Corruption

Standing Up for Property Rights in Montgomery, Alabama

|

Writing at The Daily Caller, Christina Walsh of the Institute for Justice sheds more light on Montgomery, Alabama's shameful assault on property rights:

Imagine you come home from work one day to a notice on your front door that you have 45 days to demolish your house, or the city will do it for you.  Oh, and you're paying for it.

This is happening right now in Montgomery, Ala., and here is how it works: The city decides it doesn't like your property for one reason or another, so it declares it a "public nuisance."  It mails you a notice that you have 45 days to demolish your property, at your expense, or the city will do it for you (and, of course, bill you)….

The city wants to clear and ultimately sell-off the property of lower-income, mostly black Alabamans to higher-income developers, but it can't do that through the state's eminent domain law.  So it found a backdoor, which also incidentally does not require the city to compensate property owners for their loss, but instead charges them.

Read the rest here. For more on Montgomery's "eminent domain through the back door," see here and here. And if you're in the Montgomery area this Saturday, local residents will be protesting this despicable abuse of government power:

NEXT: California Roundup: eMeg On Top, Ex-Gay Overturned, Pot Shortage, and More

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Free lunch”

    Sure…

  2. They be taking all the colored folks houses.

  3. I know I’m just a stupid libertarian and all, but I really do think the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect people’s rights, and when the government turns around and becomes a perpetrator of crime like this, it still bugs the shit out of me…

    I’ll never get used to it.

    1. Amen, brother!

    2. “”but I really do think the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect people’s rights,”””

      Yet those who created it warned us about this behavior. I’m not disagreeing with your statement, just noting that you can’t put much faith that government will defend your rights. Especially when they benefit from screwing you.

  4. So, is there a web site where people can contribute to the legal fight against the municipal thugs?

  5. Bwah… This is so much worse than general eminent domain abuse… RAGE!!!

  6. So, am I the only one who in the same situation would instead spend the 45 days buying propane tanks, road flares, and 7.62 x 39? At the very least, you could set up heck of a defensive fighting position with 45 days prep time.

    1. I hope not. There’s something wrong with relying on the State to protect you from the State.

    2. Thought the same thing (albeit w/9mm, .45 ACP, 30-30 and 30-06 in my case)

      1. Remember Ruby Ridge!

  7. And if you’re in the Montgomery area this Saturday, local residents will be protesting this despicable abuse of government power:

    As they will even if you’re not in the Montgomery area this Saturday.

  8. Now you have to admit, those guys got it going on over there.

    lou
    http://www.anonymity.th.tc

    1. It’s Lemon Jones now, is it? You’re barely trying anymore, anonobot.

      1. A “LemonyJ” sounds like a sex act involving citrus, or possibly cleaning liquid. Neither of those things are good for your hardware, anonbot.

  9. Ok, so the city can make you tear down your house, but how does this allow them to skirt the eminent domain laws and make you sell it to a developer? Or are they assuming that everyone will sell cheap rather than face the expense of tearing down their home?

    1. The article mentions that the city will put a lien on the property. Not paying the lien (because you are poor) causes the city to sell off the land (guess to whom).

      1. Ok, but how can they just place a lien on the land – unless it’s the cost of the demolition?

        1. That’s exactly what they are doing.

          1. Cost of the demolition that is.

  10. Stop teasing me, damn it. This is the third post on this, and each has fewer details than the previous. Is anybody going to report anything beyond a lawyer’s vague assertions? He says he has a list with hundreds of houses, well post it or give it to Reason, DC, etc. This sounds like Pulitzer material, why isn’t anyone pursuing it?

    1. http://abcnews.go.com/US/montg…..d=11470620

      Here’s a much better article.

  11. I would jury nullify the hell out of anyone who fought back on this.

    1. It’s not a jury question, it sounds like the question would be whether a taking has been effected under the terms of the 5th (and 14th) Amendment. That would be something that is going to be decided by a judge. If there was a taking, it would presumably be a compensatory taking and a jury would decide what the home (former) owner would get paid.

