For a furious fix of malfeasance this Friday, check out this cruel coup conducted by that meretricious mobster, the Montgomery Mayor:
The Daily Caller pretty much sums it up (bold emphases are mine):
Imagine you come home from work one day to a notice on your front door that you have 45 days to demolish your house, or the city will do it for you. Oh, and you’re paying for it.
This is happening right now in Montgomery, Ala., and here is how it works: The city decides it doesn’t like your property for one reason or another, so it declares it a “public nuisance.” It mails you a notice that you have 45 days to demolish your property, at your expense, or the city will do it for you (and, of course, bill you).
Your tab with the city will constitute a lien on your property, and if you don’t pay it within 30 days (or pay your installments on time; if you owe over $10,000, you can work out a deal to pay back the city for destroying your home over a period of time, with interest), the city can sell your now-vacant land to the highest bidder.
Well, if deterrent zoning laws don't cut the mustard and you don't think eminent domain rules should apply to you, here's another way to sleaze the working-class man off of his property and out of your neighorhood. Granted, there was a great response regarding blighted homes and the taking of property by government entities for revitalization in MarketWatch by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). A reader asked him "With all its mighty political power, what, if anything, is the Realtor nation doing to fight local governments' land grabs via bogus "blight" designations, or just wanting the land for developers?" Despite the clearly anti-government bias in the question, Sichelman's response had a lot of clarity to it for those who don't understand why cities have this power in the first place. Here is it, but I'll cut to the chase for ya by putting the key points in bold:
According to a NAR [National Association of Realtors] spokesman, the organization believes that using the power to take property to encourage commercial or economic development can put the entire community at risk and place the dream of homeownership in peril. Therefore, it opposes any federal legislation that would impose a one-size-fits-all solution on all states. Rather, NAR maintains that this is a states' rights issue, and that each state should set its own criteria regarding the practice.
"It's difficult to guess what should be done about the case you describe, since how an action by a local government is interpreted and characterized depends intimately on the details of what the local government actually does," my NAR contact said.
"People in the area can judge that better than the national organization can. For example, in your question, the key word is 'blight.' Every locality defines blight differently, and subsequently, proposes different measures to address it.
"NAR advocates requiring local governments to justify their condemnation actions by proving that real and substantial community benefits can accrue from the taking of private property. Citizen participation in the debate at the local level is essential for hearing various viewpoints and is less costly in the long run than entering into the laborious lawsuit process."
From this perspective, demolishing homes in Montgomery may help to revitalize blighted communities as the city determines "blighted," but the city probably set the bar at that point deliberately in order to demolish the homes of these poor poor-people. That's my best guess anyway, and the only way to move forward would be to oust the current leaders and install some people who are more interested in revitalizating and beautifying communities from the ground up, not just knocking down their constituent's homes.
Comments
“eminent domain” is one of fox’s favorite bugaboos. and now it’s married to civil rights. wow. interesting bed partners.
2010-08-28 by florence
Ah yes, the further displacement of low income folks. Like the city council in New Orleans using the excuse of Katrina to tear down the public housing that, albeit no paradise, but had withstood the flooding so as to put supposed mixed-income housing in place— effectively pricing the working poor out of the market.
“eminent domain” is one of fox’s favorite bugaboos. and now it’s married to civil rights. wow. interesting bed partners.
2010-08-28 by florence