Friday, December 5, 2008 • Volume 120 • Number 56 $79 per year • $1 per copy

MAXIMILIAN FRANZ

This stretch of vacant storefronts along Washington Boulevard in Pigtown is one of at least 12 redevelopment projects in Baltimore that are highly dependent on condemnation.

A DAILY RECORD SPECIAL REPORT

Condemnation drives urban renewal

Eminent domain has helped reshape much of city, but some say it’s no longer necessary
Additional coverage to accompany

CONDEMNED
BY ROBBIE WHELAN | robbie.whelan@mddailyrecord.com our condemnation series:

or many people, the words “condemned building” k Take an interactive quiz

F bring to mind a creaky, dilapidated house with

boarded-up windows and caution signs posted:
somewhere you don’t dare go without a hard hat.
Baltimore’s use of eminent domain
A 3-PART SERIES

FRIDAY: In Baltimore, the use of

But in Baltimore, the use of condemnation powers —
otherwise known as eminent domain — has become syn-
onymous with urban renewal.
The government’s right to condemn and
seize private property, sometimes perfectly
intact and well-maintained, and convey it
to another private owner is the engine driv-
ing many of the city’s most important de-
velopment efforts.
Despite several recent court cases and
laws that check the powers of municipalities
to take property, condemnations are accel-
erating in the city: More than $22 million in
eminent domain seizures have been autho-
rized this year, up nearly 250 percent from
2007, and nearly 12 times the inflation-ad-
justed dollar amount of seizures authorized
in 2003, The Daily Record has found. These
statistics were determined as part of an ex-
amination of nearly 1,000 pages of public
records covering the last five years.
To put that number in context, $22 mil-
lion is about seven times what the city ex-
pects to spend in fiscal 2009 to fight home-
lessness, and about 10 percent of what the
city will spend on schools.
Public records also show that at least
12 major redevelopment projects in the city,
representing more than $2.5 billion in in-
condemnation powers has become
synonymous with urban renewal.
MONDAY: The issue of condemnation
touches on one of the U.S. Constitution’s
most fundamental rights — the right to
own property.
TUESDAY: Small business owners in
Baltimore affected by condemnation
tell their stories.
vestment, depend on condemnations to
move forward, and that the city continues to
make liberal use of a controversial method
of seizure known as “quick-take,” in which
city agencies — chiefly the housing depart-
ment — place a deposit in court and gain im-
SEE CONDEMNED PAGE 11A
Take our quiz to discover how much
you already know about the govern-
ment’s ability to exercise eminent do-
main. Embedded online with the main
condemnation story.
g Video glossary
Watch our video glossary to get the true
meanings of eminent domain, quick-take,
urban renewal and the process of con-
demnation. Embedded online with the
main condemnation story.
c Interactive area map
See the top sites where the Baltimore City
government has used eminent domain
as a development tool. Posted online as a
separate story.
This supplemental reporting is available on
our Web site at www.mddailyrecord.com

Auction sales 6A Public notice 8B For subscriptions

INDEX
A daily listing of content
Calendar of events
Marketplace
6B
1B
Real estate
Sealed proposals
2B
9B
c Online On the RECORD blog
www.mddailyrecord.com Follow the link on our Web site
call 1-800-451-9998 or
e-mail circ@DolanMedia.com
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2008 THE DAILY RECORD 11A

CONDEMNED
Baltimore’s use of eminent domain

History is not unuseful. If you need proof for why

“ ”
we need to use eminent domain, you need look no
further than Charles Center or the Inner Harbor.
— M.J. “Jay” Brodie
President, Baltimore Development Corp.

downtown skyline toward the Inner

Condemned
Continued from page 1A
mediate title to a property, giving its own-
er only 10 days to contest the taking. The
city authorized quick-take proceedings
more than 1,000 times in the last five
years, and, as of October, had approved
its use more than 280 times in 2008.
Hundreds of the city’s 1,676 emi-
nent domain seizures over the last five
years have been used to take vacant,
derelict properties that have been aban-
doned by their owners or fallen into
squalor due to speculating, absentee
landlords. These properties have then
been razed or rehabilitated and includ-
ed in massive redevelopment efforts
such as the East Baltimore Science
and Technology Park and the resi-
dential projects surrounding it.
But others have been takings of
homes occupied by families and build-
ings occupied by small companies that
are generally located in low-income
neighborhoods or thinly populated in-
dustrial districts, for which the city
spends millions more to relocate busi-
nesses and families against their will.
Harbor.
“History is not unuseful,” he said.
“If you need proof for why we need to
use eminent domain, you need look no
further than Charles Center or the Inner
Harbor.”
These two projects, which began in
the late 1950s and early 1970s, respec-
tively, with the support of civic and
business leaders — one a cluster of of-
fice buildings surrounding a large green
public space that fronts on Lombard
Street in the middle of downtown, the
other a huge swath of waterfront prop-
erty filled with offices, museums, re-
tail properties and hotels — are often
cited as hallmarks of urban renewal in
Baltimore. Both depended heavily on
condemnation.
More than 700 properties were
seized, many of them seedy, dilapidated
warehouses, and 300 businesses relo-
cated, all to great success and benefit of
the city, according to Martin Millspaugh,
a former journalist and planner who,
as CEO of Charles Center-Inner Har-
bor Management Inc. in the 1960s, was
instrumental in getting both projects
COURTESY OF URBAN LAND INSTITUTE

off the ground.

So extensive is Baltimore’s use of “The mood was one of desperation,
eminent domain that the Institute for and the leaders of the community —
Justice, a libertarian public-interest public and private — were searching
law firm based in Arlington, Va., has for a solution,” he wrote in a recent e-
dubbed the city the second-worst abus- mail to The Daily Record. “The process
er of eminent domain powers in the of acquiring all of the necessary parcels
country, trailing only New York. through voluntary negotiations would
Defenders of the practice present a have required an unknown, uncontrol-
classic “but for” test as a key rationale lable amount of time, during which the
for the use of condemnations: But for market for any new use — or the fi- Clearing the site of One Charles Center in 1961. The B&O Railroad headquarters can be seen in the right
the city’s intervention, the argument background. In center background is the old Hub department store, which was demolished shortly
goes, certain areas would lie vacant and SEE CONDEMNED PAGE 12A after this picture was taken to make way for the Blaustein Building.
inactive indefinitely and would never
receive the investment they need to be
remade as safe, healthy neighborhoods. Condemnations in Baltimore City, 2003-2008
Opponents argue that market forces The money for condemnations in Baltimore comes from two main offices connected with the city: the Department of Housing and Community
Development and the Baltimore Development Corp. Housing condemnations by far outpace BDC condemnations, but the latter tend to be more
should govern the transfer and redevel-
expensive deals because they deal with commercial properties.
opment of city property, and that con-
demnation unfairly targets small-busi- Year Baltimore City Baltimore Quick take Regular Total Total
ness people who cater to largely poor Department of Housing and Development condemnation properties monies
Community Development Corp. targeted authorized
clientele. The city’s intervention, they
argue, is a gross violation of private prop- 2003 252 3 176 79 255 $1,593,419.00
erty rights and is based largely on a mis- 2004 270 3 101 172 273 $3,204,868.33
interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. 2005 433 4 437 0 437 $5,117,028.65
2006 200 24 190 34 224 $7,067,767.78
The case for condemning
2007 195 9 166 38 204 $8,053,234.39
Standing before huge picture win-
dows in a 16th-floor conference room of 2008 177 102 280 3 283 $22,241,408.00
his downtown office building, Balti- Total 1,527 145 1,350 326 1,676 $47,277,726.15
more Development Corp. President
M.J. “Jay” Brodie gestures out over the Source: Daily Record research

Condemnations by project area in Baltimore, 2003-2008

The numbers below show where property seizures were authorized in Baltimore over the last five years. In 2005, the number of houses taken in EBDI, the area associated with the Johns
Hopkins-driven East Side biotechnology initiative, spiked at 315, which accounts for most of the housing authority’s takings that year (Chart: Condemnations in Baltimore City, 2003-2008). Oth-
er areas of the city, including Gateway South, the Westside, and Washington Village, see condemnations carried out mostly by the BDC. Some condemnations authorized by city documents
are not associated with a particular project or site acquisition, although most are.

Year East Balt. Park Westside Gateway American Uplands Poppleton Fairfield Baker/ Upton Washington Broadway Total
Development Heights South Brewery Division Village Corridor properties
Inc. /Pigtown authorized

2003 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 79 0 0 255

2004 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 84 273

2005 315 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 437

2006 42 1 5 0 15 0 7 8 10 23 8 24 224

2007 11 12 2 6 12 5 26 2 11 7 0 3 204

2008 78 9 4 1 20 5 25 91 17 2 0 1 283

Totals 610 22 16 7 47 10 58 101 39 120 8 121 1,676

Source: Daily Record research

12A T H E D A I L Y R E C O R D
The mood was one of desperation, and the
“ ”
leaders of the community — public and
private — were searching for a solution.
Condemned
Continued from page 11A
nancing of that use — could disappear.
The solution was to invoke eminent
domain to acquire the required prop-
erties in a predictable amount of time;
since the property owners were enti-
tled to appeal the price they received to
a jury in court proceedings, before the
city acquired possession.”
In the 1950s, Baltimore was facing
the prospect of municipal bankruptcy,
and the Housing Act of 1949, which pro-
vided two-thirds federal funding for
cities to acquire so-called slum areas
through eminent domain, provided an
incentive for cities to spur development
of blighted land.
In 1954, another housing act sweet-
ened the deal for cities by allowing
them to provide private developers with
Federal Housing Administration-backed
mortgages. This second act also popu-
larized the phrase “urban renewal.”
In Baltimore, this meant the razing
and rebuilding of pre-World War II pub-
lic housing projects, many of which
were again cleared in the late 1990s to
make way for more modern facilities,
often at the expense of homeowners
and other private citizens.
“It is an ancient legal principle that
private property which is needed for
important public purposes may be tak-
en by government, upon payment of
fair compensation,” read a 1967 article
titled “The Condemnation Division,”
which was included in the annual report
of Baltimore City Solicitor Joseph Allen.
The report goes on to anticipate sev-
eral required “quick-takings” of indus-
trial and commercial properties to make
way for Interstate 83’s passage through
the city, the “Mt. Vernon Urban Re-
newal Project” and development along
the Franklin-Mulberry Street corridor.
According to Millspaugh, the tak-
ings were justified by the city having a
“viable re-use” for hundreds of vacant
properties that “stood for years as an ar-
gument against [redevelopment].”
In the nearly 50 intervening years
since Millspaugh’s massive downtown
redevelopment plan began, the city has
enacted dozens of urban renewal ordi-
nances — laws that require approval
M&T BANK STADIUM
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2008
CONDEMNED
Baltimore’s use of eminent domain
— Martin Millspaugh
Former CEO, Charles Center Inner Harbor Management Inc.
tax revenue, profits for handpicked de-
A condemnation glossary velopers or because a municipality sim-
ply does not approve of the appearance
Eminent domain – The power of a municipality to seize privately-owned property without the or inhabitants of a particular property
owner’s consent, also known as condemnation.
— a rundown flophouse, a strip club, a
Public use – The only reason, as defined by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that liquor store.
a private citizen may be deprived of property. In subsequent court rulings, the definition of “pub-
Baltimore’s West Side Superblock
lic use” has come to include “public purpose,” a less broadly-defined concept that encompasses
eminent domain takings for public purposes. project, a large-scale redevelopment of
several city blocks near Lexington
Quick-take – An expedited version of condemnation, in which the city deposits compensation
Market, has been ground zero in this
for a property in the register of the city circuit court and gains immediate title to the proper-
ty. Under normal condemnation proceedings, a property owner has several months to contest dispute. The city began threatening con-
the taking and to perform discovery for a legal action. Under quick-take, the property owners demnation in the late 1990s, and in the
have only 10 days to contest the validity of a condemnation. last five years, at least 16 properties
Urban renewal – Popularized by the Housing Act of 1954, this term refers to the practice of have been condemned and conveyed
revitalizing decaying inner cities using eminent domain, clearing slums and encouraging pri- to private developers, and many more
vate development on publicly-assembled parcels of land. It was popular from the 1940s have been purchased by the city after
through the 1970s, and remains in use in Baltimore today.
lengthy mediations.
Urban renewal act – A city ordinance that enumerates acceptable uses, lays out specific de- “When they started eminent domain
velopment plans and identifies properties targeted for condemnation within a city-designated
in ’98, [the Superblock] was a thriving
redevelopment area.
pedestrian mall,” said John C. Murphy,
Blight – The Maryland Constitution gives municipalities the right to carry out urban renewal an eminent domain lawyer who has
activities in slums or a “blighted area,” which is defined as “an area in which a majority of build-
ings have declined in productivity by reason of obsolescence, depreciation or other causes to
been defending property owners in Bal-
an extent they no longer justify fundamental repairs and adequate maintenance.” timore for more than two decades. “It
had the highest rents in the city …
There were no vacancies. The problem
by the mayor and city council — to con- Charles North urban renewal plan, the was who was there. For the most part it
demn land and redevelop it, either by West Side Superblock and the East Bal- was Korean business owners, and their
public or private means. timore biotechnology park initiative, customers were African-Americans …
Condemnations were used by the both the BDC and the city’s housing [The city] had no allegiance at all to
state of Maryland to build Oriole Park authority have assembled dozens of the Korean business owners.”
at Camden Yards and M&T Bank properties at a time on the front end, Today, the Superblock is eerily va-
Stadium, to spruce up the area around making use of eminent domain as a cen- cant: Shuttered storefronts alternate
the Hippodrome Theater and for tral tool in the push to renew Baltimore. with uncrowded clothing retailers and
Johns Hopkins’ $1.8 billion East Side wig shops. Foot traffic is scarce except
initiative, among dozens of other pro- The case for letting it be for a few downtown workers who seem
jects. Critics of eminent domain in Balti- to be walking through the blighted
According to Brodie, this is a new more and elsewhere generally don’t blocks only to get to somewhere else.
kind of urban renewal — it pinpoints take issue with government seizure of Murphy is quick to add that he does
specific properties and takes a more private property when it is done in ser- not accuse the city of racism — just an
piecemeal approach to redeveloping vice of clearly defined public use. Tak- ingrained cultural inclination to inte-
them, with the support of the commu- ing a building and knocking it down to grate low-income retail strips at the ex-
nities in which they lie. Brodie has re- build a road, a school or a courthouse, pense of minority owners.
ferred to condemnation, and in partic- for example, is not seen as terribly con- “The whole process of suburban-
ular its expedited version, quick-take, as troversial in this country. ization has had a great impact on the
a “last resort” tool in redeveloping the This is because the Fifth Amend- city,” Murphy said. “They think down-
city. ment to the Constitution, which out- town should be a lot like a suburban
“This is not the old-style Charles lines rather broadly the right to due mall. A guy like Jay Brodie looks at it
Center, Inner Harbor condemnation process of the law, specifies that “nor and says, ‘This isn’t good because there
where we’re buying blocks and blocks,” shall private property be taken for pub- aren’t a lot of chain stores like in Tow-
he said. “It’s very targeted … Our pro- lic use, without just compensation.” son Town.’”
cess is not just us sitting here and say- Public byways and buildings constitute But Brodie said this characteriza-
ing, ‘Gee, condemnation is nice.’ We’re public use, so there is little legal ground tion is “absolutely not” how he looks at
going out and talking to people and say- to argue against that sort of condem- the city. The BDC, he said, has taken
ing, ‘How do we help revitalize this nation. pains to keep several existing Su-
area?’” Problems arise, critics say, when perblock retailers, including the dis-
But The Daily Record’s findings in- property is condemned in the name of count store Valu Plus, a wig shop and
dicate otherwise: On a number of major economic development, because urban
redevelopment projects, including the renewal would lead to higher property SEE CONDEMNED PAGE 13A
Condemnations were used by the state of Maryland on these projects
ORIOLE PARK AT CAMDEN YARDS HIPPODROME THEATER
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2008
Condemned
Continued from page 12A
a clothing boutique, as part of the new
plan for the district.
“Mr. Murphy is very mistaken about
my view of the West Side, like 180 de-
grees mistaken,” he said. “I have said
consistently that the West Side, in terms
of retail, is not meant to imitate subur-
bia; it’s meant to reflect the neighbor-
hood and the goods and services people
in the neighborhood want, and the
goods and services that people in Mt.
Vernon and Bolton Hill want.”
For the property owners, condem-
nation represents a tiresome, stressful
ordeal that can ruin a business by taking
away incentives to invest, buy new in-
ventory or make capital improvements,
because the threat of losing one’s prop-
erty can be imminent for years or even
decades.
Nam Seo Koo, who emigrated from
South Korea in 1978, has owned New
York Fashions, a retail clothing outlet
in the Superblock, for more than 15
years. In August, the city agreed to cut
the final check — $300,000 to buy up in-
ventory and fixtures in Koo’s shop and
relocate to another site — as part of a
condemnation settlement of more than
Park Heights
Condemnations authorized: 22
Baker/Division
Condemnations authorized: 39
Uplands
Condemnations authorized: 10
66
1 Condemnations authorized: 121
95
695
.
vd
Bl
95
n
to
ng
hi
as
W
THE DAILY RECORD 13A
CONDEMNED
Baltimore’s use of eminent domain
surgery right away, then and there, in-
stead of five years down the line.”
Koo sometimes sounds like he’s ar-
guing for the use of quick-take, but he is
careful to say that he is not. At the end
of the day, Koo said, the city would be
better off abandoning eminent domain
altogether.
“I think if [the city] left it alone, it
would have done fine,” he said. “I don’t
think a Saks Fifth Avenue would have
come here, but who’s to say we need a
Saks? ... It should not be used at all.
