IL town seizes property to prevent gun sales!


PDA






Autolycus
June 11, 2007, 06:38 AM
http://www.dailyherald.com/news/dupagestory.asp?id=298455&cc=d&tc=&t=

Addison moves to stop gun shop
Officials want to use forced annexation to stop store from opening on Lake Street

By Elisabeth Mistretta
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Thursday, April 05, 2007

To stop a gun shop from opening on Lake Street, the village of Addison will annex both a commercial building and a private home without the owners’ consent.

After more than a year of trying to negotiate with Don Navigato, who owns the commercial building at 19W641 Lake St. just outside village limits, Addison officials decided this week to resort to the unusual measure of forced annexation, which has been used only twice in 15 years.

Assistant Village Manager John Berley said the move is part of an ongoing effort to keep businesses of questionable repute off of Lake Street, such as a spa that was annexed recently.

“Those kind of uses are considered undesirable by our residents and don’t project a good image,” he said.

Village officials said Navigato planned to lease his building to a tenant who applied for a permit to sell firearms. Once his property is part of Addison, the business can’t launch because the village has forbidden gun sales since 1967.

Navigato could not be reached for comment Wednesday. The name of the would-be gun dealer was not available.

In order to bring Navigato’s land into the village, state law dictates that Addison will also have to annex five neighboring homes, because the Navigato property doesn’t abut current village boundaries.

Four of those homeowners have agreed to join Addison, which will happen April 18.

But Theresa and Wayne Reich did not, so their home along Eighth Avenue will also be involuntarily annexed.

Theresa Reich said she initially wanted to be incorporated so she could access village sewer services. But she ultimately declined out of concern over losing access to her water well, becoming subject to village housing codes and new costs like village taxes.

“I told (the village) I would gladly annex in if I could just keep my water,” Reich said. “I just didn’t want to seal my well up. I like to have plants and I like free water. Chicago water is very expensive.”

Berley said the village offered to waive annexation and water hookup fees to both the Reichs and Navigato. The Reichs said they were concerned that the village contract did not cover all costs. Navigato did not respond to the offer, village officials said.

“This is a free annexation,” Berley said. “We’ve been trying to approach Navigato for a couple of years. We’ve gotten virtually no response. We don’t know why, we can only guess.”

Last December, the village board also passed an ordinance forbidding the sale of firearms within a mile of its borders. But Berley said officials feared this was not enough.

“We are concerned the building will be used for other potential, undesirable uses,” he said. “Our history with (Navigato) is not very good. In one case, he had his real estate office in that building for years and some of his dealings have not been so honorable.

“He manages or rents out single-family homes in the village and we’ve had a lot of maintenance issues with them,” Berley said. “The homes were almost uninhabitable, with porches almost falling off, tall grass and weeds. We would get complaints and would have to follow up on them.”

After adopting an ordinance of intent to involuntarily annex both properties, the village scheduled a public hearing on the matter for April 23. At the hearing, residents can ask questions and voice support or objection. Only after this can Addison’s village board continue with the annexation process.

If you enjoyed reading about "IL town seizes property to prevent gun sales!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Autolycus
June 11, 2007, 06:40 AM
I know the link is dead but I discovered this on another forum and wanted to share. I read about this in some local papers and never got around to posting the articles. Either way I am disgusted.

I am confused about how a village can make laws affecting things outside its borders. If my shop was not in their borders but a mile outside what gives them the ability or right to pass laws that affect my business?

tostada
June 11, 2007, 08:25 AM
It's ridiculous ... but I have to wonder if it's any more ridiculous than them shutting down the "spa."

There are already laws for this stuff. If the spa is actually a whorehouse, they need to shut it down and arrest the proprietor. Likewise, if the gun shop is selling saturday night specials to kids and/or felons, they need to shut it down and arrest the proprietor. Preempting something because it may or may not pan out into something unsavory is asinine.

I'm actually a little more disturbed by stuff like this and recent eminent domain cases than any gun-related stuff.

jad0110
June 11, 2007, 08:29 AM
Preempting something because it may or may not pan out into something unsavory is asinine.

I like how a lot of politicians and political activists have a hissy fit over Bush's foreign policy of "preemption", but it is perfectly okay to use said policy against our own citizens.

Browns Fan
June 11, 2007, 08:38 AM
Quote:
“Those kind of uses are considered undesirable by our residents and don’t project a good image,” he said.

