| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2006/1/13-17 [Reference/RealEstate, Reference/Tax] UID:41370 Activity:high |
1/13 You think Bay Area housing prices skyrocketed? Check this out.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060113/ap_on_re_us/everglades_holdout
$60K -> $4.95M in 30yrs.
\_ Synopsis of this article: Many dumb asses bought useless FL
swamp lands during the 1960's land scam, and got paid millions
of dollars 4-5 decades later.
My interpretation: The land/real-estate market is dumb ass
dummy-safe. If you hold it long enough, and in this case
2/3 of your lifetime, you'll still come out ahead. So go
ahead and buy your first home or 5th income property regardless
of the bubble, you'll still do well 4-5 decades later.
\_ Why is it a surprise that land might have tremendous value
*50 YEARS* after purchase? You seem pretty bitter that these
people had the foresight to give themselves a nice retirement
package starting *50 YEARS* ago. Why are you so upset that
other people have done well in life? Nothing is stopping you
from putting some money down on cheap land today and *maybe*
retiring well on it in *50 YEARS*.
\_ "...I will never be able to freely do what I wanted to do."
With $4.95M? I'd think he could afford a big place somewhere just
as rural.
\_ He was apparently forced off his land. I see a problem with
that.
\_ Go bother Jeb
http://web.naplesnews.com/03/10/naples/e39080a.htm
"Bush said Thursday that it looked as if negotiations with
Hardy would not succeed and that the state would have to
pursue eminent domain against him, something Bush said he
doesn't like to do. He said Hardy would be
'well-compensated.'" (Oct 17, 2003)
Hardy sure wants to: http://www.jessehardy.com
"So, you can do the math, people, 160 acres at $50,000 per
acre, equals $8 million dollars - a far cry from the
'staggering' $4.95 million I 'shrewdly' negotiated!"
... along with his lawyers:
"My negotiator, Will Smith, let me get ripped off, just like
my attorney, Charlie Forman. I would do anything to get my
land back, even if I didn't have anything else left."
\_ I'm happy to bother Jeb. Why does that matter?
\_ 70 year old with a 9 year old son.. This guy sounds like a trip..
\_ just telling you who's to blame in this case.
\_ This is horseshit, Jeb or not. There is a reason for
the existence of eminent domain, and the fact that it's
been abused crazily by corrupt politicians and property
developers doesn't mean it's always bad. Ask yourself:
qui bono? The guy got $5 million for a piece of swamp he
acquired for 60k--that's a lot of money. -John
\_ It doesn't matter what he got for it or what he paid
for it. We still like to pretend in this country that
we have property rights.
\_ Not after Kelo.
\_ Well yeah, like I said: "pretend".
\_ So when someone lubes you up and reams you, it's just
haggling over remuneration?
\_ Re. property rights: if you don't pay property
tax, your property is taken away from you. So that
sort of scotches that argument. Re. reaming: you
\_ Scotches what? In no manner does the concept
of property taxes scotch an anti-ED point.
[erased my own long rant]. In short, what
the hell are you talking about?
don't seem to be getting the fundamental difference
between taking away land for someone else's
profit (a la New London) and taking away land that
was initially probably developed at least shadily,
\_ Probably? All land in this country was
initially stolen from the natives. By
your logic it is therefore ok to ream all
current land owners just because.
like much of the Everglades, and returning it to
the commons. And yes, I know there's a huge grey
area. -John
\_ There's no grey area. Land taken from an
owner for anything more than strictly
defined public use (such as needing a
\_ I hope you realize that after
Kelo pretty much anything the
gov says is a public use is a
public use, including taking
away your home and giving it
somebody wealthier b/c they
will pay more property taxes.
school, firehouse, etc) without first making
all reasonable efforts to use other land and
not *fully* compensating the victim for
their loss is theft by government. There
are way too many ED cases where the ED isn't
for a real public use and the compensation
figures are calculated falsely (such as
after prices in the area drop by 80% after
they announce an ED) that it is impossible
to defend ED and it's advocates without
associating one's self with some of the
scummiest people in local government. This
isn't Europe. We've always been allowed to
actually *own* our property here.
\_ Nice dig, there. The money allocated to
him was not calculated falsely, as
property prices could would not drop
in the conventional sense if the property
was not being commercially allocated.
You may have noted the bit about it
being returned to its natural state.
That said, of course there is a grey area
and it is huge. I agree fully that ED
is vastly over- and too often misused.
But do you seriously believe that
communities as such could make _any_
economic progress if they had no way at
all of occasionally expropriating
resources? And no, before you hint at it
again, I do not believe in some socialist
utopian idea of land as a public good,
but as a limited resource to be handled
judiciously. And let's face it, the guy
_did_ get $5 million for a swamp. -John
\_ Ah, so the lube is okay if the price
is high enough. Thanks for sharing.
