Homeowner Fights Eviction From Nat'l Park (83 yr old widow)

[meganmonkey]

DENVER (AP) - At 83, Betty Dick faces eviction from her home of a quarter century by a landlord with a lot of clout: the Department of the Interior.


---snip---

Dick will have to find a new home unless Congress approves legislation specifically extending the agreement, allowing her to stay. The House Resources Committee has approved a bill by Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., to do that. A similar bill by Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., is pending in the Senate.

The proposed legislation came about after community members wrote letters and e-mails urging government officials to allow Dick to stay put. Hers is the only known case of a homeowner being evicted from national parkland.



---snip---

In an out-of-court settlement, the Park Service acquired about two-thirds of the property. Betty Dick said her husband retained 23 acres and the cabin and paid the government $7,500. She said they were told they could stay there the rest of their lives, and then the land would go to the Park Service.

more...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5071242,00.html

[Lorien]

1. There must be logging, mining or private cattle ranch

interests that want that land. Otherwise, why not wait as per the agreement?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. Really, she's 83!

Now she could live to be 100, but that's still only 17 years.

[mom cat]

2. Compassion in action!

[Straight Shooter]

3. She ought to stay. Her home holds memories. Also, "a deal is a deal."

I wish her the best of luck.

[Gormy Cuss]

10. The deal however was a 25 year lease

I feel badly for her but she has known for a long time that this was not a life interest but an agreement with a 25-year limit. She already splits her time between this property and Scottsdale, so she has the means to live somewhere else. It would have been nice if her husband had fought over the terms 25 years ago, but to wait until now and play the old widow card is pretty canny. She'll prevail because it will give good press to Udall and Salazar.

[uncle ray]

14. that's right

about the lease.

the local news quoted her as saying "i thought i'd be dead by then."

[GarySeven]

4. The American Indians had a similar deal with the U.S.

that worked out pretty well, didn't it?

[faithnotgreed]

6. i dont know what to say but i had to respond

every time i think of what this country was "built on" - in its entirety - i get a sick feeling. i thank everyone who continues to point out the travesties along with the grand actions


peace and best wishes to our 83 yo friend.

[Roland99]

7. Sad point.

[happyslug]

8. So her husband's FIRST WIFE SOLD THE PROPERTY TO THE GOVERNMENT.

Then her husband claimed it back under the Divorce Agreement giving him the right of first refusal.

I am sorry, I can NOT sympathize with her. She NEVER had a claim to this property except through her husband who gave it up to his first wife. The 25 year deal sounded like a good and fair deal and now she wants to go back on it. I hate to say this but 25 years ago the Courts would have put a value on his right of first refusal and given him that money NOT the use of the land for 25 years. He (and her) received a bargain for the last 25 years and now she wants that bargain to continue. She has no rights and never had any rights to this property. The Rights where sold by her husband's first wife, the Government than could have just bought off her husband's rights and kept the property for the last 25 years. Again no Sympathy here.

[lastliberalintexas]

11. You're wrong about that

Sympathy or no, land contracts are the only ones which the courts force to be carried out through the doctrine of specific performance. For another type of good or service a monetary value would be affixed, but not for land.

[happyslug]

13. Read the Article

He had the right of First Refusal, NOT the right to the land. As such a monetary value can be put on that Right. Once a Property Right has been reduced to a value, it is up to the Government to pay that value.

Remember the First wife SOLD HER RIGHTS TO THE GOVERNMENT OVER 25 YEARS ago. At that point her husband had the right to exercise his right of First Refusal, but then the Government could exercise its right of eminent domain. Thus while he had the right to force his first wife to sell to him instead of the Government, at the price the Government had agreed to pay, the Government could than use its eminent domain right to take the property AT THE VALUE IT HAD ALREADY BEEN SET AT (Remember the Consitution does permit the Government to take property with compensation, compensation is based on the concept of ready seller ready buyer)).

Remember TWO THINGS occurred 25 years ago when this land was in litigation. First was the Husband's right to First Refusal, the Second was the Government's right of eminent domain. Once the Government has exercised its right of Eminent Domain the only issue left is the value to be paid. The Government already had a ready seller (His first Wife) at a set price, thus what value was the Husband's right of first refusal? That was the only issue 25 years ago, and both sides agreed to a settlement, a 25 year lease.

Claims against the Government has the same statute of Limitation as claims against individuals in most cases (There are exceptions, for example Civil Rights Cases which tend to have very short time Periods). The longest in most states is 21 years. Thus this litigation was over decades ago and can NOT be revived today.

Again, my point was this was argued and settled 25 years ago, it is to late to re-litigate it. If her husband thought the deal was bad he could have challenged the offer of a lease 25 years ago, but he did not. He accepted the Offer. You now have a settlement Contract that gave him and his second wife a 25 year lease. The government is only enforcing its legal rights, nothing more.

[David__77]

9. My spouse has a great aunt in a national forest...

...she's over 90 I think, and has been there since before it was a national forest. They should let these people live there for the rest of their lives. It only makes sense. Most of these people are quite elderly and needn't be forced to move at that age.

[Igel]

12. It'll be extended. Not a problem.

Except for some petty bureaucrat in the Parks Dept.

Much of the National Park system had people living on parts of it; some parks preserve some houses, if they were old enough. Some small towns were even wiped out when the land around them became parkland, and were subsumed into the national park. Eminent domain works wonders when the national interest is at stake.

A lot of what I driven by and thought of as virgin forest is anything but.