Family to lose home by eminent domain for Costco store

Boortz online ^ | September 12, 2003 | Neal Boortz

[tdadams]

YOU FOLKS HAD BETTER BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS

I'm going to revisit the eminent domain issue again for a few minutes here so that I can share with you an incredible display of arrogance from an elected official.

As you know, I've been talking about a situation in Alabaster, Alabama where the city council of this community of 24,000 is trying to seize the property of about ten homeowners so that a shopping center featuring a Wal-Mart can be built there. The politicians say that it is perfectly OK to condemn and seize this property for a privately owned shopping center because, after all, the shopping center will generate more tax money than these private homes do.

We are seeing the evolution of a new standard for government seizure of private property. Its very simple. If some politician decides that your property would generate more tax revenue for government if it was owned by someone else, the politician can seize that property from you and turn it over to the government-preferred owner.

For our example of obscene government arrogance we turn our attention to Duncanville, Texas. Duncanville calls itself "A warm community of friends," and "A wonderful place to raise a family." Well, Duncanville may be a wonderful place to raise your family, just so long as some politician doesn't decide that the city could get more tax revenue if your home were to become a Costco.

Deborah Hodge has been living in her Duncanville home for 13 years. The Hodge property has a four bedroom house, a bar, pasture and swimming pool. It has been a family gathering place for over a decade. Just like the city motto says, "A wonderful place to raise your family."

A few months ago the city told Deborah to sell her property. They didn't ask her if she wanted to sell. They told her that she would sell. She would either sell, or they would just take it. The city, you see, wants a Costco store to be built on her land. The Costco would, after all, generate a lot more tax revenue than her little house and barn. So ... Duncanville is using its right of eminent domain to seize the property.

Now ... listen to this. These are the words of Duncanville city manager Kent Cagle. This is what Kent Cagle thinks about private property rights in America. Cagle told the Dallas Morning News "They don't have the option to say no to us. We have made it clear we want that property. The only thing that will be settled in court is how much we have to pay for it."

There is no freedom without property rights. What is it going to take to get Americans upset about this latest craze in local government revenue raising. You just identify the properties that could produce more taxes, seize those properties, and turn them over to developers.

[Orangedog]

And she is an imbicile not to take DOUBLE what her house is worth. You scream "her property" like this is the old West, or like that movie "Far and Away". Give me a break. Most Americans stay in the same home for for an average of 7 years. Houses are just commodities. She could have bought a similar one in a nearby area for $400k and had $300k cash left over. Sounds good to me.

Well, silly me. I didn't know that it "sounds good" to you. That makes all the difference! [/sarcasm]

That's great that it sounds good to you. Too bad it's not your home. Does she have property rights or property privilliages?

[Chewbacca]

Ask for payment in gold coin per Article 1 Section 10 of US Constitution.

"No State shall make anything but gold and silver COIN a payment of debt."

[Malacoda]

Does THIS look familiar? Janssen must be so proud...

[ampat]

Sounds like they need a recall election for the city manager.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

Here is another story with more details:

Eminent Domain

What's The Deal?

POSTED: 5:46 p.m. CDT July 25, 2003

They can take your land if you won't sell it to them and the Alabama constitution says so!

Experts say the government is digging up eminent domain more and more to get what they want. What's the deal?

When you think of eminent domain, you may think of the government buying your property to make room for a highway.

The city of Homewood headed to court this week to try and force the sale of a 19-acre track of land owned by Samford University. The city wants to put soccer fields on the land but negotiations with the university have stalled.

Plans for some Alabaster land will likely end up in court too. A developer wants to buyout about a dozen property owners and build a strip mall near Interstate 65 and Highway 31.

"If it was something really worthwhile, I wouldn't fight one minute. But I don't think it's worthwhile," Mattie Taylor said.

Taylor owns church on the wanted land and her family lives behind it. She says city leaders are threatening to have the property condemned in court if she doesn't sell by next week.

"I don't think the city has the right to inject itself in the negotiation process," attorney Jim Pino said.

Pino is representing the Alabaster landowners. He says the city is overstepping its bounds because the Alabama constitution states private property can be taken for public use, but it shall not be taken for private use or for the use of corporations.

But state and local laws say eminent domain can prevail for economic development if the property in question is blighted, a definition that is subjective.

"I think we're traveling down a slippery slope in that area now," Pino said.

Attorney Ed Allen agrees. He helped draft recent eminent domain legislation.

"Most anything that is a positive economic force benefits the public but that doesn't mean that's a public use," Allen said.

On the other hand, Allen says Homewood's quest for a park is possibly a classic case of public use.

"It's a park. It's for the benefit of the community," Allen said. "That doesn't mean the landowner likes it but it's not the same thing as a commercial or industrial development."

The judge hearing the Homewood soccer field case requested more information before setting a court date. If he rules in favor of the government, a committee of real estate experts decides the value of the property. The losers can also appeal.(MY NOTE: The government can not appeal)

Copyright 2003 by NBC13.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

-------------------------------------------------- Boortz hasn't told the entire story, it seems. These people are being represented by a prominent attorney. This is going to court. It apparently hasn't even been decided if the takings will be allowed. I hope this one property owner hasn't refused representation. That would be quite stupid.

[Rytwyng]

Another thing... this trick was tried on a church in California... the city council decided that a mall would bring in more taxes, than a church, so they tried to destroy the church by eminent doman. I'd sure hate to be one of those council members on Judgement Day.

[Redbob]

And some wonder why we still need the Second Amendment in this "modern" age...

[AVNative]

Blackdog, good points. The local government should be looking out for the woman resident, and not let another tyrannize her. . . The zoning thought is a salient consideration that is critical as well.

However, even without doing much digging around on Costco, I can tell you just within my own Los Angeles County (and neighboring counties) two tales paralleling this story. Locally, the original site of the Lancaster (California) Costco tried to take over the neighboring 99 cents store a few years ago. (Costco wanted to expand the store's size) That turned out to be a long fight, with the 99 cents store - a retail chain of some size itself - winning. Costco then shopped around for a new site, and found its current location next to Lancaster City Park. Not without yet another legal brouhaha about trees being uprooted from the park to allow Costco to have its desired land imprint next to the park (which lost a sliver of land in the settlement). In the end, the trees were transplanted to other city property (thanks to citizen input and the legal system), and of course, Costco got the land it wanted. Oh, Costco got its current land from the City of Lancaster for el cheapo.

Also, I believe it was in Hawaiian Gardens (or somewhere near there in the vicinity of Seal Beach) where Costco wanted to take over land that a church owned. The church was running out of space in its current location and was in the process of planning new buildings when this debacle from Costco happened. A happy enough ending for this one: the church and Costco swapped parcels - close by each other - and both got what they wanted. Not without legal tussles, though.

Score on these tales: 99 cents store 1, Costco 0

---

Costco 1, Lancaster (city and residents) 1

---

church 1, Costco 1

As you can see, Costco hates to lose. When lawyers have to be in the middle of far too many real estate transactions - due to ill will - what does that tell you about the protagonist here, Costco? (To be fair, other corporations could be named here besides. . .)

Want to know more? Do a little research on Sol Price of Costco fame. His political sensibilities are more those of DU than FR. And whatever happened to good ol' FedMart, Sol? (I know the answer, just remembering the good ol' days)

[ScrtAccess]

Heres a copy of an email received back from the city manager:

Don't believe everything you read in the paper. I have copied a reply that I have sent earlier because I have received so many responses.





I too was very upset with the article. My wife said it made me sound evil and I agree. I can only say that when you have the power as a reporter to cut and paste words you can make people say anything. I did say Mrs. Hodge was stupid for acting as her own attorney, but it was in a totally different context. The reporter forgot to say that we have had numerous discussions with Mrs. Hodge and how we begged her to get professional advice. The reporter forgot to mention that the Hodges are planning on moving and have been looking for a “country estate” for two years. The reporter forgot to mention that Wintergreen Road will expand and the road will be 12 feet from their front door. The Hodges will then have the ability to sue us for rendering their property unusable.





The reporter said she did not understand condemnation and I explained the process to her. That is how she came up with the “they don’t have the option to say no” quote. I was speaking in general terms in an explanation of the process. When property is condemned, the owner does not have the right to say no. That is all I was saying. I did say it was stupid to turn down $653,000 on a piece of property that was bought for $110,000 only ten years ago. I did say it was stupid to hold onto property that will only diminish in value when it is blocked off from the surrounding development. Would you want to live on a piece of property with a four lane road 12 feet from your front door? The back and side yard will be a busy parking lot. Mrs. Hodge is simply playing a game and thinks she can force the City to pay $2 million dollars for her property.





I am embarrassed about the article and the way it makes Duncanville look. It is my fault that I spoke frankly with a reporter that had been very trustworthy in the past. The reporter took some very isolated quotes out of a 15 minute conversation. She described Mrs. Hodge in the most disparaging terms and called her a weepy stupid woman. I was obviously set up and it is my fault for not sensing what was happening.





Thank you for your correspondence and I hope you understand that this issue is much more complicated than the paper would lead you to believe.







Kent Cagle

[Flyer]

"We’re land-locked, so we only have so much land we can develop and promote. The only way to get stores like Costco here now is to allow beer and wine sales. That’s our apple to dangle over them." – Steve Martin, Duncanville Economic Development Corp.

Google Cached

[Freedom2specul8]

And to think we just joined costco.. I am going to be sick... What in the heck is the matter with these people? Oh you can bet your bootie they'd get a might upset if the citizens stood up and said "Hey, councilman, you have to move because our kids need a park to play on"..

[HurkinMcGurkin]

More like $150 or $200 k cash left over, after taxes.

Funny, but eminent domain awards ares't taxable. Its not income, its an exchange.

[BSunday]

From your rifle to the center of mass.

Excellent! I hereby nominate you for the post of the day. Any seconders out there?

[ampat]

Exactly, just like our elected representatives represent themselves first, then special interests. They are political prostitutes. Follow the money and see how the city manager is profiting himself.

[Freebird Forever]

It could get rough for Costco if Deborah Hodge has any friends who belong to ELF.

[HenryLeeII]

Its not necessarily greed - its THEIR HOME!!! If they don't want to move they don't want to move. Its not the government's right to force them out just to put in a freakin' Wal-Mart!

[Chewbacca]

"Funny, but eminent domain awards ares't taxable. Its not income, its an exchange. "


Even more reason to request the payment is made in gold coin.

[shhrubbery!]

Regardless of the transaction, a governmental body will win if your not wise in your responses.

Not necessarily. See Widow wins, private property protected (the 'little old lady' story mentioned above).

More cases where the private property owners won: Property: The Forgotten Human Right

[Rytwyng]

Eminent domain in the Bible:

1 Kings 21

1 And it came to pass after these things, that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab king of Samaria.

2 And Ahab spake unto Naboth, saying, Give me thy vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near unto my house: and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it; or, if it seem good to thee, I will give thee the worth of it in money.

3 And Naboth said to Ahab, The LORD forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.

4 And Ahab came into his house heavy and displeased because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him: for he had said, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers. And he laid him down upon his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread.

5 But Jezebel his wife came to him, and said unto him, Why is thy spirit so sad, that thou eatest no bread?

6 And he said unto her, Because I spake unto Naboth the Jezreelite, and said unto him, Give me thy vineyard for money; or else, if it please thee, I will give thee another vineyard for it: and he answered, I will not give thee my vineyard.

7 And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? arise, and eat bread, and let thine heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.

8 So she wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth.

9 And she wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people:

10 And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.

11 And the men of his city, even the elders and the nobles who were the inhabitants in his city, did as Jezebel had sent unto them, and as it was written in the letters which she had sent unto them.

12 They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people.

13 And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died.

14 Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, Naboth is stoned, and is dead.

15 And it came to pass, when Jezebel heard that Naboth was stoned, and was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give thee for money: for Naboth is not alive, but dead.

16 And it came to pass, when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, that Ahab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it.

17 And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying,

18 Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, which is in Samaria: behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, whither he is gone down to possess it.

19 And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Hast thou killed, and also taken possession? And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the LORD, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine.

Paybacks are a bitch.

[commish]

Imagine what will happen when the government decides that the apartment complexes that accept section 8 vouchers are either too few or not in nice enough neighborhoods. Whats stopping them from forcing the sale of newer apartment buidings near well priced single family homes to companies that WILL play the governments game. The possibilities for abuse are almost endless.

Already happened here in Alabama. The City of Montgomery decided that the Section 8 Housing projects were located in such poor areas that it was depressing to the inhabitants. So they bought a huge parcel of land SOutheast of the city and proceded to pop up the ever loved Section 8 cookie cutter duplexes _-- right next to a brand new high end subdivision.

Houses that were originally built in that subdivision for $150,000-200,000 are now being sold for $70,000-80,000, and almost half the houses stand empty with For Sale signs in the yards.