The private sector could probably do as
good or a better job at redevelopment.”
RICH DENNISON
‘Critical mass’
Condemnations are carried out in
Baltimore mainly by two city entities
— the BDC and the Department of
Linn Koo, whose father owned retail clothing outlet New York Fashions in the Superblock for more than
Housing and Community Develop-
15 years, says he has seen firsthand how eminent domain can tax a business owner’s personal life.
ment — and each specific instance of
$3 million to seize Koo’s 25,000-square- ness, combined with declining foot traf- eminent domain must be approved by
foot shop and warehouse. fic on the streets outside, has left him the mayor and the city’s spending pan-
But Koo’s son, Linn Koo, who less than enthusiastic about relocating el, the Board of Estimates.
speaks for the business, said he isn’t his business and starting over again. Once authorized, a condemnation
sure his father wants to go through the Worst of all, he said, was the uncer- must be filed in city circuit court, at
trouble. He said he has seen firsthand tainty of a long, drawn-out process. which point an owner may challenge
how eminent domain can tax a busi- “What a lot of people don’t under- the valuation of the property. Public
ness owner’s personal life. stand is the stress it puts on a person,” officials are quick to point out that au-
The first letter notifying Koo of the Linn Koo said. “There’s a right way to do thorizing a condemnation is not the
condemnation came in 1998, and a eminent domain, and that’s quickly. It’s
decade of uncertainty about his busi- like going for a doctor’s visit and they do SEE CONDEMNED PAGE 14A
N
Condemnation areas in Baltimore
The map shows where most condemnations in Baltimore take place. Our research
W
S
E
shows that eminent domain use is not limited to one particular part of town; instead,
large-scale site acquisition projects using the tool are spread out over a wide area.
However, eminent 83 domain seizures in the central part of the city, especially around the
downtown area, tend to be of commercial properties, while East Side and West Side
140 properties tend to be houses.
139
American Brewery
26
Condemnations authorized: 47
41
E. North Ave.
W. North Ave. Westside
Condemnations authorized: 16 2
66
1
66
1
83
Upton 66
40
Condemnations authorized: 120
66
40
EBDI
Condemnations authorized: 610
295
144 Inn
er H
Bo
arb st
on
or St
.
Key Hwy.
395
Poppleton
Condemnations authorized: 58
95
North
.
vd
Broadway Corridor
west
Bl
95
n
to
Harb
ng
hi
as
or
2
W
295
Washington Village/Pigtown
Condemnations authorized: 8 Fairfield
Carroll-Camden Industrial Area/ Condemnations authorized: 101
Gateway South
Condemnations authorized: 7
895
695
295
Scale= 1 mile Source: Daily Record research, Google maps
14A T H E D A I L Y R E C O R D
I think Baltimore is still caught in the 1960s
“ ”
with this whole urban renewal business.
The rest of the world moved on and got over it.
Condemned
Continued from page 13A
same as filing one, and that in many
cases, mediation between property
owners and the city results in a volun-
tary sales agreement.
“Board of Estimates approval gets
us near the goal line of crossing the
case, but doesn’t cross the goal line,”
said Andrew Bailey, an attorney for
the city. “All that accomplishes is it
authorizes the city to commence with
the suit.”
MAXIMILIAN FRANZ
Indeed, records show that of 283
condemnations authorized this year,
only 176 of them have been filed in
court. In recent years, on average, about
half of condemnations authorized ac-
tually reach the stage of being filed in
court: Only 44 percent of the 204 tak-
ings authorized in 2007 became law-
suits; 75 percent in 2006; 50 percent in
2005; 38 percent in 2004; and 52 per-
cent in 2003.
But Murphy, the eminent domain
lawyer, said that publicly announcing
the city’s intention to seize a property
by listing it on an urban renewal ordi-
nance has essentially the same effect as
condemning it.
“Once the city has the authority to
condemn, it’s not necessary to file a
case,” he said. “Filing the court case is
basically the last resort. But when they
do it, they’re doing it under the threat of
condemnation, because it’s already
been established that the city has the
right to take this property. … I think
in a lot of other cities, they don’t do
this to the same extent.”
In Pittsburgh, a city with roughly
half the population of Baltimore but a
similar mid-century transformation sto-
ry, it seems that eminent domain-driven
urban renewal was once a great boon to
the city, but has since been abandoned.
In 1950, its mayor began the con-
demnation and demolition of more than
100 dilapidated properties in what is
now known as the “Golden Triangle,” a
pointed strip of land at the confluence
of the city’s famous three rivers. It is
now occupied by a public park with a
picturesque fountain, surrounded by a
striking downtown skyline filled with
commercial office towers and a busy
central business district.
But in the last 10 years, redevelop-
ment efforts have proceeded largely
“How do we help the pri-
vate sector do what it
does in America, to get
loans to get equity? Our
stepping in with any of
the city’s powers is done
with a judgment call that
the private sector is not
doing it. … In the long
term, there are benefits
— jobs, taxes — that you
have to balance against M.J. “JAY” BRODIE
the angst.”
CONDEMNED
Baltimore’s use of eminent domain
Eminent domain attorney John C. Murphy, who has been defending property owners in Baltimore for more
than two decades: ‘The whole process of suburbanization has had a great impact on the city.’
without the use of condemnation. Sev-
eral projects, including a mixed-use re-
tail effort called the South Side Works,
have made use of former industrial
sites, but only one, a large-scale down-
town build-out known as Fifth and
Forbes, proposed the extensive use of
condemnation.
That project lost steam in 2001 when
then-Mayor Tom Murphy failed to woo
Nordstrom to the area as an anchor,
and eventually condemnations were
threatened but never used.
“The city of Pittsburgh has not offi-
cially used eminent domain since the
early 1980s,” said Frank Gamrat, a re-
search associate at the Allegheny Insti-
tute, a conservative, Pittsburgh-based
public policy think tank. “Once Mayor
Murphy left office, he kind of put emi-
nent domain to rest. He tried with Fifth
and Forbes and lost in the court of pub-
lic opinion. It hasn’t come up for nine
years, really.”
Kyra Straussman, director of real
estate for Pittsburgh’s development
arm, the Urban Redevelopment Au-
thority, said this is because it simply
isn’t worth it to condemn since federal
funding for eminent domain seizures
has dried up.
Instead, she said, Pittsburgh takes a
less adversarial approach to assembling
property — integrating city-owned
properties with those acquired through
purchase agreements by the develop-
er, without using the threat of con-
demnation to bolster the developer’s
Voices on condemnation
“I think that in the city
of Baltimore, the emi-
nent domain tool is ab-
solutely critical. I’ve
worked in half a dozen
cities in my career,
and Baltimore is in
many ways a special
example because it
has seen massive dis-
investment and out-mi-
gration, and that has PAUL T. GRAZIANO
created vast tracts of
largely abandoned property.”
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2008
— John C. Murphy
Baltimore eminent domain lawyer
“I think that in the city of Baltimore,
the eminent domain tool is absolutely
critical,” said Paul T. Graziano, the city’s
housing commissioner. “I’ve worked in
half a dozen cities in my career, and
Baltimore is in many ways a special ex-
ample because it has seen massive dis-
investment and out-migration, and that
has created vast tracts of largely aban-
doned property.
“And in order to [start] redevelop-
ment [of] these properties, one needs to
assemble these properties and get a
critical mass, and that’s not something
that the private sector can do. It’s very,
very cost prohibitive.”
Moving forward
Despite consistent legal challenges,
the pace of condemnations in Baltimore
seems to show no signs of slowing
down. On Election Day this year, the
city’s voters approved two bond issues
negotiating position. This way, the city
of nearly $46 million to acquire more
avoids costly legal battles and reloca-
properties in the Westside Initiative and
tions for businesses.
near Uplands.
“We look at projects differently than
Multiple projects, including the East
we did 50 years ago,” she said. “Don’t
Side initiative and Old Fairfield, are en-
you get a better, more valuable project
tering later stages of site acquisition
overall when you’re knitting it into the
and may involve more condemnation
community fabric rather than laminat-
proceedings.
ing it onto the landscape?”
“I think Baltimore is still caught in
By contrast, Baltimore has at least
the 1960s with this whole urban re-
12 projects that are highly dependent on
newal business,” Murphy, the attorney,
condemnations. Chief among them is
said. “The rest of the world moved on
the East Side biotechnology initiative,
and got over it.”
which has displaced about 400 families
For the time being, Murphy is in one
so far, with hundreds more slated for re-
sense right: Eminent domain seems to
location.
not be a relic of the 1950s, the 1960s, or
The main commercial projects are
even five years ago. For some city offi-
the BDC’s Westside Initiative, which
cials, it’s industry standard.
includes the Superblock; Gateway
“How do we help the private sector
South, a site that will be adjacent to
do what it does in America, to get loans
Baltimore’s coming slots parlors; Old
to get equity?” asks Brodie, of the BDC.
Fairfield Industrial Area; Pigtown/Wash-
“Our stepping in with any of the city’s
ington Village; and Charles North.
powers is done with a judgment call
Baltimore Housing has thousands
that the private sector is not doing it. …
of properties in line for condemnation,
In the long term, there are benefits —
many of them blighted and vacant, for
jobs, taxes — that you have to balance
several projects, including the 1,000-
against the angst.”
plot Poppleton renewal effort, major
projects in Barclay, Upton, Park
Heights and Oliver, and in the area sur-
rounding West Baltimore’s Uplands MONDAY: The issue of condemnation
housing project. touches on one of the U.S. Constitu-
In September, a judge ruled that the tion’s most fundamental rights — the
city could seize an entire block adja- right to own property.
cent to Uplands even though some of
the properties involved were not blight-
ed and housed active, profitable busi- e Talk back! | Visit our Blog
mddailyrecord.com
nesses.
“The process of acquir-
ing all of the necessary
parcels through voluntary
negotiations would have
required an unknown,
uncontrollable amount of
time ... The solution was
to invoke eminent do-
main to acquire the re-
quired properties in a pre-
dictable amount of time;
since the property own- MARTIN MILLSPAUGH
ers were entitled to appeal
the price they received to a jury in court pro-
ceedings, before the city acquired possession.”
 MARYLAND’S BUSINESS & LEGAL NEWS SINCE 1888

