did you read the article?
Posted on 11/24/2005 9:28:02 AM PST by frankenMonkey
After more than a decade fighting county officials and developers over a Midvale shopping center, Pearl Meibos and her family have finally come out on top.
The Utah Supreme Court sided with the family this week in a fight over the Family Center shopping complex, which boxed in her family's century-old homestead with little room to spare.
For shoppers, the ruling means the Ross Dress for Less and Bed, Bath & Beyond stores on Fort Union Boulevard could be partially torn down. Some of the Wal-Mart parking lot also could be torn out.
For members of Meibos' Croxford family - who refused to sell their land and homes to developer Hermes Associates Ltd. - the victory represents much more.
"It was about being treated as citizens by the county, and not like we were less than Hermes because we weren't as rich," Meibos said. "Our government completely deserted us and left us at the hands of the developers who were destroying our property."
Reflecting back on the development deal, forged in the early 1990s, former Salt Lake County Commissioner Brent Overson expressed regret. Overson and Commissioner Randy Horiuchi voted to redevelop the land at 7200 S. 900 East to expand the center, offering Hermes $4.3 million in tax subsidies to build it.
"The Hermes [redevelopment decision] was the biggest mistake I ever made in my political career," Overson said Wednesday. "It was bad from the onset. The Supreme Court decision set right the things that were done wrong."
The justices on Tuesday upheld 3rd District Judge Tyrone Medley's 2004 order requiring Hermes to tear down part of the stores to provide a landscaped buffer zone between the stores and the family's property. Hermes also would have to widen access roads that must also be given curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
Jeffrey Hunt, who represented the family in the appeal, called the ruling a "total vindication."
"The message to developers is if you charge ahead and construct your buildings in the face of notice from landowners that you are violating county ordinances, you bear the risk," he said.
Hermes attorney Mark Morris said the ruling was disappointing. His clients will now mull options to comply with Medley's order, he said.
"The position we have always taken is that no judge ever found that we knowingly violated any zoning ordinances," Morris said. "What we did was build a building knowing that a neighbor disagreed with the county's interpretation."
Morris won't say whether his client is considering to offer the family money to settle the case short of demolition.
Meibos said Hermes representatives have said in the past that they would rather have their buildings torn down than settle the case. "If it's up to me, they tear the buildings down," she said. "But it's a family decision."
The family is also still pursuing other claims against Hermes, namely an allegation that the developer violated the family's water rights to a surface canal that once ran across their property.
The legal dispute began in 1991, five years before the land was annexed into Midvale. The case led to a political scandal that was followed by a change in county government, from a commission form to a mayor-council system.
Back then, the county was governed by three commissioners. Acting as a redevelopment agency, the commission declared the development area, once home to the historic Fort Union, was blighted. Most landowners sold.
The Croxford family was the lone holdout.
Before construction, the family told Hermes and the county that the redevelopment plan encroached on their property and restricted access for public services, such as sanitation, fire, and snow removal.
But the county forged ahead, approving a permit for Hermes, which would box in the family's property with 198,929 square feet of commercial space among three buildings.
Each building was more than 25 feet high and included loading docks, trash compacting facilities that operate in the middle of the night, and floodlights shining into the homes. Firetrucks and snowplows, which need large turning areas, could not access their road.
The family filed lawsuits charging the county with violating county ordinances. The case went to Utah's high court three times, with the justices eventually sending the case back to Medley to determine if the family had suffered damages that would allow them to force Hermes to remove the offending portions of the buildings. Medley ruled the family had suffered.
Overson, a Republican who served as a county commissioner from 1993 to 2000, said he regrets the negative impact the development had on Meibos and her relatives.
Horiuchi, a Democrat who now serves on the county's nine-person council, was less apologetic.
"Back in the early 1990s, we felt the project met all the legal bounds and ordinances. We also felt it was important for the county's tax base," Horiuchi said. "Every decision we made was in lockstep with legal advice from our attorneys."
In hindsight, would Horiuchi have done things differently?
