Top Eminent Domain Abuses
The following is a list compiled by our attorneys of ten abuses of the power of eminent domain. Every day in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia, residents and property owners are being hurt by othe unjust use of the power of eminent domain. These are just a few of the numerous examples of the way that condemning authorities abuse private property owners.
1) Cumberland County School Board v. John and Mary Meeks
On October 29, 2001, the Board of Supervisors of Cumberland County approved the sale of an abandoned school buiding to the Meeks for their high bid of $110,000. The Meeks' bid was one of only two bids offered at the public auction, the other being for just $1.00.
When the Meeks bought the property in 2001 the property was vacant, unrentable, and the buildings were deteriorating and in need of renovation and repair. Among the problematic conditions existing at the time of the Meeks' bid in 2001 the following conditions stand out: the roofs leaked, leading to an accumulation of standing water, mold and mildew throughout the buildings; nearly three-fourths of the windows were broken and/or missing; many of the toilets had not been flushed in several years; the heating system did not work; the plumbing system did not work and many pipes were broken; due to the leaking roof the ceiling tiles had become moldy and many were missing; the stage in the auditorium had rotted through due to leaks in the roof; assorted books, papers, trash, desks and gym equipment were left throughout the building; spare rolls of insulation had been left in the auditorium and absorbed water, leaving them full of mold and mildew; the locks on the outside doors were either missing or inoperable, leaving the building unsecured; many of the light fixtures, both inside and outside the building, were not in working order; the concrete walkways surrounding the building had acquired a thick covering of mold; the shrubbery had become overgrown; the yard had barely been maintained; the mortar around many of the windows had rotted away; and pools of standing water had accumulated in the basements.
After purchasing the property, the Meeks made substantial renovations to the building and removed the above listed deficiencies in the property at great personal cost. Prior to condemnation the Meeks had completed substantial renovations to the property and had incurred over $400,000 in acquisition and renovation costs as well as their enormous investment of time. The renovations drastically changed the nature of the building from one that was deteriorating and unrentable in 2001 to one in good condition and being leased to several different entities in 2006.
It was in March of 2006 that the Cumberland County School Board decided that it wanted its newly renovated school building back to use again as a school. But rather than pay the Meeks for their expenses in renovating the buildings, the School Board sought to force a bargain sale upon the Meeks by offering them $200,000. The Meeks were rightly offended by the offer and brought in Waldo & Lyle as counsel. In February of 2007 a jury in Cumberland County awarded the Meeks $850,000, some 425% above the School Board's offer.
2) Norfolk Housing and Redevelopment Authority v. C and C Real Estate, Inc.
In 1987, the Norfolk City Council directed Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority (NRHA) to examine C and C's property to determine whether governmental intervention was needed to rehabilitate the area. NRHA's conservation plan, adopted by City Council in 1988, included a description of the property C and C came to own, which NRHA had determined was blighted. City Council authorized NRHA to acquire the property if the blight was not improved. However, no notice of the chance to remove the blight was given to C and C or their predecessors.
In December of 1999, NRHA sent C and C Real Estate a letter stating NRHA's intent to acquire the property. NRHA made offers to buy the property, but C and C refused to sell. One of the reasons C and C rejected NRHA's offer was NRHA's refusal to compensate Andrews for the going business, despite the fact that it could not be relocated. In 2003, the Authority passed a resolution to condemn the property, fifteen years after the adoption of NRHA's conservation plan.
In 2004, Waldo & Lyle challenged the right of NRHA to condemn C & C Real Estate's property, even though there had been no cases since 1956 in which a housing authority in Virginia had been denied the right to take private property. After one and a half years of legal battles and circuit court hearings, Norfolk Circuit Court Judge John Morrison held that the NRHA was not authorized to condemn, as NRHA had not given C and C Real Estate the required one-year notice to correct blight.
NRHA appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Virginia where the court affirmed the circuit court's holdings: the language of the NRHA's plan was overbroad and, therefore, did not allow for acquisition of C & C Real Estate's property. The Court held that NRHA had a duty to provide C & C Real Estate with notice and an opportunity to correct any existing deficiencies prior to initiating any condemnation proceedings due to blight. As no such notice had been given, NRHA was not authorized to condemn C & C Real Estate's property.