HOW TO REACH US
Subscriptions
1-800-451-9998 In today’s
News 410-752-3849
Advertising 410-752-1717 Maryland Lawyer
Reprints 410-752-3849 MONDAY
Convicted sex
offender’s wife
advocates for
reform.

$199 per year

$1 per copy
December 8, 2008 • Volume 120 • Number 58
MAXIMILIAN FRANZ

Land-use attorney John C. Murphy, in the middle of the West Side Superblock: ‘…there has been a general change in attitude towards government. The general public is much more sympathetic to property rights.’

A DAILY RECORD SPECIAL REPORT

The people v. eminent domain

Opponents of condemnation are fighting a power that they say has been widely abused
| robbie.whelan@mddailyrecord.com Additional coverage to accompany

CONDEMNED
BY ROBBIE WHELAN
our condemnation series:

n Maryland, as in many parts of the country, the discussion m Historic court rulings

I over eminent domain, or the government’s power to condemn

and seize private property in the name of “public purpose,” is
mainly a legal debate rather than a policy one.
The issue, after all, touches on one of the U.S. Constitution’s
Baltimore’s use of eminent domain
A 3-PART SERIES

FRIDAY: In Baltimore, the use of

Take a look at some of the court rulings
in cases dealing with eminent domain.
Embedded online with the main con-
demnation story.

most fundamental rights — the right to own property — which is pro- condemnation powers has become
synonymous with urban renewal. g Interview with a lawyer
Watch an interview with a lawyer who
tected by the Fifth Amendment. No citizen, the amendment says, can has litigated historic eminent domain
MONDAY: The issue of condemnation
be deprived of his or her property unless for “public use” and with- touches on one of the U.S. Constitution’s cases. Embedded online with the main
out being justly reimbursed for its value. most fundamental rights — the right to condemnation story.
own property.
Over the years, several landmark court condemnation authorizations is expect-
cases have broadened the definition of
public use to include the economic well-
ed to increase more than 250 percent be-
tween 2007 and 2008, legal battles over
TUESDAY: Small business owners in
Baltimore affected by condemnation
i Historic photo slideshow
View a series of photos documenting
being of a city, state, county or national condemnation are often pitched and pro- tell their stories. several Baltimore City development pro-
government, significantly broadening em- longed. As of October 15, 176 condemna- jects that were completed with the use of
inent domain’s use as a policy tool. Sev- tion cases had been filed in city circuit decisions delivered blows to the city’s eminent domain. Posted online as a sep-
widely used “quick-take” procedure, arate story.
eral cases have held, for example, that it is court this year, up from 91 in 2007.
perfectly legal to take property from one The West Side Superblock, one of the which gives property owners just 10 days
private business owner and give it to an- Baltimore Development Corp.’s high- to contest the validity of the taking. This supplemental reporting is available on
other, if it means more jobs and a more ro- priority projects, has been stalled for years All this, some lawyers say, represents our Web site at www.mddailyrecord.com
bust tax base. by several major lawsuits. In the city’s a major change in the public’s attitude
In Baltimore, where the dollar value of nascent Charles North district, two 2007 SEE CONDEMNED PAGE 5A

Auction sales 2A Public notice 6C For subscriptions

INDEX
A daily listing of content
Calendar of events
Marketplace
19B
1C
Real estate
Sealed proposals
2C
7C
c Online On the RECORD blog
www.mddailyrecord.com Follow the link on our Web site
call 1-800-451-9998 or
e-mail circ@DolanMedia.com
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008 5A
CONDEMNED THE DAILY RECORD

Baltimore’s use of eminent domain

In the context of the national debate, the Baltimore

“ ”
waterfront was exhibit A in the argument in favor of the
eminent domain power.
— John D. Echeverrian
Lawyer and land-use specialist,
Georgetown University’s Environmental Law and Policy Institute
RICH DENNISON

The West Side Superblock, one of the Baltimore Development Corp.’s high-priority projects, which has been stalled for years by several major eminent domain lawsuits

Condemned
Continued from page 1A
toward property rights and the govern-
ment’s role in real estate development:
Emboldened by recent legal victories,
property rights advocates are fighting
back against a government power that
they see as widely abused, and state
lawmakers are listening.
Gaining traction
The concept of “urban renewal” first
became prevalent in the early 1950s, after
the 1949 Housing Act provided federal in-
centives for cities to clean up their im-
ages by condemning properties and re- the argument in favor of the eminent do- New urban theories, expressed in
developing them.
It gained further traction in 1954, when
main power,” said John D. Echeverria, a
lawyer and land-use specialist at George-
books such as Jane Jacobs’ “The Death
and Life of Great American Cities” and
the Supreme Court ruled in Berman v. town University’s Environmental Law Herbert J. Gans’ “The Urban Villagers,”
Parker that Washington, D.C., could con- and Policy Institute. mounted the first serious intellectual
demn a supermarket to transfer it to an- “If there’s an essential rationale for challenges to urban renewal. This, paired
other private developer simply because the use of eminent domain, it’s the hold- with public backlash against projects
the area around it was, in the eyes of city out problem, and it’s the difficulty of over- such as the razing of Boston’s West End
officials, “blighted.” coming the problem that one or 100 own- for an economic development initiative
Many of the big-city urban renewal ers won’t agree to sell on any reasonable that never materialized, made Charles
plans of the 1960s — in New York, Pitts- terms. There are a variety of instances in Center-style urban renewal seem like a
burgh, Baltimore — depended on the lat- dealing with downtown development. thing of the past.
itude allowed city governments by Where that arises, eminent domain is the “Urban renewal replaced small
Berman, and many downtowns trans- natural tool for dealing with it.” streets, high density, mixed-use city en-
formed over the course of a decade using But in the decades that followed, as vironments with these sterile plazas and
eminent domain powers. federal money for cities dried up, emi- superblocks,” said Paul S. Grogan, direc-
“In the context of the national debate, nent domain-based urban renewal fell out
the Baltimore waterfront was exhibit A in of fashion. SEE CONDEMNATION PAGE 6A

Before and after

COURTESY OF URBAN LAND INSTITUTE

COURTESY OF URBAN LAND INSTITUTE

INNER HARBOR BEFORE REDEVELOPMENT, 1965 INNER HARBOR AFTER REDEVELOPMENT, 1990
6A T H E D A I L Y R E C O R D
It’s a push and pull effect. Kelo was at first seen as a great
“ ”
boon to cities and developers. Shortly after [it] was handed
down, you saw a rush in the use of eminent domain.
Condemned
Continued from page 5A
tor of the Boston Foundation and au-
thor of a 2000 book on the policy called
“Comeback Cities.”
“The kind of urban renewal that [for-
mer New York City planner] Robert Moses
and others practiced required a kind of
supine powerless public that didn’t have
the clout to oppose this type of things.
Through community organizing and the
civil rights movement ... there began to be
a great deal of opposition to these kinds of
projects.”
Still, Grogran added, there is a place
for eminent domain use as a “last resort”
in cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia and
Detroit that have failed to reclaim the res-
idents and work force they lost to the
suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s.
In the 1980s and 1990s, Baltimore saw
very little eminent domain use.
“I don’t recall city policy involving an
over-reliance on eminent domain,” said
Kurt L. Schmoke, who was mayor from
1988-1999. “We engaged the private prop-
erties in discussions about plans. Our view
was, let’s tell people what we have in
mind, try to bring them into the discus-
sion, and see if we can come up with the
private-public joint partnerships.”
COURTESY OF INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
But takings entered the spotlight once
again in 2005, when nearly a half century
after the Berman decision, the Supreme
Court ruled on Kelo v. City of New Lon-
don, its first major land-use decision in
decades.
In that case, a Connecticut nurse
named Susette Kelo fought the local gov-
ernment of New London, which proposed
taking her waterfront home to build a
$300 million research facility for pharma-
ceutical giant Pfizer Inc. A divided deci-
sion held that the city was within rights to
take the house, and Kelo lost her home.
In the majority opinion, Justice John
Paul Stevens wrote that the idea that there
should be “any literal requirement that
condemned property be put into use for
the general public” had “eroded over time”
since the 19th century, and that the cre-
ation of jobs and higher taxes could be
1940s
1949
Federal Housing Act provides federal
funding for two-thirds of the cost of
eminent domain acquisitions in cities
like Baltimore
1954
In Berman v. Parker—the Supreme Court
unanimously upholds the right of the Dis-
trict of Columbia to seize a department
store as part of a massive redevelopment
plan to fight blight, even though the store
was not blighted. This is the first case to
specify that the constitution’s “public use”
clause includes “public purpose” in its
definition, allowing government to con-
demn privately owned property and con-
vey it to another private owner.
CONDEMNED
Baltimore’s use of eminent domain
Susette Kelo stands in front of her New London, Conn., house. In 2005, a divided Supreme Court said the
city was within its rights to take her house to make way for a $300 million research facility for
pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.
construed as “public purpose,” which has
come to be regarded as the same as “pub-
lic use.”
“The takings before us, however,
would be executed pursuant to a ‘carefully
considered’ development plan,” he wrote.
“[T]he City’s development plan was not
1950s
1 2
1 1958
Baltimore planners present Charles Cen-
ter urban renewal plan to mayor, the
first major building project in the city
since before World War II.
2 1962
One Charles Center, the iconic Mies van
der Rohe office tower, opens.
1963
Mayor Theodore McKeldin an-
nounces the Inner Harbor urban re-
newal plan. A master plan is accepted
four years later, and acquisition by
condemnation and clearance of down-
town properties begins.
— Scott G. Bullock
Senior attorney, Institute for Justice
adopted “to benefit a particular class of
identifiable individuals,” — i.e. a particu-
lar private business interest.
Kelo was a turning point in the eminent
domain debate in Baltimore, said John C.
Murphy, a land-use lawyer who has liti-
gated dozens of condemnation cases.
1960s
3 4 5
3 1975
In Prince George’s County v. Collington
Crossroads Inc., the Maryland Court of
Appeals upholds eminent domain tak-
ings for the purposes of economic de-
velopment. The county successfully con-
4 demns a pricey parcel of private land for
the purpose of building an industrial park.
This case would be used as precedent
in a number of significant decisions, in-
5 cluding Poletown v. Detroit, a 1981 ap-
pellate court decision that upheld that
city’s seizure and clearance of a residen-
tial neighborhood to build a General Mo-
tors assembly plant on the site.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008
“Two things have changed [in the past
decade],” he said. “One, there has been a
general change in attitude towards gov-
ernment. The general public is much more
sympathetic to property rights. When I
started on the West Side in 1998, I looked
at this and said, ‘I don’t want to get into
court because I don’t want to lose.’ ... The
second thing was that Kelo came. It real-
ly opened up the door to challenging em-
inent domain takings ... because it set up
a firestorm of protest.”
Scott G. Bullock, a senior attorney at
the Institute for Justice, and one of the
team that argued Kelo all the way from
Connecticut’s Superior Court to the high-
est court in the country, called it “the
most universally despised decision in re-
cent memory,” but echoed Murphy’s feel-
ings that change is in the air.
“It’s a push and pull effect,” he said.
“Kelo was at first seen as a great boon to
cities and developers. Shortly after [it]
was handed down, you saw a rush in the
use of eminent domain. But in the Kelo
backlash, you’ve seen this tremendous
reaction which has led to putting the
brakes on eminent domain through state
decisions that reject or cast doubt on the
decision.”
Maryland v. Kelo
Since it was handed down, Kelo has
been challenged by legislation passed in 42
states — much of it in the first few months
after the decision was made — including
Maryland.
A few states, like Florida, have passed
aggressive laws that effectively ban emi-
nent domain for economic development
purposes. Florida requires condemners
to wait 10 years after filing their case to
transfer property to private developers,
effectively making it not worth it. Other
states have passed laws that simply bol-
ster private property owners’ rights.
In 2007, a Maryland Senate bill passed,
putting a four-year shelf-life on condem-
nation authority: if the condemning au-
thorities don’t use it, they lose it.
The bill seems to be a legislative re-
sponse to a 2004 state Court of Appeals
SEE CONDEMNED PAGE 7A
Key dates: An emine
197
6 1984 7
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
finds the Supreme Court ruling in favor of
the state’s right to condemn massive
swaths of privately-owned property and
redistribute it to multiple private owners.
The case was meant to break Hawaii’s
“land oligopoly” — a situation in which a
tiny number of property owners con-
trolled the vast majority of Hawaii’s land,
thus inflating prices and skewing the
housing market.
 MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008 THE DAILY RECORD 7A
CONDEMNED
Baltimore’s use of eminent domain

