EMINENT DOMAIN:  Property rights v. public good...everyone is talking about it!  CT acts (finally).

State ombudsman helps resolve eminent domain disputes
Stamford ADVOCATE
By Brian Lockhart, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 10/06/2008 02:36:49 AM EDT

As attorneys in a New Haven eminent domain case, Michael Milazzo and Benson Snaider hit an impasse.

Snaider said he believed the city was shortchanging his client, Image Nightclub, after seizing the property for an arts high school.  Milazzo was equally as adamant that his client, the school board, properly compensated the nightclub.  The dispute was headed for court when they decided to involve Robert Poliner, the state's newly appointed property rights ombudsman. After lengthy negotiations, they reached a settlement.

"He in the end pushed us both to the finish," Milazzo said. "He didn't pull numbers out of the air. It was an educated discussion, not just a baloney process."

Snaider agreed.

"The city was probably unhappy with the compromise and my client was unhappy with the compromise, but nevertheless it was effective and got the job done," Snaider said.

Lawmakers created the ombudsman's office after residents were outraged over a controversial 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed New London to take homes for private development.  Besides mediating disputes, the ombudsman is a resource for property owners and government officials, and looks for ways to improve eminent domain regulations.  Poliner, who earns $100,786 a year, said his first 15 months have been "exceedingly busy."

"There isn't another New London, so it's not in the news," he said. "But it's an important issue that remains important in people's minds."

He introduced himself to municipal officials statewide, including Timothy Sheehan, director of Norwalk's redevelopment agency.

"It's an opportunity to have a discussion with somebody who understands the state statutes . . . (and) is really advocating for the property owner," Sheehan said. "My first meeting with him was to talk about the redevelopment efforts going on all over Norwalk . . . He toured all of the sites."

Poliner, aided by an assistant who is paid $54,608 a year, created a Web site to help visitors understand eminent domain laws. He publishes monthly newsletters and distributes them to every legislator.

"If I've accomplished nothing else, I've raised public awareness and awareness within the government," he said.

But Sheehan said some West Avenue property owners and members of Norwalk's Common Council were reluctant to involve Poliner in negotiations, concerned it would be a step toward the use of eminent domain.

"There is clearly not among public officials a full understanding of his role and responsibilities," Sheehan said.

The Web site posts the results of a study Poliner and a task force of volunteers conducted to reimburse businesses for loss of customers, or "good will," when displaced by eminent domain. Poliner hopes the "good will" legislation and other changes to state eminent domain laws will be taken up during the session that begins in January.  Poliner said he fields constant calls and letters from residents, particularly those whose property is being taken by the Department of Transportation. One case involves a business in Stamford.  But he has done only three mediations between a municipality and a private property owner.

The first, which involved the New Britain police station project, occurred during his first few days on the job and was not successful. Then Poliner tackled the Image club dispute in New Haven and a mediation involving a "dollar store" seized by Bristol officials for redevelopment.

"We went back and forth with the city and were not satisfied with offers that were made," said attorney John Barbieri, who represented the Bristol retailer. "Somebody in my travels pointed us in (Poliner's) direction."

Under the law, if a property owner requests mediation, the entity seeking their property must come to the table.  Barbieri said he and his client were pleased with Poliner's efforts.

"That could have been a long, expensive, drawn-out legal battle in court and taken years," Barbieri said.

But at least one lawmaker, state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, said he wonders whether Poliner has enough work to do. Co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, McDonald reviewed some of Poliner's suggestions earlier this year.  He said he was skeptical that Poliner knew enough about eminent domain law, alleging that Gov. M. Jodi Rell tapped him because of his role as a GOP state chairman in the 1980s.

But Poliner "has become very knowledgeable about eminent domain law in a relatively short period and certainly appears dedicated to the mission of the office," McDonald said. "But the budget next year is going to be extraordinarily tight. Whether this office has a sufficient volume of work to justify the expense is something the legislature will certainly evaluate."

McDonald suggested amending Poliner's job description to include mediating disputes between condominium owners and their boards. A bill creating a state condominium ombudsman died last year.

Rell praised Poliner.

"Homeowners and businesses of Connecticut need an experienced advocate like Bob on their side," she said in a statement.
Hail Columbia - getting in the mix...read about New London's experiences here.
Harlem Area Is Blighted, State Agency Declares
NYTIMES
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS
Published: July 18, 2008

The Empire State Development Corporation declared a 17-acre area of Harlem blighted on Thursday, a step toward forcing property owners to sell their land as part of eminent domain proceedings to make way for the expansion of Columbia University.

The long-awaited finding — that a slice of the west part of Harlem known as Manhattanville is full of deteriorating buildings — was part of the state development agency’s preliminary approval of the university’s $6.28 billion expansion plan.

The plan, which the agency is expected to formally approve in the fall, has been opposed by some Harlem residents, who fear being displaced by the university.

The expansion, which is to take place over 25 years, will transform a section of Upper Manhattan dominated by warehouses and auto-body shops into a campus with high-rise classrooms and laboratories, tree-lined streets and student housing.

All but a handful of the expansion zone’s existing buildings will be torn down to make room for the new campus, which Columbia officials have said will eventually include many of the university’s science and research facilities.

Columbia says it is short of space. On Thursday, Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia’s president, lauded the agency’s move.

“We are gratified by the Empire State Development Corporation’s adoption of a general project plan as the next step for a civic project that has moved forward with widespread support from local officials, elected representatives and a wide coalition of public interest groups committed to sustainable growth and vibrant urban neighborhoods,” President Bollinger said in a statement.

Much of the opposition to the expansion plan has been centered on Columbia’s refusal to pledge that it would not seek to have the state take over the privately owned land that the university has been unable to purchase.

Mr. Bollinger has promised not to ask the state to invoke eminent domain for the area’s residential buildings, which are home to about 300 people, but he has refused to make similar promises regarding the few commercial properties that have not been purchased by the university.

On Thursday, Columbia released its most direct statement to date about its intention to pursue eminent domain: “The university has requested that the E.S.D.C. consider exercising its eminent domain authority in order to ensure that commercial development in this old industrial area does not prevent the city and state from achieving the public interest goals in the proposed academic expansion, with all of the long-term economic, educational and civic benefits it will bring to the local economy and all New Yorkers.”

The university has said it owns about 90 percent of the private property in the area bounded roughly by Broadway on the east, Riverside Drive on the west, 133rd Street on the north and 129th Street on the south.

Two commercial property owners, however, have refused to sell. One of them is Nicholas Sprayregen, who owns four buildings in the expansion zone as part of his Tuck-It-Away Self-Storage moving and storage business.

Mr. Sprayregen has been vocal in his opposition to eminent domain and has vowed to fight the university to the Supreme Court if necessary. For months, his buildings have displayed giant banners that read “Stop Eminent Domain Abuse!”

On Thursday, Mr. Sprayregen, 44, vowed to continue fighting.

“It is clear that the voices of the community have been unsuccessful in dissuading Columbia University or the state from voluntarily backing off the threat of eminent domain,” he said. “We will go full steam ahead in preparing our defense.”

But on Thursday, many city and state lawmakers were aligned against Mr. Sprayregen.

Along with the press release announcing the development agency’s approval of the expansion plan were statements of approval from Gov. David A. Paterson, Representative Charles B. Rangel, Deputy Mayor Robert C. Lieber and state Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright.

The project has been approved by the City Council and is supported by the Manhattan borough president, Scott M. Stringer.

On Thursday, the state development agency said that two separate studies had determined that the part of Harlem under consideration was “mainly characterized by aging, poorly maintained and functionally obsolete industrial buildings, with little indication of recent reinvestment to revive their generally deteriorated conditions.”

Opponents of the expansion, however, have said for months that the study’s findings were a foregone conclusion because the consulting firm that performed the blight analysis on behalf of the state — Allee King Rosen & Fleming Inc. — had previously conducted Columbia University’s environmental impact study for the expansion.

On Thursday, the state agency said that the consulting firm’s analysis had been audited by a second firm, Earth Tech Inc.

This week, a state appellate court upheld a decision ordering the development corporation to release documents regarding the expansion of Columbia University to Mr. Sprayregen because of the conflict of interest.

A public hearing on the project will probably be held in September, said Warner Johnston, an agency spokesman. A final vote will come after the hearing.

After that, businesses facing the possibility of eminent domain would have 30 days to present their arguments, officials said.

Columbia said on Thursday that it was willing to restart negotiations with the holdout businesses before eminent domain proceedings began.

“The university remains committed to reaching mutually beneficial agreements with the two remaining commercial property owners on these blocks,” Columbia said in a statement.
State Supreme Court Revives Effort To Halt Redevelopment 
DAY
By Ted Mann
Published on 6/23/2007
 
Hartford — The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Friday that an environmental lawsuit challenging the City of New London's redevelopment plan for the Fort Trumbull peninsula could continue, overturning a lower court's decision to dismiss the case.

A five-justice panel ruled unanimously that the lower court had improperly denied legal standing to the Fort Trumbull Conservancy LLC, a nonprofit organization that has repeatedly sued the city, New London Development Corp., and the state in an effort to halt the redevelopment, on the grounds that it will violate state environmental laws by permitting heavy metals and other toxins to pollute the Thames River and other adjacent bodies of water.

Contrary to the January 2006 ruling of Superior Court Judge D. Michael Hurley, the conservancy's complaint has enumerated enough reasonable concerns about potential water pollution generated by the development project that it should be allowed to proceed, the high court ruled.

The ruling overturns the dismissal of the lawsuit, permits the plaintiffs' to clarify their claims about the potential for pollution at Fort Trumbull, and moves the case to Superior Court in Hartford — the usual jurisdiction for suits in which the state of Connecticut is a defendant. The high court also rejected an argument by the defendants that the suit is moot because so much of the state-funded site-clearing and preparatory work has already been completed.

