October 2005     

Citizens for Private Property Rights...

Grassroots Revolt

By Joyce Morrison

Grassroots organizations across the country are standing up and saying, "leave us alone." In fact, there are groups who call themselves the "Leave us Alone Coalition."

The populace is finally getting fed up with elitist stakeholders, appointed or elected, who serve on boards and councils, not as representatives of the people, but as self-anointed dictators.

These power-struck demagogues have been making decisions as to where and how you can live, by mandating permits and zoning ordinances, and now, they are deciding the homes of the medium or lower income levels are expendable. They have taken authority they were never supposed to have, to bulldoze homes, and replace them with developments, in order to line their greedy little pockets with more tax dollars.

The horror of eminent domain abuses is even worse than we can possibly imagine. The blue collar district of Sunset Hills, Missouri, found out the nightmare of eminent domain in the worst possible scenario.

"About 214 homeowners were scheduled to close on the sale of their homes beginning last Monday. Then last weekend - as some residents were loading their furniture into trucks - they heard the news: Novus doesn't have the money to buy their houses," an editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch revealed.

The editorial said these poor people caved in, because the Board of Aldermen gave the developer the legal right to take their homes through condemnation. Their only recourse would have been huge lawyer fees that they could not afford. The residents were left with little alternative, but to sell out.

The Aldermen, who gave the developer this right of condemnation through eminent domain, should be personally held accountable for the pain and suffering incurred by the evicted homeowners. Those who purchased a new home as a result of being forced to relocate, only to discover there was no money to pay for the home they were forced to leave, should, indeed, be entitled to damages.

Bill Munro, from Michigan, is a seasoned veteran in property rights battles. His website www.landrights.com is full of wisdom.

Munro writes the following on Eminent Domain:

The first time I used the 42 USCS 1982 was to stop a condemnation, and eminent domain. The road commission wanted to straighten out a road. There was a widow lady in the line for the road work. I contacted the lady. The county road commission attorney arranged a meeting with her at her house. I was there before the attorney arrived.

The attorney asked why I was there. My reply was, "I am not here to talk about how much money you will pay, or if you pay her with coffee beans or whatever. My being here is to see to it you don't violate her rights."

They talked about how they would enforce the "taking with eminent domain," if she would not sell. So, the best thing she should do is take what they offer her. If she went to court, her gain would be eaten up in attorney's fees. Then, I told the attorney they had no jurisdiction to take the land. The reply was, "We do it every day." I then handed a copy of 42 USCS 1982 to the attorney. Their response was, "This is part of the civil rights bill." With that, I gave the attorney my card, and left. Two days later, I answered the phone. It was the attorney, the first thing said "you are right - we cannot take that land, because we do not have jurisdiction." We talked about law for awhile, and said "good-bye."

They offered her $128,000, and in about two months, they settled for $180,000.

42 USCS 1982

This U.S. Code is part of the civil rights package. Sec. 1982. "Property rights of citizens." Here it only talks about the property the federal and state governments have a preparatory, or monetary interest in. Take time to read this very carefully. This was written to protect all the people.

I'm not an attorney, but could we be missing something, and need to seek the wisdom of some of the seasoned students of property rights law, such as Bill Munro?

Concerned organizations in Illinois, such as Illinois Agri-women, are in the process of drafting resolutions regarding eminent domain "takings." The Illinois Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the National City Environmental, L.L.C. in case No. 87809, in which Southwestern Illinois Development Authority (SWIDA) used their quick-take powers to take property from a private owner, on behalf of another private owner, will be strongly supported by these organizations.

Eminent domain is only one of the many invasions on the property rights of home and landowners. Property rights groups throughout the nation are beginning to speak out against undue mandates by dictator officials.

Stringent building permits are being challenged by property owners who wish to build on their own property located in rural areas. Most states require local health departments to attend to anything that is related to health and safety measures, such as septic systems. Many state laws require five or more acres to be purchased, to be exempt from filing a plat for a subdivision.

Along comes the county, which wants to jump in, and lay claim to additional fees from property owners in the way of permits. A permit is paying for permission to use one's own property.

Bill Munro has a few words of wisdom to give to our local officials when they mandate tax-paying property owners to purchase a building permit, forcing them to comply with undue regulations and restrictions.

In your full disclosure request, ask your local representative for the legal documents that allow them to supersede and bypass 42 USC 1982; and/or 42 USC 1441. Research shows that government officials must have a monetary, or proprietary interest in your real or personal property, in order to have jurisdiction over it.

In any event, if you have signed a permit application, and they have not tendered you a full disclosure, you may have a legal action for fraud.

In closing, it is important to remember that they are not entitled to qualified immunity from liability by asserting a good faith claim relevant to the acts of municipal officials as a defense to a 42 USC 1983 Violation. See, Owen v. City of Independence, Missouri, 445 US 622 (1980).

If I am reading this correctly, individuals who serve in capacities where the governing body has no monetary, proprietary, or contractual interest in YOUR property, officials, as individuals, could be found in violation, and are not immune from liability.

We would certainly have Board Members who would give much greater thought to their actions, if they found themselves being held personally responsible for the way they voted, when your property was at stake.

Like I said, I am not an attorney, but it would appear we should be seeking the knowledge of others, and searching for a good property rights attorney for advice before we bow down, and give our property over to the almighty boards and councils.

Joyce Morrison lives in Southern Illinois. She is a chapter leader for Concerned Women for America. She and her husband, Gary, represent the local Citizens for Private Property Rights. Joyce is Secretary to the Board of Directors of Rural Restoration/ADOPT Mission, a national farm ministry located in Sikeston. She has become a nationally-recognized advocate for property rights.