|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| home | news | education | sports | obits | crime | opinions | business | entertainment | food & home | stltoday | classifieds| weather | search | | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This web site was last updated: Saturday, March 22, 2008 12:09 PM CDT |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
EMAIL
PRINT
ARNOLD: Dentist reflects on loss in eminent domain case
Property rights advocates shoot for change in state Constitution
 |
| Andrew Jansen Photo Arnold dentist Homer Tourkakis lost the eminent domain case that went to the Missouri Supreme Court. |
But fight city hall is exactly what Arnold dentist Homer Tourkakis did, and much to the dismay of property rights advocates, he lost.
On Tuesday the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of Arnold in an eminent domain battle with Tourkakis.The 6-1 decision overturned a ruling by Jefferson County Circuit Judge M. Edward Williams last May in which Williams said a third-class city, such as Arnold, does not have the constitutional authority to take private property via eminent domain, even if it is blighted.
The city appealed Williams' decision to the Missouri Supreme Court and both sides presented oral arguments in January. Supreme Court cases rely heavily on case law and do not rely on testimony from witnesses.
Disappointed with the court's decision, Tourkakis' lawyer, Timothy Sandefur of the Pacific Legal Foundation, said he believes his team did a good job with the briefs they filed and with the arguments presented.
"The Supreme Court's decision greatly expanded the power of eminent domain far beyond what it was before," Sandefur said, adding that every property owner is now at risk.
The high court ruled that the Missouri Constitution does not limit the use of eminent domain by non-chartered, third class cities for redevelopment purposes.
With the ruling, Tourkakis said his belief in an individual's right to own property might be a myth. And, while he admits the whole experience has been unpleasant and exhausting, he has no misgivings about what he and his family tried to accomplish.
In fact, the battle with the city of Arnold has taught Tourkakis just how close his family is.
"With a great family unit you can overcome quite a bit, even when things don't turn out how you want," Tourkakis said.
Ron Calzone, chairman for Missouri Citizens for Property Rights, said he was not only disappointed by the court's ruling but also frustrated with the legal rationale behind the decision and that only one judge dissented.
He was quick to add that Tourkakis and his family were not being selfish in the case.
"They were trying to do this for all Missourians," Calzone said. "They're heroes in my book."
Now Tourkakis and his family are looking forward, deciding the best direction for their future.
"It's changed my whole financial picture," Tourkakis said about the case's impact on his life.
He added that when people are forced to leave their homes, spec houses are sometimes built as temporary residences.
"No one is building spec dentist offices," he said.
Tourkakis refused to sell his dental office property at 1506 Big Bill Road to developers of the Arnold Commons shopping center project, planning to keep his practice where it has been for 22 years.
Some 40 properties, both commercial and residential were demolished for the shopping center at Route 141 and Interstate 55.
Because of the location of Tourkakis' property, the case proceedings have not delayed progress of the Arnold Commons development thus far.
Before taking Tourkakis to court, the city offered him $343,750 for his property and to build him another office next to the new VFW hall on Church Road.
According to Calzone, 70 percent of Missouri residents would have been left unprotected against eminent domain, even if the court had ruled in favor of Tourkakis.
"The only thing to be done at this point to stop this is to have an amendment to change the Constitution," Sandefur said.
That amendment is exactly what Calzone and Missouri Citizens for Property Rights intend to accomplish. The group is gathering signatures on petitions for two amendments to the state Constitution that will tighten the reins on eminent domain proceedings in Missouri. The group is trying to gather 215,000 signatures for each of two petitions by May 4.
To be successful, Calzone needs to do extensive fund-raising and draw more volunteers.
"It's going to be a fight to the finish," Calzone said. "We're like the tortoise, not the hare."
Tourkakis supports the organization's efforts.
"The Supreme Court's decision emphasizes the need for the constitutional amendment ballot initiative to alleviate this injustice in the state of Missouri," Tourkakis said. "It is up to the grassroots effort to change the law. It should not be constitutional to take private property and transfer to another private business for any reason."
Even though the Supreme Court case is over, Arnold City Attorney Bob Sweeney said several formalities must still take place before the city actually takes control of the property.
"We're a long way away from anyone being set out on the street," Sweeney said.
Arnold now must take the case back to Judge Williams and ask for the order of condemnation to be approved. Sweeney said the Supreme Court's ruling proved the city's authority to request the order.
Once the order is approved, condemnation commissioners will issue a monetary value for the property that the city can pay the court. Only then will "the clock start ticking" for the Tourkakises, Sweeney said.
Comments
|
Your Journal encourages you to share thoughts on the preceding article. Comments are not posted to the site immediately. They must first be read by moderators. We try to be prompt, but moderation time varies depending on time of day and the day of the week. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments violating our terms of use. By choosing to comment, you agree to the terms of use.
The comments below are from readers and in no way represent the views of the Suburban Journals or Lee Enterprises. |
Jason wrote on Mar 25, 2008 10:43 PM:
" I am sadden to here about Dr. Tourkakies and what will happen to his future. I would support the the ammendment that the article was refering to. God bless Dr. Tourkakies and his family. I hope that something good will come from this for him and his family. I pray for his future to be a brighter one. I think it is just unfortunate why he could not keep his location and work around his home/office. "
tjsj wrote on Mar 25, 2008 9:06 PM:
" City official and volunteers help protect property owners from floods. Police and firefighters protect property owners from fires and thieves. But who will protect property owners from tax revenue hungry cities?
It is the epitome of arrogance to call Homer Tourkakis greedy. He wants to keep what is his; other people want what is his, so they call him greedy?
When the media polls citizens for their top worries usually it’s the war, health care, education, or the economy. People are not anxious over finding place to shop! Yet for that shallow reason cities are willing to commit what is their duty to prevent and steal what is not theirs.
