| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Mysterious break-in at future site of W's library |
| 2007-01-12 |
| Apparently the future library site is occupied by a condo development, and the residents are being evicted by federal agents on extremely short notice. One of the holdouts sez his home was burgled and only personal papers were taken. I am NOT a fan of eminent domain abuse, and IMO this is a good example. Surely there must be *some* acreage *somewhere* in Texas where the only evictees would be scorpions. |
| Posted by:Seafarious |
| #8 Whatever this is, it's dirty, and I don't like it. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-01-12 17:37 |
| #7 Doesn't mudder Sheehan have some property in TX? (since you mentioned scorpions) |
| Posted by: Sholet Ulosing3429 2007-01-12 15:36 |
| #6 BA, it's not imminent domain, but it's not a pretty story. A synopsis of a Dallas Observer column: Six years ago University Gardens was 'a thriving, genteel little community' of 374 units on 12.5 acres. Then SMU, for what ever reason, decided to acquire the land. One provision of the bylaws of the condominium association allowed anyone who owned 75% of the units to force the owners of the other 25% to sell. After a few legal rounds SMU won in the courts. In the end, all of the owners except Vodicka sold out to SMU in a settlement of SMU's lawsuit against them. The possibility of placing the Bush library on this same ground gives these moral issues fresh resonance. |
| Posted by: GK 2007-01-12 11:16 |
| #5 How can a private entity (SMU) evict people? By that, I mean, it's not Eminent Domain per se, because it's not a gov't entity doing it. And, who's the judge who allowed the evictions to continue? I'm all for a Presidential Library there at SMU, but NOT this way. It reads somewhat that the others did NOT own these condos (rentals?) except the one guy. Maybe all the other owners sold out and left him holding his? I'm more o.k. with that, with the condition that they give him FAIR MARKET VALUE for it. But, why are Federal agents evicting people unless the legal battle went to a Federal Court level? Not enough detail there to know how this should be solved. |
| Posted by: BA 2007-01-12 10:43 |
| #4 Surely there must be *some* acreage *somewhere* in Texas where the only evictees would be scorpions. If ever any building was meant to be located in a mosque conversion this is it. I would especially enjoy wiping my feet at the door and munching on pork scratchings during my tour. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-01-12 09:51 |
| #3 I agree, but if you are tearing down a total shitbox that isn't fit for human habitation anyway then maybe there is some sense to it. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2007-01-12 07:57 |
| #2 He says SMU has offered him $75 a square foot for his property and that isn't enough. Then the Court will decide the 'fair' value. Eminent domain doesn't just take your property, it pays you a fair value, and in the case of highway departments, must help you relocate to 'comarable and decent' housing. Sometimes this results in a considerable upgrade for the less-well-to-do, because "comparable" was not "decent". This is SMU (Southern Methodist University) in the pretty-well-off suburb of University Park/Highland Park surrounded by Dallas. SMU can't expand at all without tearing something else down. I suspect they wanted a new library and were pleased to put the Bush name on it. I DO believe taking property to build a private venture so that it will result in more tax revenue is an abuse of the power of eminent domain. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-01-12 07:18 |
| #1 Papers stolen? Wonder where Sandy Berger was Wednesday night? |
| Posted by: GK 2007-01-12 00:27 |