Laura Brandt
Laura Brandt's little house on Jefferson is to be purchased by Murrieta city for $360,000. Congratulations, Laura, and good luck on finding a replacement house.
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
33 Comments:
Location is everything in real estate. The fact that this prime MU-3 location (just off the intersection of Jefferson/Ivy) happens to be someone's home, however humble, made it necessary for the city to take both factors into consideration. But the current market in this vicinity has actually made the residential nature of this property a moot factor. If any other piece of real estate, of any existing lot size, with or without a house, becomes available anywhere between Ms. Brandt's home and Murrieta Hot Springs Road for any price under $500,000, I guarantee it will be sold in an instant. I can guarantee this, because if someone else does not buy it, I will.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:02:00 PM
Hello, I was Anonymous 7:02, and in case anyone from the city is tuned in here, I want to mention my interest in obtaining property in this particular area is serious, and it includes the Brandt house. If the city wants to put that property up for sale, just get a sale notice posted and my broker will be in touch with your broker.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:58:00 PM
Just noticed this thread. To "Anon 7:02", I know something about the local real estate market, and that property is just a little over 6,000 sq ft. In a really hot area, if a little house like that could be used for office purposes, it would be valuable. But I've heard that house will be torn down for the road. If so, the land value by itself would not be much more than $24 a square foot in today's market. I agree it could go higher in the future as the road work nears completion, but even then I can't see a 6,000 sq ft lot going for $500,000. But if you want to spend that kind of money, and the city wants to sell the lot, good luck to you both.
JLM
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 21, 2005 9:00:00 PM
There is an empty lot on Ivy that is across from Cal West Spas that is FSBO. Check it out 7:02. It is much larger than the Brandt lot.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 21, 2005 9:26:00 PM
This is "Anon 7:02" again. Thanks to both of you for the input. I (or more accurately, my employers, from outside your town) at present have a focus on a specific street, running between the approximate location of the "Brandt" property and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and possibly a portion of MHSR as well. This area of interest may expand (or change) in the future, but at present it is what it is.
We've studied the Domenigoni/Lewis plans for your "Golden Triangle" area (we refer to it as the "Lewis Project"), and our planning revolves in an indirect yet specific manner around that project.
Property acquisition is a relatively small but vital part of our activity. For professional and legal reasons, when it comes to making a deal, we prefer to let our broker deal with a seller's broker. At the present time, we are watching and waiting. But as I stated earlier, if the property known as the Brandt property becomes publically available for sale by the city in the near future, we are very interested.
Thank you for any help you can provide. I check this Blog site among other informal information sources about once a week.
Instead of "Anon 7:02", let me leave the Blog a more identifiable tag:
TFNY
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:59:00 AM
So, the blog is awake again.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I've seen the way major developers work. Not talking about the locals, like Rancon's owner. They're not really that big. TFNY, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're for real, your organization is for real, and you're preparing to make a land grab. But you're not really interested in the Brandt property, are you? No. You're looking at the city's power of eminent domain as it relates to the redevelopment district. I hit the nail on the head, didn't I? You know the Brandt parcel is out of the question, but you know the city can snap up properties with the very special power that comes with its official redevelopment district designations. And then, as you know, the city can make deals with developers with those very same properties. You're so anxious to get ahold of properties that you're already putting up big dollar signs. As I said, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I know I'm right.
JLM
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 22, 2005 11:59:00 AM
Ooooh. Cool. They're baaaaak. Another conspiracy theory. The city and developers and eminent domain, all rolled into one. JLM, where are the black helicopters? I may not own land anywhere near the Golden Triangle, but if TFNY or any other big bucks developer wants to look at my property, I'll roll out the red carpet. I wish my land was in the path of development. Laura Brant can't buy another house for $350,000? Give me a break. She can buy MY house. Hello. Will someone at city hall please plan a road through my bedroom? I hope all the Jefferson street multimillionars choke on their bankrolls.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 22, 2005 6:29:00 PM
Anon 6:29: You have a house in Murrieta you want to sell for $350,000? I'd probably be interested in seeing it, but you've been living in it. That makes it a tough sell.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 22, 2005 6:58:00 PM
Can the city take a property by eminent domain and then sell it to a developer?