I wonder how many adult book stores are in the fine town of Addison!:barf:

Glockman17366
June 11, 2007, 08:53 AM
Boy, I wonder how the SCOTUS would handle this one...

JohnBT
June 11, 2007, 09:09 AM
Annexation depends on how the state law is written. Here is a bit about Virginia's.

"Although incorporated towns are located within counties, and independent cities are separate, both the towns and the cities long held a powerful tool for growth through Virginia's annexation laws, which basically provided for seizure of unincorporated territory from the counties. However, the annexation laws also have long been felt by many leaders to be a barrier to regional cooperation among localities, causing wounds which took many years to heal, and with some individuals negatively impacted, never did.

A moratorium on major annexations by the larger cities and adjacent counties has been in place since the late 20th century by actions in the Virginia General Assembly. Other changes have allowed cities to revert to town status and rejoin a county. South Boston and Clifton Forge took such actions, and several other smaller cities have studied doing so."

Johnny Guest
June 11, 2007, 09:25 AM
Thread originator posted elsewhere in error. It was moved at his request. :)

Johnny

71Commander
June 11, 2007, 09:44 AM
saturday night specials:confused:

I don't hear this term used much, except by anti's.

Thin Black Line
June 11, 2007, 10:05 AM
Boy, I wonder how the SCOTUS would handle this one...

Should it ever get that far, probably by remanding it back.

DKSuddeth
June 11, 2007, 11:10 AM
Quote:
Boy, I wonder how the SCOTUS would handle this one...

Should it ever get that far, probably by remanding it back.

SCOTUS will never hear the case because Kelo v. New London will have precedent.

romma
June 11, 2007, 12:00 PM
No shortage of Blissininnies in that area! :barf:

Geno
June 11, 2007, 12:11 PM
This is the same sort of "law" that drove Ann Arbor Gun & Rod out of business (Ann Arbor, MI). The DNR then got "un"smart and tried the same tactic, asserting that one could not carry concealed while hunting or while in state parks. It's hard to imagine a more non-sensical law (or rule) than not carrying concealed while hunting?! Michigan finally passed a law prohibiting such local laws. That is where this case will go. It should be, and I expect will be, resolved at the state level.

Doc2005

Langenator
June 11, 2007, 02:18 PM
Kelo has no bearing on a case of this type. Kelo dealt with eminent domain. No property is being taken here-it's an expansion of the town's administrative boundaries.

Now, if the building's owner can't find a new tenant (since the prospective gunshop owner would be leasing, not owning), even for a short period of time, he could file a claim against the township for the lost rent.

Car Knocker
June 11, 2007, 02:36 PM
Anyone have any idea of the outcome since this article was published two months ago?

Autolycus
June 11, 2007, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Johnny Guest:
Thread originator posted elsewhere in error. It was moved at his request.

Johnny

Thanks Johnny Guest.

I really am tired of governments just trampling over peoples rights to prevent crimes that maybe comitted.

Mumwaldee
June 11, 2007, 03:40 PM
Anyone have any idea of the outcome since this article was published two months ago?

I just sent an email to the newspaper asking for an update. We'll see if they respond.

Mistretta , Elisabeth
Editorial
emistretta@dailyherald.com
(630) 955-3513

Mumwaldee
June 11, 2007, 04:09 PM
First reply...and snappy quick too.

Hi. The village was still working on this well into May, and I am unsure if the annexation has been finalized. It seemed, however, that it was almost certain to occur. I will check into the matter and get back to you once I have the info. It's been on my list of things to do for publication! Thanks.

-Beth


I'll post any more info I receive.

LawBot5000
June 11, 2007, 04:33 PM
It really boils down to:
1-what laws IL lets municipalities pass
2-how IL controls the boundaries of these local jurisdictions
3-whether these laws offend the laws or constitution of IL
4-whether these laws offend the laws or constitution of the US

1-Since Chicago has most of the population of IL, muncipalities can do whatever they want
2-see 1
3-see 1
4-There are two rights here that are being offended, neither of which is currently considered to be incorporated into our Due Process jurisprudence.
a) The first is economic liberty. This hasn't been a fundamental right since the 1920s or so when that milk case overturned Lochner and said it was ok for local and state governments to meddle in the affairs of private businesses.
b) The second is the right to keep and bear arms, which is indirectly affected by a law prohibiting their sale. This has been MIA since the 1870s when reconstruction fell through and SCOTUS gutted the privileges and immunities clause in the Slaughterhouse cases.

This is what happens when you have a socialist president nominating justices for 4 terms. Probably going to take us another 20-30 years of hard work to really start restoring the constitution.

