Eminent Domain Abuse: The Fight Goes On

In the two years since the alarming and legendary Supreme Court Kelo decision, an astounding 42 states have taken measures to curb the abuse of eminent domain -- the taking of one private owner's land for other than public use. Almost all states are reviewing their laws. Now, one case may be destined for the Supreme test. And it has special national significance.

New York City, which seems to rival Texas for superlatives of size, is home to a lot of real estate developers who have done well in the private sector. One of the richest, Bruce Ratner, has done better with government money. He's not only built government buildings, such as a Federal courthouse in Brooklyn, he's managed to get generous public subsidies as well as government tenants to keep his buildings in Manhattan and Brooklyn profitable, to the tunes of millions of dollars.

A close pal and former law school classmate of the former Governor of NY, George Pataki and a neighbor of Mayor Mike Bloomberg, with their help he's also managed to create, with his proposed Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn, what has to be one of the biggest boondoggles in history (it would be the densest residential area in the States). Total subsidies will approach or possibly surpass $2 BILLION, but it is a privately owned, profit-making project. And now that Bloomberg seems about to throw his hat into the presidential ring, the significance of this project -- what Ratner's Forest City Ratner Company calls "Atlantic Yards" -- goes way beyond the NYC budget.

Ratner managed to get Pataki and Bloomberg to push a state development agency to attempt to take over the land Ratner wants so he can build a major sports arena (he owns the NJ Nets basketball team and would lease the arena for $1 a year) and 16 high-rises in massive superblocks of upscale condos with some subsidized units in the mix. The state agency, under Pataki's direction, rushed through its process last year and managed to end-run opposition by local elected officials. Now they are all in court, being sued by a large group of homeowners and business owners who are fighting eminent domain abuse. Goldstein vs. ESDC, et al is in Federal Appeals Court, but may very well end up on the Supreme Court docket. It merits following.

For more information, check out these sites:

http://www.dddb.net
http://www.nysun.com/article/66577
http://www.nolandgrab.org/

Comments

[WilletsPoint]

A group of land/business owners from Willets Point are gearing up for a battle with the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) at the final City Council oversight hearing on November 29, 2007, before the city files a Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) that would allow the use of eminent domain to condemn and take private properties in Willets Point and sell the land to a developer for a sizeable profit. The commercial and residential redevelopment project in Willets Point and is projected to cost upwards of $3 billion.

Representatives from the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association (WPIRA), a group of the 10 largest land/business owners in Willets Point will testify before the New York City Council"s Land Use and Economic Development Committees on November 29, 2007.

WPIRA has produced a compelling 15 minute videotape profiling the business/landowners whose livelihoods would be placed in serious jeopardy if eminent domain was to be instituted by the city. The video will be entered as testimony during the November 29th City Council hearing. To view the video, click here:

http://wpira.com/Behind%20the%20Curbline.htm

Willets Point employs an estimated 3,000 highly-skilled workers in ironworking, construction, sewer parts production, auto repair and service businesses, and the manufacture of bakery and food ingredients. Willets Point business owners provide billions of dollars of economic activity and millions of dollars of tax revenue to the City of New York. In spite of this longstanding tax revenue, the city has blatantly neglected the area and withheld municipal services for decades.

The city wants to redevelop land that has been in some families for three generations without giving owners the option of expanding profitable businesses that has thrived despite the fact that businesses have been operating without basic services. Willets Point does not have paved streets, sanitation services, street lights, sanitary or storm sewers. The city intentionally created blight in Willets Point. If the city were to provide basic services, the current land owners would invest and expand their businesses and re-develop the area themselves.

www.wpira.com
[e-mail]

[realitytrumpsbull]

I think that maybe a great first place for them
to start in the reforms on that would be a
balanced budget amendment to their city charter,
and kind of force the issue, there. Gross
overspending is a problem that's been seen
across the country, 'takings' of other
people's lands is something that should be
halted. Once you own it, there should be
a very, very short list of things that could
cause you to have to move, including sale,
natural catastrophe, foreclosure due to inability to pay the mortgage, and public
condemnation of the land, meaning that no
one gets to own it except maybe the state,
like if your property started becoming a
swamp and there was no way to drain it.
But first, some big cities have their own
swamps to drain, down at City Hall where
the creative financing seems to take place
to begin with. Public corruption and
incompetence are what bring about overspending
and they should strive to avoid that circumstance at all costs. Corruption in
government equals Mexico, frankly, so we
can't have it, not your dog catcher, and
not the president, and no one in between.
People seem to seek public office so they
can get at the Big Money, or fall prey to
its' allures once IN office, either
circumstance there leads to more abuse.
The cleanup has to start somewhere, NYC
is as good a place as any...send Spitzer in
with that budget pen...

[Pdubya]

meanwhile, many private properties are being seized under eminent domain to make way for the north-american highway to give framework to the North American Union. This is a grave injustice!

Blue Dog Democrat for Ron Paul

[libertarianbob01]

Ron Paul's campaign site says: "Property Rights and Eminent Domain

We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.

Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.

We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties " all without paying "just compensation."

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property."
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=518

[HollywoodBill]

I get the feeling that someone's rent controlled or stabilized apartment is either going to lose its views or somehow be involved in this redevelopment project.

Eminent domain has been used in every major city in this country and has been used at least since the 1970s in clearing land for what is the common good. While at first glance, it sounds unfair and downright unAmerican, there comes a point when the common good of a community is being held ransom by low life real estate speculators. Mom and pop have long ago taken their money and fled to Florida, while these leaches believe that they can hold communities hostage to their demands for millions of dollars for a key parcel of land.

Communities have to redevelop if they are to be beneficial to the people who live there. One person's charm may be another person's blight, but the liberal member of SCOTUS decided that developers can indeed have the land cleared for the common good. The 5-4 Kelo decision made it clear that communities cannot be held hostage by those who are robbing communities of their futures. Certain safeguards must be met and the criteria established, but at some point that individual castle may indeed come down for the benefit of all. Not just those with rent controlled river views.

[Ramirez]

The Kelo decision:

Supporting:
Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Kennedy.

Opposing:
O'Conner, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.