"Blight-Sweet-Blight" Excerpts of an article from Legal Times Full document available here In late July, the Ohio Supreme Court issued what may be the most important eminent domain decision since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London (2005). Norwood v. Horney indirectly raises an important issue that has often been ignored in the debate over Kelo: the condemnation of supposedly “blighted” property. Eminent domain abuse cannot be effectively addressed without limiting blight condemnations, which have caused more harm than any other kind of taking. |
| LovelandPolitics.com a non-partisan, not for profit website about Loveland politics for residents concerned about our community's quality of life. Send us your story or comment on the blog. |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| areas McWhinney blight Block 1 A rural area of productive farm land just east of Boyd Lake Block 2 Agricultural land along highway 34 in Loveland Block 3 A small parcel of land along highway 34 next to 'Grand Station' Block 4 Open land east of Centerra Block 5 The old dog racing track - the report notes it is mostly parking area. |
The owners of the mineral rights for the farmland located south of Highway 34 on the agenda for tonight's City Council meeting to
be included in the "blight" finding by the City Council and "Flex" URA plan, have hired a law firm to protect their rights in the
The Denver law firm of Poulson, Odell & Peterson, LLC, sent a letter to the City of Loveland on August 18, 2008 stating,
We oppose the adoption of the Flex URA Modification Plan (the "Plan") to the extent the Plan will result in the
unconstitutional taking of Fenno Production, LLC's oil and gas interests.........
Because the property, a field devoted to agriculture, is in no way "blighted," the City of Loveland does not have the
authority under Colorado's Urban Renewal Law to condemn the property for economic development."
Block 2 does not meet the requisite factors to constitute blight. First, Block 2 is not a slum, nor does it have
deteriorating structures. Instead, Block 2 only has "minor deterioration that is atypical for minor agricultural
buildings." Blight Study, pg. 12.
The letter provides a number of cases that indicate the declaration of "blight" for the sole purpose of economic development and
not to really fix any problems has already been found to be unconstitutional. Another paragraph in the letter states,
Additionally, it appears, through the timing of the City of Loveland's annexing, rezoning, and, currently, its potential
adoption of the Flex URA Modification Plan, that the acquisition of the properties is not for the purpose of
eliminating blight, as required by Colorado's Urban Renewal Law, but for the purpose of economic development and
enhancing the City's tax revenues. As such, if the City approves the Flex Modification Plan, it has exceeded its
authority under Colorado statutory law.
| Denver law firm all say "no" to phony blight designations |