Port Chester - Eminent Domain Lawsuit Update

Regrettably, on Jan 16, 2006, the Supreme Court denied certorari. This means that the Court will not review Didden v. Village of Port Chester (described in a posting dated Jan 13, 2006).

Port Chester - Voting Rights Lawsuit

As noted in a prior posting, the Village of Port Chester (which is immediately adjacent to Rye Brook), is a continuing source of political and legal intrigue.

Besides the eminent domain case that may be reviewed by the Supreme Court, Port Chester is also embroiled in a Voting Rights case that may become a landmark.

On Dec 15, 2006, the United States Department of Justice sued the Village of Port Chester alleging that the Village's at-large system of elections for Trustees violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by depriving Hispanic voters equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

Along with its complaint, the DOJ filed papers seeking to enjoin Port Chester's next election, which is scheduled to be held on Mar 20, 2007. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled to be held in federal court in White Plains on Feb 12th, and a decision is expected within a few weeks of the hearing.

The essence of the complaint is that while Hispanics constitute 46% of Port Chester's population and 22% of its citizen voting-age population -- and while Hispanics are geographically concentrated and vote cohesively -- they are unable to elect candidates they prefer, because under the at-large system the white majority votes as a racial bloc to defeat Hispanic candidates.

In addition, the DOJ alleges:

"This denial of equal electoral opportunity occurs in the context of a history of official discrimination against Hispanics, racially polarized voting, the use of voting mechanisms that enhance vote dilution, political party structures that are not equally open to Hispanics, inequality in education, employment, and health that hinders the ability of Hispanic communities to participate in the political process, racial appeals in certain political campaigns, and a broad inability of minorities to win elections in Port Chester."

(DOJ Memorandum of Law at 2.)

What are the specifics that the DOJ cites in support of these allegations? They include the following:

• An affidavit submitted by Nelson Rodriguez stating that when he ran for the Port Chester School board, an anonymous letter was circulated to more affluent parts of the community asking if residents "wanted their children to have to learn Spanish," and alleging that Hispanic voters were turned away at the polls having been told, incorrectly, that they were not registered to vote.
  
  
• An affidavit submitted by Cesar Ruiz stating that when he ran for Trustee in 2001, a friend told him that "the Democrats are telling me not to vote for you because you are Hispanic."
  
  
• Several affidavits allege that Hispanics have been systematically excluded from local political party executive positions, thereby excluding them from participating in the selection of candidates. (In Port Chester, candidates for office are selected by political party bosses rather than by primaries.)
  
  
• Evidence that Hispanics have been excluded from service on Port Chester's boards and commissions.

Port Chester has vowed to fight the Justice Department suit. The Village claims that voter "apathy and not discrimination" is responsible for the election outcomes.

With the Feb 12th hearing and Mar 20th elections fast approaching, it will be interesting to watch this important case unfold.

Port Chester - Eminent Domain

I am often astonished by political events in the Village of Port Chester (which is adjacent to Rye Brook) in Westchester County.

Consider the case of Didden v. Village of Port Chester. As described by Prof. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School:

In 1999, the village of Port Chester, N.Y., established a "redevelopment area" and gave its designated developer, Gregg Wasser, a virtual blank check to condemn property within it. In 2003, property owners Bart Didden and Dominick Bologna approached Wasser for permission to build a CVS pharmacy on land they own inside the zone. His response: Either pay me $800,000 or give me a 50% partnership interest in the CVS project. Wasser threatened to have the local government condemn the land if his demands weren't met. When they refused to oblige, their property was condemned the next day.

Didden and Bologna challenged the condemnation in federal court, on the grounds that it was not for a "public use," as the Fifth Amendment requires. Their view, quite simply, was that out-and-out extortion does not qualify as a public use. Nonetheless, the 2d Circuit, in a brief and unsatisfactory decision, upheld this flexing of political muscle. At present, Didden and Bologna are working against the odds to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

* * *

Didden is a particularly egregious example of pretextual condemnation and "favoritism." The owners' property was condemned only because they refused to pay Wasser the $800,000 he demanded. Yet what public benefit would follow if they had succumbed to Wasser's threats by putting the big bucks in his pocket, not the village treasury? Wasser planned to build a Walgreens pharmacy on the property-exactly the same type of use as the original owners' planned CVS. The community gained nothing from the change in ownership, while having to bear all the costs of condemnation. Didden and Bologna in effect were forced to turn over all the value gained from their site evaluation to Wasser without so much as a dime in compensation.

Epstein RA, et al, A Pretextual Taking, National Law Journal (Jan 8, 2007).

Didden has asked the United States Supreme Court to review this case. Statistically, the chances of obtaining review are low. But this is an outrageous case, and the Court may wish to use it as an opportunity to re-visit its controversial and closely-decided Kelo decision. We should know later this month.

And there is another interesting twist. Didden just announced that he is running for office (Trustee) in Port Chester in an election scheduled to be held on Mar 20, 2007. Thus, if the Supreme Court decides to review the case, and if Didden is elected to office, we will have the interesting situation of a sitting Trustee litigating the constitutional limits of eminent domain against his own Village in the Supreme Court.

And if that wasn't enough, the scheduled election might not be held because the Justice Department is suing Port Chester for alleged violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The DOJ is seeking a preliminary injunction that would enjoin the election. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled to be held on Feb 12, 2007.

Shaker End Table - Work in Progress

I made a little mistake.

I thought that the tenons were a little too snug, and that the joints might be glue starved unless the fit was a little looser. So I took a shoulder plane and started removing material. I got carried away and made the tenons too thin. I'll have to buy some more cherry and re-cut the rails.