WEST METRO AND EMINENT DOMAIN

(Click cartoon above to enlarge)

Reprinted from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Tuesday, September 5, 2006
A 'tree massacre' in Glen Lake
By: Jenna Ross, Star Tribune

Jo Colleran got the call early Aug. 11.

Contractors had begun clear-cutting trees in a protected wetland area on Minnetonka's Glen Lake, part of the controversial Glen Lake redevelopment. Colleran, the city's natural resource manager, was on site within a half hour.

But she was a half hour too late. About 80 trees, most of them box elder, lay at her feet.

They'd cut down the wrong trees.

As Colleran told the story at a meeting of concerned residents last week, her gruff voice got quieter. Many of the more than 125 people listening sighed, gasped, shouted protests.

She continued, telling the crowd how she halted work on the site and the demolition crew, the developer and the city "took a step back" to inventory the trees and the situation.

What happened, everyone involved agrees, is this:

Glen Lake redeveloper Tom Wartman told his crews to begin razing buildings and cutting trees on the future site of 50 condominiums. But Wartman did not have any permits to do so.

The trees cut down were in wetlands and the protected area around them. In plans approved by the city council, those trees were to serve as a buffer between the condos and the lake in front of them.

City officials said Wartman betrayed them. In her 22 years as the city's attorney, Desyl Peterson said she's never seen a developer so seriously violate city ordinances.

"This was egregious," Peterson said. "This was a tree massacre."

The city is pressing criminal charges against Wartman. On Thursday, the city submitted documents needed for filing charges of criminal damage to property, a gross misdemeanor which can bring up to a year in jail and a $3,000 fine.

Gunyou said he doesn't want to put anyone in jail. But this case is about more than the trees and the money. The charges will provide the city leverage, city officials said. The city wants the construction done and done well.

"Our plan is to hold his feet to the fire to go about it the right way," Peterson said.

City has pushed project

Since the project was proposed in November 2005, Minnetonka has helped it along.

When property owners in the neighborhood wouldn't sell, the city put its political capital behind the developer by using eminent domain. And the city set up a special tax district to help pay for some redevelopment costs.

The city is now threatening to withhold Wartman's portion of funds from that special tax district. Wartman is slated to get $4.5 million in benefits in the next 15½ years.

Peterson admitted that she's not sure how the city would be able to withhold those benefits because she's never seen such a case.

Developer admits mistake

Wartman said he made a simple but unfortunate mistake.

"I thought we had pulled the permits," he said. "It's my fault. I should have gone back and reviewed everything."

But even had Wartman obtained the permits, he still was cutting the wrong trees that Friday morning.

The approved plans only included removing the trees close to where the condos will be built. They called for maintaining all trees in the wetlands and in the 25 feet surrounding them.

All the trees that remain on the site are to be removed, according to the original plans.

'Horrifically different'

The loss of the trees changes the look of the proposed construction. And neighbors are up in arms.

"We weren't supposed to see this building," said Grace Sheely, a neighbor. "[Without the trees] it will be horrifically different than what was planned."

The city plans to seek a restoration fee of at least $100,000, which would be used to plant trees on the site and elsewhere in the redevelopment. Wartman said he already plans to plant trees, creating what he said will be a better environment than was there before.

Most of the trees cut down were box elder. Both Wartman's and the city's plan to replant include a mix of diverse species.

But residents at the community meeting Aug. 28 said that's not enough. They called for the redevelopment to stop. They asked the city to revisit plans, taking the lost trees into account. They demanded that Wartman be banned from the project.

But City Manager John Gunyou said the city is not considering such options.

"It's not appropriate to say we're going to scrap everything," he said. "This is a serious, serious violation, but our reaction needs to be measured."

One of the oldest businesses in Chaska could be taken by the city through eminent domain, and the owners aren't happy.

"It's really cruel," said Tom Ohnsorg, whose grandfather started building truck bodies in the city in 1928. "They haven't made us any offers or really done anything to help us relocate yet. I think it's the wrong way to go about it."

But city officials say the city will help Ohnsorg Truck Bodies, officially founded in 1934, find a home elsewhere before taking the business's land for redevelopment.

City Manager Dave Pokorney said the company's location on the northwest corner of Hwy. 41 and Hwy. 212 has been a "top priority for redevelopment" for several years.

The prominent spot would be a great location for retail and restaurant space taking advantage of nearby parks, he said, and environmental problems with the site will make redevelopment difficult without the city's involvement.

