LovelandPolitics.com BLOG
All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only.
Entry for July 22, 2006
photo

If you saw the ad on Marostica's position on Eminent Domain today, please post your comments here.


The ad speaks for itself but let me explain the spin you will likely hear coming from Marostica's political campaign that has now cost him over $100,000 of his own money.


The term "public use" for eminent domain is used to refer to a library, park or some other public facility not meant for private purposes.  In addition, critical roadways connecting cities or large suburban areas may be called a "public use" because the condemnation of private land is for the purpose of facilitating needed transportation of goods, services and people .  The expansion of 287 is a good example since it was for the use of all residents and not any particular group or to benefit one developer.


The Aspen Knolls taking through Eminent Domain by the Loveland City Council in March 2004 was clearly done to assist one developer to maximize the profit of his development in complete disregard for the equal rights of the other property owners.


Marostica pretends is was for a "public use" because the land taken allowed KB Homes to build more units by offering the turn-pockets the city traffic engineers required for the density proposed required.  He will also argue it was already in the master plan therefore was going to happend anyway.


Nonetheless, the property could have contributed to a different use, development or purpose.  KB Homes failed to buy the land the development required and knew Marostica could get the land for them through Eminent Domain.  Even the City Attorney used the language that the property wasn't taken for primarily a private purpose.  Well, we disagree but the comment demonstrates a recognition by the city that the taking was in their eyes (at least in part) taken for a private purpose.


2006-07-22 15:29:23 GMT
Comments (4 total)
Author:Anonymous
Eminent Domain is a problem in our community. I wish Don could have voted against it but I understand the Mayor was for it and pressured Don a great deal. You make it sound like he did it alone. What about the other Councilors who voted to take the Hein Farm.
--Diane L.L.
2006-07-23 19:36:51 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Thanks for your letter Liam. The truth is you just have a personal axe to grind because you do not want someone else to exercise their private property rights (KB Homes and the real families that will buy them in this case). The Hein farm was not taken as you imply. It was a tiny amount of space for a turn lane...a legitimate public road safety issue. The Hein family was very pleased with their settlement and the value of their farm was greatly enhanced. You, Liam, and McNaught (McNothing) for hooking up with you, should try being honest for a change. You two are low-level "fire starters" who do our entire community and the important subject of private property rights a disservice with your distortions of the truth.
2006-07-25 13:39:33 GMT
Author:Anonymous
"McNothing"? Sounds like a shill for Marostica.
2006-07-26 18:01:55 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Hmmm...Sounds like the argument Marostica has used with the press, if you are Don don't be shy about signing your name to your posting.

This is a very strange argument indeed. Forgive me for pointing out that this issue regards the property rights of not only the Hein family but the other owners forced to sell under the threat of EMINENT DOMAIN.

I understand Don (likely you) has told the press he is close friends with the attorney of the Hein family trust and that the attorney was happy with the "transaction."

My ad never said nor implied it was all the property. In fact, I used most of the ad explaining that it was an access issue from Taft that caused the taking of private property.

Eminent Domain for a public purpose (as defined by the courts) is use for a library, public park or interstate where no other routes are possible. This is none of those, in fact, the City of Loveland documents show the City Manager and City Attorney failed (despite possible pressure from Council) to say this was a taking ONLY for a public purpose. The carefully crafted language says it wasn't PRIMARILY for private purposes. Thus allowing, in part, the interpretation that even city staff was unwilling to agree with Don's false claim that it was ONLY for public purpose.

KB Homes asked for the condemnation and declaration of Eminent Domain, KB Homes needed the land before their ambitious development could be approved and KB Homes paid the City of Loveland not only for the land but the entire process as well.

I can think of lots of great development ideas that may also require other people's land (even a small strip) next to my own. However, my ambition to development my land doesn't somehow strip my neighbor of his/her property rights even if their land is only need for a driveway or turn-pocket.

Your defense of KB Homes is very weak as well. The Greenbriar attached homes built by KB Homes in 2001 here in Loveland have nearly 20 for sale out of over just 130 built. They sold new for prices ranging from 160's to the 170's. Today they are selling in the 140's trapping many young families into debt they can't afford on a home worth less than they owe. Check the foreclosure listings and see what has happened to the KB Homes buyers in Greebriar paired homes. People made money and young buyers are trapped in low quality construction (did I mention the class action lawsuit against KB Homes?).

Building homes for a quick profit may be good business but please don't pretend its an act of charity. Lastly, don't you (Don) also own that awful shopping center where Albertson's is leaving and weeds are growing everywhere? If not, please set the record straight since I have heard it is yours but haven't taken the time to look.
--Liam
<mailto:info@lovelandpolitics.com>
2006-07-27 07:03:16 GMT
Add to My Yahoo! RSS