Werewolf
June 11, 2007, 04:41 PM
Last December, the village board also passed an ordinance forbidding the sale of firearms within a mile of its borders.Huh? How in the world could they enforce that? Suppose that conflicted with county law or the town abuts another that not only doesn't prohibit firearms sales but encourages it.

Who do these bufoons think they are and when did GOD appoint them the guardians of paradise?

Thin Black Line
June 11, 2007, 05:36 PM
Now, if the building's owner can't find a new tenant (since the prospective gunshop owner would be leasing, not owning), even for a short period of time, he could file a claim against the township for the lost rent.

I'm not sure how far this would go either. I recall some problems recently
elsewhere here in the midwest where restaurant owners were forced to
shell out approximately $40K EACH to upgrade the HVAC systems in their
places if they wanted to have a smoking section (or for bars to have smoking
at all --even with NO food service). Many places complied in order to stay
in business. To make a long story short, this city just recently made ALL
establishments (bars and restaurants) non-smoking. Needless to say a lot
of businesses are grumbling about the costs of the upgrade from a year ago
and now the potential future loss of revenue as people going down the highway
just head to the next town to eat.

alan
June 11, 2007, 05:54 PM
The antics/actions of this vilage government are, pure and simple, unmitigated bull****.

Additionally, they should be hauled into court, federal court if it proves necessary, where they hopefully be slapped down so hard that it will take 20 years for their ears to quit ringing.

Question about that is the following. Will it happen, will the village council/government be so treated by the legal system, will their ears ring as described? In Illinois, that might be an open question, but that is simply my own conclusion.

gopguy
June 11, 2007, 06:05 PM
And Illinois wonders why some gun makers are considering going to other states...

DWARREN123
June 11, 2007, 08:40 PM
Communist taking someone elses property is all it is. A store will either make it or not depending on customer base. Officals wanting to run our lifes.

Zundfolge
June 11, 2007, 08:45 PM
I don't understand how any freedom loving American could stay living in Illinois ... hell, Les Baer has even left.

I understand the "stay and fight" mentality, but frankly I would want to live my life in the 30 or so years it'd take to overturn this kind of crap (with little likelihood and no guarantee of success).

jselvy
June 11, 2007, 09:06 PM
Again I ask What the Heck is wrong with the people in Illinois?
Its gotta be the water!

Jefferson

SoCalShooter
June 11, 2007, 09:07 PM
^ agreed...I am going to stay here in ************ a little longer but honestly its very difficult struggle when you have corrupt legislatures that are not qualified for their jobs.

jselvy
June 11, 2007, 09:15 PM
California is living proof that drugs are bad for you.
Get with the Program and be like Wyoming
1. Shall Issue CCW
2. Gold Star Open Carry
3. A whole lot of the "Leave me the hell alone" vibe
4. People are friendly and neighborly without being in your business

Jefferson

DKSuddeth
June 11, 2007, 09:38 PM
you don't think that the 7th circuit will pervert kelo to their own ends and force a gun shop out of the area or out of business?

ok.

Kr4kJ4k
June 12, 2007, 05:08 AM
7th circuit gets it right more often than you think. I think the Chicago School of Economics has some influence on the judiciary.

Thin Black Line
June 12, 2007, 08:50 AM
I don't understand how any freedom loving American could stay living in Illinois

BTW, the situation I mentioned regarding smoking bans was in the freedom-loving
Class 3 state of Indiana. Just wait till they get Jill Long as gov. ;)

Mumwaldee
June 26, 2007, 02:45 PM
Heard back from the writer today:

Hi. The property was, indeed, forcibly annexed earlier this month by the village, after they conducted several readings of the proposal and hearings where the residents could participate and voice their concerns. I hope this helps.

-Beth

ancient_philosophy
June 26, 2007, 03:06 PM
someone should report this total assmonkey nonsense to Hannity or O Reiley,

IL has lost its frigging mind. :scrutiny:


this sort of Commie nonsense should be stood up against.


need to get the progunners to attack the heck out of these leftwing losers.

shooter503
June 26, 2007, 03:24 PM
So, the gun shop finds another piece of property half a mile awway. What is the village going to do, annex up to that half mile? The idea of imposing your community laws on some area around you will not fly either once it gets to ANY court. This is somewhat parallel to the NY stings affair.

We all already know we would drive an hour to find a really good gun shop.

If you enjoyed reading about "IL town seizes property to prevent gun sales!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!