If the government can take land not
for public use, then private property
doesn't exist. Period.
\_ Parks are for public use. -tom
\_ Not state park and "preserves."
Too often they're off limits
for people. ED is reasonable
for roads and ... well pretty
much nothing else.
So let's take this ad absurdum--if I build a house on a pristine _/
natural resource under some sort of homesteading "nobody's using it,
come 'n git it" initiative, and the land is later found to be the
last remaining preserve of the rare spotted mud iguana whose
secretions cure cancer, and my presence is killing off the last few,
then the gub'mint takes my land, fences off the area and doesn't let
anyone in, you would oppose this, right (like I said, ad absurdum)?
Also, I'll freely admit that maybe I'm dense, but I fail to see the
difference in the big-picture between this and the gub'mint taking
your land if you don't pay property taxes. In both cases, the land
isn't really yours unconditionally as such. -John
\_ I'm not the op or anyone who responded to your post. I just
want to say that all this talk is further proof that the
concept of ownership (I give you XX trinkets so that you will
give me YY acres of land) makes people greedy and do really
evil things. The land is precious, and an individual has very
limited scope in what he/she can do to fully use the land for
greater goods. Given that most common people have been proven
to be selfish & stupid in the entire history mankind, it should
have been the case from the beginning that the land is not
monopolized by individuals. Land belongs to the common habitats
of the land.
\_ Is this a troll? Are you really actually advocating some form
of socialism or just looking for enraged responses?
\_ What? You haven't learned to pick up on the subtle
article-abuse we have all come to know and love of Chicom
troll? Get with it. Nevermind. I re-read the post, and I
believe it to be an imposter.
\_ I didn't see the expected ChiComTroll grammar at all.
I'm sure it is someone else but still a troll.
\_ I'm not the above poster you're responding to. With that in mind:
Cancer: it doesn't matter how you came about the land as long as
it is legally yours today. ED'ing cancer cure land: first, it is
necessary to keep the frogs on that land to harvest them directly
for a cancer cure? If so, we're screwed anyway since there won't
be enough of $rare_animal_or_plant_X to matter. If someone wants
to "steal" all the frogs off the land, I don't have an issue with
that. We're assuming the rare plant/animal is secondary to the
normal land use pattern for the owner. If the owner was actually
raising and farming these things for a cancer cure then I've got
a problem with stealing his frogs.
Property taxes: this is what all land owners pay in exchange for
the State (be it local, state or federal) to support and protect
the owner and their land claim so they don't have to raise their
own private army to defend their stake. The resource being paid
for with PT is protective physical and legal enforcement of the
land ownership claim. The State usually uses that cash to do
things like provide water, roads, schools, etc, but it doesn't
have to. Once the PT are paid, the State does what they want with
the money. By not paying your PT you are not paying the State what
they need to protect your land claim. Since the State is
effectively forced to defend all land claims, you can't opt out of
your property taxes.
Back to the core idea: I don't think the vast majority of people
have a problem with the concept of ED. I don't. The problem is
that local governments have been very seriously abusing it for
years and in the last 15-20 years the abuses have skyrocketed
both in number and severity well past the point of thinking of
ED as anything more than theft. Far far far too many cases all
over the country go like this:
1) Business Developer buys a few beers and kicks a few bucks at
a local mayor or board.
2) Locals find some nice water front land inhabited for the previous
$MANY_DECADES by honest, hard working tax paying, working class
folks and retirees and announces ED on the whole area calling it
a "blighted area".
3) ED announcement naturally causes huge drop in housing prices in
the area.
4) Locals use new lower comp figures as pay out number to determine
worth of remaining houses and small businesses.
5) Citizens get pennies on the dollar and evicted.
6) Locals hand over the land to the Business Developer we saw back
in #1 who builds yacht club, fancy hotels and condos.
7) Locals and Business Developer claim victory for The Community
and "Yay! ED makes everyone a winner!" except for those
Community Members we decided weren't adding enough to the tax
base and were kinda lower class anyway and couldn't afford a
yacht club membership, screw them. Welcome to ED in the
current era. Oh yeah, we might have built a school or small
park in there somewhere, too.
The alternative to the above is less common but has happened here
and there is they steal some dumb bastard's land, don't do a thing
with it and then sell it on the public market 20 years later after
real estate sky rockets. Not even a token park is built. Just
pure raw flat out theft under color of authority.
