Posted on 12/03/2007 10:18:06 AM PST by george76
Galen Foster's home and business of 23 years is supposed to make way for parking for the Wadsworth Boulevard light-rail station in Lakewood.
But what chaps Foster's hide is that there already are conceptual plans showing his property being used not for transit parking, but for a five-story commercial office building.
While government's right of condemnation, more politely called eminent domain, has been recognized for centuries, the Regional Transportation District is entering an untested area that includes economic development in its efforts to build the FasTracks West Corridor line.
While there is little room to challenge RTD's acquisition of land for tracks, stations and parking lots, the policy of "transit-oriented development" could put a new property-rights law to the test.
Foster and his wife, Kim Snyder, are among property owners along the West Corridor who are organizing to battle RTD over that point.
RTD, which is scheduled to begin construction on the West Corridor next summer, has notified 16 property owners that it needs all of their land for the project.
Last year, the legislature adopted even tighter guidelines to exclude economic development from the "public purposes" for which governments can use eminent domain.
"The intent was to prevent stuff like this," said the sponsor, Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D- Thornton. "If RTD is just using eminent domain for FasTracks, that's one thing, but if it's for private development, that could be another."
(Excerpt) Read more at rockymountainnews.com ...
.
There is no property ownership in America.
Since Dick McClean is an RTD board member, We can surmise that the idea to steal the Kirlin’s land originated there,
or did he encourage the RTD board to proceed with their theft after his success at home?
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/dec/03/rtds-lakewood-land-grab-raises-hackles/
by SoBoPop
There should be a constitutional amendment: if land taken for eminent domain is no longer used for the purpose for which it was taken, that land has to be returned to the original owner if possible. And if the government lets private developers take ownership of property taken by eminent domain, someone should end up in jail.
Some friendly democrat may end up owning a large office building in this prime location.
Here in Portland, Oregon the regional government has created the same situation...use of eminent domain being stretched to pursue urban development around the light rail lines. Businesses are opposed, since light rail brings crime and vagrancy, not an enhanced business climate. The ultimate was forced removal of an old coffee shop building for siting of a Starbucks (within the new civic center) due mostly to its proximity to the light rail lines. Quite a stretch at the very least.
Guys, this has been going on since the 1940’s. Ever hear of Berman vs. Parker, and Urban Renewal?
Absolutely! If it's gong to be 'commercial property', the owner should have been compensated as such.
Some background for the McLean/Kirlin saga; seems this may be where he gathered his info to act the way he did.
He helped RTA steal land, so why not do this to his neighbor.
Like graduating from robbing the bank to robbing your neighbors ?
More like watching closely as a crew takes down a bank, and then uses that info to do their own nefarious deeds. The RTA planning had likely been going on for a few years, so McLean received an in-depth education on the pertinent laws that he took personal advantage of -- with a little help from his 'fraternity'.
joanie-f has a write-up with additional comments here ^.
Some background for the McLean/Kirlin saga; seems this may be where he gathered his info to act the way he did.
Absolutely.
I’m afraid this kind of thing is happening all over the country. And, unless we happen to live in the vicinity of a particular government land grab, we rarely if ever hear about the atrocities involved. (And most of us, even if we do, are too busy protecting our individual freedoms in our own neighborhoods to embark on a crusade to help others who live hundreds of miles away.)
The common law concept of eminent domain was established by wise men who could never have foreseen the kind of perversion of public policy, or outright political corruption, that exists in modern America.
Modern politicians, on all levels of government, have contorted the concept of ‘government/public use’ to mean ‘the common benefit’. And if we informed citizens have difficulty comprehending how the former could have come to signify the latter, all we need do is reflect on the fact that the phrase ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ has now morphed into ‘There shall be no public exhibition of Christianity’. Same kind of perversion of semantics; different brand of tyranny.
Where eminent domain and the new definition of ‘public use/public benefit’ is concerned, federal, state and local governments are now seizing public property for such outlandish ‘public benefit’ reasons as the provision of a higher tax base, economic development, urban renewal, job creation and the like. After all, demolishing a farm homestead that has been in a family for six generations brings in very little tax revenue, as opposed to a high-rise apartment complex. So various municipalities across the country are now using eminent domain in order to thus increase their tax base … thus (at least theoretically) increasing the ability to provide public services to the community at large … thus increasing the ‘public benefit’.
