JEB BUSH UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN TOOK A DISABLED VETERAN'S PROPERTY

PROOF: JEB BUSH UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN TOOK A DISABLED VETERAN'S PROPERTY

By Kelleigh Nelson
February 14, 2016
NewsWithViews.com

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” —Joseph Goebbels

A false witness shall not be unpunished, and [he that] speaketh lies shall not escape. —Proverbs 19:5

"Accuse Others of What You Do" — Karl Marx

Bashing Trump with Eminent Domain

Jeb should have his name legally changed to Hypocrite Bush.
http://newswithviews.com/Nelson/Imag...se%20Hardy.gif

During the pre-New Hampshire ABC GOP presidential debate, Bush slammed Donald Trump on eminent domain. He was playing to a clearly hostile anti-Trump crowd, knowing that the Trump supporters only received 20 tickets for the debate. Jeb used eminent domain as a club to bash The Donald, citing a decades-old case of an elderly Atlantic City lady who refused to sell her property to Trump, which he wanted for a parking lot. Atlantic City condemned her property, trying to force her to sell, she challenged the condemnation in court and won. Trump quickly abandoned the idea in favor of more willing neighbors who sold their property to Trump for his parking lot, and he paid them quite well for their properties.

The Atlantic City story is now being repeated over and over again by the neo-cons to try to destroy Mr. Trump. They're using the tactics of Joseph Goebbels, repeat a lie often enough....and people will eventually believe it.

As Florida Governor, Jeb Bush loved eminent domain and practiced it.

Jeb Bush and Jesse Hardy

The government wanted his land, but Jesse Hardy wasn't interested. He said it wasn't about money, it was about fighting for what is his. Jesse James Hardy was a symbol to some people of an individual besieged by government authorities and their allies in the environmental movement. Think United Nations Agenda 21, because that's what this is!

http://newswithviews.com/Nelson/Imag...e%20Hardy2.gif

Governor Jeb Bush authorized the State Department of Environmental Protection to begin eminent domain proceedings against an elderly man who just wanted to keep his land.

Jesse Hardy became disabled from a chopper jump after 14 years of service as a U.S. Navy Seal. In 1976, he bought 160 acres of swampland that nobody else wanted. And he intended to keep it, but the State and Florida's EPA had different ideas. [Link]

When Jesse bought the land it was nothing but shallow land on an underwater reef which no one wanted, and no one owned.

Jesse built a shed, then a house, and dug a well, he made the unwanted rough land inhabitable. Life was pretty crude in the beginning. He'd wait for a warm day to take a shower. Eventually though, he had air conditioning, reverse osmosis, a washing machine, a cellphone, a satellite dish. He had solar panels on the roof and a big generator out back.

Jesse was a businessman, he ran a limestone quarry on his property that generated considerable revenue. His land, he said, was his life. Jesse Hardy fed bread to the fish in one of the stocked ponds on his land. The ponds were a byproduct of his limestone mining operation.

In 1995, the niece of a family friend gave birth to a premature boy with severe medical problems. Tara Hilton, age 43, and little Tommy had nowhere to go. So they moved in with Hardy, who raised the boy as his son.
http://newswithviews.com/Nelson/Imag...e%20Hardy3.gif

A year after Tommy's birth, Hardy said he dug a test lake and stocked it with catfish, bream and tilapia to see whether his dream of establishing a fish farm could come true.

Like Tommy, the fish thrived, and Hardy and Hilton said they hatched bigger plans to dig four 20-acre lakes for recreational and commercial use.

http://newswithviews.com/Nelson/Imag...e%20Hardy4.gif
Jesse in front of his stocked pond

Then Naples started growing, and encroaching, as the everglades to the east became drier.

Florida first laid the groundwork for taking Hardy's land in 1985, when it began buying 55,247 acres of the bankrupt and largely abandoned South Golden Gate Estates. Environmentalists considered the tract vital to restoring the natural flow of the River of Grass and protecting the water supply.

(President Bill Clinton and Gov. Jeb Bush met in the Oval Office on Dec. 11, 2000, to launch a $7.8 billion effort to revive the Florida Everglades.)

