Lawless Seattle Democrats Make to Steal Woman’s Business

The city council of Seattle saw a pay-to-park lot owned by a private landowner and businesswoman and collectively thought to itself, “ya know, it would be nice to have the income from that parking lot for our own.” And so, in the typically lawless way that Democrats operate, the city council sent the woman a note telling her that they have decided that she must hand over the land to them so that they can make the money off the parking lot instead of her. The land owner, though, saw no reason to comply, and oddly enough and a court fight ensued.

Not long ago, the city of Seattle enviously eyed the land owned by Spokane resident Myrtle Woldson dreaming its greedy little dream that the income she derived from the pay-to-park business she had on that land was theirs.

So, they asked Mrs. Woldson if she would sell them the land. But the then 103-year-old businesswoman decided that she wasn’t at all interested in selling her lot.

Yet, like all lawless Democrats, the city fathers of Seattle weren’t interested in fairness and the rule of law, so in their infinite wisdom decided to condemn her property and evoke eminent domain. The city simply decided to steal her land from her, forcibly removing it from her ownership so that the city could bolster its tax wasting ways by folding the income from the pay-to-park business into its own pockets.

Woldson took the city to court, though, insisting in her silly American way that her property was rightfully hers and the city could not just waltz in and steal it from her. It is so quaint that she thinks this is America where we the people have rights. Silly woman.

Still, the fight goes on even though Mrs. Woldson passed away this year at 104-years-old. Her estate is fighting on and good for them for doing so.

We are only inches from living in a state of nature, my fellow citizens. Take measures accordingly.

The Anti-Intellectualism, Ignorance, and Intolerance at Our American Universities
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
  • Lawrence Westlake

    This is a ludicrous post, which evidences such a lack of education and knowledge it only could get posted on a political blog. FYI, Sparky, eminent domain has existed literally since the dawn of the Republic. It was written right into the federal Constitution. States, cities and counties also have been condemning property in exchange for cash for generations upon generations. There’s nothing “lawless” about it. You have Jello for brains. They make an offer. The owner accepts or rejects it. If rejected the issue moves to court. At the end of that process the property owner gets paid, either by way of settlement or by virtue of an award. Have you ever driven on an Interstate highway in your life? Ridden on a train? Drank water from a reservoir? You should thank eminent domain for all of that. Atrocious demographics = Idiocracy.

    • warnertoddhuston

      If you are too stupid to understand the difference between the legitimate uses of Em.Dom. and the outright theft of this woman’s property for its income, you don’t belong here.

      • Brucehenry

        The city apparently needed the parking for a construction project, and not just future revenues. Once again you cry wolf, shouting wild-eyed alarmism without getting all the facts.

        Check out this link, especially the last 8 or 10 paragraphs.

        http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021929245_waterfrontparkinglotxml.html

        • Hank_M

          Just so I don’t misunderstand, you agree with what they did, Bruce? You think this was the right thing to do?

          • Brucehenry

            Not necessarily, and the situation may indeed turn out to be more like Warner is shrieking about than the rather matter-of-fact story the Seattle Times reports.

            I’m not a fan of eminent domain unless other avenues are closed and there is a clear need to proceed with it. But I don’t think it has been established that this is “theft,” which is why it’s still in the courts.

            I’m just saying Warner is only telling one side of the story — and in typically apocalyptic terms.

          • Retired military

            Bruce

            I didnt read your whole article but if they needed the parking lot for a construction project

            “to provide additional parking while the seawall and the Highway 99 tunnel are under construction”

            Couldnt they simply have included the fees that the woman charges into their budget? Or else provide block rent to her? Instead they are going to condemn a parking lot so that they can have extra parking??

            Sounds to me like the politicians simply want to take over someone’s property because it is more convenient for them than to pay her parking fees.

          • warnertoddhuston

            Exactly right and just as I said.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes she has a version and the city has a version. Neither version includes “theft.”

