Posted on 09/18/2003 7:44:49 AM PDT by AAABEST
Anyone believing that the state process of eminent domain is fair for citizens has not gone through it. It is a traumatic and trying experience and one which is calculated to force average citizens to accept what is offered by the state to avoid going through their eminent domain proceedings. Below are listed some of the experiences you will encounter on the way if you choose to fight the state and proceed to an eminent domain hearing.
On October 2, 2003 we must move from our home and property at 6230 Golden Gate Parkway Naples Florida by court ordered dictate to make way for the new interchange at I-75 and Golden Gate Parkway. The convoluted taking process began many months ago when the state sent consultants to our property prior to beginning the process of negotiation on the property for the purpose of cutting or pushing over trees, boring holes, putting in stakes, soil tests, and other things to prepare for the construction of the interchange.This intrusion is allowed on private property under state statutes without your consent and if you attempt to prevent this, you are subject to a restraining order. The Bert Harris act on private property rights does not apply to transportation projects, so it offers no relief to homeowners being displaced by, or losing property to these projects.
Our home is a former custom model home on 5.67 acres of prime property. The home has 12 foot ceilings, wet bar, chandeliers, ceiling lights, custom leaded patio doors, ceiling fans in all rooms, and many other amenities. The grounds include two goldfish ponds with waterfall, three spillways, 1/3 acre pond, outbuildings, sprinkler system over 3 acres with pond returns to goldfish ponds, and extensive custom landscaping with large driveway and concrete circle drive including several parking areas. The state registered surveyor treated all of this as an affordable tract home devoid of any special consideration on a 2 1/2 acre lot with no amenities which was offered as a "comparable" property, because residence and property that equates to, or compares to ours cannot be found anywhere within the area. The state is therefore offering this as comparable residence and property.
The value of our residence and property was degraded by the appraisal of the appraiser retained by the state and is much less than current market value in the area with an estimate that a replacement home could be constructed for approximately $55 a square foot, and comparable property in this area could be purchased for approximately $55,000 per acre, and at that, the state only wants to take 5.2 acres leaving almost a 1/2 acre 30 foot wide strip of no value to us which they have offered $100 for since they do not really need it for the interchange. Recent estimates we have obtained indicate that replacement costs per square foot would run in the neighborhood of $125 for a comparable custom residence in our area, and land estimates in our area run approximately $125,000 or more per acre. We do not consider the state appraisal of the residence and property to be “just compensation” that is required by statute to occur in private property takings.
This was only the beginning as we have now found out. The relocation consultant hired by the state contacted us and offered to pay for commercial or self move. Without another home to move to, we desired to put our furniture (including many antiques) into storage until we are able to construct another home. But we were advised that this must be at our own expense, because the state could not reimburse us for any storage facility. We are also advised that if commercial or self move is elected, they must physically go to the site your personal belongings are being moved to, and confirm that they were actually moved there. We were further advised by the relocation consultant that where we elect to move must be inspected also, and in the event we build, it must be inspected for “adequacy” The relocation specialist could not produce much of the actual specific data except what was in the “relocation manual” or information regarding this in writing, but commented that “the rules could be found in state or Federal regulations” leaving a lot to be desired as to the validity of these statements.
Citizens should be aware that the state once it deposits its offer into an escrow account, regardless of the validity of the offer, can order you to turn over the keys and vacate the property within thirty days. In the case of eminent domain it may take some time for eminent domain court proceedings to occur before a jury, and meanwhile the state receives title to your property upon deposit of their offer into the escrow account. You must petition the court to be allowed to utilize the money in escrow to pay off your existing mortgage, which can take time, and you must continue to pay the existing mortgage even though the state effectively takes title upon deposit of the escrow funds and you are not allowed to live on the property after receiving the notice to vacate The failure of the state to negotiate in a timely manner has caused our case to be put on what is called a “fast track” so that it can be resolved prior to the state having to begin its scheduled construction phase we were told, which disallows any further negotiation and sends the matter to the courts.
The harrassment that can occur in a private property taking is another problem. There are late night phone calls requesting meetings to go over what has already been gone over, comments to the effect that if you do not abide by their wishes you are subject to restraining orders , meeting dates not kept, negotiations missed, consultant vehicles allowed on your property to conduct "tests" required by the state at any time they choose, and other issues which one would think should be denied under the private property rights of individuals prior to the actual taking and possession of the property by the state. We have found that our courts can offer no relief because the laws under which these procedures operate are written for the benefit of the state process. With the vast array of state legal forces and taxpayer funding at their disposal, individual citizens involved in a taking are left at a tremendous disadvantage.
The use of contract personnel during the relocation process is a problem also, since they do not appear to be well trained in negotiations with private citizens, and do not have the authority to make decisions. They must either call or bring back answers at another session which prolongs the process and the problems. Also citizens do not view these consultants the same as a state representative who holds title to their position, and who must be trained in and responsible to the needs of citizens they are negotiating with and have the specific answers to questions and the authority to make decisions regarding the process. This definitely does not promote a “citizen friendly” process in private property takings.
