Eminent Domain | Condemnation

Subscribe to Eminent Domain | Condemnation via RSS

In City of Oakland v. Schenck, 197 Cal. 456 (1925), the California Supreme Court held that when a railroad’s property is being taken, nominal compensation and not fair market value may be the appropriate measure of “just compensation.”

Schenck held that “where a street is opened across a railroad right of way, the rule as to the amount of compensation to be allowed the railroad company is different from the rule which prevails in the case of the taking of the property of an individual for like uses.” Schenck, 197 Cal. at 460-61. Nominal compensation may be due if the property’s use as a railroad will not be greatly impacted by placing a road across it. In other words, putting a road across railroad tracks don’t substantially impact the value of the railroad tracks.

In City of San Jose v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., No. H033503 (June…

Continue Reading Cal. Ct. Appeal: Nominal Compensation In Takings Of Railroad Property
Launch in external player

Missed our live blog of the the New York Court of appeals oral arguments in Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp. the case in which the Appellate Division struck down an attempt to take property north of Columbia University in New York City because of the record reflected overwhelming private benefit and lack of “blight?”

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.

Norman Oder has posted an excellent summary of the arguments on Atlantic Yards Report. Worth reading, especially as you follow along with the video.Continue Reading Video Of Columbia Blight Case Oral Arguments (NY Court Of Appeals)

Comes news that the State Land Use Commission has reclassified a large portion of state-owned land in east Oahu from “urban” to “conservation.” See Ka Iwi shoreline area reclassified as conservation land (via Hawaii News Now) and Ka Iwi coast gets added protection (via the Honolulu Advertis…Honolulu Star-Advertiser). The reports state the “reclassification should make the development of the makai [seaward] area of the coastline ‘a remote possibility'” (quoting the governor’s press release).

The reclassification from urban to conservation means that instead of the City and County of Honolulu’s zoning regulating the land, the State Department of Land and Natural Resources will exercise exclusive regulatory control. (Land classified urban is zoned and primarily regulated by the counties, whereas under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205-5, the DLNR exclusively regulates conservation-designated land.)

But we’re not quite sure what we’re missing here, since it seems the fact the…

Continue Reading You Take It, You Bought It

Here are the final briefs in City of Milwaukee Post No. 2874 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Milwaukee, No. 09-1204 (cert. petition filed Apr. 2, 2010). That’s the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked whether the “undivided fee rule,” as applied by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, violates the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause because it requires that a leasehold interest — which would be worth over $1 million if condemned separately — be valued at zero.

More on the case here. [Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief for the National Association of Home Builders and the Wisconsin Builders Association in the case, supporting the VFW.]

Here are the petition and the …

Continue Reading BIO And Reply In SCOTUS Eminent Domain Case: Is Wisconsin’s Application Of The Undivided Fee Rule Unconstitutional?

We’ve been busy filing an appellate brief and drafting another, so until now, haven’t had the chance to post up links about Tuesday’s New York Court of Appeals oral argument in Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

We live blogged the arguments, following along on the court’s video webcast. The court usually posts an archived video of oral arguments, which we expect next week.

Until then, check these out:

Any predictions? The only thing we’re going to predict publicly is that the opinion should be issued by the end of the…

Continue Reading Columbia Oral Argument Recap – Blight, Civic Purpose, And Bad Faith

Today, starting at 2:00 p.m. ET, the New York Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp. In that case, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (First Department) struck down the attempted taking of land north of Columbia University in New York City because of the record reflected overwhelming private benefit and lack of “blight.” We analyzed the Appellate Division’s opinion here.

The Court of Appeals webcasts oral arguments, so we will be able to follow along and live blog the event in the window below. Joining me will be eminent domain scholar and property owners’ advocate Tim Sandefur, and my Damon Key colleague and fellow condemnation law attorney Mark Murakami.

The briefs are posted below the live blog window.

<p><p><p><p><p><p><p><p><a href="http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php/option=com_mobile/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=8d1b4a3fb2" >N.Y. Ct. of Appeals Oral Arguments in Kaur v. NY State Urban Dev (Columbia

…
Continue Reading 2pm ET Today: Live Blog Of Columbia Eminent Domain Arguments (NY Court Of Appeals)

A reminder: on Tuesday, June 1, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. ET, we will be live blogging the oral arguments in Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

In that case, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (First Department) struck down the attempted taking of land north of Columbia University in New York City because of the record reflected overwhelming private benefit and lack of “blight.” The agency appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals webcasts oral arguments, so we will be able to follow along and live blog the event. Joining me will be eminent domain scholar and property owners’ advocate Tim Sandefur, and my Damon Key colleague and fellow condemnation law attorney Mark Murakami. Sign up here for email notification, then on Tuesday, follow along and join in the discussion.

Here are the briefs in the Court of Appeals:

…
Continue Reading Reminder: June 1 NY Court Of Appeals Oral Agument In Columbia “Blight” Case

In Smith v. Ark. Midstream Gas Servs, No 09-1186 (May 27, 2010), the Arkansas Supreme Court concluded that a taking for a natural gas pipeline by a private, for-profit utility company was not a violation of the state constitution’s public use clause.

Arkansas law delegates the power of eminent domain to certain pipeline companies and deems them to be “common carriers” — 

All pipeline companies operating in this state are given the right of eminent domain and are declared to be common carriers, except pipelines operated for conveying natural gas for public utility service.

Ark. Code Ann. § 23-15-101. The public use clause in the Arkansas Constitution isn’t that much different than similar provisions in other constitutions:

The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction; and private property shall not be taken, appropriated or damaged for public use, without just compensation thereof.

Ark. Const. art.

Continue Reading Arkansas Supreme Court: Pipeline Taking Not A Private Use

Here’s a case, issued yesterday by a California Court of Appeal, that is not directly about the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes to remedy “blight,” but is nonetheless worth reviewing since it shows how redevelopment supposedly “pays for itself” (in the words of a court) through tax increment financing:

Under the [California Redevelopment Law (Cal. Const. art. XVI § 16], redevelopment is financed through tax increment financing. In essence, a redevelopment agency, which is not empowered to tax, but which is empowered to acquire debt through loans or the sale of bonds (§ 33601), finances a redevelopment project through borrowing. When the redevelopment results in increased property values in the redevelopment area, the tax attributable to the increase in value — the tax increment — is distributed by the taxing authority to a special fund of the redevelopment agency, to pay the principal of and interest on…

Continue Reading How Remedying Blight “Pays For Itself”

According to the Daily Reporter (Wisconsin), that is. If it’s on the internet, it must be true, right?

Activists want U.S. Supreme Court to rule on eminent domain case summarizes the background in City of Milwaukee Post No. 2874 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of Milwaukee, No. 09-1204 (cert. petition filed Apr. 2, 2010):

National organizations that focus on eminent domain law are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on a lawsuit over the vacant property at 27th Street and Wisconsin Avenue in Milwaukee.

The Redevelopment Authority of the City of Milwaukee acquired the property in 2001 from Maharishi Vedic University Inc. by declaring the land blighted. The authority paid $140,000 to the university and $300,000 to the City of Milwaukee Veterans of Foreign Wars Post No. 2874, which held a long-term lease for space in a vacant…

Continue Reading We’re “Activists!” Who Knew?