Comments on: Hercules vs WalMart – An Eminent Domain Question http://www.therealestatebloggers.com/2006/05/23/hercules-vs-walmart-an-eminent-domain-question/ Real Estate Blog, Mortgage, and Development News Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:38:54 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: D from Hercules http://www.therealestatebloggers.com/2006/05/23/hercules-vs-walmart-an-eminent-domain-question/comment-page-1/#comment-4198 D from Hercules Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:50:58 +0000 http://therealestatebloggers.com/2006/05/23/hercules-vs-walmart-an-eminent-domain-question/#comment-4198 If the Supreme Court has ruled that the use of eminent domain is a valid tool for redevelopment agencies to use in shaping land use, then removing a land owner whom (a) bought a parcel subject to the agency rules and then (b) repeatedly demonstrated their intent to ignore said rules appears to be valid use of this power. This is especially true given that all of the other commercial development has come to a standstill pending the resolution of this matter (none are interested in being adjacent to a Wal-Mart). It's ironic that a tool that Wal-Mart has had no compunctions in using in other locales has come back to haunt them so, but until the Supreme Court further refines it opinion on the issue and/or there is legislative clarification this use seems to be fair game. If the Supreme Court has ruled that the use of eminent domain is a valid tool for redevelopment agencies to use in shaping land use, then removing a land owner whom (a) bought a parcel subject to the agency rules and then (b) repeatedly demonstrated their intent to ignore said rules appears to be valid use of this power. This is especially true given that all of the other commercial development has come to a standstill pending the resolution of this matter (none are interested in being adjacent to a Wal-Mart). It’s ironic that a tool that Wal-Mart has had no compunctions in using in other locales has come back to haunt them so, but until the Supreme Court further refines it opinion on the issue and/or there is legislative clarification this use seems to be fair game.

]]> By: D from Hercules http://www.therealestatebloggers.com/2006/05/23/hercules-vs-walmart-an-eminent-domain-question/comment-page-1/#comment-4135 D from Hercules Wed, 31 May 2006 05:05:01 +0000 http://therealestatebloggers.com/2006/05/23/hercules-vs-walmart-an-eminent-domain-question/#comment-4135 Umm, actually the City of Hercules created a *very* comprehensive long range plan that was in place in 2000. The original developer for the parcel successfully obtained entitlements for a retail project that had a 64,000 sf retail pad - this original proposal was judged to be in compliance with that plan. That developer brought on Wal-Mart as an anchor tenant, and Wal-Mart egged the developer on resubmit the project with a 150,000 sf footprint. The city said no. The developer, seeing that this was an uphill battle, bailed and sold the parcel to Wal-Mart who again reattempted to get the parcel re-entitled with 150,000 sf big box. The city said no, so Wal-Mart trimmed the proposal down to 100,000 sf. As 100,000 sf ____ Editor: So the process is working exactly as it should. Why force Eminent Domain? Umm, actually the City of Hercules created a *very* comprehensive long range plan that was in place in 2000. The original developer for the parcel successfully obtained entitlements for a retail project that had a 64,000 sf retail pad – this original proposal was judged to be in compliance with that plan. That developer brought on Wal-Mart as an anchor tenant, and Wal-Mart egged the developer on resubmit the project with a 150,000 sf footprint. The city said no. The developer, seeing that this was an uphill battle, bailed and sold the parcel to Wal-Mart who again reattempted to get the parcel re-entitled with 150,000 sf big box. The city said no, so Wal-Mart trimmed the proposal down to 100,000 sf. As 100,000 sf

____

Editor: So the process is working exactly as it should. Why force Eminent Domain?

]]>