Brighton Eminent Domain Case - Gross Injustice/Inequity

Hello All,

My Town of Brighton (NY) where I reside (I reserve
the word "live" for places like Anna Maria Island
at the mouth of Tampa Bay in Florida) is embroiled
in its own Eminent Domain case that by the day is
becoming more (in)famous in its own right with the
potential to rival Kelo vs. City of New London
(Connecticut) in the annals of famous Eminent Domain
cases.

Here are a couple of posts with respect to my
town's Eminent Domain case which segues into a
couple others of mine as well.

The Brighton (NY) case has the billing of
Government versus Religion; but in reality it is
a case of right and wrong.

I hope my efforts in my own little way of sowing
the seeds of thought and consideration which
indeed include a fair amount of sarcasm and
cynicism, ultimately will result in a country
whose rules and laws that are more fair and just.

Anyway, if I have miserably failed in this regard
at least I got some good typing practice in and
always welcome correspondence with new friends
sharing ideas and perspectives about different
things.

Regards,

Joel S.
jrs_14618@yahoo.com

================================================== =

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/blogs/brighton/

JoelS said...
The Brighton Eminent Domain issue
has evolved into a government vs.
religion issue but it is really a
right versus wrong issue!

The town offered original owner
Groos $1,340,000 and church bought
land (because town screwed up and
didn't formally condemn property)
at open market price of
$2,100,000.

Per New York State code
bargaining is supposed to be
conducted by government entity
whatever it may be; town city
etc. in good faith and justly
compensate owner for land.

Tell me? How can with a straight
face Town of Brighton can claim
bargaining in good faith only
offering original owner a little
more than half the value of the
property on the open market???

That is exactly what Supervisor
Frankel maintains and she claims
in Town Hall meeting last night
(08/23/06) and she can't discuss
it even though owner is now Faith
Temple Church and offer to
original owner has been released

See a pattern here of lack of
honesty and integrity?

The only more disproportionate
fair shake to original owner
is probably the first and
greatest of all U.S. Eminent
Domain cases: the Indians
selling Manhatten Island for
$24 worth of trinkets. There
has been some ridicle on them
for this but probably seeing
the the ships, guns and technology
of the European invaders, the
invaders easily convinced them
that was the best deal they were going to get.

Probably the initial offer was $20
and they let they raised it to
$24 just so history will show them
in a good light.

Brighton is just following a long
standing American tradition of
screwing the origninal landowner
out of their just compensation.

I explain in more detail in
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle
Forum link:

http://cgi.democratandchronicle.com/...board=Brighton

Joel S

24/8/06 10:01 A

================================================== ==
================================================== ==

http://cgi.democratandchronicle.com/...board=Brighton

Brighton Eminent Domain Open Letter to Town Judg
Aug 23rd, 2006, 3:13am

Dear Hon. Mr. Dollinger,

Last November on the eve of elections you made
a political call to me that I should vote
Democratic for Brighton Town Board and yourself.

Although the American government/judicial system is
still the best in the world, in my humble opinion
it is still pretty perverse that the system allows a
judicial entity (i.e. of course; a person) such as
yourself should have a political party affiliation
because political parties have agendas and as far as
I know and understand judges aren't supposed to be
bias - y'know that blindfolded lady (liberty?)
holding the balance? A better representation with
this aspect would have her peeking under the
blindfold.

But, alas, that the way it is so we do the best
we can to work within this important blemish
on again, we can both agree the overall best
system in the world ...

If I remember correctly we got into a heated
"discussion" about the Brighton Eminent Domain
issue. You mentioned you really didn't know
that much about it and really couldn't comment
on it until you knew more.

"Here's more" I assure you Your Honor in very
short order.

One major aspect was I was contending now that at
the time since there were new owners the public
should be able to see the light of day of the offer
made to original land owner Mr. Groos.

Well, through hard fought Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) requests I got my wish! I was not
privy to the information per Brighton Town
attorney William Moehle [sp?] the issue was still
being resolved/under litigation in the courts; but
inexplicably the town indeed released the
information.

For reasons I still cannot comprehend why, the
offer to Mr. Groos was not released when I asked
for it as the new owners/(Faith Temple) held title
to the land long before I ever made my request or
for that matter why the offer is still not
considered to be a "state secret" as the town is
still invvolved in the court cases with respect to
the property.

Whatever .. I got what I wanted. I assumed the
price the Church paid for the land would be a
secret as well as, again, the property is still
under litigation but in a Sunday August 13th, 2006
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (D&C) front page
news story they related the price the church paid.

I'm assuming even if you don't know the whole
story, nuances and intricacies for the case it has
turned into a religion versus government issue to
the citizens of Brighton and the rest of the country
as this case is becoming more famous/well known by
the day.

But, Your Honor it is not a religion vs. government
issue: No, It started simply a right and wrong issue;
that a land owner should be rightfully compensated
for his land.

Funny in the Madam Chairwoman's Frankel's self-
righteous declarations in Brighton Town meetings
that the acquisition of the land is a noble
undertaking and so in the public interest that it is
worth Eminent Domain proceedings initiated by the
town she sure doesn't seem to remark much about
this aspect.

Could it be because the Town only offered original
land owner Mr. Owner [should read Groos] slightly
more than half what Faith Temple Church the new
owners paid for his property? It is under these
auspices that Brighton was willing to "take" the
property under Eminent Domain (very appropriate
legal term as you should know)

The town offered $1,137,000 and the church paid
$2,100,000 on the open market.

I mention in another post in this Rochester
D&C Brighton town online forum, where I will be
posting this letter as well that this is a TRUE
open Brighton Town Forum free of restrictions and
censure versus the Open Forum section of Brighton
Town Hall meetings.

For your convenience here is the URL to the
Rochester D&C Forum:

http://cgi.democratandchronicle.com/...board=Brighton


So, pray tell Your Honor (no pun intended) is/was
the offer to the original land owner made in the
spirit of bargaining in good faith and fairness
to set the negotiation standard at such a
ridiculous amount; a little more than half what the
property is worth on the open market with the teeth
of Eminent Domain ever presently snarled in the
background? Fangs salivating.

Whoa! Your Honor, I know. I understand. Your reply
to this letter/post if there is to be one at all is
going to be (paraphrasing) due to your position as a
judge and the potential for the public to perceive
your impartiality is compromised you can't respond
and you will have to recuse yourself on this one.

Of Course!

Oh, I understand but what I also know is you are
someone who makes judgmental "fairness calls" all
day long. You are/would be the best person to ask.
It's inherent in your title.

It is an interesting rhetorical question to what
extent your Democratic party affiliation would have
in a hypothetical response. How could you sugar
coat a blatant inequity to make it palatable? If
you see enough inequities being committed by others
in your political party would you change over and
become a Republican or go independent?

In closing, I would have never considered writing
this letter had you not initiated your call to me
last November. Next big election around let's be
honest; you are on short leash to discuss anything
substantial. You are very well versed in legal
profession of the nuances and intricacies of
ambiguity and how to "stay safe" deflecting
answering any questions outright.

Masters of such verbal parrying and deflection
which drives members of congress on both sides
of the aisle nuts go on to become Supreme Court
Chief Justices; case in point Chief Justice
John Roberts.

Tell you what; might as well take my name off
your call list so never again we mutually will
waste our time.

Sincerely and yes, Respectfully,

Joel S.