Development agreements

Subscribe to Development agreements via RSS

The developer in the two condemnation cases arising out of the County of Hawaii’s attemptsto take a Kona family’s property has filed its Answering Brief in the latest phase of County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship.

We posted the County’s Answering Brief here.

We represent the property owner in these appeals, and the brief we filed in November 2009 is posted here. More about thecases here.Continue Reading Developer’s Brief In Hawaii Eminent Domain Abuse Case: Pretext, Actual Purposes, And Private Benefit

The County of Hawaii has filed its Answering Brief in the latest phase of County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship,two condemnation cases arising out of the County’s attemptsto take a Kona family’s property. The brief responds to the Opening Brief which my Damon Key colleagues Ken Kupchak, Mark Murakami, Matt Evans and I filed in November 2009 (available here).

This appeal addresses several issues,but the most critical involve pretext and public purpose, questionsleft open by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London,545 U.S. 469 (2005), but which were answered, in part, by the HawaiiSupreme Court in its opinion when these cases were first before thecourt last year. See County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 119 Haw. 352, 198 P.3d 615 (2008) (available here)

In that opinion, the court held that a property owner…

Continue Reading Government’s Brief In Hawaii Eminent Domain Abuse Case: Pretext, Actual Purposes, And Private Benefit

The New York Times’ “Square Feet” column today posted “Lessons on Limits of Eminent Domain at Columbia,” about the recent decision in Kaur v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp.,2009 NY Slip Op 08976 (Dec. 3, 2009). In that case, the New York SupremeCourt, Appellate Division (First Department) struckdown the attempted taking of land north of Columbia University in NewYork City because of the record reflected the condemnor’s claim the properties are”blighted” was a pretext to mask overwhelming private benefit. The Kaurcourt undertook an extensive review of the facts and concluded “thereis no independent credible proof of blight in Manhattanville.”

The article notes:

The Dec. 3 opinion by the New York Supreme Court’s appellate division, which found there was no civic or public purpose or blight to justify condemning Tuck-It-Away’s buildings for the university’s new campus, has unnerved public officials and developers. The Columbia decision…

Continue Reading The Latest On Eminent Domain In New York From The NY Times

This probably isn’t the phrasing you should use if you are trying to convince others that you are not a “politically connected developer” who got the government to exercise eminent domain on your behalf.

“Atlantic Yards project was not properly presented,” complains Charles Ratner, the president of Forest City Enterprises in this letter to the editor of the Washington Post, which objects to George Will’s recent column about the proposed Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn.

Looks like Mr. Will got it right.Continue Reading “At the start of this project, my company announced that it would try to avoid the use of eminent domain”

The Minnesota Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Company of Minnesota. The case asks from where a redevelopment authority derives its eminent domain power. We digested the court of appeals’ decision here.

Update: a report on the argument is posted here.

Here’s the summary of the issues presented from the Minnesota Courts site:

In 2001, the city established Cedar Grove as a tax increment financing district and adopted a redevelopment plan for the district. That redevelopment plan provided that before formal consideration of the acquisition of any property, the city would require a binding development agreement. In 2007, after negotiations to purchase the properties stalled, appellant Eagan Economic Development Authority took the properties by eminent domain. The district court granted the condemnation petitions; the court of appeals reversed, concluding that the economic development authority exceeded the scope of its…

Continue Reading Minnesota Supreme Court Hearing Eminent Domain Delegation Appeal

Today, the Hawaii Supreme Court filed this Order Granting and Accepting Application for Transfer (Dec. 21, 2009), in County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, transferring the appeal from the Intermediate Court of Appeals. [Disclosure: my Damon Key colleagues and I represent the property owners in this case.]

This is the property owners’ appeal of the County of Hawaii’s attempts to take a Kona family’s property. The first round of appeals resulted in County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 119 Haw. 352, 198 P.3d 615 (2008) (available here), which held that a property owner has a right to challenge thegovernment’s assertion that a taking is for public use. In reviewing ataking, courts have an obligation to take seriously a property owner’sclaim that the government’s stated public purpose is a pretext maskingits true purposes. The court held that substance matters, not form,when government…

Continue Reading HAWSCT To Hear Pretext And Private Benefit Appeal

Each summer, The Urban Lawyer (the ABA’s Section of State and Local Government Law‘s peer-reviewed law review), devotes an issue to recent developments in various areas of law. A subscription to the journal, which is published each quarter, is among the benefits of section membership. The just-published Summer 2009 issue includes my article on recent developments in public use and pretext in eminent domain, which I have creatively titled Recent Developments in Public Use and Pretext in Eminent Domain (43 Urban Lawyer 563 (2009)).

If that’s not descriptive enough, here’s a summary of the article:

The Supreme Court’s controversial 5-4 decision in Kelo v. City of New London renewed both public and judicial interest in the contours of the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment and its counterparts in state constitutions. Courts began to take a harder look at how the government’s claim that property is being condemned…

Continue Reading New Article: Recent Developments in Public Use and Pretext in Eminent Domain

Yesterday, the New York Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the latest case involving the controversial Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. We blogged the arguments as we followed along on the live video feed (video archived here).

According to the court’s web site, “[t]he Court normally decides cases within thirty to sixty days after the oral argument date,” so we should be seeing the outcome relatively quickly.  

Here are selected reports on the arguments and the issues in the case:

…
Continue Reading Atlantic Yards Oral Argument Media (And Other) Reports
Launch in external player

Missed the live blog and video of the oral arguments in Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp., the latest case involving the controversial Atlantic Yards development and Kelo-like claims of eminent domain abuse in an economic development taking? 

Well, you’re in luck — the court has archived the video.

Launch the live blog and start the video at the same time and you can follow along with Timothy Sandefur, Mark Murakami, and me as we provide commentary.

To launch the video in a separate window, go here. Continue Reading Video Of Atlantic Yards Oral Arguments