Phil Harmon, as a lawyer and mouthpiece for PEER, assisted and was part of the PEER effort to make it impossible for the people in the Bib Darby to sell their property. Harmon and PEER will not buy the property at development market value or pay the property taxes for landowners in the area. Since the City will not extend sewer and water lines to this area, even though they are entitled to it, the land is only good for farming. This lady wants to sell the land for her retirement. So much for propertt rights.
Property rights are a conservative value. Government contol of property is a socialist belief, which PEER is. PEER was founded by a Green Party activitst. Phil Harmon's involvement in this effort disqualifies him from being part of Columbus Townhall
Read this aricle and you will see what Harmon as done.
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/editorials...105-A13-01.htmlLandowners should have more say in Darby area’s fate
Saturday, November 05, 2005
I must ask if letter writer Karen D. Joslin ("Many in Big Darby area don’t want more development," Oct. 29) had her head buried in the sand to not realize that the majority of Franklin County has been developed and, through the process of elimination, that leaves the West Side? Why would she think that one needs to be told this?
I own approximately 80 acres of land in the Big Darby Creek watershed and have been attempting to sell it for nearly six years. There has been one moratorium after another, with all of them trying to reach a plan that will be acceptable to everyone. Developers don’t own all the land in the Darby watershed; there are people like us who are caught up in this fiasco and being railroaded. While we support a broad and lasting effort to maintain the Big Darby Creek as a natural resource — after all, we live here — we still feel growth is coming.
I also attended the meeting in Hilliard with the Darby Accord, and all the scenarios indicate that my farm, which my family has owned for more than 150 years, is to be open space. It does not have the same environmental sensitivity of other areas but still should be open space.
Landowners should be talked to individually on the proposed open-space areas to determine their likelihood of selling. In return for their land rights, firm compensation must be offered to them. This compensation amount has to be at a fair residual value as if it were developable. Now we come to the sticky part: Where does the money come from to buy this land? And don’t forget: a firm compensation amount as if it were sold for development. Would Franklin County taxpayers be willing to contribute to buy each acre of land that is classified as open space at, say, $50,000 or more per acre? Just how much of this expenditure would be Joslin’s?
My family plans had been for the past 20 years to sell this land for our retirement. There are six of us, and we range in age from 56 to 73 years old. What are we to do? I asked this same question to John Tetzloff, director of the Darby Creek Association, at that meeting, and he shrugged his shoulders and walked away. We have development on three sides of our farm, with water and sewer service abutting it, and yet we can’t use it and develop? Is this fair?
Nothing in the mission statement of the Darby Accord mentions landowners’ or property owners’ rights. Few landowners have been interviewed. Who has the largest financial investment in this land? We the landowners stand to gain or lose a great deal by these decisions. None of the EDAW consultant group has a vested interest, and neither do the 10 political groups that make up the accord, except possibly for tax increases or annexation. Since we live here and own the land, why shouldn’t our opinions count for more than those setting the rules? To know and completely understand what has happened for the past six years, one needs to have followed it closely. I have 2˝ large crates of newspaper articles, letters I sent to others, including The Dispatch, programs gathered from meetings, info gathered from meetings, e-mails from more people than I can mention in Franklin County government and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the Ohio American Water Company, etc.
Here are a few thoughts written by an attorney and given to me:
• The Big Darby watershed moratoria affect only a small minority of land and landowners within the Big Darby watershed.
• The majority of the 10 political subdivisions comprising the accord have little or no territory within the watershed.
• Landowners in Franklin County are being singled out to bear the burden of the moratoriums.
• The EDAW study lacked landowner participation.
• The moratoriums violate the dueprocess clauses of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions and constitute a taking without just compensation.
• Any extension of the moratoriums beyond the current expiration dates will cause continuing, significant harm to landowners within Franklin County.
I have one last statement for Joslin: Please don’t refer to undeveloped land as "empty." Webster defines empty as holding nothing. The land is the land, and it is definitely a something; otherwise, her opinion was over nothing.
DIANNE BRADFORD
Galloway
Copyright © 2005, The Columbus Dispatch
Columbus Townhall > Forum > Politics > National > Science and Environment (Moderators: Peter, CTH Public Relations)
Topic: Phil Harmon Does Not Belong Here