          • jim_m

            If the city is taking a parking lot in order to have a parking lot then it really is theft. Eminent domain was not intended to allow the government to appropriate the property of private citizens because the government covets that property. Eminent domain was crated so that the government could acquire private property and repurpose it for uses that benefited the whole of society.

            This is an abuse of power where the government is using its power to steal private property. You can defend it, Bruce, as being nominally legal, but abuse of power has never been legal and rejection of such abuse is the foundation of this nation.

          • Hank_M

            I completely agree. And to make it even more despicable, they began this process against a 103 year old woman which I tend to think weighed heavily in their decision.
            Generally speaking, the elderly are easy marks.
            As such, Warner’s outrage is justified in my opinion.

          • Retired military

            If it involves the city taking her property without valid due process than it is theft. And by valid due process I mean a justifiable reason to condemn her property other than they want that piece of land. They are going to condemn a property which is used for its intended purpose every day (per your story the lot is almost full every day) to take over the property and use it for the exact same purpose??

            How would you like them to condemn your house, pay you what they think is fair for it (what you think is fair is immaterial nor is the money, time and effort you have used to improve the property) and then turn around and rent out your house and make money off of it just because they can?

          • jim_m

            Hey, if they can’t be convicted then they didn’t do anything wrong.

          • klaffner

            Please Bruce. If someone takes your property by force and against your will, it is theft. Even if they pay you for it. Eminent domain is the one, small loop hole in the constitution that allows for legal theft by the government. That is why, back in the day, the government had a huge hurdle to get over before they could invoke eminent domain. Like an interstate or a big deal right of way for a major public use project. Now it is OK to take property for convenience and money.

          • NJ Mike

            As someone who daily exercises Eminent Domain in NJ-FOR NJ, this is a case where TYPICALLY a rental fee would be paid the property owner for the duration of the project.
            We rented several large lots post 9/11 to accomodate the diminished capacity of the trains.
            This is a situation where the City wants what they want and ain’t no law or logic gonna stop them.

          • Brucehenry

            You guys could all very well be right. My point was Warner acted as if there was no other side at all.

            I have no experience personally with this stuff, but it seems to me that any time a government wants to exercise eminent domain and the landowner objects these same arguments are used. I’m sure it DOES feel like theft in those cases but that doesn’t mean it should NEVER be used or that EVERY time it is used an injustice is occurring.

            And with Warner’s record of incendiary rhetoric I don’t feel too bad about urging a little caution before everyone makes up their minds.

          • Retired military

            Your first 2 paragraphs I agree with totally.

            And I agree with the last sentence in your last paragraph.

          • jim_m

            Careful. Bruce’s argument is that to argue that this one instance is wrong is equivalent to arguing that ALL uses of Eminent domain are wrong.

            I would argue that every time it is used there is an injustice being done. There is little justice to be found in condemning people’s property for the construction of a new interstate (I was paneled on such a jury years ago where the owner contested the settlement). In doing so you threaten people’s livelihoods, you destroy their homes which in many cases are containers of memories and dreams that are precious.

            Eminent domain was an accession to the fact that sometimes injustice must be tolerated, but that in all cases it should be contained and restricted. Abuse of eminent domain power cuts against the intent and against the grain of a civilized society that is run not only by laws but by standards of ethical conduct.

            What Bruce advocates is that we should be a country of laws only and that ethical conduct is nothing more than a fantasy.

          • Brucehenry

            You can’t fucking read. Or rather, you CAN — even reading words no one wrote. Just keep repeating what The Voices tell you, Jim.

          • jim_m

            We just had a long discussion on this issue. It is what you believe. The last paragraph is you in a nutshell (appropriately enough).

    • 914

      Have some more kool aid Clancy.. Geeze the ignorance.

    • klaffner

      It is truly scary that a citizen and voter in this country is perfectly fine with government confiscation of private property purely for its income producing capacity It is even worse that they justify their stupidity by analogizing legitimate ‘right of way’ Eminent domain as the same as outright fascist theft of someone’s property for for no other purpose other than taking it for the money that can be made from the stolen property .

    • klaffner

      P.S. the eminent domain language is in the fifth amendment. It is as follows: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

  • JWH

    I would not characterize this as “lawless.” From what I read in the Puget Sound Business Journal, Seattle’s city government has, in fact, acted legally. But “legal” and “right” are two entirely different terms.

  • jim_m

    This is legal according to the Supreme Court under Kelo. Many states subsequently passed laws to outlaw this practice, but apparently Washington was not one of them. No surprise that in yet another blue state the government is seeking to steal property from individuals so that politicians can enrich themselves and their friends.

    • Brucehenry

      Which were the many states that passed this enlightened post-Kelo decision?

      • jim_m

        I don’t have a list but here is an interesting article describing post-Kelo legislation: http://reason.com/archives/2007/04/20/post-kelo-america

        According to the article 31 states have passed some form of legislation, whether it is actually helpful or not.

        • Brucehenry

          I meant “legislation,” not “decision,” btw

          According to this link, fully 44 states passed SOME form of em-dom reform after Kelo, so that’s good, but it apparently ran the gamut from effective to cosmetic.

          http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021929245_waterfrontparkinglotxml.html

          • jim_m

            Regardless, my point was that this is apparently still legal in WA state.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes. Legal. So….not “lawless.”

          • jim_m

            Potentially legal, but still a pernicious activity, antagonistic to the ideas of liberty and personal property.

          • Brucehenry

            I actually tend to agree with you. My object on this thread was to point out Warner’s over-the-top bias for the sensational headline. The city of Seattle actually has a valid legal position and may well prevail — and probably will if John Roberts and Sam Alito have anything to say about it.

          • jim_m

            I’d like to think that there are ways to be over the top with your pejorative comments and still be accurate to the facts.

          • Brucehenry

            Of course you’d like to think that! But there aren’t. Or, if there are, Warner hasn’t found them.

          • jim_m

            Not so. One can deliver all sorts of invective and still be true to the facts. For instance, I call call you an uneducated apologist for fascism and that is spot on the truth.

          • Brucehenry

            The uneducated part is fact, the apologist part is loonybird opinion.

            Warner hasn’t found a way even if you imagine that you have. It’s not accurate to say that Seattle is “stealing” this lady’s business even though there is a dispute about whether it can legally take possession of it. Similarly, in his “Clinton Papers” diatribe, there is no evidence that the Clintons “hate and fear” the internet in the cited report. The report details how the right uses the internet as an echo chamber and suggests ways to counter this tactic. Let’s not even get started on how Media Matters is supposedly “desperate” and “fit to be tied” about pending unionization — an assertion he repeatedly makes without one scintilla of evidence.

            You can cite facts and then sling insults but Warner disregards any interpretation of facts other than the most dire and apocalyptic.

            So maybe YOU can pull off the trick you’d “like to think” is possible — though I can’t see that you ever have yet. But Warner fer damn sure can’t.

          • jim_m

            We will keep working on your acceptance of the reality of my description.

          • Brucehenry

            And yours. For example the difference between having your tax-exempt status revoked on the one hand and imprisonment on the other.

          • jim_m

            The facts demonstrate that Lerner was going after both.

          • Brucehenry

            What facts demonstrate that Lerner was trying to put anyone in prison? Links please.

          • jim_m

            Fascist apologist

            “These new emails show that the day before she broke the news of the IRS scandal, Lois Lerner was talking to a top Obama Justice Department official about whether the DOJ could prosecute the very same organizations that the IRS had already improperly targeted,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The IRS emails show Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is now implicated and conflicted in the IRS scandal. No wonder we had to sue in federal court to get these documents.”