Chaska's City Council voted to seize the property through eminent domain in late February. By starting proceedings before the Legislature went into session last month, the city avoids being affected by any new restrictions on eminent domain. Legislators, citing alleged abuses of eminent domain authority, are discussing ways to limit cities' powers to take private land for certain uses.

Ohnsorg said he has been trying hard to find a new site for his business.

"I can't find any place," said Ohnsorg, who owns the business with two brothers. "I'm trying but I'm not really getting anywhere."

He said his business benefits from the frequent truck traffic on Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 41.

Pokorney said the city will give the business plenty of time to relocate. An environmental review of the land will be done by the middle of next month, and, the city will try to reach a deal in mid-July, before eminent domain proceedings are complete. The city would give Ohnsorg and two other businesses on the corner until 2007 to move, to allow them time to build new facilities elsewhere, he said.

In addition to Ohnsorg's property, the city is also trying to take an adjacent gas station and lawn and garden shop. The site is a total of about 1.2 acres, which could cost the city from $1.2 million to $1.6 million, including purchase and relocation costs, Pokorney said.

It shouldn't be very difficult to agree on a purchase price, Pokorney said, because private developers have already reached deals to buy the parcels.

The Ohnsorgs did agree to sell their property to developers who wanted to build a CVS pharmacy, but that plan fell through.

"I didn't want to move then, either, but they made it worth my while," Ohnsorg said.

The Feb. 27 decision was made against the wishes of the Ohnsorg brothers, who operate Ohnsorg Truck Body Manufacturing on the site, and who took over the business from their father and uncle, who took over the business from their father.

Mayor Gary Van Eyll appropriately cast the dissenting vote. It's not a process that should be used on the site.

Few would argue that the use of eminent domain is inappropriate for projects such as the Minnesota River levee. One person declining to sell property vs. downtown under 10 feet of water is a no-brainer.

It would be impossible for a commuter to drive to work without using a highway that was built, in part, using eminent domain. However, even for these uses, the landowner needs to be treated with respect and amply compensated.

When it comes to replacing one business with another, it gets a bit stickier.

City officials have long wanted to replace the industrial-type buildings at the corner with something a tad flashier. They've indicated a wish to place restaurants at the corner to take advantage of the Firemen's Lake view.

A quasi-public use for waterfront property in Chaska is something that's sorely lacking. It's too bad the concept wasn't utilized during the city's redevelopment along Clayhole Lake, or its impending development along the Minnesota River levee.

With the corner property, there are other routes the city could take to accomplish its goal.

It could wait for the marketplace to sort things out. Let's face it, the corner is a goldmine for developers – even in downtown, which has had its economic ups and downs.

And while the Ohnsorgs don't want to move (at least under these terms), the owner of the adjacent corner site, which currently has tenants Chaska Farm and Garden and Randy's Auto Repair, has indicated a willingness to sell.

The two sites complement each other. Even without city involvement, it's easy to imagine a developer buying both pieces for one development – especially considering the site restrictions, ranging from parking to lot access. And the city has a good reputation of working with developers to accomplish its aesthetic goals – just look at the design of "Big Box" retailers SuperTarget and Home Depot in north Chaska.

If the city wanted a trump card regarding development on the site, it could dig deep into its pockets, purchase the adjacent site and sit on it until the Ohnsorgs were willing to sell. It's following something similar to this route with redevelopment plans across the street. Or, the city could offer a small portion of the adjacent Firemen's Park field, in return for a bigger say in redevelopment plans.

The other option is status quo. There are three viable businesses at the corner, all adding to our downtown tax base, employing workers, and bringing people downtown.

The buildings may not look pretty, but Chaska never was much on the dainty side. The old hard-working cinder block Ohnsorg building represents our city better than any faux-Chaska brick building that could be erected on the site.

The conflicting goals of our elected government officials and homeowners continue to occupy center stage, this time in the conflict concerning eminent domain.

Government officials insist that the use of this power is essential and necessary for the benefit and the good of the people to assure the future viability of communities.

Property owners are frightened at the prospect of being the next sacrifice to the greater good of the community and angry at how the loss of their property can possibly be of any benefit and good to them.

At its most basic level, the battle is about the understanding of what constitutes the duties of government. However, the issue here is just what is eminent domain and how did our elected officials come to have such authority and power?

It is common, even today, for all lands to be deemed the private possession of the conqueror, or the king (the lord paramount) to do with as he pleased. The power of eminent domain is the self-appointed “right” to dispose of all the people’s wealth (property) in cases of necessity and safety and is claimed as the exclusive prerogative of the lord paramount.

Safety is easily understood, as in the case of foreign invasion. Necessity, by definition, knows no law. In other words, necessity is far too dangerous a concept to be used by those in positions of power — whether they are kings or elected officials.

After the American War for Independence, the people inherited the sovereignty and prerogatives formerly reserved exclusively to kings. Government was no longer the personal will of a king, the lord paramount.

All political power was taken by the people who, in turn, created governments to be their servants. The fatal flaw in this new system was in allowing government officials to claim the right of eminent domain as an essential and inherent power. One can assign motives as to why this happened or was allowed—from bad intentions to ignorance of the consequences. Nevertheless, it happened and every succeeding generation has had to combat the results.

Minnesota claims in its constitution the right of eminent domain, although not explicitly calling it that. The court system has supported this government claim.

What does the future hold for property owners with such a discretionary power available to their elected government officials? Recent news from around the country is not very encouraging at all to those wanting to hold onto their homes.

The outlook is not very good even at the state level. Given the Legislature’s reluctance to enact any meaningful property reform, threats of significantly curtailing this power seem empty at best.

The future is pretty clear; citizens cannot wait for their elected officials to voluntarily relinquish even a portion of this power. They must demand of their elected officials, in no uncertain terms, the first principle of government — the absolute safety of their property.

Charles de Rondeaux
Mound

In response to editor Joe Kieser's statement Feb. 8, we do not agree, "that Wartman's project would be better than the status quo."

Because of this project we have lost:

• A sense of security when the city deviates significantly from the ordinances (18 setbacks)

• A sense of security when the city deviates significantly from the comprehensive guide's zoning (single-family to high-density)

• A sense of security every time the city threatens eminent domain on its local properties

• Two properties listed on a green-space preservation to high-density development; our small-town character and appropriate-size buildings

• The desire of citizens to volunteer their time to neighborhood studies and comprehensive plan when they feel that the city ignores their input

• Revitalization with neighborhood input because the city planned the project for 18 months and did not notify the neighbors until two days before Thanksgiving (three months ago).

We will lose:

• Four single-family homes;

• The Dragon Jade as a local restaurant

• Any chance of integrating the neighborhood's one-story shopping mall with the architecture of three oversized buildings, four-plus stories tall;

• Trees and green space especially on Glen Lake.

We may lose:

• The annual visitation of trumpeter swans on Glen Lake

• The eagle; the wildlife and aquatic life on the lake;

• The community's namesake, Glen Lake, as one of the clearest lakes in the metro area;

• The life of one child as the safety of a city ballpark is compromised by construction, poor parking and no traffic light on Woodhill Road;

• The respect for our city with state representatives if this city votes to abuse eminent domain (during their council meeting scheduled Feb. 27) in the face of a possible new state statute governing its use.

We may gain:

• A viable grocery store - the city's 2005 market study states that the Glen Lake's grocery store has never been successful;

• Thirty three affordable condos most 800-square feet at $200,000 increasing density and traffic congestion;

• A traffic light at taxpayers expense;

• A public path to a park for the use of a lake condo community;

• An increase in condo pets that use our parks and ball fields as doggie outhouses.

This is the first time the city has allowed high-density housing on a lake in Minnetonka. All property owners on or near a lake in Minnetonka should be very concerned in the face of high-density demands and economic gains.

This is not a positive development, nor is it supported with consensus by the neighborhood it affects. Our ward council representative voted consistently against this redevelopment. I will have to live near this development, its construction and its traffic congestion. Don't tell me I don't like the current status quo.

Grace Sheely
Friends of Glen Lake chair
Minnetonka

I must take issue with Minnetonka City Manager John Gunyou's recently published statement in his article, "Eminent domain is about balancing rights." He states, "there were dozens of public meetings" on this project. I do not agree with him.

The only notifications of public meetings I am aware of were:

• Two developer presentation meetings at Immaculate Heart of Mary (no official minutes taken or formal city official present.

• Two Planning Commission meetings in which the citizens and commission were not allowed to address eminent domain or the finances of the project.

• Two Economic Authority meetings where again, the eminent domain issue could not be discussed.

