Latest news with #Kelo
Scottish Sun
17 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Inside the new spa woodland pods that have opened in the UK that make you feel like you are abroad
Spa breaks at Moddershall Oaks also come with a two-course dinner PURE BLISS Inside the new spa woodland pods that have opened in the UK that make you feel like you are abroad Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) I HAVE been on more spa breaks than I care to admit – and I may have found a new favourite. Moddershall Oaks, a luxury spa set in glorious Staffordshire woodland, was just a ten-minute drive from Stoke-on-Trent. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 2 Moddershall Oaks is a luxury spa set in glorious Staffordshire woodland 2 I get to try the new Golden Glow spa facial package But as we pulled up to this leafy, quiet spot, I knew the boutique size would mean fewer people and more peace, all for me. Family-owned, this spa hotel has just ten rooms in the main building, as well as 14 newly-added, luxury woodland pods dotted around the site. When staying in an overnight spa suite, you're greeted with a welcome drink on arrival and have access to facilities from 3pm until 4.30pm on your day of departure. First things first, we settle in our room, which has a patio looking out onto the stunning hills – and, lucky us, brilliant sunshine, too. My treatment is booked for 4pm and I get to try the new Golden Glow spa facial package. For 25 minutes, my skin is blessed with scrubs, a wild honey mask and calming oils, as well as a gentle head and shoulder massage, all to wash away life's stresses. I then rejoin my partner in the main spa area, where there is a hydrotherapy pool with heated tiled loungers, reflexology footbaths, a 10m pool and a steam room. The hydrotherapy pool certainly packs a punch, which makes a change from other spas I've been to where the pressure can be quite weak. What I love most is that it's not busy at all. I finish the indoor experience off with the toasty relaxation room where phones are not allowed, which I wholeheartedly welcome, so I'm forced to switch off. Colcot & Spa is great for families with playbarn and pools But there's lots more to explore outside, including a more bustling spa pool, access to a Kelo sauna and a gym. What made this retreat extra-special was the private outdoor heated spa pool. You get a 30-minute slot to yourselves, and there's even a button to request service. It's blissfully refreshing to sink into the warm bubbles as the spring air hits your freshly-treated face, with the evening sun slowly setting behind the distant trees. For a moment, I don't feel like I'm in the UK at all. The spa breaks at Moddershall Oaks also come with a two-course dinner – and it's not like any old set menu either. There's a huge selection of familiar favourites like beer battered fish and chips, but I've gone for the slow braised Staffordshire beef – the meat is so succulent and you can't go wrong with a massive Yorkshire pudding. We retire to our suite and the treats continue. Rooms feature plush furnishings with king-size or twin beds, a separate lounge or seating area and a private deck or patio so you can soak up the woodland and gardens. And the unique, hobbit-style woodland pods feature a circular design and round windows, with eco-friendly bubble spa showers and freestanding roll-top baths. After the best kip I've had in ages on the comfy bed, it's off to the restaurant for a hearty cooked breakfast. I've gone for eggs Benedict, which were done to perfection, while the other half stuck with a trusty full English, which didn't disappoint. Moddershall proved just the right combination of boutique luxury and peaceful retreat.
Fox News
06-05-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Business owners take on city they say is playing 'musical chairs' with property in eminent domain case
Join Fox News for access to this content Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account - free of charge. By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News' Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. Please enter a valid email address. Having trouble? Click here. Small business owners are taking a city in Missouri to court this week over officials' attempt to use eminent domain to take their property and give it to a private developer. "We're not in the game of musical chairs of property in this country," said Martin George, one of the property owners suing the city of Brentwood, Missouri. George and other business owners argue officials used a vague definition of blight to secure a $436 million development deal that seeks to transform their property into apartments, stores, a hotel, restaurants and more. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HALTS DEA'S RANDOM SEARCHES OF AIRPORT TRAVELERS AFTER REPORT FINDS 'SERIOUS CONCERNS' "These properties are not unsanitary. They're not deteriorating. They're not a menace to public health," Institute for Justice attorney Bobbi Taylor said during a press conference Monday ahead of the trial in St. Louis County Circuit Court. The Institute for Justice, a nonprofit civil liberties law firm, argues Brentwood used minor complaints like cracks in paint and building age as a pretext to declare an entire stretch of Manchester Road blighted and skirt state eminent domain restrictions. "If that's allowed to stand as the definition of blight, that basically means that the government can take any property using eminent domain solely because it's a little older, or it may need a fresh coat of paint," Taylor said. The 2005 Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London paved the way for cities like Brentwood to seize property in the name of economic development. In Kelo, a Connecticut city wanted to seize homes and sell the property to developers to build new commercial and residential complexes. The justices ruled 5-4 that the seizure qualified as "public use" because the city was following an economic development plan. The ruling triggered a nationwide backlash and most states strengthened protections for property owners, including Missouri, where lawmakers passed a bill in 2006 specifying that property can't be seized solely for economic development. SMALL BUSINESSES ACCUSE MISSOURI CITY OF FORCING THEM OUT WITH BASELESS BLIGHT LABEL TO SCORE LUCRATIVE DEAL But Missouri and other states included a critical carve-out. Cities could still seize blighted areas, defined by Missouri law as having "insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements" or other factors that present "economic or social liability." That broad definition can be used to condemn entire neighborhoods, even if individual homes or other properties are in spectacular condition, according to the state. The Institute for Justice argued on behalf of homeowners in the Kelo case, but lost. The proposed development that sparked the legal battle was never built. Brentwood officials originally declared a stretch of Manchester Road blighted in 2018 after significant flooding problems. The city then launched a multi-million-dollar flood mitigation project and made significant improvements to the area, according to business owners. Yet, in 2023, officials approved a $436 million redevelopment deal that required a new blight designation. "The entire area has been deemed blighted, and it's not," Amy Stanford, the co-owner of Time For Dinner on Manchester Road, previously told Fox News Digital. "We are functioning, growing and a great business. How could we be blighted?" A spokesperson for the city did not respond to a request for comment. "It's bogus," Bob Story, who runs a fly-fishing business located on Manchester Road since 1989, told Fox News Digital last year. "This area looks exactly like every other area around here in Brentwood." Story added, "It's all about the tax revenue." "Without the power of eminent domain, there's no redevelopment," IJ attorney Bob Belden said Monday. "No redevelopment, you don't get your Ritz-Carlton, and you're stuck with hard-working business owners like this." The project has changed hands since its approval. The original developer, Green Street, was mired in controversy, allegedly owing the city of St. Louis nearly $800,000 in delinquent property taxes, according to local media reports. Several contractors also sued the company, accusing Green Street of not paying them. A few Green Street employees left the developer and started Halo Real Estate Ventures, which has taken over the Brentwood project, St. Louis Magazine reported. Representatives of Halo did not respond to a request for comment Monday, but CEO Joel Oliver — who founded the company after leaving Green Street — told St. Louis Magazine last year that he wasn't worried about the suit. "No matter what you're doing, where you're trying to do it, change can be scary for folks. It's not uncommon to have to address people's concerns," Oliver said. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The trial began Monday in St. Louis County Circuit Court and is scheduled to last four days.
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge Orders Rhode Island Town To Return Secretly Seized Land to Affordable Housing Developer
