OAKLAND / City forces out 2 downtown businesses / Action follows high court ruling on eminent domain — The beginning of the end for property rights.
Last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling approving a Connecticut city’s plan to take private land by eminent domain may seem far away.
But to John Revelli, whose family has operated a tire shop near downtown Oakland for decades, the implications hit home on Friday.
A team of contractors hired by the city of Oakland packed the contents of his small auto shop in a moving van and evicted Revelli from the property his family has owned since 1949.
“I have the perfect location; my customers who work downtown can drop off their cars and walk back here,” said Revelli, 65, pointing at the nearby high- rises. “The city is taking it all away from me to give someone else. It’s not fair.”
The city of Oakland, using eminent domain, seized Revelli Tire and the adjacent property, owner-operated Autohouse, on 20th Street between Telegraph and San Pablo avenues on Friday and evicted the longtime property owners, who have refused to sell to clear the way for a large housing development.
Jeez, what a nightmare. But a commentator last week made an interesting point: the government gave land to railroads back in the 1800s to boost the development of transcontinental transportation (and, perhaps, to reward political donors). So in a sense, this Supreme Court ruling reaffirms eminent domain.
This is just a frightening development.
Allan, I wonder how anyone can compare the use of land (mostly open land) given to the RR and compare it to normal modern property being torn away from individuals within a city and then used by Target, or WalMart. I do not see it in the same category.
Eminent Domain has been used for many years “for the public good”. The Railroads, the phone companies, gas companies, even the easement that puts a sidewalk in the front of many homes.
Used this way, private interests, like the Railroads, have benefitted too.
What’s happened here is that the Supremes have widened the “public good” reasoning to include somewhat less concrete gains, like jobs, in situations where the primary profits will go to individuals or single corporations. Although there may be basic land-acquisition issues, these “conversions” (“takings”, IMHO/IANAL) probably would work out just as well in the next block. IOW, it’s not a right-of-way issue.
It’s also not a “utility” issue – Railroads, power lines, highways, even sidewalks, can loosely be called “utilities” – a service to however many of the public wish to use them, even if the Telco’s ripping us off to use their lines. The new standard doesn’t seem to require any of that sort of thing – the facility could just as easily be a MicroSoft campus as a shopping center. The former, while a jobs generator, would be rather private….
I don’t think this Court is as Conservative as some might call it, but this decision certainly is. The Liberals would prefer to return the railroad lands….
My prediction: When and if Congress passes a law to fix this problem, it’ll pertain to churches. Right now churches pay no taxes. Thus ANY other private use would help to increase the tax base. I’d think that churches would be under the gun. But of course no one is going to allow municipalities to shut down churches right and left, so laws will be written exempting them.
Also, expect to see it used again unpopular uses of property too. For example, nude bars, junk yards, and farms (for you city folks, residential group and transition homes, farms are VERY smelly!). What a great way for a city to get rid of businesses it doesn’t like or politically don’t agree with, kick ‘em out!
Horrible……they must not have offered enough $…..so just force them out!
Unbelievably scary! One of the things that I thought always differentiated the US from other countries WAS our property rights… I may just go hide in a cave now.
One of our local mayoral candidates has offered a bill to the city council to make this abuse of eminent domain illegal according to the city charter. A novel approach.
The only other announced candidate has endorsed her proposal. In fact, the only present city council member who tried to pour cold water on the proposal is a lawyer, populist flavor [whose license is currently under suspension].
I guess it’s reflective of how the City Different really is different — in that the candidate is a realtor — who also opposes abuse of eminent domain. Working in the construction industry, I can affirm that most contractors, here, would also support that opposition.
