by Daren Bakst of The John Locke Foundation
Editor's note: this article is the opinion of the author; the NC Property Rights Coalition has not yet taken a position on this particular amendment.
After the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, it's constitutional for the government to seize private property for economic development reasons. For example, your house or church could be seized so that a wealthy developer could build a shopping mall on your property.
Since 2006, eight states have passed constitutional amendments to protect against what are referred to as "economic development takings." There has been bipartisan support for a constitutional amendment in North Carolina. In 2007, the House passed an amendment by an overwhelming 104-15 vote. The state Senate, notorious for its opposition to property rights, let the amendment die.
Recently, some House members have introduced a new eminent domain amendment: House Bill 1268. The amendment would prohibit takings for economic development. It appears as if the amendment may be on the fast track. This may sound good on its face, but when it comes to this amendment, the cure is worse than the disease. The amendment would actually weaken, not strengthen, property rights. more...
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Federal government grants state of NC power to intervene in Alcoa licensing, possibly seize company's private property
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has granted the State of North Carolina's request to intervene in the relicensing process related to Alcoa's Yadkin Hydroelectrict Project.
Overview:
- According to The Salisbury Post, Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. OWNS and manages the dams, powerhouses and reservoirs related to the project.
- From The Greensboro News & Record: Federal regulators will allow Gov. Bev Perdue to have her say in the ongoing argument over whether Alcoa should be allowed to keep its electric generating plants on the Yadkin River. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruled Friday that Perdue could add her voice to those asking the U.S. government to withdraw Alcoa’s right to produce and sell electricity generated by hydroelectric dams along the river.
- According to The Greensboro News & Record: The FERC has never withdrawn a license in the way that Perdue is asking for, and the company says it should be allowed to maintain its business. Meanwhile, state legislators are drafting a law to create a nonprofit entity to take over Alcoa’s Yadkin River operations.
- According to The Salisbury Post, bills have been introduced in the N.C. Senate and House calling for the creation of a state trust for the ownership and operation of the hydroelectric project.
- According to The Salisbury Post, Senate Bill 967, which would establish the state trust to own and manage the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project, won the unanimous support last week of the N.C. Senate's Judiciary II Committee. The bill has moved on to the Senate Finance Committee.QUOTES:
"If you look at the state taking over a private enterprise and running it for the benefit of the state, that is precedent setting." - Gene Ellis of Alcoa, News 14 Carolina, 4/2/09
"We had one experience in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez when he was the leader of that nation, they did take over one of our plants." - Gene Ellis of Alcoa, News 14 Carolina, 4/2/09
FAIR MARKET VALUE: According to the News 14 article, the state would have to buy the dams if they did get control. Ellis estimates the fair market value at "over half a billion dollars." Stanly County manager Andy Lucas has already indicated that the government will try to pay less than the fair market value, saying "If the federal government decides to recapture, there's a price on that and we believe that's the price. That price is different from what Alcoa has been citing and putting out there." News 14 Carolina, 4/2/09
Overview:
- According to The Salisbury Post, Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. OWNS and manages the dams, powerhouses and reservoirs related to the project.
- From The Greensboro News & Record: Federal regulators will allow Gov. Bev Perdue to have her say in the ongoing argument over whether Alcoa should be allowed to keep its electric generating plants on the Yadkin River. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruled Friday that Perdue could add her voice to those asking the U.S. government to withdraw Alcoa’s right to produce and sell electricity generated by hydroelectric dams along the river.
- According to The Greensboro News & Record: The FERC has never withdrawn a license in the way that Perdue is asking for, and the company says it should be allowed to maintain its business. Meanwhile, state legislators are drafting a law to create a nonprofit entity to take over Alcoa’s Yadkin River operations.
- According to The Salisbury Post, bills have been introduced in the N.C. Senate and House calling for the creation of a state trust for the ownership and operation of the hydroelectric project.
- According to The Salisbury Post, Senate Bill 967, which would establish the state trust to own and manage the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project, won the unanimous support last week of the N.C. Senate's Judiciary II Committee. The bill has moved on to the Senate Finance Committee.QUOTES:
"If you look at the state taking over a private enterprise and running it for the benefit of the state, that is precedent setting." - Gene Ellis of Alcoa, News 14 Carolina, 4/2/09
"We had one experience in Venezuela with Hugo Chavez when he was the leader of that nation, they did take over one of our plants." - Gene Ellis of Alcoa, News 14 Carolina, 4/2/09
FAIR MARKET VALUE: According to the News 14 article, the state would have to buy the dams if they did get control. Ellis estimates the fair market value at "over half a billion dollars." Stanly County manager Andy Lucas has already indicated that the government will try to pay less than the fair market value, saying "If the federal government decides to recapture, there's a price on that and we believe that's the price. That price is different from what Alcoa has been citing and putting out there." News 14 Carolina, 4/2/09
Forced Annexation in Wilmington
by Daren Bakst of the John Locke Foundation
Wilmington's Annexation Abuse
If property owners are being forcibly annexed and want water and sewer services, they must request water and sewer lines be provided to their property within 5 days after what is called a public hearing. The public hearing is basically a venting session where annexation victims can tell city commissioners (who don't listen) what they think about the annexation.
Wilmington just had their public hearing this week. As I was looking on the city's annexation web page, I saw the FAQ document the city developed for the annexation victims. This is the document many people will read (as opposed to the unintelligible annexation plan) Here's something it said:
“How long will it take to get water and sewer service?
Installation of water and sewer lines will occur in two phases. First, the major water and sewer lines that all other smaller lines feed into must be constructed. Then, the smaller hookups to individual residences and businesses will occur. The city plans to have both phases completed within two years of the effective date of the annexation; however, by state law only the first phase must be completed within two years of the effective date of annexation.”
more
Wilmington's Annexation Abuse
If property owners are being forcibly annexed and want water and sewer services, they must request water and sewer lines be provided to their property within 5 days after what is called a public hearing. The public hearing is basically a venting session where annexation victims can tell city commissioners (who don't listen) what they think about the annexation.
Wilmington just had their public hearing this week. As I was looking on the city's annexation web page, I saw the FAQ document the city developed for the annexation victims. This is the document many people will read (as opposed to the unintelligible annexation plan) Here's something it said:
“How long will it take to get water and sewer service?
Installation of water and sewer lines will occur in two phases. First, the major water and sewer lines that all other smaller lines feed into must be constructed. Then, the smaller hookups to individual residences and businesses will occur. The city plans to have both phases completed within two years of the effective date of the annexation; however, by state law only the first phase must be completed within two years of the effective date of annexation.”
more
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Raleigh property owners must now register rentals
From WRAL: People who own residential rental property in Raleigh have from March 1 until April 30 to register their property under a city ordinance adopted last year. more...
