LegalMatch: Real Estate

Urbanization and Endangered Species.

As a kid, I grew up in an empty expanse of desert. I was a part of Southern California before “The OC,” when Orange County was known for its endless groves of leafy citrus trees, and a good chunk of the dry, rocky land was still uncultivated.

Our backyard was full of coyotes and a trip to the nearest grocery store meant you’d usually catch a roadrunner or red-tail hawk preening in the dust. But as tract houses slowly dug their trenches into the homes of field mice and wild rabbits, the local fauna began to disappear. Now, visiting my parents' home means navigating set after set of tract-home developments and urban sprawl-- with not a roadrunner in sight.

This story is one that has replayed across this country and others, and sometimes only thin strips of wildlife preserves and natural sanctuaries seem to hint at what a pre-urbanized landscape used to look like. But does this mean that progress demands the sacrifice of species?  And what can you do about it?

Roadrunners and coyotes aren’t protected under the Endangered Species Act, but there are creatures (and plants!) that are negatively affected every year by the development of new homes, entertainment venues, shopping malls, airports, factories, and other human institutions. Check out the government’s guide to threatened and endangered species, and learn more about protected species in your state.

If you’re concerned about the environmental impact of a proposed development in your area—for example, building a paper-processing plant in an area that is home to a protected species like the Kangaroo Rat—you can consult the corresponding Environmental Impact Statement for more information.  These statements are created to describe exactly what kind of impact a new development will have on the surrounding communities and environment (both human and animal).  If you decide that you need a lawyer to get involved in the protection of a local species, or you feel that a proposed development is in violation of Federal Wildlife Laws, you should consult with an attorney who specializes in Environmental Law.

By Kate Beall

Eminent What?

On June 23, 2005 the United States Supreme Court ruled that local governments could take private property to make way for private economic development as long as it would benefit the public.  This notion is called Eminent Domain.  Eminent Domain is defined as, “The inherent power of a governmental entity to take privately owned property, especially land, and convert it to public use, subject to reasonable compensation for the taking.”  The power to take property stems from the Fifth Amendment. 

How does this recent Supreme Court ruling change the above definition?  This question revolves around the term “public use.”  Many would think that “public use” means that the property would be used for the benefit of the public at large.  Highways, bridges and public parks may come to mind.  But the 5-4 ruling now may open the flood gates for cities to force residents out to make way for economic developments that could help generate tax revenue.  Establishments that would help generate revenue include but are not limited to shopping malls and hotels. 

Writing for the majority, Justice John Stevens cited cases in which the court has interpreted “public use” to include a wide range of projects such as bridges, highways, slum clearance and land redistribution.  Proponents praise the court’s ruling and feel that it may be the only way to rejuvenate their neighborhoods.  Homeowners who have been forced out would disagree.

In her dissenting opinion Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated, “Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”  It doesn’t seem fair to those who are being forced to sell their homes to make way for a retail store, hotel or shopping mall.  Just ask the residents of New London, Connecticut who are in the 90 acres of waterfront land that will now be the new home of office buildings, upscale housing, a marina, and other facilities.  Some residents who have lived in their houses all of their lives now must sell to developers.  Others have made extensive improvements to their properties and now will have to watch all of their hard work be bulldozed to the ground.

Does this seem fair?  True, the demolition of the waterfront houses and revitalization of the area in New London is expected to generate hundreds of jobs and approximately $680,000 in property tax revenue but at whose expense?  The rich, powerful and political seem to be pulling the strings in this situation while the predominately poor, minorities and the elderly lose their houses to make way for big business.  The effects of this ruling have yet to be seen but opponents are predicting serious ramifications as more and more governments determine what establishments or developments may generate tax revenue.

By Lisa Zanassi