Posted on 04/01/2004 5:33:23 AM PST by AAABEST
Jesse Hardy's fight to keep his 160 acres in the Southern Golden Gate Estates will return to Tallahassee, Apr. 13, for a final hearing before the Florida Cabinet.
"It's possible the Cabinet could defer it again, but we're confident they will approve eminent domain," says Kathalyn Gaither, land acquisition public information officer for the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Located in what is called the "Hole in the Donut," the property is part of the state's 55,000-acre buy-out to restore natural water flows to the Southern Golden Gate Estates (SGGE), once slated for development.
Hardy has owned the property for 28 years. He is the last of thousands of individual property owners whose land was targeted for the Picayune Strand State Forest. What began as a willing seller program turned into condemnation when the project was tied to the $100 million Everglades water restoration project in the late 1990s.
If the state condemns Hardy's land, it will be the first time in Florida history that a homesteaded property has been taken for environmental purposes.
Gaither says if Hardy does not take the $1.5 million offer that's on the table, the selling price will go back to the state's original offer of $909,158 if the Cabinet and Governor approve eminent domain.
The 67-year-old Florida native says he doesn't care - the property is not for sale at any price. A disabled Navy SEAL who has never lived an easy life, he says he's not interested in a condo on the beach or living in an urban setting.
"It's my home and it means more to me than the money. If it (condemnation) was for something useful to the public health and well-being, like a school, a fire station, or a hospital, I would move with no problem," he says.
Although he is skeptical of the success of portions of the rehydration plan, Hardy maintains he supports the project. He says his land is not necessary to the restoration project and he will not be adversely affected by it.
"I'm not against any of the environmentalists' work to rehydrate the Southern Golden Gate Estates," he says. "I'm all for it. I just want to keep my home."
Gaither says Hardy's land is necessary to the project.
"The South Florida Water Management District has conducted modeling that shows that even if there is no flooding on his property, there will be no roads and there will be demolition all around him, posing safety concerns," she says.
Hardy, who once sold real estate for Golden Gate Estates' developer Gulf American Corporation (GAC), homesteaded his rustic property in 1976. With the exception of an excavation pond underway, the property looks very much the same today as it did 28 years ago.
Using propane and a gas-powered generator, he lives in a tiny wood frame home with a friend he took in and her handicapped eight-year-old son.
"Living here is what has kept me going," he says. "It's my home. I'm too old to go anywhere else."
Hardy continues to hold out. One year ago, the governor and Cabinet were asked to initiate condemnation proceedings on his property. Instead, they instructed DEP land acquisition agents to continue to try to negotiate a deal.
Hardy and Gaither both agree that no progress has been made over the past year.
"If I let them get away with it, and they take my home for environmental reasons, then every homeowner in the state of Florida will be in jeopardy," he says. "There's nothing to restore on my land - nothing but pine and Sabal palm. It's my home - it's just that simple - and I won't give it up. I will fight to the very end. I will spend every nickel I've got and can get to fight this."
Hardy will not be attending the hearing in Tallahassee, but will be represented by his attorney. He says it is too emotional of an issue for him. He is also undergoing cancer treatment after having been diagnosed with the disease in November.
He is hopeful area residents will show their support by writing letters asking the governor not to grant the DEP eminent domain and allow him to keep his land.
Estates resident Cindy Kemp, founding member of the Property Rights Action Committee (PRAC), says the group fully backs Hardy. The group created and is distributing brochures on his plight and is promoting his cause through a song, "The Ballad of Jesse Hardy," written by a friend of Hardy and sung by Estates resident Bill Lhota.
"It's not right what they're doing to Jesse," she says. "We're hoping residents will understand how this ultimately affects them and their Constitutional rights."
Hardy hired an engineer to complete a study that shows the elevation of his property at 12 feet. At that height, he says his property will never be affected by the restoration project and he doesn't understand why the state is insisting on buying him out.
Nearly three years ago, Collier County gave Hardy the go-ahead to build the first of four proposed 20-acre ponds to create a fish farm, which he would like to one day open to the public for recreational fishing.
Several environmental groups including the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Collier County Audubon Society opposed the concept, but agreed to support the construction of one 20-acre pond. Any future excavation will have to be re-approved by the county this spring.
In that time, Hardy says he has dug about seven of the 20 acres of the pond. He has also completed and stocked a smaller pond, which he uses to gauge water quality and predator issues. Fill from excavation of the ponds has been purchased by the county for road building.
Hardy says his dream is to one day open his piece of paradise up to the public to fish the ponds and enjoy what he has loved for 27 years.
DEP officials say that dream is unlikely. Gaither says once eminent domain is approved, it will take six months to a year to find Hardy a place to live.
"I've already got a place to live," Hardy says. "They can look all they want - they'll never find another place like this. It's my home and there's no other place like it."
To contact the Governor email jeb.bush@myflorida.com, call 850-488-4441 or fax 850-487-0801.
You and most people. You will however, be more trusting when "someone" decides they want your neighbors or your home "for the greater good". It's happening all over the country and has been for years. Just because a man can relocate...so could you...doesn't mean he should have to.
Some people are not interested in"making out like a bandit"....that's the enviro's game. Some people want what this government promised..the right to own their land and be left secure in it.
Thanks for the ping, Dixie. Seems we're no better off than 5 years ago when we tried to start educating people how their fellow citizens are being used.
The pot calling the kettle black.
Oh boy...you're the SUPREME KING at not responding. Hmmmm
I would love to see you try to back up your false claim [on druggies] since you cannot. You are all about name calling and short of the truth.
Your credibility drops with every post.
Huh? Have you stopped beating yourself? LOL!
Spoken like the true enemy of freedom, liberty, self-ownership and private property rights that you are.
Well, that's certainly an approach. However, you'd have to convince me that there is never an abiding public interest that justifies the use of eminent domain against unwilling property owners.
For example, say that Farmer X doesn't want to sell land that will be flooded by the reservoir behind a flood control dam. The public interest argument would be that the property interests of this farmer (who would be compensated) are over-ridden by the fact that the dam would ensure the safety and integrity of the towns and property downstream. Assuming that the compensation is truly "just," does the public interest downstream justify the use of eminent domain to force the upstream farmer to sell his property?
Where?
In the 5th Amendment -- which is why that particular clause speaks about taking private property for public use.
Agreed, your pro-liberal, pro-big government and anti-freedom/anti-liberty agenda reasons for coming to FR has long since been exposed.
He's been spewing his hatred for freedom and liberty for about 4 years now.
True -- though there are libertarian hereabouts who say exactly the opposite when it comes to things like strip joints....
The question in this and other cases is: is there an overriding public interest that justifies "forcing the guy to sell?" There may or may not be in this case -- I don't trust the reporting of the story enough to have an opinion on it.
In general, however, I think there are cases (e.g., the flood control example I gave above), where the public interest does justify the exercise of eminent domain. I think the bar for that ought to be pretty high, but I think there are cases that justify it.
Statements like this make you sound like a DUmmy.
We all pass through travail in life from time to time. We all must pass through the death of a loved one, and ultimatley our own passing. it is good to know with an asurety regarding the hereafter and to be able to comfort others and have that faith ourselves.
Thank you again for your thoughts and prayers. Faith is never wasted or badly spent.
I'm not disputing your example, but let me tell you how that turns out. When the Elk Creek dam was built in So. Oregon, that was the reason...or excuse and families that had lived on the land for decades were forced out. Guess what...the enviro's stopped the damn from being finished and now want it torn out completely...for the fish, don't ya know. They are breaching dams as we speak and want the rest out...looks like they'll get their way.
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.