eminent domain in Wisconsin, Lodi
Wisconsin, Susie THE DUCK, Molony
REALTY, GOERES PARK, HABERMANN
PARK, GIBRALTER, GIBRALTER ROCK,
another legal test of
eminent domain,
Wisconsin, Susie THE DUCK, Molony
REALTY, GOERES PARK, HABERMANN
PARK, GIBRALTER, GIBRALTER ROCK,
another legal test of
eminent domain,
EMINENT DOMAIN
2005 Assembly Bill 657
Would prohibit condemnation of property
for conveyance or lease to a private entity if
the property is not “blighted,” as defined in
the bill. [There are amendments to AB657
which changes the original intent of the bill,
you can research the rest of the bill at this
Legislative website: http://www.legis.state.
wi.us/2005/data/AB657hst.html ] (At the
time of publication the bill was approved by
the Governor on 3-29-2006 and Published
4-12-2006.
2005 Assembly Bill 457
Proposes to eliminate the condemnation
authority of all nongovernmental entities
that are now allowed to acquire property by
condemnation, such as railroad
corporations and public utilities. (At the
time of publication the bill was read for the
first time and referred to committee on
Energy and Utilities.)
2005 Assembly Bill 682 and Senate
Bill 437
Proposes to prohibit any condemnation of
property that is not expressly authorized by
statute. Current law refers to condemnation
for “any lawful purpose.” (At the time of
publication the bill was Read first time and
referred to committee on Property Rights
and Land Management.)
Senate Bill 437
Proposes to prohibit any condemnation of
property that is not expressly authorized by
statute. Current law refers to condemnation
for “any lawful purpose.”
(At the time of publication the bill was read
for the first time and referred to the
Committee on Veterans, Homeland
Security, Military Affairs, Small Business
and Government Reform.)
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
In the 109th Congress, the U.S. House of
Representatives passed House Resolution
340, on June 30, 2005, expressing “grave
disapproval” of the majority opinion in
Kelo. H.R. 4128, the proposed “Private
Property Rights Protection Act of 2005,”
introduced by U.S. Representative F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr., of Wisconsin and 97
co¬sponsors, passed the House of
Representatives on November 3, 2005, and
has been referred to the U.S. Senate for
consideration. The bill would prohibit the
federal government from using eminent
domain for economic development, and
would withhold certain federal development
funds from states that condemn private
property for economic development.
"The best guarantee for justice in public dealings is the
participation in their own government of the people
most likely to suffer from injustice." - John Morley (On
Compromise)
participation in their own government of the people
most likely to suffer from injustice." - John Morley (On
Compromise)
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Search for Wisconsin Statutes on “eminent
domain” at http://www.legis.state.wi.us,
hyper link to “Wisconsin Law” and
“Statutes.” LRB “Tap the Power” on
Eminent Domain and Property Rights http:
//www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/pubs/. Or you
can call the Legislative Reference Bureau
to ask questions or have materials sent to
you at the Legislative Reference Bureau
reference desk: (608) 266-0341.
NAR Helps REALTORS® Be Proactive on
Eminent Domain
(May 18, 2006) -- WASHINGTON – A
new guide gives the real estate industry
direction in working with legislatures to
regulate eminent domain.
Since the Kelo et al v. City of New London
ruling brought attention to the issue of
using eminent domain to take non-blighted
property for economic development,
numerous states have passed or
considered passing laws to curtail local
governments.
While REALTORS® have already made
their voices heard in many states, they
now have a new tool to take a more
proactive approach to legislative actions
on eminent domain. In April, NAR issued a
set of “working principles” to assist state
Realtor® associations in evaluating
proposed eminent domain legislation.
The principles begin by advocating an
analysis of all alternatives to an eminent
domain taking, including voluntary sales
and adaptive reuse. The guide also
suggests using an inclusive process
encompassing public hearings and
approval by a legislative body to evaluate
a taking. Another critical component is the
offer of truly just compensation for
property, which would include fair market
value of the parcel as well as lost business
revenues, relocation costs, and attorneys’
fees. Finally the guide advocates post-
taking accountability to ensure that the
public benefits identified in the proposed
taking actually occurred.
The guide also includes principles that can
be applied to use of eminent domain to
achieve economic development. The paper
supports the idea that government should
not engage in land speculation and should
intervene in markets only when private
developers refuse to do so (as in the case
of blighted areas).
