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.

[tdadams]

America's newest government tyranny. Where do we draw the line anymore?

[dagar]

From your rifle to the center of mass.

[FormerLib]

Draw the line where the founding fathers drew it and take up arms against the tyrants.

[WestPacSailor]

Uncle Joe says: "This is a wonderful idea. The peoples Costco will be a valuable asset to the people. The government is absolutely making the right decision."

[still lurking]

I read an article in the Dallas News yesterday. The city offered her almost $700,000 for a home valued at $400,000. The homeowner claims that the offer was not made. The offer now is $223,000. I'm sure they wish that they hadn't been so greedy.

[longtermmemmory]

Have you not heard the newest term used by urban planners? They now have "stake holder" as part of their dictionary. Thus all the city is a "stakeholder" in what YOU do with YOUR property and YOU have to get OUR (whoever OUR is) consent.

Remeber when they wanted to build a casino in atlantic city and when the little old lady refused, they just build around her. Alas the casino should have bought more politicians.

I hope this woman has all this on official record, I hope the city gets slapped with punitive damages.

[pgyanke]

You consider that a good point? I don't care whether they offered her $10 million, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORCE HER TO RELINQUISH HER PROPERTY TO ANOTHER CITIZEN. Eminent domain is meant to be used (or has properly been used) to establish roadways and public usage. To take personal property from one citizen for the enrichment of another is not only immoral, it's illegal under our best traditions and most written law!

[Flyer]

Ducanville doesn't post an email address on their web site, just phone numbers.

City Manager - Kent Cagle 972-780-5017

[still lurking]

I believe her beef was not eminent domain. She wanted a cut of the Costco pie. Her outrage appeared when she realized she lost the larger offer.

[COUNTrecount]

I wish my house was a Costco store. It almost is anyway.

[blackdog]

If a city official or any government official makes an offer on a contract, it's in writing. Why don't you find out just who is lying to who on that "almost $700,000 offer" by seeing it in writing. In todays estimating world of math, $100,000 is close to $700,000.

I find it interesting that the author who reported the city's offer of $700,000 did not ask to see the offer?

[Flyer]

Wait. . . found an email address

kcagle@ci.duncanville.tx.us

[calljack]

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.

[Orangedog]

I read an article in the Dallas News yesterday. The city offered her almost $700,000 for a home valued at $400,000. The homeowner claims that the offer was not made. The offer now is $223,000. I'm sure they wish that they hadn't been so greedy.

Not wanting to sell your home to a developer makes you greedy these days...nice. I'd be more inclined to believe the homeowner that the offer was never made.

This is an abuse of eminent domain. The city isn't taking those homes to build a highway or a power plant. They are using that power to force them to sell their homes to developers who will make a very large profit from this deal. Is the government going to force the developers and new owners of this mall to share part of the rents they will collect on this property? No, they just want to force out the current owners as cheaply as possible and at the end of a gun if required.

[Jonx6]

"I'm sure they wish that they hadn't been so greedy."

Yeah! What were they thinking? Trying to live on thier own land, the nerve of some people!

[pgyanke]

If they have a contract to sell, it is in writing somewhere and one of the parties to the contest should produce it. Since the city is being made to look very bad (justifiably), I would hope they would produce the contract to clear up the confusion.

If there is no contract to sell and the city is insisting she sell anyway (just dickering over the price a bit), then they are unconscionably wrong.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

There are typically more to these stories than what is reported in a one sided comentary. I deplore eminent domain in 90% of all cases. A property owner can always take the municipality or State to court and make them prove the need for eminent domain. And that is a State court too. Even if the court agrees, the property owner has the right to hire their own consultant to value the property. Juries typically are sympathetic to property owners and side with them. I wonder if the property owner in this case did. I doubt it.

[saint]

Your right, of course. It's okay for the city and Costco to be greedy, but not the lowly property owner.

[longtermmemmory]

Cosco could use a little wake up call.

Anyone have the cosco emails, I am sure they would not want to turn this in to a PR fiasco.

[moehoward]

"I'm sure they wish that they hadn't been so greedy."

Who is "they".

I seriously doubt that the home owner was offered nearly twice the appraised value.
On the other hand it is completely believable that the city would misrepresent their "offer" to the press.