Real Estate & Property Law

Metro Obtains Tower Site For Convention Center

By Alan Ackerman

Tennessean

With Tower's cooperation, MDHA attorneys have filed an order to that effect for Haynes to sign, though the two sides will continue to argue about the parcel's value.

Tower had challenged MDHA's eminent domain case, arguing that it was based on an incorrect determination that the land is blighted. The company also said it had development plans for the site.

MDHA responded that blight had nothing to do with the condemnation, which was based on the Metro Council directing the agency last June to acquire land for the convention center. Haynes agreed and decided not to let Tower introduce evidence supporting its claims.
As for the possibility that Tower could ultimately win an appeal and regain its right to the land after convention center construction has started, Conner acknowledged that would be "uncharted territory" but added, "That's the risk people take when they go ahead" with construction.
 

Tower's challenge was premised upon the metro development assumption that the property owned by Tower was 'blighted'.  This question of what is blight will be the key for many future fights.  If a parcel is vacant, it is hard to see why it would be blighted.  There is no requirement for an individual to redevelop.

As the appeal is on-going, Tower has taken the position that it should obtain the return of the land in case it prevails on its necessity challenge.  The community is left with little to do but move forward to a condemnation process and redevelopment.  However, one only need look at the Hathcock decision in Michigan to determine that when there is not a necessity situation courts are more than willing to allow acquisition.

Full post as published by National Eminent Domain Blog on March 01, 2010 (boomark / email).