Monday, April 17th, 2006,
by Fred (,
eminent domain, Missouri, property, taxes
,
Meryl Yourish on the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv
Once more, for those who claim that the palestinian murderers use suicide bombing attacks because they don’t have tanks or other military weapons, I should like to point out that Tel Aviv has never been a part of the occupied territories.The bombing took place in Tel Aviv. Six people dead so far, 52 wounded, two critically. The wounded, of course, carry nails and shrapnel in their bodies, as well as rat poison in many cases. The murderers put it in to cause more bleeding, in the hopes of killing more people. These are the bombs used in “self-defense.â€
Islamic Jihad and Fatah — I’m sorry, Al-Aqsa — are claiming the bombing. Hamas says it was self-defense.
Sure. Self-defense. In Tel Aviv. At a bus station. At a falafel shop. Those are dangerous people, falafel-eaters.
No, they carry out these terrorist attacks because they are murderous thugs who like to kill Jews. They kill people like Philip Balahsan, who was at the site of the bombing with his two children. Hamas are terrorists, and any government led by Hamas is a terror government. This attack, coming a mere two weeks after Hamas took over the PA, should heighten the resolve of all western governments to eliminate funding to the Palestinians. They voted for terrorists, so now they must reap what they sowed.
Share This
Thursday, April 6th, 2006,
by Fred (,
2006 election, Clayton, Creve Coeur, eminent domain, property, Sunset Hills
,
Voters expressed their frustration with eminent domain abuse in several local races Tuesday, especially in Sunset Hills, a city devastated by eminent domain-happy aldermen and a corrupt developer.
On Tuesday, in what amounted to a sweeping condemnation of city officials’ handling of the Sunset Manor redevelopment project, more than half of Sunset Hills’ leadership was voted out of office.Next Tuesday, Mayor Jim Hobbs will step down, along with Aldermen John Tipton, John Smith, Robert Brockhaus and A. Ron Kaemmerer. Taking their places will be Mayor-elect John Hunzeker and Aldermen-elect Franklin Hardy, Thomas Hrastich, Lynn Flowers and Frank Gregory.
The challengers ran on a platform that focused on eminent domain abuse and targeted the failed plan for a $184 million shopping center in Sunset Manor.
Every incumbent up for re-election in Sunset Hills was defeated, and all lost handily. Tipton came the closest, and even he only managed 46% of the vote. The others were crushed, led by Kaemmerer, whose 14 years on the council ended with a 27 percentage point loss. The voters were clearly angry, and turned out in droves (37% of registered voters cast ballots, compared to only 15% countywide). Eminent domain was clearly the issue that dragged down incumbents in Sunset Hills:
“I know a lot of people around here just felt like it was time for a change,” said Gary Ketcherside. Ketcherside, whose mother, Esther Hamman, lives in Sunset Manor, was so upset by the city’s handling of the Novus deal that he helped out with the new mayor’s campaign.
“I just hope they do what they said they would do - stop all this talk about commercial development and focus on residential,” he said. “We’ve heard that before, and still they seem to always end up making deals with a developer.”
The fallout from eminent domain abuse was not limited to Sunset Hills, however. Incumbents in Clayton and Creve Coeur faced tough re-election battles due to those cities’ embrace of eminent domain for economic redevelopment purposes.  In Clayton, incumbent Judy Goodman beat attorney Cynthia Holmes by only 67 votes. In Creve Coeur, incumbent Jeff Mitchell lost to anti-eminent domain challenger James Wang by 29 percentage points.
The tide is turning on eminent domain in St. Louis County. Ultimately, voters have to take responsibility and vote out officeholders that are beholden to corrupt developers. Voters must also demand institutional reform - until the structure of local government is changed so that local government does not rely on sales tax revenue from development, the incentive to abuse eminent domain power will be too strong.
Share This
Wednesday, March 29th, 2006,
by Fred (,
eminent domain, Missouri, novus, property, Rock Hill, Sunset Hills
,
Missouri legislators are a step closer to enacting eminent domain reform
Pratt’s committee expected to wrap up public hearings Tuesday night. Before the panel is a bill that would bar government from taking private property solely to increase a community’s tax base and bring in new jobs.Blighted land could be taken for redevelopment, but dwellings would have to show physical signs of deterioration. Farmland and vacant land that has never been developed could not be deemed blighted.
Again, the bill is a good start. There is absolutely no reason local governments should be able to hand private property over to developers if the property is not blighted. The bill in committee still contains loopholes, and should be amended to ban all use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.
There’s a bigger systematic issue at play, however. Aggressive use of tax increment financing and a fragmented sales tax system among St. Louis County’s 91 municipalities have left communities heavily dependent upon economic redevelopment. For example, Rock Hill has bet its future upon Novus’ Market at McKnight project:
The city’s budget, scheduled for approval in April, has been trimmed by about 12 percent.
Rock Hill has no fire chief, no police chief and no city hall. It can’t afford to finish roadwork or start plans for a new city hall, or even to hire workers to fill empty positions.
“We’re just holding our breaths, waiting for this thing to start,” she said.
And when asked what the city would do if the development did not go forward, Morgan was almost speechless.
“Dramatic measures would have to be taken,” she said.
Novus is, of course, the developer whose financial problems led to the collapse of an eminent domain-based Sunset Manor in Sunset Hills, which proposed to tear down 254 mostly non-blighted homes and replace them with a shopping center. The collapse of the project left the property owners in the lurch, and local government officials on the hot seat.
Unless these issues are addressed, cash-starved municipalities will exploit any loopholes in the eminent domain bill, so the legislature must make sure any bill has as few loopholes as possible.
Share This
Friday, March 17th, 2006,
by Fred (,
eminent domain, Hazelwood, Missouri, property, St. Louis
,
Yet another reason to oppose use of eminent domain by private developers - they have no reason to negotiate in good faith when they can use the hammer of government.
McEagle wants the land because it represents an entrance to Hazelwood Commerce Center. For Select Drink, that creates a problem. The company was founded at 5401 Lindbergh Bouldevard in the 1970s by Woltering’s father.“As it stands, we’re going to have to go into debt to build or acquire a new building,†Woltering said.
McEagle initially offered Select Drink $25,000 for the land, and gradually upped its offer to $375,000, said Robert Denlow, an attorney representing the businesses. Select Drink believes the land is worth more.
A court-appointed commission agreed. In December, the commission ruled McEagle should pay $1.6 million for the property.
So for property worth at least $1.6 million, the developer offers $25,000. Seems fair.
And why shouldn’t Select Drink get to keep its property in the face of a developer? There’s no reason to believe the property is blighted, no justifiable reason that a successful business should have to move just to accommodate a developer who wants a better entrance to its development.
Share This
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006,
by Fred (,
eminent domain, Missouri, property, Steve Hobbs
,
The Missouri House began considering Rep. Hobbs’ eminent domain bill yesterday. First up at a hearing was Greg Smith, attorney for the takers:
Developers need the power to condemn private property to revitalize older, urban areas such as St. Louis, an attorney for business interests told legislators Tuesday.The message came from Greg Smith, who handed out photos to underscore his point. The pictures showed how a landscaped lot with a new Save-A-Lot store had replaced a burned-out shell of a business on the city’s north side.
“This is a valid public purpose,” Smith said. “We’re condemning this so residents have a grocery store within a reasonable distance of their homes.”
Mr. Smith misses the point on so many levels, it’s mind-boggling. If the city wants to develop a site currently housing a “burned-out shell of a business”, they can declare it blighted. Virtually everyone fighting eminent domain abuse thinks that condemnation of truly blighted property is acceptable, so long as the definition of blighted in sufficiently narrow. This would be permissible under the Hobbs bill.
Second, by focusing on the public “purpose” rather than public “use”, Smith continues the redefinition of the Constitution started by the Kelo court. Lots of things are a public purpose, but only some of them rise to the level of public use that allows taking of private property by the government. A grocery store is not a public use, regardless of the benefit to the public from not having to drive so far to buy peanut butter.
Finally, when you have to force people from their homes or businesses to make way for the Save-A-Lot, it doesn’t do those residents much good, does it?
Smith went on to make a statement that channels a bit too much Orwell for my taste.
The principle of eminent domain was built on the idea that “individual property rights must at times give way to the collective good,” Smith said.
There is some merit to this, of course. Roads, for example, are a proper function of local government, provide benefit to local citizens, are available for public use, and would not be possible but for the ability of the government to take land from individuals for just compensation. Local government is not (and should not be) in the grocery store development business. A new Save-A-Lot built on the backs of individuals who have property seized by government force is not a public use.
Hopefully the legislature will hear from some people who make more sense and understand the issue better.
Share This
Wednesday, March 15th, 2006,
by Fred (,
eminent domain, libertarians, property
,
Voters in Weare, NH rejected the symbolic attempt to seize Justice Souter’s house in retribution for Souter’s vote last year in Kelo.