Happy Tuesday and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. This week's stories include: The federal government is trying one last time to weasel out of paying landlords for its illegal eviction moratorium. The U.S. Supreme Court decides not to take up another eminent domain case out of New York that could have overturned the infamous Kelo v. New London. The Arizona and Texas senates pass starter home bills. But first, our lead item on a Rhode Island town being told to give back land it had stealthily seized from an affordable housing developer. Last Tuesday, a U.S. District Court judge for the District of Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order requiring the town of Johnston to return the title of a 31-acre property it had quietly seized to its original owners, two LLCs collectively owned by the Santoro family. The temporary restraining order also blocks the town, its mayor, and the town council from taking any action to take control of the property or prevent the Santoro family from accessing it. As this newsletter covered last week, the town government has been attempting to seize the Santoro family's property ever since they filed an application to build a 254-unit affordable housing project on the land. Beginning in January, the town has passed a series of resolutions asserting that it needs the land for a new "municipal campus" that would replace Johnston's existing, dilapidated town hall and police and fire stations. The Santoro family challenged the seizure in federal court, arguing that the town's "municipal campus" is a sham project invented to stop the family from proceeding with their planned development. The family's unsubsidized project was made possible by a state law that allows developers to override local density restrictions when building low- and moderate-income housing. Shortly after the family filed their federal lawsuit, the town quietly transferred the property over to themselves—without notifying the owners or their lawyers. The family only learned of the seizure after the mayor tweeted about it and the town's lawyer sent them a letter ordering them to vacate the property or risk a citation for trespassing. "In 40 years, I've seen some pretty outrageous exercises of eminent domain powers. Never anything like this," Robert Thomas, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), who is representing the Santoro family, told Reason last week. The Tuesday-issued retaining order blocks the attempted seizure of the Santoro family's land until the judge has had time to consider the family's request for a preliminary injunction. The federal government is making one last-ditch effort to avoid paying out potentially billions of dollars to cover the damage caused by its illegal pandemic-era eviction moratorium. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to consider whether an eviction moratorium first issued by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in September 2020 constituted a taking of landlords' property requiring compensation from the federal government. With that request, the DOJ is hoping to overturn an August 2024 decision made by a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit, which found that the federal government, by banning landlords from removing tenants for non-payment of rent, had physically taken their property and was liable for the damages. That decision came in the case of Darby Development Co. v. United States, a class action lawsuit first brought by landlords back in July 2021. A month after the Darby case was first filed, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the CDC's moratorium, saying that the agency had acted well outside its authority when issuing the eviction ban. With its August 2024 ruling, the three-judge panel sent the Darby case back down to the Federal Claims Court to tally up the damages, which will be substantial. The plaintiffs in Darby are asking for $23 billion. "If you break it, you pay for it. They caused enormous harm," says John McDermott, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Darby case. While the deadline to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court has passed, the DOJ is hoping that the full Federal Circuit might overturn the panel's decision and remove the massive liability facing the federal government. The DOJ finds itself in an awkward position vis-à-vis the rental housing industry. Back in January, at the same time it was asking the Federal Circuit to hear the Darby case, it also added six large property management companies as co-defendants in its ongoing antitrust lawsuit against real estate software provider RealPage. The government alleges that RealPage's rent recommendation software, which uses proprietary data from landlords to recommend profit-maximizing rental rates, was facilitating an illegal price-setting cartel among rental property owners. (Read the economic case against this idea here.) The DOJ's decision to also sue RealPage's larger customers means that all its customers, and even its competitors' customers, could also be sued for anti-trust violations. In effect, the government could end up owing the rental property industry billions of dollars in the Darby case while reclaiming a much smaller amount from the industry from its antitrust litigation. (The largest fine the DOJ's Antitrust Division lists having recovered on its website is $925 million.) McDermott says it would make sense for the federal government to resolve both cases by reaching some sort of grand settlement with the rental property industry. But apparent chaos within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is preventing the federal government from coming to the table. He says that his counterpart in the DOJ's Civil Division, which is defending the government in the Darby case, expressed total ignorance of the RealPage case, which is being prosecuted by the DOJ's Antitrust Division. "Within the Justice Department, no one is talking to each other. They're either scrambling to keep their jobs or they are so overwhelmed by litigation" challenging President Donald Trump's executive orders, he tells Reason. Plaintiffs in the Darby have until April 11 to file a response to the government's request for the full Federal Circuit to hear the case. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a new eminent domain case out of New York. In Bowers Development, LLC v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA), two developers in Utica, New York, challenged the county agency's seizure of a property where they'd planned to build a medical office building. In their lawsuit, the developers argued the county's reason for seizing their land—to give it to an existing medical office next door to use as a parking lot—didn't meet the constitutional requirement that the government only seize land for a "public use." In their petition to the Supreme Court, the developers were asking the court to reconsider their infamous 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London, in which a narrow 5–4 majority found forcibly transferring property from one private party to another for the purposes of economic development satisfied that public use requirement. The decision was hugely controversial at the time. It sparked an anti-eminent domain backlash that saw states pass laws and update their constitutions to limit Kelo-like economic development seizures. Nevertheless, the Kelo decision is still on the books and still leaving property owners exposed in states like New York, which never did put their own limits on economic development seizures. "The Court declined this opportunity to restore some basic protections for American property rights, but it will have to confront this question eventually," said Robert McNamara, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represented the developers in the Bowers case (and which had also challenged the government's seizure in the Kelo case). "Eminent domain abuse continues to run rampant in New York and some other states that have refused to change their laws, and it will not stop until federal courts return to enforcing the Constitution." The Texas and Arizona senates have both passed similar bills aimed at making new small-lot "starter homes" easier to build. On Wednesday, the Texas Senate voted 29–2 to pass Senate Bill 15, which prevents local governments from requiring homes in new single-family subdivisions of five acres or more to sit on lots larger than 1,400 square feet. Additionally, the bill prevents local governments from requiring more than one parking space per home on "small lots" of 4,000 square feet or less. The bill would only apply to municipalities with a population of 150,000 or more in counties with a population of 300,000 or more. Proponents say S.B. 15 will ease Texas' growth pressures by enabling more affordable greenfield townhome development in larger communities. People are making similar arguments in favor of Arizona's Senate Bill 1229, which passed out of that state's Senate via a narrower 16–13 vote in early March. Like the Texas bill, S.B. 1229 would cap the minimum lot sizes local governments could require in new five-acre single-family subdivisions. The original version of Arizona's S.B. 1229 would have preempted local minimum lot sizes of 1,500 square feet. A successful amendment authored by Sen. Shawnna Bolick (R–Phoenix), the bill's primary sponsor, weakened this provision to preempt minimum lot sizes of 3,000 square feet or more. Unlike the Texas bill, S.B. 1229 also bars local governments from regulating the aesthetic design of new homes or requiring shared amenities that might necessitate a homeowner's association. Both the Texas and Arizona bills have created unusual bipartisan coalitions. In Texas, S.B. 15 was labeled a priority bill by conservative Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who has called out local regulation for "stifling our housing supply, rendering our communities unable to meet present and future growth." It also received support from almost all of the chamber's 11 Democrats. While Arizona's S.B. 1229 prime sponsor is Bolick, its co-sponsors include Sen. Analise Ortiz (D–Glendale), a progressive Democrat, who has aggressively championed the bill. Having passed their respective senates, both the Texas and Arizona bills will now be considered by their Houses of Representatives. The New Hampshire Senate passed a less ambitious minimum lot size reform bill that caps single-family minimum lot size requirements at 88,000 square feet, or 22,000 square feet if serviced by community sewer infrastructure. The New York Times has a new piece on the bipartisan backlash against the California Coastal Commission's awesome development-stopping powers. The Times story frames this as a class warfare story, writing that "by design, the [Coastal Commission] rejects the desires of some of the world's wealthiest and most influential people." Maybe so, but it also frequently rejects the desires of much less well-off people trying to build basically anything near the seashore. City Journal has a new article on Maui's snail-paced rebuilding effort following 2023's deadly wildfires and some of the local political dynamics that make speeding things up exceedingly difficult. Read Reason's coverage of the island's rebuilding efforts from January. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has waived city requirements that demolished "protected units" (i.e. rent-controlled units, deed-restricted affordable housing, and homes occupied by low-income tenants within the past five years) be rebuilt as low-income housing for wildfire rebuild projects. Bass' order mirrors Gov. Gavin Newsom's executive order waiving near-identical state-level unit replacement requirements in Los Angeles. Developers had expressed concern that requiring burned-down units to be rebuilt as below-market-rate units would be a huge tax on rebuilding efforts. As Reason reported back in February, Newsom's waiver was toothless so long as the city's near-identical rules remained in effect. Bass has now added the needed teeth by waving the city rules too. Speaking of Los Angeles, the city has issued the first home rebuilding permits some three months after January's devastating fires. The post Judge Orders Rhode Island Town To Return Secretly Seized Land to Affordable Housing Developer appeared first on
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court Has an Opportunity To Correct Its Kelo Eminent Domain Error
