Catherine, I can tell you are a very smart person. I think you can figure out where I am going with this. If you have a problem with the aesthetic aspects of the development that has occurred, I am anxiously awaiting the launch of the web site entitled Concerned Citizens of Riverside for a Change in our Building Codes and Ordinances. You can be the President and I'll be a Charter Member. I fully embrace this effort but stop confusing these concerns with the TIF. THEY ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE ISSUES.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Legal defenses against eminent domain
(19 posts)-
Posted Monday Dec 18, 2006 19:10 #
-
Catherine, question on that law you quoted:
Do you know if the above law applies to properties within a TIF district?
An attorney informally told me that when a TIF district is established, the properties within the district can be legally taken without satisfying the criteria you specified above. It was my understanding in talking with this attorney that the above criteria applies to properties NOT IN A TIF. This is one of the reasons we do not want to get into a TIF. Now, while the TIF is still not enacted, it would be much harder for the village to legally take my house thru its inalienable eminent domain powers. One of the good reasons to live in Illinois. This is one reason for me seeking an attorney BEFORE the TIF is enacted.
This I understand to be the meaning and import of page 3 of McKenna's TIF document, the Summary, when he says it is therefore affirmed that it is in the public good to redevelop the properties contained herein, or language close to this.
One might be saying that what's the big deal about eminent domain when the trustees have said over and over they would not exercise it within the TIF?
1) they can *threaten* to use it for leverage (they can tell the lil' ol' lady, 'you know, we can take this if we want, so why don't you take this offer..."
2) they can change their mind. remember mark twain and his untried virtue not being a virtue?
3) another board can not follow thru with these promises
corbi328 - yes about the ordinances. let's tighten 'em up. Somebody told me that the zoning change allowed for easier subdivision of parcels, among other things. not good.
mike tomecek
Posted Tuesday Dec 19, 2006 01:51 # -
That is a good question. I am just reading the law myself, much like one would read anything abstruse. There is language about TIF in there, but I have not yet absorbed its import. The impact of this law in TIF circumstances was one reason I tried to get the village attorney to comment on this. Was your attorney talking about the new law that goes into effect 1/1/07? I know that TIFs established prior to 4/06 do not fall under this law.
Posted Tuesday Dec 19, 2006 10:39 # -
She probably was not plugged into the new 01-07 law.
Posted Tuesday Dec 19, 2006 16:44 # -
Perhaps, but the Governor signed it in July.
I see in the 11/06 Revelopment TIF plan that there is a process to CERTIFY that no homes will be displaced. Perhaps we should be looking for that.
Posted Wednesday Dec 20, 2006 18:14 # -
While searching, I came across this site, Eminent Domain Watch:
Riverside's own Catherine Love (among others) appear on this site (by name only) due to them posting a recent Landmark article wherein her name was mentioned.
Posted Saturday Dec 30, 2006 20:03 # -
THE *WHOLE* *WORLD's* *WATCHING!*
THE *WHOLE* *WORLD WIDE WEB's* *WATCHING!*
Posted Saturday Dec 30, 2006 22:13 # -
Gee, perhaps the 15 minutes Andy Warhol promised have now arrived. Others of Riverside's own are there as well. As you may know, only those states without restricting laws, and Illinois has safeguarding laws, are subject to the Soviet thinking of Kelo.
"Since last year's infamous Kelo v. City of New London U.S. Supreme Court decision, citizens across the nation have declared in no uncertain terms their support for private property rights and opposition to the use of eminent domain for private gain.
...Alarmingly, we discovered some of New Mexico's eminent domain laws are so broadly written that currently every property in the state is at risk for a Kelo-like taking. Local governments are free to use New Mexico's incredibly broad condemnation authority to take virtually any property in the state and hand it over to private developers."
Yes, as I have said, any number of houses outside the TIF district would be ideal for taking - if taking were to occur - as they would be so much more appropriate for parking lots for architectural tourists. Many of them are "over 35 years old", have "inadequate infrastructure" and so on.
Thanks for the link. I am sure we will find lots of support there. I look forward to our receiving the opinion of the attorney retained with our tax dollars as to the impact of the Illinois Equity in Eminent Domain Act of 2007 on a TIF area.
Here is a gentleman charging his town with extortion and appealing to the New York Supreme court:
http://emdo.blogspot.com/#116691575493681586
"Claiming he is the victim of legalized extortion carried out under eminent domain powers, a landowner in New York is asking the Supreme Court to hear his case.
Landowner Bart Didden claims in a petition that a developer convinced the village of Port Chester, N.Y., to seize his land through eminent domain after Didden had refused to pay the developer $800,000.
As part of a 1999 redevelopment plan, the council had designated Didden's land as a "redevelopment area." This gives the council the power to condemn the property and hand it over to a developer of its choice.
Didden planned to build a CVS Pharmacy on the site, but the developer, Gregory Wasser of G&S Investors, wanted to build a Walgreens there. According to the petition, Wasser threatened to convince officials to condemn Didden's land under eminent domain if Didden did not pay him $800,000 or make him a 50 percent partner in the CVS project.
Didden says he refused the offer on Nov. 5, 2003. On Nov. 6, 2003, the village of Port Chester filed a condemnation petition to acquire the land and transfer the lease to G&S to construct a Walgreens."
Translation: The Village grabbed his land so it could sell it instead of the property owner.
HE IS REPRESENTED BY THE APTLY NAMED INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE. Here is an example of a case they have won in Norwood, OH:
http://emdo.blogspot.com/#116691575493681586
"But the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in July that Norwood illegally used eminent domain to acquire properties on the proposed Rookwood Exchange site from people who didn't want to sell.
That ruling stopped the project from being built."
(The Norwood case is very reminiscent of the situation on Pine Avenue.)
Here is the website of their lawyers, our new friends, the INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE:
Still more pertinent is their sub-website of CITIZENS FIGHTING EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE:
Posted Sunday Dec 31, 2006 05:28 # -
Copious success stories from Institute For Justice/Citizens Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse can be found here:
http://castlecoalition.org/success/index.html
Here are but two examples, the local ones:
Fox Lake, Illinois
Property owners Rita Shah and George Kurian brought their fight against eminent domain abuse to the courts of law and public opinion—”and won. Village officials, eager to keep Ray Chevrolet and its sales tax in town, attempted to seize one acre of private property to turn it over to the car dealership for parking. Lake County Judge Margaret Mullen said, “It is abundantly clear to this court, based upon all the evidence, that the taking was motivated solely by the village's desire to give incentive to Ray Chevrolet to remain in Fox Lake. Use of eminent domain for this purpose would exceed the village's authority.—
Chicago, Illinois
Sometimes all it takes to save one's business from the government's wrecking ball is to investigate deeper and deeper into the details of the development project. At least that's what Donald Zordani learned when Chicago city officials attempted to seize his Sportif bike shop to hand it over to a private developer who owned half the properties on the block and urged the City to give him more. After hiring an attorney, Zordani discovered facts that made City redevelopment officials cringe. For instance, the developer slated to benefit from eminent domain abuse had suspiciously donated thousands of dollars to an alderman who helped coax the project through the City's bureaucracy. Not surprisingly, the City did not want any other details to surface and immediately backed off from the project—”victory for a man who simply wanted to keep the bike shop he already rightfully owned.
Here is the organization's survival guide and guide to citizen activity:
http://castlecoalition.org/pdf/publications/survival-guide.pdf
Posted Sunday Dec 31, 2006 06:26 #
Reply
You must log in to post.