  Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2007 |
i wrote a paper and the research was pretty interesting. i ended up advocating for a controversial policy. it's long but the beginning is necessary to lay down the framework for the issue. i'd be interested in comments if any of you have any http://www.uploading.com/files /QNSF98SB/Detroit.Paper.doc.ht ml | ||
Crumbled_pavement Member Username: Crumbled_pavement Post Number: 40 Registered: 08-2007 |
Synopsis? | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2007 |
this is the introduction: The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Although a seemingly simple statement, the term “public use” has had an evolving definition and been the source of heavy debate. The landmark case of Kelo v. City of New London, instead of laying the issue to rest, has only intensified the controversy. In this paper I will attempt to quickly describe the legal landscape that provided the backdrop to Kelo and the seminal case itself, discuss the transformation of eminent domain law in the State of Michigan and assess the implication of these changes for the City of Detroit. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 2697 Registered: 06-2006 |
Only: I just skimmed your paper and it looks interesting. I don't have time to read it now but will try to read it this weekend and comment. I saw you quoted Professor Mogk. Are you at WSU? If so, I'm thinking of taking Land Use with Mogk next semester. Can you offer any comments on his class or advice? | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2007 |
sounds good. i started off the research only knowing that i wanted to write about detroit and came up with my topic during the process. i do not attend wayne, but i have taken land use at my school (i wrote this paper for that class). there isn't much case law about the subject and usually only a few landmark cases so it wasn't bad. although mine was taught by practitioners so maybe they were just unusually light. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 352 Registered: 04-2006 |
Economic development facilitated by eminent domain is extremely problematic. It is in the interest of the government to maximize its tax base on any given land parcel, and if that means clearing out a neighborhood and handing it over to a corporation, that's what will happen with an aggressive eminent domain law. Also, there's no guarantee that, for all this money and displacement of people, the city will actually improve as a result of these huge projects. Look at Poletown. How has that development benefited the city of Detroit? It employs 2025 people, who drive there, park, and drive home when their shift ends. The neighborhood around there is one of the most desolate in the city, so the plant obviously hasn't provided much spin-off benefit for the area. And because the city was providing GM with all the land it wanted, it had no incentive to design the plant in a space-efficient manner or to conform the design to its surroundings. It's a walled-off fortress. Was one of the city's very few stable, racially-integrated central neighborhoods really a fair price to pay for a few jobs? Does anyone who works in that plant even live in Detroit? In that case, GM exerted a kind of power over the city and its residents that no entity solely motivated by profit should have over anyone. Any laws that prevent that kind of abuse are okay in my book. | ||
Beach Member Username: Beach Post Number: 8 Registered: 09-2005 |
Thejesus-- I just graduated from WSU law school and had Mogk for several classes, including land use. It's a standard Mogk class. What does that mean? Well, you'd have to have Mogk to really understand, but I'll try to explain him. Mogk is an extremely interesting guy who is really plugged in to the metro Detroit development community. I think people tend to find him bland because he seems to be bored when discussing the assigned readings. However, he gets really excited and interesting when applying it to real world situations, especially when Detroit is involved. I think Mogk has a very good sense of humor, others will disagree, and I personally find him to be an extremely interesting professor. He has been teaching at Wayne for a VERY long time, which may explain the lack of excitement when discussing the materials. In addition to land use, I took his local government class and his urban housing and community development seminar. I highly recommend these classes. He is not a hard grader. The seminar is basically 15 people sitting around talking about Detroit development. Oh, and you get to take field trips around the city. It's awesome. Be warned though, it's hard to get into because it fills up fast. | ||
Rustic Member Username: Rustic Post Number: 3183 Registered: 10-2003 |
This thread makes me hate myself a little bit ... | ||
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm Post Number: 1503 Registered: 02-2005 |
Beach, I also had Mogk for 3-4 classes in property law in the 1980s. In fact, I wrote a 120+ page paper for that same seminar with him on the state of the law (as it was in 1987 or so) regarding complete, partial and regulatory takings, public use, exactions, etc. at the federal and state levels. It got me an award and a little cash if I remember correctly. I concur with you about Mogk's teaching techniques. There were no tricks to his exams, but you did have to know all the issues and applicable standards - all of which he clearly identified in class. He also offered some post class review (almost a study guide for the exams). Look at his previous exams if the Library still keeps them. BTW, Mogk was also a Detroit mayoral candidate in the early 1970s. Only, the paper is interesting with respect to the public use aspect but there's a whole lot of law out there on the other aspects of redevelopment. For example, a hindrance in Detroit is the Michigan Subdivision Control Act (or whatever it's called now) which governs platting requirements and the rules for changing previously platted property. There's more that get pretty tedious after awhile. | ||
Deandub11 Member Username: Deandub11 Post Number: 171 Registered: 05-2006 |
Did anyone actually read the paper? It seems this topic has been threadjacked already. The eminent domain law the paper talks about might have serious implications for Detroit including providing obstacles for business owners trying to start or relocate their company to Detroit and promoting urban sprawl. It seems Michigan is the only one out of the great lake states which has this law in the constitution. I'm kind of on the fence regarding eminent domain, but this is an issue worth looking into for the future of our city. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 3065 Registered: 06-2004 |
The provided link tried to install something on my computer without prompting me - paper's not going to be read that way | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2007 |
i just double checked it. download works fine. | ||
Salvadordelmundo Member Username: Salvadordelmundo Post Number: 100 Registered: 04-2006 |
Interesting paper, and you might want to address the possibility that Kelo will be limited by legislative action by Congress. So far, no such measure has been passed, but two have been proposed so far. I don't have the bill numbers, but you can look them up quite easily on the 'Thomas' database. Since you are proposing legal action, you might want to include a section on potential strategies if your proposal is preempted by Congress. | ||
Jtw Member Username: Jtw Post Number: 193 Registered: 06-2005 |
your screen name is too long. it throws off the html margins. sorry no thoughts on the paper. | ||
Zxzm Member Username: Zxzm Post Number: 79 Registered: 10-2007 |
Jesus, what year are you at Wayne and what section were you in first year? | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 5 Registered: 11-2007 |
I just can't see congress limiting kelo. As a general matter, stronger eminent domain policy seems to be more popular and desirable because it works. Chicago and NYC, for example, have extremely aggressive ideas of public use and they've made huge strides in the last 20 years (after all, they were complete shitholes back in the day). I can't see the legislature tampering with "economic development." I don't attend WSU. | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 354 Registered: 04-2006 |
It really doesn't work. It just facilitates corruption and excessive corporate welfare and really isn't all that effective at promoting economic development. When the local government has the means to offer corporate welfare (like a nice big parcel of free cleared land), corporations tend to play local governments off each other to get the best deal possible, and nobody wins except the corporation itself. You cited Poletown in your paper, but clearly you took entirely the wrong lessons from it. | ||
Gnome Member Username: Gnome Post Number: 359 Registered: 08-2007 |
Your name is too longandisapainintheasstoreador write. My virus pop-up blocker went ape-shit when I tried to download your doc. I don't know who you are and am not comfortable opening my harddrive to your thoughts on E.D. Moreover, you ask for comments on your paper, but not what kind of comments. As a future lawyer you should have already learned to not ask an open ended question. My comment is: you are looking for "something" for free, won't say what it is, and you insist that to give you this "something" we should possibly infect ourselves with your virus. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 1266 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: Where to begin? I'm no fan of Eminent Domain, but how about beginning with the obvious tax contributions that those employees and GM make to the City of Detroit, with little demand for city services in return? Not to mention the huge loss that would have been to Detroit's budget back in the 1980s if GM had decided to take that new plant elsewhere - which they would have without Detroit's ability to quickly assemble all that property - and taken all the negative publicity they would have received for "abandoning" the city. The areas around the GM Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly Plant are no more desolate than the areas around the former GM plants that it replaced. And in case you haven't noticed over the last 20 years or so, the domestic automotive supplier base and tool and die shops have been decimated by foreign competition, so through no fault of the city, there wasn't any spin-off activity to be gained in those areas. If you think that GM sized the D-H plant simply based on the size of the parcel the city accumulated, you have rocks in your head. The first products built in that plant were body-frame-integral designs which requires a completely different plant layout than the body-on-frame type vehicles built at the inefficient GM plants in Detroit that it replaced. The city sized the parcel to meet GM's requirements and if GM had been forced to build that plant vertically because of site limitations, they would have taken that new plant to a greenfield site somewhere else. BTW, I agree with the others - I went to download that document and just one look at that site told me to immediately close my browser. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 6 Registered: 11-2007 |
apologies for not uploading onto a better site like mega upload. the site i chose didn't ask to jump through a lot of hoops. i can assure you that its a legitimate download. its a paper i wrote for school. I left the comments question open since I was hoping I could get someones input. I am a native detroiter and have been reading this forum for quite a while. While people here are passionate about the rebuilding of detroit and are knowlegeable about its history, rarely do I read any coherent argument advocating some way of affecting change. I had an opportunity to do some research for any paper in my zoning class. I had no idea what the topic of my paper was going to be when i started off. what i found dictated what i was going to write and i found it absolutely stunning. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 7 Registered: 11-2007 |
i dont see how you can say aggressive eminent domain doesn't work. i can see how you may have a moral disgust with the idea but all the empirical evidence disagrees with you. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 8 Registered: 11-2007 |
DETROIT AND ITS NEED FOR MORE AGGRESSIVE EMINENT DOMAIN LAW INTRODUCTION The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Although a seemingly simple statement, the term “public use” has had an evolving definition and been the source of heavy debate. The landmark case of Kelo v. City of New London, instead of laying the issue to rest, has only intensified the controversy. In this paper I will attempt to quickly describe the legal landscape that provided the backdrop to Kelo and the seminal case itself, discuss the transformation of eminent domain law in the State of Michigan and assess the implication of these changes for the City of Detroit. LEGAL HISTORY LEADING UP TO KELO My discussion of the legal landscape leading up to Kelo will be anchored by two cases that were decided thirty years apart, with the most recent case decided twenty years prior to Kelo. Berman v. Parker In 1954 the Supreme Court decided a case that involved The District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 (Act), Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954). The purpose of the Act was to redevelop the substandard housing and blighted areas in the District of Columbia and it stated, by a determination of Congress, that: [O]wing to technological and sociological changes, obsolete lay-out, and other factors, conditions existing in the District of Columbia with respect to substandard housing and blighted areas, including the use of buildings in alleys as dwellings for human habitation, are injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare; and it is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to protect and promote the welfare of the inhabitants of the seat of the Government by eliminating all such injurious conditions by employing all means necessary and appropriate for the purpose. Id. at 28 (emphasis added). The Act further stated that these ends could not be attained: [B]y the ordinary operations of private enterprise alone without public participation [and] the acquisition and the assembly of real property and the leasing or sale thereof for redevelopment pursuant to a project area redevelopment plan . . . is hereby declared to be a public use. Id. at 29 (emphasis added). The geographic area of concern, and the particular project that lead to litigation, involved what was called Project Area B in Southwest Washington D.C. According to the 1950 findings of the Planning Commission, surveys revealed that conditions in Area B were deteriorating and found, specifically, that, “64.3% of the dwellings were beyond repair, 18.4% needed major repairs, only 17.3% were satisfactory; 57.8% of the dwellings had outside toilets, 60.3% had no baths, 29.3% lacked electricity, 82.2% had no wash basins or laundry tubs, 83.8% lacked central heating.” Id. at 30. Needless to say, this neighborhood was in serious disarray and rightfully targeted for some type of improvement. The Appellants in Berman owned and operated a department store located within the boundaries of Area B. The property was neither slum housing nor blighted in any way. Appellant argued that the city could not take their property merely to develop a better-balanced, more attractive community. Id. at 31. The Court held otherwise. Id. at 36. In support of this decision, the Court emphasized the importance of deference to the legislature. The Court stated that, “In the present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them.” Id. at 33. Since Congress had already established the purpose in the language of the Act, the means of executing the project could also be determined by Congress as well. Id. at 33. As such, the fact that the condemned area could be possibly sold or leased to private interests was of no concern. Id. at 34 (“We cannot say that public ownership is the sole method of promoting the public purposes of community redevelopment projects.”). Furthermore, the Court continued, “community redevelopment plans need not, by force of the Constitution, be on a piecemeal basis – lot by lot, building by building.” Id. at 35. This last statement was of particular importance since experts testified that if the community were to be truly healthy, the area must be planned as a whole in order to eliminate the conditions that cause slums and a reversion back to blight. Id. at 34. Ultimately, Berman was a case where the Court gave great leeway to the determinations of the legislature, both in the definition of public purpose and the means of achieving said purpose. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff In 1984 the Supreme Court further expanded the idea of public purpose in a case involving the land oligopoly found in the State of Hawaii at that time. Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984). Because of Hawaii’s history, the state developed a very unique allocation of land ownership among its citizens. The Court gave a quick summary and stated: The Hawaiian Islands were originally settled by Polynesian immigrants from the western Pacific. These settlers developed an economy around a feudal land tenure system in which one island high chief, the ali’i nui, controlled the land and assigned it for development to certain subchiefs. The subchiefs would then reassign the land to other lower ranking chiefs, who would administer the land and govern the farmers and other tenants working it. All land was held at the will of the ali’i nui and eventually had to be returned to his trust. There was no private ownership of land. Id. at 232. As a result of this history, and the failure of Hawaiian leaders and American settlers to divide the lands of the kingdom, the land remained in the hands of a few. After extensive hearings in the mid-1960’s, the Hawaii Legislature discovered that, while the State and Federal Governments owned almost 49% of the State’s land, another 47% was in the hands of only 72 private landowners. Id. at 232. The legislature further found that 18 landholders, with tracts of 21,000 acres or more, owned more than 40% of this land and that on Oahu, the most urbanized of the islands, 22 landowners owned 72.5% of the fee simple titles. Id. at 232. It is safe to say, that at this time, Hawaii did not have the expected levels of diversity in regards to land ownership. As a way of curing this inequity, the legislature formulated a plan in order to compel the large landowners to break up their estates. The Land Reform Act of 1967 (Act) created a mechanism for condemning residential tracts and for transferring ownership of the condemned fee simples to existing lessees. Id. at 233. Under the Act, tenants living on lots within residential tracts of at least five acres in size were entitled to ask the Hawaii Housing Authority (HHA) to condemn the property on which they lived. Id. at 233. When 25 eligible tenants, or tenants on half the lots in the tract, whichever is less, filed appropriate applications, the Act authorized HHA to hold a public hearing to decide whether the condemnation of the tract at issue would effectuate the public purposes of the Act. Id. at 233. In April 1977, HHA held a public hearing concerning a certain tract of land, which led to the particular legal dispute at the heart of Midkiff. Following a series of decisions in the lower courts, the Supreme Court decided that the Act in question effectuated a proper public purpose. Id. at 236. The Court came to this decision by again relying upon the wisdom of the legislature. Prior to the creation of the Act, the legislature had concluded that, “concentrated land ownership was responsible for skewing the State’s residential fee simple market, inflating prices, and injuring the public tranquility and welfare.” Id. at 232. Through the Act, the Court went on the say, “The people of Hawaii have attempted, much as the settlers of the original 13 Colonies did, to reduce the perceived social and economic evils of a land oligopoly traceable to their monarchs.” Id. at 241-42. With this said, the Court