|
Proceedings delayed for Hardy property -
Bush delays decision on eminent domain against
landowner
PLEASE COMMENT! Reader's Forum: Should
Jesse Hardy be forced off his land for the sake of
Everglades restoration? Is the government being
too heavy-handed? Do conservation areas have to be
cleared of all human settlement? (37 comments as
of 11:30 PM on May 12, 2004. (For some unknown
reason, this URL keeps 'refreshing' or 'reloading'
so please type fast to get your comments in, or
type them in a Word document and then copy and
paste them.)
May 12, 2004 by Paul Flemming, The News-Press
Tallahassee bureau, Naples Daily News, Naples,
Florida
http://www.news-press.com
Tallahassee, Florida - Deferred again.
For the sixth time, Governor Jeb Bush and his
Cabinet delayed a final decision on allowing the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to
begin eminent domain proceedings against Collier
County landowner Jesse Hardy.
DEP Secretary Colleen Castille afterward would
say only “we're in the midst of negotiations” as
the Cabinet put off until its May 25 meeting
considering the matter again. The case was
deferred at the department’s request.
Hardy’s land is the “hole in the doughnut” of
55,247 acres in Southern Golden Gate Estates. The
defunct development is part of the second phase of
the state’s Everglades restoration effort. The
68-year-old Hardy doesn't want to sell or swap.
He’s turned down offers of $4.5 million for his
property, and a proposal to give him 160 acres in
St. Lucie County as a trade.
Officials say that allowing Hardy to remain on
the land would put him in harm’s way as the
restoration project floods the area. Furthermore,
they say negotiating with Hardy for anything other
than outright purchase would raise legal problems
for the 1,859 parcels that already have been
bought.
In an emotional appeal to Bush and Cabinet
members last month, friends of Hardy asked that he
be allowed to remain on his land. Bush directed
DEP to go back to the negotiating table and look
for ways to engineer the project around Hardy’s
land.
In documents presented to the Cabinet Tuesday,
DEP officials said there’s been no progress.
“Even with the continuances, negotiations are
at an impasse,” the department’s summary said.
Here are the Comments so far:
| W. Smithson from near
London, Ohio in the Darby writes: |
No. Yes. No. For more on
other parts of America where -- using other
names and other agencies -- The Wildlands
Project is removing people and their freedom
and property rights:
www.propertyrightsresearch.org/wildlndsprjctfrms.htm
-- www.KlamathBucketBrigade.org --
www.KlamathBasinCrisis.org --
www.freedom21SantaCruz.net --
www.propertyrightsresearch.org/articles/victim_directoryfrms.htm
-- www.landrights.org -- and please, share all
these websites with others, because, until we
understand what is happening under the guise
of "environmentalism" or "conservation", we
cannot protect ourselves! Learn the truth --
Please!
(Comment 39 of 39. Posted at 12:26 AM
EDT, 05/13/2004)
|
•
Click here
to add your comments!
| Julie Kay Smithson
from near London, Ohio in the Darby writes: |
NO: NO ONE should be
forced from home/land/business by the
implementation of The Wildlands Project
www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org and the theft
of American freedom/property rights, which are
one and the same. YES: Heavy-handed is an
understatement for the domestic terrorism
happening to rural/isolated folks from the
Klamath Basin to the Darby of Ohio to Jesse
Hardy. NO: "Conservation areas are what people
do to make life better for themselves and both
domestic birds/animals/plants AND wildlife.
This "conservation" or "restoration" is Conned
Senses: the use of language deception to make
people think that the stealing of their
Constitutional Republic is good!
www.PropertyRightsResearch.org has much, much
more, all verified: please visit!
(Comment 38 of 38. Posted at 12:09 AM
EDT, 05/13/2004)
|
•
Click here to add
your comments!
| Joyce from Texas
writes: |
I have been keeping up
with this thru the newspaper. I think this is
just so unreal to try to force this man off
his property put a lid on it and let it go. Go
around him or whatever it won't hurt to let
the man live out the rest of his days happy.
