From The News & Observer (10/30/2006): "[Rep. Paul] Stam said his first priority if re-elected is to enact a constitutional amendment prohibiting governments from taking private property for economic development." Click here for the article
Rep. Stam introduced the amendment that was killed in committee during the recent short session. We appreciate his persistent support of private property rights.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
NCPRC Releases 2006 Legislative Voter Guide
RALEIGH – The N.C. Property Rights Coalition has published the N.C. Property Rights Voter Guide, Chairman Kieran Shanahan has announced. The voter guide, which lists candidates’ positions on a potential state constitutional amendment to prevent eminent domain abuse, is posted online at www.ncpropertyrights.com. “The legislature had the opportunity to provide North Carolina’s property owners with real protection during the recent short session,” Shanahan said. “Unfortunately, their efforts fell far short. Instead of allowing the people to vote on a constitutional amendment that would stand the test of time, the legislature passed a law that can easily be undone by the whims of a future legislature.”
“The people of our state deserve more than this watered-down legislation,” Shanahan continued. “They deserve constitutional protection that will stand the test of time. That’s why we need an amendment to the state constitution to protect our private property from eminent domain abuse.”
“During the recent legislative short session, the House Judiciary 3 Committee refused to hear a bill calling for an amendment to the state constitution to prevent governments from using eminent domain authority to take land for private economic development projects,” Shanahan added. “The bill was sent to the House Rules Committee to die without fair consideration.”
“I’ve heard people say things like, ‘that could never happen in North Carolina’”, Shanahan added. “I’m sure Susette Kelo felt the same way – up until that tragic day when the city of New London, Connecticut decided that a developer could make better use of her home and began the process of seizing it through eminent domain abuse. Property rights are a fundamentally important issue, and North Carolinians cannot take them for granted.”
“The people of North Carolina deserve better protection than the legislature has given them,” Shanahan concluded. “North Carolinians need more than a legislative smokescreen – we need the kind of real protection provided by a constitutional amendment. Our organization will continue to call on the members of the North Carolina General Assembly to do what is right by allowing our citizens to vote on a constitutional amendment to protect our private property from eminent domain abuse. Private property rights are one of the foundational principles of our republic, and this important issue should be addressed as soon as possible.”
Monday, October 23, 2006
Developers Consider Suing Florida City for Not Using Eminent Domain Powers
From FOX News: Developers Consider Suing Florida City for Not Using Eminent Domain Powers
RIVIERA BEACH, Fla. — The builders of a multibillion-dollar redevelopment project are considering legal action against the state and city after being told eminent domain powers will not be used to seize property to make way for the plan.
Click here for the rest of this story
RIVIERA BEACH, Fla. — The builders of a multibillion-dollar redevelopment project are considering legal action against the state and city after being told eminent domain powers will not be used to seize property to make way for the plan.
Click here for the rest of this story
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
NY Times: Anger Drives Property Rights Measures
Anger Drives Property Rights Measures
PICABO, Idaho — Cheeks chapped, patience thinned, Katie Breckenridge had no trouble making up her mind about an Idaho ballot measure that would make the government pay property owners if zoning rules reduce the value of their land.
“Do I think this is almost swinging the pendulum back too far in the other direction? I do,” said Ms. Breckenridge, 61, a rancher just in from tending to cattle and quarter horses. “But do I think we’ve got to do something to bring the balance back to property rights? I do, and I’m going to vote for it.”
More than a year after Suzette Kelo and several of her neighbors in New London, Conn., lost their battle against eminent domain in the United States Supreme Court, the backlash against the ruling has made property rights one of the most closely watched ballot issues nationwide.
Click for the rest of the article
Legislative Voter Guide -- Coming Soon
With the November 7 elections right around the corner, it is important to know where the candidates for North Carolina House and North Carolina Senate stand when it comes to protecting your private property rights. On September 29, we mailed a brief survey to every legislative candidate in North Carolina. This brief survey asks candidates whether they support a constitutional amendment prohibiting government from using eminent domain for economic development purposes. The results of our 2006 legislative candidates' survey will be posted shortly.
Article: Enforce the law to protect church from land use bias
From The Detroit News:
It's hard to imagine that a city would prevent a legitimate place of worship from occupying a building in the United States -- a country founded in large part on the promise of religious tolerance. Yet, that is happening now in Metro Detroit.
In fact, the federal government recently intervened on behalf of Lighthouse Community Church of God in a dispute with the city of Southfield over a building purchased by the church to house its congregation and host religious services. A decision by the federal court in Detroit is pending.
The city of Southfield initially granted and then denied Lighthouse Community Church of God permission to occupy a building it purchased that was used and zoned as a church since 1996. This came about eight months after city representatives gave the church verbal and written approval for the purchase and use of the building and Lighthouse sold its prior house of worship.
Occupancy denied
In 2004, the certificate of occupancy was denied in favor a proposed $30 million residential gated community. As a result, Lighthouse Community Church of God was shut out of its own building.
Click here for moreProperty rights a popular question on ballots
From Stateline.org: "...property rights is the hottest new topic on state ballots this election year, cropping up in 13 states..."
Unfortunately, North Carolina is not one of those 13 states. Our state's legislative leadership killed a proposed amendment to prevent eminent domain abuse, sending it to a committee to die. Instead of taking the steps to give property owners protection that will stand the test of time, the legislature passed a bill that can easily be undone by a future legislature.
Click here to sign our petition calling for an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting governmental bodies from using eminent domain for economic development purposes.
Unfortunately, North Carolina is not one of those 13 states. Our state's legislative leadership killed a proposed amendment to prevent eminent domain abuse, sending it to a committee to die. Instead of taking the steps to give property owners protection that will stand the test of time, the legislature passed a bill that can easily be undone by a future legislature.
Click here to sign our petition calling for an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting governmental bodies from using eminent domain for economic development purposes.
Schlafly: Conservatives on the march for private property
From TownHall.com:
Some judges are getting the message. On July 26, 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court handed down a stunning unanimous decision against a $125 million development project in a Cincinnati suburb. This case, City of Norwood v. Horney, illustrates how abusive eminent domain seizures are motivated by local governments seeking new sources of revenue.
Click here for the rest of the column
Some judges are getting the message. On July 26, 2006, the Ohio Supreme Court handed down a stunning unanimous decision against a $125 million development project in a Cincinnati suburb. This case, City of Norwood v. Horney, illustrates how abusive eminent domain seizures are motivated by local governments seeking new sources of revenue.
Click here for the rest of the column
Sowell: Riviera Beach's Eminent Domain Abuse is "Socialism for the Rich"
In this column from TownHall.com, Thomas Sowell opines on the city of Riviera Beach, Florida's use of eminent domain. He has this to say: "The rich have learned to adapt socialist policies to their own benefit. For example, the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, is planning to demolish a working class neighborhood under its power of eminent domain, in order to prepare the way for a marina for yachts, luxury condominiums and an upscale shopping district."
Sowell goes on to dub Riviera Beach's approach "socialism for the rich."
Click here for the column
Sowell goes on to dub Riviera Beach's approach "socialism for the rich."
Click here for the column
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
This November, 13 states are doing what N.C. is not: voting on property rights questions
According to this UPI Article, property rights questions will appear on the ballot on 13 states this November. Unfortunately, the North Carolina is not one of those states.
Earlier this year, the legislative leadership killed a bill calling for a constitutional amendment to protect our private property from eminent domain abuse, instead passing a legislative "solution" that simply isn't strong enough. If the legislature had not killed this bill -- a bill that had more sponsors in the House than the number of votes required for its passage in that same chamber -- this amendment would appear on our ballot (either this November or in a future election).
North Carolina property owners need a constitutional amendment to protect our property rights. An amendment will stand the test of time and is not easily changed by the whims of future poll-driven legislative bodies. If you agree, please sign our petition calling for this amendment.
Earlier this year, the legislative leadership killed a bill calling for a constitutional amendment to protect our private property from eminent domain abuse, instead passing a legislative "solution" that simply isn't strong enough. If the legislature had not killed this bill -- a bill that had more sponsors in the House than the number of votes required for its passage in that same chamber -- this amendment would appear on our ballot (either this November or in a future election).
North Carolina property owners need a constitutional amendment to protect our property rights. An amendment will stand the test of time and is not easily changed by the whims of future poll-driven legislative bodies. If you agree, please sign our petition calling for this amendment.
Residents sue Riviera Beach over plan to condemn homes for development
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
It's the house that her husband built, where her children grew up and her grandchildren come to play.
Princess Wells is not about to give it up.
Not without a fight, at least.
Wells and three other Riviera Beach property owners turned to the courts Tuesday to try to prevent the city from seizing their homes and businesses through eminent domain. They don't want money, just a court order declaring unconstitutional the city taking private property for private development.
Click here for the rest of the article
Related: Riviera to face new eminent-domain suit
It's the house that her husband built, where her children grew up and her grandchildren come to play.
Princess Wells is not about to give it up.
Not without a fight, at least.
Wells and three other Riviera Beach property owners turned to the courts Tuesday to try to prevent the city from seizing their homes and businesses through eminent domain. They don't want money, just a court order declaring unconstitutional the city taking private property for private development.
Click here for the rest of the article
Related: Riviera to face new eminent-domain suit
Carolina Journal: Will TTA Use Eminent Domain?
From Carolina Journal Online:
Will TTA Use Eminent Domain?
TTA's Gulley says using Kelo-style eminent domain won't happen
RALEIGH — The Triangle Transit Authority, having forgone its pursuit of federal funds for a proposed commuter rail system, instead is planning to work with a developer creating businesses near its 12 planned train stations.
Private-property advocates wonder whether TTA could seize land because North Carolina law allows eminent domain when “it is useful for the purposes of public transportation.” But TTA’s interim director, Wib Gulley, ruled out the possibility that the agency would take any land for private development.
“That’s not something I think is lawful or appropriate,” Gulley said, “so it’s not going to happen.”
Click here for more
Will TTA Use Eminent Domain?
TTA's Gulley says using Kelo-style eminent domain won't happen
RALEIGH — The Triangle Transit Authority, having forgone its pursuit of federal funds for a proposed commuter rail system, instead is planning to work with a developer creating businesses near its 12 planned train stations.
Private-property advocates wonder whether TTA could seize land because North Carolina law allows eminent domain when “it is useful for the purposes of public transportation.” But TTA’s interim director, Wib Gulley, ruled out the possibility that the agency would take any land for private development.
“That’s not something I think is lawful or appropriate,” Gulley said, “so it’s not going to happen.”
Click here for more
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Eminent Domain hits home in Durham
Carter Wrenn had this to say on TalkingAboutPolitics.com: "There is a controversy simmering around the state about government using its right to Eminent Domain to seize private property." His blog post describes a recent situation in Durham. Click here to read more...
Friday, September 15, 2006
Homeowners in areas annexed by Winston-Salem will receive tax bills covering 21 months in 2007
From the Winston-Salem Journal:
Residents in the areas of Forsyth County designated for annexation to Winston-Salem should start preparing now for the property-tax bills they will get in September 2007, city officials said yesterday.
Property taxes for the newly annexed residents will increase by 73 percent, from the current 66.6 cents for every $100 of assessed value to a combined $1.15 for every $100.
Winston-Salem has the second-highest tax rate in Forsyth County. Kernersville has the highest combined tax rate.
On top of the increase, the new residents will be billed for 21 months of taxes.
Robin Megela was surprised to hear yesterday that she would owe that much come September 2007.
Two bills will come to her house at that time: one for city and county taxes owed during the 12-month period from July 2007 to June 2008, and another for just the city taxes owed during the nine months from October 2006 to June 2007.
After living in Pfafftown, an unincorporated community, for 17 years, Megela will officially be living in Winston-Salem on Sept. 30 as a result of annexation. She's not happy about it, citing concerns about possible sewage costs, her satisfaction with the way things are as a county resident - and the new taxes.
"We got the raw end of the stick," she said. "We were very happy with what we have."
Click here for the rest of the story
Residents in the areas of Forsyth County designated for annexation to Winston-Salem should start preparing now for the property-tax bills they will get in September 2007, city officials said yesterday.
Property taxes for the newly annexed residents will increase by 73 percent, from the current 66.6 cents for every $100 of assessed value to a combined $1.15 for every $100.
Winston-Salem has the second-highest tax rate in Forsyth County. Kernersville has the highest combined tax rate.
On top of the increase, the new residents will be billed for 21 months of taxes.
Robin Megela was surprised to hear yesterday that she would owe that much come September 2007.
Two bills will come to her house at that time: one for city and county taxes owed during the 12-month period from July 2007 to June 2008, and another for just the city taxes owed during the nine months from October 2006 to June 2007.
