Photo of Gary Van Cleve
Mining, Construction and Surety, Construction Litigation, Eminent Domain and Inverse Condemnation, Environmental Regulations, Property Tax Appeals, Real Estate Litigation

Property owners forced to move their business locations through condemnation for the Metropolitan Council’s Southwest Light Rail Transit project are generally entitled to compensation on two fronts—first, they are entitled to just compensation for the taking of their real property; second, they are entitled to relocation benefits for the costs and expenses of moving their

In case you missed it, WCCO ran a story the other night about a small business owner who has been displaced through condemnation of her property by the massive, two-billion dollar Southwest Light Rail project. The business owner said she was promised by the project’s sponsor, the Metropolitan Council, that she would be “made whole.” 

Inverse condemnation is a potentially powerful kind of litigation ju jitsu move that property owners can use in certain situations to call the government to account when it damages their property by an official act or omission. Most everyone has some familiarity with eminent domain, also known as condemnation or a governmental taking. Where private

For more than 30 years, a property owner who claimed that a regulatory action by the government amounted to a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been required to litigate the issue in state court first, before being allowed to gain entry to federal court. The 1985 case of Williamson

One of the current tax code provisions that would be eliminated under the House-proposed tax reform bill is the popular federal Historic Tax Credit program (HTC). The HTC dates back to the Reagan Administration and currently provides a federal tax credit in the amount of 20 percent of qualified rehabilitation expenditures for any certified historic

Forgive developer Martin Harstad if he thought he was in Potterville and not Woodbury when the city told him he had to pay nearly $1.4 million in “road assessments” as a condition of approval for his “Bailey Park” residential development. Harstad sued Woodbury to challenge its authority to demand the road assessments and won