The Supreme Court of Virginia's decision invalidated portions of an industrial conservation plan that had been in existence for nearly twenty years. For the first time in fifty years, the Court denied a housing authority the right to take property designated in a housing authority plan.
The story should conclude here, but it does not. Under Virginia law C and C, after defeating the effort to take their property, was entitled to recover the attorneys fees it incurred in defending its property and business. The NHRA disagreed with the law. In a succession of hearings throughout the fall of 2006 the NHRA attempted to deny C and C the lawful reimbursement of its attorneys fees. In February of 2007 the Circuit Court of Norfolk awarded C and C reimbursement of its attorneys fees.
NHRA has appealed this award to the Virginia Supreme Court. As of this writing the Court has not yet agreed to hear this appeal.
3) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) v. Game
Mr. Game ran one of the most successful grocery stores in Newport News, Virginia. Game's Farmers' Market specialized in fresh county produce and had a specialty butcher shop. VDOT offered Mr. Game $28,000 to take most of the parking spaces at the front door of his grocery store. Mr. Game fought VDOT, and VDOT hired two appraisers to go to Court to say that he was not entitled to more than $28,000. Mr. Game won over thirty-two times the amount of the original offer that VDOT had proposed. 72-year-old Earl Game pledged to support eminent domain reform in Virginia as his life-long goal and project. Today, you can still reach him at his store, where property owners from all over Virginia call him for advice about condemnation. Mr. Game was awarded $760,845.99, 2717% above VDOT's final offer.
4) Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Claytor
The Claytor family owned an entire city block in Roanoke. In 1976, the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority adopted a redevelopment plan and designated the entire block that the Claytors owned for condemnation. The Redevelopment Authority even went so far as to negotiate an option to sell the Claytor property to someone else.
When the redevelopment plan expired in 2001, 25 years after it was adopted, the Claytors sued the Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and the judge ruled that the Housing Authority was required to pay just compensation for placing the Claytor property under the cloud of condemnation for 25 years.
The Housing Authority eventually paid the Claytors a judgment of $281,590, plus interest in the amount of $71, 661.70.
5) East Tennessee Natural Gas Co. (ETNG) v. 34 Property Owners
Duke Energy, a Fortune 500 company, trading as ETNG, obtained permission from the Federal Government to condemn the property of over thirty property owners in Carroll, Henry, Patrick, Smythe, and Wythe Counties. Mr. Harold Hart and Mr. Larry Ball were among those property owners whose property was taken. Duke Energy claimed that the highest and best use for the taken property was farmland and offered Mr. Hart and Mr. Ball roughly $30,000 as "just" compensation for the taken property. The property owners disagreed and offered evidence that, prior to the pipeline's construction, the County had marketed their property as land appropriate for industrial use. A unanimous jury found that the property's highest and best use was industrial and awarded Mr. Hart and Mr. Ball $1,825,000.
6) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) v. Burris
In 1999, the Virginia Department of Transportation came to Mr. Burris and offered to buy his 16 acres of wetlands in Suffolk for $42,000. A new road ran across a very small portion of his land. Mr. Burris wondered why VDOT was paying $42,000 for all of his property. Mr. Burris, with the help of his lawyers, found out that VDOT needed his wetlands because it had destroyed wetlands constructing its new road and the law required VDOT to replace the destroyed wetlands as wetlands mitigation. VDOT had not told Mr. Burris his wetlands were very valuable. Through a trial, Mr. Burris was awarded $531,000 for his wetlands. VDOT tried to deprive Mr. Burris of $489,000 that the Constitution guaranteed him.
7) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) v. Stull
The Stull family owned and operated a second-generation dairy farm in the mountains of Virginia . The family originally purchased the dairy farm with barns and buildings, some of which were built approximately seventy years earlier. VDOT, in an effort to straighten a curve in a road, condemned all five of the dairy barns and structures that made up the heart of the working dairy farm.
