Virginia Property Rights Coalition
Dedicated to Protecting the Rights of Private Ownership
Dedicated to Protecting the Rights of Private Ownership
All rights reserved.
| What is Happening in Virginia |
| Contact your Senator and Delegate Today! Let them know you expect them to enact legislation that protects your property rights Who is My Legislator? |
| Learn more About Us & Join Our Coalition |
| Web Master Click here to report issues involving the site |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Virginia Department of Transportation is punishing a Richmond small business
woman who is trying to recover the $52,000 a jury has already awarded her. In June
2007 VDOT confiscated a .078 acre strip of Wanda Beaver’s land, depositing less
than $7,000, which VDOT claimed was the value of her property. Mrs. Beaver would
have settled the case for $30,000. VDOT refused and the jury awarded $52,000 at
trial. Appallingly VDOT’s lawyers have billed the state for $49,884 and they’re not
done yet. Rather than pay the jury’s award of $52,000, VDOT’s lawyers are
appealing the award and while their fee continues to increase.
woman who is trying to recover the $52,000 a jury has already awarded her. In June
2007 VDOT confiscated a .078 acre strip of Wanda Beaver’s land, depositing less
than $7,000, which VDOT claimed was the value of her property. Mrs. Beaver would
have settled the case for $30,000. VDOT refused and the jury awarded $52,000 at
trial. Appallingly VDOT’s lawyers have billed the state for $49,884 and they’re not
done yet. Rather than pay the jury’s award of $52,000, VDOT’s lawyers are
appealing the award and while their fee continues to increase.
| The Anti-Kelo reforms passed by the General Assembly |
under attack from those who want to be able to take private property easily and from
their lobbyists. We must stand firm against their attacks during the 2010 General
Assembly session and hold elected officials responsible for protecting our private
property rights.
Local redevelopment and housing authorities are among the most vocal opponents
of the 2007 reforms because they can no longer take unblighted property. A blatant
attempt to avoid the General Assembly’s new definition of blight was undertaken by
the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority when it condemned the
property of Stephanie and Jay Burkholder. The Burkholders built and operated a
floor covering business that they built over 20 years into a company with 50
employees and a reputation for providing the highest-end products available in
Western Virginia. In 1999 the Burkholders acquired their property to be closer to
one of their largest clients, Carilion Health Systems. In 2001 the RRHA, under an
agreement between Carilion and the City of Roanoke, condemned the Burkholders’
property so that it could be handed over to Carilion for its own uses. Because the
Burkholders’ property was not blighted the RRHA filed its petition for condemnation
on the last day possible in 2007 to avoid the new “blight” definition.
The Burkholders refused to be bullied by Roanoke and Carilion and have fought
back, challenging the legality of the taking of their property in Roanoke City Circuit
Court. A decision from Judge Broadhurst is expected before the end of 2009.
The Burkholders’ courageous stand against the taking of their non-blighted property
deserves the attention it is presently receiving from the statewide and national
press. We wish them well in their fight, as their personal victory will truly be a victory
for all property owners in the Commonwealth.
EDITORIAL: Roanoke's eminent-domain shame
Eminent Domain: Details Regarding Roanoke’s Kelo Redux
Roanoke: Eminent-Domain Case Looks Like Kelo Redux
City's ties to Carilion questioned
Roanoke company fights housing authority for its property
their lobbyists. We must stand firm against their attacks during the 2010 General
Assembly session and hold elected officials responsible for protecting our private
property rights.
Local redevelopment and housing authorities are among the most vocal opponents
of the 2007 reforms because they can no longer take unblighted property. A blatant
attempt to avoid the General Assembly’s new definition of blight was undertaken by
the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority when it condemned the
property of Stephanie and Jay Burkholder. The Burkholders built and operated a
floor covering business that they built over 20 years into a company with 50
employees and a reputation for providing the highest-end products available in
Western Virginia. In 1999 the Burkholders acquired their property to be closer to
one of their largest clients, Carilion Health Systems. In 2001 the RRHA, under an
agreement between Carilion and the City of Roanoke, condemned the Burkholders’
property so that it could be handed over to Carilion for its own uses. Because the
Burkholders’ property was not blighted the RRHA filed its petition for condemnation
on the last day possible in 2007 to avoid the new “blight” definition.
The Burkholders refused to be bullied by Roanoke and Carilion and have fought
back, challenging the legality of the taking of their property in Roanoke City Circuit
Court. A decision from Judge Broadhurst is expected before the end of 2009.
The Burkholders’ courageous stand against the taking of their non-blighted property
deserves the attention it is presently receiving from the statewide and national
press. We wish them well in their fight, as their personal victory will truly be a victory
for all property owners in the Commonwealth.
EDITORIAL: Roanoke's eminent-domain shame
Eminent Domain: Details Regarding Roanoke’s Kelo Redux
Roanoke: Eminent-Domain Case Looks Like Kelo Redux
City's ties to Carilion questioned
Roanoke company fights housing authority for its property
| Read the November 13, 2009 Richmond Times Dispatch Column by Bart Hinkle here. |