• One City Council meeting Jan. 23, which lasted from 6:30 p.m. until 12:45 a.m. the next morning. The public hearing for eminent domain was not held until after 10 p.m., which was clearly not a fair opportunity for public input.

I count the total number of public meetings at seven.

The city has been planning this project since January of 2005 with developer Wartman. I do not feel I was informed about this development in a timely manner. My first official notification was the October 25, 2005 Minnetonka publication titled, "An update on proposed Glen Lake Redevelopment." In this city publication, nothing was mentioned about the existence of site C (the lakeshore condominium on the Steeno property). Upon further investigation, the city had plans for this site for four months. I substantiated this in the City Council study session summary of Aug. 1 2005, in which Gunyou states, "There would be housing over retail on the area south of Excelsior Boulevard and condominiums on the Steeno property." The site C architectural renditions were still not complete and available for the public to see during the mid-November developer presentation meetings.

I would like to believe that the omission of site C in the Oct. 25 update was not a deliberate deception on the part of my city. Site C remains the biggest and most controversial part of the entire plan and it involves eminent domain. This condemnation of property will be attempted to be rushed through at the next Minnetonka City Council meeting (6:30 p.m. Monday, Feb. 27).

The city is well aware the Legislature soon could pass a law to prevent this very type of eminent domain abuse to benefit private developers. I encourage citizens to contact your state representatives to request this new eminent domain statute to be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2006.

I hope any future neighborhood redevelopment projects do have dozens of public meetings. Clarification and communication with the residents is an area in which the city needs to improve.

Linda Barros
Minnetonka

Minnetonka City Manager John Gunyou has impressed me with his grasp of educational funding and the importance of supporting education. I am an elementary school teacher who lives on Glen Lake, so his role as an educational advocate is a relief to me.

But his role as a city manager who has to defend Minnetonka's plan to scrape clean a couple of wooded acres on this small, shallow, clear lake to build a lone high-density residential "skyscraper" is not.

He carefully defends the city's use of eminent domain to ease the way for a 45-unit building on the "shore" (wetland) of Glen Lake, but overlooks the issues of concern of longtime homeowners of older homes in the neighborhood. When it comes to "balancing rights," as he calls it, homeowners have none when the city wants to take a house.

Yes, the small parcel of land that is in question for eminent domain is owned by a competing developer. It is what Gunyou calls "why cities need eminent domain." However, that house and small strip of land could have been mine and the City Council would still have condemned it. In fact, that house (which will be called "blighted") has been an affordable rental home for families. A couple of years ago, my child went there for day care, licensed by the county. It seems Hennepin County licensed a blighted house for day care. It is truly a blessing that Minnetonka is taking the property of a developer, instead of a homeowner, so that the impact of the publicity can be de-valued.

The council, and much of the neighborhood, do want an up-to-date and prosperous commercial area at Glen Haven and in order to get that, the City Council had to agree to give the developer the small property he couldn't buy. The two acres that he bought next to it cost him at least three times what the appraised value was (plus the seller gets a free condo unit where his house used to be). So Gunyou's argument that the owner of the remaining parcel is holding out for more money and wants twice the appraised value seems weak to me.

In addition, Gunyou points out that the Council was so sensitive as to respect the wishes of a longtime resident who wasn't ready to leave her home, which is located in the middle of all this development. Isn't this the home of a former city council member (Doc Renneke, who served on the Minnetonka City Council for a total of 12 years) who made those arrangements long ago? It is not surprising that the Council has respected the wishes of this owner.

The Glen Lake neighbors are not against development. Speaking for myself, I am pleased with the plans for Excelsior Avenue and know that the Alano relocation can probably be achieved. But I am against overbuilt "carte blanche" wetland development and the use of eminent domain, no matter who owns the house.

I hope that when it's my turn and my neighbor's turn to have our homes bulldozed, the city of Minnetonka will "carefully balance the rights of an individual with the community good" and tell us how high-rise, high-priced condos benefit the community good over families and single-family homes.

My question, if the developer had come before the council with this (lot C) project only, would it have said yes?

Mary Beth Cavert
Minnetonka

The proposal by the city of Minnetonka to acquire property for redevelopment in Glen Lake by using eminent domain is just plain wrong.

