Florida Legislative Outrage

Print this out ... go warm up a cup of coffee .. then come back and read this. I'm furious. Frightened and furious. So mad, in fact, that I could literally spin around on my eyebrows and spit wooden nickels. You heard me talk about it yesterday. Hell ... you heard me rant about it yesterday, then finish with a promise that I would put my thoughts in the Nuze for you to do with as you please.

The issue? Two bills, essentially identical; one making its way through the Florida House, the other in the Florida Senate. The House bill is HB 1513, sponsored by Rep. Gayle Harrell, a Republican from the Stuart area. She's a former government school teacher. Her House office number is 850-488-8749. The Senate Bill is SB 2548, sponsored by Sen. Mike Bennett, another Republican. Bennett is from the Bradenton area. His Senate phone number is (850-487-5078).

OK .. so what's the big deal? Both HB1513 and SB2548 would give to local Florida governments the power to take property away from an individual landowner and sell it to a private developer for a shopping center, office development, or virtually any other private purpose. This legislation would allow any local government in Florida to seize private property and hand it over to a private developer for no other reason than to increase the amount of money the local government could get from that piece of property by way of real estate taxes. The government's responsibility to the land owner? To pay the owner a "fair" price. Fair .. as determined by the government. Isn't this just great? Two Republicans showing us all that the Republican Party is the party of freedom and property rights. And you wonder why I'm a Libertarian?

Back to your history books. Not the nonsensical dog dung they force on our government school students today, but the the straightforward world histories written by great men and women who weren't bound by the dictates of multi-culturalism and political correctness that pollutes virtually all of modern education. Look into a comprehensive history of this world and I will guarantee you that you will not find one society, one culture, one country based on economic and social freedom that did not guarantee the property rights of its citizens. Not one.

What good is the freedom to use your talents and your willingness to work hard to acquire wealth in the form of property if the government, on a whim, can simply seize that property from you with compensation that only a government bureaucrat would consider fair.

How many times have you looked at a piece of real property and thought to yourself, "Man, if I bought that property right now, and then sat on it for a few years, it could really be worth something!" Throughout our history many millions of Americans have taken that very thought and put it into action. First they dedicated their savings and no small amount of their future work effort to the purchase a piece of property. Then they sat back and waited to see just how much they can get for it five, ten, fifteen or twenty years hence.

Here's how it used to work. Here's how it's supposed to work. Let's say you're a developer. There's nothing wrong with being a developer. You probably bought your home from one. They're good for the economy, though they have to be watched like hawks. OK, you're a developer. You're driving through town and you see a few pieces of property that you think would make a dandy strip shopping center. You search the real estate records and get the names of the owners of each individual parcel of real estate in that block. You have an agent pay these people a visit. You make an offer to buy their property. The property owner can then do one of three things. He can sell at the price you offered. He can negotiate for a higher price, or he can simply tell you that he doesn't want to sell. If the owner doesn't want to sell you certainly can keep upping the offer .. so high, if you wish, that the owner's eyes are bugging out like a stomped-on bullfrog. But ... if the owner doesn't want to sell, at any price and under any circumstances, that's used to be the end of it. You, Mr. Developer, simply go out there and find another location for your strip mall. Maybe a location where people might be more eager to sell.

That's the way it used to be. That's not the way it is now. If this anti-property rights legislation becomes law in Florida the scenario will be quite different. The developer will discover a piece of property that he thinks would be a great site for a shopping center, an office development ... whatever. But, the developer does not go to the individual property owners to strike a deal. He knows that if he goes to the individual property owners they might drive the price way, way beyond what he is willing to pay. After all, what if the owner of that property has been hanging onto it for years so that he could make a big profit? What if that person bought that property 20 years ago just for this day? Just for the day that some developer would want it for a Wall-Mart, a McDonalds, or a big office park? Good grief! That greedy property owner is going to want a profit! A big one! The developer, certainly doesn't want to deal with him! No! Why deal with him when all the developer has to do is go visit his friendly local county commissioner or city councilmember instead! He knows that the politician remembers his generous campaign contributions during past elections, so he expects nothing less than open arms and full cooperation.

