A Victory In The Fight Against Eminent Domain Abuse

Eminent domain abuse is one of the most insidious crimes against citizens of towns nationwide. Runaway town spending forges an unholy coalition between developers and their municipal administration allies. Together they try to fatten tax roles by condemning middle class homes to make way for upscale development. Citizen groups fighting this abuse have faced all kinds of obstacles from their respective municipalities and developers including "slap" lawsuits. Well chalk one up for the good guys this time. The following is from the Institute For Justice http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2656&Itemid=165 .

March 30, 2009

Arlington, Va—Evidently you can fight city hall—and fight private developers who use city hall’s power, too.

In an order issued on March 26, 2009, Judge C.L. “Buck” Rogers of the Circuit Court for Sumner County, Tenn., vindicated the right to protest government abuse by dismissing the libel lawsuit brought by Richard Swift, a developer who is a former member of the Clarksville City Council, and Wayne Wilkinson, a member of Clarksville’s Downtown District Partnership, against members of the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition (CPRC). Swift and Wilkinson sued the CPRC because its members criticized them for supporting Clarksville’s controversial redevelopment plan, which authorizes the use of eminent domain for private development. In a newspaper ad, the CPRC noted that both Swift and Wilkinson are developers and said, “This Redevelopment Plan is of the developers, by the developers, and for the developers.”

The court ruled, “Debate on public issues shall be uninhibited [and] wide open. . . . Accusing a public official or public figure of using their political influence to obtain a benefit for others or themselves or favoring their supporters is not defamation.”

“The court’s decision is a tremendous victory for everyone who speaks out against the abuse of eminent domain,” said Bert Gall, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents the CPRC in defense of their free speech rights. “The decision puts thin-skinned politicians and developers on notice: If you file a frivolous lawsuit against people just for criticizing your public actions, your case will swiftly be thrown out of court.”

Across the country, in places like Renton, Wash., and Freeport, Texas, there has been an ominous trend of politicians and developers using frivolous litigation to suppress the speech of home and business owners who oppose the abuse of eminent domain for private development. The CPRC’s victory in Clarksville resoundingly reaffirms that the First Amendment protects that speech.

“I am thrilled that the court reached the right decision to protect my right to free speech,” said Joyce Vanderbilt, a member of the CPRC. “Swift and Wilkinson tried to bully us with this lawsuit, and the court just told them that they should never have brought it in the first place.”

“We won this fight not just for us, but for every home and business owner who gets sued just for speaking out against eminent domain abuse,” said Pam Vandeveer. “I’m glad that this is still a free country.”



Jerry Martin of Barrett, Johnston & Parsley in Nashville serves as local counsel for the Clarksville Property Rights Coalition.

Avett Brothers II

Good new music from North Carolina.

It Can Get Worse

Toblog has been chronicling the growth and consequences of unelected non-resident executive power in Ridgely. We now have a $238,000.00 budget deficit from a town administration that acts as if the town government is meant to be one that is "by and for the employees". There is hope here, however, that we the residents are about to finally put things back in order in the "Ridgely House".

The problem is national in scope with the best example of the worst case, eminent domain abuse in New London, Connecticut, capturing national headlines. There to keep the administration money go round rolling, middle class homes were condemned to make way for upscale condos to fatten the town's tax roles.

Closer to home we have a deteriorating situation in Pokomoke City. Just how bad things can get is outlined below in a post from another DelMarVa blog, the Pokomoke Tattler. (The "Tattler" is linked to Toblog daily on the "Links To The World" sidebar.)

Pokomoke Tattler -- March 25, 2009

"Did You Ever Wonder How Much the Pocomoke City Manager Makes Per Year?

This is question that I have been asked time and time again: How much does City Manager Russ Blake really make?

Now lets put this into perspective…If he were the Manager of local store or company, it would be absolutely NONE of our business.

However, City Manager Russ Blake works for the City of Pocomoke City, Inc., and because this is a governing body that receives State and Federal money, you and I have every right to know just how much our city employees are being paid.

Since we were told by the former City Finance Director that Russ Blake would routinely tell her to ADD another $1000.00 to his paycheck for his yearly raise; a raise that was not voted on by Council, but decided upon by HE, HIMSELF our interest has definitely been pricked.

Or how about having his water bills regularly adjusted on his rental properties? Yes, this is something that was witnessed numerous times as well.

All of these questions and all of these statements made me wonder !

So a couple of weeks ago a Freedom of Information Act request, was submitted to the City Clerk, asking for this information.

Guess what the City’s response was????

Please deliver a deposit check in the amount of $1,618.oo to cover the costs the clerical costs of finding and sorting and redacting information billed at $30.00 per hour.

Thirty three years of Un-Elected dictatorship, and you and I cannot fire him, but we can’t even find out how much this person makes, how much he gets taken off of his water bill, how much he expenses on an annual basis….NOTHING, without giving them even more money.

This is our money that we have paid through our taxes year after year, this should be available to any citizen at anytime that City Hall is open during normal business hours.

We the Citizens of Pocomoke City are helpless to change this unless we demand that our Council Members change the Charter so that the City Manager does not have complete and final say and rule over everything in our City.

We must demand that they change it so that the City Manager answers TO the Mayor and Council!

At this point in time Russ Blake answers to NO ONE!"

Why The Town Is In Trouble -- Bull Buster III

In today's "Times - Record" our town manager is quoted as saying that "the housing crisis led to a decrease in revenue for the town". This is very misleading. Our problems preceded the global financial meltdown and THE HOUSING CRISIS HAS NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO WITH THE DIRE STRAITS RIDGELY IS IN. It is true that part of the problem has to do with the fact that few developer fees are being collected because little is being built. HOWEVER, this is because the town simply doesn't have the sewer allocation to build which is why the town is upgrading its waste water treatment plant. The waste water treatment plant upgrade is meant to accommodate the planned and approved Ridgely Park development. This project could not go forward last year when the Maryland Department of Environment wouldn't sign off on it because of inadequate sewer capacity. Stop the spin and admit the mistake.

Further, the article is full of very deceptive numbers about "new" sources of revenue that will lead to a balanced budget. Where are the 58 housing permits the town manager speaks of? If they are out there somewhere, they are not for 2009 and will have nothing to do with this year's fiscal fiasco.

The bottom line is this. Spending was out of control at the same time revenues were down due to our sewer capacity problem. The commissioners passed balanced budgets which were not adhered to. AND, THE BUDGET SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON DEVELOPMENT REVENUES NOT YET PAID. OUR PROBLEMS IN RIDGELY ARE MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IT'S UP TO THE PEOPLE OF RIDGELY TO ELECT COMMISSIONERS WHO WILL FIX OUR PROBLEM ASAP.

Toblog Bull Meter Busted After "State Of The Town Address"

My poor bull meter short circuited shortly after the town manager's "State of the Town Address". Therefore, this edition of Bull Busters will have to proceed on its own to cut through the largest amount of bull seen in Ridgely since my brother in law(a dairy farmer)fertilized my vegetable garden in 1996.

I can't even figure out where to begin. We can dismiss fluff that's irrelevant to Ridgely like our town manager's story about the vice-president, his failed congressional campaign (who cares?) or "30 years of municipal experience". (Although we might ask were they like the Ridgely experience times 30?)

First and foremost, the "address" is an attack on the people of Ridgely for electing Kathy Smith commissioner last year. She is mentioned early on under the Rubik of the "crisis" that "intensified after the municipal election of 2008". Duuh? Do you mean when Kathy won? Thank God someone else noticed that all is not well in our ship of state. She is also cryptically referred to as "those who criticise need to fully comprehend what they do to morale"..."all we have to do is look at our police department". In fact, I wonder if Kathy has replaced the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) as the town manager's favorite bogeyman? If only he could blame the global economy too. We, of course, know he can't because Ridgely's situation has preceded the global financial meltdown.

Back to the police. We have two less police officers because we can't pay them. We can't pay them because of poor management decisions. Besides the budget deficit, we lost county tax differential money because we weren't really maintaining a 24/7 force as the town manager claimed.

The town manager's salary and benefits package would pay for two officers. If given the choice, I bet most Ridgely residents would choose to hire back two officers and let the town manager go. Good police are are a lot more useful to the citizens of this town than the architect of a $238,000.00 deficit.

Another issue taking up a lot of ink was Zeb Brodie. I'm very happy that we have an investor in town opening new businesses. However, the "embarrassing, and frustrating experiences" which the town manager says that the investor went through are 100% of the town manager's making. The town manager knew what the planning and zoning ordinances required. Yet, chose to ignore them and "streamline" a process for approval circumventing our citizen planning commission. Our planning commissioners (being residents) knew that there were questions about the Cyber Ridge proposal. I think that the town manager must have known that there would be controversy too. Had normal procedure been followed, the business could have opened a couple of months before it did. As it turned out the planning commission took the heat on this and other issues orchestrated by our very own town manager. Mr Brodie, welcome to Ridgely. I'm sorry for the rough introduction to our town but the town manager doesn't live here. We who do live here, however, appreciate your businesses.

Finally, let's talk trash. How is it that we have to pay more and more and reinstate the trash fee which the town manager identifies as a culprit for our money woes? Denton's new contract is charges $4.95 per household. Ridgely is $6.95 and going up. Why can't we use the same company as Denton? More customers might lower the rate from this provider even more. We pay the town manager a huge salary to figure out such questions.

I have to hand to the town manager, he had to work pretty hard on his "Address" (on our dime) to turn our town's financial "sow's ear into a silk purse". Unfortunately for us, the reality of having to pay for so many mistakes undermines any amount of lofty rhetoric. Next year we should do away with this pretentious pomposity and save the taxpayers some money.

The "Address" ends with "unless someone has another idea or another plan, I do not intend to abandon the "kitchen" while the soup is still on and work needs to be done". There are so many ideas and other plans from so many citizens in Ridgely that would return our town to sanity that they can't be listed here. The "kitchen" isn't only too "hot" (because of the town manager), it's about to burn the rest of the house down. He can have his home in Westover, but let us have our town back and put Ridgely's financial fire out.

(Please note that the "Address" can be obtained at town hall. For some reason, it hasn't been posted as is usual on the town website. I guess I'd be embarrassed if I wrote so much bull too.)

The Election In Ridgely And Bull Buster Part I

Today's "Times-Record" announced that the Ridgely town election filing deadline for candidates and voting times are "to be announced". Hmmm...our Charter is very clear on the filing deadline. It's 10 days before the election. This year the election will be on April 27th. In recent elections the polls have been kept open longer than the Charter prescribes. I'm not sure how this came about but it's a good idea. The Charter, however, does say that the polls are open between 9 and 5.

I have to wonder about all this "to be announced" confusion so near to an election. As many of you know, a few weeks ago the town manager presented some proposals to change the Charter election rules. The proposals raised suspicions among many and nothing more was done. It would now be impossible to make any change before the election.

This year I will not let the whispering campaign that emerges every Springtime here in Ridgely go unanswered. I've heard some whoppers over the years as election time approaches. My first BULL BUSTER concerns the strange story that Ridgely's financial woes (which preceded the global economic crisis) are the result of some "snitch" calling the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE). This "call" supposedly stopped our Ridgely Park development. First, even if there was a "call", MDE can't withhold permits without good cause. They had plenty of cause with or without a "snitch" since the town already had to use stream discharge at times when our waste water treatment plant (WWTP) couldn't handle the load. We simply could not handle a new development and the town has now embarked on a $1.5 million WWTP upgrade to accommodate future development.

MDE saved the citizens of Ridgely from a massive sewage spill. MDE also saved us from the massive fines that accompany WWTP failure. If there is a "SNITCH", he or she is a HERO who saved the town citizens from management miscalculations. But I think the whole story is BULL. MDE was just doing their job. They deserve a thank you.

BULL BUSTERS will always ask these questions. Who would start such a rumor? And, who might benefit from such a story? In this case, all signs point to a town manager and his allies trying to explain away the town's abysmal financial situation.

Eastern Shore Freedom Of The Press Case Part II

The Maryland Supreme Court case concerning a local developer and local bloggers is put into perspective by the following article.

In defense of anonymous Web posters

By Marta Mossburg
Examiner Columnist | 3/3/09 5:19 AM

Zebulon J. Brodie, an Eastern Shore businessman, may not enjoy having his Dunkin’ Donuts called “dirty” any more than I like being called a “tool” by anonymous Web posters, but he better get used to it.

The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled last week that newspaper Web sites, blogs and other sites do not have to give up the identities of anonymous posters except under well-defined circumstances.

Good. Call those people cowards or jerks or liars, but their speech should be protected in the same way that all other speech is under the First Amendment.