            So the DOJ was involved with this scandal before they investigated and then declared that there was nothing illegal going on at the IRS. Of course you will find that completely acceptable because there is nothing that this government can do that you will ever criticize.

            Oh, and the penalty for the perjury charges these fascists were considering pursuing is up to 5 years in prison. I assume that your excuse for this is that no one was ever charged so the fact that they wanted to do it is irrelevant. You will always have an excuse to cover for oppression in the name of your own agenda.

          • Brucehenry

            No, the “excuse” I’ll use is that she was inquiring about people who KNOWINGLY LIED on their applications. She wasn’t attempting to put everyone who was scrutinized in prison. Perjury is perjury and is illegal and the IRS routinely refers perjurers to DOJ.

          • jim_m

            Yeah. Tell me how she would “know” what people were thinking. This is a person who illegally held up legitimate applications based on political prejudices and then extended that illegality by attemptng to have these same people (some of which have subsequently been granted their tax exempt status) charged criminally.

            Not surprising that you take without criticism the judgement of someone who there is abundant proof that she has abused her office. Not surprising at all that you will stretch to find ANY excuse to cover for fascism and corruption in the people you voted for and continue to support.

          • Brucehenry

            “Knowingly” is a word one finds in many fraud statutes, genius.

          • jim_m

            Yes, but this depends on “knowing” what future behavior would be and that future behavior is dependent upon getting that tax exempt status. If that status is refused then the subsequent behavior is irrelevant.

            So you are willing to accept a criminal investigation on the testimony of what Lois Lerner believed the future actions of the defendant would be.

            Plain and simple you are a fascist and you will excuse any infringement of people’s rights as long as it is done in defense of the fascist administration you support. You would gladly see these people put in prison for their political views and nothing else.

          • Brucehenry

            No dumbass. Sigh.

            If a group applies for tax exempt status and then engages in activity which calls that status into question, or if it applies for tax exempt status while it is engaging in activity that calls that status into question, the IRS asks DOJ to launch a criminal investigation. If it doesn’t appear that the group knowingly engaged in fraud, the matter is dropped. If it is determined that it HAS knowingly committed fraud, someone gets prosecuted.

            It’s pretty straightforward. What YOU seem to want is carte blanche to commit fraud if you have the words “Tea Party” in your name.

            God forbid the IRS look into whether someone may be cheating on their taxes, or claiming a status for which they’re not entitled, amirite?

          • jim_m

            Nope. I want the law applied equally to conservative as well as leftist ones. You want leftist ones exempted from the law (as they have been) and the law ignored for conservatives and that they should have to provide additional assurances to retain their legal rights or face criminal prosecution.

            I dare you to name a single left wing organization that has been given the same scrutiny as any of the 300 some conservative organizations and name 1 lefty org that was referred for criminal investigation.

            You can’t do it. That organization simply does not exist. You are excusing the persecution of people based on their political beliefs. Simple as that. You are supporting the beginnings of a fascist state.

          • Brucehenry

            Well which conservative organization was referred for criminal investigation by Lerner?

          • jim_m

            We don’t know…yet. But OK, I’ll make it easy. Please give us a list of 300 left wing organizations that had their tax exempt applications held up. How much are you going to push it in an effort to make political oppression OK? How much of the abusive bullshit that obama has promoted are you willing to accept when the GOP comes to power?

          • Brucehenry

            So all your wild-eyed accusations of people being targeted for prosecution is based on nothing but link after link of paranoia from the internet swamps you inhabit.

            You claim Lerner was trying to put “people” (meaning many or at least plural I assume) in prison but can’t name EVEN ONE that was so targeted.

          • jim_m

            Based on an email that was part of a FOIA request from Judicial Watch.

            Unsurprisingly, you are dismissing abuse of power on the basis of “If they cannot convict then nothing unethical ever happened”. Ever the defense of cowards and amoral assholes, this country deserves better than fascists like you.