Although the structures worked effectively and allowed two families to support themselves in the dairy business, VDOT claimed that, because they were old, the total value of all the buildings was only $75,000. A unanimous jury disagreed, and awarded the property owners $368,432, nearly 500% of VDOT's final offer
8) City of Suffolk v. Beamon
Mr. William Beamon was a successful entrepreneur who had renovated a historic building in downtown Suffolk, VA. He owned and operated record and clothing stores on the first floor and lived in and rented out apartments on the second floor. The City of Suffolk condemned Mr. Beamon's property, claiming that it was needed for future courthouse parking. Mr. Beamon fought the initial taking of his property, and the court invalidated the first condemnation. Although the building had recently been renovated, the City offered Mr. Beamon less than $20,000 for the entire property. The amount offered to Mr. Beamon was less than the tax-assessed value of his property. Mr. Beamon eventually settled for many times the amount originally offered by the City of Suffolk.
9) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) v. Jones
VDOT took Mr. Jones parking lot in front of his shop by filing a certificate with the court and paying $88,060. The $88,060 was determined by VDOT's appraiser to be the just compensation for the property, and VDOT approved the appraisal as fair compensation. The legal effect of filing the certificate was to transfer ownership of the property to VDOT. Mr. Jones believed VDOT was wrong and contested the matter. A year later VDOT, filed suit to finalize determination of value. A month before the trial, VDOT hired a second appraiser who lowered the value to $26,000, and filed a notice that it would offer only the testimony of the second appraiser at trial. Mr. Jones was furious, and at the trial he tried to show the results of VDOT's first appraisal. "Not so fast," said the judge. "VDOT gets to choose which expert it will use, and you can't comment on the first appraisal for $88,060." The jury returned an award of $112,500 never knowing how VDOT had abused the system.
10) City of Hampton v. Ottofaro
The Ottofaro family owned rental property near Mercury Boulevard in Hampton, VA. The City wanted to transfer the property to the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) for a $129,000,000 commercial entertainment complex near the Hampton Coliseum. When the Ottofaros refused to sell for the price offered, the property was taken by "quick-take," and the house was immediately bulldozed, while the case was still unresolved in court.
A road was built using 18% of the property, but the remaining 82% was turned over to the Industrial Development Authority. The IDA then leased the remaining Ottafaro land to a Maryland developer for a Bass Pro Shop, a Lowes, and other commercial development. Mr. Ottofaro fought the City of Hampton in court, but a Hampton judge ruled that this transfer of private property for commercial development was legal. He then appealed the case to the Virginia Supreme Court. In a split decision, the Court ruled that because the property was long-term leased to the IDA and was not going to be sold, this transfer of the Ottofaro property to a private developer was legal. After losing his property, Mr. Ottofaro attempted to obtain just compensation in court. For the trial, however, the City replaced their original appraisal with one showing the property to be worth $40,000 less than they had previously offered. The trial judge would not allow evidence of the lower appraisal to be admitted.
11) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) v. Warwick Lodge
The Warwick Masonic Lodge was built on a site comprised of more than two acres at the intersection of J. Clyde Morris Boulevard and Warwick Boulevard in Newport News, Virginia. VDOT filed a quick-take and attempted to force the Lodge out of the Lodge building. The Lodge went to court to obtain the money that VDOT had deposited, so that they could purchase a new facility. VDOT refused to allow the Lodge use of its money, however, claiming a title problem with the property.
The lodge requested relief in the circuit court, but a circuit court judge ruled that the lodge had to pay VDOT rent at over $4,000 per month, even though they were not allowed the money VDOT had deposited with the court to purchase a new building. Later VDOT, admitted it had made a title mistake, but refused to waive rent.
The Lodge eventually settled with VDOT.
12) Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Instruments East
The Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority decided to condemn the area surrounding a testing laboratory that had been doing business in the location for many years. The demolition activity consumed many months, causing noise, dust, deposits of debris, street closures and general deterioration of the area. Finally, in demolishing the building next door, the Authority's contractor pushed a brick wall over onto the laboratory and cracked its structural wall.
The owner of the testing laboratory, whose business had been virtually destroyed, filed suit for inverse condemnation, alleging that the Authority had effectively taken his property as a part of its redevelopment project. The court dismissed the suit, ruling in effect that the owner had to wait until the Authority got around to filing its own condemnation suit for the property before the owner could recover the value of the property. The value of the property continued to plummet and the NRHA ignored the property owners' plight.