Most of the private developers who rely on eminent domain to take real estate don’t have the capital, a good plan or other resources to do a development without government involvement. Look around just about any city or town and you will find buildings or in some cases whole blocks of buildings that need rehabbed or torn down and redeveloped. Many of the realtors are just marketers and don’t want to be involved in real estate development deals, so the burden is put on government to purchase and redevelop private property. This usually doesn’t work out well since the profit incentive is low and the cost is high. Eminent domain basically replaces the negotiation process with a bureaucratic process. It works to some degree, when you have property with little or no demand. People with run down or vacant property often benefit the most from their neglect of the property and the government gets stuck with the demolition costs as well as the burden of clearing the title, all of which is an expense for a private developer. The whole thing puts the government into the position of being a broker, when the real estate broker should be well equipped to negotiate a deal on behalf of the buyer or seller. There are situations where eminent domain can be used for good, but most deals can be reached without the need for governmental action. I’ve seen a whole lot of commercial property go unused, that could be developed. The government could use eminent domain and take some of this real estate, all of which would not speed up redevelopment because there isn’t much demand for the property to begin with. There isn’t capital being reinvested and the government may need to borrow to gain title and then be stuck for years with property nobody wants or needs. There is a greater supply of real estate than there is a demand for in many areas of the country. The big problem is in taking productive real estate that is in use or occupied, which is why eminent domain is fought. The solution is to redevelop what needs attention and leave alone what is in use. Government and developers could do more redevelopment by targeting blighted and vacant parcels or buildings and be very busy for a long time and the occupied and utilized real estate which investors have maintained would benefit. We have acres and acres of old industrial property, that has sat vacant for two decades and could be redeveloped. Some group of idiots then wants to use eminent domain to take a tract of productive private property and build chain stores or condos. The goal is often converting this property into rental property using eminent domain or using some subsidy to inflate the price of the property and the goal is higher value or the perception of higher value. The government sees this as more tax revenue coming from investing tax dollars into declining real estate, that declined because of too high of a tax burden to begin with. The property is often just lost to the government when the owner can’t pay the taxes and it goes up for sheriffs sale, which is sort of like eminent domain except that the government doesn’t want the property because it can’t do anything with it. It can’t even keep the street and sidewalk maintained because it doesn’t have the revenues needed for public works programs or repaving projects so then it buys the building with a developer as partner that nobody wants on the street that nobody wants to drive on. It’s never as easy as it looks and I doubt that eminent domain will do much of anything to make developing real estate easier. It keeps the legal community busy and we still have 100 acres and a mill that sit here and rot while downtown moved to the mall which is now a shopping entertainment complex full of important stuff and teenagers hanging out. All of which is only possible because of eminent domain and the chain store developer.
Downtown is full of junkies and closed shops and eminent domain won’t help a thing. You need cash for development and the city is busted flat.
On a completely unrelated note, do you really not see a problem with the horoscope ad on your site? Don’t you consider yourself an intellectual of some kind?
Good news for scumbag, bribe taking politicians. I can see the money flowing now. Developer needs a prime piece of realestate for luxury townhouses or someother high money making scheme. Several long time residence who have had their houses passed down from the families, don’t want to sell. Greedy developer approaches the local scumbag politician and offers a bribe. Scumbag politician excerts emiant domain and seizes the properties. Greedy developer happy, scumbag politician happy, long time homeowner screwed. Welcome to
America.
Some tidbits from the linked article which I find interesting:
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision last week paved the way for local governments to buy out unwilling property owners, demolish homes and businesses, and turn that land over to new owners for development.
The eviction came as no surprise to Revelli and Fung. The city has designated their block as a redevelopment area for about 20 years.
“It’s tough. They’re good people. We’ve offered them fair compensation, and we hope to come to an agreement.
Fung and Revelli said the money offered by the city, about $100 per square foot plus relocation costs, was insufficient, saying the real estate boom has priced them out of nearby properties.
I initially had the impression – from sound-bite journalism – that these people’s property was being “taken” from them, and “given” to some developer – but the above details suggest this is not the case.
Here in Oregon, the recently-passed Measure 37’s intent was to stop land-use regulations from being a form of un-compensated “takings” by government. But this case was not about un-compensated “takings” – nor did it come without sufficient notice to the landowners.
When the owners mention that the “real estate boom” has priced them out of nearby properties – when they are offered about $100/ft2 – it makes me wonder what caused the boom? Could it be the “evil” re-development? 😉
On this issue,immigration, among other,, you’re sounding more like Pat Buchanan everyday, John.
Mike — eminent domain pretty much always requires the “purchase” of the condemned property. The history of such procedures in Connecticut means you get one offer, take it or leave it. They take it, anyway.
$100/sq.ft might sound like a lot; but, I used to have clients in New London who paid $100/sq.ft. leases — 25 years ago. If someone down the block can sell their property easily for $150/sq.ft. and you get $100/sq.ft. — you’ve just been screwed!
Mike, you have to remember that the governments are NOT paying what the “owners” think the property is worth. The government is paying some vague “market” value.