The importance of Friday's ruling — both for environmentalists' concerns about pollution from the 90-acre development, and for the timetable of the long-delayed effort to transform the city peninsula — was in the eye of the beholder.

The lead attorney for the conservancy, Scott W. Sawyer, called the ruling a significant step forward for opponents of the municipal development plan, and for those seeking stricter enforcement of state environmental laws.

“It's a very good day for the people who would like to see a more responsible plan in New London,” Sawyer said.

But representatives for the city note that the Supreme Court also concurred that the conservancy's suit was vaguely drafted. The complaint is “not a model of clarity,” Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille wrote, for a unanimous court – and expressed confidence they would be able to rebut the conservancy's claims for good.

“The city has been trying for five years to figure out what the environmental issues are that concern the conservancy,” said Thomas J. Londregan, the city's law director. “I suppose now that the Connecticut Supreme Court can't quite figure them out ... they will have to attempt to restate what the problem is.”

In his 2006 ruling, Hurley found for the city, NLDC and the state in ruling that the plaintiffs had only offered “speculative and hypothetical” instances of pollution the conservancy believed could befall the waters of the Thames River, Bentley Creek and Shaw's Cove if the development were allowed to proceed. They amounted to little more than “fuzzy effusions,” Hurley said, rather than specific claims the state must rebut.

But the Supreme Court reversed that finding, saying the conservancy suit was specific enough about its claims that it could not be dismissed outright.

“The complaint contains allegations of fact sufficient to support an inference that the implementation of the development plan would pose a risk of unreasonable harm to the Thames River and adjacent bodies of water through contaminated storm water runoff, to the wildlife (in the area) ... to the air around the Fort Trumbull area through emissions from increased traffic, and to undeveloped land within the development plan area,” the decision said.

The conservancy contends that the continued development of the peninsula will flush heavy metals and toxins, including copper, mercury and zinc, into already polluted waters, Sawyer said, thanks to what the suit contends was a flawed planning process that failed to follow state law on environmental assessments of the development's likely effects.

City attorneys and elected officials shrugged off the court's ruling, calling it a procedural development that did not advance the substantive complaints of the conservancy, and which would not impede the day-to-day operations of the NLDC or the completion of the Fort Trumbull project.

“It's a very narrow technical ruling,” said Edward O'Connell, an attorney at the New London firm of Waller, Smith & Palmer, which has represented the development agency. “It doesn't address the merits at all. It's more on an issue of whether the Fort Trumbull Conservancy would be entitled to bring the lawsuit at all.”

The ruling will likely mean more to those interested in questions of standing in environmental cases – who, in other words, is entitled to sue government entities on the grounds that their policies will violate anti-pollution laws – than it will on the fate of the Fort Trumbull project.

“I don't see real-world implications here,” said Beth Sabilia, an attorney and City Council member.

The latest court ruling will “absolutely not” affect progress at Fort Trumbull the way legal challenges to the project's seizures of private property did over the past eight years, particularly those that led to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London.

“Quite frankly, after what we've been through with the really more fundamental issues addressed by Kelo, and the settlements after that, none of this is really going to make much of a difference,” she said.

“I'm not worried about it at all,” said NLDC President Michael Joplin. “We've already won all the other cases, so we'll win another one.”

Sawyer said he and the conservancy are confident that they can still force major changes in the project, and are undeterred by the city's assertions that the group has challenged technicalities.

“They've been saying that since 2000, and they haven't built anything,” he said.

For Eminent Domain, A Shifting Landscape 
DAY
By Elaine Stoll
Published on 6/23/2007
 
New London — Two years to the day since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld New London's use of eminent domain at Fort Trumbull, the neighborhood's last residents have left and the economic development project that displaced them is moving ahead.

Susette Kelo, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit Kelo v. City of New London, became the last to turn over possession of her former property last week.

But though they have left the peninsula, the eminent-domain plaintiffs have also left a legacy that is overhauling state eminent-domain laws around the country.

On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court upheld a government's right to take private property to make way for private economic development promising public benefit.

The ruling settled the legal issue at the peninsula, but not its fate.

Kelo and the plaintiffs who joined her in the lawsuit remained in possession of their former properties long after the decision, and the redevelopment outlined in the municipal development plan stalled despite the city's court victory.

A settlement agreement signed one year ago gave Kelo until June 15 to leave the Fort, and she spent the day before that with the pink cottage she fought to save.

“We all miss our homes. We all miss living here,” she said, looking at a hilltop house surrounded now by a few vacant buildings and the quiet of a neighborhood razed. “We did what we thought was right. We can walk away with our heads held high.”

The house will be spared demolition and moved to Franklin Street in an effort funded by the Institute for Justice, which represented the Kelo plaintiffs in their lawsuit against the city.

Plans for the relocated building, including its ownership and use, aren't definite, Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Scott Bullock said. A plaque is certain, a listing on the National Register of Historic Places possible, and any occupancy still to be determined.

Right now, Bullock said, the focus is on preserving the building and removing it from Fort Trumbull, a project for which the NLDC has granted an extension.

The next 12 months will bring several redevelopment project milestones.

The Coast Guard Foundation will commence its public campaign to raise funds for a new national museum on the Fort Trumbull waterfront within a year, and plans for the $50 million building will move toward the planning and zoning approval process.

Developer Corcoran Jennison will begin construction in September on luxury apartments and townhouses, the first new buildings to rise on the peninsula after extensive environmental remediation and infrastructure improvements. Just this month, Chelsea and Walbach streets and sidewalks were completed, and soil was graded onto a parcel designated for future office and research and development uses.

And an announcement is expected soon about negotiations to bring the Coast Guard Research & Development Center from Avery Point in Groton to an existing Fort Trumbull office building leased by Corcoran Jennison.

“The project moved slowly through those years of litigation,” NLDC Chief Operating Officer Gregory Coenen said. “Within the past year we've kind of broken free, and we're genuinely moving forward.”

•••••The Kelo plaintiffs said they look back on their unsuccessful fight to remain at Fort Trumbull knowing they've nevertheless made it harder for local governments to seize private homes and businesses elsewhere for economic development purposes.

“It is some comfort knowing across our nation other states are doing something to protect the right to own your own property,” said Michael Cristofaro, son of plaintiff Pasquale Cristofaro. “We've accomplished what we set out to do: Make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else. If one person can stay in their home because of what we did, we won.”

Public outrage met the Supreme Court's finding two years ago that economic development and the jobs and taxes it brings constitute a public purpose for which a city may constitutionally exercise eminent domain. A wave of state statutes and voter initiatives that followed has imposed limits on condemnation powers that the high court declined to mandate.

Striving to strike their own balance between government authority and the rights of individual private-property owners, states have arrived at a diverse set of solutions.

Some reforms restrict the types of property that can be taken, such as private, single-family houses, said Dwight H. Merriam, partner at Robinson & Cole LLP in Hartford and co-editor of the book “Eminent Domain Use and Abuse: Kelo in Context.”

Other reforms refine the approval procedures for eminent-domain takings, Merriam said. A third category of reforms requires compensation to the owners of properties taken be greater than their fair market value.

According to the Institute for Justice, 41 states have strengthened restrictions on eminent domain in the two years since the Kelo decision. The organization counts Connecticut among the nine states that have not.

The General Assembly passed a bill this session that would revise the process by which a municipality uses eminent domain to take property. A municipality would be required to affirm that public interests in a proposed project outweigh private benefits; to approve of takings with a two-thirds vote of the legislative body; and to provide the owners of land, homes and businesses taken by eminent domain with 125 percent of their market value as compensation. The bill awaits Gov. M. Jodi Rell's signature.

Even when it takes effect, the legislation — among the most vaguely worded, according to Bullock — would not prevent takings like those at Fort Trumbull, he said.

Jeremy Paul, dean of the University of Connecticut School of Law and the Thomas F. Gallivan Jr. professor of real property law, defended Connecticut's bill.

“I thought it was quite sensible and well-crafted,” Paul said. “Anything that requires more careful, reasoned decision-making before a redevelopment agency condemns a house — I think that's a good thing.”

•••••In the aftermath of the Kelo ruling, some states “overreacted” and took a “meat-ax approach to a more subtle problem,” Paul said.

“They passed rules that were intended to be draconian and will in fact be draconian. They will block projects that would have gone forward in the past” by making it more difficult for cities to assemble properties into developable parcels, he said. “Some urban areas are in desperate need of redevelopment, and eminent domain is sometimes a useful tool,” Paul said.

David S. King, associate dean of Quinnipiac University School of Law, said he sees a different problem with the new restrictions: They don't fix what bothered people most about the Kelo decision.

“The aspect of Kelo that really hit home with people, if you'll pardon the pun, is that people's homes were taken by the government. Secondary, I think, is the issue of homes being taken for economic development. It is still possible, in most jurisdictions, for the government to take your home if it's for a purpose other than economic development,” King said.

“My question is, what about those people? Does it make any difference if the government goes to Ms. Kelo and says, 'We're going to take your property for economic development,' or, 'We're going to take your property for a school?' ”

The public backlash that followed the Supreme Court ruling made a difference not only in state and local laws, but also limited eminent domain in other ways.

“The reaction to Kelo has chilled the will of government to use eminent domain for private economic development,” Merriam said.

Developers, too, have a diminishing interest in urban redevelopments they might have become involved in prior to the Kelo decision and ensuing public outcry, said John D. Echeverria, co-author of the report “Kelo's Unanswered Questions: The Policy Debate Over the Use of Eminent Domain for Economic Development.”

“There are an awful lot of developers shying away because they don't want to get involved in a time-consuming, political mess.”

•••••

National interest in the issue of eminent domain remains strong two years after the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo, and debate promises to carry on for years to come in state capitols, city halls and courtrooms around the country.

“This is not good guys and bad guys,” Paul said. “This is everyone trying to figure out the right balance between things we care about very much. We care about the sanctity of people's property and homes, and we care about sensible planning, bringing jobs to urban areas, preventing sprawl and environmental damage.”
 
Lawmakers Tackle Controversies;  Legislation Restricts Seizure Of Private Property
By COLIN POITRAS, Courant Staff Writer 
June 3, 2007

Two years after a New London eminent domain ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically changed the rights of property owners across the country, state lawmakers passed a bill Saturday making it harder for municipalities to seize private property for commercial development.

While some bill proponents wished it went further and restricted the application of eminent domain, or government seizure of private property without consent, to public uses such as building new roads or schools only, others saw it as an important first step and a major victory for property owners.

"This bill in very substantial ways changes the rules for taking property for eminent domain by government," state Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, said. A similar measure failed in the legislature last year. Lawlor called the new legislation a "comprehensive solution to the problem."

Lawlor and other state representatives spent three hours debating the measure Saturday night before the measure passed in a 132-7 vote. Lawmakers were working into the weekend in a rush to finish business before the legislative session ends Wednesday.

Saturday's debate was at times equally personal and passionate in this, the legislature of the Constitution State.

"There are times in this building when you make a vote that goes to the very core of who you are and what you believe in," said state Rep. Shawn T. Johnston, D-Thompson.

"This goes to the very core of everything that is good and right in this nation," Johnston said. "You work hard, you save some money, you buy a house. That's the great thing about this country, and government has no right to take that home from you for economic purposes."

The bill passed the Senate on May 30. It now goes to Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who has been reluctant to take a position on legislation until she reads the final wording. But Rell has been outspoken about the issue in the past, and lawmakers Saturday credited her with providing the draft legislation this year that served as the bill's foundation.

Thirty-eight states have passed eminent domain reform laws since the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in 2005 to allow the city of New London to seize middle-class homes so a private developer could rebuild the city's Fort Trumbull neighborhood. The controversial ruling, known as Kelo v. City of New London, has been fiercely debated ever since.

State Rep. Art Feltman, a Hartford lawyer who spent several years as chairman of the city's redevelopment agency, said lawmakers tried to strike a delicate balance between private ownership and public need.

Feltman acknowledged the right of personal property is one of the most fundamental under the Constitution, but said there are instances where the greater good must be considered. He mentioned an example where a homeowner may live adjacent to a hospital that needs to expand its cancer treatment center.

"We have learned the lesson of Kelo, we have reflected on it and we know we must make it much less likely for this to happen again," Feltman said. "On the other hand, we know there may be some instances where the rights of some need to yield to the needs of others."

The bill approved Saturday prohibits municipalities from taking property by eminent domain just to increase local tax rolls, such as replacing an existing Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, Lawlor said.

It also incorporates a number of other checks and balances that Feltman said makes municipal seizures of property by eminent domain more transparent and accountable. The proposal also:

Requires town legislative bodies (elected city councils and boards of selectmen) - rather than appointed members of redevelopment agencies - to hold a public hearing on the properties slated for seizure. They also must approve a request for seizure by a two-thirds margin to act.

Requires the property owner whose land is seized to be compensated at 125 percent of the property's fair market value.

Gives the owners of property slated for seizure the right of first refusal to buy it back if it is not used for its intended purpose or another public purpose.

Expands research and analysis that agencies must include in justifying an eminent domain seizure.

But even with all those provisions, some House members said it didn't go far enough.

"The bottom line is even after the passage of this bill, my home, your home, your grandparents' home, could very well be taken by eminent domain," said state Rep. Penny Bacchiochi, R-Somers.

Urban legislators have been reluctant to foreclose on the eminent domain option, which is often crucial to urban renewal efforts. Lawmakers from suburban towns have fought vigorously against the option, believing that every person's home is "their castle."

A proposed amendment that would have extended greater protections to private, owner-occupied dwelling in eminent domain cases failed Saturday night by a narrow vote of 67-72.
 

Rell Names Long-Awaited Land-Rights Ombudsman; Poliner Will Help Settle Disputes Over Property 
DAY
By Ted Mann    
Published on 5/19/2007
          
Hartford — Nearly a year after the position was established, Gov. M. Jodi Rell nominated Robert S. Poliner Friday to be Connecticut's first property rights ombudsman, to help landowners during eminent domain takings and other land disputes.

Poliner, 64, is a former state Republican Party chairman and an attorney based in Middletown. He ran unsuccessfully for the state Senate in 1998 against Sen. Eileen Daily, D-Westbrook.

In a written statement, Rell said Poliner's “wide-ranging legal experience combined with his practical political experience make him an ideal candidate for this role.”

“There is no question that eminent domain has an important role to play in the operation of government, particularly when it comes to the construction of necessary public improvements such as roads and schools,” the governor's statement said in part. “But we cannot allow decisions on property seizures to be made solely on the basis of the effect on the property tax base.”

The ombudsman position was established in the budget passed last year by the General Assembly, and is, to date, the only change in law made in response to the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London.

That case, in which the high court upheld the Connecticut law allowing land takings for economic development, triggered widespread outrage from property rights groups and spurred legal action in other states, but the legislature here has failed to reach an agreement on various proposals to reform Connecticut's takings laws.

The Kelo case stemmed from the ongoing effort by the New London Development Corp. to develop a mixed-use complex of high-end housing, conference space and a hotel in that city's Fort Trumbull neighborhood, in conjunction with state development officials and the adjacent Pfizer Inc. A group of property owners in the neighborhood fought the city and NLDC, which had been granted the power of eminent domain to pursue the development, all the way to the high court, which ruled against them in June 2005.

The ombudsman, a position for which Poliner still must be confirmed by the legislature, would be responsible for helping individuals and government agencies understand their rights and obligations under the state's takings laws. During committee debates last year, the creation of the position was supported by members of both parties, who said it would help property owners who feel they have nowhere to turn when government attempts to seize their homes or property.

Reaction to the announcement was mixed, including from lawmakers who had criticized Rell for failing to fill the position in the months since last year's budget passed.

“Well, good things come to those who wait and wait and wait,” said Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, the co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which has been the central venue for debates over the proper use of land takings in recent years.

McDonald, while saying he wouldn't prejudge the nominee, said he had doubts about Poliner's credentials, given the notoriously intricate nature of the various statutes that grant government its eminent domain powers.

“We've been wrestling with this issue of eminent domain for several years now, and I've talked to dozens of people in the field and heard dozens more testify in any number of our public hearings,” McDonald said. “His head has never popped above our radar screens, and from the little I know about him he has a very thin background on eminent domain issues.”

“Apparently,” he added, “his most important qualification was his political pedigree.”

A spokesman for the governor sharply rejected both suggestions, noting that Poliner has specialized in real estate law and consulted municipal governments, making him “extremely well-versed in both sides of the issue.”

“He's eminently qualified to deal with exactly the arguments, pro and con, that are raised in eminent domain cases,” said the spokesman, Rich Harris.

Harris also refuted the suggestion that Poliner got the job because of his political affiliation.

“The governor has never appointed anyone to any position on the basis of their politics,” he said, “and if you look at the appointments that she's made over the years, no one to my knowledge has ever suggested it before.”

He specifically mentioned the nomination of new Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, who is politically unaffiliated, to lead the Supreme Court, and also mentioned the scene in Rell's office just a week earlier, when the governor had to turn to her nominee to lead the Department of Economic and Community Development to ask her political affiliation.

The new commissioner, Joan McDonald, is a Democrat.

“The suggestion (of a political litmus test) is simply without merit,” Harris said.

Several eminent domain proposals have again been raised this session.

Rell has called for a law change that would require a two-thirds vote in a municipality's legislative body to approve takings; prohibit takings “solely” for the purpose of increasing a local tax base; and require that development's public benefits would outweigh benefits to private companies.

The governor's proposal largely echoes one drafted a year earlier by McDonald, Lawlor and the Judiciary Committee, but that bill failed to reach a full vote of the House or Senate at the end of the session last year. The session this year ends June 6.

Poliner has served as town counsel in Durham and Middlefield, as chairman of the Durham Charter Commission and Charter Revision Commission, and on the board of trustees of Connecticut Valley Hospital.
 


Institute For Justice Says It's Working To Relocate Kelo House; Eminent-Domain Plaintiff, Facing June 15 Deadline, Hasn't Responded 
DAY
By Elaine Stoll
Published on 5/11/2007 
 
New London — The Institute for Justice in Washington, D.C., is looking to save Susette Kelo's former house at 8 East St., Scott Bullock, a senior attorney for the institute, said Thursday.

“There is a property on Shaw Street that is under consideration as a possible site for the home, but it is not finalized yet,” Bullock said.

If the house is relocated, money raised by the Institute for Justice would fund the move.

Acting through the New London Development Corp., the city of New London used eminent domain in 2000 to take properties in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, including Kelo's home, to clear the way for private economic development to bolster its tax base.

Arguing that private economic development does not constitute a public purpose for which eminent domain is permissible, Kelo led six other plaintiffs in a legal fight to save the properties in Kelo v. City of New London. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Kelo and the other property owners in a June 23, 2005, decision that affirmed the NLDC's ownership of the properties.

A fight over their possession, however, waged on for another year. On June 30, 2006, Kelo became the last plaintiff to sign an agreement ending all claims to her former property. She received settlement funds and compensation for the property seizure totaling $392,000 and was granted the right to move her former house, if she wishes, to a location outside of the Fort Trumbull peninsula by June 15 of this year.

With little more than a month until that deadline, the house sits intact on the peninsula. Kelo has moved out.

According to New London Development Corp. President Michael Joplin, Kelo has not asked for an extension of the June 15 deadline. Neither has she responded to an offer by the agency to assist her in obtaining the permits necessary to move the house.

“We've sent her a letter that says, if we can help you to expedite permitting, we'd be willing to do that. We haven't heard from her,” Joplin said. “Susette has until the 15th of June per the agreement to move the house.”

Kelo could not be reached to comment Thursday evening.

“We will be making a public statement when we know for certain what is happening with the home,” Bullock said. He declined to comment further.

Rell To Offer Eminent Domain Reform; Governor's proposed bill puts restrictions on property seizures 
By Elaine Stoll , Ted Mann , Day Staff Writers  
Published on 2/1/2007

Hartford — Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Wednesday she will propose legislation to reform the state's eminent domain statutes and restrict property seizures for economic development when she releases a biennial budget next week.

“It is time to send a clear message and put restrictions on the ability to take people's property for economic development purposes,” Rell said.

The governor's proposal, which will be submitted to the Judiciary Committee, would require a two-thirds vote of the legislative body of a municipality to approve eminent domain takings.

It would also limit the use of eminent domain for economic development to projects in which the resulting public benefits would outweigh any private benefits; the current use of the property could not be feasibly integrated into the municipality's overall development plan; acquisition of the property by eminent domain would be reasonably necessary to achieve the objectives of the development plan; and the economic development project would have public benefits besides increasing local tax revenues.

In addition, Rell's proposal would increase compensation to the owners of properties seized by eminent domain. The owners would receive 125 percent of the market value of the property rather than merely the market value. If a property were taken by eminent domain but the intended project did not go forward, owners would have to be offered their property back for a price not greater than the compensation they received for the taking.

Rell, who remained silent last year as the General Assembly discussed but failed to vote on substantial eminent domain reforms, criticized that inaction in her announcement.

“After the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling backing New London's use of eminent domain, the General Assembly asked cities to delay using eminent domain while it considered revising state law,” Rell said. “Since then, nothing has happened. No bill has passed. A golden opportunity presented itself during a special session of the state legislature, but still we saw no progress.

“It is time to stop dancing around this issue and get something done for taxpayers and property owners.”

Rell called Wednesday for Connecticut to join the 25 other states that have passed eminent domain reform legislation in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, the 2005 ruling that upheld New London's use of eminent domain. The city seized non-blighted houses on the Fort Trumbull peninsula in 2000 for a municipal development plan intended to increase tax revenue. The plan called for construction of a hotel, waterfront rental housing, office space and a museum.

“Connecticut made national headlines for its eminent domain case,” Rell said. “Let's show the world that we are serious about protecting our citizens from expanded, unnecessary property seizure.”

New London City Councilor Beth A. Sabilia said she didn't see anything in the governor's proposal that would have prevented the Fort Trumbull redevelopment from going forward.

“I think New London would have qualified under all those criteria anyway,” Sabilia said in a phone interview, adding, “I'm a little bit at a loss to see what is different.”

Sabilia said it seemed that the state, which bankrolled the controversial project, was trying to lay blame at the city's feet.

“In a sense, this is just another way to take a swipe at New London to say that we did something wrong,” she said. “Was it artful? Did we do it in the best possible way? History's going to be our judge on that. This is just another way to take a smack at New London.”

A leading Democrat on the committee with oversight over eminent domain law said Rell's plan looked familiar: It was the same one the committee drafted last year.

“... I'm not sure we can actually sue for plagiarism, but that is, verbatim, Andrew McDonald's proposal from last year,” said Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, referring to the Senate co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which debated reforming eminent domain laws last session. The creation of an eminent domain ombudsman was the legislature's only eminent domain reform last year.

Lawlor said the blame for the legislature's failure to act last session lay largely with the governor's own party, where some lawmakers, particularly then-House Minority Leader Robert M. Ward of North Branford, planned to call a slew of amendments in the final hours of the session because they felt the Democrats' proposed restrictions on property seizures did not go far enough.

“The only reason it wasn't called last year was because there were so many amendments called upon it and it was so vilified by her party as just not enough,” Lawlor said. “Because they ridiculed it so much and because they wanted this complete and totally simplistic abolition of eminent domain,” the legislature failed to pass a significant package.

“Had she weighed in last year ... it probably would have gotten passed in an hour,” Lawlor said.

Pat O'Neil, spokesman for House Republicans, countered that Democrats control the General Assembly and are responsible for its failure last session to reform the state's eminent domain statutes. The success or failure of the governor's proposal this year is also in Democrats' hands, he said.

“Democratic leadership asked municipalities not to move forward with takings,” O'Neil said, citing a letter sent to the chief elected officials of every municipality last year indicating Democrats' intention to reform eminent domain statutes. “They've done nothing,” O'Neil said. “It's another case of watch what they say, but examine what they do.”

Republicans have been calling for eminent domain reform since before the Supreme Court decided the Kelo case, O'Neil said. “We don't think it's right that big government can seize your property and turn it over to a private developer because their view of Long Island Sound — or anywhere else — is worth more than yours,” he said.

The Judiciary Committee leadership plans to pass another eminent domain package this session, Lawlor said, and had already decided to proceed on grounds similar to those Rell described Wednesday afternoon.

The Committee on Planning and Development is also considering an eminent domain reform bill, introduced by the committee itself days ago. Like Rell's proposal, the committee's bill would require a municipality's legislative body to approve eminent domain takings by a two-thirds vote after conducting a public hearing. It would also require property seized but not put to public use to be offered for sale to the owners from whom it was seized or to the owners' heirs.

The committee bill would also prohibit any property from being condemned “for the sole purpose of increasing local tax revenue” and would prohibit the taking of property if it contains “an owner-occupied dwelling unit that complies with building and zoning requirements of the municipality.”


Voters Nationwide Have Say On Fate Of Eminent Domain; Nine States Approve restrictions On Taking homes For Development
DAY
By Elaine Stoll 
Published on 11/10/2006
 
New London — When nine states passed ballot measures Tuesday restricting eminent domain for private economic development, they were answering an invitation issued last year by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The high court ruled that the Fifth Amendment permitted New London's use of eminent domain to take private homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood to make way for tax-generating development, but the court also told states they could ban the practice.

“We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court's 5-4 majority in Kelo v. City of New London.

“The public has acted on the Supreme Court's recommendation,” said Dwight H. Merriam, partner at Robinson & Cole LLP in Hartford and co-editor of the new book “Eminent Domain Use and Abuse: Kelo in Context.”

On Election Day, voters in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon and South Carolina approved new laws or constitutional amendments to restrict the use of eminent domain. Voters in Louisiana already had passed a constitutional amendment Sept. 30 prohibiting the use of eminent domain for economic development.

Proposed restrictions in just two states, California and Idaho, failed to pass Tuesday.

Those that succeeded differ in detail, but all restrict the use of eminent domain for private economic development. A number of them, such as New Hampshire's constitutional amendment, ban outright the use of eminent domain to transfer a private property to another party for the purpose of private development.

Other measures make it more difficult to use eminent domain for economic development, which isn't allowed under Florida's constitutional amendment unless both houses of the state legislature vote to allow an exception by a three-fifths majority.

In addition to “narrowing the purposes for which property can be taken,” measures in some states increase compensation for those whose property is taken by eminent domain and change procedures for exercising eminent domain to improve accountability, Merriam said.

•••••

Citizens in three states — Arizona, California and Washington — put initiatives on the ballot Tuesday that sought, essentially, to expand the definition of a taking by requiring state or local governments to compensate property owners when regulations such as zoning laws or environmental protections decrease the value of their property. The measure succeeded only in Arizona on Tuesday, but Oregon has already instituted a similar measure.

Proponents say the compensation requirement will make governments think twice about passing regulation after regulation, while opponents warn that passing reasonable land-use laws and environmental restrictions could be very difficult.

The goal of most of the ballot measures on Tuesday was to protect private homes, said David S. King, associate dean of Quinnipiac University School of Law.

Under the new restrictions on eminent domain for economic development, homes and other private property will still be subject to eminent domain for public projects, such as a school, park or municipal building, King said. But in states that now ban eminent domain for economic development, proposed development will have to pass a viability test.

Cities in those states won't be able to use eminent domain to assemble parcels for development projects, but private developers or investors will still be able to buy property and assemble parcels themselves if they choose, King said.

“If private developers won't do it on their own, is it an economically viable project?” he said.

In the wake of the Kelo ruling, states are grappling with the question, “Is it more important to protect the security of the few or protect the economic advantage of the majority?” University of Connecticut law professor Jeremy Paul said. States that passed restrictions on eminent domain use have simply chosen the former, he said.

However, states may find that their newly drawn lines “between economic development and other permissible uses of eminent domain are not as easy to draw as they are attempting,” Paul said.

“Let's say that I want a park, and I want there to be a restaurant in the park, and I want the restaurant to be private. Am I taking the land for private economic development, which is not permitted, or for public use, which is permitted?”

He gave other examples: What if a transportation center is designed to include a Starbucks or other shops inside — does that qualify as a public transportation project or private economic development? If a city sewer line must be extended to a new house on the end of a street, but part of an existing property owner's land must be taken in order to lay the new sewer line, does that qualify as a public use or a project to benefit a private development?

“There are going to be problems of implementation,” Merriam said, and he predicted that some of the new measures will later be repealed.

“I think everyone is going to find that much of our best development is public-private partnership. Is that private development?” Merriam said.

He cited the Blue Back Square project, a 550,000-square-foot development in West Hartford undertaken by a developer in conjunction with the town. The project includes retail, residential and office space as well as improvements to the public library, town hall, infrastructure and public parking. Such developments — some of which may require eminent domain — provide “benefits that could not ever be realized by a private developer alone or by government alone,” he said.

•••••

For Scott Bullock, the Institute for Justice senior attorney who represented former Fort Trumbull property owners at the Supreme Court, the success of eminent domain restrictions Tuesday “shows the continued march for greater protection for homeowners and small business owners,” he said.

Legislatures, state courts and now voters are challenging the use of eminent domain for economic development in response to the Kelo decision, he said.

“It is something to behold. What was once seen as a great victory for city officials and developers and planners has turned into a nationwide rebellion against the abuse of eminent domain for private development,” Bullock said.

