Posted on 03/28/2008 3:24:15 PM PDT by BGHater
Hollywood - A state appeals court has decided to support the city's controversial attempt to take a family's downtown property and use it for private development.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled 3-0 to overturn a Broward judge's 2006 ruling that said the city cannot take the Mach family's business property and give it to a powerful developer, according to the decision released Wednesday.
The Mach family has owned the 2,900-square-foot building on Harrison Street since 1972. The building houses the family's hair salon and several other businesses.
The city's downtown Community Redevelopment Agency has been fighting since 2005 to use eminent domain to obtain the property and transfer it to developer Charles "Chip" Abele for a $100 million project, a 19-story condo and retail tower called Young Circle Commons.
"This is very disappointing, obviously," said family spokesman David Mach, "but there's a 99 percent probability we will be appealing."
The Machs could ask the appeals court to reconsider, or, try to take the case to the Florida Supreme Court.
The appeals court panel ruled that Broward Circuit Judge Ronald J. Rothschild should have deferred to the redevelopment agency's 2005 finding that the property is vital to downtown redevelopment plans. Instead, he ruled that testimony during a 2006 trial showed the city and Abele didn't need the building to complete the project.
Such historic preservation is an acceptable reason for government to take private property through the process of eminent domain, the appeals court said in its ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
developers are not bribing anyone.
Of course they can take it. Kelo says so. Well, not Kelo herself. But 5 stinkin judges did.
“19-story condo and retail tower “
More condos in Fla? - hellsbells, they can’t sell the ones they have now...
Where is the money coming from - drug profits? ‘Cause you gotta be high to want to invest in a Fla condo development.....
didn’t the FL government pass a law in the past year to stop these illegal confiscations?
yep, but our law makers don’t have to follow the law - just us little folks.
You know, this sort of thing will stop when some citizen goes off the deep-end and caps some of these little dictators. I’m not advocating it, I’m just saying that it’s going to start happening before long.
As much as this is unfair and unpopular, I think the advocates of eminent domain for redevelopment think of it as “economic natural selection”. That is, with limits on resources, whoever uses the resource for the greatest development wins.
However, the problem is using government to decide what is “better”. That is, if that land the developer wanted would be so valuable if they developed on it, then what is wrong with them *paying* its owner to purchase it? Using the government to “steal” the land at a low price, instead of the market price, is cheating.
This and this alone is enough to stop Kelo. Eminent domain has to be reserved in its use for government takings for public, and only public needs. Otherwise it is unfair and unjust. It is government favoring some citizens over others.
The Republicans turned their back on the Constitution a long time ago, in my opinion.
My exact thought as well
My verdict would likely be “not guilty”.
Judicially sanctioned thievery; pure and simple.
Travesties such as this need to be stopped. We are no longer safe in our own homes and properties. I’m generally opposed to more and more legislation, but it is apparent that the court system is not going to stand firm on private property rights, anymore. It may well be time for congressional action to restate and reinforce the rights of property owners.
There should be no standing under the law for eminent domain claims that rest on the premise of increased tax revenues as a basis of the seizure.
With each passing day we are less and less free to live our lives on our own terms, for our own benefit. I fear for the future of this grand experiment.
This is what we all predicted would happen after Kelo.
There’s nothing to stop the government from making land use decisions and confiscating property.
The only difference is they have to pay compensation.
The basic fears of the Founding Fathers coming true right before our eyes.
I suspect that if such a thing were to happen, and our jury system hadn't been so thoroughly undermined through the years, some such homicides might be found to fall into Ambrose Bierce's "praiseworthy" category.
Why? The Constitution says takings for public use require compensation. It imposes no such requirements on takings for private use (probably because the Founding Fathers thought the impropriety of such takings was so obvious it didn't need to be stated).
We have already given away everything that was won for us by the Founders.
What King George was up to pales in comparison to what the Federal and State governments are perpetrating on the populace today.
Like that is going to happen...
AP"Of course they can take it. Kelo says so. Well, not Kelo herself. But 5 stinkin judges did." --Past Your Eyes
Herald Sun
U.S.News
Patriot Post
Washington Post
Heritage Foundation
Wikipedia
Star-Tribune (Minnesota)
Reuters
Social Security
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
"7 of the 9 justices who sat on the Supreme Court at the time of Kelo vs New London were appointed by Republicans.
The Republicans turned their back on the Constitution a long time ago, in my opinion." --MrsEmmaPeel
This post (<-click) explains why, in my opinion, the USSC properly defended the Constitution, particularly the eminent domain aspect of the 5th A., when it decided Kelo v. New London in New London's favor.
Note that I was upset like many other people when the USSC decided Kelo in New London's favor. But have since researched the issue and wised up to what's going on. That's why I get angry with news agencies that are still passing along politically correct garbage about our property rights. How can the free press help to protect our constitutional rights when the press is evidently ignorant of the Constitution and its history?
Regarding this current property issue, the bottom line is because the constitutional division of federal and state powers has been largely forgotten by today's generation, the people don't understand that the federal Constitution's 5th A. "public use" restraint on the federal government for eminent domain does not apply to the states. So if the majority voters in a given state want their state's eminent domain laws to reflect the 5th A.'s "public use" restrain on the federal government, for example, then they are obligated to do the following. They must speak up, exercising their voting power if necessary, to have state lawmakers make appropriate laws to likewise protect their property within their state.
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.