- Penelope Marth -City's poor maintenance causes her house to be designated "blighted". |
|
|---|---|
| Penelope Marth has endured a long struggle with the city of Sugar Creek to keep her property. She feels like she is in a war zone, a war being waged against her by her own government. |
|
|
We are not against redevelopment, but we are against eminent domain abuse. We are not in favor of handing our property, and other property that is already in public use, over to a developer for private use to make a profit. |
When we received notice that the city had blighted our area for a grocery store and strip mall I was appalled to be threatened with eminent domain. Included in the area of taking are a park, a stream, acres of trees and land that has never been developed, and a playground. Also included in the area for redevelopment are 33 houses and 5 businesses. The homes on our street are all multi-generational homes, mine having been built by my grandfather and great-grandfather in 1920. I had two other great-aunts and uncles living in the neighborhood. To obtain copies of the blight study and TIF plan I went armed with the statute that says I have the right to the information and a second one that says that for public information, the city could waive or lower the fee’s for copying. I was told it was a 2,000 page document and I would have to pay .25 cents per page. They did wind up giving them to me at a nominal price, although pages were missing. There were photographs in the blight study. They included unpainted side walk curbs and bent rusted metal fencing, which was in the public works parking lot and outside of the redevelopment area. The creator of the blight study made note just before the TIF Plan was approved that the evidence did not have to be from within the blighted area, it just had to exist. He also said it did not matter whose fault the blight was, since it was mostly the city’s doing. Most of our neighbors have capitulated and sold out to the city. I pointed out that the people have 90 days past the date of eviction to move, according to law. The city made some people move out in 48 hours. Two of our neighbors have died and another ended up in the hospital, having had two strokes: one during the process of negotiating with the city, another during the 48 hour move. They also sold their house for $30,000 less than what they’d paid for it 3 yrs ago. The city says that is not true. But they were scared. All of them were scared. Scared they’d end up with nothing. This was facilitated through the threat of eminent domain, which was stated in letters from the city. But the city still denies that it has used eminent domain. My family and I are still trying to decided what to do. Do we hold out and end up in the middle of this gigantic mess they created, THEY BLIGHTED? The City's time is running out. Recently they have really striving to communicate with me, be respectful, and understand my position. I told them I wished we could have had these talks earlier. They have said the same. This makes it even more difficult to stand up for my rights in the face of those whom I wish to hold high as city fathers. I have tried my best to treat my city officials with respect and to respond appropriately, within the constraints that are required for each step of this process. I don’t want to be at war with my neighbors and city council. We have got to find a way to flourish without degrading and crushing our property rights, hopes, dreams and families. Certainly there is a way to negotiate fairly, plan wisely, without condemning one another or lowering ourselves to barbaric actions we so long ago sought to relinquish. The city’s 15th century tactics prove that they cannot be trusted to wield such power. - Penelope Marth, Sugar Creek, MO |
|
