Radio and Eminent Domain

[WCWalker]

After seeing the recent ruling against homeowners in New London, CT and being familiar with the situation in Norwood I started to think about how this could affect radio.

I did do some additional research and I've found other instances where this kind of land grab can now proceed against businesses in addition to homes. In Bristol, CT the city of Bristol is trying to evict an Ocean State Job Lot store from their property so that they can redevelop that site with several new businesses. Land grabs in Syracuse, NY and Glens Falls, NY also appear to be certain.

Since the court has ruled (un-Constitutionally I might add) in favor of the city and private developers over the home owners based upon what they construe as "what's best in the public's interest" it clearly shows a redefining of what is going to be best in the public's interest. Prior to this ruling it was only legal (and technically still is) for a government to take private property for development if it was going to be used by the public. Schools, parks, highways, hospitals etc. are legitimate examples of when Eminent Domain should be used. But in this case it is putting the land into the hands of private developers to create businesses and apartments for select people to use and access.

Here's what I am wondering. Can a rogue city government shut down a radio station by ruling because in their eyes they may not like the programming and consider it a public nuisance? Clearly they can claim they are taking the land away from that radio station under this law if they can prove their claim that the radio station does not serve the public interest but redeveloping the land under city guidance would.

Since the FCC used to dole out licenses based upon public benefit it seems to me this argument is valid and merits some concern. Since the FCC now auctions off a given frequency it is obvious the primary goal of doing what is in the best interest of the public is no longr valid.

I have a personal interest in this because of the trouble certain city and town governments in NY State have given me over the past 3 years with my part 15 AM station. The FCC recognizes my station as being legitimate because I use a FCC Type Accepted Part 15 AM transmitter but certain local governments have posed a problem for my station.

In a nutshell; how will this impact licensed radio stations as well as legal, unlicensed radio stations? Any thoughts?

 

[DudeFan]

The short answer is that for purposes of bankruptcy valuation and colllateral, broadcast licenses are "property," but as for a taking broadcast licenses are simply that, a license. There is no entitlement to a broadcast licenese, although there is a expectation of renewal. There is no "taking" when the United States has the right to revoke the license anyways.

 

[WCWalker]

***My mistake. I should have explained this more clearly.

I'm referring to the property itself and not the station license. I did speak to an attorney about this (not a broadcast attorney though) and his impression is that a city government could take the property from a radio station thanks to this ruling.



> The short answer is that for purposes of bankruptcy
> valuation and colllateral, broadcast licenses are
> "property," but as for a taking broadcast licenses are
> simply that, a license. There is no entitlement to a
> broadcast licenese, although there is a expectation of
> renewal. There is no "taking" when the United States has the
> right to revoke the license anyways.
>

 

[gr8oldies]

Absolutely true. If a Wal-mart or housing development brings in more tax revenue than that four-tower directional array for the AM with three listners, no doubt, the station can be gone.



> ***My mistake. I should have explained this more clearly.
>
> I'm referring to the property itself and not the station
> license. I did speak to an attorney about this (not a
> broadcast attorney though) and his impression is that a city
> government could take the property from a radio station
> thanks to this ruling.
>
>
>
> > The short answer is that for purposes of bankruptcy
> > valuation and colllateral, broadcast licenses are
> > "property," but as for a taking broadcast licenses are
> > simply that, a license. There is no entitlement to a
> > broadcast licenese, although there is a expectation of
> > renewal. There is no "taking" when the United States has
> the
> > right to revoke the license anyways.
> >
>
<P ID="signature">______________
I'll get back to you when I think of a cute quote</P>

 

[DudeFan]

> Absolutely true. If a Wal-mart or housing development brings
> in more tax revenue than that four-tower directional array
> for the AM with three listners, no doubt, the station can be
> gone.

Generally, however, if the land is leased to the station, which is often the case, the parcel is large enough for the owner to havce sold out long ago.

I believe WOR New York had its Meadowlands transmission site taken by eminent domain because the Meadowlands Development Authority is going to put up a shopping/office/condo complex.

There are some intricacies involved with stations, though, because a local government cannot force the station off the air. In such a situation where eviction were pending, an injunction would be really easy (but somewhat expensive) to get.

