Convention is needed to change eminent domain

Does Stamford really approve of the effect that the outcome of Curley's Diner has created? When the diner is gone, someday, maybe we'll have a little pocket park, across the street from Columbus Park, where the diner now stands.

Wouldn't we have been better off to facilitate -- even subsidize!-- the transition from single-story diner to first-floor-coffee-shop in a building that serves the needs of dozens or hundreds of other owners or tenants? Wouldn't we be better served by a mid-rise or highrise building on that site, rectangular rather than wrap-around, 5 years ago, rather than some years from now?

A diner, even if it is open and packed 24/7, represents an underuse of that site in this decade, and it is to our detriment as a community, just as the 35+ year old "Hole in the Ground" has been not just an eyesore and a danger (at least one life has been lost there) but an economic detriment to us all. Is the owner within his "rights" as we apparently construe them? Yup. Should it be his right? Should our incentives be set up to facilitate keeping a choice site underused or unused for decades in the name of "property rights?" I don't think so.

If we had our incentives right, we probably wouldn't need eminent domain very often. But we should fix the incentives, before we start trying to change eminent domain.

Who cares, its about property rights.

Who owns the property? Its one thing to take property for public use and its another to take property to hand over to private use.
On the Public Use issue there has to be just compensation. The City tries to take property by threat and duress and then offers unjust compensation. If you want the property YOU HAVE TO PAY!

Using your logic then lots of buildings/property in Stamford are "underused" so shall everyone be forced to build out to the limit? Thats convoluted logic.

The bottom line is you people that want to create your little downtown utopia cant stand the site of Curleys and thats just too FUk*N bad.

For LTVfan - I can tell from you wording an so-called reasons that you are a supporter of "Take Private Land and let the Developers Rule!" Eminent Domain IS FOR PUBLIC USE, i.e. highways, railway lines, state parks, national parks! It is not and never was intended for use by Private Money making schemes like apartment buildings using the guise of first floor retail and to sneak in a few moderate income apartments. If what you say is correct, then why not seize Woodway Beach Club and make that the Ferry Terminal??? Why remove something and build the opposite? Since Curley's won, what has the city built around it?? Another parking garage!! Where is that multi-floored building that was to take that whole area from Summer St to Wash Blvd and W.Park Place to the back of Target??? It ends up a parking garage. The developer could build around Curley's and when the owners pass on, take it over and put something in its place. But NO, another real estate "MY way or Nothing" deal. Madmanmike is correct, its not who owns the property; its what the property is to be seized and used for!! End of subject. If that piece of land was so important, then why hasn't the Mayor turned that nice big hole in the ground across from the Marriott and the Mall into what it area was to be? Its on a main roadway and nearer the interstate? Diversity is the key to any cities success and keeping Curley' going is doing just that. It's an alcoholic place that people can bring kids into and thats good. It is a family place or sorts, especially during the summer events. We need a constitutional convention to finally put on paper what the REAL MEANING of eminent domain is according to those that made it - Improve society and not an individual or two!!!

I love Curly's. I feel so badly for the woman who owns it. I know, they just put a parking lot around it.

For once I agree with madmanmike :)

Proud Mamma wrote:

I love Curly's. I feel so badly for the woman who owns it. I know, they just put a parking lot around it.
For once I agree with madmanmike :)

First time for everything, unfortunately you only agree with me because you "like curleys" not out of principle.

LVTfan:

Yes, the free market ("incentives") can do very well to prevent attempts at applying eminent domain.

Given that Curley's had multiple appraisals for more than $1 million in 1999, I hope you agree that the attempt to only give the owners $233,000 was outrageous.

Let's say that my house has a market value of $500,000. If the city tells me that it has found a better use for the property -- a fancy hotel, for example -- then the equivalent, percentage wise, to the Curley's situation would be for the city tell me that I need to move and that I would be given $100,000. I would not have the resources to go to court and I would need to file for bankruptcy. I would likely move to a different town/city because I would probably have very hostile thoughts about Stamford.

If 88% of the Connecticut residents are likely to support a law, then why do the lawmakers not put such a law in place? Does it have anything to do with who makes major contributions to mayoral and state legislative candidacies? Are the legislators representing their constituents or are they representing a handful of "important/influential " people?

Lets be honest, eminent domain is another word for land grab. It's painfully honest that money speaks too loud. Think of it this way, if you worked decades to make your home a nice place to live, and then a stranger can take it away by waiving a bill in front of a politician - how would you feel?
Andrew, Mall727.net

Thank you to Madmanmike, Wally in Stamford, Proud Mamma, and Andrew Boggs for your supportive comments. You can help the cause for supporting the Constitutional Convention by visiting http://www.ctconcon.com and signing the petition on-line.

Some friends of mine rarely vote because of their cynical (extremely negative) view of politicians but are excited about voting for this particular issue in November. This is an opportunity for the people of Connecticut to create some laws which they truly support.

Barry Haines wrote:

LVTfan:
Yes, the free market ("incentives") can do very well to prevent attempts at applying eminent domain.
Given that Curley's had multiple appraisals for more than $1 million in 1999, I hope you agree that the attempt to only give the owners $233,000 was outrageous.
?

I wonder what Curley's Diner would have been worth if Stamford hadn't had Urban Renewal and looked more like downtown Bridgeport.

There could be a better method of determining fair value through an expedited arbitration process, but i have major concerns about a complete ban on eminent domain for economic purposes based on a few examples.

Publius, I'm not surprised that you are part of the 12%.

Check out the poll by Quinnipiac:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml...

Even for legitimate applications of eminent domain, 61% of Connecticut voters disagree with it. Obviously, for public use, it's always legal despite the majority of people disliking it.

Publius, my impression is that you would disagree with a statement that "all people involved in the attempt to take Curley's Diner for $233,000 exhibited despicable behaviour and they must all be ethically challenged individuals." If you actually agree with that statement, then I still have respect for you. If you disagree with that statement, then I've lost all respect for you. And I know exactly who you are.

Also, from the case which forced Suzette Kelo to move in New London, Connecticut ... here is a quote from the wikipedia entry for Kelo v. City of New London: "In November of 2007, it was reported that the economic benefits that had been promised by supporters of the Kelo ruling had failed to materialize. Corcoran Jennison, the developer, had failed to obtain financing by the promised deadline, and was said to be technically in default." It's not unusual for the grand promises to fall flat. Meanwhile, people are forced to move from where they want to live and had been living for years.

Just to give you an idea how eminent domain can have a negative impact on lives with no results to show for it, is the following example. Cleveland Hopkins International hoped to gain international flights by extending the terminal and the runways. Through eminent domain, properties were bought up around the project - and peoples lives were uprooted. Even a suburban boundry was reshaped - devaluing property in the process. Residents who lost their land were angry.

In the end, the expansion never came, and the people who lost their houses to bulldozers were never able to recover - many forced to live with less than they had before.

Oh, the two mayors who instigated this? Well, the Cleveland Mayor was smart enough NOT to run for re-election, and got out of town - waaay out of town! The Brookpark mayor found himself embroiled in scandal. Needless to say - they both got what they deserved!

Andrew, MALL727net

Thanks for the info, Andrew.

One of the not so well known aspects of the Suzette Kelo case was the strong support from the NAACP. The following link will take you to an interesting report:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/1...

Meanwhile, the politicians whose behaviour is the worst when it comes to eminent domain in Stamford are also likely to take support from the NAACP and its members for granted. I hope to make it clear to the local NAACP that these politicians, at least when it comes to eminent domain, are their worst enemy.

Barry, I read the report and found it interesting. Realize that eminent domain can also take housing from non-minorities, which was the case with Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. Haines, rather than see groups pulled apart, I'd like to see consensus. We will soon have a unifying President in Barack Obama - and with it, a realization of a dream by Martin Luther King. As humans, no matter what culture, we bleed red. In normal circumstances we share two eyes, two ears and a mouth. I think somewhere along the line we need to work together - not apart...isn't that the dream King talked about? I will tell you, I made up my mind to vote for Obama based on his intellect, and not the color of his skin. One way to keep eminent domain at bay, is to make the neighborhoods better - both in looks, and inside. By contracting with organizations like Habitat For Humanity and similar groups, the indviduals can give the area a better value, without pushing the people who live there, out. Rather than dwelling on negatives, there needs to be an inner-growth by a whole area that says change is good, if its uplifting. I've seen it happen here, it can happen anywhere - if people involve themselves in their community. Good Luck, and God Bless!
- Andrew, MALL727net -

Actually, the owners of Curley's Diner in Stamford are not minorities. And I support McCain for president (I expect him to win).

I like to emphasize that 88% of Connecticut voters, as per the Quinnipiac poll, would support the banning of eminent domain for the purpose of economic development. The way I see it, there are not many issues where 88% of all people agree. So, I very much view this issue as a unifying one.

In fact, I ran for state representative two years ago and this issue was a key one for me. My opponent, Jim Shapiro, had been in office since January 2005 and had not done anything on this issue. Three months after the election which he won against me, he proposed a law which would ban eminent domain for the purpose of economic development (exactly my message from the campaign). I think I got the message across very well about the meaning of 88% of people supporting a specific issue. And I've publicly (letter to the editor) praised Shapiro's effort -- this is a form of unity on this issue. Unfortunately, there were multiple other proposed bills relating to eminent domain and a very watered down one was passed as a new law last year.

I definitely agree with you about this being a unifying issue -- or at least it should be.

For those who are interested, the Connecticut Supreme Court decision for the Curley's case is available at the following link:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/A...

Barry,

Does it seem to you to be a good thing that every one of us who drives from Stamford to the NYS border on the Merritt Parkway drives an extra ~1.6 miles each way because the people who acquired the land for that right of way decided not to disturb the wealthy folks who owned land that was in the path of what is otherwise a rather straight parkway?

The wealthy folks they avoided upsetting are long dead. I estimate that an extra 1.4 billion -- yes, billion with a B -- miles have been driven to date as a result. Are the property rights of those long-dead Greenwichites -- including the club members whose private park, subsidized by their fellow taxpayers by low property tax assessments for decades -- more important than the rights of drivers, air-breathers and the taxpayers who pay, year after year, to pave, plow, patrol that extra 1.6 miles?

I would argue that the rights of the rest of us -- the community as a whole -- matter at least as much.

And Ms. Kelo bought her house knowing that the area had already been rezoned to commercial. I have more sympathy for some individuals whose families had been in the neighborhood for a couple of generations ... but that neighborhood had already started to transition from single-family bungalows to commercial uses.

Have you been in Stamford long enough to remember single family homes on Washington Boulevard between I-95 and Broad Street? Do you think we should have protected them from the incentives which transformed that area to 100% commercial? I don't think so.

What do you think we should do with respect to Stamford's "hole in the ground?" I suspect you support the right of the owners to keep it in its lovely state forever -- despite the fact that it is a pothole in our development; despite the fact that it neither creates jobs nor provides housing; despite the fact that it has caused at least one death due to drowning; despite the fact that we pay to provide sewers, city water, police patrols; despite the fact that Stamford's entrepreneurs would love to have that site occupied by potential customers, or suppliers, or even competitors.

Are property rights supreme, or are human needs to be considered, too? Does the community have rights? Or just landholders? You can guess what my answers are. I think I know what yours are likely to be, too.

Stamford's taxpayers -- or a particular subset of them -- got our legislators to reject the 2003 revaluation because they didn't like the balance of residential and commercial. Seems funny to think that they would like to discourage the sort of economic development which would get underused sites put to good use. Good incentives will get good sites put to good use. We've already got plenty of experience with what perverse incentives -- too low taxes on land values, accompanied by too high taxes on buildings -- will do for us.

Shall we keep doing the same thing, and expecting different results, or shall we examine what we do and why we do it, and who benefits from it?

<g> Which side are you on? Most of your arguments support Barry's position.
1. Merritt Parkway was not economic development; roads are a public purpose and remain in public ownership. But it shows that influential people can affect which properties are selected for taking, and raises questions about the fairness of eminent domain takings.
2. The single family homes on Washington Blvd disappeared because of private development; not because of an eminent domain taking. That is why the rug dealer remained there long after the other houses had been taken down. An argument might be made that without urban renewal the incentive would not have been there for private development, but that is speculative.
3. The "hole in the ground" WAS a taking for economic development. it is parcel 38 of the urban redevelopment plan. It was once a collection of small one to three family houses with people living in them (downtown affordable housing?). That it has not been developed is an argument against government using its eminent domain power for economic development.
There are good and valid reasons to permit public takings for economic development pruposes, but I don't think you caught them.

