- Eighth Circuit rules in post-Rapanos decision - Nicholas M. Giessler, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation's Atlantic Center, discusses the recent decision in United States v. Bailey and the affect it has on wetland property owners' rights.
- Florida Supreme Court: Property Owners' Off-site Mitigation Taken Into Account in Business Damages From a Partial Take - Robert H. Thomas, OCA's Hawaii Member, blogs about the Florida Supreme Court decision in Systems Components Corp. v. Florida Dep't of Transportation.
- Too Many Sports Arenas and Would You Believe It's Those Stadiums Again? - Professor Gideon Kanner rants about the "municipal waste of taxpayers' money" specifically with respect to sports arenas. (See also: articles mentioned in the NY Times and Miami Today.) (Note: Prof. Kanner is a member of OCA.)
- Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Case to be Heard By New York's High Court- a press release from Develop-Don't Destroy Brooklyn regarding the infamous Forrest City Ratner Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn. More background about this story is available on DDDB's website here and at Atlantic Yards Report.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Week (or two) in Review
Here are some things that caught our attention over the past week or so...
Monday, July 6, 2009
Property Prof on SCOTUS review of Stop the Beach Renourishment
Widener University Law Professor D. Benjamin Barros summarizes the property rights case (Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection) recently accepted for review by the Supreme Court in his post: What's at Stake in Stop the Beach Renourishment. (Our post about this case is available here.)
As Prof. Barros explains, "This case gives the Court the opportunity to answer one of the great open questions in takings law: when, if ever, can a judicial decision constitute a taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause?"
Prof. Barros also provides his thoughts on how the case might "play out" before the Court and on what's at stake with respect to the law of regulatory takings - very interesting and well worth the read.
Thank you to our OCA Member Robert Thomas who pointed out the PropertyProf Blog post on his own inversecondemnation.com.
As Prof. Barros explains, "This case gives the Court the opportunity to answer one of the great open questions in takings law: when, if ever, can a judicial decision constitute a taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause?"
Prof. Barros also provides his thoughts on how the case might "play out" before the Court and on what's at stake with respect to the law of regulatory takings - very interesting and well worth the read.
Thank you to our OCA Member Robert Thomas who pointed out the PropertyProf Blog post on his own inversecondemnation.com.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Port Chester offers apology for taking property by eminent domain
Jun 16, 2009 - Port Chester, NY - The village of Port Chester publicly apologized to property owner William Brody for improperly seizing his commercial property by condemnation nearly in 1999. In a settlement that ended the decade-long battle between the property owner and the village, Port Chester paid the property owner $475,000, formally apologized from the steps of the Village Hall during a settlement signing ceremony and re-named the street corner where his commercial buildings previously stood "William Brody Plaza."
Dana Berliner, Senior Attorney with the Institute for Justice (and a member of OCA), represented Mr. Brody in his litigation against the village. As reported in LoHud.com, Ms. Berliner explained that the conditions of this particular settlement were out of the ordinary but that "The case was never about money; it was about vindicating Mr. Brody's rights."
In reality, the case was more than simply vindication for Mr. Brody's individual rights, it became a stimulus for changing New York's eminent domain law.
In 1999, Mr. Brody's property, including four commercial buildings, was seized by eminent domain for the construction of a 27-acre shopping complex built by G&S Investors. Mr. Brody missed the legal notice in the local newspaper which indicated Port Chester's intention to take his and other privately-owned properties. At the time, that was the minimum requirement for notification to a property owner under New York law. Mr. Brody sued the village claiming that he had no opportunity to fight the condemnation because he had missed the newspaper notice.
In a 2004 landmark reform, the notification requirement was amended obligating municipalities to notify property owners by certified mail or personal delivery.
At Tuesday's settlement signing ceremony, Port Chester's Mayor indicated that the village had no intentions of further condemnation actions and that it respects individual property rights. However, many would agree that actions speak much louder than words. Currently, the village owes two other property owners approximately $900,000 for properties seized in 2000 and 2001 for the same development. (See LoHud.com: Port Chester owes nearly $900,000 to owners of 2 seized businesses.) Port Chester has missed its May 15, 2009 deadline to pay these property owners the amounts owed, which includes the property value plus interest since the properties were seized years ago.
