Abusive Colorado County Looks To Eminent Domain A Couple’s Land

When we talk about “Big Government”, this is the kind of thing we’re referring to. Not necessarily about the size, but about the scope, the power, the domineering, and the abuse. Andy and Ceil Barrie bought a 10 acre piece of property deep in the heart of the White River National Forest. Legally purchased. Then Government decided to rear their ugly fascist head

(Fox News) Now the county government, alarmed that the couple drives their ATV up a 1.2-mile old mining road to the cabin, wants to take the Barrie’s land — and it’s doing so by claiming eminent domain. Rather than using the practice of government seizure of private property to promote economic development, the county is using it to preserve open space.

The move shocked the Barries. They have allowed hikers to travel through their property, had no plans to develop the land and were negotiating with the county at the time it moved to condemn the property.

Open space “is all it’s ever been,” said Andy Barrie. “I feel like I can’t trust my government.”

Would it surprise you that all three county commissioners are Democrats?

Summit County Attorney Jeff Huntley said the county had to act after the Barries insisted on being able to use motorized transport to get to the cabin. “People in this community are very intent on preserving the back country,” he said.

Act? Only in Liberal World. The US Forest Service said they couldn’t use the ATV to access their property, because they said so. Despite the USFS probably driving around the part in trucks and on ATVs themselves.

The county commissioners voted to condemn the property on Oct. 25, endorsing a staff report that found that “public motorized access” to the property could damage the alpine tundra and streams, as well as habitat for the endangered lynx.

Did I mention that the County Commissioners are Democrats? And what about the government doing the same with motorized vehicles? The Barrie’s paid $550,000 for the property, including the tiny cabin and ATV. This is what it looks like, via The Blaze, which also carries this AP story

The county also complained that the previous owner had “illegally” added a second story. To a legally owned property. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Government can seemingly do whatever it wants on a whim, based on their feelings. And screw the Citizens.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Abusive Colorado County Looks To Eminent Domain A Couple’s Land”

  1. Jeffery says:

    “eminent”, not “emminent”, and eminent domain was not invented by or used exclusively by liberals.

  2. Thank you Grammar Policia Jeffy. Do you have anything adult to contribute?

  3. Trish Mac says:

    I sure hope they get a good lawyer, and that this doesn’t go forward! What a crock this is. I am feeling Atlas shrugging in so many ways and am witnessing abuses I never thought could happen in my country.

  4. We can only hope, Trish.

    And it’s funny, there was a time when liberals would have stepped up and stood bythese people being bullied by The Man. Now they cheer for the government. Look at Jeff’s response, a whiny ass Grammar Policia comment, nothing about the plight of citizens being bullied by government.

    He’s cool with it, since it isn’t him. Liberals are very selfish.

  5. Trish Mac says:

    Exactly Teach, where are the 60’s radicals fighting for our rights now? Blowing in the Obama wind…

  6. […] and you’ll never guess which party controls the county that wants to take the Barrie’s […]

  7. gitarcarver says:

    The issue of the “illegal” second floor may be one of permitting. For me, that issue would turn on what permits were required. If the permits required the town to approve the design as far as height, materials or facades, I would be against that. If the permits were to protect both the current owner and future owner from “hidden dangers,” I don’t have much of an issue with that. For example, even after copper wire was mandated across the country because aluminum wire was causing fires, less than honest electricians were still installing aluminum wire. That is something that the average homeowner can’t see or understand when the thing is being built, much less when the second owner comes in and the wiring is sealed in the walls. Similar issues such as roof pitch, load bearing, etc may result in a legitimate reason for people to have a permit. Other issues such as aesthetics and that don’t present a safety issue to current or future owners should be told to screw off.

    The difference between conservatives and liberals on eminent domain is that conservatives use it for the public good ie roads, etc. Liberals want to use because they are “offended” that someone is using their property without harming others.

  8. Jeffery says:

    I thought it was a Teachable moment: you wouldn’t want folks to regard you as a jimhoft-like semi-literate, would you? I didn’t think so. I didn’t call you names or anything, I just advised you that your headline had a misspelled word. You’re welcome.

    Well-to-do Chicago city slickers (and we know what bullies Chicagoans are) buy a parcel of land marooned in the middle of a national forest in Colorado so they can have an escape. Obviously they have an easement (enforced by the govt, by the way) allowing them access to their stranded property. They decide to drive a noisy ATV through someone else’s property and get themselves in trouble with the locals in the process. They’re also suing the sellers of the cabin. What happened to personal responsibility? To due diligence? I suspect there is more to the story.

    What is the far-right position on easements, zoning laws and local building codes? Are they government overreach?

  9. Jeffery says:

    Teachy typed: “Thank you Grammar Policia Jeffy. Do you have anything adult to contribute?”

    Is correct spelling not adult? I also pointed out that your take on eminent domain was flawed. But, duh. Your take on most issues of the day are flawed.

  10. gitarcarver says:

    Well-to-do Chicago city slickers ….

    Here we go. The couple has no rights to their property because they are successful. Once again liberal envy of those who are successful raises its ugly head.

    (and we know what bullies Chicagoans are)

    We know that some Chicagoans are bullies (ie Rahm Emmannual, President Obama, etc) but that does not mean that all people from Chicago are bullies. So the second part of the liberal attack is in place – condemning people based on other people’s actions without ever establishing that the couple are bullies.

    Obviously they have an easement (enforced by the govt, by the way) allowing them access to their stranded property.

    So people shouldn’t use roads that are established and maintained with public funds?

    They decide to drive a noisy ATV through someone else’s property…..

    There may be an easement or a federally owned right of way. There is a difference and without knowing, your claim of “someone else’s property is conjecture at best.

    ….and get themselves in trouble with the locals in the process.

    Actually, there is no evidence that the ATV was “noisy.” For all we know the ATV was an electrically powered vehicle. Why is it that liberals make up stuff to try and pass those fallacies off as “facts?”

    Secondly, the couple got in trouble with the Feds first. In the process of resolving that issue, the local government decided to step in and instead of addressing the issue at hand decided to try and seize the property.

    Is it your contention that the couple does not have the right to seek redress with the Federal government? Is it your contention that because someone doesn’t like something, the government can seize property?

    They’re also suing the sellers of the cabin. What happened to personal responsibility? To due diligence?

    I am sure you realize that contracts for property assert that the title is clear and that there are no legal issues with the property.

    If the couple was sold the cabin that was not legally erected and it was presented as being so, they have a claim against the seller for fraud. Furthermore, the couple has said they will tear down the cabin if that is what it takes. So the couple is only seeking to be made whole for the alleged illegal actions of the previous owner.

    However, none of that matters one iota to the fact that the local government is seeking to seize property as part of retribution for the acts of the couple that the county doesn’t like and has no jurisdiction over.

    Is correct spelling not adult?

    On the internet it considered to be a childish attempt to divert the discussion from anything meaningful.

    Thank you for proving that point.

    We should also thank Jeffery for showing how liberals hate success, hate people who want to live in peace, hate those who don’t harm others, hate those who can’t be controlled, hate those who challenge the government and hate those who rely on the Constitution.

Pirate's Cove