Official Blog of the Castle Coalition

More news on the story below.

From Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn’s press release:

BROOKLYN, NY— The New York State Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, has announced that it will hear the Atlantic Yards eminent domain case—Goldstein et al. v. N.Y.  State Urban Development Corporation—in October. The owners of homes and properties targeted for seizure have argued that the use of eminent domain for the Atlantic Yards proposal violates New York State Constitution.

The appellants’ briefs are due on July 31 and the case will be argued in front of the High Court in October on a date to be scheduled. (The Court convenes for six days in mid-October.)

“We are gratified that the State’s High Court will hear this important case about whether our State’s Constitution protects the homes of its citizens from the wrecking ball of greed wielded by influential developers and the public officials who do their bidding,” said Matthew Brinckerhoff, the lawyer representing the appellants.  “This case provides an opportunity for the New York Court of Appeals to continue its proud tradition of interpreting this State’s Constitution in a manner that affords more protection to individual rights and liberties.  We look forward to the argument in October.”

The properties in question are required for developer Forest City Ratner to construct its proposed Barclays Center Arena and 16 skyscrapers.

Nine property owners and tenants, whose homes and businesses in the proposed Atlantic Yards footprint have been slated for government seizure for the megaproject proposed by developer Forest City Ratner, filed the original case. Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn (DDDB) organized the case, which is funded by thousands of donations from individual community members across Brooklyn and New York City.

Click for the full release.

Filed under: New York> Court Cases by Chris Grodecki Date 30 June, 2009
No comments »

The Atlantic Yards project is inching towards total collapse even as it continues to be propped up on dozens of gigantic government-sponsored crutches. One of those crutches includes eminent domain, but the problems facing the Forest City Ratner redevelopment project won’t be fixed by condemnations.

When megadeveloper Bruce Ratner bought the Nets he pledged not only to move the NBA team out of New Jersey and into Brooklyn but also build an entire neighborhood around his proposed arena.  The neighborhood was to be designed by celebrity architect Frank Gehry and was to include thousands of units of affordable housing.  Ratner apparently did not think the fact that a neighborhood already existed at Atlantic Yards would matter too much.  And he had good reason to believe so, due to New York’s horrendous eminent domain laws, which makes it nearly impossible for property owners to have an opportunity to defend what rightfully belongs them.  However, the community in Brooklyn, led by resident Daniel Goldstein, has tried every possible legal argument in the courts to overcome Ratner’s use of  state power for his own personal benefit.

With the lawsuits and then the plummeting economy—Ratner appealed for a federal bailout earlier this year—Atlantic Yards still remains just a plan on paper.  Although the fight continues to be about whether the state will condemn the remaining properties on the 21-acre site, it’s not entirely clear that Atlantic Yards will ever be built even if the developer obtains the rest of the properties.  Even the project’s former celebrity architect, Frank Gehry expressed his own doubts.

Things continued to move down hill for Ratner in just the past month.

(more…)

Filed under: New York by Chris Grodecki Date 26 June, 2009
No comments »

Visions of Eminent Domain in St. Louis

By Lancee H. Kurcab

For the past five years Paul McKee, chairman of McEagle Properties, has been secretly buying parcels of property in the redevelopment area of north St. Louis, using holding companies as a way to hide his intentions from local residents.[1]  He now owns 882 properties, totaling 116 acres, and is now looking to the city of St. Louis to help him acquire an astounding 2,400 properties.

Not only does he want the city to help him acquire some of the properties by eminent domain, but he also wants the city to help him finance his project. McKee has only secured $27.6 million in private loans. He is counting on the city giving him $410 million in financing—the largest request the city has ever received—in addition to state and federal money giving him $328 million in tax credits. Despite these astronomical figures, it still is a fraction of the $8.1 billion he needs to complete his 20-year plan; he anticipates borrowing $6 billion.

Read more…

Filed under: Missouri by Chris Grodecki Date 18 June, 2009
No comments »

For two decades, a successful Minnesota business had to face down the St. Paul Port Authority’s attempt to get their property for a redevelopment project. The Port Authority even tried to skirt around the state’s eminent domain reform law by hyping environmental concerns. Now, however, due to the company’s united opposition, the Port Authority has given up.

From the Institute for Justice press release:

St. Paul, Minn.—In one of Minnesota’s most hotly contested battles over eminent domain, St. Paul-based Advance Shoring Company is now safe from condemnation by the St. Paul Port Authority.  Following stiff opposition from the nearly 50-year-old company, its employees, unions and the Institute for Justice—a public interest law firm that battles eminent domain abuse nationwide—the Port Authority decided not to use eminent domain to take the company’s property.

“I’m breathing a sigh of relief for our business and employees,” said Karen Haug, CEO of Advance Shoring Company who met with the Port Authority’s president yesterday.  “Since the early 1990’s, the Port Authority has planned to take our property for someone else’s private use.  We’ve lived under the threat of eminent domain for nearly 20 years.  I’m thrilled the Port Authority has decided not to use its power of condemnation to take our property.  Now we can return to running our business.”