Attorney Michael Rikon (OCA New York Member) filed a motion recently against the village seeking payment of the amounts due plus a late payment penalty. Rikon explained that this has become an unnecessary and improper burden upon the two former property owners, who are no longer in business as a result of losing their properties.
The village attorney responded to the recently filed motion by saying that it was unnecessary and that the property owners will eventually get their money. Isn't it interesting: the village was able to quickly condemn property after simply posting legal notices in the paper, yet, some of the property owners whose homes, businesses and livelihoods were taken continue to await just compensation for their losses?
In a blog post yesterday: Apology Doesn't Go Far Enough, veteran journalist Phil Reisman who reported extensively on this "eminent domain fiasco" wrote: "...the apology to Brody isn’t enough. The village should extend it to the scores of merchants, landlords and apartment dwellers who were bullied, terrorized and swindled during that terrible period."
Dana Berliner, Senior Attorney with the Institute for Justice (and a member of OCA), represented Mr. Brody in his litigation against the village. As reported in LoHud.com, Ms. Berliner explained that the conditions of this particular settlement were out of the ordinary but that "The case was never about money; it was about vindicating Mr. Brody's rights."
In reality, the case was more than simply vindication for Mr. Brody's individual rights, it became a stimulus for changing New York's eminent domain law.
In 1999, Mr. Brody's property, including four commercial buildings, was seized by eminent domain for the construction of a 27-acre shopping complex built by G&S Investors. Mr. Brody missed the legal notice in the local newspaper which indicated Port Chester's intention to take his and other privately-owned properties. At the time, that was the minimum requirement for notification to a property owner under New York law. Mr. Brody sued the village claiming that he had no opportunity to fight the condemnation because he had missed the newspaper notice.
In a 2004 landmark reform, the notification requirement was amended obligating municipalities to notify property owners by certified mail or personal delivery.
At Tuesday's settlement signing ceremony, Port Chester's Mayor indicated that the village had no intentions of further condemnation actions and that it respects individual property rights. However, many would agree that actions speak much louder than words. Currently, the village owes two other property owners approximately $900,000 for properties seized in 2000 and 2001 for the same development. (See LoHud.com: Port Chester owes nearly $900,000 to owners of 2 seized businesses.) Port Chester has missed its May 15, 2009 deadline to pay these property owners the amounts owed, which includes the property value plus interest since the properties were seized years ago.
Attorney Michael Rikon (OCA New York Member) filed a motion recently against the village seeking payment of the amounts due plus a late payment penalty. Rikon explained that this has become an unnecessary and improper burden upon the two former property owners, who are no longer in business as a result of losing their properties.
The village attorney responded to the recently filed motion by saying that it was unnecessary and that the property owners will eventually get their money. Isn't it interesting: the village was able to quickly condemn property after simply posting legal notices in the paper, yet, some of the property owners whose homes, businesses and livelihoods were taken continue to await just compensation for their losses?
In a blog post yesterday: Apology Doesn't Go Far Enough, veteran journalist Phil Reisman who reported extensively on this "eminent domain fiasco" wrote: "...the apology to Brody isn’t enough. The village should extend it to the scores of merchants, landlords and apartment dwellers who were bullied, terrorized and swindled during that terrible period."
Monday, June 15, 2009
Supreme Court to hear Florida beach erosion case
On Monday morning, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a Florida property rights case, Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Dep't of Environmental Protection, et al. (08-1151). In granting certiorari, the Court will decide whether state legislation to renourish eroded beaches along the coast or lakeshores constitutes a regulatory taking or violates the Fifth Amendment when the boundary lines of waterfront private property is affected.
Beachfront property owners along Florida's Gulfcoast, have been trying to stop an effort by local and state officials to restore the beach through renourishment, a process by which sand is dredged from the ocean floor, transported through pipes and distributed along eroded beach areas, in essence adding sand to widen the beach. This proposed beach renourishment project would cover nearly seven miles of shoreline and widen the beach by approximately 210 feet in Destin, FL.
A key issue in the litigation thus far, which has moved from Circuit Court to the First District Court of Appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, is that by adding sand to the waterfront and restoring the beach, the State of Florida will assume ownership of some of the beach. The property owners have argued that their littoral rights would be limited, amounting to a regulatory taking, without just compensation.
