“...all political
power is vested in and derived from the people; that all
government of right originates from the people ...” (Article I §
1 Missouri Constitution)
Donations
are NOT tax deductible Donate
online or mail your check today to: MO-CPR
c/o Richard Westbrook, CPA
205 W Main St
Richmond, MO 64085
"The
tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the
blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson
Endorsements
The
Heritage Foundation
“I
endorse the worthy and valuable principals of the Missouri
Citizens for Property Rights' proposed constitutional amendment
to better protect property rights, and I support the enactment
of any proposal like it that prevents abuses of traditional
eminent domain powers and provides safeguards against the
confiscation of private property for other private uses.”
-Todd
Gaziano, Director, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies The
Heritage Foundation
Property
Rights Alliance
“Property
Rights Alliance (PRA) commends Missouri Citizens for Property
Rights for their efforts to protect private property in the
state of Missouri. With the threat of eminent domain abuse
looming at the state and national level, it is imperative that
organizations and activists work together to protect property
owners and small business enterprises from government’s
grasp. PRA applauds the work of Missouri Citizens for Property
Rights and supports its continued efforts to protect the
Missourian property owner.” -Scott
A. LaGanga, Executive
Director of Property Rights Alliance (PRA)
Reason
Foundation
“I
have looked at a lot of legislation and efforts around the
country to limit eminent domain abuse. Most of them are
laudable. But the effort of Missouri Citizens for Property
Rights stands out from the crowd. Not only are they meticulous
about changing the law to confine eminent domain to true public
uses, they put real effort into discussing alternatives to
eminent domain for cities dealing with blight and economic
development challenges. I am impressed by how they combine a
hard line on property rights with an effort to address the
public policy consequences.“ Dr.
Adrian Moore,
Vice President, Reason Foundation (Blog)
American
Policy Center
“The
threat to private property is real. Since the Supreme Court's
ruling in Kelo VS New London, no home is secure. As the battle
rages across the country, two approaches have emerged: those
who try to appease, consequently doing little for property
owner's protection -- and those who are serious about
protecting private property from the ravages of Eminent Domain.
The effort by the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights takes
the no-compromising stand and gets it right.” Tom
DeWeese, President, American Policy Center
The
Rutherford Institute
"I commend the Missouri
Citizens for Property Rights in their work to protect the
rights of private property owners. This is essential
legislation and should be used in other states to ensure that
what happened in Connecticut by way of the U.S. Supreme Court's
Kelo decision does not happen again."--John
W. Whitehead, President, The Rutherford Institute
The
Claremont Institute “Our
government officials seem to have lost their way. The primary
purpose of government is supposed to be the protection of the
inalienable rights of its citizens, including the right to own
property, yet all too frequently planning department
bureaucrats, with the sanction of both elected officials and
courts, view their role as implementing some communitarian
ideal, trampling individual rights for what these bureaucrats
believe to be the common good. I therefore applaud the efforts
of Missouri
Citizens for Property Rightsto
reinvigorate the protection of private property that the
Missouri Constitution has historically afforded, amending the
constitution to forestall erroneous interpretations of the
long-standing provisions. The restoration of property rights as
one of our fundamental rights, deserving protection against
tyrannical majorities for all but the most compelling of public
use reasons, is an important battle, and I wish you much
success.” - John
Eastman, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for
Constitutional Jurisprudence and Professor of Law, Chapman
University School of Law
Defenders
of Property Rights-
“Defenders of Property Rights
applauds the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights for their
effort to restore the traditional, constitutional principles of
property rights in the state of Missouri. Considering the
recent tragic results of eminent domain abuse, it is essential
that organization’s collaborative efforts work towards
returning eminent domain to its appropriate use and prevent
private property owners from more unjust takings. Defenders of
Property Rights commends the determination of Missouri Citizens
for Property Rights in defending property rights and will
continue to support their efforts to minimize the victimization
of Missourian private property owners as a result of eminent
domain abuse.” – Nancie
Marzulla, President, Defenders of Property Rights
Concerned
Citizens for Family Farms and Heritage, Doug McDaniel
President-
The
O’Fallon Old Town Preservation Committee “The
O’Fallon Old Town Preservation Committee is proud to
endorse the Missouri Constitutional Amendments proposed by the
Missouri Citizens for Property Rights.”
Missouri Citizens for Property Rights Withdraws Suit Against Secretary of State
Dixon, MO – September 4, 2008 -- Today, Missouri Citizens for Property Rights (MO-CPR) announced that they were withdrawing their lawsuit challenging the Secretary of State's declaration that their eminent domain petition was insufficient to qualify for the November ballot.
