Showing posts with label eminent domain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eminent domain. Show all posts

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Renovation, development butt heads in Bel-Ridge

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/columnists.nsf/davidnicklaus/story/09F5492FA7FB4DC3862574C300090284?OpenDocument

Renovation, development butt heads in Bel-Ridge
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

A year ago, the Hood's store on Natural Bridge Road was an eyesore. The windows were boarded up, the roof leaked and the parking lot was full of potholes.

Mike Hood, the owner, candidly says the city of Bel-Ridge probably could have condemned the building years ago, or at least cited it for multiple code violations. But it didn't, and Hood launched a major renovation after buying the discount home-improvement store in January from his father, Ernest.

Three-quarters of the way into that $1 million project, Hood's has a new roof, new glass, a repaved parking lot and new bathrooms. A shop being built in one corner will cut countertop materials to customers' specifications.

Assuming he's right about the market for discounted cabinets and flooring, Hood's investment should assure the store of a long and prosperous future. But, three months into his renovations, Hood learned of a complication: A couple of years earlier, Bel-Ridge had approved a redevelopment plan for a 78-acre swath of the city. The developer, Clayco, can acquire property by eminent domain.

That means Hood, like owners of other businesses along Natural Bridge and the homes to the north, could have his property taken by force. A court proceeding would determine the property's market value, but Hood might not get back the money he's putting into the store. In all likelihood, he also wouldn't be compensated for what he sees as the store's potential.

Because of the store's size and visibility from Interstate 170, Hood thinks it could become the best performer in his family's 19-store chain. (He owns eight Hood's stores, his sister Jill Meyer owns four, and seven are part of the estate of his father, who died in August.)

The location also has sentimental value: It has been a Hood's for 25 years, and it's just a couple of miles from where Ernest Hood opened his first store in the 1950s.

Mike Hood has talked to Clayco officials, and he says he's not one to stand in the way of progress. "I wouldn't mind working with the fellows if I knew I could have a store here, or they would set me up in another location," Hood said. "But you can only get so far with them."

Matt Prickett, a development manager with Clayco, says the Bel-Ridge project is on hold because of the soft economy. It was envisioned as a major retail center, and retailers aren't in an expansion mode.

"The market is what it is," Prickett said.

Clayco has talked to Hood, he said, "but it's been awhile. To the extent we don't have anything going on, there's no need to talk to them."

As for the wisdom of

investing $1 million in a store that Clayco could buy and tear down, Prickett said he'd impart the same advice he gives to homeowners: "We encourage them to make the necessary investments to maintain the health and safety of their property."

Bevis Schock, a Clayton attorney who works with a group called Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, said he has heard stories like Hood's many times before. "It's tough to fight City Hall," he said. "When they decide they're going after your land, they're going to get it."

Schock's group didn't get enough signatures to place an anti-eminent-domain proposal on the November ballot, but it plans to try again. The more voters hear about property owners like Hood, who just wants to invest in his business without the threat of having it taken away, the more receptive they'll be to pleas for reform.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Sugar Creek Mayor: Stupid or Dishonest?

Once more this is the very reason why many Missourians worked there fingers to the bone to gather signatures to place this type of issue on the ballot for the voters to determine whether they want to give up there property rights.



Sugar Creek Mayor: Stupid or Dishonest?

Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:00:00 PM

BY DAVID MARTIN

The city of Sugar Creek has forced dozens of residents from their homes for the purpose of turning over a hunk of land to a private developer. But Mayor Stan Salva keeps insisting that the city isn’t using its power of eminent domain.

Last year, Sugar Creek officials approved tax-increment financing (TIF) for a retail development at the corner of U.S. Highway 24 and Sterling Avenue. The decision provoked outrage, since the development covers an area that includes 57 homes. City officials essentially decided that having a new supermarket was worth the trauma of obliterating a neighborhood.

The state’s TIF law allows cities to condemn property and then turn it over to private development. It’s the hammer over the heads of property owners who might not wish to sell. Eventually, the government gets what it wants.

Yet Salva keeps behaving as if the homeowners in Sugar Creek parted willingly with their houses and baked cookies for the guys driving the bulldozers.

When demolition work began in April, Salva said eminent domain had not been used to get the homes. He repeats the falsehood in the most recent edition of “Sweet Talk,” the city newsletter. Salva apparently believes that if a sale is made without the city having to go to court, eminent domain was not a factor.

“The from the beginning the Board [of Aldermen] rejected eminent domain,” Salva writes. “… [A]ll homes were purchased and the property owners were compensated on a fair and equitable basis.”

Well, of course they were compensated fairly. Just compensation for the taking of private property is guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution — the part of sentence that talks about eminent domain!

Anthony Martin, the state’s ombudsman for property rights, says it sounds as though Salva is engaging in Clintonian word parsing. (Lawmakers created the ombudsman’s position in the wake of the controversial 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld “takings” such as the one in Sugar Creek.)

“Look,” Martin says, “either he’s lying or he’s operating with a version of word usage that’s so morally anesthetized that … you’re not going to have a chance in arguing with him.”

Salva did not respond to requests for comment.

Friday, June 13, 2008

Property owners may sue over threat

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080611/NEWS01/806110462


Property owners may sue over threat

Court ruling allows for legal action if city creates unfair delay.

David A. Lieb • The Associated Press • June 11, 2008

Jefferson City -- Five years have passed since a suburban Kansas City shopping center was declared blighted by the city of Gladstone. Although the city has yet to condemn the land, some shops have shut down or moved because of the threat. AdTech Ad

On Tuesday, the Missouri Supreme Court granted the shopping center owners the right to sue the city for millions of dollars in lost income, diminished property values and increased costs allegedly caused by the prolonged threat of eminent domain.

