Glenn Puit: Fear Mongering in Whitewater

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

The text above is the title of an article I read this morning.  The author, Glenn Puit, critiques a speech given by my boss, Bruce Walker.  I have a copy of the speech given by Bruce in my possession, and found that all of the “direct quotes” from Glenn Puit’s article are inaccurate.  This makes sense considering Glenn posted this article close to three months after Bruce’s speech was given.

The majority of Glenn’s piece appears to be his opinion being portrayed as fact.  There are many problems with this piece, but I will stick to covering the major issues.  The following are actually direct quotes from Glenn’s article:

“Usually, when a government exercises eminent domain, it does so to advance a vital public interest.” — What does he mean by usually?  What happens when eminent domain and regulatory takings exist without a vital public interest?  Are there repercussions for these actions?  It seems as though he is admitting such situations exist.

King of the Wind Farms Continued

Kurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy went to Macomb Township to conduct an interview with the parties involved in the Michael’s case.  Both Dolores and Ron Michaels were thrown in jail for 6 days, and were recently released.  They were jailed because of “noncompliance” on a consent agreement.  Our first interview was with Dolores Michaels and her attorney, Cindy Victor.

The Michaels claim they did comply with the consent agreement, while township thought otherwise.  We discovered that the judge (the only person that had the power to release the Michaels from prison) happened to be on vacation the week the Michaels went to jail.  Macomb Township did not accept legal documentation from Cindy Victor which would keep the Michaels out of jail until the judge returned.  Cindy was willing to pay the filing fee, yet Macomb Township would not accept the paperwork.  (By law, Macomb Township must accept all requests as long as the citizen is willing to pay the filing fee.)

While in Jail, the Michaels were held in “lock down”, which means they could not accept any visitors, including their lawyer.  Ron Michaels just recently had surgery and had a catheter.  Due to his health condition, he was held in the infirmary for the majority of the time, where he contracted a urinary track infection.  Dolores Michaels lost weight and had numerous bug bites all over her body.

After the interview with Cindy and Dolores, we went to interview Lawrence Dloski, who is the township attorney.  He stated Macomb Township never wanted to throw the Michaels in jail, yet he did not hesitate to throw the Michaels in jail while the judge was on vacation.  He also seemed to think that a license plate qualified as compost.

We talked to Patrick Wright, the Mackinac Center’s Senior Legal Analyst about the outcomes of the Michael’s case.  He stated that there was nothing legally binding Macomb Township to throwing the Michaels in jail.  The township could have easily issued a $7500 fine, which would have helped avoid throwing a non-violent, 60-year-old couple in jail.  This also would have granted the Michaels the ability to clean their property to Macomb’s standards.  Instead, the Michaels sat in jail while friends and family desperately cleaned up the lot.

A link to the new Michaels video will be provided shortly.

I’m 65 years old, and she had to put me in prison? For what?

Dolores and Ronald Michaels of King of the Wind Farms had been fighting for the right to use their own property for years.  Recently, the couple was thrown in jail for violating a “consent order”. 

Renee Michaels, their daughter, called the jailing of her parents a “horrifying experience,” pointing out her mother had to celebrate her 65th birthday incarcerated.

The Macomb Daily covered the full story.

MDEQ Satisfaction

Steve Chester, Director of the MDEQ, states that people are satisfied with the service that is provided.  The Michigan Chamber of Commerce conducted some research of their own and found these results.  Take a look!

Dispute May Land Farm Owners in Jail

Dolores Michaels (from the  KOTW Farm video below) is being thrown in jail for conducting farming activities on her agriculturally zoned property.  Click here to watch video or click here to read more.

Troy’s War of Roses Cont…

Telly’s is still battling with the city of Troy. Click here to get an update.

Fifth Amendment

“…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The statement above was taken directly from the fifth amendment of the United States Bill of Rights. Is this amendment still followed and cherished today or is it merely a statement on a sheet of paper?

How is it that local, state, and federal entities regulate your property to a point where it has no value? If you are seeking proof of these “regulatory takings”, take a look at the videos posted below. Regulatory takings can also be looked at as property being taken for “public use.” Hypothetically, lets say you own a piece of property that has a market value of $100,000 before government regulation. Lets say it is later determined that you have an endangered species that lives on your property. The government will now force you to not build on the your property leaving your property with a market value of $0.

I would argue that protecting the endangered species that is on your property should be considered “public use.” In this case, the government would have to compensate you for the “public use” of your property, which, in the instance above, would amount to $100,000.

These stories happen all the time whether it be done by zoning regulation, endangered species, wetlands, or any other regulation…

Troy’s War of the Roses

An article from the Detroit Free Press illustrates yet another story of the erosion of property rights in the State of Michigan.  In short, a local nursery named Telly’s is being dragged to court by the city of Troy, Michigan.  The city believes that Telly’s should have applied for permits on the 10 greenhouses that were built in previous years.  The city had sued Telly’s in previous years and lost, but decided to try again.  Customers of Telly’s are very concerned with the potential outcomes of the legal issues.  Click here to read full article.

Russ Harding on Property Rights

The following is a Current Comment, first published on Aug. 31, 2007.

Private Property Rights Under Attack

The ownership and use of private property is a fundamental right that distinguishes us as a free people. The framers of both our national and state constitutions understood the importance of protecting that right. The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states, “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution asserts, “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law,” while Article 10, Section 2 holds, “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation…” So with both federal and state constitutional protections, why are private property rights endangered in Michigan? Because government has found an easier way to take private property through regulatory takings.

Beach Affront

Summary: The Michigan Supreme Court should follow the example set by an Ohio court and respect the private property rights along the Great Lakes.

A trial court in Ohio recently held that Lake Erie beachfront property owners have the right to exclude others from their property. As the right to exclude is a traditional and fundamental aspect of owning property, it seems odd that such a holding would be newsworthy. But in 2005, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the general public has a right to walk the Great Lakes shoreline, and that trumps the property owners’ right to exclude. These divergent results indicate that there must be constant vigilance to prevent property rights from being weakened.