District seeks authority to "quick take" BB Land

[bubbagump]

I just hope the Quick take does not come back and bite us...

[warriorpride]

Does anyone know: if quick-take is fully approved, is the price-determination process any different that what the SD is going through now? Specifically, would/could the September price-determination hearing be used to determine the price whether it's via quick-take or not? Or would the price determination be later, or sooner, or who knows?

[rew]

I asked an attorney friend familiar with the issue and I hope I interpreted her comments correctly. She said an initial price would be determined immediately by a judge. The SD would be required to then give this amount over. If either party wanted to fight the price set by the judge, they could appeal and fight this out in the courts until an agreement was reached.
The part I didn't ask about was whether the money was held in some sort of escrow or whether, in fact, the seller gets the money right away.

[warriorpride]

rew said:

I asked an attorney friend familiar with the issue and I hope I interpreted her comments correctly. She said an initial price would be determined immediately by a judge. The SD would be required to then give this amount over. If either party wanted to fight the price set by the judge, they could appeal and fight this out in the courts until an agreement was reached.
The part I didn't ask about was whether the money was held in some sort of escrow or whether, in fact, the seller gets the money right away.

Thanks - followup question for anyone that might know: are the guidelines for determining a "fair" price different whether or not the land is taken via quick-take? I'm pretty sure it's been said that for the condemnation hearing, the fair price would be detemined based on a fair price when the condemnation was initiated- is that right? Does that still hold with the quick-take?

[bubbagump]

warriorpride said:

rew said:

I asked an attorney friend familiar with the issue and I hope I interpreted her comments correctly. She said an initial price would be determined immediately by a judge. The SD would be required to then give this amount over. If either party wanted to fight the price set by the judge, they could appeal and fight this out in the courts until an agreement was reached.
The part I didn't ask about was whether the money was held in some sort of escrow or whether, in fact, the seller gets the money right away.

Thanks - followup question for anyone that might know: are the guidelines for determining a "fair" price different whether or not the land is taken via quick-take? I'm pretty sure it's been said that for the condemnation hearing, the fair price would be detemined based on a fair price when the condemnation was initiated- is that right? Does that still hold with the quick-take?

No they would be the same. The value of the land will be determined by comps from the date of the condemantion proceedings (12/05) were initiated. If Quick take is used, the judge 1st determines FMV if both parties accept (Unlikely) then it is a done deal. If the SB does not like it..they walk away, if the sellers(BB) do not like it, the money gets put in escrow, SD can start using the land and a trial is scheduled. If a jury trial, they are not given knowledge of the Judge's FMV. If the jury comes back with a value less than the judge's, that amt gets returned to the SD, if more, then the SD must to pay more. They cannot walk away now because they already are using the property.

[warriorpride]

bubbagump said:

warriorpride said:

Thanks - followup question for anyone that might know: are the guidelines for determining a "fair" price different whether or not the land is taken via quick-take? I'm pretty sure it's been said that for the condemnation hearing, the fair price would be detemined based on a fair price when the condemnation was initiated- is that right? Does that still hold with the quick-take?

No they would be the same. The value of the land will be determined by comps from the date of the condemantion proceedings (12/05) were initiated. If Quick take is used, the judge 1st determines FMV if both parties accept (Unlikely) then it is a done deal. If the SB does not like it..they walk away, if the sellers(BB) do not like it, the money gets put in escrow, SD can start using the land and a trial is scheduled. If a jury trial, they are not given knowledge of the Judge's FMV. If the jury comes back with a value less than the judge's, that amt gets returned to the SD, if more, then the SD must to pay more. They cannot walk away now because they already are using the property.

Really? So if the FMV from the judge is deemed too high by the SB, there's no way to have the jury decide the price? Only the BB lawyers get to "appeal" the price?

[bubbagump]

warriorpride said:

bubbagump said:

No they would be the same. The value of the land will be determined by comps from the date of the condemantion proceedings (12/05) were initiated. If Quick take is used, the judge 1st determines FMV if both parties accept (Unlikely) then it is a done deal. If the SB does not like it..they walk away, if the sellers(BB) do not like it, the money gets put in escrow, SD can start using the land and a trial is scheduled. If a jury trial, they are not given knowledge of the Judge's FMV. If the jury comes back with a value less than the judge's, that amt gets returned to the SD, if more, then the SD must to pay more. They cannot walk away now because they already are using the property.

Really? So if the FMV from the judge is deemed too high by the SB, there's no way to have the jury decide the price? Only the BB lawyers get to "appeal" the price?

I suppose, but they would have to put the amount the judge deemed as FMV in escrow before proceeding.

[wvhsparent]

Residential Real Estate 2003 Edition, Updated 2005

25.32 Quick-Take
Code of Civil Procedure §7-103 permits certain governmental entities to acquire property by "quick-take" proceedings. The intent of the quick-take procedure is to allow for the expeditious acquisition of title before the final determination of fair market value. This process allows the condemning authority to enjoy the immediate use of the property, and the property owner to surrender such property, during the frequently time-consuming debate over the value of the property.

According to the current version of Code §7-103, the Illinois legislature has afforded quick-take power to over 96 governmental entities. However, as of the date of publication of this book, many of those grants of power have expired. The Illinois legislature continues to add and subtract from the quick-take list. The governmental entities that, as of the date of publication of this book, have quick-take powers are listed along with the corresponding subparagraphs of Code §7-103 in §25.40 below.

In order to invoke the quick-take power once it is granted by the state legislature, the condemning authority must make a motion under Code §7-103 for immediate vesting of title after the complaint is filed. Pursuant to Code §7-104, the court must fix a date for hearing on the motion not less than 5 days after the motion is filed and shall require appropriate notice. At the hearing, the court must determine, if it has not done so already, (a) whether the plaintiff has the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain, (b) whether the property sought to be taken is subject to the power, and (c) whether the power is being properly exercised. The court’s order on these issues is appealable within 30 days.

Once the court resolves the above three issues, it must adjudicate the issues raised by the condemning authority’s "motion for taking." If the court finds there is reasonable necessity for the taking, it must hear evidence necessary to make a preliminary finding of just compensation and then make such a finding.

In accordance with Code §7-105, following the court’s finding of preliminary compensation and the condemning authority’s deposit of the amount of preliminary compensation with the county treasurer, the court, usually upon motion by the condemning authority, will enter an order vesting title in the condemning authority and fixing a date on which the condemning authority may take possession of the property. Pursuant to Code §7-106, an interested party may move to withdraw the portion of the preliminary compensation to which that party is entitled. The condemning authority is not required to pay interest on the preliminary compensation amount unless required by Code §7-108.

After the condemning authority obtains title, the case proceeds as any other eminent domain case, and if the parties make a proper and timely request, it may be tried to a jury. Evidence of the amount of preliminary compensation is inadmissible pursuant to Code §7-104(d). If the jury awards an amount less than the preliminary finding of just compensation, the interested party or parties must refund any such excess amounts. Once the condemning authority has taken possession of the property under Code §7-110, the condemning authority cannot dismiss or abandon the proceeding unless the interested parties consent.

The exercise of quick-take power is even more drastic than usual eminent domain proceedings because of the immediate vesting of title in the sovereign entity. Department of Transportation ex rel. People v. First Galesburg National Bank & Trust Co., 189 Ill.App.3d 797, 545 N.E.2d 770, 137 Ill.Dec. 117 (3d Dist. 1989), rev’d, 141 Ill.2d 462 (1990). Quick-take is intended to be used only in circumstances in which the immediate use of private property is necessary for a public project and the project cannot wait until the procedural safeguards of a traditional condemnation have been satisfied. For example, quick-take authority is frequently approved by the state legislature for such local public works projects as sewer extensions, road widenings, and sidewalk installations. See Code §7-103.

In recent years, however, an increasing number of municipalities have solicited the state legislature to award quick-take authority to help assist pet local redevelopment projects. Such solicitations have become so commonplace that it is not unusual to find at least two or three bills in any given session of the state legislature to which a project-specific quick-take enabling amendment has been attached, each with a list (usually referred to as the "quick-take Christmas list") of a dozen or more quick-take grants.

Not surprisingly, the redevelopment movement has found its way into the quick-take arena. There is no more tempting way for a municipality to deal with the recalcitrant property owner standing in the way of a favored redevelopment project than to secure quick-take authority, which removes the property owner’s most effective tool in combating redevelopment: delay.

While the use of quick-take in connection with the redevelopment statutes is a questionable practice, it has been condoned for the City of Chicago. In City of Chicago v. Boulevard Bank National Ass’n, 293 Ill.App.3d 767, 688 N.E.2d 844, 228 Ill.Dec. 146 (1st Dist. 1997), a challenge was made to Code §7-103(12), which authorizes the use of quick-take procedures for condemnations under the commercial renewal and redevelopment areas statute and the business district development and redevelopment statute by municipalities having a population of more than 500,000. The defendant argued that §7-103(12) was unconstitutional because it was special legislation enacted for the City of Chicago. The appellate court, however, upheld the provision because there was a rational basis for distinguishing between municipalities with populations in excess of 500,000 and smaller municipalities. In particular, the court observed that the use of quick-take in connection with condemnation for redevelopment of blighted areas in downtown Chicago is proper because (a) the relocation burden is substantial, particularly with buildings with large numbers of tenants; and (b) the size of the buildings and the poor quality of the land records make it extremely difficult to ascertain the interested parties and determine how to divide compensation.

[EagleDad]

Apparently, HB 153 passed the Illinois House this morning and is on to the Senate.

Halfway to passing.

[gatordog]

Passed by vote of 60-52-3.

[wvhsparent]

So who is willing to pay my portion of the taxes associated to anything over 300K/acre?
Which I still think is too much....

[blankcheck]

I agree with you WVHS. It looks to me (from the state web site) that Whitt Law (attorney for the SD) presented a land conveyance appraisal that the remaining land needed was worth $13,750,000 (or 250,000/acre).

My question though, are they voting strickly on the basis of this appraisal or are they taking into account that the actual fair market value could be higher than that? Do they not realize that they are putting the voters of this district in a bad position should the actual cost be higher?

[proschool]

wvhsparent said:

So who is willing to pay my portion of the taxes associated to anything over 300K/acre?
Which I still think is too much....

My contribution was voting "YES" for the first referendum when BB was selling the land voluntarily for less than 300K per acre.

[wvhsparent]

proschool said:

wvhsparent said:

So who is willing to pay my portion of the taxes associated to anything over 300K/acre?
Which I still think is too much....

My contribution was voting "YES" for the first referendum when BB was selling the land voluntarily for less than 300K per acre.

IIRC- They(BB) never were voluntarily selling the land...even the initial 25 acres the SD got was part of a settlement from an earlier condemantion proceeding, and was substancially more than the initial offer.
History is repeating IMHO

[bob]

Someone told me that the farmer who plants the crops on the BB land didn't plant on the 55 acres. He did plant on the land the SB doesn't want to buy. Can anyone confirm?