Family to lose home by eminent domain for Costco store

Boortz online ^ | September 12, 2003 | Neal Boortz

[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.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

I'm not against eminent domain, but I am against the use of eminent domain to condemn property and turn around and give it to a department store. Don't you see the difference?

I apologize; I wasn't clear. I totally agree with you. I was just making a general statement and used your post because you brought up the fact that people don't really "own" property is such government restrictions are in place. Its my experience, though, that many people who despise eminent domain have no problem with other government powers that essentially remove personal ownership from property - especially property tax.

[Orangedog]

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.

Section 8 is the kiss of death to a neighborhood. I wonder how many section 8 homes are on the same block as the top administrators of HUD and HHS? Too bad I didn't wind the hideously large powerball jackpot a few months ago...we could find out just how many would fit around those homes!

[TheLurkerX]

Good, God... Not only are you missing the point, you're missing the target, the barn, and various trees in the immediate area. If you rollover and take the money, you're validating this kind of crap and adding to the avalanche that's swamping individual rights in this country.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

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.

With all due respect, I can't believe this. No one is forced out without compensation in eminent domain proceedings. Maybe they didn't cash the checks.

[mhking]

Perhaps some pressure on Costco might get some more desired results:

Online Member Suggestion Form:
Costco Online Member Comments and Suggestions

Member Services:
800-774-2678

Web address:
http://www.costco.com

Costco's corporate mailing address is:
PO Box 34331
Issaquah, WA 98027

Costco's corporate offices are located at:
999 Lake Drive
Issaquah, WA 98027

[ScrtAccess]

Well actually I liked the hackers version of that poem better. When I say hackers I don't mean the hackers as in the ones that break into your computers, but the ones that used to look for ingenious uncommon solutions to problems.

Given that I was feeling lazy, I didn't bother to try to find that one, but the general idea that people probably shouldn't wait for others to stand up to injustices that in the future could be them just because it isn't them now was what I was trying to convey. I think you understood that, I hope others do as well.

[Dead Dog]

Oh yah, I understand, and agree. I just don't have much problem with thieves and murderers (communists) assuming room temperature by government order. After judicial processes of course.

This city councel are proving themselves to be thieves who are eliminating peaceful recourse. Walmart and Costco need to pay attention to their PR, and the safety of their execs.

[lowbridge]

No, they probally wish that the city would leave them alone so they could live in their home in peace. I have raised my kids in the house I live in now and would turn down offers even if they were 1/2 million above market value. There is a huge difference between "a house" and "a home". the size of the offer is not relevent to this conversation.

EXACTLY. Not for sale means not for sale. If the owner doesnt want to sell, then that should be the end of it. No one should be forced to sell their homes/property, no matter what price is offered.

[hedgetrimmer]

The declaration that a "stake holder" has a say over private property or government or anything is a result of the sovietization of our way of life. You see, it used to be that citizens or property owners were the people who had the greatest sway over politicians and policy. But by injecting the idea that a "stake holder" can have any say over any government or property issue has stolen the rights of citizenship and property owners away from them and it comes right out of the idea of soviet "councils" who controlled a lot of how people lived their lives in the USSR.

Here is how insidious this is. It used to be only a citizen could petition their government official. Now that stake holders are accepted as having the same authority as a citizen, anyone can petition your local government authorities. For example, when the decisions were made to make Monterey Bay a marine sanctuary, the citizens were not asked if that is what they wanted. However, a large group of stake holders, self appointed totalitarians from out of the area, had complete control of the process through our representative, Sam Farr. So we got the sierra club,people from the United Nations, people from out of state who had designated themselves as stakeholders making decisions about the Monterey Bay without any input from the people who live here!

The idea that stakeholders have a claim to anything takes local constitutional controls away from people and gives it to anyone who constitutionally and traditionally could never lay claim to right or petition an elected official.

One of the worst executive orders clinton ever signed was the EO for environmental justice. He wrote that "stakeholders" could sue a property owner over "environmental" claims. In the past, if a person was harmed by something a property owner did, they had a right to sue. So if a property owner had a factory that was belching toxic waste and it could be proven that a person living next door was harmed by it, they could sue. With the envronmental justice EO, anybody from anywhere could take a look at the smokestack and sue if they didn't like it. Stakeholder lawsuits have completely undermined our property rights. Stakeholders undermine a citizens authority as well,because as I said in the case of the Monterey Bay sanctuary, we have people from other countries, affialted with the United Nations, petitioning our congressman with more authority than his own constitutents.

There are some sites on the internet that talk about the origins of "stakeholders" and how they come from the soviet council system. It is terrifying how subtley our freedoms and rights are being undermined.

[atlaw]

LOL! I'm going to start documenting the daily possum trek across the top of my backyard fence, and I'm already feeling a little more charitable towards that con-artist racoon under my deck. I can only hope that there's some kind of "endangered urban varmint" provision to help me out if push comes to shove.

[Heyworth]

In Chicago, there was this little bar called McCuddy's, across the street from old Comiskey Park. Babe Ruth used to go there for a beer between innings. It was a celebrated institution. When they wanted to build the new White Sox park (whatever corporate name it has these days), they promised to preserve the bar, to incorporate it into the new park or to rebuild it on the other side of the street, in the parking lot that was the site of the old park. It never happened. The bar was torn down, just like Comiskey Park, neither ever to be seen again. Never believe a developer's promises when he wants something.

[Ez2BRepub]

Wrong. By the time she is done paying taxes(ie. Federal, State, City, etc. etc.) on that $700,000 she might be lucky to have half of it left. $350,000 is less than the $400,000 her house was appraised at.

[Liberal Classic]

Of those things, I believe eminent domain to be the most legitimate. This example, in my opinion, is not one of them.

[Eric Cassano]

"They don't have the option to say no to us," said Kent Cagle, Duncanville's city manager. "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."

What does this Cagle guy do for an encore? Steal Christmas?


Here are a few ideas that may help stop the "economic development" thugs....

* Just say NO to eminent domain for private gain

* Boycott Costco (And members of any lickspittle business groups that support this evil plan.)

* Recall the Duncanville, Texas City Council

* Fire the Duncanville, Texas City Manager

* Find out the truth about so-called "economic development" (see links below)

Eminent Domain For Private Gain

The Myth Of Economic Development

Blight Makes Right

Redevelopment: The Unknown Government

Castle Coalition: Citizens Fighting Eminent Domain Abuse

[WackyKat]

I see. Giant Costco comes in, buys the local politicians and instructs them to force local people out of their homes so Costco can make a profit, and its the homeowners under attack who are greedy.

[WackyKat]

I have touched a sore spot. If she considered the offer to sell an opportunity to cash out, then she blew the negotiations, I don't consider that cause to take up arms.

You just don't get it do you? The local government is acting as the enforcer for a private corporation which desires to force these people out of their homes for purposes of private profit. That is a gross abuse of governmental power which unfortunately is becoming frequent across the country.

[GETMAIN]

You scream "her property" like this is the old West, or like that movie "Far and Away".

I can't believe you just said this. This is the most moronic quote I've heard all week.

[WackyKat]

She is representing herself and is stunned that the city doesn't have her best interest at heart. I know she had right of refusal, but be smart and defend yourself.

So is someone is unsophisticated that justifies oppressing them? For you, Might Makes Right, huh?

[Constantine XIII]

Right answer! :p

[Constantine XIII]

What if she didn't want to sell her house in the first place, eh? She never had the option of saying no. THAT is what is wrong, and that wouldn't change if they offered Bill Gates' bank account.