The Eminent Domain Process

The Eminent Domain Process

PROPERTY ACQUISITION AT-A-GLANCE

EMINENT DOMAIN/ CONDEMNATION

EMINENT DOMAIN/ CONDEMNATION

We seek to recover full compensation for Florida property owners who are having their property taken by a governmental entity or other condemning authority.

Black's Law Dictionary defines eminent domain as "the power to take private property for public use by the state, municipalities, and private persons or corporations authorized to exercise functions of public character."[1]Black's Law Dictionary defines condemnation as the "process of taking private property for public use through the power of eminent domain."[2]In other words, eminent domain is the power the government has to take private property and condemnation is the process that the government must follow to take the property.

Both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Florida place limits on the state's inherent power of eminent domain. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.[3]The Constitution of the State of Florida states that "no private property shall be taken except for a public purpose and with full compensation therefor paid to each owner or secured by deposit in the registry of the court and available to the owner."
[4]
Florida Statute Chapter 73, which is titled Eminent Domain, and Chapter 74, which is titled Proceedings Supplemental to Eminent Domain, provide Florida's condemnation law.
While every section in these two Chapters is important, many property owners are particularly interested in Section 73.015 Presuit negotiation and Section 73.091 Costs of the proceedings. Section 73.015 Presuit negotiation mandates that "before an eminent domain proceeding is brought under this chapter or chapter 74, the condemning authority must attempt to negotiate in good faith with the fee owner of the parcel to be acquired, must provide the fee owner with a written offer and, if requested, a copy of the appraisal upon which the offer is based, and must attempt to reach an agreement regarding the amount of compensation to be paid for the parcel."[5] Section 73.091 Costs of the proceedings mandates that the condemnor pay the property owner's attorney's fees and costs.Because the condemnor is responsible for paying the property owners fees and costs, The Law Office of Holloway and Associates does not look to the property owner for fees or costs.

If you are a property owner and believe that the government may be acquiring your property for a future project, we would welcome the opportunity to review the facts of your case and discuss with you your legal options.

[1] Black's Law Dictionary 523 (6th ed. 1990) (emphasis added).
[2] Black's Law Dictionary 292 (6th ed. 1990) (emphasis added).
[3] Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 1791.
[4] Section 6(a), Article X, Fla. Constitution. [5] §73.015 (a), Fla. Stat. (2000).

Eminent domain

Eminent domain

Sun-Sentinel
Posted June 29 2005


ISSUE: The Supreme Court has made it easier for governments to take private property.

Every property owner should be concerned about a Supreme Court decision last week that supports a growing tendency among governments to expand the use of their eminent domain power. The court, in effect, ruled a government entity can take a person's property and transfer it to a private, profit-making corporation if it serves a public purpose, such as generating additional tax revenue.

In other words, if a city decided it wanted multimillion-dollar business and condominium development on the beach instead of middle-class housing, it could be within its rights to take property through eminent domain and turn it over to a private corporation for redevelopment.

Cities certainly have an interest in improving blighted areas through redevelopment, and a few intransigent property owners can block ambitious plans needed to upgrade a community. The high court's 5-4 ruling, however, could pave the way for a massive transfer of property from the middle and lower economic classes to the wealthy.

As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her dissent: "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

In a quainter, and perhaps less greedy, time in American history, "public use" had a much narrower definition. Government could take a person's property, with just compensation, to make way for a road, a school or a municipal water project.

But a shopping mall?

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined O'Connor in opposition to the decision.

Fortunately, the ruling does not preclude states from protecting property rights. The Florida Legislature should review the state's eminent domain law and procedures, and strengthen them if necessary, to make certain the average citizen's property is protected from unethical seizures.

BOTTOM LINE: In light of the court ruling, the Legislature should look again at eminent domain.

Eminent domain case: 'little impact in Florida'

Eminent domain case: 'little impact in Florida'

Posted-Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:05 AM EDT Keynoter

"Better to be ignorant of the matter than to half know it."

- Publilius Syrus (First Century B.C.)

The drumbeats were loud and lamentations voluminous as property-rights advocates began to assess the impact of last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision on eminent domain.

Even network television was straining to explain the court's narrow 5-4 vote and speculate on what it means.


Here in the Florida Keys, where conspiracy theories abound anyway, the Supreme Court's "sellout" was widely seen as opening the doors for further takings.

In Marathon, a chain of e-mail alerts with sample letters to the governor began making the rounds.

