Posted on 09/12/2003 8:56:23 AM PDT by tdadams
YOU FOLKS HAD BETTER BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS
I'm going to revisit the eminent domain issue again for a few minutes here so that I can share with you an incredible display of arrogance from an elected official.
As you know, I've been talking about a situation in Alabaster, Alabama where the city council of this community of 24,000 is trying to seize the property of about ten homeowners so that a shopping center featuring a Wal-Mart can be built there. The politicians say that it is perfectly OK to condemn and seize this property for a privately owned shopping center because, after all, the shopping center will generate more tax money than these private homes do.
We are seeing the evolution of a new standard for government seizure of private property. Its very simple. If some politician decides that your property would generate more tax revenue for government if it was owned by someone else, the politician can seize that property from you and turn it over to the government-preferred owner.
For our example of obscene government arrogance we turn our attention to Duncanville, Texas. Duncanville calls itself "A warm community of friends," and "A wonderful place to raise a family." Well, Duncanville may be a wonderful place to raise your family, just so long as some politician doesn't decide that the city could get more tax revenue if your home were to become a Costco.
Deborah Hodge has been living in her Duncanville home for 13 years. The Hodge property has a four bedroom house, a bar, pasture and swimming pool. It has been a family gathering place for over a decade. Just like the city motto says, "A wonderful place to raise your family."
A few months ago the city told Deborah to sell her property. They didn't ask her if she wanted to sell. They told her that she would sell. She would either sell, or they would just take it. The city, you see, wants a Costco store to be built on her land. The Costco would, after all, generate a lot more tax revenue than her little house and barn. So ... Duncanville is using its right of eminent domain to seize the property.
Now ... listen to this. These are the words of Duncanville city manager Kent Cagle. This is what Kent Cagle thinks about private property rights in America. Cagle told the Dallas Morning News "They don't have the option to say no to us. We have made it clear we want that property. The only thing that will be settled in court is how much we have to pay for it."
There is no freedom without property rights. What is it going to take to get Americans upset about this latest craze in local government revenue raising. You just identify the properties that could produce more taxes, seize those properties, and turn them over to developers.
I think it's extremely disturbing that a court would even spend more than 30 seconds on this before deciding in favor of the homeowner.
"You want to seize these homes and sell the property for commercial development?"
"That's correct, your Honor."
"You do realize that would violate the homeowners 4th amendment rights to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures?"
"You Honor, the extra tax revenue would benefit the city greatly."
"I've made my decision. I'm ruling in favor of the homeowner. I also find in favor of the homeowner on their countersuit, and order the city to pay 10 times the estimated property value as a penalty for violating the homeowner's constitutional rights."
Bang! Bang! (the gavel)
Not enough people are drawing this line at all.
I used to work as an accountant for a property development firm, and it always amazed me to see what a one or two thousand dollar campaign contribution will get you. Especially in Louisiana.
If the homes were bulldozed, it was settled. It was settled teh second they accepted the offer from the government.
Um, not to nitpick or anything, but the entire point of Atlas Shrugged was essentially to oppose this sort of thing.
No, it is "her property" like this is the United States of America.
Greedy? What about I don't want to sell?
Or if she has to pay property taxes to keep it.
Or if the government can decide what peacefull activities she can engage in on her property.
Or what plants she can grow and use on her property.
Or if she has to ask government permission to build, alter or tear down a house on her property.
I'd be curious as to how many people against eminent domain believe that the government has the legitimate power to do any of the above.
Perhaps you didn't read my post clearly, or maybe some of the words I used were confusing to you. The homeowners didn't accept the offer, they hired attorneys and went to court. Meanwhile, while they're waiting on the court to hear the case, the city forced them out and bulldozed their homes. I did read in the local paper less than a year ago, that the a couple of the lawsuits were still bouncing around in the court system. The mall expansion was completed a couple of years ago.
*********
Already happened here in Alabama. The City of Montgomery decided that the Section 8 Housing projects were located in such poor areas that it was depressing to the inhabitants. So they bought a huge parcel of land SOutheast of the city and proceded to pop up the ever loved Section 8 cookie cutter duplexes _-- right next to a brand new high end subdivision.
Houses that were originally built in that subdivision for $150,000-200,000 are now being sold for $70,000-80,000, and almost half the houses stand empty with For Sale signs in the yards.
Yep, the same thing occurred in eastern New Orleans. What was once one of the nicer suburban areas received the outflow from the public housing projects as more and more units were rendered uninhabitable.
Some of the apartments were developed on the sly, with contractor's signs indicating that the structures were going to be condominiums (as was the big trend, 20-odd years ago). The signs were left up long enough to mislead the local residents, then removed as construction neared completion. Some area residents found out, too late, that the construction projects had "run into financial problems" and "had to be reconfigured as low-income apartments".
As in Montgomery, homeowners in the area soon found their houses were worth far less than the mortgage balance.
The downgrading of the zoning of a property is typically not allowed because it devalues the proeprty. In many case where government's wanted to downgrade zoning for environmental reasons, the owners have been compensated based upon the difference in value of their property before and after the zoning change.
Again, laws change from State to State and County to County. That's whay I say "generally".
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.