Not only will the city receive greatly increased tax revenues that will be spent on improving the area, but also the new development will provide safer, friendlier opportunities to provide shelter and interaction among the citizenry . . . Hey, sounds good to me . . . Of course, there is also the resident or land owner to consider . . .

The land owners are often caught in a snare that promotes the idea that their property and its history have no value in the community. Many times several generations of a single family will grow up in one home. Other times, the owner has dreams of capitalizing on the property or building a retirement home when the timing is right.

One problem that a single owner has in fighting eminent domain is that there are other residents fighting the same foe, but each with their own reasons why.

Sometimes, of course, an area needs to be overhauled and the only thing standing in the way is a single stubborn owner . . . Whose rights are more important?

It is hard to say what is right or wrong, however, once a home is targeted for redevelopment, that train is hard to stop.

And thus, how many times does this type of development require the saving of a special tree or the inclusion of a park system or the historic preservation of an old building?

But what about the kind of eminent domain that shows itself in rules and regulations? . . . City or community ordinances? . . . Or the rules associated with a historic residence or district? . . . In these situations, it?EUR??,,????'???s not they want to tear down your house, building or tree . . . They now don?EUR??,,????'???t want you . . . In fact, they won?EUR??,,????'???t let you alter your property without their say so . . .

The newsletter tells a story about a home in ?EUR??,,????'??historic?EUR??,,????'??? Carmel, Ca. Here?EUR??,,????'???s an excerpt: ?EUR??,,????'??This year a homeowner was rebuked for installing a decorative chimney cap portraying a gargoyle. The owner had no idea that she needed a permit. In a city that boasts about its bohemian art colony past, the planning commission weighed in on whether the gargoyle had to go. The debate came down to whether it was “whimsy” or “ostentatious.” Eventually, the planning commission voted in favor of whimsy . . .?EUR??,,????'??

This, of course, caused me to ponder the role/involvement of Landscape Architects and Land Planners in this debate of public good vs. private right. While it is hard to side against the homeowner, it is easy to see a Landscape Architect hired by a developer to put forth a plan that will ?EUR??,,????'??Wow?EUR??,,????'?? the community. You also have to be able to side on the side of development if you are a city planner. So what criteria do you use?

Could you do the same job if your mother lived in one of the houses to be replaced? Of course, you probably wouldn?EUR??,,????'???t get that contract, would you? Then again, are there methods of re-landscaping a community that can add back old value and stop the eminent domain steam ship? What if a Landscape Architect were to look at a district or community and help turn it into a historic redevelopment? Then the city would have to choose between the rules that say you have to improve and those rules that say you can?EUR??,,????'???t touch the ground . . . What then of future business? Would you be a sure ?EUR??,,????'??miss?EUR??,,????'?? at the next proposal review?

The issue of eminent domain is not an easy one to resolve. However, it seems to be increasingly about the dollar fighting the history of a piece of property. So, if you do bring this up at the water cooler, be sure to e-mail us with a recap of your conversation . . .We?EUR??,,????'???d love to know what you?EUR??,,????'???re thinking . . .

?EUR??,,????'??+God Bless