Illusion of Eminent Domain protections

Subject: Illusion of Eminent Domain protections
Date: 7/17/2005 9:40:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net


Sent from the Internet (Details)


NB - Illusion of Eminent Domain protections

Below are two article describing a bill being proposed by New York Assembly member Richard Brodsky ostensibly in response to the wide backlash of the recent Supreme Court Kelo v. City of New London decision leaving an open door for Eminent Domain abuse.

What could be worse than having no protections is the illusion of protections. This bill would do very little to protect against ED abuse. After all, we must remember it's the politicians that promote the abuse and give away the private property to other private concerns.

Allowing such transfers to still take place in "comprehensive economic development plans" is essentially what happens today. The West Side and Brooklyn plans are, in the eyes of those being bought off, "comprehensive." Anything can be called comprehensive ... I'm sure that's what they called the Washburn Wire to Costco transfer.

Anything can be shoved through ULURP with the robotic Jackie-O mantra of City Planning Chair Amanda-24-7-revitalize-this-Burden, Borough President Virginia-inclusive-Fields and Council member Christine-we-tried-our-best-Quinn.

Will the next Borough President be any better? Not from the field that's running. The community boards are all dumbed-down with bar owners and people who sleep through meetings. What we saw with the Jets stadium could have been the City Council approving the stadium if it had ever gone to a vote ... they all get bought off. And in Brooklyn the situation is the same or worse.

Look at what they're still planning for Hudson Yards ... a boulevard that would legally fall into a strict public use area, but when scrutinized, the boulevard does nothing for improving transportation. It's purpose is to create development sites on either side of the boulevard for office towers. While that ED is not happening today, those development sites are part of
the plan.

The imposition of a bureaucracy can often lead to the illusion of protections, but leave little real protections beyond what exists prior to regulations.

Unless there is teeth in such a bill, it is likely to make matters worse.

Consider the recent history of ED proposals. How many would be prohibited by the Brodsky bill?

Consider that Brodsky is running for AG, so even if his chances aren't great, there's an opportunity to tell him a thing or two.

We should be careful that ED protections do not become too black and white as advocated by some of the property-rights zealots. But what Brodsky is offering is laughable.

--------------------------------
Eminent domain reins
A Westchester legislator proposes a bill to protect the rights of property
owners
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=380001&category=OPINION&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=7/17/2005

First published: Sunday, July 17, 2005

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay should listen to Assemblyman Richard
Brodsky, D-Westchester. Mr. DeLay is convinced that the House should
undermine a recent Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain. That's the wrong
remedy. Mr. Brodsky proposes the right way to protect property owner rights
-- through state legislation.

The high court's 5-4 ruling last month set off an immediate and
ill-informed reaction by advocates of private property rights. They
denounced the ruling, which upheld the right of New London, Conn., to seize
some homes through eminent domain and give the property to commercial
developers for a sweeping waterfront project. The door was open, the
critics warned, to seizing homes at will to accommodate private developers
seeking to build everything from a cheap motel to an expansive shopping
mall. Then the House got into the act by approving, largely at Mr. DeLay's
behest, legislation that would deny certain federal funds to any locality
that used eminent domain for the benefit of a profit-making venture.

But there are two good reasons why such apprehension is unwarranted. First,
the high court's ruling made it clear that eminent domain could be used
only for a public purpose. Building a big box store or a motel would hardly
meet that standard. Second, the best safeguard against abuse by developers,
or local officials eager to do business with them, has always rested with
the state legislatures, which have the power to establish the standards
under which property may be seized.

Mr. Brodsky's proposal would invoke that power wisely. He would give
property owners more time -- 90 days instead of the current 30 -- to appeal
condemnations. The bill also specifies that property owners who are
displaced must be paid at least 150 percent of the market value of their
homes, as a safeguard against developers seeking to turn a quick profit by
buying up properties in declining neighborhoods. The key protection,
though, is a requirement that would limit the use of eminent domain to
comprehensive economic development plans that have been discussed in public
meetings and approved by local legislators.

These are sensible requirements that will not hinder economic development
in a community. At the same time, they will thwart abuse by developers and
politicians who might be tempted to strike deals in private. The
Legislature should put Mr. Brodsky's bill high on its list for approval in
the next session.

-----------------------------------
Pol Seeks Eminent Domain Law Change
Jul 13, 2005 2:07 pm US/Eastern

(1010 WINS) (ALBANY) Not enough is being done to protect private property
owners facing the seizure of their land by local governments pushing
economic development projects, a state Assemblyman said Wednesday in
announcing a bill to change New York's eminent domain law.

The bill by Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, a Westchester Democrat, follows
last month's 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court saying cities may
bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private
development. The ruling gave local governments broad power to seize private
property to generate tax revenue.

Brodsky, who has led investigations of industrial development agencies and
local development corporations, said while economic growth is a legitimate
goal, in many cases local authorities have done more for private companies
than public good when seizing property for business development projects.

"You can call this a homeowner protection act," Brodsky said. "In many
cases, eminent domain is a necessary part of progress, but when you're
taking someone's private property and transferring it to another private
owner, we need to be extremely careful and protective."

Under the bill the time property owners have to appeal condemnation
decisions would be increased to 90 days from 30 days. Displaced residents
would be paid at least 150 percent of the market value of their homes,
Brodsky said.

The measure also would require eminent domain be used for economic
development purposes only to forward a comprehensive plan developed in
public meetings and approved by local legislators.

In the June court decision, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the
majority, said the New London, Conn. could pursue private development under
the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if
the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises
to bring more jobs and revenue.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and
powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

The issue has been a hot topic around the country.

In Texas, lawmakers have proposed a constitutional amendment that would bar
state or local governments from seizing private property mainly for
economic development. Lawmakers in many states are now proposing new laws
to shield property owners.

In Washington, legislation in the works would ban the use of federal funds
for any project getting the go-ahead using the Kelo v. City of New London
decision.