However, before folks get even more panicky, it helps to explain that the Connecticut case appealed to the Supreme Court will have little impact in Florida. That's because this state already has eminent domain powers broadly used for similar kinds of "public uses."


In today's Keynoter, reporter Alyson Matley interviews land-use attorney James Mattson, who last year filed a property takings case against Monroe County. He says the Supreme Court's ruling will make little difference locally.

"This has gone on since the mid 1950s," he told Matley.

In Marathon, rumblings about the city condemning private property for the public good first surfaced four years ago after early City Council members attended a Florida League of Cities conference.


During workshops, lawyers and planners and financial experts talked about community redevelopment agencies, which give local governments power to condemn blighted areas and concentrate property tax revenues from redevelopment to make improvements in the designated area.

Two CRAs already exist in the Keys: One in Bahama Village, the other covers the Key West Bight.

Last year, when Marathon Councilman Jeff Pinkus raised questions about CRAs and Old Town Marathon redevelopment, he got an earful from opponents. Since then, Marathon council members have voiced little support for the idea.

For those who see a direct link between the Supreme Court decision, CRAs and the threat of takings in Marathon, we urge more facts and less frenzy. In today's lead story, reporter David Ball lays out the facts.

To invoke eminent domain would require changing Marathon's comprehensive plan, which was just adopted. In addition, the city planning board would have to hold public hearings. And voters could demand a referendum on the issue.

Doubters who still see conspiracy theories at play may draw some comfort from what Mattson has to say about the Supreme Court decision: "It will have a lousy impact all over the country, but not here."

Curbing eminent domain

Curbing eminent domain
July 7, 2005 The Washington Times


For an object lesson in the virtues of federalism, consider the wave of efforts at the state and local level as well as in Congress to curb eminent-domain abuses in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London. Governors, legislators and citizens from California to New Hampshire are moving to counteract the collusion of government and business that could easily result from Kelo. We hope this prompts a tightening of state and federal laws to prevent confiscatory, revenue-driven uses of eminent domain.

In Connecticut, state legislators are pushing a bill to bar the use of eminent domain for economic development, and more than 300 protesters converged on New London's city hall to decry the Kelo ruling. In California, a city councilman in Encinitas proposes that any transfer of private property to other private owners must pass a two-thirds vote in a regular election. In Florida, a spokesman for Gov. Jeb Bush says the governor "does not think an appropriate use [of eminent domain] is for building condos to generate more taxes for a city." At the grass-roots, the most amusing development is a push by a citizens' group to seize the Weare, N. H., home of Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, author of the Kelo opinion, for a "development" project to be called the "Lost Liberty Hotel." The hotel would include a museum on "the loss of freedom in America." A spokesman insists "this is not a prank." Perhaps not.

Efforts are afoot in Washington, too. In the House, an unlikely coalition of Democrats and Republicans seeks to use the power of the purse to discourage New London-style takings. By a 231-189 vote, the House approved legislation that would deny federal funds from the Departments of Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development to local or state governments using eminent-domain to force the sale of property for a for-profit enterprise. Sponsored by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, its cosponsors include some of the bluest of blue-state Democratic liberals, such as Rep. Maxine Waters of California and John Conyers Jr. of Michigan. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri promise a similar measure to include all federal funding. Mr. DeLay calls the Kelo decision "horrible" and vows that Congress will checkmate the judiciary. In the Senate, John Cornyn, Texas Republican, introduced a measure to curb eminent-domain abuse with Bill Nelson of Florida, a Democrat, and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a Republican, as cosponsors. Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican, promises help.

These efforts to recalibrate eminent-domain law come not a moment too soon. A 2003 study by the Institute for Justice's Castle Coalition, a private-property group pushing correctives to Kelo, found more than 10,000 uses or threats of use of eminent-domain for private parties in the five-year period ending Dec. 31, 2002. Eminent-domain abuse is widespread. It must be stopped.

Articles ----

Articles Many of the articles available here are in the Adobe Acrobat format and require the free Adobe Acrobat Reader.


