End this sorry saga that highlights government's abuse of eminent domain

[freeandfun1]

This is an editorial on a Las Vegas situation, but this is going on all over the country....

EDITORIAL: Settle with the Pappas family

End this sorry saga that highlights government's abuse of eminent domain

The city this week has the opportunity to close the sorriest chapter in the history of downtown redevelopment. It should do just that.

On Wednesday, the City Council will consider a proposal to tender a $4.5 million offer to the Pappas family, whose property Las Vegas seized in 1993 to turn over to a consortium of downtown casino owners so they could build a parking garage.

It was a blatant misuse of one of the state's most awesome powers, eminent domain. The power was originally intended for the acquisition of land necessary for some public purpose -- a highway, fire house or school, for instance.

Over the past 25 years, however, courts have adopted a much more liberal -- and dangerous -- interpretation of "public use," leading to state laws that allow cities and counties to grab real estate in the name of attacking "blight" or pursuing a higher economic use of the land.

Just last week, though, Michigan's highest court -- whose 1980 decision allowed Detroit to condemn an entire neighborhood so General Motors could build a Cadillac plant, opening the door to such abuses all across the country, including Las Vegas -- reversed itself and unanimously repudiated that application of eminent domain. The court correctly reasoned that a municipality which confiscates an individual's land with the intent of transferring it to a more well-connected private owner arrogantly undermines the principles upon which this nation was founded and threatens the very concept of private property rights.

Unfortunately, that decision came too late for the Pappas family.

Harry Pappas, who mother, Carol, owned the downtown parcels in question, has fought a spirited battle for more than 10 years against the land grab and efforts by the city to lowball the family on a settlement. But after winning at the District Court level, the Pappas family lost before the Nevada Supreme Court. Ironically, the justices cited the Detroit case as a justification for the taking.

Had the Pappas case reached the state high court after the latest ruling in Michigan, the outcome might have been different. As it stands, though, a District Court trial is set for next month to determine how much the city owes the Pappas family for the 7,000 square foot property it seized a decade ago.

A trial is in nobody's interest. The whole matter has already cost taxpayers millions. Yes, Mr. Pappas did turn down a similar offer four years ago. But at that point the battle was understandably a personal crusade for him, a matter of principle. The fact that his rejection might have created hard feelings among some at City Hall should not influence the City Council's decision on this issue now that Mr. Pappas says he would take the deal.

The use of eminent domain to condemn the Pappas property was wrong. The City Council should approve the settlement and -- even though nobody on the board was in office in 1993 -- renounce the practice of seizing land from one private party to turn over to another.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Happening here in texas also.

kiss your house goodbye by Neal Boortz

A few weeks ago, I wrote about private-property rights. I wrote about the clash between the rights of individual Americans to their property, and the never-ending quest by politicians for more money to spend on their various vote-buying schemes. That previous column didn't generate enough of an outrage, so I'm back to try again. How about listening up this time?

Maybe it would help if I could be more concise. This time, maybe I can make you understand that the very foundation of liberty is under attack.

Just what is the basic foundation of human liberty? Self ownership. It's just that simple. You own your life. If you don't believe that you own your life, then you are admitting that some other person or entity claims that ownership – either in whole or in part.

You will spend part of this life that you own earning money. You will then exchange that money for property. That property, then, represents a part of your life. To deny you that property is to deny you that portion of your life you expended to acquire that property.

Simple, right? Yeah ... so simple even a Democrat could follow it.

Free societies recognize freedom can't exist unless this right to self ownership is recognized. When you are denied your right to your own life, and that which you produce, you are denied your basic liberty.

To protect your liberties, and your right to your life, laws in free societies have always placed strict limitations on the power of government to deprive you of your property. While the law has long recognized the right of the state to seize property, our Constitution limits that power to the taking of private property for public use, and then only with just compensation.

Now, here's the rub. While you might think that a "public use" would be something like a school, a fire or police station or roads and bridges, politicians are developing a completely different definition. In many states a "public use" is defined as nothing more than maximizing the taxes that can be collected on a particular piece of property.

In other words, if a politician figures out your property would generate more tax revenue for government if it was owned by someone other than you, it would then be perfectly OK to use force to seize that property from you and give it to the party who is going to generate the higher tax revenues. You will then be paid for your property based on a bureaucrat's decision on what it is worth, rather than a price negotiated between a willing seller and purchaser.

I first brought this new excuse for the seizure of private property to your attention a few weeks ago writing about Alabaster, Ala. The politicians running this town of 24,000 have decided a new shopping center with a Wal-Mart would be such a wonderful thing for their community ... and especially for sales tax revenues. So, the Alabaster City Council is in the process of seizing the homes of about 11 private individuals so the property can be handed over to the developer for the shopping center.

Today, I bring this up again to tell you about Duncanville, Texas, and the unbridled arrogance of one particular city official. In Duncanville, the politicians have decided to seize the property of Deborah Hodge. They want her house, the pasture, the swimming pool – all of it. They want to hand over the property to a private developer for a Costco. Why? More tax money. The Costco will pay more in taxes than Deborah Hodge and her husband.

Now … listen to this. Kent Cagle is the city manager of Duncanville, Texas. How does Kent Cagle feel about government seizing private homes and then handing the property over to developers who will, in turn, hand over more tax money? Well, apparently Kent Cagle rather likes the idea. Here is what he had to say about the Hodges. Just feeeeel the arrogance: "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."

That just about says it all, doesn't it? The state of private-property rights in America in 2003. If the government wants another, richer private entity to own your property, you have no option but to say "OK!"

Freedom cannot survive in a society that does not protect property rights. So now you know where the greatest threat to our freedoms resides. Just visit your local city hall.

 

[DKSuddeth]

How many people are going to denounce this one?

George Bush and eminent domain


The baseball team the Texas Rangers are bidding vigorously for the honor of donating land for the eagerly anticipated George W. Bush Presidential Library. According to this article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Rangers and "Arlington leaders" are offering a choice of sites from more than 100 acres surrounding the Rangers ballpark in Arlington, Texas.

This is thrilling, because it gives me an opportunity to re-tell the great old story about how George W. Bush made a fortune by stealing land from hard-working, honest Texans.

For example, one site the President might consider for his library is a ten-acre spread purchased by hard-working, honest Texans in 1942 to raise thoroughbreds. In 1991, the city of Arlington seized the land from the purchasers' grandson, Bucky Fanning, and gave it to the Texas Rangers.

There were winners in the deal, he [Mr. Fanning] says -- among them George W. Bush and his partners, and Tom Hicks, the wealthy real estate developer they sold the team to -- and there were losers.
He was one of the losers.

"Anybody who was in their way, they just ran them over," says Fanning, a soft-spoken man whose anger rises as he talks about the ballpark. "I used to be a Rangers fan, but then they stole my property."

Fanning's grandparents bought the 10-acre spread in 1942 to raise Thoroughbreds. Now it is a little-used parking lot on the east side of the stadium. "Bush didn't need our land for a ballpark," Fanning says. "He wanted it for his own personal gain." ["Broken Promises Plague Parks," The New York Daily News, October 12, 2002]


But the story of Bucky Fanning and his lost ten-acre spread was only a small part of a big and sordid scheme that earned Mr. Bush $14.9 million on an investment of $600,000. (And most of that $600,000 was borrowed. He repaid the loan through sale of his Harken stock, a transaction that had the appearance of insider trading but for which the SEC gave Bush a pass, possibly because his father was President of the United States at the time.)

Here's the story: Once upon a time, before he got into politics, George W. Bush paid $600,000 for 1.8 percent of the Texas Rangers baseball team. Then, Bush and his team-owner cronies persuaded the city of Arlington, Texas, to:

Pass a half-cent sales tax to pay for 70 percent of the stadium;

Use the government’s powers of eminent domain to condemn land the Rangers couldn’t or didn’t want to buy on the open market;

Give the Rangers control over what happens in and around the stadium;

Allow the Rangers to buy the stadium (which cost $191 million to construct) for just $60 million. [Robert Bryce, "Stealing Home," The Texas Observer, May 9, 1997]

After 12 years of paying rent to the City of Arlington, the Rangers took title to the most expensive stadium ever built in Texas. In exchange, Arlington received only the $60 million worth of rent and upkeep the Rangers paid the city over the 12 years. Such a deal.

But it's the second point on the bulleted list above that concerns us today.

A sweetheart arrangement between the city of Arlington and the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority (ASFDA; i.e., in Molly Ivins's words, a "quasi government front" for the Texas Rangers) allowed ASFDA to condemn property (such as Bucky Fanning's ten-acre spread) and either seize it or acquire it at bargain-basement prices.

According to Eric Alterman ("The Scandal No One Cares About," MSNBC) several landowners -- mostly homeowners and farmers -- refused to sell for what the Authority was offering. "The Authority condemned their land and expropriated it by force of law," wrote Alterman. "It did this with 270 acres of land, even though only about 17 acres were needed for the ballpark. The rest was used for commercial development that made Bush and his friends rich."

For example, ASFDA also desired three parcels that were part of trusts to benefit the heirs of television magnate Curtis Mathes. ASFDA offered to purchase the land, nearly 13 acres, for $817,220. This was far below what even the ASFDA's own appraisers said it was worth. The Mathes family refused to sell, and the ASFDA seized the land through eminent domain. A jury later awarded the Mathes heirs $4.98 million, plus accumulated interest, for the parcels.

ASFDA decided the city of Arlington should be responsible for the $4.98 million, even though by then the land was in private hands. Both the city and ASFDA refused to pay.

Bush said more than once that he was unaware of the details of ASFDA's little land grabs. However, Tom Schieffer, president of the Rangers, testified that he kept Bush abreast of the purchase of the parcels.

After Bush was elected governor of Texas in 1994, he put all of his assets into a blind trust except his general partnership interest in the Texas Rangers. Thus in 1998, while he was governor, he was able to sell his part of the Rangers ownership, and from this sale he earned the $14.9 million profit. Bush owes that nearly $15 million profit to the value of a stadium built by Texas taxpayers, and on land obtained by using government power to benefit private business interests. And don't get me started on the Harken thing.

But it's just too, too delicious that the eventual George W. Bush Presidential Library might one day be built on land stolen by the Texas Rangers and then donated back to Bush. It doesn't get any slicker than that.

 

[freeandfun1]

Did Bush still own the Rangers in 1991? I thought he didn't......

I'm wrong. You're right. It is wrong no matter WHO does it. Now, you must admit that Bush was GM of the TEAM and only had a 1.8% stake in the team as a whole. I am not sure if this would have fallen under the dictates of the GM, but if it does, then he was wrong. period.