"I would have had our lawyers do more due diligence," he said.
Former Commissioner Jim Bradley, a Democrat and current county councilman, had voted against the development for a number of reasons. A statement he issued in 1994 detailed those reasons: "I oppose this agreement because I believe, quite simply, that Salt Lake County has cut a bad deal."
On Wednesday, Bradley voiced regret for what happened to Pearl Meibos and her family.
"The developer built the project around them in an atrocious manner - a cinder-block fortress on three sides," Bradley said. "They were bullied by the developer."
Hermes must submit a plan to comply with Medley's order to the court. Spokespersons for Bed, Bath and Beyond and Ross Dress For Less declined to comment Wednesday.
Phillip Hill, Midvale's economic development director, said he did not expect Tuesday's ruling to have much impact on the tax base of Midvale, which was never a party to the court case.
"Those walls will have to be moved," Hill said.
Meibos said her family is overjoyed with this week's ruling. Her sister, a schoolteacher at a small Oregon school, was so excited by the ruling she made an announcement over the intercom.
"We have been vindicated that we do have rights," Meibos said. You simply can't take someone's property away from them because you covet it."
The family hopes to use any money it might get from the remaining claims in their lawsuit to spruce up their property. The hand-built adobe homes, she said, have fallen into disrepair since the family has spent some $250,000 in legal bills.
Three strikes; Will Hermes be out?
This week's ruling marks the third time the high court has considered the case against developer Hermes Associates Ltd. over the Family Center shopping project:
The justices threw out a $4.3 million tax subsidies deal offered to developers for the expansion project in 1996.
The high court ruled in 2001 that the developers deliberately encroached on a family's property, and that county commissioners didn't follow their own rules when they made special exceptions.
The court said this week that the family can force the developer to tear down portions of the encroaching portions of three stores abutting their property.
Gosh, where have we heard that before? The developers should appeal it to a friendly court, like SCOTUS.
A victory to be sure.
Note the "remorse" on the county commissioners.
They only regret that their side lost and cost thecounty big $$$$.
And that is a good thing exactly how?
What is wrong with capitalism?
What about the rights of the developer/property owner?
Why should he have to sacrifice some of his land and structures to make his neighbor happy?
More government interference by the big brother courts in private business.
So9
The family is also still pursuing other claims against Hermes, namely an allegation that the developer violated the family's water rights to a surface canal that once ran across their property.
Hope they win that as well.
Why doesn't the articles show pictures of the house and stores? All it has is a huge picture of a politician's mug. Will be interesting to see what they come up with for a solution.
Because he developed the property illegally?
I don't know much about this case but that was one of my first questions.
Here's a diagram from another paper.
Because he developed the property illegally?
Oh brother. Now you guys have really started it. I don't know if Servant of the 9 is fully aware of the SCOTUS Kelo decision.......
Anyways, Happy Thanksgiving to you all and the property OWNERS.
FMCDH(BITS)
And gives the rest of them a bad name.
I know it's really popular to beat up the big bad developers and hold them to a higher standard of behavior than just about anyone else on the face of the earth...but if they didn't have a county commission that gave the go-ahead and told them their plans could legally proceed, this wouldn't have happened. I'm sick and tired of people beating up on business and launching lawsuits at the deepest pockets.
They ended at the beginning of the adjacent property owners rights, Pearl Meibos and her family.
If I build a fence or garage on my neighbor's land, or otherwise intrude on it, I'll have to tear it down, or compensate my neighbor in some way that is acceptable to him. If my attorney tells me I have the right to do so, and a court later disagrees, that is tough noogies for me.
I fail to see why a large developer shouldn't be held to the same standard. He, and the county commission, apparently got bad legal advice.
If you believe that developers don't have more political clout than the average property owner, or that politicians don't frequently approve projects on the assumption that the property owner won't be able to fight City Hall, regardless of how good their case is, I think you need to get out more.
They didn't build on their land. Apparently, the county waived the setback for the developer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.