05-24-2005, 01:34 AM
This is what the NH Democrats have stuped to, stealing land from an elderly lady who is actually doing the community good. I find it amazing that Kaiman would rather throw the lady and the church off their lands to furhter his own political agenda.
His response to the whole matter:
"It's unfortunate we can't come to terms, but the larger community desperately needs this, and we are prepared to go forward and build one," Kaiman said.
Real great public servant.
Here is the story from today's Newsday:
Backyard battle over land rights
Church group fights North Hempstead’s bid to take site for public center
BY COLLIN NASH
STAFF WRITER
May 23, 2005
A 1.7 acre parcel of land in New Cassel - home to the 100-member World Bible Way Fellowship Upper Room Church - is the centerpiece of a fight over what's more important: a church or a community center.
On a recent morning in New Cassel, a group of clergy sat around wooden tables in the basement of St. John's Baptist Church to argue that the church was more important.
Margaret Savage, an ordained minister and head of the World Bible church, told the gathered ministers that she was worried about her future in the community as she and the Town of North Hempstead argue over whether her rights to practice her religion on her own property are being taken away and if the Founding Fathers intended to shelter churches from seizure by the government's rights of eminent domain.
On the site is a three-bedroom house, and an outside area on which she frequently sets up a huge tent for services. She said she has plans to build a new church, along with an orphanage, on the land.
"There is no reason for them to take my property except it's two acres of beautiful land," she said. "But we intend to keep it."
Savage's property tops a list of 20 parcels that North Hempstead hopes to condemn under eminent domain, which mandates that properties seized should be developed for the public good, such as highways, bridges, schools and prisons. She believes the property already serves the public good.
Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman has another vision of what Savage's property could be - a community center that would benefit everyone in the community.
"It's unfortunate we can't come to terms, but the larger community desperately needs this, and we are prepared to go forward and build one," Kaiman said.
The tug of war, like another battle before the U.S. Supreme Court, echoes a national debate over the definition of eminent domain. Experts say churches, which don't pay taxes, are especially at risk when municipalities are looking to clear the way for projects that will fortify the tax base and promote economic development.
"It's crucial that religious institutions are protected from over-broad eminent domain seizures," said Jared Leland, a lawyer for the Washington-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
The fund, a nonpartisan interfaith public interest group, recently forced Camden, N.J., to back off plans to seize The Living Faith Ministries, a 6,000-member church on a 20-acre site near the waterfront on which the city envisioned a housing project.
The Becket Fund is involved in another eminent domain court case that has garnered public attention before the U.S. Supreme Court.
That case, Kelo v. New London, Conn., began when the city tried to acquire a house owned by Suzette Kelo, one of 15 property owners along the Thames River where that city envisions condos, offices, a hotel and conference center built by private developers. A ruling is expected in June.
"We cautioned the justices this should not be allowed to happen," Leland said.
In New Cassel, there is precedent in the town's efforts to seize property - even church property. The Rev. Fred Jenkins of St. Luke's Pentecostal Church and his congregation moved through two sites before managing to save enough in 1988 to buy a site with an unfinished church on Grand Street and Prospect Avenue. But before the church could start fixing up the building, the town seized the property, arguing that the building was unsafe, Jenkins said.
"They sprang the eminent domain law on us out of the blue," Jenkins said.
The matter has been tied up in litigation to get what Jenkins considered a fair price for the property. The town has offered $80,000, but he said he paid $130,000. They are now close to striking a deal, Jenkins said, which officials have confirmed.
Savage, meanwhile, said she has been offered $2 million by the town for her property. But she won't sell, she said.
She has used the living room of the three-bedroom house as a sanctuary for the past eight years, Savage said. And when the weather cooperates, a huge tent doubles as church and shelter for occasional revivals, she added.
Savage said she found out about the town's plans through a notice in the Westbury Times. Her attorney, Edward Gould of Islip, filed a notice last month with the federal and state courts seeking to have the matter decided in federal court.
"It's our belief they are taking a property that is protected by the civil rights law and the U.S. Constitution," Gould said.
In a hearing last Tuesday in federal court in Central Islip, U.S. District Judge Thomas Platt agreed to review the petitions before making a ruling on whether the matter will be returned to the state court, Gould said. Attorneys for the North Hempstead Community Development Agency had argued that the matter should stay in state court.
