Its time to stop Eminent Domain for Private Gain in Missouri! INITIATIVE
PETITION
|
Crowd Swarms to Sign Petition
Eager petition signers lined up several deep to sign. Missourians think it's time to restore real constitutional property rights protection.
|
We're Collecting Signatures Now! Wow! Lots of patriots have volunteered to circulate the petition, will you help, too? Petition Circulator Training Feb 6, 2010 Feb 6, 2010 Time: 1:30-4:00 Saturday, February 6th .
|
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Missouri Citizens for Property Rights Wins Major Court Victory Another Blow to the Missouri Municipal League Kansas City, MO - January 5, 2010: Today the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, issued an opinion on the Missouri Municipal League's (MML) challenge to the summaries that appear on petitions and the ballot for two eminent domain petitions. The court ruled exactly as the proponents of the petition, Missouri Citizens for Property Rights (MO-CPR), suggested in their court brief, affirming in part and reversing in part, the circuit court ruling. The court ordered the Secretary of State to certify ballot titles which will allow signature collecting on the two petitions after a full year of court delays. The opinion came just 21 days after the oral arguments - much sooner than the appeals court typically issues opinions. “This is a huge victory after a year long court battle.”, said Ron Calzone, chairman of the property rights group. “We believe the court's action points out the weakness of the Missouri Municipal League's position.” The court's decision came on the heels of fresh allegations of misconduct by MML. In an audio recording of a meeting of the Missouri Bar's eminent domain committee, a managing partner for the law firm representing MML stated that their main purpose in bringing the suit was to delay the collecting of signatures. Missouri law and Supreme Court rules prohibit using the legal system for the purpose of causing delay or unwarranted expense to opposing litigants, and provides for the awarding of damages to injured parties. On December 14th, MO-CPR served MML with a motion for monetary sanctions to help make up for the additional expenses that will result from a diminished time frame to collect the hundreds of thousands of required signatures. MML has 30 days to respond to the motion before the court gets involved and decides whether or not to order sanctions. Calzone says the challenge to the ballot titles has added tremendously to the cost of collecting signatures. “Not only have we lost many months, we've lost the best months to collect signatures. Now we have only four months – four months when cold and wet weather are likely to prevail.” Bruce Hillis, a member of the MO-CPR board explained their frustration, “Although we respect the right of a citizen to challenge an unfair ballot title, it's just not right to use the courts to thwart the people's right to vote on a public policy measure. In Article III, section 49 of the Missouri Constitution, the people reserved for themselves the right to use the petition process. We think MML has been maliciously trampling upon the most basic rights of Missouri voters.” MO-CPR has also filed a complaint with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel (OCDC), the agency of the Missouri Supreme Court responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct by lawyers where a lawyer’s misconduct poses a threat to the public or to the integrity of the legal profession. Throughout the process, MO-CPR has complained about municipalities, through MML, using taxpayer resources to keep citizens from voting on a public policy issue. They will begin collecting signatures in the next few days. The CaseNet numbers for the cases are WD71224, WD71230.
Now is the time! Please donate now! Please volunteer now!
|
December 16, 2009:
|
Ballot Title Challange - Court Rules on June 30, 2009
(Click for June 30, 2009 press release.) Nearly 8 months after we began this process, we finally have a circuit court ruling on the challenge to our ballot titles and it is good news for our project! (Here's a copy of the decision.) Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan ruled that only one sentence be removed from the Article I ballot title. Bullet point three was fine as written by the Secretary of State, but it is not really that important to our effort to inform the voters about the affects of the Article I amendment. We're happy with the ballot titles with or without that one sentence. Since we have not yet begun to circulate the petitions, the court's ruling does not invalidate any voter's signature. That does not mean the challenge to the ballot title has not done damage to our effort. As the Missouri Municipal League's Challenge to the ballot titles progressed, it became more and more obvious that they had no real substantial argument against the ballot titles. Their goal has been to delay the start of our signature gathering and they have been successful at that. The question now is, "Will they continue to use taxpayer dollars to keep the taxpayers from the opportunity to vote on a public policy measure?" ACTION NEEDED: Call the officials of your city and tell them to instruct the Missouri Municipal League to stop their effort to keep the people from voting on a public policy measure! NUTS AND BOLTS (For those interested in the details of the decision.) The court upheld both of the Fiscal Notes and Fiscal Note Summaries as well as both Summary Statements, except bullet point three of the Article I statement, which he simply removed. Here's the Article I Summary Statement: Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to restrict the use of eminent domain by: The decision to remove bullet point three was based on the court's opinion that "the third bullet point suggests that restrictions on takings without just compensation or without a public use would be added to the constitution." Since those provisions have been part of the Missouri Constitution since 1820, the decision says, the voters would be mislead into thinking the amendment provided a "new" protection. Related information: Copy of the circuit court decision. |
|
||
|---|---|---|
| Why did the city of Arnold want to take Dr. Tourkakis' dental practice? City counselor says its a matter of decor! |
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the city of Arnold could, in fact, take Dr. Homer Tourkakis' dental practice by eminent domain and make it part of a privately owned retail shopping center. The dentist's property is in perfect repair and is not in the way of development - it only slated to be an open space - an "out lot". If the city doesn't need the land for the development, why do they want the dental practice leveled? |
In a candid moment on video, Arnold City Counselor, Robert Sweeny, revealed the truth. He said, "His retro fit two bedroom house is not compatible with a 21st century commercial development," There you have it - it was a decorating decision! The American institution of private property rights is made to give way to decor! Next time you see some improvements in YOUR neighborhood, don't rejoice too soon - those improvements might make your home or business "incompatible" with the new decor and a target for eminent domain! |
|
March 18, 2008 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MO-CPR Says High Court Decision Shows Need for Constitutional Changes Missouri Citizens for Property Rights' chairman Ron Calzone made the following statement regarding the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in the case of Arnold vs. Tourkakis: "My heart goes out to Homer and his wife, who are now a step closer to having a quarter-century of hard work destroyed by city bulldozers. The high court ignored the clear statement in Article I, Section 28 that 'private property shall not be taken for private use with or without compensation' as Missourians' fundamental protection against private use eminent domain." "The court instead stretched the application of Article VI, Section 21, despite plain language limiting those powers to chartered cities. This illogical decision puts hundreds of thousands of Missourians' property rights in greater danger." "That's not the worst of it, though. In the majority opinion, the court wrote, 'Unless limited by the constitution, the legislature has the right to authorize the exercise of the unlimited and practically absolute sovereign power of eminent domain.'" "Like the US Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision, this decision proves that we cannot rely on the courts to protect our property rights. Only our ballot initiative, which unequivocally outlaws eminent domain for private profit, will reverse the Supreme Court's wrongheaded decision and give property owners the protections they deserve. We are grateful that in the midst of his legal battle with the city, Homer has found the time to support our effort to gather the signatures to put these amendments on the ballot. Homer's determination to fight for not only his own property rights but those of his fellow Missourian's is a real inspiration." |
Go to THIS PAGE to read the stories of some fellow Missourians who are fighting eminent domain abuse. |
This video is a short explanation of the problem built into the
|
HOT OFF THE PRESS! The Wall Street Journal reports a new study from the Institute for Justice which reveals that eminent domain reform does NOT hinder economic development.Eminent Reality (Wall Street Journal)
|
SELECT VIDEO(Fox-2-StL) Jan. 22, 2008: Sunset Hills, Mo. -- You Paid For It: Eminent Domain This report from Fox 4 in KC explains the issue VERY well. Be sure to watch the video. (Click Here) |
LANDMARK MISSOURI SUPREME COURT CASE
|
Flash video Petitioner's Guide History! Click here to watch a Flash presentation about the history of property rights in America. Turn your speakers on and find out how the War for American Independence relates to eminent domain abuse. Click Here |
We need YOUR help! |
What will the proposed constitutional amendments do? Missouri Citizens for Property Rights is not proposing that we do anything new or revolutionary – we simply want to restore the traditional, time tested, concepts of property rights. We believe that the primary role of government is that of protecting property rights and that eminent domain should be used only rarely and only for truly public uses, such as roads and sewers. Eminent domain has traditionally been called “the despotic power”. When it must be used for a truly public use, every safeguard to the rights of the one losing his property should be employed. He should have the right to due process prior to losing his property and should be well compensated for his loss. After all, if the public use will truly benefit the masses, the rest of us should be willing to each chip in a little to minimize the suffering of the one making the sacrifice. Perhaps of greatest importance, Missouri's constitutional provisions for protecting property rights should protect everyone's rights equally. We should accept no less than “justice for all” whether they be rich or poor, home owners or businesses, urban or rural. And the state's awesome power of eminent domain should never be conveyed to private entities for their personal profit! Here are some details about the proposed amendments to Missouri's constitution: THE FIRST PETITION Ballot
Title (Written by the Secretary of State)
Article I, Section 26 Explanation
Article I, Section 28 Explanation
THE SECOND PETITION Ballot
Title (Written by the Secretary of State)
Article VI, Section 21 Explanation
|