One of the U.S. Supreme Court may soon overturn one of its worst decisions in recent memory—a ruling that justified government stealing property from its owners to pass it to better-connected private parties. On Friday, the court will decide whether to consider a New York case that could upset the precedents set by Kelo v. New London, an eminent domain battle that prompted books, a movie, and state-level legal reforms. While Kelo was a loss for anybody who wants to set boundaries around government power, the court could take the opportunity this week to set things right with Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency. In dissenting to the majority's 2005 decision in Kelo allowing the taking of a house owned by Susette Kelo by the city government of New London, Connecticut to transfer it to a favored developer, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor quoted Calder v. Bull (1798): "[A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it." "Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power," O'Connor added. "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process." That dissent was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Also agreeing with the dissenters were a great many Americans horrified that the Supreme Court had signed off on the confiscation of private property so long as a potential new owner could show spiffy plans for the confiscated parcels and promise greater tax revenue. It wouldn't even have to be a fulfilled promise—Susette Kelo's house remained undeveloped when financing for the project fell through. The response to Kelo included books, a movie—Little Pink House—and a wave of state-level court decisions and legislative efforts intended to rein-in the abuse of eminent domain. "Since Kelo v. New London, 47 states have strengthened their protections against eminent domain abuse, either through legislation or state supreme court decisions," notes the Institute for Justice (I.J.). Of course, not all the reforms were created equal. I.J. grades the various efforts, with states like Florida getting an "A" grade and Connecticut—where the Kelo case occurred—lagging with a "D." A 2009 study found that "states with more economic freedom, greater value of new housing construction, and less racial and income inequality are more likely to have enacted stronger restrictions, and sooner" on eminent domain. And then there's New York. I.J. gives that state an "F" because it failed to even attempt reform. In 2009, that state's highest court conceded "it may be that the bar has now been set too low" as it approved seizure of private property for redevelopment. "But any such limitation upon the sovereign power of eminent domain as it has come to be defined in the urban renewal context is a matter for the Legislature, not the courts." The legislature never acted. So, it's no surprise that Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency comes from the Empire State. Nor is it a surprise that the circumstances seem so familiar. "Bryan Bowers and his business partner Mike Licata purchased property across the street from a new hospital in Utica, New York," according to Andrew Wimer of I.J., which represents the plaintiffs in the case. "The property was taken through eminent domain by the Oneida County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA) and given to their potential competitors to be used for parking." That is, local officials used eminent domain to favor one private party over another in a raw case of crony capitalism that violated private property rights and free market principles. In arguing for the Supreme Court to take the case, Bowers and I.J. point out that "lower courts disagree about how to implement Kelo's caveats about development plans and identified private beneficiaries. The result…is a patchwork of conflicting rules." In particular, they say, New York applies minimal scrutiny to eminent domain cases even when the grounds for seizing property are obviously bogus. "New York's courts have long held that evidence of pretext is legally irrelevant in takings cases." Bowers and company also urge the court to "consider whether Kelo should be overturned" given that four justices have publicly called for reconsidering or overturning that decision. In an amicus brief filed in support of Bowers, the Cato Institute and Ilya Somin of George Mason University explicitly argue that the Supreme Court "should overrule Kelo because it is deeply at odds with the text and original meaning of the Public Use Clause and is also marred by other errors." Emphasizing America's strong history of respect for private property, they argue that "an interpretation of the Public Use Clause that gives government a near-blank check to take property for transfer to private parties is deeply at odds with this commitment to the protection of property rights." Ironically, while establishment defenders of the powers-that-be cheered the Kelo decision—The New York Times editorialized that it was "a welcome vindication of cities' ability to act in the public interest"—it so shocked Americans that it breathed new life into efforts to restrain government's ability to seize homes, businesses, and land. Far from the "setback to the 'property rights' movement" that the Times' editorial board celebrated in 2005, it reignited interest in protecting private property. That revived interest resulted in reforms to eminent domain in many states and localities. It alerted the public that takings of private property are often corrupt, performed by politicians to reward friends and allies. And it reminded us that property rights are inextricable from other protections for our liberty. "The Court has elsewhere recognized 'the overriding respect for the sanctity of the home that has been embedded in our traditions since the origins of the Republic,'" Justice Thomas commented in his own dissent to Kelo. "Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not." On Friday, March 21, the Supreme Court is scheduled to decide whether to hear Bowers' case—and potentially to reconsider the mistake it made with Kelo. The post The Supreme Court Has an Opportunity To Correct Its Kelo Eminent Domain Error appeared first on
Washington Post
19-02-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
The Supreme Court can fix this mess of its own making
This week, the Supreme Court can begin cleaning up a predictable mess — it was predicted by a justice at the time — that it made with a misbegotten decision 20 years ago. The justices in conference on Friday are set to begin considering whether to decide a case that gives the court an opportunity to overturn Kelo, a decision so bad it provoked the passage of many beneficial state laws.
