Mayoral Misinformation
At the end of the contentious September 27th New Brighton City Council meeting Mayor Steve Larson clumsily attenpted to misrepresent the position of those who oppose the city's abuse of eminent domain and in the process made some assertions that were on incredibly shaky ground. Mayor Larson, speaking in an authoritative tone, closed the meeting with these comments (those of you who have a tape of the meeting can fire up the VCR and follow along at home):
"I've heard people say 'What's this, that the city of New Brighton is going to take my church?' Absolutely not. It's all bogus. It will not happen. Never has, never will. I've never heard of a church being taken in this country from anybody. I've talked to people who represent almost every state in the union and nobody has ever heard of a church taken by eminent domain. So when you hear that being spread, forget it. It's not going to happen. So anyway, it's not happening in New Brighton. Trust me. You may hear about the issue again. Thank God we have the Supreme Court of the United States that make the decisions and it has stated that the use of Eminent Domain within certain guidelines is permissible. We all live and abide by the rules of the court of the land and they're the highest that you can get. Until they change their minds it's something that's available for communities to use. As long as you don't abuse it. It's worked in this community. Our community would not be what it is today if maybe that didn't happen in the Northwest Quadrant. I've got about 95% of the people that I've talked to that said 'you're doing it right'. So, thank you those people that called me. So, I don't have anything more to say about that. Hopefully it's a dead issue. We're done with it. We move forward. So I have nothing else to say but see you at the town hall meeting."
The mayor makes several assertions in his closing statement. Taking them one at a time and applying a little critical analysis, the entire statement can be shown to be almost totally free of credibility:
"I've heard people say 'What's this, that the city of New Brighton is going to take my church?' Absolutely not. It's all bogus. It will not happen. Never has, never will."
It appears that Mayor Larson is attempting to inaccurately portray those who are against the city's abuse of eminent domain as a paranoid bunch with an irrational fear of losing their churches. It's true that no churches have been condemned in New Brighton under eminent domain, but several businesses and homes have been and those of us in opposition are attempting to put a stop to it before our property or that of our friends and relatives is added to the collection. Larson is probably correct that a church will not be condemned under eminent domain in New Brighton (although, given the past actions of the council, it's not an absolute certainty). It's not so much that the city council would have an ethical problem with condemning a church, but rather that the city has many churches, some with large congregations, which in a city the size of New Brighton could form a voting block large enough to create problems at re-election time if the council attempted to strong-arm a church.
"I've never heard of a church being taken in this country from anybody. I've talked to people who represent almost every state in the union and nobody has ever heard of a church taken by eminent domain."
Apparently the mayor needs to associate with better informed people. I was incredulous when I heard this at the council meeting--if you listen to the tape you can hear Council Member Doffing in the background attempting to correct him. As soon as I got home it took about 15 seconds with Google to find several instances where churches were relieved of their property via eminent domain (as an example, see http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2002/cypress_invokes.htm). Incidentally, the next time you're in Google, just for grins and giggles try a search on New Brighton Eminent Domain abuse.
"Trust me."
Use your imagination here. If you're ever at a video store looking for a bargain movie to rent, check out "Used Cars". Although it's a raunchy comedy, the plot does revolve around a city trying to acquire one private citizen's land for the benefit of another private citizen. The phrase "Trust me" gets tossed around in much the same context as used by Mayor Larson and with about the same level of credibility.
"Thank God we have the Supreme Court of the United States that make the decisions and it has stated that the use of Eminent Domain within certain guidelines is permissible. We all live and abide by the rules of the court of the land and they're the highest that you can get. Until they change their minds it's something that's available for communities to use."
First, we don't "live and abide by the rules of the court". We live and abide by the rule of law, and the court's ruling is a merely a confirmation that, in the opinion of the current sitting court, the application of the law in the situation under consideration is permissible under the US Constitution. Many legal scholars and citizens who believe in original constitutional intent view the Kelo decision as highly flawed. Furthermore, the Kelo decision does not obligate the city to use (or in the case of New Brighton, abuse) eminent domain. Part of the ruling states that it is constitutionally permissible for states or municipalities to create and enforce restrictive eminent domain standards that protect citizens from unwarranted property seizure by government. It's also interesting that the mayor invokes God when talking about the Supreme Court being the highest authority.
"As long as you don't abuse it."
This is laughable, given the city's track record of eminent domain abuses. It's almost Clintonian in that for the phrase to have the meaning the mayor is attempting to convey, it depends on how one defines "abuse". In my view, promising land that the city does not own to a private developer and then using taxpayer financed resources to threaten the targeted property owner with condemnation if he/she doesn't play ball constitutes abuse. Apparently the mayor and the rest of the Gang of Four (council members Burg, Hoffman, and Moore-Sykes) have a more flexible definition of abuse that varies with how badly the city wants a given parcel of land.
"It's worked in this community. Our community would not be what it is today if maybe that didn't happen in the Northwest Quadrant."
Huh? Check out the business climate in neighboring communities and contrast it to what has happened in New Brighton over the last few years. Also check out the proposed property tax rate increase for New Brighton as opposed to neighboring communities. I really don't think the mayor should risk injuring his arm patting himself on the back on this score.
"I've got about 95% of the people that I've talked to that said 'you're doing it right'. So, thank you those people that called me."
Given how well the mayor was informed by the people he talked to regarding the number of churches taken through eminent domain, this statement should be considered a throw-away line.
"Hopefully it's a dead issue. We're done with it. We move forward."
Mayor Larson and the rest of the Gang of Four can only hope so. It's a dead issue only if we the citizens of New Brighton allow it to be! There are two seats on the council in play in the election this November and we citizens have the opportunity to remove one of the Gang of Four (Kim Moore-Sykes) and help move the council toward serving the people instead of the other way around.
"I've heard people say 'What's this, that the city of New Brighton is going to take my church?' Absolutely not. It's all bogus. It will not happen. Never has, never will. I've never heard of a church being taken in this country from anybody. I've talked to people who represent almost every state in the union and nobody has ever heard of a church taken by eminent domain. So when you hear that being spread, forget it. It's not going to happen. So anyway, it's not happening in New Brighton. Trust me. You may hear about the issue again. Thank God we have the Supreme Court of the United States that make the decisions and it has stated that the use of Eminent Domain within certain guidelines is permissible. We all live and abide by the rules of the court of the land and they're the highest that you can get. Until they change their minds it's something that's available for communities to use. As long as you don't abuse it. It's worked in this community. Our community would not be what it is today if maybe that didn't happen in the Northwest Quadrant. I've got about 95% of the people that I've talked to that said 'you're doing it right'. So, thank you those people that called me. So, I don't have anything more to say about that. Hopefully it's a dead issue. We're done with it. We move forward. So I have nothing else to say but see you at the town hall meeting."
The mayor makes several assertions in his closing statement. Taking them one at a time and applying a little critical analysis, the entire statement can be shown to be almost totally free of credibility:
"I've heard people say 'What's this, that the city of New Brighton is going to take my church?' Absolutely not. It's all bogus. It will not happen. Never has, never will."
It appears that Mayor Larson is attempting to inaccurately portray those who are against the city's abuse of eminent domain as a paranoid bunch with an irrational fear of losing their churches. It's true that no churches have been condemned in New Brighton under eminent domain, but several businesses and homes have been and those of us in opposition are attempting to put a stop to it before our property or that of our friends and relatives is added to the collection. Larson is probably correct that a church will not be condemned under eminent domain in New Brighton (although, given the past actions of the council, it's not an absolute certainty). It's not so much that the city council would have an ethical problem with condemning a church, but rather that the city has many churches, some with large congregations, which in a city the size of New Brighton could form a voting block large enough to create problems at re-election time if the council attempted to strong-arm a church.
"I've never heard of a church being taken in this country from anybody. I've talked to people who represent almost every state in the union and nobody has ever heard of a church taken by eminent domain."
Apparently the mayor needs to associate with better informed people. I was incredulous when I heard this at the council meeting--if you listen to the tape you can hear Council Member Doffing in the background attempting to correct him. As soon as I got home it took about 15 seconds with Google to find several instances where churches were relieved of their property via eminent domain (as an example, see http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/may_2002/cypress_invokes.htm). Incidentally, the next time you're in Google, just for grins and giggles try a search on New Brighton Eminent Domain abuse.
"Trust me."
Use your imagination here. If you're ever at a video store looking for a bargain movie to rent, check out "Used Cars". Although it's a raunchy comedy, the plot does revolve around a city trying to acquire one private citizen's land for the benefit of another private citizen. The phrase "Trust me" gets tossed around in much the same context as used by Mayor Larson and with about the same level of credibility.
"Thank God we have the Supreme Court of the United States that make the decisions and it has stated that the use of Eminent Domain within certain guidelines is permissible. We all live and abide by the rules of the court of the land and they're the highest that you can get. Until they change their minds it's something that's available for communities to use."
First, we don't "live and abide by the rules of the court". We live and abide by the rule of law, and the court's ruling is a merely a confirmation that, in the opinion of the current sitting court, the application of the law in the situation under consideration is permissible under the US Constitution. Many legal scholars and citizens who believe in original constitutional intent view the Kelo decision as highly flawed. Furthermore, the Kelo decision does not obligate the city to use (or in the case of New Brighton, abuse) eminent domain. Part of the ruling states that it is constitutionally permissible for states or municipalities to create and enforce restrictive eminent domain standards that protect citizens from unwarranted property seizure by government. It's also interesting that the mayor invokes God when talking about the Supreme Court being the highest authority.
"As long as you don't abuse it."
This is laughable, given the city's track record of eminent domain abuses. It's almost Clintonian in that for the phrase to have the meaning the mayor is attempting to convey, it depends on how one defines "abuse". In my view, promising land that the city does not own to a private developer and then using taxpayer financed resources to threaten the targeted property owner with condemnation if he/she doesn't play ball constitutes abuse. Apparently the mayor and the rest of the Gang of Four (council members Burg, Hoffman, and Moore-Sykes) have a more flexible definition of abuse that varies with how badly the city wants a given parcel of land.
"It's worked in this community. Our community would not be what it is today if maybe that didn't happen in the Northwest Quadrant."
Huh? Check out the business climate in neighboring communities and contrast it to what has happened in New Brighton over the last few years. Also check out the proposed property tax rate increase for New Brighton as opposed to neighboring communities. I really don't think the mayor should risk injuring his arm patting himself on the back on this score.
"I've got about 95% of the people that I've talked to that said 'you're doing it right'. So, thank you those people that called me."
Given how well the mayor was informed by the people he talked to regarding the number of churches taken through eminent domain, this statement should be considered a throw-away line.
"Hopefully it's a dead issue. We're done with it. We move forward."
Mayor Larson and the rest of the Gang of Four can only hope so. It's a dead issue only if we the citizens of New Brighton allow it to be! There are two seats on the council in play in the election this November and we citizens have the opportunity to remove one of the Gang of Four (Kim Moore-Sykes) and help move the council toward serving the people instead of the other way around.
Labels: Eminent Domain, New Brighton
posted by Right Hook at 11:56 PM |
Printable Page
|
Toggle 0 Comments
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home