The Secretary of State reported that the group had turned in about 438,000 signatures for the two petitions. Although both petitions had many thousands more valid signatures than the required 147,000, not enough of them were in the 2nd congressional district to meet the constitutional requirement.
“We got so close! It's frustrating to collect tens of thousands more signatures than the total needed, and still fall short.”, said Ron Calzone, chairman of MO-CPR. “But the requirement to gather signatures from various parts of the state is a good one. Even though it shot us down this time, I wouldn't have it any other way, since that requirement helps to protect everyone's interest, alike.” Calzone said that equal and fair treatment under the law for everyone is at the core of the group's desire to reform the use of eminent domain in Missouri.
Bevis Schock, MO-CPR board member and attorney, said that the law required a legal challenge within 10 days in order to give the MO-CPR legal team time to fully review the work of the Secretary of State and county officials. "For the last few weeks we have had a good team working to "clawback" signatures, that is to find signatures which were improperly invalidated. Yesterday the team concluded that we could not clawback enough to make it. We forthwith dismissed the challenge."
The grassroots organization mustered scores of volunteers and also raised money – almost entirely from Missouri property owners -- to hire a petition management firm to gather signatures. In Cole County Circuit court, they faced off against powerful, well-funded opponents like the Missouri Municipal League, the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association (RCGA), Missouri Chamber of Commerce, and lawyers from a Canadian pipeline company. MO-CPR has raised concerns about the Missouri Municipal League's use of taxpayer's money to keep the people from voting on a public policy change.
Calzone is looking at the positive side of the loss, though. “We failed this time, and like the captain of any ship, I must take full responsibility, but we also learned a lot from this time around. We know better who are the enemies of property rights and free market capitalism, and we know how far they'll go to keep us from securing property rights for Missourians.”
Calzone likened this to the War for American Independence, in which the colonists struggled almost 8 years against the well-armed King of England before they won the freedom Americans have enjoyed since. “The parallels are uncanny. Then you had the king's sword being abused to provide favored treatment for the well-connected and powerful at the expense of the people – the tea tax and navigation acts come to mind. Today, government's power of eminent domain, used with Tax Increment Financing (TIFs), punish the people for the private profit of a few.”
Calzone continued, “We've been asked if we will try again. How can we stop now? We've been working on this for three long years, but I've met folks around the state, like Homer and Julie Tourkakis, who have been struggling for much longer to keep their home or business from being taken -- not for a road or school, but for the private profit of a developer. We can not stop! Watch for us next summer.”
####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MO-CPR Criticizes Municipal League's Intervention In Court Case
ST. LOUIS, MO – August 19, 2008: The Missouri Municipal League filed papers Monday seeking to deprive Missouri voters of the opportunity to vote on a pair of constitutional amendments sponsored by Missouri Citizens for Property Rights. The amendments would end the abuse of eminent domain for private profit while allowing it for traditional uses like roads and utilities. They would also leave elected officials with other powers to clean up problem properties.
The Missouri Secretary of State ruled on August 5 that MO-CPR had turned in insufficient signatures in Congressional District 2 to qualify for the ballot. MO-CPR filed a lawsuit last week challenging the decision. The Missouri Municipal League, which represents 658 Missouri Cities, filed papers on Monday seeking to keep the MO-CPR amendments off the ballot.
The Municipal League’s filing prompted a rebuke from MO-CPR Chairman Ron Calzone. “It’s bad enough that some city officials have repeatedly trampled on their own constituents’ property rights for the benefit of politically connected private developers,” Calzone said. “Now they’re spending tax payer's money to go to court to deprive voters of the chance to vote on the practice. It’s despicable.”
“Nothing the Municipal League can add will change the fact that more than 200,000 Missouri voters have signed petitions asking to vote on this issue," Calzone added. "The Municipal League claims that eminent domain for private profit is good for the state’s economy, but we think that respect for property rights, the bulwark of all of our freedoms, is what's really good for Missouri. We just ask that the voters have a chance to choose.”
Bevis Schock, a member of the board of MO-CPR and a St. Louis civil rights attorney said he found the proposed intervention comical. "I wonder if the politicians who approved this legal action have considered how many residents of their cities signed our Petition?" he asked. "It is a sad day when government officials are so out of touch with the right of the people to own their property in peace, and so enamored with their own wisdom to decide which developers should run rough shod over people's homes and businesses, that they would take an action like this."
"The Municipal League should have entered this case on our side and encouraged the judge to grant the people a right to vote on this issue," Schock suggested.
"Voters should remember this when they go into the ballot box in November," Calzone added. "In addition to approving our amendments, voters should throw out the city officials who lack respect not only for their property rights, but for their right to vote as well."
Missouri Citizens for Property Rights to File Suit to Gain Ballot Access
Dixon, MO – August 6, 2008: Missouri Citizens for Property Rights announced today that it intends to challenge the Missouri Secretary of State's Tuesday ruling that it has not submitted enough valid signatures for its two constitutional amendments to appear on the November ballot.
"We prepared for this possibility - we've already got a team in place to challenge the decision," said Ron Calzone, chairman of MO-CPR. "We're pleased that the Secretary of State confirmed that we had enough signatures in five of the six required congressional districts, and we intend to demonstrate that we cleared the hurdle in the sixth district as well."
The amendments would end the abuse of eminent domain for private profit while allowing it for traditional uses like roads and utilities. They would also leave elected officials with the powers they need to clean up problem properties.
Under Missouri law, the signatures MO-CPR submitted were sent to county election officials for verification. Calzone noted that this year, county officials were asked to verify thousands of signatures for each of five separate petitions in just 13 weeks. They may have inadvertently rejected a significant number of valid signatures due to clerical errors.
Calzone said he is confident of success because his organization hired a private company to verify the signatures before submitting them. "Over 200,000 Missouri voters signed both of our petitions, but 50,000 of them were rejected – we want to find out why. We intend to ensure that every valid signature is counted, and we believe that will be more than enough to put us on the ballot."
"Eminent domain for private profit is morally wrong, and it's bad for the state's economy," Calzone said. "This is the sort of thing a constitution is supposed to protect the people from. Three years after the Supreme Court said that the federal Constitution doesn't protect our property rights from private greed, the voters of Missouri deserve the chance to finally amend the state Constitution to restore property rights at the state level. We intend to show that we have earned a place on the ballot by collecting more than the required number of signatures."
Go to http://www.mo-cpr.org for this release and other information about the project.
Contact:
Ron Calzone, chairman
Missouri Citizens for Property Rights
33867 Highway E
Dixon, MO 65459
ron (at) mo-cpr.org
www.mo-cpr.org
(573) 759-3585
371 words
# # # #
Why does the city of Arnold want to take Dr. Tourkakis' dental practice? City counselor says its a matter of decor!
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the city of Arnold could, in fact, take Dr. Homer Tourkakis' dental practice by eminent domain and make it part of a privately owned retail shopping center.
The dentist's property is in perfect repair and is not in the way of development - it only slated to be an open space - an "out lot". If the city doesn't need the land for the development, why do they want the dental practice leveled?
In a candid moment on video, Arnold City Counselor, Robert Sweeny, revealed the truth. He said, "His retro fit two bedroom house is not compatible with a 21st century commercial development,"
There you have it - it was a decorating decision! The American institution of private property rights is made to give way to decor!
Next time you see some improvements in YOUR neighborhood, don't rejoice too soon - those improvements might make your home or business "incompatible" with the new decor and a target for eminent domain!
Thank you to everyone who donated on Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death!" day!
March 18, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MO-CPR Says High Court Decision Shows Need for Constitutional Changes
Missouri Citizens for Property Rights' chairman Ron Calzone made the following statement regarding the Missouri Supreme Court's decision in the case of Arnold vs. Tourkakis:
"My heart goes out to Homer and his wife, who are now a step closer to having a quarter-century of hard work destroyed by city bulldozers. The high court ignored the clear statement in Article I, Section 28 that 'private property shall not be taken for private use with or without compensation' as Missourians' fundamental protection against private use eminent domain."
"The court instead stretched the application of Article VI, Section 21, despite plain language limiting those powers to chartered cities. This illogical decision puts hundreds of thousands of Missourians' property rights in greater danger."
"That's not the worst of it, though. In the majority opinion, the court wrote, 'Unless limited by the constitution, the legislature has the right to authorize the exercise of the unlimited and practically absolute sovereign power of eminent domain.'"
"Like the US Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo decision, this decision proves that we cannot rely on the courts to protect our property rights. Only our ballot initiative, which unequivocally outlaws eminent domain for private profit, will reverse the Supreme Court's wrongheaded decision and give property owners the protections they deserve. We are grateful that in the midst of his legal battle with the city, Homer has found the time to support our effort to gather the signatures to put these amendments on the ballot. Homer's determination to fight for not only his own property rights but those of his fellow Missourian's is a real inspiration."
Go to THIS PAGE to read the stories of some fellow Missourians who are fighting eminent domain abuse.
This video is a short explanation of the problem built into the
Missouri Constitution - the very problem that needs to be fixed.
HOT OFF THE PRESS! The Wall Street Journal reports a new study from the Institute for Justice which reveals that eminent domain reform does NOT hinder economic development.
