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.