Biersdorf & Associates

Biersdorf & Associates Project #- 3403.003
Condemning Authority- Cities of Anoka and Ramsey and State of Minnesota

The purpose of this project is to identify a corridor improvement alternative along Hwy 10 in Ramsey and Anoka to alleviate current traffic issues and prepare for future capacity. Currently, several alternatives have been selected and can be viewed at the link below.

As of March 2008, MN DOT has not selected a preferred alternative for the project, and they still do not have funding for construction. More than likely, property acquisition will begin around 2010. 

For more information on this project, please call our office at 612.339.7242, or visit the following link:
http://www.ci.anoka.mn.us

Biersdorf & Associates Project #- 4119.002

Condemning Authority- State of Georgia

the Georgia Department of Transportation plans to widen SR 20 from East of Burnette Trail to Peachtree Industrial Blvd.  This project will connect onto another SR 20 widening project occurring over the Chattahoochee River.  The road will be widened to four lanes separated by a grass median.  Curb, gutter and sidewalks will be added on each side, and the design will accommodate future widening of two additional lanes.  

The State of Georgia is currently working toward preliminary design approval.  Once these plans are approved, they will complete the final design and obtain approval for the ROW plans.  Based upon their progress thus far, they anticipate funds for property acquisition to be available in the next year, and property acquisition to begin shortly there after.  Currently, construction is slated for 2011.

For further information on this project, call our office at 866.339.7242, or visit the Georgia Department of Transportation Trex website at: http://app5-trex-web.dot.state.ga.us/trex_external/viewer.htm

Biersdorf & Associates Project #- 41263.001

Condemning Authority- State of Georgia

The purpose of this project is to Widen Hamilton Road in LaGrange from Auburn Street to SR 219/Morgan St.

As of March 2008, the most recent updated received from the Georgia Department of Transportation (GA DOT) , is that they are currently seeking approval for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).  Please be aware that property acquisition can not begin until the DEIS is approved.  The GA DOT anticipates that the next public meeting will be held in October 2008.  They anticipate that property acquisition will begin in May or June of 2009, and construction will begin in late 2010.  These dates are tentatively scheduled and might change if DEIS approval is prolonged

 For further information on this project, call us at 866.339.7242, or visit the Georgia Department of Transportation Trex website at: http://app5-trex-web.dot.state.ga.us/trex_external/viewer.htm

Biersdorf & Associates Project #- 3165.004

Condemning Authority- New York City

The following information as taken from the PlanNYC/planning information portal website for New York City.  Additional information can be found at:

http://www.plannyc.org/project-24-Willets-Point-Development

Willets Point, also known as the Iron Triangle, is a 13-block area located near the Flushing and Corona neighborhoods in Queens consisting largely of auto repair shops, junkyards, and other industrial and small businesses. As of the 2000 census it had a population of one. Given its prime location near Shea Stadium and the currently under construction Citi Field (slated to arrive in 2009), as well as its access to a variety of transit options, the City is targeting Willets Point for major redevelopment. The City’s plans, led by the Economic Development Corporation (EDC), call for a $3 billion development over 60 acres, including over one million square feet in retail space, a hotel, and a convention center.

Although the area has few residents, local businesses are being affected by the redevelopment plans. The City is in negotiations with area business owners about relocation, and will consider the use of eminent domain if agreements cannot be reached. The displacement of these businesses has been a point of contention between City officials and members of Community Board 7, who will be reviewing the plan as part of the Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP). In response to workers and businesses’ concerns, the City has designated LaGuardia College in Long Island City to develop an educational program for the estimated 1,300 workers in the area to help train and place them in the new jobs that the redevelopment will create.

Recent News:

Details on Willets Point Business Owners Lawsuit Against NYC 

Wednesday, April 09, 2008 | PR Inside | Topic: Land Use

A group of Willets Point business owners filed suit against the City on Wednesday claiming that the City purposefully refused critical infrastructure, creating both a nuisance and health and safety hazards so the City could advance their goal of redeveloping the area through eminent domain. They claim that the negligence has caused serious damages such as depreciated property values, difficulty attracting and retaining employees, and difficulties obtaining business loans and credit. The business owners also complain that the City has not been forthcoming with details about the plans of their proposed redevelopment of the area sponsored by the city’s Economic Development Corporation. The lawsuit names Mayor Michael Bloomberg and several city commissioners as defendants and seeks remediation as well as damages, the amount of which have yet to be specified.

