What you think we forgot about eminent domain? NO WAY. We haven't forgotten a damn thing. We're still fighting and people come to us from all over for help with their battles. We haven't forgotten the suffering of Suzett Kelo, Stan Cramer of Harrisburg, PA, what the Sahas our dear friends in Coatesville went through, what's going on still in California, our friends in Long Branch, NJ, and the list goes on.

Shades of Kelo! We recently told you we are receiving very unsettling news from the small state of Delaware....about a case that is Oh so shades of Kelo: Waterfront, Land a developer seems to want, local government wants the development, so what are we supposed to think??? Check out the very fuzzy public stance the State of Delaware has supposedly taken against eminent domain for private gain?

We found this interesting little "sidebar" here:

"Delaware will permit eminent domain to be used only for a recognized public use, but does not define public use. The law has been criticized for being too vague."

The Castle Coalition basically flunked the State of Delaware on Eminent Domain:

Delaware: D-
Very minor changes to a few procedural aspects of the condemnation process

The state needs public use constitutionally defined to secure property rights in the state

Delaware created a state commission to study the use of eminent domain and ways of reining in abuse, but the bill passed by the General Assembly and signed by the governor could hardly be considered substantive reform. Senate Bill 217 (2005) does no more than require that cities have a plan when condemning property and that the condemnations are for a “recognized public use as described at least six months in advance of the institution of condemnation proceedings.” The bill also changed the party that determines compensation for successful condemnation challenges from the condemning agency to the courts.

Although a condemning authority must declare its intended use for a property in advance of the condemnation, and is then limited to that specific use for the property, Delaware provides a sizeable catalog of public use options to pick from. The term is not clearly defined in state statutes and courts have succumbed to open-ended interpretations. In the wake of Kelo, Delaware’s laws could easily accommodate the use of eminent domain for private economic development. Until the legislature enacts substantive reform aimed at a limited definition of public use and forbidding condemnations for private use, Delaware home and business owners will remain very much at risk for eminent domain abuse.

(Also see Eminent Domain « First State Politics)

Of course this news is deeply troubling considering this :

143rd General Assembly
Senate Bill # 217 w/HA 1

Primary Sponsor: Venables Additional Sponsor(s): Rep. Hocker
CoSponsors: Sens. Adams, DeLuca, Still, Peterson, Bunting, McDowell, Copeland, Simpson, Cloutier, Connor; Reps. Lee, Carey, Atkins, Smith, Ennis, Caulk
Introduced on : 06/28/2005
Long Title: AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 29 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND THE EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN.
Synopsis: This Act addresses various abuses and uncertainties relating to the exercise of the State’s power of eminent domain and the protection of private property rights.

First, this Act requires that the State’s power of eminent domain only be exercised for the purposes of a recognized public use as described at least 6 months in advance of the institution of condemnation proceedings in a certified planning document, at a public hearing held specifically to address the acquisition, or in a published report of the acquiring agency.

Next, this Act provides that, in the event condemnation proceedings are commenced, and either the final judgment is that the property cannot be acquired by eminent domain, or the proceeding is abandoned, the state agency that was seeking the condemnation shall pay the property’s owner(s) a sum which, in the opinion of the Court, will reimburse such owner(s) for reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees, actually incurred because of the proceeding. Under existing law, the agency pays an amount which it, in its own opinion, would reimburse such owner(s) for those costs and fees.

This Act applies to all political subdivisions of the State, such as the several counties and municipalities of the State, as well as every department, agency or instrumentality of the State or of a political subdivision of the State; any department, agency or instrumentality of 2 or more states, or 2 or more political subdivisions of the State, or states; and any person who has the authority to acquire property by eminent domain under State law.

Current Status: Signed On 07/21/2005

and

THIS:

Posted: Tue Jul 31st, 2007 01:02 pm Quote Reply

"A year or so ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a government entity could take private land from one person to give it to another who would build something on it that would generate higher tax revenue to the confiscating government -unless the State had specific laws to the contrary. Most of the States went out after that and passed eminent domain laws that said any confiscation had to be for a public use purpose. Delaware was supposed too be one of those, but now we are hearing about businesses down by the riverfront being taken by Wilmington to be turned over to developers to build condos which would generate higher taxes.

Does delaware have a effective counter measure law to the Supreme Court ruling or not? What is the story on this Commission the Gov appointed that was supposed to look into this stuff but never bothered meeting? Inquiring minds want to know....."

We also are keeping a close eye out in our own community - we are especially interested in the maneuvering of the architects of eminent domain that we fought and won. Are any crossing a line they shouldn't be?

Here's what you should be reading with regard to eminent domain:

Now You Own It, Soon You Don’t?

IT’S not so much the modest bungalow’s spacious second-floor addition or the expansive side yard that gets to Lori Ann Vendetti.

The thing that keeps her fighting is the misty ocean air that floats through her doorway when she lets her dog out in the morning. The salty aroma can transport her back to childhood weekends spent playing on the beach with her two brothers, long since dead and gone.

Neither Ms. Vendetti, 46, nor her parents across the street believe they can afford another place within a sniff of the ocean if the City of Long Branch, N.J., wins its 12-year effort to turn their homes over to a private developer who wants to build luxury condominiums.

Setback for Newark condo project
Judge rules city failed to prove that the 14-acre site on Mulberry Street is 'blighted'
Friday, July 20, 2007
BY KATIE WANG
Star-Ledger Staff

A Superior Court judge in Essex County has dealt a major blow to a plan to build 2,000 condominiums in downtown Newark, saying the city failed to prove the area in question is deteriorating and in need of redevelopment.

The 71-page decision, issued yesterday, cites the watershed state Supreme Court decision, Gallenthin Realty Development Inc. vs. Borough of Paulsboro, handed down earlier this year that limits the government's power to seize land.

Storage Mogul Is an Obstacle to Columbia's Expansion
Land Use

By ELIOT BROWN
Special to the Sun
July 19, 2007

The most formidable obstacle to Columbia University's 17-acre expansion may not be those who live within the West Harlem project's footprint, but an Upper East Side-based storage mogul.

The largest private landowner within the area targeted for the expansion, Nicholas Sprayregen, a developer, landlord, weekly newspaper publisher, and owner of Tuck-It-Away self-storage, has spent $500,000 so far on attorneys, a lobbyist, and land-use consultants in an attempt to compel the university to scale back its proposal.

A fierce opponent of Columbia's proposed use of eminent domain, the lively father of four has money to spend and is emerging as a critical force in the West Harlem community's opposition to the university's plan.

The expansion would create a campus of research, academic, and graduate housing buildings north of 125th Street, a $6 billion to $7 billion project that would be completed over the next 20-plus years. Columbia, which the has backing of Mayor Dinkins, among others, contends that it needs the new facilities to compete with similar universities, and that the new buildings would enliven the neighborhood.

EDITORIAL
Robin Hood in reverse
Since the Kelo decision, the politically powerless have lost out to the well-connected.

Inside every middle-class home - yours, perhaps - lurks a luxury condo just waiting to burst forth. Maybe you don't recognize that potential, but someone in the government surely does, and some day you just might find your property snatched from you and given to somebody who can produce more tax revenue for the public sector with it. Happy second anniversary to the Kelo decision! In that infamous and despicable ruling, five justices of the United States Supreme Court attempted to throw the last shovelful of dirt into the grave of property rights in this country.

Castle Coalition Website

Eminent Domain Reform To Be Introduced in U.S. House of Representatives
Property Owners Still Left Unprotected from Federally Funded Abuses Two Years After Kelo
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
CONTACT: John Kramer; Lisa Knepper
(703) 682-9320
July 12, 2007

Arlington, Va.—Today, Reps. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) will introduce the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2007 to stop taxpayer funding of eminent domain abuse. They will announce the bill at a press conference at 1 p.m. today in Room 2226 of the Rayburn House Office Building. This bipartisan bill would counter the effects of the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allows governments to use eminent domain to seize private property on behalf of private developers in hopes of increasing tax revenue. The Act would deny for two fiscal years economic development funds to state and local governments that use eminent domain for private development.

In 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, by a vote of 376 to 38. The bill was co-sponsored by representatives from across the political and ideological spectrum, including Reps. Waters, Sensenbrenner, John Conyers Jr. (D-MI), and Henry Bonilla (R-TX). Despite unprecedented bipartisan political and public support, the bill languished in the Senate Judiciary Committee and ultimately died.

“Federal protections from eminent domain abuse are long overdue,” said Bert Gall, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which argued the Kelo case on behalf of the homeowners. IJ and the Castle Coalition—a nationwide grassroots organization of property owners and activists dedicated to stopping eminent domain abuse—have led the fight to reform state and federal eminent domain laws. “Even though the vast majority of Americans oppose the abuse of eminent domain for private development, the federal government still funds that abuse.”

June 23 marked the two-year anniversary of the Kelo decision. In every poll since that ruling, the public is overwhelmingly against eminent domain for private use. Forty-two states have passed eminent domain reforms reining in the Kelo decision, including 10 states where voters passed ballot measures by wide margins in last year’s elections.

But many of those reforms are inadequate, and only Congress can stop the federal funding of eminent domain abuse.

“Your security in your home, business or church should not depend on your zip code,” said Dana Berliner, an IJ senior attorney. “The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2007 strikes the right balance. It prevents Americans’ federal tax dollars from being used to kick them off their land for private development, while allowing federal money for traditional public uses like roads and post offices.”

Federal funds were used in the New London, Conn., project that took away the homes of Susette Kelo and her neighbors to replace them with private development, as well as many similar projects across the country.

“My battle started to save my little pink cottage, but it has rightfully grown into something much larger—the fight to restore the American Dream and the sacredness and security of each one of our homes,” said Susette Kelo. “Our federal tax dollars shouldn't be used to take away our homes and businesses so that developers can build shopping malls and condominiums."

According to a new study using U.S. Census Data, eminent domain for private development falls hardest on the poor and minorities, just as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned it would in her Kelo dissent. “Victimizing the Vulnerable: The Demographics of Eminent Domain Abuse” was released by the Institute for Justice and is available at www.ij.org.

“Eminent domain abuse disproportionately targets the politically disenfranchised: the poor, less-educated and minorities,” said Steven Anderson, director of the Castle Coalition. “Unsurprisingly, tax-hungry governments and land-hungry developers prey on those that are less likely to be able to defend themselves. It is vital that the federal government stop subsidizing this blatant abuse of power.”

901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900, Arlington, VA 22203
p 703.682.9320 | f 703.682.9321
© 2002-2006 Castle Coalition | A Project of the Institute for Justice