After living in Pfafftown, an unincorporated community, for 17 years, Megela will officially be living in Winston-Salem on Sept. 30 as a result of annexation. She's not happy about it, citing concerns about possible sewage costs, her satisfaction with the way things are as a county resident - and the new taxes.
"We got the raw end of the stick," she said. "We were very happy with what we have."
Click here for the rest of the story
Lecture at Campbell Univ. -- Property: Losing it to the first brute who comes along
This may interest you:
Property: Losing it to the first brute who comes along
Tuesday, September 19, 2006, 5:00-6:00p.m.
Lynch Auditorium, Lundy-Fetterman School of Business
Campbell University, Buies Creek, N.C.
Patrick K. Hetrick served as Dean of the School of Law at Campbell University from 1987 to 1998. He received his J.D. magna cum laude from the Marquette University Law School, where he was a member of the law review. He practiced law in Milwaukee before returning to Marquette University as a professor of law and associate university legal counsel. In 1978, he joined the law faculty at Campbell University. He is the revising co-author of Webster's Real Estate Law in North Carolina and the co-author of North Carolina Real Estate for Brokers and Salesmen.
Professor Hetrick has delivered well over one hundred CLE presentations and is the author of numerous CLE manuscripts. A past member of the General Statutes Commission and a past Vice President of the North Carolina Bar Association, he is currently serving on several North Carolina Bar Association and American Bar Association committees and is the Chair of the ABA Section on Legal Education's Continuing Education Committee. Professor Hetrick also serves as a member of both American Bar Association and Southern Association of Colleges and Schools accreditation committees.
Professor Hetrick will speak on the relationship between the rule of law and private property.
Please RSVP to Nancy Ezzell at 910-893-1380 or ezzelln@campbell.edu by Monday, September 18, 2006. An open reception will follow the lecture.
Property: Losing it to the first brute who comes along
Tuesday, September 19, 2006, 5:00-6:00p.m.
Lynch Auditorium, Lundy-Fetterman School of Business
Campbell University, Buies Creek, N.C.
Patrick K. Hetrick served as Dean of the School of Law at Campbell University from 1987 to 1998. He received his J.D. magna cum laude from the Marquette University Law School, where he was a member of the law review. He practiced law in Milwaukee before returning to Marquette University as a professor of law and associate university legal counsel. In 1978, he joined the law faculty at Campbell University. He is the revising co-author of Webster's Real Estate Law in North Carolina and the co-author of North Carolina Real Estate for Brokers and Salesmen.
Professor Hetrick has delivered well over one hundred CLE presentations and is the author of numerous CLE manuscripts. A past member of the General Statutes Commission and a past Vice President of the North Carolina Bar Association, he is currently serving on several North Carolina Bar Association and American Bar Association committees and is the Chair of the ABA Section on Legal Education's Continuing Education Committee. Professor Hetrick also serves as a member of both American Bar Association and Southern Association of Colleges and Schools accreditation committees.
Professor Hetrick will speak on the relationship between the rule of law and private property.
Please RSVP to Nancy Ezzell at 910-893-1380 or ezzelln@campbell.edu by Monday, September 18, 2006. An open reception will follow the lecture.
Tahoe Daily Tribune: City Using Eminent Domain for Economic Development Purposes
A constitutional amendment to prevent government from using eminent domain to seize private property for economic development purposes would ensure that North Carolinians never have to worry about this kind of situation. Click here to sign our petition calling for such an amendment.
From the Tahoe Daily Tribune:
Working on a tight timeline, the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency took an initial big step Tuesday toward using eminent domain on five parcels holding out from selling to a private developer that plans to build a $410 million convention center complex near Stateline.
Click here for the rest of the story...
From the Tahoe Daily Tribune:
Working on a tight timeline, the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency took an initial big step Tuesday toward using eminent domain on five parcels holding out from selling to a private developer that plans to build a $410 million convention center complex near Stateline.
Click here for the rest of the story...
California Eminent domain foes seek extra measure of security
It's good to see people throughout the nation standing up for private property rights. Click here for more on this story...
Homeowner who followed judge's advice loses at Alabama Supreme Court
MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- In a first-of-its-kind eminent domain case, the Alabama Supreme Court said a homeowner waited one day too late to appeal a land condemnation order even though he followed a probate judge's advice on when to appeal.
Click here for the rest of the story
Click here for the rest of the story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
