Eminent Domain @ MindSay 
supreme court
I OWN A HOME IN THE VENTNOR NJ REDEVELOPMENT AREA. THEY, THE CITY, SAYS MY HOME AND NEIGHBORHOOD ARE BLIGHTED. WELL MY RECENT REALESTATE COMPARISION FROM A VERY REPRITABLE FIRM LISTS MY HOMES VALUE AS $620,000.00 . HOW COULD THAT BE BLIGHTED ? I AM 3 BLOCKS FROM THE BEACH AND I ALSO HAVE A BEAUTIFUL BAY VIEW WERE THE SUNSETS ARE FABULOUS. COULD THEY JUST WANT MY LAND BECAUSE IT IS A GREAT LOCATION ? YOU BET. THEY WANT TO TAKE 110 HOMES AND PUT UP OVER 350 CONDOS PLUS RETAIL IN THE AREA. "LEGAL THEFT" . GIVE MY PRIVATE PROPERTY TO A PRIVATE DEVELOPER TO MAKE MILLIONS. DO YOU REALLY THINK THE MARKET VALUE THEY GIVE ME WILL BUY ME HOME THAT IS NEW FROM THE STUDS OUT BOTH INSIDE AND OUT WITH 4 BEDROOMS, 2 BATHS, LARGE EAT IN KITCHEN WITH BAY VIEW, FRONT PORCH AND UPPER DECK ? NO. I WOULD NEED TO GET OVER $700,000. TO GET CLOSE TO WHAT I HAVE NOW. IF YOU ARE READING THIS AND YOU ARE IN NJ, E-MAIL YOUR LEGISLATURE. IT WILL HELP. IF YOU ARE NOT IN NJ WRITE YOUR SENATORS AND LET THEM KNOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT EMINENT DOMAIN.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.
With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.
 |
The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cities may bulldoze people's homes or businesses to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The decision gives local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.
"This is the last little piece of the puzzle to put the project together," Freeport Mayor Jim Phillips said of the project designed to inject new life in the Brazoria County city's depressed downtown area.
Over the years, Freeport's lack of commercial and retail businesses has meant many of its 13,500 residents travel to neighboring Lake Jackson, which started as a planned community in 1943, to spend money. But the city is hopeful the marina will spawn new economic growth.
"This will be the engine that will drive redevelopment in the city," City Manager Ron Bottoms said.
Lee Cameron, director of the city's Economic Development Corp., said the marina is expected to attract $60 million worth of hotels, restaurants and retail establishments to the city's downtown area and create 150 to 250 jobs. He said three hotels, two of which have "high interest," have contacted the city about building near the marina.
"It's all dependent on the marina," Cameron said. "Without the marina, (the hotels) aren't interested. With the marina, (the hotels) think it's a home run."
Since September 2003, the city has been locked in a legal battle to acquire a 300-by-60-foot tract of land along the Old Brazos River near the Pine Street bridge as well as a 200-foot tract and 100-foot tract along the river through eminent domain from Western Seafood Co. and Trico Seafood Co.
Eminent domain is the right of a government to take private property for public use upon payment of the fair market value.
The tracts of land would be used for a planned 800- to 900-slip marina to be built by Freeport Marina, a group that that includes Dallas developer Hiram Walker Royall. He would buy the property from the city and receive a $6 million loan from the city to develop the project.
Freeport Marina would then invest $1 million in the project and contribute a 1,100-foot tract of land, valued at $750,000, to it before receiving the loan.
Western Seafood spokesman Wright Gore III said the wholesale shrimp company was disappointed with the Supreme Court decision, but believes the ruling does not apply to the city's eminent domain proceedings.
He said there is a provision in state law that allows residents of a city to a circulate a petition to call a vote on whether the city can take property using eminent domain.
"(This) is far, far from over," Gore said. "(We) would have liked to have seen a victory on the federal level, but it is by no means a settled issue."
Gore said Western Seafood's 30,000-square-foot processing facility, which sits on the 300-by-60-foot tract, would be forced to close if the land were seized.
That facility earns about $40 million annually, and Western Seafood has been in business in Freeport since 1946, he said.
City officials, however, have said the marina will still allow Western Seafood and Trico Seafood, which did not return telephone calls or e-mail Thursday, to operate their facilities.
In August, U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent ruled against a lawsuit filed by Western Seafood seeking to stop the city's eminent domain proceedings. The seafood company then appealed its case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, a request that initially was denied.
The appeals court then decided it would take the case, but not rule on it until after the Supreme Court made a ruling on the New London, Conn., case.
Chronicle reporter Richard Stewart contributed to this report.
Well, the left-side of the Supreme Court has voiced it's opinion, rendered its voice and given the government all the power it wants to take anything and everything.
BUT WAIT...It's not just the right that's pissed...some on the left is mad as well. Something we can all agree on?? Well the NY Times, and Washington Post agree WITH the Supreme Court's ruling. The LA Times is absolutely silent (as of today)
If you want to do something to show your anger...go to crimsontide and this entry: http://crimsontide.mindsay.com/?entry=341440
What will all this mean? As far as the Supreme Court goes, I think that if President Bush has the chance to nominate someone, there will be less vocal opposition because people will want more conservative judges on the court.
It's no surprise that the MSM has focused on the Sandra O'Connor written dissent. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108#dissent1
Meanwhile the Clarence Thomas dissent is BRILLANT...(well the parts my feeble brain understands and could grip) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108#dissent2
Crimsontide (aka, Mark) beat me to the discussion over this entire Supreme Court eminent domain issue. This actually touches close to home (and former homes) because of two things.
First, the original case was brought by residents in New London, Connecticut, which happened to be right across the river from where I lived when I was down there. Big bad Pfizer company wanted to seize 15 residences in order to build an entire new sprawling business complex, along with other things, such as a city walk, upscale housing, etc.
Secondly, there is a big battle going on right here in Syracuse concerning 50 acres of land that is currently owned by 29 different businesses and such. DestiNY USA (the mega-mall they are thinking of building) wants to put a research and development site on those prime acres of land. Naturally, the businesses are resisting this plan.
Eminent Domain is a complex issue with about 9 different sides. It differs in each instance that it is used. I was, however, quite dismayed by the Supreme Court decision that once again seems to have sided directly with private business but cloaked the decision under the auspices of "city rights".
Like Mark said, you could have someone living in a house that they were born and raised in. All of a sudden, someone comes along and tells the city that they want to build more upscale housing and maybe a drug store. According to the Supreme Court - that's it. All that a developer has to do is show the city how a couple of condos could be worth more tax base then little old granny's victorian style house that has been sitting there for over a hundred years.
What is really boils down to is the rich dictating the time and place that they want to expand and make the city more to their liking - i.e. - making them richer.
What I don't understand is where do they think these people will go. If you allow private companies to simply dictate each and every area that they want to make more friendly to development, then where will the poorer urbananites go once their land has been seized? Furthermore, what is sacred then if your property can be seized on a whim because some company and city counciler stands to benefit from using your land for something that will generate a higher tax base?
One would have thought government would be playing its' role in regulating and protecting the population against these "super-person" businesses. Obviously even the Supreme Court is not immune to the whims of neo-liberal capitalism.
Then again, I suppose my house would look much better if it was a Wal-Mart, come to think of it...