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
NCPRC expects eminent domain amendment to be introduced
We expect an eminent domain amendment to be introduced at the General Assembly in the coming weeks. Such an amendment would protect your property from being unjustly seized for purposes other than a legitimate public use such as a school or road.
On May 24, 2007 a proposed eminent domain amendment (HB 878) passed the NC House by a vote of 104-15. On May 29, 2007, the bill was referred to the N.C. Senate's Ways & Means Committee -- which had not met since 2001. The bill was clearly sent away to die.
We will keep you posted on the progress of the eminent domain amendment once it is introduced. We hope that the House & Senate leadership will give it the fair hearing it deserves.
On May 24, 2007 a proposed eminent domain amendment (HB 878) passed the NC House by a vote of 104-15. On May 29, 2007, the bill was referred to the N.C. Senate's Ways & Means Committee -- which had not met since 2001. The bill was clearly sent away to die.
We will keep you posted on the progress of the eminent domain amendment once it is introduced. We hope that the House & Senate leadership will give it the fair hearing it deserves.
Wilmington: Battle lines are drawn as City Council approves annexation
WWAY TV3: Council chambers were packed with residents in red who oppose the forced annexation of Monkey Junction. All but one council member voted to move forward with the annexation process. more...
Cary Tea Party Protests Annexation Re-Zoning Along Swift Creek Watershed
Hundreds of citizens are expected to rally before the Cary Town Hall Feb. 12th before the Town Council's public hearing. They gather for a Cary Tea Party to voice their opposition to the forced annexation of their Wake County homes. more...
Goldsboro will wait on state for ruling on annexing
Goldsboro News-Argus -- Goldsboro Mayor Al King and Mayor Pro-tem Chuck Allen say they will hold off on any involuntary annexation until the state legislature decides its next move on the subject.
Currently, the legislature is looking at allowing citizens to vote on whether or not they want to be annexed into city limits.
And although they believe the idea is a bad one, King and Allen say there are some adjustments that need to be made to the legislation. more...
Problems With Forced Annexation Exposed in New Guide
Carolina Journal Online: North Carolina has an "extreme" annexation law that needs major reform. That's the assessment of a John Locke Foundation expert who outlines the law's flaws in a new Q&A guide to forced annexation.
"My analysis of the level of recourse provided to property owners targeted for forced annexation shows that 48 states -- virtually every other state in the country -- have abandoned North Carolina's outdated approach to forced annexation," said Daren Bakst, the guide's author. "The 4.1 million North Carolinians who live in unincorporated areas make up 46 percent of the state's population. These are the people who could become victims of forced annexation. They deserve better than this state's current annexation law." more...
"My analysis of the level of recourse provided to property owners targeted for forced annexation shows that 48 states -- virtually every other state in the country -- have abandoned North Carolina's outdated approach to forced annexation," said Daren Bakst, the guide's author. "The 4.1 million North Carolinians who live in unincorporated areas make up 46 percent of the state's population. These are the people who could become victims of forced annexation. They deserve better than this state's current annexation law." more...
Washington, N.C. City Council Closer to Starting Annexation
Washington Daily News (2/10/09): The Washington City Council unanimously adopted a resolution Monday that identifies four nearby areas the city may want to annex. more...
Monday, February 02, 2009
Protecting Private Property Rights included in AFP's legislative agenda
Americans for Prosperity of North Carolina has included protecting private property rights as one of the key issues in its 2009 legislative agenda.
From an e-mail recently distributed by AFP-NC:
From an e-mail recently distributed by AFP-NC:
Protect private property:
o Support a constitutional amendment stopping eminent domain abuse.
o Stop forced municipal annexation.
o Stop excessive property tax increases that threaten homes & businesses.
Blueprint for Annexation Reform
The John Locke Foundation recently published a Blueprint for Annexation Reform; it can be viewed here.
From StopNCAnnexation: Annexation Law Tweaks vs the Truth
The NCLM (NC League of Municipalities) had their usual say in the N&O recently:
How N.C. should tweak its annexation laws
The city lobbyists claim that the law requires cities to provide a long list of urban services, but the truth is not so simply stated nor the bar necessarily so high. What do the laws require of the cities? It depends… it depends on what the city has to offer in the first place. Each annexation requires different responsibilities from the annexing city because the law allows such a wide variation regarding what the city must provide. The law allows cities that don’t even have their own fire and police departments to forcibly annex. more...
How N.C. should tweak its annexation laws
The city lobbyists claim that the law requires cities to provide a long list of urban services, but the truth is not so simply stated nor the bar necessarily so high. What do the laws require of the cities? It depends… it depends on what the city has to offer in the first place. Each annexation requires different responsibilities from the annexing city because the law allows such a wide variation regarding what the city must provide. The law allows cities that don’t even have their own fire and police departments to forcibly annex. more...
Articles & Info on Forced Annexation in NC
The John Locke Foundation has compiled this excellent resource:
Forced Annexation in N.C.: A question-and-answer guide.
Winston-Salem Journal - Right to Vote? N.C.'s legislators divided on giving power to targets of forced annexation
News14 - Study commission votes to stop NC annexation
Carolina Journal - Pinehurst, Pinewild Feud Over Annexation
WWAY - Sunset Beach moving forward with annexation
Wilmington Star-News - Wilmington expands proposed Monkey Junction annexation area
Statesville Record & Landmark - Hearing nears on Langtree annexation
Forced Annexation in N.C.: A question-and-answer guide.
Winston-Salem Journal - Right to Vote? N.C.'s legislators divided on giving power to targets of forced annexation
News14 - Study commission votes to stop NC annexation
Carolina Journal - Pinehurst, Pinewild Feud Over Annexation
WWAY - Sunset Beach moving forward with annexation
Wilmington Star-News - Wilmington expands proposed Monkey Junction annexation area
WRAL - Wake County residents fight annexation
Statesville Record & Landmark - Hearing nears on Langtree annexation
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Lawmakers meeting on changing annexation rules
RALEIGH, N.C. — A committee is trying to respond to citizen complaints about the way North Carolina cities and towns acquire unincorporated areas.
The panel of legislators, municipal leaders and the public is slated to meet Thursday to recommend changes to the full Legislature about involuntary annexation laws.
Grass-roots groups and citizens attending the committee's public hearings are unhappy with how some towns and cities have annexed land. They want lawmakers to require municipalities to provide promised services more quickly and to give reisdents of the targeted areas more say over whether annexations happen. more...
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Proposed legislation in NC House committee could infringe on property rights of homeowners living near railroads
The NCPRC received a tip this week that the N.C. House Select Committee on Comprehensive Rail Service Plan for NC has a piece of proposed legislation that would grant the railroads project approval for any improvements made on private property that the railroad easement also shares. According to the tipster, property owners and the railroads pay property taxes on the land. We are looking into this issue.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Newspapers cover candidates' positions on property rights
The Burlington Times-News asked State Senate candidates Tony Foriest (D-incumbent) and Rick Gunn (R) questions related to annexation and stormwater rules in a recent candidate survey. The candidates' responses are linked here.