Much attention has been focused on the recent Supreme Court decision on the use of eminent domain. In dissenting from the majority, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that the ruling favors the most powerful and influential in society and leaves small property owners little recourse. Now, she wrote, the "specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

City and state officials are fond of stating that eminent domain is used "rarely" in Minnesota. This is of little comfort to those whose property is being taken to benefit a private developer. It would be interesting to see how city officials or the developer would feel if it were their homes that were going to be lost. It's always other people who have to live with the consequences, never them.

Joanne Murphy
Minnetonka

As the use of eminent domain for private development makes national and state headlines, all indications are the city of Minnetonka will need to use the maneuver in order for the Glen Lake redevelopment project to move forward.

City officials are preparing to begin eminent domain proceedings on two properties that developer Tom Wartman has yet to secure.

One property, a narrow strip at 14301 Stewart Lane, belongs to Arnie Zachman. The land with views of Glen Lake currently has an unoccupied rental property on it.

The second property is owned by the West Suburban Alano, where meetings are held for people overcoming addiction, like Alcoholics Anonymous.

Even though a new location was found for Alano last week, the use of eminent domain will be used until Alano representatives officially agree to sell their current property. A membership meeting is scheduled for March to vote on moving to the new location.

Cities have long used eminent domain to take land for public purposes, like road expansions, government buildings and telephone or power lines.

But more recently, cities have been taking heat for taking land for private development.

In Minnesota, Rep. Jeff Johnson (R-Plymouth) will be introducing a bill this coming legislative session that would restrict cities’ use of eminent domain in situations like the one the city of Minnetonka is in.

City Manager John Gunyou warned the council of the possibility before it voted to approve the project at its Jan. 23 meeting.

“With the Legislature poised to undercut the ability of communities to facilitate redevelopment, our current window of opportunity is rapidly closing,” Gunyou said.

So what, exactly, will Minnetonka be doing?

The council already approved Wartman’s plans to construct three buildings in the Glen Lake neighborhood, including two condo buildings and one mixed-use building along Excelsior Boulevard.

At its Feb. 27 meeting, the council will need to determine whether taking of the two properties Wartman has yet to secure serves a public use.

For Zachman’s property, a public trail planned for the site is a direct public use, said City Attorney Desyl Peterson.

In addition, the luxury condos planned for Zachman’s property allow for the construction of affordable housing.

Affordable housing isn’t planned for Zachman’s site, but about 30 units are planned for the overall redevelopment of the Glen Lake area.

“That is the building [on Zachman’s property] that is generating the cash that makes affordable housing possible,” said Peterson.

Once it’s established that the taking is for public use, then condemnation proceedings can occur.

Then the difficult part occurs: establishing the fair market value of the property.

Minnetonka will be using a “quick take,” where it files paperwork stating it wants to take the land and asks for immediate — as in 90 days —possession.

The city takes possession of the land, while the process of determining the value of the land is still underway.

“There is a risk for the government going and taking possession if the property owner appeals,” said Peterson.

An appeal seems certain in Zachman’s case.

“There is no way a city should come in and do this,” said Zachman. “I’m totally against it. I’m going to fight it.”

Zachman, who recently developed 13 townhomes in Glen Lake, said he had plans to build 35 condos on his property. The construction would have required the purchase of another property that Wartman currently controls.

Zachman said his condo project would have included affordable housing and wouldn’t have required tax increment financing. He never submitted plans with the city.

Zachman’s attorney Steve Yoch told council members at their Jan. 23 meeting that his client’s property isn’t blighted or substandard.

“We don’t believe this is a proper situation for a taking,” said Yoch. “You’re really choosing one developer over another.”

Several of the residents who spoke in objection to the project at the council’s January meeting brought up eminent domain.

“We shouldn’t be taking land for private development,” said Ivan Fox, adding that he didn’t want the city in an eminent domain battle.

Council Member Al Thomas responded to criticism that the city is taking land for private development.

He said with the development’s affordable housing housing, tax increment financing and public improvements, it’s not simply a private development.

“I don’t look at it as a private development,” said Thomas. “It’s a private development, with city requirements, with council requirements that we put on to the developer.”

Several council members said they couldn’t support the use of eminent domain if it meant kicking homeowners out of their houses.

“That goes over a moral line I couldn’t go over,” said Council Member Brad Wiersum. “We’re not moving people out of their homes.”

In fact, the Glen Lake redevelopment once included a parcel with a homeowner unwilling to sell, and the city required Wartman to take the property out.

