Something about Tyrone's Candidates Platforms Doesn't Make Sense.

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows

Michael Smola states in his Campaign Literature that he wants to keep the Zoning Laws in place. This means that he wants to keep Ordinance 454 which took away Property Rights, “on his watch”. Therefore, Michael Smola does not support individual Property Rights.
Eric Dial says in his Platform that he does support Property Rights. In fact he placed a quarter page Ad in the Saturday’s Tyrone Citizen Newspaper, stating that he works for the SE Legal foundation who defends property owners against governmental inverse condemnation cases; and that this is the single biggest issue addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. TRUE, and Tyrone is currently defending against an inverse condemnation case right now. That’s what Ordinance 454 is.
Ordinance 454 took away all Tyrone property owners’ Property Rights WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION, a violation of the 5th Amendment. Michael Smola said at the Candidate Forum that “CONDEMNATION would never happen on his watch”. Is Michael Smola the Councilman that Eric Dial referred to in the Citizens Paper that was not familiar with INVERSE CONDEMNATION?
There is a big difference. CONDEMNATION is the legal right of a government to take private property for public use by PAYING the owner the value of his/her property; for the safety and benefit of the general public welfare.
INVERSE CONDEMNATION occurs when a government passes a law that substantially takes away land uses that FINANCIALLY HARMS a property owner, i.e. ORDINANCE 454, WITHOUT PAYING just compensation. Michael Smola is saying that he doesn’t want to take private property by condemnation and pay just compensation. But that he does support Inverse Condemnation, so that the Town can take private property for Downtown Redevelopment and not have to pay the property owners any money.
This is the big constitutional issue regarding Ordinance 454, and Michael Smola was made aware of this problem in letters to the Council in February and March 2007, but choose to ignore the issue. Michael Smola was also advised that if a property owner sues for Inverse Condemnation and wins, that every property owner in Tyrone that was adversely affected will have a monetary claim for inverse condemnation against the Town which could amount to untold millions of $.
Therefore, Michael Smola and Eric Dial have the biggest and most clear-cut differences in their Platforms. WHAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE IS, WHY MICHAEL SMOLA AND ERIC DIAL JOINED FORCES WHEN THEY MET AT MICHAEL SMOLA’S HOME prior to either’s announcement to run for office to plan Campaign Strategy? Why did Jesse Nasianceno, who was also invited to the meeting, refuse to be part of their plans? WHY DID ERIC DIAL CALL MICHAEL SMOLA’S OPPONENTS SEEKING SUPPORT AFTER THE MEETING? WHY DIDN’T ERIC DIAL TELL THESE REHWALDT’S SUPPORTERS THAT HE WAS ALLIED WITH MICHAEL SMOLA? WAS ERIC DIAL ALSO PART OF THE CAMPAIGN STATEGY OF MICHAEL SMOLA TO RELIGIOUSLY THRASH REHWALDT?

I Watch's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Tyrone Aries on Sun, 11/04/2007 - 11:52pm.

Very well said. It is a shame that what is manifesting out of this small town election campaigns is a result of prior refusals to even look a citizen in the eye when they had a problem. A problem that the government was causing them. i.e. they are the government. If only once, one of them had thought, maybe I'll try a different approach to solving this problem in my constituency. But no, they were hateful, spiteful and vengeful. That is not the way our government acts. NOT ANYMORE ANYWAY!!

Submitted by Valerie on Sun, 11/04/2007 - 11:14pm.

Eric Explain!

Barry are you a part of this?

Submitted by Valerie on Sun, 11/04/2007 - 10:10pm.

It’s my understanding that the Town’s Insurance Policy does not cover Inverse Condemnation. So will those Council people who voted for Ordinance 454 have to pay out of their own pockets, if the Town loses the lawsuit? Or will the Taxpayers have to pay?

Submitted by Tyrone Aries on Sun, 11/04/2007 - 11:43pm.

That is who gets to pay the tab. Thanks a lot Barry! No wonder she hates you now!

Submitted by oldbeachbear on Sun, 11/04/2007 - 10:28am.

And if Eric is such a champion of people's property rights and goes to all the town hall meetings as he claims, why did this man loose his property rights? Was Eric at these meetings and CONDONING what was happening to these property owners?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.