So Long Amortization, Hello Compensation: A Victory For Property Rights - AEDP Newsletter Spring 2002 and The Florida Bar Eminent Domain Newsletter June 2002

Prerequisites To The Lawful Exercise Of Eminent Domain In A Community Redevelopment Area - Lawyer February 2002 (101KB Adobe PDF)

Ybor City Redevelopment Gets More Guiding Hands - Tampa Bay Business Journal December 1999 (88KB Adobe PDF)

Reasonable Probability Or Unreasonable Speculation? - Lawyer November 1999 (111KB Adobe PDF)

Home Rule - But At What Cost? - Tampa Bay Business Journal April 1999 (91KB Adobe PDF)

Fighting Chance - When The Government Wants Your Land, Prepare to Fight For Fair Payment - Entrepreneur November 1998 (212KB Adobe PDF)

Growth Management Meets Eminent Domain - Lawyer April 1997 (65KB Adobe PDF)

Speaker creates committee to develop eminent domain guidelines for state (Florida)

Speaker creates committee to develop eminent domain guidelines for state (Florida)

PalmBeachPost ^ June 25, 2005 Alan Gomez

Posted on 06/27/2005 9:20:43 AM PDT by tutstar

TALLAHASSEE — Expressing concerns about a U.S. Supreme Court decision that broadened governments' rights to use eminent domain proceedings to take private property, Florida House Speaker Allan Bense on Friday created a committee to develop guidelines about when and where the proceedings can be used in the state.

Bense, who has described himself as a libertarian in opposing government intrusion on personal lives, said Floridians should be wary of eminent domain proceedings used to benefit profit-driven private entities.

"Private property rights are a fundamental principle upon which our nation was founded, and government should only be allowed to deny a United States citizen those most basic rights under the most extraordinary circumstances," he said.

US Senator Bill Nelson Opposes Eminent Domain RulingLawmaker also discusses hurricane issues in Bartow

Published Friday, July 8, 2005

document.title = unescape("Nelson%20Opposes%20Eminent%20Domain%20Ruling") + " theledger.com";

Nelson Opposes Eminent Domain RulingLawmaker also discusses hurricane issues in Bartow.
By Bill RuftyThe Ledger

BARTOW -- When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that local governments can take private property through eminent domain on behalf of private developers, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said there oughta be a law against it.The Florida Democrat is one of the initial sponsors of such a law and he's stumping through the state to get support from voters while Congress takes its Fourth of July recess. On Thursday he was in Polk County."The Supreme Court has reinterpreted the Fifth Amendment, but we can take steps to protect against taking land for private developers until that interpretation is revisited," Nelson told a town hall meeting in Bartow that drew about 60 people.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows the taking of private property for public use and for fair value paid. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that "public use" or benefit can be achieved from economic redevelopment by a private developer, he said.

Nelson is among the prime sponsors of Senate Bill 1313, which would prevent federal funds from being used to condemn and purchase property for private developers."Legislatively, we can say that you can't use federal monies in the taking of property for private development, and since federal dollars are often the majority of funds in redevelopment, that should protect some property owners," he said.

Some members of the audience said they were concerned about local ramifications from the ruling, especially in the wake of Lakeland's community redevelopment agency's plans for the Parker Street neighborhood.The Supreme Court, with a different makeup of justices, likely will reconsider the eminent domain case in the future, Nelson said.

The Supreme Court is on the minds of each of the 100 senators right now in the wake of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's decision to retire."I want a judge with an open mind, impartial and not partisan, who will protect the independence of the judicial branch. I don't want someone whose mind is already made up," Nelson said.

Nelson said he would participate in a filibuster if he felt the situation demanded it, though he would be reluctant to do so."If there is a nominee with whom I vigorously disagree, someone extraordinarily objectionable, yes, I would," he said.

Nelson said he participated in his first filibuster just weeks ago as he fought a clause in a bill that would have expanded oil drilling off of Florida's Gulf Coast.The floor leader of the bill relented and the drilling was removed from the measure.With Hurricane Dennis entering the Gulf, Nelson fielded questions from the audience on the reported slowness of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's recovery efforts in Florida after last year's four hurricanes.

He hinted that the top managers of the agency should be replaced."FEMA has the money. The question is does FEMA have the leadership," he said. Nelson pointed to mixups such as the agency paying for twice as many funerals as there were people killed by the hurricanes and $30 million in emergency funds sent to Miami-Dade, which did not sustain a direct hit from any of the hurricanes."It was one of the most frustrating times for me last year," Nelson said of trying to get the agency to move on recovery efforts. "It was simply inexcusable incompetence."From what we have seen, it would appear that the agency does not have the leadership," he said.Asked if the top leaders of the agency should be replaced, he replied, "That is something the White House has to decide.

"Ledger Political Editor Bill Rufty can be reached at bill.rufty@theledger.com or 863-802-7523.

