Posted on 03/29/2004 11:15:43 AM PST by Modernman
CHARLOTTE COUNTY -- The county commissioners embarked on their bold Murdock Village project -- spending more than $20 million on land for that effort so far -- based on an assumption.
A circuit judge, they wagered, would allow the county to seize properties from owners who didn't want to sell their land for the redevelopment.
They could soon find out if they were right. The first condemnation hearing for the 1,100-acre project is scheduled to begin today, before Circuit Judge William Blackwell.
At issue in the hearings are 106 parcels -- mostly undeveloped single-family lots -- in the far western portion of the redevelopment area. Those parcels make up the first of a possible 10 condemnation phases the county has planned between now and late 2005.
Commissioner Adam Cummings said he's very confident the county will be victorious. Time and again, Florida courts have allowed local governments to seize areas deemed blighted for redevelopment projects, he said.
"We're walking down a very well-travelled path here," Cummings said. "It would be astonishing if the county was not allowed to proceed."
The county has cited a list of factors -- deteriorating roads, poor infrastructure, outdated lot patterns and illegal dumping -- for the need to redevelop the area.
Attorneys representing property owners have lodged challenges to the county's efforts.
"We're not dealing with a slum area here," said Ellen Neil, an attorney representing seven owners at today's hearings. "We're not looking at an area of crime. We're not looking at an area where people say this is a major public problem. We're looking at areas that are very much like other neighborhoods in the county."
"This is not automatic," she said.
Obtaining the properties from unwilling sellers is crucial to the success of Murdock Village. The county wants to consolidate ownership of 3,000 lots, erase the property lines and sell the land to a developer for a multi-use community with homes, parks and a town center.
Without invoking its power of eminent domain -- the ability to take land for a public purpose -- the county would be left with a patchwork of scattered lots unfit for large-scale redevelopment.
In a lawsuit filed March 10, a group of 10 Murdock Village property owners challenged a state law that grants local governments broad powers to condemn land in the name of redevelopment. Attorney Bill Moore's complaint says that the state's Redevelopment Act -- the basis for the county's determination that the area is blighted and can be seized for redevelopment -- is an "unconstitutionally vague statute." He said that it was so loosely worded that virtually any property could be declared blighted under it.
Robert Gill, the county's eminent domain attorney, said he will not object to Blackwell entertaining the constitutionality questions before the case moves along.
Gill said the county would have to demonstrate three things: that the County Commission has enough information to declare the area blighted; that the taking of land serves a public purpose; and that the county is putting into the court registry an amount that is a good-faith estimate of each property's value.
Whether a decision will come this week is not clear. Blackwell, a retired judge, may hear several motions that, depending on the outcome, could lead the case to be delayed.
Those challenging the taking of lots in the first phase are a decided minority. By January, when the county filed its first condemnation suit, it had purchased all but 166 of the 318 properties in the phase.
Since filing suit, the county has settled out of court with owners of 60 parcels. Of the 106 parcels at issue in today's hearing, the county hasn't gotten a response from the owners of 62. Owners of 33 other parcels either aren't contesting the taking -- they may contest the county's compensation offer later -- or cannot sell their properties due to clouded titles.
The owners of the 11 remaining parcels, represented by Moore or Neil, have contested the takings, according to figures from Gill's office. Both attorneys have clients in other phases.
Government theft of private property is known as Nationalization whether it's done in Russia, China, Cuba or here. Nationalization is a defining characteristic of communist and 3rd world countries.
Deteriorating roads - the government owns the roads and is therefore at fault for the deterioration, not the owners of the property.
Poor infrastructure - Other than the previously mentioned roads, this could only mean water, sewer, electricity and gas. If they are not functioning, then they should be fixed by the owner of the infrastructure - either the government, the property owner depending on who owns the bad section.
outdated lot patterns - This is just silly. What next - condemning the property for having Harvest Gold appliances?
illegal dumping - Warn the owner and if they don't clean it clean up the dump for them, charge the owner and put a lien on the property if they don't pay. That isn't a reason for condemning the property.
Now, does the government still have a reason left other than "You have it, we want it, and we have a monopoly on the legal initiation of violence."
It is sometimes a question of what kind of development the community will most benefit from. This type of arrangement typically leaves the developer responsible for making and paying for a great deal of infrastructure - roads, schools, parks, sewer, flood control, etc. At the same time creating an organized community with a mix of residential, recreation and retail.
The citizens have to be vigilant to make sure that on one hand their politicians aren't being bribed, and on the other to make sure the developer comes through with the full package. Often times these hearings don't stop projects but win additional concessions from the City and the developers.
you're right; but thats how the demonicRATS do it...
The best revenge is to squeeze the entity for the maximum amount of dollars possible.
Remember, in California at least, the question of the amount of "just compensation" rests squarely with a jury - they tend to sympathize with homeowners.
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.