Outrage in Alabaster: Neal Boortz exposes government assault on private-property rights

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, August 26, 2003 | Neal Boortz

[JohnHuang2]

Freedom means little without property rights. Your freedom to use your talents and hard work to acquire wealth means nothing if your property rights can be denied at the whim of a few politicians. No civilization in the history of mankind has been able to sustain economic liberty without protecting the right to property.

Our law recognizes that that there are times when government must use its police power to seize the property of private citizens. Even though eminent domain is not specifically recognized in the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that eminent domain "appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty." The limitation on the right of government to seize property is set forth in the Fifth Amendment with these words: " ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

OK, enough constitutional law class. Let's peek at what's happening in Alabaster, Ala. What you read here should horrify you. You need to know, though, that this sort of government assault on private-property rights is not confined to Alabama. It is going on virtually everywhere in this country.

A private Alabama developer named Colonial Properties Trust wants to build a shopping center anchored by a Wal-Mart on at Alabaster's only interchange with I-65. Colonial, though, can't seem to get the land they need. A few private land owners have refused to sell their property at the prices offered. That should be the end of the story. If one private individual wants to own a certain piece of property, but the legal owner of that piece of property doesn't want to sell it, the private-property rights of the owner of the real estate should be recognized, and the person trying to buy the property should back off.

Well, that's not the way it's working in Alabaster. Colonial, you see, has some friends in powerful places ... politicians on the Alabaster City Council. Colonial has decided to use that one unique government asset – the right to use force – to accomplish something that it cannot accomplish on its own. Colonial is asking the City of Alabaster to seize the property under eminent domain and then sell that property to Colonial so the shopping center can be built. The politicians of Alabaster are only too eager to cooperate.

This week, the City of Alabaster will file condemnation proceedings in the Shelby County, Alabama courts. The city will seek to seize the land under the principle of eminent domain. But wait! Aren't governments supposed to use eminent domain to seize private property only when that property is needed for a public use? How can these politicians take that property away from its owners and then sell it to a private company to build a privately owned shopping center?

Here's the twist – and here's where you need to fear for your own property rights. Alabaster politicians claim they simply cannot collect enough property taxes in their town of 24,000 to pay for all of the government they believe the citizens of Alabaster need. They need some sales taxes. Trouble is, there aren't enough businesses around town to generate the amount of sales taxes these politicians crave. The answer? Hey! Let's get a shopping center in town. A shopping center will generate thousands of dollars in sales taxes, and we'll have all that money to spend! (The real answer? Just dissolve the City of Alabaster.)

So, Alabaster's "public use" excuse is that the current owners of the land simply don't pay enough taxes. The land needs to be seized and turned over to someone who will pay more. Those additional taxes can then be spent on the public. There's your "public use." Not a school, a road, a hospital or a police station. Just get the property in the hands of someone who will pay more taxes.

Alabaster City Councilman Tommy Ryals thinks that these property owners are just being greedy. "Sometimes," he says, " the good of the many has to outweigh the greed of the few." Indeed, Councilman Ryals, how dare these private-property owners refuse to sell their private property when the new owner could generate so many tax dollars for the good of the many! Don't these people realize that the rights of one individual to his property are nothing when the need of the collective is considered?

And just how many acres does your home occupy, dear reader? Could a developer squeeze about five cluster-mansions into your lot? Hey ... that's a lot of property tax! Better call U-Haul.

[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, August 26, 2003

Quote of the Day ~by backhoe

[yhwhsman]

Wonder who's pulling the strings of the developer, couldn't be one company that's destroyed unknown numbers of small businesses, could it?

What recourse are the land owners going to have? What the h3ll are we going to do about these stinking politicians?

[Elsie]

"Sometimes," he says, " the good of the many has to outweigh the greed of the few."
Well said, Spock

No! Wait HE said, "the good of the many has to outweigh the good of the few."
which, as we SHOULD know, is a near knock-off of Karl Marx's.......

"the needs of the many outweigh the need of the few"

[xzins]

This same thing is happening along the Ohio River near Cincinnati where some old neighborhoods are in danger of eminent domain because they have choice property overlooking the river. The private property might be old but it is private.

Developers want to put in high cost highrises for a more elite clientele. Their allies are city bureaucrats who see more tax $$$$.

[auboy]

Alabaster politicians claim they simply cannot collect enough property taxes in their town of 24,000 to pay for all of the government they believe the citizens of Alabaster need. They need some sales taxes.

These politians, like most politians, worship at the altar of the god More… more taxes… more spending… more taxes… more spending. Their appetite is unsatiable.

[Publius6961]

Here's the twist – and here's where you need to fear for your own property rights. Alabaster politicians claim they simply cannot collect enough property taxes in their town of 24,000 to pay for all of the government they believe the citizens of Alabaster need. They need some sales taxes. Trouble is, there aren't enough businesses around town to generate the amount of sales taxes these politicians crave. The answer? Hey! Let's get a shopping center in town.

This argument has been tried numerous times in California and shot down in flames.

California's Pacific Legal Foundation can contribute lots of insight into this debate.
One would hope that a similar watchdog legal foundation exists in Ala.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

ping

[auboy]

California's Pacific Legal Foundation can contribute lots of insight into this debate. One would hope that a similar watchdog legal foundation exists in Ala.

Where's the ACLU when you need them? Oh, nevermind.

[petitfour]

The ACLU is busy having the Ten Commandments removed. What kind of judge would protect the property rights of citizens? One who follows the Ten Commandments or one who cares about the supposed good of many? Doesn't one of the commandments say something about not coveting the property of another? Yep. Sure does.

[Quilla]

Alabama ping!

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.

[Quilla]

The developer has been around for a long time - they have their hands in everyone's pocket. These are the Lowders from Montgomery and own Colonial Bank as well as Colonial Properties. These reluctant to sell homeowners are out of luck - no one beats the Lowders.

Years ago, my parents were approached by the Lowders to buy a lot and build a home in a new residential development in Mongtomery. I believe it was Jimmy Lowder who told my father personally that only single family housing would be built in the sub-division. Within two years of moving into their new home, my father noticed construction of apartments (upscale, but nonetheless, multi-family) right behind their home in the same development. When he spoke with Lowder about it, he basically replied 'you should have got it in writing.' One of our neighbors, George Wallace, inquired similarly and was given the same answer. The apartments were built and lessons were learned - don't take a Lowder at his word.

[Conspiracy Guy]

We've been debating this for a while on the Alabama Locale page. It is a clear example of government abuse regardless of why the sellers won't sell. The owners are fighting it in court and they will win.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[tang-soo]

I lived in Orlando, Fl during the mid 1980s and I remember a similar story in Daytona. A family owned business was located on the beach. They owned the business as well as the building and land. However, a developer wanted to build a large resort hotel. They refused to sell because it had been in the family for so long - it was engrained in their life. the city of Dayton took the property under eminent domain and didn't even have the pretense presented in this story. They just took it.

[1Old Pro]

Take it to the courts, as far as it needs to go to get the appropriate rulling which upholds the rule of law.....that these private property owners do NOT have to sell and eminent domain justification is a real stretch.

[blackie]

Private Property Rights ... Bump!


Be Well ~ Be Armed ~ Be Safe ~ Molon Labe!

[auboy]

unsatiable = insatiable. No wonder I couldn't find "unsatiable" in my dictionary.;-)

[UncleDudley]

The ACLU is busy having the Ten Commandments removed.

Which includes, "Thou shalt not steal."

[Issaquahking]

Thanks for the ping...Looks like private property theft by a sick gubermint in Alabaster....Keep it up left wing goofs and the KBB may have to swing into action! Always ready to ride!