The experiences we have encountered and what we consider to be the failings of the private property rights laws supposedly designed to protect citizens in these takings of private property, will be the subject of a book we are in the process of writing. We wish to warn other residents of the state of Florida how the state dominates citizens in this process making citizens feel like criminals, and in which many of the processes in private property takings must be reevaluated and changed to better protect individuals in these takings. All proceeds from this book will go into a fund to assist private property rights advocates in their fight against the unfair treatment of private property owners in these takings. There is much more to be said regarding our findings in these “takings” and will be included in the book to be written.
Perhaps now one can understand the extent to which the citizens within our area fought the state’s design of the new interchange which not only includes the taking of our home and property, but four other residences and property, a Jaycees clubhouse, frontage from over two dozen homes, a daycare center, a church, and non-profit mental health center, all at a huge questionable need and cost to taxpayers. The board of county commissioners, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the transportation department, and the Florida Department of Transportation who denied citizens efforts to have redesign studies made, bear the responsibility of their actions in not conforming to Federal guidelines in accordance with the Federal Transportation Equity Act and not listening to citizens concerns and doing everything in their power in an attempt to research alternatives which would have lessened the impact to citizens within this residential area. The outcome of this points out the fact that in planning, citizens have a right to and must be made aware of and brought in on the initial phases of any project planning before firm plans are made to evaluate these projects in regard to how they will impact a particular community. Although that is supposed to be how the process works and is written in the state procedures to appease Federal guidelines, in reality it does not follow those guidelines at all, and every effort is made to keep the citizens out of this initial planning process.
This interchange could have operated at full efficiency by taking only a small portion in easements of the land surrounding it in a redesign which was proven to be effective, efficient, and feasible in nationwide engineering research and in the decisions made by other state departments of transportation. The county and the state would not allow this design to be studied as a replacement for the design they had already decided long before to construct, instead insisting that their design was born of necessity and could not be changed. They only went through the motions of listening to citizen concerns to appease the requirements that are stated that must be followed in Federal funding in the Transportation Equity Act. The board of county commissioners who had the power to authorize these studies did not follow through for the citizens as they should and we now see the results of the monstrous upheaval of lives that is now occurring because of this project. There are many lessons that can and need to be learned by state and local entities on how this project could have been conducted to the advantage of both government and citizens without this occurring and which should be studied in order that other mistakes of this nature can be avoided.
Of the many things that could cause a citizen to become a vocal civic activist, with a jaded eye on all government activities, losing your home and property is at the top of the list when you strongly feel that this could have been prevented by those elected to office to serve citizens and protect their rights and who failed in both respects by not properly researching all options and alternatives before proceeding to disrupt and change many lives. This is not treating citizens fairly, and does not represent a government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people, as it is supposed to be, but a dictatorial process at the hands of big government that chooses to ride roughshod over citizens rights. The words “these projects are for the good of the public”, and “citizens must receive just compensation for property taken” applied to the takings of private property must be reviewed in the light of the intent of these statements, and properly applied with justice weighing in on the side of the private property owner.
With our personal experience we have gained from this we now have two goals that we are intent on achieving on behalf of all citizens.
1. We desire to inform all citizens who do not realize just what a taking of your private property actually consists of under the current state guidelines and the many things you are not told by the state agencies that adversely affect your private property rights which we hope will force a changing of many of these dictatorial and high handed policies at the state level.
2. Changing the form of government in the county so that the local government body will have more power in the state processes that affect local county issues and the citizens will have more voice and power to insure that their local elected representatives make those decisions necessary to protect the rights of citizens in these “takings of private property”.
Bob and Debby Stone
6230 Golden Gate Parkway
Naples, Fl. 34116
bobordebby@aol.com
You can FReep our RINO county commissioners all at once Here
That's exactly what it is. Not only did they take his house, they did it in a very undignified and un American way.
The sad thing is that eminent domain is increasingly being used as a political tool as opposed to a last resort and it's happening more frequently on a larger scale and taking on an uglier face than ever before
No no more empowering this pathetic group of County Commishes. Citizens that is the key element.
May they have success with this book.
FWIW: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."...U.S. Constitution, Amendment five.
I read with interest the story of the eminent domain proceeding against the property of Bob and Debby Stone of Naples -- here & here.
It is my fervent hope that each of you will rejoin the private sector after the next election. Short-sighted and heavy-handed decisions such as the ones you have made in this instance have turned the cornerstone of freedom in this country (private property and the associated rights) into a crumbling sandstone, and set all of us on a path to tyranny.
Regards,
Disclosure: The people you are writing it to may be too stupid to understand what you wrote.
I read it this morning at
http://www.cataction.com/forum/
Frustratingly sad.
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.