Eminent domain hearing draws a crowd

01/12/2006

200 gather in Blaine for state hearing on the hot-button, private-property issue

BY RACHEL E. STASSEN-BERGER
Pioneer Press

Changes to eminent domain rules may not sound like a passionate, crowd-rallying issue.

But a Minnesota House of Representatives hearing on the subject, held in the Blaine City Council chambers to allow folks outside the state Capitol to attend, drew more than 200 people Wednesday.

Supporters and opponents of the proposed changes took every available seat, sat on the floor and spilled into the hallway to watch the three-hour proceedings on closed-circuit television.

The House Civil Law Committee, which last drew this much attention in 2005 when it discussed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, can’t even vote on the issue now. That will have to wait for the start of the legislative session in March.

Supporters of the changes at Wednesday’s meeting say they want to scale back abuses of the law that allows state and local government to force people off their property for the public good.

“That should be difficult. And in Minnesota it is not that difficult right now. And that needs to change,” Rep. Jeff Johnson, R-Plymouth, chief sponsor of the eminent domain measure, told the crowd at the meeting.

The measure, which has drawn support from people from all political parties and many ideological stripes, would make fundamental changes to eminent domain and the way government has taken Minnesotans’ homes, businesses and land for a long time.

The pressure to alter those rules gained strength after the U.S. Supreme Court decided last year in a case — Kelo v. New London — that it was constitutional for a Connecticut city to take people’s well-kept homes to create businesses and new residences in their stead.

Minnesota courts long have allowed cities and counties to take private property to replace it with other private property in the name of economic development.

While supporters of the changes say that’s plain wrong, opponents say the current law allows cities to renew their depressed areas and bring greater good to their communities.

“Sometimes these goals cannot be fully realized without eminent domain,” said New Brighton Mayor Steve Larson.
Local government officials said the proposed changes would not just cut off use of eminent domain for economic development purposes — the issue in the Supreme Court case — but also would create obstacles for its use in every case.

If the measure passed, it would grant private property owners greater access to courts and the possibility their legal bills, if they challenge eminent domain hearings and win, would be paid by others. That would mean it could become more expensive for government to take any property, even if the land is to be used to create a road, a park or a school.

Three property owners, who spoke at Wednesday’s hearing, said they are comfortable with that.

Mark Foreman of Bloomington said he tried to work with the city to redevelop an office building he owns and works in but when he couldn’t reach a deal with Bloomington officials, they moved to take his property through eminent domain. He wanted to keep his office in that same area because it is close to his home.

Jim Meide of Champlin said he simply wants to keep the waterfront home he and his wife have lived in for 30 years, but his city has threatened to force him out so it can build luxury housing and a marina where he raised his family.
And Dan Vang of Brooklyn Center said his father-in-law, who fought for the United States in Laos during the 1960s, wanted to keep running a Hmong-American shopping center. But the city decided it had a better use for the land and snatched it away.

But city officials tell a different story.

Foreman wanted to redevelop the area where his office building stood and several properties beyond as well — and put in several proposals to do so, said Regina Harris, administrator of the Bloomington Redevelopment Authority. But the authority rejected his proposals for various reasons. The authority offered to negotiate with Harris, but he refused, and then the authority took his property through eminent domain.

Champlin Mayor Steven Boynton said his city simply hasn’t used — or even threatened to use — eminent domain at all.
And Brooklyn Center officials said in a document shared at the House hearing that they had tried to work with the owner of the Hmong-American shopping center, which they said was blighted, and they are still fighting over eminent domain in court.

But city officials did acknowledge that the rules governing eminent domain could use some changes. On Wednesday, their association released a list of modifications to current law that they believe deserve consideration.
That proposal includes none of the sweeping changes Johnson has proposed.