Thanks to the Land Use Prof Blog for getting the word out about the most recent documentary from filmmaker Gary Hustwit, “Urbanized,” which will have its Hawaii premier this weekend as part of Interisland Terminal‘s “Manufacturing Reality” film series.
The film examines how cities are designed — whether on purpose or though
A must read: our Owners’ Counsel of America colleague Michael Rikon, the doyen of New York’s eminent domain bar, has published “I Represented The Devil Of Brooklyn,” in the Practical Real Estate Lawyer. As Mike writes, “it wasn’t a demonic fight in front of the hot dog line at Nathan’s in
Check this out: my Owners’ Counsel of America colleague Kevin E. Anderson has a blog on eminent domain and related issues, forcusing on decisions from the Utah state and federal courts, Eminent Domain Review.
It’s not a new blog (Kevin has been posting since at least 2011), but it’s new to us, so
In Larson v. Sinclair Transp. Co., No 09SC966 (May 21, 2012), the Colorado Supreme Court held that a state statute does not grant a company such as Sinclair the ability to take property for the construction of petroleum pipelines.
The statute, Colorado Rev. Stat § 38-5-105, is not exactly elegant in its
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.
Congratulations to our Owners’ Counsel of America colleague Michael Rikon on the news that New York City has withdrawn its attempt to take his clients’ land in the Willets Point section of Queens.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
Here’s the latest chapter in the Skyland Shopping Center saga that has given us Franco v. National Capital Revitalization Comm’n, 930 A.2d 160 (D.C. 2007) and several other reported opinions (DeSilva v. District of Columbia, No. 10-CV-1069 (Feb. 24, 2011); Rumber v. District of Columbia, 487 F.3d 941 (D.C. Cir. 2007)
The city takes property for a bike trail. It deposited estimated compensation in court, and sought and obtained immediate possession. The owner disputed whether the city had the power to take his land, but the trial court rejected these arguments. The owner filed an interlocutory appeal on the public use and necessity issues. The city
After the New York Court of Appeals’ decisions in the Goldstein (Atlantic Yards) and Kaur (Columbia) cases, we opined that there were not many limits remaining on the government’s exercise of eminent domain in that state.
But even after those cases, there’s got to be some limits, no?
Our Owners’ Counsel of America colleague Michael