Eminent domain attorney James Morris.
Morris, a graduate of Harvard and Boston University Law School, also served as general counsel for the state Department of Transportation and assistant general counsel for Allianz Insurance Company in California.
Author of the New Hampshire chapter of the new 600-page book, "The Law of Eminent Domain: Fifty State Survey, 2011/2012," he is now with Orr & Reno in Concord where he specializes in real estate development and finance, title insurance, eminent domain, zoning and land use and tax issues.
* Q. How did you become an expert in eminent domain law?
A. I was hired by the Attorney General's Office in 1975 and there were four of us who handled eminent domain cases, mostly for the Department of Transportation in highway building projects.
By 1971, the Legislature had codified eminent domain procedures because so many cases were backlogged in the courts. The main focus was on just compensation, and probably 99 percent of the cases were settled. Very few involved a challenge to the eminent domain authority of the state.
* Q. What's the abridged legal history of eminent domain?
A. The "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution in part to ensure that owners whose property was taken by eminent domain would be fairly compensated. It goes back to the notion of forming a government--when a government is formed to protect the rights of the people, those people give up some of their rights according to their consent so the central governing authority can act.
In the case of eminent domain, when private property is taken, the U.S. and New Hampshire constitutions provide for specific protections. The 14th Amendment allows that no property can be taken without just compensation.
New Hampshire has a pretty comprehensive set of eminent domain procedures. Article 12 of the New Hampshire Constitution says that no property can be taken without the property owner's consent. In 2006, Article 12a was added, and that denied the right of eminent domain taking by a private entity for private use.
* Q. What was one of the most interesting eminent domain cases you worked on?
A. In the 1970s, Gov. Meldrim Thomson wanted to take over railroad service to the North Country that was being abandoned by Boston & Maine. The state argued it was a public need and important to the state's economy to continue freight service from Concord to a paper mill in Lincoln.
What was ironic is that Boston & Maine had been granted eminent domain rights in the 1880s to build the railroad line. Though it had abandoned service, Boston & Maine still owned the line and the fights. It was eventually determined that just compensation was about $3 million. The state took over the line and contracted the service, even though the paper mill dosed a few years later.
* Q. Why do you think the Northern Pass project was not allowed eminent domain rights?
A. Northern Pass was interesting because the eminent domain issue was whether the private utilities could demonstrate a valid New Hampshire purpose for taking of private property.
Public purpose can be a very gray area, but in my experience, the issue of eminent domain always turns on whether the government entity is able to demonstrate public purpose, like building a new school building. The Northern Pass case could not establish a public need.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||New Hampshire Business Review|
|Date:||Aug 24, 2012|
|Previous Article:||Cleaning business is nonprofit's latest for-profit venture; families in Transition launches new cleaning service as a source of revenue.|
|Next Article:||The good: two N.H. nonprofits win $3m for affordable housing loans.|