Monday, June 27, 2005

The Florida Board of Education can exercise the right of eminent domain

Eminent Domain

The Florida Board of Education can exercise the right of eminent domain with approval from the State Board of Education (elected Cabinet).

The bill allows university boards to exercise the right of eminent domain with the approval of the State Board of Education (appointed body in 2003).

Restoring America’s Everglades and Eminent domain

Statement by Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Colleen M. Castille Regarding the Restoration of America’s Everglades

“Restoring America’s Everglades is the largest environmental restoration project this nation has ever undertaken. Returning the natural flow of water to more than 55,000 acres of wetlands in Southern Golden Gate Estates will replenish flows to the panhandle of Everglades National Park, the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve and the Picayune State Forest. Already, more than 98 percent of the land needed to complete the project is in public ownership.

Because of the dedication of Governor Jeb Bush and the State of Florida, this monumental endeavor is delivering environmental results ahead of schedule -- restoring habitat for endangered wildlife, replenishing lost water supplies and improving water quality.

Accomplishing restoration on time and under budget is Florida’s highest environmental priority. Today’s decision by the Florida Cabinet demonstrates not only the critical need for this parcel of land, but also the commitment of this State to completing restoration of the River of Grass.

I am grateful for the support of our leadership and remain hopeful that we can build on more than a year and a half of negotiations to reach a fair agreement that would meet Mr. Hardy’s needs while allowing the State to achieve the greatest benefits possible for Florida’s natural resources.”

###

Background
In the 1960s, the Gulf American Land Corporation began developing thousands of acres of the Everglades as Southern Golden Gate Estates. After selling lots, dredging miles of canals and constructing nearly 300 miles of roads, the company went bankrupt. Restoring Southern Golden Gate Estates to its natural state will allow water to once again naturally flow across more than 55,000 acres of wetlands, restoring habitat and improving the health of downstream estuaries.

Why is Everglades restoration important?

Restoration of America’s Everglades is the largest environmental project of its kind in the nation’s history. Restoration will reestablish a more natural flow of water throughout South Florida and the Everglades, reviving habitat for more than 60 rare species.

Along with the monumental environmental benefits, the 30-year, $8 billion program also has considerable social implications. Restoration will ensure reliable water supplies and provide flood control for millions of Floridians.

How much land has the State acquired to restore Southern Golden Gate Estates?
The State began acquiring land two decades ago. Part of a joint commitment, the state and federal government invested nearly $100 million to acquire 19,988 individual lots in the abandoned subdivision. To date, 54,282 acres of the 55,247-acre project are in public ownership -- 98 percent of the land needed to complete the project. Just four parcels remain for acquisition, including Mr. Hardy’s 160-acre property. These last parcels are integral to the completion of Everglades restoration.

What has the State achieved so far?

The State began restoring Southern Golden Gate Estates in October 2003. During the first seven months, engineers moved more than 45,000 cubic yards of dirt to partially backfill seven miles of the Prairie Canal.

The more than mile and a half of dirt plugs is reducing fresh water drainage of the Fakahatchee Strand, elevating groundwater levels and replenishing wetlands. As canal plugging continues, engineers will remove 25 miles of roads to return the natural sheetflow of water, restoring natural habitat over two miles surrounding the filled sections of canal.

Florida plans to complete the first phase of restoration by October 2005.
What authority did the Department of Environmental Protection receive today?
The Florida Cabinet today granted the Department of Environmental Protection the authority to acquire Mr. Hardy’s property through eminent domain.
Is the Department still considering other alternatives?

Yes. The State will continue to seek a beneficial and fair agreement with Mr. Hardy that would eliminate the need to initiate legal proceedings.

What other alternatives will the State pursue with Mr. Hardy?

The State is committed to pursuing other alternatives, including a 160-acre land exchange outside of the project area.

How long has the State been involved with negotiations?

Negotiations began with Mr. Hardy on October 23, 2002. Together with relocation benefits, the State has offered more than 5 times the appraised value for the 160-acre property. Mr. Hardy also turned down a $2 million land swap of equal acreage.
If the State proceeds with eminent domain, would it represent a first for environmental purposes?

No. Within the Southern Golden Gate project alone Florida obtained approximately 3,300 acres or 1,859 land parcels (representing approximately 1,490 landowners) by eminent domain. Eminent domain has been used as a last option in cases of deceased or untraceable landowners, title matters or unwilling sellers because of the need to carry out the project in the best interest of the public. All eminent domain cases were reviewed by a County Judge.

Within the Southern Golden Gate Estates project area, 17 landowners claimed homestead. To date, Florida has acquired 16 of these 17 properties from willing sellers.

Even though I'm a planner

By Rick Brady

Even though I'm a planner and do not necessarily think that property rights are sacrosanct (important yes, but the 5th Amendment does provide a due process clause), this case is absurd!

Tax sharing between cities and commercial developers has been around in California quite a while. Because of the state-local fiscal regime in this state (largely due to Prop 13), a developer will pit one city against another city and some cities have negotiated agreements to give a portion of the sales tax revenue generated by the project to the developer should they decide to locate in their jurisdiction.

One of the biggest impediments to bix-box retail is increasing paucity of sites large enough and suitable for the Super Wal Marts, Fry's Electronics, Costco's, etc., particularly within urbanized areas. If the Court rules against property rights in this case, the temptation for cash strapped local jurisdictions will be immense.

Big box commercial or industrial developers would come to a City Council and make an offer: "Give us these 25 acres and you will see X increment from property taxes and Y increase in sales and hotel tax revenue." The City will counter, "Yes, but what about the consituents we displace!" To that, the developer will say, "How about we give you $Z up front and $V each year to ease your worries?"

Our entire local government fiscal system is whack. It's perhaps the worst in CA because of Prop 13, but it seems to me that the most efficient and equitable system for any metropolitan area is one in which revenue is collected and distributed regionally.

Why have a system where it is in the City's best fiscal interests to condemn property for a Super Wal Mart?

Another thing this case reminds me of:

Cottonwood Christian Center v. City of Cypress. In that case, Cypress tried to use redevelopment powers of eminent domain to condemn land purchased by a church org for development of a mega church. The City wanted to build a Costco instead. What was their reason? Tax dollars and "economic development." Sham... The difference here is the Cottonwood folks were protected by the Religious Land Use and Instiutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

Pardon me, You’re in My Kitchen

Pardon me, You’re in My Kitchen: The Supreme Court and Eminent Domain
When you walk through the housewares section of your local Wal-Mart, remember that it used to be Maggie Smith’s kitchen, and she’s not happy you’re there.

Or at least there a fair chance the area used to be someone’s kitchen, or living room, or back yard.

Wal-Mart has been a common beneficiary of local governments using their power of eminent domain to seize private property for the economic advancement of the community. Wal-Mart is hardly alone, as communities across the country have found more and more reasons to seize private property for the enrichment of their citizens (except the property owners whose homes were taken).

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear a typical case brought by a group of New London, Connecticut homeowners. The Supremes heard oral arguments yesterday.


It’s risky to jump to conclusions on the sentiment of the Court based on oral arguments. Here’s what some media outlets thought:

CNN:


Striking an unusual populist tone, the Supreme Court appeared divided Tuesday over whether city officials in Connecticut have the authority to seize homes in a working-class neighborhood and turn the property over to private developers.

Detroit Free Press:


The Supreme Court appeared sympathetic Tuesday toward a group of New London, Conn., homeowners fighting to keep their land, but justices seemed equally skeptical of their own power to keep the city from seizing property to create an upscale development.

It's the first major case on eminent domain -- the power of the government to condemn property for redevelopment -- to reach the high court in years.


Washington Post:


An attorney for a group of Connecticut homeowners told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that his clients have a constitutional right to stay in their houses even though their city says it needs the sites for privately developed offices, hotels and parking, in a case that could affect property rights nationwide.

The lawyer, Scott Bullock of the libertarian Institute for Justice, said that if New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to force Susette Kelo and six other owners to sell for the sake of jobs and tax revenue that private-sector development brings, the Fifth Amendment guarantee that private property cannot be taken for "public use" without just compensation would be a dead letter.


If you think private property rights are important this may very well be the most important case facing the Supreme Court in our lifetime.

Eminent Domain Frequently Asked Questions

Office of Right of Way Eminent Domain Frequently Asked Questions:

What gives the Department the right to take my property?Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, gives the Department the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain. Chapters 73 and 74, Florida Statutes, set forth the procedures which apply to eminent domain actions.

What are my rights?The Florida Constitution states private property cannot be taken without full compensation being paid to the property owner and without due process of law. You have the right to have a judge or a jury to decide full compensation at a trial.

Will I need an attorney, and if so, who will pay that expense?In as much as this is a legal process an attorney may be necessary. Fees and costs incurred in defense of the proceedings will be determined by the court and paid by the Department in accordance with Chapter 73, Florida Statutes.

How much is the Department going to pay me for my property?The property owner will be paid full compensation as determined by a jury or a judge based on testimony presented at trial.
Is a trial the only way to settle the issue of full compensation?No, at any time during the process the property owner and the Department may agree to settle. Settlement can be the result of negotiations, settlement conferences or mediation. The court encourages the property owner and the Department to work out their differences through settlement to relieve the crowded court schedules.

WHAT IS EMINENT DOMAIN?

WHAT IS EMINENT DOMAIN?

By definition eminent domain is the authority to acquire or take, or to authorize the taking of, private property for a public use or for a public purpose with just compensation offered for the taking. As it relates to redevelopment agencies, an agency may carry out the power of eminent domain but only through the specific approval of the municipality and then it must be done in accordance with Chapters 73 and 74, Florida Statutes. Eminent domain is used when the value of just compensation, through an appraisal process, cannot be determined. Eminent domain involves a court process that establishes the just compensation value for a piece of property along with related to court costs, expert testimony fees, legal fees and any punitive damages to the seller. This becomes a very expensive cost and usually if the owner of the property and the buyer of the property cannot settle on a fee outside of court, the property is not bought.

Eminent Danger Cash-strapped cities use entrepreneurs’ property to lure big businesses.

Eminent Danger

Cash-strapped cities use entrepreneurs’ property to lure big businesses.

Entrepreneur magazine - January 2005

By Joshua Kurlantzick


Dino Paspalakis was sure his business was secure. For 17 years, as co-owner of Joyland Amusement Center, a popular arcade in Daytona Beach, Florida, he's been pouring his money into upgrades, drawing a consistent clientele, and carrying on the family business. His father opened the arcade in the 1960s, "after working every snack bar on the Daytona Beach boardwalk to make money to buy it," Paspalakis, 40, says. But now he faces a threat. The city of Daytona Beach, using a legal doctrine called eminent domain, is trying to take the property and give it to developers to build high-rise condos and hotels. "In February [2004], they told me they'll be seizing the land. Developers are pushing out [independent] shops," he says.
Paspalakis' story is hardly unique. Historically, city and state governments used eminent domain to take over property for public infrastructure, such as highways and schools. But in recent years, as cities have assumed more responsibility for encouraging economic development, they have extended the power of eminent domain and started repossessing property to give to developers and other large companies. Eminent domain "has increasingly been used as a redevelopment tool to transfer private property from one owner to another," argues Mark Brnovich of the Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix think tank. And more often than not, the private property lost belongs to small companies.

A recent report by the Institute for Justice, a Washington, DC, public-interest law firm, found that about 10,000 properties across the nation were taken or threatened by eminent domain between 1998 and 2002. At least half those projects involved businesses being condemned or threatened with condemnation. In Colorado alone, the number of eminent domain cases rose 28 percent between 1999 and 2002, according to an investigation by The Denver Post.

While seizing these properties, cities argue they can transfer domain to private businesses seeking to develop the area because that economic development will be for the public good. Often, cities don't take into account how the move affects the small companies. "Small businesses can be decimated by eminent domain," says Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. "Location is crucial to their success, and when they move, they can lose out."
And while property owners are supposed to get "just compensation," few states require that the compensation take into account improvements put in by an entrepreneur. In Mesa, Arizona, Randy Bailey, owner of Bailey's Brake Service, claims the city offered him only one-fourth of what he estimated his moving costs would be. Paspalakis says the city of Daytona Beach is offering far less than the true value of his beachfront property.

Until recently, most small businesses haven't fought these eminent domain cases, in part because legal fees would be high. But Berliner believes that may be changing. A few entrepreneurs have tried to get their businesses listed on state and national registers of historic sites, which can protect them from seizure. More important, small businesses have begun to sue cities and win cases against eminent domain. In July, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a 1981 ruling in the famous Poletown case, which held that cities could serve the public good by handing property to private companies. Attorneys representing small businesses believe the Poletown decision will make municipal officials think more carefully before using eminent domain. Already, small businesses are suing cities in more than a dozen other states. The U.S. Supreme Court has now decided to consider whether cities are abusing eminent domain.

But the eminent domain trend is unlikely to change without legislative action. In their most recent sessions, 10 state legislatures considered bills that would reform eminent domain by offering more protection to property owners. Yet only in Colorado did a piece of reform pass, and that legislation had less protection in it than the original draft of the bill. "Small-business groups haven't been active in pushing against eminent domain," says Berliner. Unless that changes, more entrepreneurs might find themselves in Dino Paspalakis' position.

Eminent domain is a term for the power of the government to force private property owners to sell their property.

Eminent Domain

Eminent domain is a term for the power of the government to force private property owners to sell their property. Of course, the owner is compensated for the property at a rate determined to be reasonable by the government. Everyone is familiar with this concept in connection with so-called "public uses" such as roads, government buildings, airports and similar uses. What is far more troubling is that the judicial branch of our government has determined that a "public use" in the sense that most people imagine is not a necessary condition for the exercise of the government?s use of eminent domain. It is now permissible to take private property if the government determines that the property is "blighted". Alternatively, it is sufficient that the forced sale be part of a plan to increase the tax base for the government. In other words, if the government believes that it could sell your property to someone who is willing to pay more property tax for the same land, the government can seize your property.



Many people have become aware of this issue because it was publicized in connection with Wal-Mart developments. In essence, whenever Wal-Mart determines that it needs a particular plot of land it offers to buy the land from the owner. However, if the owner is unwilling to sell, or perhaps simply unwilling to sell at the price Wal-Mart offers, Wal-Mart simple turns to the local government and seeks to condemn the property as "blighted" or as part of a package of incentives to entice Wal-Mart into the community under the pretext of creating more jobs.



As if the current state of the law is not permissive enough, our state legislature recently attempted to pass a new law to make the process even easier. Fortunately, through the vocal opposition of many Libertarians, and with the help of publicity from Neal Boortz and his radio show, this bill has not been enacted. It is likely only a matter of time until the issue is reintroduced in some form or another. If elected, you can be assured that I will not vote for any use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another without the consent of the seller.


By: Sean Concannon
For County Commission District 3
in Seminole County, Florida
Libertarian 2004

THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN ECONOMIC

By John P. Slagter, Esq.

A pending U.S. Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London, could have significant consequences for individual owners of real estate. Increasingly, cities are using the power of eminent domain to take property that is located within a redevelopment area and transfer it to a private developer. Although the taking of private property is authorized under the United States Constitution, governmental entities may only do so if it is for a “public use.” As cities become active participants in economic revitalization efforts, the nature of the debate between private rights and public needs is evolving, along with the definition of “public use.”

The central issue before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether a city's condemnation of non-blighted, private property for the purpose of developing private residential and office space is a valid "public use." The increased tax revenues to be paid by the new development are seen as benefiting the public as a whole. This redefinition of "public use" strikes a sensitive nerve, particularly given that today, the developers and the cities are often on the same side of a land-ownership dispute. In a typical land use takings case from earlier times, the developer would oppose the city's actions or ordinances on the grounds that they constitute an uncompensated taking of the developer's property rights. In the Kelo v. City of New London case, however, the developers are supporting the use of the government's power of eminent domain to take property from private individuals – the owners of property needed for an economic revitalization project. The common perception is that the land is really just being swapped from one private entity to another, with the government serving only as a middleman.

A city’s ability to take land by using the power of eminent domain arises from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "Nor shall property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The Fifth Amendment protects the right to own private property, but it also recognizes that the greater good may require the government to take private property for public use. The definition of "public use," however, has evolved over the years. Initially, takings disputes largely centered on wide-open areas needed for railroads and other public facilities.

More recently, the battleground became the urban neighborhood, where cities faced declining tax revenues as areas became "blighted" and values decreased. In 1954, this use of eminent domain was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Berman v. Parker, where the Court held that the use of eminent domain as a planning tool to eliminate "blight" was a valid public use. Cities are now further expanding their use of eminent domain to take private property that is not blighted and transfer it to private developers with the expectation that the new development will generate increased tax revenue for the city. This expanded use of eminent domain gave rise to the case currently before the Supreme Court, Kelo v. City of New London.

Eminent Domain issue from Florida Craker website

Eminent Domain

It's hard to believe the Supreme Court would sign off on cities using eminent domain for private developments. What a vile ruling from John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Presidents Ford, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all bought pigs in a poke.

The only remedy now will be for states to use their own laws to clamp down hard on cities or they'll be like kids in a candy store.

Institute for Justice attorney Dana Berliner sums up the situation:


"If jobs and taxes can be a justification for taking someone's home or business, then no property in America is safe. Anyone's home can create more jobs if it is replaced by a business, and any small business can generate greater taxes if replaced by a bigger one."

Michelle Malkin has reactions from around the blogosphere

From the Florida Craker website

Eminent Domain: Being Abused?

(CBS) Just about everyone knows that under a process called eminent domain, the government can (and does) seize private property for public use - to build a road, a school or a courthouse. But did you know the government can also seize your land for private use if they can prove that doing it will serve what's called "the public good"? Cities across the country have been using eminent domain to force people off their land, so private developers can build more expensive homes and offices that will pay more in property taxes than the buildings they're replacing. Under eminent domain, the government buys your property, paying you what's determined to be fair market value. But now, people who don't want to sell their homes at any price - just to see their land go to another private owner - are fighting back. Correspondent Mike Wallace reports on this story, which first aired last fall.

Jim and Joanne Saleet are refusing to sell the home they've lived in for 38 years. They live in a quiet neighborhood of single-family houses in Lakewood, Ohio, just outside Cleveland. The City of Lakewood is trying to use eminent domain to force the Saleets out to make way for more expensive condominiums. But the Saleets are telling the town, "Hell no! They won't go." “The bottom line is this is morally wrong, what they're doing here. This is our home. And we're going to stay here. And I'm gonna fight them tooth and nail. I've just begun to fight,” says Jim Saleet. “We talked about this when we were dating. I used to point to the houses and say, 'Joanne, one of these days we're going to have one of these houses.' And I meant it. And I worked hard.” Jim Saleet worked in the pharmaceutical industry, paid off his house and then retired. Now, he and his wife plan to spend the rest of their days there, and pass their house on to their children. But Lakewood's mayor, Madeleine Cain, has other plans. She wants to tear down the Saleets' home, plus 55 homes around it, along with four apartment buildings and more than a dozen businesses. Why? So that private developers can build high-priced condos, and a high-end shopping mall, and thus raise Lakewood's property tax base. The mayor told 60 Minutes that she sought out a developer for the project because Lakewood's aging tax base has been shrinking and the city simply needs more money. “This is about Lakewood's future. Lakewood cannot survive without a strengthened tax base. Is it right to consider this a public good? Absolutely,” says the mayor, who admits that it's difficult and unfortunate that the Saleets are being asked to give up their home. The Saleets live in an area called Scenic Park, and because it is so scenic, it's a prime place to build upscale condominiums. With great views, over the Rocky River, those condos will be a cinch to sell.

