Town Secretly Seizes Developers' Property Then Threatens Them With Trespassing Citation
Happy Tuesday and welcome to another edition of Rent Free.
This week's newsletter focuses on some shocking updates to a Rhode Island eminent domain case we covered last month.
As readers might recall, in the Providence suburb of Johnston, the town government and its very outspoken mayor have been attempting to seize a family of developers' land to prevent their construction of an unsubsidized affordable housing project.
Last week the developers sued to stop the seizure in federal court, alleging that the "municipal campus" Johnston was seizing the land for was merely a pretext to stop new affordable housing.
Already, Rhode Island law establishes a fairly elaborate process that local governments have to follow when using eminent domain to take land for public buildings.
The developers' constitutional challenge to the town's seizure would typically delay things even more.
But in a surprise turn of events late last week, the town is claiming to have already seized the developers' plot without providing any advance notice to the owners and without following the processes laid down in Rhode Island law.
The owners first learned of the seizure via Johnston's mayor's X post. With the town now alleging that the seizure is complete, it's telling the former owners of the land they have until Friday to get off it or else they'll be cited for trespassing.
In response, the developers are now filing for a temporary restraining order to stop what they describe as the town's unprecedented lawlessness in taking the land.
"In 40 years, I've seen some pretty outrageous exercises of eminent domain powers. Never anything like this," says Robert Thomas, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a public interest law firm, who is representing the developers.
For the past several years, Lucille Santoro, Salvatore Compagnone, Ralph Santoro, and Suzanne Santoro, a family of Rhode Island developers and their various LLCs, had been in talks with Johnston officials about developing a 31-acre site the family owned on the edge of town.
Those plans crystalized in December 2024, when the Santoro family participated in a pre-application meeting with city officials, where they discussed their plan to build a 254-unit project.
Johnston's local zoning code would not have allowed that many units on the site. However, amendments made to the state's longstanding affordable housing law gave developers a large "density bonus" if they built rent-restricted low- and moderate-income housing.
Because the density was generous enough and the rent restrictions high enough, the Santoro family was able to use the law to propose a completely privately funded "affordable housing" project on their land.
The Pushback
The project did not sit well with Johnston Mayor Joseph Polisena, who wrote an open letter opposing the project shortly after the Santoro family filed their application.
In that letter, dated December 3, 2024, the mayor said the town would "roll out the red carpet" for single-family homes on the site. But the traffic, school students, and drainage issues resulting from any large multifamily development would produce an intolerable "trifecta of chaos."
"If you insist on moving forward with the currently proposed project, I will use all the powers of government that I have to stop it," wrote Polisena.
In his letter, Polisena proposed challenging the constitutionality of the Rhode Island state law the developers were using to bypass local density limits.
Soon enough, the mayor had settled on a new tactic: The town would use eminent domain to take the land for a new "municipal campus," including a new town hall and police and fire station, on the site.
The eminent domain move came as a surprise to the developers. In what would become a pattern, the mayor posted on social media that the town would consider a resolution on the seizure on the Santoro family property the following day.
Kelley Morris Salvatore, a Rhode Island attorney representing the project, told The Providence Journal that she only found out about the eminent domain plans after a reporter contacted her about them.
In comments to Reason a few days after the eminent domain resolution was approved, Salvatore said "[the mayor's] primary purpose is clearly to block this project," noting that plans for a municipal campus had "literally never been discussed publicly ever before."
At the time, Salvatore said the resolution would be the first step in a long eminent domain process. She said her clients would likely accept an offer from the town to buy the land, provided it was a fair offer.
The Lawsuit
As it turned out, things escalated pretty quickly. Last Monday, the town approved another resolution authorizing the seizure of the property and laying out a bespoke process for taking the property.
The next day, the Santoro family, with the assistance of the PLF, filed a challenge to the seizure in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
The U.S. Constitution gives governments wide eminent domain authority to take property for a "public use" and a new municipal campus would certainly seem to qualify as a public use.
But the Santoro family argues in their lawsuit that the lack of any public discussion, let alone approved plans or funding, for a municipal campus shows that said campus is a convenient fiction.
"The town's stated uses, purposes, and necessity for the taking are false and a sham and a pretense," reads the complaint. Such a sham taking violates the Fifth Amendment's Public Use Clause as well as the Due Process protections of the 14th Amendment.
Their lawsuit also argues that the town resolution creating its own process for eminent domaining the land violates a Rhode Island state law that lays out the necessary procedures for taking private property for municipal buildings.
The Seizure
After the Santoro family filed that lawsuit last Tuesday, things escalated very quickly.
On Wednesday, the town filed documents with Johnston's land evidence record office citing the eminent domain resolution and transferring the property's title to the town. The town did not inform the Santoro family or its lawyers that it'd taken the property.
The same day, the town filed its own petition in Rhode Island state court asking to deposit the payment of $775,000 for the Santoro family's plot with the court.
Here too, the town did not notify the Santoro family or their lawyers of that petition. Nor did they inform them of a hearing held this past Friday where the state court (without the Santoro family or their lawyers present) accepted the town's deposit petition.
Only after that hearing on Friday did the town provide any notice of the completed seizure. Polisena posted on X that the town had officially acquired the Santoro family land via eminent domain.
A few hours later, the town's lawyer, William Conley, sent Salvatore, the Santoro family's lawyer, a letter saying that the title for the property had been transferred and the funds for it had been paid.
Conley's letter gave the Santoro family until this Friday to remove any vehicles or personal belongings they had on the site. If they left anything behind, they'd be served a "no trespass" notice.
"They literally [made] up this process," says Thomas, the PLF lawyer who is also representing the Santoro family. "And the process is 'we go to court, we tell the court what we think the property is worth, we put that money into an account in the court, and by that, we own your property, and we can go down and change the registration and title on your property.'"
"They purposefully withheld telling us. It really looks to us like they're trying to change the ground rules and the factual situation as fast as they can" with an eye toward undermining the Santoro family's federal lawsuit, he tells Reason.
Yesterday, the Santoro family's lawyers filed for a temporary restraining order to stop the town from taking over the property.
"This isn't a typical taking, but 'municipal thuggery,'" reads the request for the restraining order. "Indeed, it is among the most unusual and aberrant abuses of a sovereign power imaginable."
A hearing on the temporary restraining order is scheduled for later this afternoon.
Works in Progress has a fantastic new essay on Britain's disastrous attempt to implement a land value tax in the early 20th century. To make a long story short, the implementation was so complex, and the tax so burdensome, that new home construction fell off a cliff, and the Liberal government that tried to implement the tax ended up repealing it.
Doug Burgum and Scott Turner, respectively the secretaries for the Departments of the Interior and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), announced a new partnership to build housing on currently underutilized federal lands. It's a good idea, although details on the new initiative are sparse.
A new survey from the Institute for Family Studies finds that young families are willing to tolerate longer commutes and smaller yards in exchange for more spacious, affordable single-family homes.
American Enterprise Institute scholar Howard Husock suggests HUD should condition federal housing aid on localities repealing their rent control policies.
Fair housing groups are suing the Trump administration over its termination of some $30 million in federal grants to fair housing nonprofits.
The post Town Secretly Seizes Developers' Property Then Threatens Them With Trespassing Citation appeared first on Reason.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Starter Homes Live in Texas, Die in Arizona
Happy Tuesday, and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. This week's stories include: A win for starter homes in Texas… …and a defeat for them in Arizona A new constitutional challenge to affordable housing fees in Denver A veto of a rent-recommendation algorithm ban in Colorado After suffering a near-death experience last week, Texas' Senate Bill 15, a.k.a. the Texas Starter Homes Act, has passed the Legislature and now goes to Gov. Greg Abbott's desk. The bill would prevent larger cities in larger counties from requiring that homes sit on lots larger than 3,000 square feet in new subdivisions of at least five acres. Proponents argue the bill will enable the construction of more inherently affordable owner-occupied housing in cities that currently require much larger minimum lot sizes. "Texas is the first state to take seriously the idea that a basic starter home, without any subsidy, is usually affordable to people making average or below average incomes, [and] should be available throughout the state," says Salim Furth, a researcher at George Mason University's Mercatus Center. Minimum lot size bills have been one of the more controversial and less successful YIMBY reforms in state legislatures. Texas' bill is one of the first to make it over the finish line. The initial version of S.B. 15 would have capped minimum lot sizes at 1,400 square feet, which mirrors unzoned Houston's minimum lot sizes. That version passed the Senate back in March but was watered down in negotiations between the House and Senate during last-minute considerations of the bill. The legislation survived an effort by Texas House Democrats to effectively gut the legislation. Rep. Ramon Romero Jr. (D–Fort Worth) briefly succeeded in amending the bill to only require that cities create a starter home zoning district with the smaller minimum lot sizes. The amendment would not have required cities to actually apply this new zoning district to existing land or to new subdivisions. This would have effectively made S.B. 15 a voluntary paperwork exercise. Romero, who also briefly managed to kill S.B. 15 via a procedural move in the House earlier in May, has criticized the idea that allowing smaller homes on smaller lots would yield more affordable homes. "It's already been proven that just because you have smaller (homes) does not immediately equate to more affordable (homes)," he said to The Texas Tribune last month. (One study of minimum lot size reductions in Houston, Texas, facilitated an "unprecedented" increase in the rates of infill housing construction in single-family neighborhoods.) That gutting amendment was stripped out of the bill in last-minute negotiations between the House and the Senate, meaning that S.B. 15 will have some teeth, provided that Abbott signs it into law. While the bill does not apply to existing residential areas, Furth says it will provide developers a lot more flexibility when constructing new subdivisions, where most new housing in Texas is being built. "Most single-family home production in Texas is done in non-residential or extremely large lots. A normal Texas subdivision is going to be five-plus acres, and maybe 100 acres," he tells Reason. "This will allow [builders] to include small homes in that mix and make sure there's a variety of price points and variety of styles." Meanwhile, in Arizona, a near-identical Starter Home Act is effectively dead in the Legislature. Similar to Texas' S.B. 15, Arizona's S.B. 1229 initially would have prevented cities from requiring homes in new five-acre-plus subdivisions to sit on lots of 1,500 square feet or more. It also would have prohibited cities from dictating home designs and aesthetic features. As in Texas, the bill was amended to raise its minimum lot size cap to 3,000 square feet. That helped get the legislation out of the Senate on a 16–13 vote, with Republicans and Democrats on each side of the vote. Two House committees also approved the bill in March and early April. But it then stalled over what proponents say was persistent opposition from the Arizona League of Cities and Towns and Gov. Katie Hobbs' office. Hobbs vetoed a very similar starter homes bill last year, citing concerns that that bill didn't explicitly carve out areas near military bases or explicitly include fire safety standards. The governor's concerns were incorporated into S.B. 1229. Yet the League, a taxpayer-funded association that lobbies on behalf of local governments, still opposed the measure's limits on local land use regulation. The League had pushed for amendments to S.B. 1229 that would have dramatically limited its scope by imposing price and income limits on new starter homes and requiring that buyers live in the homes for 15 years. These demands were a nonstarter with proponents of S.B. 1229, and negotiations on a compromise measure broke down earlier this spring. "Our last meeting was about an hour and a half in the governor's office. I could tell [the governor's staff] were not going to come over to our side at all. They were literally letting the League [of Cities and Towns] run the table," Sen. Shawna Bolick (R–Phoenix) tells Reason. With the threat of Hobbs' veto hanging over S.B. 1229, the bill was never brought up for a floor vote. Despite the failure of the starter homes bill, Arizona did pass a handful of other housing reforms. That includes House Bill 2928, which expands last year's statewide legalization of accessory dwelling units in cities to unincorporated county land as well. The state also passed a bill allowing for third-party plan reviews of single-family projects. A homebuilder in Denver is suing the city over what it says are unconstitutional affordable housing fees being slapped on two of its pending residential projects. Denver's Linkage Fee ordinance requires residential projects of 10 units or less to either set aside units to be rented or sold at below-market rates or pay per-square-foot "linkage" fees. When local builder redT Homes sought approval for two projects, a four-unit single-family home development and a two-duplex project, the city said it would need to pay linkage fees of $45,000 and $25,000 on each respective project. A string of U.S. Supreme Court decisions has established that the Fifth Amendment protects property owners from having to turn over money or property when applying for a development permit, unless there's some nexus between those exactions and the actual impact caused by the permitted project. Denver claimed when passing its linkage fee ordinance in 2016 that new development raises economic activity and, therefore, raises demand for work-force housing. redT counters that its planned homes are making housing more affordable, not less, by expanding overall housing supply. By charging it an affordable linkage fee anyway, Denver is charging it for an impact it's not having. That, it argues, violates the Fifth Amendment's protections against "unconstitutional conditions." redT Homes is suing Denver in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. "These affordable housing fees almost by definition fail" the Supreme Court's test for unconstitutional conditions, says David Deerson, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing redT Homes. "A fundamental law of economics is that an increase in supply tends to lower prices. Denver can't force developers like redT Homes to pay fees to solve problems that not only are they not creating, they're already solving," he says. A favorable federal court ruling for redT Homes could have major implications for housing development nationwide. Like Denver, hundreds of jurisdictions have adopted similar "inclusionary zoning" policies that require housing developers to include below-market-rate units in their projects or pay in-lieu affordable housing fees. And like Denver's linkage fees, a similar constitutional argument can be made that inclusionary zoning's affordable housing mandates take developers' property to mitigate an impact they're not having. Developers and property rights advocates have periodically challenged inclusionary zoning laws in court, typically with little success. In 2019, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Marin County, California's inclusionary zoning policy that the California Supreme Court had upheld. (The Pacific Legal Foundation also litigated that case.) The Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado established that fees and permit conditions imposed on whole classes of projects by legislatures must still have some connection to those projects' impacts. The Sheetz decision was a narrow one. It didn't directly deal with inclusionary zoning. But it did widen the universe of permit conditions that can be challenged as "unconstitutional conditions." Potentially, a new inclusionary zoning case with a new set of facts might pick up this Court's interest and result in a decision that puts some guardrails on affordable housing mandates and fees. On pure policy grounds, inclusionary zoning acts as a tax on development, reducing production and raising costs. Ending these policies could unlock a lot of potential new projects. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis has vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of rent-recommendation software. Proponents of the bill argue that this software facilitates price-fixing among landlords by sharing nonpublic data on prices and vacancies between competitors. Colorado, along with a number of other states and the U.S. Department of Justice, is currently suing rent-recommendation software provider RealPage for antitrust violations. Polis said in a veto letter, posted online by Colorado Public Radio, that while he shares concerns that this software could be used to drive up prices, the measure was overly broad. "We should not inadvertently take a tool off the table that could identify vacancies and provide consumers with meaningful data to help efficiently manage residential real estate to ensure people can access housing," said the governor in his veto letter. "This bill may have unintended consequences of creating a hostile environment for providers of rental housing and could result in further diminished supply of rental housing based on inadequate data," he wrote. The governor said he would prefer for state and federal lawsuits to play out. He said he'd be open to a future bill that made a distinction between collusive and noncollusive uses of nonpublic competitor data. Read Reason's past coverage of the RealPage controversy here. New York City's rent-stabilized housing stock is in increasing financial distress, thanks to rising operating costs and the city's suppression of rent increases. To remedy the situation, New York assembly member, and New York City mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani is proposing to remedy the situation by freezing rents. Los Angeles Times covers the California Legislature's efforts to exclude urban infill housing from the state's notoriously burdensome environmental review process. Organized labor is cool on the effort, altruistically asking, "What's in it for us?" The biggest opponents of a public housing redevelopment project in New York City? The [wrong link here] of multimillion-dollar homes nearby. The Connecticut Legislature has passed a major housing bill that requires localities to zone for more affordable housing, increases density near transit stops, and pares back minimum parking requirements. The post Starter Homes Live in Texas, Die in Arizona appeared first on
Chicago Tribune
5 days ago
- Chicago Tribune
Federal judge dismisses suit that threatened wetlands on farmland nationwide
A federal judge in Iowa dismissed a lawsuit on Thursday that threatened millions of acres of wetlands, ecosystems that mitigate flooding, reduce water pollution and support biodiversity. While the lawsuit implicated wetlands nationwide, the battleground was a 72-acre farm in Delaware County, Iowa, owned by Chicago-based investor James Conlan. Conlan has over 1,000 acres of farmland in Iowa, which he leases to farmers who work the land. In some cases, he aims to eventually sell the land to developers. Represented by the libertarian Pacific Legal Foundation and Liberty Justice Center, Conlan argued that a federal provision colloquially known as Swampbuster, which discourages farmland owners from converting wetlands into cropland, infringes on property rights. Conlan and his lawyers did not respond to requests for comment following the decision, which detailed how his gripe with Swampbuster originated three years ago when he sought to cut down trees on 9 of his 72 acres federally designated as wetlands. Under the law, this would have made him and the farmer who leases the land ineligible for federal benefits such as subsidies, loans and insurance. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and several environmental and sustainable agriculture groups countered that compliance with Swampbuster was voluntary. Farmers can drain and till wetlands, but if they do, they cannot expect to receive taxpayer dollars. An expectation of land stewardship is central to the partnership between farmers and the public, said Aaron Lehman, a fifth-generation farmer and president of the Iowa Farmers Union, one of the several groups that joined with the federal government in the case. 'Thursday's decision means we can continue to have farm programs that have integrity,' he said Friday afternoon as he planted soybeans on his farm in Polk County, Iowa. Swampbuster protects 78 million acres, or two-thirds of the wetlands remaining in the continental U.S., according to Food and Water Watch, another group that joined the case in support of Swampbuster. In the upper Midwest, 30 million acres of wetlands, including over 640,000 in Iowa and 1 million in Illinois, are at risk of being destroyed by industrial agriculture, according to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Over half the nation's original wetlands have already been destroyed by farming, development and climate change since the 1780s. 'Every day Americans, and especially homeowners — they might not even know about this case — but it was a big win for them. Wetlands in the Midwest and across the country provide billions of dollars in mitigation benefits by preventing people from losing their homes due to floods,' said Katie Garvey, an attorney at the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center who represented the environmental and sustainable agriculture groups. Wetlands are natural sponges and filters, absorbing excess water to prevent flooding and catching pollutants before they run into local waterways. They are also critical habitats for a variety of plants and animals. Garvey and her colleagues were pleasantly surprised by the Agriculture Department's continued defense of Swampbuster under the Trump administration. The lawsuit was originally filed under the Biden administration. 'We've been very relieved to see that this administration is continuing to support the USDA and defend Swampbuster,' she said. Chief Judge C.J. Williams, who presided over the case, was also appointed to the Northern Iowa District Court by President Donald Trump during his first term. 'I think that part of the reason is that these programs are really popular with farmers and with Trump's base,' said Dani Replogle, a staff attorney with Food and Water Watch. 'I wonder if that is maybe contributing to them being a little bit more cautious with programs that benefit farmers and benefit farming more broadly?' Lehman warned that the alternative to the voluntary Swampbuster program is a total regulatory environment where farmers don't have choice on whether to comply with conservation programs. 'The only other options would be neglecting the environment or a total regulatory environment, which would be difficult,' he said. The fight to over Swampbuster's fate — and the millions of wetlands it protects — isn't over yet, however. Conlan's team plans to appeal the decision to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis, according to a statement posted by the Liberty Justice Center on X Thursday evening. 'We're confident that the appellate court will ultimately rule that this federal law is unconstitutional. This law has been taking land from farmers for years, and we look forward to continuing to fight this unconstitutional law,' said the statement, which Conlan's lawyers referred the Tribune to, in lieu of an interview.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Yahoo
Texas Revs the Growth Machine
Happy Tuesday, and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. This week's stories include: The near death of Texas' Starter Home Act Colorado's pending ban on rent-recommendation algorithm software A very Catholic story of eminent domain abuse But first, our lead item on the success of pro-supply housing bills in Texas. On May 20, the Texas House passed Senate Bill 840, which allows developers in larger counties to build residential and mixed-use developments on commercially zoned land "by-right." That means local governments can't force builders to go through extensive, expensive, and discretionary processes of requesting rezonings and variances. The bill "would make converting empty office spaces into housing units much easier," reads an analysis from the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Similar to Florida's Live Local Act, the bill also limits localities' ability to impose height and density restrictions on new residential developments on commercially zoned land. Cities would have to allow these new developments to be built at least at a density of 36 units per acre and 45 feet tall. Housing wonks describe the bill as clean and "muscular." Today, the Texas Senate concurred with the House amendments to S.B. 840. It will now go to Gov. Greg Abbot's desk. Also headed to the governor's desk is House Bill 24, which places new limits on valid petition rights that property owners can use to halt zoning changes. H.B. 24, a reform to the so-called "tyrant's veto", raises the percentage of property owners required to challenge a rezoning from 20 percent to 60 percent. It also lowers a city council's vote threshold to override these challenges from a supermajority to a simple majority. Neighborhood activists in Austin famously used their valid petition rights to thwart upzonings in that city. With H.B. 24's reforms, that will be a harder thing to pull off. Still pending approval is Senate Bill 15, a.k.a. the Texas Starter Homes Act. Described as a "smaller homes on smaller lots bill," the legislation would prevent local governments from setting minimum lot sizes of over 1,400 square feet in new subdivisions of five acres or more. The bill only applies to cities of 150,000 people in counties of 300,000 people or more. S.B. 15 had already passed the Senate with a 29–2 vote back in March. It was scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives this weekend, where it nearly died. As the Texas Tribune reports, House Democrats led by Rep. Ramon Romero Jr. (D–Fort Worth) attempted to kill the bill on a procedural move. Romero had requested a "point of order" about the bill's exclusion of land around a planned Dallas County police training facility. This, said Romero, violated legislative rules about singling out individual jurisdictions