\_ Well, I think we agree that (a) this is theft, and (b) ED has
been massively abused and is a slippery slide in itself. I do
however still think that this particular case falls under the
few "legit" uses of ED--both due to the intended use of the
land ("for the public good" in the greater sense) and the
amount paid. -John
\_ I believe in this case he ended up in some sort of
negotiated settlement that he felt was forced upon him
under threat of ED. Negotiating under the gun isn't much
of a negotiation and he probably could've gotten more which
I think is what his gripe is. Anyway, at least we agree on
the major points which is the part I was here for. |
| 5/25 |
|
| news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060113/ap_on_re_us/everglades_holdout "I will never see the turkeys run up and down the road again," said Jesse Hardy, 70. Hardy's land was the last of 19,000 parcels purchased by the state over the past two decades to help return the Everglades to its natural state. Most owners happily sold, having bought in a 1960s land scam. Hardy rejected repeated offers, however, saying he wanted to hang onto a dying rural lifestyle and pass it on to the 9-year-old boy he has raised on the land with the boy's mother. The deadline for him to leave the property was Thursday. Hardy paid $60,000 in 1976 for the land about 40 miles east of Naples. He built a small, clapboard house on his 160 acres, dug a well and used propane instead of electricity. With the settlement money, Hardy bought a new house and was moving his belongings into it this week, but he says it really isn't home for him. Construction crews are scheduled to start filling in canals and tearing apart roads on Hardy's Everglades land later this year. Once restored, his parcel and the surrounding area will connect with a state forest and wildlife reserves. Jesse Hardy gestures in front of his home in the middle of the Everglades, June 17, 2004. Hardy finally packed up to move, acknowledging he'll have to leave some of his belongings behind on land the state claimed for an environmental restoration project. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. |
| web.naplesnews.com/03/10/naples/e39080a.htm Mike Barry, from left, of the Florida Division of Forestry; Win Everham, a professor of environmental studies at Florida Gulf Coast University; and Melinda Schuman, a biologist with The Conservancy of Southwest Florida stand on a walkway over the Prairie Canal near Janes Scenic Drive on Thursday after a groundbreaking ceremony to mark the beginning of construction work on the $8 billion Everglades restoration project. Prairie Canal is the first canal to be filled in an effort to slow freshwater drainage as part of the restoration project in Southern Golden Gates Estates. David Ahntholz/Staff The project will tear out roads and fill in canals to restore natural water flows across 55,000 acres in Southern Golden Gate Estates, where developers once dreamed of building the world's largest subdivision between US 41 East and Interstate 75. Thursday's ceremonial start of work seemed as much about shoring up federal support for the larger Everglades restoration plan as it was about moving dirt. Some in Congress expressed skepticism about the state's commitment to restoration after Bush signed a bill earlier this year that delays the deadline for sugar companies to clean up polluted runoff into the Everglades from sugar cane fields south of Lake Okeechobee. "We're committed to the future of the Everglades, to honoring our commitments and promises, to protecting the natural treasures of our state," Bush said. "You know what, actions speak louder than words, actions speak louder than words and results outlast rhetoric," he said. "Today's actions and today's results are proof positive of Florida's commitment to restoring the River of Grass and the power of working together." Burt Saunders, R-Naples, among those sharing the dais with Bush, added his own assurances for good measure. "There will be no problem in terms of funding (Everglades restoration) as far as the state Legislature is concerned," Saunders said. So far, the state's money is the only money going toward the Southern Golden Gate Estates restoration project, which is estimated to cost $50 million. The South Florida Water Management District is moving forward alone on a so-called "early start" in Southern Golden Gate Estates. Jeb Bush answers questions from reporters after a groundbreaking ceremony for Everglades restoration at the intersection of Janes Scenic Drive and Prairie Canal in the Southern Golden Gate Estates area of Collier County on Thursday. At left is David Struhs, secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. David Ahntholz/Staff A team of state and federal engineers and scientists still is mired in the details of the rest of the restoration. The plan is to ask Congress to authorize the project next year. "We've accelerated this in anticipation of the federal government catching up," Bush said. The "early start" phase will fill in seven miles of the Prairie Canal on the eastern edge of Southern Golden Gate and tear out 25 miles of roads. "I hope we might see more of this kind of progress in the future," said Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary David Struhs, who also wielded his own shovel. During the ceremony, South Florida Water Management District Director Henry Dean credited Struhs with getting "personally involved" in pushing the early start six months ago. Southern Golden Gate Estates restoration has been in the talking stages since the 1980s, and getting to Thursday's groundbreaking has been a fight all the way. Almost 4,000 landowners in Southern Golden Gate Estates filed lawsuits in 1988 and 1992, claiming the state wasn't offering fair prices