continued, echoing Berman, “[T]he Court has made clear that it will not substitute its judgment for a legislature’s judgment as to what constitutes a public use ‘unless the use be palpably without reasonable foundation.’” Id. at 241. Of the Act and its methods, the Court finally stated, “This is a comprehensive and rational approach to identifying and correcting market failure.” Id. at 242. Although the reasoning sounds circular, it is just another form of Berman deference. In both Berman and Midkiff, the respective legislatures identified a problem that struck them as being so severe that there was a need for an immediate cure. In Berman economic development and blight could not be solved without governmental action and in Midkiff the unfairness of landownership could not be remedied through natural market forces. With nothing stopping the government from intervening and transferring land from one individual to another, as long as there was some attendant rational public purpose, although the reasoning of these two cases were not necessarily that explicit, they were able to liberally construe the term, making the outcome in Kelo not all that surprising. KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON This 2005 decision has been the source of debate the moment it was announced. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), involved this Connecticut city’s approval for the development of real estate project that was to sit on the waterfront. City leaders were desperate to raise additional revenues after the federal government closed the doors of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in 1996, resulting in a loss of over 1,500 jobs. Asmara Tekle Johnson, Correcting for Kelo, 16 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 187, 189 (Fall 2006). In 1998, the city’s unemployment rate was nearly double that of the State, and its population of just under 24,000 residents was its lowest since 1920. 545 U.S. at 473. With these economic conditions as the backdrop, city leaders welcomed the Kelo project, which was approved in 2000. The Kelo project was, “projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas.” Id. at 472. The project was to create a small urban village and it was to include, among other things, a waterfront conference hotel, restaurants, retail stores, a new marina, and a pedestrian river walk. Id. at 474. The Kelo project was not the first of its kind to take place in New London as Pfizer Inc. had begun building a $300 million research facility on the site next to the planned Kelo project in 1998. Id. at 473. In fact, local planners had hoped that the Kelo project would be able to capitalize on the arrival of the Pfizer facility and the new commerce it was expected to attract. Id at. 474. In order for the Kelo project to progress as planned, the city needed to acquire 90 acres of land in the Fort Trumbull area, which is situated on a peninsula that juts in the Thames River. Id. at 474-75. This area comprised of approximately 115 privately owned properties, as well as 32 acres of land formerly occupied by the naval facility. Id. at 474. The New London Development Corporation, a private nonprofit entity established years earlier to assist the City in planning economic development, was able to purchase and acquire most of the real estate in the 90 acre area. Id. at 475. Not everyone was willing to sell, however, and the failure of those negotiations, which caused the city to initiate condemnation proceedings, led to the litigation in this case. The Court identified the issue in the case when it stated, “The disposition of this case . . . turns on the question whether the city’s development plan serves a ‘public purpose’.” Id. at 480. And like Berman and Midkiff, the Court in Kelo bended to the wishes of the legislature and held that the takings were proper. Id. at 490. The Court stated, “For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power.” Id. at 453-54. The Court then went on to say, “Those who govern the City were not confronted with the need to remove blight in the Fort Trumbull area, but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference. Id. at 454. Therefore, the Court would not question the wisdom that compelled the creation of the State’s municipal development statute that expresses a legislative determination that the taking of land, even developed land, as part of an economic development project is a “public use” and in the “public interest.” Id. at 476. The Court continued and stated, “Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government.” Id. at 484. Using shades of comprehensive plan logic from Berman and rational basis review from Midkiff, the Court stated: The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including—but by no means limited to—new jobs and increased tax revenue. . . . [T]he city is endeavoring to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational uses of land, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the City has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the comprehensive character of the plan, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of our review, it is appropriate for us, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 483-84 (emphasis added). With the passage above, the Court created the widest window ever available to land developers across the country to grab and demand land from private owners underneath the umbrella of economic development. Of course, this window was contingent on there being a window in the first place. The Court stated that, “We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.” Id. at 489. Thus, like the cases before Kelo, the question of the takings power would lie with the legislatures of the States, with there being no apparent federal rule for how far this takings power could extend. Deference would be given if there were some rational basis for the legislature’s judgment and the decision would be applicable for wide swaths of land, whether for blight, economic unfairness or economic development. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 9 Registered: 11-2007 |
EMINENT DOMAIN LAWS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Any discussion of eminent domain law in the State of Michigan will have to begin with Poletown and end with Hathcock. These two cases not only shaped the law within the state, but because the decisions were so drastically divergent, they had far reaching effects. Poletown Neighborhood Council. v. City of Detroit In this peculiarly short decision, it is striking how similar the facts of this case parallel the circumstances found in Kelo. This 1981 decision arose out of a plan by the Detroit Economic Development Corporation to acquire a large tract of land to be conveyed to General Motors Corporation (GM) as a site for construction of an assembly plant. Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit, 304 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. 1981). Like the City of New London, Detroit was suffering economically at this time. In the early 1980s, high oil prices, inflation, and government regulation brought on a severe recession, which hit Michigan’s automobile manufactures especially hard. Timothy Sandefur, A Gleeful Obituary for Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit, 28 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 651, 652 (Spring 2005). The state’s unemployment rate rose from 7 percent in March of 1979, to 9.9 percent a year later and rose to 12.2 percent in March 1981, the month and year Poletown was decided. Id. at 652. At issue in Poletown was the city’s use of eminent domain power granted to it by the Economic Development Corporations Act (Act). The Act was part of the, “comprehensive legislation dealing with planning, housing and zoning whereby the State of Michigan is attempting to provide for the general health, safety, and welfare through alleviating unemployment, providing economic assistance to industry, assisting the rehabilitation of blighted areas, and fostering urban redevelopment.” Id. at 458. The Act provided, in pertinent part, that: There exists in this state the continuing need for programs to alleviate and prevent conditions of unemployment, and that it is accordingly necessary to assist and retain local industries and commercial enterprises to strengthen and revitalize the economy of this state and its municipalities; that accordingly it is necessary to provide . . . assistance of industrial and commercial enterprises in locating, purchasing, constructing, reconstruction, modernizing, improving, maintaining, repairing, furnishing, equipping, and expanding in this state and in its municipalities . . . Therefore, the powers granted in this act constitute the performance of essential public purposes and functions for this state and its municipalities. Id. at 458 (emphasis added). The GM development in Poletown was projected to create 6,000 new jobs and hopefully make up some of the $100 million drop in property tax revenues due to the depressed economic conditions. 28 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y at 652. The individuals who brought suit in Poletown, protesting the decision of the city and the lower courts, argued that, “whatever incidental benefit may accrue to the public, assembling land to General Motors’ specifications for conveyance to General motors for its uncontrolled use in profit making is really a taking for private use and not a public use because General Motors is the primary beneficiary of the condemnation.” 304 N.W.2d at 458. The court, in holding for the city that the takings were proper, used a justification that should be familiar at this point and stated, “The legislature has determined that governmental action of the type contemplated here meets a public need and serves an essential purpose. The Court’s role after such a determination is made is limited.” Id. at 458. Even though the court here did want to provide some protection for certain legislative determinations, it seemed to be little more than lip service. Id. at 459-60 (“Where, as here, the condemnation power is exercised in a way that benefits specific and identifiable private interests, a court inspects with heightened scrutiny the claim that the public interest is the predominant interest being advanced.”). Although Poletown was decided nearly twenty five years before Kelo, they both illustrate the power large corporations can have in influencing decisions made by cities suffering from severely harsh economic circumstances. By taking advantage of explicit state statutes regarding the necessity of economic development, strict ideas of private property ownership fell by the wayside. That said, considering how similar the background facts of Hathcock were to Poletown, due to the fact that Metropolitan Detroit had not cured itself of its economic problems in the twenty three years that separated these decisions, it is somewhat stunning how different the outcomes were. County of Wayne v. Hathcock This decision was a result of litigation stemming from the controversy surrounding the condemnation proceedings initiated by Wayne County in 2001 on nineteen parcels of land immediately south of the Detroit Metropolitan Airport. County of Wayne v. Hathcock, 684 N.W.2d 765 (Mich. 2004). The dispute had its roots in the Airport renovations that had just occurred at that time. The county’s $2 billion construction program had produced a new terminal and jet runway that raised concerns that noise from increase air traffic would plague neighboring landowners. Id. at 770. In an effort to obviate such problems, the county, funded by a partial grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), began a program of purchasing neighboring properties through voluntary sales. Id. at 770. As a contingency to the grant provided by the FAA, the county was required to put any properties acquired by the noise abatement program to economically productive use. Id. at 770. As a way of fulfilling this mandate, the county developed the idea of constructing a large business and technology park with a conference center, hotel accommodations, and a recreational facility. Id. at 770. This project was named the “Pinnacle Project” and called for the construction of a state-of-the-art business and technology park in a 1,300-acre area adjacent to the Airport. Id. at 770. With the already acquired land as the base, the county continued with its process of acquiring the necessary land. Of all of the parcels necessary to create a homogenous 1,300-acre area, only 19 parcels remained in holdout, leading to the Hathcock litigation. Id. at 771. The core of the Hathcock case was again the issue of public purpose. The Pinnacle project was projected to create: [T]housands of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue, while broadening the County’s tax base from predominantly industrial to a mixture of industrial, service and technology. The Pinnacle Project will enhance the image of the County in the development community, aiding in its transformation from a high industrial area, to that of an arena ready to meet the needs of the 21st century. This cutting edge development will attract national and international business, leading to accelerate economic growth and revenue enhancement. Id. at 770-71. Specifically, according to expert testimony, the Pinnacle Project was anticipated to create 30,000 jobs and add $350 million in tax revenue for the county. Id. at 771. In approaching the issue of public purpose, the court first focused on legislative intent. Under the charter of Wayne County, the court found, the county had the authority to pursue any end that is “necessary or beneficial to the public health, safety, and general welfare” of the county, assuming the pursuit of that objective was not reserved by the Constitution or by statute to the state. Id. at 775. The court further outlined the reasons that the county had provided for wanting to develop the Pinnacle project and listed them as, “(1) the creation of jobs for its citizens, (2) the stimulation of private investment and redevelopment in the county to insure a healthy and growing tax base so that the county can fund and deliver critical public services, (3) stemming the tide of disinvestment and population loss, and (4) supporting development opportunities which would otherwise remain unrealized.” Id. at 775-76. As such, the court agreed that the goals cited above were within the scope and legislative power of the county. Id. at 776 (“[T]he county’s goal of drawing commerce . . . by converting the subject properties to a state-of-the-art technology and business park is within this definition of a “public purpose.”). The court stated, “A transition from a declining rustbelt economy to a growing, technology-driven economy would, no doubt, promote prosperity and general welfare.” Id. at 776. Of course, this only meant that this exercise of eminent domain had passed one test. The court next tackled the question of constitutionality. In doing so, the court ultimately found the takings unconstitutional under Michigan’s Constitution. Id. at 472. By analyzing Article 10 §2 of Michigan’s Constitution through the lens of 1963, the year the Constitution was amended, the court found that a reason of economic development was not a public purpose. Id. at 472 (Article 10 §2 is a mirror to the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution quoted at the very beginning of this paper). After a lengthy examination of historical precedent, the court stated that: [S]een through the eyes of an individual sophisticated in the law at the time of ratification of our 1963 Constitution, [the transfer of condemned property to a private property would only] be appropriate in one of three contexts: (1) where “public necessity of the extreme sort” requires collective action; (2) where the property remains subject to public oversight after transfer to a public entity; and (3) where the property is select because of “facts independent public significance,” rather than the interests of the private entity to which the property is eventually transferred. Id. at 476. This last circumstance was meant to cover cases of slum clearance or blight condemnation. Id. at 476. In Michigan, at least, only the Berman justification survived. As a means of relieving any ambiguity that might have resulted from the Hathcock decision, Michigan voters responded in November of 2006. At that time, an amendment to the Michigan Constitution was approved that prohibited takings “for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues” and requires owners of condemned homes, under the three circumstances outlined by Hathcock, to be compensated with at least 125% of the property’s value. Trent L. Pepper, Blight Elimination Takings as Eminent Domain Abuse, 5 Ave Maria L. Rev. 299, 325 (2007). Michigan is thus the only state in the Great Lakes region in which economic development takings are explicitly prohibited by law in the state constitution, thereby taking full advantage of the window left open in Kelo. Id. at 325. It is important that we now examine how this current legal landscape may effect the redevelopment of the City of Detroit and its ability to achieve sustainable success. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CITY OF DETROIT Although even the most steadfast proponent of eminent domain rights may find Kelo far too over reaching, one need only look at Detroit’s current economic circumstances to question the judgment made in Hathcock. Although the suggestion of heightened scrutiny found in Poletown was not used, perhaps that is the source of compromise. That said, keeping in mind that an all out Kelo policy causes damage in the form of weak personal property rights, Detroit may be particularly vulnerable to the negative effects caused by the new legal precedent and legislation that prohibits economic development eminent domain. Future Development The impacts of Hathcock are serious when it comes to competition for development projects. John Mogk, a professor of land use law at Wayne State University, says that “no other city with which Detroit competes has such limitations” placed on its ability to obtain land for redevelopment. Brett D. Liles, Reconsidering Poletown, 48 Ariz. L. Rev. 369, 386-87 (Summer 2006). Mark Zausmer, the attorney who represented Wayne County in Hathcock, stated, shortly after the decision, that, “if this was the law back in the eighties and nineties and early 2000s, there would have been no two automobile assembly plants in Detroit, there would have been no Fox Theatre development, and in all likelihood there would have been no new stadiums.” Tresa Baldas, Landmark Eminent Domain Case Overturned, 26 Nat’l L.J. 49 (Aug. 9, 2004). Furthermore, for projects that do get built, Hathcock and the new 125% just compensation law is likely to increase the cost of land used in the redevelopment efforts. 48 Ariz. L. Rev. at 387. It is hard to argue that restricting eminent domain does not put states at a disadvantage to other states that have less restrictive standards. With Michigan being the only state in the Great Lakes region in which economic development takings are explicitly prohibited by law, it is safe to say that Michigan is not welcoming to business interests, at a time when this is clearly the wrong policy. Increased Suburban Sprawl Some scientists believe that Hathcock will cause environmental problems by increasing suburban sprawl. Id. at 387. They believe that, without the opportunity to redevelop downtown areas, businesses and people will move farther away from the city to places where land can be assembled for projects. Id. at 387. The court’s discussion in Hathcock on the lack of necessity to develop the Pinnacle Project in the particular area desired completely misses this point. The court stated, “To the contrary, the landscape of our country is flecked with shopping centers, office parks, clusters of hotels, and centers of entertainment and commerce. We do not believe . . . that these constellations required the exercise of eminent domain or any other form of collective public action for their formation.” 684 N.W.2d at 477. Although it is true that one can always find open land somewhere, the court fails to recognize that the placement of a development into distant open area not only affects the commercial viability of the project, but also has a serious harm on the environment. The attendant sprawl that will be created by the court’s justification in Hathcock will increase traffic, cause habitat loss, degrade water, destroy wetlands, hurt air quality, increase climate change and raise noise problems. 48 Ariz. L. Rev. at 387. In particular, pushing economic development further away from city centers such as Detroit does not seem like the right answer when much of its downtown is a virtual ghost town. Inefficient Redevelopment As a fact, although Hathcock will make certain developments impossible in Detroit and cause a continued suburban sprawl into the metropolitan area, the recent amendment will not completely preclude the Government from condemning private property in service of urban revitalization schemes, even when the primary purpose of the plan is to foster economic development. Lynn E. Blais, Urban Revitalization in the Post-Kelo Era, 34 Fordham Urb. L.J. 657, 684 (March 2007). Instead, it will result in projects that are implemented to comply with the restriction. As a result, urban revitalization is likely to be less efficient and less effective. Id. at 684. This inefficiency would be the consequence of the compelled backward looking planning, as opposed to proactive planning. Id. at 684. Because Detroit is limited to projects that address blight, “planners will be precluded from choosing the best, most efficient area for urban revitalization projects. Instead, projects will have to be made to ‘work’ in blighted areas that might be poorly suited for them.” Id. at 684-85. Moreover, because Detroit is required to wait until the area desired by a developer is in substantial decline before engaging the revitalization projects, it is likely to be more difficult or at least more costly for the developer to complete the desired project. Id. at 685. A possible solution to this problem would be to involve the city itself into the development process since the amendment only prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic development if it is transferred to a private owner. As a practical matter, this suggestion is logistically impossible for Detroit since its budget already runs on a serious deficit. Even so, under this scenario the city would either operate one portion of the revitalization plan as a public owned enterprise or lease its interests out for private management. Id. at 685. Unfortunately, economic theory and empirical studies suggest that these publicly operated enterprises are likely to be less efficiently operated than their private counterparts. Id. at 686. In these dire straights, the City of Detroit can not to afford to have any development that they are fortunate enough to secure to be running at anything less than optimal. Disproportionate Impact on the Communities Another result of the Hathcock blight-only scheme is that this form of urban revitalization is likely to be tragically unfair. Id. at 686. By concentrating redevelopment on areas that can be rightfully considered blight, the poor and minorities will be disproportionately impacted. Id. at 686. The blight exception revives the worst aspects of the urban renewal programs of the past – the imposition of the costs of revitalization on poor, minority communities for the benefit of middle and upper class citizens. Id. at 686. In other words, “Under the broad conception of public use and the deference to legislative judgments articulated in Berman and Midkiff, there was at least the potential to shift the impacts of urban revitalization beyond blighted communities and perhaps to distribute the burdens of urban revitalization among the various demographic groups of the city.” Id. at 686. By making everyone’s property available for condemnation backed revitalization, it fosters public participation in the planning process, since everyone has an interest in making sure the plans are really worthwhile and narrowly tailored. Id. at 687. By increasing the level of transparency in Detroit redevelopment, this can only be a good thing. Long a city mired with suspicion of the local government, public participation seems key to any development’s continued success. Furthermore, with tensions between the different economic and minority classes as they are in the City of Detroit, any policy that can only negatively effect those that are poor or historically unrepresented has no hope of success. CONCLUSION The State of Michigan and the City of Detroit are going through some very tough times. Michigan has the highest rate of unemployment in the nation at 7.5%. United States Department of Labor (Sept. 2007). And Detroit has the highest rate of unemployment among the 50 largest cities in the nation at 15.1%, nearly double the rate of the second worst city. Joel Dresang, City Jobless rate is 2nd Worst, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (October 16, 2007). These are the circumstances that are appropriate for more aggressive redevelopment eminent domain law. Michigan and the city of Detroit can not afford to continue at the pace they are currently marching. Although the opportunity in Hathcock is gone, the future is still available. | ||
Belleislerunner Member Username: Belleislerunner Post Number: 379 Registered: 12-2003 |
Here are a some preliminary thoughts on the paper. 1) Lose the "cliches" and "jargon" that are scattered throughout it. Words like "obviously", "will have to being" cheaper the paper and make it less academic and more a "letter to the editor". 2) There are instances where statements are made with no support. "Any discussion of eminent domain law in the State of Michigan will have to begin with Poletown and end with Hathcock." Um, why? 3) Writing style is not consistent throughout the paper. This sounds like a copy past of the "brief/summary" of the case: "This decision was a result of litigation stemming from the controversy surrounding the condemnation proceedings initiated by Wayne County in 2001 on nineteen parcels of land immediately south of the Detroit Metropolitan Airport." Whereas, your writing style is "The State of Michigan and the City of Detroit are going through some very tough times." Of course both could be yours, so you need to tailor them to make them consistent. Otherwise it reeks of a copy/paste job on the cases with slight editorial interjections. 4) What is the conclusion? It appears to be a slew of random facts about MI/Detroit. Conclusions should be reinforcements of points made throughout the course of your paper, not a new idea presented at the end. There doesn't appear to be a cohesive link between the body of the paper and the conclusion. 5) The paper seems unduly weighted towards case law. While clearly important, an educated reader (academic) is aware of the law and more interested in your application of the current law to hypothesis. The Implications to Detroit (future development, sprawl and inefficient development) should be more than merely one paragraph each in passing. They should be the meat of your article. After all it is what you are arguing. This is important given the context - many are easily refutable. For instance, one might point that urban sprawl has been happening since the 50's in earnest - and the cause could be everything from efficient freeway system development, race tensions etc. There doesn't seem to be much hard evidence presented to back up any of your points. And since the law Hathcock case (2004), hasn't Detroit had more "new housing permits" than Macomb or Wayne counties - which goes against the argument. Substantial beef up in arguments is needed. Overall, I think there's a lot of info (case law etc) in your piece that can be tailored but currently the paper is too disjointed and unorganized that it leads the reader struggling to follow your train of thought. Have a strong intro - point out case law - explain how the case law you presented is relevant to each of your points and then conclude on those. Remember say what you're going to say, say it, then say what you've just said. Here it seems each paragraph is a new chapter. A good start - but definitely not worth turing in. D+ | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 10 Registered: 11-2007 |
I'm afraid the paper has already been turned in although I appreciate the comments. This is what I was looking for! 1) This paper was meant to be written much like a law review article, in that i meant it to be pursuasive. 2) I don't think anyone would realistically disagree that poletown and hathcock are the seminal eminent domain cases in michigan. A compare and contrast of those two cases is more than anyone needs to know. 3) Law review articles are written in this style where the first half is often laying down the legal background to the issue and the second half taking a position. 4) I think the conclusion is pretty clear. I'd like to revert back to poletown era law. The random facts on the deterioating economic conditions of detroit are meant to show that the environment is right for these policies. 5)Again, I think I addressed this. Furthermore, every teacher who asks you to write a paper is going to direct you to write as though the reader has no prior knowledge of the subject. That said, you need extensive background explanation. Unfortunately, in the legal context, this means case law. Again, every fact in this paper is cited. Law school papers don't really allow for that much original analysis since citing policies are stricter than that of the New Yorker. I do like the you were trying to refute my points. Nobody is disagreeing that there aren't other explanations or that there are currently ongoing improvements. At this point in the game, currently contributing to urban sprawl isn't a good thing even if it has been happening for a while, and new housing permits are great but comparing it to surrounding michigan counties isn't a useful metric since you want to see if it is the suboptimal amount in comparison to the ideal circumstance and execution. I certainly hope I don't get a D+. My entire grade is based on this paper! (Message edited by onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme on November 12, 2007) | ||
Gnome Member Username: Gnome Post Number: 362 Registered: 08-2007 |
Your writing style is pure torture. Big huff and puffery. Your conclusion reads like stereo instructions and that's the most cogent part of the whole thing. You mention in your posts that before you started your research you had no conclusion in mind, then you take us on your ride of enlightenment. Jeeze o petes, pally, strip your language back. Write clear sentences. Clean up the thinking. From what I can decipher, you're big idea is to condemn huge swaths of land and then turn that property over to speculators. wtf is that all about? That's it? 18 pages of muck for that? It's not genius to make something easy difficult. It is genius to make something difficult easy. D+ (Message edited by gnome on November 12, 2007) (Message edited by gnome on November 12, 2007) | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2154 Registered: 04-2006 |
>Right clear sentences. LOL. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 11 Registered: 11-2007 |
I'm sorry you dislike my writing style. I disagree with you, of course, but that is your personal opinion. I really had no conclusion. Only that I wanted to write about detroit in the context of the class that I took. It's true though, most papers are supposed to be a ride of enlightment, so I'll take that as a compliment. I actually think the structure is perfectly fine. It's an summary of the legal background nationally and the state of michigan. I write about the problems this policy will have for detroit and conclude that with our current economic conditions taht we should revert back to a more economic development policy. Speculators=/= developers. What I can't understand is how a development like that in Hathcock could not have been approved. It makes me sick to my stomach. I dont particularly care how the policy is executed as long as it is. Whether it be a large complex or a business trying to expand but can't since its surrounded on all sides by extremely undeperforming but not blighted businesses. I don't think of 18 pages as being that particularly long. Simple ideas still need to be explained and supported. logical justification takes up space. I do enjoy these grades though. Keep them coming! | ||
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox Post Number: 355 Registered: 04-2006 |
Want to know what makes me sick to my stomach? The idea that every remaining shred of urban fabric in this city is a potential parking lot for the next corporation that threatens to move out of state. | ||
Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Member Username: Onlypeoplewhohatethemselveshateme Post Number: 12 Registered: 11-2007 |
did you see what the hathcock project was. would be awfully nice if that was around right now. You still need to have a rational reason for eminent domain (although it is a low threshhold). For example, you couldn't tear down a successful business for a more sucessful business. but a basically bankrupt store that has been around for 50 years but can't make money should be torn down if its stopping the development of some economically beneficial project. I understand that people have sentimental values attached to these things but it just creates more space for new memories. the best cities in the world are constantly changing and improving. Detroit is doing neither. I'm more concerned with making sure our economy gets moving at this point then peoples memories. Obviously its a matter of finding that balance but first things first. |
