After pressure from local legislators who must approve any changes to a municipal charter, Milford City Council voted to restrict the use of eminent domain for recreational purposes, both inside and outside city limits. This would make Milford the only municipality in Delaware restricted from using eminent domain for parks or walking paths even within the limits of the town.
“This legislation was inspired by recent events that transpired with the recent situation in Milford and would provide a layer of protection for landowners in the future to prevent future situations from happening,” Senator Dave Wilson told council in May 2024. “This legislation would prohibit the City of Milford from condemning property outside the town limits. The city could still condemn property within the town limits of Milford. The city may still acquire property inside and outside the city limits by purchase or by request of the property owners to annex the owner’s property.”
Wilson told council at the time that Milford needed to change their charter and that if they did not do it, the legislators would take steps to implement the change at the state level. Milford City Council changed the language in their charter to reflect the request from Wilson, forbidding the use of eminent domain outside city limits for recreational purposes, but allowing the use within city limits.
“I did reach out to Representative [Bryan] Shupe and Representative [Charles] Postles and requested their presence here tonight. I did not hear back from Representative Postles but spoke to Representative Shupe,” Mark Whitfield, City Manager, said. “We discussed numerous concerns that council had with such a strong charter change, but he responded that if that one simple change was made, preventing the use of eminent domain inside and outside of city limits, he and Representative Postles would support it, but as it was written they could not.”
Councilman Jason James confirmed that he had also spoken to Postles and Shupe who told him the same thing. Councilwoman Nadia Zychal asked if any other municipality was being required to change their charter in the same way. Whitfield commented that he was not sure.
“I am opposed to us being singled out,” Zychal said. “What if we removed all mention of eminent domain and let the state change the law overall for all municipalities.”
City Solicitor David Rutt explained that state legislators initially wanted the city to eliminate the use of eminent domain altogether and that they had the power to alter any city charter regardless of the desires of council.
“I’m taking a long view here, I don’t want to hamstring future councils from making a decision because we have a more restrictive situation than any other town in the state. I wouldn’t want council to shoot itself in the foot.”
Councilman Jason James stated that council did agree to eliminate the use of eminent domain outside of city limits. He felt council should regulate themselves and not allow legislators to make that decision.
“Regulate is one thing” Zychal said. “The concern here is that I don’t think that we can be regulated by being singled out. There’s going to be a regulation. I just think it might be better to allow the legislators to take this on at the state level and make it a level playing field.”
James pointed out that the legislators had made themselves clear regarding how they wanted the charter to read.
“Let’s regulate ourselves and not have the heavy hand of the state come down on us. We like home rule,” James said. “We don’t think the legislators will come in, but they have the power and with enough folks, they can do force us to not use eminent domain at all. I am okay with the change because it still applies to needs like roads and utilities, although I would still like to work out agreements with property owners for any type of land use. But parks and paths are a wants and I just don’t see an issue with preventing the use of eminent domain for wants.”
Council voted unanimously to eliminate the use of eminent domain inside and outside city limits for recreational purposes.
“Thank you for indulging my questions,” Zychal said. “I just needed some clarity.”