      Without more info, it’s difficult to really understand what’s going on here. My knee jerk response is that there is a due process violation if there are hearings that are going on that decide the fate of private property without any notice and opportunity to appear being afforded to the home owner. That pesky life, liberty, and property without due process of law tends to pop up in these instances.

      1. According to the article I linked above, they’re giving 45 days notice and only taking if they fail to pay. It seems like the city cutting your grass if you don’t on a much larger scale. I’m sure there really is a problem with vagrancy in vacant houses with dead owners. But it’s pretty clear the City is fucking up in at least some cases.

        “If there was a taking, it would presumably be a compensatory taking and a jury would decide what the home (former) owner would get paid.”

        I doubt any of these plots cost more than the demolition.

      2. Jeff, the jury question would be when someone tracks down the bureaucrat who authorized the demolition. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a justifiable homicide.

    2. I would jury nullify the hell out of anyone who Roarked whatever got built on that site next.

  12. If I lived withing walking distance of that rally, I would be there.

    1. It’s hard to say ‘no’ to a ‘free’ lunch.

  13. Who the fuck was it that got after me for making a hyperbolic comparison between this countrys deference to Chinas in the realm of property rights? Get your ass up here and show yourself!

  14. This is so much worse than general eminent domain abuse… RAGE!!!

  15. This is so much worse than general eminent domain abuse… RAGE!!!

  16. I doubt any of these plots cost more than the demolition.

  17. It’s Lemon Jones now

  18. So which developers are the ones buying the stolen property? They should be named and boycotted.

  19. I like this plan. Faster, please. I hope it spreads nationwide.

    1. I agree.

  20. Lynching has fallen out favor owing to it’s associate with racism but there is time and place for everything and this definitely the time and place for a good old fashion expression of non-judicial community justice

    Just to stay PC we can hang just the white guys and shoot the rest.

  21. They’re having it at a church? So much for separation of church and state.

    1. The IJ is a private organization having an event at a church. How does that have anything to do with the separation of church and state? Are you retarded?

      1. funny how it only matters in certain situations

    2. Re: Peetsker,

      They’re having it at a church? So much for separation of church and state.

      You’re an idiot. You know that, don’t you?

  22. So is this the best time ever for the state to seize property what with the low values? Not applicable in this case since they are not paying anyways, but seems like something to watch out for if they have to pay “fair” market value.

  23. According to the usual gang of eleutherophobes that post in the H&R, people have no property rights as these interfere with social justice. I guess they should show how sincere are about their most cherished beliefs and come here to defend the actions of the State.

    Tony? Chad? Anybody?

  24. I would send the city a message by voting out all of the incumbents that are supporting this or sitting on their hands. I would vote out these so-called “representatives” all the way up the chain to the national level. Remember, you get what you vote for.

  25. They could put a UCC-1 lien on their home, preempting montgomery’s lien and be first in line(after their mortgage if they have one.) for any payout. In order for montgomery to prevail the owners lien would have to be settled first.(first come, first serve) This would probably be best attempted with the assistance of a lawyer type.

  26. The Democrat Political Party has controlled both Houses of the Alabama State Legislature for 139 years. Think of it! Democrat majorities in both Houses since 1871! How do they do that? It boggles the mind. Big political moves like this land-grab happen in the State of Alabama because Leftist Socialist Democrats like it. They’ve been liking it a lot for 139 years. One-hundred-and-thirty-nine YEARS of uninterrupted Democrat-style Socialism. It’s a Charlie Rangle game run by white boys.

  27. FYI, flybynight, these demolitions are happening under and being endorsed by Montgomery’s right-wing Republican Mayor Todd Strange.

  28. here are nice burberry scarves at a good discount,great welcome everyone order from us.

  29. To me property rights matter a lot in life. Thanks for the informative article.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.