Reprinted from Star Tribune, Monday, February 13, 2006
Eminent Domain is about balancing rights

One of the most challenging responsibilities of government is balancing the rights of individuals with the common good. We have a lot of experience in city hall dealing with those tradeoffs, but it never gets any easier.

A few weeks ago, the city of Minnetonka was again confronted with that challenge when our City Council approved a redevelopment project to help assure the future viability of our Glen Lake neighborhood. Like all major projects, the redevelopment was not without controversy.

The most controversial aspect of the project was the proposed density near the lake. After a year of thoughtful discussion, dozens of public meetings, hundreds of letters and countless hours of public testimony, the City Council concluded that higher density was an acceptable tradeoff to achieve the substantial public benefits of the project, including:

• an innovative, cohesive plan that complements and respects the history of the Glen Lake neighborhood;

• a mix of affordable housing greater than typically achieved, while also maintaining a predominance of mid-range units; and

• funding for needed public improvements, ranging from traffic signals to streetscaping to pedestrian walkways.

As the national debate over eminent domain has heated up, concerns have also been expressed about its possible use in Glen Lake. Although some people tend to view this complex issue in black and white terms, it’s really about balancing rights. Here’s what you should know about this project.

The city of Minnetonka has always carefully balanced individual property rights with the greater community good. In the past 20 years, eminent domain has been used as a last resort in only one economic development project, and only commercial properties were acquired through the process. That responsible philosophy is not changing.

Developer Tom Wartman already owns the Glenhaven Center, which comprises more than half the Glen Lake project area. When his acquisition negotiations stalled on three of the dozen other parcels, he requested that the city consider the use of eminent domain.

One of the properties was the home of a long-time resident who was not yet ready to leave her home. Respecting her wishes, we told the developer to leave her alone and redesign his project. And so, the approved redevelopment excludes her property, but still allows for its future inclusion, should she later decide she would like to voluntarily sell her home.

Another property is situated in the middle of the most blighted area and is a building the city previously owned, then sold to Alano, a non-profit agency serving our community.

Because of this past relationship, we are working cooperatively with Alano to find them a new location with the space and parking they have long needed. With our commitment to reach a satisfactory resolution without the use of eminent domain, Alano will have a new and better home in their Glen Lake neighborhood.

The third property is why cities need eminent domain. It’s a narrow strip of land that developer Arnie Zachman only owns because it was part of a larger package he purchased for another development. There’s a vacant rental house on the isolated property that’s now needed for a public trail to connect neighborhood parks and for a small portion of the new redevelopment.

Unfortunately, Mr. Zachman is demanding twice the appraised value for his property — a parcel that would be very difficult for him to actually develop on his own.

While some might disagree, we do not think this long-needed and widely supported project should be held hostage by one speculator.

The eminent domain issue in Glen Lake is not about an unjust taking, it’s about opportunistic extortion.

Redevelopment projects are inevitably controversial, because change is hard — especially when it involves conflicting interests. The Glen Lake redevelopment is the latest example of how the city of Minnetonka carefully and responsibly balances the rights of individuals with the community good.

----------------------------------
Note: John Gunyou is the former finance director under Arne Carlson and is the current Minnetonka city manager. He frequently contributes articles to the Star Tribune and many of the western suburban newspapers complaining that: "Education is not getting enough money" and "Republicans who break no-tax pledges are heroes." One local blogger recently responded to one of Gunyou's frequent liberal rants.

Re: Minnetonka Development plans using eminent domain.

West-metro city officials are worried about plans to limit eminent domain because it might force them to negotiate modifications or compromises on development plans.

The city of Minnetonka recently used the threat of eminent domain to engineer the sale of a much-loved historic local landmark and gathering place, The Gold Nugget.

The Will-Hop, a similar independently owned restaurant met a similar fate years ago and is now a commercial bank. The city is developing a pattern of using the veiled threat of condemnation to expedite developments without opportunity for public participation or impact on the design.

Their current plans for The Gold Nugget and surrounding areas include two additional threats of eminent domain, unreasonable variances that would cause hardship to adjacent property owners and do not conform to the city's own current guide-plan.

John Gunyou claims eminent domain has been used "wisely," but that is not how it appears to many in the community he serves.

Carol Grams
Minnetonka

Minnetonka plans to seize two properties using the legal process called eminent domain in order to help along a planned redevelopment of the Glen Lake area.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed local governments' right to seize property from private landowners and give it to private developers. Since that ruling, legislators have proposed restricting the use of eminent domain, and the Minnesota Legislature is likely to take up the issue this year.

The owners of the two parcels in Minnetonka so far have refused to sell to developer Tom Wartman, who already owns the Glenhaven shopping center at Excelsior Boulevard and Woodhill Road and has purchased several other nearby properties.

But the land is key to Wartman's plans, given final approval by the Minnetonka City Council last week, to build about 180 condominiums and 20,000 square feet of retail space in the area.

For months the city has threatened to use eminent domain, but City Attorney Desyl Peterson said it's now become "highly likely" the city will launch the legal process at the City Council's Feb. 27 meeting against two hold-out property owners.

The Glen Lake area is one of Minnetonka's oldest neighborhoods. Both critics and supporters of the project acknowledge that the area needs sprucing up.

But opponents of Wartman's plans submitted petitions containing hundreds of signatures to the city, objecting to traffic created by the project and the size of some of the buildings, especially one planned for the shore of nearby Glen Lake.

The fact that properties may be taken through eminent domain also raised objections.

"It's dead wrong to take private property and give it to a developer just because a city thinks it will get higher tax revenue," said Alfred Lounsbury, a nearby resident.

Supporters of the project also submitted a petition with hundreds of signatures to the city.

The benefits of the project outweigh the concerns and justify the use of eminent domain, said Janis Callison, Minnetonka's newly elected mayor.

The new condos, which will include some affordable units, "increases housing options in the city," Callison said, and, she added, the project will improve the area's "economic vitality" and make it more attractive, give retail businesses "a shot in the arm," and even provide some money to improve traffic problems in the area.

The project has several phases:

• The first, already accomplished, is the opening of a new grocery store, Fresh Seasons Market, in the Glenhaven shopping center.

• Across the street, on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard, several older buildings will be torn down to make way for a three-story building with 20,000 square feet of retail space on the first floor and 32 condominiums above. Work will start this summer.

• A four-story 50-condo building will go up on Stewart Lane with views of Glen Lake. Several lake residents had objected.

• After retail businesses in the northern part of the Glenhaven shopping center have been relocated to new space on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard, the plan calls for tearing down part of the strip mall and building about 100 condominiums on the site.

The city requires that 36 of the almost 180 condo units will be sold for less than $193,700 to buyers who must meet certain income criteria.

The city may not need to use eminent domain to acquire one property, the headquarters of West Suburban Alano, if a deal can be completed soon. The city has already offered $500,000 in relocation assistance and is helping to find another site in Minnetonka, Peterson said.

The other parcel, a rental house, is owned by a private developer who has refused to sell.

Under a "quick take" eminent domain procedure the city would be able to acquire the parcels by June, Peterson said.

Last year after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local governments could use eminent domain to take land from one private owner and give it to another, I wrote to newspapers calling on the Legislature to take action to ensure the property rights of all Minnesotans.

Many, including myself, felt that the Supreme Court ruling simply gave too much power to local governments to take private property through the use of eminent domain.

We are pleased to see the Legislature is taking steps to correct this problem. State Sen. Tom Bakk (DFL-Cook) and Rep. Jeff Johnson (R-Plymouth) have come forward with legislation that would restrict local government's power of eminent domain. Johnson and Bakk feel that the term “public use” must be clarified and that Minnesota’s current eminent domain standards need to be tightened when it comes to taking properties.

Johnson and Bakk are doing the right thing, and I applaud their bipartisan effort to protect the property rights of Minnesotans.

Most local government officials try to balance the desire for development with the need to protect private property rights. But, in light of the court ruling, homeowners now feel a greater sense of uneasiness with this authority granted to local governments.

People should not have to live in fear that their property will be taken to benefit private development simply for the purpose of expanding the local tax base.

It should be noted that I continue to support Minnesota’s tradition of local control and believe that eminent domain has a legitimate role in government. But it must only be used for projects in “the public good,” such as roads, sewers, and government buildings, as well as protecting the public from safety hazards and eliminating blight.

I therefore stand along side Rep. Johnson and Sen. Bakk in their effort to reform Minnesota’s eminent domain statutes. I am confident they will be able to rally their colleagues to pass this legislation, and that the governor will sign it as soon as it gets to his desk.

Pat Anderson
Minnesota State Auditor

Top Previous