The town, meanwhile, has acquired through eminent domain 16 other parcels in New Cassel, a hamlet of about 13,000 residents, the majority of whom are black and Hispanic, in the past 15 years.
The properties were blighted eyesores, drug dens, bordellos, abandoned, boarded-up and unsafe buildings, said Neville Mullings, executive director of North Hempstead's Community Development Agency.
The town's plans call for mixed-use projects along Prospect Avenue, the main corridor in downtown New Cassel. Those projects include condos for first-time homeowners, retail stores, and affordable rentals for seniors, singles and families. The plan also would include a supermarket and a bank.
Mullings said the St. Luke's church property was targeted because the town saw a decayed building and not a church on the site. "There is no way this town would have gone after a church with an active congregation," Mullings said.
The Rev. William Watson Jr., pastor of St. John's Baptist Church, where the meeting took place, said, "We have to unite and move aggressively to protect our properties and ourselves."
Kaiman said the town is operating within the eminent domain law. "Our issue with her is that she is not looking to develop the property," he said. "She is quick to cloak herself in religion."
Pitched battle that hits home
A property rights battle is the focus of a U.S. Supreme Court case that could change the face of American land-use law and alter development projects from Brooklyn to California.
The issue: The Constitution allows government to seize private property for "public use" as long as it pays "just compensation," a power called "eminent domain" that has traditionally been used to clear the way for such projects as public roads, prisons and reservoirs. But in New London, Conn., and in many other cities and states, the power also has been used to take property and turn it over to private, for-profit parties - companies that will create jobs, or developers of projects for the affluent that will enhance the tax base and thereby assist the public goal of economic development.
Nine states currently prohibit such actions under their state laws. From 1998 to 2002, there were more than 3,700 takings of homes and small businesses nationwide for the benefit of parties ranging from auto dealers to condominium developers, according to a Washington institute helping New London homeowners fight takeover efforts by that city.
Until now, most lawyers thought the Supreme Court had assented to that extension of the condemnation power. But the court's decision to hear the Connecticut case, with a ruling expected in June, indicates at least some justices may be interested in reining in the power.
"There is no limit on eminent domain if that is permitted," said Scott Bullock, of the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based public-interest law firm. "Every business produces more tax revenue than your home. Every larger business produces more tax revenue than a smaller business."
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.
His response to the whole matter:
"It's unfortunate we can't come to terms, but the larger community desperately needs this, and we are prepared to go forward and build one," Kaiman said.
Real great public servant.
Here is the story from today's Newsday:
Backyard battle over land rights
Church group fights North Hempstead’s bid to take site for public center
BY COLLIN NASH
STAFF WRITER
May 23, 2005
A 1.7 acre parcel of land in New Cassel - home to the 100-member World Bible Way Fellowship Upper Room Church - is the centerpiece of a fight over what's more important: a church or a community center.
On a recent morning in New Cassel, a group of clergy sat around wooden tables in the basement of St. John's Baptist Church to argue that the church was more important.
Margaret Savage, an ordained minister and head of the World Bible church, told the gathered ministers that she was worried about her future in the community as she and the Town of North Hempstead argue over whether her rights to practice her religion on her own property are being taken away and if the Founding Fathers intended to shelter churches from seizure by the government's rights of eminent domain.
On the site is a three-bedroom house, and an outside area on which she frequently sets up a huge tent for services. She said she has plans to build a new church, along with an orphanage, on the land.
"There is no reason for them to take my property except it's two acres of beautiful land," she said. "But we intend to keep it."
Savage's property tops a list of 20 parcels that North Hempstead hopes to condemn under eminent domain, which mandates that properties seized should be developed for the public good, such as highways, bridges, schools and prisons. She believes the property already serves the public good.
Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman has another vision of what Savage's property could be - a community center that would benefit everyone in the community.
"It's unfortunate we can't come to terms, but the larger community desperately needs this, and we are prepared to go forward and build one," Kaiman said.
The tug of war, like another battle before the U.S. Supreme Court, echoes a national debate over the definition of eminent domain. Experts say churches, which don't pay taxes, are especially at risk when municipalities are looking to clear the way for projects that will fortify the tax base and promote economic development.
"It's crucial that religious institutions are protected from over-broad eminent domain seizures," said Jared Leland, a lawyer for the Washington-based Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
The fund, a nonpartisan interfaith public interest group, recently forced Camden, N.J., to back off plans to seize The Living Faith Ministries, a 6,000-member church on a 20-acre site near the waterfront on which the city envisioned a housing project.
The Becket Fund is involved in another eminent domain court case that has garnered public attention before the U.S. Supreme Court.
That case, Kelo v. New London, Conn., began when the city tried to acquire a house owned by Suzette Kelo, one of 15 property owners along the Thames River where that city envisions condos, offices, a hotel and conference center built by private developers. A ruling is expected in June.
"We cautioned the justices this should not be allowed to happen," Leland said.
In New Cassel, there is precedent in the town's efforts to seize property - even church property. The Rev. Fred Jenkins of St. Luke's Pentecostal Church and his congregation moved through two sites before managing to save enough in 1988 to buy a site with an unfinished church on Grand Street and Prospect Avenue. But before the church could start fixing up the building, the town seized the property, arguing that the building was unsafe, Jenkins said.
"They sprang the eminent domain law on us out of the blue," Jenkins said.
The matter has been tied up in litigation to get what Jenkins considered a fair price for the property. The town has offered $80,000, but he said he paid $130,000. They are now close to striking a deal, Jenkins said, which officials have confirmed.
Savage, meanwhile, said she has been offered $2 million by the town for her property. But she won't sell, she said.
She has used the living room of the three-bedroom house as a sanctuary for the past eight years, Savage said. And when the weather cooperates, a huge tent doubles as church and shelter for occasional revivals, she added.
Savage said she found out about the town's plans through a notice in the Westbury Times. Her attorney, Edward Gould of Islip, filed a notice last month with the federal and state courts seeking to have the matter decided in federal court.
"It's our belief they are taking a property that is protected by the civil rights law and the U.S. Constitution," Gould said.
In a hearing last Tuesday in federal court in Central Islip, U.S. District Judge Thomas Platt agreed to review the petitions before making a ruling on whether the matter will be returned to the state court, Gould said. Attorneys for the North Hempstead Community Development Agency had argued that the matter should stay in state court.
The town, meanwhile, has acquired through eminent domain 16 other parcels in New Cassel, a hamlet of about 13,000 residents, the majority of whom are black and Hispanic, in the past 15 years.
The properties were blighted eyesores, drug dens, bordellos, abandoned, boarded-up and unsafe buildings, said Neville Mullings, executive director of North Hempstead's Community Development Agency.
The town's plans call for mixed-use projects along Prospect Avenue, the main corridor in downtown New Cassel. Those projects include condos for first-time homeowners, retail stores, and affordable rentals for seniors, singles and families. The plan also would include a supermarket and a bank.
Mullings said the St. Luke's church property was targeted because the town saw a decayed building and not a church on the site. "There is no way this town would have gone after a church with an active congregation," Mullings said.
The Rev. William Watson Jr., pastor of St. John's Baptist Church, where the meeting took place, said, "We have to unite and move aggressively to protect our properties and ourselves."
Kaiman said the town is operating within the eminent domain law. "Our issue with her is that she is not looking to develop the property," he said. "She is quick to cloak herself in religion."
Pitched battle that hits home
A property rights battle is the focus of a U.S. Supreme Court case that could change the face of American land-use law and alter development projects from Brooklyn to California.
The issue: The Constitution allows government to seize private property for "public use" as long as it pays "just compensation," a power called "eminent domain" that has traditionally been used to clear the way for such projects as public roads, prisons and reservoirs. But in New London, Conn., and in many other cities and states, the power also has been used to take property and turn it over to private, for-profit parties - companies that will create jobs, or developers of projects for the affluent that will enhance the tax base and thereby assist the public goal of economic development.
Nine states currently prohibit such actions under their state laws. From 1998 to 2002, there were more than 3,700 takings of homes and small businesses nationwide for the benefit of parties ranging from auto dealers to condominium developers, according to a Washington institute helping New London homeowners fight takeover efforts by that city.
Until now, most lawyers thought the Supreme Court had assented to that extension of the condemnation power. But the court's decision to hear the Connecticut case, with a ruling expected in June, indicates at least some justices may be interested in reining in the power.
"There is no limit on eminent domain if that is permitted," said Scott Bullock, of the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based public-interest law firm. "Every business produces more tax revenue than your home. Every larger business produces more tax revenue than a smaller business."
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.