…in Alabama? If you have, we’d love to hear your story.
Are your responding to the advertisements recently placed in the Montgomery and Birmingham area? If so, please contact Stephen Gordon by e-mail or at (256) 874-2985.
Alternately, feel free to leave a comment below.
Title: ALABAMA ADVISORY COMMITTEE to the U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Location: Troy University – Montgomery Campus
Description: Civil Rights Implications of Eminent Domain Policies and Practices in Alabama
Alabama victims of property rights abuse will be featured at the event.
Exact time and location will be announced as soon as details are finalized. Here’s the anticipated schedule:
Date: 2009-04-29
Panel I Begins at 9:15 PM
Panel II begins at 2:15 PM
Open Session for the Public begins at 4:30
This event is open to the public.
Title: Press Conference
Location: Alabama State House
Description: State Senators Scott Beason and Quinton Ross will holding a press conference at the Alabama State House to discuss the Evergreen Baptist Church Eminent Domain Protection Act and The Elizabeth Swain Property Protection Act.
Please contact Senators Scott Beason at: (334) 242-7794 and Quinton Ross at: (334) 242-7880 with a resolute vote of encouragement for their stand for private property protection.
Start Time: 11:00
Date: 2009-04-07
The Alabama legislature finds that inadequate legislative protection exists for property owners that through eminent domain proceedings have agreed to swap their property for real estate owned by the party taking the property or an offering of property through a third party. An example is the Evergreen Baptist Church which accepted a land swap from the Alabama Department of Transportation after an understanding that hookups to all utilities would be provide for the new church building. When the church was two thirds completed, the Birmingham Water Works refused to provide water unless the church paid the Water Works $80,000.00 for the installation of a new water trunk line.
The legislature declares that the imposition incurred upon the church through eminent domain proceedings shall not be compounded by imposing additional expense for utility services at the property.
Furthermore, when a subdivision of the state or other entity possessing the authority of eminent domain enters into a settlement agreement wherein a parcel of land is offered and accepted in lieu of payment all utilities occurring on the property taken shall be provided at no expense and in a timely fashion to the accepting party.
This bill shall be known as “The Elizabeth Swain Property Protection Act.”
The Alabama Legislature finds that the Alabama Code of 1975 is inadequate in equitably ensuring transparent, comprehensive and accessible systems in transferring land rights and legal security of tenure. This inadequacy is especially burdensome on Alabama’s disadvantaged and vulnerable minority populations.
Therefore the Alabama Attorney General shall:
When an entity processing the authority of eminent domain under the auspices of the State of Alabama contemplates the use of eminent domain the entity shall:
Send a representative knowledgeable in the eminent domain proceeding under consideration to meet with the owner of the private property in question. On serving notice to an owner of the possible exercise of eminent domain, the condemnor shall provide clear and written explanation of all procedures and the owner’s rights and remedies. The representative shall secure the signature of the private property owner on a form which acknowledges the private property owner’s receipt of the brochure.
If the private property owner resides outside the boundaries of Alabama, the entity contemplating the use of eminent domain shall contact the private property owner and inform the owner about the brochure and its purpose and secure from the private property owner a mailing address. The representative shall, by certified mail, or other proof of delivery, send the brochure and the form for the signature acknowledging the receipt of the aforementioned brochure to the property owner of record.
If the private property owner believes that threatening and or badgering tactics have been employed by the entity contemplating the use of eminent domain or agents acting on behalf of that entity, the property owner may request an inquiry by the Attorney General. A finding by the Attorney General that threatening and or badgering tactics have been employed on the part of the aforementioned entity and/or agents operating to facilitate the proceedings shall result in a jury trial (the jury being selected from among the threatened property owners’ peers) in the court of _____. Eminent domain proceedings shall not go forward until the verdict has been handed down in the aforementioned trial and the actions specified in this act have been carried out in full.
Should the entity attempting the aforementioned eminent domain taking be a government agency, or a subsidiary thereof, a verdict in favor of the private property owner shall result in the removal of public officer holders involved in such harassment from public office. A verdict in favor of the private property owner against a “non-governmental entity” possessing eminent domain authority, and found guilty of threatening or harassing tactics, shall result in that entity paying the private property owner a minimum of four times the value of the “highest and best use” of said property.
The value of the property will initially be established by an independent expert, at the condemnor’s expense. Should the parties be unable to reach accord on the value, then the owner has a right to appeal to an appropriate court and the court shall determine value, based on three appraisals by impartial expert valuation witnesses whose fees shall be paid by the condemnor.
The payment shall be made over and above any settlement resulting from state authorized use of eminent domain. Proceedings of eminent domain which include negotiations shall not go forward until settlement of the aforementioned trial has been made. No court cost or attorney fees shall be incurred by the private property owner.
Evergreen Baptist Church overlooks I-65 between Birmingham and Gardendale, Alabama. The Church was required to surrender its property through eminent domain for road construction. The Church agreed to a property swap with the State Department of Transportation. The Church at its old location was serviced with water, gas and electricity - all modern conveniences. Before construction began on the new Church building, Rev. Smith contacted the Birmingham Water Works to ensure that water would be available. With the Water Works assurance, construction was begun. When construction reached ¾ completion, it was disclosed that the Birmingham Water Works would require $80,000.00 to install a new water main. The Church, consisting of a small congregation, could not afford the demands of the Water Works. Two years have passed and the inequity in the land swap has not been resolved. The Church pleads for a just and appropriate public outcry.
Property Rights Abuse and the Evergreen Baptist Church from Don Casey on Vimeo.
In 2003, Alabaster, Alabama, a small bustling community south of Birmingham, garnered national attention through their efforts to seize property for the construction of a Wal-Mart shopping center. Ownership of the property was predominately poor and black. When national attention focused on the private property seizure, other avenues of securing the property for Wal-Mart prevailed. The procedure, while legal, would, by those familiar with the circumstances, deem the chain of events and the ensuing aftermath unethical by all standards. In the video Elizabeth Swain, her daughter, and granddaughter tell the story from the beginning to the end.
Alabaster, Alabama 2003 land grab for Wal-Mart – The Untold Story from Don Casey on Vimeo.
Welcome to our website.
Alabamians to Stop Eminent Domain Abuse is an informal group of grassroots activists from across the political spectrum who believe that all people should be treated equally under the law with respect to property rights in Alabama.
In the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, the State of Alabama has enacted legislation which better protects the legal rights of property owners in eminent domain situations. However, many of our citizens still aren’t dealt with fairly when their property has been threatened. Most often, it isn’t the rich and powerful who suffer, but racial minorities and those at the lower end of Alabama’s socio-economic spectrum.
We’d like your help in exposing these sort of injustices and in the promotion of solutions designed to help protect those who aren’t as capable of protecting themselves. If you’d like to become more involved, please sign up on our e-mail list today.