Official calls for eminent domain

Posted by Howard Rich | Issues, Property Rights | Thursday 29 July 2010 12:53 pm

From Nebury Port News

SALISBURY — Frustrated by unsuccessful negotiations, Town Manager Neil Harrington wants the state to take by a beach property that has failed to sign on with a private developer hoping to revitalize Salisbury Beach’s deteriorating center.

“I have asked our legislators to look into the possibly of the state taking the Finneral property (at 25 Ocean Front South) by ,” Harrington announced yesterday. “The primary reason for this is that I’m unhappy with the progress of the negotiations between the Thompson Group and the individuals — Robb Osinski and Jay Gallagher — who have had a (purchase and sale) agreement with (owner Mark Finneral).”

Of the 70 properties that the Thompson Group wants to buy, the Finneral property is in a key position — it’s a narrow strip of land stretching along the beachfront, roughly in the center of the area eyed for redevelopment.

The state Department of Conservation and Recreation owns all the 3.8 miles of Salisbury Beach, including the stretch that abuts Finneral’s dilapidated property, which was once the Sidewalk Cafe.

Using the government’s “public use” powers to take private property in order to help expedite a private development that’s considered to have substantial public benefit is legal, though it has raised controversy. In 2005, the debate ignited nationally when a landmark 5-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court allowed New London, Conn., to take a home in a blighted neighborhood that was slated for a major redevelopment.

The decision stirred backlash in several states and in Congress, though most of the attempts to curb laws failed. And in New London, the promised redevelopment never occurred.

This would not be the first time DCR bought property at Salisbury Beach Center that abuts the beach, Harrington said. About a decade ago, DCR negotiated with the owners and bought the Frolics and Blinkey’s Fried Dough, Harrington said. The process halted before DCR reached an agreement with Harold Nabhan, then the owner of the only other remaining oceanfront buildings in the Beach Center, where the SurfSide 5 Bar & Grill and Pavilion now stand.

“I see this action as being entirely consistent with the state’s policy of 10 or 12 years ago when they attempted to buy all the oceanfront property at the Beach Center,” Harrington said.

Harrington has no intention of asking the town to take the property and said no party pressured him into his action.

“My decision to ask the state to take the property has nothing to do with the Thompson Group,” he said. “They have not requested I take this action.”

Yesterday, Osinski could not be reached for comment.

State Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen, said he’s already discussed the possibility of a taking with DCR officials and will now move forward immediately on Harrington’s request, setting up meetings with the appropriate state officials, Harrington and state Rep. Michael Costello, D-Newburyport.

In June, Harrington announced he would be taking an active role in getting the last remaining half dozen or so property owners who have not signed with Thompson to get on board a project that’s considered vital to Salisbury Beach and the town’s overall economic health.

At the time, he said the holdouts included three Beach Center condo owners; the heirs and remaining trustees of the Salisbury Beach Associates; and developers Osinski and Gallagher, who have held an option to buy the former Sidewalk Cafe from its owner, Merit Property Limited; and Henry and Mark Finneral of Tewksbury.

Harrington said he spent months trying to get Osinski and Gallagher into a room with Norman Beaulieu of the Thompson Group in hopes of working out a deal. On July 14, that finally happened, but no substantial progress was made, he said.

“I’m doing this because of the concern that a small number of owners who haven’t signed on with Thompson could stop this project,” Harrington said. “The Thompson Group needs site control before they can move forward, and this property (at 25 Ocean Front South) has been a fly in the ointment for too long.”

The reason Osinski and Gallagher haven’t signed on with Thompson is simply price, both Harrington and Baddour said. Neither would discuss specific amounts, but referred to a significant difference between what Osinski and Gallagher want and what Beaulieu is willing to pay.

According to town records, the property was assessed at a little more than $2 million in 2009, Harrington said.

“Osinski and Gallagher have not moved from the figure they want and have provided no basis for the amount they’ve requested,” Harrington said. “The Thompson Group’s offer on this property is consistent with the values of all the other beach center properties they have under agreements. For the purpose of consistency, the Thompson Group has to take the same approach with this property, or it would be unfair to the other property owners they have under agreement.”

Baddour agreed Salisbury can’t afford to allow a disagreement over price to stop the badly needed revitalization of its once proud Beach Center.

“Nobody wants to do this, and I’m still hoping an agreement can be reached between these parties,” Baddour said. “But at the end of the day, the renaissance of Salisbury Beach is resting on a dispute over what this property is worth. In an taking, the court will decide on the fair market value of the property. It’s time to pull the trigger.”

