There was another article in Sunday's NY Times about Deepdale and the "plight" of the members. Unfortunately, it's part of the "select" program requiring payment of a fee for online reading of certain articles and columnists. I'm trying to get a hard copy from the library.

I wonder what the lawyers in the house will say about the arguments in Mr. Edward D. Herlihy's WSJ piece -- an excerpt of which follows:

"The planned condemnation of Deepdale, if accomplished, would violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the government from taking private property unless it is for a 'public use,' even when the property owner is justly compensated for the taking. Although Kelo gave local governments significant leeway in determining what a proper 'public use' is, it did not abandon all limitations on what is allowable. The Supreme Court took care to emphasize that local governments must still act for a valid 'public purpose' in taking property, and may not do so merely 'to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals.' Yet that is exactly what North Hills seeks to do with Deepdale: It wants to condemn a private golf course so that its residents can use it as their own de facto private golf club and thereby increase their property values. No court has ever upheld such a taking, and no court could reasonably do so under Kelo.

"The facts in Kelo illustrate the sort of public purpose the Supreme Court had in mind. As the Supreme Court explained, New London is 'depressed' and 'economically distressed,' with an 'ailing economy' and 'high unemployment,' and the city had 'carefully formulated an economic development plan' to address its economic problems. The city's purpose was accordingly a proper public one, a bare majority of the court concluded, because it wasn't intended just 'to bestow a private benefit.'

"Contrast North Hills. It's the richest community in the Northeast, and one of the 10 richest in the country....
You'll see no economic deprivation here."
 
Mr. Herlihy goes on to say that the Mayor's plan is wrong-headed, in any event: that the Constitutionally required "just compensation" would be "prohibitively expensive"; that the bond issue required would "increase property taxes significantly"; that the Mayor's possible plan to defray expenses by selling off a piece of Deepdale and/or the development rights to certain other property in the village would produce "more sprawl, more construction and more traffic in an area overbuilt as it is."

Herlihy concludes: "Confiscating Deepdale would be as reckless as it is illegal.... Indeed, the mayor's stated plan is exactly what the Supreme Court in Kelo said would go over the line: using the public power of eminent domain merely to bestow private benefits, and taking one person's property just to give it to someone else. That's not just unwise and unconstitutional -- it's just plain wrong."
 
Of course, as we all know, (1) courts occasionally do  unreasonable things, and (2) politicians occasionally do things that are reckless and/or just plain wrong.

What say ye, counselors?

Dan

Regardless of the legal arguments, the members of Deepdale do not own the property; however, they may have an equitable interest in the club depending on what the membership documents say. The bottom line is that the owners of the property, who are currently in litigation amongst themselves, may decide to sell to the Village. I understand that there is a history of Villages on Long Island and cities elsewhere acquiring golf courses( by private sale or otherwise) for the use of residents and limited use for the general public. See my prior post of Ron Whitten's review of the course in Bellport, NY. Also, Sands Point in NY has a similar course having acquired the estate of the investment banker Otto Kahn. Does Herlihy address this point as I haven't seen the article yet?

The city of Reading in PA recently acquired the private Reading CC and made it a public course rather than see it sold by the club for real estate development.

Steve

Sands Point in NY has a similar course having acquired the estate of the investment banker Otto Kahn. Does Herlihy address this point as I haven't seen the article yet?

Mr. Herlihy writes: "... the mayor of North Hills wants to use the power of government to condemn Deepdale -- whose members are a diverse group of people from all over the country and around the world -- to make it an exclusive high-end golf course restricted to people who live in his small village and would be willing to pay thousands of dollars in yearly membership fees. The model is said to be the nearby Village Club of Sands Point, which is owned by that village. There you not only have to pay village taxes but membership dues to join. A full family membership at the Sands Point club costs $18,000 a year. If this is indeed the model for Deepdale, the club would become 'public' in name only but in truth would be every bit as exclusive as any private club. "

If the club is, in fact, represented by Ed Herlihy they have already made a grave misjudgment. Herlihy is a first-rate lawyer at the absolute top of his profession (and one of the nicest guys you'll meet), but his expertise is advising financial institutions in mergers & acquisitions. I suspect he hasn't seen the inside of a courtroom in 25-30 years. For his and the club's sake, I hope (and expect) that the litigators at his firm (Wachtell, Lipton) are doing the actual work on the case, and not Herlihy.

Could it be that a greater number of residents belong to North Hills CC then Deepdale, so why upset his constituency ?

According to The New Yorker piece (mercilessly fact-checked, one presumes), only one Deepdale member -- John Wilson (handicap 10) -- lives in the village.

Here is the fee info...

http://www.bellportvillage.com/fees.html

Looks reasonable for LI and metro NY in general.

Who does the land on which Deepdale G.C. sits belong to?

And who is Eustace Tilley?

If after getting hit by eminent domain and losing their course to the LI Expressway in 1954 Deepdale G.C. moved across the L.I.E. onto leased land all I can say is they're idiots. How many disaster stories have been told about building a golf course on leased land? Too many, but perhaps these high-powered members of Deepdale weren't aware of that.

And who is Eustace Tilley?

See http://www.careerbuilder.com/monk-e-mail/?mid=6061049

"Tom P:  When Deepdale had to move last time, don't forget they were shopping for land at 1950's prices, not 1920's prices.  I don't know if they could have found property close enough in to Manhattan for a price they were willing to pay."

TomD:

Assuming Deepdale owned their old Vanderbilt land on the other side of what is now the L.I.E. (I don't know that they did---I'm just assuming it) and it was taken from them in 1954 by eminent domain (for Moses' planned L.I.E.) they should have been compensated at real estate prices in the 1950s and not the 1920s (at least that's the law). This, in theory anyway, should have allowed them to simply buy on the other side of the road, and not have to lease. In any case, warnings (from architects and others) of the long term dangers of leasing land to build a golf course on go back to the 1920s if not before. They should've heeded those warnings.

This case appears to involve Deepdale, the club, but does it really? If the town is to take the land by eminent domain or even just buy it from those who own it, apparently the sellers would not be Deepdale but the entity who leases the land to Deepdale G.C.