The Wall Street Journal reported that States' legislation that has curtailed the use of condemnation for urban renewal projects has not had any negative economic effect.
This is not surprising to Dale Zeitlin, who represents property owners in condemnation cases, because urban renewal has been used as a tool by developers and cities to force owners to sell their properties for less than fair market value.
The DC court ordered that the District of Columbia produce a secret agreement , known as a "Mary Carter Agreement" between the District and one of the property owners in a condemnation of properties for the new baseball stadium in downtown District of Columbia.
Dale Zeitlin, who represents one of the largest properties that is being condemned, asked the court to produce the agreement because it could have the effect of prejudicing his client's right to a fair trial on the issue of just compensation.
The court did the right thing and ordered the production of the secret agreement.
The jury, in the condemnation case between the City of Scottsdale and Toll Brothers, awarded Toll nearly $82,000,000 for its property, which the City had taken in 2004. This is the largest jury verdict in Arizona history in a condemnation case.
The jury deliberated for two days before reaching its verdict.
The jury reached a fair and reasonable result and I applaud the jury for doing so.
The Jury, in the condemnation case, between the City of Scottsdale and Toll Brothers, rejected the City's attempt to devalue Toll's property. The City argued that Toll's property, which was taken for a natural preserve, should have a lower value because the City itself had caused the property to be more valuable because it was next to the preserve.
The City ignored the fact that the desert and mountains were not created by the City. Oops!
The jury saw through the City's argument. The jury system works again.
On January 8, 2008, Maricopa County Superior Court ruled that the Town of Gilbert could not condemn private property that was within a Maricopa County island to expand a town road. Gilbert needs 80 feet of the property owner's yard, 40 feet of which is in the county island and 40 feet of which is in the Town of Gilbert. Gilbert condemned the entire 80 feet. The property owner's land is in the path of the planned road and is adjacent to land in the Town of Gilbert that Gilbert purchased for a road widening project. The court ruled that the 40 feet in the county island is outside Gilbert's reach. Gilbert reportedly went to work immediately to get the county's cooperation fo a condemnation of the land in the county island.
For more, read East Valley Tribune - "Court Rejects Gilbert..."
Although a governmental authority with power to condemn may not directly assign its power to condemn to a private developer, the power to condemn may be indirectly passed to the developer. In a recent case in Hawaii, the trial court struck down a county's agreement to allow a developer to exercise almost complete control over eminent domain proceedings. In striking down the county's attempts to take private property, the court found that if a government attempts to delegate its power of eminent domain to a private party under an agreement allowing the private party to control what property is taken, pays all the expenses, and is given the right to demand institution of eminent domain proceedings against property owners, then the delegation of the governmental power is illegal and void.
Enter keywords:
