Eminent Domain – Condemnation
County of Wayne v. Hathcock – (Supreme Court of Michigan 2004) This is an important case which involved a victory for land owners and a reversal of a 1981 case cited by many states in adopting redevelopment plans. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the 1981 case of Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit case which permitted the taking of property to expand a General Motors plant. This case involved a redevelopment project for the construction of a large business and technology park with a conference center, hotel accommodations, and a recreational facility. The Wayne County Development Authority had acquired much of the property through voluntary sales, but could not acquire all of the properties necessary for the project. Some home owners simply would not sell. To complete the project, the City adopted a resolution authorizing the condemnation of various properties(approximately 46 properties) distributed in a checkerboard fashion throughout the project area. The homeowners alleged that although there would be some benefit to the public in general, the benefits to the private parties (i.e., the developers) clearly out weighed any benefit to the public, As the City failed to meet the public use for benefit prong. The Michigan Supreme Court performed a review of numerous cases to determine whether the condemnation of the properties was consistent with the common understanding of “public use” during 1963 (the year the Michigan Constitution was adopted). The court found that the takings would be appropriate in one of three scenarios: (1) where public necessity of the extreme sort requires collective action; (2) the property remains subject to public over-sight after transfer to a public entity; and (3) the property is selected because of facts of independent public significance, rather than the interest of the private entity which the property is eventually transferred. The Michigan Supreme Court found that the project did not meet any of these requirements and there is no public use. As a result, the redevelopment plan was stricken. This is a very important case because it starts a trend back towards the protection of public property rights. The Poletown decision was cited by at least 10 states in adopting redevelopment laws. The Poletown decision clearly started the erosion of private property rights. The Michigan Supreme Court, realizing the potential abuse of such a broad decision, reversed itself and sided with private property owners. The rationale of this case will be reviewed by the United States Supreme Court in the City of New London case.
Reader interactions
2 Replies to “Eminent Domain – Condemnation”
Comments are closed.
Last night we had a Planning Board meeting in Chesilhurst. The meeting started with a counselman swearing that the town fathers would never use ’eminent domain’ although he seem to feelthat they easily could if they so chose. Bearing in mind that there is nothing in Chesilhurst and plently of vacant land that could be developed
(or ‘redeveloped’ if you will). It does not seem just, right or whatever, that the township has the authority to simply decide that it wants someones private property. I know that the right of eminent domain has been recently expanded to allow privately owned land to be seized but the township for commercial use but is it truly that easy for them to do? The township is in for a fight with their vague Redevelopment issues but to be told that “we swear we won’t use eminent domain but, remember that we can.” just doesn’t feel right. Additionally the redevelopment area outline consists of privately owned property and quite obviously no redevelopment could happen unless at least some of the rresidents voluntarily sold which is unlikely or eminent domain is invoked. There is no other option. Why propose a ‘Redevelopment Area and not have eminent domain in the back of the township’s mind?
Please someone tell me that there is more to this statute of eminent domain than letting it be at the whim of a township. For if that is so, New Jersey truly has no privately owned land. I need to feel that the township cannot just sweep in and shuffle me out. I am a Choctaw and as a Native American, am sensitive to being threatened to be moved by the Government. Please give me advice or words which will help me understand what is going on. Thank you.
Ms. Morris,
Thank you the blog posting, it is direct and to the point. Although the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo opens the door for abusive condemnation practices, I do not believe the law in New Jersey is as one-sided as your township council portrays. Courts have struck down certain redevelopment plans for a variety of reasons, including the township’s failure to show that the redevelopment plan meets the requirements of the Local Redevelopment and Housing (“LHRL”). For example, in Bloomfield v. 1101 Washington Street (posted on this blog), the township alleged that the property in question was detrimental to the health and safety of the public. However, the township failed to prove that this was the case and the court stopped the redevelopment project.
Property owners can consider challenging the plan and force the township to explain exactly what it intends to do with the property and why it is necessary to create a redevelopment plan. Do not sit on your rights. The earlier you get involved the higher likelihood of success.