In its September 29, 2008 opinion, the Florida Supreme Court opined that since enactment of Florida's Beach and Shore Preservation Act (specifically Part I of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes (2005)), the state has a constitutional duty to protect the beaches. The Florida Supreme Court sought to answer the certified question, which it rephrased as: "On its face, does the Beach and Shore Preservation Act unconstitutionally deprive upland owners of littoral rights without just compensation?" In its decision, the Court answered the question in the negative, quashing the appellate court decision, which had previously ruled in favor of the property owners.
Both the Florida Supreme Court and the First District Court of Appeal provided extensive factual and procedural history for the Beach and Shore Preservation Act and Florida's efforts to restore eroded beaches in their opinions. The background is outlined briefly here.
Following a number of hurricanes in the 1990's and early 2000's, the beaches of Walton County were drastically eroded and as a result the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) listed the County's beaches as "critically-eroded." To restore the beach area, Walton County applied to the FDEP for a permit to renourish the areas. In order to do so, the FDEP needed to establish a line at which the renourishment should begin, the Erosion Control Line (ECL).
A coastal survey was completed in 2003 which established the Mean High Water Line (MHWL) and the ECL was drawn along the MHWL. According to the Beach and Shore Preservation Act (specifically Section 161.191(1)), upon recording, the ECL became the boundary between publicly owned land and privately owned upland. In other words, once the ECL was established at the MHWL along private waterfront property, any sand added to the beach seaward of the ECL would be considered public lands and the private property would no longer have a direct boundary with the ocean. The private property owners argued that as a result of the beach restoration, they would no longer have common law littoral rights -direct ocean access, use and view as well as accretion and reliction - and that as a result of the loss of littoral rights, their property values would decrease.
In its opinion, Florida's Supreme Court outlined the relationship between the public and Florida's beaches.
Under both the Florida Constitution and the common law, the State holds the lands seaward of the MHWL, including the beaches between the mean high and low water lines, in trust for the public for the purposes of bathing, fishing, and navigation. See art. X, § 11, Fla. Const. (“The title to lands under navigable waters, within the boundaries of the state, which have not been alienated, including beaches below mean high water lines, is held by the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, in trust for all the people.”)Walton County v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc., 998 So.2d 1102, p. 12 (Fla. 2008).
The Court explained that in addition to its duties under the public trust doctrine, which has origins in English common law, the State has the responsibility to preserve and protect Florida's beaches as "important natural resources." Id at 13. The Court continues this explanation by stating that upland property owners have no rights to navigable waters and sovereign lands superior to the general public but that private property owners do have littoral rights - to access, use, view, accretion and reliction. The Court argued that the Beach and Shore Preservation Act expressly preserves the littoral rights of upland owners - access, use, and view, as well as the rights of ingress and egress. The Court found that at least facially there is no impairment of littoral rights, despite altering the property owners' rights to accretion and relicition. Therefore, the Court held that the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, on its face, did not unconstitutionally deprive upland owners of littoral rights without just compensation. Id at 36.
In just 24 hours since the Supreme Court announced that it would hear this case, there have been many articles and blog posts about the issues surrounding this regulatory takings case. Some links and interesting articles include:
- SCOTUS To Review Beachfront Takings Case: Can A Court Decision "Take" Property? - Robert Thomas's inversecondemnation blog
- Surprise! Supreme Court Grants Cert in Beach Takings Case - ABA Journal online
- Supreme Court Takes Regulatory Takings Case - Volokh Conspiracy blog
- SCOTUSblog - including links to the Petition for certiorari and all briefs filed thus far
Photo Credit: "Restoration in Progress - Eastern Destin" from www.destin-fwb.com
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Author and Publisher Ask Court to Dismiss Eminent Domain Defamation Lawsuit
Recently, the Institute for Justice released the following press release regarding the lawsuit filed by Texas Developer H. Walker Royall against author Carla Main and publisher, Encounter Books, regarding Ms. Main's book: Bulldozed: “Kelo,” Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land. The Institute for Justice represents Ms. Main and Encounter Books in this defamation suit. Bulldozed is available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. For more about this story see our previous posts here.