For the past 50 years, Advance has built its equipment-leasing business without government subsidies.  Its 43 employees, 20 of whom are members of Local 120 of the Teamsters and Local 49 of the Operating Engineers, provide cranes, scaffolding and shoring equipment to construction projects.  Advance has played an instrumental role in constructing and restoring of landmarks in the Twin Cities, including the Xcel Energy Center, the Cathedral of St. Paul and Regions Hospital.  “You cannot look at St. Paul’s skyline without seeing the contribution that our family business has made,” Haug added.

Read the rest. 

Filed under: Minnesota by Chris Grodecki Date 10 June, 2009
No comments »

From the Institute for Justice:

Austin, Texas—An amendment to the Texas Bill of Rights that was supposed to stop governments from using eminent domain for private redevelopment was dramatically weakened minutes before it passed out of its conference committee last night, according to the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter, which has worked on eminent domain reform efforts at the Legislature all session.  House Joint Resolution 14, which emerged as the only remaining vehicle for reform this session, was heavily revised by the joint House and Senate committee, which crafted the final language.

HJR 14 began its life as the strongest constitutional amendment proposed this session, but the final version presents a troubling proposition to voters in November.  HJR 14 originally passed the House 144-0 on May 11.  The Senate substituted its own version, which passed the Senate unanimously on May 26.  Differences between the two bills set up a conference committee showdown that raged all weekend.

A last-minute change allows the state to give any entity—including private entities—the power of eminent domain.  “This was a very radical move,” said Matt Miller, executive director of IJ-TX.  “It’s one thing to allow a power company or railroad to use eminent domain.  Utilities and common carriers have long had this power because the things they build are public necessities.  If this amendment passes, anyone can come to the legislature and ask for the power to take their neighbor’s land.  As the last-minute maneuvering on HJR 14 itself shows, lots of mischief can occur before anyone realizes what has happened.

“HJR 14 provides absolutely no guarantees when it comes to addressing the problem of government taking property through eminent domain for private redevelopment projects,” said Miller.  “In addition to the problem of giving eminent domain authority to private parties, the final language is far too vague.  If it passes in November, we hope courts will interpret it in a way that is consistent with the legislature’s intent—to make sure that no home or business owner ever loses their property for a shopping mall, condominium or other private development project.  But it is going to take years of litigation before we can be confident that this language actually protects property owners.”
(more…)

Filed under: Post-Kelo Reform> Texas by Chris Grodecki Date 1 June, 2009
No comments »

“I don’t believe the goal of the redevelopment commission is to be in the real estate business,” commented Scott Harris, executive director of the Speedway Redevelopment Commission. “You know, we may do some acquisitions but then our goal would be to transition those to other parties for private development.”

Rare is the occasion when a local official will admit to a local newspaper the real goal for acquiring private property.  Speedway redevelopment officials have been telling property owners in the 350-acre area south of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway that their properties would be acquired for a street widening project that is part of a larger $500 million redevelopment plan.  Indeed, the official plans only specify street improvements.  But as Harris tells the Indianapolis Star, officials are looking to use eminent domain to kick out existing businesses to replace them with other racing-related businesses that would attract tourists.

Downtown Speedway isn’t what it used to be in its heyday in the 1950s and ‘60s. However, the businesses that have stuck with Speedway are thriving.

Susan Luebbert owns Speedway Monogramming with her husband.  They have been in business making embroidered racing suits and souvenirs for 24 years.  Luebbert told the Star she would like to contribute to the city’s redevelopment efforts, but so far, the city has had little interest in her plans, only her property.  Although they told at first told her the business could stay, city officials said Speedway Monogramming was on the acquisition list in April 2008.

Continue Reading…

Filed under: Indiana by Chris Grodecki Date 29 May, 2009
No comments »

The New York City Council passed the redevelopment plan for Willets Point last year, essentially making it possible for the city to use the state’s power of eminent domain to seize the small businesses in the neighborhood adjacent to Citi Field–even though the redevelopment plan doesn’t actually have any specific plans for what the city intends to replace the businesses with.

Now, five months later, the city announced this week that they’ve acquired 65% of the property covered by the redevelopment plan. (No doubt, as the Village Voice reminds, the specter of condemnation factored into property owners’ decisions to sell.)

With that accomplished, the city seems to have run out of patience has now turned to getting rid of the rest of the businesses.  The Economic Development Corporation will hold a hearing on June 22 to begin the eminent domain process to seize the properties on the remaining 22 acres of privately-owned land (that is, the privately-owned land whose owners were unable to strike a deal with city officials to keep their businesses.)

Meanwhile, The New York Times reports on the city’s program to provide job training for the workers who will be displaced by the project.   The program has a participation rate of less than 10% of the neighborhood’s estimated 2,000+ workforce.

