Unfair offers
Lawmakers need to fix flaw in condemnations
Rocky Mountain News
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Several months after the U.S. Supreme Court's notorious 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London - which expanded the right of local governments to condemn property for private development - analysts at Golden's Independence Institute approached state lawmakers with an intriguing proposal.
As the institute's Jessica Peck Corry tells it, they sought to draft "model legislation that would guarantee that all individual property owners [facing eminent domain negotiations] would receive at least the assessed value of their property." But the idea was pooh-poohed because, in Corry's words, "we were told . . . fair market value never fell below assessed value."
Well, "never" has arrived. As the Rocky's Kevin Flynn reported this week, a down real estate market has found the Regional Transportation District making some eminent domain offers to land owners along its West Corridor light-rail line that "in some cases . . . are lower than the county assessors' values."
In one instance reported by Flynn, business partners Terry Smith and Robert Guy have been offered $160,000 for property that has been assessed at a value of $173,500. This is simply not right. Why should government be able to offer less for a property than the value on which that property owner is being taxed by government?
Under normal circumstances, most property owners who want to sell would wait out a depressed real estate market. They'd hold out for an improved economy where they might make a profit on the sale, or at least break even. But eminent domain procedures - despite regulations calling for offers of "fair market value" - leave sellers little choice about when their property is sold.
Corry is right: It's only common sense that those enduring a property condemnation at least be compensated at the level they're being taxed. That's why we're glad to learn that she and her colleagues at the institute are pursuing their model legislation that addresses this discrepancy. We hope fair-minded lawmakers will give it careful consideration and use it to craft and pass a law that will protect individual property owners.
One curious irony in all this is RTD's unwillingness to part with its own property at a loss. Again as reported by Flynn this week, RTD now has on its hands 315 acres of land it acquired in a failed real estate deal with Union Pacific Railroad. The transit agency doesn't need the land, and "voted Tuesday night to try to sell it off - but only if it can get back the total $18.2 million it paid."
RTD should be required to extend the same courtesy to those in the path of its West Corridor light-rail line.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
May 21, 2008
9:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
RTD = Kelo = government takings = unethical = FastTracks failure = RTD
Ask the governor and state leaders where he/they are at on all the state granted RTDs gifts.
1. An emminent domain bill by Senator L. Tochtrop killed by RTD lobbyists and strong arm tactics of Cal Marsala, DRCOG and Hickenlooper. Your tax money at work to lobby agsinst you on behalf of the government. Would have made RTD act reasonably.
2. RTD bonding bill by Representative C. Levey passed by RTD lobbyists and strong arm tactics of Cal Marsala, DRCOG and Hickenlooper. Your tax money at work to lobby agsinst you on behalf of the government. Gives RTD ability to by-pass TABOR and finance private developers they use to develop the property they take with special emminent domain powers.
3. All the other RTD centric bills that keep Captain Hazelwood and his drunken ship of financial ruin afloat as FasTracks delivers 75% of the goods for 150% of the price tag.
RTD = Kelo = costing you BILLIONS
May 22, 2008
6:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
angka writes:
As much as I dislike the Independence Institute generally and Jessica Peck Corry in particular, not much to argue with here. Eminent domain offers should never be less than the value assessed for taxation purposes, that's just a slap in the face.
May 22, 2008
6:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
eminent domain = bend over tax payer
May 22, 2008
7:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
ditto, angka
May 22, 2008
8:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
prk166 writes:
"This is simply not right. Why should government be able to offer less for a property than the value on which that property owner is being taxed by government?"
Good question!
May 22, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
RTD feels they can lowball since they have the power of eminent domain in their favor.
When eminent domain is used by government, there should be in place a court with a simple process (not dragging it out forever) that would determine whether the offer meets certain standards, including assessed value, for the completion of a sale under eminent domain procedures.
May 22, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
Unfortunately, government can make the rules up as they go along. They can twist the rules to fit what they want them to be. In my case, the county government has "appraised" the value of my house at about 20 percent higher than that of a real estate appraiser. So I am getting taxed on a value much higher than I could sell my house for in the marketplace!
I have fought it the last two times, and they knock off a pittance, but never admit they are wrong. I was even told by the "independent" arbitrator that "some buyers would prefer solid-surface counter tops over granite" to justify why my house was valued more than my neighbor's!
May 22, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
bropous,
I am QUITE aware of how the county does appraisals vs. private appraisers. And I don't take advice, or doubt that I could ever learn anything, from someone who wants to re-define Nazism as a liberal concept.
As yes, they CAN "make up the rules", by selectively picking the properties they compare your against. If they have 10 properties, and they only need three to compare, and they select the one with all the "upgrades" that your's doesn't have, then they are twisting the rules to put a higher value on your house.
Anyway, if these people want to be able to SELL their property for the "appraised" value rather than the "market" value, why don't they complain about being TAXED on the appraised value rather than the market value. I know that is how it works, but that is just as unfair.
So go crawl back into your cave and read your right-wing propaganda!
May 22, 2008
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
denverinfidel writes:
I'm convinced the Kelo decision is the single worst assault on private citizens I will see in my lifetime. Just remember big brother can take your property, dictate the price, and then give it to walmart. The guise is increased revenue, the end result is the taking of your property.
Every liberal on the court voted for it. Not coincidental. Chalk one up for communists all over the nation.
May 22, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
bropous,
Your posts over many topics show your ignorance and the fact that you buy into the far-right ideology over facts. I won't stoop to call you names - I'm different than you in that regard. But I think you need to re-read history. You cannot cite ONE resource that is not a right-wing site to bolster your viewpoint. I can cite tons, and you just claim that all textbooks are wrong. So, keep clinging to your delusions. I like to live in the real, rational world.
May 22, 2008
5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
SteveFesch writes:
Let me make this real simple as a citizen who is facing condemnation. Market value would mean I could replace my property with something similar to what I have right?
I'm not looking for anything more or less than what I have. RTD has acted illegally with the original offer they provided to me, they stole my original lawyer, and quite honestly I'm not sure when the "good faith" negotiations begin. I've had several board members tell me "Steve just keep asking be treated fairly" and you will. So far I've been given nothing but lies and treated like shit.
RTD is pissing away millions on land they don't even need and can't even help families replace the homes or businesses we currently own. It's nothing short of criminal what is going on.
RTD has told me "The system will prevail". We'll see. I have a feeling some of the RTD staff are only looking out for themselves and have development plans of their own with our Transit Oriented Development land they are trying to STEAL from us.
I wouldn't wish an RTD eminent domain land grab on my worst enemy. It's nothing but pure hell the way they treat you.
May 22, 2008
6:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
openmind writes:
RTD won't sell their property at a loss, but they expect private landowners to do so? Disgusting. Yes, eminent domain laws need serious reform. Private landowners are making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of FasTracks and RTD insists on treating them like second class citizens. Disgraceful.
I would rather walk to work than support such an unscrupulous organization. Cal Marsella, you should be ashamed of yourself. One day, your children might lose a piece of land to a crooked eminent domain scheme. When that day comes, will you preach to them the laws that guarantee them "fair market value". Will you tell them about the day YOU ripped of landowners in the name of private development?
May 22, 2008
6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
C'mon kids, do it for Cal,"i'm from the government and here to help", fear the government that fears your right to gun ownership( 2nd amendment right after freedom of speech)He obviously was deprived of a train set one holiday season (PC for x-mas) and now wants a real one, the alternative is to vote in a new board of directors. Vote early, vote often.
May 22, 2008
7:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
TroyJGrice writes:
Hitler vs. Stalin Both Supported Eminent Domain.
Making a distinction between the two is preposterous. Both were socialists. Both were nationalists. Both were collectivists. Both despised individual rights (especially property rights) so therefore, neither would have any problem confiscating private property for public use.
May 22, 2008
7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
titancain writes:
I wonder how I-70 and I-25 was built with all these rightwingers that are against progress. If it was up the extremists, we'd all be traveling on dirt roads.
May 22, 2008
8 p.m.
Suggest removal
ColoradoHiker writes:
Most of you are missing the point.
The point is "not" whether property owners are receiving fair value or not.
The point IS, whether the gov't should be using eminent domain for that PURPOSE. It was never intended for that purpose.
The intent was to convert private land to PUBLIC use, such as schools, roads, prisons, gov't buildings, etc..
It was NOT INTENDED to be used to take private property from Joe Smith and sell it to WalMart.
A property owner "in the past" had the "right" as a property owner to decide when he wanted to sell. Often times the small guy whould "hold out" because they didn't really want to sell. If the big company wanted the property bad enough, they would up the offers until the small guy was persuaded to sell.
But NOW, along comes big companies like WalMart who has political connections and WalMart will offer the little guy fair market, or maybe a bit more or less, and if the little guy doesn't want to sell, WalMart just goes straight to the city and tells them to "take it".
If you want to see an example of this, just look in the archives of this paper going back a few months and you will see a prime example of this. The Fontius Building on 16th street was owned by a family for decades and they weren't interested in selling, at any price. Their rights as a property owner.
The developer wanted to build a hotel on that location and, as the article states, the developer told the family they could either sell to him and take his offer or he would have the city take it and they would sell it to him for market rates.
That is a SCREW JOB!
A property owner in this country has every right to hold out for a PREMIUM price. What ever happened to Capitalism and property rights???
We are losing our rights in this country bit by bit and most don't even notice it.
It isn't about fair market value at all. That's not the point!
May 23, 2008
12:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Patron_Drinker writes:
fairness,
The Civics texts at my high school called the "Nazi" party leftist. Did you know that "Nazi" was the nickname of the Nazional Deutsch Arbeiters Party (National German Workers Party)? It was a labor party. Labor parties are, on the whole, liberal in nature as they seek to expand state control of wealth and minimize the rights and responsibilities of workers/the proletariat.
May 23, 2008
8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
anarchist writes:
titancain posted in part, "If it was up the extremists, we'd all be traveling on dirt roads.", under the Clinton/Gore administration the Forest service was no longer allowed to maintain the dirt roads, so your position is one of hopefulness.
ColoradoHiker points out that the rights of individuals are under attack, I agree, you cite a circumstance where a private enterprise leveraged a sale through (gasp) crooked politicians, to take land from one private indivual to give to another, in this instance RTD is a government agency, an elected board, and under the oversight of it's creator, the state of Colorado, so it is different to a degree, and as much as I dislike defending RTD, it is for government use.
May 23, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
Patron_Drinker,
You have been drinking from the same kool-aid as bropous. This from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
"Hitler crushed the Nazi Party's left, or socialist-oriented, wing in 1934, executing Ernst Röhm and other rebellious SA leaders at this time."
The Nazi party USED the PRETENSE of being a workers party to gain control of a voting block large enough to sweep them into power, then revealed their true selves - a right-wing dictatorship.