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 22, 2005 7:28:00 PM
Klein or McAllister both represent the city (recently, and presently, respectively) and both earn cold hard cash by selling themselves to developers. They don't even deny it. Let's see if one of them will answer Knecht's question.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:16:00 PM
Yes, we all read Warnie's library story. Did he really know what library the report was about? If so, progress is being made. Glad to hear the ankle is OK. Hope to get equally good news about Warnie's cranium.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 22, 2005 11:21:00 PM
Knecht: Have you read about yesterday's Supreme Court decision about eminent domain? It looks like the answer to your questions is yes. It is scary to see that localities now have the newly granted power to seize land for private development. Let's hope that Murrieta does not follow the example set in New London Connecticut.
Justice O'Conner said: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random." She also wrote: The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Look out property owners in the old town area. People like TFNY were probably waiting for this court decision and now they are ready to deal.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:41:00 AM
Rholmgren:
When all else fails, the power of the ballot box remains. It is people like yourself, and the many other named and unnamed participants in this internet forum who will really decide what is acceptable or not when it comes to the exercise of eminent domain. And from someone who has been there, let me tell you that eminent domain does not have to reach a courtroom to use its power. Most people will bend and break under the mere threat of legal action by a governing entity. A governing entity with not only the power of the courts behind it, but with the strongly advertised support of the police and firefighters. Think that's not intimidating? Think again. I strongly believe it is a trust we place in our elected officials that they recognize and respect the fact that they are dealing with human beings and their homes, not mere numbers on an accounting sheet. I understand and agree that the eminent domain process is at times unavoidable, but I also feel it is a legal threat that should be brought up only as a method of last resort, and then only when the taking is truly necessary. And when it is necessary, the compensation be such that a citizen's home property and dignity be treated as something greater than mere dirt. Our hometown citizens deserve great respect, including those citizens who are unable to withstand legal pressure. And this is not just about city hall and public roads. It can also involve other public entities, putting things like intrusive sewage pumping stations in a person’s private residential yard. Offering a token sum for a sizable hunk of a person’s yard, the only alternative being a horribly expensive uphill court fight. It happens. I’ve seen it. It can take you completely by surprise, and the outright theft that is sometimes done “for the greater good” can be a staggering blow to an individual citizen. Whether you agree with me or not on any of this subject matter - and I strongly support your right to disagree - I can assure you that I and others like me in this town, private citizens you might never even meet, will stand with you as friends and neighbors should the need arise.
Tom Suttle
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, June 23, 2005 10:35:00 AM
Mr Suttle: I agree with you 100 percent. Private property rights are one of the core values that American's cherish. The Supreme Court's decision basically eliminated most of our fifth amendment proerty right protections. The decision was basically liberal judicial activism at its worst. It will now be up to the states to pass laws protecting personal property rights. I do not have much confidence that the Calif. legislature will do much. The way I see it this decision opens up a new and and potentially lucrative way to gentrify neighborhoods and raise property tax revenue. Scary thought isn't it?
By
Anonymous, at Friday, June 24, 2005 8:42:00 AM
I’m proud of my liberal views when it comes to personal liberties, so I’m a supporter of many liberal ideals when it comes to the Supreme Court. But I’ve never been so ashamed of the liberal side of the court as I am today. It will be interesting to see how McAllister spins this. He who identifies with conservative ideals when it is convenient to do so, and with developers when it is profitable to do so. My bet is that he comes down on the side of cash, and that he uses every trick of words in the book to justify his lack of a moral spine.
By
Anonymous, at Friday, June 24, 2005 9:34:00 AM
Following this string like a hawk. Complete agreement with Suttle, Rholmgren, and Anon at 9:34.
JLM
By
Anonymous, at Friday, June 24, 2005 9:39:00 AM
I'm really puzzled about something that I hope someone can clear up for me. I started reading in this blog a discussion that seems to be directly related to a supreme court decision... several hours before that decision was announced...??? As nearly as I can determine, NO ONE was supposed to know that decision was coming. What on earth is going on?
By
Anonymous, at Friday, June 24, 2005 3:04:00 PM
Anon 3:04: If we told you, we'd have to - you know - so you don't want to know. Seriously, do you worry about things like that?