Michael Joplin, president of the New London Development Corp., said that it can be a “dire mistake” for states to limit eminent domain powers.

For cities along the East Coast that are built out and have tiny, one-eighth-acre lots, eminent domain may be the only way to improve the tax base or assemble parcels of land for economic development, he said — and economic development is necessary for a city to pay for health and social services, education and public safety.

“There are places in this country where this would be a fatal error,” he said of restrictions passed Tuesday. “It's a do or die endeavor to restructure your economy.”
----------------

Eminent Domain on the Ballots...

 Arizona: Passed citizen initiative prohibiting exercise of eminent domain for private economic development. Also requires compensation to owners when new land-use laws decrease their property values.

California: Rejected citizen initiative that would have restricted eminent domain and amended the state constitution to require compensation for regulatory takings.

Florida: Passed constitutional amendment approved by legislature banning the use of eminent domain to take private property for private development unless an exemption is approved by three-fifths of both houses of the state legislature.

Georgia: Passed constitutional amendment approved by legislature prohibiting eminent domain for redevelopment except for public use and requiring the approval of the elected city or county governing authority for eminent domain takings.

Idaho: Rejected citizen initiative that would have prohibited economic development for private economic development and required local governments to compensate property owners for regulatory takings.

Michigan: Passed constitutional amendment approved by legislature that makes some takings of private property unconstitutional and would require governments to pay property owners more than fair market value.

Nevada: Passed constitutional amendment initiated by citizens that would prohibit eminent domain for economic development and increase compensation for takings. Must be approved again on ballot in 2008 in order to change constitution.

New Hampshire: Passed constitutional amendment approved by legislature to ban eminent domain taking of private property for purpose of private development or private use.

North Dakota: Passed citizen-initiated constitutional amendment prohibiting eminent domain for economic development.

Oregon: Passed citizen initiative banning state and local governments from taking private property for economic development.

South Carolina: Passed constitutional amendment to prohibit eminent domain takings by state for economic development. Must be approved in General Assembly next year to take effect.

Also:

Louisiana: Voters passed constitutional amendment on Sept. 30 prohibiting use of eminent domain for economic development.

Washington: Rejected initiative Tuesday that would have required compensation to property owners for regulations that decrease property values.
 

Agency to make case for West Ave. blight
By ROBERT KOCH
Hour Staff Writer
April 15, 2006

NORWALK — As the West Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Plan moves toward the Common Council for action, some remain split on the most fundamental question: Is West Avenue blighted and in need of a sweeping facelift?

On May 1, Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Timothy T. Sheehan, whose staff drafted the plan with public input, will make the agency's case for blight to the council's Planning Committee.

Sheehan said previous councils, through their actions, have accepted the agency's conclusion that West Avenue is substandard and in need of improvement.

"For over 20 years, the city has clearly recognized that the West Avenue plan development area has deterioration," said Sheehan, referring to millions of dollars of infrastructure improvements approved for the area. "What are (plan critics) looking to hear that is different from what previous councils heard and accepted?"
The redevelopment plan, if endorsed by the Planning Committee and approved by the council, will serve as a framework for a private developer to step forward and reshape the West Avenue area with retail, housing and offices.

The plan leaves room for 350 new housing units; 393,174 square feet of new retail; and perhaps a parking garage in the core portion. Limited development would be permitted on the west side of West Avenue. The Harbor Avenue area would become a neighborhood preservation zone.

Developer Stanley M. Seligson, who has been involved in planning West Avenue's future since the mid-1980s, hopes to become the city's designated developer, if the council approves the redevelopment plan.  Over the last decade, Seligson has put forward several conceptual plans showing a revitalized West Avenue. So far, he has acquired 70 percent of the properties around his offices at 605 West Ave. needed to fill out the redevelopment plan.

Asked if West Avenue is blighted, Douglas T. Adams, Seligson's development director, said many West Avenue area properties are vacant and some show vandalism. Rents run as much as 30 percent lower than elsewhere in Norwalk, he said.

"I believe that the area is blighted," Adams said. "That doesn't mean every property is blighted. But taking the larger view, the agency is making the proper case that the area is blighted."

The council, by adopting the redevelopment plan or not, ultimately will decide whether West Avenue — Norwalk's urban spine and downtown — is blighted.  For plan skeptics, blight is crime, trash-strewn streets and abandoned buildings.

"I don't believe the Redevelopment Agency has made a case that there's blight in the area," said council President Michael W. Coffey. "This council will be asked if there is blight. Period. If the Redevelopment Agency's case is so strong, why are they not providing us the data and materials until the night of the Planning Committee meeting, when they will be unveiling it and asking for a vote?"

Coffey points to the success of Devan Acura of Norwalk, a car dealership at 625 West Ave.

The successive councils, while not yet giving Seligson the green light to revamp West Avenue, have committed money and effort toward setting the stage.

The Norwalk Business District Management Plan of 1986 churned $7 million of infrastructure improvements into West Avenue and Wall Street between 1986 and 1993. Utilities were relocated underground; intersections and traffic signals were improved; sewers were separated, according to the Redevelopment Agency.

In 1998, the council authorized Mayor Frank J. Esposito to apply for a $1.5-million planning grant through the state Department of Economic and Community Development. And in 2002, the council approved a $5 million capital budget allocation for West Avenue. For Sheehan, it's a track record showing that successive councils concurred with the agency that West Avenue is blighted.

"You don't invest those kinds of efforts into an area that's fine," Sheehan said.

The $5 million allocation did not pass without debate. Councilman William Wrenn moved to remove the money. The motion failed 6-9.

Matthew T. Miklave, who voted to leave the $5 million intact, predicted it would be long time for another viable plan to come forward. Four years later, a new and smaller plan is headed to the Planning Committee, which he chairs.

"There has been a tremendous amount of public input, and the plan has been substantially modified in the light public input," Miklave said earlier this month. "It is a substantially better plan than it was. I support it."

Bruce I. Kimmel, who since left the council for the Board of Education, was among the six council members voting to remove the $5 million in 2002. This month he asked the Planning Committee to use common sense in defining blight.

"If this is how we define blight, there are many neighborhoods in Norwalk that could be considered blighted — which they are not," Kimmel said. "Blight has to do with burned-out and empty buildings, miles of trash and garbage everywhere, extensive crime and anywhere you wouldn't want to park your car at day or night."

He added, "This is what I call blight Fairfield-County style."

As Kimmel and others look for tangible evidence of blight, Sheehan points to what the agency considers social, physical and economic signs: Overcrowded housing, rental rather than owner-occupied housing and a lack of investment.  Above all, redevelopment officials point to what's missing. For Sheehan, West Avenue is not what Norwalk's downtown should look like.

"Do you see people in any significant numbers walking West Avenue after 8 p.m. as they do on Washington Street?" Sheehan asks. "Do you see restaurants that are open during the day open after dark? Do you see people shopping ... on Saturday?"

The Planning Committee, because of its busy agenda this month, postponed action on the redevelopment plan until May 1. Committee member Douglas E. Hempstead has suggested a walking tour of West Avenue before then.

"Is it blight? It's blight by Connecticut standards. I don't think it's blight by Bronx standards," Hempstead said.  Hempstead said the council, if it is to adopt the redevelopment plan, first must make a case for blight and then make a case for the use of eminent domain. He said he struggles with the issue of eminent domain. At the same time, Hempstead says redevelopment of West Avenue cannot occur without its use.

"The council is going to have to decide," Hempstead said. "Do we want the West Avenue ... to be developed? If so, we're going to have to use our powers of eminent domain to make it happen. If we say no, it's not going to happen."

Hempstead said the redevelopment plan could use some tweaking, but added that he is leaning toward supporting it.   Coffey, whose Ordinance Committee has been working on legislation to limit the city's use of eminent domain, said he has sent Sheehan questions about the West Avenue plan and asked the city's law department to define blight.

"At this time. I'm still unconvinced (of blight). But I have an open mind," Coffey said.
Incumbent Mayor loses re-election by thin margin--was this the issue that made the difference?
Ordinance sent back to committee
By ROBERT KOCH,Hour Staff Writer
October 26, 2005

NORWALK — The Common Council returned to committee Tuesday night the Norwalk Homeowner and Property Protection Ordinance after a three-hour meeting that began with residents pleading for protection against eminent domain and ended with a minor melee involving Mayor Alex Knopp and two attorneys.

At about 11 p.m., the council voted 11-3 to send the one-page ordinance, which would prohibit the city from using its eminent domain powers for economic development purposes, back to the Ordinance Committee. Council President Fred A. Bondi moved to send the ordinance back to committee. Councilman Douglas E. Hempstead, a Republican, spoke for the majority on the controversial matter that crossed party lines and depending on viewpoint, pitted residents against developers or blight against revitalization.  For him and most other council members, the ordinance simply needs more work.

"I can feel for the other small-business owners, having been one for nine years of my life in the city of Norwalk," Hempstead said. "But I also understand that the city needs a certain ability under certain circumstances to have ... eminent domain. ... The problem is this present ordinance basically just cuts everything out and leaves no window for an opportunity." Hempstead said the ordinance needs to include language addressing compensation, retroactivity, and assurances that properties approved to be taken are used — he recommended an 18-month time frame — rather than lay undeveloped as have parts of the Reed-Putnam redevelopment area.

Voting to send the ordinance back to committee for further work were Bondi; Hempstead; Kenneth C. Baker; Matthew T. Miklave; Jeanette Olmstead-Sawyer; Douglas W. Sutton; Richard A. McQuaid; Phyllis Bolden; Kevin M. Poruban; Lee Levey; and Betsy H. Bain. William M. Krummel was not in the council chambers when the vote was called, but earlier spoke against sending it back.

Favoring an immediate up-or-down vote on the ordinance were Peter A. Wien, Carvin J. Hilliard and Michael W. Coffey, chairman of the Ordinance Committee. A small melee erupted when Coffey questioned the timing of a seven-page legal opinion issued Monday by Corporation Counsel Louis S. Ciccarello. The opinion found the ordinance contrary to the City Charter and state statutes.