The Wilmington Star-News asked Senate candidates R.C. Soles (D-incumbent) and Bettie Fennell about annexation. Their responses are listed here.
The Lexington Dispatch raises the annexation issue in the race between State Representative Hugh Holliman (D) and Republican challenger Rayne Brown. Read the article here.
If you know of other news items which reveal where candidates in North Carolina stand on property rights-related issues, please e-mail them to us at info@ncpropertyrights.com.
The Wilmington Star-News asked Senate candidates R.C. Soles (D-incumbent) and Bettie Fennell about annexation. Their responses are listed here.
The Lexington Dispatch raises the annexation issue in the race between State Representative Hugh Holliman (D) and Republican challenger Rayne Brown. Read the article here.
If you know of other news items which reveal where candidates in North Carolina stand on property rights-related issues, please e-mail them to us at info@ncpropertyrights.com.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
2008 N.C. Property Rights Voter Guide Now Available
The 2008 N.C. Property Rights Voter Guide is now available on our Web site. Click here to find out where the candidates stand on protecting private property rights.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Property Rights Voter Guide -- Coming Soon
Late last week, the N.C. Property Rights Coalition mailed a 12-question candidate survey to every legislative candidate in North Carolina, as well as candidates for Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General. We will use candidates' responses to publish a voter guide to let citizens know where candidates stand when it comes to private property rights.
Please encourage every candidate you know, regardless of party affiliation, to return our survey. Private property rights are one of the cornerstones of our free society, and we should know where they stand on this important issue.
Please encourage every candidate you know, regardless of party affiliation, to return our survey. Private property rights are one of the cornerstones of our free society, and we should know where they stand on this important issue.
N.C. Property Rights Coalition launches new Facebook group
The NCPRC recently ventured into the world of social networking by launching a new Facebook group. Click here to join.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
WRAL: Condemnation off for downtown Raleigh plaza site
According to WRAL.com, Raleigh officials have reached a tentative agreement with the owners of a downtown site being eyed for a proposed plaza. Last month, the Raleigh City Council voted to begin condemnation proceedings to seize the property using eminent domain. According to WRAL, that process would halt if the City Council gives final approval to the agreement with property owners.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
The Threat of Eminent Domain in Raleigh
From the Civitas Institute's blog (Red Clay Citizen): The Threat of Eminent Domain in Raleigh
WRAL: 9-month annexation pause gets initial House OK
From WRAL.com: RALEIGH, N.C. — Towns and cities couldn't forcibly annex unincorporated land for nine months in legislation tentatively approved by the North Carolina House. more...
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Knightdale family struggles to keep land
From WRAL.com: Growth and a zoning change to a section of farmland near U.S. Highway 64 have added thousands to a Knightdale family's tax bill and might force the family to change their plans for future generations. more...
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
WRAL: Small towns concerned about high speed rail plans
From WRAL.com: Franklinton, N.C. — The construction of a high speed rail between Washington, D.C. and Charlotte has some city officials in North Carolina concerned about the effect it will have on small towns. more...
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
WRAL: Big Changes to Municipal Annexation Unlikely in '08
From WRAL.com: Municipal governments say North Carolina's involuntary annexation law has helped towns and cities thrive and doesn't need too many new wrinkles as it nears its 50th birthday. more...
Friday, February 01, 2008
NCPRC signs onto statement of principles regarding NC's annexation laws
The N.C. Property Rights Coalition has signed onto the following statement of principles regarding North Carolina's annexation laws. This statement of principles was developed by the John Locke Foundation.
Statement of Principles Regarding North Carolina’s Annexation Laws
Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws are not achieving the goal of providing urban services to communities that truly need services;
Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws encourage the duplication of services to communities that do not need urban services;
Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws are inherently flawed because municipalities have a disincentive to help communities most in need and have an incentive to annex communities for financial gain;
Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws should reflect the reality that sound urban services can be provided through private sources equally as well as government sources;
Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws should provide property owners subject to possible annexation a direct and meaningful representative process to challenge the annexation;
Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws should ensure that annexations, both involuntary and voluntary, are applied in an equal manner to all individuals and communities:
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the undersigned organizations, North Carolina’s annexation laws should be significantly reformed to protect the citizens of North Carolina.
Adopted January 2008 by:
Americans for Prosperity—North Carolina
Biltmore Lake Community Action Committee
Blue Springs-Hoke County Community Development Corporation
Cedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities
Cumberland County Citizens United
Fair Annexation Coalition
Good Neighbors United (Wayne County)
John Locke Foundation
Johnston County Citizens for Justice
North Carolina FreedomWorks/CSE
North Carolina Property Rights Coalition
North Carolina State Grange
StopNCAnnexation
Stop the Taking of Pinewild
Voices for Justice
Statement of Principles Regarding North Carolina’s Annexation Laws
Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws are not achieving the goal of providing urban services to communities that truly need services;
Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws encourage the duplication of services to communities that do not need urban services;
Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws are inherently flawed because municipalities have a disincentive to help communities most in need and have an incentive to annex communities for financial gain;
Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws should reflect the reality that sound urban services can be provided through private sources equally as well as government sources;
Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws should provide property owners subject to possible annexation a direct and meaningful representative process to challenge the annexation;
Whereas North Carolina’s annexation laws should ensure that annexations, both involuntary and voluntary, are applied in an equal manner to all individuals and communities:
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the undersigned organizations, North Carolina’s annexation laws should be significantly reformed to protect the citizens of North Carolina.
Adopted January 2008 by:
Americans for Prosperity—North Carolina
Biltmore Lake Community Action Committee
Blue Springs-Hoke County Community Development Corporation
Cedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities
Cumberland County Citizens United
Fair Annexation Coalition
Good Neighbors United (Wayne County)
John Locke Foundation
Johnston County Citizens for Justice
North Carolina FreedomWorks/CSE
North Carolina Property Rights Coalition
North Carolina State Grange
StopNCAnnexation
Stop the Taking of Pinewild
Voices for Justice
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Quote from today's NCPRC luncheon
Wake County Commissioner Paul Coble shared the following quote at today's NCPRC luncheon:
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
- Justice Louis Brandeis
This quote is certainly applicable to the ongoing fight to preserve our private property rights.
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
- Justice Louis Brandeis
This quote is certainly applicable to the ongoing fight to preserve our private property rights.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Wilmington Looks South for Annexation
From WHQR: WILMINGTON, NC (2008-01-15) The City of Wilmington is looking to grow southward, by annexing a wedge of land in the Monkey Junction area.
The area being considered between Carolina Beach and College roads is currently home to 1534 county residents, according to figures used in a city presentation Monday. During that informational meeting with City Council, staff argued for annexation, saying it would increase the city's tax base to pay for services, such as roads and parks, that county residents also use.