One worker’s experience shows how the city left him no choice but to take what it offered:

“Of course, we would rather know that our jobs will be there, that the businesses in Willets Point aren’t going anywhere….We couldn’t win the fight against the city, so we should take advantage of what the city is giving us.”

And that is exactly the train of thought upon which the city, like municipalities across the country,  is relying on and hoping for in order to get the rest of the properties they want for its redevelopment.

Filed under: New York by Chris Grodecki Date 28 May, 2009
No comments »

By Jared Blanchard, Institute for Justice Maffucci Fellow

Local governments many times justify a redevelopment plan that involves eminent domain by arguing that most properties in redevelopment zones are acquired through “negotiation.”  While this may sound reassuring, the truth of the matter is that quite often these so-called “negotiations” are coerced arrangements forced on property owners by the local governments.  Can these dealings really be called “negotiations” if the government and its developer friends are guaranteed to get what they want? Case in point: for officials in Millville, N.J., “negotiate” is just another word for “threaten.”

When Millville officials decided they wanted Millville Gardens, a 102-unit apartment complex, demolished and under city ownership in order to entice a developer to build a mixed-use facility on the six-acre property, they wasted no time setting the tone for negotiations.

In a letter sent to the lawyer representing the owners of the complex, the city immediately threatened to seize the property through eminent domain if the owners did not take the city’s “fair market value” offer of $2.7 million.

Continue reading…

Filed under: New Jersey by Chris Grodecki Date 22 May, 2009
No comments »

Arlington, Va.—Today, during a special legislative session, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is scheduled to introduce his own eminent domain reform bill, which will do nothing to protect the rights of Mississippi’s home, small business, church and farm owners.  According to Barbour’s website, his legislation will even exempt projects authorized under the Mississippi Major Economic Impact Act. Just over one month ago, Barbour vetoed H.B. 803, a strong eminent domain reform bill that was passed overwhelmingly by both houses of the state legislature.

“This provision will ensure that all property in Mississippi is still up for grabs to the highest bidder,” said Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice.  Bullock and the Institute represented the Archie family of Canton, Miss., when the Mississippi Development Authority attempted to seize their 24-acre homestead for a new Nissan plant.  “Governor Barbour made it clear in his veto message of H.B. 803 that he supports seizing your home, business, church or farm for wealthy developers and large corporations, and this legislation will ensure that he is able to continue to do just that.”

Despite Gov. Barbour’s assertion to the contrary, major economic development projects happen every single day through private negotiation, not government force.  Barbour claimed that he vetoed the legislation because it would destroy Mississippi as an economic competitor, but as demonstrated by a recent Institute for Justice study, “Doomsday?  No Way:  Economic Trends and Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform,” this is patently false; states can pass reform, protect the rights of their citizens and enjoy uninhibited economic growth.

“Mississippians shouldn’t be deceived into thinking their property will be protected by this supposed ‘reform,’” said Christina Walsh, the Institute for Justice’s director of activism and coalitions.  “Property rights shouldn’t depend on how big of a project a potential developer is proposing for your land, and that is exactly what Barbour’s legislation will codify.”

Previous attempts to reform Mississippi’s eminent domain laws failed in the legislative process, but H.B. 803 received wide bipartisan support in both legislative houses, making it the first piece of meaningful eminent domain reform to pass the legislature in Mississippi since the Kelo decision.  The Institute for Justice represented Susette Kelo and her neighbors in Kelo v. City of New London, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that private property may be seized for private economic development projects that promise increased tax revenue or jobs.

In the wake of that decision, 43 states have reformed their laws, restricting their power to abuse eminent domain for private gain.  While Georgia, Alabama and Florida have all passed particularly strong reforms, Mississippi remains one of the seven states that have done nothing.

“You can have property rights protections and economic development, and Mississippians, who have shown that they strongly support eminent domain reform, deserve better from their state officials,” said Bullock.

Filed under: Post-Kelo Reform> Mississippi by Chris Grodecki Date 7 May, 2009
No comments »

Austin, Tx.—The Institute for Justice Texas Chapter issued a warning today to property owners across Texas:  despite politicians’ claims to the contrary, Senate Bill 18, which passed through the Texas Senate yesterday, will not end eminent domain abuse in Texas.  The Institute litigated the infamous Kelo eminent domain case before the U.S. Supreme Court, and its Austin-based Texas Chapter has led the way to eminent domain reform in the Lone Star State.

“As it stands, SB 18 represents a bait and switch on Texas property owners,” said Matt Miller, executive director of the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter (IJ-TX).  “This bill helps protect rural property owners but leaves urban and suburban property owners exposed to private development schemes.”  The definition of “public use”—which was the entire focus of the Kelo litigation—was stripped from the bill in committee.  All that’s left is a collection of procedural safeguards.  Although helpful, those provisions do not address the central problem of Kelo.

Full release can be read here.

Filed under: Post-Kelo Reform> Texas by Chris Grodecki Date 5 May, 2009
No comments »