Posted on 12/07/2005 10:26:49 PM PST by vrwc0915
RIVIERA BEACH, Fla. — It's across the inlet from Palm Beach, but this town — mostly black, blue-collar and with a large industrial and warehouse district — could be a continent away from the Fortune 500 and Rolls-Royce set.
But Riviera Beach's fortunes may soon change.
In what has been called the largest eminent-domain case in the nation, the mayor and other elected leaders want to move about 6,000 residents, tear down their homes and use the emptied 400-acre site to build a waterfront yachting and residential complex for the well-to-do.
The goal, Mayor Michael Brown said during a public meeting in September, is to "forever change the landscape" in this municipality of about 32,500. The $1 billion plan, local leaders have said, should generate jobs and haul Riviera Beach's economy out of the doldrums.
Opponents, however, call the plan a government-sanctioned land grab that benefits private developers and the wealthy.
"What they mean is that the view I have is too good for me, and should go to some millionaire," said Martha Babson, 60, a house painter who lives near the Intracoastal Waterway.
"This is a reverse Robin Hood," said state Rep. Ronald Greenstein, meaning the poor in Riviera Beach would be robbed to benefit the rich. Greenstein, a Coconut Creek Democrat, serves on a state legislative committee making recommendations on how to strengthen safeguards on private property.
With many Americans sensitized to eminent-domain cases after a much-discussed ruling by the Supreme Court in June, property-rights organizations have been pointing to redevelopment plans in this Palm Beach County town as proof that laws must be changed to protect homeowners and businesses from the schemes of politicians.
"You have people going in, essentially playing God, and saying something better than these people's homes should be built on this property," said Carol Saviak, executive director of the Coalition for Property Rights, based in Orlando. "That's inherently wrong."
"Unfortunately, taking poorer folks' homes and turning them into higher-end development projects is all too routine in Florida and throughout the country," said Scott Bullock, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, based in Washington, D.C. "What distinguishes Riviera Beach is the sheer scope of the project, and the number of people it displaces."
In June, a divided U.S. Supreme Court approved a plan by New London, Conn., to force some homeowners to sell their properties for a private development that was supposed to generate more jobs and tax revenue. That ruling has led to moves in Congress and at least 35 states, including Florida, to restrict the use of eminent-domain seizures of private property.
In Florida, the law allows local officials to take private land for redevelopment if they deem it "blighted." In May 2001, a study conducted for the city found that "slum and blighted conditions" existed in about a third of Riviera Beach, and that redevelopment was necessary "in the interest of public health, safety, morals and welfare."
A skeptical Babson, who lives in a single-story, concrete-block home painted aqua that she shares with parrots and a dog, did her own survey. For three months, she walked the streets of Riviera Beach photographing houses classified as "dilapidated" or "deteriorated" by specialists hired by the city.
The official study, she said, was riddled with errors and misclassifications. Lots inventoried as "vacant" (one of 14 criteria that allow Florida cities or counties to declare a neighborhood blighted) actually had homes on them built in 1997, she said. One house deemed "dilapidated," she found, was two years old.
Mayor Brown and Floyd Johnson, executive director of the Riviera Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.
The redevelopment agency's Web site says the plan will "create a city respected for its community pride and purpose and reshape it into a most desirable urban (place) to live, work, shop, and relax for its residents, business and visitors."
In past media interviews, Brown has said that his city was in dire need of jobs, and that if officials weren't allowed to resort to eminent domain to spur growth, Riviera Beach could perish.
The redevelopment project designed to bootstrap Riviera Beach to prosperity is supposed to take 15 years. It involves moving U.S. Highway 1 and digging an artificial lagoon to serve as a yacht basin.
In September, the City Council chose a joint venture between a New Jersey-based yacht company and a builder of condominiums in Australia to serve as master developer. The developer, Viking Inlet Harbor Properties, and the city now must agree on a contract.
Residents affected by the plan are supposed to be eligible for new homes elsewhere in Riviera Beach and compensation for business damages. But the uncertainties have been maddening for some.
For 25 years, Bill Mars has sold and serviced luxury sportfishing boats in Riviera Beach. He hasn't been told yet, he said, whether a place in the redevelopment zone has been kept for him.
Under the plan, his sales and service center is supposed to make way for an aquarium.
"If you look at our business, we're one of the shining stars of Riviera Beach," Mars said. "Yet no one has come to us to say, 'We're going to take care of you and relocate you.' " That despite the plan's incorporation of a "working waterfront," including boat sales and repair.
Babson said she was counting on the Florida Legislature, as well as public interest kindled by the recent Supreme Court case, to halt the developers.
"We're definitely in Tiananmen Square: one little guy in front of all of those tanks," Babson said. "We've slowed them down, but we haven't stopped them."
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA (as revised in 1968 and amended to 1975) PREAMBLE We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution. ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Sec. 1. All political power is inherent in the people. The enuncia- tion herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people. Sec. 2. All natural persons are equal before the law and have in- alienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citi- zenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion or physical handicap.
I'd bet the socialist 5 in the SCOTUS is just giddy at what they have wrought. What did my uncle fight for in the Pacific in 1944-45? What did my father fight for in Vietnam in 1966? What did I fight for in 1991? What are the men and women in Iraq, Afgahnistan, and God-knows-where fighting for today if not for their homes? That a fat city mayor should think to take away from these people a right bought in blood just drives me to rage. I live in the western part of Palm Beach County in an area ripe for development. So I am watching close. If they come for my home I'll be here to greet them with my rifle in my hand. Some things are worth fighting for.
The winning of the cold war was just an illusion, we have implemented more of the commie manifesto than the USSR it seems
True and you watch. The court battle coming will be a losing one for residents. If this should slip from national headlines (and it is certain to) they will be worn down in court. Then we will be treated to a real ugly scene, people arrested for "trespassing" on their own property after the city condemns it if they refuse to sell. As I said, if it were me and mine, at least I would not be alive to see it happen.
It would be interesting to run an investigation of that mayor and other members who are pushing this project. Just follow the money...
Huge government development plan, hhmmmm, of course they never work.
This is theft and tyranny.
Of course they are being paid off to do this, its probably not unconstitutional anymore. Its disgusting.
My families land was owned before the state that it is in was a state, If the decide they want it I will not sell no matter what the price. I am a Marine and have 5 other Marines in my extended family, we also have 2 soldiers and 2 sailors, That all agree that we aren't interested in selling. I don't think any developer would be willing to pay the asking price!
What a shame that liberals can't get behind the proper side of the land-use battle until it's one of their pet grouings that is under assault.
That Mayor is disgusting. He is saying he is doing it to counter "blight."
This is the worst slippery slope. . .
Totally unbelievable. They are nothing but thieves.
It would be great for Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton to get involved down there. Then I think this would all go away, with all the coverage they and others would receive. I am so tired of all these local governments that are in the back pockets of these wealthy builders, doing their bidding. It is time to rally the people!!!
No they would just make sure the developers were the right color after taking their fees of course, JJ/AS are experts at getting pols to do their dirty work.
Semper Fi!
JJ and Al are mau mau, shake-down artist. They will go with the money.
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.