The Twist and Turns of Eminent Domain....

Can it extend into the employment policies of existing business?

This story broke up here over the weekend, and well, seems to be a little alarming to me.


Destiny bids to control J.C. Penney workers
Penney's official says Pyramid threatened to close store if it doesn't comply.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
By Frederic Pierce
Staff writer


The Pyramid Cos. wants J.C. Penney Co. to operate its Carousel Center store with Destiny USA workers instead of its own employees and has threatened to shut down the store unless the retailer agrees, according to a J.C. Penney official.

The unusual arrangement, described in a July 29 letter to the chairman of the Syracuse Industrial Development Agency, is part of Pyramid's effort to align the mall's stores with an operating model created for the Destiny USA tourist attraction, Destiny executive David Aitken said.

"The ultimate goal is to optimize and enhance the consumer experience," Aitken said.

www.syracuse.com.../base/business-0/1123403918278280.xml&coll=1

This project already has at least $10 million tax payer dollars, and want the government to displace some 30 existing businesses to get the some of the land that they want to build on. To be honest, I think the good news is it will probably never be built and none of this will fly....but....

"either use our employees, or move"?.....isn't this stretching the idea of eminent domain beyond any reasonable means?
Anyone know of any other instances where they are trying this one?

.
Is this the use of eminent domain by Pyramid to revoke the lease or is that one of those fine print clauses that allows them to revoke the lease? It wasn't clear to me.

I think standardization of many things such as electrical outlets and currents, plumbing pressures etc are generally a good thing. But when you attempt to have people behave like clones it becomes a kind of social monoculture that at least i find rather disturbing. "We are the corporate borg . . . Resistance is futile . . . "

To wield an axe of revoking a lease from a business if it doesn't use the outside and replacement employees you demand is way over the top.

BTW on another 'fine print contract clause', when a company/corporation gives you retirement health benefits there is always a fine print clause that says they can completely change the proposed terms at will. This has been upheld in US courts. So if you are negotiating a work contract give all retirement health benefits exactly zero value.

As to eminent domain I think all of these deals should be required to come before the public in a vote.
Local tinpot tyrrant administrators pandering to corporate pipe dreams of increased tax revenues just leads to all sorts of corruption and simply bad business arrangements for the community.

If you can't sell it to the local community based on the facts it obviously hasn't met the measure of a credible expenditures of tax revenues and local economic disruptions.
.

This site currently has on it a mall owned by the same developer. This owner wanted to expand this mall.......(I believe evading his responisbility of paying taxes on it was a primary motive to begin with)...and turn it into something, which some are referring to a "theme park". Well, this "theme park, I believe will consist of a reasearch and developement center which the federal government has thrown alot of money towards, an aqaurian, hotels, ect. ect......and it's like the NY Jet's new stadium when you try to figure out just how much money for it is coming from where. 30 business I believe will be asked to move,of course they don't want to have to negotiate with these businesses, that's what eminent domain is for right?

For some reason, I don't think Disney had this much government assistance when they built disneyland which is the comparison they are making while trying to justify taking over the employment for all these stores and companies that will be on this site! And, well, I have never been to disneyland, so I don't know..but do they have JC Pennys', McDonalds, ect. ect. there? WE were never told when they were talking about a research and developement project that these employees would be hired by the developer or that the stores would have to be sharing their profits with them either(on top of the lease I believe). This thing would get no where whatsoever without the government feeding it taxmoney, and it seems now, that we are the ones building this guys personal financial kingdom!

I was just wondering if this was a lone case, or if it is going on elsewhere also.

Ultimately the owner of the 'mall turned resort' will be able to get his way. As each lease expires, the owner can rewrite the lease, or simply opt not to renew the lease. However, it sounds like he wants to 'get things rolling' right away. I imagine it would basically come down to whether or not the lease is being violated by the owner. If indeed he is violating the lease, then JC Penny would prevail.

Well.....as curious as I am as to where in the world this thing is going....I moving out of the state so I'll have to keep up with it from a distance...beat. I'll probably be offline until I get settled in Virginia, so you all take care, stay safe, and well, have fun!!!

I was just wondering, if this were to become a trend and the developers of these big projects all decided that this was a policy that they wanted to enforce....well, what do you all think? Could the developer get away with building apartment complexes there and decide that all his em ployees would have to live in those apts.....free....as an additional perk on top of that minimum wage he plans on paying? ect.....

talk to yas in a few weeks probably...take care.