Michael Butler's Blog: July 2005

Saturday, July 23, 2005
Eminent Domain

For weeks the recent decision of the U. S. Supreme Court about Eminent Domain continues to surface. It has been pushed temporarily to the background by Downing Street Papers, Rovegate, Mayhem in Iraq. It keeps coming back. It reminds us how important the Court is in so many aspects of our life. Eminent Domain does not get the attention of women's rights, church and state, Patriot Act, environment, et al. Just as all those hot button issues it should enforce our concern for the philosophy of any new member of the Court.

Eminent Domain is an interloper in the area of private property. Private property is one of the major rights granted to us by our Constitution. Eminent Domain is the term used for the taking of private property by a public body without due cause or just compensation. Usually it has been used to acquire right-of-way for roads and highways, amenities such as government installations, military bases, etc. Many of these instances are valid and important to the commonweal.

The recent decision favors the right of a local community to take private property so as to enable the development of a mixed use project. The reason given is to increase the financial well being of the community and increase the tax base. So turning over the property of individuals to a developer is considered fair and in the community's over all best interest.

If it so happens that the private owner may refuse to sell. Then owners may defend their rights in a court of law. Such cases are mostly very expensive to defend. Of usual course the governmental entity moving to take the property has larger, if not unlimited financial capabilities. This deck is usually stacked against the private owners.

Public over private rights for development usually (or traditionally) prevail. It is often the result of such plans that they are not that great for the community and certainly not for those who are dispossessed. Look at the examples of what was done in Detroit and Pittsburgh which were recipients of two major re-development schemes. They are vast enough to demand extrodinary scrutiny. The country is pockmarked by many such failures both large and small.

Nor does the problem of taking private property stop with the act of taking. It is also the method and the incredible unfairness of the process which needs to be addressed. I can give you an example of personal experience. Upon the death of my Father I became the CEO of a family business more than a century old that was primarily in developing long-held real estate properties.

We had a sizeable property which was next to the Park District. Their adjoing lands had mostly been given to them by our family. They wanted to expand the Park even though they were not using all the property they had. They expressed a desire to purchase our parcel. We did not want to sell. We wanted to develop residential sites for which it was zoned. They made an offer which was almost insulting. When we turned it down they moved to condemn the property with the rights of eminent domain. We had a very good team of technocrats and joined them to propose a swap. We offered another larger parcel adjoining woodland we had already donated as a park. These properties had a river running through and were prime to us-where our family home was located. We also offered to pay for the new construction to replace amenities already in place. To this day we fail to comprehend the rational of their turndown.

So we went to court to defend our rights and at least for a fair valuation. The case tied up the property for six years. When we received the final judgment we were awarded a sum 10 times what the Park District had offered. The Park District turned down paying us and dropped their condemnation. The ultimate result: they had tied us up for the six years during a period when the window of development opportunity had expired. Due to this delay we had to sell the land in question and received one third the value of the award. The Park took no responsibility for the loss of value damage to us.
Today the property has been developed by others as originally zoned.

So it is not only the taking but the process which is such an unfair governmental betrayal of private rights, which the Court or Legislature must address.

email this post to a friend:

Friday, July 08, 2005
Message From London

I sent a concerned email to a great friend in London. Alexander (Sandy) Harper used to play on the Warfield Team when I lived in the UK. This is his reply.
I started to reply directly and then I thought this exchange might good for a blog.

Thanks Michael

All is well with me and mine. Life in London will return quickly to normal; it is a great, calm, resilient city and over the ages the Brits have had to grow accustomed to dealing with this and other types of horror. These fiends will not cowe us or change our values.

It is legitimate to ask oneself the question, however, as to why the perpetrators of these acts hate us ; why we have made ourselves the lightning conductors for their hatred.

Love Sandy

Sandy,

Except for personal concerns for the well being of you and others I love in London, I have had in the past/and have now no fears that the Brits will not be able to stand up to such viciousness.

You have, over the years, done well with all the IRA and other terrorist acts. I was always impressed with the modest security surrounding the Monarch and Prince Charles.

My real concern is the reaction of the American people. Conditioned by the ridiculous paranoia resonated by our President, Americans have answered violence with violence.

Particularly with the hubris of Bush & Co. lacking in compassion one can hardly hope that they would lead us in an effort to figure out the root causes of these terrorists acts.
Unless we are going to blame it on God - their God, this time.

Love Michael