One of our gentle reader-regulars submitted a news piece to me today. The article concerns how the autocratic neoCON city government of New London, Connecticut has responded to the surly individual property owners who fought the central-control statists for their homes for over a decade... and then lost in the uber-liberal US Supreme court. Here's the link.This story is an illustration of what happens to a city when it's dominated by heartless and ruthless central planning types like Commissars Jorgensen and Safsten.
Here's an article excerpt:
Those who believe in the adage "when it rains, it pours" might take the tale of the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London as a cue to buy two of every animal and a load of wood from Home Depot. The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city's original seizure of private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.We have a major battle going on in Ogden. It's between the citizens and their aggressive government, who justify every assault against individual rights under the aggressive Marxist slogan -- "for the greater good."
In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moreover, the homeowners are being offered buyouts based on the market rate as it was in 2000.
This cadre of disgusting statist city government central-planners won't stop... just as Jorgensen and Safsten won't.
They're ruining our great and unique community, as we all know. But we can drive these people out in November.
Make sure you're registered to vote, people; and tell all your friends what's happening here. The upcoming November municipal election is possibly the most important election in recent Ogden history.
22 comments:
I could definately see Jorgensen, Burdett, Stevenson and Sasten taking things to that level. They certainly have demonstrated the hubris associated with that kind of depraved power.
That was New London, CT
Lets not let Burdett or Jorgensen even make it to Nov, we can lose them in the primary if we organize!!!
"That was New London, CT"
New London is a real-life example of what happens when the "statists" thumb their noses at the private property interests of their own citizens.
Don't think for a moment that the very same thing couldn't happen here under similar circunstances.
Wake TF up, ARCritic.
Amen Rudi, that's what I mentioned in my letter to City Weekly a few weeks ago. If we had the same circumstances as those folks in Connecticut, it could easily happen here. Here's my letter:
Door of Eminent Domain Open?
In your article [“Retooling Redevelopment,” Politics, July 7, City Weekly] it was said that the state Legislature eliminated the power of eminent domain.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the Legislature simply put an end to eminent domain in RDA projects, not eminent domain altogether. So, for instance, a Utah city can still use eminent domain to acquire land for a road in a developing residential subdivision, it just can’t use eminent domain to acquire land for an RDA project.
As I understand it, city councils and RDAs are actually separate legal entities, technically speaking anyway. If this is true, and if Utah had the exact same eminent domain laws as Connecticut, then Ogden, for example, could just do away with its RDA, and the Ogden City Council could simply vote alone to condemn the land on Wall Avenue to make way for a Wal-Mart.
Even if the recent Supreme Court decision doesn’t affect Utah now, the problem lies in the fact that the court’s decision leaves the door open for state and local governments to legally misuse eminent domain, either now or in the future.
I am still amazed at the supreme court ruling. The interpretation of "public use" being twisted to mean "private use, for private gain, that is accessible to the public" was bad enough, but now to deprive the citizens of "just compensation" is too much.
This is my first posting, so I would like to introduce myself. I am Dori Mosher and I am running for Municipal Ward 1 City Council Seat. Oh, by the way my background includes a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science with an emphasis in Constitutional Law.
Miss Dori,
besides having a bachelors degree, what separates you the many others that have an education? Why should we vote for you over a popular city council member? How long have you lived here in Ogden? Why are you running? What will you do different than Jesse?
Jeebus, anonymous! Howbout we welcome Dori first before you start giving her the third-degree?
Welcome to Weber County Forum, BTW, Dori!
I hope you'll book-mark this place and get comfortable here first...before you get into campaign-mode.
Don't pay any attention to anonymous now, Dori. The campaign is only a few days old. Perhaps you can do so later, once you've settled into this place.
As for you, anonymous... please mind your manners. I'm trying to promote intelligent discussion here. I want ALL the council candidates to feel comfortable here. That's the only way a venue like this can work.
I will not hesitate from now on to summarily delete posts which I believe to be overly aggressive or combative from now on, BTW.
This goes for everybody.
I have referred in previous posts to a study the city had done on the revitalization of East Central Ogden. I was going to write again about that study, and went to the Ogden City website so that I could link it in case you wanted to download the PDF, and I couldn't find it.
So I looked at my own downloaded PDF of it, and after some research, found that the study was done at Ogden's request by FALL CREEK CONSULTANTS. If you scroll to the middle of that page, they have referenced the study they did for Ogden City and you can get it from there.
This organization has been to many cities advocating the eminent domain method of community development. Here is one of their strategies, taken from the Ogden study, on page 42 of 58:
"As units become slowly vacated in the
weaker areas of town by virtue of the
exodus of the few stronger residents
formerly there, these units need to be
acquired and held. Combined with
units acquired through enforcement of
nuisance laws, some blocks will generate
a critical mass of redevelopment
opportunities."
It goes on to specifically state a block in Ogden City that should be targeted in this way.
If I lived on that block, I would feel threatened by my own city government. This is wrong.
Also wrong is the strategy of amassing large blocks of land for redevelopment opportunities. It is wrong because it cuts out the small investor. The mall property has always been marketed as one large property, and the fact that someone has finally bought a piece of it is not, in my opinion, due to marketing showing the city amenable to such things.
I have known people who have made quite a good living buying properties, improving them, and then selling them at a profit, or renting them and amassing more properties. In fact, I believe Mayor Godfrey himself practiced the latter. He would not have been able to do that if the city administration that came before him had bought them all for itself to "redevelop." This particular redevelopment strategy is taking the opportunity to advance in this manner away from everybody else.
