Will the New Tropicana Field Project in St. Petersburg, Florida Fulfill its Duty in Using the Land for Public Good as Originally Intended?

In an articled published on Tampa Bay Times website on January 15, 2020, authors Josh Solomon and Jay Cridlin provide updates regarding the future of Tropicana Field as well as the perspective of its past. The city has received eight bids from what will be a “master developer” of the 87 acres comprising the site, which includes the leased baseball stadium home to the Tampa Bay Rays. The current mayor, Mayor Rick Kriseman, will select from the options before he leaves office in January 2022, though the article pointed to the future mayoral candidates’ option to alter his choice.

Although the developer’s bids have not yet been released, one company, Unicorp National Developments, has provided insight on its proposal. Unicorp has many well-known developments in the Orlando, Florida area, including ICON Park, O-Town West, and an upcoming Orlando Fashion Square mall, among others. Its president, Chuck Whittall, said that he instructed his team to “think of this as building a community.” Unicorp’s proposal includes new parks, retail areas, expansion of Booker Creek, and a new Tropicana Field stadium. Whittall stressed that their aim was not to create a dense development, and he is conscious of the area’s past and the overall feeling regarding the area.

In the 1980s, the area was known as the Gas Plant District, a predominantly Black working-class neighborhood centralized around a natural gas production facility. The area was leveled, displacing families, businesses, churches and schools that had been integral to the community for decades, to make way for the then-called Florida Suncoast Dome. Those who did not sell to the city were forced out through the power of eminent domain. At the time, it was believed that once a national baseball team would make the dome its home, economic growth would ensue, benefitting those displaced. In 1998, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays made it its home, but the economic growth in the area did not materialize.

Whittall recognizes this fact, and his company’s proposal has the intention of giving “back to the community…something the entire community could use” and designed “around the park and gathering spaces, and things we felt would benefit the community.” That is, in essence, what ‘public use’ should amount to, though it often simply translates to increased tax revenue for a municipality from developed land. In this case, the land is publicly owned, but its privately-owned history is not forgotten by its former residents.

City officials also recognize this and have proposed some form of agreement where the tax revenue generated in the new area would be used to combat poverty in the city’s poorest areas, presenting at least an attempt to rectify the issues that arise when land is taken through eminent domain. That is, as it was in this case, the public does not always benefit when land is taken through this governmental power, though it is supposed to. In some cases, a project is not completed or does not live up to its promises to benefit its community directly or indirectly, as recently blogged.

Mayoral candidate Darden Rice is “hopeful that this process will yield good proposals” but she is “not going to settle for anything less than this city deserves, which is the best.” Only time will tell if the city lives up to its original promise to the residents of the former Gas Plant District.

Click here to read the article in its entirety and visit www.blynchlaw.com to learn about a Chicago-based eminent domain law firm that fights for property owners’ rights in eminent domain matters.

Even When Development Plans Change, Takings Can Still Be Constitutional

A corrected court opinion, filed on December 22, 2020 in the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, affirmed the lower court’s findings. The case revolved around the City of Chicago’s taking of Defendant’s vacant property at Grand Avenue and North Jefferson Street in Chicago, Illinois, and its constitutionality, though the value of the property was addressed along the way.

Back in 1999, the City of Chicago originally intended on making the area around Defendant’s property, which included Blommer Chocolate Company’s factory, a planned manufacturing district, or PMD, aimed at protecting existing manufacturing jobs and facilities and promoting investment in the industries. PMD’s do not include residences. The City implemented a River West Tax Increment Finance Redevelopment Plan, called River West TIF for short, to fund the PMD. A private firm was commissioned to study the River West TIF and in its report found Defendant’s property fell under a “conservation area” which, although not yet blighted, could become so due to various issues applicable to the property. After the study and report, the City approved the River West TIF.

After the River West TIF plan was adopted, Blommer submitted a proposal for redevelopment of its property by expanding its facilities through obtaining the 4.2 acres surrounding its current property, including Defendant’s property. Blommer offered to purchase Defendant’s property, but Defendant refused to sell. The City then stepped in and passed an ordinance authorizing the redevelopment plan and its intent to take Defendant’s property, which it would then transfer to Blommer since it fell under the objectives of the River West TIF.

In 2005, the City of Chicago filed its Complaint for Condemnation, which is the name of the court process used when an entity, such as a state or municipality like Chicago, exercises its eminent domain power, allowing it to take private property for public use. The jury in the first trial awarded $2.5 million to Defendant; Defendant appealed for both the compensation award amount and the denial of its motion to traverse, which challenges the constitutionality of the taking. The appellate court found the taking constitutional, since Blommer’s redevelopment plan served the purposes of the River West TIF and development of the area. The appellate court also sent the case back to the lower circuit court for a new trial only addressing the just compensation amount, as it found that certain evidence had been erroneously excluded.

While the case went back to the trial court on the issue of just compensation, the City reviewed its industrial corridors with the goal of updating its land uses in order to promote “economic growth and job creation.” Ultimately, under the North Branch Framework, it deemed the area that both Blommer’s facilities and Defendant’s property fell within should have its zoning updated so that later it could change its use to at least 50% for employment purposes and able to include “high density office; retail and select residential uses,” which can include a “multistory high-rise residential structure.” The City of Chicago passed an ordinance that would allow this change in zoning in the future for the area; its zoning at the time was changed to Downtown Service, or DS, which does not include residential uses. A company by the name of Fuji Oil Holdings, Inc. purchased all outstanding shares of Blommer and planned to expand the company in North America, although it stated it would not change its management or business structure.

At the second trial, the jury determined that Defendant’s property has a highest and best use as a “multistory high-rise residential structure with ancillary commercial use.” Highest and best use is the measure all properties must be evaluated against in eminent domain matters in order to further protect property owners’ rights and to compensate them appropriately. Even with having to change the zoning from DS to DX, or Downtown Mixed Use, thereby allowing residential structures, the jury awarded Defendant the amount of just compensation award at $7.1 million.

Defendant filed a post-trial motion, challenging the validity of the taking overall, not the amount of just compensation. Defendant contended that the redevelopment plan was unconstitutional since his property was originally deemed a conservation area by the River West TIF and that it was not being taken for public purposes, but rather, for the interest and benefit of one company, Fuji Oil Holdings, Inc., since the North Branch Framework would actually move the Blommer campus to a different area and not expand it in its current location. The trial court denied the motion; Defendant failed to raise this issue at the second trial, thereby waiving his ability to challenge on this basis, as the redevelopment plan was incorporated into the evidence at the second trial. Furthermore, the trial court found that the redevelopment plan still maintained the goal of economic revitalization in the area, and therefore, it is still in the public’s best interest and hence constitutional.

The appellate court, reviewing all the evidence and history of the case, affirmed the trial court’s decision. The case was first sent back only on the issue of the amount of just compensation award, not its constitutionality. Even so, it found no abuse of discretion, nor did it find any newly discovered evidence that would change the outcome of the case. It was deemed that the North Branch Framework still served the purposes of the River West TIF, and therefore, the outcome would not change the finding that this taking is constitutional.

The full, corrected court opinion can be read at https://courts.illinois.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2020/1stDistrict/1191053.pdf. To learn more about eminent domain, your property rights, and a law firm that works hard to protect your investment, visit www.blynchlaw.com, or give us a call today at 312-573-2727 if you are facing the power of eminent domain and wish to protect your constitutional rights.