Reason I read this paper my mom was an early
settler to Bonita Springs in 1970 she died in
2001 in the same house #54 8th St she would
have been dead a lot earlier had she had to
move. Thanks
(Comment 37 of 37. Posted at 02:06 PM
EDT, 05/12/2004)
|
| Fred from North Fort
Myers writes: |
No! It is his property
and it is not needed for any of the "public
good" projects that eminent domain is intended
for. If there really is a danger of flooding,
it is his choice to take that risk. I think,
however, that this danger is just more DEP BS.
(Comment 36 of 37. Posted at 07:24 AM
EDT, 05/12/2004)
|
| Ron from Cape Coral
writes: |
Jesse. Bill O'reilly
loves to get envolved in helping the little
guy.I would get your lawyer to get the facts
to him. Have you thought about setting some
area aside for a boy-girl scout camp.How
aboute prison volenteers to build it for
them.This could give you and the state a
chance to help thousands of kids.Good luck
Ron.
(Comment 35 of 37. Posted at 06:00 PM
EDT, 04/26/2004)
|
| John from Cape Coral
writes: |
This is an interesting
circumstance as are the responses. Like
protecting the Manatee through dock
moratoriums and other environmental issues,
why does this suddenly make people realize our
freedom to do certain things is being more and
more restricted. Are any of you who comment
for this man supporters of the dock ban? I
must say that not being able to have a dock
and getting nothing for it, I can't feel too
sorry for someone who is offered 4 million
dollars. Somehow I think he could probably
find another secluded place to live.
(Comment 34 of 37. Posted at 07:50 AM
EDT, 04/23/2004)
|
| Kelly from Home
writes: |
It is not about the
money. Let Jesse live out his life at home. We
should all have that right.
(Comment 33 of 37. Posted at 02:32 PM
EDT, 04/20/2004)
|
| Marlene from North
Fort Myers writes: |
The government needs to
get over the idea that just because they want
something that belongs to a citizen, they are
entitled to have it. Mr. Hardy purchased land
that was considered undesirable at the time,
and he made his home on it. He is entitled to
keep his home if he wants to, without pressure
from the government to give it up because they
want it.
(Comment 32 of 37. Posted at 12:43 PM
EDT, 04/20/2004)
|
| petra from
salem.oregon writes: |
How much more land do
they need?Isay let Jesse stay,because he could
be of help in this project. He has a good
vision in trying to intergrade a fish farm
into this project.He could farm local fish
spiecies that may otherwise fanish.Why is the
dep so narrow minded?It's making me sick to my
stomach.
(Comment 31 of 37. Posted at 09:30 AM
EDT, 04/20/2004)
|
| bill from buffalo
writes: |
let him say where he
is.. he needs to be left alone....
(Comment 30 of 37. Posted at 03:04 PM
EDT, 04/18/2004)
|
| David from GG Estates
writes: |
It's comforting to see
the positive remarks on Jesse's behalf. I'm
still concerned about comments like those from
Craig of Ft. Myers. Craig, have you seen the
photos of Naples and Ft. Myers where 41 now
exists as well as other areas around Florida?
Let this be a lesson to you if YOU do. Many
areas of Florida were once considered swamp
land and Jesse, now 27 years later, can
clearly testify to that! As a previous writer
stated, those who live in glass houses
shouldn't throw stones. Too many people are
opinionated as long as they can express those
opinions from outside the box. Begin to look
from within and that perfect image dissipates
quickly. When we chose our homestead more than
15 years ago, we couldn't afford the luxury of
living in areas close in, though rainy seasons
have proven to us that some of those areas
consistently prove to flood time and time
again, yet they aren't being considered
eminent domain territory! There are many areas
in Three Oaks in Ft. Myers with planty of
Cypress on it. How would you feel if talk
began of telling all those homeowners who
poured their lives into their homes, that they
would have to give their homesteads up because
GG felt it was swampland and those people
shouldn't have moved there? Wrong is wrong
period! It's the point that Jesse is trying to
show you, not just his home that he is trying
to protect. Open your eyes! Still, you seem
partially empathetic to his plight and we are
thankful for that.