I strongly object to this, and to other strategies that target---and they actually use that word, "target," as if we are sitting ducks---citizens and homeowners of a community. I do not want to see private home ownership vanish to the point that most people are living in large blocks of government flats, as they do in many other countries. I do not want to see small business entrepreneurs fail because they have to pay exorbitant rents because there is nothing left, either land or structure, to buy.
Most of us, given the choice, would rather own than rent or lease. I am concerned that the parameters of that choice are narrowing, and even more concerned because the Fall Creek Consultants way of doing things seems to have become the accepted method of redevelopment. I for one find this extremely unacceptable.
K Dian, the curiousity is getting to me. What block did the study mention for "targeting?"
I apologize for sounding rude, I in NO way intended any malice. There are a lot of contenders running for city council, which creates a challenge to know each one, and where they stand. I just wanted to point out that as a voter I need to know more than that someone has a Bachelors degree. I too welcome her and anyone else who has thrown their hat in the ring to share their platforms.
No apology necessary Anonymous. It's obvious you speak your mind - I like that in a person.
The reference to constitutional law had more to do with the article than the council race.
I was impressed by your intense interest in the candidates. You are correct, education does not necessarily equate with good representation. And yes, Jesse is very popular, so you have a valid point.
I will be submitting my bio, and a more detailed outline of why I'm running, etc. to rudizink. But part of the reason I decided to become involved is because I feel like a council member has an obligation to supply citizens with researched, detailed information of up-coming council topics. To provide a way to receive feedback. To maintain a good relationship with other council members and administrators in order to be able to effectively present pursuasive, alternative viewpoints.
Debate trained me to look at ALL sides of an argument (there very well may be more than just two). There are times when an alternate view just never occurs to a group and outside input is the key. (I'm not talking about commissioning a study)
Case in point, this site as well as other sites with citizen comments.
My opinion is that what I have listed above has been lacking, if not absent, and that is one reason I chose to run.
Very interesting thread. A really nice lady, D-Mo introduces herself and "anonymous" rudely hammers her about her Bachelor's Degree and his vote. My take was that Dori was giving a bit of background, not vote hunting. Rudi put a lid on that sort of thing (atta boy) and "anonymous came back to apologize (atta boy, too). And welcome aboard, D-Mo. Congratulations on your candidacy; you have a tough battle on your hands.
Dian, as usual, posted some well researched and well worded thoughts about "targets," and how cities can gobble up certain areas of town through strategic acquisitions via enforcement, etc. The same thing is going on right here in River City, beginning with the Landlord Program and the HUD Agreement. By forcing the middle class renters out the landlords' (slumlords in some cases) properties, the houses become vacant, deteriorate, and are condemned. Then, they're nabbed by the City, just like the HUD homes, and pretty quick, the City has that accumulation of property its been after. It's a sneaky version of "red lining" and "block busting," all rolled up in a neat, secret package.
Operating somewhere out there is a group called The League of Cities and Towns, or something close to that. This outfit teaches elected, and especially newly elected, municipal parties some secretive and underhanded control methods and strategies that allows the governmental entities to run contrary to the wishes of the people and to legally overthrow issues that have been voted down by the people. It is a nasty business, but it is happening.
And there's more.
Good thread. Good night
First of all rudi, the AR in my name stands for Anal Retentive. In your article you said it was New Haven, CT and I was just pointing out it was actually New London, CT. I was in no way implying that that could not have happened here. In fact if left to Ogden's mayor (especially the way ya'll speak of him), he probably would have done the same to the people on the WalMart project property. I agree with you that it is very wrong.
And to dick, I guess I have not been attending the ULCT meetings long enough cause I haven't had the instruction you are speaking of. Maybe when I get my 7th degree mason and they teach me the secret handshake. ;-)
To ARCritic: Ooops!
I think Dori made a nice point about the recent USSC Kelo decision.
She's right. The majority of the "Supremes" confused the term "public use" with "public benefit," as Justice Thomas noted in his excellent dissenting opinion.
Be sure to take a copy of the US constitution with you when you go, amy.
It'll help if you can use it to compare J. Thomas's rationale with the "founding document."
Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion clearly states the case in the battle for individual freedom against oppressive central government.
Have a geat trip; and don't forget to send a postcard or two to the gentle Weber County Forum readers, if that's possible.
My heart is broken, I am crushed, Amy every man's dream Wicks is going on vacation - with out me!
Tell me it aint so Amy, tell me you are not leaving me for better times in an exotic locale. Is it something I said? Is it another man? Is it because I wouldn't pinch the mayor's butt when he mooned us at that wild keg party up the canyon last week?
Ah ha! that's it, you are taking off with the Mayor for a little tryst in a shining city at the bottom of a ski lift in the Alps! Damn, I could never compete with that. The most I could offer is a quick turn on the wave rider in Ogden in a couple of years - maybe.
The bounder has beat my time again.
All you clowns back off....Amy's mine!
And Amy....be safe, have fun, and we'll see you when you return. Please stay close to the phone this Tuesday, as the City needs your input. Via con Dios!
Saw this in an email I received.
To make the matter even more personal, opponents to the ruling in the "Live Free or Die" state have moved forward in their efforts to use the Kelo decision's reasoning to seize the New Hampshire homes of Supreme Court Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer. The enterprising private property activists hope to turn the judges' homes into a luxury hotel and a park, respectively. While I am not sure I can condone taking after judges' personal property, the frustration over their isolation from the consequences of their decisions is understandable.
"What's good for the goose is good for the gander," as the old saying goes.
Post a Comment