Public Use | Kelo

Subscribe to Public Use | Kelo via RSS

Our thanks to our friends and colleagues at the ABA Section of Real Property, Probate & Trust Section’s Land Use and Environmental Group for inviting us to a discussion of the latest and greatest decisions of interest.

We only had an hour together, so naturally could not cover everything of interest (indeed, we reserved a big discussion of the biggest item, the Supreme Court’s decision in Cedar Point, assuming that the Group will schedule a full session on that decision alone). So here is our curated list of what we think are the most interesting recent decisions in areas of interest to the Group:

…
Continue Reading Links From Today’s ABA RPTE Session

It can be somewhat of a challenge to blog about many of the opinions from New York’s appellate courts (dun-dun) because they are typically short. What more (or less!) can you say about an opinion that is very short? We mean really short. Like 3 pages short.

Such it is with the Appellate Division’s opinion in Gabe Realty Corp. v. City of White Plains, No. D66651 (June 30, 2021). A total of 4 pages, actually, but when you cut out the caption, introductory fluff, and the clerk’s signature, you are down to a grand total of two pages of single-spaced text. It would take us more time to write about the decision than it would take you to just read the darn thing.

Highlights:

  • A New York court invalidates an urban renewal taking, supported by a claim of blight remediation. Read that again: this is from a

…
Continue Reading NY App Div: Potential Future Public Benefit Won’t Support Eminent Domain

Here’s the latest (maybe last?) in a case we’ve been following for a long time.

On Friday, the Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, with three Justices noting that they would have granted the petition. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch dissented from the denial of cert, while “Justice Kavanaugh would grant the petition[.]” 

Here’s Justice Thomas:

We should grant certiorari for two reasons.

First, this petition provides us the opportunity to correct the mistake the Court made in Kelo. There, the Court found the Fifth Amendment’s “public use” requirement satisfied when a city transferred land from one private owner to another in the name of economic development. See 545 U. S., at 484. That decision was wrong the day it was decided. And it remains wrong today. “Public use” means something more than any conceivable “public purpose.” See id., at 508–511 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

Continue Reading So Close: SCOTUS Declines To Revisit Kelo (For Now)

DSCF3357

Another takings opinion from the Supreme Court, this time in a (putatively) eminent domain case we’ve been following.

In PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v. New Jersey, No. 19-1039 (June 20, 2021), the majority (Roberts, CJ, joined by an unusual, cross-aisle lineup of Justices Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh) concluded that a private pipeline which has been delegated the federal power of eminent domain in the Natural Gas Act, may, in a federal court lawsuit, condemn property owned by the State of New Jersey. 

The case asked whether New Jersey – not some mere private landowner – can be haled into a federal court as a defendant in a NGA private pipeline taking. The issue isn’t the same as a typical NGA pipeline case in which a private landowner can’t assert Eleventh Amendment immunity. As a consequence, here we witnessed a much different result in the way the lower …

Continue Reading SCOTUS: Eminent Domain Is Eminent Over Everything, Even A State’s 11th Amendment Immunity

In which we pay a return visit to Clint Schumacher’s Eminent Domain Podcast to catch up with Clint about our new gig, Cedar Point (briefly, since the opinion came down the day we recorded the podcast), just compensation and attorneys’ fees, assessing severance damages in appraisals supporting jurisdictional offers, public use, and our favorite cool courthouses (let’s just say that they range from historic courtrooms to converted doublewide trailers).

If you are not already a regular listener to the Eminent Domain Podcast, you should be! It’s a great one-stop convenient way to keep current on the latest goings-on in the takings business. Continue Reading We Pay A Return Visit To The Eminent Domain Podcast To Talk Takings

Screenshot_2021-05-15 18th Annual Brigham-Kanner Prize Recipient

Mark your calendars for September 30 – October 1, 2021, and join us at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia for the 18th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference. It’s planned to be in-person, so when we mean “join us” we really mean join us.