IJ WEB RELEASE: June 5, 2009
Dallas, Texas—The author and publisher of Bulldozed: “Kelo,” Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land today asked a Dallas state court to dismiss the defamation lawsuit filed against them by Dallas developer H. Walker Royall. Published in 2007, Bulldozed chronicles events in Freeport, Texas, where Royall signed a development agreement to have the city take land owned by Western Seafood—a generations-old shrimping business—and give that land to Royall’s development company for a luxury yacht marina. Royall sued the book’s author, Carla Main, and its publisher, Encounter Books, in October 2008, seeking monetary damages and a permanent prohibition on further printing or distribution of the book.
Royall’s lawsuit is part of a national trend. Similar suits have been filed in Tennessee, Missouri, Washington and elsewhere by developers and government officials looking to silence critics of eminent domain for private gain. Earlier, when the Gore family—owners of Western Seafood and the original victims of Royall’s eminent domain abuse effort in Freeport—complained against Royall’s actions, he sued them for defamation. In the present lawsuit, Royall has also sued the Galveston newspaper that reviewed the book, along with the book reviewer. Law Professor Richard Epstein, whom Royall also sued, was dismissed from the lawsuit in March.
When asked by Main and Encounter to identify specific passages in Bulldozed that defame him, Royall could point only to Main’s criticism of his involvement in the Freeport marina project and a handful of random statements that fall far short of the legal standard of defamation.
“Mr. Royall does not seem to understand that the First Amendment protects the right of journalists to criticize people who seek to profit from public projects,” said Matt Miller, executive director of the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter (IJ-TX), the nonprofit public interest law firm that is defending Main and her publisher. “Mr. Royall agreed to have the city of Freeport take his neighbors’ land and give it to him so that he could build a luxury yacht marina. Carla Main enjoys the same right all Americans enjoy under the First Amendment, to chronicle and condemn Mr. Royall’s behavior. We asked Mr. Royall to tell us how, exactly, Bulldozed defames him and he came up empty-handed. Carla wrote a hard-hitting exposé of the events in Freeport, but she did not defame Mr. Royall.”
Main is a veteran journalist who was an associate editor of The National Law Journal, where she edited the opinion page and wrote a column on law and society. She wrote for The Wall Street Journal, Policy Review, National Review, The American Lawyer and The New York Sun, among other publications. Before becoming a journalist, Main practiced as an attorney in New York City for ten years. Bulldozed was reviewed in many newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, was nominated for the Texas Historical Commission’s annual T.R. Fehrenbach Book Award and won a highly competitive independent press award for political science writing.
“The book was a labor of love,” said Main. “I researched it meticulously and gave Mr. Royall multiple opportunities to be interviewed. His primary complaint about the book seems to be that I described him as participating in an economic development taking, which he did.”
“Eminent domain for private gain is the subject of nationwide public debate,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Dana Berliner, who was co-counsel in the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court case, which is addressed at length in Bulldozed. “If Walker Royall doesn’t want anyone to talk about him or his development deals, he shouldn’t enter into deals that involve a city’s condemnation of his neighbors. Today we are asking the court to put an end to Mr. Royall’s lawsuit spree.”
If successful, the motion filed today will result in a complete dismissal of the lawsuit against Main and her publisher.
Media Contact:
John Kramer
(703) 682-9320
Dana Berliner, IJ Senior Attorney, is a member of the Owners' Counsel of America and a recipient of the Crystal Eagle Award.
IJ WEB RELEASE: June 5, 2009
Dallas, Texas—The author and publisher of Bulldozed: “Kelo,” Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land today asked a Dallas state court to dismiss the defamation lawsuit filed against them by Dallas developer H. Walker Royall. Published in 2007, Bulldozed chronicles events in Freeport, Texas, where Royall signed a development agreement to have the city take land owned by Western Seafood—a generations-old shrimping business—and give that land to Royall’s development company for a luxury yacht marina. Royall sued the book’s author, Carla Main, and its publisher, Encounter Books, in October 2008, seeking monetary damages and a permanent prohibition on further printing or distribution of the book.