So the developer spins a yarn to the politician. Its a wonderful story ... a story about an expanded tax base and hundreds of jobs for his constituents. It's a story about additional property tax money that the politician can use to buy votes with various projects around town. It's a story about the politician's need for more money to spend versus a greedy private property owner who dared to actually believe that owning real estate actually meant something. It's a story the politician likes.

So ... the machinery of government is brought to bear. The property owner will soon come to a full understanding of the vital difference between himself and government. Government can use force to accomplish its goals, while he cannot. The developer has now managed to harness the government's unique asset, the ability to use force, to be used for his personal gain. The private property owner is helpless against the onslaught ... especially after the Harrell-Bennett Elimination of Individual Property Rights Act of 2004. The property is taken. It doesn't matter whether the property was just being held as an investment, or if it was a family home for generations past ... it's gone. All the property owner has left to do is to wait to find out what the government considers a "fair price" for his property to be. One thing is certain. The government will find that that property was worth far less to its original owner than the value placed on it by the developer.

How do politicians justify this? How can so many Republicans, who are supposed, after all, to be opposed to big government and always poised to rush to the defense of individuals threatened by government. Just listen to the statements of some of Florida's finest:

Senator Mike Bennett, the Senate sponsor, says that the bill is absolutely essential for some communities where thousands of individuals own small residential lots. Well isn't that a shame. All of those individuals actually buying residential lots, and then being stupid enough to believe that those lots would belong to them until they decided they wanted to sell ... so long as they paid their taxes, of course. The good Senator Bennett doesn't believe that an individual's property rights should be able to get in the way of some good local commercial development, now does he?

Then we have Terry Stewart. Stewart is the City Manager for Cape Coral. He's been in Tallahassee lobbying for the bill. He says that Cape Coral needs more commercial development, and the bill would help the city to accumulate the property it needs. The trouble, Mr. Stewart, is that the property already belongs to someone else. Damned inconvenient, isn't it, when property rights get in the way of your city management.

The Mayor of Cape Coral is Arnold Kempe. He says that eminent domain is the only way to assemble land. Hey, Mayor Kempe. Try buying it. Try giving the owners a good profit on their wise investment ... instead of trying to steal it from them.

One of my listeners immediately contacted his Florida legislators yesterday upon hearing this story on my show. He contacted Republican Representative Mike Fasano. Fasano is the House majority leader.

This bill is a clear attack on the rights of private property and I oppose this bill. You should NOT vote for it. Not if you want my vote again.

Apparently Florida House Majority Leader Mike Fasano didn't appreciate Weissburg's sentiments. Here is what he wrote back:

Phillip. Thanks for your e-mail. First, I don't appreciate your threats. Second, I will consider your request and please don't e-mail me any further if you feel compelled to throw out threats with your vote.

What a guy! This constituent feels strongly enough about a bill to tell his representative that his vote is riding on the representatives stance on eminent domain abuse, and the representative acts as if his life has just been threatened! What arrogance!

These bills deserve to die. At a time when other states are actually acting to preserve the property rights of their citizens, these Florida legislators are acting to eviscerate property rights at every level. I'm led to understand that the Senate will be voting on SB 2548 today.

Tomorrow the politicians may be after a piece of property across town or down the street. The day after tomorrow it may be your property. Do you care enough about your property rights to make a call?

"Most cases you will find are where one owner holds out for millions stopping a bypass around the city.

Or where I was involved, was a farmer wanted millions for one acre for minuteman site when land worth most of 30 dollars an acre, farmer offered maybe 3,000 dollars, land condemned and he got nothing.

Would you say since Boeing built the minuteman sites, that local government was helping the company of Boeing?? Guess is only matter of perception, but is real facts of life."

The bypass is a public use, and just because a private contractor constructed it does not make it a private use.

Do you have a cite for the case in which you claim the "holdout" was given nothing for his acre of land? I simply don't believe your claim that he was given no value in exchange for its condemnation; that's just not the way these things work. What state do you practice law in?

"I am not a lawyer..."

And yet in your previous post, you claimed to have been "involved" in the case. Now it seems clear you were not.

"Land out in the rolling plains of South Dakota were selling for $30 an acre at the time (about $100 an acre now)."

If the land in question was selling for $30 an acre, then the established market price was $30 an acre.

"The acre wanted by Boeing to build a Minuteman launch tube was adjacent and connected to a public road."