 

[titoisradio]

With this ruling the government must prove that the new owner will generate more tax revenue than the current owner. Its total bull and unless we destroy the democrat party who supports socialist policies like that it will only get worse.


> ***My mistake. I should have explained this more clearly.
>
> I'm referring to the property itself and not the station
> license. I did speak to an attorney about this (not a
> broadcast attorney though) and his impression is that a city
> government could take the property from a radio station
> thanks to this ruling.
>
>
>
> > The short answer is that for purposes of bankruptcy
> > valuation and colllateral, broadcast licenses are
> > "property," but as for a taking broadcast licenses are
> > simply that, a license. There is no entitlement to a
> > broadcast licenese, although there is a expectation of
> > renewal. There is no "taking" when the United States has
> the
> > right to revoke the license anyways.
> >
>

 

[WCWalker]

***I envision this could ultimately be used to satisfy a political or personal vendetta. If someone at City Hall in Anytown, U.S.A. does not like the programming on a radio station they could easily use eminent domain to move the station out of town or off the air. In fact, right now, I know of a case just like this going on in Shamrock, TX.



> > Absolutely true. If a Wal-mart or housing development
> brings
> > in more tax revenue than that four-tower directional array
>
> > for the AM with three listners, no doubt, the station can
> be
> > gone.
>
> Generally, however, if the land is leased to the station,
> which is often the case, the parcel is large enough for the
> owner to havce sold out long ago.
>
> I believe WOR New York had its Meadowlands transmission site
> taken by eminent domain because the Meadowlands Development
> Authority is going to put up a shopping/office/condo
> complex.
>
> There are some intricacies involved with stations, though,
> because a local government cannot force the station off the
> air. In such a situation where eviction were pending, an
> injunction would be really easy (but somewhat expensive) to
> get.
>

 

[WCWalker]

***Clearly it is the Democrats that overwhelmingly favor this ruling. The Judges that ruled in favor were Democrats while the Republican's voted against.

As an individual that is fed up witih both the phony Republicans and Democrats (now supporting a 3rd party) it is disturbing to see the Democrats sell out their supposed and self proclaimed consituency. They always boast they are for the little guy but now their true colors are really showing what motives they have behind the scenes. And the Republicans are just as bad with their stupid social programs and spending increases across the board as well as the stripping of our legal, civil rights.

My primary concern though is the impact this could have on both licensed and legal, unlicensed broadcast stations. Eventually I hope to own a licensed station but in the meantime I have to settle for a Part 15 AM station. Given the trouble I've had with local governments trying to illegally regulate my part 15 station I can see where they could use this ruling to go after any station they don't like.

On the bright side I just found out the State of Kentucky will not permit such land grabs with eminent domain. They are following the Constitution's wishes and only allow eminent domain for public works projects like roads, schools, parks etc.

A move to northern KY may be in my not too distant future... At least I know I can run my station in peace and won't have to worry about some renegade City Hall going after my station.



> With this ruling the government must prove that the new
> owner will generate more tax revenue than the current owner.
> Its total bull and unless we destroy the democrat party who
> supports socialist policies like that it will only get
> worse.
>
>
> > ***My mistake. I should have explained this more clearly.
>
> >
> > I'm referring to the property itself and not the station
> > license. I did speak to an attorney about this (not a
> > broadcast attorney though) and his impression is that a
> city
> > government could take the property from a radio station
> > thanks to this ruling.
> >
> >
> >
> > > The short answer is that for purposes of bankruptcy
> > > valuation and colllateral, broadcast licenses are
> > > "property," but as for a taking broadcast licenses are
> > > simply that, a license. There is no entitlement to a
> > > broadcast licenese, although there is a expectation of
> > > renewal. There is no "taking" when the United States has
>
> > the
> > > right to revoke the license anyways.
> > >
> >
>

 

[DudeFan]

> ***I envision this could ultimately be used to satisfy a
> political or personal vendetta. If someone at City Hall in
> Anytown, U.S.A. does not like the programming on a radio
> station they could easily use eminent domain to move the
> station out of town or off the air. In fact, right now, I
> know of a case just like this going on in Shamrock, TX.

I cannot comment on the specific facts of the above. My experience is that disputes are rarely as simple as they seem. I suspect that is true in the Shamrock, Texas matter.