The following is a list compiled by our attorneys of ten abuses of the power of eminent domain. Every day in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia, residents and property owners are being hurt by othe unjust use of the power of eminent domain. These are just a few of the numerous examples of the way that condemning authorities abuse private property owners.
1) Cumberland County School Board v. John and Mary Meeks
On October 29, 2001, the Board of Supervisors of Cumberland County approved the sale of an abandoned school buiding to the Meeks for their high bid of $110,000. The Meeks' bid was one of only two bids offered at the public auction, the other being for just $1.00.
When the Meeks bought the property in 2001 the property was vacant, unrentable, and the buildings were deteriorating and in need of renovation and repair. Among the problematic conditions existing at the time of the Meeks' bid in 2001 the following conditions stand out: the roofs leaked, leading to an accumulation of standing water, mold and mildew throughout the buildings; nearly three-fourths of the windows were broken and/or missing; many of the toilets had not been flushed in several years; the heating system did not work; the plumbing system did not work and many pipes were broken; due to the leaking roof the ceiling tiles had become moldy and many were missing; the stage in the auditorium had rotted through due to leaks in the roof; assorted books, papers, trash, desks and gym equipment were left throughout the building; spare rolls of insulation had been left in the auditorium and absorbed water, leaving them full of mold and mildew; the locks on the outside doors were either missing or inoperable, leaving the building unsecured; many of the light fixtures, both inside and outside the building, were not in working order; the concrete walkways surrounding the building had acquired a thick covering of mold; the shrubbery had become overgrown; the yard had barely been maintained; the mortar around many of the windows had rotted away; and pools of standing water had accumulated in the basements.
After purchasing the property, the Meeks made substantial renovations to the building and removed the above listed deficiencies in the property at great personal cost. Prior to condemnation the Meeks had completed substantial renovations to the property and had incurred over $400,000 in acquisition and renovation costs as well as their enormous investment of time. The renovations drastically changed the nature of the building from one that was deteriorating and unrentable in 2001 to one in good condition and being leased to several different entities in 2006.
It was in March of 2006 that the Cumberland County School Board decided that it wanted its newly renovated school building back to use again as a school. But rather than pay the Meeks for their expenses in renovating the buildings, the School Board sought to force a bargain sale upon the Meeks by offering them $200,000. The Meeks were rightly offended by the offer and brought in Waldo & Lyle as counsel. In February of 2007 a jury in Cumberland County awarded the Meeks $850,000, some 425% above the School Board's offer.
2) Norfolk Housing and Redevelopment Authority v. C and C Real Estate, Inc.
In 1987, the Norfolk City Council directed Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority (NRHA) to examine C and C's property to determine whether governmental intervention was needed to rehabilitate the area. NRHA's conservation plan, adopted by City Council in 1988, included a description of the property C and C came to own, which NRHA had determined was blighted. City Council authorized NRHA to acquire the property if the blight was not improved. However, no notice of the chance to remove the blight was given to C and C or their predecessors.
In December of 1999, NRHA sent C and C Real Estate a letter stating NRHA's intent to acquire the property. NRHA made offers to buy the property, but C and C refused to sell. One of the reasons C and C rejected NRHA's offer was NRHA's refusal to compensate Andrews for the going business, despite the fact that it could not be relocated. In 2003, the Authority passed a resolution to condemn the property, fifteen years after the adoption of NRHA's conservation plan.
In 2004, Waldo & Lyle challenged the right of NRHA to condemn C & C Real Estate's property, even though there had been no cases since 1956 in which a housing authority in Virginia had been denied the right to take private property. After one and a half years of legal battles and circuit court hearings, Norfolk Circuit Court Judge John Morrison held that the NRHA was not authorized to condemn, as NRHA had not given C and C Real Estate the required one-year notice to correct blight.
NRHA appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Virginia where the court affirmed the circuit court's holdings: the language of the NRHA's plan was overbroad and, therefore, did not allow for acquisition of C & C Real Estate's property. The Court held that NRHA had a duty to provide C & C Real Estate with notice and an opportunity to correct any existing deficiencies prior to initiating any condemnation proceedings due to blight. As no such notice had been given, NRHA was not authorized to condemn C & C Real Estate's property.
