This story in the Chicago Sun Times caught my eye. The City of Chicago is attempting to use its power of “Eminent Domain” to acquire this bike shop so a developer can put up condos.
I bought my first real bike from this LBS, Sportif, in 1981. I had just graduated from 8th grade, and I wanted a real Europe racing bike. At the time, the only place around to buy something other then an Schwinn Varsity was Sportif. I got my Motobecane Grand Sprint – and road that it everywhere – and I still ride it to this day.
This story reeks with everything that is wrong with government today. The developer is friends with the Alderman, has made contributions to the right people – and bam – a bike shop that has been in business for 35 years is called a blighted property – and the city takes over.
I hope someone warned the shop owner to spend the night at the shop. Daley has a nasty habit of tearing things up in the middle of the night. Could be dangerous.
They should get hold of the Institute for Justice. I believe they were the winning attorneys for Dolan v. city of Tigard (OR) which was based on a similar seizure for private rather than public benefit. It unfortunately happens all the time and unless you can get a decent lawyer pro bono it’s easier to take the less than market price they offer and go hide under a rock and hope they leave it at that.
I have heard of one instance where the power of immminent domain was used for good - there was a neighborhood where there were numerous vacant lots held by absentee landlords. unscrupulous trash companies dumped garbage in them. the neighborhood got the city to exercise its power and give the property to them to redevelop. even though it was the right outcome, I think the process was questionable and needed to be subject to strict scrutiny. I’m not sure if public hearings were done. I think they should be doing them in this case. I definitely think the Supreme Court should FORBID land gained through imminent domain to be turned over to private developers - that’s just plain wrong, it’s the sort of thing that happens in facist states, not democracies.
Look up some local Law School professors. Find one or two that specialize in land use. Its not uncommon for Law School professors to do some pro bono work. They can also point you in the direction of where you can get some cheap or free help. I believe you have a few law schools in the area. Just shoot them an email or give them a call. Most are very helpful.
There was a similar case in Mesa, AZ where Bailey’s brake shop was able to fight off the city’s attempt to use eminent domain…in this case to put in a hardware store so it is not apples-apples. Eminent domain should not be used to take one private business in favor of another.
There have been a number of instances where governmental entities have seized private property under the eminent domain provision to turn over to private developers (condos, etc.) or private corporations to develop (factories) that were intended to benefit many in the community or the tax revenue generated by the new development was the logic for the eminent domain seizure.
Almost without exception, in the long run, all these seizures that have been contested have ultimately resulted in final judgments in favor of those whose property was seized. Appeal courts have consistently ruled that these seizures under the eminent domain clause for private development are illegal. That is the primary motivation that has taken this fight to the Supreme Court. Those that want the property and have been frustrated by lower courts and appeal courts ruling against their seizures and the awarding of significant monetary judgments (punitive damages) against them for their “unjust” seizures of private property for private development/benefit. Governmental entities had thought that they would be immune from penalty as a result of governmental immunity only to discover that their acts were so aggregious that they could not hide under the cloak of governmental immunity.
Unless the Supreme Court rules in favor of this practice, many doubt that they will for the consequences of such a ruling and the long established principles of private property rights, it would seem the bike shop has a very strong case if they can persevere. In the end, the bike shop may end up with much more than they started out with for restitution and punitive damages.
What is most surprising, is that governmental entities have not paused in this pursuit when the legal advice would be to do so and that one is treading on extremely thin ice until this has been ruled on by the Supreme Court. Why follow a path that has resulted in significant undesirable consequences and get burned as the many before have gotten burned. Either these governmental entities are ignoring sound legal advice or they are simply ignoring that advice it would seem.
Institute for Justice does handle these sorts of cases. Another organization that might be interested is Defenders of Property Rights. Both organizations get far more requests for help than they can handle. The Federalist Society has also started a pro bono project to try to match cases with attorneys that want to do conservative pro bono work. It has long had a very strong chapter in Chicago (although the Bush Administration poached a number of its leaders) so its center might be able to help you as well. If you would like any more information about any of these organizations or who to get in touch with at them, please send me a PM.
The trend for the better part of three decades was in favor of letting the government steal property from priviate individuals for all sorts of “public interest”. Another great trick by the City of Detroit was to sue you because the land that they had stolen from you was contaminated and then get half or more of its condemnation payment back! This trend might be changing, as a recent Michigan Supreme Court decision reversed our state’s jurisprudence allowing municipalities to grab any land for just about any purpose.