Hill case, even though that issue has been satisfactorily resolved.
Post a Comment