Nearly 20 years and $121 million later, the state owned almost every inch of South Golden Gates Estates, except 800 acres claimed by the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians -- and Hardy's 160 acres.

Mr. Hardy's land was in the middle of the failed housing complex, Southern Golden Gates Estates. The land for that development was carved out of a swamp years ago, and subdivided by canals and dirt roads. State authorities and environmentalists wanted to tear up the roads and fill in the canals, and allow water to flood the land, to restore it to its natural wetlands condition.

Nancy Payton of the Florida Wildlife Federation, an environmental group that has worked to restore the area for years, said Jesse's land was essential to the project. "Southern Golden Gates is a keystone parcel, because it is surrounded on almost every side by public lands, conservation lands," she said. "It is remote from any public facilities. It is remote from schools and from even a supermarket. It is not a good location for people to be, and the best and highest use for Golden Gates Estates is to restore it."

Hardy paid $60,000 for his 160 acres, valued for tax purposes in 2000, at $860,000. The state offered him $711,725 in 2002. He said no. It offered him $1.2-million in 2003. He said no. $1.5-million? No. $4.5-million? No. No. No.

But the offers from the state kept coming, and the pressure kept mounting with the price. So, too, did Hardy's status as a folk hero. His celebrity, though, would prove no match for the state. After Hardy turned down the $4.5 million, Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida Cabinet authorized the state Department of Environmental Protection to begin eminent-domain proceedings.

Hardy settled.

"I'm telling you, I got took," he said. "They stole my life. What they're trying to do is take all the humans . . . bunch up people like in real close proximity, get all the people in one damn bunch so they can say, 'Don't go out over there! A chicken'll get ya!'" "They're trying to stop a way of life."

Jesse was right about that, and what he describes is UN Agenda 21's Smart Growth.

The full story of Jesse's battle can be found on his website

Jeb's Florida Citrus Debacle

When Jeb was governor of Florida, he ordered backyard citrus trees to all be destroyed without compensation to residents, because of an outbreak of citrus canker disease. This was the largest private property confiscation via eminent domain in the State of Florida. [Link]

He not only ordered seizures by force, but it was Bush himself who refused to reimburse the residents for the property he unlawfully ordered to be removed and destroyed.

What happened in Florida under Jeb Bush's administration is nothing less than a chipping away at a fundamental guarantee in the Constitution.

"I stood here and watched them take our Ruby Red grapefruit, a Key lime, a Valencia orange and a Calamondin," said Coral Gables retiree Walter Jureski, eyes brimming with emotion. "It was heartbreaking. We loved those trees, and they were loaded with fruit."

For his losses, Jureski, 80, like other homeowners, received a $100 voucher to be used in the garden department at Wal-Mart. But even if there wasn't a ban on replanting citrus, he wouldn't do it. Said Jureski: "I couldn't stand to go through that again."

The people were violated. They said, "The Agriculture Department's hired goon squads break down your fences, trample your rights, and destroy private property."

http://newswithviews.com/Nelson/Imag...0Hypocrite.gif

Under an emergency order by Governor Bush, canker crews do not need an owner's permission to walk onto private property and take out citrus trees. Lushly landscaped yards have been reduced to vacant lots in minutes. "They raped our yard," a caller named Lynn told a Miami radio talk-show host. "I'm horrified, appalled, furious. Just livid."

Bush’s action is now costing the State of Florida hundreds of millions in lawsuits and legal fees. A south Florida jury has ordered the State of Florida to pay $11.5 million as compensation to 58,225 residents of Broward County. Similar class-action lawsuits took place in Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Lee, and Orange Counties. The Palm Beach verdict came in at an estimated $16.1 million reimbursement. [Link]

Bush Family Used Eminent Domain

Jeb's brother, George W., who he is using in spots to campaign for him, acquired most of his wealth when the City of Arlington, Texas grabbed homes through eminent domain. Bush could then build a new baseball stadium for the Texas Rangers and an accompanying parking lot, a team then-owned by a group where George W. was the general manager and key partner. You might want to read the article in Pensito Review regarding the shenanigans pulled by George W. The article states, "This is exactly the sort of gambit used by former Illinois governor Otto Kerner, who was convicted of tax fraud as a result." [Link]

Conclusion

Next time one of the establishment folks brings up Donald Trump's Atlantic City development and the use of eminent domain, remind them of Jeb Bush's actions while Governor of Florida.

Jeb Bush used eminent domain to take the one thing most loved by a disabled veteran, land he bought and developed and intended to live on until he died. All for the EPA. Jeb trampled homeowners' rights with the destruction of healthy citrus trees, and no compensation for their losses, resulting in the state losing millions of dollars in lawsuits by homeowners.

The entire Bush family obviously sees no problem with eminent domain. So yes, Jeb Bush should have "hypocrite" in front of his name.
http://newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh272.htm

Jeb Bush was wrong, George Bush was wrong and unfortunately, Donald Trump was wrong. Eminent domain abuse is wrong no matter who is involved or responsible for it.

Donald Trump didn't take anyone's property and he didn't abuse anyone. Fortunately, the eminent domain issue will die off now that it's fact that other candidates have used it and exposed themselves as the hypocrites they are. I can't wait until they find an eminent domain case for Goldman-Sachs in Texas.

Atlantic City hold outs with their derelict properties prevented a renaissance beyond the boardwalk blocks. Only the boardwalk areas with the casinos were upscale, the rest of Atlantic City was rundown, mainly rooming houses, old motels.

Eventually a few blocks were built up for a strip of designer stores & a group of outlet stores but the rest of the city remained the same-rundown. If more land area would have been upscaled and renovated, it would have been better for the overall economy of the city as the beach & sand are there. Neighboring towns on that island strip Ventnor, Margate, Longport have wonderful classic shore homes & some are new architecture.

With the opening of casinos in other states, had more of Atlantic City been renovated, they would not be hurting so much today.

Quote:

---

the rest of Atlantic City was rundown, mainly rooming houses

---

That's what the Vera Coking property was, a boarding house. It was a shame it took so long for it come down, too late to really help the business district expand before other states and cities got in on the action and cut in on their business. Those of us who lived up in that tri-state area when this was going on thought she was a witch. She'd walk all over the boardwalk and area in her housecoat, curlers and slippers. Her whole shtick was to try to get more money and she was already offered a fortune plus living expenses for the rest of her life, she was only 62 so that could have been a really long time of benefits in addition to her several million sale price for a property worth $275,000. It really was a shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Donald Trump didn't take anyone's property and he didn't abuse anyone. Fortunately, the eminent domain issue will die off now that it's fact that other candidates have used it and exposed themselves as the hypocrites they are. I can't wait until they find an eminent domain case for Goldman-Sachs in Texas.

---

Quote:

---

Trump, who described Coking’s home as “terrible,” enlisted New Jersey’s Casino Reinvestment Development Authority to take the property by “eminent domain” at its market price, allowing him to build something more “beautiful” in its place.

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/will-trum...100027069.html

There is no cover for this. It was, by any standard, eminent domain abuse. Identifying George and Jeb Bush as guilty of eminent domain abuse doesn't excuse the involvement of someone else in another eminent domain abuse.

History of Eminent Domain and its Abuse

Classical Roots

Eminent domain, as we know it today, can be traced to the Latin term Eminenes Dominium, which referred to a government’s power to appropriate private property for the public’s use, with or without the property owner’s consent.
1789: The U.S. Constitution

The founders were concerned about the potential abuse of eminent domain—an early U.S. Supreme Court decision even refers to it as “the despotic power”—so they limited its use through the “takings clause” of the Fifth Amendment: “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The clause limits eminent domain in two ways: first, the government can only take private property for a “public use” and second, the government must pay for it.
1800: Federal Takings Clause in State Constitutions

Eminent domain restrictions are similarly stated in 49 state constitutions. Indiana, the one exception, does not explicitly limit eminent domain in its constitution, but the state’s courts have held that it is implied in the Indiana constitution’s due process guarantee. Takings clauses vary in length and detail, but all require that the use of eminent domain be for a public use.
Early Uses of Eminent Domain

For most of the 19th and early 20th centuries, governments permitted eminent domain to be used only for true public uses, such as roads, bridges, parks, and public buildings and facilities. The courts began authorizing a slight expansion of the power when they allowed private companies like railroads and public utilities to take property for the laying of railroad tracks and transmission lines—but these companies were tightly regulated and had to provide the public equal access to the rail lines or utilities.
1954: Berman v. Parker

The Berman decision, however, profoundly expanded the definition of what constitutes a “public use” and created incentives for abuse by governments and private developers to circumvent the free market. In this case coming out of Washington, D.C., the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of “urban renewal”—efforts by the federal government and local officials to revitalize urban areas to supposedly remove slums and eliminate blight. In this one decision, the Court transformed the words “public use” to mean “public purpose” as defined by a legislature or administrative agency.
In Berman’s wake, governments began vastly expanding the definition of blight so they could condemn perfectly fine properties for private development under the pretense of urban renewal. In addition, many state supreme courts adopted the rationale of Berman, reading their public use clauses the same way. Continuing down this slippery slope, governments began to bypass the charade of declaring an area blighted and instead used eminent domain to take homes and businesses so that the land could be given to other private parties who the government believed would produce more tax revenue than the current owners.
1981: Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit

The precedent established in the Berman decision allowed governments to continue to push the envelope on “legitimate” condemnations. In the 1981Poletown decision, the Michigan Supreme Court allowed the City of Detroit to bulldoze an entire neighborhood, complete with more than 1,000 residences, 600 businesses, and numerous churches, in order to give the property to General Motors for an auto plant. The City didn’t even pretend that the community was “blighted,” it simply wanted the land based on GM’s promise of more jobs and taxes. This case set the precedent, both in Michigan and across the country, for widespread abuse of the power of eminent domain for private development.
1984: Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff

Three years later, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Midkiff that a state could use eminent domain to break-up a land oligopoly and redistribute the property. The Court relied on Berman, rationalizing that it is the taking’s purpose—be it the redistribution of property or removal of blight—that determines its constitutionality. This firmly established the transformation of the takings clause from “public use” to “public purpose.”
2004: County of Wayne v. Hathcock

After years of mounting eminent domain abuse nationwide, the tide began to turn. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed Poletown through its unanimous decision in County of Wayne v. Hathcock in July 2004. The Court decisively rejected the notion that “a private entity’s pursuit of profit was a ‘public use’ for constitutional takings purposes simply because one entity’s profit maximization contributed to the health of the general economy.”
2005: Kelo v. City of New London

Despite the reversal of Poletown and Michigan’s rejection of the rationale that pure economic development constitutes a public use, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that private property may be seized for private commercial development, based on the possibility of increased tax revenue or jobs. In Kelo v. City of New London, Susette Kelo and a six other homeowners in New London, Connecticut, had their property taken through eminent domain for private economic development projects. The City didn’t even declare their properties “slum” or “blighted”—their sole rationale was that someone else could make more money off of their land than the current owners could.
Post Kelo

Using eminent domain for “economic development” alone is a new phenomenon, and one that has spread rapidly since the Kelo decision—the yearly amount of abuse has tripled since June 2005. To read more about recent eminent domain abuse, see our report: Opening the Floodgates: Eminent Domain Abuse in a Post-Kelo World.
Although this case dealt an unprecedented blow to property rights nationwide, state legislatures have taken it upon themselves to do what the U.S. Supreme Court refused to do and protect private property from tax-hungry governments and land-hungry developers. In the one year after Kelo, 31 states passed laws curbing the abuses sanctioned by that decision. To check the status of eminent domain reform in your state, visit our Legislative Center.

http://castlecoalition.org/history-o...-and-its-abuse

There was no eminent domain abuse in Atlantic City, because there was no taking of the property by anyone, Trump or the Casino Redevelopment Authority. Vera Coking lived in that boarding house for many more years, then deeded it to her daughter, moved to a nursing home in California, and her grandson eventually sold it through a real estate agent in a private sale a few years ago.

Judy wrote:

Quote:

---

There was no eminent domain abuse in Atlantic City, because there was no taking of the property by anyone, Trump or the Casino Redevelopment Authority.

---

They lost in court. They intent was there.