Eminent Domain | Condemnation

Subscribe to Eminent Domain | Condemnation via RSS

20150205_072910

Here are the links from our opening sessions this morning:

It seems clear that the city and…

Continue Reading Links From Day Two, ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference

Here’s one with a somewhat unusual twist: the condemnee objecting to the taking by a public utility district was the state.

In Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Okanogan Cnty. v. State of Washington, No. 88949-0 (Jan. 29, 2015), the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the power of the county utility district to take an easement over “school trust lands” for the construction of an high-voltage, high-capacity transmission line and corridor. The land was owned by the public and held in trust for schools, was “a portion of the largest publicly owned tract of shrub-steppe habitat in the Methow Valley,” and was being used for cattle grazing. The grazing leases generated $3,000 per year for the state’s public schools, and also acknowledged that the land may be subject to easements and condemnation. 

The court first concluded that an environmental organization could intervene to address the power of the utility district to take…

Continue Reading Washington: State Trust Land Can Be Condemned By County Utility

This is a longer post, but since we think this case may be going further and is worth watching, we’re going to hit it up in some detail.

In City of Chicago v. Eychaner, No. 05L050792 (Jan. 21, 2015), the Illinois Appellate Court upheld the taking of private vacant land near the Chicago Loop (Eychaner’s Land on the map below) so that it could be transferred to the owners of a nearby chocolate factory (Blommer’s Factory).

The court viewed this “A-to-B” taking as merely a part of an area redevelopment and tax increment finance plan, which would keep the chocolate factory from moving out as the area gentrified.


1131833

The opinion contains a long recitation of the reasons for the taking, how the Planned Manufacturing District (PMD) was designed to “protect[] the 2,800 industrial jobs located in the area, [to] prevent[] residential encroachment on the existing manufacturing facilities, and…

Continue Reading The Chicago Way: City Taking Non-Blighted Property For Economic Development Was Not Pretextual Because … Studies

AFTER

Here at invesecondemnation.com, we do our best to bring you timely decisons on cases of interest from around the nation and the world. But today we’ve outdone ourselves, because we have an opinion from the Connecticut Court of Appeals, issued … next week: Dep’t of Transportation v. Cheriha, LLC, No. 155AP144 (Jan. 27, 2015).

The case involved the condemnation of a parcel in New Britain at the intersection of Beaver and Washington Streets shown above in the “after” condition. The trial court did not allow the property owner to introduce the testimony of one Dr. Sheik Ahmed, who was prepared to testify that 17 months before the taking he had submitted a letter of intent to buy the parcel for a price even in excess of the property owner’s appraiser’s trial valuation. The court of appeals held that it was proper to exclude Dr. Ahmed’s testimony…

Continue Reading Back To The Future With The Connecticut Court Of Appeals: Prospective Purchaser Cannot Testify As Expert About Valuation

20150117_084032

This could be your view, winging your way to San Francisco in a couple of weeks, to join us for the 2015 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference (and the concurrent Condemnation 101 program), at the Hotel Nikko, February 5-7, 2015. 

There’s still a few spaces left, and time to register. We’re the co-Planning Chair of the Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation program along with Joe Waldo, and we’ve assembled an exciting agenda, presented by a faculty comprised of the nation’s best-of-the-best in our field of law.

Winter in San Francisco is the one time of the year when you are likely to not be fogged in, and in addition to the 2 and a half days of programming, there are networking and social events so you can get to know your colleagues and the faculty better.

Please come and join us, if you…

Continue Reading Still Time To Join Us For The 2015 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Programs In San Francisco

The people of Margate City, New Jersey, voted to say “no thank you” to building dunes on the beach to limit damage in the event of another hurricane like Sandy were to hit.

But the State of New Jersey decided to do it anyway, and issued an administrative order “taking” an easement. Problem is, the State didn’t bother to actually go through the trouble of condemning the easement. Instead, “Bob Martin, Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,” declared:

1. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Office of Floor [we assume that was meant to be “Flood”] Hazard Risk Reduction Measures hereby immediately enters upon and takes real property interest(s).

Just like that.

The City didn’t appreciate having its beach summarily taken, and filed a complaint in federal court against the Corps of Engineers and the state, and even got a TRO temporarily halting …

Continue Reading Summary Takings, Eminent Domain, And Due Process At The Jersey Shore

20150115_091355-1
Ben Kudo and David Callies, leading off

Professor Richard Epstein began the Hawaii Land Use Law Conference with the keynote presentation on “Stealth Takings: Exactions, Impact Fees, and More,” which was his usual comprehensive and non-stop takedown of takings law. 

20150115_100935

Our panel on Impact Fees and Exactions After Koontz followed, and here are the promised links and other materials which I mentioned:

Later today, I will also post up a recording of my short backgrounder on the exaction issue, to give you a flavor of the panel discussion (the Hawaii State Bar Assocation…

Continue Reading 2015 Hawaii Land Use Law Conference

Following up on our earlier post about anti-eminent domain signs are the below, courtesy Dwight Merriam, of the Kelo neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, during the time of the strife. See also the book Dwight edited for the ABA about the case. 

The signs have long since been removed. Along with the properties themselves. 

Picture1

Picture2

Picture3

Picture4

Picture5

Related articles
New Article: “Private Takings” (via Fed Reserve Bank of Chicago)
NY App Div: “Virtually Any Project That May Confer” Public Benefit Is Consistent With The Public Use Clause

Continue Reading Speaking Of Eminent Domain Protest Signs…

On Maui today to argue an eminent domain case, so haven’t had a chance to post up a new opinion. But in our down time between hearings and flights, we were able to do some reading of our colleagues’ stimulating blog posts. Check ’em out:

…
Continue Reading Blog Posts We’re Reading Today: TransCanada, Admissibility Of Value Statements, HRAP Amendments Proposed