The Shell Game of Corrupted Government Exposed
Washington uses eminent domain to take private property to enforce housing standards, but does it accomplish the public purpose it claims?
By: Beaufort Observer Editorial Team ( More Entries )
Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.
Washington has its own Kelo case on Second Street
Washington uses eminent domain to take private property to enforce housing standards, but does it accomplish the public purpose it claims?
New London (Connecticut) had its Kelo case. Washington has its Second Street case.
You will recall the Kelo case. The one where the City of New London condemned Susette Kelo's property, where she had lived most of her life, and made her move because the city felt it could make better use of her property than what she was doing with it. Turned out the all the city got for all the trouble and expense it went to was a vacant lot and Ms. Kelo ended up with the short end of the stick.
The law allows government to use its "eminent domain" powers to take private property for a legitimate government purpose. You can't block a road from coming through you property, for example. But the law requires that in order to "take" a person's property the government must have a good reason.
In the Kelo case the reason was that New London thought it could produce economic development if the property were used differently. The economic development failed and Ms. Kelo's property sits vacant today.
A similar thing has happened in Washington, N.C. The City of Washington took a man's property because they insisted that it be fixed up. When he offered to bulldoze the house they refused because they said the "public purpose" was to preserve historic structures in the Historic District. The proof of the failure is that the lot, like Ms. Kelo's now sits empty and the taxpayers have been stuck with enormous unnecessary expenses, most of it paid to lawyers. And the legal case may just be beginning.
The old ugly house at 505 W. Second Street in Washington is now gone. History was not preserved.
This case goes back many years. We've been told that at the time a young man by the name of Archie Jennings served on the Historic Preservation Commission. He and his wife own a historic house around the corner and down the street from 505 Second Street. The Historic Commission came up with the idea that the city should use its immense powers to preserve the historic character of Washington. So far so good. But as usual, the Devil is in the details.
After a number of years and battles to get property owners to restore, fix or at least keep historic property from deteriorating, they came up with the idea that they needed a new law. They got the city council to adopt an ordinance that said, in essence, that if a property owner did not maintain their property according to prescribed standards that the city could condemn the property and make the repairs themselves (or contract for the repairs to be done) and bill the cost of the repairs to the owner. If the owner did not pay the bill the property could be sold to cover the costs to the City. Now that is kind and gentle way of describing the condemnation ordinance. Here's the nutshell version of what actually happened.
Tim Evans and his wife owned 505 W. Second Street. It had been in the family for some time, with Tim's father owning it before him. That residential property is adjacent to commercial property they also own that fronts on Bridge Street. This is the Dairy Palace and Tatto Rich property, both of which back up to 505 2nd St. Mr. Evans rented 505 2nd street but the last tenants trashed the place before they moved out. At about the same time the economy went bad. Mr. Evans looked into fixing the property up and putting it back on the market to rent but the costs of repairs exceeded what he could recover in rent. No one would lend him the amount it would take to do the repairs because the income that would be produced was not sufficient to service the debt. So Mr. Evans waited for the economy to improve. He waited too long.
Some members of the Historic Commission began to complain about the condition of the property. Mr. Evans met with the Commission and explained the situation. That did no good. The Commission members wanted the property restored. They had their own ideas about what needed to be done. But Mr. Evans could not get a loan and did not have the cash to pay for restoration out of pocket. He proposed to bulldoze the house and leave the lot vacant. That way, he would have had access to his other property (Dairy Palace and Tatto Rich).
The Historic Commission refused to allow him to demolish the house. A very long story made short, the City, led by that young man who now had become Mayor, proceeded with the idea of condemning the property. Mr. Evans, when he could not afford to fight the City in court nor fix the property, eventually agreed to just give the property to the City so they could fix it up.
A side note: The City says Mr. Evans "gave" the property to the City. That, of course is like the bank robber saying the teller "gave" him the money.
The City then put the property on the market for sale with the stipulation that the buyer would have to restore the house. They got very few bidders. One buyer did bid and was awarded the house. He later backed out when he found out what Mr. Evans already knew and had told the Historic Commission....the numbers didn't work. The house, fixed up, would not be worth what it cost to fix it.
The city then re-bid the property. Same results.
Finally, when the City came to realize what Mr. Evans had told them from Day One, they then did what Mr. Evans had originally proposed... that he be allowed to demolish the house. Yep, you've got it. The City had come full circle. But even that's not the entire story.
The house is now gone. The taxpayers are now stuck with a $14,700 bill to demolish the house--remember, That Mr. Evans had originally proposed that he would do that, but the Historic Commission refused. Not only are the City taxpayers stuck with the tab to demolish the house, they have also had hours and hours of legal bills dumped on them as this debacle has played out.
Incredibly, the City does not know precisely how much it has spent on the imbroglio. The way the City Attorney bills the City they could not tell us how much he has billed the City for the work he did on this matter. It is all intertwined in the $240,000 the City has budgeted for "Legal Services" this year, and in previous years. What is not in question is that the expense dumped on the taxpayers for this mess greatly exceeds the $36,891 value of the house and property before the City paid the $14,700 to destroy this "historic" structure. The $18,600 lot now sits vacant and is not included in the tax rolls of the city. As it now stands it has no value to anyone, historic or otherwise.
It has no value that is except the value that those people, who didn't like the way the property looked before the City spent all the money, get from the debacle.
At the time the City entered into the agreement with Mr. Evans to "accept" the property when he had to give it away, the young man who was on the Historic Commission when this snowball started rolling said, as Mayor: "it took a long time but this worked just the way the ordinance was designed to work."
We would beg to differ. Mr. Evans would also disagree. Most of the taxpayers in both the city and the county (who saw the county's property values go down in the deal) would not think it worked the way it should work. People who value the fundamental principles of private property don't think it work right.
No. What we have here is a repeat of the Kelo abuse of eminent domain. The City of Washington abused its power to take private property. This was a bad waste of taxpayer money. And it was unnecessary. Mr. Evans tried to tell these elitists the house was not worth fixing. But being the elitists they are, they thought they knew better what should be done with the property than the owner of the property knew. Elitists are just that way. They know best.
But the worst of it is that just last week, on August 13,2012, the City of Washington adopted 5-0 a "minimum housing standards" ordinance. What it says, essentially, is that they city can repeat this debacle anytime in the future that its elitists think the owners of private property are not doing with their property what the elitists think should be done with any piece of property. They can make you meet their opinion or they'll take your property the way they took Mr. Evans' property and the way New London took Ms. Kelo's property.
So in that sense this debacle on Second Street has infringed on the rights of every property owner in the City of Washington. And guess what. They have already started on doing it again. Thus, you may be assured that you have not heard the last of The Second Street Debacle. We'll see to that.
Moreover, the North Carolina Legislature is said to be reviewing the power the current law gives to government to seize private property. We'll also keep you informed as that issue proceeds.
In the meantime, doesn't the Historic District look much improved after all this?
Click here to view a gallery of photos of the Second Street property before demolition and afterwards, along with some other examples of blighted property in the City both in the same neighborhood and in other city neighborhoods.
Go Back
Washington has its own Kelo case on Second Street
Washington uses eminent domain to take private property to enforce housing standards, but does it accomplish the public purpose it claims?
New London (Connecticut) had its Kelo case. Washington has its Second Street case.
You will recall the Kelo case. The one where the City of New London condemned Susette Kelo's property, where she had lived most of her life, and made her move because the city felt it could make better use of her property than what she was doing with it. Turned out the all the city got for all the trouble and expense it went to was a vacant lot and Ms. Kelo ended up with the short end of the stick.
The law allows government to use its "eminent domain" powers to take private property for a legitimate government purpose. You can't block a road from coming through you property, for example. But the law requires that in order to "take" a person's property the government must have a good reason.
In the Kelo case the reason was that New London thought it could produce economic development if the property were used differently. The economic development failed and Ms. Kelo's property sits vacant today.
A similar thing has happened in Washington, N.C. The City of Washington took a man's property because they insisted that it be fixed up. When he offered to bulldoze the house they refused because they said the "public purpose" was to preserve historic structures in the Historic District. The proof of the failure is that the lot, like Ms. Kelo's now sits empty and the taxpayers have been stuck with enormous unnecessary expenses, most of it paid to lawyers. And the legal case may just be beginning.
The old ugly house at 505 W. Second Street in Washington is now gone. History was not preserved.
This case goes back many years. We've been told that at the time a young man by the name of Archie Jennings served on the Historic Preservation Commission. He and his wife own a historic house around the corner and down the street from 505 Second Street. The Historic Commission came up with the idea that the city should use its immense powers to preserve the historic character of Washington. So far so good. But as usual, the Devil is in the details.
After a number of years and battles to get property owners to restore, fix or at least keep historic property from deteriorating, they came up with the idea that they needed a new law. They got the city council to adopt an ordinance that said, in essence, that if a property owner did not maintain their property according to prescribed standards that the city could condemn the property and make the repairs themselves (or contract for the repairs to be done) and bill the cost of the repairs to the owner. If the owner did not pay the bill the property could be sold to cover the costs to the City. Now that is kind and gentle way of describing the condemnation ordinance. Here's the nutshell version of what actually happened.
Tim Evans and his wife owned 505 W. Second Street. It had been in the family for some time, with Tim's father owning it before him. That residential property is adjacent to commercial property they also own that fronts on Bridge Street. This is the Dairy Palace and Tatto Rich property, both of which back up to 505 2nd St. Mr. Evans rented 505 2nd street but the last tenants trashed the place before they moved out. At about the same time the economy went bad. Mr. Evans looked into fixing the property up and putting it back on the market to rent but the costs of repairs exceeded what he could recover in rent. No one would lend him the amount it would take to do the repairs because the income that would be produced was not sufficient to service the debt. So Mr. Evans waited for the economy to improve. He waited too long.
Some members of the Historic Commission began to complain about the condition of the property. Mr. Evans met with the Commission and explained the situation. That did no good. The Commission members wanted the property restored. They had their own ideas about what needed to be done. But Mr. Evans could not get a loan and did not have the cash to pay for restoration out of pocket. He proposed to bulldoze the house and leave the lot vacant. That way, he would have had access to his other property (Dairy Palace and Tatto Rich).
The Historic Commission refused to allow him to demolish the house. A very long story made short, the City, led by that young man who now had become Mayor, proceeded with the idea of condemning the property. Mr. Evans, when he could not afford to fight the City in court nor fix the property, eventually agreed to just give the property to the City so they could fix it up.
A side note: The City says Mr. Evans "gave" the property to the City. That, of course is like the bank robber saying the teller "gave" him the money.
The City then put the property on the market for sale with the stipulation that the buyer would have to restore the house. They got very few bidders. One buyer did bid and was awarded the house. He later backed out when he found out what Mr. Evans already knew and had told the Historic Commission....the numbers didn't work. The house, fixed up, would not be worth what it cost to fix it.
The city then re-bid the property. Same results.
Finally, when the City came to realize what Mr. Evans had told them from Day One, they then did what Mr. Evans had originally proposed... that he be allowed to demolish the house. Yep, you've got it. The City had come full circle. But even that's not the entire story.
The house is now gone. The taxpayers are now stuck with a $14,700 bill to demolish the house--remember, That Mr. Evans had originally proposed that he would do that, but the Historic Commission refused. Not only are the City taxpayers stuck with the tab to demolish the house, they have also had hours and hours of legal bills dumped on them as this debacle has played out.
Incredibly, the City does not know precisely how much it has spent on the imbroglio. The way the City Attorney bills the City they could not tell us how much he has billed the City for the work he did on this matter. It is all intertwined in the $240,000 the City has budgeted for "Legal Services" this year, and in previous years. What is not in question is that the expense dumped on the taxpayers for this mess greatly exceeds the $36,891 value of the house and property before the City paid the $14,700 to destroy this "historic" structure. The $18,600 lot now sits vacant and is not included in the tax rolls of the city. As it now stands it has no value to anyone, historic or otherwise.
It has no value that is except the value that those people, who didn't like the way the property looked before the City spent all the money, get from the debacle.
At the time the City entered into the agreement with Mr. Evans to "accept" the property when he had to give it away, the young man who was on the Historic Commission when this snowball started rolling said, as Mayor: "it took a long time but this worked just the way the ordinance was designed to work."
We would beg to differ. Mr. Evans would also disagree. Most of the taxpayers in both the city and the county (who saw the county's property values go down in the deal) would not think it worked the way it should work. People who value the fundamental principles of private property don't think it work right.
No. What we have here is a repeat of the Kelo abuse of eminent domain. The City of Washington abused its power to take private property. This was a bad waste of taxpayer money. And it was unnecessary. Mr. Evans tried to tell these elitists the house was not worth fixing. But being the elitists they are, they thought they knew better what should be done with the property than the owner of the property knew. Elitists are just that way. They know best.
But the worst of it is that just last week, on August 13,2012, the City of Washington adopted 5-0 a "minimum housing standards" ordinance. What it says, essentially, is that they city can repeat this debacle anytime in the future that its elitists think the owners of private property are not doing with their property what the elitists think should be done with any piece of property. They can make you meet their opinion or they'll take your property the way they took Mr. Evans' property and the way New London took Ms. Kelo's property.
So in that sense this debacle on Second Street has infringed on the rights of every property owner in the City of Washington. And guess what. They have already started on doing it again. Thus, you may be assured that you have not heard the last of The Second Street Debacle. We'll see to that.
Moreover, the North Carolina Legislature is said to be reviewing the power the current law gives to government to seize private property. We'll also keep you informed as that issue proceeds.
In the meantime, doesn't the Historic District look much improved after all this?
Click here to view a gallery of photos of the Second Street property before demolition and afterwards, along with some other examples of blighted property in the City both in the same neighborhood and in other city neighborhoods.
| A look at economic development from the 22nd century perspective | City Governments, City of Washington, Government | Beaufort County Health Department's Environmental Health Warns on Mosquito Control |
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
