Seattle Washington Eminent Domain Attorney | Spokane Airports Lose Eminent Domain Battle

Any time eminent domain decisions come down from the Washington State Court of Appeals or Supreme Court it's interesting to take a look and discuss the outcome and how it might affect future eminent domain actions, both from a takings perspective and from a valuation (just compensation) perspective. It may be that it's just interesting to me because I'm a Washington eminent domain attorney. But that's okay since I'm the one that writes this blog!

This case starts out like almost every other Washington eminent domain case does, a (well supposed in this case) public entity wishes to procure some property for what it deems a public project and goes out and gets it, either through negotiating under the threat of condemnation or by instituting a condemnation action. Here, the Spokane Airport Board, a pseudo-agency created by the City of Spokane and Spokane County created to run the airport, decided to build a new airport tower. To comply with FAA regulations, they were informed they needed to create a line of sight that was currently obstructed by a number of buildings, some owned by Spokane Airways.

This is where it takes an interesting turn. After the City and County passed a resolution for eminent domain, the Airport Board took the property via eminent domain. An order of public use and necessity was signed, and an order of immediate possession was signed. RMA agreed to be out by March 20. While this was going on, RMA attempted to exercise some of the provisions of its lease with the Board, particularly one that provided they were to receive new space at the airport for their operation. The judge refused to dismiss these contract claims, so the Board tried to take the contract rights as a part of its eminent domain powers.

But the court said "uh-uh," finding that eminent domain only took the possessory interest granted by the lease, not all of the remaining underlying provisions (like what the Board had to do in the event eminent domain was necessary). The Board appealed to the Supreme Court, wherein RMA filed a supplemental brief arguing the Board doesn't have any authority to condemn, and the entire action should be dismissed.

The courts analysis, which is sound, found in favor of RMA. Eminent domain statutes are construed very strictly. Those statutes allow for the creation of joint ventures for cooperative action, but maintain that eminent domain actions must be made in the name of the governmental entity that granted the power to the joint venture (in the case, the Board). Because the actions were not brought in the name of the City and County, the Court of Appeals dismissed the action.

Christopher Small is a Seattle eminent domain lawyer and Washington eminent domain lawyer emphasizing helping landowners get the full amount of just compensation they are entitled to. Having your property taken by the government is a trying experience, and it is important to have someone on your side with the knowledge, expertise, and experience to fight for your rights and recognize where the government has short changed you. Call us today for a free consultation.

Washington Eminent Domain Lawyer | New Senate Bill had Eminent Domain Implications

In an interesting piece of news, the Washington State Senate recently passed SHB 1332, an act relating to the authority of a watershed management partnership to exercise powers of its forming governments. Watershed management partnerships are usually created by two adjacent or cooperating governmental entities to jointly manage a watershed district. The point of the bill is to clarify a couple of things: first, that by interlocal agreement two governmental entities may join forces to form a a watershed management partnership and that partnership may establish itself as a separate legal entity with the ability to contract and assume indebtedness; and second, that the watershed partnership itself, so long as the two local governmental entities have the power of eminent domain, may exercise the power of eminent domain, but the separate entity established may not.

Although this may sound ominous, it appears as though the legislature was acting to clean up what must have been a confusing conundrum for local governmental entities that want to try to get water to their communities and preserve the ability to get water to their communities. This bill just points out what should make sense, that two entities that join forces to work together that both have the power of eminent domain can exercise that power jointly.

For example, let's say Seattle and Bonney Lake want to join forces to make a watershed management partnership so that Bonney Lake can get water from Seattle (I'm just making this up, so take it as a purely hypothetical example). If the partnership was formed, it would be able to exercise the Seattle eminent domain power and the Bonney Lake eminent domain power simultaneously, so long as the power was exercised by the partnership and not any legal entity created via the partnership. In the example in the bill summary, they point out that Tacoma has exercised its eminent domain powers to provide water to Bonney Lake.

Where this gets interesting though is with the Cascade Water Alliance, which appears to be a conglomerate of cities trying to get water out of Lake Tapps by building a pipeline. Although plans have not yet progressed even as far as the environmental studies, it appears this bill might in the future allow them to exercise eminent domain to the possible detriment of other cities such as Bonney Lake, Auburn, Sumner, and Buckley, which aren't a part of the Cascade Water Alliance but are in Pierce County.

If your property is being taken through eminent domain in Bonney Lake, Auburn, Seattle, Sumner, Buckley, Lake Tapps, Tacoma, King County, Pierce County, or anywhere else in Washington, be sure to contact a Washington eminent domain lawyer as soon as possible. A Washington eminent domain lawyer will have a wealth of information to help you through the process and can be an invaluable resource.