Eminent Reality(Wall Street Journal) January 30, 2008 -- Does restricting "eminent domain" -- the power of government to seize private property -- harm economic growth? A new report from the Institute for Justice looks at the evidence and concludes the answer is no. <more>
The city's lawyer makes wild claims about the effects of a ruling in favor of Property Rights and obfuscates the issue. An analysis of the case is forthcoming, but you can listen to the oral arguments and read the court documents by clicking here.
Old News: MO-CPR
helps Arnold, MO businesses man score a huge victory in court.
Property owners in non-chartered cities across the state
benefit. <more>
Flash video Petitioner's Guide Turn
your speakers up and watch this easy to understand guide to
collecting signatures: Start
Here
History!Click here to watch a Flash presentation about the history of property
rights in America. Turn your speakers on and find out how the
War for American Independence relates to eminent domain abuse. Click
Here
What
will the proposed constitutional amendments do?
Missouri
Citizens for Property Rights is not proposing that we do
anything new or revolutionary – we simply want to restore the traditional, time tested, concepts of property rights. We
believe that the primary role of government is that of protecting property rights and that eminent domain should
be used only rarely and only for truly public uses, such as
roads and sewers.
Eminent
domain has traditionally been called “the despotic power”.
When it must be used for a truly public use, every
safeguard to the rights of the one losing his property should be
employed. He should have the right to due process prior to
losing his property and should be well compensated for his loss.
After all, if the public use will truly benefit the masses, the
rest of us should be willing to each chip in a little to
minimize the suffering of the one making the sacrifice.
Perhaps
of greatest importance, Missouri's constitutional provisions for
protecting property rights should protect everyone's rights equally. We should accept no less than “justice for
all” whether they be rich or poor, home owners or
businesses, urban or rural. And the state's awesome power of
eminent domain should never be conveyed to private
entities for their personal profit!
Here
are some details about the proposed amendments to Missouri's
constitution:
THE
FIRST PETITION
Ballot
Title (Written by the Secretary of State) Shall
the Missouri Constitution be amended to restrict the use of
eminent domain by:
Allowing
only government entities to use eminent domain;
Prohibiting
its use for private purposes, with certain exceptions for
utilities;
Requiring
that any taking of property be necessary for a public use and
that landowners receive just compensation;
Requiring
that the intended public use be declared at the time of the
taking and permitting the original owners to repurchase the
property if it is not so used within five years or if the
property is offered for sale within 20 years?
Article
I, Section 26 Explanation
Limit
eminent domain authority to the state and its political
subdivisions.
Require
just compensation when property rights are “taken”
or damaged indirectly..
Limits
the use of eminent domain to situations in which it is
necessary to use that power.
Allow
normal appraisal methods to be considered in determining “just
compensation”.
Require
due process before property can be taken or disturbed by the
taking authority.
Article
I, Section 28 Explanation
Prohibits
the use of eminent domain for “private use, private
ownership, or other private rights” and ensures that
those uses are not considered “public use”.
Discourages
the government from “hoarding” or speculating on
property through eminent domain for longer than 5 years through
a buy back provision.
Discourages
a feigned public purpose at the time of taking and subsequent
conveying to a private party by allowing the original owner an
opportunity to buy back his property if the government attempts
to sell it within 20 years.
Ensures
regulated utilities and electric cooperatives the ability to
provide their services, but a government entity must use
eminent domain on their behalf and the title remains in the
original owner, “subject to the use for which it was
taken”. Privately owned utilities will no longer be able
to directly wield the people's power of eminent domain.
A “notwithstanding” clause to keep Art VI, Sec. 21
from “trumping” these provisions.
THE
SECOND PETITION
Ballot
Title (Written by the Secretary of State) Shall
the Missouri Constitution be amended to change the power of the
General Assembly and constitutionally
chartered cities or counties to:
Prohibit
the use of eminent domain to acquire and resell property found
to be blighted, substandard or unsanitary for the purpose of
clearance, redevelopment or rehabilitation; and
Allow
them to require owners of property found to be a public
nuisance to abate or clean up the nuisance and, if the property
owner fails to do so in a reasonable time, allow the local
government to pay for the abatement and impose a lien to
recover the cost?
Article
VI, Section 21 Explanation
Provide
a remedy for “blight” and other public nuisances,
but shift the role of the government to that of protecting
the property rights of the neighbors of those conditions
rather then punishing the responsible property owners along
with the abusers.
Limits
those nuisances to those historically considered so, that is,
only conditions that negatively affect the property rights of
another.
This
change reestablishes the appropriate distinction between police
powers and eminent domain powers.
Provide
for a reasonable opportunity to abate the nuisance before
action is taken.
Permit
the expenditure of public funds to protect the neighbors and
prescribes the due process protection for the “offending”
property owner.
