honoluluadvertiser.com

Sponsored by:

Comment, blog & share photos

Log in | Become a member
The Honolulu Advertiser
Posted on: Friday, May 9, 2003

Government property seizures often result in bitter disputes

By Connie Cass
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The first time the city of New London, Conn., seized Pasquale Cristofaro's home, it was to make way for a sea wall that never materialized. Instead, private medical offices sprouted over the backyard plot where Cristofaro once grew tomatoes, squash and grapes.

Three decades later, when the city wanted to raze another Cristofaro family home to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices, the 77-year-old Italian immigrant dug in and fought back in court.

"When they came to take my house from me a second time, I feel sick," said Cristofaro, whose grandchildren now live in the home he bought in 1972. "It's not right, to take it for a business. The United States of America is supposed to stop this."

Bitter disputes are playing out across the country as city leaders eager to improve their economies condemn homes and small businesses — not for highways, airports or other public projects, but for private development.

Local planners struggling to rejuvenate their downtowns or aging suburbs say sometimes the public good outweighs the property rights of individuals.

How many homes and businesses are condemned to make way for private development each year is unknown because states don't keep records. However, the Washington-based Institute for Justice studied media reports and court cases from the last five years and found more than 3,700 of these condemnation actions and more than 6,500 properties threatened with condemnation for private development.

The cases were spread across the nation, with the highest numbers in California, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan and Ohio.

"If it can happen to these 10,000 homes and businesses, it can happen to anybody," said Dana Berliner, the institute's senior attorney.

The institute's attorneys, who represent Cristofaro and other home and business owners fighting such actions, believe there are thousands more condemnations for private development that aren't publicly reported.

The Constitution says that so long as owners receive just compensation, private property can be taken for "public use." In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that includes plans that serve a "public purpose."

Local planners say property seizures can lead to new businesses that add jobs and boost tax revenue that pays for local services.

"What really is involved is conflicting dreams," Superior Court Judge Thomas Corradino wrote in deciding the Cristofaro lawsuit.

Corradino upheld the city's right to pursue its dream of a bustling riverfront, but said plans for some of the lots were too vague to justify taking them yet. The Connecticut Supreme Court heard appeals from both sides, and its decision is pending.