Redevelopment

Subscribe to Redevelopment via RSS

Grove-arcade-2

Those of us who practice eminent domain and land use law see the world through a different lens than everyone else. When normal people get stuck in traffic because of highway construction, they may view it as a mass of cement mixers, graders, and safety-vested crews. We eminent domain lawyers see partial takes, severance damages, limited access problems, and recalcitrant DOT’s. Where others see a harbor or a dam, we see navigational servitudes. Where others see billboards, we wonder if it’s a fixture for which the owner is entitled to compensation. And that’s not a train, it’s a future rails-to-trails issue. 

Come on, you’re among friends — you can admit if you’ve done the same. 

When we travel away from our home base, we somehow locate the eminent domain angle, no matter how obscure. We’ve done it before, and even once crossed over into “nuclear…

Continue Reading Eminent Domain Tourism, Asheville Edition

Worth reading: Gideon Kanner, Detroit and the Decline of Urban America, 2013 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1547 (2014), in the forthcoming issue of that august publication. Its not yet available on the law review’s web site, but Professor Kanner has written up a summary on his blog (he might even send you a copy of the complete article if you ask him):

It deals with the causes of decline of older American cities; what caused their populations to leave en masse and move to the suburbs, leaving behind empty swaths of urban desolation (If you want to see how desolate, go to Google, type in “ruins of Detroit” and hit “enter.’ Here are some samples).

His summary includes the key points of the article, and identifies six factors as contributing to urban flight and depopulation, including abuse of the eminent domain power. 

The article is a fascinating and…

Continue Reading New Article Of Note: The Role Of Eminent Domain Abuse In Detroit’s Downfall

[Note: we were all set to be the “firstest with the mostest” on these issues, but, as is often the case, Professor Kanner beat us to the punch (“The Clippers and Eminent Domain – It Was Only a Matter of Time“).]

What we’re talking about, of course, is the recent (and ongoing) controversy about the racist statements (allegedly) made by Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers professional basketball team, and the reactions, which include “Eminent Domain: The Real Solution to Scumbag Sports Owners.” In that piece, someone named Harvey Wasserman opines that the owners of the Clippers — and the Washington, D.C., professional football franchise — do not deserve to own their respective teams: 

Why do we allow our precious sports clubs to be the playthings of a bunch of wealthy degenerates?

Why aren’t the football, baseball, basketball, hockey and other major…

Continue Reading Use Eminent Domain To “Redevelop” A Sports Franchise, And Take It From An Undeserving Owner?

Check out this language from a recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of D.C.:

The CityCenterDC development may be a laudable and exciting public-private partnership, and it may entail a more comprehensive level of urban planning and cooperation than the ordinary project, but the exercise will result in the creation of an enclave of private facilities. What is being constructed will be no more for the use and benefit of the population of the District than any other condominium or hotel: members of the general public will be welcome to enjoy the surrounding sidewalks, and possibly the lobby, and they can spend their dollars in the nearby shops and restaurants, but at the end of the day, they will not be permitted to go upstairs. CityCenterDC is not a public work of the District of Columbia, and the ARB’s decision to the contrary cannot be sustained.…

Continue Reading “Incidental Public Benefits – Such As Employment Opportunities, Increased Tax Revenue” Does Not Make A Project “Public”

We often jokingly suggest that in eminent domain, “it’s good to be the King!” quoting that eminent eminent domain scholar Mel Brooks. We think this catchphrase aptly describes the “most awesome grant of power,” City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 220 Cal. Rptr. 153, 155 (Cal. App. 1985), under which the condemnor has a very nearly unfettered ability to take property.

But in recent decision from the Missouri Court of Appeals it was good to be the landowner — the owner of a Burger King restaurant — because it had the good sense to hire Robert Denlow, our Owners’ Counsel colleague (and occasional Sunday golf partner) (that’s Bob in the above video, a 2013 interview). In City of North Kansas City v. K.C. Beaton Holding Co., No. WD76068 (Jan. 14, 2014), the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, held that the city, a …

Continue Reading Sometimes, It’s Good To Be The (Burger) King: General Power Of Eminent Domain Does Not Include Blight Elimination

Next week, we’ll be in New Orleans for the 2014 edition of the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain program, now in its 31st year. 