Supreme Court, Property

Published Thursday, June 30, 2005

Supreme Court, Property

Kapital uber alles! Shades of Marx and Engels!

Sieg heil, reichsgericht! (Or should it be supreme comrades -- all five of them?)

The new ruling from our comrade judges in the Supreme Court, revolutionarily dispossesses every U.S. citizen of ownership of home and land. A title means nothing any longer if for whatever reason local government and private business conclude your property and home, or farmland, would better serve the economy as a business site. Your title is just a piece of worthless paper.

That's what the expanded "eminent domain" ruling inflicts upon ownership rights.

No longer are private land and homes protected from the voracious, drooling greed of private developers, investors and the unsated, tax-hungry local politicians in power, along with the real estate industry.

No longer must the general public's good and benefit be required to condemn your property and force you to sell, whether you want to or not. You must! The state, essentially, owns the rights to all real property now.

Your lifetime of effort, payments, maintenance, care, memories and security are gone. History! Gone without recourse.

Gone, forever -- into that unquenchable maw of das kapital, the mantra of our new "kompassionate konservatism."

For this blessing, we must thank Comrade Justices Bader Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy, Souter and Stevens who collectively have made the first move toward our becoming the United Soviets of America.

Good-bye, liberty. Those we hired to protect our rights have spat upon and usurped them.

We are being made, slowly, into slaves to those malignant parasites among us who hold no truths to be self-evident other than big money, profits and political power.

JOE ESCOURIDO

Lakeland

Pols Seek to Tighten Eminent Domain Rules

Friday, July 01, 2005
FOX NEWS

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted Thursday to try to restrict the effect of what has proven to be a highly controversial Supreme Court ruling that found that private property can be taken for private development if government authorities decided it would benefit the larger community.

The House passed the amendment to the Treasury/Transportation spending bill, 231-189.

House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, said he believes the Supreme Court issued a horrible decision.

"In the post-Kelo world, someone could knock on your door and tell you that the city council has voted to give your house to someone else because they have nicer plans for the property," DeLay said.

With growing bipartisan support, the House voted for a piece of legislation that could undo the impact of the Supreme Court decision. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., would cut off federal funding to any governmental entity that uses the expanded eminent domain power to take land for economic development projects. Congress has used this approach before.

"I think that a case in point is the Hyde amendment that denied Medicaid funding on abortions," House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said. "Roe v. Wade was a constitutional decision of the United States Supreme Court, but they also held the Hyde amendment constitutional in that Congress does have the power of the purse and can decide what to fund and what not to fund."

The measure will be offered in the Senate by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

"We will be working together to accomplish our goal ... to reign back in this broad interpretation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution in a way that protects all of us from the awesome power of government to take private property for private uses," Cornyn said.

Though Republicans have pushed the amendment, key Democrats like Reps. John Conyers of Michigan, Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Maxine Waters of California have signed on as co-sponsors. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., lined up against the measure.
"When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court, you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court," Pelosi said.

That's exactly the point, those in Congress upset by the Supreme Court decision say. They say they believe very few state and local governments would be willing to risk losing federal funding in order to help a developer finance a private project.

Eminent Domain: Being Abused?

(CBS) Just about everyone knows that under a process called eminent domain, the government can (and does) seize private property for public use - to build a road, a school or a courthouse.

But did you know the government can also seize your land for private use if they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good"? Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing. Under eminent domain, the government buys your property, paying you what's determined to be fair market value. But now, people who don't want to sell their homes at any price - just to see their land go to another private owner - are fighting back. Correspondent Mike Wallace reports on this story, which first aired last fall.

Jim and Joanne Saleet are refusing to sell the home they've lived in for 38 years. They live in a quiet neighborhood of single-family houses in Lakewood, Ohio, just outside Cleveland. The City of Lakewood is trying to use eminent domain to force the Saleets out to make way for more expensive condominiums. But the Saleets are telling the town, "Hell no! They won't go." “The bottom line is this is morally wrong, what they're doing here. This is our home. And we're going to stay here. And I'm gonna fight them tooth and nail. I've just begun to fight,” says Jim Saleet. “We talked about this when we were dating. I used to point to the houses and say, 'Joanne, one of these days we're going to have one of these houses.' And I meant it. And I worked hard.” Jim Saleet worked in the pharmaceutical industry, paid off his house and then retired. Now, he and his wife plan to spend the rest of their days there, and pass their house on to their children. But Lakewood's mayor, Madeleine Cain, has other plans. She wants to tear down the Saleets' home, plus 55 homes around it, along with four apartment buildings and more than a dozen businesses. Why? So that private developers can build high-priced condos, and a high-end shopping mall, and thus raise Lakewood's property tax base. The mayor told 60 Minutes that she sought out a developer for the project because Lakewood's aging tax base has been shrinking and the city simply needs more money. “This is about Lakewood's future. Lakewood cannot survive without a strengthened tax base. Is it right to consider this a public good? Absolutely,” says the mayor, who admits that it's difficult and unfortunate that the Saleets are being asked to give up their home. The Saleets live in an area called Scenic Park, and because it is so scenic, it's a prime place to build upscale condominiums. With great views, over the Rocky River, those condos will be a cinch to sell.

But the condos can't go up unless the city can remove the Saleets and their neighbors through eminent domain. And to legally invoke eminent domain, the city had to certify that this scenic park area is, really, "blighted." “We're not blighted. This is an area that we absolutely love. This is a close-knit, beautiful neighborhood. It's what America's all about,” says Jim Saleet. “And, Mike, you don't know how humiliating this is to have people tell you, 'You live in a blighted area,' and how degrading this is.” "The term 'blighted' is a statutory word," says Mayor Cain. “It is, it really doesn't have a lot to do with whether or not your home is painted. ...A statutory term is used to describe an area. The question is whether or not that area can be used for a higher and better use.” But what’s higher and better than a home? “The term 'blight' is used to describe whether or not the structures generally in an area meet today's standards,” says Cain. And it's the city that sets those standards, so Lakewood set a standard for blight that would include most of the homes in the neighborhood. A home could be considered blighted, says Jim Saleet, if it doesn't have the following: three bedrooms, two baths, an attached two-car garage and central air. “This community's over 100 years old. Who has all those things? That's the criteria. And it's ridiculous,” says Jim Saleet. “And, by the way, we got up at a meeting and told the mayor and all seven council members, their houses are blighted, according to this criteria.” Cain admits that her house doesn’t have two bathrooms, a two-car garage and the lot size is less than 5,000 square feet. The Saleets may live in a cute little neighborhood, but without those new condos, the area won’t produce enough property taxes to satisfy the mayor and city council. “That's no excuse for taking my home. My home is not for sale. And if my home isn't safe, nobody's home is safe, in the whole country,” says Jim Saleet. “Not only Ohio. But this is rampant all over the country. It's like a plague.”

Dana Berliner and Scott Bullock are attorneys at a libertarian non-profit group called The Institute for Justice, which has filed suit on behalf of the Saleets against the City of Lakewood. They claim that taking private property this way is unconstitutional. “This is a nationwide epidemic,” says Berliner. “We have documented more than 10,000 instances of government taking property from one person to give it to another in just the last five years.” “It is fundamentally wrong, and contrary to the Constitution for the government to take property from one private owner, and hand it over to another private owner, just because the government thinks that person is going to make more productive use of the land,” says Bullock. “Everyone knows that property can be taken for a road. But nobody thinks that property can be taken to give it to their neighbor or the large business down the street for their economic benefit,” adds Berliner. “People are shocked when they hear that this is going on around the country.”

And it's not just people's homes that are the targets in these eminent domain cases. The Institute for Justice has also filed suit against the City of Mesa, Ariz., to save Randy Bailey's Brake Repair Shop - the shop he got from his father and hopes to someday pass on to his son. The City of Mesa, citing the need for "redevelopment," is trying to force Bailey to relocate to make way for an Ace Hardware Store that would look better and pay more taxes.

