Tag: private property

Distraught Cape Cod widow told ‘forever home’ is one of 13 set to be demolished to make way for new bridge… with neighbors whose properties were spared dreading the thundering traffic

A distraught Cape Cod widow will see her home of more than 24 years demolished to make way for a new bridge.

Joyce Michaud, 80, is among 13 unlucky residents who will have their properties flattened by Massachusetts officials as part of the $2.1 billion project to replace the Sagamore Bridge.

Michaud’s three-bedroom home will bulldozed to make room for workers’ equipment, and will eventually become a basin to catch storm water rolling off the bridge, The Boston Globe reported. 

‘[I thought:] “I’m all set. My kids don’t have to worry. I’m all set”,’ she told The Globe. ‘And now, I’m not.

‘It’s really hard to lose something that you thought was yours.’ 

The residence is being seized through eminent domain, which allows the state to take property for public use. 

An additional 17 properties will be partially acquired. Seven vacant properties will also be seized. 

Meanwhile neighbors who have been spared demolition say they are dreading the onslaught of traffic and noisy works which will take place for the next ten years during construction of the new bridge, which connected Cape Cod to the mainland.

Keep reading

NYC poised to force landlords to sell private property to non-profits to ensure ‘affordable housing’

The New York City Council has passed what has been called the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act (COPA) that will force private building owners to offer up their property to nonprofits and government entities before they make any private sale, effectively causing massive delays in property sales and other regulatory hurdles in the Big Apple’s housing industry.

In the scenario that it is passed, NYC will have the largest COPA program in the country. The act forces landlords to offer their property to the city as well as nonprofits before the building can be sold on the public market. The lawmaker who sponsored the law, Council Member Sandy Nurse, claims that it will be a win for New Yorkers.

“Corporate interests and big real estate tried their hardest to block the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act with a misinformation and fear-mongering campaign, and they failed,” Nurse said about the law’s passage, per Pix 11. “Today marks the beginning of a new social housing era in New York City… COPA levels the playing field and makes it possible to preserve and create thousands of permanently affordable homes across our city.”

The act dictates that landlords must first tip off the government entities and nonprofits that qualify, and “may not take any action that will result in the sale of such covered property to a person other than” those entities. Then the owner must sit on that property for 25 days as it is up for sale to the nonprofits, which can submit a statement of interest.

If the statement of interest is submitted to the property owner, the nonprofit entity then has 80 days to submit a first offer. Only after rejecting any offer from the nonprofit during those 80 days would the owner then be able to list the property for public sale.

That, however, is not the end of the red tape. If there is an offer from the private market submitted after a building owner refused an offer from a nonprofit, the owner must then inform the nonprofit so that the nonprofit can offer a matching price on identical terms of the private offer and has 15 days to do so.

Keep reading

Innocent Man Sues for Over $60,000 After Police Blew Up His Business. A Court Says He’s Entitled to Nothing.

The Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment “was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens,” the Supreme Court said in Armstrong v. United States, “which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” That was just over 65 years ago.

It is, unfortunately, not living up to that promise.

For the latest example, we can look to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled last month that an innocent man whose business was destroyed by Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers in pursuit of a fugitive is not entitled to compensation for damages under the Takings Clause. This is despite the law’s pledge that the government provide “just compensation” when it usurps private property for a public use.

In August of 2022, an armed fugitive threw Carlos Pena out of his North Hollywood printing shop and barricaded himself inside it. Over the course of 13 hours, a SWAT team with the LAPD launched more than 30 rounds of tear gas canisters through the walls, door, roof, and windows. After the standoff, police discovered the suspect had managed to escape. But Pena was left with a husk of what his store once was, the inside ravaged and equipment ruined, saddling him with over $60,000 in damages, according to his lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles.

It’s a suit Pena did not want to file, having repeatedly reached out to the government to recoup his losses before going to court. The city ignored him. Pena, meanwhile, was hemorrhaging income, resigned to working out of his garage at a much-reduced capacity with a single printer he purchased after the raid.

The recent ruling on Pena’s claim joins a burgeoning pile of case law wading through this exact scenario. Each decision ultimately grapples with a version of a core question: Does the Takings Clause cease to apply in some sense when property is destroyed via “police power”?

Different circuits have come to varying conclusions. The 9th Circuit, for its part, declined to answer if a categorical exception exists. But the court did conclude that there is no taking “when law enforcement officers destroy private property while acting reasonably in the necessary defense of public safety” (emphasis mine). The judges said that doomed Pena’s claim.

Their decision references a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which in 2023 considered a similar case: Police mutilated a woman’s Texas house in pursuit of a fugitive who had locked himself inside her attic. Because law enforcement destroyed Vicki Baker’s home “by necessity during an active emergency,” the court ruled, it did not constitute a taking under the U.S. Constitution.

Keep reading

Democrat Running for U.S. Senate in Maine Supports ‘Giving Land Back’ to Indigenous People

Graham Platner, the Democrat running for U.S. Senate in Maine recently said during a streaming session that he supports giving land back to indigenous people in his state.

Platner has been under fire in recent months after it was revealed that he had an actual Nazi tattoo on his chest. Since then, he has been running on a slightly lower profile, waiting for that news cycle to blow over.

His comments on indigenous people and land is a perfect example of progressive virtue signaling. He has to show Democrat base voters that he is as radically far left as they are.

The Washington Free Beacon reported:

‘A Foundation of My Politics’: Graham Platner Calls To Return Maine Land to ‘Indigenous Population’

Senate candidate Graham Platner (D., Maine) called to return land to natives in the state he’s running to represent, arguing that longstanding injustices committed by state and federal governments remain unresolved.

“I, for one, am a firm supporter in any legislation that increases tribal sovereignty for the indigenous population in Maine,” Platner said Monday during a virtual town hall. “I also am a firm supporter of any legislation on the federal level that begins to give more, frankly, land back to the indigenous peoples that was taken from them, and there are a few mechanisms of doing this.”

“Tribal sovereignty, quite frankly, is a foundation of my politics,” he added. “I don’t think we get to have a future full of justice, dignity, and peace, but we don’t right the injustices of the past.”

There are roughly 10,000 indigenous people living in Maine—the 10th smallest population in the United States, according Census data in 2021.

So-called land-back advocates typically call for returning public lands, specifically, to natives.

Keep reading

Canada spent nearly $1M killing ostriches, but full cost remains hidden

The federal government has now admitted that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the RCMP spent over $900,000 on the agency’s mission to slaughter more than 300 healthy ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farms in Edgewood, B.C.

The numbers were revealed through an order paper question filed by Conservative MP Scott Anderson after months of stonewalling from Ottawa.

Despite Anderson pointedly requesting a complete accounting of all federal dollars spent, the amount the CFIA and RCMP did disclose is merely a glimpse into what was likely millions of tax dollars spent on lengthy court battles to avoid testing the birds to prove their health, and a nearly 50-day occupation of the farm with RCMP deployed at full force.

Nevertheless, for the farmers whose livelihoods and the healthy prehistoric creatures that were wiped out in the kill mission, the totals that have been revealed only add salt to the wounds.

The CFIA alone admits to $444,000, including $9,000 on feed that the farmers would have been happy to provide had they not been barred from caring for their birds weeks before the “cull.”

More than $72,000 was spent on portable toilets and hand-wash stations, and over $32,000 on unspecified “specialized equipment.”

It also paid $100,000 for private security at three of its offices.

Keep reading

OUTRAGE IN DC: Court Allows Squatter to Remain in Woman’s Home for MONTHS After Overstaying Airbnb Stay — Homeowner Faces Financial Ruin While System Protects the Trespasser

In yet another stunning example of the nation’s upside-down justice system, a DC court is allowing a squatter to remain inside a woman’s home for nearly a year after overstaying an Airbnb reservation, despite having no lease, no tenancy agreement, and no legal right to occupy the property.

The case has left homeowner Rochanne Douglas trapped in a nightmare that has cost her tens of thousands of dollars and pushed her to the brink, while alleged squatter Shadija Romero continues living inside Douglas’s property with total impunity.

Romero originally booked Douglas’s short-term rental for 32 days, ending on March 29. But after remaining in the home for more than 30 days, just long enough to exploit DC’s tenant-friendly laws, she suddenly declared herself a “resident” and refused to leave, 7News reported.

“I never gave her any tenancy,” said Douglas. “I never gave her a lease.”

From there, the situation spiraled. Douglas:

  • Served a 30-day notice to vacate
  • Called the police repeatedly
  • Sought court intervention
  • Even offered Romero $2,500 just to acknowledge she wasn’t a tenant and get out

Romero signed the agreement, but when her eviction date came on November 15, she refused to leave the property and claimed the arrangement “no longer works for me.”

To make matters worse, when Douglas attempted to enforce her rights, DC Metropolitan Police told her they could do nothing, despite Douglas being legally barred from entering her own home.

Neighbors later reported that Romero and her companions packed their bags, loaded the car, and left the property. Police cleared the home and informed Douglas she could secure it.

Keep reading

Michigan Man Guns Down Teen Who Broke into His Garage – Is Charged With Multiple Crimes Including Manslaughter Despite State’s “Stand Your Ground” Law

A Michigan man is facing a lengthy prison sentence after killing a youth who broke into his garage, sparking a debate regarding the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law.

As The New York Post reported on Sunday, 17-year-old Sivan Wilson and six other “mainly teenagers” broke into 24-year-old Dayton Knapton’s garage in White Lake just after 1 a.m. on July 8.

Knapton received an alert from his home security system, grabbed his 9mm semiautomatic handgun, and subsequently took fatal action to resolve the situation.

The Oakland County Prosecutor’s office alleges that Knapton left this house and fired two shots through a windowless locked door, which sent the burglars fleeing. Then he continued to fire as they tried to race away to safety.

Knapton then supposedly went back inside his house to reload his gun and returned to the scene.

Wilson fled the scene with his cronies but was struck by one of the bullets. Unfortunately for him, he did not receive medical care for 30 minutes and later died.

Investigators later determined that one of the bullets fired by Knapton through the locked door struck Wilson. Another teenager in the group was also shot in the leg but survived.

On November 7, Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald announced that she would be charging Knapton with multiple crimes, including Manslaughter, Assault With Intent To Do Great Bodily Harm, and two counts of Felony Firearm.

McDonald released the following statement explaining why she decided to pursue charges:

The rights to own firearms and protect one’s family and home are fundamental. Those important rights also come with profound responsibility. Our office worked closely with law enforcement to review the evidence, including the obvious mitigating factors, which led us to these charges.

We believe the evidence demonstrates this defendant crossed the line by firing outside his home at fleeing persons. His actions not only took a life but potentially endangered the surrounding community by firing his weapon into the night.

Knapton faces up to 15 years behind bars for Manslaughter, 10 years for Assault With Intent To Do Great Bodily Harm, and 4 years for the two counts of Felony Firearm. This means he could spend almost 30 YEARS in prison.

Keep reading

Who Really Owns America? The Banks, The Billionaires, & The Deep State

“The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear… They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else… It’s called the American Dream, ‘cause you have to be asleep to believe it.”

– George Carlin

As President Trump floats the idea of 50-year mortgages, Americans are being sold a new version of the American Dream—one that can never truly be owned, only leased from the banks, billionaires, and private equity landlords who profit from our permanent state of debt.

Keep reading

Immigration and Climate Activists Want a Nation of Renters

It’s harder than ever to buy a home, thanks to immigration, environmental regulations, and zoning restrictions. The word “crisis” gets used too often, but housing certainly qualifies.

On the heels of an election won by Democrats who stressed “affordability,” the Trump administration has floated the idea of introducing 50-year mortgages to lower the entry cost of buying a home. Is that a good idea?

“I bought my first condo in the early 1990s in Washington, DC. Paid $115,000 for it. It was in McLean, Virginia, a nice area, and it was three times my income,” says Peter Schweizer, host of The DrillDown podcast. “How many people today could say they can take their income, triple it, and buy a house for that price?”

Co-host Eric Eggers does the math. “Don’t get a 50-year mortgage,” Eggers cautions. “On a $350,000 house at 6 percent interest, you would pay $250 a month less, but you would spend an extra $367,000 in interest.”

Housing costs have risen for many reasons, but immigration is a big factor. Since 1995, immigrants — legal or illegal — to the U.S. have risen by about 30 million people and now account for 15.8 percent of the population, according to Pew Research. That adds demand for housing.

Environmental restrictions and zoning restrictions are another large factor. A recent study quantified their effects on housing prices. In San Francisco, as the hosts note, restrictive zoning laws added $400,000 to the cost of a home. “In Seattle, Los Angeles, New York City, it’s much better: it’s only $200,000 added to the costs there,” Schweizer adds.

Keep reading

Florida Wins Court Battle on Law Limiting Homes, Land Purchases by Chinese Citizens

A U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that Florida can restrict home and land purchases by Chinese citizens, dismissing claims that the 2023 law is discriminatory.

It comes after a court dismissed a challenge to a similar law in Texas that restricts the ownership of properties by Chinese individuals or entities.

The 2–1 ruling by the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the way for Florida to enforce SB 264, or the Interests of Foreign Countries Act, which bans individuals who are domiciled in China from buying property in the state unless they already owned all or part of a property before July 1, 2023.

The ruling could also encourage other states to adopt so-called alien land laws, which were once common but fell out of favor a century ago.

The court said the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the law’s purchasing restriction because they failed to show an imminent injury.

According to court documents, three of the individual plaintiffs are domiciled in Florida, and the fourth, who’s “at least arguably domiciled in China,” already has a home in Florida and has no plans to buy another. The last plaintiff, a real estate brokerage firm primarily serving Chinese and Chinese American clients, also failed to establish an imminent injury, circuit judges said.

Keep reading