in legislation. That point of order was accepted, preventing further discussion of the bill. But, reports the Tribune, the bill's supporters in the House managed to "fast-track" the legislation by removing the offending provision so that it will be considered on the floor again today. Romero told Tribune reporter Joshua Fetcher that he'd seen no evidence that allowing smaller homes on smaller lots would reduce home prices. He might want to look a little harder. The Mercatus Center's Emily Hamilton found in a 2024 study that Houston's minimum lot size reforms, on which the Texas Starter Home bill is modeled, facilitated an "unprecedented" increase in the rates of infill housing construction in single-family neighborhoods. Houston's reforms "had no detectable effect on land values, and she finds some evidence that it reduced land values. This may be because it has facilitated a large amount of housing construction," according to Hamilton's study. In recent years, software sold by companies like RealPage that recommend to landlords profit-maximizing rent and occupancy levels has come under fire for making housing less affordable. Critics charge that these products allow landlords to collude on prices in order to raise rents to above-market rates. The federal government and several states have sued RealPage for antitrust violations. States and cities have also started to crack down with legislation of their own. Earlier this month, the Colorado Legislature passed H.B. 25-1004, which would "ban the use, sale and distribution of software that uses an algorithm to set rents." (Colorado is one of the states suing RealPage.) The bill is now on Gov. Jared Polis' desk, who has not said whether he'll sign or veto it. "We're all for math and algorithms. At the same time, there is the concept of antitrust, which has been abused, but also has a core role in preventing monopolistic pricing practices," Polis told Reason in a Friday interview. "It's a question of: Is this an algorithm that reduces market friction and leads to more efficient pricing or is it a backdoor effort to exert monopolistic control over pricing?" The limited academic research on rent-recommendation algorithms suggests that they do in fact facilitate more efficient pricing. One study found that landlords who use these products lower rents faster in down markets and raise them faster in hot markets. RealPage critics would seem to have a hard time explaining why rents in Austin, where lots of landlords use RealPage products, are slashing rents in response to a glut of new supply. Last week, news broke that the village of Dolton, Illinois, is threatening to seize via eminent domain the childhood home of newly elected Pope Leo XIV from its current owners, who recently bought and renovated the home and are now selling it at auction. As I wrote last week: At present, the owners are auctioning off the small, 1949-built home for a reserve price of $250,000. In a Tuesday letter to the auction house running the sale, Dolton attorney Burton Odelson cautioned buyers against purchasing the house. "Please inform any prospective buyers that their 'purchase' may only be temporary since the Village intends to begin the eminent domain process very shortly," reads Odelson's letter, per NBC Chicago. Odelson told Chicago's ABC7 that the village had initially tried to voluntarily purchase the home but had snagged on the sale price. "We've tried to negotiate with the owner. [He] wants too much money, so we will either negotiate with the auction house or, as the letter stated that I sent to the auction house, we will take it through eminent domain, which is our right as a village," Odelson said. It's a wonder why the village can't pursue a voluntary sale, given the relatively low reserve price of the home. The potential for the modest, 75-year-old home to serve as a historic site surely couldn't boost the sale price that much. Seizing the home via eminent domain would seem to contradict the last Pope Leo's defense of private property and, in particular, privately owned family estates, in his famous 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum. Wrote Pope Leo XIII, "Every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own." The plans of contemporary socialists to seize private property, Leo XIII denounced as "emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community." Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass is very pleased that at least one home in Pacific Palisades is under construction following the deadly wildfires that struck the area earlier this year. Los Angeles–area builders are less impressed with the mayor's streamlining efforts. Politico reports on a brewing split between the California Assembly and Senate on this session's housing bills. The Assembly has been passing a litany of YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") bills to streamline development. They face an uncertain future in the Senate. Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire has been less than keen on such efforts. Senate Housing Chair Aisha Wahab (D–Hayward) is even more critical by arguing that lowering building costs doesn't necessarily reduce housing costs. At The Volokh Conspiracy, George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin lays out some of the legal problems Toms River, New Jersey, might face if it follows through on its plans to use eminent domain to prevent a church from building a homeless shelter. Bisnow reports on the dire financial state of New York's rent-stabilized housing stock. If you have a home in Minnesota, you soon might not be able to get inside it, thanks to the state's impending ban on lead content in keys that makes most keys illegal. The post Texas Revs the Growth Machine appeared first on