Condemned
Continued from page 6A

case, Reichs Ford Road Joint Venture v.

State Highway Administration, which
found that private owners whose land is
seized or threatened with seizure must
be compensated for losses other than the
value of their property.
In this case, a Frederick County gas
station operator refused to renew his lease
with the property owner after finding out
that the state planned to condemn the
property and build a highway interchange.
That plan never came to fruition, and the
condemnation was left hanging in the air
for nearly a decade, resulting in major
lost profits for the landlord.
In March 2007, state Sen. Allan H. Kit-
tleman, R-Carroll and Howard, was joined
by a dozen other Senate Republicans in
sponsoring SB 294, a measure that would
have banned condemnation takings for
economic development. The bill died in
committee.
Kittleman said in a recent interview
that in practice, eminent domain produces
a “reverse Robin Hood effect,” in which
properties are taken from the poor and
small business owners and given to the
rich and well connected. A poll that he
commissioned in 2005, he said, showed
broad support from Democrats and Re-
publicans alike for a measure banning
economic development takings.
“The Democratic majority doesn’t like
a law that says you can’t have eminent
RICHARD SIMON

domain for economic development, but

they don’t want to be on record as having
opposed it, so they just decided not to
have a vote,” he said of the measure.
Also in 2007, two Baltimore City cases
Attorney James Thompson: ‘The city has used
were decided in the state’s highest court,
leading to two key victories for anti-con-
quick-take condemnation over the last 50 years to From the negotiating table to the court
basically bulldoze major blocks of Baltimore City. When the city authorizes a condemnation seizure, it doesn’t always file an action in Baltimore
demnation activists. It’s been a major tool, used sometimes unfairly at City Circuit Court to actually take the property. Often, the city will come to an agreement to pur-
The first, Mayor and City Council of the expense of property owners.’ chase the property from the owner after lengthy mediation. In some cases, a property will be placed
Baltimore v. Valsamaki, dealt with the under the city’s receivership after repeated and unresolved housing code violations. Over the past
Magnet Bar, a tavern on North Charles five years, about half of the condemnations approved by the city’s Board of Estimates have been
to possess the restaurant and several ad- filed in city courts. Most of these have been residential properties, and Daily Record research shows
Street owned by George Valsamaki, which jacent buildings, which had sat unused that so far this year, more than 60 percent of condemnations authorized have gone to court.
was condemned as a “quick-take” as part for more than a decade in the heart of an
of the city’s Charles North Urban Renew- emerging commercial district near Balti-
al Plan. The Court of Appeals ruled that Year Condemnations Condemnations Percent of authorized
more’s main train station. authorized filed in court condemnations that
without a specific, detailed plan like the have gone to court
one presented by the city of New Lon- ‘You don’t know how we do it 2003 255 133 52%
don in Kelo, and without demonstrating an over here’ 2004 273 104 38%
immediate need to seize the property, the James Thompson, an attorney with 2005 437 219 50%
city could not use quick-take. Rockville-based Miller, Miller and Can- 2006 224 170 76%
A few months later, the Court of Ap- by who litigated Valsamaki, said the case 2007 204 91 45%
peals handed down another decision, was important because it was the first 2008 283 176 62%
Mayor and City Council v. Sapero, which time the city had ever lost a quick-take
dealt with the Chesapeake Restaurant Total 1,676 893 53%
case.
site, just down the street from the Magnet “The city has used quick-take con-
Bar, which the city was also trying to seize demnation over the last 50 years to basi-
by quick-take. The high court ruled that
there was no immediate need for the city SEE CONDEMNATION PAGE 8A
Source: Daily Record research

ent domain timeline

70s 1980s 1990s 2000s

6 7
1998 8 2005
Baltimore begins condemnation pro-
ceedings for two major West Side urban
renewal projects, Centerpoint and the
Superblock. Centerpoint will be built
within a few years, coinciding with the
renovation of the Hippodrome theater.
The Superblock is still stalled today.
8 9 10 11
9 2005 10 2006 - 2007 11
Kelo v. City of New London, the first Reich’s Ford Joint Venture v. State High- Two high-profile condemnation suits,
federal court challenge to eminent do- way Administation establishes that the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v.
main in more than two decades, up- threat of condemnation can lead to ma- Sapero and Mayor and City Council of
holds the central tenet of Berman, that jor losses for a small business that are re- Baltimore v. Valsamaki, find that the
a city can condemn property for the coverable as damages to the business city has abused its “quick-take” con-
“public purpose” of economic develop- owner. A Frederick County gas station demnation powers, and rules that the
ment, when the Connecticut town con- owner lost his anchor tenant when the city must demonstrate immediate need
demns Susette Kelo’s house for the con- operator refused to renew a 10-year lease for taking a property by this aggressive,
struction of a pharmaceutical compa- agreement because the state was threat- expedited method, and have a plan in
ny’s corporate campus. Protesters sug- ening to condemn the site for a new high- place for the future of the property.
gested that a local condemning author- way interchange.
ity take Justice David Souter’s “blighted”
New Hampshire vacation home and re-
place it with a “Lost Liberty Hotel,” as a
symbolic act of defiance.

Source: Daily Record research

8A T H E D A I L Y R E C O R D MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2008
CONDEMNED
Baltimore’s use of eminent domain