The Supreme Court of Virginia's decision invalidated portions of an industrial conservation plan that had been in existence for nearly twenty years. For the first time in fifty years, the Court denied a housing authority the right to take property designated in a housing authority plan.
The story should conclude here, but it does not. Under Virginia law C and C, after defeating the effort to take their property, was entitled to recover the attorneys fees it incurred in defending its property and business. The NHRA disagreed with the law. In a succession of hearings throughout the fall of 2006 the NHRA attempted to deny C and C the lawful reimbursement of its attorneys fees. In February of 2007 the Circuit Court of Norfolk awarded C and C reimbursement of its attorneys fees.
NHRA has appealed this award to the Virginia Supreme Court. As of this writing the Court has not yet agreed to hear this appeal.
3) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) v. Game
Mr. Game ran one of the most successful grocery stores in Newport News, Virginia. Game's Farmers' Market specialized in fresh county produce and had a specialty butcher shop. VDOT offered Mr. Game $28,000 to take most of the parking spaces at the front door of his grocery store. Mr. Game fought VDOT, and VDOT hired two appraisers to go to Court to say that he was not entitled to more than $28,000. Mr. Game won over thirty-two times the amount of the original offer that VDOT had proposed. 72-year-old Earl Game pledged to support eminent domain reform in Virginia as his life-long goal and project. Today, you can still reach him at his store, where property owners from all over Virginia call him for advice about condemnation. Mr. Game was awarded $760,845.99, 2717% above VDOT's final offer.
4) Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Claytor
The Claytor family owned an entire city block in Roanoke. In 1976, the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority adopted a redevelopment plan and designated the entire block that the Claytors owned for condemnation. The Redevelopment Authority even went so far as to negotiate an option to sell the Claytor property to someone else.
When the redevelopment plan expired in 2001, 25 years after it was adopted, the Claytors sued the Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and the judge ruled that the Housing Authority was required to pay just compensation for placing the Claytor property under the cloud of condemnation for 25 years.
The Housing Authority eventually paid the Claytors a judgment of $281,590, plus interest in the amount of $71, 661.70.
5) East Tennessee Natural Gas Co. (ETNG) v. 34 Property Owners
Duke Energy, a Fortune 500 company, trading as ETNG, obtained permission from the Federal Government to condemn the property of over thirty property owners in Carroll, Henry, Patrick, Smythe, and Wythe Counties. Mr. Harold Hart and Mr. Larry Ball were among those property owners whose property was taken. Duke Energy claimed that the highest and best use for the taken property was farmland and offered Mr. Hart and Mr. Ball roughly $30,000 as "just" compensation for the taken property. The property owners disagreed and offered evidence that, prior to the pipeline's construction, the County had marketed their property as land appropriate for industrial use. A unanimous jury found that the property's highest and best use was industrial and awarded Mr. Hart and Mr. Ball $1,825,000.
6) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) v. Burris
In 1999, the Virginia Department of Transportation came to Mr. Burris and offered to buy his 16 acres of wetlands in Suffolk for $42,000. A new road ran across a very small portion of his land. Mr. Burris wondered why VDOT was paying $42,000 for all of his property. Mr. Burris, with the help of his lawyers, found out that VDOT needed his wetlands because it had destroyed wetlands constructing its new road and the law required VDOT to replace the destroyed wetlands as wetlands mitigation. VDOT had not told Mr. Burris his wetlands were very valuable. Through a trial, Mr. Burris was awarded $531,000 for his wetlands. VDOT tried to deprive Mr. Burris of $489,000 that the Constitution guaranteed him.
7) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) v. Stull
The Stull family owned and operated a second-generation dairy farm in the mountains of Virginia . The family originally purchased the dairy farm with barns and buildings, some of which were built approximately seventy years earlier. VDOT, in an effort to straighten a curve in a road, condemned all five of the dairy barns and structures that made up the heart of the working dairy farm.
