Art St. Louis XXIV opens Nov. 3rd and closes December 30th, 2008.  The opening reception is November 15th from 7PM until 9PM, with a pre-reception talk with the juror Mark Masuoka at 6PM.

Let me know if you will make it to the opening!

As I type, this theft is about to take place here in Southeast Iowa. In this case, you can literally call it HIGHWAY ROBBERY as IOWA DOT is forcing us to sell fifty acres of our farm for a bypass around the city of Fort Madison. This land has been in the family for almost a hundred years. It is land  my husband and his father and his grandfather farmed.  It is land where my husband was born.

So put aside "sentimentality" for a moment---forget the fact that three generations grew up,  grew old, and died here, working hard as a family, facing failures and successes with dignity--- let's just look at what the government is doing on a material plane:

How it works-- -FOR THE GOVERNMENT, that is---  is the state of Iowa hires an independent appraiser to put a value on the property and makes us an offer based on that appraisal. If we refuse the first offer, we are given a second and then a third. If we have the nerve to refuse all three offers, the state has the power to put the property in condemnation.

Condemnation under Eminent Domain means that the state brings in six of the area's supposedly average citizens (one of whom I have  heard might be a realtor) to make an appraisal. The state makes us one last offer based on this appraisal. If we refuse this, the government will simply help itself to our land and give us nothing.

What has happened to us in this process so far?

We have been told rudely at a public information meeting that since the road is splitting the farm in half, we might like to just sell the whole place and move on.

We have received three expensive looking  appraisal brochures with unflattering photos of the property,  describing it as pasture land when in fact it is cropland. The DOT based its first offer on these appraisals and these appraisals used sales of recreational land or land that has remained fallow for ten years as comparison examples for what our land is worth. (In fairness, I need to mention that at any time we may hire our own appraiser for another assessment but we have been holding off on spending that kind of money unless we are forced to.)

We have been visited with an offer by a member of Iowa DOT who had all the charisma of a used car salesman, who lied to us about the possibility of damages,  and who was not "empowered" to make any changes to the offer without running back to headquarters.

We have been offered less than 2900 an acre on the first go-round.

We currently rent this land to neighbors who farm it. This land provides one quarter of our yearly income which we will lose. We think we might also lose rent on more acreage because chopping the fields up into smaller pieces will make them less desirable to farm.  Our only other source of income is a small monthly social security check. We had some retirement assets but they have been diminished by close to forty percent on paper in the last month.

So this is the power the government has? It can force you to sell at the price it offers or go without any compensation at all? It can deprive you of one quarter of your income with no damages for income lost? It can take retired folks on social security in tough economic times and push you around?

We have been looking and we have not yet been able to find comparable land to buy at the government's price for which we could receive the same amount of rent. And we certainly would not want to invest in the stock market these days!

So we are waiting till the DOT salesman returns so we can formally refuse his first offer, see what his next one is, and head for the lawyer's office.

It seems it is always a buyers' market when the government is the "buyer."

That is why Reed is correct:  Yes, indeed,  I guess you'd have to say that STEALING is "good enough for government work."

In my quest to help Iowa voters understand what a quality candidate we have in Christopher Reed, I am highlighting Reed's answer to an Iowa Brigade question about eminent domain.

It is easier to have empathy when it comes to pain or disappointment when you have experience with the same kind of pain. Unless it is YOUR land that is in jeopardy of being taken away by greedy people with their own self interests, it may be difficult to understand the pain that goes along when the government attempts to go the "legal" way of stealing from its citizens. Please try to empathize for the many Iowans who each day fight off greedy people wanting to seize their property.

I urge you to read with care what Christopher Reed has to say about eminent domain. While his answer is short it says much about where he stands on this important issue. We need Reed to stand up for personal property rights because there are more than enough greedy, hard hearted people willing to do all they can to use any way possible to grab up land for whatever reason they deem important.

"Home Sweet Home" takes on a whole new meaning when there is a real threat that someone in power wishes to take your home/property/farm from you.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Christopher_Reed_Environment.htm

Eminent Domain is government legally stealing from citizens

Question to Christopher Reed:

Q: What is your position on eminent domain?

A: Eminent Domain is the government's way of legally stealing from citizens. They should not have the right, in the Land of the Free, to take what is not theirs just because they think it may be used to generate more tax revenue by some large corporate outfit from somewhere else. Personal property rights must be protected. Home is where we feel safe and should never feel threatened while at home.

