Redevelopment Plan and Eminent Domain
The Redevelopment Agency met last night to discuss the downtown redevelopment plan and voted to permit the use by the city of eminent domain to take the remaining four properties in the designated redevelopment zone. (See CTPost Online this morning (Thurs.) at http://www.connpost.com/valley/ci_7464917 for complete story. This action did not initiate the process but simply made it available to the city as an instrument for acquiring the last parcels necessary for the redevelopment plan to move forward.
At this point eminent domain is a tool the city CAN use to acquire private property for public use. The purpose of eminent domain is to not allow a private property owner from impeding the public  purposes of government by refusing to sell their property. Redevelopment has traditionally been found to be a valid public purpose of government in the courts.
The 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires “just compensation” be paid to the land owner. The 14th amendment extended that clause to local and state governments. Under eminent domain, the owner must be given “fair market value” and any “consequential damages”. The “fair market value” is the current value of land and improvements, based on what price the property would bring if the owner did not have to sell and the buyer did not have to buy.  The purpose of these amendments was to ensure fair compensation to the property owner for the loss of their property.
The usual process is a resolution by the acquiring agency, followed by an appraisal, offer and negotiations. If the two parties cannot agree upon a sale price the government initiates the legal process of eminent domain by condemning the property in the courts.Â
In court, the government must prove they carried out “good faith” negotiations and they must prove the taking of the property is for a “public purpose.” If this is found to be so by the courts the process moves on to the next phase of determining “just compensation” which involves interviews with the parties, hearings, etc. at which point an “award value” is established. Once the government deposits with the court the value of the award it is given ownership to the property. The private individual at that point can ask for a trial by a jury to determine the “award value” but they cannot retain ownership of the property.
What do you think of the Redevelopment Agencies actions?
 I will not allow comments regarding negotiations or the actions of the parties involved to be published unless it is from one of the parties involved i. e. a property owner or a city official and they clearly identify themselves as such in their comments and provide a method for follow up independent verification.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:37 am
I believe that the agreement (PDA) in force has tied the cities hands in many ways. However there are some safeguards that need be installed to protect the cities interests. If the Corporation Counsel, Redevelopment Agency, Development Director work with the cities consultant and the developer, there is no reason and revised PDA can’t be in effect in a short amount of time. The property value debate is governed by statute and the expert the city had before can update whatever data is necessary to start moving the project forward even faster. The Mayor has worked assiduously on this project and the progress mad is due to his efforts. His continued supervision of the process is critical to it’s success.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:33 am
I hope the Board of Alderman and Redevelopment Commission can get the deal with the developer modified to address the problem areas and short comings of the current deal so we can get the downtown redevelopment on the fast track.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Hey it looks like there might be good news here. From an article in the paper this morning it looks like the city has convinced the developer to relocate the businesses to the city owned property behind the train station and that they are ammenable to that solution. The only question I have is wasn’t there a contamination issue with that property? If not, that would be an awesome resolution.
November 29th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Skeptical,
Actually the fact of the matter is the Demographics of Derby are much more favorable than that of West Hartfords Blue Back Square. We are at the intersection of two major highways and the confluence of two major rivers. This is unique to anywhere else in Connecticut. Not to mention the railway transportation with a direct connection to Metro North. This development has already received an endorsement from the New York Times as a prime location for a development. See article dated August 6th 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/realestate/06living.html?n=Top/Classifieds/Real%20Estate/Columns/Living%20In
This project needs to be done; the Citizens of Derby want to see it proceed but they are a silent majority. The City must do what it takes to push this vital project forward for the benefit of the City and its Citizens. It would be very beneficial for Citizens to come to a Redevelopment meeting and encourage the Agency to move this project forward. Unfortunately at most City meetings there only a few naysayers present speaking against development. A word of support from the community may push the agency in the direction it needs to go. Most people attend meetings only to complain…what the City and the Agency needs to hear is from the population that supports the project.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Maybe I am an optimist about the development, but it doesn’t seem being skeptical and pessimistic has gotten Derby anywhere. Even if it won’t bring tax relief as you say, maybe having a less miserable population will be a relief in and of itself. Sorry I got the square miles wrong, I was just trying to illustrate that there is a lot less land in Derby for development, than say New London, who was the last big eminent domain case I remember in CT. Shelton is putting people on the riverfront, maybe Derby can build a fancy downtown similar to the Blue Back style, and those people can shop. Sorry to be defensive but what do you want? Things to stay how they are? These four shops will be the only shops and nothing else can happen because of the sewage treatment plant? You can be “skeptical” all you want but offer solutions not just complaints.
November 26th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Eminent domain should be used only as a last resort. The first choice should be a fair market value settlement. Negotiations should be the first choice for both the property owners and the City. It is not easy but a negotiation is a two party process and must be done with the property owners and the City not the businesses.
Merriam Webster’s definition of negotiation;
a: to deal with (some matter or affair that requires ability for its successful handling)
b: to arrange for or bring about through conference, discussion, and compromise
Keep the negotiations out of the newspapers. There can be no truth or facts provided by negotiating in public, it is only one side of the story.
November 26th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
The proposed redevelopment project has already forfeited the property taxes from the new project, at least a significant portion of them, for the next twenty years or so. Don’t look to this project for property tax relief. The demographics of West Hartford don’t really compare to ours, sorry to say. Also, when did the State Park gain a couple of square miles? It isn’t almost half the town, it’s about 12 percent. It’s not the reason our taxes are high. Also, When i visited Blue Back square I didn’t see the sewage plant next door like we have, you were sold a bill of goods if you think we can have something like Blue Backs 500,000 square foot new city center, sorry to report.
November 24th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Well stated by Derby Guy. I say go visit the latest StreetWorks accomplishment in Blue Back Square, West Hartford and see for yourself the possibilities. It is a bigger crime to stall this project than to hold things up over these four businesses. I am a small business owner and hate the idea of it, but at some point this is going to have to be settled. Derby only has 5 square miles, almost half of that is a state park, the city simply can’t afford to put off developing an area that can hold 20 business for these four. It isn’t fair to the tax payers who already suffer high taxes with little rewards. It’s an ugly situation but Eminent Domain exists to help cities in this situation move forward. I can’t say I agreed with it in New London, but this is a whole different story.
November 16th, 2007 at 7:29 am
I would have to say I am in agreement with most of the people I’ve spoken with who want to see the project move forward and quickly now. They would prefer that an amicable arrangement can be made with the remaining landowners but they don’t want to be waiting another two years at the same stage in the project because of stalled negotiations. That kind of progress it was caused many people to vote for a change in the management of our city.
Sometimes people flat out just think their property is worth more than it actually is. Fair Market value can be determined using independent appraisers and I have no problem with the city even paying A LITTLE more than fair market value, say 10%, to these business owners because of their long standing business relationship in our city and adding to that relocation expenses, etc.
I believe the Mayor to be a fair man and will make an offer that is both fair to the business owners and the taxpayers. That should be done quickly say within the first 100 days of his second term and publicly so that everyone will know what’s been done and all the he said, she said will stop. If the property owners refuse it, then the city should begin the process of exercising eminent domain so the project can move forward. We desperately need that for our city.