|
An Eminent Domain High Tide
Riviera Beach, Fla., wants to displace
about 6,000 of its residents and raze their homes to build a yachting and
residential complex.
By John-Thor Dahlburg Times Staff
Writer
November 29, 2005
RIVIERA BEACH, Fla. It's across
the inlet from Palm Beach, but this town mostly black, blue-collar and
with a large industrial and warehouse district could be a continent away
from the Fortune 500 and Rolls-Royce set.
But Riviera Beach's fortunes
may soon change.
In what has been called the largest eminent-domain case
in the nation, the mayor and other elected leaders want to move about 6,000
residents, tear down their homes and use the emptied 400-acre site to build a
waterfront yachting and residential complex for the well-to-do.
The
goal, Mayor Michael D. Brown said during a public meeting in September, is to
"forever change the landscape" in this municipality of about 32,500. The
$1-billion plan, local leaders have said, should generate jobs and haul Riviera
Beach's economy out of the doldrums.
Opponents, however, call the plan a
government-sanctioned land grab that benefits private developers and the
wealthy.
"What they mean is that the view I have is too good for me, and
should go to some millionaire," said Martha Babson, 60, a house painter who
lives near the Intracoastal Waterway.
"This is a reverse Robin Hood,"
said state Rep. Ronald L. Greenstein, meaning the poor in Riviera Beach would
be robbed to benefit the rich. Greenstein, a Coconut Creek Democrat, serves on
a state legislative committee making recommendations on how to strengthen
safeguards on private property.
With many Americans sensitized to
eminent-domain cases after a much-discussed ruling by the Supreme Court in
June, property-rights organizations have been pointing to redevelopment plans
in this Palm Beach County town as proof that laws must be changed to protect
homeowners and businesses from the schemes of politicians.
"You have
people going in, essentially playing God, and saying something better than
these people's homes should be built on this property," said Carol Saviak,
executive director of the Coalition for Property Rights, based in Orlando.
"That's inherently wrong."
"Unfortunately, taking poorer folks' homes
and turning them into higher-end development projects is all too routine in
Florida and throughout the country," said Scott G. Bullock, a senior attorney
for the Institute for Justice, based in Washington. "What distinguishes Riviera
Beach is the sheer scope of the project, and the number of people it
displaces."
In June, a divided U.S. Supreme Court approved the plan of
New London, Conn., to force some homeowners to sell their properties for a
private development that was supposed to generate more jobs and tax revenue.
That ruling has led to moves in Congress and at least 35 states, including
Florida, to restrict the use of eminent-domain seizures of private
property.
In Florida, the law allows local officials to take private
land for redevelopment if they deem it "blighted." In May 2001, a study
conducted for the city found that "slum and blighted conditions" existed in
about a third of Riviera Beach, and that redevelopment was necessary "in the
interest of public health, safety, morals and welfare."
A skeptical
Babson, who lives in a single-story, concrete-block home painted aqua that she
shares with parrots and a dog, did her own survey. For three months, she walked
the streets of Riviera Beach photographing houses classified as "dilapidated"
or "deteriorated" by specialists hired by the city.
The official study,
she said, was riddled with errors and misclassifications. Lots inventoried as
"vacant" (one of 14 criteria that allow Florida cities or counties to declare a
neighborhood blighted) actually had homes on them built in 1997, she said. One
house deemed "dilapidated," she found, was two years old.
Rene Corie has
lived for nine years in a custard-yellow home near the Intracoastal. When the
house was earmarked for acquisition under eminent domain four years ago, the
56-year-old seamstress became so depressed she couldn't put up her Christmas
tree. She and her husband decided to fight City Hall in order to keep their
home, or at the least, be paid a fair market price for it.
"We tried to
elect a new mayor, we went around to churches, we stood on street corners with
signs," Corie said. "When we got home from work, me and David would get into
the truck and go door to door, and all day Saturday and Sunday."
Corie
said she could be served at any time with another letter of acquisition for the
house and the double lot it sits on. "My home is no longer my own," she
said.
Mayor Brown and Floyd T. Johnson, executive director of the
Riviera Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, did not respond to repeated
requests from The Times for an interview.
The redevelopment agency's
website says the plan will "create a city respected for its community pride and
purpose and reshape it into a most desirable urban [place] to live, work, shop,
and relax for its residents, business and visitors."
In past media
interviews, Brown has said his city was in dire need of jobs, and that if
officials weren't allowed to resort to eminent domain to spur growth, Riviera
Beach could perish. '
Dee Cunningham, who made an unsuccessful bid for
mayor in 2003, said the blueprint was written to benefit developers. Her own
flower shop has been classified as "functionally obsolete" under the plan and
could be razed.
"People here are so stressed out from being under threat
of eminent domain," said Cunningham. "It's like living in Iraq with a bomb
threat."
The median household income in Riviera Beach in 2000 was
$32,111 compared with $94,562 in nearby Palm Beach, the U.S. Census
said.
The redevelopment project designed to bootstrap Riviera Beach to
prosperity is supposed to take 15 years. It involves moving U.S. Highway 1 and
digging an artificial lagoon to serve as a yacht basin.
In September,
the City Council chose a joint venture between a New Jersey-based yacht company
and a builder of condominiums in Australia to serve as master developer. The
developer, Viking Inlet Harbor Properties, and the city now must agree on a
contract.
Residents affected by the plan are supposed to be eligible for
new homes elsewhere in Riviera Beach and compensation for business damages. But
the uncertainties have been maddening for some.
For 25 years, Bill Mars
has sold and serviced luxury sportfishing boats in Riviera Beach. He hasn't
been told yet, he said, whether a place in the redevelopment zone has been kept
for him.
Under the plan, his sales and service center is supposed to
make way for an aquarium.
"If you look at our business, we're one of the
shining stars of Riviera Beach," Mars said. "Yet no one has come to us to say,
'We're going to take care of you and relocate you.' " That despite the plan's
incorporation of a "working waterfront," including boat sales and
repair.
The owners of another business in Riviera Beach's downtown
accuse local leaders of not enforcing city codes in order to produce the decay
that redevelopment is supposed to remedy.
"They want to leave everything
in a dilapidated condition so it seems to everybody and to the government like
it's blighted," said Mike Mahoney, a Riviera Beach native who runs Dee's
T-Shirts.
Some foes of the redevelopment plan have attended seminars in
Washington organized by property-rights advocates to learn how to better fight
to save their homes.
Some residents have accepted offers from developers
and moved out; others have retained lawyers to try to get a better price from
the city. Still others are waiting to see what happens, noting the troubled
history of local redevelopment efforts. "This is the fourth eminent domain CRA
plan I've seen since I've been here," said Mars. "I survived those, and I may
survive this one too."
Babson said she was counting on the Florida
Legislature, as well as public interest kindled by the recent Supreme Court
case, to halt the developers.
"We're definitely in Tiananmen Square: one
little guy in front of all of those tanks," Babson said. "We've slowed them
down, but we haven't stopped them."
[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further
information please refer to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |