Biersdorf & Associates

 June 10, 2008NEWS RELEASE

Contact:

Stacy Dreher

612.339.7242

stacy@condemnation-law.com

INFORMATIONAL MEETING TO BE HELD REGARDING HIGHWAY 14 REALIGNMENT PROJECT FROM WASECA TO OWATONNA AND THE OWATONNA WEST BELTLINE PROJECT

An informational public meeting regarding the new Highway 14 Realignment Project from Waseca to Owatonna and the West Beltline Project will be held at 7:00 pm on Monday, June 16th, at the Owatonna Public Library, 3^rd floor, located at 105 North Elm Avenue in Owatonna.                      .

Dan Biersdorf, of eminent domain firm Biersdorf & Associates, will be speaking at the meeting from a property owner’s perspective. Biersdorf will give an overview of the eminent domain process, discuss property owner rights, talk about property valuation errors made by the MN Department of Transportation in relation to this project, and then open the floor to any questions that attendees may have.  Dan will be available to conduct case evaluations after the meeting.

Biersdorf is originally from Owatonna and attended Owatonna High School.  He has worked on eminent domain and other property valuation litigation cases nationwide for over 20 years.  His central office is located in Minneapolis.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation plans to realign Highway 14 from Waseca into the South Side of Owatonna.  This project will cross the new Owatonna West Beltline Project and continue East through the South side of Owatonna.

This project requires the DOT to acquire private property along Highway 14 and near 39^th Avenue in Owatonna.  Offers are currently being made to affected property owners.

For more information about the meeting or the project itself, please contact Stacy Dreher or Dan Biersdorf at 612.339.7242 or stacy@condemnation-law.com.

- End -

By Tom Beyerlein

Staff Writer

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

The owners of the Rockies Express natural gas pipeline have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to use eminent domain powers to acquire right-of-way on 77 Ohio properties to build the pipeline’s Ohio leg. The properties, many of which have multiple owners, include 15 each in Butler and Warren counties and four in Clinton County.

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC said eminent domain is necessary because the company couldn’t reach financial agreements with the land owners, which include Warren County Park District, the Wayne Twp. trustees and several area companies as well as dozens of families.

The company, called REX, wants a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way, an additional 75-foot-wide temporary work space and “all rights of ingress, egress and reasonable access” to maintain and repair the finished pipeline, which is scheduled for completion by mid 2009. REX filed the lawsuit Friday in U.S. District Court in Columbus.

REX got the right of eminent domain after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the 639-mile eastern portion of the $5 billion pipeline project on May 30. The pipeline is designed to bring Wyoming and Colorado natural gas to market in the Midwest and eastern U.S. Vectren Energy Delivery is among the distribution companies who have agreed to buy gas from REX.

REX spokesman Allen Fore said the company will continue to negotiate in hopes of avoiding eminent domain. “The action itself is not an indication that we’re going to come to eminent domain with these people,” he said. “Generally, neither Rockies Express nor the landowners want to end up in court.”

He said REX has reached agreements with 85 percent of the property owners on the eastern portion. In Ohio, there are 1,100 tracts in the pipeline corridor. Some owners are still in negotiation with REX.

The company asked the court to appoint a commission to determine the compensation to the land owners named in the lawsuit, but they want court permission to start work before compensation is set. “Without immediate possession, possible delayed or prolonged construction would put REX at risk of irreparable harm, including construction penalties, increased construction costs, lost revenue and, most importantly, the lack of availability of this vital energy resource to the intended markets in the United States’ energy infrastructure,” according to the lawsuit.

One of the land owners on the pipeline corridor is John Rowe, a University of Dayton biology professor, and his wife, Robbie, who operate a racing horse farm on their property in Clinton County. They haven’t reached agreement with REX, but weren’t named in the lawsuit.

Rowe, who has been fighting the project for months, said REX offered him “about a third of what it’s going to cost us” in terms of disruption to his pastures, which will take years to fully recover from the pipeline trenching.

But Rowe said he is more concerned that the politically well-connected owners of REX are being allowed to use eminent domain powers for a money-making venture.

“Our constitution is supposed to protect property owners. That is being eroded,” Rowe said. “It’s ridiculous that you can take someone’s property for profit, not for the public good. It’s just not right.”

Contact this reporter at (937) 225-2264 or tbeyerlein@DaytonDailyNews.com.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/06/11/ddn061108pipelineweb.html

Eds: UPDATES with more details; ADDS byline.

By DAVID A. LIEB

Associated Press Writer

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Five years have passed since a suburban Kansas City shopping center was declared blighted by the city of Gladstone. Although the city has yet to condemn the land, some shops have shut down or moved because of the threat.

On Tuesday, the Missouri Supreme Court granted the shopping center owners the right to sue the city for millions of dollars in lost income, diminished property values and increased costs allegedly caused by the prolonged threat of eminent domain.

Although the unanimous decision directly affects just one city and shopping center, it could have ramifications statewide for property owners facing condemnation threats.

The essence of the ruling is this: Property owners don’t have to wait for their land to be condemned to contend a government already has effectively taken it by dragging out the threat of eminent domain.

“This is a major opinion,” said attorney Michael Abrams of the Kansas City law firm of Lathrop resented the owners of the Gladstone Plaza Shopping Center.

“What it means is that if property owners are victims of undue delay by a city, or untoward activity by a city, they have a recognized constitutional claim that can be made against the city,” Abrams added.

An attorney representing Gladstone had no immediate comment about the Supreme Court ruling.

Clay County Circuit Judge Rex Gabbert had ruled in favor of the city, which argued the property owners failed to make a claim of an unconstitutional taking and could not sue before their property was condemned. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, also had ruled for the city while deciding it was too soon for the property owners to sue.

The Supreme Court decision written by Judge Mary Russell reinstates the lawsuit and sends it back to the circuit court to proceed toward a trial.

Property rights have been a significant political issue across the United States, including in Missouri. In a 2005 Connecticut case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the taking of private property through eminent domain for economic redevelopment.

That prompted Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt to appoint a special eminent domain task force and led to a 2006 Missouri law limiting the use of eminent domain and boosting the money property owners can receive when it is used.

Not satisfied, a group has submitted petition signatures for a constitutional amendment that could appear on the November ballot further restricting the use of eminent domain.

Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling sounds like a positive step toward addressing “eminent domain limbo — (when) you’ve got eminent domain hanging over your head,” said Ron Calzone, chairman of Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, which is sponsoring the ballot initiative.

“There’s something that’s terribly inequitable about allowing a government entity to effectively tie up your life indefinitely, and you not receive any type of compensation for it,” Calzone said.

The Missouri Constitution already states: “That private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation.”

In May 2003, Gladstone declared the shopping center property blighted. But an agreement with a redeveloper fell through by August 2005. So two months later, the city adopted another ordinance designating the property blighted under the state’s tax-increment-financing law that allows the use of eminent domain for economic development.

But Gladstone has never adopted a subsequent ordinance approving a specific redevelopment project, which would trigger a five-year time limit to take the property through eminent domain, the Supreme Court said.

The lawsuit contends that as a result of the delay, numerous retail tenants have not renewed their leases. The suit also contends the city has harassed the shopping center with inspections and code violations and has discouraged prospective tenants from locating there — allegations denied by the city.

The lawsuit claims the city’s actions have diminished the shopping center’s value by more than $5 million and resulted in at least $1.5 million in lost rental income and increased operating costs.

The Supreme Court said enough facts are in dispute about whether the city’s actions show an “aggravated delay or untoward activity” that the case should proceed.

By CHET BROKAW Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press - Monday, June 09, 2008

PIERRE, S.D.

Settlements were reached in the first trials scheduled in TransCanada Keystone’s use of eminent domain to gain access to private land along the route of its oil pipeline in eastern South Dakota.

A series of cases have been set for trial to determine compensation when the pipeline crosses private land. The settlement covers the first cases that were scheduled to go to trial Monday.

“We have been able to come to agreement on the ones that were scheduled to start today, and we continue to work on some of the others,” said Jeff Rauh, project representative for TransCanada Keystone.

The state Public Utilities Commission has approved a construction permit for the portion of the $5.2 billion TransCanada Keystone pipeline that will run through South Dakota.

The company, based in Calgary, Alberta, is building a 2,148-mile pipeline designed to deliver 590,000 barrels of crude oil daily from Alberta to refineries in Oklahoma and Illinois.

The 30-inch pipeline will pass through Marshall, Day, Clark, Beadle, Kingsbury, Miner, Hanson, McCook, Hutchinson and Yankton counties in eastern South Dakota.

Circuit Judge Jack Von Wald ruled last month that TransCanada could use eminent domain in disputes over its access to land for the pipeline in Marshall and Day counties. The next step in the process is a series of trials to set the value of easements across private property.

The first of those trials was to start Monday, but agreements were reached on Friday that led to the cancellation of those trials, officials said.

Rauh said both sides in the trials agreed that the terms of the agreement would be confidential.

“We continue to work to resolve all of the issues with each of the landowners,” Rauh said. “There may be trials in the future. It’s not clear at this point.”

http://www.grandforksherald.com/ap/index.cfm?page=view&id=D916QSV81

By ASHLEY ADAMS
Evening Sun ReporterArticle Launched: 06/08/2008 09:51:47 AM EDT

Would Hanover Borough use eminent domain to help get Gateway Hanover built?

Probably not, but Gateway Hanover developers had to ask anyway because of extensive traffic improvements needed on Eisenhower Drive, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.

PennDOT might bend on some improvements, but that has some worried about traffic tie-ups in the future.

Although developers are already planning intersection improvements, PennDOT wants significantly more improvements to ensure the traffic flow doesn’t get significantly worse when the stores open.

The developers say they are willing, but it might take a little help from the borough because they suspect many of the affected property owners wouldn’t sell voluntarily.

During a planning committee meeting Wednesday, Allen Smith, vice president of Conewago Contractors and co-developer of the project, said he needs to know if the borough is willing to use its eminent-domain powers to acquire the necessary rights of way from businesses on the Golden Mile.

Without eminent domain, Smith said he won’t be able to make the improvements sought by PennDOT, since most businesses aren’t willing to give up their land.

“I’m not crying the blues,” Smith said. “I’m not trying to shun any responsibilities. I’m just not going to be able to bring it back to the existing level of service.”

Some of the businesses that would be affected include Pizza Hut, Sheetz, Champion Chevrolet, Jiffy Lube and Utz, among others.

Although he hasn’t contacted all the property owners yet, Smith said he knows some will not agree to have their land taken. Conewago’s partner on the Gateway Hanover project, Bob Monahan, still has ownership in some of the businesses on the Golden Mile and will help to make the process go smoother.

“The properties that I have ownership in will fully cooperate in this process,” Monahan said Friday. “It’s up to the other owners whether they want to cooperate also.”

Smith and Mark Campbell, with HRG, the engineering firm for the project, presented plans for their proposed intersection improvements, along with PennDOT recommendations to bring the intersections back to the level of service they are at now, before Gateway Hanover is put in.

Those PennDOT recommendations are negotiable, however, if it proves impossible to obtain the necessary land.

The Gateway Hanover project will stretch over two parcels - one owned by Monahan and the other owned by Conewago Contractors - that span the borough and Penn Township in York County and Conewago Township in Adams County. The shopping complex will front Route 94 and wrap behind Champion Chevrolet and Lowe’s along Eisenhower Drive.

The shopping center is expected to include more than 800,000 square feet of retail space in more than a dozen retail stores, several restaurants and a convenience store.

Campbell said Wednesday that in addition to building the shopping complex behind Eisenhower Drive, the project proposes improving 11 intersections throughout the Hanover area. Improvements to the intersections were required by PennDOT after a traffic study was conducted.

PennDOT requires a developer to conduct a traffic study before a Highway Occupancy Permit is issued. Crochunis said the traffic study includes an estimate of how much new traffic will be added to the roads and what is needed to keep the roads safe and the traffic flowing. A copy of that report was not immediately available.

PennDOT takes its own preliminary numbers and checks to make sure the traffic study is “up to snuff,” Crochunis said.

But PennDOT also requires the developer to increase the level of service of an intersection to what it was before the increased traffic was brought to the area. Crochunis said a waiver for this requirement is available if the developer can prove the requirements can’t be met.

“Waivers are part of the process,” Crochunis said. “It probably happens regularly. But we need to get together and find a way to move traffic the best way through the corridor.”

And it doesn’t look like the borough is willing to condemn property for Gateway Hanover.

“To use eminent domain would mean getting rid of businesses,” said Heidi Hormel, chairwoman of the planning committee.

For example, to increase the level of service at the intersection of Carlisle Street at Eisenhower Drive, after Gateway Hanover is built, to what it is now, Campbell said, a right-turn only lane onto Eisenhower Drive from Carlisle Street would be required. Currently, PennDOT has plans to widen Carlisle Street, which would turn the current right-turn only lane into a through and right-turn lane.

For Gateway Hanover to make the necessary intersection improvements, about 10 feet of land would need to be acquired from Sheetz. This would take away from the parking.

PennDOT standards also require a right-turn only lane onto Carlisle Street from Eisenhower Drive, Campbell said. This would take the road right through the Pizza Hut restaurant on the corner.

At the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Eichelberger Street, Campbell said land would need to be acquired from the North Hanover Mall. Smith said discussions are under way with mall ownership.

At the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Wilson Avenue, land would need to be taken from the Champion Chevrolet dealership. Smith said Champion is not willing to give up the land.

At the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Hanover Crossing Shopping Center, most of Red Lobster’s parking lot would be needed.

And, finally, at the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Broadway, the Utz Quality Foods plant would lose its front parking lot, Jiffy Lube would lose some of its car washes and the road would be widened right up to the porches of the homes on Broadway.

Smith asked the planning committee members if they would be willing to write a letter to PennDOT saying they are opposed to declaring eminent domain. Smith said if he can prove that they can’t acquire the land needed for the improvements, PennDOT will sign a waiver.

Hormel said the borough is working with the developer to make the intersections on Eisenhower Drive the best they can be with what is already out there. Although she does have some concerns with the intersections not functioning as well as they do now, Hormel said it all comes down to safety and the future.

Monahan said he is doing everything possible to accommodate PennDOT and the municipalities affected by Gateway Hanover.

“We can only do what we can do,” Monahan said. “We are optimistic. We have been involved with this project for close to two years. We have had numerous meetings with PennDOT and studies done by traffic engineers.”

Hormel said there may not be a problem initially with the intersections, but years into the future Eisenhower Drive might have to be reconfigured. Plus, Hormel added, it’s hard to judge the impact of Gateway Hanover without knowing what businesses will be located there.

Smith said he is working on finalizing leases with retail stores that have already committed to Gateway Hanover. He said he will be making an announcement soon with the names of the stores.

Smith said he hopes to start grading the land behind Eisenhower Drive in the next four to six weeks.

Contact Ashley Adams at aadams@eveningsun.com.

PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

* Intersection retiming at Carlisle Street and Eisenhower Drive.

* Intersection retiming at Carlisle Street and Radio Road.

* Restriping westbound approach to provide a left turn lane, through lane and right turn lane; and intersection retiming at Carlisle Street and Kuhn Drive.

* Intersection retiming at Carlisle Street and Clearview Road.

* Intersection retiming at Carlisle Street and Elm Street.

* Intersection retiming at Dart Drive and Eichelberger Street.

* Intersection retiming at Eisenhower Drive and Eichelberger Street.

* Constructing a left turn lane southbound, which will provide two left turn lanes; constructing a left turn lane eastbound, which will provide two left turn lanes; and intersection retiming at Eisenhower Drive and Wilson Avenue.

* Intersection retiming at Eisenhower Drive and Hanover Crossing Shopping Center.

* Turning Wilson Avenue into a collector roadway between Carlisle Street and Eisenhower Drive with appropriate

http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_9521631

The Mercury News, Silicon Valley, June 3, 2008

Proposition 98, the controversial proposal that would have halted government’s ability to seize property and phased out rent control in 12 locations in the state, appeared headed toward defeat Tuesday night.

Its less restrictive counterpart, Proposition 99, was winning comfortably, according to early results.

Proposition 99 - placed on the ballot by foes of 98 - would put only mild curbs on government use of eminent domain, and does not target rent control.

“This is going to settle the issue of eminent domain once and for all and it will not harm the state of California,” said Gus Colgain, a mobile home owner and president of the California Manufactured Homeowners Resources & Action Association - a statewide advocacy group that pushed hard against Prop. 98.

San Jose city leaders were also hailing Prop. 98’s demise. The city has sometimes used eminent domain, primarily in its urban renewal efforts, as was the case in a failed attempt in 2002 to seize the Tropicana Shopping Center on the city’s East Side. In addition, the city enforces rent control rules in mobile home parks.

Both sides blitzed the airwaves with commercials and homes with glossy mailers.

Heavily funded by developers, property owners and real estate brokers, Proposition 98 would have barred government agencies from taking private property and then selling it to a developer for private use.

The crusade against Proposition 98 was led by the California League of Cities, redevelopment agencies and mobile home owners, who argued - among other things - that it would imperil urban renewal efforts. Those groups backed Proposition 99, which put far milder constraints on the government’s ability to seize property.

Agencies often turn to eminent domain, which is essentially a forced market-rate sale of property, to seize either residential or commercial land. Government uses the tactic when looking to redevelop areas or build public works projects, usually when efforts to buy land from a willing seller fail.

Proposition 99 proposed to bar government agencies from using eminent domain only to acquire an owner-occupied residence for sale to a developer. Rent control was not affected.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9471203?nclick_check=1 

Contact Joshua Molina at jmolina@mercurynews.com or (408) 275-2002

After a long legal battle, Telluride has gained control of the Valley Floor, a tract of land that is the entrance to the town.In a 6-1 decision, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the right of the town to condemn about 570 acres of land for open space, parks and recreation.

The land, which is adjacent to the town, has been the subject of a long legal battle between Telluride and the landowner, San Diego-based defense contractor Neal Blue.

Last year, Telluride, residents and donors from all over the country, raised $50 million to buy the land.

“After more than a decade of effort to preserve the Valley Floor, it appears our long cherished goal has at last been achieved,” said Telluride Mayor Stu Fraser.

In 1993, voters passed a measure to create Open Space funds to buy the area, and in 2002, citizens voted to proceed with condemnation.

In 2006, the city turned down a settlement with Blue that would have preserved 90 percent of the site.

Blue filed an appeal challenging the town’s right to take the land through condemnation.

The appeal asked the Colorado Supreme Court to overturn a district court ruling that found legislation passed in 2004 was unconstitutional.

The legislation, which has been called “The Telluride Amendment,” retroactively made it illegal for a home-rule municipality to condemn land outside its borders for open space.

The state high court found the Telluride Amendment in direct conflict with the Colorado Constitution, as well as numerous decisions of the court.

By The Denver Post
6/2/2008

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9455092

Biersdorf & Associates Project # - 3211.005

Condemning Authority - State of Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Penn DOT) plans to restore a portion of Brownsville Road, including the reconstruction of the intersection at Broughton.  The reconstruction of this road and intersection will require the acquisition of private property.

As of May 19th, 2008, this project is no longer on hold and Penn DOT has begun acquiring property.

If you have received an offer from the State or know you are affected by the project, please call us for additional information at 866-339-7242.

Biersorf & Associates Project # - 3295.001

Condemning Authority - State of Pennsylvania

The following information regarding this project was taken from the Project website at: http://www.renew22.com/

U.S. Route 22 in Westmoreland County is proposed to be reconstructed as part of the Renew 22 Project from the Allegheny/Westmoreland County Line east to the Westmoreland/Indiana County Line. The Route 22 project area is located within the Municipality of Murrysville, Salem Township, Borough of New Alexandria and Derry Township.

Route 22 is part of the National Highway System and as such is recognized as a vital link in Pennsylvania’s transportation network. Locally, Route 22 serves as the area’s primary east/west highway. Regionally, Route 22 provides a convenient link from the Pittsburgh metropolitan area to central Pennsylvania (i.e., Indiana, Altoona, Johnstown, State College). Access from this portion of U.S. Route 22 are provided to I-376, I-76, State Route (S.R.) 286, S.R. 0066/Amos K. Hutchinson Expressway, U.S. Route 119, U.S. Route 219 and U.S. Route 220/I-99.

The existing Route 22 is a varying combination of two lanes to four lanes for the highway. Several portions of this approximately 23 miles of Route 22, have been recently reconstructed to provide widening to four lanes (two in each direction) and a median with a barrier in the center. Access is provided at key intersections and crossing movements are limited to these locations. The remaining portions of U.S. Route 22 in Westmoreland County are planned to be reconstructed similarly to the completed sections and are scheduled for completion of construction by the end of 2006.

U.S. Route 22 will be reconstructed in a series of small sections. The internal ‘names’ given to each section of this highway are in a series ranging from B01 through B10. The following explanation is intended to give some orientation to the locations of each respective section.

Section B01 - Begins at the Allegheny/Westmoreland County Line and extends through the main portion of the Municipality of Murrysville to east of the Cozy Inn Cut-Off.  Completed in 2005. 

Section B02 - Begins east of the Cozy Inn Cut-Off in the Municipality of Murrysville and extends east to near the Route 22/66 Interchange in Salem Township. This portion of Route 22 was included in the environmental studies referred to as Section B04 (which included Sections B01 & B02). 

Section B03 - Includes the Route 22/66 Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) in Salem Township and State Route 66 north to Delmont Borough. Completed in 2000. 

Section B04 - This portion of Route 22 was included in the environmental studies which included Sections B01 & B02. A detailed description of these individual highway segments is included within those respective sections. 

Section B05 - Begins at the Route 22/66 Interchange in Salem Township and extends to the Route 22/819 Intersection at Five Points in Salem Township. Completed reconstruction in 1994. 

Section B06 - Begins at the Route 22/819 Intersection at Five Points in Salem Township and extends to near the Route 22/119 Interchange at Shieldsburg in Salem Township. Completed reconstruction in 1995. 

Section B07 - Begins near the Route 22/119 Interchange at Shieldsburg in Salem Township and extends through the intersection of Route 22/981 in the Borough of New Alexandria. Completed in 2003. 

Section B08 - Begins east of the intersection of Route 22/981 in the Borough of New Alexandria and extends to the intersection of Route 22/982 in Derry Township. 

Section B09 - Begins at the intersection of Route 22/982 in Derry Township and extends to the Route 22/Township Road 693 (Auction Barn Road) intersection. 

Section B10 - Begins at the intersection of Route 22/Township Road 693 (Auction Barn Road) and extends to the Route 22/State Route 217 intersection just east of the Conemaugh River Bridge.

The completion of all phases of the project are requiring the acquisition of private property.  If you have received an offer from the State, or if you have already settled with the State and are not happy with the offer, or would like a second opinion, please call our office for a free consultation at 866.339.7242.

Biersorf & Associates Project # - 3295.001

Condemning Authority - State of Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Penn DOT) plans to reconstruct the US 15 at US 30 Interchange in Adams County.  The completion of this project will require the acquisition of private property.

As of May 14, 2008, Penn DOT is in the process of completing the final design for the project, and they have secured funding for property acquisition; however, they currently do not have funding for construction and will therefore wait to acquire property until funding is secured for construction.

If you know your property is affected by the project or if you want further information regarding the project, please call us at 866.339.7242.