          • Brucehenry

            No, I am dismissive of you and your wild accusations. If Lerner is guilty of something, let her be found so.

            What I am dismissive of is your conflation of what may be unwarranted extra scrutiny of Tea Party groups’ tax status with throwing folks in prison. Yet you can’t name anyone who was in jeopardy of prison.

            That’s because you’re a sputtering buffoon who can’t tell the difference between a matter of concern and an apocalypse. Here’s a clue: a molehill is an inch high — a mountain is a mile high. See the difference? Both are bumps in the ground so maybe you can’t.

            Just as you claimed “independent corroboration” of your Kennedy-met-with-Soviets bullshit because you saw several stories on the trusty internet that said the same thing, now you’re claiming somebody was in danger of prison time because of Lerner’s actions based on internet claptrap. Who was this person who was almost imprisoned? “We don’t know….yet,” says Jim the paranoid conspiracy theorist.

            On this thread you and Warner are screaming that this little old lady’s rights are being trampled. Maybe they are — but maybe, just maybe, we don’t know enough about this story to make an informed judgement. After all, not EVERY case of eminent domain is unjustifiable, is it?

          • jim_m

            Again the defense: If you cannot convict then nothing wrong happened. Your amoral excuses are tiresome.

          • jim_m

            On this thread you and Warner are screaming that this little old lady’s rights are being trampled.

            Wrong. My very first post on this thread was to say that what the government was doing WAS in fact legal. You can’t even keep to the facts on this thread. Liar.

            Your every argument is an essay in dishonesty.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes you are right on that. I get wingnuts mixed up sometimes.

            EDIT: But you also said, in that very first comment, that it was no surprise that “in another blue state, the government is trying to steal property from individuals…” And then a little later, you say, “This is an abuse of power where the government is using its power to steal property…”

            So come to think of it I was right about that after all.

          • jim_m

            Drop dead

          • Brucehenry

            What are you, 10? LOL.

          • jim_m

            Just being hopeful

          • jim_m

            I was pointing out the abuse of power, which is wrong. But then you support the abuse of power and essentially trying to do whatever you can as long as you can get away with it, because if you can’t be convicted then you never did anything wrong.

            And as RM points out, you even believe that perjury shouldn’t be illegal when it is done for your side’s benefit.

          • Scalia

            Yes, there is a difference between de facto stealing and stealing de jure. For example, if pro-life activists call abortion murder, they are not saying that abortion is legal murder because it is obviously legal in our country. They are saying that regardless the current state of law, abortion is murder as a matter of morality.

            Similarly, I see nothing objectionable with your characterization that this land grab is “stealing,” especially since you acknowledged that the act is “legal.”

          • jim_m

            Thanks. BTW I especially liked your comments regarding Sotomayor’s dissent yesterday.

          • Scalia

            I wish I could write as well as Antonin Scalia. My moniker both declares my admiration for him and my political philosophy.

          • Brucehenry

            What you are willing to bet on is not evidence that it actually happened.

          • Retired military

            You mean like Obama’s brother which got approved for a 501C whatever in a month while some tea party groups are still waiting years later?>

          • Retired military

            Unless of course your name is clinton and then perjury is just about something else and there is nothing to see here so lets move on. At least per Dem politicians.

          • superdestroyer

            IT was the liberal on the court that voted in the majoirty on Kelo. The left has always had a problem with the private ownership of real estate.

          • Brucehenry

            I stand corrected

          • jim_m

            It’s farcical to claim that the right would have voted for confiscation of private property to enrich political cronies.

            Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy,David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

            The left voted for this disaster that will some day be overturned assuming that the court is not abolished by some lefty president aspiring to dictatorship.

  • disqus_2j3OBqnkt0

    You are a compete moron and confederate dirtbag conservative.

  • Michael Lang

    Scratch wittle Brucie and out jumps a jack-booted wittle fascist.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE