tempe likes to seize land used by alleged prostitutes and bars

"Without eminent domain, we wouldn't be able to clean up the mess [ie hookers and bars on Apache Blvd] ... ," said Tempe principal planner Neil Calfee.

He said passage of the bill would halt the plan along Apache Boulevard, where the city has shut down three bars and is in the midst of a lawsuit to condemn homes

yuma likes to seize land used by run down trailer parks

prescott wants to seize some land so it can give it to developers to build a mall for wal-mart

Safford wants to condem downtown stores they consider blighted.

from: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0409eminentdomain09.html

Cities, property owners face off over bill to limit eminent domain
Alia Beard Rau, Elvia Diaz and Tom Zoellner
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 9, 2003 12:00 AM

It has become a battle between cities' traditional right to clear the way for new stadiums and shopping centers, and property owners who say enough is enough.

Rep. Eddie Farnsworth's bill to limit powers of eminent domain has produced two visions of the future of Arizona.

As the cities would have it, it's a world gone bad: Tempe's Apache Boulevard will be handed back to the prostitutes and crime-ridden bars. Lower-income Yuma residents will be forced to remain in filthy trailer parks. A Prescott shopping mall will sit vacant.

But to property owners, House Bill 2308 simply means cities couldn't push the little guy around any more: No more forcing one person to sell his property to make someone else rich. Light-rail projects would still move ahead, as would other important public endeavors.

"Municipalities simply want to maintain absolute authority to take away private property and that's wrong," said Farnsworth, a Republican from Gilbert. "Abuses are rampant and we must stop them."

This week, city officials from throughout the Valley failed to reach a compromise with Farnsworth on his bill that would make it much harder for cities to condemn private property to make way for redevelopment.

The legislation already cleared the House. Now, it faces a showdown in the Senate, where Farnsworth plans to roll the dice, hoping his measure will pass but not knowing whether he has enough support.

City representatives believe the bill could affect the quality of life for people throughout Arizona. Cities would have to wait until 85 percent of the area to be redeveloped has deteriorated into slum and blight conditions before eminent domain could be used to condemn property. If a city is condemning an individual property, the same formula applies. In both cases, cities could not sell the property for 10 years.

The bill would not affect the ability to use eminent domain for government projects like light rail, a new fire station or a freeway. But city officials consider that small consolation.

"The cities' landscape would change dramatically without eminent domain," said Kevin Adam, legislative coordinator for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. "The bill would hamper the cities ability to redevelop key areas such as Phoenix downtown."

Since 1973, Phoenix has designated at least 16 areas for development and used eminent domain, including the Sunnyslope Village Center in north-central Phoenix. Both Phoenix and Tucson will likely use eminent domain to try to create quality growth on the edges of low-income housing developments.

Tempe is trying to put an office and residential complex on a trash-filled, contaminated 200 acres southeast of the junction of Loops 101 and 202.

"Without eminent domain, we wouldn't be able to clean up the mess or deal with the environmental contamination," said Tempe principal planner Neil Calfee.

He said passage of the bill would halt the progress made along Apache Boulevard, where the city has shut down three bars and is in the midst of a lawsuit to condemn homes and build new townhouses.

Eric Emmert, the vice president of public affairs for the Tempe Chamber of Commerce, paints a grimmer picture of Arizona's future if the bill passes.

"It could mean the degradation of an area, the degradation of property values and declining neighborhoods and businesses," he said.

Yuma city officials say they need condemnation powers to clean up six trailer parks in the distressed Carver Park neighborhood. Yuma wants to buy the land, tow away crumbling and unsafe trailer homes, pave the roads, construct new homes on the lots and then deed them over to the present tenants. If the bill passes in its present form, Yuma would have to wait 10 years before deeding the homes over.

"The only way we can assist them is to acquire them," said Bill Lilly, neighborhood services manager. "Without eminent domain, our hands are tied. The property owner knows what we're doing and is going to shoot the price way up. And we're not going to pay a million and a half bucks for something that should cost $300,000."

Downtown Safford needs more parking to help ensure the continued health of Main Street, said Mayor Van Talley, and the only way to do it may be to take blighted storefronts off the street.

Prescott has been trying to renovate the nearly dead Ponderosa Plaza Mall, but one fabric shop refuses to sell. The city could still condemn it, but then would have to hold onto it for a decade under the terms of the Farnsworth bill.

"Its highly unlikely Wal-Mart is going to wait 10 years," Prescott City Attorney John Moffitt said. "There's been a lot of talk about the government throwing people out of their houses, but this is only the second time we've done this (in recent memory). And we don't take it lightly."

But those who support Farnsworth's bill say cities have abused their power of eminent domain, using it to move wealth from one person to another.

The supporters say the measure simply protects individual property rights and forces cities to find other ways of acquiring land for private developers.

Randy Bailey, who is fighting Mesa's attempt to demolish Bailey Brake Service for an $8 million retail and office complex, says the cities are exaggerating.

"I don't think this bill will keep the cities from being able to do legitimate projects and take care of the slum and blight conditions," Bailey said. "It will just shut down the good old boy deals."

Right now, cities can use eminent domain in designated redevelopment areas.

Cities must pay property owners fairly.

If property owners believe the offer to be unfair, they can take the matter to a Superior Court judge or jury.

Institute for Justice Vice President Clint Bolick, who is representing Bailey, called it nonsense that the bill would keep cities from redeveloping.

"Many cities around the country have revitalized themselves without using eminent domain," he said.

"A good tax and regulatory climate is worth much more to relocating businesses than a promise of corporate welfare."

Bolick said cities have abused the power so brazenly that he believes a bipartisan majority will pass some form of the bill.

"It means once again an Arizonan's house will be his or her castle," he said.