Seems to me that we ought to be setting up our incentives to promote prompt and frequent redevelopment of the downtown, to help prevent the sprawl that we see creeping northward, away from existing infrastructure.

I'd much rather that our incentives motivated the private sector to keep reusing the choice downtown land, without "command and control" from any government entity. If we could use wise taxation to align the private sector's incentives with the common good, it seems to me that we should do so.

Bedford Street shouldn't have unused storefronts. It shouldn't be affordable to keep them unused for long. And given the demand for housing, there is something wrong with our incentives if the owner can afford to keep that color-block undeveloped for long.

(Yes, I'm talking about the board game we all know and love. Monopoly is based on a 1903 game called the Landlord's Game, which was designed to teach the concepts I'm talking about.)

Our incentives should be such that the owners of Bedford Street should be pushing for approvals to redevelop into 4- and 5- story buildings, with commercial at street level and housing above. But as things are, they are in no hurry. Nor is the owner of the Hole in the Ground in any hurry to put his site to better use. Hey -- it could park a few hundred cars for Stamford Station. But he doesn't need the little money, and is content to wait for the big money... land speculation. Meanwhile, the rest of us pay the costs, both literally and in terms of lost revenue for neighboring businesses and fewer vendors competing for our business with a variety of products and services.

It may work for the HITG owner; it doesn't work for Stamford, for its residents, its workers, its shoppers, its jobseekers. Who counts more?
L

LVTfan wrote:

Seems to me that we ought to be setting up our incentives to promote prompt and frequent redevelopment of the downtown, to help prevent the sprawl that we see creeping northward, away from existing infrastructure.
I'd much rather that our incentives motivated the private sector to keep reusing the choice downtown land, without "command and control" from any government entity. If we could use wise taxation to align the private sector's incentives with the common good, it seems to me that we should do so.

Bedford Street shouldn't have unused storefronts. It shouldn't be affordable to keep them unused for long. And given the demand for housing, there is something wrong with our incentives if the owner can afford to keep that color-block undeveloped for long.
(Yes, I'm talking about the board game we all know and love. Monopoly is based on a 1903 game called the Landlord's Game, which was designed to teach the concepts I'm talking about.)
Our incentives should be such that the owners of Bedford Street should be pushing for approvals to redevelop into 4- and 5- story buildings, with commercial at street level and housing above. But as things are, they are in no hurry. Nor is the owner of the Hole in the Ground in any hurry to put his site to better use. Hey -- it could park a few hundred cars for Stamford Station. But he doesn't need the little money, and is content to wait for the big money... land speculation. Meanwhile, the rest of us pay the costs, both literally and in terms of lost revenue for neighboring businesses and fewer vendors competing for our business with a variety of products and services.
It may work for the HITG owner; it doesn't work for Stamford, for its residents, its workers, its shoppers, its jobseekers. Who counts more?
L

While many of your observations are valid, I would suggest that tax policy is a poor choice to address them.

The first problem is that tax policy must be uniform throughout the city under state law. So the same policy of high taxation on land vs. buildings that would encourage developent downtown would also encourage development in outlying areas, wherever there is underused land. That would apply to the homeowner in the Cove with a single family home in an R-5 district, or to a homeowner in North Stamford with 200 acres of open fields. It would also apply to the commercial property on Hope St in Springdale or Glenbrook that has an older two story building on it.

The second problem is that you raise concerns that your approach encroaches on the traditional right of a property owner not to develop his property. So the owner of the HITG has decided not to develop his property, or to turn it into a parking lot temporarily. Shouldn't he have the right to make that decision? Is that different than a single family homeowner's decision not to add on two more apartments and pave his fron yard for parking?

The key to preventing sprawl is not tax policy. It is zoning. If you don't want commercial development outside of downtown, zone it residential. If you can accept two story retail development, but not intensive high rise office development, zone it for that restriction. If you object to high rise residential outside of downtown, prohibit it through zoning, and if the zoning board entertains something more, get a bunch of people together to go to the public hearing and object, or appeal it to the Board of Reps.

Original intent was for highways and roadways and railways. Now you maniacs want to use land for parks and private development.

Time to bear arms.