Protest of Willets Point Rezoning Scheduled

Tuesday, April 08, 2008 | New York Sun | Topic: Economic Development

Councilmember Hiram Monserrate is expected to lead a protest against the City’s plan to rezone Willets Point today in Queens. Monserrate is demanding that more affordable housing be included in the plan and also wants assurance about workers wages if the rezoning goes through. The City claims that the area is blighted and that a rezoning will allow for needed infrastructure improvements to happen. Some have even proposed that the area could house a new convention center for the City.

Willets Point Businesses Still Feel Threatened by Eminent Domain

Monday, April 07, 2008 | New York Daily News | Topic: Economic Development

The Willets Point Industry and Realty Association wrote an open letter to Mayor Bloomberg, published in the New York Daily News, objecting to the possibility of using eminent domain in the redevelopment of the industrial area. In the letter, the local business owners argue that Bloomberg should protect the interest of local businesses instead of “the interest of wealthy developers.” The Economic Development Corporation, the leading agency responsible for redevelopment of Willets Point, has yet to respond to the letter.

For further information regarding this project or how your property might be affected by eminent domain, please e-mail or call us at 8667.339.7242, info@condemnation-law.com

Biersdorf & Associates Project #- 3165.003

Condemning Authority- City of Jamaica

In addition to re-zoning hundreds of properties, the City of Jamaica is also planning on using eminent domain to acquire the properties needed to widen Archer Avenue and extend Atlantic Avenue (Sutphin Boulevard Plaza).

The most recent information obtained from the Planning Commission in March 2008 was the City of Jamaica does not have funding to move foward with the project in 2008.  This project was not included in the 2008 Capital Budget Season.  The earliest this project could receive funding would be 2009.

additional information on this project:http://www.plannyc.org/project-72-Downtown-Jamaica-Development

The following is a direct link to the Jamaica Plan:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/jamaica/jamaica_presentation.pdf

The NY Planning Commission in coordination with the Greater Jamaica Development Corporation are working toward re-zoning downtown Jamaica  to allow for further residential and retail expansion.

The vision for downtown Jamaica is expansive. Soon the area will be a thriving airport village, with a healthy mix of homegrown and national stores. Old Navy and RadioShack are already open and a recent $75 million deal has cleared the way for Home Depot. Plans call for extending the retail district beyond Jamaica Avenue to link it more directly with the AirTrain transit hub two blocks to the south. Led by the Greater Jamaica Development Corporation, $23 million has already been raised to continue development plans for the area. LIRR’s rail yard will be the next location for retail or other people-friendly transformations. The GJDC plans to build two more 500-space parking lots, in addition to their five existing garages, in order to accommodate increasing retail traffic.

In addition to the plans for better lighting and retail and streetscape improvements, there is a proposal to rezone the area as well. Proponents say existing zoning along the JFK AirTrain does not anticipate for future development and does not attract new investment opportunities. Rezoning will allow for major retail and residential development in surrounding Jamaica. The Jamaica rezoning plan is among the largest rezoning efforts in the City’s history, and it would provide long-sought zoning updates to approximately 368 blocks in Downtown Jamaica, portions of the adjacent neighborhoods of South Jamaica, Hollis and St. Albans, and the southern edges of Briarwood, Jamaica Hill and Jamaica Estates.

September 10th, 2007:

The following information was provided by the New York City Planning Office.  For additional information, and to view the Final Environmental Impact Statement, please visit their website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/jamaica/index.shtml

On September 10, 2007 the City Council adopted a proposal by the Department of City Planning (DCP) to establish a Special Downtown Jamaica District and rezone 368 blocks in community boards 12 and 8. DCP, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and the Economic Development Corporation (EDC), working with a wide range of stakeholders, including Community Boards 8 and 12, neighborhood residents and local elected officials, developed a comprehensive planning and rezoning strategy to replace outdated zoning that does not adequately address Jamaica’s current and future housing and economic needs. The former zoning, which generally had not been updated since 1961, failed to take advantage of Jamaica’s unique strength and role as a transportation hub.  Once a major retail and business center, investment in Jamaica’s downtown has waned due to, a great extent, inflexible and, in some locations, inappropriate zoning requirements.  The outdated zoning also did not protect the character of the one- and two- family neighborhoods surrounding downtown and residential development occurred without respect to the area’s existing scale and unique qualities.