By
Anonymous, at Friday, June 24, 2005 4:27:00 PM
Everyone I talk to and everyone I see on TV except attorneys seem to think what the Supreme Court did stinks. If anyone out there in computer screen land thinks what the Supremes did was a good idea, I'd really like to see some input from you so we can discuss it. If not, that says something too.
JLM
By
Anonymous, at Friday, June 24, 2005 8:43:00 PM
---good morning,
---This string is beating a dead horse. everyone agrees. not interesting anyomore. HOW ABOUT A NEW TOPIC?
--- FROM: JUST A SIMPLE PERSON
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, June 25, 2005 7:13:00 AM
If you read the editorials in Press Enterprise and many other papers it makes you think that this imminent domain issue is going to force people in communities to become more interested in what their local governments are doing. The dark cloud may have a silver lining.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, June 26, 2005 8:21:00 AM
Just think: What if this supreme court decision had happened, and Jack Van Haster had not been recalled? Would any of our homes be safe today? I don't know if divine intervention occurred to terminate Van Haster's power, but I thank God he is gone, for the sake of my home, for the sake of this town.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, June 26, 2005 10:48:00 PM
In response to Councilman Seyarto's comments, about the restraint which public agencies will show to property owners, he suggested that the real value of the New London case would be to clean up blighted areas, specifically gang infested, etc.
But the facts of Kelo v. New London, as reported in the majority opinion, show that there was no blight. Here is the statement of facts about the neighborhood which the City of New London was taking for a better use:
"Petitioner Susette Kelo has lived in the Fort Trumbull area since 1997. She has made extensive improvements to her house, which she prizes for its water view. Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery was born in her Fort Trumbull house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life. Her husband Charles (also a petitioner) has lived in the house since they married some 60 years ago. In all, the nine petitioners
own 15 properties in Fort Trumbull—4 in parcel 3 of the development plan and 11 in parcel 4A. Ten of the parcels are occupied by the owner or a family member; the other five are held as investment properties. There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area."
So, the seminal case giving rise to this new eminent domain doctrine is factually unshackled from either blight or poor condition.
I have to agree that the history of Murrieta's development seems to show a deference to large development interests. As such, the little gal and guy can easily be aced out. I think this is very scary. No question, all over this country this new doctrine is going to be used by big money and developers to push their politicos to pay off the campaign contributions by delivering choice real estate -- but, of course, for the good of the greater community!!
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Monday, June 27, 2005 10:12:00 PM
When it comes to this eminent domain issue: I don't care if the politicians are liberal or conservative. The politicians may also be people that I have voted for in previous elections. If any politician(s) supports the type of eminent domain that the Supreme Court just advocated I swear to do whatever is legal to remove the that politician(s) from office.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, June 27, 2005 10:20:00 PM
Don't ever underestimate what the Lord is up to! He is everywhere, even in Murrieta!
By
Anonymous, at Monday, June 27, 2005 11:24:00 PM
To Rholmgren:
Yeah, (fist pump) - welcome to the power of the recall!
By the way, isn't it ironic that conservative Councilman Seyarto is defending a "liberal" Supreme Court decision, while Faunce, the alledged "liberal Orange County trial lawyer," sides with the conservative Justices who dissented in Kelo v. New London.
Personnally I don't know, in the abstract, whether I'm a conservative or a liberal or something else. Give me the issue and the facts, I'll try to make the correct decision beginning with Constitutional principles.
It is still true that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. This new eminent domain doctrine is hopefully going to wake up a lot of freedom vigilantes.
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 12:09:00 AM
But, Councilman Seyarto, you said in your 6/27 post:
"Would the supreme court's interpretation of eminent domain ever be used in Murrieta? I certainly hope not. Is it needed in other areas? From what I have seen, it might be justified. However, I cannot imagine a jury being assembled that would allow a forced sale just so a city like ours can help a developer to build another project."
I think you have missed an important point. A jury does not get to decide whether a forced sale is allowable. It might get to decide what reasonable compensation is paid for the land.
The shocking aspect of the New London case is that the private property being taken was not blighted, just desired for a commercial development.
