02-13-2006 EDA MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Economic Development Authority Minutes Februan~13,2006 Page 7 Mayor Klinzing felt that it may be a good step for the City to draft a resolution. She felt the issue of eminent domain rests with appropriate compensation for property owners. She suggested that the compensation element be included for such instances as having an unwilling seller, moving expenses and/or appraisal costs. She felt if the compensation aspect could be addressed, the whole issue would not be so volatile in peoples' minds. Cin~ Attorney Peter Beck agreed that the issue is money and leverage. His concern was if the Institute of)usdce bill is enacted, the City would not need a policy on eminent domain because it would no longer be available as a tool to cities. Also, xegazding roads, proof would need to be provided to put a road in at a certain location, which would cost taxpayers extra to acquire the land. He felt that if cities do not get behind the League of Minnesota Cities bill, the tool is going to be lost, and that cities need to communicate to their legislators regazding the important of eminent domain. He also suggested that cities should bring developers into the debate at the Capital because eminent domain is an important part of cities' ability to generate jobs and new tax base. He stated that he would line to see the City support the League, since the Institute for Justice bill could be enacted very early in the session. Mr. Beck stated that he hoped the legislature would get into the compensation issue, and noted that other jurisdictions have a higher level of compensation for economic development projects than for road projects. He stated that a homeowner in the case of an economic development project should be compensated for their relocation costs. He felt there definitely would be some improvements from a property owners' perspective in the League bill. He again stated that he felt the City really needs to support the League and bring in developers such as MetroPlains to support the bill as well. Mayor I{linzing stated that she supported additional compensation for economic development projects. She stated that bringing private developers into the debate would raise the issue of whose right is in question - the right of developers to develop or the property owners right to retain their property. She felt that the City's issue needs to stay in the realm of public purpose. She felt economic development can be an azgument for public purpose and could potentially be used for the downtown azea north of Highway 10. She stated that she would like the City to look at establisMng a policy and to consider the compensation issue. Commissioner Farber stated that he concurred with the City Attorney to back the League of Minnesota Cities. He did not see what the hurry was for the legislature to do anything, but because of this case, he felt eminent domain was too important to lose as a tool. He felt that this was another case of cities losing their power to the State and Federal government, and that cities need to retain local control. Commissioner Fazber stated that he was afraid to see the other bill pass. Mr. Beck concurred, and stated that this is another example that over the last decade, the State government has not trusted local government to make the best decision for their community as a whole. He stated that his office has seen it on taxes and funding. He felt the legislature is attempting to take away the decision from the people that are closest to it. Mr. Beck stated that no one will deny there have been abuses of the tool, but that it would be a mistake to eliminate the tool. Commissioner Tveite concurred with Commissioner Fazber and Mr. Beck. He stated that he was in favor of tightening up the definition of blight. He stated that taking a viable housing ox business area and replacing it with another business or project to create more revenue needs to be looked at He felt that more enforcement of consistency in how it is used from city to city would be a good thing.