But, alas, that the way it is so we do the best
we can to work within this important blemish
on again, we can both agree the overall best
system in the world ...
If I remember correctly we got into a heated
"discussion" about the Brighton Eminent Domain
issue. You mentioned you really didn't know
that much about it and really couldn't comment
on it until you knew more.
"Here's more" I assure you Your Honor in very
short order.
One major aspect was I was contending now that at
the time since there were new owners the public
should be able to see the light of day of the offer
made to original land owner Mr. Groos.
Well, through hard fought Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) requests I got my wish! I was not
privy to the information per Brighton Town
attorney William Moehle [sp?] the issue was still
being resolved/under litigation in the courts; but
inexplicably the town indeed released the
information.
For reasons I still cannot comprehend why, the
offer to Mr. Groos was not released when I asked
for it as the new owners/(Faith Temple) held title
to the land long before I ever made my request or
for that matter why the offer is still not
considered to be a "state secret" as the town is
still invvolved in the court cases with respect to
the property.
Whatever .. I got what I wanted. I assumed the
price the Church paid for the land would be a
secret as well as, again, the property is still
under litigation but in a Sunday August 13th, 2006
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle (D&C) front page
news story they related the price the church paid.
I'm assuming even if you don't know the whole
story, nuances and intricacies for the case it has
turned into a religion versus government issue to
the citizens of Brighton and the rest of the country
as this case is becoming more famous/well known by
the day.
But, Your Honor it is not a religion vs. government
issue: No, It started simply a right and wrong issue;
that a land owner should be rightfully compensated
for his land.
Funny in the Madam Chairwoman's Frankel's self-
righteous declarations in Brighton Town meetings
that the acquisition of the land is a noble
undertaking and so in the public interest that it is
worth Eminent Domain proceedings initiated by the
town she sure doesn't seem to remark much about
this aspect.
Could it be because the Town only offered original
land owner Mr. Owner [should read Groos] slightly
more than half what Faith Temple Church the new
owners paid for his property? It is under these
auspices that Brighton was willing to "take" the
property under Eminent Domain (very appropriate
legal term as you should know)
The town offered $1,137,000 and the church paid
$2,100,000 on the open market.
I mention in another post in this Rochester
D&C Brighton town online forum, where I will be
posting this letter as well that this is a TRUE
open Brighton Town Forum free of restrictions and
censure versus the Open Forum section of Brighton
Town Hall meetings.
For your convenience here is the URL to the
Rochester D&C Forum:
http://cgi.democratandchronicle.com/...board=Brighton
So, pray tell Your Honor (no pun intended) is/was
the offer to the original land owner made in the
spirit of bargaining in good faith and fairness
to set the negotiation standard at such a
ridiculous amount; a little more than half what the
property is worth on the open market with the teeth
of Eminent Domain ever presently snarled in the
background? Fangs salivating.
Whoa! Your Honor, I know. I understand. Your reply
to this letter/post if there is to be one at all is
going to be (paraphrasing) due to your position as a
judge and the potential for the public to perceive
your impartiality is compromised you can't respond
and you will have to recuse yourself on this one.
Of Course!
Oh, I understand but what I also know is you are
someone who makes judgmental "fairness calls" all
day long. You are/would be the best person to ask.
It's inherent in your title.
It is an interesting rhetorical question to what
extent your Democratic party affiliation would have
in a hypothetical response. How could you sugar
coat a blatant inequity to make it palatable? If
you see enough inequities being committed by others
in your political party would you change over and
become a Republican or go independent?