Governments should also be required to
define public need and public benefit
before authorizing a taking, concludes the
guide.
The complete principles are available at
online.
— By Mariwyn Evans for Realtor®
Magazine Online
*************
CLICK HERE to view The Guide
10 May 2006
Eminent Domain
EMINENT DOMAIN: PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE PURPOSES?
INTRODUCTION
Governments have long used the power of
eminent domain to acquire private property
for public projects such as roads, ports,
schools, and a variety of other public
facilities. Although the doctrine has a long
history for all levels of government,
eminent domain has received increased
attention following a United States Supreme
Court decision, Kelo et al. v. City of New
London et al. (125 S.CT. 2655), in which the
Court ruled that a local government could
use the condemnation power for a private
for¬profit development project if deemed
to advance a “public purpose” of economic
development. The decision prompted
widespread concern about governments’
powers to seize homes and other private
property in the name of economic
development.
Wisconsin LAW
Unlike the law in Connecticut, Wisconsin law
does not explicitly permit the use of
eminent domain to take and transfer
property for private economic development.
Chapter 32, Wisconsin Statutes, “Eminent
Domain,” establishes the procedure for
condemnation of private property,
expressly listing the government entities
and types of corporations
LRB−06−WB−1− 3 − that have
condemnation powers and for what
purposes. The chapter also sets out the
procedures for appeal of a condemnation.
Although Wisconsin law generally appears
to limit eminent domain to traditional public
uses (including some involving private
ownership, such as for railroads or public
utilities), some of the provisions relating to
redevelopment of blighted areas could be
interpreted to allow condemnation of
non¬blighted properties within an otherwise
blighted area as part of a redevelopment
plan. Other possible ambiguities in the laws
relating to eminent domain are left to the
courts to resolve.
LAWS AND LEGISLATION IN OTHER
STATES
Connecticut, where Kelo originated, is a
typical in that it is one of only three states,
according to the National Conference of
State Legislatures (NCSL), where state
statutes explicitly permit the use of eminent
domain for economic development purposes
(also Massachusetts and North Dakota);
NCSL reports that nine states have case law
precedent allowing for it. NCSL also reports
that at least 13 states (including Wisconsin)
have introduced legislation following Kelo to
restrict or prohibit the use of eminent
domain for private development, and four
of them have enacted new legislation in
2005.
In response to the public attention
generated by Kelo, a number of bills on
eminent domain have been introduced at the
Wisconsin State Capital through December
2005.
| Back to LINKS |
Another Memorial Day has come and gone.
There were ceremonies throughout the
country where elected officials were in
paradise then commemorated those who
have given so much for our country. Those
elected officials go up to the microphone
and say very nice things about the veterans
who have lost their lives for the rights of us
all.
One of those rights is to own
property.
Then these same elected officials go back
and approve eminent domain takings in
their communities where private developers
get the property for their new housing
units, or retail stores, or whatever. Not
even for a road or public building. To all
those elected officials...GO BACK TO
WORK AND PASS LEGISLATION THAT
ACTUALLY HELPS US TAXPAYERS!
********
Daily Real Estate News |
January 5, 2007
Top Court to Hear New Eminent Domain Case
In another legal test of eminent domain, the
U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether a
private company can demand payment in
exchange for not seizing property.
Developer Bart Didden wanted to put a CVS
pharmacy on property he owned in Port
Chester, N.Y.. He had approvals from the
local planning board but because the land
was in a blighted redevelopment zone, he
had to also gain approval from the private
redevelopment company hired by the city
to control development in the zone.
The developer overseeing the zone told
Didden he’d have to pay $800,000 or give
the developer G&S, a 50 percent stake in
the CVS business. Otherwise, G&S would
seize the property and use it for a Walgreen’
s drug store.
Didden refused and the Village of Port
Chester began eminent domain proceedings.
Didden sued at various levels without
satisfaction, and now the matter is set to go
before the highest court. Property rights
activists see this as an opportunity for the
top court to clarify its controversial decision
in Kelo v. New London.
In that opinion in June 2005, the court ruled
5-4 that local governments could seize
private property and turn it over to a
private developer when the action was part
of an economic development project that
benefits the public.
Source: The Christian Science Monitor,
Warren Richey (01/05/07)
****