Originally, the ballot measure called for the seizure of Souter’s home so that it could be turned into an inn called the Lost Liberty Hotel. But at a town meeting in February, residents of this town of 8,500 watered down the language.Voters decided 1,167 to 493 in favor of the reworded measure that asked the Board of Selectmen not to use their power of eminent domain to take the farmhouse, and instead urged New Hampshire to adopt a law that forbids seizures of the sort sanctioned by the Supreme Court.
Of course, not even the most rabid libertarian ever thought that Souter’s farmhouse would become the Lost Liberty Hotel. But there’s real merit in symbolism sometimes, and the publicity stunt galvanized opposition to eminent domain abuse. States are finally acting to keep developer-beholden local governments from handing private property to other private parties. The issue wasn’t ever whether Weare would take Souter’s house, but whether Weare could be stopped from taking Souter’s house if a developer came in and made large campaign contributions to Weare’s Selectmen. That effort seems to be working, although many of the “solutions” still have too many loopholes.
Share This
Monday, March 13th, 2006,
by Fred (,
Centene, eminent domain, Missouri, novus, property, Steve Hobbs
,
The Post-Dispatch Talk of the Day today is about eminent domain. Rep. Steve Hobbs (R-Mexico) has introduced HB 1944 (bill status, bill text), which would bar cities from taking land that has not been declared blighted for private development. The Post summarizes it thusly:
His bill would require that private property be declared blighted to be taken for economic development. The definition of “blight” would be tightened. Gone would be wording that says areas qualify as blighted because they have become “economic and social liabilities.”
The new definition refers to areas that, because of “dilapidation, overcrowding, lack of ventilation, light or sanitary facilities or any combination of these factors are detrimental to public safety, health and morals.”
Stan Wallach, a lawyer in St. Louis County who collaborated with Hobbs on parts of the bill, said the legislation would prevent abuses because it targets “a physically run-down area, as opposed to an economically run-down area.”
To underscore that point, the bill provides: “Under no condition shall a piece of property be determined to be blighted by the sole consideration of the tax enhancements” that redevelopment would bring.
Talk of the Day asks whether “this bill go[es] far enough to prevent situations such as the Sunset Hills neighborhood that was destroyed, or the Manchester auto dealer whose property is being sought by developers?” There’s still a gaping grey area in the definition of blight — does every property in the targeted area have to be blighted? If so, the residents of Sunset Hills would probably have been safe. The bill would probably also protect residents of Clayton in the ongoing dispute there. But one gets the nagging sense that it just doesn’t go far enough.
What is the real issue with blight? Is it slumlords and unsafe properties, as the City of St. Louis believes? If so, vigorous code enforcement is a better solution than razing whole neighborhoods to hand land to private developers. Or is it that local governments see bags of tax receipts from Centene or Novus, and throw respect for private property out the window? No one disputes that unsafe properties should be condemned. But providing cheap land for developers at the expense of individuals is not a proper function of government.
A better approach would be the one taken by South Dakota:
No county, municipality, or housing and redevelopment commission, as provided for in chapter 11-7, may acquire private property by use of eminent domain: (1) For transfer to any private person, nongovernmental entity, or other public-private business entity; or (2) Primarily for enhancement of tax revenue.
Obligatory link: The Castle Coalition, Castle Coalition eminent domain abuse map
Share This
Thursday, March 9th, 2006,
by Fred (,
Centene, Clayton, eminent domain, property, St. Louis
,
The Clayton Committee to Stop the Abuse of Eminent Domain lost its battle to put a referendum on the June ballot to override Calyton’s use of eminent domain for the private Centene Plaza project, but hasn’t yet given up. One can’t help but conclude that the Board voted the way they did solely to prevent this referendum:
Centene Plaza already has condemnation authority from the city’s Board of Aldermen, under an ordinance unanimously approved Dec. 13, when the mayor and five aldermen were present. Several votes were required, and all were taken that night.
Opponents generally can override an ordinance with a direct vote of the people. So they gathered petitions to put a referendum on the June ballot. City officials challenged it. City Attorney Kevin O’Keefe said the city charter does not permit a referendum on an ordinance that passed with all the required council votes in a single meeting.
The Committee can’t have a referendum, but they can have a ballot initiative. Presuming the Board doesn’t reverse course, Clayton voters will likely have an initiative banning all use of eminent domain for private development in Clayton. Hopefully it’ll pass, which will be an even better result than stopping this one project.
More: The Castle Coalition, Missouri Eminent Domain Abuse Coalition
Share This