Save building

Posted by Howard Rich | Issues, Property Rights | Tuesday 13 July 2010 12:46 pm

From The Courier Post

Like most Americans, I hate bullies. I’m currently locked in a battle with two bullies — one corporate and one political.

The corporate bully is Campbell Soup Co. and the political bully is George Norcross III. The issue is the future of Camden’s historic Sears Building, which was built in 1927 and is on the state and national historic registers.

Campbell Soup and Norcross are working through their Camden government stooges to take the Sears Building by and demolish it, even though I believe there’s nothing lined up to be built in its place. If this scenario sounds familiar, it’s because this is exactly what Norcross did with the Pennsauken Mart.

Norcross’ stooges in the Camden County government took it through and demolished it, supposedly, at one point during the process, to build a hockey arena there. That plan was scrapped. Now it’s just vacant land. Many jobs and ratables were destroyed there — for nothing.

In contrast, I’m working with the owner of the Sears Building, Ilan Zaken, and his partner, Tony Merlino, to completely redevelop the building as the Food Service Equipment Wholesale Distribution Center. When finished, it will create about 200 new jobs, and Camden residents will be preferred. It will also save a ratable that accounts for $59,000 a year in property taxes.

There’s a growing national movement against abuse. Since Camden United Inc. announced a protest boycott of Campbell’s products on June 2, we’ve gained support steadily through the Internet. Campbell Soup will soon learn its arrogance has a cost.

FRANK FULBROOK

Camden

Bloomfield Redevelopment Loses Lawsuit By Landlord (Updated)

Posted by Howard Rich | Issues, Property Rights | Monday 12 July 2010 1:17 pm

From Baristanet.com

Bloomfield township lost yet another lawsuit last week, as the NJ Superior court stopped the township’s effort to use to obtain private property – in this case, property belonging to Tony Ellenbogen.

Essex County Assignment Judge Patricia K. Costello ruled that Bloomfield’s attempt to use the Bloomfield Parking Authority as a means to seize property through was disingenuous and violated an earlier settlement signed between the township and Ellenbogen.

refers to the legal process by which a state can take private property for public use.

Ellenbogen, owner and landlord of units 21, 31 and 35 Lackawanna Place (which includes tenant, Garden State Yoga) has been battling the township since the start of their first failed redevelopment attempt eight years ago.

“I am extremely thankful to Judge Costello for being able to see the injustice that was going to occur and justifiably ruled in a manner that protects the small property owner,” Ellenbogen said. “They (the township) have already had to pay the fired first developer, Forest City, nearly $5 million, and now they continue to pursue yet another fatally flawed strategy.”

“My only “fault” was owning property that someone else decided they wanted. My property is in excellent condition and fully rented. It is my desire is to be left alone to own the property I legally purchased years ago,” Ellenbogen said.

He said the decision shows there’s hope for the individual citizen fighting town hall.

“The evidence establishes that Bloomfield impermissibly tried to circumvent the terms of the 2007 Consent Order and is attempting to erect a parking deck on plaintiff’s properties in order to accommodate its overall redevelopment plans,” Judge Costello said.

Mayor Ray McCarthy and town administrator Fred Carr both declined to comment.

Late in December, we reported that the town faced another lawsuit in its attempt to redevelop downtown Bloomfield Center. The town’s parking authority was authorized in 2008 to use to seize property. This follows from an NJ Supreme Court decision in 2006 to not overturn a decision the previous year which stopped condemnation of downtown properties.

Ellenbogen filed suit in December in the Superior Court, saying the town was side-stepping a legally binding settlement which said they wouldn’t take his property through .

In 2008, Baristanet reported that the township would pay market value for Ellenbogen’s property, the now closed Animal Instinct business and the parking lot next to it. However, the council had already drafted an ordinance giving Bloomfield Parking Authority if Ellenbogen and the town did not come to a negotiation.

Petition aims for eminent domain reform

Posted by Howard Rich | Property Rights | Friday 9 July 2010 1:59 pm

From The Webster Progress Times

Petition aims for reform

Preserving property rights is the aim of a statewide initiative that supporters hope to bring forward for a vote next year.

The Federation is sponsoring the initiative to get reform on the November 2011 ballot. The organization urges people to sign a petition to give voters the opportunity to vote on whether they agree that their land can be taken and given to a private entity for private development.

