More on Didden v. Port Chester, a case involving a demand for money in exchange for not exercising eminent domain, here:
Bart Didden wanted to put a CVS pharmacy on hisproperty in Port Chester, N.Y. He even obtained approvals from thelocal planning board.
But because a portion of the CVS site was in ablighted redevelopment zone, Mr. Didden was told that planning boardapproval wasn’t enough. He’d have to reach an understanding with aprivate company that had been selected by Port Chester officials tocontrol all construction inside the renewal zone.
The developer, Gregg Wasser of G&S Port Chester,told Didden he’d have to pay $800,000 or give G&S a 50 percentstake in the CVS business. If Didden refused, Mr. Wasser said, he wouldhave Port Chester condemn and seize his property and instead of a CVShe’d put a Walgreens drugstore on the site.
Didden refused. The next day, the Village of Port Chester began legal proceedings to seize Didden’s land by eminent domain.
Lawyers for Didden took the matter to federal court.They even went to the FBI – all to no avail. Now they are asking the USSupreme Court to examine whether a private company can demand paymentin exchange for refraining to seize private property in an urbanrenewal zone.
Background, including link to the cert petition.