After observing your posts, I take it you are a Part-15 operator. I doubt that you're going to have to worry about disputes arising from your broadcasts. It would seem that your real uphill climb will be amassing a significant audience. Full-power broadcasters even have that problem. I suppose you might have one or two neighbors that could potentially be offended, although you might be fortunate enough to have a large yard to keep them out of receiving range.

While the Supreme Court decision has serious implications, I don't think you'll see the exercise of eminent domain as to a single dwelling in a residential neighborhod because of your hobby.

 

[WCWalker]

***Dudefan, I did run into some serious issues with a local government in NY State when I was running my part 15 station in that community. They were "inventing" laws that directly contradicted both State and Federal laws on a few issues. I've never had any problems with neighbors in any of the locations that I've broadcast from.

Actually my signal is fairly good for a tenth of a watt because I use an FCC Type Accepted, professional part 15 AM transmitter and not one of those Ramsey kits. Range can vary with each location of course as ground conductivity plays a role in the distance a station will transmit. Range in that particular community was a solid 2 to 3 miles on a car radio during the day and about a mile radius at night.

It became clear the local government in that community had issues with my station because they could not control it. I am trying to figure out how to circumvent future issues with a local government especially in a state that permits eminent domain to be used for private development. I can easily see someone not liking my program content trying to force me out of my home by any means possible. That is what I faced in that podunk town in NY and I want to avoid it again.

The FCC is aware of my station (and others like it) and they don't have a problem with us especially when using one of their Type Approved transmitters. But I and other part 15 stations have had trouble with rogue local governments that basically ignore the FCC and its rules.



> > ***I envision this could ultimately be used to satisfy a
> > political or personal vendetta. If someone at City Hall
> in
> > Anytown, U.S.A. does not like the programming on a radio
> > station they could easily use eminent domain to move the
> > station out of town or off the air. In fact, right now, I
>
> > know of a case just like this going on in Shamrock, TX.
>
> I cannot comment on the specific facts of the above. My
> experience is that disputes are rarely as simple as they
> seem. I suspect that is true in the Shamrock, Texas matter.
>
> After observing your posts, I take it you are a Part-15
> operator. I doubt that you're going to have to worry about
> disputes arising from your broadcasts. It would seem that
> your real uphill climb will be amassing a significant
> audience. Full-power broadcasters even have that problem. I
> suppose you might have one or two neighbors that could
> potentially be offended, although you might be fortunate
> enough to have a large yard to keep them out of receiving
> range.
>
> While the Supreme Court decision has serious implications, I
> don't think you'll see the exercise of eminent domain as to
> a single dwelling in a residential neighborhod because of
> your hobby.
>

 

[DudeFan]

> ***Dudefan, I did run into some serious issues with a local
> government in NY State when I was running my part 15 station
> in that community. They were "inventing" laws that directly
> contradicted both State and Federal laws on a few issues.
> I've never had any problems with neighbors in any of the
> locations that I've broadcast from.
>
> Actually my signal is fairly good for a tenth of a watt
> because I use an FCC Type Accepted, professional part 15 AM
> transmitter and not one of those Ramsey kits. Range can
> vary with each location of course as ground conductivity
> plays a role in the distance a station will transmit. Range
> in that particular community was a solid 2 to 3 miles on a
> car radio during the day and about a mile radius at night.
>
> It became clear the local government in that community had
> issues with my station because they could not control it. I
> am trying to figure out how to circumvent future issues with
> a local government especially in a state that permits
> eminent domain to be used for private development. I can
> easily see someone not liking my program content trying to
> force me out of my home by any means possible. That is what
> I faced in that podunk town in NY and I want to avoid it
> again.
>
> The FCC is aware of my station (and others like it) and they
> don't have a problem with us especially when using one of
> their Type Approved transmitters. But I and other part 15
> stations have had trouble with rogue local governments that
> basically ignore the FCC and its rules.
>

No disrespect, but a program perhaps capable listened to by maybe 1,000 folks and likely actually received by a handful is unlikely to stir anyone up. Folks with 100,000 watts have difficulty getting anyone to listen or care. Is there something you are doing off-air that bothers folks?

