This NY Sunday Times article (hat tip to Peter Lattman) reports on the efforts of the wealthy Long Island enclave of North Hills’ efforts to use the power of eminent domain — following last year’s controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London (related posts here) — to condemn the exclusive (and private) Deepdale Golf Club and turn it into a public golf course for the village.
Inasmuch as Deepdale is one of the best golf courses on Long Island, we’re not talking about a blighted piece of property. Nevertheless, the village mayor’s reasoning for the possible eminent domain action is a truly amazing expression of governmental power:
[Village Mayor Marvin] Natiss has said that a village golf course would be a wonderful amenity for residents. Mr. Lentini once said that making Deepdale a village club would “make North Hills that much more desirable, which would make the properties that much more valuable, which will bring in that many more affluent people.”
Left unsaid is that such transparent reasoning could be used to justify the governmental taking of virtually any property.
At any rate, it appears that a part of the village’s purpose in going after the club property is that Deepdale is so exclusive that only one of North Hills’ 1,800 wealthy residents is a member and, according to Mayor Natiss, “my residents could not get in if they applied” even if they could afford the six-figure initiation fee and annual dues of about ten grand. And, just to make matters more complicated, the land on which the Deepdale course sits is actually owned by a private company that leases the land to the the club at a below-market rate. Inasmuch as at least one of the minority shareholders in the private company wants the private company to sell the land to cash in on his interest, the minority shareholder is supporting the village’s effort to acquire the club.
Let’s hope that this department is not getting any ideas from North Hills’ plans for Deepdale.
real estate is a scare resource in which the public has a substantial interest in seeing that it is put to its most efficient use.
it is no different than water, oil, minerals
people who fail to use a resource efficiently should not be surprised when others see value
ED is just the real estate version of M&A, no more or less
“Inasmuch as Deepdale is one of the most best golf courses on Long Island….” most best?
Uh Moe,
Private property is private property. Really, is there no issue which with you will not take the default position that government is best? Given that the members of this club are quite wealthy, I see them very much able to put up a long legal battle over this if it come to it. How much can a small town (which North Lake is) spend on a legal battle such as this? How is it in public’s interest to reduce basic city services, and/or raise taxes, to aquire a golf course that may or may not have the impact the city so desires?
And good luck with that land sale for that minority shareholder. We know that eminent domain always results in landowners getting a fair market price. LOL!
I agree with Moe that real estate is a scarce resource and there is a public interest in seeing that all scare resources are put to their highest and best use, however, the public has an even higher interest in protecting private property rights. Basing the right to confiscate private property on a subjective determination that the property owner isn’t using their property “efficiently” is a scary proposition. I shudder at what Moe believes to be the legal definition of “efficient” or how he derives a “state right to efficient use of property” being superior to individual private property rights. As for ED being the the real estate version of M&A, I point out that if a private entity does not wish to be acquired the state cannot force the owners to sell simply because the would-be acquirer postulates the current owners are not managing the organization in an “efficient” manner. M&A deals are enacted by a majority of the rightful property owners freely agreeing to transfer their property rights, not by the power of the state being employed to enforce a surrender of the property in question.
Projection and Jargon:
It is too funny to see right wingers use projection and jargon. If any one would read my comment they will not find a word or hint where I support ED for development and yet we get 2 or 3 posts with right wing spin.
All I point out is that ED is an attempt to unlock locked up value.
I actually oppose ED and support the forced auction method of freeing land. Under that method, the government designates land as undeveloped. This removes all zoning and development restrictions on the land.
The owner then has to file a sworn statement of value for real estate taxes purposed, that includes a short term option agreeing to sell the property for a stated amount (at which the property will be taxed for real estate tax purposes). The owner sets the price. Any one who wants to buy the property must register. If more than one person registers, an auction is conducted and the property goes to the highest bidder. After that, the new owmer must every year file an option. When you have multiple tracts, that are sold, together. This gives the sellers an incentive to work together and spread costs and sets the stage for several developers to compete for the ground
If no one makes an offer, then the property cannot be forcibly relisted for 7 to 10 years, but the taxes are not reduced.
This is fair to all. The owner gets fair value–he or she sets the price. The gov’t gets its taxes, but is not involved in picking winners. And, the new owner has to be honest about value or face loss of the property.