The initiative would amend the state constitution to prohibit state and local governments from taking private property by and then conveying it to other people or private businesses for 10 years after acquisition.

Exceptions from the prohibition include drainage and levee facilities, roads, bridges, ports, airports, common carriers and utilities. The prohibition would not apply in certain situations, including public nuisance, structures unfit for human habitation or abandoned property.

Court Ruling

Samantha Webb, MFBF’s regional manager, gave the Eupora Rotary Club an overview of the proposed measure on June 15.

She related how the campaign to reform Mississippi’s laws stems from a court case involving New London, Conn. In 1998, pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced plans to build a research and development center there.

As part of the deal, city officials agreed to clear out neighboring property owners via , giving a private developer space to build a new hotel, apartment buildings and office towers to complement the corporate facility.

In June 2005, in , the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this seizure of private property because it was part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan” that would provide “appreciable benefits to the community.”

However, the project that was used to entice Pfizer was never built, and last year the company announced that it was closing down its facility and pulling out of New London entirely, according to published reports.

Reform Sought

The Supreme Court decision sparked nationwide backlash against abuse, including the passage of reform in 43 states.

The MFBF strongly opposes for private/commercial use and has unsuccessfully fought the last four legislative sessions to enact reform, Webb told Rotarians. She stressed, however, that the “citizens’ referendum” would not prohibit economic development for public use.

“There needs to be a willing buyer and a willing seller,” she said. “We think that all private entities and individuals … should be held to the same standards.”

Webb said Farm Bureau has set a self-imposed deadline of Aug. 1 to gather petition signatures statewide, with the goal for Webster County being just under 1,000 signatures. The organization must submit 90,000 certified signatures to the secretary of state’s office by Oct. 1 to place the reform initiative on the ballot next year.

Registered voters who want to sign the initiative petition may do so at the Webster County Farm Bureau office on Highway 9 South in Eupora. For more information, call the office at 258-7802 or visit these websites: Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation or Saving My Land.

Dean promises to propose eminent domain reform as Attorney General

Posted by Howard Rich | Issues, Property Rights | Wednesday 7 July 2010 3:35 pm

From StamfordPlus.com

Republican Party-endorsed candidate for Connecticut Attorney General has announced her plan to push for further reforms of the state’s laws. Dean’s announcement comes in the wake of the fifth anniversary of the v. New London case that ultimately made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dean said, “It has now been five years since the New London homeowners lost their homes in the case, and what is there to show for these property owners’ government-imposed loss?”

“The homes in New London’s Fort Trumbull area that were taken by the government for development sit vacant with weeds growing where there were once lawns and gardens,” she said. “The city development authority’s plans for redevelopment were focused on Pfizer’s long-term commitment to the area, yet Pfizer has moved away and taxpayers are being forced to pay $35 million to entice another company to move into Pfizer’s now-abandoned offices.”

“As Attorney General I will propose reforming Connecticut’s laws to ensure that the type of abuse that was allowed to occur in New London cannot reoccur,” Dean said.

Dean points out that that was traditionally limited to public projects that would actually be used by the public, such as town halls, school buildings, roads, libraries, and so forth. But starting in the 1950’s, the term “public use” was interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s justices to include the condemnation of private property to correct blighted urban areas.

Dean said this trend has morphed into the full scale effort by cities and states to condemn private property that is not blighted but which, with the help of taxpayers’ money, would lead to private development that could generate more tax revenue. She continued, “The past 60 years have seen the growth of an approach to and property rights that is bad public policy for a number of reasons, the most important of which is that when states and cities condemn private property in order to generate more tax revenue and improve the appearance of areas that are not blighted, they trample on the most fundamental rights of citizens to peaceably enjoy their property.”

“While Connecticut’s laws were modified after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in in an effort to prevent further abuse, many believe those amendments do not go far enough,” Dean said. “We in Connecticut must make it the policy of this State to protect the private property rights of Connecticut’s citizens by limiting the to situations where the property is put to actual public use, as most people understand that concept, and is essential to that particular use. We must end the process of taking private property simply to hand it over to people and companies with more money.”

She added, “The duties of the Attorney General include making legislative proposals, providing opinions on the constitutionality of proposed legislation and, at times, existing law, and otherwise protecting Connecticut citizens from an abuse of state authority. These are responsibilities that I will take very seriously as Connecticut’s next Attorney General.”

Next Page »
e-wallet Wordpress Theme