For the second time this year, Maryland?s highest court will hear arguments that the government of Baltimore City is abusing its power by seizing private property with “quick take” condemnations.
Robert Sapero, owner of the Chesapeake Restaurant and a pair of row houses on East Lanvale Street, will bring an appeal Thursday before the Maryland Court of Appeals, challenging the city?s Dec. 21, 2005, seizure of his land as part of its Charles North revitalization plan.
“The city cannot use ?quick take? to try to run roughshod over citizens? constitutional rights,” said Sapero?s attorney, Alan Engel. “They should not be using ?quick take? to just stockpile property.”
Sapero is arguing that the city government has no specific plan to develop the area containing his property other than transferring the land to a developer.
Sapero was in the process of selling his property to a new owner for $2 million when the city seized his land, halting the sale, Engel said.
Some of Sapero?s arguments mirror those of Baltimore bar owner George Valsamaki, who successfully challenged the city?s “quick take” land condemnations in January.
In February, Valsamaki won a landmark victory against Baltimore?s so-called “quick take” land condemnation proceedings, which allowed the city to quickly seize private property.
In Valsamaki?s case, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that Baltimore must provide a specific reason in order to seize property.
Valsamaki?s Magnet bar was one of about 20 properties in the area, including Sapero?s, that city officials hoped could be grouped together to attract developers.
Baltimore City solicitor George Nilson said the city has a stronger case against Sapero than it did against Valsamaki.
“The circumstances and the record are quite different,” Nilson said. “In the Valsamaki case, there was no plan. In this case, there were plans and they were specific.”
But Engel said the cases are similar.
“The Court of Appeals ruling in Valsamaki is that ?quick take? is an extraordinary power,” Engel said. “It has to be carefully scrutinized, and there has to be evidence of an immediate necessity, such as a building that?s falling down and presents a risk to public safety. Sapero?s building is not a threat to public health and safety.”