for their land and was violating their rights to use it. A 1997 settlement required new appraisals and set the stage for a massive wave of successful eminent domain claims in Collier Circuit Court. In 1997, the state owned 17,180 acres in the restoration area. The state has bought 13,000 parcels since 1997, according to state figures. The buyout, comprising 19,000 parcels, has cost $110 million, about $38 million of which came from the federal government. Click on the image above for a full size version of the graphic. Complaints persist to this day about the state's use of eminent domain in Southern Golden Gate Estates and about landowners getting raw deals from the government. On Tuesday, though, Bush and the Cabinet approved an $880,000 deal with hold-out property owner George Miller. Still holding out are the Miccosukee tribe of Indians and 67-year-old disabled veteran Jesse Hardy, who lives on 160 acres with his adopted 7-year-old son, Tommy. Bush said Thursday that it looked as if negotiations with Hardy would not succeed and that the state would have to pursue eminent domain against him, something Bush said he doesn't like to do. As for the Miccosukees, negotiations are continuing, Struhs said Thursday. Even Collier County was threatened with eminent domain when county commissioners refused to hand over miles of roads in the restoration area. Under the deal, the county gave up the roads in exchange for $1 million a year for up to 20 years for maintenance of the county's drainage system and a pledge that the state will find 640 acres for an ATV park for angry riders pushed out by the restoration. Commissioner Frank Halas was the only county commissioner to attend the ceremony, which drew about 250 people, many of them employees of state and federal agencies connected to the restoration. Many of them rode to the event in chartered buses through Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve. Bush arrived by helicopter, landing on a patch of pavement at the end of Stewart Boulevard. The Water Enhancement and Restoration Council, a public-private group spearheaded by the region's largest developers, footed most of the bill for the event -- including a catered lunch of barbecue sandwiches, cole slaw, green beans and swamp cabbage -- contributing $5,000, said South Florida Water Management District spokesman Kurt Harclerode. Restoration advocate Nancy Payton said the groundbreaking was worth celebrating after years of talking about it. "I had hoped it would happen in my lifetime, but I didn't think it would happen so soon," said Payton, field representative for the Florida Wildlife Federation. |
| www.jessehardy.com First of all, let me make this perfectly clear, to my attorneys, to my supporters and to the public, "I got took!" My property was stolen from me that fateful day of April 12, 2005. people who knew I wanted my land more than anything else in the world, yet I sat there like a zombie letting them do the work for me. She was at a disadvantage, because she had to operate under Charlie Forman. Besides, Karen was handling the federal aspect of the litigation. Charlie and his team were the litigators for the price, but settling was not what I had in mind. Bill didn't want to work with Karen, for some reason, so he had someone named Gregory S Rix from his law firm write a letter indicating that eminent domain proceedings could be included in my lawsuit. It appeared to me that by his actions Bill had the DEP's best interests in mind, and not mine, which was why I fired him. I heard that Charlie was a good attorney, so I hired him and told him to fight for my home and my land, and not to deviate from that. As we progressed through the ongoing negotiations, he seemed to not want to fight for my land, and he seemed anxious to settle. Charlie would tell me that they (DEP) would keep coming back again and again, and that they were going to get my property, one way or the other. Then I told Charlie that there was no way they could flood my property. I told him there was no reason for them to take my land, and that they didn't need to take out the roads, etc. Here I was, trying to be a good citizen, I fought for my country, this was all totally beyond my comprehension - I did not want to lose my home! I told Charlie that this Everglades Restoration is not what it's purported to be. Fifty years from now, it'll still be playing out, you wait and see. And the Naples Daily News said what a "top-notch" negotiator I turned out to be. Since this has happened, I've looked around at some local properties. After spending time with realtor Matt Hudson, the closest thing I can come to, for a small five-acre piece of land, will cost me nearly one million dollars. I have to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, I was in a state of shock. I sat there with my attorneys, like an idiot, as they negotiated my life, while telling me what they were doing for me, all the while, as they twisted the knife further in me. My negotiator, Will Smith, let me get ripped off, just like my attorney, Charlie Forman. I would do anything to get my land back, even if I didn't have anything else left. I would feel much better with nothing, knowing I had fought as hard as I could, than to have the sick feelings I have now, just knowing it's all gone. How is it that Nancy Payton from the Florida Wildlife Federation has now become the "official" spokeswoman for anything environmental around here? I thought this was a project between DEP and South Florida Water Management District, and not the Florida Wildlife Federation. Why does every article that's written on the environment, include a quote from her? Is she the only one with a voice on environmental issues? I find it awfully sad to think that she has the final say on our environment. |