And whether that market value is fair is irrelevant. The issue is that we don’t own our land and big business (via the government) can kick us off anytime it wants.
I think the issue most people have with eminent domain is that the government has the power to take what is currently private property. As several posts have pointed to, eminent domain has been used very well and for great purpose over the years. But it still goes back to the concept that their property ownership is not absolute and owners don’t like that.
I imagine that there have been abuses over the years, but the majority of seizures by government have been warranted and in the best interest of the people. How many Interstates were built using lands seized from property owners not wishing to sell? How many blighted, unfit and dangerous slums were seized for redevelopment? How many parcels of governments seized land included unscrupulous deals?
Even in the case used as the lead-in to this article, the goal is the acquirement of land for a housing development to be used for the public good. The current owners could have (should have?) asked for a reasonable parcel of land in the same neighborhood if they thought that their offer was under-priced. As one of the owners pointed out, even the new neighbors will need a car repair garage. But if $100 / ft is a low amount, then the owners should have counter offered what would be a fair amount.
In the Connecticut case, the majority of land was blighted and condemned for safety reasons. The property owners in question held up the development of the whole project because they refused to sell. They had been offered more then appraised compensation, but just didn’t want to sell. Now, can you imagine an Interstate that has to dead-end because someone didn’t want to sell their land? This property owner would then have the power to charge his own price, which could be ten times the real value, making such public projects prohibitively expensive.
I accept that people don’t want to part with a home that has been in the family for years or even generations. We cannot let them, however, stand in the way of the public good. The alternative to eminent domain is a far worse course then the right of the public good.
And don’t give me any bull about…”well in our town…” If there was malfeasance, then take it to the local or state prosecutor. If it was a bad idea, vote the local government out of office. But to complain and paint every public project the same is wrong and lazy.
This may be a capitalistic country, but public funds have built or promoted every major development right from the country’s inception. A partial lists includes The Post Office, the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Canals, Rail Roads, Opening of the plains to settlement, Dams and river diverting, Mississippi River dredging, Highways, and the Internet.
There is a proposal to take a New Hampshire farmhouse and turn it into a hotel. The farmhouse belongs to Justice David Souter. I just can’t see why real estate development or redevelopment can’t include the people in the community who own property. It seems to me that if an area is going to be invested in, people would want to be involved with any program which would improve the neighborhood. With eminent domain, what they are saying is that you don’t have a right to participate in the development which you are supposed to benefit from since it is for the public good. There is no shortage of real estate needing redevelopment investment. I doubt eminent domain will help the problems and there is a potential for abuse.
The Oakland development is subsidized by $61 million in city redevelopment funds. This is how development was done back in the 1950’s and 60’s when eminent domain was newer. Guess what happened. Cities lost population, people said screw this and went to the suburbs in droves. Now the cities are spending more to subsidize residential development to lure people back to the cities. Many cities don’t have funds for basic public safety and public works and the new subsidized real estate projects will fail over time as the old ones did from the 50’s and 60’s. The new buzzwords are market- rate housing. The market won’t support it, so the city establishes the rates which correspond to projections for increased tax revenues which will be put into development funds to take and raze the stuff that gets built today in 30 or 40 years from now. Move to the suburbs or stick it out in the city. You are more likely to get robbed in the city and with eminent domain you may get robbed by the city. There are few applications that eminent domain can be used for, that the public actually benefits from. It’s like anything else and there are a thousand lawyers and city agencies out there promoting the development agenda for dying cities with no more industry. Taxes in the city are high, populations continue to decline and crime keeps going up. The city is a less attractive place to live for whatever reason. All they have left is the hope of eminent domain and subsidized public market rate housing with subsidized five and dime stores. It’s to the point in many cities that the banks (if they are not closed yet) won’t loan people anything and the newest business is a check cashing store in the middle of a crime infested block of empty stores with people waiting for the subsidized transportation out of there to go to work where there is no subsized business and development.
In reference to Oakland, it is a town going nowhere. … Does not matter whether ppl are going to live here. … The question is does companies want to do business in Oakland? … Is the education system up to par? … Do ppl want to shop in Oakland?
###
John sounding more like Pat Buchanan everyday. The question is does he eat like Pat Buchanan!
###
Pat, there’s a difference between public use and public purpose. Just because something generates more tax money, that doesn’t make it OK to take away fromt he original owners. I would even include in this the minority owners of ‘slum houses’.