The use of eminent domain has got a dirty reputation in

“ ”
recent history. If you look around the city at where eminent
domain happens — Fairfield, Poppleton, Washington
Village — these are really destitute areas.
— Elva E. Tillmann
Attorney, specializing in land-use

officials hope to attract renewed

Condemned
Continued from page 7A
cally bulldoze major blocks of Baltimore
City,” he said in a recent interview. “It’s
been a major tool, used sometimes un-
fairly at the expense of property owners.
... When this begins to be a stretch is when
you go in and take property that’s not
blighted. There’s no health, no safety is-
sues. It’s just some guy’s house, or the
Magnet Bar.”
Furthermore, he said the notion of
“RFP condemnation” — the city’s is-
suance of a “request for proposals” to
redevelop an area, then awarding de-
velopment contracts to private enti-
ties before the city even owns the
property — may be commonplace in
Baltimore, but it’s not elsewhere in
Maryland.
“This is unheard of outside of Bal-
timore,” he said. “Here in Montgomery
County, we have the largest political ju-
risdiction in the state. We have 900,000
people, the biggest tax base in the
state. The idea of taking someone’s
property and spinning it off to a private
developer is unheard of.”
Thompson recalled a 2006 phone
conversation with Paul Dombrowski,
at that time the head of the BDC’s
Charles North initiative, in which he
asked Dombrowski what the city’s
plans were for the Magnet Bar site.
The BDC said, according to Thomp-
son, that a plan had not yet been for-
mulated.
“Dombrowski said, ‘Mr. Thompson,
you don’t know how we do it over here,’”
Thompson said. “Well, the Constitution
applies in Baltimore City as well.”
Dombrowski said he remembered a
phone conversation with Thompson
in which he “explained the law pro-
cess they follow for condemnation,”
because Thompson “didn’t seem clear
on how we do things,” but added that
he did not remember making that spe-
cific remark.
Since Valsamaki, the BDC’s au-
thorization of quick-takes has all but
ceased. Most quick-takes are carried
out by the housing department on
smaller, vacant properties. Howev-
er, in September, the city’s Depart-
ment of Housing and Community
Development, using money from
BDC-controlled city accounts, au-
thorized the quick-take seizure of 80
lots in Old Fairfield, a South Balti-
more industrial district to which city
commercial investment.
The city’s law department, which
How the condemnation process works
files condemnation actions, changed
its policies after Valsamaki, said City Urban renewal area identified
(either by the city, a particular neighborhood community, or a business interest)
Solicitor George A. Nilson.
“We sharpened our pencils and
took a closer look at regular condem-
nation proceedings,” he said. “The
agencies we represent worked harder Urban renewal ordinance passed by City Council,
to anticipate the needs to acquire the specifying, among other things, properties the city is authorized to condemn
property, making it less necessary to
use quick-take.”
So far this year, his office has not
yet actually filed a quick-take in cir- Monies authorized by the Mayor and city’s Board of Estimates
cuit court, although 280 of them have for acquisition costs of private property.
been authorized.
In February, the city used quick-
take to seize several properties — us-
ing BDC money — on Warner Street in Two assessments of the property’s value commissioned by independent appraisers;
South Baltimore as part of the Gate- city required by law to use the highest of two appraisals
way South project. At the time, The
Daily Record reported that the owner
of a large architectural salvage and an-
tiques business located on the site was Purchase offer made to property owner
happy with the arrangement after the
city renegotiated to give him a better
price for his property.
For Gateway South, city officials Offer accepted Offer rejected
said, the issue was that financing for
the project was contingent on the city
taking immediate title on the proper-
ty, and they emphasized that land ac- Condemnation suit filed in Circuit Court
quisition only reaches the point City takes
where condemnation is necessary af- title to property
ter mediation and fair-market offers
have failed.
“The use of eminent domain has
got a dirty reputation in recent his- Property owner disputes city’s taking of property
tory,” said Elva E. Tillman, an attor-
ney with the city who specializes in
land-use. “If you look around the city
at where eminent domain happens Based on city’s appraisal of property value Based on city’s right to take
— Fairfield, Poppleton, Washington
Village — these are really destitute
areas.”
Litigation proceeds; Owner disputes
And for now, the power to con- fair market value determined by a judge legitimacy of Urban Renewal ordinance
demn a property — destitute or other-
wise — and give it to another private
entity, remains intact, invaluable to
city leaders and developers eager to Judge rules
remake the city, but a thorn in the side City takes either for or against owner, decision may
of independent property owners who title to property be appealed to a higher court
are not eager to pick up and move to
make way for the next good thing.
If for; If against;
the owner keeps the owner
TUESDAY: Small business owners
the property disputes city’s
in Baltimore affected by condemna- appraisal and
tion tell their stories. starts the process
over again at the
e Talk back! | Visit our Blog
mddailyrecord.com Source: Daily Record research
city’s taking of
property

“I don’t recall city poli-
cy involving an over-re-
liance on eminent do-
main. We engaged the
private properties in dis-
cussions about plans.
Our view was, let’s tell
people what we have in
mind, try to bring them
into the discussion, and
see if we can come up
with the private-public
joint partnerships.”
Voices on condemnation
“Urban renewal re-
placed small streets,
high density, mixed-
use city environments
with these sterile
plazas and su-
perblocks. Through
community organizing
and the civil rights
movement…there be-
gan to be a great deal
KURT L. SCHMOKE of opposition to these
kinds of projects.”
“The Democratic
majority doesn’t like a
law that says you can’t
have eminent domain
for economic develop-
ment, but they don’t
want to be on record as
having opposed it, so
they just decided not to
have a vote,” he said of
the measure.
PAUL S. GROGAN ALLAN H. KITTLEMAN
 MARYLAND’S BUSINESS & LEGAL NEWS SINCE 1888

HOW TO REACH US
Subscriptions
1-800-451-9998
News 410-752-3849
Bankrupt
Advertising 410-752-1717
$13B in debt, Sun’s
Reprints 410-752-3849 TUESDAY parent company files
for bankruptcy.

Page 3A

$199 per year

$1 per copy
December 9, 2008 • Volume 120 • Number 59
RICH DENNISON

Fleet Transit owner Kevin McNeil: ‘My biggest issue is, if I own a thing, and I want to develop it, and you want to take it away from me and give it to someone else, that doesn’t seem fair.’

A DAILY RECORD SPECIAL REPORT

Condemning what stands in the way

City’s liberal use of eminent domain poses threat to independent property owners
| robbie.whelan@mddailyrecord.com Additional coverage to accompany

CONDEMNED
BY ROBBIE WHELAN
our condemnation series:

here is a white dry-erase board in the conference room of o Audio Story

T Fleet Transit Inc.’s main offices in the Fairfield industrial

district of Baltimore, with notes left over from a business
strategy meeting scrawled on it:
“The 3-Year Plan: Growth — Better Than the Alternative —
Baltimore’s use of eminent domain
A 3-PART SERIES

FRIDAY: In Baltimore, the use of

Death…Employer growth attracts new people.”
Between Growth and Death, Fleet’s owner Kevin McNeil has
clearly chosen the life-affirming option, but because of a recent
fight with the city over condemnation, things aren’t working out
the way he thought they would.
McNeil built his petroleum product ship-
ping company, which employs 140 with a
payroll of about $6 million, on the site of
an old South Baltimore oil terminal over
more than 30 years. Located in an area
across the Hanover Street Bridge from Fed-
eral Hill that is populated mostly by chemi-
cal plants and auto shipping terminals, he
had planned until recently to expand his op-
eration north of Chesapeake Avenue, to a
site known as Old Fairfield.
There, he owns about 80 small lots that
are interspersed with city-owned lots. His
dream, he said, is to expand Fleet Transit,
and at the same time, attract several port-re-
lated tenants and develop the land as a small
business park.
But in September, the city of Baltimore
took steps to seize the 80 lots owned by Mc-
Neil and redistribute them as part of an Ur-
condemnation powers has become
synonymous with urban renewal.
MONDAY: The issue of condemnation
touches on one of the U.S. Constitution’s
most fundamental rights — the right to
own property.
TUESDAY: Small business owners in
Baltimore affected by condemnation
tell their stories.
ban Renewal Plan for Old Fairfield. Under
the city’s plans, McNeil would be awarded
about four of the 25 acres seized from him,
but at least eight acres of it would be con-
veyed to another private developer with a
similar plan: to build a business park.
SEE CONDEMNED PAGE 9A
George J. Herrmann moved his business
– and his life – to Prince George’s County
after his liquor store on Howard St. was
condemned. Hear him tell his story at
www.mddailyrecord.com. Embedded on-
line with the main story.
h Audio slideshow
After relocating their retail hat store
twice, Lou and Judy Boulmetis’ business
is finally prospering. Hear Lou share the
ups and downs of his business. Posted
on our blog On the Record.
a Download the series
Download the entire three-day series as
a single PDF file. Posted online as a
separate link.
This supplemental reporting is available on
our Web site at www.mddailyrecord.com

Auction sales 5A Public notice 8B For subscriptions

INDEX
A daily listing of content
Calendar of events
Marketplace
2B
1B
Real estate
Business services
2B
8A
c Online On the RECORD blog
www.mddailyrecord.com Follow the link on our Web site
call 1-800-451-9998 or
e-mail circ@DolanMedia.com
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2008 9A
CONDEMNED THE DAILY RECORD

Baltimore’s use of eminent domain

There are also always going to be circumstances in

“ ”
which you need eminent domain to really make a project
work. The Superblock is an example.
— George A. Nilson
Baltimore City Solicitor
RICH DENNISON

Baltimore City Solicitor George A. Nilson stands in front of City Hall. City officisls say the legal formalities of acquiring large assemblages of property often require that eminent domain be used on the front end of a project.

posal for the land simply wasn’t the best

Condemned
Continued from page 1A
one.
“We’ve worked with Mr. McNeil and
we’ve encouraged him,” he said. “Our
“My biggest issue is, if I own a thing, judgment was that … he can’t do it by
and I want to develop it, and you want to himself.”
take it away from me and give it to some- In 2006, the BDC issued a request for
one else, that doesn’t seem fair,” McNeil proposals — the normal procedure when
said. “I can’t do anything with the land be- redeveloping city-owned land — for five
cause it’s all tied up. I can’t bring somebody plots in Old Fairfield. The catch was that
down here, look them in the eye, and tell much of the land was owned by McNeil,
them to put all their money into it and not the city, so the BDC was effectively
then have the city take it away from me.” making economic development plans for
McNeil’s story is emblematic of the parcels that it did not own. Or rather, that
RICH DENNISON

city’s attitude toward the property rights it did not own yet.
of small business owners over the past After McNeil bid on the RFP and re-
five years: If a business stands in the jected a purchase offer from the city in
way of a city development plan, the city 2007, the city moved to seize the proper-
will not hesitate to condemn the prop- ties and pay McNeil $2.2 million. The plan
Kevin McNeil works at his Fleet Transit headquarters in Fairfield, which houses 90 trucks and moves about
erty occupied by the business, seize it, selected by the BDC offered McNeil a
1.5 to 2 million gallons of petroleum-based products per day.
and sell it to a new developer that city of- portion of the land to develop himself,
ficials see as more capable or with more use is becoming more widespread, rising roads and air thick with industrial fumes but also brought in Chesapeake Real
appropriate plans. more than 250 percent in the dollar value until its last houses were cleared in the Estate Group, a developer that has had
In more than a dozen interviews with of condemnations authorized in 2008 over early 2000s. previous relationships with the city.
small business owners and legal counsel 2007, and calling into question the city’s at- McNeil said he had to wait until all Chesapeake redeveloped the Bagby
representing them, The Daily Record titude toward small-business owners. the people who lived in Old Fairfield were Building in Little Italy, a former furniture
has found the city frequently solicits If eminent domain is used widely as a gone before even considering trying to factory that has now become a handsome
plans for property redevelopment from front-end tool for development, does that buy more land for his industrial park idea. commercial retail property with a Veri-
the private sector before it owns the mean the city’s interests are more impor- In the meantime, he said, the Baltimore zon store. In July, the BDC approved
property in question. tant that the property rights of small-busi- Development Corp. decided that he was Chesapeake’s plans to build 400,000
The practice underscores the fact ness owners? stalling, and the reason was that he wasn’t square feet of industrial space on the Bow-
that redevelopment efforts in Baltimore capable of developing such a large parcel. ley’s Lane landfill site, which it sold to
depend heavily on eminent domain ‘Different ways to renew’ “The only thing I’ve heard is that I’m the developer.
seizures and the threat that eminent do- The details of Kevin McNeil’s prob- not a developer — I don’t develop land,” In September, Jim Lighthizer, a prin-
main powers pose to independent prop- lems in Old Fairfield are hardly unique. he said. cipal with Chesapeake, told The Daily
erty owners. He has owned the properties since “Well, I built this place from scratch,” Record that he had hired a broker and
Indeed, threatening a business with 1980, when the area still had a small, most- he said, gesturing out the window of his was sending out mailers trying to attract
condemnation, even without filing legal ly black residential community that dated office at the Fleet Facility, which houses tenants, and that he was trying to con-
action to take the property, is often to the 19th century adjacent to its factories 90 trucks and moves about 1.5 to 2 million vert “a dumpy area to a nice business
enough put a business owner under or and scrap yards. A small white clapboard gallons of petroleum-based products per park setting.”
convince land owners to abandon their church still stands on Fairfield Road as a day. “I think it was all political.” But McNeil called Lighthizer and his
plans for the plots that they own. testament to the community’s existence. It BDC President M.J. “Jay” Brodie said
And in Baltimore, eminent domain was surrounded by poorly maintained in a recent interview that McNeil’s pro- SEE CONDEMNED PAGE 10A
10A T H E D A I L Y R E C O R D
This is my retirement plan, this building, and just to
“ ”
kick us out, it’s not fair. It’s like something in a
communist country.
RICH DENNISON
Lou Boulmetis, left, works with a customer at his Hippodrome Hatters, a 78-year-old haberdashery: ‘In my case it’s so far so good, but not in everybody’s case.’
Condemned
Continued from page 9A
partners speculators. Three years ago,
Chesapeake bought 22 acres at an adja-
cent site and built a 25,000-square-foot
truck repair facility on it. Their property
was never listed for condemnation. Mc-
Neil said the only thing keeping him from
developing his land, besides the fact that
many of the lots scattered among the ones
he owns belong to the city, is the threat of
condemnation.
“People come down here and say it
RICH DENNISON
looks awful, you know? Give me two
guys, a couple of bulldozers and a few
days, and I’ll have it cleaned out,” he
said. “If [Chesapeake] gets to speculate,
why can’t I?”
Similar situations — in which the
city tires of waiting for redevelopment to
happen and uses condemnation to speed
up the process — can be found all over
the city.
In September, the BDC moved to
seize the Parkway Theater, a 93-year-
old movie house in the Charles North
Urban Renewal Area, which had been on
a condemnation list for most of the time
since its owner, Charles Dodson, pur-
chased it in 2002.
Dilapidated buildings in the West
Side’s Pigtown neighborhood were seized
earlier this year after years of disuse, un-
der another urban renewal plan.
The legal formalities of acquiring large
assemblages of property, city officials say,
often require that eminent domain be used
on the front end of a project.
“There are different ways to renew,”
said Baltimore City Solicitor George A.
CONDEMNED
Baltimore’s use of eminent domain
Hippodrome Hatters was moved twice by the city, in March 2001 from the unit block of N. Eutaw Street
to the 400 block of W. Baltimore Street, then to its current location at 318 W. Baltimore Street.
Nilson. “Sometimes one lot or one prop-
erty at a time works. There are also al-
ways going to be circumstances in
which you need eminent domain to re-
ally make a project work. The Su-
perblock is an example.”
West Side stories
The “Superblock” project is a 3.6-acre
parcel of land between Liberty Street and
Howard Street that falls under the city’s
Market Center Urban Renewal Act. Since
the late 1990s, the city has condemned
or threatened to condemn the property of
at least six small businesses, in many cas-
es paying thousands of dollars to relocate
them to other parts of the city.
Yun O. Park, a Korean-American who
since 1994 has owned Modern Mode, a
women’s apparel store on Lexington
Street in the heart of the Superblock,
— Yun O. Park
Owner, Modern Mode
learned that her building was listed for
condemnation in 2006. She said she plans
to retire in 10 years, and that she doesn’t
want to relocate because she has a good
customer base and the area is safe.
“This is my retirement plan, this build-
ing, and just to kick us out, it’s not fair,”
she said. “It’s like something in a com-
munist country.”
Park hired attorney John C. Murphy,
who said he showed BDC officials the in-
side of the store to show them that the
business was not blighted — rather it was
clean, professional and thriving. The city
backed down and removed Park from the
condemnation list.
Still, Park says business has suffered
since the talk of condemnations began.
Her store is flanked by two empty retail
storefronts, one that was taken last year
by the city and the former A.M. Fashions,
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2008
owned by Nam Seo Koo, another Korean-
American property owner on the West
Side who has been in a pitched legal bat-
tle against the city over condemnations for
the better part of a decade.
“If we had to depend on this store,
we’d starve to death,” said Park, who
added that the last time business was
good was at least three years ago. “If there
are more stores around here, it will be a
good spot.”
More businesses are exactly what the
city has in mind. The BDC issued a re-
quest for proposals for 51 Superblock
properties in 2003, and has since issued
two more RFPs, for 15 additional proper-
ties in and around the project. In late 2004,
the BDC entered an exclusive negotiat-
ing agreement with Lexington Square
Partners, a development team made up
of companies from New York and Atlanta,
for the properties in the first RFP.
But some business owners, like Koo,
whose 25,000-square-foot clothing store
and warehouse space, New York Fash-
ions, had been under threat of condem-
nation for nine years before the city fi-
nally took it in August, were not so lucky
as to stay in business.
Linn Koo, who speaks on behalf of
his father’s business interests, said that
Superblock businesses were doing quite
well until the city intervened, starting in
the late 1990s. By 2005, he said, New York
Fashions’ sales, for which he declined to
give a dollar amount, were down by 50
percent.
“Look at this place — there’s no peo-
ple,” he said, standing at the corner of
Park and Lexington Streets. “Once the
city started taking the buildings, there
SEE CONDEMNED PAGE 11A
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2008 THE DAILY RECORD 11A
CONDEMNED
Baltimore’s use of eminent domain

Condemned
Continued from page 10A

was no reason for people to come around

anymore. The percentage of people walk-
ing around really dropped off.”

The small business shuffle

Other small businesses have been hurt
almost as much by being forced to relocate
as by the condemnation threats on their
property.
George J. Herrmann owned People’s
Liquors, a carryout business on the corner
of Howard and Fayette streets, which said
he did brisk business with customers com-
ing and going from the nearby light rail
stop, from 1995 to 1998.
He received notice from the city that he
would have to relocate. The building was
being condemned, and as a tenant, he’d
have to move out to make way for the $85
million Bank of America-financed Center-
MAXIMILIAN FRANZ

point project, a mixed-use retail and resi-

dential complex which opened in 2006.
The city paid him $10,000, he said, to
move to a new store across Baltimore
Street from the recently restored Hippo-
drome Theater. There, he said, he no longer
Yun O. Park, left, owner of Modern Mode, a women’s apparel store on Lexington Street in the heart of the Superblock, talks with land-use attorney John C.
had access to the bus and light rail traffic Murphy. The city listed her building for condemnation in 2006.
he once got, and his customers no longer
knew where his store was located.
Business immediately fell off 60 per-
cent, recovered slightly, and then stayed
flat for four years.
“It became pretty obvious, pretty quick-
ly, that [the city] did not want a liquor store
there,” he said.
In 2004, Herrmann decided to sell his
business and found a buyer to pay $400,000
for it. The same year, the city decided to
condemn his new location, as part of a re-
lated effort to beautify his part of the West-
side, and added the property to an urban
renewal plan list.
“If I don’t have a location, I can’t sell my
business,” he said. “When I tried to sell
the business, the potential buyer who put
a contract on the business, the BDC told
him they were ultimately going to con-
demn the property. They didn’t tell him
when. I don’t blame the guy. I wouldn’t
have bought the business, either. Just the
word that the BDC was going to condemn
those properties, it queered the deal I had
on selling the property.”
RICH DENNISON

