Liberty
Matters News Service
December 05, 2007
Free Speech Forbidden in Missouri
The City of St. Louis seems to have lost its copy of the Constitution, that musty old document that contains the Bill of Rights. Why else would it attempt to force Jim Roos to remove his mural that criticizes the City's abuse of eminent domain? Jim Roos owns and manages affordable housing through Neighborhood Enterprises, Inc. and the non-profit Sanctuary in the Ordinary, but St. Louis keeps seizing his properties to make way for more profitable [for the City] private enterprises. This latest snatcheroo is the third time and Roos is fed up. When the Land Clearing for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA) began acquiring property in the Bohemian Hill neighborhood, Roos had a large mural painted on one of his buildings. It said: "End Eminent Domain Abuse." It had a great big red circle around the words with the red line going through the middle. That didn't sit well with city authorities and Roos was ordered to apply for a sign permit, which the city denied and claimed it must be removed because it violated local "sign codes." "Jim's mural is a powerful, unique and low-cost protest to the city of St. Louis," said Nick Dranias, staff attorney for the Minnesota Chapter of the Institute of Justice (IJ). "The mural speaks volumes about peoples' anger over eminent domain abuse," said Roos. "People are delighted that someone has stood up to the abuse." Mr. Roos helped found the Missouri Eminent Domain Abuse Coalition that is gathering signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot to protect property owners. Roos and attorney John Randall took their fight to state court in August and the case was moved to federal court. On November 14, 2007, the Institute of Justice filed an amended complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in Neighborhood Enterprises, Inc. v. City of St. Louis. "If the First Amendment means anything, it must mean that citizens like Jim Roos have the right to effectively protest government abuse and build support for meaningful reform - without having to get government approval," said Bill Maurer, executive director of the IJ Washington Chapter.
St. Louis Attacking Free Speech,
Property Rights
California Chicanery
State and local governments across the country, emboldened by the Kelo decision, are proving they and the bureaucrats who work for them will sink to any level to keep eminent domain abuse reform laws from being enacted. In 2006, concerned Californians tried to stop the rampant seizure of private property by placing Proposition 90 on the ballot, but opposing forces pumped over $4.7 million from "non-public funds" to help defeat the measure. In order to halt the illegal use of taxpayer money for political activities, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, along with other groups, introduced the "Taxpayer Protection Act of 2008," a ballot measure that strengthens laws prohibiting such behavior. The measure was necessary because entities such as the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and the California Redevelopment Association all use anonymous campaign accounts ($7 million by some estimates), to oppose eminent domain reform measures. These taxpayer-financed groups get away with their slight-of-hand trickery by tapping "non-public-fund" accounts that do not reveal the source of their financing or contributors. The "Taxpayer Protection Act of 2008" would require taxpayer financed organizations to fund political activities with non-taxpayer funds and, through a political committee, be required to disclose receipts and expenditures like other committees. It would ensure accountability by imposing fines and possible imprisonment for using taxpayer dollars for political purposes. "This kind of political activity certainly explains why California is not among the more than 40 states that have reformed their eminent domain laws," said former Senator Jim Nielsen, Chairman of the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights.
Redevelopment Interests Using
Anonymous Dollars to Defeat Eminent Domain Reform
Ballot
Measure Introduced to Stop League of CA Cities from Spending Taxpayer Dollars
in Political Campaigns
Whatever Turner Wants, Turner Gets
Billionaire Ted Turner is buying up thousands of acres of ranch land all across the country and it has local residents worried. Turner's minions recently outbid Nebraska rancher Duane Kime by $100,000 to pay nearly $10 million for 26,300 acres. This was the third time Kime was outbid by Turner, who now nearly surrounds Kime's property. Turner owns land amounting to 2 million acres in nine states, and people are wondering if he is in cahoots with the environmental groups whose goal is to turn half of America into a wasteland. Mike Phillips, executive director of the Turner Endangered Species Fund, says Turner has no ulterior agenda, but is merely a "doggone serious rancher." Phillips once worked for The Wildlands Project, a fact that doesn't sit well with Nebraskans. It is well known that The Turner Foundation has given money to it and to many other radical environmental groups. Turner's groups have met with the World Wildlife Fund and the World Conservation Union to discuss developing a vast park where buffalo could once again roam freely through the Great Plains. Turner owns 45,000 head of the animals that range mostly on his 425,000 acres in Nebraska. "Our agenda is not to create a vast wildlife preserve," said Turner Enterprises spokesman, Phillip Evans. He said Turner is concerned about preserving animal habitat while ranching. "We think we can do both," Evans said. Local landowners are concerned, however, as they have heard Turner plans to place his properties into a conservation easement when he dies, and they fear the negative impact this will have on their land. There have already been cases where neighbors to a conservation easement property have been subject to the same severe restrictions as was reported in Standing Ground earlier this year. Since Turner has been buying ranches in the Sandhills area, land prices have doubled to more than $300 an acre, making it difficult for local ranchers to afford to expand. Duane Kime wonders if his ranch will go on the block next. "Turner might be the only one around that would want to buy it," he said. Remember, in 1996, Turner gave $28 million to hundreds of environmental causes. In 1997, he committed to giving $1 billion to the United Nations for their "causes." So, it seems plausible that Turner, by buying as many ranches as possible, endorses the Wildlands' agenda to turn half our nation into preserves for species.
Ted Turner's Land Grab in N.M. and Other States Generates Suspicion
Ohio Supreme Court Rules for Landowners
On November 30, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court ended a 10-year odyssey of Lisa and Mick Coles by ordering a county park board to pay for taking their land for a recreational park. Erie MetroParks, in northeastern Ohio, seized the Coles' land, and their neighbor's, on an abandoned railroad right of way to build a trail along the Huron River. The park board's employees also removed farm equipment and destroyed a wooden deck of the Coles. "At times, the government's power seemed overwhelming, but there was more at stake than our property," said Lisa Coles. "It became a matter of principle…the constitutional issues were too important for us to give up," she continued. Nels Ackerson, the attorney hired by the Coles two years ago, came up with an unusual legal approach by asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus that would order the park board to simply follow the law - the law that requires compensation when a government entity takes private property. The Supreme Court agreed with Ackerson's approach and vacated all the lower court rulings that favored the park board and ordered the board to pay compensation for the taking of the Coles' and their neighbor's land. After hearing the evidence, "all of the justices presiding agreed that the park board had been wrong. Their (the park board) reliance on a single sentence of the [lower] court, which was out of context and inconsistent with the record, did not justify them keeping the land…" Ackerman explained. "This case represents a major victory for landowners and for upholding the rule of law under our Constitution. It is…a shame that our system of justice works so slowly that only persons with the tenacity and the public spirit of the Coles and their neighbors can withstand the long [drawn-out] process, at great expense and personal sacrifice to accomplish this end."