Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Developers May Sue Over Eminent Domain

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 11:54 AM
Original message
Developers May Sue Over Eminent Domain
Developers May Sue Over Eminent Domain

POSTED: 11:55 am EDT October 18, 2006
E-mail this story | Print this story
Sign Up for Breaking News Alerts
RIVIERA BEACH, Fla. -- The builders of a multibillion-dollar redevelopment project are considering legal action against the state and city after being told eminent domain powers will not be used to seize property to make way for the plan.

Viking Inlet Harbor Properties, a joint venture between Viking Yacht Co. and resort-development firm Portfolio Group, has already spent more than $50 million acquiring property in the redevelopment zone, said Mike Clark, president of Viking Associates, the real estate arm of the company.

"Now I'm stuck with these properties but can't develop them because I can't fill in the puzzle pieces," Clark said. "The city spent millions of dollars putting together its comprehensive plan, and we spent well over $1 million in engineering, architectural and planning fees. Our plan now becomes virtually worthless.

"We're certainly considering joining with other developers and perhaps a group of municipalities about the changing of the rules in midstream," Clark added.

The $2.4 billion project is planned for an area that encompasses about 1,700 homes and businesses in an effort to revamp the marina district with high-end condominiums, houses, shops, offices and yacht slips in one of Palm Beach County's poorest cities.

The city was moving ahead with the plans over the objections of some residents who refused to move out of their homes to make way for the project.

http://www.local6.com/news/10103806/detail.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. The developers can negotiate with the property owners to sell
They need to follow the law. They are free to go to the table and make an offer to property owners who have not yet sold their homes and businesses.

If they won't sell, then tough shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. It's ironic here in Ohio ... especially since one of the cases of
"eminent domain gone wild" was over a "Dem" mayor declaring "urban blight" caused the issue to be brought more into the spotlight (I know, the issue really hit national attention somewhere else, but the national media also picked up on it here ...)

Now, the first case I hear about someone threatening eminent domain is ... wait for it ...

Republican mayor of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, Don Robart ... gee, some "leftie" there ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. Boo fuckin hoo Mikey
guess you'll just have to be a "rugged individualist" and get along without government handouts asshole. After all that's what made this country great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
4. maybe the developer should have thought about what would happen
Edited on Wed Oct-18-06 12:07 PM by notadmblnd
if he tried to steal other peoples property before he invested so much money acutally buying others. I have no pity for the f'ing greed monsters.

We had a developer want to rezone the residential properties at the end of our street so he could make a quick buck on a commerical building. There were a couple of people who stood up and tried to say that the homes were delapidated and the building would improve the area, of course they ended up being the people who owned the properties and let them become run down in the first place. We do not live in a blighted or dilapidated area, our town has been very prosperous. The entire neighborhood rallied against them at city hall, not once but twice and won. I've noticed recently that the developer (who bought the properties before the re-zoning meeting) has finally been doing renovations on the properties. Serves them right. I hope they lost a bundle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. what a crock
"Now I'm stuck with these properties but can't develop"

If these people want to build their grand visions they should have bought the property 80 years ago when it was just dirt.
They didn't, tough shit. No one is stopping them from improving the structures that already exist, and then reselling them. Now what they're pissed about is someone stopping them from their grand plan, just the same as they have stifled the people that already lived there, what about those peoples plans, maybe they planned to give the properties to their offspring. I hear beachfront property is now quite valuable in South Florida, seems like that 80 year old investment might have matured quite nicely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
6. nothing to say but
:puke: on these developers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
7. Too damn bad.
If this country is about anything, it is about property. What we have is OURS. We have the right to defend it and no one has a right to take it. (Wasn't this why we opposed communism?) Yeah, yeah, I know this is pretty elastic.....but it should damn well be a right to hold up a developer who's out to make a killing by either selling my land to him for a fortune, or by keeping my home because it's my home.

Since when does a developer's desire to make money take precedence over ownership?

I say we call eminent domain: communism for the rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
8. Power to the homeowners and the local gov
Florida needs another development like a hole in the head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totallybushed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
9. LMAO!!
The greedy bastards!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. Was this business plan dependant on Eminent Domain?
Sure sounds like it.

I hope the plan fails and they lose tons of money. Maybe it'll be a warning for future developers.

What a shameful explotation of government services.

Talk about sucking on the public teat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solo_in_MD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
11. They may have a case (unfortunately)
If the local gov had previously agreed to use eminent domain and is now backing out of that, there is a potential case for compensation. If the law changed and the locals can no longer do it, the issue of grandfathering could be litigated. The potential liability may be such the city may indeed condemn the property and finish the project rather than risk losing in court. It will also be interesting to see what the developer does to mitigate his damages, which he is required to do. This is one to be watched.

Personally I think Kelo sucked, but the current initiative in CA, and prior ones in WA(?) went too far the other way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. The case will be against the state of Florida
since they passed the law after the Kelo fallout limiting use of ED. The mayor (and the city's lawyers) says they cannot now proceed due to conflict with the law. So the mayor didn't lie, he's just repsonding to the legal opinion. It should be argued that a reasonable expectance of a grandfathered status exempting the project from the new state law would hold.
In any case, ED is fine if people do agree to sell, and they recieve at LEAST market value, if not more. Such was not the case when Bush and the Texas Rangers got the city of Arlington to condemn numerous properties for their new stadium at bargain values.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 06:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC