Highway 23 Realignment - Kandiyohi-Stearns County

January 31st, 2008

Biersdorf & Associates Project #- 3479.001

Condemning Authority- Stearns County and State of Minnesota

Total take property acquisitions have been completed by the State of Minnesota.  Partial take property acquisitions have not begun and are on hold until mid 2008.  Please call our office at 866.339.7242 with any questions regarding your property and the timeline of the project.

The purpose of this project is to realign Hwy 23 from West of the Kandiyohi-Stearns County Line to CR 123.

Currently, the West alternative is preferred and the county is still working on the preliminary design.  Property acquisition will begin early 2008 and is budgeted at $15 million.  Construction is constructed to begin in 2009 or 2010.

For further information on this project, call our office at 866.339.7242 or visit the following link:  http://projects.dot.state.mn.us/edkel/023/index.html

Shady Oak Road Widening - Hennepin County, City of Minnetonka

January 31st, 2008

Biersdorf & Associates Project #- 3425.011 and 3425.012

Condemning Authority- City of Minnetonka, Hennepin County and State of Minnesota

Minnetonka gives OK to Shady Oak Road widening

By LAURIE BLAKE, Star Tribune

December 19, 2007

Finding no choice but to approve the widening of Shady Oak Road despite higher costs, the Minnetonka City Council has cleared the project to begin next year.

By 2010, the road will be widened from Excelsior Boulevard to Bren Road, a distance of about 1.7 miles, at a cost of $30 million. The design calls for two lanes in each direction, with left and right turn lanes, a median and a trail flanking the road.

To lessen the city’s financial burden and encourage Minnetonka to pursue the project, Hennepin County has reduced the city’s $6.5 million share of costs by $355,000. The county also will allow the city to pay for the project over four years instead of two. That means the city can use four years of state aid to make its payments instead of having to borrow to make the payments in two years.

After learning this month that construction costs had more than tripled from the $8.6 million projected in 2004, the council delayed final action to consider financing options, ways to cut the cost and the pros and cons of delaying the work. On Monday night, it decided to proceed.

City Engineer Lee Gustafson reported that $5.5 million in federal funding could be lost if the project were delayed. He said that there was no way to eliminate the project’s expensive retaining walls and that replacing decorative walls with plain ones would save only about $800,000. And he said $658,000 already has been spent on the needed right of way.

Council members said they felt painted into a corner.

“We asked the staff to look at options,” said Council Member Dick Allendorf. “What we got back was ‘you’ve got no options.’ ”

All this leaves the city having to widen one segment of Shady Oak without knowing how to pay to widen the next segment north of the project, from Excelsior Boulevard to Hwy. 7. But four lanes along the southern segment will put more pressure on the two lanes north of Excelsior, Allendorf said.

That next segment of Shady Oak, as well as rebuilding two more segments of Hwy. 101, are among several high-priority road projects for the city. City staffers have said one way to pay for those roads would be through bonding, but several council members oppose that.

“We need to get this road done, but we need to take a much closer look at how we are going to do these in the future,” said Council Member Terry Schneider.

Said Council Member Brad Wiersum: “We don’t have enough money for all the roads we need.”

The council voted on the Shady Oak project after midnight at a meeting that started Monday, when it also devoted a lot of discussion to a proposed Opus Northwest office complex off Interstate 394 at Hopkins Crossroads.

Neighbors near that site had objected to a view of new parking ramps and the traffic that the development would bring. In a split vote, the City Council rejected the project.

Laurie Blake • 612-673-1711

The purpose of these two projects is to widen Shady Oak Road from North of Bren Road to South of Excelsior Blvd and from North of Excelsior Blvd to Hwy 7 in Minnetonka and Hopkins.

For Excelsior Blvd to Hwy 7 sections construction will begin in 2009 and property acquisition will begin in October 2007 and construction is anticipated to begin in May 2008.

For Bren Road to Excelsior Blvd, construction is scheduled to begin in Spring ‘07 and property acquisition is almost complete.

For further information on these two projects, call our office at 612.339.7242, or visit the following 2 websites:

Excelsior Blvd to Hwy 7:
http://www.hopkinsmn.com/publicworks/construction/shadyoak.html
Bren Road to Excelsior:
http://www.eminnetonka.com/news_events/show_project.cfm?link_id=Shady_Oak_Reconstruction_Bren_to_3&cat_link_id=Street&sub_cat_link_id=Road_Reconstruction

For all business and property owners NOT west of Shady Oak Road between Excelsior Blvd and Oak Drive Lane, a limited amount of funds are available at this time.  Additional funding for property acquisition would need to be provided after the approval of the Preliminary Layout.  These funds are for total acquisition, relocation and easement compensation as part of the road construction project.

Highway 42/52/55 Project

January 31st, 2008

Biersdorf & Associates Project# 3417.002

Condemning Authority:  Dakota County

This project is currently not funded and has been pushed back for several years

This project is in coordination with the Hwy 42 bridge project.  Dakota County recognized Hwy 42, Hwy 52, and Hwy 55 as principal arterial roadways.  With the projected volume of traffic on these roads by 2020 brought upon the need for reconstruction to meet upcoming traffic needs.

This project will include the following:

Maintain Highway 42 as an important roadway for east-west through traffic. This will include considering improvement to a four-lane facility and managing the spacing of direct access roadways.

Maintain Highway 52 as an important roadway for north-south through traffic. This includes assessing the need to eliminate the existing Highway 52/55 interchange and assessing the need to reconstruct the existing Highway 52 interchange at Highway 42. In conjunction with the elimination of the Highway 52/55 interchange, the potential to combine Highway 42 and Highway 55 into a continuous east-west principal arterial will be considered.

A supporting roadway system is needed including frontage and backage roads to serve existing and future land use development.

Address the existing limited visibility between the Highway 52 ramp approaches along Highway 42 under the Highway 52 bridges and alignment of Highway 42. Address the deficient ramp lengths at the Highway 52/42 interchange.

For further information on this project,  call our office at 612.339.7242 or visit the following link:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/movingminnesota/pdfs/irc52-42-55/52-42-55study.pdf

Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Corridor Study, Collier County, FL

January 30th, 2008

Project # - 3911.001

Condemning Authority - State of Florida

The following project information is found on the Collier County Website.  For additional information, please visit their website: http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=579

Corridor Approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 17, 2006

The Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Corridor Study was a planning effort to evaluate the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension as a through road east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951). The study attempted to identify and quantify the impacts of such an extension to Collier County’s transportation network, the Golden Gate Estates community, and the natural environment. Determining the fiscal cost of various Vanderbilt Beach Road extension alternatives was another key component of the study.

An extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road between Collier Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard is part of the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The 2025 LRTP was developed in 2000 and adopted in early 2001. The Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Corridor Study evaluated the viability of extending the roadway farther to the east, to DeSoto Boulevard. This potential eastern extension to DeSoto Boulevard has been included in the Collier MPO 2030 LRTP, which was adopted on January 12, 2006. A Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension is projected to provide significant relief to traffic congestion on Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road and serve the rapid growth in the Golden Gate Estates area.

This planning corridor study began in early 2005 and concluded in April 2006. An extensive public involvement effort was pursued, consisting of numerous neighborhood and civic association meetings and two major public workshops.

Over 2,000 newsletters were mailed to area property owners in August, 2005 to announce the study’s first major public involvement activity, the Initial Alternatives Public Workshop. The workshop was held on September 14, 2005 and had more than 200 attendees, who viewed the numerous graphics on display and discussed the study with county staff and planning consultant staff members. Graphics on display included aerial photographs showing preliminary alignment concepts, traffic data and projections, and a proposed ranking and evaluation criteria for the study’s next phase. Attendees were also able to view a slide presentation providing an overview of the study effort. All of these graphics and the slide presentation are available below.

Following the September 2005 workshop, the study team performed a detailed analysis of each alignment alternative, including the severity of impacts and number of properties affected. These findings were the focus of the study’s second public workshop, which was held on Monday, January 30, 2006, and had close to 300 attendees. At this second workshop viable alternatives were presented and the study team recommended that 10 of the original alignment alternative segments be removed from further consideration. The remaining alignments continued to be refined and analyzed, and detailed cost estimates were developed. These findings were completed in early April, and the study’s was determined. The preferred alternative consists of alignment segments A to BA to BC to C2A to D2 to E2 (see graphic below). This information was shared at smaller scale neighborhood meetings with the Citizens for Responsible Road Development group (April 6, 2006) and the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association (April 10, 2006).

The preferred alternative was determined using a ranking system similar to the criteria used in the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) Project, Development, and Environment (PD&E) study process. Keeping the public’s most pressing issues in mind, highest weight was given to the number of existing homes impacted, with second highest weight given to project costs. The “viable alternatives” under final consideration were impacts on the number of existing homes ranging from 15 to 47, and estimated costs ranging from $167 million to $220 million.

The Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) held a special meeting on Monday, April 17, 2006 at 5 p.m. in the Board of County Commissioners chambers. At this special meeting, pertaining to the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Corridor, the Board of County Commissioners were presented with detailed information on the alternative routes for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, and received passionate input from county residents, particularly those in the Golden Gate Estates area. At the meeting’s conclusion, the BCC approved the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension and adopted study’s preferred alternative as its alignment.

