St. Louis property owner retains his 1st Amendment right to protest eminent domain abuse
Posted on Jul 19, 2011 in News & Events
Last week the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a property owner’s First Amendment right to protest the abusive eminent domain policies of the City of St. Louis. The case concerns a St. Louis property owner, Jim Roods, who opposed the city’s definition of blight and condemnation of his housing agency’s private property for private redevelopment.
Property owner in Columbia expansion case likens the use of eminent domain to “highway robbery”
Posted on Dec 10, 2010 in News & Events
Nick Sprayregen, owner of Tuck It Away, the lead plaintiff in the Columbia eminent domain case on petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, explains in the Youtube video above how New York state’s eminent domain procedures favor the condemnors and deny property owners due process of law.
Columbia eminent domain case: One of the Supreme Court “Petitions to Watch”
Posted on Dec 9, 2010 in News & Events
SCOTUSblog has included the Columbia University eminent domain case Tuck-It-Away, Inc. v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, dba Empire State Development Corporation, Docket 10-402 in this week’s edition of “Petitions to Watch.” The petition for certiorari filed by these Harlem property owners will be included among the many the Court will consider when the Justices conference tomorrow, December 10.
New York Court of Appeals reverses Columbia University eminent domain case
Posted on Jun 24, 2010 in News & Events
We have just learned that the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) has released its opinion in the matter of Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125 (June 24, 2010). This is the case in which the New York State Urban Development Corporation (also known as the Empire State Development Corporation or ESDC) sought to condemn by eminent domain private properties in the West Harlem neighborhood surrounding Columbia University and give those seized properties to that private institution for an expansion project it wishes to undertake.
Update: Virginia business fighting blight and eminent domain to keep its property
Posted on May 19, 2010 in News & Events
Central Radio Company has been fixing communication systems for the Navy for decades, but now Old Dominion University, through the Norfolk Redevelopment Housing Authority (NRHA), wants the property on 39th Street for retail shopping.On Thursday, a Bob Wilson, owner of Central Radio, will begin to fight in court to keep his business.
Virginia business battles blight and eminent domain to keep its property
Posted on May 13, 2010 in News & Events
Attorney Joe Waldo and the Central Radio Vice President Bob Wilson discuss on Fox & Friends how the neighboring university and housing authority have used a 12-year old study to determine that the property at which Central Radio, a defense contractor, currently operates its business is blighted and, therefore, should be redeveloped to spur economic development.
Nicole Gelinas: Eminent Domain as Central Planning
Posted on Mar 3, 2010 in News & Events
Unless it needs property to build a road, a subway line, a water-treatment plant, or a similar piece of truly public infrastructure—or unless a piece of land poses a clear and present danger to the public—the state should keep its hands off people’s property.
Condemnation quote of the day
Posted on Feb 5, 2010 in News & Events
Owner’s Counsel Attorney Michael Rikon, on New York’s definition of blight, Eminent Domain Changes Seek to Limit State’s Power to Seize Property, by David King, Gotham Gazette February 4, 2010
Why has this Roanoke property been condemned?
Posted on Dec 17, 2009 in News & Events
Last month, Roanoke Judge William D. Broadhurst granted Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority’s (RRHA) petition to take private property owned by Jay and Stephanie Burkholder (B&B Holdings, LLC) using the Authority’s power of eminent domain. Judge Broadhurst indicated in his November 12, 2009 correspondence to counsel that although evidence had been presented by B&B’s attorneys which “clearly suggests to the Court that the City was responding to pressure from Carilion in trying to direct the conclusions that RRHA would reach” with respect to the blight study, RRHA had been sufficiently insulated and had independently found “blight” in the neighborhood, and therefore the B&B property could be taken.