The Virginian-Pilot
©
NORFOLK
A circuit judge has cleared the way for the city's Redevelopment and Housing Authority to buy a handful of properties along Hampton Boulevard, agreeing with the agency that the area between 38th and 41st streets is still blighted.
Property owners there tried to block the authority from using eminent domain to take their land, saying redevelopment in recent years has improved the neighborhood so much that it no longer meets the state's definition of a troubled area.
On Friday, the property owners' attorney said he planned to appeal Norfolk Circuit Judge Louis A. Sherman's decision to the state Supreme Court.
"Ultimately, the Supreme Court gets to make the decision," attorney Joe Waldo said. "And we believe, ultimately, we'll prevail. They are essentially using the protection of outdated law to take property."
The landowners - Tommy and Krista Arney and Ronnie Boone Jr. - filed a lawsuit last year in an attempt to stop the acquisition.
Between them, they own several commercial buildings along and just off Hampton Boulevard, and one house on 41st Street.
Most are either vacant or being used as storage buildings.
The authority wants to seize the properties to clear the land for the next phase of development of University Village - a mix of residences, storefronts and university space developed by Old Dominion's Real Estate Foundation.
The agency is working for the real estate foundation to acquire the properties.
"These properties are essential for the redevelopment of the area," said Shurl Montgomery, the housing authority's executive director.
Last year, the authority set aside more than $1 million to buy the properties.
Now that the judge has ruled, the agency and property owners must go before Sherman to determine the value of the land.
Tara Saunders, executive director of the real estate foundation, said when called at her office Friday that she could not comment because the lawsuit has not yet concluded.
In their arguments, the landowners contended that the real estate foundation's earlier phases of redevelopment - which include construction of the Ted Constant Convocation Center, student housing for Old Dominion University, a hotel, two garages and a strip of commercial properties - have helped the area overcome its blight.
The area was designated as blighted in 1999.
"Nobody on the housing authority side submitted any evidence that that area is blighted today," Waldo said.
The two sides had disagreed on suitable prices for the properties.
Although the state's eminent domain law changed in 2007, the authority has until 2010 to take properties in areas grandfathered in as redevelopment sites, Montgomery said.
"This fits within the time frame," he said. "We plan on moving ahead with the university's efforts as soon as possible."
Meghan Hoyer, (757) 446-2293, meghan.hoyer@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
George K is wrong on "Takings"
Federal Law is one thing. Norfolk is still restrained by Virginia law! It wasn't long ago that Virginia passed eminent domain reform. It determined that it is not legal in Virginia to condemn land for the purpose of economic development. "Blight", which will need to be proven, is the only thing they have. If the houses in question are not blighted, then Norfolk may take the blighted property, but not the non-blighted.
If Attorney Waldo is confident of victory, it is for a reason.
Norfolk just loves stomping on individual rights and raising PR nightmares.
What are you people talking
What are you people talking about? It doesn't matter who owns this property. It's within the boundaries of Norfolk, and we're taking it. To hell with the Constitution!
eminent domain is constituional
The Takings Clause, the last clause of the Fifth Amendment, limits the power of eminent domain by requiring that "just compensation" be paid if private property is taken for public use. The just compensation provision of the Fifth Amendment did not originally apply directly to the states, but the federal courts now hold that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the effects of that provision to the states. The federal courts, however, have shown much deference to the determinations of Congress, and even more so to the determinations of the state legislatures, as to what constitutes "public use". The property need not actually be used by the public; rather, it must be used or disposed of in such a manner as to benefit the public welfare or public interest. One exception that restrains the federal government is that the property must be used in exercise of a government's enumerated powers.
Odu
You wrote: a private organization like Old Dominion University -- NO, ODU is a state university-- it is not private.
Vision Quest
The sight may be blight, but the sites, being commercial, are worth a mint. ODU is state-owned like other schools. Let the owner's condemnation attorneys begin the bidding! Freedom is not free as we all shall soon see.
Were they worth a mint before ODU announced it's plans?
Had ODU not made it's plans public would these properties be anything other than blighted properties? We want to transparency to prevent governmental abuse not to help land speculators abuse the public.
The use of eminent domain
There are few times when I think eminent domain should be used, but this case is definitely one of them. Property owners there have had more than enough time to fix up their property and not make them havens for nefarious activities. The owners were trying to hold out for higher prices and now won't get them. If you get greedy, you're bound to lose, as these people found out.
It's past time for elected judges
Norfolk Circuit Judge Louis Sherman another democrat appointed by a democrat. Judge Sherman was appointed by Gov Kaine. A judge that can not read the constitution.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Just compensation
Who gets to determine how much compensation is just? If I said the city would have to pay me a billion dollars for my shack, or else they wouldn't be able to build the third tunnel that everyone else wants to build, would that be just?
just compensation is a poor standard alone
To make whole again should be the principle including relocation and other compensation. Establishing monetary values is inescapable, however market value alone does not protect the property owner from possible abuse, nor does it protect the public from abuse by speculators manipulating a legal and transparent process.