Full Version | Mobile Edition
State Journal Home
Featured Links | State Journal Mobile Edition | Local Job Listings | SJ RSS Feed | Generation Next 2009 Winners
HOME |  UPFRONT |  GOVERNMENT |  YOUR BUSINESS |  LAW |  OPINION |  DECISION MAKERS |  WV TONIGHT LIVE |  NOMINATIONS  |  EVENTS  |  MEDIA GUIDE  |  ABOUT US  |  ADVERTISE
  Where to Buy  |  Subscribe Now
Renew Subscription
Change Delivery Address

Home > Legal

Print this story RSS
 
Eminent Domain Ruling Has Uncertain Implications
Posted Thursday, January 22, 2009 ; 06:00 AM | View Comments | Post Comment

A case decided last year about the state's authority to use eminent domain leaves unanswered questions about when private property can be condemned.

Story by Walt Williams
Email | Other Stories by Walt Williams

One former state Supreme Court of Appeals justice called the ruling a "grave error," but a case decided last year about the state's authority to use eminent domain leaves unanswered questions about when private property can be condemned.

The case involved Spencer contractor David Heeter and land his company purchased in Logan County in 2006 anticipation of winning a construction contract for work on state Route 10. However, the state condemned the land for use in the road project after bids came in higher than anticipated, believing the lack of a nearby waste disposal site was driving up costs.

Heeter said he was offered $118,000 for the land after having spent $125,000 purchasing it and another $225,000 preparing it for waste disposal. He fought the state Department of Transportation's condemnation in court, but last year the state Supreme Court ruled in the state's favor, saying the agency was well within its rights to use its condemnation power.

Heeter's company eventually was awarded the contract, but he said he took a financial hit.

"If I thought I would have lost the Supreme Court case, I would have bid higher than I did, (but) I thought right would prevail," he said.

The court opinion was not unanimous. In a dissenting opinion, former Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard said the court had made a "grave error" in ruling in favor of the state.

"The dangers of abusing government power to take private property cannot be overestimated or overstated," he wrote. "The power of eminent domain should only be used to take private property when the taking is absolutely essential for a public purpose and when there are no reasonable alternatives to such a taking."

Heeter said the decision could cause other contractors in the state to rethink making similar land purchases in an effort to keep their bids low and save the state money.

"It nearly destroyed all the confidence of contractors in West Virginia," he said.

Michael Clowser, executive director of the Contractors Association of West Virginia, said he didn't know whether the ruling would have an effect on contractors in the state.

The association filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of Heeter, but not because it opposes the state's use of eminent domain. Rather, it was concerned about the process the state used to condemn the land, given it only exercised its power after Heeter's and other contractors' bids came in higher than projected.

"It is the overall fairness of the bidding process and the competition it enhances that will produce the highest quality work at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayers of West Virginia," the association stated in its brief.

The DOT argued in the case and has argued since that it does not regularly condemn land for use as waste sites.

The Heeter case has failed to catch the attention of national organizations that watch for alleged eminent domain abuse. Many groups are focusing instead on the ramifications of the 2005 Kelo v. New London case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was nothing preventing the city of New London, Conn., from condemning private land so it could be given it to a private developer.

However, Timothy Lee, an adjunct scholar with the libertarian Cato Institute, said a common point of contention in many cases is that land owners are not compensated for the real value of their condemned land.

"It is a hard problem," he said. "Unless you have had a recent sale, it is kind of a matter of opinion how much the land is worth."

Copyright 2009 West Virginia Media. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
User Comments [ post comment ]
User Comment
Sam Peer
1/22/09 at 8:00 AM
Report Abuse
Timothy Lee of the Cato Institute hits the nail on the head. A land owner is seldom compensated so the real value of their property.

I faced the same situaiton some years ago. The Division of Highways replaced a bridge close to where I live. A portion of my property was required to replace the sidewalk. I was approached by Highways engineers and real estate folks who explained the project to me and the effect it would have on my property.

The project was misrepresented and what would be done was hidden from me. I ended up with a wall in front of my house, which I was never informed of or allowed to see the plans for. Additionally, when the Highway's approved appraiser apprasied my property, I took him at his word, only to find out later that my property had been appraised low.

I settled with Highways for far less than the value of the damage that was done to my property and for less than my property was worth. While I admit it was my responsbility to do my due diligence and I didn't. I am convienced that Highways personnel knew that I lacked the resourses necessary to either do my own research or confront them legally. However, neither does that give the Division of Highways engineers and real estate folks the right or cause to mispresent and out right lie to me.

The Division of Highways personnel knew they had me either way. I couldn't afford to fight them in court, so the odds of actually having to condemn my property was nill. Additionally, I didn't have the necessary resourses to confirm or deny the value they placed on my property.

The politicians have allow the use of and threat of eminent domain to abused or used as a strong arm tactic to obtain property at less than its real value. It is an issue that the politicans need to address and correct, immediately.






Post Your Comments
All fields are Required
Name: 
Email: 
  A valid email address is required to allow State Journal to monitor comments and track users posting inappropriate comments. State Journal does not use these for any type of SPAM operation.
Comments: 
Security Code: 
Enter the code exactly as you see it above.

NOTE: You may refresh the page to load a new Confirmation Code if this one is unreadable.
 
I have read and agree to the JOURNAL Commenting Policy
NOTE: It is unlawful to disclose personal information, including names, of minors under 18 involved in any criminal action.
 



© West Virginia Media Holdings, LLC
WBOY-TV I WOWK-TV I WTRF-TV I WVNS-TV I Your ABC I ABC Ohio Valley
FOX Ohio Valley | FOX WV | The State Journal | Country Roads Journal
Privacy Policy


Site Development and Hosting By Citynet
Citynet