The land was not wanted by Boeing, the land was wanted by the GOVERNMENT to build something to benefit the PUBLIC. The fact that a private contractor contracted with the government to build it does not somehow become a private purpose.

"Farmer offered around $3,000 for it and refused, had to be condemned, then court ordered him to be paid at appraised value of $30 and he had to pay his lawyer which was considerably more than the original offer."

Your earlier post claimed that he received NOTHING. Now it seems clear this was not the case. He got market value for his land.

Please stop trying to mislead people by claiming things happened that did not happen.

I know of eminent domain in the Constitution, but thought that was specified as land taken for government use, not turned around and sold to a private developer to with what they want.

Cato Institute
Eminent domain, recognized in both federal and state constitutions, is the power of government to condemn private property and take title for public use, provided owners receive just compensation. Known once as the despotic power, its exercise was restrained by the need to compensate owners and the requirement that the property taken be put to a "public use."

For many years, however, courts have read the public-use restraint broadly, enabling governments to take property from one owner, often small and powerless, and transfer it to another, often large and politically connected, all in the name of economic development, urban renewal, or job creation.

But that is beginning to change. Institute for Justice lawyers, in particular, have brought successful suits across the country to put teeth back into the public-use restraint. And only a month ago the Illinois Supreme Court came down with an opinion that did the same.

"Are you trying to defame me?" Would you like to talk to my lawyer now as your beliefs are in your posting?"

Defamation does not apply here, but I wouldn't expect you to know that, as your grasp of the law has proven to be rather vague.

"How can you with no more info than you have decide that I was not involved?"

Because you weren't, that's why. From your own description of the events, your *brother* was involved; you were not. He ended up with nothing by the time *he* paid the lawyer. You were neither the plaintiff nor the lawyer, so you were not "involved" in any rational sense of the word.

"Would you like to talk to my lawyer now as your beliefs are in your posting?"

Your silly veiled threats mean absolutely nothing to me, pal. I'd be happy to talk to your two-bit lawyer. But first you'll have to pay him a rather large retainer, because lawyers don't take loser cases like yours on contingency. Be prepared to spend a lot of money. You'll have to subpoena JimRob to try to find out who I am. It's also gonna cost you a lot of money to try to get jurisdiction over me in your state. And if by some miracle you managed to do that, you'd still lose on the defamation theory. You apparently don't get that when you anonymously post lies and exaggerations (that is, when you are proven to be a liar and an exaggerator) on a public forum, the mere pointing out of that FACT is not defamation. But if you would like to spin yourself into butter over your supposed injury, be my guest; as I said, your silly threats mean nothing to me.

It sounds like you are just pissed off at lawyers who "live off other people's problems" and lose cases where greedy people like your brother should have taken market price and been happy with it. He did get something for his property, but because he tried to get greedy, he ended up with nothing. Kinda sounds like that Aesop's fable about the fox and the grapes.

Yes, you are right that my opinion is not "better than all the opinions in the world", just better than the wrong ones! We lawyers give opinions for a living, and look at the past law to determine what future outcomes are likely. People pay me a lot of money for my opinions, so my opinions *are* worth more than yours, unless you are being regularly paid thousands of dollars for them. In your case, it sounds like your brothers lawyer had an opinion that was just plain wrong, and any look at previous eminent domain cases would have shown him that. Or maybe your brother's lawyer gave your brother his professional opinion, and your brother was blinded by greed and decided to fight anyway. Either way, he lost, and you should just get over it.

"They apparently have a very exaggerated important feeling for themselves and are using very blatant and inhuman irreparable character assassinations, kin to a terrorist attack on individuals with no political motivation."

A terrorist attack? Oh, my. And you accuse me of being self-important?? Wait, wait, I'm still laughing at the irony...

You apparently don't know when to quit, do you? Pointing out that you deliberately exaggerated and outright lied on this thread is hardly inhuman, nor does it amount to character assasination. The truth is my only motivation. From your postings, it is apparent that you have nothing but contempt for the truth.

My advice to you (which I'm sure you won't take, any more than your stupid brother would take a sensible lawyer's advice on his ridiculous eminent domain suit) is when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging! Stop exaggerating, stop lying, stop misrepresenting, and just admit that you LIED about the nature of your brother's case, and try to be more truthful in the future.

Oh, and don't even bother with threats. They don't work with real lawyers.

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.