▪ Eminent Domain Abuse and Retaliation

Steven Greenhut's opinion piece at the Orange County Register, "The powerless have always been targets of eminent domain," makes some good points about eminent domain abuse, and the recently-argued Wilkie case (regarding the right to be free from government retailition for defending a Fifth Amendment right), and is worth reading:

"Cities use code words," explained Supervisor Chris Norby, a longtime foe of eminent domain abuse. "In the 1950s and 1960s, governments used the term 'urban renewal,' but critics knew that it was widely called 'Negro removal.' These days, we're looking at forced gentrification," as cities try to redevelop poorer areas into wealthy areas.

. . . .

Today's code words and attitudes may be different than they were in the 1920s, but by giving government so much power to drive people off their land, we all are subject to the whims and rationales of officials. In the 1920s, officials didn't think blacks were "appropriate" for the neighborhood, and these days officials don't want "working-class people" enjoying prime land that could be home to upscale condos.

"Smart growth," "sustainability," and "transit-oriented development" may have replaced "urban renewal" in the land use lexicon, but they — like their predecessor code words — often mask other agendas.    

Comments

[Debbie Munoz]

Just trying to get the word out there regarding how serious this land grab is. It has been a 5 year battle for us.

Fighting Goliath
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
August 20, 2007 Monday
Every once in a great while, government, as a land-grabbing Goliath, gets thumped by the most diminutive David, especially when the former fails to follow its own policies.
That may cost Philadelphia $497,230 in damages, plus the plaintiffs' legal fees.
It began when Ed and Debbie Munoz, in pursuit of the American dream, put up their New Jersey home and borrowed $1 million to buy a grocery and garden center in Juniata Park. Afterward the couple learned -- secondhand through customers -- that their business was in the footprint of a planned housing development.
For more than two years, the Munozes sought answers from the city but said they received none. In 2004, with declining sales -- allegedly because of government's imminent land grab -- and Ed Munoz's declining health, the couple declared bankruptcy. The city picked up the property at a sheriff's sale.
The Munozes went to court.
City officials said it wasn't clear through 2004 whether the Munozes' lot would be needed. Yet an April 2003 letter from the developer asked the city's Redevelopment Authority to acquire the property.
Even the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reportedly warned city officials in 2005 that Philadelphia violated federal relocation law.
So, all's well that ends well? Not quite. Goliath plans an appeal.
Here's hoping these Davids, and all the other Davids facing similar battles for their rights, won't give up the fight.
Sincerely,
Steven D. Anderson
Castle Coalition Director
Institute for Justice