Sugar Creek Development Angers Some Longtime Residents
By BRIAN BURNES
The Kansas City Star
The national debate over eminent domain came to Sugar Creek on Tuesday.http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/300823.html
Scott Bullock, who represented plaintiffs fighting eminent domain in the U.S. Supreme Court Kelo case, called for Sugar Creek officials to remove the threat of its use in negotiations with property owners while helping a “wealthy developer” build a shopping center.
“People are fighting here in Sugar Creek and across the country against these abuses,” Bullock said.
City officials, though, said they knew of no abuses to fight. Many property owners already have accepted offers for their property, said Stan Salva, Sugar Creek’s mayor. The city has filed no condemnation proceedings and isn’t considering any, he added.
“Our whole purpose, from the very beginning, was to make very reasonable offers to those people and to help them relocate,” he said.
This year, Sugar Creek’s Board of Aldermen approved plans for Sugarland Center, a $42.3 million project expected to bring new retail and residential development to a 40-acre parcel near Sterling Avenue and U.S. 24.
The project emerged after the 2005 Kelo decision, which authorized use of eminent domain for private developments that could provide greater economic benefits to a city.
Real estate agents representing Sugar Creek have been negotiating with property owners. Homeowners who have lived at their properties for 50 years were offered 150 percent of their properties’ appraised value, Salva said.
Everyone else received offers of 125 percent of appraised value, he said.
So far, 17 residence owners either have sold their homes or are closing on them, Salva said. Four more are expected to close this month. Salva said he expected little controversy with 10 other property owners.
Resident Penelope Marth challenged that.
She criticized the city’s negotiation process Tuesday, saying city officials made their first contacts with property owners in March and suggested that they settle on prices by this summer. Such treatment was insensitive to longtime residents, she said.
Eleanor Miller, a nurse whose Sterling Avenue home sits on the redevelopment site, said it would be hard to find another residence equivalent to the one she has loved and maintained for 48 years.
Still, Miller said, she probably would ultimately accept an offer from the city.
“But I think it’s so wrong that they offer me such a pittance,” she said.
The Sugar Creek redevelopment is troublesome even if many residents have accepted offers, said Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm in Arlington, Va. The implied threat of eminent domain can unduly influence property owners’ decisions, he said.
If Sugar Creek officials are serious about not using eminent domain, he added, “they should remove that power from the redevelopment agreement.”