(Comment 29 of 37. Posted at 02:16 PM
EDT, 04/18/2004)
|
| dorothy from naples,
fl writes: |
NO! NO! i think its a
shame that they are trying to to do to jesse,
and his son. I thought this is America.But it
seems like its another country. We are suppose
to have freedom, thats what this country was
founded on. Guess is your not rich you dont
stand a chance anymore. Hang in there jesse.
Sincerely, Dorothy
(Comment 28 of 37. Posted at 06:03 PM
EDT, 04/17/2004)
|
| Susan from Naples
writes: |
A few questions came to
mind while listening to the Cabinet Aide
Meeting of April 7th regarding Jesse's case.
1. They have not yet acquired the 3 Tribe
properties. They say they cannot proceed with
Phase 2 of their plan before getting Jesse out
of the area. Will they be able to proceed with
Phase 2 prior to acquiring the 3 Tribe
properties? Why/why not? (Why is Jesse's
property different?) 2. They said the reason
to move the pumps closer to Jesse's property
was because the pumps could not pump water
fast enough to prevent flooding of the
Northern Estates if they were located further
North. This begs two questions. a) If the pump
location was partially determined based on a
desire to prevent the Northern Estates from
flooding, should not the pump location also be
partially determined by a desire to prevent
Jesse's property from flooding? Is not the
protection of Jesse's property from flooding
afforded him under existing Florida laws? (I
have not had time to look up the law, sorry)
b) If the pumps don't pump water fast enough
to prevent flooding, might they not use
stronger/larger/better pumps? Surely that
would cost less than $4.5 million. 3. In the
Cabinet Aides' meeting there seemed to be a
lack of clarity on the actual date that the
latest alternative plan was decided on. One
would think that a question regarding a date
that a decision was made could and should be
answered with a simple, single, date. Jesse
should be provided with that specific answer
prior to proceeding with anything. 4. At one
point in the Cabinet Aides' meeting it sounded
like Diaz (but I cannot be positive it was
Diaz) who referred to the planned activities
in Jesse's location as being a "PRIVATE
PROGRAM." Jesse should have clarification on
exactly what he was referring to when he used
that term. Is this plan to waive the eminent
domain requirements of the State laws being
done in the interests of a "Private Program?"
5. According to a Collier County Commissioner
meeting in I believe October of 2003, not all
the roads that provide access to Jesse's
property were going to be removed. When was
this plan changed? The next question for them
is, On a PBS documentary (available at
www.wfgcu.org) that aired on April 9th, 2004,
clearly some roads were going to have the
pavement removed, but the limerock roads would
remain. Since currently Jesse accesses his
property on limerock roads, why would he not
be able to access his property on the limerock
roads in the future? Sue Murphy CEO Search
Engines 411 Inc. www.searchengines411.com
(Comment 27 of 37. Posted at 10:48 AM
EDT, 04/17/2004)
|
| Larry from Virginia
writes: |
If ever an American
deserved to have his quarter-section of land,
it's Jesse Hardy. God bless him! He was born
with nothing, but he has something he can
leave behind to his boy Tommy. However, the
bureaucrats in Tallahassee don't give a fig
about either Jesse or the right of
homesteaders to retain their property. And if
those tree-hugging environmentalists knew how
much they're hurting their own cause by trying
to take over Jesse's land, they would stop
harassing him now! I'm in Virginia, but I'm
behind Jesse all the way! Hang in there, Son!
Larry Bailey
(Comment 26 of 37. Posted at 10:48 AM
EDT, 04/17/2004)
|
| john from marco
island writes: |
Hardy should be left
alone. He is a hero to this country and the
Bush man should find something better to do
with Florida's money. My dad owns 640 acres
near Hardy and he wants to be left alone as
well.
(Comment 25 of 37. Posted at 01:52 PM
EDT, 04/16/2004)
|
| James from Fort Myers
writes: |
Mr. Hardy should not be
forced off this land. They can build around
him, and they know it. Is the government being
heavy-handed? Last I heard, they had offered
him $4.5 million for the land...
(Comment 24 of 37. Posted at 10:30 AM
EDT, 04/16/2004)
|
| Craig from Ft. Myers
writes: |
I also don't believe
that Jesse should be forced off his land. But
let this be a lesson to all. Don't build on
land or buy land in a place that was or could
be a swamp (low areas once regularly flooded).
Don't ever believe what people tell you when
it comes to what happens or could happen on
the land you buy. If they used canals to drain
it, don't buy there. Canals can be filled in.
Good luck Jesse.
(Comment 23 of 37. Posted at 08:48 AM
EDT, 04/16/2004)
|
| LINDA from GOLDEN
GATE ESTATES writes: |
DEFINITELY NOT. IF HE IS
FORCED OUT BY EMINENT DOMAIN WHO WILL BE NEXT
IN THE ESTATES!!! WE WERE TOLD THIS WOULD
NEVER HAPPEN. LINDA HARTMAN, PRESIDENT GGEACA
(Comment 22 of 37. Posted at 08:20 AM
EDT, 04/16/2004)
|
| Elizabeth from NULL
writes: |
No, Jesse Hardy should
not be forced off of his land. DEP has failed
to show scientific evidence to support their
claim that Jesse Hardy's land will flood and
cause problems for the Everglades restoration
project. Jesse hired a court certified
engineer in stormwater who has reviewed
project information and from this review has
determined that Jesse's property will not
flood and in fact will be dried out more than
he currently is. In addition, this engineer
has requested modeling reports and other
scientific data from DEP and SFWMD that would
support DEP's claim to review. At this time,
they have not provided this information
because they claim they haven't finished their
final report. I believe they don't want him to
analysis the information because it probably
won't defend their claim. Another thing people
ought to know is that a number of employees
within some of the government agencies have
privatly acknowledged that Jesse's land is not
needed. The problem is, the "big wigs" have
been claiming they need the property for so
long that they can't back down for fear of
embarassment. Think about it, right before it
went to the Governing board, the offer jumped
3 million dollars, from 1.5 to 4.5 million. In
addition, any stormwater technical person
listening to the cabinet meeting would know
that DEP presented a lot of technically
incorrect information.
(Comment 21 of 37. Posted at 08:08 AM
EDT, 04/16/2004)
|
| Karen from Golden
Gate Estates writes: |
Should he be forced off
- absolutely NOT. Gvt. Too Heavy Handed?
Definately. The DEP is out of control, they
need a reality check before they
environmentally protect even themselves out of
their homes. As to clearing humans from all
conservation areas. No they do not. It's
normal to have islands in areas of water.
(Comment 20 of 37. Posted at 11:58 PM
EDT, 04/15/2004)
|
| Patti from GG Estates
writes: |
My blood boils when I
see other people vote yes! At one time, every
one of your properties were enjoyed by living
creatures and trees and now you can throw
stones from glass houses? Who are you to judge
why another human being who fought for your
life in this free country, who for over 20
years never asked for electricity, a phone, a
store, a golf course, nothing. All he's done
was help build your roads with the fill from
HIS property. Now he lives with cancer and you
want to give him additional stresses by
forcing him to move?! This began as a willing
seller program. How many of you KNOW about the
land being purchased around you now? It's
being done all around here and many don't know
it could be their day. My children had the
honor of playing with Tommy too. I won't be
the one to explain to them why he was removed
from the yard he learned from and loved all
this time! Any support I had for the WWF has
just ended due to Nancy Payton's (FWWF)comments
and the way this man is being treated. Take a
stand against bureacracy. This could be you!
It takes a village to raise a child in which
we are all a part of.
(Comment 19 of 37. Posted at 11:08 PM
EDT, 04/15/2004)
|
| Helen from Fort Myers
writes: |
Yes, of course he should
be forced off his land. Everglades restoration
is very important.
(Comment 18 of 37. Posted at 08:20 PM
EDT, 04/15/2004)
|
| danny from fort myers
writes: |
By all means. Why not?
Eventually through some fluke his property
will likely make a grand golf course and end
up being a gated community overlooking the
beautiful Everglades. Clearly I'm being
facetious. But am i? Stranger things have
happened. The obvious is no longer just that,
obvious. When you think justice will prevail
and the parties involved will do the right
thing according to the way we were taught -
somebody finds a way to do just the opposite
and manages to find a way to say it's legal.
Since rules are always being broken in order
to demolish wilderness for the sake of the
wealthy developer, how about once changing the
rules for someone who has been playing fair
and minding his own business? Leave him and
his family alone and worry about the real
dangers to the Everglades. Big Developers, Big
Business and careless smokers.
(Comment 17 of 37. Posted at 07:51 PM
EDT, 04/15/2004)
|
| ellen from cape coral
writes: |
No, Yes, No. I want to
say also I am ashamed that the Newspress
actually advocates eminent domain which runs
contrary to our Constitution, especially in
this case.Jesse's property by the way is worth
ALOT more than $4.5M due to his contract with
Collier Co which digs and hauls away the
limestone on his property to be used for
roadbeds, etc.This is a hallmark case for
property rights and if Jeb caves in,
Tallahassee should be blitzed! Again,
Newspress, get the facts before you go
supporting a Green Goliath which is stomping
the average citizen into the dirt.
(Comment 16 of 37. Posted at 06:48 PM
EDT, 04/15/2004)
|
| Susan from North
Carolina writes: |
No I do not believe that
Mr. Jesse Hardy should be forced off his land.
If this goes through where will it stop. jesse
Hardy has served his country with great
courage. His dedication is carries through
towards his city. Please do not inflict on his
sanctuary.
(Comment 15 of 37. Posted at 04:52 PM
EDT, 04/15/2004)
|
| James from Hong Kong
writes: |
Leave Jesse Hardy alone
to live out his few remaining days. This is
not necessary. There is much to be done
irrespective of Jesse's parcel. Leave him in
peace.
(Comment 14 of 37. Posted at 02:05 PM
EDT, 04/15/2004)
|
| Jesse James Hardy
from South Golden Gate Estates writes: |
I would like to thank
the Governor and the Cabinet for their
consideration and for instructions to the
State and the DEP to negotiate in good faith
with my attorney and me. I also want to thank
all the people of the State of Florida and
others across the country who have helped me
so far. Updates to my situation will be at my
website www.jessehardy.com . I may still need
your help again before this is over. I am not
out to to any harm to the environment or the
people of Florida, I just want to save my
land. Jesse James Hardy
(Comment 13 of 37. Posted at 01:20 PM
EDT, 04/15/2004)
|
| Matt from Naples
writes: |
No!!! Mr Hardy should
not be forced off his land!!At what point in
this country did we decide to foresake private
property rights for the rights of plants and
animals? I believe that Mr Hardy has every
right to live in his homesteaded property with
the full rights and priveledges associated
with home ownership. Very sad in this whole
mess is that this man faithfully served his
country in the armed forces and now that same
country is turning its back on him. Keep up
the fight for whats right or you could be
next.
(Comment 12 of 37. Posted at 12:51 PM
EDT, 04/15/2004)
|
| Karen from
Connecticut writes: |
NO($) YES(principal) NO!
(displacement) I have been following this
travesty since the beginning and have read
MUCH about both sides. Seems to me... Jesse
has a valid argument and good reasons for
fighting back. Money is NOT the issue here,
but the principal that what is proposed should
NOT need to harm Jesse's land. MANY Humans
have been given more consideration in the past
to remain on their land, even when EPA feels
the need to reconstruct things. Let's protect
our environment, yes... but remember that
Jesse and Tommy ARE part of that environment,
and we need to protect THEM too. My prayers
are with you; Jesse, Tommy and all of your
supporters! Keep up to date at:
www.jessehardy.com
(Comment 11 of 37. Posted at 12:01 PM
EDT, 04/15/2004)
|
| Pat from Naples
writes: |
To Jim from Sanibel: The
public is not being served. This project
started out as a willing seller program and
was supposed to provide recreation and
drinking water for Collier County. Those
conditions have been removed. How much market
value would you put on 160 acres in Collier
County? Mr. Hardy does not want the money and
is willing to pay for the dyke around his
house. The DEP still hasn't proved that they
can "flood" this land. It is 10 to 15 feet
above sea level.
(Comment 10 of 37. Posted at 12:00 PM
EDT, 04/15/2004)
|
| Rick from Fort Myers
writes: |
It is his property and
he should be allowed to do whatever he wants.