The roadway design process for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension began in spring 2007. Construction will be let to bid in two phases with the segment from Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd. expected to be scheduled prior to the segment from Wilson Boulevard to DeSoto Boulevard. Collier County is committed to working closely with affected property owners during the right of way acquisition and roadway design phases of this project. If you have questions or comments regarding the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension, please contact Transportation Division staff via e-mail or phone at (239) 252-8192.

Property acquisition is anticipated to begin immediately and Construction is currently not scheduled.  For information regarding this project and your rights as a property owners, please call our office at 866.339.7242

Appetite For Destruction

January 28th, 2008

A South Euclid Redevelopment Plan Makes Sense To Just About Everyone - Except The Owners And Patrons Of The Unique Shops That May Not Survive.

“I’ll tell you the thing that drives me the most,” confides South Euclid Mayor Georgine Welo, sitting in her office amidst a desk full of notes, newspaper articles, city memorabilia and a sign her mother gave her proclaiming “Never Never Never Give Up.” “I don’t like the fact that people have to constantly defend why they live in Northeast Ohio or even the city of South Euclid. It drives me absolutely nuts. I look around and I know in my heart that my children were raised in the best place in America - not a good place, but the best place in America. And I just stop and think to myself, “We need to have a high standard that we have here, we need to continue with it.’ And that’s what drives me.”

Although Welo did not grow up in South Euclid, she has come to personify the city - its small-town feeling, pride in neighborhoods and occasional defensiveness about living in the shadow of more affluent eastern suburbs. She also has become the synecdoche for South Euclid’s gutsy but controversial decision to demolish and redevelop the northern portion of Cedar Center shopping strip.

South Euclid has adopted a more radical approach to suburban renewal than did University Heights, which is home to the southern side of the strip (across Cedar Road). University Heights accepted a developer’s plan to add several new stores, such as Whole Foods and First Watch. But the structure of the mall stayed the same and some of the existing establishments stayed, albeit with an architectural facelift. South Euclid, after years of discussion and frustration with the increasingly dilapidated condition of stores on its side of the mall, opted to invoke the municipal equivalent of the nuclear option: eminent domain. Using the legal and political leverage that eminent domain affords, the city induced the landlords who owned the property to sell their turf to the city. This in turn meant that the shop owners, who pay rent to the landlords, had no lease and had to leave. The stores and restaurants - such as Abba’s Market and Grille, Anatolia Café, China Gate, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Jacob’s Judaic Book & Gift Center, Peking Gourmet Restaurant and Smokehouse Deli - have either closed or are expected to close over the coming months.

The city plans to sell the property to the Coral Co., a high-profile local development firm that also owns the University Heights portion, as well as other shopping districts, most notably Shaker Square. Coral will ultimately raze the storied shopping center. In its place, says Coral President Peter L. Rubin, will be a thoroughly modern and attractive outdoor mall, anchored by national chain stores and containing offices, residential housing, restaurants with outdoor dining and a park.

The local media have gushed with approval. A Plain Dealer article observed that “in place of a tired mishmash of stores, Coral Co. envisions a gleaming row of retail and residential … to finish the makeover of Cedar Center.” The local weekly, the Sun Press, quoted Rubin and South Euclid officials describing the redevelopment plans in upbeat terms. And at first blush, who could disagree? Rubin’s plans seem innovative, and Cedar Center is old - it was built in the 1940s, and urban policy experts note that shopping centers have a 50-year lifespan. Change seems inevitable.

But change involves issues that are far more complicated, conflicted and ethically problematic than those sketched in news articles in the local press. A two-month investigation, featuring scores of interviews with South Euclid officials, shop owners, lawyers, real estate developers and urban policy experts, offers insights into just what happens when a middle-class suburb tries to rejuvenate its commercial base. This is a story of the hopes and dreams of South Euclid’s leaders, who want to ensure the long-term survival of their community. It is a story of economic and psychological pain experienced by local merchants who feel let down by the system. And it is a story of how the landlords who owned South Euclid’s portion of Cedar Center mall collectively walked away with over $16 million, while the proprietors of the stores that helped build the owners’ portfolios received only thousands, and in some cases, nothing.

The atmosphere in Abba’s, the once-bustling Orthodox Jewish delicatessen in Cedar Center, was decidedly eerie last November. With the deli scheduled to close in days, boxes, duct tape and wads of paper towels were strewn across the floor. The awards the restaurant received from the Cleveland Jewish News for its kosher food, once trumpeted as signifiers of success, were distractions now, signposts of an era that was swiftly receding into the past.

Abba’s, the only kosher restaurant in the city that served Chinese food and featured an array of Israeli delicacies, had a loyal following among Orthodox residents. Those days are gone. “If you had been here last Friday, you would have thought it was condolence calls,” lamented restaurant manager Shia Neuman. Customers were upset, and the store’s employees - cooks, waiters, waitresses - had lost their jobs.

“I do not want to go on unemployment,” Neuman said. “I hope to find a job. I’m not the kind of person who sits back.” He was not sure if the restaurant could afford to relocate. “It’s a very, very big investment,” he said. “Who’s going to pay for this?”

A few doors down, Gayle Glick, manager of Discovery Shop, an American Cancer Society-owned business that sells upscale secondhand goods, insisted that she will keep the store open as long as she can. Showing a visitor the Lenox plates, necklaces and clothing people have donated, she said that “the shop on the whole is very special because all the profits go to cancer research. And its purpose is deep-rooted for the community. We’re giving back to them with a lovely little object and they’re giving of themselves with what they can afford to give.” Listening to her describe the flavor of the shop, a customer volunteered, “I love your store. I wish you were staying.”

Neuman and Glick tried to be philosophical, but could not hide their anger and sadness. “What the city did was to take it upon themselves to present the facts,” Glick said. “They said [the mall] was deteriorating. It never was deteriorating to the point they needed to create a reason to take it. But take it they did and take it they were going to do any way they could.”

“You can’t fight city hall,” Neuman mused, “because, you know, there’s lawyers’ fees. It’s like you have the big bully against this little kid. The little kid can punch as much as he wants. He’s going to lose. That’s the same thing fighting the city.”

Proprietors of several other stores express similar frustrations. Some are palpably nervous about the future. Ken Lam, manager of Peking Gourmet Restaurant, seems dejected as he considers his prospects. Several Peking employees will lose their jobs, he says. The proprietor of Smokehouse Deli, Igor Shkolnikov, says he thought he would close very soon. “I’m looking for another business [location],” he says. “I know how to make sausages.” Was he worried? “Of course. It’s my baby.”

Today the mall is quiet. Most of the shops are vacant, with signs in windows announcing new locations. At night, it feels deserted and the green steel beams that sustain the once-storied structure look creaky and archaic.

Cedar Center has been a major blip on the city’s radar screen for over a decade.

Mindful of the deteriorating condition of the mall and the need to expand the city’s industrial tax base, former mayor John T. Kocevar commissioned a report from a downtown planning and development firm. The report, completed in 1999, recommended the city develop a mixed-use mall, with residential, retail and office space. Although Kocevar persuaded the property owners to renovate portions of the mall, he said in a recent interview that he was somewhat frustrated with the pace of renovation, especially as he looked at the progress that was being made in redeveloping the University Heights side across the street and at glistening Legacy Village in nearby Lyndhurst. Eminent domain remained a possibility, but he did not want to “run everybody out.”

Enter Georgine Welo, a prominent former member of South Euclid Council who was elected the city’s first female mayor in 2003.

Although Cedar Center was not a major issue in the mayoral campaign, it soon became a salient agenda item. Councilman Edward Icove recalled that, in 2004, the ceiling of the long-abandoned movie theater fell through, leading to substantial water damage and the appearance of rats. Recognizing that it was time to move decisively on Cedar Center, Welo and her advisers tried to get in touch with the property owners to arrange a discussion. “I personally sent them letters offering to buy their properties at the appraised value that we got from our appraiser, and not one of them even responded back to my offer,” says Michael Lograsso, the city’s law director. There was “zero response, silence,” he adds. (An attorney for the property owners, Sheldon Berns, counters that the property owners believed “the city did not negotiate in good faith and filed suit before they had a chance to respond.”)

Welo grew frustrated with the pace of discussion. Concerned about the mall’s deterioration and rapidly dropping home prices in the area near Cedar Center, Welo and her advisers began to weigh eminent domain more seriously. In Ohio, eminent domain allows a city to take property for its own use and sell it to a private developer, provided that it can show that it meets a series of conditions, which traditionally include that the property is significantly blighted.

If Cedar Center was in fact blighted, then eminent domain seemed a reasonable way of proceeding. And the evidence of blight seemed to be everywhere. There was the pervasive damage to the theater, fire code violations, plus sightings of rats. A city-planning expert reported collapsed roofs, holes in floors and walls, and the absence of sprinkler systems. There was videotaped evidence of graffiti on walls, a wood foundation rotting away, and garbage piled up in vacated retail space. Law Director Lograsso says that the space above the old Huntington Bank was a fire hazard, and there were abandoned offices, feces in toilets, and out-of-date, potentially dangerous parking in the back of the mall.

“Many of the property owners over the years let their properties deteriorate,” says Community Services Director Keith Benjamin. “They did not continue to upgrade their properties to a level of safety and a level of attractiveness that consumers today expect when they go shopping.”

Berns, the attorney for the landlords, argues that the property was not blighted, and that “it would have been helpful if the city had spent some money that could have been used in the upgrading of Cedar Center if their goal was to modernize it.”

Tearing down only the movie theater, which nearly everyone agreed was beyond saving, and encouraging or funding modest improvement in the rest of the mall would have been a less confrontational strategy. But to Welo, that seemed like a short-term fix, at best. By 2005 she was convinced that the landlords were unwilling to talk, let alone sell, that the blight was getting worse, and that the city’s long-term economic future hung in the balance. There was no longer room for compromise. “Cedar Center was going,” she said, “lock, stock and barrel.”

In fall of 2005, after obtaining expert testimony, council passed a resolution declaring that the South Euclid strip mall was blighted. Eminent domain, the tool of last resort, was now the technique du jour. The battle would continue in the ornate probate court at Lakeside and Ontario.

The landlords challenged the city in court, questioning whether the mall met the legal definition of blight. Ultimately, however, the landlords opted to settle. They faced increasing legal costs and believed that few tenants would want to rent space in a mall a city was determined to take over, according to attorney Jordan Berns. The probate court judge approved the arrangement, and the big fight was over; all that remained were smaller cases between a handful of landlords and shop owners over the amount of compensation.

The city forked over $16.4 million to the property owners, floating bonds to finance the purchases. But the store owners received a comparative pittance. And although a couple of cases are still pending, their outcomes are not likely to alter the egregious economic imbalance. Abba’s seems to have received the most money - close to $100,000, according to sources close to the case. Jacob’s Judaic Book & Gift Center received a $20,000 check, notes Probate Court Magistrate Heidi Koenig. Anatolia Cafe received a total of $30,000, according to Lograsso.

Other store owners - for example, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Cleveland City Dance, Peking Gourmet Restaurant and the American Cancer Society - could not even file a claim. Their leases stated that if the shopping center were taken under eminent domain, they could make no claim for compensation.

All this is perfectly legal. Even though the store owners’ success contributed to the value of the property - and therefore the profits the landlords received from selling to South Euclid - many had no legal claim on the money. A contract is a contract. But here’s the rub: Leases are typically written to serve the interests of landlords, not tenants. “Tenants and landlords are not in an equal bargaining position,” notes Jonathan Winer, attorney for Abba’s. And this is “unfortunately standard” in eminent domain cases, explains Case Western Reserve University law professor Melvyn Durchslag. It is Capitalism 101.

“The tenants are ending up on the short end of the stick. Yet from a purely fairness point of view, your property is not worth a dollar unless you get a tenant who operates a successful business out of it,” Durchslag observes.

And so it went. The landlords, who owned the property and had indeed taken risks, collectively walked away with millions. The shop owners, who rented the space and had materially contributed to the owners’ portfolios, received mere thousands and in some cases, not a penny. There was nothing the most brilliant or canny lawyer could do. The outcome was legally tenable, if morally unfair.

Peter L. Rubin likes to talk about intersections. “That’s what we try to create: commercial intersections, social intersections, civic-neighborhood intersections.” Rubin, whose Coral Co. rebuilt the University Heights side of Cedar Center, can hardly contain his passion about redeveloping the South Euclid portion over the next couple of years.

“We don’t look at it as our job to remake the neighborhood,” he says. “We move into an existing fabric. We look at it as our job to reweave it, as a piece of broken fabric, to weave it back together.” Rubin is grandiloquent about his plans, articulated in long professorial paragraphs replete with academic concepts like “civic space” and marketing phrases like “cultural intersections.” He wants to impose a common vision on the disparate parts of the Cedar Center area.

“It’s not a 12-acre project. It’s a district. The corner of Warrensville [Center Road] and Cedar is the geographic and demographic center of the East Side suburbs of Cleveland,” he says.

To make Cedar Center look like a district, he intends to use a common color scheme and marketing strategy for both sides of the mall, as well as University Square on the other side of Warrensville Center. He hopes to construct an architectural feature that will span Cedar Road and connect the two sides of Cedar Center, like the arch of St. Louis. “It will let people know: “You’re here! You’re in the district! You’re in the Cedar Center district!’” You will want to go there, Rubin adds, “not just because you want to go to the restaurants, but because you love the experience. You love that intersection with neighbors, different people, diversity, choices.”

It is an ambitious plan, requiring lots of capital. Rubin plans to anchor the mall with chain businesses that can afford the rent and have the brand image that resonates with customers. His vision invites questions: Will the redeveloped mall make money? Will it increase the economic vitality of South Euclid? And what are the consequences for the neighborhood?

From an economic perspective, it is a no-brainer to urban-policy expert Dr. Robert Simons, professor in the Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University. Looking over a Coral Co. drawing of the project, Simons takes out his cell phone and crunches some numbers on his calculator. “It’s about 130,000 square feet of retail, maybe 50,000 square feet of office, and 225,000 square feet of residential. Assuming industry standards, the total growth value is between $50 (million) and $75 million dollars. That’s the tax base that will be generated. You get all the income tax of those residents and you’ve got the income tax of the retail workers and office workers here. It’s a real plum.”

Simons acknowledges the human costs: many, probably most, of the stores currently in Cedar Center will not return. “It’s just a shame,” Simons says. “It’s very cut throat in Cleveland because there’s so little growth in this overall metro. It’s Darwinism, it’s business Darwinism, survival of the fittest. It’s just part of the normal cycle of change.”

Others see significant drawbacks. Professor Norman Krumholz, a colleague of Simons’ at CSU’s Urban Affairs College, laments that the neighborhood will lose “the ethnicity of the shops. People are not drawn to places that look like Roadside America.” It was the indigenous neighborhood places - Abba’s, Anatolia Cafe with its Turkish cuisine, along with Discovery and Jacob’s - that gave Cedar Center its distinctive charm.

“The community lost something special,” attorney Winer says. “We have these Disney malls; they are surreal shopping palaces. You can go to Columbus, you can go to Chicago, you can go to Cincinnati, you see the same mall and you see the same stores and businesses selling the same product in the same way. Everything becomes very cookie-cutter. The Center was very different and that is perhaps lost and will never be replaced.”

South Euclid residents, who were interviewed at two popular local city eateries, share these sentiments. Jim Lentine, who owns a family hairstyling shop in nearby Univer-sity Heights, spoke for many when he said, “You can go to a Target anywhere. Cedar Center always had individual owners, stores that you couldn’t find anyplace else. But I think the project is a very good thing for the city. You got to break eggs to make an omelet.”

Welo expects all the tenants to be gone by spring of this year. Some stores have already found new homes. Discovery Shop plans to open on Mayfield Road in Lyndhurst. Anatolia Café will reopen early this spring in the Cedar/Lee area. Jay Steingroot, owner of Jacob’s, says he is still looking for a place. Abba’s has yet to find a new spot for its kosher restaurant. Abba’s former manager, Shia Neuman, is still looking for a job.

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/15/38/appetite-for-destruction

The Cleveland Freetimes

Published January 23rd, 2008 By Rick Perloff

Stalemate

January 28th, 2008

An epic battle between homeowner rights vs. the city growth

It’s windows glint with transparency, lacking so much as a string from a spider web or a smear from a household cleaner.

On the ivy-strewn chimney that abuts the front of the home is a white wooden angel with arms outstretched.

“I need all the help I can get,” said Eleanor Miller, who lives at 500 S. Sterling Ave.

Her home of nearly half a century lies on land slated for the Sugarland Center.

Not along ago, Miller made a special trip to Jefferson City. She piled into a car with Virginia and Penelope Marth - whose home, 528 S. Harris Ave., is also being targeted for Sugarland - to hear the oral arguments in a case before the Missouri Supreme Court that could change the landscape in non-chartered towns such as Sugar Creek.

The case: City of Arnold v. Homer Tourkakis.

The implications: Whether a non-chartered city in Missouri can use eminent domain to benefit a private developer.

Tourkakis owns a dental office in Arnold near the intersection of Interstate 55 and Missouri 141. He is the last landowner standing in the way of the Arnold Commons shopping center, a tax-increment financing project requiring the demolition of numerous homes within an area determined to be blighted by the city.

When the city felt negotiations were no longer feasible - Tourkakis said the offer would not be enough to replace the four operating rooms at his office - it moved to enforce eminent domain.

Tourkakis sued, arguing that according to the Missouri Constitution only chartered cities have the power to use eminent domain.

Arnold, a third-class city without its own charter, argued otherwise, losing the case in Jefferson County Circuit Court last year. So, Arnold appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

As the Missouri Supreme Court ponders the issue, earthmovers and builders have been busy reshaping the property near Tourkakis’ business. On Jan. 18, one day after Tourkakis’ attorney argued his case in Jefferson City, a 117,000-square-foot Lowe’s opened for business next door.

According to Sugar Creek City Administrator Ron Martinovich, Miller’s home will be spared for phase I of Sugarland. The same cannot be said for the other two homeowners, Josie Webster and Virginia Marth, whose home is currently occupied by her daughter Penelope.

While Martinovich said Webster’s home lies on the fringe of phase I and may not be a necessity, the Marth residence is non-negotiable.

“We must have that property to implement phase I of the redevelopment,” Martinovich said.

He said price negotiations for the Marth property began at 150 percent of fair market value and have since risen “significantly.”