Through numerous community meetings to collect input on the appropriate elements to address in the Plan, there was a broad consensus on the following goals:

• Respect and enhance Jamaica’s unique character
• Provide for a mix of residential, business and community activities in the heart of the downtown
• Protect the low-scale, neighborhood feel of residential areas outside of the downtown
• Encourage the provision of affordable housing
• Create a vibrant new gateway at the AirTrain station

On September 10, 2007 the City Council adopted a proposal by the Department of City Planning (DCP) to establish a Special Downtown Jamaica District and rezone 368 blocks in community boards 12 and 8. DCP, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and the Economic Development Corporation (EDC), working with a wide range of stakeholders, including Community Boards 8 and 12, neighborhood residents and local elected officials, developed a comprehensive planning and rezoning strategy to replace outdated zoning that does not adequately address Jamaica’s current and future housing and economic needs. The former zoning, which generally had not been updated since 1961, failed to take advantage of Jamaica’s unique strength and role as a transportation hub.  Once a major retail and business center, investment in Jamaica’s downtown has waned due to, a great extent, inflexible and, in some locations, inappropriate zoning requirements.  The outdated zoning also did not protect the character of the one- and two- family neighborhoods surrounding downtown and residential development occurred without respect to the area’s existing scale and unique qualities.

Through numerous community meetings to collect input on the appropriate elements to address in the Plan, there was a broad consensus on the following goals:

• Respect and enhance Jamaica’s unique character
• Provide for a mix of residential, business and community activities in the heart of the downtown
• Protect the low-scale, neighborhood feel of residential areas outside of the downtown
• Encourage the provision of affordable housing
• Create a vibrant new gateway at the AirTrain station
   

See below for the most recent news reported by Time Ledger

JAMAICA REZONING PLAN CAUSES INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES

Thursday, August 09, 2007 | Times Ledger | Topic: Economic Development

In areas where proposed zoning would permit the construction of taller buildings, Jamaica property values and sale prices have increased. Areas that are slated to be rezoned as R7X zones, which would allow developers to put up buildings that are 125 feet tall, have experienced a rise in sales asking prices.

Thursday, April 19, 2007 | Times Ledger | Topic: Land Use

In what was described as a confusing session with multiple proposals and votes, Community Board 12 appears to have voted against the rezoning in Jamaica at their meeting last week. The community board expressed their opposition to the plan in their comments and questions to the city officials who were present. Particular concerns were raised about the rezonings impact on school crowding and some of the assumptions in the environmental impact study. Community Board 8 had also voted again the rezoning at an earlier meeting. Despite the negatives votes, the plan will now move forward into a period of public review, and will eventually be reviewed by City Council, potentially with some changes to address the Community Board’s concerns

Downtown Jamaica Plans Involve Eminent Domain, Citizens React 

Thursday, March 01, 2007 | Times Ledger | Topic: Land Use

The city announced plans for a 368 block rezoning of downtown Jamaica in conjunction with two major infrastructure projects, a widening of Archer Avenue and an extension of Atlantic Avenue (Sutphin Boulevard Plaza), while making 94th and 95th Avenues one-way streets to improve traffic flow around the AirTrain terminal (Atlantic Avenue Project), at the Community Board 12 meeting of February 21. The plans drew ire from some when the city made clear a proposal to claim eminent domain powers in order to acquire 10 buildings that are privately owned on the site in question.

Potential Use of Eminent Domain in Downtown Jamaica Sparks Protests 

Thursday, February 22, 2007 | Times Ledger | Topic: Land Use

Details that were released on the city’s plan to potentially use eminent domain to acquire properties for its planned downtown Jamaica redevelopment and rezoning sparked protests from owners whose buildings could be effected. The fact that eminent domain might be used was not a new development, but which areas would be affected was currently unknown. The redevelopment plan calls for a widening of Archer Avenue and an extension of Atlantic Avenue, while making 94th and 95th Avenues one-way streets to improve traffic flow around the AirTrain terminal.

Propositions 98 and 99 are competing initiatives on the June 3 primary ballot that would restrict how government can take private property in California.The initiatives would prohibit government from seizing most homes by eminent domain for redevelopment projects. Government could still take property for public projects, such as building roads, schools and hospitals.

That’s where the similarities end, however. Here is a look at the two eminent domain initiatives.

Proposition 98, California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act:

— No private property can be taken by eminent domain for private use such as building a shopping center, auto mall or industrial park.

— Government could not seize private property and then use it in the same way the private owner did. For example, government could not buy an apartment building and use it for housing.

— Prohibits government from using eminent domain to sell the natural resources.

— Prohibits cities and counties from enacting new rent-control ordinances and slowly phases out existing ordinances on residential units and mobile home parks when tenants move out.

— Government cannot pass regulations that reduce the economic value of property. For example, developers would no longer be required to provide affordable housing units in new subdivisions or condo developments.

— Allows government to seize property to reduce public nuisances or criminal activity or during a state of an emergency.

— If a public agency takes property and abandons its plans, the property must be offered for sale to the original owner at the original price

— Compensates farmers and business owners evicted by eminent domain for temporary business losses, relocation expenses, business re-establishment costs and other reasonable expenses.

— Main sponsors: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Farm Bureau and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, a coalition of family farmers, community and taxpayer advocates.

———

Proposition 99, Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act:

— Prohibits government agencies from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home and transfer it to another private owner or developer.

— An owner must have lived in the residence for at least one year.

— Homes could be seized to protect public health and safety, prevent serious and repeated criminal activity, respond to an emergency or remedy an environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety.

— Does not apply to eminent domain proceedings initiated by government agencies 180 days after June 3.

— Voids Proposition 98 if more voters support Proposition 99. If they both pass, but Proposition 98 gets more votes, both measures would be in effect.

— Main sponsors: League of California Cities and the California League of Conservation Voters.

By The Associated Press

03/01/2008 

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8419974

Board OKs eminent domain use

Avon — For Mary Jane Wolf, the issue is clear: She doesn’t want to sell land that has been in her family for generations.

“I enjoy the peace and quiet here,” said Wolf, 57. “It’s just such a beautiful, quiet place.”

Last week, after more than a decade of trying to persuade her to sell, the Avon school board voted 3-2 to allow the district to begin eminent domain proceedings against her. The move could force Wolf to sell 25 of her roughly 30 acres. She could remain in her home.

Board President Dale Smitek — who voted in favor of using eminent domain — said he sympathizes with Wolf but has to do what’s best for students and taxpayers in the long run.

“This was not a spur-of-the-moment thing nor was it an easy decision,” he said.

The current middle school, which used to be a high school building, was built in the mid-1950s and architects concluded a renovation and addition would not make economic sense, Smitek said.

It’s rare for a school district to use its powers of eminent domain, according to Scott Ebright, a spokesman for the Ohio School Boards Association. In fact, Smitek said, the Avon district has never used eminent domain to obtain land.

District officials threatened to use the option to get property where the current middle school is located — land owned at the time by Smitek’s grandparents. They wound up deciding to sell, he said.

If the Wolf issue ends up in court, it will most likely hinge on whether the district’s plans for the land meet the criteria of being a “public necessity.”

But Avon school officials view her property differently. The district envisions a new middle school on Wolf’s land.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/lorain/1204113357284891.xml&coll=2

 The Plain Dealer  February 27, 2008

Jennifer González and Edith Starzyk, Plain Dealer Reporters  

The trustees of the Portland Water District decided Monday to take a road to a Standish-owned boat launch on Sebago Lake by eminent domain.

The action was approved by a vote of 6-2. The trustees also decided by a vote of 7-1 to grant Standish a public easement on Northeast Road, a move that district spokeswoman Michelle Clements said was undertaken to put people’s minds at ease about access to the boat launch.

The water district wants to eliminate any claim that the heirs of the founders of Pearsontown, where Standish now stands, might have on and around the road,
said Donna Katsiaficas, the district’s legal counsel. Otherwise, someone with a claim could potentially have control of some water district property and the property underneath the road, she said.

Clements said the taking does not affect the public’s existing right-of-way or access to the launch. She said the trustees granted the easement because of public concerns.

The water district and the town have been involved in a long-running dispute over land around the launch, which is near intake pipes for drinking water. The water district wants the launch moved and has been trying to limit parking in the area.

http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/022877.html

mainetoday.com

By Ann S. Kim Portland Press Herald Staff Writer February 26, 2008

DES MOINES — Property owners from around the state who worried that their land could be snatched up for development were at the Statehouse Monday pushing for a tightening of Iowa’s eminent domain laws.

Rep. Jeff Kaufmann, R-Wilton, pointed to a number of requests from Iowans who are asking the Legislature to take action to protect their land from being condemned through eminent domain.

“We’ve got 10,000 acres in Iowa that are in jeopardy,” Kaufmann said at a news conference to highlight the issue.

Bob Palm of Jefferson County said he wants to expand his family farm, but he’s being threatened with condemnation.

“They’ve pretty much told us, ‘If you want to take us to court, we’ll just tie you up in court. We’ll get the farm one way or another,’” Palm said.

Kaufmann and a group of lawmakers are pushing a series of seven bills that would make it harder for governments to condemn land, especially if it would be used for economic development projects.

One of the proposals would exclude land acquired through eminent domain from receiving state dollars from tourism and community betterment funds.

Another bill would forbid land to be acquired to create a lake as a source of drinking water unless it is proved no feasible alternative exists. Proposed lakes in the southwest part of the state would displace farmers and landowners.

The governor’s signature would be required for any state condemnation of land under one of the proposals.

Landowners facing condemnation also would be able to tap a property owner defense fund to help reimburse them for legal costs.

Rep. Pat Grassley, R-New Hartford, called on both parties to work together to protect property rights.

“This is a bipartisan issue, in my opinion. This isn’t a Republican or Democrat issue,” he said.

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2008/02/26/news/politics/10154889.txt

WCF COURIER.COM

February 26, 2008

Due to the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court Kelo decision that reaffirmed government’s power to take private property from owners and reassign it to another private party for the alleged purpose of economic development, Michigan voters approved Proposal 4 amending the state constitution in 2006. The law provides additional protections to private property owners from government takings. Some economic development officials and others issued dire predictions that enacting such additional statutory and constitutional protections making it more difficult for government to take private property for economic purposes would wreak havoc with local economic development projects and damage the economy in general. However, according to a recently released study by the Institute for Justice, these predictions have turned out to be false.

The report: “Doomsday? No Way: Economic Trends & Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform,” authored by Dick M. Carpenter II, Ph.D. & John K. Ross, provides a detailed analysis of economic indicators before and after eminent domain reforms across the country. The authors divided states into three categories: states with no reform; states with nominal or moderate reform; and states with substantive reform. The authors found that states in all three categories showed no significant changes in trends in construction jobs, building permits and property tax revenues as a result of eminent domain reform.

These findings are not surprising, as economic development incentives seldom achieve the results promised by state and local government officials. Government’s threat of blight designations and eminent domain takings may well thwart economic development by creating uncertainty that could cause potential investors to postpone investment decisions. The report cites two examples of this:

Lakewood, Ohio, and Scottsdale, Ariz., were embroiled in eminent domain disputes involving the condemnation of private property for private economic development. But when Lakewood, in 2003, rescinded a blight designation on a large neighborhood, more than $224 million in economic development projects and improvements resulted. Likewise, after Scottsdale lifted its second redevelopment designation, the city reported $2 billion in private investment in short order.

As important as secure private property rights are for protection from physical takings, so are protections from regulatory takings of private property by Michigan’s state and local governments. Individual property owners should not bear the cost of providing a public benefit in the form of restrictions placed by government on the use of their property. For example, state and local government officials respectively employ wetland laws and land use restrictions to place limits on the use of private property, either significantly reducing the value of the property or rendering it useless altogether - oftentimes with no compensation to the landowner. Although these restrictions may be politically popular, they are a serious impediment to economic development in the state. If a landowner cannot obtain a permit to develop his or her property, the economic benefits of the anticipated development are forfeited.

It is ironic that Gov. Jennifer Granholm - who has declared that she “will go anywhere to bring jobs to the state”- seems so reluctant to implement much needed reforms inside Michigan government agencies such as the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, where over-zealous enforcement of wetland permitting requirements are costing the state hundreds of jobs.

The first place to start in turning around the ailing economy in Michigan is to provide secure legal protection from the taking of private property through regulatory actions of state and local government officials. Michigan would do well to emulate a law passed by voters in Oregon. The Oregon law is elegant in its simplicity: When government officials place restrictions on the use of private property subsequent to the owner acquiring the property, they are required to compensate the landowner for the loss of the use of his or her property. If government officials choose not to or cannot afford to compensate the landowner for the lost value of the property, the proposed restriction does not take effect.

A similar law enacted in Michigan would provide assurance to investors that their property rights are secure, which is critically important to future investment in the state. There will be those who claim we cannot afford to make these changes. The truth is we cannot afford not to.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=9307

MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY

Russ Harding, director of the Property Rights Network at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.   Dated:  February 26, 2008