EMINENT DOMAIN

Lost Liberty Hotel Gets Second Wind An undisclosed New Hampshire town is considering applying the Supreme Court's "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision on those justices who voted for it on the one year anniversary of the ruling. The Lost Liberty Airport is the latest project by Logan Darrow Clements to fight eminent domain abuse. It arrives on the June 23 anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that set loose a wave of home and land seizures across America. A Selectman for the town that is considering the proposal said, "The Supreme Court's Kelo decision was abhorrent. We are slowly losing our individual rights through bad legislation and a misguided judiciary. Perhaps the only way we can stop this trend is to have the people who create and sustain these laws live under them. That's why I as a Selectman in a New Hampshire town will do my best to get my town to support and carry out the plan for the Lost Liberty Airport." According to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in "Kelo vs. City of New London" a government may use eminent domain to seize homes and land to promote economic development or increase tax revenue. Meanwhile, New Hampshire statute XXXIX chapter 423 allows a town to seize land for an airport outside its border. Since this statute does not require the land to be adjacent territory any town in New Hampshire could seize land inside any other town. Thus any town in New Hampshire could seize David Souter's land in Weare, N.H. or Stephen Breyer's land in Plainfield, N.H. for the creation of an airport. Both Souter and Breyer voted in favor of the Kelo ruling. The airports will be operated by a victim of eminent domain abuse. Thor Solberg owns a private airport in Readington, N.J., which could soon be taken by eminent domain using the logic of the Kelo ruling. On May 16, 2006 the voters of Readington approved a bond authorizing the acquisition of Thor's land. Solberg's Airport, which was built by his father, hosts one of the largest hot air balloon festivals on the East Coast. Said Solberg before the vote, "If the government takes my airport by eminent domain I am ready, willing and able to run the Lost Liberty Airports in New Hampshire....
Kelo: One Year Later Friday marks the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's Kelo vs. New London decision, which gave cities a green light to seize private homes and businesses for the sole purpose of generating higher tax revenues through redevelopment. On the surface, this would appear to be a significant defeat to those who advocate for stronger protection of private property rights. Yet, the Kelo decision was actually one of the best things that ever happened to the national property rights movement, as it clearly imprinted the precarious nature of private property rights in the public consciousness and has inspired significant reforms nationwide. So where does the national property rights movement stand a year after Kelo? The movement was clearly galvanized by the Kelo decision. Over the last year, 47 states have begun reviewing their eminent domain laws, and 23 governors have already signed laws that restrict the use of eminent domain to varying degrees. Eminent domain legislation awaits the governor's signature in a handful of other states. In addition, voters in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, will head to the polls to decide the fate of state constitutional amendments that reform condemnation laws. Dozens of cities and counties nationwide have also either passed or are considering ordinances to prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. Further, the momentum generated by the Kelo backlash has spread to other efforts to protect private property rights. While eminent domain deals with the physical taking of private property, there has also been increased activity to restrict regulatory takings – de facto takings via restrictions on the ability of property owners to use their land in ways legal at the time they bought their property, dramatically reducing their property's value and imposing an economic hardship on them....
The Pain of Eminent Domain It's been almost a year since the Supreme Court decided in Kelo v. New London that bureaucrats may seize homes and businesses through eminent domain and transfer the land to private developers in the name of economic progress. Although the Constitution says government may condemn land only for "public use," the court held that this term means the same thing as "public purpose" or "public benefit." Thus whenever a city council thinks it would "benefit the public" to snatch a house or small business and give it to Costco or Home Depot or any other company, it may do so, and courts will not intervene. Americans reacted with outrage to the decision and urged state officials to pass laws protecting them from eminent domain. But so far this backlash has achieved mixed results. Of the 16 states that have acted since Kelo was decided, only six -- South Dakota, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Florida -- have imposed meaningful restraints on government power. Other states have either done nothing or have enacted laws so riddled with loopholes that they allow government to seize whatever property they consider "blighted." Take Alabama, for example. When Gov. Bob Riley signed SB 68A into law, he proclaimed his state the leader of a "property rights revolt." Yet even though the law prohibits government from taking property merely for economic development, that restriction does not apply to property that is declared blighted. Blight is defined as "buildings ... which, by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light and sanitary facilities, excessive land coverage, deleterious land use or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors, are detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of the community." Under such vague standards, virtually any neighborhood can be declared a blight, and any home or business located there can be seized and given to developers. Compare this with Florida's new law, signed this month by Gov. Jeb Bush. It declares outright that "the prevention or elimination of a slum area or blighted area ... and the preservation or enhancement of the tax base are not public uses." If government wants to clean up bad neighborhoods, it has to do so in other ways -- by lowering taxes, for instance, or by making it easier to start new businesses, or by buying the land it wants fair and square....
Eminent domain surges after ruling The Supreme Court's decision last year to allow cities and states to seize property for private development "opened the floodgates" to eminent domain actions nationwide, a report says. In the year since the Kelo decision, nearly 6,000 properties nationwide have been threatened or taken under that precedent, more than half the number that had been seized over a previous five-year period, said a report released yesterday by the Institute for Justice. "There has been a huge rise in the number of threats to use eminent domain since Kelo. Cities are wielding eminent domain as a club," said Dana Berliner, a senior counsel with the Institute for Justice and the author of the 100-page report. People threatened with eminent domain are vulnerable, she said, because they feel compelled to sell or have their home or business seized for a fire-sale price. At the same time, Ms. Berliner said, residents have become more active in trying to thwart land grabs and promoting changes to state law to bar the use of eminent domain. Since the high court's 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Conn., a year ago Friday, 5,783 properties nationwide have been either seized or threatened with seizure under eminent domain. That number compares with 10,281 examples over the five-year period from 1998 to 2002, said the institute, a public-interest law firm that argued the Kelo case before the Supreme Court. During that period, threats were made to seize 6,560 properties, and 3,721 condemnation filings or authorizations were recorded. In the past year, 5,429 property seizures have been threatened for economic redevelopment projects, plus 354 condemnation filings or authorizations, the institute said....The Institute for Justice has released five reports which you can download from their website: Opening the Floodgates: Eminent Domain Abuse in the Post-Kelo World, Redevelopment Wrecks: 20 Failed Projects Involving Eminent Domain Abuse , Myths and Realities of Eminent Domain Abuse, Legislative Action Since Kelo and Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guide. You can go here to read Reason Foundation's model statutory language....
Hollywood loses eminent domain fight The city can't take a family's downtown property and give it to a private developer, a judge ruled Thursday, ending a two-year legal battle and potentially jeopardizing a $100 million condominium complex. Broward Circuit Court Judge Ronald J. Rothschild's ruling in favor of the Mach family, which has owned a building on Harrison Street for decades, came as a blow to Mayor Mara Giulianti, who pushed the eminent domain battle over strong protest from residents. It also means that developer Charles "Chip'' Abele will have to alter plans for a 19-story condo and retail complex. "This just shows that a lot of people unified can stand up to a bully, to a government that they don't think is doing the right thing,'' said David Mach, whose late father bought the building after immigrating from Hungary and died during the negotiation process with the city. Mach said he and his mother have no intention of selling to Abele or anybody else. "I just got off the phone with my mother and she was crying,'' Mach said. "She was too emotional to be here, but she is very happy.'' Judge Rothschild issued a very narrow ruling, finding that the city and Abele didn't really need the building to complete the project. Without an absolute necessity, property can't be taken under Florida law....
Property rights measure fails in Legislature A ballot proposal to impose new restrictions on the use of eminent domain to compel property sales to clear slum areas failed Wednesday at the Arizona Legislature. As the Legislature moved to wrap up its 164-day session, the Senate approved the measure but the House failed to act on it. The measure was similar to a bill vetoed earlier this month by Gov. Janet Napolitano. The ballot proposal would have barred municipalities from using eminent domain to boost tax revenue if the planned new use doesn't have an additional public purpose. The measure would have set a new legal standard that local governments have to clear before designating areas as blighted. It also would required cities to provide comparable replacement homes if a property owner's primary residence is taken by the government in a slum clearance or redevelopment....