This year the Conference will recognize the lifetime work of Professor Vicki Been (NYU Law) with the Brigham–Kanner Property Rights Prize. As noted in the Law School’s press release:

The Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize is named in honor of the lifetime contributions to property rights of Toby Prince Brigham, founding partner of Brigham Moore, LLP, and Gideon Kanner, professor of law emeritus at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Brigham died earlier this month in Miami. A true legend in the law, he was esteemed by colleagues for the invaluable counsel, knowledge and skills he possessed and shared so generously. The prize…

Continue Reading Mark Your Calendars: 2021 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia, Sept 30-Oct 1 (in-person)

67-day bench trial. 84-page decision. Check out the Superior Court’s Tentative Statement of Decision in a case in which a property owner has successfully challenged the Town of Apple Valley’s attempt to take a private water company so the Town could operate it itself.

There’s a lot going on, and to understand the decision you should understand the statutory requirements under which the case is operating. A California statute sets out the requirements for what we might call “public use” challenges generally (or maybe “power (right)-to-take” challenges):

The power of eminent domain may be exercised to acquire property for a proposed project only if all of the following are established:

(a) The public interest and necessity require the project.

(b) The project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.

(c) The property sought to be acquired is necessary

…
Continue Reading California Trial Court: No Greater Public Interest In Town Seizing Private Water Company To Operate It Itself (Generic “Vision Statements” Don’t Count)

What’s up with that (sorta) snarky headline, you ask? After all, isn’t the PennEast v. New Jersey case, heard yesterday by the Supreme Court, a real honest-to-goodness eminent domain case about a pipeline?

Doesn’t the transcript show terms like “in rem,” “takings,” “eminent” and “eminent domain” were used a whole lot? Aren’t a lot of the media reports saying this is a big eminent domain case (see here and here for example)?

Pages from 19-1039_8758

But read the transcript or a listen to the recording (stream above or download the mp3 here) and see what you think, eminent domain mavens.

If you are like us, you understand that the case isn’t going to tell us a lot about eminent domain generally, or about valuation, or the power to take (except in very limited circumstances). After all, the case asks whether the State of New Jersey – not some mere private landowner – …

Continue Reading Listen (Or Read) As SCOTUS Hears Arguments In A (Sorta) Eminent Domain Case

Here’s the recently-filed cert petition in a case we’ve been following.

Rather than attempt to sum it up, we suggest you read the petition, especially the Questions Presented:

Montana Dakota Utility (hereinafter MDU), a private corporation, employed the power of eminent domain to procure an easement on Vern Behm’s farmland immediately along a pre-existing county road but outside the right-of-way. This taking by a private entity was for the purpose of extending an underground natural gas pipeline for the sole use of another private company, Burlington Northern Santa Fe. The district court dismissed the action, finding that the purpose of the pipeline (heating a switch during the winter months) was already being met by the use of propane tanks and that MDU’s refusal to use the township thirty-three foot easement that follows and parallels the existing county road demonstrated that the subject easement was not necessary and was indeed…

Continue Reading New Public Use Cert Petition: Overrule Kelo!

IMG_20180720_152126_1

Under a Massachusetts statute, local redevelopment agencies have the power to respond to “decadent, substandard, and blighted open areas” either by creating an urban renewal project (redeveloping an area pursuant to a “detailed” and “comprehensive” plan; the statute expressly includes the power of eminent domain for urban renewal projects), or by a “demonstration” development (a term not defined by the statute, and therefore lacks an express delegation of eminent domain power).

In Cobble Hill Center LLC v. Somerville Redev. Auth., No. SJC13028 (Apr. 22, 2021), the Supreme Judicial Court addressed an issue left open the last time it dealt with the power of redevelopment agencies: do they have the power to take property by eminent domain when they choose to undertake a “demonstration?” 

Cobble Hill had intended to do its own private redevelopment on its vacant property in Somerville, Massachusetts. But due to some internal disputes, construction…

Continue Reading Mass SJC: New And Improved Means For Blight Elimination Uses Old And Worn Method: Eminent Domain