 

[WCWalker]

***Well, I had the Fed's investigate and it turns out the place was and is VERY corrupt. My free spirited, independent natures ruffles a lot of feathers especially the control freaks of our world. It really came down to a control issue, that and the fact that the people in that community (as in so many others) have a tendency to lable outsiders before they get familiar.

My station actually covered the entire 3 square miles and 6,300 residents by day and night. By day you could add another 1,000 or so potential listeners within earshot on car radios.

I don't believe the programming was the direct issue though because I had a lot of listeners including people at City Hall. But the fact that they wanted to force me into a store front (illegal) and a few other things did indicate they were sticking their noses where they didn't belong.



> > ***Dudefan, I did run into some serious issues with a
> local
> > government in NY State when I was running my part 15
> station
> > in that community. They were "inventing" laws that
> directly
> > contradicted both State and Federal laws on a few issues.
>
> > I've never had any problems with neighbors in any of the
> > locations that I've broadcast from.
> >
> > Actually my signal is fairly good for a tenth of a watt
> > because I use an FCC Type Accepted, professional part 15
> AM
> > transmitter and not one of those Ramsey kits. Range can
> > vary with each location of course as ground conductivity
> > plays a role in the distance a station will transmit.
> Range
> > in that particular community was a solid 2 to 3 miles on a
>
> > car radio during the day and about a mile radius at night.
>
> >
> > It became clear the local government in that community had
>
> > issues with my station because they could not control it.
> I
> > am trying to figure out how to circumvent future issues
> with
> > a local government especially in a state that permits
> > eminent domain to be used for private development. I can
> > easily see someone not liking my program content trying to
>
> > force me out of my home by any means possible. That is
> what
> > I faced in that podunk town in NY and I want to avoid it
> > again.
> >
> > The FCC is aware of my station (and others like it) and
> they
> > don't have a problem with us especially when using one of
> > their Type Approved transmitters. But I and other part 15
>
> > stations have had trouble with rogue local governments
> that
> > basically ignore the FCC and its rules.
> >
>
> No disrespect, but a program perhaps capable listened to by
> maybe 1,000 folks and likely actually received by a handful
> is unlikely to stir anyone up. Folks with 100,000 watts have
> difficulty getting anyone to listen or care. Is there
> something you are doing off-air that bothers folks?
>

 

[DudeFan]

>
> I don't believe the programming was the direct issue though
> because I had a lot of listeners including people at City
> Hall. But the fact that they wanted to force me into a
> store front (illegal) and a few other things did indicate
> they were sticking their noses where they didn't belong.

There is nothing illegal about enforcing zoning regulations. Most communities allow home-based businesses in residential areas, but there can be no other employees (whether contract or direct hire), no clients, and several other non-pertinent regulations. Your community does not want residential areas turning into defacto office parks and the resulting parking and traffic issues. I can't say that I blame them. Certainly, you wouldn't want your neighbors opening up a hair salon or coffee shop next door while you are trying to relax on the deck and enjoy the quiet.

So, if you stated that you intended to have clients and contractors come and go, the local government had every right to tell you that a commercial location would be the only suitable place to locate. Frankly, an empty storefront would be great visibility and, depending on the vacancy, could have been very affordable.

 

[WCWalker]

***That was not the case in this situation. Prior to moving there I was told that I could sub contract people to do work and have volunteers but no employees other than myself. Since I was the only employee and my tower met zoning requirements (as did the rest of the operation) I could run a home based business from that location.

Apparently it was that time of the month though because after I moved there they decided to change the rules. When I checked the town regulations I found out no changes had officially been made.

In a nutshell, I was fully compliant with zoning regulations but they made "special" un-official changes just for me after I moved there.

I think we're getting off on a tangent here because I am more concerned about eminent domain being used against me if I choose the wrong community and not the zoning regulations in a former home. I always abide by zoning issues and that is not going to be an issue in a fairly clean, (politically) well managed community.



