« Hudson Yards back in play | Main | AY affordable housing session: why now? (It could take six years, for 280 units) »
July 10, 2006
Eminent Domania: Kelo effect and local conundrums
The NY Times, Homeowners Settle, but Their Fighting Spirit Lives On
After the remaining Ft. Trumbull homeowners settled with the City of New London, Peter Cristafaro weighs the effect of their fight, which went all the way to the US Supreme Court:
"We lost the battle," he said, "but we're winning the war."
USA Today, Editorial, One year later, power to seize property ripe for abuse
In the year since the Kelo decision shocked the nation and made developers very happy, the Institute for Justice continues to study the effect the decision had on the rate of eminent domain condemnations and legislative reform:
Emboldened by the ruling, local governments have threatened or condemned 5,783 properties for private projects in the past year, according to the Institute for Justice, the libertarian law firm that defended Kelo. That's up from an annual average of 2,056 such threats and takings from 1998 to 2002, the Institute said.
Of 117 projects the Institute studied over the past year, most involved taking lower-income homes, apartments and mobile home parks to construct upscale condominiums or retail development, driving the working poor from their homes.
But the Kelo case also has inspired a political backlash unusual in the annals of Supreme Court rulings. It has united conservative defenders of property rights and liberals who say the seizures amount to corporate welfare at the expense of the powerless.
USA Today, Op-ed, Vital tool of last resort
In an opposing viewpoint, Donald J. Borut, executive director of the National League of Cities, defends eminent domain as a "vital tool" for clearing blighted neighborhoods, though he sidesteps the frequent abuse of the definition of "blight":
Without eminent domain to clear title on abandoned and vacant properties — the primary use of eminent domain in this country — rundown buildings and empty lots would attract trash, rodents and trouble. Blighted structures would sit abandoned. If owners didn't want to sell or were holding out for more money, the cities and their taxpayers could do nothing to get rid of them.
The Baltimore Sun, Eminently Troubling
Many property owners who toughed it out during harder times are being told by the Baltimore Development Corporation that they must leave to make way for urban renewal, placing "some business owners in a debilitating limbo."
The Cincinnati Enquirer, Court clears way for Clifton house razing
This situation in Cincinnati would make a good joke if it were funny:
A state appeals court cleared the way for the city of Cincinnati to demolish two Clifton houses it took by eminent domain for a road project, ruling that the property owners can't appeal until after a jury trial to determine the properties' value.
...
The Ohio First District Court of Appeals based the decision on a strict interpretation of eminent domain law: Until there's been a jury trial to determine the property's value, there's nothing to appeal. But the law also allows the city to take possession after depositing with the court the estimated value of the property - so there could be nothing left to win back if they ever won on appeal.
Posted by lumi at July 10, 2006 7:41 AM