Another victim of eminent domain

Fighting the good fight

[Reprinted from Issues & Views January 19, 2004]

In New York State, there is a cute little game played by local government agencies, in order to appropriate a private citizen's property. To justify taking said property, a case for "condemnation" must be made. Of course, the actual condition of the property has nothing to do with it officially being condemned. Condemnation just happens to be the best tactic for prying property loose from its owner's hands -- along with claiming that said property will be used for "public use."

In New York, once a property is designated as condemned, the government need not notify the owner of this fact, or of projected plans to take his home, business and/or land. Instead, the bureaucrats simply have to insert a tiny advertisement, which constitutes a "legal notice," in the classified section of some local newspaper. No letter or notice is sent directly to the victimized landowner. In fact, he is the last to know about his forthcoming loss and the fact that if he fails to appeal this taking within 30 days of the newspaper notice (which he usually never sees), he will "waive a constitutional defense" to his land.

If you ever wonder why some individuals pick up weapons and go berserk, you might want to consider what it's like to really be a victim of government malevolence run amuck. And, although Bill Brody did not go berserk, his story makes you wonder how he manages to restrain himself.

Brody, who lives in Port Chester, New York, bought and restored four connected buildings on the town's main street. He leased the buildings and was looking forward to a good income for himself and family of three children. While still completing his labors, the Village of Port Chester placed its pernicious little newspaper ad concerning his property. All went according to the government's plan -- Brody never saw the ad and, after the required lapse of time, he was informed of the bad news that his property would be taken. The town did not even make a pretense that the seizure was for "public use," but came right out and let him know his land was desired as a parking lot for a Stop & Shop supermarket.

In spite of efforts of the Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm that helps citizens cope with the growing abuse of eminent domain, Brody's property was seized and the government bulldozed three of his buildings. Three years passed, from the date of Brody's lost appeal in federal court to the demolition of his buildings, but he hung in there with hope.

In December, 2003, a ray of light became visible when the Second Circuit court of Appeals cleared the way for Brody and IJ to challenge New York State's eminent domain laws. He is now allowed to have his day in court to expound upon the underhanded tactics employed by the Port Chester government. In IJ's Liberty & Law newsletter (December 2003), Brody declares, "I want the law changed not only to defend me, but anyone who owns property in New York. Being individually notified with something more than a classified ad that the government is looking to take your land is not too much to ask for. It is common sense and common decency. No one should have to go through what I'm going through."

Brody's troubles, of course, are not over, but IJ's lawyers feel confident that he has secure legal footing to show that the government's appropriation of his private property, to give to another private interest, violates both the U.S. and New York State Constitutions.

By the way, in September 2003, in the midst of Brody's struggles, New York State Governor George Pataki vetoed eminent domain legislation that would have required individual notification to property owners when authorities plan condemnation.

To learn more about this issue and the steps being taken to protect citizens' private property, visit the website of the Castle Coalition and of the Institute for Justice.

Copyright © 2010 Issues & Views