register |  login
Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower

Mayoral election: About eminent domain?
Contributed by: Allan Berger on 10/3/2007

Now I am intrigued. Rita Bertolli and her supporters are coming out against eminent domain. Apparently, they are accusing Lakewood of engaging in the same type of activity that the Supreme Court addressed in Kelo. Below I will give a very simplified synopsis of Kelo and my opinion. To put my position succinctly, if Rita is running on a platform that would take any Kelo type actions off the table, I would be inclined not to vote for her.

Update: Rita has confirmed that she is not running on an anti-Kelo platform and would support eminent domain in the right circumstances. Although she and I might disagree on what the right circumstance might be,her answer assuages any feer that I might have.

Kelo in a nutshell. Kelo was a homeowner in Connecticut. A developer wanted to develop a large complex, including her neighborhood. But Kelo would not sell for any price. The city wanted the land developed.The city declared her neighborhood blighted, instituted eminent domain proceedings, and sold the property to the developer. Kelo sued. The courts ruled that the proceedings were legal under Connecticut law and did not violate the fifth amendment of the constitution.

I do not know what Colorado law has to say about these types of proceedings.

I do know that there are good public policy reasons for doing what the Connecticut city did. Of course, Kelo had rights. But sometimes the rights of the individual are not as great as the public need (Marxism at its finest?). And Kelo was well compensated for her land.

There is a growing anti-Kelo movement out there and I sense that Rita is joining it.

I do not know what Rita's position on this is. I presume that Bob Murphy would not be against a Kelo-type proceeding.

Personally, I might be for it, depending on the circumstances. And property owners should be paid fair market value plus some, and lessors should be compensated for their inconvenience. But, I think it should be subject to a vote of the people as it is too important to leave to the city council. Everyone who votes on the proposal should know that this could happen to them and it should be emphasized that this is not the routine way of developing the city.

Thus, if Rita is taking immenent domain/condemnation for redevelopment completely off the table, I would consider it a negative.



SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above story



Current Rating

Based on 2 user ratings.

Talk Back : submit comments to the story

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

Showing 1-6 of 6 comments
Submitted By: Allan Berger
posted on 10/4/2007 @ 11:19:10 AM
(Not Rated)
Rita, your comment makes no sense at all. There is no federal law covering procedures for using eminent domain. The fifth amendment of the federal constitution covers it, but very generally. There likely is a Colorado law and a city ordinance, but that is it. State laws may not violate the 5th amendment, but otherwise states may use whatever eminent domain procedures they choose. Similarly, Lakewood may use whatever procedure it chooses, so long as it is consistent with Colorado law and does not violate the 5th amendment of the federal constitution.
Submitted By: Rita Bertolli
posted on 10/4/2007 @ 9:20:13 AM
(Not Rated)
Actually, Allan, a City cannot trump Federal Law.
Submitted By: Allan Berger
posted on 10/3/2007 @ 2:32:00 PM
(Not Rated)
Rita, as a city, we can have condemnation proceedings in any way we want. So, if the city decides that it will only do it with a vote, that is how we will do it. On the other hand, if we want to give the power to the city council, that is fine, too.
Submitted By: Lisa Scott
posted on 10/3/2007 @ 12:39:39 PM
Rated Story
Right now, the Colorado statutes absolutely allow for condemnation for economic redevelopment as a valid public use. Our urban renewal statute is very broad. You may be in the minority in thinking that is a positive thing despite the Supreme Court having recently sanctioned it in Kelo. It is an interesting issue that we'll probably hear more about from our courts and legislature in the future.
Submitted By: Rita Bertolli
posted on 10/3/2007 @ 12:16:41 PM
(Not Rated)
It might be good for you to read more on the Kelo v. New London case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London Despite the mandate of the Supreme Court, the States have taken measures so that this does not happen again, and that condemnation is used only for a public good, the way it was meant to be. It is not up to a "vote" for others to determine a taking of property. Use might be different, but a taking is firmly spelled out in our Courts' histories and our state statues. It is a point of contention b/c there is a fine line between what is good for all and what is good for individuals. It's that balance that we seek to strike always in good government.
Submitted By: Rita Bertolli
posted on 10/3/2007 @ 12:09:47 PM
(Not Rated)
We are against condemnation abuse, not condemnation. There's a difference and it's case by case. There are plenty of court decisions mandated down to us on this subject.
Showing 1-6 of 6 comments
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Allan Berger

Lakewood , CO

Allan Berger has posted 34 stories and 120 comments since joining on 12/1/2006. Allan Berger 's average story rating is 3.48.
SAVE AND SHARE THIS STORY
STORY RSS FEEDS
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is register, then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyone what events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad