Dear Editor:

1) ST has a long history of not giving sufficient notice to owners of condemned properties. I could find news stories going back a long way, even before the one below.

https://seattletransitblog.com/2017/09/29/sound-transit-offers-olive-branch-homeowners-shoreline/  

Sound Transit Offers Olive Branch to Homeowners in Shoreline

Posted on

September 29, 2017 by Lizz Giordano  Peter Rogoff, CEO of Sound Transit, promised better outreach after residents voiced complaints about the agency’s property acquisition process for the Lynnwood Link Extension during Thursday’s board meeting.

2) ST has a long history of giving low offers:

“Any eminent domain is at appraised value, so the property owner gets the full value.” Sometimes. It’s just not as black and white as you make it out to be. For example:“The government will frequently, if not usually, choose a lesser highest and best use for a property it seeks to acquire through eminent domain. This justifies the government offering to pay a low “fair” market value for land it seeks to acquire. Property owners should insure the correct highest and best use is applied to their property. This may often be different from the actual use employed by the current owner.”Also, condemning authorities typically ignore severance damages in the case of partial takings.Having gone thru a condemnation action personally, my advice to these property owners is to get an attorney who specializes in this area.

https://www.lhlappraisal.com/appraisal-disputes-regarding-sound-transit-link-light-rail-expansion-projects/ - Within the Sound Transit appraisals we’re reviewed so far, there have been many areas of concern relating to the calculation of damages and just compensation. We’ve seen a variety of issues that have raised concerns. You may want to consider a second opinion to ensure that you are getting a fair value for your property.

https://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/performance-audit-real-property-acquisition-2017.pdf  page 13 -   In addition, we found the following: 1. In each instance a Sound Transit representative sent a letter to the identified impacted property owner notifying them of the impending acquisition action. However, we understand that such written communication was not always considered effective from the property owners’ perspectives. 2. In each instance either one or two appraisal reports (depending upon anticipated acquisition value) were obtained. We performed an administrative appraisal review of the appraisal reports, and reached the conclusion that the various reports were prepared in compliance with federal regulations, as set out in 49 CFR, 24.103 (criteria for appraisals). The appraisal reports each utilized the various appraisal approaches to value in accordance with the stated appraisal problem.  

Doesn't "anticipated acquisition value" and "stated appraisal problem" suggest the ST has a plan/budget that appraisals must meet. Probably not unreasonable for planning purposes, but how fair to the property owner who is naive or doesn't buy into the "fair market value" being offered. Their only recourse is to hire an attorney who can challenge the ST fair market value offer - I think?

3) ST has a history of buying properties for "other uses" such as parking and mobilization areas for equipment, staging, and then for "affordable and market rate housing": https://urbanland.uli.org/development-business/building-success-tod-seattle-st3 - In granting Sound Transit permission to put ST3 to a vote last November, the state legislature stipulated that surplus land must be offered first to housing authorities and nonprofit developers and that 80 percent of the units built on surplus land must be affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the area median income. 

So, ST is also in more than just building light rail. It is also in the business of "transit oriented development" in partnering with government and private development agencies. Sound Transit CEO Peter Rogoff admits his agency blew its first chance to build lots of housing and commercial space around train stations. 

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2017/03/23/sound-transit-seattle-transit-oriented-development.html -  Sound Transit CEO Peter Rogoff speaks while King County Executive Dow Constantine listens during a March 2016 media preview tour and ride of the U-Link light trail train between the new Husky Stadium station and the Capitol Hill station. Rogoff this week said the agency is making it a priority to plan for real estate development opportunities around transit stations.

4) ST has sometimes used properties it has acquired through condemnation for purposes other than "public use"  https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1622&context=law_lawreview  NOTES A PROFIT FOR THE TAKING: SALE OF CONDEMNED PROPERTY AFTER ABANDONMENT OF THE PROPOSED PUBLIC USE I. INTRODUCTION The power of eminent domain allows a government, or its designee, to acquire property in fee simple from private individuals against their will.' The Constitution limits the exercise of this power by providing that the taken property must be applied to a public use and that just compensation must be paid to the former owner.2 Though both limitations are required for a proper condemnation, the constitutional protections seemingly disappear as soon as the condemnation proceedings conclude.3 In other words, once the condemnor convinces the courts that the "proposed" use of the property is a legitimate public use, the "actual" use of property condemned in fee simple need not convey any public benefit.4 This lack of post-condemnation accountability5 creates a power ripe for abuse.6 The likelihood of abuse is increased because state governments grant the power of eminent domain to many different groups.' Therefore, a condemnor in the vast majority of states' may take property in fee simple for an "alleged" public use, while actually engaging in a form of real estate speculation,9 and later reap a profit from the sale of the property        

Which is what makes me concerned about ST. 

https://www.sgrlaw.com/ttl-articles/837/ Generally, eminent domain, also referred to as “condemnation,” is the taking of private property by local, state or federal government for a “public use” or “public purpose.”

In a five-to-four ruling, the high court held in Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005), that New London, Connecticut could properly exercise eminent domain power in furtherance of an economic development plan. At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for “public use.”

New London, Connecticut had fallen on hard economic times. The city was economically distressed after its last major employer, the U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center, closed in 1996. Its tax base and population were continually decreasing, and city leaders were desperate for some form of economic development. In 1998, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer began construction of a major research facility on the outskirts of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. Seeing an opportunity, the city activated the New London Development Corporation, a private entity under the control of the city government, to consider plans to redevelop the area and encourage new economic activities that might be brought in by the Pfizer plant. The development corporation created a development plan that included a resort waterfront hotel and conference center (New London is located on both the Thames River and Long Island Sound), a new state park, new residences, and various research, office and retail spaces.  

Which is what makes me concerned about ST.

https://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/files/2018/07/NathanBuTakingStockExplor.pdf- A case review of how Donald Trump sought to use eminent domain to acquire a property he wanted, which was solely for his own benefit.

Which is what makes me concerned about ST and Dow Constantine together.

I guess, again my uneducated guess, is that ST has, does, and will continue to cross the line of "condemnation absent fraud or arbitrary or capricious conduct".  Perhaps not as belligerently as Donal Trump, but with the intention of the desired outcome. Whether it be lowball offers, transit oriented development deals that increase ST profit, or selling a property first taken in eminent domain for a low ball figure, then reselling it at a later date, for profit, and then trying to take it again in a future eminent domain action. 

Didn't Dow Constantine say "getting these properties is like money in the bank"? 

Has ST crossed the line of working for public interest on transportation and development around transit centers to being its own private developer empire?

West Seattle Neighbor