But the condos can't go up unless the city can remove the Saleets and their neighbors through eminent domain. And to legally invoke eminent domain, the city had to certify that this scenic park area is, really, "blighted." “We're not blighted. This is an area that we absolutely love. This is a close-knit, beautiful neighborhood. It's what America's all about,” says Jim Saleet. “And, Mike, you don't know how humiliating this is to have people tell you, 'You live in a blighted area,' and how degrading this is.” "The term 'blighted' is a statutory word," says Mayor Cain. “It is, it really doesn't have a lot to do with whether or not your home is painted. ...A statutory term is used to describe an area. The question is whether or not that area can be used for a higher and better use.” But what’s higher and better than a home? “The term 'blight' is used to describe whether or not the structures generally in an area meet today's standards,” says Cain. And it's the city that sets those standards, so Lakewood set a standard for blight that would include most of the homes in the neighborhood. A home could be considered blighted, says Jim Saleet, if it doesn't have the following: three bedrooms, two baths, an attached two-car garage and central air. “This community's over 100 years old. Who has all those things? That's the criteria. And it's ridiculous,” says Jim Saleet. “And, by the way, we got up at a meeting and told the mayor and all seven council members, their houses are blighted, according to this criteria.” Cain admits that her house doesn’t have two bathrooms, a two-car garage and the lot size is less than 5,000 square feet. The Saleets may live in a cute little neighborhood, but without those new condos, the area won’t produce enough property taxes to satisfy the mayor and city council. “That's no excuse for taking my home. My home is not for sale. And if my home isn't safe, nobody's home is safe, in the whole country,” says Jim Saleet. “Not only Ohio. But this is rampant all over the country. It's like a plague.”

Dana Berliner and Scott Bullock are attorneys at a libertarian non-profit group called The Institute for Justice, which has filed suit on behalf of the Saleets against the City of Lakewood. They claim that taking private property this way is unconstitutional. “This is a nationwide epidemic,” says Berliner. “We have documented more than 10,000 instances of government taking property from one person to give it to another in just the last five years.” “It is fundamentally wrong, and contrary to the Constitution for the government to take property from one private owner, and hand it over to another private owner, just because the government thinks that person is going to make more productive use of the land,” says Bullock. “Everyone knows that property can be taken for a road. But nobody thinks that property can be taken to give it to their neighbor or the large business down the street for their economic benefit,” adds Berliner. “People are shocked when they hear that this is going on around the country.”

And it's not just people's homes that are the targets in these eminent domain cases. The Institute for Justice has also filed suit against the City of Mesa, Ariz., to save Randy Bailey's Brake Repair Shop - the shop he got from his father and hopes to someday pass on to his son. The City of Mesa, citing the need for "redevelopment," is trying to force Bailey to relocate to make way for an Ace Hardware Store that would look better and pay more taxes.
"Redevelopment to me means work with existing people who are there and redevelop. Not, 'You get out! We're bringing this guy in,'" says Bailey, whose business has been on the same corner for more than 30 years. Business has been awesome, Bailey says. But now, he says they’re going to turn his business into dirt. In fact, the city has “made dirt” out of three restaurants and four businesses that once stood on a five-acre lot. “And it's not just business properties that they're going this on. You know, they wiped out eight people's homes over here. Your home ain't even safe,” says Bailey, who told 60 Minutes that his neighbors let the city buy them out. But he’s refusing to sell: “I’m standing in their way. I’m their thorn in their side.” And he’s a thorn in the side of Ken Lenhart, who owns the Ace Hardware Store a few blocks away. Lenhart wants a much bigger store. He could have negotiated with Bailey, but instead, he convinced the City of Mesa to try to buy Bailey's land through eminent domain and then sell it to him. “The City of Mesa wants to move Mr. Bailey about a block away, and from what I understand it's gonna be a new building, new equipment, moving expenses and everything set up for him,” says Lenhart. “I don't see how Mr. Bailey is gonna get hurt.” “You can't replace a business being in the same location. This place was built in 1952 as a brake and front-end shop,” says Bailey. “I don't care where you move it in the City of Mesa, it would never be the same.” So Bailey went to Lenhart looking for a way to stay on his corner. “I tried to go to him and see if we couldn't work something out on this. And he told me, 'No, there ain't room for you there. We're gonna let the city just take care of you,'" says Bailey. Lenhart admits that he never tried to negotiate with Bailey: "It happens all over the country. In practically any town you want to go to, they're redeveloping their town centers. Now, we are going to sit in Mesa, Arizona and have our town center decay? As a citizen of Mesa, I don't want that to happen." But Bailey says his business was on private property, and not for sale: “If I'd had a 'For Sale' sign out there, it would have been a whole different deal. And for them to come in and tell me how much my property's worth and for me to get out because they're bringing in somebody else when I own the land is unfounded to me. It doesn't even sound like the United States.”

