Legal Specialist Explain why 'Blight' is not Right |
|
|
| Tuesday, 24 August 2010 13:08 |
|
By MARK SCHAAF
August 23rd, 2010 A national eminent-domain law firm says there is at least one thing the state Legislature should consider if it wants to prevent more related controversies from appearing in Wisconsin. Dan Biersdorf, of Minnesota-based Biersdorf and Associates, said legislators should make it easier for property owners to issue a court challenge whenever a municipality determines "blight," a key step in the eminent domain process. The decisions of municipal governmental bodies fall into two categories - legislative and quasi-judicial, Biersdorf said. "Legislative" means elected officials are acting as legislators and passing laws. In a quasi-judicial role, municipal authorities are acting as a fact-finding body, like a court. The courts have found that when local governments make blight determinations, they are acting legislatively, Biersdorf said. Therefore, courts take a hands-off approach to questioning and scrutinizing those decisions, unless any egregious allegations, like fraud, emerge.That means property owners have little recourse in fighting a blight determination, Biersdorf said. But when local governments act in a quasi-judicial capacity, the courts apply a much closer scrutiny. If local blight determinations were a quasi-judicial decision, it would be a "huge step in bending this abuse" of blight, Biersdorf said. "Property owners aren't getting a fair shake in the courts," he said. Blight designations are seen as a key step in the process to for a municipality to acquire properties through eminent domain for the purpose of redevelopment by a third party. After recent eminent domain controversies in Greenfield and Oak Creek, state Sen. Mary Lazich said last week she will introduce legislation clarifying state laws on eminent domain and the term "blight." Not only do property owners need to be protected, but local governments also need better options, she said. "Wisconsin private citizens and local government officials all deserve to have clear laws that protect their rights and interests," she said. Biersdorf, who has talked to a few Loomis Road property owners, said Wisconsin's blight statute is actually "a little bit better than most states." He also supported a stipulation in Wisconsin's law that allows property owners to recover costs and attorneys fees from the condemning authority. Read the story here. Contact Mark Schaaf: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
" ...It is so refreshing to know a law office that does what it says it will do...you are truly an expert in this field and I am greatful..."
"I just want to say thank you...for your advice and your time...I am still shocked that you were so generous with your time and expertise and I want to thank you..."
- Natalie Nahey, Portland, OR
"You treated us better than family! [You] came right to our home and went to Madison for us, you were the best! [The] DOT was so smart when they were here; you showed them that the little guy can be right and got us a nice chunk of money!....Thank you so much!"
- John & Pat Schmalz, Menasha, WI
"Biersdorf & Associates has an ingrain[ed] desire to help people!"
"You did more than anyone else ever tried to do for us and no words can truly explain what that means to us."
"I can unequivocally claim that we have been very pleased with the work that your law firm has performed on our behalf. Our only regret is that we did not contact your firm sooner..."
"...Thank You. It is a small thing compared to what you did for me, I still am amazed at your generosity."
"[Biersdorf & Associates] knowledge and experience in the condemnation process stood out."
"Dan listened to me; some of the attorney's I have spoken to around my state do all the talking, but do not hear what we are saying."
"[I was] very satisfied. [We] got more money than the DOT offered. [It was] great working with Biersdorf & Associates."