Brownwood, Bush, "Bite My Ass" & Eminent Domain Ruling
Eminent domain: A big-box bonanza?
Court's ruling OKed land grab for business like Target, Home Depot, CostCo, Bed Bath & Beyond
June 23, 2005: 4:59 PM EDT
By Parija Bhatnagar, CNN/Money staff writer
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The Supreme Court may have just delivered an early Christmas gift to the nation's biggest retailers by its ruling Thursday allowing governments to take private land for business development.
Retailers such as Target (Research), Home Depot (Research) and Bed, Bath & Beyond (Research) have thus far managed to keep the "eminent domain" issue under the radar -- and sidestep a prickly public relations problem -- even as these companies continue to expand their footprint into more urban residential areas where prime retail space isn't always easily found.
Eminent domain is a legal principle that allows the government to take private property for a "public use," such as a school or roads and bridges, in exchange for just compensation.
Local governments have increasingly expanded the scope of public use to include commercial entities such as shopping malls or independent retail stores. Critics of the process maintain that local governments are too quick to invoke eminent domain on behalf of big retailers because of the potential for tax revenue generation and job creation.
The Supreme Court's decision Thursday clarified that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private and public economic development.
The ruling would seem to offer new opportunities to retailers. However, some industry watchers caution that with Thursday's decision thrusting the eminent domain issue into the national spotlight, companies using eminent domain risk a very public backlash.
Craig Johnson, president of retail consulting group Customer Growth Partners, said that retailers shouldn't interpret the high court's decision to be a green light to aggressively expand even into those neighborhoods where a big-box presence is unwelcome.
"Even with the Supreme Court's decision potentially in their favor, smart retailers would rather go into communities wearing a white hat rather than a black one," said Johnson.
The appropriate move for companies would be to selectively use eminent domain as a last resort, he said, not as a first course of action. "I think companies have learned a few lessons from Wal-Mart's public relations struggles," he said.
Where's the space crunch?
According to industry watchers, retailers face a different type of expansion problem on the East Coast versus the West Coast.
"On the West Coast, land availability takes a back seat to labor union issues and that's why Wal-Mart has consistently run into problems in California," Johnson said. "On the East Coast, because of population density it's very hard to get big open space and the zoning is more restrictive," Johnson said.
Industry consultant George Whalin said that's one reason that Target, the No. 2 retailer behind Wal-Mart, (Research) has resorted to using eminent domain to set up shop in a few East Coast markets.
Target and Wal-Mart could not immediately be reached for comment.
"Wal-Mart and Target have both been criticized for their eminent domain use," said Burt Flickinger, a consultant with the Strategic Resources Group. "Target has used eminent domain in some cases because it made the stupid mistake of not relocating its bankrupt box locations in the late 1990s. As a result, it has fallen behind some of its key competitors in terms of growth."
Meanwhile, eminent domain opponents called the high court ruling a "big blow for small businesses."
"It's crazy to think about replacing existing successful small businesses with other businesses," said Adrian Moore, vice president of Los Angeles-based Reason Public Policy Institute, a non-profit organization opposed to eminent domain.
"There are many, many instances where we've found that the cities that agreed to eminent domain use not only destroyed local businesses but the tax revenue that the local government had hoped to generate did not come to pass," Moore said.
------------------
In 55 N.J. towns, planners watch as the light turns green
Friday, June 24, 2005
BY ALEXANDER LANE
Star-Ledger Staff
To a growing number of New Jerseyans, yesterday's Supreme Court decision was a very personal defeat.
They are those whose towns have instructed them to hand their property over to private developers, for the greater good.
Many are struggling small business owners in the grittier parts of town -- not the sort who normally make time to follow Supreme Court decisions.
But they were waiting for this one.
"It's sort of shocking to read what these judges have come up with on that there New London (Connecticut)," said Sal Quagliariello, an 83-year-old Edison man fighting an attempt to turn his bus company into a Walgreens. "It seems like money has got the best of the laws."
By the same token, planners all over the state sighed with relief at the decision. Many New Jersey towns -- at least 55 since 2003 -- are counting on their condemnation power.
Without it, they say, they would never be able to accommodate the grand designs they have hatched with developers.
"You can't assemble large tracts of land without the power of eminent domain," said Christopher Paladino, president of the New Brunswick Development Corp., a quasi-public agency that has redeveloped much of the city's downtown. "It's not practical."
The court decided by a 5-4 margin that the city of New London could use its power of eminent domain to condemn perfectly good homes and businesses and turn the property over to a developer. The prospect of a more vibrant city and a bigger tax base satisfied the constitutional requirement that land seizures be for a "public use," the majority said.
New Jersey's Constitution is more restrictive than Connecticut's, and allows towns to seize only "blighted" property for redevelopment. But the state Legislature defines that term broadly, and a growing number of towns are getting aggressive with their condemnation power.
---------------------
Note from Steve:
Is the Supreme Court trying to unite Liberals and Conservatives with this decision ? It's interesting to hear local talk show hosts and participants make this a "Liberal" issue ( Blame everything on a liberal mantra ! ) Using their own thought process, where were these "Neo-con Republicans" when it came time to throw local tax incentives at Big Box Retailers & "Developers" ?
Here ya go Byron (KXYL's "New" Neo-con Republican spokesperson). Bush and Eminant Domain ? The love of money and greed is a Bi-partisan issue ! Those who feed at the trough of Eminent Domain slide back and forth between Political Parties and will always be keeping the company of the Majority Party !
-------------------
Has Bush or Rove commented on the Supreme Court Ruling ? Looks like the Supreme Court has followed President Bush's lead (see his history in Arlington Texas !)
" contrived to use the power of the state to claim eminent domain over 270 acres - most of which was not needed for the stadium. Families who lost their land so that Bush and his partners could profit from the development potential are still mad at him for the land-grab and the ordeal of court hearings they had to initiate before getting a fair price. Maree Fanning, who lost the family horse farm, told a reporter: "If I saw him today, I'd say 'Bite my ass'."
--------------------
----------------
After hearing Dr Williams call on this afternoons show (KXYL) where he stated that the Supreme Court Justices should be lined up against a wall and "be done away with" (because of their eminent domain ruling). What is it with Dr Williams calling for public officials (Clinton recently) to be lined up and "done away with". I wonder what Dr Williams will call for when he discovers Bush and his involvement with eminent domain to handsomly profit off its use. Will he call for the same punishment as he did for the Supreme Court Justices and Clinton ?
---------------
Next time you drive by the stadium in Arlington you can remember this:
"I think when it is all said and done, I will have made more money than I ever dreamed I would make," Bush told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. And he's making millions because the Ballpark at Arlington is a gigantic, taxpayer-supported, cash machine. Last year, Financial World magazine named the Ballpark the most profitable venue in baseball. Hicks didn't buy the Rangers because he wants Juan González's autograph. He bought them because he can make a lot of money at the stadium that George W. Bush takes credit for building.
In 1993, while walking through the stadium, Bush told the Houston Chronicle, "When all those people in Austin say, 'He ain't never done anything,' well, this is it." But Bush would have never gotten the
stadium deal off the ground if the city of Arlington had not agreed to use its power of eminent domain to seize the property that belonged to the Mathes family. And evidence presented in the Mathes lawsuit suggests that the Rangers' owners --
remember that Bush was the managing general partner -- were conspiring to use the city's condemnation powers to obtain the thirteen-acre tract a full six months before the ASFDA was even created.
<< Home