Although the structures worked effectively and allowed two families to support themselves in the dairy business, VDOT claimed that, because they were old, the total value of all the buildings was only $75,000. A unanimous jury disagreed, and awarded the property owners $368,432, nearly 500% of VDOT's final offer
8) City of Suffolk v. Beamon
Mr. William Beamon was a successful entrepreneur who had renovated a historic building in downtown Suffolk, VA. He owned and operated record and clothing stores on the first floor and lived in and rented out apartments on the second floor. The City of Suffolk condemned Mr. Beamon's property, claiming that it was needed for future courthouse parking. Mr. Beamon fought the initial taking of his property, and the court invalidated the first condemnation. Although the building had recently been renovated, the City offered Mr. Beamon less than $20,000 for the entire property. The amount offered to Mr. Beamon was less than the tax-assessed value of his property. Mr. Beamon eventually settled for many times the amount originally offered by the City of Suffolk.
9) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) v. Jones
VDOT took Mr. Jones parking lot in front of his shop by filing a certificate with the court and paying $88,060. The $88,060 was determined by VDOT's appraiser to be the just compensation for the property, and VDOT approved the appraisal as fair compensation. The legal effect of filing the certificate was to transfer ownership of the property to VDOT. Mr. Jones believed VDOT was wrong and contested the matter. A year later VDOT, filed suit to finalize determination of value. A month before the trial, VDOT hired a second appraiser who lowered the value to $26,000, and filed a notice that it would offer only the testimony of the second appraiser at trial. Mr. Jones was furious, and at the trial he tried to show the results of VDOT's first appraisal. "Not so fast," said the judge. "VDOT gets to choose which expert it will use, and you can't comment on the first appraisal for $88,060." The jury returned an award of $112,500 never knowing how VDOT had abused the system.
10) City of Hampton v. Ottofaro
The Ottofaro family owned rental property near Mercury Boulevard in Hampton, VA. The City wanted to transfer the property to the Industrial Development Authority (IDA) for a $129,000,000 commercial entertainment complex near the Hampton Coliseum. When the Ottofaros refused to sell for the price offered, the property was taken by "quick-take," and the house was immediately bulldozed, while the case was still unresolved in court.
A road was built using 18% of the property, but the remaining 82% was turned over to the Industrial Development Authority. The IDA then leased the remaining Ottafaro land to a Maryland developer for a Bass Pro Shop, a Lowes, and other commercial development. Mr. Ottofaro fought the City of Hampton in court, but a Hampton judge ruled that this transfer of private property for commercial development was legal. He then appealed the case to the Virginia Supreme Court. In a split decision, the Court ruled that because the property was long-term leased to the IDA and was not going to be sold, this transfer of the Ottofaro property to a private developer was legal. After losing his property, Mr. Ottofaro attempted to obtain just compensation in court. For the trial, however, the City replaced their original appraisal with one showing the property to be worth $40,000 less than they had previously offered. The trial judge would not allow evidence of the lower appraisal to be admitted.
11) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) v. Warwick Lodge
The Warwick Masonic Lodge was built on a site comprised of more than two acres at the intersection of J. Clyde Morris Boulevard and Warwick Boulevard in Newport News, Virginia. VDOT filed a quick-take and attempted to force the Lodge out of the Lodge building. The Lodge went to court to obtain the money that VDOT had deposited, so that they could purchase a new facility. VDOT refused to allow the Lodge use of its money, however, claiming a title problem with the property.
The lodge requested relief in the circuit court, but a circuit court judge ruled that the lodge had to pay VDOT rent at over $4,000 per month, even though they were not allowed the money VDOT had deposited with the court to purchase a new building. Later VDOT, admitted it had made a title mistake, but refused to waive rent.
The Lodge eventually settled with VDOT.
12) Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Instruments East
The Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority decided to condemn the area surrounding a testing laboratory that had been doing business in the location for many years. The demolition activity consumed many months, causing noise, dust, deposits of debris, street closures and general deterioration of the area. Finally, in demolishing the building next door, the Authority's contractor pushed a brick wall over onto the laboratory and cracked its structural wall.
The owner of the testing laboratory, whose business had been virtually destroyed, filed suit for inverse condemnation, alleging that the Authority had effectively taken his property as a part of its redevelopment project. The court dismissed the suit, ruling in effect that the owner had to wait until the Authority got around to filing its own condemnation suit for the property before the owner could recover the value of the property. The value of the property continued to plummet and the NRHA ignored the property owners' plight.