"
It is the epitome of arrogance to call Homer Tourkakis greedy. He wants to keep what is his; other people want what is his, so they call him greedy?
When the media polls citizens for their top worries usually it’s the war, health care, education, or the economy. People are not anxious over finding place to shop! Yet for that shallow reason cities are willing to commit what is their duty to prevent and steal what is not theirs.
"
Ron Calzone wrote on Mar 25, 2008 9:03 PM:
" For those wanting to help with the petition, go to www.mo-cpr.org to donate of volunteer.
This is about much more than bricks and motar - this is about the basic American right to own property without fear of your own government taking it for another's profit.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." "
This is about much more than bricks and motar - this is about the basic American right to own property without fear of your own government taking it for another's profit.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." "
Randy Watson wrote on Mar 25, 2008 8:58 PM:
" There is no property in Arnold that is safe from eminent domain for private development. If that dentist's office is considered in a bligted area, every business in the city is at risk. If any developer convinces the city council that he/she can provide more tax income with any particular property, then the city council obviously places that ahead of any property rights concern. It seems that in Arnold property rights are a hassle and not a virtue of society.
If a successful dentist office is considered in a blighted area, imagine how quickly homes can be done away with. "
If a successful dentist office is considered in a blighted area, imagine how quickly homes can be done away with. "
Tom wrote on Mar 25, 2008 11:47 AM:
" I don't believe that the settlement offers noted in the original article, nor the one in the comments, are accurate. In any case, property rights should trump redevelopment, development, "blight" or whatever, so long as the public safety is not at risk. At this point,"blight" has no real meaning. it is just a buzzword for "too bad." Missourians need to open their eyes and start and get control of eminant domain abuses like this. "
Arnold Resident wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:06 PM:
" Eminent Domain is a touchy subject but I have to give kudos to Arnold for taking care of the people that originally had their homes in the triangle area. These people were offered well over what their homes where worth and if someone came and offered me as much money as these people got I would move out the next day! Be happy that your elected officials took good financial care of these residents. I have and will shop at our new fine development! "
Joe wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:44 AM:
" Every one has to realize that this situation will lead to an increase is tax revenues for the city of Arnold, revenues which are currently going to other municipalities. These revenues are vital existence of the city of Arnold. It's either increase tax revenues from businesses or from individual residences. While eminent domain is an unfortunate side effect, it is sometimes necessary. Dr. Tourkakis received a fair price for the existing property as well as a new facility - Very good deal. "
to QWERTY139 wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:25 AM:
" Where did you get the 750,000 figure from? that was not mentioned in the above article. Are you a City official that has some private information that we should all know about? "
Tammy wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:56 AM:
" This is outragous. It doesn't matter how much money he was offered. Private industry should not be allowed to use emminent domain at any cost. Where is that petition I will help!!!!! "
Amy wrote on Mar 23, 2008 10:32 PM:
" What a shame to work so hard for so many years and to have it taken away like that. The Dr. has a thriving business and pays his taxes like the next person. What's next? When are the rest of us going to loose our property for the sake of growth in Arnold? "
Joshua T. Hemingway wrote on Mar 23, 2008 8:25 PM:
" This is a complete outrage, I know that when eminent domain was first concieved that this type of blatent abuse was never intended. I also keep track of elected officials who do not respect constituants, morality, or any type of ethics what so ever; I can assure you they will never recieve my vote in future elections.
To reinforce what Paul wrote on 3-22-08, I will not be spending any time nor money on the property and will urge my friends to do the same. God Bless You Dr. Tourkakis, you fought a much more civil and cleaner war than I would have, I hope the fight is not over until this absurd legal tactic is a distant bad memory. "
To reinforce what Paul wrote on 3-22-08, I will not be spending any time nor money on the property and will urge my friends to do the same. God Bless You Dr. Tourkakis, you fought a much more civil and cleaner war than I would have, I hope the fight is not over until this absurd legal tactic is a distant bad memory. "
Randy Watson wrote on Mar 23, 2008 12:13 PM:
" What an awful situation.
We can blame the Supreme Court, and we can blame the state legislature for passing an insufficient eminent domain reform bill, but let's not forgot who caused the instant situation: the Arnold City Council. They took the steps necessary to take a man's business for a big box development. THE CITY COUNCIL passed the ordinances, THE CITY COUNCIL caused this to happen.
The citizens of Arnold have a chance to throw these people out this April. There is not a home or business that is safe in Arnold as long as they are in office. "
We can blame the Supreme Court, and we can blame the state legislature for passing an insufficient eminent domain reform bill, but let's not forgot who caused the instant situation: the Arnold City Council. They took the steps necessary to take a man's business for a big box development. THE CITY COUNCIL passed the ordinances, THE CITY COUNCIL caused this to happen.
The citizens of Arnold have a chance to throw these people out this April. There is not a home or business that is safe in Arnold as long as they are in office. "
Pam wrote on Mar 23, 2008 7:48 AM:
" What a shame. Shame on the government of Arnold. What a bunch of theives. "
David wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:16 PM:
" I will also never shop at Arnold Commons. Property ownership is a basic American right that deserves to be protected. The precedent is now set that if a city thinks your property will make it more money in someone else's hands, they'll just take it from you. I'll be making sure I sign this petition, and I hope everyone else does too. "
QWERTY139 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 9:34 PM:
" The dentist has been offered over $750,000 for his property that is worth less than $250,000. He needs to quit being greedy and just accept the offer. "
Paul wrote on Mar 22, 2008 2:04 PM:
" It really is a shame a City Like Arnold is the way it is. With red lights on you at traffic signals, to stealing property rights for special money interests. What a great town, not to support! My family will never do business at this mall they've built. I will continue to spend my JeffCo money at Gravois Mills because it's in Arnold. "