Thanks to the Land Use Prof Blog for getting the word out about the most recent documentary from filmmaker Gary Hustwit, “Urbanized,” which will have its Hawaii premier this weekend as part of Interisland Terminal‘s “Manufacturing Reality” film series.

The film examines how cities are designed — whether on purpose or though usage — and what works and what doesn’t. It covers a range of issues: zoning, architecture, mass-transit, sewage, redevelopment, sprawl, smart growth, and economic inequality. Urbanized features planners, architects, artists, and lawyers (including colleague Grady Gammage, Jr., with a different perspective on “sprawl” in Arizona), discussing their visions of urban design.

From the film’s description page:

Urbanized is a feature-length documentary about the design of cities, which looks at the issues and strategies behind urban design and features some of the world’s foremost architects, planners, policymakers, builders, and thinkers. Over half the world’s population

Continue Reading Honolulu Premiere: “Urbanized” – Designing Cities, Working Cities

A must read: our Owners’ Counsel of America colleague Michael Rikon, the doyen of New York’s eminent domain bar, has published “I Represented The Devil Of Brooklyn,” in the Practical Real Estate Lawyer. As Mike writes, “it wasn’t a demonic fight in front of the hot dog line at Nathan’s in Coney Island … this legal tale is about a property owner in Prospect Heights who had the absolute gall to object to the taking of his property for an arena and related real estate development by a well-connected real estate developer.”

If that sounds familiar, it is: Mike represented Daniel Goldstein, the plaintiff-in-chief in the multi-jurisdiction Atlantic Yards eminent domain fight, and the protagonist of the documentary Battle for Brooklyn in the final condemnation case in New York’s courts. Other lawyers had handled Goldstein’s attempt to stop the condemnation and the environmental challenges, and

Continue Reading “I Represented The Devil Of Brooklyn”

UtahblogCheck this out: my Owners’ Counsel of America colleague Kevin E. Anderson has a blog on eminent domain and related issues, forcusing on decisions from the Utah state and federal courts, Eminent Domain Review.

It’s not a new blog (Kevin has been posting since at least 2011), but it’s new to us, so we though we would pass it along to you.

Among the categories he covers are the latest cases from the Utah Supreme Court, just compensation issues, and regulatory takings.

We’re subscribing, and so should you.Continue Reading New(er) Eminent Domain Law Blog Worth Following

In Larson v. Sinclair Transp. Co., No 09SC966 (May 21, 2012), the Colorado Supreme Court held that a state statute does not grant a company such as Sinclair the ability to take property for the construction of petroleum pipelines.

The statute, Colorado Rev. Stat § 38-5-105, is not exactly elegant in its wording:

Such telegraph, telephone, electric light power, gas, or pipeline company or such city or town is vested with the power of eminent domain, and authorized to proceed to obtain rights-of-way for poles, wires, pipes, regulator stations, substations, and systems for such purposes by means thereof. Whenever such company or such city or town is unable to secure by deed, contract, or agreement such rights-of-way for such purposes over, under, across, and upon the lands, property, privileges, rights-of-way, or easements of persons or corporations, it shall be lawful for such telegraph, telephone, electric light power

Continue Reading Colorado: Company Lacks Eminent Domain Power To Construct Gas Pipeline

Here are the cases we discussed in this morning’s session at the Eminent Domain & Land Use in Hawaii seminar:

  • Brown v. Howard, No 26991 (June 21, 2011), the case in which the South Carolina Supreme Court held that an attorney’s services constitute property, and that property was taken when a trial court refused to let a court-appointed attorney withdraw from defending a criminal case, forcing him to work for a fee capped at $3,500. Here’s the Bar Association’s amicus brief on the issue.


Continue Reading Links From Today’s Eminent Domain Conference

There is still time to register for the Eminent Domain & Land Use in Hawaii seminar, to be held this Thursday, May 12, 2012, in downtown Honolulu. Along with James Mee, I am leading the session “Eminent Domain Update” in which we will talk about the latest in public use issues from the U.S. and Hawaii Supreme Courts, and other recent developments in condemnation law.

The Chair of the program is my Damon Key partner Mark M. Murakami. Also on the agenda is a session on potential burials issues in the rail project with another Damon Key partner, Greg Kugle, and a session on rail bid protests with Anna H. Oshiro. The final session of the day will be devoted to ethics, so you can get your MCLE credit requirement at least partially fulfilled for this year.

