2006.03.20 EDA Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i Responsible Eminent Domain: A Balanced Alternative to the Institute for Justice / Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association Bill A coalition of local government organizations has drafted legislation that would preserve the responsible use of eminent domain and the ability of local governments to balance the rights of individual property owners with the needs of the community. The proposal includes substantive and procedural changes that would address the issues raised in the Kelo v.New London case and would improve Minnesota's eminent domain law for all involved. It is not only a reaction to concerns raised as a result of the Kelo decision, but also would implement improvements to eminent domain law that local officials with real-world experience using eminent domain have suggested. It is a responsible alternative to the proposal developed by the Institute for Justice(IJ) and the Minnesota Automobile Dealers Association (MADA), and sponsored by Rep. Jeff Johnson and Sen. Tom Bakk. Scope and Impact of the IJ/MADA Bill • The U/MADA bill would affect acquisitions for traditional public purposes, such as roads, sewers and parks.By requiring a de novo review at the appellate level,payment of property owners' attorney fees,and automatic compensation for the loss of going concern,the IJ/MADA bill would significantly increase the cost of many public projects. • The U/MADA bill bans the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes, and effectively prohibits the use of this tool for redevelopment.The proponents of the bill purport that most of the projects residents support that involve redevelopment of blighted and contaminated areas would still be able to occur under their legislation. The reality is that many of the redevelopment projects undertaken through public-private partnerships during the past decade would simply not have been possible if the U/MADA bill had been law. • The U/MADA bill creates virtually unattainable standards for determining what constitutes a "blighted area" and an "environmentally contaminated area," severely compromising the ability to assemble parcels for redevelopment.For example,a severely run-down building could not be considered"blighted"unless it had significant structural building code violations and was nearly unfit for human habitation."Blight"of this nature is extremely rare in Minnesota. Similarly,the definition of "environmentally contaminated area"contains lot coverage and remediation cost requirements that would make many clearly contaminated properties ineligible for public clean-up efforts. • On the whole, the U/MADA bill jeopardizes the viability of critical development projects that businesses and residents have made a priority in their communities. A Balanced, Alternative Proposal The proposal brought forward by the League of Minnesota Cities and other local government groups focuses on changes to current law that would address the concerns property owners have raised in response to the Kelo v. New London decision,and would strengthen accountability by creating a more transparent and predictable eminent domain process. Responsibly addresses concerns raised by the Kelo decision The local government proposal would amend redevelopment and economic development law(Minn. Stat. Chap. 469)to clarify the statutory purposes for which eminent domain may be used. Specifically,the bill: