PDA

View Full Version : Florida city considers eminent domain



BigBadBrian
10-03-2005, 04:02 PM
Florida city considers eminent domain
By Joyce Howard Price
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 3, 2005


Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.
"This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.
He defends the use of eminent domain by saying the city is "using tools that have been available to governments for years to bring communities like ours out of the economic doldrums and the trauma centers."
Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach is doing what the city of New London, Conn., is trying to do and what the U.S. Supreme Court said is proper in its ruling June 23 in Kelo v. City of New London. That decision upheld the right of government to seize private properties for use by private developers for projects designed to generate jobs and increase the tax base.
"Now eminent domain is affecting people who never had to deal with it before and who have political connections," Mr. Brown said. "But if we don't use this power, cities will die."
Jacqui Loriol insists she and her husband will fight the loss of their 80-year-old home in Riviera Beach.
"This is a very [racially] mixed area that's also very stable," she said. "But no one seems to care ... Riviera Beach needs economic redevelopment. But there's got to be another way."
In the Kelo ruling, a divided Supreme Court held that private development offering jobs and increased tax revenues constituted a public use of property, but the court held that state legislatures can draft eminent-domain statutes to their satisfaction.
Dana Berliner, senior lawyer with the Institute for Justice, which represented homeowners in the Kelo case, said "pie in the sky" expectations like those expressed by Mr. Brown are routine in all these cases.
"They always think economic redevelopment will bring more joy than what is there now," she said. "Once someone can be replaced so something more expensive can go where they were, every home and business in the country is subject to taking by someone else."
Last week, the Riviera Beach City Council tapped the New Jersey-based Viking Inlet Harbor Properties LLC to oversee the mammoth 400-acre redevelopment project.
"More than 2,000 homes could be eligible for confiscation," said H. Adams Weaver, a local lawyer who is assisting protesting homeowners.


Viking spokesman Peter Frederiksen said the plan "is to create a working waterfront," adding that the project could take 15 years and that "we would only use condemnation as a last resort."
Viking has said it will pay at least the assessed values of homes and businesses it buys.
Other plans for the project include creation of a basin for megayachts with high-end housing, retail and office space, a multilevel garage for boats, a 96,000-square-foot aquarium and a manmade lagoon.
Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach wants to highlight its waterfront.
"We have the best beach and the most attractive redevelopment property anywhere in the United States," he said.
Mr. Frederiksen said people with yachts need a place to keep and service them. "And we want to develop a charter school for development of marine trades."
Mr. Brown and others said this could be one of the biggest eminent-domain actions ever. A report in the Palm Beach Post said it is the biggest since 1954, when 5,000 residents of Washington were displaced for eventual development of the Southwest D.C. waterfront, L'Enfant Plaza, and the less-than-successful Waterside Mall.
The fact that Riviera Beach is so financially downtrodden may seem ironic because as Mr. Brown notes "it sits right across the inlet from Palm Beach," one of the nation's wealthiest areas.
"Palm Beach County is the largest county east of the Mississippi, and we have the second-highest rate of poverty in the county," the mayor said.

Link (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051003-122623-2136r.htm)

BigBadBrian
10-03-2005, 04:03 PM
And so it fucking begins. :mad:

Get your guns, people.

knuckleboner
10-03-2005, 05:32 PM
well, not YOUR guns, BBB. general assembly's starting up in january.

i'll bet you whatever you'd like that there are a few amendments to the virginia constitution, specifying exactly what is and isn't "public good" in terms of eminent domain takings.

for the record, i agree with the supreme court case.

(i also support individual states passing laws prohibiting those kinds of takings...)

DLR'sCock
10-03-2005, 10:05 PM
You are nothing and own nothing in the eyes of the establishment....

FORD
10-03-2005, 10:24 PM
The BCE just applied their version of "eminent domain" in Louisiana.

Nitro Express
10-04-2005, 12:47 AM
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


If you read the Bill of Rights, private property cannot be taken without due process and without just compensation. Did you know the city of New London is charging the home owners back rent before they were evicted by the US Supreme Court? The Bill of Rights clearly state a home owner's rights when the govt. wants to take their property for PUBLIC USE. No way would the authors of the Bill of Rights remotely guess that the highest court in the land would side with the big money and evict people so big developers could use the land for Private Use.

The argument here is the difference of building a much needed highway vs. someone else evicting someone just because they want the land or can make money from it. It can be clearly infered that the Bill of Rights is dealing with PUBLIC USE for much needed infastructer and entrusted the justice to the due process of law. It all goes to show you are judges are for sale and the courts are corrupt.

Nitro Express
10-04-2005, 12:50 AM
The real justice will happen when global warming melts the polar ice caps and the ocean floods the oceanfront property the big developers used the courts to steal from the small guy.

knuckleboner
10-04-2005, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Nitro Express



The argument here is the difference of building a much needed highway vs. someone else evicting someone just because they want the land or can make money from it. It can be clearly infered that the Bill of Rights is dealing with PUBLIC USE for much needed infastructer and entrusted the justice to the due process of law. It all goes to show you are judges are for sale and the courts are corrupt.

i don't know about that. "public use" is not defined in the amendment.

who's to say that a much needed economic revitalization in a perpetually downtrodden area is not a "public use?"


the supreme court case said that "public use" should be determined locally. the states and localities should establish what they feel is a public use.

i agree. let the state of idaho decide what public use is in idaho. if they wish to establish that public use is only for publically owned infrastructure improvements, good. let them.

if arkansas decides that its unemployment rate is so high, its economy is in shambles, and its quality of life is poor, and therefore encouraging economic development is in the public use, then let them.


personally, like i said, in virginia, i definitely support an amendment to the virginia constitution that narrows what "public use" is.

but i'm going to let west virginians decide for themselves what their own public use is.

lesfunk
10-04-2005, 12:10 PM
I thought the neutron bomb was a better idea.

steve
10-04-2005, 02:57 PM
The ruling by the Supreme Court seems to let "public use" be a very loose definition....and that's a bad thing.

At the very least, rulings of what is "public domain" should have to follow an extremely rigorous procedure involving much public debate and a TOTAL CUTOFF of advertising, etc. The way it is now, there is far too much wiggle room for powerful private developers to lobby local officials for something that they deem "public use"...and local landowners get screwed when the govt. uses public domain to buy up their property at cut rate prices.

But even if there was extremely rigorous procedure, I don't think it would be enough - particularly now when our economy is riding this land development boom.

I think the Supreme Court's public domain ruling was terrible and lacked foresight - it was locked in an archaic 1950s-like mindset that the government can develope land for the public good - which, in my opinion...if you look at the "projects" of Chicago, The Bronx, or the UGLY mass of concrete called "SW DC" (a safe enough place, just ugly as sin and everyone wants to tear those 50s/60s HUD relics down) - was generally a bad idea.

There is too much temptation for bribery, corruption, and muther'f'in' P O R K.

If you look at land development in the US, the best examples of creating livable, economically vibrant communities are places where the local community citizens and governments have meticulous ZONING laws that temper and push private developers to build what the community has in mind. In the DC area, the most desirable place to set up a business or live is probably Arlington County - which decided 30 years ago what types of development they wanted and where...and they carefully Zoned certain areas accordingly - private development took care of the rest. No public housing projects, no big government mega projects (well, except the Pentagon and National Airport - but that was built in the 40s before anything was there).

DLR'sCock
10-04-2005, 08:16 PM
Yeah, it's ok unitl they take your place and pay you shit for it, and then your fucked.


People can never see beyond their fucking nose, such is human nature.