But why should this surprise us? In virtually every area of government these days, the rich, powerful, and well-connected have been successful in perverting law (with the indispensable help of left-leaning activist judges) for their benefit, and to the detriment of the everyday, hardworking American. The abuse and re-definition of the concept of eminent domain represents just one glaring example of thousands of originally noble concepts, made ignoble by greedy, self-serving traitors to the Founders' vision.
McLean and Stevens, the perpetrators of the Boulder land grab, may find themselves stunned if the Kirlins are successful in their appeal. But I’m not holding my breath. Most such injustices are not overturned anymore, simply because the results generally depend on the luck of the draw (i.e., which judge is designated to hear one’s case, etc.) – and the average, hardworking Amercan’s ‘luck’ is running out.
~ joanie
Allegiance and Duty Betrayed
Don and Susie Kirlin said Saturday they have been inundated with phone calls, letters and e-mails over the past few weeks from area residents expressing support for the couple...
http://dailycamera.com/news/2007/nov/18/picnic-protest-set-for-disputed-property/
Also on Saturday, state Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, announced that she has accepted the resignation of Edith Stevens as her campaign treasurer.
“(Stevens) has resigned, and I accepted her resignation,” Levy said.
Levy said last week that she had received several requests from constituents to “disassociate” herself from Stevens, who worked on Levy’s 2006 campaign.
Levy said Stevens did not offer a reason for the resignation, which she said was done by phone.
Having the legal power to effect a result is not a legal imperative to do so.
Panel won’t probe Boulder land ruling
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1929194/posts
Judge Denies Couple’s Request For 9 More Inches
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1935434/posts
This isn't anything new, but it is becoming more prevalent across the states.
We now have HOA tyrants, District tyrants, Town, State, and Federal tyrants. I fear for our sons and daughters, and their children. Where will they go for freedom?
Seems he could not harvest about half of his stock without getting 'approvals' from some bureaucrats who had never had soil under their nails.
Your story of your former neighbor with the tree farm brought a serious lump to my throat. God bless him, and God will judge those who robbed him of his livelihood because of their insatiable greed and desire for self-defined ‘progress’.
We ran into somewhat similar circumstances two years ago. My husband and I had purchased nine acres of pristine woodland in a remote corner of our township about sixteen years ago, with the idea of eventually building our ‘dream house’ on it (thus my sympathies for the Kirlins).
Two years ago we felt that we were ready to do so, and we initiated all of the ‘proper procedures’ in order to get the operation underway. Among the ridiculous cautions we had to observe was that we were not permitted to build our home on any area of our land that had been designated a wetland. What these sporadic ‘wetlands’ consisted of were very small areas of our property which, after a heavy rain, remained puddled much longer than the rest of the surrounding land (but did eventually dry just fine).
Fortunately, the place where we built the house was not situated on any of those silly ‘wetland’ areas, so we were not inconvenienced in any way … simply appalled at the ludicrous nature of the requirements.
During the sixteen years that we owned the woodland before building on it, we never paid more than $1,600/year in real estate taxes on it. However, after the recent county-wide reassessment, in which woodland was suddenly deemed significantly more valuable than was previously determined (for reasons similar to your ‘valuation based on what it can produce if used otherwise’ -- i.e., for business or housing development, etc.), our assessment, and resultant taxes (on the woodland alone, not even including the value of our new home), nearly tripled.
So government these days can not only tell you where on your own land you are permitted to build (by means of wetland designations, local zoning ordinances, and the like), but it can also arbitrarily dramatically increase the value (as perceived by some government agency alone) of that land, depending on the bureaucracy’s vision of (primarily) the tax revenue it could generate, if used otherwise.
Our Founders would not recognize their beloved republic.
~ joanie
Just when you thought these people couldn’t stink any more, and here they go again.
So, a Democrat says this was not intended? Yeah, right. Keep voting for Democrats and this will only get worse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.