> >
> > I don't believe the programming was the direct issue
> though
> > because I had a lot of listeners including people at City
> > Hall. But the fact that they wanted to force me into a
> > store front (illegal) and a few other things did indicate
> > they were sticking their noses where they didn't belong.
>
> There is nothing illegal about enforcing zoning regulations.
> Most communities allow home-based businesses in residential
> areas, but there can be no other employees (whether contract
> or direct hire), no clients, and several other non-pertinent
> regulations. Your community does not want residential areas
> turning into defacto office parks and the resulting parking
> and traffic issues. I can't say that I blame them.
> Certainly, you wouldn't want your neighbors opening up a
> hair salon or coffee shop next door while you are trying to
> relax on the deck and enjoy the quiet.
>
> So, if you stated that you intended to have clients and
> contractors come and go, the local government had every
> right to tell you that a commercial location would be the
> only suitable place to locate. Frankly, an empty storefront
> would be great visibility and, depending on the vacancy,
> could have been very affordable.
>

 

[DudeFan]

> I think we're getting off on a tangent here because I am
> more concerned about eminent domain being used against me if
> I choose the wrong community and not the zoning regulations
> in a former home. I always abide by zoning issues and that
> is not going to be an issue in a fairly clean, (politically)
> well managed community.

First, although you would have to discuss the matter with an attorney more familiar with your situation, the exercise of eminent domain is not an easy or quick process and would not succeed if the government was trying to cherry pick just one home out of an entire residential neighborhood.

Second, it appears from what you have stated that there is something that you are doing that is inviting problems that are being dealt with appropriately, if allegedly aggressively.

To that end, you may be searching for the Holy Grail.

 

[WCWalker]

***When I've run my part 15 station in cities or suburbs I have not had any trouble. I've only had trouble in the two small towns it was running. In otherwords when I live in small towns I have problems but when I am in cities or suburbs I have few if any.

Now as far as your comment that I am inviting trouble well I consider that to be inappropriate. I mind my own business, abide by local zoning rules and don't bother anyone. An allegation of this nature cannot be substantiated by someone unfamiliar with the facts or situation in that particular hick town. To give you another indication of just how sleazy that place was...They used to hold closed door town meetings (locked doors) when they were supposed to be open. And they have a tendency to keep certain newspaper reporters from an area newspaper out of the meetings even though they have a legal right to attend and report on the town meeting. I suspect they lumped me in with the newspaper media in the area even before they had a chance to know who I am or what my station is about.

You make an excellent point about cherry picking an individual home. I guess I just need to be careful when I choose another neighborhood. Since I ultimately plan to have a licensed station I will need to be sure that its location will not be subject to property seizure.



> > I think we're getting off on a tangent here because I am
> > more concerned about eminent domain being used against me
> if
> > I choose the wrong community and not the zoning
> regulations
> > in a former home. I always abide by zoning issues and
> that
> > is not going to be an issue in a fairly clean,
> (politically)
> > well managed community.
>
> First, although you would have to discuss the matter with an
> attorney more familiar with your situation, the exercise of
> eminent domain is not an easy or quick process and would not
> succeed if the government was trying to cherry pick just one
> home out of an entire residential neighborhood.
>
> Second, it appears from what you have stated that there is
> something that you are doing that is inviting problems that
> are being dealt with appropriately, if allegedly
> aggressively.
>
> To that end, you may be searching for the Holy Grail.
>

 

[tinytim]

Get a room!

Or at least swap e-mail addresses. This is not a thread, it's a conversation. If some one else had an interest, they'd have joined in by now. Take it somewhere else, please.

 

[WCWalker]

Re: Get a room!

***I never wanted this discussion to degrade to this level. I simply wanted to discuss eminent domain and its potential impact on radio stations.


> Or at least swap e-mail addresses. This is not a thread,
> it's a conversation. If some one else had an interest,
> they'd have joined in by now. Take it somewhere else,
> please.
>

 

[WCWalker]

I Might Add Though...

Tiny Tim. The dicussion pertained to radio and if you or anyone else chose not to join in then that is your prerogative. If you don't like the tone or content of the discussion then move onto something else. Understand? Unless you happen to be the Moderator of the board your comments are out of line.

 

[DudeFan]

Re: Get a room!

> Or at least swap e-mail addresses. This is not a thread,
> it's a conversation. If some one else had an interest,
> they'd have joined in by now. Take it somewhere else,
> please.
>

The discussion was open to input from all and for others to share their knowledge. I happen to know some about eminent domain and I was gracious enough to share what I could. You are welcome to provide substantive comment. Your statement above did neither.