Royall’s lawsuit is part of a national trend. Similar suits have been filed in Tennessee, Missouri, Washington and elsewhere by developers and government officials looking to silence critics of eminent domain for private gain. Earlier, when the Gore family—owners of Western Seafood and the original victims of Royall’s eminent domain abuse effort in Freeport—complained against Royall’s actions, he sued them for defamation. In the present lawsuit, Royall has also sued the Galveston newspaper that reviewed the book, along with the book reviewer. Law Professor Richard Epstein, whom Royall also sued, was dismissed from the lawsuit in March.
When asked by Main and Encounter to identify specific passages in Bulldozed that defame him, Royall could point only to Main’s criticism of his involvement in the Freeport marina project and a handful of random statements that fall far short of the legal standard of defamation.
“Mr. Royall does not seem to understand that the First Amendment protects the right of journalists to criticize people who seek to profit from public projects,” said Matt Miller, executive director of the Institute for Justice Texas Chapter (IJ-TX), the nonprofit public interest law firm that is defending Main and her publisher. “Mr. Royall agreed to have the city of Freeport take his neighbors’ land and give it to him so that he could build a luxury yacht marina. Carla Main enjoys the same right all Americans enjoy under the First Amendment, to chronicle and condemn Mr. Royall’s behavior. We asked Mr. Royall to tell us how, exactly, Bulldozed defames him and he came up empty-handed. Carla wrote a hard-hitting exposé of the events in Freeport, but she did not defame Mr. Royall.”
Main is a veteran journalist who was an associate editor of The National Law Journal, where she edited the opinion page and wrote a column on law and society. She wrote for The Wall Street Journal, Policy Review, National Review, The American Lawyer and The New York Sun, among other publications. Before becoming a journalist, Main practiced as an attorney in New York City for ten years. Bulldozed was reviewed in many newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal, was nominated for the Texas Historical Commission’s annual T.R. Fehrenbach Book Award and won a highly competitive independent press award for political science writing.
“The book was a labor of love,” said Main. “I researched it meticulously and gave Mr. Royall multiple opportunities to be interviewed. His primary complaint about the book seems to be that I described him as participating in an economic development taking, which he did.”
“Eminent domain for private gain is the subject of nationwide public debate,” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Dana Berliner, who was co-counsel in the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court case, which is addressed at length in Bulldozed. “If Walker Royall doesn’t want anyone to talk about him or his development deals, he shouldn’t enter into deals that involve a city’s condemnation of his neighbors. Today we are asking the court to put an end to Mr. Royall’s lawsuit spree.”
If successful, the motion filed today will result in a complete dismissal of the lawsuit against Main and her publisher.
Media Contact:
John Kramer
(703) 682-9320
About the Institute for Justice
Founded in 1991, the Virginia-based Institute for Justice fought the landmark legal battle to protect property rights in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing Kelo v. City of New London in 2005. The Institute has successfully defended eminent domain abuse activists sued for speaking out in St. Louis, Mo., and Clarksville, Tenn.Dana Berliner, IJ Senior Attorney, is a member of the Owners' Counsel of America and a recipient of the Crystal Eagle Award.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Sewer lines, cow farms and fair negotiations
A story in the community news section of the Mooresville Tribune caught our attention today due to it's snappy title "Sewer line and cows don't mix, so town and farmer reach agreement." Of course, at first one might be interested in reviewing the article simply because it is about sewer lines and cows, but it was the second part of the title that caused us to stop and read. It is not often that one hears about a well-negotiated agreement between government and property owner. Therefore, it is our opinion that this story is worth repeating.
As the story goes, 91-year old farmer, Eugene Alexander, stumbled upon surveyors' stakes marking a sewer easement through his 200-acre farm in Mooresville, North Carolina. Since, Mr. Alexander had not been informed of the project, he and his family attended an April town meeting seeking an alternative. The family appealed to the town board to relocate the easement along the edge of the family's farm rather than through the middle of the grazing pasture.
This week, the town board returned to discuss proposals it had received from the engineering department. After a short 45-minute discussion, the board proposed a compromise: keep the original alignment and the property owner would be compensated for the easement area and the loss of use of his property. Additionally, the town offered to cover the cost of fencing that would be required to secure the construction area (and keep the cows safe). The compensation amount of $149,100 was based on the town's highest appraisal for the land and included a value for loss of use, which is not normally accounted for in condemnation appraisals.
The family agreed to the compromise requesting only that the 20 proposed manhole covers be constructed at ground level to maintain the aesthetic appeal of the land.