Although the unanimous decision directly affects just one city and shopping center, it could have ramifications statewide for property owners facing condemnation threats.

The essence of the ruling is this: Property owners don't have to wait for their land to be condemned to contend a government already has effectively taken it by dragging out the threat of eminent domain.

"This is a major opinion," said attorney Michael Abrams of the Kansas City law firm of Lathrop & Gage, which represented the owners of the Gladstone Plaza Shopping Center.

"What it means is that if property owners are victims of undue delay by a city, or untoward activity by a city, they have a recognized constitutional claim that can be made against the city," Abrams added.

An attorney representing Gladstone had no immediate comment about the Supreme Court ruling. AdTech Ad

Clay County Circuit Judge Rex Gabbert had ruled in favor of the city, which argued the property owners failed to make a claim of an unconstitutional taking and could not sue before their property was condemned. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, also had ruled for the city while deciding it was too soon for the property owners to sue.

The Supreme Court decision written by Judge Mary Russell reinstates the lawsuit and sends it back to the circuit court to proceed toward a trial.

Property rights have been a significant political issue across the United States, including in Missouri. In a 2005 Connecticut case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the taking of private property through eminent domain for economic redevelopment.

That prompted Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt to appoint a special eminent domain task force and led to a 2006 Missouri law limiting the use of eminent domain and boosting the money property owners can receive when it is used.

Not satisfied, a group has submitted petition signatures for a constitutional amendment that could appear on the November ballot further restricting the use of eminent domain.

Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling sounds like a positive step toward addressing "eminent domain limbo -- (when) you've got eminent domain hanging over your head," said Ron Calzone, chairman of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, which is sponsoring the ballot initiative.

"There's something that's terribly inequitable about allowing a government entity to effectively tie up your life indefinitely, and you not receive any type of compensation for it," Calzone said.

The Missouri Constitution already states: "That private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation."

In May 2003, Gladstone declared the shopping center property blighted.

The lawsuit claims the city's actions have diminished the shopping center's value by more than $5 million and resulted in at least $1.5 million in lost rental income and increased operating costs.

Friday, June 6, 2008

Susette Kelo Liberty Club


Mailing List




Pledge to Donate on
June 23, 2008


Pledge your support as a Founding Member of the Susette Kelo Liberty Club. I will update you as to my progress in this challenge.





Kelo Day Buttons


Kelo Day - June 23, 2008

Place Kelo Day buttons and banners on your site, blog or profile.




Spread the Word


Share/Save/Bookmark




Embed Susette's Video


Copy and paste this code to your site, blog or profile to add Susette's video message.

" onclick="javascript:document.embedForm.embed_code.focus();document.embedForm.embed_code.select();" readonly="readonly" size="20" type="text">


Join the Susette Kelo Liberty Club

Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that my little pink cottage in New London, Connecticut, could be handed over to a private developer.

It was just one of 10,000 instances of eminent domain abuse to occur in the United States over a 5-year period.

Just one instance—yet a tipping point that sparked a national revolution.

10,000 Advocates

On this, the third anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s dreadful decision, I’m asking for 10,000 people to join me in donating to the non-profit legal foundation that stood by me all the way to the Supreme Court, and continues to stand by heroic individuals fighting to keep the homes that are rightfully theirs.

Eminent domain abuse continues coast-to-coast! Despite tremendous gains in state courts and state legislatures since the Supreme Court’s ruling, eminent domain abuse is still rampant. Click on the links below to read more.

Fund the Fight Against Eminent Domain Abuse

By donating to the Institute for Justice on the anniversary of the ruling—June 23, 2008—you will become a Founding Member of the Susette Kelo Liberty Club.

Every single dollar raised during this special event will be used to fight eminent domain abuse across the nation.

And while all donations are appreciated, I hope you’ll consider giving your most generous gift of $25, $50, $100, or more. Even a $5 contribution will send a message to those in power that our homes are important to us and must be protected.

With your help, the Institute for Justice will continue to keep tax-hungry politicians and land-hungry developers from taking our private property.

Pledge now and spread the word to your family and friends to donate to IJ on Monday, June 23rd.

10,000 people … 10,000 reasons to donate!

Yours in Freedom,
Susette Kelo

More About Eminent Domain Abuse

Susette Kelo was lead plaintiff in the landmark 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled private property can be seized and handed over to politically connected private developers so long as the government treasury might benefit.

The Institute for Justice is the nation’s leading legal advocate for property rights.

More on Susette Kelo and the Institute for Justice’s fight against eminent domain abuse.

Monday, June 2, 2008

Friends of Property Rights,

PROGRESSING...
Our two eminent domain petitions have made it through the next hurdle.

The Secretary of State has completed the first level evaluation of our filing, made copies and forwarded them to local election authorities. It was at this point in 2006 that the last eminent domain petition was rejected.

The next step is for each local election authority to evaluate the signatures to determine their individual validity. They must do so by the last week of July.

We need to continue to keep the issue alive in the news and we must also continue to solicit funds to resolve some debt from the collection phase and also prepare for an advertising campaign. Anyone who has yet to send their pledge in, please do so now.

RECOVERING...
A few people have commented on the fact that there have been very few posts to the eminent domain lists. I am sorry I have not done more but we have needed some recovery time to get personal and business matters back on track - things that have endured months of neglect as we concentrated on signature collecting.

Of course, we also had to spend a week and a half at the Capitol fighting the anti-initiative bill in the last days of the legislative session. The bill had multiple chances on the senate floor in the lat hours of session, but was finally laid aside and died on the calender. Other events and speaking opportunities that further our project have also taken time this last month.

Keep your powder dry - we're not done this project yet!

Ron Calzone, chairman
Missouri Citizens for Property Rights