Councilman Jason Thompson, who first ran for council to oppose the annexation of his own neighborhood, had some advice for residents unhappy about joining the city.
The area being considered between Carolina Beach and College roads is currently home to 1534 county residents, according to figures used in a city presentation Monday. During that informational meeting with City Council, staff argued for annexation, saying it would increase the city's tax base to pay for services, such as roads and parks, that county residents also use.
Councilman Jason Thompson, who first ran for council to oppose the annexation of his own neighborhood, had some advice for residents unhappy about joining the city.
Start the emails, start the phone calls and start getting vocal. But I believe there's a super-majority of votes to pass it. I'm going to do my piece, but I don't expect to win.
Deal reached in years-long eminent domain case
From SignOnSanDiego.com: "A vacant lot that once housed a thriving downtown San Diego cigar shop – and stands as a reminder of some of the evils of government taking people's land – looks set to finally become a four-star hotel. The dispute reaches back to 2004 when the city used eminent domain to take Ahmad Mesdaq's Gran Havana Cigar & Coffee Lounge in order to assemble land for a Gaslamp hotel developer."
A few things jump out of this article:
1. This was a classic example of a small business being confronted with the specter of "taking on city hall."
2. The dispute wasn't solved overnight -- it took nearly four years.
3. The land wasn't taken from the property owner to build a bridge, school, road or for some other legitimate public use. From the article: "The city condemned the corner parcel in 2004 to make way for a Marriott Renaissance hotel."
A few things jump out of this article:
1. This was a classic example of a small business being confronted with the specter of "taking on city hall."
2. The dispute wasn't solved overnight -- it took nearly four years.
3. The land wasn't taken from the property owner to build a bridge, school, road or for some other legitimate public use. From the article: "The city condemned the corner parcel in 2004 to make way for a Marriott Renaissance hotel."
Eminent Domain: Land grab or tool to rebuild?
From the California Eminent Domain Law blog:
Taxpayer groups are battling elected officials over the government’s right to seize property in a campaign that could impact thousands of homes and businesses in California.
Each side is pushing a measure for the June ballot that would reform eminent domain, — which allows local governments to seize privately owned homes and businesses and turn them over to developers for shopping malls and office parks.
Taxpayer groups are battling elected officials over the government’s right to seize property in a campaign that could impact thousands of homes and businesses in California.
Each side is pushing a measure for the June ballot that would reform eminent domain, — which allows local governments to seize privately owned homes and businesses and turn them over to developers for shopping malls and office parks.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Rezoning Could Limit Thousands of Raleigh Homeowners
From WRAL: Raleigh — A rezoning – mandated by the state and intended to protect a water supply – would limit the ways in which thousands of owners in north Raleigh could develop their property.Letters will be sent to about 7,300 property owners, and city planners met with a citizens' advisory group Thursday to explain the regulations. Those will make it more difficult to construct additions – even decks – to existing homes. more...
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Fayetteville: Businessman must pay for city’s error
From The Fayetteville Observer: Pete Porreco wanted everything to be perfect — and legal — for a tailored sign to showcase the new location of his remodeling business in western Fayetteville.
He called City Hall and said he wanted to put up the biggest sign he could on a stretch of Raeford Road. He then hired a contractor, who designed a plan that the city approved with a $40 permit.
The lighted sign, which stands 14 feet high on a pole, went up in mid-October at Porreco’s business, Home Exteriors. About two weeks later, a city inspector came knocking and served Porreco with a written notice that sickened and surprised him.
The sign was too big, the notice said. He had to remove it or face $500 daily fines. more...
Related: Myron Pitts column
He called City Hall and said he wanted to put up the biggest sign he could on a stretch of Raeford Road. He then hired a contractor, who designed a plan that the city approved with a $40 permit.
The lighted sign, which stands 14 feet high on a pole, went up in mid-October at Porreco’s business, Home Exteriors. About two weeks later, a city inspector came knocking and served Porreco with a written notice that sickened and surprised him.
The sign was too big, the notice said. He had to remove it or face $500 daily fines. more...
Related: Myron Pitts column
Monday, November 26, 2007
Railroad stakes claim to its right of way on which ministry building sits
The News & Observer: Clayton Area Ministries volunteers were ecstatic three years ago when an anonymous benefactor gave them a building for their food pantry. It seemed a castle compared with the dilapidated, cramped quarters they had been renting.
Thanks to donors, the only payment the charity group faced with their new home was a monthly phone bill. Or so they thought. Then a representative of the state-owned N.C. Railroad told them half their building was sitting in its right of way. more...
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Judge Says Couple Has to Leave Farm So County Can Expand Landfill
FROM WRAL.com: DOBSON, N.C. — A Superior Court judge has ordered a Mount Airy couple to leave their 95-acre farm, ending a 10-year battle in which Surry County commissioners imposed eminent domain to purchase the property to expand the county landfill.
Judge Richard W. Stone ordered Donald and Faye Terrell to leave their farm by November 28. But Donald Terrell, 69, said he will not go. It's where he was born, he said. And though Surry County paid him $653,000 for it in March, it's worth much more. more...
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Eminent domain: Onslow steps up
Editorial from the Jacksonville Daily News: Robin Hood, or so the legend says, took from the rich and gave to the poor. The fact that he did it by force made him no less of a folk hero because his actions benefited a grossly downtrodden class of individuals. The U.S. Supreme Court, as interpreted by a slim majority of its justices, did just the opposite in 2005 when it decided the case of Kelo v. New London. In that instance, the court chose to allow government to legally rob private property owners on behalf of private developers and businesses.
It's a terrible precedent that chips away at both the spirit and consequences of the law. more...
It's a terrible precedent that chips away at both the spirit and consequences of the law. more...
Friday, October 26, 2007
Biltmore Lake residents' lawsuit fights annexation by Asheville
From the Asheville Citizen-Times: Biltmore Lake residents have filed a lawsuit against the city of Asheville claiming it didn’t follow state law in seeking to annex the upscale subdivision. more...
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Text of Onslow County resolution supporting property rights
We recently posted a link to this article from the Jacksonville Daily News: Onslow County Commissioners vote to support limits on use of eminent domain.
The full text of the resolution can be viewed here.
The full text of the resolution can be viewed here.
Missouri: Study Points to Continuing Eminent Domain Abuses
According to this article, studies have shown that legislation passed last year in Missouri has failed to address eminent domain abuse. According to the article, "The study concludes eminent domain abuse has had a negative impact on local communities, adding the abuses will only worsen until the Legislature passes a constitutional amendment strengthening property rights in Missouri."
Sounds like Missouri and North Carolina have something in common: each of our legislatures failed to pass a constitutional amendment to give property owners the protection they deserve, instead settling for watered-down legislation that doesn't cut the mustard.
Sounds like Missouri and North Carolina have something in common: each of our legislatures failed to pass a constitutional amendment to give property owners the protection they deserve, instead settling for watered-down legislation that doesn't cut the mustard.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Editorial from San Antonio: Approve proposal on eminent domain
As Texas continues to grow, the need for public land for infrastructure and projects will increase. With it, the use of eminent domain — the forced buying of private land for a public use — will also increase.
Proposition 7 would amend the Texas Constitution to allow a "taking entity" to offer land acquired through eminent domain back to the owner at the original sales price under certain conditions. more...
Onslow County Commissioners vote to support limits on use of eminent domain
From The Jacksonville Daily News: The Onslow County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution Monday in favor of North Carolina joining an ever-increasing number of states that have enacted legislation prohibiting condemnation of private property for economic development.
In September, the board unanimously voted in support of the North Carolina General Assembly obtaining a constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of eminent domain - the right of a government to take private property for public benefit - for commercial use. more...
In September, the board unanimously voted in support of the North Carolina General Assembly obtaining a constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of eminent domain - the right of a government to take private property for public benefit - for commercial use. more...
Monday, October 15, 2007
Center for Local Innovation's City/County Issue guide focuses on freedom
RALEIGH – Local governments can help their communities prosper by holding the line on taxes and fees, minimizing regulation, and avoiding the use of force against private property owners. Those are some key recommendations in the Center for Local Innovation’s new City and County Issue Guide 2007.
The guide arrives as some N.C. counties consider raising sales taxes or imposing a new land-transfer tax. “The common thread in these recommendations is freedom,” said CLI Director Chad Adams. “By increasing individual freedom, local governments can foster prosperity for all North Carolinians.”
The pocket-sized Issue Guide addresses more than a dozen topics common to North Carolina local governments. It covers services governments provide, the way they raise money, and the attention they pay to private property rights. John Locke Foundation researchers analyze each topic and offer recommendations.
For example, counties and municipalities do not need new ways to raise taxes, said Joseph Coletti, JLF Fiscal Policy Analyst. “North Carolina’s local governments all have two ways to tax their citizens: property taxes and sales taxes,” Coletti said. “Some have additional taxes, and they often charge separate fees for services such as water and sewer and solid waste removal. Local government already costs an average of $1,432 per person in North Carolina.”
Now many local governments want more tax options, Coletti said. ”Local governments have misused the money they now have,” he said. “In Wilmington, the city council has set aside money for a convention center while the sewer system leaks. Charlotte built a convention center and a short section of light rail instead of expanding road capacity.”
The Issue Guide warns local government against chasing the goal of “economic development” through wasteful convention centers, stadiums, and other non-essential projects. “Recently many North Carolina cities and counties have ignored the distinction between the public and private sector by funding outright or subsidizing functions that are inherently private,” said Dr. Michael Sanera, JLF Research Director and Local Government Analyst. ”City officials have poured millions of taxpayer dollars into nonessential city activities while essential services such as police, fire, and roads suffer.”
Some Issue Guide recommendations are simple. For instance, municipalities should avoid all forced annexation, said Daren Bakst, JLF Legal and Regulatory Policy Analyst.
“Municipalities use forced annexation as a financial bailout,” Bakst said. “Money from unincorporated areas boosts the municipal tax base. If an individual knows that he can always steal money from his neighbor in case of financial trouble, he will take inappropriate risks and make poor decisions. He can steal his way out of mistakes. The same is true for municipalities that use forced annexation.”
The new guide serves as a companion piece to CLI’s annual By The Numbers report, which ranks cities and counties by local government spending levels. “This new guide places the numbers in context,” Adams said. “Citizens concerned about local government spending can find ideas for improvement in the Issue Guide. Local leaders can also use the guide to help them avoid taking ever-larger chunks of our paychecks each year.”
The Center for Local Innovation’s “City and County Issue Guide 2007” is available at the JLF web site. For more information, please contact Adams at (919) 828-3876 or cadams@johnlocke.org. To arrange an interview, contact Mitch Kokai at (919) 306-8736 or mkokai@johnlocke.org.
The guide arrives as some N.C. counties consider raising sales taxes or imposing a new land-transfer tax. “The common thread in these recommendations is freedom,” said CLI Director Chad Adams. “By increasing individual freedom, local governments can foster prosperity for all North Carolinians.”
The pocket-sized Issue Guide addresses more than a dozen topics common to North Carolina local governments. It covers services governments provide, the way they raise money, and the attention they pay to private property rights. John Locke Foundation researchers analyze each topic and offer recommendations.
For example, counties and municipalities do not need new ways to raise taxes, said Joseph Coletti, JLF Fiscal Policy Analyst. “North Carolina’s local governments all have two ways to tax their citizens: property taxes and sales taxes,” Coletti said. “Some have additional taxes, and they often charge separate fees for services such as water and sewer and solid waste removal. Local government already costs an average of $1,432 per person in North Carolina.”
Now many local governments want more tax options, Coletti said. ”Local governments have misused the money they now have,” he said. “In Wilmington, the city council has set aside money for a convention center while the sewer system leaks. Charlotte built a convention center and a short section of light rail instead of expanding road capacity.”
The Issue Guide warns local government against chasing the goal of “economic development” through wasteful convention centers, stadiums, and other non-essential projects. “Recently many North Carolina cities and counties have ignored the distinction between the public and private sector by funding outright or subsidizing functions that are inherently private,” said Dr. Michael Sanera, JLF Research Director and Local Government Analyst. ”City officials have poured millions of taxpayer dollars into nonessential city activities while essential services such as police, fire, and roads suffer.”
Some Issue Guide recommendations are simple. For instance, municipalities should avoid all forced annexation, said Daren Bakst, JLF Legal and Regulatory Policy Analyst.
“Municipalities use forced annexation as a financial bailout,” Bakst said. “Money from unincorporated areas boosts the municipal tax base. If an individual knows that he can always steal money from his neighbor in case of financial trouble, he will take inappropriate risks and make poor decisions. He can steal his way out of mistakes. The same is true for municipalities that use forced annexation.”
The new guide serves as a companion piece to CLI’s annual By The Numbers report, which ranks cities and counties by local government spending levels. “This new guide places the numbers in context,” Adams said. “Citizens concerned about local government spending can find ideas for improvement in the Issue Guide. Local leaders can also use the guide to help them avoid taking ever-larger chunks of our paychecks each year.”
The Center for Local Innovation’s “City and County Issue Guide 2007” is available at the JLF web site. For more information, please contact Adams at (919) 828-3876 or cadams@johnlocke.org. To arrange an interview, contact Mitch Kokai at (919) 306-8736 or mkokai@johnlocke.org.
Greensboro holding annexation meeting
From the City of Greensboro's Web Site:
As the City of Greensboro begins the annexation process, we know you have many questions about what annexation will mean to you. We invite you to browse this website to find answers to your questions.
The links on the left will take you to information about specific services, as well as general information about the City of Greensboro. You can also call (336) 373-CITY (2489) to speak with a City Services Representative who can answer your questions.
A public informational meeting is set for Thursday, October 25 at 7 pm in Grimsley High School Auditorium.
Parking is available off Campus Drive.
* If you need an interpreter or any other auxiliary aid or service, please contact Donna Gray at 336-373-2723.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Lexington officials hear from residents about annexation
From the Winston-Salem Journal: More than 60 people came to a meeting of the Lexington City Council last night with a simple message - they don’t want to be annexed into the city. more...
US Landowners Challenge Canadian Company's Right to Eminent Domain
Canadian company wants to use eminent domain to build an 1,830-mile pipeline through the US from Canada, to Oklahoma... more...
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Lexington: Annexation opponents air their grievances
From The Lexington Dispatch: A standing room only crowd made up of upset homeowners voiced their anti-annexation arguments to the city council at Lexington City Hall on Monday night. more...
Elizabeth City: Most council candidates back eminent domain
From The Daily Advance: A majority of candidates for City Council believe the city should use eminent domain, if necessary, to acquire land for the $10.4 million aviation research and commerce park project.
“Yes, I think it is the greatest thing in our area,” said 1st Ward Councilwoman Betty Meggs, who is seeking a second term. “We have to think of what’s best for everyone.”
At issue is a privately owned 100-foot-wide parcel of farmland the city is trying to acquire for the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank Regional Airport Authority’s planned aviation park, estimated to create 500 jobs and generate $150 million for the local economy. The landowner, the Hall family, has refused to sell, and City Manager Rich Olson says he would use eminent domain to acquire the property if necessary. more...
“Yes, I think it is the greatest thing in our area,” said 1st Ward Councilwoman Betty Meggs, who is seeking a second term. “We have to think of what’s best for everyone.”
At issue is a privately owned 100-foot-wide parcel of farmland the city is trying to acquire for the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank Regional Airport Authority’s planned aviation park, estimated to create 500 jobs and generate $150 million for the local economy. The landowner, the Hall family, has refused to sell, and City Manager Rich Olson says he would use eminent domain to acquire the property if necessary. more...
Monday, October 08, 2007
Lexington Annexation: City growth vs. property owner rights
Builders Lose N.J. Eminent Domain Fight
From BuilderOnline.com: Builders were dealt a blow this week when the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to hear a case in which New Jersey builder MiPro Homes claimed the township of Mt. Laurel, N.J., unlawfully seized a 16-acre parcel that was under site development and had been legally zoned and approved for construction. more...
Pasquotank Board postpones letter to protest eminent domain
From The Daily Advance: Pasquotank’s Board of Commissioners agreed Monday night to postpone adopting a resolution and letter that protest “any eminent domain takeover” by the city of land for its $10.4 million aviation park project. more...
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Annexation still affects local races in Fayetteville
NEWS14: Citizens who were annexed into the city of Fayetteville in 2005 will have the chance to vote for their representatives next week.
Both District 6 and 8 comprise residents who were brought into the city two years ago, although the majority live in District 8, which is home to incumbent Juanita Gonzalez. Gonzalez is finishing her third term on the city council and now faces opposition from two political newcomers: Ted Mohn and Charles Ragan who both became city residents after the annexation. more...
Zell Miller Quote on Property Ownership
"The opportunity to own what we're willing to work for is a pillar of our democracy. It is so ingrained in our American experience that we can hardly imagine otherwise. But rest assured there are people in this world who can only dream of owning anything. At the heart of communism was the notion that the state owned everything the people produced. The government managed production, owned the yield, and dispersed it with the grand kind of wisdom that led to the erection of the Berlin Wall. The wall is now a gravel pile, and so is the thinking that constructed it."
- Former U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) in his book, "A Deficit of Decency"
- Former U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) in his book, "A Deficit of Decency"
Friday, October 05, 2007
Commentary: Minority areas hit hardest by eminent domain
Commentary by Clarence Page, published in The Chicago Tribune:
A father and son who operate a nonprofit boxing gym for kids in suburban San Diego are fighting their town for the right to stay where they are. Ultimately, their battle to hold onto their property could help decide your right to hold onto yours. more...
A father and son who operate a nonprofit boxing gym for kids in suburban San Diego are fighting their town for the right to stay where they are. Ultimately, their battle to hold onto their property could help decide your right to hold onto yours. more...
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Mt. Airy candidates debate annexation
The Mount Airy News reports that annexation was among the issues recently debated by municipal candidates. From the Oct. 3 article:
The candidates also differed on annexation, which has been a controversial issue due to residents recently being forced into the city limits.
Cochran pointed out that only four states, including North Carolina, now allow forced annexation. She mentioned one case in which a local woman is having to rely on subsidized government housing because she can't afford the higher taxes and utility hookups resulting from annexation of her home. “I am not in favor of forced annexation,” Cochran said.
One of Cochran's opponents, Sickmiller, took a similar position. “There are a lot of things that are legal to do,” she said, but that doesn't mean they have to be done. She also wonders whether the tax money generated from annexed communities adequately offsets the related expenses. “I don't believe in forced annexation if it's only for the money.”
Said Brown: “I think there should be many independent studies done before you annex an area.” Saying numerous factors should be considered, he added, “I am not in favor of off-the-wall annexation at any time.” He thinks major annexations should be studied at least 10 years before being approved, although he said individual property owners who are willing to pay for city services should be allowed to join the municipality. “It doesn't have to be hundreds of people.”
While he said it was not fair for non-city residents to use Mount Airy services without paying extra, Livengood said he understands why some people want to live outside the municipality, possibly because of quieter neighborhoods or lower taxes.
Lowry said that annexation should be undertaken on a case-by-case basis, and only where economically feasible. “We're about annexed out,” he said.
“The greatest need we have in Mount Airy is fiscal management,” he said. “We are on the verge of a fiscal train wreck.”
Harris was the only candidate who supports an aggressive annexation approach, saying that cities have to offer a certain population to be considering by companies wanting to locate facilities to a community. Otherwise, the city will be passed over, the incumbent said.
The candidates also differed on annexation, which has been a controversial issue due to residents recently being forced into the city limits.
Cochran pointed out that only four states, including North Carolina, now allow forced annexation. She mentioned one case in which a local woman is having to rely on subsidized government housing because she can't afford the higher taxes and utility hookups resulting from annexation of her home. “I am not in favor of forced annexation,” Cochran said.
One of Cochran's opponents, Sickmiller, took a similar position. “There are a lot of things that are legal to do,” she said, but that doesn't mean they have to be done. She also wonders whether the tax money generated from annexed communities adequately offsets the related expenses. “I don't believe in forced annexation if it's only for the money.”
Said Brown: “I think there should be many independent studies done before you annex an area.” Saying numerous factors should be considered, he added, “I am not in favor of off-the-wall annexation at any time.” He thinks major annexations should be studied at least 10 years before being approved, although he said individual property owners who are willing to pay for city services should be allowed to join the municipality. “It doesn't have to be hundreds of people.”
While he said it was not fair for non-city residents to use Mount Airy services without paying extra, Livengood said he understands why some people want to live outside the municipality, possibly because of quieter neighborhoods or lower taxes.
Lowry said that annexation should be undertaken on a case-by-case basis, and only where economically feasible. “We're about annexed out,” he said.
“The greatest need we have in Mount Airy is fiscal management,” he said. “We are on the verge of a fiscal train wreck.”
Harris was the only candidate who supports an aggressive annexation approach, saying that cities have to offer a certain population to be considering by companies wanting to locate facilities to a community. Otherwise, the city will be passed over, the incumbent said.
SPIN Cycle: What’s up with the North Carolina Railroad?
From today's SPIN Cycle newsletter (published by NC SPIN):
What’s up with the North Carolina Railroad?
That’s a question many are asking after the state-owned railroad came trying to collect rent on businesses that are located close to their rail lines. According to NC RR officials, 150 years of surveying errors and lack of oversight have prevented them from collecting rent on lands they legally own and within their 200-foot right of way.
They say they have signed more than 230 leases for their lands and that another 120 or so are yet to be negotiated. Affected small business owners are understandably upset when a representative of the NC RR walks in and claims they owe rent to the state rail line.
Look for court cases and legislative action regarding these collection efforts.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Blogger: How do you reconcile urban planning and private property rights?
We stumbled across this blog entry earlier today: How do you reconcile urban planning and private property rights?
It is an excellent read.
It is an excellent read.
Eminent Domain Could Arise In Sugar Creek, MO
From KMBC-TV9.
SUGAR CREEK, Mo. -- Sugar Creek may be the battleground for another fight involving eminent domain.Some residents near Sterling and Smart avenues said they are being forced out of their homes by City Hall in favor of developers. more...
SUGAR CREEK, Mo. -- Sugar Creek may be the battleground for another fight involving eminent domain.Some residents near Sterling and Smart avenues said they are being forced out of their homes by City Hall in favor of developers. more...
Monday, October 01, 2007
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Charlotte Observer: Landowners feel railroaded
Concord auto mechanic Frank Abernethy, struggling to run his small business, was caught off guard by the unannounced visit from the railroad agent.
It was early August when the employee from the state-owned N.C. Railroad Co. showed up at his garage and demanded he sign a lease for $1,200 a year in rent and fees. He also said Abernethy needed $1 million in insurance because his shop sits too close to the tracks.
Even though the mechanic bought the property in 2005, the railroad says it technically owns his land -- and has 19th-century deeds as proof.
"Nobody told me that when I bought the building," Abernethy said this week. "I told the guy, `What are you trying to do, put me out of business?' "
The railroad says there are hundreds of other property owners like Abernethy along its 317-mile line from Charlotte to Morehead City. One day, the company could try to reclaim the disputed parcels. But for now, the railroad just wants rent, said Scott Saylor, railroad president.
It's part of the railroad's push to take back and manage its right of way -- the 200-foot-wide buffer along the tracks. more...
Sunday, September 23, 2007
John Locke Foundation Report: Eminent Domain in N.C. -- The Case for Real Reform
John Locke Foundation Report: Eminent Domain in N.C. -- The Case for Real Reform
Background on Eminent Domain and Kelo
What Other States Have Done
What North Carolina Has Done
Why North Carolina Needs a Constitutional Amendment
Limit Takings to a Proper “Public Use”
Protect Against the “Blight” Excuse
Provide “Just” Compensation
Create a Fair Process for Eminent Domain Victims
Bottom Line
Download PDF file: Eminent Domain in N.C.: The Case for Real Reform (701 k)
Annexed area pays police taxes twice
The Charlotte Observer
When residents of the Shannamara neighborhood got their tax bills last month, a few realized something strange: They'd been billed for police services in both Mecklenburg County and Stallings. Now, there may be nothing they can do about it. more...
When residents of the Shannamara neighborhood got their tax bills last month, a few realized something strange: They'd been billed for police services in both Mecklenburg County and Stallings. Now, there may be nothing they can do about it. more...
Saturday, September 22, 2007
City of Toledo invokes eminent domain for mall
Toledo Free Press
The City of Toledo's proposed use of eminent domain for taking the Southwyck Mall properties for redevelopment will be the subject of a public hearing on Sept. 24. The issue of eminent domain became official with a resolution presented to City Council Sept. 18.
The resolution (603-07), calling for the use of eminent domain for the roadway extension at Southwyck Mall, was discussed and held for the next Council meeting on Oct. 2, due to the hearing, according to City Council Clerk Gerald Dendinger.
Eminent domain for Southwyck is the topic for the Environmental, Utilities and Public Service Committee meeting scheduled for 4 p.m. Sept. 24 in City Council chambers. The public is invited to attend and voice its opinion on the proposed use of eminent domain.
City Council member Rob Ludeman said eminent domain is a tool the City of Toledo can use to get Bill Dillard and Buddy Hering, who own parcels at Southwyck, to complete the deal with Larry Dillin, president of Dillin Corporation. more...
The City of Toledo's proposed use of eminent domain for taking the Southwyck Mall properties for redevelopment will be the subject of a public hearing on Sept. 24. The issue of eminent domain became official with a resolution presented to City Council Sept. 18.
The resolution (603-07), calling for the use of eminent domain for the roadway extension at Southwyck Mall, was discussed and held for the next Council meeting on Oct. 2, due to the hearing, according to City Council Clerk Gerald Dendinger.
Eminent domain for Southwyck is the topic for the Environmental, Utilities and Public Service Committee meeting scheduled for 4 p.m. Sept. 24 in City Council chambers. The public is invited to attend and voice its opinion on the proposed use of eminent domain.
City Council member Rob Ludeman said eminent domain is a tool the City of Toledo can use to get Bill Dillard and Buddy Hering, who own parcels at Southwyck, to complete the deal with Larry Dillin, president of Dillin Corporation. more...
Friday, September 21, 2007
Delaware state legislators seek to protect property rights
From the Cape Gazette:
Two state representatives say they’ll be working over the next several months on legislation to protect the property rights of all Delawareans.
State representatives Greg Hastings, R-Millsboro, and Dennis Williams, D-Wilmington, recently announced a cooperative effort that’ll use the resources of the Institute for Justice, the Delaware Bar Association and the state House of Representatives to craft a bill to shield private property owners from unwarranted governmental takings.
The issue has most recently surfaced in Wilmington, where city officials have threatened to use their power of eminent domain to seize as many as 62 properties as part of the next phase of the South Walnut Street Urban Renewal Plan. As many as 38 working businesses could be displaced if their properties are condemned by the city. Under the plan, the land would then be sold to private developers for use in high-end residential and commercial projects.
more...
Two state representatives say they’ll be working over the next several months on legislation to protect the property rights of all Delawareans.
State representatives Greg Hastings, R-Millsboro, and Dennis Williams, D-Wilmington, recently announced a cooperative effort that’ll use the resources of the Institute for Justice, the Delaware Bar Association and the state House of Representatives to craft a bill to shield private property owners from unwarranted governmental takings.
The issue has most recently surfaced in Wilmington, where city officials have threatened to use their power of eminent domain to seize as many as 62 properties as part of the next phase of the South Walnut Street Urban Renewal Plan. As many as 38 working businesses could be displaced if their properties are condemned by the city. Under the plan, the land would then be sold to private developers for use in high-end residential and commercial projects.
more...
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Landowners threatened by eminent domain abuse
The Courier-Post
Some of what is taking place throughout the United States is surprising. Take for example, the legally authorized abuse of eminent domain. more...
Some of what is taking place throughout the United States is surprising. Take for example, the legally authorized abuse of eminent domain. more...
Property owners: We'll fight for land rights
Property rights advocates said Tuesday they are ready for a court fight to defend a 2006 law that reduced local governments' right to seize property.
The test case may be in Osceola in southern Iowa, where local governments may attempt to seize farmland to make way for a reservoir.
"This lake project is about development and money under the guise of Osceola's water needs," said Cindy Sanford, whose farm may be taken for the project.
Sanford and other property owners spoke at a Statehouse news conference, joined by Reps. Jeff Kaufmann, R-Wilton, Jodi Tymeson, R-Winterset, and former Rep. Ed Fallon, D-Des Moines.
Kaufmann said there will be a two-pronged effort, one to fight for property rights in court and one to strengthen the 2006 law in the next legislative session. He said the law seemed adequate until "some knowledgeable lawyers found some loopholes." more...
The test case may be in Osceola in southern Iowa, where local governments may attempt to seize farmland to make way for a reservoir.
"This lake project is about development and money under the guise of Osceola's water needs," said Cindy Sanford, whose farm may be taken for the project.
Sanford and other property owners spoke at a Statehouse news conference, joined by Reps. Jeff Kaufmann, R-Wilton, Jodi Tymeson, R-Winterset, and former Rep. Ed Fallon, D-Des Moines.
Kaufmann said there will be a two-pronged effort, one to fight for property rights in court and one to strengthen the 2006 law in the next legislative session. He said the law seemed adequate until "some knowledgeable lawyers found some loopholes." more...
Moore County: Pinewild Files Suit to Block Annexation
Southern Pines Pilot
A group of Pinewild residents have filed a lawsuit attempting to block the village of Pinehurst's planned annexation of the gated country club community.
A group of Pinewild residents have filed a lawsuit attempting to block the village of Pinehurst's planned annexation of the gated country club community.
Pinewild Project Limited Partnership, the company that owns Pinewild, is among the plaintiffs.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Iowa Lawmakers Call for Property Protections
DES MOINES, Iowa — Lawmakers and landowners called Tuesday for tightening a state law guarding property rights, warning that developers and officials are using a loophole to push for a new lake project that would flood dozens of Clarke County properties.
Two legislators said they would try to add new restrictions to a property rights law approved by the Legislature last year over the veto of then-Gov. Tom Vilsack.
"It really is important for lawmakers to stand up for landowners because Iowans just fundamentally believe it's wrong for government to take people's land and their homes and their farms for economic development," Rep. Jodi Tymeson, R-Winterset, said at a Statehouse news conference. more...
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Lawsuit puts Tryon’s annexation on hold
From the Tryon Daily Bulletin
Leah Justice and Chris Dailey
September 14, 2007
The recently filed lawsuit against Tryon’s annexation automatically puts the town’s expansion on hold, and it could take a few years to resolve the case in court, according to David Lawrence of the N.C. Institute of Government.
Lawrence, considered a leading authority on annexation in the state, responded to questions from the Bulletin this week. He said the lawsuit, filed by 136 petitioners representing 88 properties (see list of names on page 15) in Polk County Superior Court in August, creates an automatic stay of the annexation.
more...
Leah Justice and Chris Dailey
September 14, 2007
The recently filed lawsuit against Tryon’s annexation automatically puts the town’s expansion on hold, and it could take a few years to resolve the case in court, according to David Lawrence of the N.C. Institute of Government.
Lawrence, considered a leading authority on annexation in the state, responded to questions from the Bulletin this week. He said the lawsuit, filed by 136 petitioners representing 88 properties (see list of names on page 15) in Polk County Superior Court in August, creates an automatic stay of the annexation.
more...
Eminent domain plans not always successful
From NorthJersey.com:
When a developer devised a plan in early 2006 to turn Little Ferry's drab industrial area into a 12-acre, tax-generating waterfront, the concept appeared enticing.
A hotel along with restaurants, retail shops, condos, office space and parkland would replace an abandoned pipe company and several underused commercial sites along the Hackensack River.
But the plan created an uproar among residents because it called for designating the area blighted and condemning several homes and small businesses through eminent domain.
The project was shelved within a month.
more...
When a developer devised a plan in early 2006 to turn Little Ferry's drab industrial area into a 12-acre, tax-generating waterfront, the concept appeared enticing.
A hotel along with restaurants, retail shops, condos, office space and parkland would replace an abandoned pipe company and several underused commercial sites along the Hackensack River.
But the plan created an uproar among residents because it called for designating the area blighted and condemning several homes and small businesses through eminent domain.
The project was shelved within a month.
more...
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Homeowner: Cary Wants My Land for Performing Arts Center
From WRAL.com:
Homeowner: Cary Wants My Land for Performing Arts Center
Marilyn and Marvin Goldman have spent the past 11 years living in a downtown Cary condo, but their home might be in jeopardy.The town of Cary wants to build a performing arts center and a parking deck at the northeast Corner of Dry Avenue and Academy Street. The problem is, the Goldman's home and 18 other properties are in the way.
“They’re going to bulldoze this,” Marilyn said. "It’s not my house they want. It’s my land they want.”
Blogger: N.C. Property Rights Watch - Create Post
more...
Homeowner: Cary Wants My Land for Performing Arts Center
Marilyn and Marvin Goldman have spent the past 11 years living in a downtown Cary condo, but their home might be in jeopardy.The town of Cary wants to build a performing arts center and a parking deck at the northeast Corner of Dry Avenue and Academy Street. The problem is, the Goldman's home and 18 other properties are in the way.
“They’re going to bulldoze this,” Marilyn said. "It’s not my house they want. It’s my land they want.”
Blogger: N.C. Property Rights Watch - Create Post
more...
Monday, September 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