"I think their actions are non-feasance at best," Coffey said. "I vehemently disagree with Mr. Ciccarello, and I think there were motivations at work as to the timing of the decision. Corporation Counsel was present at every juncture. Corporation Counsel did my legal research." Ciccarello said Assistant Attorney Katherine Lasberg provided Coffey's Committee background information from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. He said Coffey wrote the one-page ordinance and never asked for a legal opinion of it. That request came last Thursday from Poruban, he said.

"Mr. Coffey, being a lawyer, decided to do it on his own," Ciccarello said. Knopp broke off the exchange, saying Coffey had violated the rules of order by questioning Ciccarello's motivations.

Said Knopp: "It is out of order to refer to motivations." During the public participation portion of the meeting, 14 people addressed the proposed ordinance. All but four supported its passage unamended.

"This ordinance is not only legal but necessary," said William Wrenn, former councilman and once chairman of the Ordinance Committee. "I ask you to consider this ordinance. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. What about the real people who live here and have made it through thick and thin?" Several business owners, including Michael Sciaudone, whose Leonard Street auto-repair garage lies in the footprint of the Wall Street redevelopment plan, and Jacqueline Trofa, co-owner of Professional Auto Center on Putnam Avenue, asked how they are to rebuild their businesses if their properties are taken.

Clayton Fowler, principle with Spinnaker Cos., which is redeveloping the Reed-Putnam area, described his firm as a small business and a developer.

"It isn't just about grabbing property," Fowler said. "We do, and most developers do, give back significantly to their communities. We do affordable housing. I do ask the council to go slow and consider everything."

Eminent domain vote set:  Common Council committee is scheduled to take up the sensitive matter Tuesday
By ROBERT KOCH, Hour Staff Writer

October 22, 2005

NORWALK — Common Council members may find middle ground on the Norwalk Homeowner and Property Protection Ordinance, which, if passed as is Tuesday, would ban all eminent domain takings for economic development.


"Some people have reached out to me to see if there is any opportunity for compromise. It looks like there might be some discussion whether there is a retroactive portion, or whether (the ordinance) would just apply going forward," said Michael W. Coffey, chairman of the council's Ordinance Committee. "My preference would be a total ban, but if we don't have a majority of the council, I think it would be better to provide the most protection we can."

The ordinance, as written, would prohibit the city from using eminent domain to take residential or commercial private property for economic development. Economic development is defined as any activity to "increase the tax revenue, tax base, employment or general economic health."

Coffey says the ordinance is needed to provide residents and business owners with security in the wake of Kelo versus New London, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New London may take homes in a working-class neighborhood to make way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

In Norwalk, urban renewal plans involving real and potential eminent domain takings are moving forward for Wall Street and West Avenue.

To the south, Maritime Motors Chevrolet President Peter Morley is waiting for the state Supreme Court to decide whether the city can take his car dealership on West Avenue. The city considers the property critical to widening Reed Street to serve the Reed-Putnam development.

On Tuesday, the Ordinance Committee voted 4-0 to forward the ordinance to the full council. The item appeared on the council agenda printed Friday. By late afternoon, Coffey said he had spoken with a half-dozen council members. At the same time, Mayor Alex Knopp said he has asked the city's law department to examine the matter in advance of Tuesday's council meeting.

"Everybody on the Common Council, including myself, is probably against allowing a repeat of what happened in New London, and therefore, there is no question that the state should prohibit the taking of private homes for private economic benefit when there is no finding of blight or need for urban renewal," Knopp said. "But the resolution on the agenda does not have the kind of serious inclusive hearing that a major topic like this requires, and there is an open question of whether a municipal ordinance is either preferable, or even legal, in light of the state statutes that govern this situation."

During a public hearing before Ordinance Committee Tuesday, two dozen residents and small-business owners spoke largely in favor of the ordinance. Those in the path of the Wall Street, West Avenue and Reed-Putnam urban renewal projects say municipalities have abused eminent domain, shifting land from homeowners and small-business owners to wealthy developers.

Ordinance opponents, while acknowledging that abuses have occurred, say adopting the moratorium would halt needed revitalization. Edward J. Musante Jr., president of the Greater Norwalk Chamber of Commerce, traced The Maritime Aquarium at Norwalk, SoNo revitalization, and Baltimore's revamped inner harbor to municipalities' ability to use eminent domain.

Richard A. Moccia, Republican mayoral candidate, said he opposes the Kelo versus New London decision and the abuse of eminent domain to take private property. But he also said Norwalk should move more slowly than is now being done with the proposed ordinance.

"My concern is this ordinance is being rushed too fast and is going to hurt the economic development of Wall Street and (Stanley) Seligson's project on West Avenue," Moccia said. State Sen. Bob Duff, D-25, said the General Assembly on Tuesday will open a special session to address, among other topics, eminent domain.

He said he hopes legislators will arrive at a "thoughtful and reasonable" solution that makes homeowners feel safe against unwarranted takings.

"The principal idea is to have a thoughtful and reasonable approach, and not just act inappropriately to say something was done," Duff said. "We had this Supreme Court decision and there was a knee-jerk reaction to respond quickly, but the laws are more complicated than that."

Duff said state statutes generally — but not always — override local statutes. In instances where the Norwalk Homeowner and Property Protection Ordinance conflicts with state or federal law, "the remaining provisions of (the local) ordinance shall remain in effect," according to the final draft.

Coffey predicted earlier Friday that some council members would seek to table the ordinance on Tuesday night — a nondebatable motion. Later Friday, Coffey said he had spoken with council members in search of a compromise. Several council members, speaking Thursday night before a candidates' forum got under way at City Hall, shared their thoughts on the proposed ordinance.

Douglas E. Hempstead, one of two Republicans on the council, said he would seek to amend the proposed ordinance to require a 4/5ths super-majority vote by the council when invoking the city's eminent domain powers.

"You have to have the ability for the city to move forward on certain projects," Hempstead said. But "a super majority sends a message it has to be a great project. We've been 20 years with Reed-Putnam. That's way too long."

Critics of eminent domain point out that some properties taken years ago by the city for the Reed-Putnam project remain vacant. Morley has expressed doubt that the project ever will produce up to 1.1 million square feet of office space. Matthew T. Miklave, a Democrat, said council members have received telephone calls from developers who are concerned the ordinance would stop all development in Norwalk. Miklave said the matter needs further study.

"Eminent domain is a power that a municipality has that should be used in limited circumstances. But I'm concerned that the proposed ordinance goes too far," Miklave said.

"We need to study it and understand the ramifications better."

Democrat Lee Levey, however, said he planned to vote in favor of the ordinance. He said controls need to be in place so that private property is not taken by a developer with "the developer taking the profit."

Leaders strive to shape eminent domain
By ROBERT KOCH, Hour Staff Writer
October 2, 2006

NORWALK — If Connecticut is to avoid future Kelo vs. New London battles, Hartford legislators must amend state laws governing eminent domain, according to property rights proponents and others.

"Thirty states passed eminent domain legislation in the wake of Kelo to more tightly control eminent domain," said Scott Bullock, The Institute for Justice's lead attorney in the Kelo vs. New London case, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that New London may take homes to make way for a private development. "Unfortunately Connecticut, home of Kelo, failed to do so."

Last year, at least four bills addressing eminent domain failed passage in Hartford. Provisions included prohibiting eminent domain solely to boost tax bases, and compensating property owners up to 150 percent of fair-market value. Last October, the Norwalk Common Council rejected an ordinance that would have prohibited the city from using its eminent domain powers for economic development purposes.

What Hartford lawmakers might put forward next year remains to be seen, and legislators, candidates and redevelopment agency officials have differing opinions on where the state should go on the volatile topic.  Fred Wilms, Republican candidate for the state Senate 25th District, last month hosted a roundtable to address eminent domain. After the Kelo decision, Wilms said, there is a strong desire to see eminent domain for development purposes "restricted as much as possible." He wants geographical boundaries set.

"Economic development eminent domain should be used only in 'distressed' Connecticut municipalities," Wilms said. "Economic eminent domain should be confined to only those commercial, industrial, design or related zones that have been formally designated as distressed or blighted. It would be banned everywhere else."

As such, the Reed-Putnam, West Avenue and Wall Street redevelopment projects in Norwalk could continue, while residential areas of the city would be protected from eminent domain, Wilms said.  On compensation, Wilms said he supports paying property owners fair-market value and relocation costs. Lost business, he said, is difficult to quantify and requires further study. Wilms said he would support requiring a two-thirds super majority by local legislative bodies for eminent-domain takings.

State Sen. Bob Duff, D-25, said the Kelo decision set a bad precedent. He said such cases would not occur, if judges adhered to the intent of the law of "true pubic benefit and just compensation." Duff wants state laws to better address compensation, relocation costs and whether a business can become viable at a new location.

"The Kelo case brought so much attention to flaws in the law," Duff said. "What we tried to do (last year) is ensure eminent domain can't be used for economic development, and you'd have to compensate people fairly."

Duff said Wilms' proposal to limit economic development eminent domain to 'distressed' areas could pose problems. "I believe that there should be one system for everybody — not for one part of town vs. another part of town — so it gives all homeowners comfort that their properties will not be taken," Duff said.

Bullock describes Connecticut statutes governing eminent domain are among the broadest in the nation. He points to states that have amended their laws in the wake of the Kelo decision.  Florida now "prohibits the condemnation of private property to prevent or eliminate slum or blight conditions, or to abate or eliminate public nuisances, and also bans the transfer of seized private property to private parties for a period of ten years following the condemnation," according to The Institute for Justice.

Closer to home, New Hampshire adopted changes to its laws, adding language that "no person's private real property shall be taken pursuant to this chapter unless that real property is to be put to public use."

