Joyce Morrison

Home

 

A Leading thinker and writer on the subject of Private Property Rights

Two of her articles below

An Arcive of some articles and other Conservative Thinkers:

www.newswithviews.com

 

 

 

GRASSROOTS REVOLT

 

 

 

 

Joyce Morrison
September 18, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

Grassroots organizations across the country are standing up and saying “leave us alone.” In fact, there are groups who call themselves "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 abuse is even worse than we can possibly imagine. The blue collar district of Sunset Hills, MO 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 week-end - 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 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 of 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-by.”

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

42USCS 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 monitory 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 who 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 then 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.

© 2004 Joyce Morrison - All Rights Reserved

 

IT'S NOT JUST A HOUSE, IT'S MY HOME

 

 

 

 

Joyce Morrison
July 17, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

Even mainstream media has picked up on the story of five Supreme Court judges deciding your home is no longer your home, but can be “taken” at any time they decide for the “better good” or “good of all.” If the Constitution is still valid they are passing it off as “public use.”

Small businesses that had been in families for generations and one home of a couple who were in their 80s and lived in this home for 50 years will be kicked out following the judges ruling in favor of eminent domain to build a riverside development with a fancy hotel and office complex.

What kind of judges do we have who could arrive at such a decision to no longer give the right of the poor, middle class, or elderly to safely live and be self employed. I think we know the answer....they are named Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens, and Kennedy.

We did have four who were not totally socialist in their thinking. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor expressed her thoughts on her colleague's ruling of the case of Kelo verses The City of New London when she said, “Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Across the country, reports of eminent domain abuses have become staggering. Until now, if an individual could afford the court battle, he had the right to defend the “takings” of his property. This decision says he no longer has that right.

Tax Incremental Financing districts, called TIFs, were initially meant to help cities with blighted areas but they now work hand in hand with eminent domain. Blight is what the ‘powers that be’ determine is blighted and it might be your home, beauty shop, auto repair or whatever. Eminent domain is used to get rid of you.

In TIF districts, the property tax dollars stay in the area bringing in the economic development projects rather than being used by the taxing district as a whole.

A corn field could be designated blighted, taken by eminent domain and designated a TIF District and then filled with expensive homes. But instead of property tax revenue going to the county, tax dollars on these expensive homes stay in the “blighted district” to be spent on self indulgent extravagant projects.

The taxpayers in the rest of the county pay for schools, roads, county and township expenses, policing and all other necessary governing expenses enjoyed by the luxury home owners and the people in the TIF District.

The transportation department has the “right of eminent domain” to build highways. There have been reports where they have abused these powers to obtain property, not to build a highway, but as a “favor” to local government to clear an area for more lucrative development.

There are “quick take” powers given to certain governing bodies so a single “hold out” can’t delay a project. They take your property and negotiate later.

With all the uncertainties in this world, if there is one place we should feel secure, it is in our home. We certainly should not have to give up our property for a hotel, Wal-mart or Lowes, or any other store or development just because it would bring in more revenue for the local government than our meager home or small business.

Even if you are paid what is considered “just compensation,” that does not cover the time and frustration in finding another home and moving. Will “just compensation” be enough to find comparable property?. Will “just compensation” pay for heritage in a home that has stayed in your family for generations? And where would you go? What about the elderly making a move? How much “just compensation” can replace lifelong neighbors?

Now is the time for every federal, state, county and municipal official in every state to hear loud and clear from the people in opposition of this injustice and violation of the Constitution. There is nothing stopping the takings of your home or more tragically, your parent’s or grandparent’s home.

The following little story was sent to me although I don‘t know the author, it has a moral lesson we should take seriously.

A Mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and his wife opening a package. "What food might this contain?" He was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap.

Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning. "There is a mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house!"

The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, "Mr. Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but it is of no consequence to me. I cannot be bothered by it."

The mouse turned to the pig and told him, "There is a mousetrap in the house." The pig sympathized but said, "I am so very sorry Mr. Mouse, But there is nothing I can do about it but pray. Be assured that you are in my prayers."

The mouse turned to the cow. She said, "Wow, Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you. But it's no skin off my nose."

So the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to face the farmer's mousetrap alone.

That very night a sound was heard throughout the house like the sound of a mousetrap catching its prey.

The farmer's wife rushed to see what was caught. In the darkness she did not see that it was a venomous snake whose tail the trap had caught.

The snake bit the farmer's wife. The farmer rushed her to the hospital, and she returned home with a fever. Now everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup's main ingredient.

But his wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit with her around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig.

The farmer's wife did not get well. She died. So many people came for her funeral the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat for all of them.

So the next time you hear that someone is facing a problem and think that it doesn't concern you, remember that when one of us is threatened, we are all at risk.

In the book of Genesis, Cain said about Abel his brother to our God: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

We are all involved in this journey called life. We must keep an eye out for one another and be willing to make that extra effort to encourage one another.

I encourage EVERY person to protest to their elected officials. If you do not stand up for your rights and freedoms, no one’s home or business will ever be safe again.

© 2004 Joyce Morrison - All Rights Reserved

 

For problems or questions regarding this web contact libvp@sbcglobal.net
Last updated: September 15, 2006.