The complete faculty list and agenda is available here

Continue Reading Honolulu Eminent Domain Seminar – May 12, 2012

Congratulations to our Owners’ Counsel of America colleague Michael Rikon on the news that New York City has withdrawn its attempt to take his clients’ land in the Willets Point section of Queens.

According to this story, “Michael Rikon, a lawyer representing property owners in Willets Point, challenged the city’s legal bid to condemn property in the Iron Triangle to make way for the first phase of the $3 billion Willets Point Redevelopment Project, which would take the place of the auto shops and pockmarked streets in the neighborhood.”

The New York Observer reports that the city halted the eminent domain proceedings on the eve of the hearing (it was scheduled to be heard next Monday) and withdrew the case from state appellate courts. Remember, in New York, eminent domain actions start in the Appellate Division. We posted the brief Mike filed in the case here, and an amicus brief supporting the property owners here.

Mr. Rikon, an attorney for Willets Point United, a landowner group fighting the city, said that the city faced a tough case because of issues ranging from a failure to have translators at the eminent domain hearing (many property owners are Latino) to not providing notice in person and having no clear public use yet assigned (there was not yet a developer in place at the time of the hearing). “It’s strange, too, because rarely do you win these kinds of cases,” Mr. Rikon said of eminent domain defendants, “but I really think this could have been different.”

His clients, he said, “are pretty ecstatic.” That said, their future remains uncertain as the city owns much of the land in Willets Point now, and whether it wants to remain a landlord to chop shops seems unlikely. “We wish we knew what the city would do with those leases, because they’re commercial leases and the city is under no obligation to renew them,” Mr. Rikon said. “Really, how interested is the city in rental income? Not very.”

Mr. Rikon also said there was no reason the city could not simply hold another eminent domain hearing in the future, correcting any apparent errors, and take the property all over again. He was hopeful that might never happen. “The remediation alone will cost billions of dollars, so is it really worth it?” he said.

Well done, Michael.
Continue Reading NYC Property Owners Victory: Willets Point Eminent Domain Abandoned

Here’s the latest chapter in the Skyland Shopping Center saga that has given us Franco v. National Capital Revitalization Comm’n, 930 A.2d 160 (D.C. 2007) and several other reported opinions (DeSilva v. District of Columbia, No. 10-CV-1069 (Feb. 24, 2011); Rumber v. District of Columbia, 487 F.3d 941 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Franco v. District of Columbia, 3 A.3d 300 (D.C. 2010); Rumber v. District of Columbia, No. 09-7035 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 26, 2010) (per curiam); and Oh v. National Capital Revitalization Corp., 7 A.3d 997 (D.C. 2010)).

The latest opinion from the D.C. Court of Appeals, Franco v. District of Columbia, No. 11-CV-734 (Mar. 15, 2012), is the appeal after remand of the 2007 Franco decision, which recognized that property owners may object to a taking on the grounds that the proffered public use is really a pretext hiding private benefit.

We

Continue Reading D.C. App Again Weighs In On Kelo And Pretext

The city takes property for a bike trail. It deposited estimated compensation in court, and sought and obtained immediate possession. The owner disputed whether the city had the power to take his land, but the trial court rejected these arguments. The owner filed an interlocutory appeal on the public use and necessity issues. The city moved to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction: the valuation phase of the trial was not finished, so there was no final judgment and it was too early to appeal. 

The Arkansas Supreme Court agreed. Thomas v. City of Fayetteville, No. 11-930 (Mar. 15, 2012). Because the issue of compensation remained for the trial court to determine, the judgment allowing the taking was not final. Piecemeal appeals are generally not favored, and the court refused to adopt the property owner’s call for an exception because disallowing the appeal would “divest him of a substantial

Continue Reading Arkansas: Public Use Determinations Not Immediately Appealable

Descendants-kauai After the New York Court of Appeals’ decisions in the Goldstein (Atlantic Yards) and Kaur (Columbia) cases, we opined that there were not many limits remaining on the government’s exercise of eminent domain in that state.

But even after those cases, there’s got to be some limits, no?

Our Owners’ Counsel of America colleague Michael Rikon is currently testing that hypothesis in a case arising from Willets Point, a Queens neighborhood adjacent to Citi Field (new home of the Mets). Mike represents property owners (mostly small businesses) in the case, their public use challenge to the City of New York’s attempt to take their Willets Point properties for “redevelopment.” For more, see Willets Point United, and this video.

The problem is, the city doesn’t have a redevelopment plan, or any plan regarding what it intends to do with the land beyond making it a “lively, mixed-use, sustainable

Continue Reading Amicus Brief In Willets Point Case: Condemnation For Redevelopment Needs A Plan