The Board of Supervisors of Patrick
County, Virginia passes historic legislation to restore Constitutional
Property Rights.
Patrick County, Virginia
July 11, 2005
Reported July 27, 2005
The heart and spirit of Virginians Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and Washington
live in the souls of the Board of Supervisors of Patrick County,
Virginia. This band of Virginians restored the principles of private
property rights the founding fathers held sacred to our country's laws. These
were the very same rights the Court on High in Washington, D.C. stripped
from the Constitution our founding fathers provided us, to preserve those
rights. Eric Helms Monday, Attorney for the County of Patrick,
wrote that the resolution was drafted by Supervisor Martin and it was simply introduced and adopted, in reaction to
the recent US Supreme Court holding in the matter of Kelo v. New London.
Monday further stated that to his knowledge, 'this is the first (and currently
only) legislation adopted in Virginia, regarding eminent domain, in the wake
of the Kelo case. Our Board was most anxious to express its dismay at
the Supreme Court's ruling, and to decline to exercise the expansive power the Court
extended to local government."
Editor's Note: Portions of the following treatise are paraphrased from the
Virginia Resolution of 1798.
Virginians boast of the Virginia Resolution passed in 1798, by the Virginia
General Assembly. The Virginia resolution stated ...a firm resolution to
maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution
of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that
they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted
by the former.
Further that resolution provided that the general assembly most solemnly
declared a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it
pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it was their duty to watch over
and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis
of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's
existence and the public happiness.
The Patrick County Supervisors' insights into the action of the
Court on High cause them to pass a Resolution to make sure the tentacles of the
Court on High did not pass to its borders.
The Supervisors' did explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the
powers of the federal court, as resulting from the compact, to which the states
are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument
constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the
grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable,
and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the
states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to
interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within
their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to
them.
The Supervisors have expressed their deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry
instances, been manifested by the Supreme Court of the United States which
has enlarged its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional
charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to
expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited
grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to
be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular
enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as
to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency
and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present
republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed
monarchy.
The Supervisor's resolution particularly protest against the palpable and
alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the matter of Kelo v New London
decided by that court on May 23rd, 2005. The Court on High legislated
an exercise of power no where delegated to it, the federal government,
state governments or its subdivisions. The court uniting judicial legislative
powers, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the
particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution;
and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by
the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one
of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce
universal alarm, because it is leveled against that right of freely examining
public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people
thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every
other right.
Virginia and its subdivisions having by its Convention, which ratified
the federal Constitution and its amendments, expressly declared, that among
other essential rights, "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation." and from its extreme
anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or
ambition, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due
time, annexed [V amendment ] into the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable
inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if the indifference the Court now shows
to the Fifth Amendment were to go un redressed. The indifference now shown, to
the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and
to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the others.
That the good people of Board of Supervisors of Patrick County of this
Commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere
affection for their natural rights of life and liberty - their God Given Rights,
passed a resolution to insure their natural rights of life, liberty and
property. From Mr. Jefferson's mountains rings out an alarm from the
Supervisors that shall go on to the truest anxiety for establishing and
perpetuating the rights of life, liberty and property and their most scrupulous
fidelity to the constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the
instrument of mutual happiness; the Supervisors have solemnly appeal to the like
dispositions of others states, in confidence that they will concur within and
without this commonwealth in declaring, as it has declared, that the acts
of the Court of High are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and
proper measures will be taken for co-operating with the subdivisions of
this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to
the States respectively, or to the people.
County of Patrick
P.O. Box 466
Stuart, Virginia 24171
Telephone: (276) 694-6094
Fax: (276) 694-2160
VIRGINIA:
At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Patrick, held at the Patrick County Administration Building thereof on Monday,
July 11, 2005 at 3:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
H. Danny Foley, Sr., Chairman; Darrell Cockerham, Crystal P. Harris, and
David G. Young, Board Members; Regena H. Handy, County Administrator; Michael
Burnette, Assistant County Administrator; Eric Helms Monday, County Attorney;
and Mary Beth Roberson, Assistant to County Administrator.
ABSENT:
Roger L. Martin, Vice Chairman.
On
motion made and duly seconded:
WHEREAS, The UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION is the fundamental defining
document that lays out the basic legal and moral framework that comprises the
essence of this great American nation. It
is a legal document meant by the founding fathers to be narrowly interpreted and
strictly construed, and
WHEREAS, unfortunately
the Supreme Court and other elements of the judiciary
have tended to treat it as a political document that has slowly evolved
corrupting the meaning to fit the necessities of the moment.
The substitution of public purpose for public use in the Fifth Amendment
is an example, and
WHEREAS, The Fifth
Amendment states”… nor shall private property be
taken for public use without just compensation. Effective 5/23/2005 the Supreme Court gutted this vital
protection for private ownership of real estate by changing PUBLIC USE to PUBLIC
PURPOSE thereby allowing any political subdivision of government to use the
power of eminent domain to take private property by condemnation and then give
it to any private citizen or other private interest for any purpose whatever.
The purpose may allegedly be to increase taxes, clean up an area of
elderly or minority, low value housing, build a mall, etc.
These people generally cannot or do not fight back.
Property belonging to wealth and influence is rarely condemned.
There is no penalty if the entity getting the property converts it to its
own profitable use. This change may possibly subject the taking of real estate
and property rights by greedy developers, corporations and those of wealth and
influence in concert with incompetent apathetic politicians in exchange for
campaign contributions or other considerations, and
WHEREAS, Condemnation
must not be used to acquire private property
unless that property is absolutely necessary for PUBLIC USE and the need
overrides the importance of established private use, and
WHEREAS, The use of
condemnation to acquire the property of the elderly, working
people and those of limited means usually results in considerable loss of money,
causes tremendous stress and is significantly adverse to the people and the
community. The property owner is at
a severe disadvantage without competent legal representation in a struggle
against big government with the taxpayer’s money and possibly abetted by other
wealth and influence. The
condemner’s agents emphasize the great cost and stress of such a legal battle
to the property owners and often threaten the elderly and vulnerable people with
limited resources. Most give in and
sign away their rights for a pittance. These
people can lose a significant portion of their life savings.
The abuse suffered by the elderly and those not equipped to fight often
amounts, in reality, to legal extortion, and
WHEREAS, in many cases
trials are held off for a period of years.
The condemner
takes the property, deposits an inadequate amount of money in the county clerks
office and then fails to finalize the taking by court action until much later.
This writer has this problem at present.
As a result the property owner no longer has his land and may not have
the resources to replace what was taken especially in residential or business
property causing often serious problems to the people, and
WHEREAS, Condemners are
sometimes able to retain incompetent and dishonest
appraisers to furnish low-ball market value estimates and in the case of partial
or easement takes to totally ignore the value of damage caused by the take to
the remainder of the property, and
NOW THEREFORE BE THE
FOLLOWING RESOLVED, Neither the Board of
Supervisors nor any entity or subdivision of the County government shall be
permitted to take private property through the power of eminent domain for a
public purpose. The Board of Supervisors or any entity or subdivision
thereof shall be permitted to take private property by the power of eminent
domain only for a public use, as opposed to a public purpose. Furthermore,
an increase in tax revenue or an increase in the number of jobs shall not be
deemed a public use that will permit the exercise of the power of eminent
domain.
Private
property shall under no circumstances be condemned by the county or any entity
or subdivision thereof and then conveyed, loaned, rented or otherwise given or
conveyed, whether permanently or temporarily, to any private interest for any
purpose.
The
use of the power of eminent domain shall be exercised by the county or any
entity or subdivision thereof only for private property that is absolutely
necessary for strictly public use and then only as a last resort and only upon
the failure of all available and appropriate attempts to negotiate a purchase
with written offers of up to 150% of the market value as determined by a
competent accurate appraisal which is consistent with the local real estate
market.
When
in the case of a partial take or an easement take or any other circumstances
that reduce the value or the highest and best use of the remainder of the
property, the condemner shall take the entire property unless the property owner
is appropriately compensated for the damages.
As
a condition of the condemnation, the property owner shall retain possession of
the subject property until just compensation has been determined, ordered and
paid. If payment is not made within
60 days of the termination of the trial, interest on the amount of just
compensation shall accrue at the rate of 3% (three percent) per month
compounded.
The
condemner shall pay all the costs arising from the condemnation for both the
condemner and the condemned.
The
condemner shall make a relocation assistance payment to the property owner in
the take of residential, industrial, or commercial property in the amount of 10%
(ten percent) of the competent estimate of market value or of the just
compensation whichever is higher.
Motion
carried.
A COPY,
__________________________________
TESTE:
Regena H. Handy, County Administrator