"Redevelopment to me means work with existing people who are there and redevelop. Not, 'You get out! We're bringing this guy in,'" says Bailey, whose business has been on the same corner for more than 30 years. Business has been awesome, Bailey says. But now, he says they’re going to turn his business into dirt. In fact, the city has “made dirt” out of three restaurants and four businesses that once stood on a five-acre lot. “And it's not just business properties that they're going this on. You know, they wiped out eight people's homes over here. Your home ain't even safe,” says Bailey, who told 60 Minutes that his neighbors let the city buy them out. But he’s refusing to sell: “I’m standing in their way. I’m their thorn in their side.” And he’s a thorn in the side of Ken Lenhart, who owns the Ace Hardware Store a few blocks away. Lenhart wants a much bigger store. He could have negotiated with Bailey, but instead, he convinced the City of Mesa to try to buy Bailey's land through eminent domain and then sell it to him. “The City of Mesa wants to move Mr. Bailey about a block away, and from what I understand it's gonna be a new building, new equipment, moving expenses and everything set up for him,” says Lenhart. “I don't see how Mr. Bailey is gonna get hurt.” “You can't replace a business being in the same location. This place was built in 1952 as a brake and front-end shop,” says Bailey. “I don't care where you move it in the City of Mesa, it would never be the same.” So Bailey went to Lenhart looking for a way to stay on his corner. “I tried to go to him and see if we couldn't work something out on this. And he told me, 'No, there ain't room for you there. We're gonna let the city just take care of you,'" says Bailey. Lenhart admits that he never tried to negotiate with Bailey: "It happens all over the country. In practically any town you want to go to, they're redeveloping their town centers. Now, we are going to sit in Mesa, Arizona and have our town center decay? As a citizen of Mesa, I don't want that to happen." But Bailey says his business was on private property, and not for sale: “If I'd had a 'For Sale' sign out there, it would have been a whole different deal. And for them to come in and tell me how much my property's worth and for me to get out because they're bringing in somebody else when I own the land is unfounded to me. It doesn't even sound like the United States.”

And this isn't happening just in small towns. In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what's going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times. The world's most prestigious newspaper wants to build a new home on that block, but Stratford Wallace and the block's other property owners didn't want to sell. Wallace told 60 Minutes that the newspaper never tried to negotiate with him. Instead, The Times teamed up with a major real estate developer, and together they convinced New York State to use eminent domain to force Wallace out. How? By declaring the block blighted. “I challenge them,” says Wallace. “This is not blighted property.” But New York State's Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the newspaper's new headquarters would eliminate blight - and that even though a private entity (The New York Times) is the main beneficiary, improving the block would benefit the public. Executives from The New York Times wouldn't talk to 60 Minutes about it on camera. Back in Lakewood, Ohio, Jim and Joanne Saleet are still waiting for their court decision. Most of their neighbors have agreed to sell if the project goes ahead. But the Saleets, plus a dozen others, are hanging tough. “I thought I bought this place. But I guess I just leased it, until the city wants it,” says Jim Saleet. “That's what makes me very angry. This is my dream home. And I'm gonna fight for it.”

He fought, and he won. In separate votes, Lakewood residents rejected the proposed development, removed the "blight" label from the Saleets' neighborhood, and voted Mayor Cain out of office. In Mesa, Ariz., Randy Bailey can keep his brake shop right where it is. The week after this report aired, Arizona's Court of Appeals ruled that turning his land over to a hardware store would not be a proper use of eminent domain. But in New York City, tenants and owners have been forced off their land so The New York Times can begin building its new headquarters.

Eminent Domain and the Lehigh Acres Chamber

Lehigh Acres Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Oliver B. Conover Has be quoted to say in the Fort Myers News Press (June 24th) on the current ruling on Eminent Domain ----

“If the power were used, that the project (Eminent Domain) would have to be a major benefit to the whole community.” "It's going to be a big help in our problem with platted lands," Conover said.

Then whose side is Mr. Conover on, the People or the Business Owners?

So is the Chambers Executive Directors going to be the one to tell the retired couple, or the young family that just purchased there first home in Lehigh Acres that they must gave up there dream of home ownership --- because he believes in Eminent Domain?

Does the Chamber and its Executive Director understand there own Mission Statement --- “To Promote And Advance The Economic, Civic, & Social Welfare Of The Community Of Lehigh Acres” – Does this statement have anything to do with Eminent Domain?

"You don't take people's homes," said Frank Lohlein, who is president of the Lehigh-based Citizens Against Increased Taxes group.

"Anything we can do to avoid it, that's the route I would take," said Wayne Elrod, who serves on the Lehigh Acres Community Planning Corporation.

The Lehigh Acres Watchdog believes that Eminent Domain is a very dangerous process, and should only be use as a very, VERY last resort for public use of the land only as stated in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Lehigh Acres Watchdog also believes this mighty community of 63,000 people needs to join together to find the answers to our issues before it’s too late and to expensive to resolve them.



Respectfully Submitted,

Robert J. Anderson

President / Chairman

Lehigh Acres Watchdog, Inc.

239-369-6223

5th Amendment to the United States Constitution

5th Amendment to the United States Constitution