What is MEDI?
The Minnesota Eminent Domain Institute (MEDI) is a non-profit corporation comprised of some of the best Minnesota attorneys currently practicing primarily in the areas of eminent domain and relocation law. Our attorneys are well versed in taking the legal steps necessary to ensure you and your family receive the legal "minimum compensation" -- or more -- when the state government acquires your property. Our main goal is to promote the fair and equitable treatment of property owners, tenants, and displaced persons who have been impacted by governmental acquisitions of private property.
The purpose of MEDI, in part, is to serve as a counterbalance to the extensive lobbying and litigation efforts currently conducted by a wide variety of government-sponsored organizations, such as the League of Minnesota Cities, the Association of Minnesota Counties and Minnesota’s Chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. Our missions is to provide educational outreach and informational networking channels to highlight and promote legislative and regulatory changes, and advance case law itself, that is favorable to those the government has affected.
MEDI’s interest in this area of the law is primarily private in nature. However, MEDI believes there is also a strong public interest in ensuring that
all persons receive fair and equitable treatment if they possess an interest in property that has been affected by a governmental taking.
The purpose of MEDI, in part, is to serve as a counterbalance to the extensive lobbying and litigation efforts currently conducted by a wide variety of government-sponsored organizations, such as the League of Minnesota Cities, the Association of Minnesota Counties and Minnesota’s Chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. Our missions is to provide educational outreach and informational networking channels to highlight and promote legislative and regulatory changes, and advance case law itself, that is favorable to those the government has affected.
MEDI’s interest in this area of the law is primarily private in nature. However, MEDI believes there is also a strong public interest in ensuring that
all persons receive fair and equitable treatment if they possess an interest in property that has been affected by a governmental taking.
Preventing Abuse of Eminent Domain
Recently, there has been growing concern about the manner in which some states and units of government exercise their power of eminent domain. Some governments appear inclined to exercise eminent domain for the benefit of developers or commercial interests, on the basis that if public use of a given private property will increase the value of that land, this is a sufficient reason to acquire the private property.
Critics respond that this is absurd, and that most properties, no matter how upscale, can be made more valuable if developed in a different manner. Critics also point out that if a developer is unable to purchase the property on the open market, then that developer will be unlikely to offer the landowners the true value of the property through condemnation proceedings.
The governmental response to that point is that the law of eminent domain arose due to the experience that some property owners are unwilling to negotiate a reasonable sale price, and this should not provide a basis for landowners to extort an above-market price or to prevent the completion of a public project.
For example, in one MEDI condemnation case, a town wished to exercise eminent domain over a residential neighborhood so that an upscale condominium development could be built on that land. To advance that goal, they defined any home within the neighborhood as blighted, or damaged -- and thus subject to urban renewal condemnation proceedings -- if it did not have three bedrooms, two bathrooms, an attached two car garage, and central air conditioning. The homeowners and attorneys challenged the definition in court, and were ultimately successful in fighting the municipality's efforts to take their homes.
Critics respond that this is absurd, and that most properties, no matter how upscale, can be made more valuable if developed in a different manner. Critics also point out that if a developer is unable to purchase the property on the open market, then that developer will be unlikely to offer the landowners the true value of the property through condemnation proceedings.
The governmental response to that point is that the law of eminent domain arose due to the experience that some property owners are unwilling to negotiate a reasonable sale price, and this should not provide a basis for landowners to extort an above-market price or to prevent the completion of a public project.
For example, in one MEDI condemnation case, a town wished to exercise eminent domain over a residential neighborhood so that an upscale condominium development could be built on that land. To advance that goal, they defined any home within the neighborhood as blighted, or damaged -- and thus subject to urban renewal condemnation proceedings -- if it did not have three bedrooms, two bathrooms, an attached two car garage, and central air conditioning. The homeowners and attorneys challenged the definition in court, and were ultimately successful in fighting the municipality's efforts to take their homes.
MEDI's History
When MEDI was originally founded in 2003, it was known as the Coalition of Landowners Eminent Domain Attorneys (CLEDA). CLEDA was formed as an ad hock association of lawyers in response to the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision in the case Chanhassen Chiropractic Center, P.A. v City of Chanhassen, 663 N.W.2d 559 (Minn.App. 2003). The attorneys banded together to provide a voice for the chiropractic center that had been displaced by the City of Chanhassen when the City denied the center's claim of eligibility for relocation benefits.
The business petitioned the Minnesota Court of Appeals to compel the City to provide a fair and impartial hearing officer for their appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, and CLEDA members stepped in to represent the interests of the business.
Most persons are affected by government takings just once in their lifetime, and therefore no organizations or groups existed to represent their interests.
CLEDA changed this by becoming an advocate and providing a voice for those property owners, tenants, and displaced persons whose lives are thrown into turmoil because of a government project.
In 2004, CLEDA's name was formally changed to the Minnesota Eminent Domain Institute (MEDI), and MEDI filed as a nonprofit corporation. MEDI's mission statement is:
It is the objective of the Minnesota Eminent Domain Institute, via educational and information networking channels, to
promote legislative and regulatory changes and advance case law that is favorable to property owners, tenants, and
displaced persons and to promote just compensation and property rights for those affected by government takings.
The business petitioned the Minnesota Court of Appeals to compel the City to provide a fair and impartial hearing officer for their appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, and CLEDA members stepped in to represent the interests of the business.
Most persons are affected by government takings just once in their lifetime, and therefore no organizations or groups existed to represent their interests.
CLEDA changed this by becoming an advocate and providing a voice for those property owners, tenants, and displaced persons whose lives are thrown into turmoil because of a government project.
In 2004, CLEDA's name was formally changed to the Minnesota Eminent Domain Institute (MEDI), and MEDI filed as a nonprofit corporation. MEDI's mission statement is:
It is the objective of the Minnesota Eminent Domain Institute, via educational and information networking channels, to
promote legislative and regulatory changes and advance case law that is favorable to property owners, tenants, and
displaced persons and to promote just compensation and property rights for those affected by government takings.