Timothy T. Sheehan, Norwalk Redevelopment Agency executive director, rejects looking outside the Northeast, or to New Hampshire, as examples, as those areas often are not urban. Cities in the Northeast, whose industrial and manufacturing bases have left, must be able to recreate themselves to survive economically, he said.

"If you take away the power of eminent domain, you've basically crippled those areas," Sheehan said. "In order to accomplish those things in the urban corridor, you have to allow that corridor to change itself from its industrial past to its mixed-use development future."

"Eminent domain is an important tool to get that done," he said.

Sheehan said The Empire State Development Corporation in New York and Boston Redevelopment Authority in Massachusetts are moving ahead a variety of projects. The latter has 240 development applications under review or advancing. They involve reshaping areas such as the South End, Charlestown and downtown into mixed-use developments with new retail, residential and office space.

Sheehan said eminent domain should be used for a "greater public purpose" and not purely to increase the tax base. That public purpose, in the case of West Avenue redevelopment, is that the area is substandard, he said.

He said Connecticut must retain eminent domain to revitalize its distressed urban areas. At the same time, the state can and should amend its laws governing eminent domain. He recommends focusing on replacement value.

"If I own a business in one area of town that's being redeveloped, we'd have to look at comparable properties in the community, when we're looking at valuation that would ultimately allow that business ... to move," he said.

Sheehan cautioned against legislation that would require property owners to be paid "an arbitrary number of 125 percent or 150 percent over market" value. He predicted such a mandate would reduce the incentive for property owners to negotiate with developers, and lead to more eminent domain takings.
Public vs. private interests
StamfordADVOCATE   
By Tobin A. Coleman, Staff Writer
Published March 18 2006

HARTFORD -- The legislature's Judiciary Committee yesterday wrestled with the rights of property owners over municipal and state interests during a four-hour public hearing.

An expected heavy turnout on two key bills dealing with eminent domain never materialized, as property owners affected by the Kelo vs. City of New London Development Corp. U.S. Supreme Court decision stayed away after attending several hearings since last year.

Stamford officials testified on a bill sponsored by state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, that would allow municipalities to place liens on buildings where owners don't pay fines for health, safety, building and zoning code violations. The law is meant to put teeth in the city's Safe Houses program that targets properties that potentially endanger residents or their neighborhoods.

McDonald questioned at length House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, who proposed an eminent domain bill that would prevent any taking of private property for private development.

The bill would create the position of a "property rights ombudsman" who would steer property owners through disputes with government entities initiating eminent domain proceedings against their properties.

The residents of New London's Fort Trumbull neighborhood fought against seizure of their properties all the way to the high court, where they lost in June. The court ruled New London officials could take their homes for a private development solely because it would raise more tax revenue for the city.

McDonald asked Ward if his bill would have stood in the way of development of the Stamford Town Center had it been in place at the time, since the mall is privately owned but the adjoining 1,200-car garage is owned by the city.

"If eminent domain was used to take any portion of that property, would that be verboten under your scenario?" McDonald asked.

"If it was a true blighted area that was taken by eminent domain, that would be acceptable," Ward said. "If the purpose was solely economic development, then I believe (the bill) would have taken away eminent domain for that purpose. . . . This is a way to constrain government in a way that we ought to."

State Sen. Judith Freedman, R-Westport, had her testimony read into the record by her legislative intern, William Burgess.

"My constituents in Fairfield County are just as concerned as those in New London," Burgess read.

Freedman agrees with Ward that property can be taken for real public purposes, such as needed schools, roads or hospitals.

"Taking someone's home so that private developers can build something that government officials hope will result in higher tax revenues is a misuse of powers that all of us should abhor," Burgess testified.

Another bill considered by the Judiciary Committee would require that there be a determination before any property is taken for private development that it will result in a greater public benefit than any benefit to a private group.

The eminent domain bills await committee action.

Also yesterday, Stamford Public Safety Director William Callion and city Economic Development Director Michael Freimuth testified in favor of McDonald's bill to add liens to the arsenal of legal weapons cities and towns can use to fight code violations.

"In Stamford, the problems of overcrowding, illegal rooming houses, illegal occupancy of unsafe cellars and attics and other severe zoning violations are threatening to overwhelm some of our neighborhoods," Callion testified. "Parking, long a local problem in our many older neighborhoods, quickly reaches a crisis when units are illegally subdivided. Emergency responders are endangered by unsafe conditions, overcrowding and congestion."

Callion said the city has been reluctant to use widespread fines to solve problems with blighted housing, but he now believes the ability to impose significant fines is the best way "to achieve prompt compliance from property owners."

The Connecticut Bankers Association opposed McDonald's bill because in the case of a mortgage foreclosure the liens created by the bill would have to be paid off first before a bank could pay to satisfy the mortgage.

"There's no reason to say a bank should pay fines because of the conduct of a mortgage holder," said Bill Champlin of the bankers group. "It will affect the safety and soundness of our banks."

The Planning and Development Committee yesterday approved two bills that would limit eminent domain powers similar to the Judiciary Committee bills. They will likely move to the Judiciary Committee to be combined bills into one package.

Eminent Domain Reformers Resume Efforts In Legislature;  Committee hears testimony on 2 plans
DAY
By Ted Mann
February 16, 2006
 
Hartford — The General Assembly resumed its debate on reforming state eminent domain laws Wednesday, nearly eight months after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the taking of private property for an economic development project in New London.

Legislators on the Planning and Development Committee conducted a public hearing on two reform proposals, one of them sharply proscribing the government's right to seize residential properties for privately owned economic development projects, the other instituting procedural checks and a requirement that such takings be approved by a “supermajority” of the local legislative body administering the project.

The reaction from municipal and planning officials to such reform efforts has been consistent since the decision in Kelo v. New London was released last June: Tread carefully.  Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez and Ron Thomas of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities warned lawmakers to be cautious in altering what Perez called an “economic development tool” much in demand in Connecticut's urban centers.

Thomas said eminent domain remains “a fundamental and necessary tool for promoting the public interest” –– including through economic development projects like the one proposed in New London's Fort Trumbull neighborhood.

But according to opponents of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project specifically and government controls over private property in general, the two proposals do not go far enough.

“It's inconceivable to me that the Founding Fathers would have interpreted the Fifth Amendment the way the Supreme Court has here,” said Rep. Steve Mikutel, D-Griswold, one of several legislators to testify Wednesday. “The court essentially abandoned the field and left it to the local elected officials, and that is a scary thought.”

Also in attendance were New London opponents of the Fort Trumbull project, including Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff, and Lauren Ann Canario, a tenant of plaintiff William Von Winkle's who moved to the city specifically to fight the New London Development Corp.'s efforts to seize the private homes and businesses.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Scott Bullock of the nonprofit Institute for Justice, said in written testimony that both proposals were flawed because neither categorically prohibits eminent domain for all private development projects.

Also on hand were a diverse set of lobbying groups, including the Home Builders Association of Connecticut, which opposes seizing property for economic development, a representative said, despite the fact that the organization's members are developers likely to find work in large-scale urban renewal projects.

Wednesday's hearing marked at least the fourth held in recent months on the subject of eminent domain by the planning committee, said its co-chairman, Rep. Lewis Wallace, D-Danbury, and that doesn't include the simultaneous hearings in the Judiciary Committee.

And while lawmakers, including House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, have called for immediate reform of the takings laws this legislative session, committee members said Wednesday that any final language was a long way off.

Ward's own bill to outlaw takings of residential properties for economic development projects will get a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, his aides said.

Some committee members seemed skeptical of the complaints about the proposed bills, as when Thomas questioned the requirement that eminent domain projects like the Fort Trumbull effort be approved by two-thirds of a local legislative body rather than a simple majority.

But, asked Sen. Leonard Fasano, R-North Haven, “Why would the two-thirds vote be an impediment if it's such a good idea that it's worth taking a home or a business?”

“We just think it's not good public policy” to set the bar higher for some projects than others, Thomas replied.

Meanwhile, critics of the committee's efforts thus far, like Joseph D. Wactowski, questioned the legislators' commitment to reforming the law. “In my humble opinion, gentlemen, this is all show,” Wactowski said during his testimony.  That prompted a frosty exchange with Fasano, who said the committee was trying to be fair to both proponents and detractors of projects like the Fort Trumbull development.

“You don't build a consensus in this building, no bill passes,” Fasano said.
Legislature likely to take up eminent domain in special session
By TED MANN, Day Staff Writer
Published on10/11/2005

Hartford — State House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford, said Tuesday that he expects the General Assembly to vote on eminent domain reform legislation during the special session that convened this morning.

Addressing reporters as he made his way into a caucus to discuss the agenda for the session, Amann said the legislature would “probably” consider placing new restrictions on the ability of municipalities to seize private property for economic development.

The move comes after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the city of New London's use of eminent domain for private development on the Fort Trumbull peninsula, in a decision that vindicated the state's statutes but sparked widespread criticism among those who felt the ruling was a blow to private property rights.

Seeming taken aback by the vociferous opposition to the use of eminent domain in economic development, state lawmakers eventually asked municipalities to abide by a voluntary moratorium on property takings, convened public hearings on reform proposals and declared their intent to rein in the law.

But Amann's comments were a change of tone from earlier comments by some Democratic lawmakers, who said as late as last week that they did not expect the legislature to take up the issue until the regular session that begins in February.

It couldn't come soon enough for House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford, who circulated petitions among his colleagues earlier this fall in an effort to force a special session on eminent domain reform.

Legislative panel to hear eminent domain testimony Stamford ADVOCATE
By Tobin A. Coleman
 Published October 6 2005
The national political storm created by the U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the condemnation of private homes for commercial development will move into the state Capitol today as legislators consider laws to limit the power of eminent domain.

Today's public hearing is the second before the Judiciary Committee, which is considering five bills that would curtail the powers of state and local government to take private property.

Some of the bills aim to prohibit the takings in all cases where the goal is only economic development, as in the Kelo v. New London Development Corp. case decided by the Supreme Court in June.

One bill, proposed by the Institute for Justice, the nonprofit legal entity that represented the homeowners in Kelo, would end the use of eminent domain simply to raise more tax revenues.

Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Washington, D.C.-based institute, who represented the homeowners in the Kelo case, said the other four bills would not limit enough government's power to take private land under that scenario.

"That practice will not stop under most of the proposals that are being floated before the committee," Bullock said in a telephone interview.

The Institute for Justice bill would still allow the taking of property in situations where a city or town is trying to clean up a slum or blighted area. But the proposal would also tighten the definition of blight, exorcising current language that allows property to be taken that is "deteriorating" or that impairs the "welfare" or "morals" of a community.

Bullock said such terms are antiquated and can be construed much too broadly.

"Redevelopment laws now allow government to take ordinary neighborhoods to turn them over to businesses to develop more tax revenue," he said. "Our proposal would stop that."

Judiciary Committee Co-chairmen state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, and state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, authored a bill that would set strict conditions on all of the state's eminent domain laws, restricting its use to certain provable public purposes.

Lawlor said their bill would outlaw in Connecticut a situation outlined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her dissenting opinion in Kelo. O'Connor warned that the decision would allow government to take a small hotel and replace it with a larger hotel simply to increase property tax revenues.

"The court today significantly expands the meaning of public use," O'Connor wrote. "It holds that the sovereign may take private property currently put to ordinary private use, and give it over for new, ordinary private use."

Lawlor and McDonald's proposal would outlaw such a practice in Connecticut, Lawlor said.

Stamford and Norwalk redevelopment officials are expected to testify today.

Timothy Sheehan, executive director of the Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, said he will testify that cities such as Stamford and Norwalk, that are highly developed with few vacant parcels left, need eminent domain to remain viable.

"The tools should remain," Sheehan said. "If there are ways in which they want to see or guide the employment of the tool that's fine. But to take the tool away from cities, it's going to be difficult to employ a host of economic development projects in Norwalk, and going into the future, how are you going to implement smart growth alternatives?

The hearing is at 2 p.m. in the Legislative Office Building, adjacent to the Capitol in Hartford.
To State legislators, Malloy makes case for eminent domain
 Stamford ADVOCATE
Tobin A. ColemanPublished September 29 2005
BRIDGEPORT -- Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy urged state legislators yesterday not to overly restrict local government's eminent domain powers as they consider reforms to the controversial law allowing municipalities to acquire private property.

"Where would we have been without eminent domain," Malloy said at a gathering of Connecticut Business and Industry Association members at the Arena at Harbor Yard, describing Stamford's transformation from a run-down industrial town to a financial services center.

Malloy and others were invited to speak after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London -- a case that affirmed a municipality's right to take private property to give to a private developer if there is some public purpose. One of those public purposes could solely be a stronger local economy, the court ruled. The speakers also addressed how eminent domain powers could be used to ease development of polluted brownfield sites.

Malloy said the taking of private property should be done carefully and only in circumstances where a real need is shown and the community is behind the decision. He cited the acquisition by eminent domain of several parcels for the site where UBS -- then called Swiss Bank -- now is located. "To exclude this tool completely would be counterproductive," Malloy said.

After a public outcry from the decision from around the country, the General Assembly is considering changes to state law to rein in the power of the state and local governments to condemn property. Gov. M. Jodi Rell this month told the New London Development Corp. to rescind the eviction notices it has sent to Suzanne Kelo and the other plaintiffs in the Fort Trumbull section of the city until the Legislature acts.

State Sen. Leonard Fasano, R-North Haven, ranking Republican on the Planning and Development Committee, said lawmakers are considering many changes in the law to restrict government takings.

Fasano said lawmakers probably won't change the blight section of the law that allows government to use eminent domain to bring back economic vitality to areas that are dilapidated, unsafe or run down. But, he said some are questioning how blight is defined. Replacing one business with a more promising business, just to spur economic development, as allowed in the court decision, rubs him the wrong way.

"I . . . don't want government to make the decision that one business person is better than another business person," he said.

Fasano said there will likely be a bill that allows jury trials to determine the value of a property. Connecticut and New York are the only two states where, if a landowner challenges the value being offered for his property in an eminent domain case, a judge decides how much a government must pay a landowner. Malloy said he was opposed to that because he doesn't want emotion to play a part in land valuation. The extra cost could tip the balance of a project being economically viable, he said.

Fasano also said the Legislature is considering whether to allow a landowner reasonable attorneys fees. Right now, courts can only award the value of the property and assessment costs incurred by the owner, making a valuation challenge too costly for many, he said.

"It's not inexpensive to fight the city," said Fasano, who also is a land-use attorney. "In the poorer neighborhoods, it's very hard to argue price. The benchmark should be the city's (tax) appraisal. If the house is assessed at $120,000, the city should have to prove it has reasons if it only wants to pay $75,000."

Fasano said he also wants to explore changes in the law that allow former property owners to buy back their land at the price they were paid if a planned project does not happen, because the pretext for the taking is gone.

Judiciary Committee co-chairman Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, will hold a public hearing Oct. 6 on changes to the eminent domain statutes.

Now it's Ridgefield that wants private property for development
Danbury News-Times
Jul 10, 12:25 PM EDT
RIDGEFIELD, Conn. (AP) -- A new eminent domain case is brewing in Connecticut as Ridgefield officials prepare to take private property to be used for corporate office space.

The developer, Eureka V, is seeking to build 510 townhouses and apartments on 154 acres. The proposal would require a zoning change because the property is now zoned for commercial development.

A town official cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling last month that widens eminent domain power, granting local governments broad rights to seize private property to generate tax revenue. The court ruled on an appeal from a New London property owner.

John Katz, vice chairman of the Ridgefield Planning and Zoning Commission, said it seems the Supreme Court ruling could "well benefit towns in the taking of unimproved lands."  But he said he believed the decision regarding New London was disturbing.

"I think it is disastrous for what it means to the taking of private homes for the spurious goals of economic development," Katz said. "What passes for economic development today has been seen to be cyclical and there is nothing cyclical about residential displacement of a population."

Ridgefield First Selectman Rudy Marconi offered to buy the land from Eureka V in 2001 for $2.7 million. He told the developer that if necessary the town would take the property using eminent domain.  Eureka V sought an injunction in federal court to halt the eminent domain move and accused Ridgefield of violating the federal fair housing law by trying to prevent Eureka from building houses for people with school-age children.  Eureka has since sought a zoning change, which will be the subject of a Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday.

Marconi said he is confident the town will eventually have the property and will go ahead with plans to build 600,000 square feet of corporate office space.  "It is now clear that if Ridgefield is victorious in federal court, which we feel we will be, then we can proceed with an eminent domain taking of the property," Marconi said.

The Danbury News-Times reported that lawyers for Eureka V could not be reached for comment Friday.  Marconi said the New London case is different than Ridgefield's situation.  The property being considered for eminent domain taking is zoned for corporate development and is vacant, he said.

"There would be no displaced families," Marconi said.  Ridgefield has taken land from Eureka V once before. In December 2000, the town took 458 acres paid Eureka V and paid $12.2 million.  The property was sold to the state Department of Environmental Protection and is being maintained as open space.

NLDC Told Top Officials Must Be Fired;  Otherwise agency will be dissolved, City Council says

By DAN PEARSON Day Staff Writer, Education Reporter & TED MANN
Published on 9/21/2005

New London — Citing an overwhelming lack of trust and confidence in the New London Development Corp., the City Council said Tuesday night that it will dissolve the agency within a week unless it dismisses its president and chief operating officer.

In strongly worded statements, the council also said residents should be aware that the NLDC can take no action on behalf of the city unless the council approves it.

“Time and time again the leaders of the NLDC, despite assurances to be honest, have failed to live up to their promises,” Councilor Beth Sabilia said. “Boy, were we mistaken.We were bamboozled. I don't believe the city can achieve any peace and progress with the current leadership of the NLDC.”

Members of groups that have opposed the NLDC's use of eminent domain to take homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood said they took some comfort from the council's action. But some said the council's action was “hot air and window dressing” because it did not rescind the power of eminent domain.

“They have begun a step in the right direction. But they didn't mention eminent domain once, after sitting there for hours listening to people tell them to take that off the table,” said Neild Oldham, chairman of the Coalition to Save Fort Trumbull. “The action the councilors took tonight shows that they have made such a mess they have no idea themselves how to get it right.”

After years of frustration with the NLDC's performance, councilors unanimously passed a vote of no confidence Tuesday in the NLDC, the city's implementing agency for the $73 million Fort Trumbull redevelopment project. The council said the NLDC board must remove President Michael Joplin and Chief Operating Officer David Goebel and replace them with a leadership team “to the council's satisfaction” or the council will dissolve the NLDC.

The action comes after the NLDC failed to meet contract deadlines and to include city officials in its operations, particularly a decision this month to send eviction notices to property owners without informing state officials or councilors of their intent.

Councilor Rob Pero said this “was when the bomb kind of blows up” in his mind, because the evictions occurred only two weeks after the NLDC assured councilors in writing that it would not undertake any forced removals of residents.

Sabilia told a crowd of more than 100 people who attended Tuesday's meeting at New London High School that no councilor or city employee had prior knowledge that evictions would be sent. She again said Goebel and Joplin were “cowboys” acting “recklessly and dangerously.”

After the eviction notices were delivered this month, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she, too, had lost confidence in the NLDC's handling of the redevelopment project and called on the NLDC to rescind the notices, which it did. But the NLDC Board of Directors did not remove Joplin and Goebel from their positions, as some councilors had hoped.

“My faith in the NLDC is non-existent,” Mayor Jane Glover said Tuesday.  Reached Tuesday night after the council vote, Joplin said it is “unfortunate that c