Friday - 30. April 2010

Home

Contact Us

Subscribe

Archives:

April
2010

March
2010

February 2010

January 2010

December 2009

November 2009

October 2009

September 2009

August 2009

July
2009

Categories:

Book Review

Church News

Church Briefs

Columns

Editorials

Entertainment

Front Page Stories

Legislative News

Letters to the Editor

News Briefs

OBITUARY

Picture

Sports

Sports Briefs

Uncategorized

Meta:

Log in

Entries RSS

« Finally

A Hale prom
that would have made Johnny Cash proud »

Delaware man wins his battle against eminent domain
by Randy
Bright

The Sam Adams Alliance has awarded one of its annual “Sammie”
awards to Ed Osborne, an auto repair shop owner in Wilmington, Delaware, who
fought a three-year long battle to save his property from being taken by eminent
domain and his drive to enact legislation that protects others from becoming
victims in the same way that he was.

The Alliance was founded in 2006 and has been making its
annual award since 2007. Their website states, “Our mission is to
help Americans understand free-market-based principles and policies, and to help
ensure the vision of Sam Adams and our Founding Fathers flourishes in the 21st
Century.” They take their inspiration from Sam Adams, who fostered
a popular movement against the British by encouraging grassroots communications
between colonists.

Ed Osborne was one of six people who were awarded a 2010
Sammie award. Their website said that he had won the award “for his
vigorous defense of property rights against eminent domain in Delaware.
Osborne gained his notoriety as an activist when he and 61 other
Wilmington business owners received notification that their businesses were on
the city’s property acquisition list. Osborne resisted government
offers for his land, and instead went on to lead a three-year battle in the
Delaware General Assembly for legislation against eminent domain abuse.
Despite heavy opposition and a gubernatorial veto, the legislation
eventually passed, and transformed Delaware’s once-vulnerable property rights
environment into one that protects private ownership.”

The boldness behind Wilmington’s attempt to seize Osborne’s
property in order to give it to a private developer was inspired by the Supreme
Court’s Kelo vs. New London case, in which Suzette Kilo and others lost their
homes to a developer who was going to build offices and a hotel to support the
presence of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. Reportedly, $78 million
was spent to remove the homes, but, in 2009, Pfizer closed its facilities,
leaving the bulldozed area vacant.

Wilmington wanted the 62 properties, most of which were
closed businesses, for their South Walnut Street Renovation Plan, which would
have given the property to a developer. Osborne had invested his
business in the area since 1994, and because it was a high-crime area, had taken
the risk to do so when few others would.

Osborne first learned that his property was going to be taken
when he received a condemnation notice. Neither the city or the
developer had offered to purchase his property prior to the condemnation
notice.

Osborne sued, stating that his rights had been violated
because he was not being offered fair compensation, and because the use of his
property would be for a private, not public, use.

As a result of Osborne’s case, Senate Bill 245 was passed to
define and restrict the use of eminent domain, but the governor vetoed it.

The law that eventually passed was Senate Bill 7, which
amended their existing laws regarding eminent domain. The synopsis
of the bill stated that “This bill requires state, county, or municipal
governments or state agencies or other condemning entities to use their eminent
domain authority solely for ‘public use’ and defines that term. The
bill specifically states that benefits derived from economic development do not
constitute a public use.” (emphasis mine.)

The bill itself states that “the policy of the provisions of
this chapter pertaining to eminent domain is to ensure that eminent domain is
used for a limited, defined public use. Public use does not include
the generation of public revenues, increase in tax base, tax revenues,
employment or economic health, through private land owners or economic
development.” (Again, emphasis mine.)

The bill still allows the use of eminent domain for the
removal of blighted areas or “slums,” as well as buildings that are unfit for
human habitation or abandoned properties.

While it is gratifying that Osborne won against huge odds,
there are many cases that aren’t won, or even fought against, because of lack of
funding for legal defense, or lack of knowledge of laws or how to change
them. Osborne proved that with endurance and resourcefulness the
little guy can be successful, but the real answer is that much more legislation
needs to be done to protect individual property rights in other states,
including Oklahoma.

©2010 Randy W. Bright

Randy W. Bright, AIA, NCARB, is an architect who specializes
in church and church-related projects. You may contact him at 918-582-3972,
[email-masked] or www.churcharchitect.net.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April
29th, 2010 and is filed under Columns.

Recent News

PlaniTulsa threatens American
freedoms

Barresi seeks excellence in
education

BA Schools may be facing a
criminal investigation

Stamp honors cowboys of the
‘Silver Screen’

A Salute to Vietnam Veterans
planned for July 2-4 here

Delaware man wins his battle against eminent domain

The Sam Adams Alliance has awarded one of its annual “Sammie” awards to Ed
Osborne, an auto repair shop owner in Wilmington, Delaware, who fought a
three-year long battle to save his property from being taken by eminent domain
and his drive to enact legislation that protects others from becoming victims in
the same way [...]

Full
Article...

© 2010 Tulsa
Beacon - Entries (RSS) - Log in
Theme
design by Christian
Gnoth