Ozark Property Rights Congress
News and Information Board
McDonald County, Missouri - "Hazard Mitigation Plan"
This is why you must remain vigilant: whether you know it or not, a non-elected group is forming a "Hazard Mitigation Plan" for McDonald county, that will have potentially dangerous ramifications for all property owners.
Right now, the plan is still in the "draft" stage, but it is mostly complete and as of now the only changes being discussed are mostly semantics. You can read a full copy of the early draft plan here. (10mb PDF)
If you're not yet convinced why this sort of thing can be dangerous, you need to read this article by local scholar Will Roberts.
The local planning committee has regular meetings at the county
courthouse. Call the courthouse for information on meetings, and
be sure to let them know of any objections you find with their plan. (They are, after all, supposedly working for our benefit. They need our feedback.)
21 October 2007:
First Steps of Landmark Missouri Supreme Court Eminent Domain Case
On Tuesday, October 16, 2007, the City
of Arnold filed an appellant brief in the Supreme Court of Missouri
for what is destined to be a landmark property rights case. The
city has been trying to use eminent domain to take the dental
practice of Dr. Homer Tourkakis and turn it into a retail shopping
mecca. Judge M. Edward Williams of the Jefferson County circuit court
ruled earlier this year that the city overstepped its authority by
taking his property, and Arnold is asking the Supreme Court to
overrule his judgment.
Dr. Tourkakis is struggling against the
city and billionaire developers to defend the right to keep the
property he has owned and supported his family with for the last 22
years. The court battle is over the application of a clause added to
Missouri's Constitution in 1945 - specifically, whether the clause
applies to non-chartered cities, like Arnold. Tourkakis has been
assisted by Missouri Citizens for Property Rights (MO-CPR), the same
organization that is circulating petitions for a constitutional
amendment banning eminent domain for private use.
Although the traditional use of eminent
domain was at one time constrained to projects owned and used by the
public at large, as early as the mid-1800's the concept was expanded
to include situations in which a "public benefit" results. In 1875
Missourians rejected such a loose application by adopting a
constitution that says "private property shall not be taken for
private use, with or without compensation". (Art. I Sec. 28) Public
benefit or not, in Missouri private property could not be
taken for private use.
That changed in 1945 when the
Constitution was changed to allow an exception to the private takings
prohibition - but only for "any city or county operating under a
constitutional charter" (or a direct taking by the General
Assembly). The constitution allows these larger cities to use
eminent domain for private development if the
development cleans up "blighted, substandard, and insanitary
areas". (Art. VI, Sec. 21) Arnold officials claim that their
city need be neither large nor chartered to wield the same powers,
but Dr. Tourkakis contends that his property rights are
constitutionally protected from this 3rd class city and the other
1200 non-chartered cities in Missouri.
The Missouri Supreme Court will settle
that dispute but MO-CPR intends to stop the private use of eminent
domain in all Missouri cities, whether they are chartered or not. Their
initiative petition will ask the people to decide if it is ever
acceptable to take private property for private development. Ron
Calzone, chairman of MO-CPR, thinks the voters will take the
traditional stand. He said,"It's a bogus concept to claim that
public benefit equals public use and the people I talk to see through
it. They want to reserve eminent domain for truly public uses, like
roads and bridges."
When asked about the great societal
need to clean up blighted areas, Calzone said, "Our current practice of
designating areas blighted, with the looming specter of
condemnation has only made matters worse. The evidence indicates
that we're actually creating blight - in some cases on purpose so the
use of eminent domain can be justified. Even when its not
intentional, the natural forces that normally fuel progress are
derailed. Property owners and outside investors are afraid to make
improvements that might be taken from them by eminent domain."
A new study out today from the Show-Me
Institute backs up Calzone's contention. "Proponents claim the
practice promotes economic development, but the reality is just the
opposite," say study authors Timothy B. Lee and Shaida Dezfuli.
The threat of eminent domain casts a cloud of uncertainty,
discouraging owners from investing in their property. And many
“redevelopment' projects do not create wealth; they divert jobs and
revenues from neighboring jurisdictions."
Contact:
Ron Calzone, chairman
Missouri Citizens for Property Rights
33867 Highway E
Dixon, MO 65459
ron@mo-cpr.org
www.mo-cpr.org
(573) 368-1344