Would the New London eminent domain theory ever be used in Murrieta? I guarantee that developers and those who advise them have already begun factoring into their thinking the kind of economic arguments necessary to justify not only taking land through eminent domain, but also changing zoning for the same reasons. The New London case will bolster the trend in Murrieta, and elsewhere, to argue against residents in a neighborhood, that the greater good of the community requires that this neighborhood be "sacrificed." Remember the arguments for changing the zoning at Nutmeg and Washington for a second shopping center?
You said that your comments about a dead four year old have nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. Yes, and dead four year olds have nothing to do with the New Lonon case either.
Furthermore, why is the suffering from a dead four year old so different from the suffering experienced by the displacement of entire non-blighted neighborhood in the City of New London? There are already legal justifications for eminent domain actions to deal with blight. The New London case plows new ground.
Your comment about local control is mystifying. What local control? New London says that the residents have lost local control and that wealthy developers can now approach their political minions with development plans to justify the local government's taking of non-blighted private property and giving it to other private ownership.
The real issue is about the meaning of our Constitution, not local control. The Constitution says that property can only be taken for a public purpose and the payment of just compensation. Now the Supreme Court has expanded the meaning of "public purpose" far beyond its former definition.
The sanctity of private property should not depend on the largess of the current members of any particular group of elected officials. Private property should be protected by our Constitution. It is not only the City Council which can use eminent domain, but also other governmental bodies have that power as well.
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:58:00 AM
Doesn't the New London case also put small businesses at risk? When a big box developer needs land, couldn't it be shown that tax revenue will be enhanced by taking through eminent domain a number of small businesses and giving the land to other private developers? Isn't the diversity of our communities threatened by the New London doctrine?
One criticism of California life is the extent to which all communities look alike. The same chains of stores and fast food places. Won't New London simply accelerate this trend?
Just wondering.
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 7:35:00 AM
Anyone interested in the reach of the New London case can read the transcription of the oral argument in the Supreme Court at http://www.ij.org/pdf_folder/private_property/kelo/kelo_ussc_transcript.pdf
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:00:00 AM
I generally had a problem with eminent domain before the Supreme Court decision. In most cases it seemed that municipalities had a tendency to low ball property owners. It is morally and ethically right to pay property owners top dollar for their property. It is sleazy politics when property values are depressed by the threat of eminent domain and cities acquire property at unfair low ball prices. The New London Court case stinks from the east coast to the west coast. A city can justify eminent domain on the grounds that tax revenue can be increased? That is like saying the fox can have the hen house. Every city wants/needs more tax revenue. The seizure of private property for public works is one thing, but the seizure of private property for the benefit of another private entity and a municipality based on increased revenue is public theft. Thieves belong in prison and public officials that seek property through this new perverted use of the eminent domain process belong in prison also.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:26:00 AM
I am also angry about the Supreme Court decision, my opinion is a little extreme and very exaggerated but it gives our government the powers of a communist state in which government can take personal property even in an area that has no blight and give it to the wealthy so both can prosper.
I also read that some states (California wasn’t one of them) that forbids any government entity in that state from taking personal property for private business…if someone here, or knows or one being started, wants to start a petition to either put it on the next ballot or send it to our state legislators to make it law count me to sign it and I’d help gather signatures.
Mike
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:13:00 AM
Imminent domain is a problem of local control but I got the impression from Kelly Seyarto's earlier posts that local governments should be trusted to do the right thing. ("there is not one person on the council, present or past, who would allow the eminent domain process as interpreted by the supreme court to superceded the laws of common decency in our City.") Trust and blind faith are indeed a grand thing, but lets leave this sort of thinking inside the churches.
The false analogy of the dead four-year old should probably be settled, as it is irrelevant. If dying children can influence Supreme Court opinion, why have they not found the war in Iraq unconstitutional? I hate to say it, but this issue is not about safety, its about redistribution of property from the poor to the power elites.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:12:00 PM
I just came across these posts under the heading eminent domain revisited...
The Castle Coalition's Hands Off My Home campaign will give ordinary citizens the means to protect their homes from government-forced takings for private development. The campaign was initiated in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's dreadful ruling in Kelo v. New London, which allows the government to take any property from home and small business owners anywhere in the country and hand it over to another private party.
The approach to ending eminent domain abuse in the Hands Off My Home Initiative is multi-faceted. The Institute for Justice will continue to pursue common sense restrictions on eminent domain based on the public use clauses of each state constitution. Upon the launch of the campaign, governors and the mayor of the District of Columbia were asked to sign the Hands Off My Home Pledge, which will ultimately be extended to legislators and city officials. In addition, IJ and the Castle Coalition will support activists nationwide who are urging substantive change to state and local eminent domain laws and host an annual conference teaching the tools and techniques essential to effective grassroots opposition to eminent domain abuse. The Castle Coalition's Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guide, which has helped communities everywhere stop greedy government land grabs, will be updated and expanded as well.
Simply put, we'll do whatever it takes to protect every American home, small business and house of worship from the government and its corporate allies. We urge you to join us in the fight.You can go to this web site for more information.
www.castlecoalition.org/HandsOffMyHome/index.asp By Anonymous, at Monday, August 29, 2005 5:54:05 AM
I want to respond to Hands Off my Home post.The power of the people is at great risk against the power and devices of developers,cities, county & state.Just a example is
This posted article in USA Today
'I'd leave here broke'
Chutzpah is a Yiddish word meaning brazen arrogance. The cliché example is a man who murders his parents and then begs a judge for mercy because he is an orphan.
The city of New London, Conn., deserves a chutzpah award. In 2000, it condemned 15 homes so a developer could build offices, a hotel and convention center. Susette Kelo and her neighbors spent years in a legal battle that culminated in June, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against them.
That was painful enough. But while the homeowners were battling in court, New London was calculating how much "rent" they owe for living in the houses they were fighting to save. (The city's development corporation gained title to the homes when it condemned them, though the owners refused to sell and haven't collected a cent.)
The homeowners could soon be served with eviction notices, which is justified by the court ruling. But the rent is something else. For some, it comes to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kelo, whose name is on the landmark case, could owe $57,000. "I'd leave here broke," she told the Fairfield County Weekly. "I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."
In a letter to the homeowners' lawyer a year ago, the development corporation justified its behavior by saying, "We know that your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free."
Well, they might have expected not to be bullied for exercising their right to be heard in court.
News of the city's heavy handed tactics should add to the unusual national backlash that has followed the Supreme Court's ruling. The court said state and local governments can seize homes, not just for a public purpose such as building roads or schools, but also for someone else's private profit if the city's economic future is at issue.
The court said states can curtail abuses, and legislatures have rushed to do that. Delaware and Alabama passed laws barring the taking of private property for economic development. Similar measures are pending in eight other states and Congress.
The bills have created some strange alliances. Conservatives worry about the loss of property rights. Liberals say the seizures amount to corporate welfare at the expense of low- and middle-income homeowners who lack the power to fight City Hall.
In response, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell is urging a compromise that would preserve the homes of Kelo and her neighbors.
Unless that happens, they will be evicted — with a rent due. Talk about chutzpah.
By Anonymous, at Monday, August 29, 2005 6:13:35 AM
I just visited the web site of Institute for Justice .the case below relates to taking downtown small businesses and turning them over to developer(s).
'Pittsburgh Fifth & Forbes Condemnation'
Hallmarks of the Institute for Justice’s defense of its clients’ constitutional rights include thinking creatively and trying new tactics. Never was this more apparent than in our fight to save 60 buildings and more than 120 small businesses in downtown Pittsburgh from Mayor Tom Murphy’s plan to take the properties through eminent domain so he could hand the land over to a Chicago developer to construct a private mall.
In June 2000, IJ took its public interest tactics to new heights—literally—posting 10 billboards (each measuring 12 feet high by 25 feet wide) calling the public’s attention to the City of Pittsburgh’s plan to abuse eminent domain. Six different messages appeared in the ads, including one that was located only blocks from Mayor Murphy’s office. That billboard read, “Murphy’s Law: Take from Pittsburgh Families. Give to a Chicago Developer.”
As a result of this campaign and the threat of litigation by the Institute for Justice, Mayor Murphy was forced to once and for all take eminent domain off the table as a threat against property owners in the threatened Fifth and Forbes neighborhood.
In 2001, the Outdoor Advertising Association of America awarded the Institute for Justice a silver medal in recognition of its effective media plan and billboard campaign.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, August 29, 2005 8:32:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home