But Nilson, the city solicitor, speaking

of the West Side urban renewal efforts,
said everything that was done was done
with good cause.
“There is a very strongly held view that
you need the impetus of these large as-
semblages to really make a project work,”
he said.
Herrmann took a 40 percent loss on
the sale of the business, and most of the
money went toward paying debts to his
suppliers and moving costs. He now owns
a home improvement business in Prince
George’s County.
Four years later, the city has still not yet
seized and redeveloped the property —
the “People’s Wine & Spirits” sign (he
changed the name of the store after his
first move) still hangs today over a steel-
shuttered storefront, and Herrmann has
not yet settled all his debts on the busi-
ness.
“I’m still paying it off,” Herrmann said.
RICH DENNISON
George J. Herrmann stands in front of the shuttered People’s Wine & Spirits store on Baltimore Street. In 2004, the city said it was going to condemn the building
and redevelop the property, but it has yet to do so.
Senate Bill 3, which passed in 2007 and
became part of the state code, did just
that, urging local authorities to condemn
only when absolutely necessary, and re-
quiring them to compensate businesses
for losses in value in order to preserve
“goodwill.”
The pen that O’Malley used to sign
the bill into law hangs behind a frame of
a glass plaque in Boulmetis’ shop.
But the uncertainty of the future
of one’s business, a product of the
moving ordeal, was very stressful, the
couple said.
“I would never buy property again in
Baltimore City,” Lou Boulmetis added.

“That was going to be my retirement.” A variety of businesses

Other businesses, however, have land-
ed on their feet after a condemnation-re-
lated move, but only after suffering serious
hardship and stress.
Lou and Judy Boulmetis, who own
Hippodrome Hatters, a 78-year-old hab-
erdashery near the theater that shares its
name, were relocated in March 2001 from
the unit block of North Eutaw Street to
the 400 block of West Baltimore Street to
make room for the Centerpoint project,
and then again to their current location in
the 300 block of West Baltimore Street, a
high-ceilinged showroom within the Cen-
terpoint complex itself.
“Each time, you cross your fingers, you
The small businesses that suffer as a
result of condemnation are not limited
to retail storefronts in central downtown
business districts. Office-based employ-
Charles Dodson sits on the stairs at the Parkway Theater, a 93-year-old movie house in the Charles North
Urban Renewal Area that the BDC moved to seize in September.
ers, industrial producers and service in-
dustry businesses have also been target-
hold your breath and hope you do better,” has made an activist out of Judy Boul- ed in the last year in Baltimore.
Lou Boulmetis said. “In my case it’s so far metis. She collects photocopies of arcane In September, a city circuit court
so good, but not in everybody’s case. We laws having to do with eminent domain judge dismissed a 4-year-old lawsuit
grew the first time and we grew the sec- and newspaper clippings related to West brought against the city by a handful of
ond time we moved.” Side development in a thick blue binder. property owners on the Uplands Triangle,
Sales have more doubled, he said, The couple has lobbied Gov. Martin a three-sided block off Edmonson Av-
since the first move, due in large part to O’Malley, who they know from his days as enue in West Baltimore that the city
their new location, which is on a busy a Baltimore City councilman, for more wants to redevelop as a “gateway” to a
block of Baltimore Street next to a Star- stringent laws to protect properties own-
bucks. Still, their condemnation ordeal ers that have been relocated. Maryland SEE CONDEMNED PAGE 12A
12A T H E D A I L Y R E C O R D TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2008
CONDEMNED
Baltimore’s use of eminent domain

[Old Fairfield] would develop fine if the city would

“ ”
just leave it alone. The idea that the city needed to do
this is just lunacy.
— John C. Murphy
Baltimore land-use attorney

Condemned
Continued from page 11A

$200 million affordable housing develop-

ment nearby, known as Uplands.
Arthur W. Lambert, owner of Lam-
bert Insurance Agency Inc., is one of the
business owners under threat, and the
main claimant in the lawsuit. He said the
city should not have to right to take his
business because it’s not blighted — it’s
just near several properties that are —
and that the prospect of having to move
has driven clients away and made his life
more difficult.
Investors have expressed interest, he
said, in buying up the nearby blighted
commercial properties, which would
make Lambert’s own office more attrac-
tive. But the looming possibility that the
city will condemn the properties has driv-
en those investors away.
“It’s been a long, drawn-out thing,” he
said. “Even during the process, it’s been in-
convenient. … It’s taken away from my
business. … People have contacted me
about purchasing property, and I have to
tell them what’s going on, and they back
away very quickly. It is the threat of these
properties being taken over by the city
that has kept this area from being what it
could have been.”
Yoo Young, another Triangle business
owner who is being forced out by the city,
has run an auto repair shop with a loyal
Asian-American customer base, on the
same site since 1985 — seven years after
he immigrated from South Korea. The
profits from his business, he said, have
allowed him to give his three children col-
lege educations at New York University,
the University of Pennsylvania and Uni-
versity of Maryland.
“I’d like a fair relocation,” he said. “All
fair is fine. All my clients say, ‘Young,
please stay here. Maybe [move] half a
mile!’”
Others aren’t so hopeful about moving.
Razaq Raja, who owns a pizza and
MAXIMILIAN FRANZ

carryout shop around the corner from

Young, said that if forced to move, his
business would not survive.
“We’ll lose the business if we go some-
where else,” he said. “My customers are
around here. … I feel it’s really very sad
for me. … I built this business from zero
up. Four years I’ve been here.”
The city’s position, according to Hous-
ing Commissioner Paul Graziano, is simi-
lar to the decision handed down in
Berman v. Parker, a 1954 U.S. Supreme
Court decision: The businesses at Up-
lands Triangle may not be blighted them-
selves, but because many of the properties
around them are, it’s necessary to take
them.
“It was very clear that in order to ad-
dress that area, we needed to address the
entire frontage on Edmonson Avenue,”
Graziano said. “I would argue that the Tri-
angle is a mix of some very viable and
very appropriate uses and some very trou-
blesome uses. There’s a liquor store out
there where a police officer was mur-
dered. … It’s a mixed bag.”
Elsewhere, it’s the same story. In Pop-
pleton, a West Baltimore neighborhood
that abuts the University of Maryland’s
rapidly growing biotech campus, the city
has condemned property owned by the
J.M. Gillin Corp., which manufactures
the aluminum enclosures that are attached
to telephone poles as switch boxes.
Owner James Gillin and a nearby
church, also under threat of condemna-
Yoo Young, in front of his auto repair shop at the Uplands Triangle in West Baltimore. He said the profits from his business, which has been on the same site
since 1985, have allowed him to send three children to college.
tion, sued the city to challenge the validi-
ty of the urban renewal ordinance that
authorized his condemnation. That case
was litigated in November and awaits
judgment. Gillin and a city lawyer involved
with the case declined to comment for
this story.
Also in September, the city added
property belonging to three businesses
located in West Covington, a waterfront
region on the Middle Branch of the Pat-
apsco — Schuster Concrete, Ruppert
Homes and Allied Waste Services — to
the West Covington Urban Renewal Plan,
a city law authorizing the city to seize the
properties and redevelop them as a mixed-
use complex. The city’s original plan was
to locate a facility for sportswear com-
pany Under Armour Inc. on the site, but
that fell through last year.
Scott Woods, the CFO for Ruppert
Homes, one of the companies under
threat, said that as of late November, con-
demnation was still looming for his busi-
ness. The three West Covington busi-
nesses have hired an attorney from
Gildea & Schmidt LLC, to represent
them, and help them present a plan to
the city that they hope will be a suitable al-
ternative to condemnation.
In the meantime, however, a plan by
Ruppert Homes to build a set of town-
houses with waterfront views is stalled.
“We’re still in limbo,” Woods said.
“[Condemnation] has not been withdrawn,
but it hasn’t been acted upon. It’s still out
there. … Obviously, that would need to be
resolved before we started anything.”
Same place, different perspective
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
2004 on the most important recent case
surrounding eminent domain, Kelo v. City
of New London, Conn., the city of Balti-
more’s legal department filed an amicus
curiae brief in support of the decision to
uphold a city’s right to condemn property
for purposes of economic development.
“Petitioners’ arguments, if accepted,
would threaten the ability of Baltimore
and other cities to use the power of emi-
nent domain to stimulate economic de-
velopment in places where, for many
decades, there has been little or no such
development,” the document read.
“If cities are prohibited from using the
power of eminent domain to stimulate
economic development, then cities will
not develop; and if cities do not develop,
if they do not adapt to changing times
and changing economic circumstances,
city residents suffer.”
Back in Old Fairfield, where Kevin
McNeil’s land lies overgrown and strewn
with trash, undeveloped and threatened
with condemnation, it’s easy to see what
the city lawyers who wrote those words
might mean — it’s a patch of earth that
has not adapted to changing times. In fact,
it looks as if changing times have long
since forgotten and abandoned Old Fair-
field.
But John C. Murphy, McNeil’s lawyer,
looks at the same place and sees some-
thing completely different.
“To me, [Old Fairfield] is like the great-
est place in the world. It’s pure heavy in-
dustry, next to three superhighways and
great port facilities,” Murphy said. “And
the best part is, there’s not one thing there.
No one to complain about it. It would de-
velop fine if the city would just leave it
alone. The idea that the city needed to
do this is just lunacy.”