Citizens Constitutional Rights/Initiative Petition

08/11/2009
Lengthy Discussion on Eminent Domain
By:Pauline Masson , Pacific Editor

Pacific aldermen listened Aug. 4 to arguments that two powerful state organizations want Missouri voters to hear before they decide whether or not to change Missouri law governing the use of eminent domain to take citizens' property.



Missouri Citizens for Property Rights (CPR) has proposed an initiative petition amending the state Constitution that, if passed, would prevent local governments from using eminent domain to take property for private use, such as subdivisions or shopping centers.Alderman Mike Bates requested time on the Aug. 4 agenda to hear a discussion on eminent domain and the efforts by the Missouri Municipal League to change the ballot language on the CPR petition.The discussion arose when Pacific resident B.J. Lawrence asked the city to end its membership in the municipal league, a lobbying organization for local governments.Lawrence said the league used taxpayer money - by collecting dues from member cities - to thwart citizens' rights to participate in government through the use of initiative petitions, which is guaranteed by the state Constitution.CPR representatives and an official from the city of Arnold, which has formally opposed the league's legal action on the eminent domain petition, accompanied Lawrence to the meeting and asked to speak to aldermen.The Arnold alderman objected to the league's filing a lawsuit seeking to modify the ballot language on the CPR eminent domain petition.Sarah Haenni, CPR spokesman from Kirkwood, said she is not asking the city to pull out of the league and she's not against the use of eminent domain for the public good."Government should be allowed to use eminent domain to take property for the public good such as a road or a hospital," Haenni said. "But not to build a new 7-Eleven."Haenni asked Pacific officials to consider the sending a resolution to the league supporting citizens' rights to use initiative petition, as Arnold did.The Arnold resolution said the league's court action seeking to modify the ballot language of the petition might have the effect of stymieing citizen initiative petitions.CPR will have to collect 150,000 good signatures for each of two petitions to place the eminent domain petition on the ballot allowing Missouri voters to say yes or no. Because some folks who sign may not be registered voters, or the handwriting can't be read, the organization said it is looking for between 215,000 and 225,000 signatures for each petition - a total of about 450,000 signatures.But, CPR cannot begin to collect signatures until the league's lawsuit challenging the title of the petition is concluded. The appeals court has ordered a 4 1/2-month briefing schedule, which would result in a decision no sooner than January or February 2010, which would leave only three months to collect the necessary signatures."It should be hard to change government," said Frank Calzone, CPR chairman. "But it should not be impossible. The MML lawsuit challenging the ballot title is an effective delaying tactic."According to City Attorney Dan Vogel, the league's motives are strictly to educate the public about what's on the petition. The organization wants the ballot to say that local governments would be prohibited from using eminent domain to take property in nuisance cases.Calzone said the petition sought only to prevent local governments from using eminent domain to take property for private use.But there is more to it than that, said Vogel. Vogel's firm, Cunningham, Vogel and Rost, has represented the league and drafted language opposing the petition.Vogel said the petition, if passed, would spell doom for city code enforcement."Not only weeds and high grass, but crack houses and crumbling properties falling on babies, would remain," Vogel said.Calzone said Vogel's claims that under the amendment nothing could be done to shut down a crack house would have been easy to refute if the mayor had allowed some input after Vogel spoke, which he did not.He also said the proposed amendment allows for cities to take property in nuisance cases, but only after final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction.Vogel said final judgment required a series of court actions and appeals that would allow the nuisance to continue for prolonged periods, endangering citizens subjected to the nuisance.He (Vogel) said cities should be able to take property in nuisance cases, such as the practice in drug busts, without having to go through the courts prior to the action.Vogel also said in all "taking of property" cases property owners have the right of final adjudication and can go to court to have a judge determine whether or not the government acted appropriately in taking their property.Matthew Hay, Arnold councilman, took issue with Vogel's participation in the discussion while sitting on the Pacific government podium. Hay also said it was inappropriate for Vogel to fail to disclose that he was a paid representative of the MML.Vogel, disagreed, calling himself a government official who had a bound duty to clarify the record when the public good was involved.Both Calzone and Vogel voiced concerns that Missouri voters need to be educated on the use of eminent domain and possible changes if voters approved the amendments in the CPR petition."It was discouraging to have traveled two hours to provide some balance about what the amendment does and does not do and then not have a chance to counter Vogel's misrepresentation of the amendment," Calzone said. "He (Vogel) seems to think that the city should have the power to destroy or diminish someone's property without giving the owner the benefit of due process of law."Vogel said the issue is one of protecting the public."The property owner's rights should not trump the rights of the public to be protected from nuisances," he said. "The city has an obligation to protect the public."Vogel also said he would like to see the arguments on both sides printed to help the public understand the seriousness of the issue.The full petition can be read on the CPR Web site at www.mo-cpr.org.The league's response to the petition can be read on the organization's Web page at www.mocities.com.Despite the length of time spent on eminent domain, Lawrence said she still wants the city to withdraw its membership in the league."This is not really about a particular initiative petition, although the MML has made an all-out effort to thwart the initiative petition for eminent domain reform," Lawrence said. "This is about the citizens rights to initiative petition and the MML using their wealth and power to tie up initiative petitions in court."




©Washington Missouri 2009