AS the Upper East Side braces for the commotion and transformation that will undoubtedly mark the first phase of construction of the Second Avenue subway, a very few of the neighborhood's residents face a more dramatic change. To make room for subway stations and other components of the system, some buildings and the people who live in them will have to go.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - The Supreme Court on Tuesday bypassed an opportunity to revisit or limit its much-disputed 2005 ruling that upheld governmental power to use eminent domain to foster economic development.

Without comment, the justices declined to hear a case from Port Chester in Westchester County, N.Y., that challenged the village's use of eminent domain in a dispute between a property owner and a private company designated as the developer of a run-down 27-acre urban renewal area.

The redevelopment plan, adopted by Port Chester in 1999, envisioned a retail area that would include a drugstore. In 2002, the developer, G & S Port Chester LLC, announced that a Walgreens store would be part of the project. But Bart Didden, the owner of the parcel where the store was to sit, had by that time separately entered into a lease with a competing drugstore chain, CVS.

LexisNexis: 39 Akron L. Rev. 373

By Wilson Ray Huhn

LexisNexis 

Enacted legislation

* Alabama: Prohibits eminent domain use for retail, commercial, residential or apartment development; for purposes of generating tax revenue; or for transferring private property to another private party. Allows an exception for blight.

* Delaware: Restricts eminent domain use to a recognized public use.

* Idaho: Prohibits eminent domain use for a public use that is a pretext for transferring the property to another private entity, or for promoting economic development.

* Indiana: Defines public use and redefines blighted areas. Requires payment of compensation at a specific rate of fair market value.

* Ohio: Moratorium until Dec. 31, 2006, on eminent domain use for economic development purposes that would ultimately result in a property transfer to another private party in an area that is not blighted.

* South Dakota: Prohibits eminent domain use to transfer private property to another private entity or to be used primarily to generate additional tax revenue.

* Texas: Prohibits eminent domain use to confer a private benefit on a private party or for economic development purposes, with certain exceptions.

* Utah: Requires approval by the governing body of a local government before eminent domain may be exercised for a public use. Requires a written notice to be sent to the affected landowner at least 10 days before the public hearing where the proposed taking will be considered. Expands the definition of public use to include bicycle paths and sidewalks adjacent to paved roads, while limiting the use of eminent domain for certain recreational purposes.

SOURCE: National Conference of State Legislatures.

Anger Drives Property Rights Measures - New York Times
By WILLIAM YARDLEY
...
Supporters of the ballot efforts in the West — often called “Kelo-plus” — say they want to stop so-called regulatory takings, the idea that government effectively takes private property when zoning laws limit how it can be used.
Opponents say the regulatory-takings initiatives are essentially a ruse, that they are trying to exploit anger over the Kelo decision and eminent domain to roll back zoning regulations that are critical to controlling growth, protecting the environment and preserving property values.
The more far-reaching proposals in the West — in Idaho, Arizona, California and Washington State — are citizens’ initiatives supported by signature petitions, and they are often supported financially and logistically by national libertarian groups.
... 

Posted on Fri, May. 26, 2006    
Camden promises to retool Cramer Hill plan
The redevelopment revision would displace "far fewer" people, city officials said.
By Dwight Ott and Elisa Ung
Inquirer Staff Writers

Dropping their legal fight for the $1.2 billion Cramer Hill redevelopment plan, Camden officials said yesterday that they would retool the project to require displacement of "far fewer" homeowners.

The officials said during a briefing at Mayor Gwendolyn Faison's office that the blight study and redevelopment plan for the neighborhood would be revised and reintroduced to the planning board and City Council.

In April, a state Superior Court judge dismissed the blight study, which was key to the completion of the redevelopment plan. Known as the Cherokee Plan, after its developer, the proposal would have dislocated about 1,100 families, including 400 homeowners.

....