“We intend on acquiring it through a normal real estate transaction; we have never spoken of eminent domain,” Martinovich said. “What was in those letters we sent to homeowners was a normal process for a project like this one. There are subsequent ordinances the Board would have to pass before the city could initiate (eminent domain).”

Even if the properties owned by Miller and Webster duck phase I, they may wind up being non-negotiable in later phases.

Martinovich said phase II, however, won’t likely commence until 2009 or 2010.

“First, we’d like to get the supermarket in there,” Martinovich said. “Then we’ll see where we are.”

Miller wants to put an end to eminent domain abuse in Missouri forever, no matter if a city is chartered or not.

“I think using eminent domain to serve a private developer is unethical and unAmerican,” Miller said.

This is why she has teamed up with Ron Calzone, chairman of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, to gather the necessary signatures to get a proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2008 ballot.

The amendment would provide Missouri voters the opportunity to end eminent domain for private use and restrict blight studies to plot-by-plot rather than allow it to speak to a whole area.

“My home is not blighted,” Miller said. “If you can find any evidence of blight on my property, I’ll move out tomorrow; all the blight is in those homes up by U.S. 24.”

For the eminent domain issue to earn a spot on the November ballot, 200,000 signatures must be gathered and notarized.

“So far I have about 200 signatures,” Miller said. “When it warms up a little, I’ll hit the streets.”

Miller said she intends on seeking the likes of U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill and Congressman Emanuel Cleaver to help in her mission.

“Two hundred thousand human beings is a lot,” Miller said. “But I’m gonna do what I gotta do to get this thing fixed.”

As bulldozers moan in the distance, chewing up fences and plantlife, Miller is at peace among the warzone of splinters and trenches along South Harris Avenue.

She is occupied by her 2-year-old carpet.

“Got to keep clean,” said Miller, yanking the plug powering her vacuum. She leans over to snatch between her forefingers a bit of lent the vacuum missed. “Now, it’s time to do a little dusting.”

She’s someone who takes offense to the term “blighted.”

http://www.examiner.net/stories/012508/new_240288876.shtml

The Examiner

By Hugh S. Welsh | hugh.welsh@examiner.net

Friday, January 25, 2008

I-595 from The I-75/Sawgrass Expressway Interchange to the I-595/I-95 Interchange

January 24th, 2008

Project # - 3906.006

Condemning Authority - State of Florida

The following information was taken from the I-595 Project Information Website.  Additional information regarding the project can be found at: http://www.i-595.com/default.aspx

The limits of the project extend from the I-75/Sawgrass Expressway interchange to the I-595/I-95 interchange in central Broward County, Florida, for a total project length of approximately 10.5 miles.  The project consists of the reconstruction, addition of auxiliary lanes and resurfacing of the I-595 mainline (including associated improvements to adjacent cross-roads, frontage roads and ramps), and a new reversible express lanes system in the I-595 median.  Highlights of the major improvement components include:

  • Reversible at-grade express lanes, serving express traffic to/from I-75/Sawgrass Expressway from/to east of SR 7, with a direct connection to the median of Florida’s Turnpike.  
  • Geometric improvements for the I-595 / Florida’s Turnpike Interchange.
  • Widening / reconstruction of the Florida’s Turnpike mainline from Griffin Road to Peters Road (2.7 miles) to accommodate the express lanes direct connection.
  • Addition of auxiliary lanes on the eastbound and westbound I-595 and SR 84 roadways.
  • Continuous connection of the SR 84 frontage road between Davie Road and SR 7, and a continuous  roadway connection (collector-distributor system) between SR 7 and I-95.
  • Grade separated (braided) interchange ramps.
  • Incorporation of the Broward County Greenways project within the I-595 project limits.
  • Combined ramps and cross-road bypasses.
  • Accommodation of a transit envelope within the corridor, currently under development as part of the Central Broward East-West Transit Analysis.
  • The Florida Department of Transportation is currently working on the Preliminary Design and Engineering (PD&E) Study.  They currently have no funding for property acquisition or construction at this time.

    For further information, please visit their website or call our office at 866.339.7242

    I-95/SR-9 at Oslo Road Interchange Project, Indian River County

    January 24th, 2008

    Project # - 3931.001

    Condemning Authority - State of Florida

    The purpose of this project is to re-construct the I-95/SR-9 at Oslo Interchange in Indian River County.  This project is currently on hold.  The FL DOT was previously scheduled to complete Preliminary Engineering by the end of 2008 and property acquisition was scheduled to begin in 2010.  There is currently no funding for construction.