As the story goes, 91-year old farmer, Eugene Alexander, stumbled upon surveyors' stakes marking a sewer easement through his 200-acre farm in Mooresville, North Carolina. Since, Mr. Alexander had not been informed of the project, he and his family attended an April town meeting seeking an alternative. The family appealed to the town board to relocate the easement along the edge of the family's farm rather than through the middle of the grazing pasture.
This week, the town board returned to discuss proposals it had received from the engineering department. After a short 45-minute discussion, the board proposed a compromise: keep the original alignment and the property owner would be compensated for the easement area and the loss of use of his property. Additionally, the town offered to cover the cost of fencing that would be required to secure the construction area (and keep the cows safe). The compensation amount of $149,100 was based on the town's highest appraisal for the land and included a value for loss of use, which is not normally accounted for in condemnation appraisals.
The family agreed to the compromise requesting only that the 20 proposed manhole covers be constructed at ground level to maintain the aesthetic appeal of the land.
The moral of the story: Despite the fact that notifying the landowner about the project "fell through the cracks" (as explained to the board by the Engineering Manager), a fair offer of compensation and willingness to negotiate allowed the Town of Mooresville and the property owner to reach an agreement without the burden of litigation. However, folks, we do not recommend that you try this one at home. If you are a property owner threatened by eminent domain, we recommend that you seek the advice of a qualified and experienced eminent domain attorney. To locate an eminent domain attorney in your state click here.
"We feel good about it," David Alexander said after the meeting. "We're not hard to get along with, we just want done what's right."
Friday, May 8, 2009
101-year old property owner wins eminent domain court battle against village
On Tuesday (May 5, 2009) a Cook County, Illinois jury awarded Ema Mae "Babe" Ahern $25 million for the taking of her 95-acre golf course and country club property in the Village of Evergreen Park on Chicago's South Side. News stories about the jury trial and the property owner, Babe Ahern, reported that Ms. Ahern has lived on the property since her birth 101 years ago and that she continues to actively run the golf course and club, her family's business.
The primary issue before the jury in this trial was determining the value of the property, the amount that the village should pay to take it by eminent domain. In 1999, Ahern was approached by a developer who offered to purchase her property for $25 million. The developer planned to build a mixed-use commercial and residential development. However, the village refused to rezone the land and the sale fell through.
In 2001, Evergreen Park offered between $5 and $6 million to purchase the property. When negotiations were unsuccessful in 2002, the Village filed eminent domain to seize the property. In court, attorneys for Evergreen Park argued that the value of the land should be based upon the village's intended use as green space for "municipal recreational purposes." However, the property owner's attorneys argued that the value of the property should be based upon the highest and best use of the property as commercial and that the village's intended use could be secured through zoning or ordinances.
After about 30 minutes, the jury returned the verdict of $25 million as just compensation for the taking of the Evergreen Golf and Country Club. At this time, the Village of Evergreen Park has not indicated whether it would appeal the decision, pay the $25 million or simply walk away. If the village decides not to take the property, it will still be required to pay Ahern's legal expenses for the duration of this 7-year legal battle.
Technorati Profile
The primary issue before the jury in this trial was determining the value of the property, the amount that the village should pay to take it by eminent domain. In 1999, Ahern was approached by a developer who offered to purchase her property for $25 million. The developer planned to build a mixed-use commercial and residential development. However, the village refused to rezone the land and the sale fell through.
In 2001, Evergreen Park offered between $5 and $6 million to purchase the property. When negotiations were unsuccessful in 2002, the Village filed eminent domain to seize the property. In court, attorneys for Evergreen Park argued that the value of the land should be based upon the village's intended use as green space for "municipal recreational purposes." However, the property owner's attorneys argued that the value of the property should be based upon the highest and best use of the property as commercial and that the village's intended use could be secured through zoning or ordinances.
After about 30 minutes, the jury returned the verdict of $25 million as just compensation for the taking of the Evergreen Golf and Country Club. At this time, the Village of Evergreen Park has not indicated whether it would appeal the decision, pay the $25 million or simply walk away. If the village decides not to take the property, it will still be required to pay Ahern's legal expenses for the duration of this 7-year legal battle.
Technorati Profile
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
