Eminent Domain Reform v Cities & Counties
Posted by Andy on February 23rd, 2006
Yeah, your city councils and county boards should be working on your behalf. But since most of them are run by unelected staffers, forget about them being on your side. Then add to that a club where other like minded people from other city councils can gather, and you have one heck of a resource to figure out how to screw the citizen taxpayer. The League of Minnesota Cities is the lobbying group for Minnesota’s Cities, and they don’t want you to be able to keep your property.
Minnesota’s cities and counties struck back hard Wednesday in defense of eminent domain, describing proposed changes in the law as a “dangerous overreaction” and showing pictures of the civic cancers it can help to treat.
(Civic cancers? fear mongering? sexing up the intel?) How is making it very hard for a city to take away someone’s property and give it to someone else dangerous? Oh yeah, that makes it tough for the cities to give your land to the highest bidder. I had a huge back and forth with my Mother yesterday about this. You see, she was at that press conference, speaking on behalf of the LMC. She came back and said that the media had blown the whole KELO decision out of proportion from teh start, and there was no danger from that decision. Eminent Domian for economic developement was a good thing.
Now she had gotten me going. For the next hour, I grilled her on why taking away someon’s property and giving it to some else who is promising to pay more taxes to the city is just plain wrong and un-American. She contended that Kelo was not as bad as it was being made out to be, but everytime I asked her why, she just said t was blown out of proportion. She had obviously been given talking points by the LMC, which she noted she was given what she was to say at the pressie, and as she deviated slightly from it, she was glared at by the puppetmasters who are running the show down there.
Here’s my basic premise as to why Kelo and eminent Domian are so un-American and have got to be limited. Now that the SCOTUS has ruled that it is ok for a city to take land from person A and give it to person B, because person B is going to use the land in a more favorable way (ahem more tax dollars rolling in) to the cities staff, employees, and council members; there is legal president for other cities to do the same.
The LMC says that MN has always allowed for economic redeveloplement, but I offer the Best Buy situation. Wally McArthy didn’t want to go, but never the less, Richfield had a higher bidder for jis land, and damn the property rights, Wally was a goner. So now, thanks to Kelo, every one of us had better hope that someone with deeper pockets doesn’t have plans for our land.
The LMC’s point is that nothing new is allowed by Kelo, so no reform is needed. Which of course is what you’d expect from a group whose soul purpose is gobbling up more and more power and money for Cities around the state. (Limited government/tax cutting memebers are usually run out of the meetings or so disgusted by the liberal Big Government ‘we hate Pawlenty and GOPers’ rhetoric that is commonspeak there, that they never return) Don’t take the LMC for granted, they are a very powerful lobbying group, and they want more of your money, and they sure as hell don’t want to be limited from taking away your land.
I hold that Kelo has legalized eminent domain for economic developement, by putting a judical stamp of approval for Cities’ stealing of land and selling it to the highest bidder. Think I’m overreacting? Show me the statute or legislation on the federal level where abortion was legalized. It was the Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion, not laws passed by congress and then signed by the president. Look at Massachusetts’ marriage flap, that was caused by a judge, and now there are same sex marriages.
Court rulings do make law, and that is what has happened here. It is now legal for your land to be stolen from you, and sold to someone else for more of the almighty tax dollars.
February 26th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Supreme Court made new law with kelo decision actualy they attempted to circumvent the Constitution.
“we were just doing our job” said Souter and Stevens. They did a hell of the job on us and now when they are caught they are trying to say that is the Legislation’s job to fix it. Do we realy need our Judiciary?For what ? O.J. Simpson killed two people,we all know that and what our Judicial system did? Now they gave a green light to the City thieves to steal our houses and they say they “only did their job”Let’s tell them we don’t need their services anymore …
August 30th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
Dear Residual Forces,
Following is a note I cross-posted on several
Internet forums on the subject of Eminent Domain.
I see you/your newspaper has covered this subject in
some regard.
I hope you find the Brighton case/my information
and “take” at least interesting.
Regards,
Joel S.
====================================================
Generally Titled:
Brighton (NY) Eminent Domain - Gross
Injustice/Inequity
====================================================
Hello All,
My Town of Brighton (NY) where I reside (I reserve
the word “live” for places like Anna Maria Island
at the mouth of Tampa Bay in Florida) is embroiled
in its own Eminent Domain case that by the day is
becoming more (in)famous in its own right with the
potential to rival Kelo vs. City of New London
(Connecticut) in the annals of famous Eminent Domain
cases.
Here are a couple of posts with respect to my
town’s Eminent Domain case which segues into a
couple others of mine as well.
The Brighton (NY) case has the billing of
Government versus Religion; but in reality it is
a case of right and wrong.
I hope my efforts in my own little way of sowing
the seeds of thought and consideration which
indeed include a fair amount of sarcasm and
cynicism, ultimately will result in a country
whose rules and laws that are more fair and just.
Anyway, if I have miserably failed in this regard
at least I got some good typing practice in and
always welcome correspondence with new friends
sharing ideas and perspectives about different
things.
Regards,
Joel S.
jrs_14618@yahoo.com
===================================================
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/blogs/brighton/
JoelS said…
The Brighton Eminent Domain issue
has evolved into a government vs.
religion issue but it is really a
right versus wrong issue!
The town offered original owner
Groos $1,340,000 and church bought
land (because town screwed up and
didn’t formally condemn property)
at open market price of
$2,100,000.
Per New York State code
bargaining is supposed to be
conducted by government entity
whatever it may be; town city
etc. in good faith and justly
compensate owner for land.
Tell me? How can with a straight
face Town of Brighton can claim
bargaining in good faith only
offering original owner a little
more than half the value of the
property on the open market???
That is exactly what Supervisor
Frankel maintains and she claims
in Town Hall meeting last night
(08/23/06) and she can’t discuss
it even though owner is now Faith
Temple Church and offer to
original owner has been released
See a pattern here of lack of
honesty and integrity?
The only more disproportionate
fair shake to original owner
is probably the first and
greatest of all U.S. Eminent
Domain cases: the Indians
selling Manhatten Island for
$24 worth of trinkets. There
has been some ridicle on them
for this but probably seeing
the the ships, guns and technology
of the European invaders, the
invaders easily convinced them
that was the best deal they were going to get.
Probably the initial offer was $20
and they let they raised it to
$24 just so history will show them
in a good light.
Brighton is just following a long
standing American tradition of
screwing the origninal landowner
out of their just compensation.
I explain in more detail in
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle
Forum link:
http://cgi.democratandchronicle.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.cgi?board=Brighton
Joel S
24/8/06 10:01 A
====================================================
====================================================
http://cgi.democratandchronicle.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.cgi?board=Brighton
Brighton Eminent Domain Open Letter to Town Judg
Aug 23rd, 2006, 3:13am
Dear Hon. Mr. Dollinger,
Last November on the eve of elections you made
a political call to me that I should vote
Democratic for Brighton Town Board and yourself.
Although the American government/judicial system is
still the best in the world, in my humble opinion
it is still pretty perverse that the system allows a
judicial entity (i.e. of course; a person) such as
yourself should have a political party affiliation
because political parties have agendas and as far as
I know and understand judges aren’t supposed to be
bias - y’know that blindfolded lady (liberty?)
holding the balance? A better representation with
this aspect would have her peeking under the
blindfold.
But, alas, that the way it is so we do the best
we can to work within this important blemish
on again, we can both agree the overall best
system in the world …
If I remember correctly we got into a heated
“discussion” about the Brighton Eminent Domain
issue. You mentioned you really didn’t know
that much about it and really couldn’t comment
on it until you knew more.
“Here’s more” I assure you Your Honor in very
short order.
One major aspect was I was contending now that at
the time since there were new owners the public
should be able to see the light of day of the offer
made to original land owner Mr. Groos.
Well, through hard fought Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) requests I got my wish! I was not
privy to the information per Brighton Town
attorney William Moehle [sp?] the issue was still
being resolved/under litigation in the courts; but
inexplicably the town indeed released the
information.
For reasons I still cannot comprehend why, the
offer to Mr. Groos was not released when I asked
for it as the new owners/(Faith Temple) held title
to the land long before I ever made my request or
for that matter why the offer is still not
considered to be a “state secret” as the town is
still invvolved in the court cases with respect to
the property.
Whatever .. I got what I wanted. I assumed the
price the Church paid for the land would be a
secret as well as, again, the property is still
under litigation but in a Sunday August 13th, 2006
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (D&C) front page
news story they related the price the church paid.
I’m assuming even if you don’t know the whole
story, nuances and intricacies for the case it has
turned into a religion versus government issue to
the citizens of Brighton and the rest of the country
as this case is becoming more famous/well known by
the day.
But, Your Honor it is not a religion vs. government
issue: No, It started simply a right and wrong issue;
that a land owner should be rightfully compensated
for his land.
Funny in the Madam Chairwoman’s Frankel’s self-
righteous declarations in Brighton Town meetings
that the acquisition of the land is a noble
undertaking and so in the public interest that it is
worth Eminent Domain proceedings initiated by the
town she sure doesn’t seem to remark much about
this aspect.
Could it be because the Town only offered original
land owner Mr. Owner [should read Groos] slightly
more than half what Faith Temple Church the new
owners paid for his property? It is under these
auspices that Brighton was willing to “take” the
property under Eminent Domain (very appropriate
legal term as you should know)
The town offered $1,137,000 and the church paid
$2,100,000 on the open market.
I mention in another post in this Rochester
D&C Brighton town online forum, where I will be
posting this letter as well that this is a TRUE
open Brighton Town Forum free of restrictions and
censure versus the Open Forum section of Brighton
Town Hall meetings.
For your convenience here is the URL to the
Rochester D&C Forum:
http://cgi.democratandchronicle.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.cgi?board=Brighton
So, pray tell Your Honor (no pun intended) is/was
the offer to the original land owner made in the
spirit of bargaining in good faith and fairness
to set the negotiation standard at such a
ridiculous amount; a little more than half what the
property is worth on the open market with the teeth
of Eminent Domain ever presently snarled in the
background? Fangs salivating.
Whoa! Your Honor, I know. I understand. Your reply
to this letter/post if there is to be one at all is
going to be (paraphrasing) due to your position as a
judge and the potential for the public to perceive
your impartiality is compromised you can’t respond
and you will have to recuse yourself on this one.
Of Course!
Oh, I understand but what I also know is you are
someone who makes judgmental “fairness calls” all
day long. You are/would be the best person to ask.
It’s inherent in your title.
It is an interesting rhetorical question to what
extent your Democratic party affiliation would have
in a hypothetical response. How could you sugar
coat a blatant inequity to make it palatable? If
you see enough inequities being committed by others
in your political party would you change over and
become a Republican or go independent?
In closing, I would have never considered writing
this letter had you not initiated your call to me
last November. Next big election around let’s be
honest; you are on short leash to discuss anything
substantial. You are very well versed in legal
profession of the nuances and intricacies of
ambiguity and how to “stay safe” deflecting
answering any questions outright.
Masters of such verbal parrying and deflection
which drives members of congress on both sides
of the aisle nuts go on to become Supreme Court
Chief Justices; case in point Chief Justice
John Roberts.
Tell you what; might as well take my name off
your call list so never again we mutually will
waste our time.
Sincerely and yes, Respectfully,
Joel S.