    For further information regarding this project, call us at 866-339-7242, or visit the project site on the Florida Department of Transportation website at:

    http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/programdevelopmentoffice/wp/WPDetail.asp?PGM=WP&WPItem=413048-2&SEL=G&Dist=04&County=XX&Sort=X&Phas=X&WptsysCD=&WKMix=&SISCD=&Print=no

    County Wrap: Judge Rules in Favor of Landowners

    January 21st, 2008

    Special Judge Lloyd Whitis recently ruled in favor of seven landowners who filed suit against Wymberly Sanitary Works, Inc. to stop the utility from running sewer lines across their property by using eminent domain.

    In 2004, developer Robert Lynn asked Wymberly to extend sewer service to his proposed subdivisions - Lafayette Ridge and Lafayette Landings, which are both in rural Floyd County, according to the 25-page ruling.

    Lynn entered into a wastewater utility service agreement with Wymberly on April 7, 2005, for the proposed developments.

    However, as Lynn tried to acquire easements, land owners objected. In the ruling it states Lynn approached landowner Joanna Danzel and offered $5,783 to purchase easements across the Danzel property. Other property owners were also approached and offered money for sewer easement.

    However, when those offers were rejected, Wymberly tried to exercise its power of eminent domain, which is to take private property for public use.

    In the ruling, Whitis writes that “a utility may not take private property through the power of eminent domain for speculative, monopolistic or other purposes.” He states that Wymberly failed to show an immediate and present need since the Lynn development was not in existence and there was no time frame when it would be developed.

    He also writes that Wyberley’s taking of easements from landowners is in bad faith because “Wymberley promised the IURC (Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission) that it would use existing public right-of-way in extending its sewer lines and its proposed route uses only a minimal amount of existing public right-of-way.” The judge also writes that taking the land by eminent domain would work an “unreasonable and irreparable harm and damage to the landowners property when other alternatives are available.”

    http://www.news-tribune.net/floydcounty/local_story_019183529.html

    NEWS AND TRIBUNE.COM

    By CHRIS MORRIS
    Chris.Morris@newsandtribune.com
    Published January 19, 2008 06:35 pm

    Mo’s High Court Hears Eminent Domain Case Today

    January 18th, 2008

    JEFFERSON CITY - Arguments before the Missouri Supreme Court today turned on whether the city of Arnold has the constitutional authority to take private property and use the land to build a major shopping center.The high court here heard an attorney for Dr. Homer Tourkakis, a dentist in Arnold, say that the city never should have tried to take the dentist’s office by using the power of eminent domain.

    Tourkakis is the last holdout in refusing to accept a buyout of his office to make way for the large Arnold Commons shopping center. Construction of the center is continuing around Tourkakis’ office, which is near the intersection of Interstate 55 and Highway 141 in Arnold.

    Tourkakis won his case against Arnold in Jefferson County Circuit Court last year. But the city appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that it had the right to condemn and buy the dentist’s office for redevelopment with the shopping center project.

    Timothy Sandefur, who is a property rights specialist with the Pacific Legal Foundation of Sacramento, Calif., argued Tourkakis’ case. He said it could set a precedent for the more than 800 non-chartered cities and towns in Missouri.

    Dozens of those Missouri communities have used eminent domain to take private property for public developments. If Tourkakis gets a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court, the use of eminent domain by all non-chartered communities in the state would be illegal

    Sandefur said property owners in such communities whose property already has been taken by eminent domain could be entitled to further compensation if Tourkakis wins his case.

    Sandefur argued that the Missouri Constitution gives the power of eminent domain only to chartered cities.

    Arnold is a third-class city under Missouri law and does not have its own charter. Therefore, he said, it had no legal authority to try to take Tourkakis’ office.

    But Gerard T. Carmody, an attorney for Arnold, said he could find nothing in the Constitution that prohibited a third-class city from using eminent domain after declaring an area as blighted for redevelopment.

    Such a declaration was made by the Arnold City Council before property was purchased for the 54-acre shopping center.

    “The constitution tells us that . . . the clearing of blight is a public purpose,” Carmody argued.

    Even so, Chief Justice Laura Denvir Stith noted from the bench that Jefferson County Circuit Judge M. Edward Williams had found that Arnold had no consitutional authority to use eminent domain for a commercial project.

    Carmody argued that it was never the intent of the framers of the Constitution or the Legislature to prevent smaller, non-chartered cities from declaring areas blighted and then taking measures to alleviate the blight. That includes the power of eminent domain, he said.

    After the court took the case under advisement, Tourkakis said in an interview that he believed his property rights outweighed the taking of his office and land for a commercial development.

    “It’s an awesome power, eminent domain, and it should be treated with respect,” Tourkakis said. “I don’t think that’s the case here.”

    His office is at 1506 Big Bill Road. He previously declined the city’s offer of $343,750 for his office and the surrounding land.

    http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/jeffersoncounty/story/E4EDD5BB32454EEC862573D3004675DC?OpenDocument

    STLtoday.com

    By Robert Kelly ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 01/17/2008