Here are the cases we discussed in this morning’s session at the Eminent Domain & Land Use in Hawaii seminar:
…
There is still time to register for the Eminent Domain & Land Use in Hawaii seminar, to be held this Thursday, May 12, 2012, in downtown Honolulu. Along with James Mee, I am leading the session “Eminent Domain Update” in which we will talk about the latest in public use issues from the U.S.
Another short one from New York’s Appellate Division (Second Department). In In re Village of Port Chester, No. D34768 (May 1, 2012), the court held that several parcels of land the Village condemned should be treated as a single unit for valuation purposes, and that “unity of use” was established by the property owners…
Congratulations to our Owners’ Counsel of America colleague Michael Rikon on the news that New York City has withdrawn its attempt to take his clients’ land in the Willets Point section of Queens.
According to this story, “Michael Rikon, a lawyer representing property owners in Willets Point, challenged the city’s legal bid to condemn property in the Iron Triangle to make way for the first phase of the $3 billion Willets Point Redevelopment Project, which would take the place of the auto shops and pockmarked streets in the neighborhood.”
The New York Observer reports that the city halted the eminent domain proceedings on the eve of the hearing (it was scheduled to be heard next Monday) and withdrew the case from state appellate courts. Remember, in New York, eminent domain actions start in the Appellate Division. We posted the brief Mike filed in the case here, and an amicus brief supporting the property owners here.
Mr. Rikon, an attorney for Willets Point United, a landowner group fighting the city, said that the city faced a tough case because of issues ranging from a failure to have translators at the eminent domain hearing (many property owners are Latino) to not providing notice in person and having no clear public use yet assigned (there was not yet a developer in place at the time of the hearing). “It’s strange, too, because rarely do you win these kinds of cases,” Mr. Rikon said of eminent domain defendants, “but I really think this could have been different.”
His clients, he said, “are pretty ecstatic.” That said, their future remains uncertain as the city owns much of the land in Willets Point now, and whether it wants to remain a landlord to chop shops seems unlikely. “We wish we knew what the city would do with those leases, because they’re commercial leases and the city is under no obligation to renew them,” Mr. Rikon said. “Really, how interested is the city in rental income? Not very.”
Mr. Rikon also said there was no reason the city could not simply hold another eminent domain hearing in the future, correcting any apparent errors, and take the property all over again. He was hopeful that might never happen. “The remediation alone will cost billions of dollars, so is it really worth it?” he said.
Well done, Michael.
Continue Reading NYC Property Owners Victory: Willets Point Eminent Domain Abandoned
The Supreme Court will not be reviewing the case in which a Manhattan property owner and developer was challenging the compensation awarded by New York courts for a taking near Lincoln Center. River Center LLC v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of New York, No. 11-922 (cert. petition filed Jan. 23, 2012).
New York’s…
How hard is it for the government to obtain a Williamson County dismissal that a federal takings claim is not ripe for federal court reivew? Not too hard, says Justice Souter.
Justice Souter? But wait, didn’t he retire, you ask? Recall that Supreme Court justices who retire from the Court don’t really “retire” in the…
Here’s a short one for your just compensation files. In County of Dakota v. Cameron, No. 19HA-CV-09-3756 (Mar. 26, 2012), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that Minnesota’s “minimum compensation” statute, “is ambiguous and that statutory intepretation is appropriate.” Slip op. at 7. The statute provides:
When an owner must relocate, the amount…
Last we checked in, the case we’ve been referring to as the “bizarre condemnation” (Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon) was decided by the unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court in favor of the property owners, and remanded to the trial court for a determination of the compensation owed to the property owners…
Here’s the final cert stage brief (Petitioner’s Reply) in River Center LLC v. Dormitory Auth. of the State of New York, No. 11-922 (cert. petition filed Jan. 23, 2012), the case in which a Manhattan property owner and developer is challenging the compensation awarded by New York courts for a taking near…
Here’s one for your California readers. You know Proposition 13, the provision in the California Constitution that limits property tax increases, and allows reassessment of value only upon a change of ownership, and you either love it or hate it: to some it insulates property owners from being forced out of their homes by…