What is it about Florida that makes people
tell others what to do with their property,
house, kids, etc.? There was less pressure to
conform in Nazi Germany. Plus, as a added
bonus, he have a guy from Sanibel talking
about the "public good". Wow, that is comedy
gold.
(Comment 9 of 37. Posted at 11:18 AM EDT,
04/15/2004)
|
| Susan from Naples
writes: |
To Jim from Sanibel:
Since putting up the dike would cost less than
4.5m, I don't think your argument holds water.
(Comment 8 of 37. Posted at 11:00 AM EDT,
04/15/2004)
|
| Jim from Sanibel
writes: |
yes, for public good and
fairness to other that relocated, he will be
paid to find property to relocate No , they
are paying way over market value, somewhat
over is fine but 4.5 m is beyond reason, they
should go to court and have it decide, Hardy
is totally unreasonable. Yes , in this case
because purpose of buying area is flood and to
put in dike just for this area is not
practical or cost efficent.
(Comment 7 of 37. Posted at 10:50 AM EDT,
04/15/2004)
|
| Marion from North
Fort Myers writes: |
No, Yes, No. This is
merely another example of BIG government
flexing its muscles. We have allowed the
environmentalists far too much power and the
inevitable result is that we citizens no
longer are the government of USA but merely
subjects to be manipulated. Jesse Hardy is
willing to face the possibility of being
flooded. This is the same treatment accorded
the native fauna. Or are the authorities
removing them as well? Leave Jesse Hardy
alone.
(Comment 6 of 37. Posted at 10:02 AM EDT,
04/15/2004)
|
| Sue from Golden Gate
Estates writes: |
Should YOU be forced off
of your land for the sake of flooding it? You
decide after you visit www.jessehardy.com and
read what may happen to you. Would YOU
consider the government to be too heavy-handed
if they forced you off of your property? You
decide. Are ALL conservation areas cleared of
all human settlement? No, there are many areas
of the country where state and federally owned
conservation areas where humans have been
allowed to remain. In order for this to
happen, the engineering plans for the area
have to have to give the HUMAN inhabitants the
same high priority that they give the plants
and animals.
(Comment 5 of 37. Posted at 09:44 AM EDT,
04/15/2004)
|
| Pat from Naples
writes: |
NO. YES. NO. Everglades
Restoration, my foot. The Everglades are 50
miles away. This started out as a CARL project
(Conservation and Recreational) and when the
DEP ran out of money they latched it on to the
"Save the Everglades" project. Jesse Hardy is
not in their way and if he is eminent domained
it will set a precedent that will allow the
DEP to eminent domain anyone in the state of
Florida for an environmental project. Are you
next?
(Comment 4 of 37. Posted at 09:37 AM EDT,
04/15/2004)
|
| Barb from Golden Gate
Estates writes: |
NOBODY in Golden Gate
Estates should be forced off of their land so
that SFWMD and DEP can flood it. Why is FEMA
rezoning all of Golden Gate Estates into
highrisk flood zones right now (www.femainfo.com)?
Why are we first told our properties will ONLY
be purchased if we are WILLING SELLERS, and
then when we are not willing, we are told that
they are going to take the properties anyway?
(Comment 3 of 37. Posted at 09:30 AM EDT,
04/15/2004)
|
| BOB from Naples,
Florida writes: |
Jesse's land is not
standing in the way of the restoration
project. He just wants to be left alone. Why
can't the government understand this? Write to
Gov Bush and let him know that you feel that
displacing Jesse would be a travesty.
(Comment 2 of 37. Posted at 09:27 AM EDT,
04/15/2004)
|
| Larry from Virginia
writes: |
Yes, yes, and NO! Jesse
is an honorable man who has given far, far
more to society than he has taken, and now the
Tallahassee bureaucrats are doing their level
best to kill him and his dream. If bureaucrats
can lead the charge to evict Jesse from his
homesteaded property, they can (and will) go
after other land that they want to control.
Floridians: PLEASE help Jesse by writing
Governor Bush!
(Comment 1 of 37. Posted at 09:05 AM EDT,
04/15/2004)
|
|