As usual, my Owners’ Counsel colleagues Leslie Fields and Joe Waldo (the programming co-chairs) have put together a fantastic 2.5 day of programming, taught by expert faculty.  At 11:00 a.m. on the first day of the program, I will be joining Professor James Ely to speak about “The Full and Perfect Equivalent for Just Compensation: The Historical Context and Practice.” 

Should be fun. If you are not joining us in-person, ALI-CLE is producing it as a live webcast, and will make the coursebook and video and audio available for later listening or viewing. 

More details here, or download the brochure here, or below. 

31st Annual Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation, ALI-CLE Program (CV023) (Jan. 23-25, 2014) New Or…

Continue Reading 31st Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation (New Orleans)

The Honolulu City Council has proposed a charter amendment that asks the voters to approve eliminating the Mayor’s current veto power over the Council’s eminent domain resolutions.

The Resolution doesn’t directly say that, of course, but what it does command is that after the Council adopts a resolution to take property, the city administration must within 90 days start the condemnation action. In other words, no mayoral veto. Currently under the Charter, the Mayor may veto resolutions of taking:

Resolutions authorizing proceedings in eminent domain shall not be acted upon on the date of introduction, but shall be laid over for at least one week before adoption. Such resolutions shall be advertised once in a daily newspaper of general circulation and may be advertised, as deemed helpful, in other newspapers at least three days before adoption by the council. Not less than three copies of such resolutions shall be filed…

Continue Reading Should The Honolulu Charter Eliminate The Already Minimal Check Of A Mayoral Veto On Eminent Domain Resolutions?

Check this out: the lawprof who thought up the underwater mortgage taking plan, Cornell’s Robert Hockett, along with his co-author, the “Founder and Chief Strategy Officer” of Mortgage Resolution Partners (the venture capitalists who are funding the scheme and who stand to benefit from it), have posted a new article in the Harvard Law & Policy Review, “A Federalist Blessing in Disguise: From National Inaction to Local Action on Underwater Mortgages.”

One guess what the article concludes.

In case you have not been paying attention, here’s the abstract:

While it is widely recognized that the mortgage debt overhang left by the housing price bubble and bust continues to operate as the principal drag upon U.S. macroeconomic recovery, few seem to appreciate just how locally concentrated the problem is. This paper takes the measure of the national mortgage debt overhang problem as a cluster of local problems…

Continue Reading Surprise – New Article In Mortgage Resolution Partners Law Review: Use Of Eminent Domain To Take Mortgages OK!

 Norfolk

Earlier today, the Virginia Supreme Court, in PKO Ventures, LLC v. Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority, No. 121534 (Sep. 12, 2013), invalidated takings of non-blighted properties which were part of a larger area designated as blighted.

In 2007, Virginia adopted a statute requiring that if property is taken to eliminate blight, the property itself must be blighted. That might seem like an obvious proposition, but as readers certainly know, since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Berman, it has been ok to take the baby with the bathwater under the Fifth Amendment, and as long as a legislator rationally could have believed that taking a perfectly fine property would somehow help alleviate other blight, then the courts would not stand in the way.

The Virginia statute defines “blighted property” as one that is in bad shape “at the time of the filing of the petition for condemnation,”…

Continue Reading Virginia S Ct: No Taking Of Non-Blighted Property That Happens To Be In An Area Designated “Blighted”

Today’s the first day of the ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, so we haven’t had time to do more than scan the Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, filed yesterday in San Francisco federal court, challenging the plans of Mortgage Resolution Partners and the City of Richmond, California to take underwater mortgages by eminent domain.

We’ll have more, but here are two initial reports:

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, The Bank of New York Mellon v. City of Richmond, No. 13-36…


Continue Reading The Other Shoe Drops: Banks Sue Richmond, California Over Mortgage Eminent Domain Scheme