Some interesting reports today:
- Oral Argument in Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Case Monday – the latest chapter in Brooklyn’s “Atlantic Yards” redevelopment project (via Gowanus Lounge). More on the arguments from Atlantic Yards Report here.
- Hawaiians urge Obama to step in on ceded lands – an AP story reporting that “Hawaii legislators and legal groups are asking President Barack Obama to intervene in the Hawaiian lands case set to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court next week.” (via KPUA.net). The Obama Administration has “intervened” in the case, but not in a way the groups probably had in mind: the acting Solicitor General sought and was granted 10 minutes oforal argument time to support the State of Hawaii’s argument, as noted here. “The groups believe leftover appointees of former President George W. Bush are arguing a position that’s inconsistent with Obama’s views.” That would be odd, if true, since the SG’s office filed its motion on January 29, 2009 (available here) which reiterated the arguments supporting the State in its amicus brief, well after the Obama Administration — which appears to take a very “stay on message” approach to all things — had taken over. Further, it was submitted by a long-time career deputy SG, not a Bush political appointee. An interesting twist to the issue is that OHA’s counsel of record in the ceded lands case until recently was Georgetown lawprof Neal Katyal who stepped down from representing OHA when he was appointed by President Obama as the principal deputy SG.
- This land is my land, this land is my land – a good summary (with links) of the “ceded lands” case, which reports “Hawaiian activists plan to set fire to Gov. Linda Lingle’s U.S. Supreme Court petition and light their torches with it as they rally at the state Capitol against the administration’s plans to sell some of the land it holds in trust.” (via allhawaiinews)
- City abused eminent domain to steal property, California court rules – a report about City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC, No. C054495 (Feb. 13, 2008), a decision by the California Court of Appeal striking down the city’s taking of property because it was so “nondescript [and] amorphous,” and “so vague, uncertain andsweeping in scope that it failed to specific the ‘public use’ for Citysought acquisition of the property.” (via examiner.com) We digested the opinion here.