Eminent Domain Strikes Again

[fintstone]

Well the new definition of eminent domain strikes again! First a few homes in Conneticut, then a few oceanfront neighborhoods in Florida for a resort...now for a ballpark in DC. What a slippery slope! Where will it end? Is private property ownership doomed in this country? Will the new Supreme Court overrule the previous court on this issue? Should they?


Landowners must yield to ballpark
By Tim Lemke
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published October 6, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The District will begin using eminent domain to acquire parcels of land at the site of the Washington Nationals' ballpark by the end of this month, after unsuccessful negotiations with nearly half of the landowners.
City officials said they expect to file court documents to take over at least some of the 21-acre site in the coming weeks and have $97 million set aside to buy the properties and help landowners relocate.
The city made offers to all 23 landowners on the site last month but received no response from 10.
"We think there are some that we'll have good-faith negotiations with," said Steve Green, director of development in the office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development. "There are some we haven't heard from at all."
Many property owners on the site said the city's offers are inadequate. Others are suing the city on the grounds that it has no right to use eminent domain to acquire land at the site, despite a Supreme Court ruling affirming the right of municipal governments to take private property for the purpose of economic development.
In April, the city notified property owners on the site that they would be required to move out by Dec. 31.
City officials said the District is on target to have title on all of the land by that date, but they don't expect to have full possession of the site until early next year, with construction on the $535 million stadium to begin in March. That would give the construction team, led by Clark Construction Group of Bethesda, about two years to build the ballpark in time for Opening Day of 2008.
Officials said that timetable remains realistic. Clark built the 80,000-seat FedEx Field, home of the Washington Redskins, in less time.
"Twenty-four months is not bad," Mr. Green said. "There's always the possibility of doing it in 22 or 23 months."
Meanwhile, the D.C. Sports and Entertainment Commission has been sparring with the new Anacostia Waterfront Corp. (AWC) on the location of ballpark parking.
The AWC, which the city created to promote development along the Anacostia River waterfront, said it prefers an underground parking garage beneath 600,000 to 800,000 square feet of office and retail development.
The commission said that would run up too many costs and take too long to build.
"We're not going to do it," said Mark Tuohey, chairman of the sports commission. "We don't care what they say. There's no money."
In order for parking to be built above ground, the commission must change a zoning requirement. A hearing before the zoning board on the issue is scheduled for Oct. 17, but could delay the process further. If the commission is denied a zoning change, it would have to turn to the D.C. Council for legislative permission or take the case to an appeals court.
"If we lose and it goes to the court of appeals, that takes years," said commission board member Linda Greenan. "That's not a good strategy."
Any discrepancy over development of the stadium site could affect ballpark financing negotiations, which have reached a sensitive stage.
"It could cause confusion on Wall Street, which is exactly where we don't want it right now," said John Ross, a special adviser for the city's chief financial officer and a commission board member.
City officials insist on below-ground parking because it would fit with plans for a retail and entertainment district near the ballpark. They are considering removing parking entirely from the cost of the stadium and paying for it separately, using tax-increment financing or other revenue streams.
Mr. Green said the debate over parking is not delaying completion of a lease agreement for the stadium, which Major League Baseball says must be finalized before it announces the Nationals' new owner.
"There's no real holdup," Mr. Green said. "It's just a very complicated document."

[island911]

Who needs terrorists when we've got our local power brokers, supposed to be working for all equally. (but actually using their power to leverage away peoples homes to the highest kickbacker.)

Same thing happening in Arlington, TX for the new Cowboy stadium. This is a bad deal.

[RallyJon]

Wasn't there a full discussion of this a couple of months ago? Does this case add anything new to the debate? A stadium is much more of a public use than a shopping mall. They could have used eminent domain for this even before the Supreme Court ruling. If you're looking for an outrageous abuse to make a stand on, this doesn't appear to be it.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by RallyJon
A stadium is much more of a public use than a shopping mall.

But is it really? Seriously. Who is really the end beneficiary? It's the stadium/team owners who take home the lion's share of the cash generatedm while the people get the 'right' to buy expensive tickets and $5 beer.

[1967 R50/2]

This is the worst of the worst.

1. Another sports team trying to strong arm a municipality regarding a stadium.

2. Complete mis-use of eminent domain as it has been traditionally defined.

I hope they sue. I hope it goes before the supreme court and the New London case is overturned.

[TerryBPP]

This only seems to be a problem for people who do not wish to sell for personal reasons.

My grand parents, who live in Raliegh NC, where payed 3 times the value of there house so that the road in front of there house could be expanded to 4 lanes.

[island911]

Originally posted by widebody911
But is it really? Seriously. Who is really the end beneficiary? It's the stadium/team owners who take home the lion's share of the cash generatedm while the people get the 'right' to buy expensive tickets and $5 beer.

Excellent point/Q.

I seriously do NOT understand how so many can continue to follow "professional" baseball, basketball ...

THe amount of tax dollars shelled out under the guise of "for the puplic-sporting-good" is huge.

I suppose they have to spend it somewhere. .. I mean how else would the govt officials be able to whine about needing more tax hikes (for starving/unsafe/un-ejukated CHILDREN) . .. if they don't go and blow the wad on a place to watch over-paid men in short pants standing in fields waiting hours to catch a little white ball? --impotant stuff there.

Weather is far more interesting, if you ask me.

[island911]

In Seattle, it often rains. . .. well, actually, it doesn't rain (as most people think of it) . . it's usually just a constant sogginess ... drizzle, mist, srpinkle, with occasional showers.

We had a giant domed stadium (Kingdome). A huge clear-arching-arches-span that would left the roman engineers in awe.

But that wasn't good enough for our men in short-pants. Our men in short-pant demanded better, or they (said) would leave the city.

SO the voters voted, and the vote said NO MONEY for the short-pants . . .leave, if you like.

However, the great state of Seattle govt, decided that they wanted those tight pants to stay. So, in the spirit of comprimise they told the voters that the only thin that was voted down was that method of extracting MORE TAXES.

The money hungry politicians said no more vote, we will raise taxes, here there and the other place. . . and the very important short-pants will stay. "They will stay with not only their VERY OWN STADIUM, with a nice huge arching clear span, but we are going to have you all pay to make that huge clear-span a giant CONVERTIBLE TOP! -- NO expense spared . . . it's a good compromise the paying puplic WILL accept.

Nice, eh?

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by TerryBPP

My grand parents, who live in Raliegh NC, where payed 3 times the value of there house so that the road in front of there house could be expanded to 4 lanes.

A road is public domain (not owned by any private enterprise). Roadway expansion and construction have historically been valid reasons for exercising eminent domain. That is because there is a direct benefit to the public: easier flow of traffic.

However, in both the New London case and in the DC situation, the chief beneficiary is not the municipality....it's a private entity. The municipality only receives secondary benefits in the form of increased (and unproven) tax revenue.

There is no DIRECT benefit to the public as a result. The public will still have to PAY to watch baseball...which makes this situation complete un-acceptable.

To be forced out of your home...regardless of the price...just because somebody else THINKS they have a better money making use for it is completely contrary to about 800 years of property rights as defined in the common law.

[pwd72s]

Hey Island, Do you know why Portland, OR doesn't have an NFL team?

Because if they had one, Seattle, WA would want one too...