Its been an immensely fascinating year for me to deeply observe the last fragments of my dying neighborhood.   I've watched its last residents move on, and then come back to visit in tears.  I watched as abandoned homes were torched to blackened holes.   I've befriended the demolition crews who took my own home and learned of the human side of some of the Lambert officials.  I've stopped and talked to former residents who scavenge the plots of their beloved homeland.  I've been chased out by fast cars of wicked people up to no good.  I've been followed around by yellow Lambert trucks who think I am up to no good.   I've been waved at and begged to for directions on how to get out of this scary, desolate place they accidentially wandered into.  I've helped a carload of teenagers try and fix a tire in the night.  I've yelled at a man digging up a beautiful maple tree in the backyard of one of my favorite homes.   I've driven through in a hurry 'just to see.'   I've sat for hours on the grassy hillsides listening to the eerie silence in the minutes between the hallowed sounds of jets turbines close overhead.    After all this, I am still inexplicibly drawn to the area.

I've also been surprised and humbled by the large numbers of visitors to this modest site.  At first, I figured this would be just a place to keep notes about my time in Carrollton's last years.  Instead it has become a calling to the residents to learn whats new and whats left in Carrollton.  Its inspired me to not just keep a blog but to write a book about this particular place and the effects of eminent domain on families and communities in general.   I have learned so much about the community already and I have so much more to learn about the fascinating and humble history of the area.  I cannot thank enough all the people who have read this site, written to me, commented, and contributed their own stories and images of life growing up in this unique town.

Access to the majority of the neighborhood will soon be cut off.    The gates, the band-aid on this gushing wound, are going up on more streets than I had predicted.   In the past couple weeks, I found it amusing how I could drive around and lazily end up on the backside of one of their two-screw aluminum traps.  We joked about the stupidity of the gate's placements.  For example, they put a gate on Turon Court-  A street that was only 1/16th of a mile at most, both ends intersecting into Celburne.  It had maybe 5 houses on the whole street, yet they gated both ends of this tiny loop.  In the coming days, however, the only streets that will remain open are Woodford Way, part of Celburne, Brampton, and Hemet for access to O'Connor Park.   My own street of Brumley now has poles, ready for its set of gates.

They are going to leave the remaining houses to rot away behind the gates.   Hide it from the public and it all will go away.   The argument could be made that it is Lambert's land and if they choose to close off the streets, it is their business.  In fact, I truly do understand and support that notion.  I would completely be ready for the street closures if Lambert were to do one thing... finish this and demolish all the remaining homes first.   Behind the gates, some of them could sit for years without notice.   What a sad and demoralizing fate for the owners of those homes who already went through so much to lose them in the first place.   Once again, Lambert fails to do the respectful and honorable thing for the residents they threw out.   Just like the new runway itself, Lambert's gates on the streets of Carrollton are a short-sighted plan guaranteed to create more problems in the end.

My postings to this site will probably be more erradic given that access will be extremely limited and the grinding halt of any other activity in the area.  It doesn't feel like there is a conclusion to this story yet, not at least while there are still houses standing.  We only know snippets of the possible fate of Carrollton as a Chinese air-shipping yard, but even that can change given this fretful economy.

Meanwhile, I will continue to organize the information I have gathered, and wait and see what will happen. One last thing I've been sitting on for a while.  There is one last landowner in Carrollton, a family friend of ours.   When he bought property in Carrollton for Fischer & Frichtel to build, he neglected to build on one strip of land he purchased.  That particular bit of land has its own address separate from his adjacent home address, which was destroyed last winter.   Evidentially, Lambert was unaware of this land deed, and he did not go out of his way to make mention of it until demo crews attempted to remove some of his property.  As far as I know he still has the title to this bit.  I think gating off his street might be a tad bit illegal since he technically still owns his land.   Beautiful indeed.

City Councilman John Liu (D-Flushing) sent a letter to Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Robert Lieber Tuesday expressing serious doubts about the state of negotiations between the city and business owners at Willets Point.

Liu, who is not part of a coalition of Council members who said they will deny the plan in its current form, has expressed doubts in recent weeks that enough relocation and buyout deals will be completed prior to the City Council's Nov. 12 to facilitate his support for the project.

In the letter, Liu says that as of Oct. 7 the city is poised to take 90 percent of the land by eminent domain, which he calls "patently indefensible." He goes on to offer any help he can provide and warns he will not support the project unless 90 percent of the property owners at the site have completed deals with the city in the next 5 weeks

Comments from Liu and letter after the jump:

Dear Mr. Lieber,

With a month to go before the Willets Point redevelopment plan comes before the City Council for consideration, I am greatly concerned that the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) has reached agreement with only a small number of the existing businesses with regard to the City's plans for relocation and/or compensation. Even more problematic is my understanding that the agreements reached are non-binding on the EDC.

The EDC and this administration have consistently maintained that "one or two holdouts" should not impede progress. I can agree with that approach and application of eminent domain to condemn private property for greater public good. However, it appears at the moment that almost everyone at Willets Point is a "holdout". At the moment, it appears the plan would invoke eminent domain to seize over 90% of properties at Willets Point.