And this isn't happening just in small towns. In New York City, just a few blocks from Times Square, New York State has forced a man to sell a corner that his family owned for more than 100 years. And what's going up instead? A courthouse? A school? Nope. The new headquarters of The New York Times. The world's most prestigious newspaper wants to build a new home on that block, but Stratford Wallace and the block's other property owners didn't want to sell. Wallace told 60 Minutes that the newspaper never tried to negotiate with him. Instead, The Times teamed up with a major real estate developer, and together they convinced New York State to use eminent domain to force Wallace out. How? By declaring the block blighted. “I challenge them,” says Wallace. “This is not blighted property.” But New York State's Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the newspaper's new headquarters would eliminate blight - and that even though a private entity (The New York Times) is the main beneficiary, improving the block would benefit the public. Executives from The New York Times wouldn't talk to 60 Minutes about it on camera. Back in Lakewood, Ohio, Jim and Joanne Saleet are still waiting for their court decision. Most of their neighbors have agreed to sell if the project goes ahead. But the Saleets, plus a dozen others, are hanging tough. “I thought I bought this place. But I guess I just leased it, until the city wants it,” says Jim Saleet. “That's what makes me very angry. This is my dream home. And I'm gonna fight for it.”

He fought, and he won. In separate votes, Lakewood residents rejected the proposed development, removed the "blight" label from the Saleets' neighborhood, and voted Mayor Cain out of office. In Mesa, Ariz., Randy Bailey can keep his brake shop right where it is. The week after this report aired, Arizona's Court of Appeals ruled that turning his land over to a hardware store would not be a proper use of eminent domain. But in New York City, tenants and owners have been forced off their land so The New York Times can begin building its new headquarters.

The Downfall of our Republic -----

The Downfall of our Republic -----


We should all be terrified of this Supreme Court!!! The 5-4 ruling went against the owners of New London, Conn., homes targeted for destruction to make room for an office complex. Now, the government can take away your home any time it wants to build a shopping mall!!! Maybe this won’t be a problem in Mudflats, Montana ...but I see this as being a REALLY big problem here in Lehigh Acres, and most of Florida!!!! Folks, we should all be terrified of this Supreme Court -- this handful of lawyers in black robes systematically stripping us of the democratic society that our Founding Fathers intended for us. This latest ruling regarding "eminent domain" changes the meaning of the 5th amendment, which clearly states that property could only be seized for public use, not private. This ruling opens the floodgate for any *corrupt* local politician (and we all know our own local politicians are pure as the wind driven 'slush'....right?) to authorize the seizure of anyone's private homes or businesses OR CHURCHES as long as they make the argument that it is going to "improve" the property by causing it to generate more tax revenue. I hope that everyone clearly sees that this redistribution of wealth "for the public good" is socialism, pure and simple. The local papers need to print the opinions written by the majority and also the dissenters -- everyone needs to read it! As Sandra Day O'Connor said in dissent, ** "The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result". *** How long will it be before the government starts seizing church properties because they aren't generating tax revenue for the city?

This decision is both dangerous and disastrous. The precedent it sets essentially allows the greed of the politician and powerful developers to strip individuals of their property. It ends the concept of individual private property ownership as the US now joins the ranks of third-world nations where governments can seize property to satisfy their agendas. Think about it... does ANYONE own a property that could not be redeveloped for higher tax revenue? Where might it end? Will we one day be facing this scenario: "Your property qualifies for homestead exemption. By removing you and making your property an investment for some corporation, the government will realize additional tax revenue... so...GET OUT!" Giving the politicians a vehicle to line their pockets by stripping individuals of their property is just another evidence of the downfall of our Republic. It scares the daylights out of me!


Robert Anderson
President
Lehigh Acres Watchdog, Inc



Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Generally, due process guarantees the following (this list is not exhaustive):
Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
Right to be present at the trial
Right to an impartial jury
Right to be heard in one's own defense
Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior
Taxes may only be taken for public purposes
Property may be taken by the government only for public purposes
Owners of taken property must be fairly compensated