As the decision from the state’s highest court notes, “anonymity or psuedonymity has been a part of the Internet culture” from its beginning. It has also been a part of U.S. culture from our founding.

Anonymous pamphleteers railed against political leaders in party newspapers, “the Republicans with a scurrility that even modern bloggers rarely achieve,” wrote Myron Magnet in the most recent issue of City Journal.

Democracy depends on people speaking their minds to thrive. And in this era of newspaper closings, forcing Web posters to reveal their identity would effectively shutter the “comments” section on most sites, limiting speech even more.

Imagine a United States where the government or a powerful person or company could demand the personal information of account holders on newspaper sites or Internet providers as in China. It sounds far-fetched, but a Maryland trial judge could have made that situation much more likely.

Many postings do nothing to inform and elevate the populace by most standards – unless you count speculation on celebrity relationships and nasty personal attacks against members of the opposite political party in that category. But perceived quality of work should not be the deciding factor of whether someone’s comments deserve anonymity.

As Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, “Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry.”

This does not mean that writers should always be given a free pass, however. As Walter Abbott found out, the First Amendment does not protect threats to criminal action. The Parkville, Md., man was convicted in October of writing an e-mail to Gov. Martin O’Malley that said he would strangle him. Abbot was given a suspended sentence of six months’ in prison and two years’ probation.

But that was not the case here. Brodie, the developer with a Centreville Dunkin’ Donuts, wanted the names of anonymous posters writing on a forum run by Independent Newspapers Inc. He claimed they defamed him in their comments about his restaurant.

The Appeals Court decided that Brodie did not correctly identify the posters who made those comments, negating his claim to their names. But the court went farther by outlining a process judges should follow “to balance First Amendment rights with the right to seek protection for defamation.”

It found that a plaintiff must make a reasonable attempt to notify anonymous posters that they are the subject of a subpoena; give the posters time to respond; transcribe the comments exactly as written by the posters; and show how those comments have defamed him or her. The court also found that judges must balance First Amendment rights against the strength of the evidence against them.

That makes sense. Those tests follow ones made in other courts and standardize how Maryland courts should look at claims instead of dealing with them on a case by case basis.

Next time Brodie and those like him would be better served by marshalling supporters to advocate for his cause instead of using the courts to try to skewer a few random Web posters.

In his case, scrupulously maintaining a clean restaurant would have been the best means to combat accusations a minute portion of the population read in an online chat forum instead of publicizing them through a lawsuit.

While those scrutinized by bloggers and other posters may not like what people write about them, tolerating mean accusations, even false ones, is better than silencing the voices of Marylanders. Truth, like lies, needs voices to spread.

Examiner columnist Marta H. Mossburg lives in Baltimore.

Eastern Shore Freedom Of Press Case Decided In Favor of Bloggers!

from baltimoresun.com

Maryland's Court of Appeals today issued a decision protecting the identity of three anonymous Internet posters and, for the first time, offering guidelines for state courts to follow in libel cases before unmasking online commenters.

The opinion and instructions stem from a defamation lawsuit filed by Eastern Shore developer Zebulon Brodie against three unknown Internet posters and Independent Newspapers Inc., which runs an online community forum.

The posters had written critical comments about the cleanliness of a Dunkin' Donuts that Brodie owns in Centreville.

The Appeals Court concluded that Brodie was not entitled to identifying information about the posters, even though they used the forum to criticize him and his business, because he misidentified which usernames made the offending statements.

The five-step process the court adopted for future cases was borrowed from a New Jersey court and outlined in today's 43-page majority opinion. It seeks to help trial courts "balance First Amendment rights with the right to seek protection for defamation" by suggesting they:

• Require that plaintiffs notify anonymous parties that their identities are sought.
• Give the posters time to reply with reasons why they should remain nameless.
• Require plaintiffs identify the defamatory statements and who made them.
• Determine whether the complaint has set forth a prima facie defamation, where the words are obviously libelous, or a per quod action, meaning it requires outside evidence.
• Weigh the poster's right to free speech against the strength of the case and the necessity of identity disclosure.

A five-page concurring opinion by three of the seven judges accepts steps one through three but asks for clarification on step four as to how prima facie nature should be shown and outright rejects step five as "unnecessary and needlessly complicated."