This is patently indefensible. I implore you and the EDC to kick negotiations into high gear immediately.

After two years of what the City has described as "best efforts", more binding agreements should have already been reached. Nonetheless, it's not too late. There's still a month left for negotiations. Engage the business owners 'round the clock if need be. Just don't ask me and my colleagues to support a plan that would take land wholesale.

Good public policy sometimes necessitates invoking eminent domain to make progress. Coming to agreement for the acquisition of 90% of the land for this redevelopment and condemning the remaining holdouts probably makes sense. Seizing 90% of the land would be wrong an inexcusable, and I cannot in good conscience support a plan that amounts to that.

I am available to assist you and the EDC in any discussions and negotiations to get the job done.

Sincerely,

John C. Liu

In a recent interview, Liu said he believes the redevelopment of Willets Point is crucial for the future of Queens, but questioned the city's method for pursuing it.

"The administration is not working hard enough to make this happen," he said. "This is probably the single most important project that Queens and perhaps all of New York will undergo this decade, but that does not mean we throw all fundamental principles of fairness out the window."

"I think the city has made a great deal of progress on the plan. They can do it. But when 90 percent of people are still holding out, that clearly indicates an imbalance, an unfairness, and I can't support that."

The undersigned urges Yonkers officials to prevent the demolition of 87 Nepperhan Avenue, formerly known as the YONKERS HEALTH CENTER, an historically significant Art Deco building that is part of the City Hall complex, just to make way for a parking lot.

Preserving 87 Nepperhan is an acknowledgement that the administration, while moving forward with downtown development, honors the noted achievements in health by which the City of Yonkers gained distinction in years past. Few structures portray the historically rich character and style of our city that was embodied in architecturally significant structures like 87 Nepperhan. Adaptive reuse will require little reconfiguring of the proposed parking area and have almost no impact on downtown development, despite claims to the contrary by developers. While we have lost so much of our history to development in the recent past, WE MUST PRESERVE 87 NEPPERHAN AVENUE.

Sign the petition ThePetitionSite.com or contact Mayor Amicone at City Hall, 40 South Broadway
Yonkers, New York 10701, (914) 377-6300 or by E-mail, visit CityofYonkers.com.

In late September this year Willard Louden escorted me and a handful of artists down this road into the bottom of a canyon and showed us a bit of history. It seemed we had all been transported back in time. There were no power lines, no pavement and no cell phone signal and I felt I was as far from civilization as I'd ever been. The experience was one of awe and reverence. At times I thought I could hear in the wind and the rustling of the trees, voices, old and distant voices that told stories about this out of the way world and the lives that had passed through it. Willard Louden it turns out was our translator.

The tree in this photo (above) is the "Lone Oak". It stands near the foundation of an old stone structure where now eighty three year old Willard Louden went to school.

This bit of a structure was started but never finished. The one room school house is just to the right but there is so little of the school left it's hard to see. Willard (wearing the yellow shirt in the photo below) knows exactly where it is and showed us around the edges of the foundation then led us up into the side of the canyon wall to Lone Oak Post Office. Lone Oak Post Office served several families in the area in the early part of the last century. Eventually these settlers moved away and the Loudens built a ranch totally nearly 25,000 acres by paying back taxes and taking possession of the deserted land.

The P.O. isn't easy to see. Over the years trees and bushes have grown up in front and if you don't know where to look you could easily miss it. It is built into a recess in the canyon wall that was used as shelter by the Indians in the area before the homesteaders arrived. The latest tenant is a big gray spider taking up residence under the eve. Farther along the wall to the left of the P.O. is a small pen also made of stone. Willard said it most likely held sheep or goats.

We made our way through tree branches and under brush until we came to the sheep pen. Willard settled in here and told stories of his family. He told us about the old family that started Louden Ranch. He told how he and his brother had traveled the world, got an education and returned to spend their lives working and living here. And he told us about those who are inheriting the ranch as those who currently run it have been growing old. When asked about the legends told about buried gold and treasures hidden in the area he laughed. It wasn't possible, he said, the time lines were all wrong. There was one fellow, though, who found several silver coins stashed in the dutch oven of an old stove someone had left behind.

And after a while we sort of drifted away from that spot and set up our easels and did what we came to do. We painted through the afternoon listening to the black birds and the wild burros in the distance. We fought the gnats and flies and painted as the shadows got longer and longer. We watched the afternoon sun light turn to gold and the evening came. And the world seemed to soften and become quiet as Mr. Louden told us more stories.

village-voice-print-vers-everyone-listens-to-columbias-disaster-expert-except-columbia-itself-10108

The lawsuit claims that Forest City Ratner's Atlantic Yards project violates the New York State Constitution's public use, due process and equal protection clauses, as well as low-income resident requirements. According to DDDB, the Court's decision means that oral arguments will be heard in the case sometime in March or April, with a decision then expected between late spring and fall 2009.

This is a major setback for developer Bruce Ratner, who recently told the New York Times that he planned to break ground in December. The project cannot move forward without using eminent domain. In addition, according to the Times, Ratner has brokered a contract with Barclays Bank that would provide $20 million a year for naming rights to the arena. This contract requires FCR to close on the land and secure the financing by the end of November.

When I go to buy cholle-bature from a roadside vender I do not care for his religion or caste, nor his views on Kashmir or Iraq, only the salivating taste. This is the moral foundation of market. Individuals trade solely on basis of their subjective perceptions of products on offer. The market fosters an undiscriminating attitude towards fellow citizens; the sole moral obligations are respect for property rights and honesty in the products one offers.

Principles like ‘Thou Shall Not Steal’ and ‘Thou Shall Not Kill’ are moral forces behind the economic success of the Christian world. Even Hindu traders have for centuries celebrated ‘Shub Labha’ (auspicious-legitimate profit) in worshiping Lord Ganesha, i.e. a focus not only on profits but also on how to acquire them.

When I put my money on Infosys shares regardless of the religion of its Director, my message is rather simple: “all I care about is how good you are at who you do, not who you are!” This is the message that you, I, and billions of individuals around the world shout out loud everyday in every good we buy and sell.

Adam Smith said “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest”. Though not benevolent the butcher’s self interest is directed not at the baker but at his bread. Smith himself was a Professor of moral philosophy and wrote ‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments’ 17 years before ‘An Inquiry Into Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations’.

Unfortunately our politicians haven’t taken a cue from markets. Political parities advertise the fielding of Dalit, Brahmin, Hindu, Muslim, Maharashtrian and ‘what not’ candidates. Why should Indians care for the religion of their Prime Minister when they don’t care for the religion of the Chief Executive Office of their telecom service provider?

Socialism and fascism are immoral by nature. Collectivist ideologies welcome theft from masses (inflation, taxes, eminent domain). When citizens feel theft is inevitable, they would much rather have a politician who would steal for them and not from them. It is here that caste, religion and regional backgrounds of politicians enter.

The choice is simple: a system where each steals from another, or one where none steals.

Market for governance must learn moral principles from the market for goods. On the supply side of governance we have politicians and on demand side the citizens. It is unlikely that politicians will become moral as a focus on quality of governance will dampen corruption – the hideous way in which parties fund elections and politicians enjoy personal leisure.

It is up to us to shout to politicians the very same message we shout everyday to millions of entrepreneurs– ‘all we care about is how you govern, not who you are’.

Freedom lies not only in the way a government comes into being, but the moral principles on which it is founded!

PORTSMOUTH, VA - SEPTEMBER 23, 2008

Tonight the Portsmouth City Council in a 4-3 vote rescinded their previous unanimous vote to use condemnation to take the Johnson's Crab House property.  Tonight's vote will give reprieve to the Johnson family, their home, and their business and for that decision, we applaud the elected Portsmouth representatives.

There was a time in this nation when the voice of the people was important.  Tonight, four members of the Portsmouth City Council continued that belief and we thank them for doing the right thing by voicing their support for private property rights provided in our Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Voting against using eminent domain to condemn the Johnson property:

Mayor James Holly

Vice Mayor William Moody

Councilwoman Marlene Randall

Councilman Charles Whitehurst

Voting to use eminent domain to condemn the Johnson property were:

Councilwoman Elizabeth Psimas

Councilman Stephen Heretick

Councilman Douglas Smith

- End ++++++++++++

In case you are unfamiliar with the Johnson Family crab house case, the non-elected Portsmouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority targeted a section of Portsmouth for redevelopment. Developers recently constructed many new, large homes in the Park View neighborhood. Located at the end of the neighborhood along the waterfront (Scott’s Creek) is a private fishing business that had operated by local waterman for about 75 years. The Johnson family bought the business about 13 years ago and continued to fish (crab) and sell their crabs at the same location. In time their property became run down and cluttered with junk; especially a large crane and an old boat. Some neighbors complained about the eye sore and for a few years the city and the Johnson family struggled with each other as to need to clean up their property to the satisfaction of some of the neighbors.

Next, an effort was launched to force the Johnson's off their property by the use on eminent domain. The "public use" was promoted by the Portsmouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority and by the Portsmouth City Council as the "need for a neighborhood park". Yet, there are other locations available within the neighborhood to construct a park. In fact, the Johnson family offered the Portsmouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority half of their land for use as a park. The Portsmouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority refused their offer, intent on seizing all of the Johnson family property.

The Virginian Pilot wrote a story about the situation and it came to the attention of many people across our region.

The Tidewater Libertarian Party met and discussed this case and decided to help organize a citizen-led fight to stop the use of eminent domain. This is a case that was clearly a need for city code enforcement, not the seizure of a private business that blocked the waterfront view for newly constructed large homes in Park View.

The Johnson family eventually complied with the clean up requests and their property is now tidy and well kept.

A large rally was held on the Johnson property a few weeks ago. The next week after the rally many members of the Tidewater Libertarian Party attended the Portsmouth City Council meeting in a strong show of support and solidarity for the Johnson family's property rights.

This effort on the part of many good citizens and the Tidewater Libertarian Party stands as an example that people can still make a difference. What appeared to be a “done deal” was suddenly stopped.

It is interesting to note that no other political party attended the rally - especially in light of the political season we are now in.

Why wasn't Congresswoman Thelma Drake, herself the victim of eminent domain abuse, at the rally? I am not sure, but I will ask her the next time I catch up with her. She missed an excellent opportunity to stand up for property rights – and perhaps pick up a few votes in the process. I do know that she was invited, as were many of the other local political parties and candidates. Robert Dean saw to that.

In my opinion this situation serves to underscore the inexcusable lack of LOCAL action by the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. It highlights their failure to stand up in support of our Constitutional rights to own private property. Our right to simply tell a non-elected housing and redevelopment authority – “No thanks; I’m not interested in selling my property. Now please leave me alone”.

Yet, it was also interesting to note that at the rally in support of the Johnson family, those in attendance wore Obama buttons and McCain T-shirts. The bumper stickers on many cars sported GOP, DNC, Libertarian, and Ron Paul messages. Yet everyone displayed signs or wore stickers declaring their support of the grassroots effort to stop the further abuses of the awesome power of eminent domain.

Clearly standing up for our property rights is an issue that unites citizens of many different political affiliations. It is encouraging to witness the positive power of citizen participation in our government decision-making process.

-Reid Greenmun

Vice Chairman

Tidewater Libertarian Party

 At least once in a generation we are reminded, in such conspicuous fashion, that WE MUST continue to resist these bullying encroachments of our basic property ownership rights. This is a watershed case. We are all compelled to stand behind Nick in his efforts to make a difference for all of us, especially those less profiled and seemingly without a representative voice.

 Forty nine years ago in Cuba, a small group of individuals determined that it served “the greater good” to take property, business, money and homes from people who had worked all their lives to accomplish what they earned. This was how and why my family came to this country.
No private institution has the right to use the government to meet their ends at the peril of the citizens, regardless of who they are and what they represent they will do for the “community”
Eminent Domain IS WRONG.

As a student of Columbia, I have to say I am not proud of my University’s action’s. I and many other students are doing all we can to direct the university’s attention to the serious ethical errors that Columbia is making in pursuing a dog-eat-dog worldview on this expansion. Very unsettling moment in our school’s history.

My family moved to Harlem in May of 1986. I have seen the ups and downs of Harlem. When we moved here, my parents were told that banks did not lend to homeowners in Harlem. We did not receive the same quality of service that other communities received, i. e. adequate garbage pick up, poor mail service and no police support. We were even told that were were not really Manhattan residents even though we share the same island.

Now everyone enjoys what Harlem has to offer (the beautiful architecture, rich, diverse culture, great food and entertainment) and wants to know why did “they” destroy it. People constantly ask why do “they” treat their neighborhoods this way. When the City refuses to treat all of it’s citizens fairly and equally, people rebel. Harlem was bought back to it’s splendor by “they,” the people that have lived here through the good and bad times. Utilizing community outreach and development programs initiated by community activist that refused to let the heritage of Harlem fade away, like so many other culturally rich communities in New York, making Harlem one of the crown jewels of New York City, again.

But Columbia University never wanted to consider itself apart of the Harlem community. Now it wants to rape the community of its communal spaces, housing and businesses to expand its private institution that most residents in the area cannot afford to attend and are not even offered an opportunity to do so. And what does Columbia offer in return - NOTHING. The small trinkets the University believes it is giving the community is long over due and should have been done years ago. The residents do not want something for nothing, WE WANT TO BE TREATED WITH THE SAME RESPECT AND DIGINITY AS ANY OTHER COMMUNITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK.

Welcome to the Iron Triangle Tracker, a new blog from TimesLedger Newspapers chronicling the fierce debate over the proposed redevelopment of Willets Point. As many of you may know, I've been covering this story extensively for more than a year now.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the New York City Economic Development Corporation have been pushing hard to raze the 62-acres of developable land at Willets Point to transform it into a sprawling residential and commercial neighborhood, featuring upwards of 5,500 housing units and more than two million square feet of retail and office space designed within an environmentally sustainable framework.

The more than 260 businesses and an estimated 1,600 workers currently at Willets Point have led a vocal opposition against the plan, contending that the city has ignored the area for decades by opting against implementing basic city services such as sewers and street lights. The specter of the city utilizing eminent domain as a means of clearing the area has only fanned the flames of dissent within the industrial enclave.

The debate that has ensued as a result of this ongoing battle has been both emotional and intelligent. But as it heated up over the course of the last few months, I've come to realize that there just isn't enough space in newsprint to truly capture the extent of this controversy unfolding before the city.

This blog will serve to fill that gap — offering up-to-the-minute news, behind-the-scenes banter and a more in-depth look at the people shaping the argument that might otherwise have fallen through the cracks. I hope it will also serve to generate a meaningful discussion in the comments thread, and invite everyone to participate.

My e-mail is listed in the sidebar, and I welcome suggestions and tips. Check back often for updates and thank you for reading.

From the article, I found some eye-opening statements from Lambert's current director, Richard Hrabko.

This is a statement from the article quoting Mr. Hrabko, enthusiastically discussing the possibility of a St. Louis-China air shipping hub.

"Just imagine a trail of 747s coming in and out of here, hauling freight from China," he said. "We have the capacity to do it. No question. And we think we have much better capacity than any place else in the U.S., including Chicago, which is really the main competition."

Also from the article,

He said Lambert also has "several thousand acres" on which to build distribution facilities and other supporting infrastructure for a cargo hub.

Could the 'several thousand acres of land' be the airport's vacant land on the I-170 side of the airport, or could this statement be in reference to the former Carrrollton subdivision?  Where exactly do they expect to build this shipping hub?   How will daily air shipments of Chinese goods really benefit our local economy?

Another damning quote from the article.

Hrabko said of the new runway,"Obviously was something that we wouldn't build today."

This should have been obvious in 2001, when they barely started the project and the whole airline industry tanked.

The article also mentions that the airport, in general is financially stable, but does have long-term obligations to pay off the runway expansion and that they could be in better shape.

Obviously.  They can't even tear down 26 houses.

Of course, the best thing to do with the empty space that was once my home is a temporary resting hold for cheap Chinese goods.  Crates of disposable plastic bouncy balls bound for Wal-Mart might one day be stacked where my bedroom once was.  What an odd and sad thought.

I want to start a petition to turn Carrollton into a state park much like the former Times Beach subdivision was turned into a state park.

Here's a link to the full article on the St. Louis Beacon's website. Thank you to the Beacon for your in-depth report.

+del.icio.us +digg +reddit +stumbleupon

In one case, for a project on Ga. 316 and Ga. 81 in 1999, DOT told a man it needed land that he had bought less than six months before, intending to build a gas station.

It usually takes years for a project to arrive at the construction stage, and the man asked DOT if it would let him build his station and make what profit he could until the agency was ready to build its ramps.

DOT refused, saying the project was “imminent,” and condemned his land.

“Eight years later, GDOT continues to have no formal construction plans for the project and the project is not on GDOT’s Long Range Program,” according to the audit.

The audit also revealed that 52% of the people that fought the DOT appraisal of their property that was being taken ultimately received higher compensation calling in to question the qualifications of DOT appraisers.

DOT's press release concerning the audit can be found here.

Perkins issued a statement reading, "In many instances, eminent domain is an instrument used by government, not in the context of their independently created economic development plans, but at the behest of private developers who wish for the state and city to use its powers of eminent domain to aggregate parcels of land for commercial benefit. This methodology has strained the relationship between government and communities affected by these development plans, that have at best, a vague purpose and at worst create the impression of a corporatocracy instead of true democratic governance. It will be critical to examine the original procedural structure in place to justify and exercise eminent domain." The hearing's intention was to gather ideas for potential legislation that would govern eminent domain at the state level.

Many familiar faces from eminent domain battles in NYC were present this morning, including: Nick Sprayregen, a property owner in Columbia University's expansion footprint (who blogs here); Daniel Goldstein, a property owner in the Atlantic Yards footprint and member of Develop, Don't Destroy Brooklyn; and Dan Feinstein of the Willets Point Industry and Realty Association, among many others. Julie Lawrence, a member of Brooklyn Community Board 1, delivered testimony on behalf of the Community-Based Planning Task Force, which you can read after the jump.

Community Based Planning Task Force Testimony for Public Hearing on Eminent Domain, Wednesday, September 17, 2008. Attn: State Senator Bill Perkins, State Senator Efraim Gonzalez

Hello, my name is Julie Lawrence, and I am a member of the Executive Committee of the Community-Based Planning Task Force, a 90-member coalition made up of local grassroots organizations, community boards, elected officials, academics, and planners that are leading the effort to create a more meaningful role for the public in New York City’s planning and development decisions. Thank you for taking on this issue that is having such a profound impact in several of our neighborhoods.

I’d like to take the opportunity today to make three points: 1) a comprehensive plan should precede major land use actions; 2) the public should have a strong voice in the use of eminent domain; and 3) the abuse of eminent domain diminishes its value as a tool to achieve public benefit.

Comprehensive plan

The surge in New York City’s population and associated demands for housing, economic development, increased open space, and improvements to physical and social infrastructure have been acknowledged by our elected officials at both the state and municipal levels. And yet, New York City still lacks a comprehensive planning framework. Redevelopment of New York City for current and future residents and businesses, where scarcity of land makes nearly every development decision a struggle over contested space, will succeed only when all stakeholders are brought together to achieve consensus around development goals. We need a citywide planning framework grounded in consensus and based on city policies, city goals, and neighborhood plans—such as Manhattan Community Board 9’s 197-a Plan.

A citywide planning framework would provide an unprecedented opportunity for a dialogue between the City and its communities, to create a shared vision for the future. Only after such a discussion can we be assured that development is truly providing the shared benefit for all New Yorkers that could potentially justify the use of eminent domain.

Process

The decision-making process for State development projects is in serious need of reform. The involvement of the State, operating through the offices of the Empire State Development Corporation, means projects sidestep ULURP—our flawed yet Charter-defined due process for projects seeking discretionary approvals. Removing ULURP means removing the community boards, borough presidents, and City Council members in the deliberations that shape outcomes. Projects that rely on the taking of private property need more transparency, accountability, and standardization, not less.

It is really only those who live in, work in, and represent a community who can understand the full contributions made to the neighborhood and the city by a local business, or an apartment house, or an open space. While the definition of blight is notoriously subjective, who is in a better position to understand the full value of a single piece of local property than the locals? There must be sufficient process in place to allow for community voices in the determination of blight. As we have seen in the case of Atlantic Yards, without a participatory planning process in place, development gets delayed, faith in government erodes, and land use decisions end up being made in the courts.

The Future of Eminent Domain

Eminent domain should be used as a tool to achieve community development goals. We would not have many of the city’s public schools, parks, rail lines, and affordable housing units if eminent domain was not available as a tool for property acquisition. But when the public’s voice is denied in the decision to use a tool that is intended to serve the public good, we are squandering that important tool. Until and unless the public benefit is undeniable, flows from a clear plan, and has been agreed upon through a public process, eminent domain should not be used.

New York City has historically shown itself as a leader nationally and internationally in planning and development —from instituting the first comprehensive zoning resolution in 1916; to putting the first municipal landmarks law on the books in 1965; to decentralizing planning decisions by setting up community planning boards in 1963. We should be able to be at the forefront of the battle to ensure a role for the public in eminent domain decisions.

The Community-Based Planning Task Force is interested in developing policies surrounding this issue, and we look forward to the opportunity to work with you further. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide this testimony today.

For more information contact Lacey Tauber at 212/935-3960, x261.

Life is really a series of adaptations and re-inventions. The kid who plays with crayons becomes the graphic artist. But there's that cool time in between where you still believe the outrageous is possible. I grew up watching Hanna Barbera cartoons so as a kid I always figured someday I'd hang out with a group of friends and solve mysteries. We'd also have some kind of talking dog, car or white blob with us.

Of course, I realize now that in order for that to happen there would have to be a lot of crime - and I don't mean your run of the mill crime either. Really off the wall crimes where people try to scare other people off their land so they can build condos or something. In real life no one scares people off their land - they just use something called "eminent domain." Although that does sound kind of scarry if you say it the right way: "emmminnent dooomaaaaiiinn." Go ahead and try it for yourself. I'll wait...

Scared yourself a little, didn't you? Anyway, there don't seem to be many crimes committed by some guy named Mr. Spivey who's the curator at the old abandoned amusement park. That's probably because there just aren't many abandoned amusement parks. That's the problem with fictional cities like Gotham: they just leave that kind of stuff around. Abandoned amusement parks, closed chemical plants, rundown carnivals are all just breeding grounds for supervillians. And strange guys named Mr. Spivey.

Even though I didn't grow up to solve crazy mysteries, I still try to hold onto that cool unreality as long as I can and just re-invent when reality comes knocking. For example, a couple of weeks ago I learned that in order for a nail gun to work you actually have to hold it against a flat, level surface. That means that if you're ever squaring off against the bad guys (probably from the rundown carnival) at a construction site, you can't just grab a nail gun and shoot them with a cool line like "nailed 'em both." (Danny Glover did that one in Lethal Weapon 2. It was one of those movies before Mel Gibson went insane.)

So I've tried a lot different things and I'll probably try a lot more. And I'd have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling reality... 

So we left our new friend, but not without leaving a message with the Missouri Humane Society to let them know about a stray goat in an abandoned subdivision. We decided to take our usual exit route through Asherton. Once again my eyes were lost in the vast blankness of the area and my husband breaks my trance with another, “Holy Sh*t!” I thought it was another goat... until he slammed on the brakes and we both stared a few moments at the shiny silver gates that blocked our exit from Asherton onto Brampton.

“When did this get here?”

“How did we get on the wrong side of the gate?”

“I don't know....”

“Did we pass any others?”

“There were no others... we came in off of Natural Bridge!”

Yup, directly in front of us was a gate that, once I got out and inspected the sign facing Brampton, it said, “Road Closed. No Trespassing. Property of City of St. Louis.” They must have put up late in the first week of September. The odd thing is, we were on the wrong side of this gate, and we certainly did not see or go through any other gates until this very point. So we did the only thing legally we thought we should- take the car over the grass and go around it to the correct side. We stopped and took some shots. There were gates on the next street, Lyford, both ends of Marburn Ct., then posts on Chartley and open gates on Woodford Way at Weskan. As we drove around more, we saw gate posts at Ellisnore, Celburne at Allenhurst, and both sides of Chartley from Celburne. So more gates are coming and soon there will be more areas in which we can no longer access.

I knew that this would happen... in fact I am rather surprised that they didn't start closing off roads sooner. I guess, given the fact that there are still some homes sitting and waiting for closure that I assumed that they would leave the roads open until all are gone. I also once assumed that the airport would only close off access to the streets once they knew what they were doing with the area. However, given the status quo, I'm starting to become more and more convinced that Lambert has no clue what to do with the remainder of Carrollton. They bought and converted the parts of Carrollton that they needed for the runway, but the rest of the neighborhood is simply the baggage that came with the bargain.

Of course the real purpose of the gates is to keep the vandals out, right? Seems easy enough- put up barriers and everyone has to stay out of the area.

The problem, is, the gates are the very worst thing they could do right now.

The best way to keep nefarious activity out of a largely unregulated area is to get rid of the abandoned homes and better patrol the area. What they need to do is to demolish the rest of the homes immediately, using proper demolition crews and not by letting them just sit and burn away. They also need to better patrol the area along with the Bridgeton police force, who has been patrolling Carrollton despite it not being entirely their responsibility (only the south side of Carrollton has been turned back to Bridgeton, not the north). It has been almost a year since I have seen a Lambert/City of St. Louis cop in the area. They need to figure out a way to get more patrols there. Next, they need to come public with plans for the area. If they don't have a plan, then at least admit it and come to the public for suggestions on what to do with the land. Here's mine- turn it into a state park like Times Beach and let the state manage it.

A week after the Asherton gates were installed, permanent ruts around the gates were noticeable in the grass. The other gates had some type of ruts in the grass around them as well. The left side the gate itself looks like someone tried to smash it over. The gates are not going to keep out the people who have been using this area for years- especially the 4 wheelers, motorcycles and rally racers who have driven all over this side of Carrollton. Its not going to keep out the kids who keep spray painting their nicknames all over the houses. The gates give them another reason for crossing over them and doing this kind of activity- those kids will now assume that nobody will get in to see what they're up to. The gates are only going to cause more problems than they will solve.

Lambert doesn't even want to take ownership of the area, so they stuck the City of St. Louis' name on the street signs instead. All Lambert has to do is remove 26 home parcels and tell the public its intentions for the land, and this will all be finally over. No more gates, no more band-aids on much larger wounds, just some honesty is all that is really needed.

Back to the goat. We ran into a really nice Animal Control officer for the city of Bridgeton. She told us she had been trying to trap the goat for almost a week, but its always running off as soon as she gets close. Evidently, it had been tracked from Hwy. 370, but how it got there was a mystery. We haven't seen our hoofed friend in almost a week. Maybe she finally got it. The Humane Society finally called back- we told them Bridgeton was taking care of it. They still didn't seem to believe us.

+del.icio.us +digg +reddit +stumbleupon

This unholy alliance only was found out by our attorneys, led by Norman Siegel, through our numerous (and costly) Freedom of Information Law requests. 

It is our belief that on the basis of this conflict alone, the courts should throw out the entire condemnation process. We may soon be asking the courts to do just this.