Greensboro's Abuse of Power against Heritage House Residents/ Owners: Is an SBI Investigation Warranted?

Some of us have been watching the Heritage House story unfold with concern. 

There is little question this was a tough issue for the city of Greensboro.  The multi-unit building was the subject of a series of stories in the media exposing the atrocious health and safety conditions there.  We learned of an incredible number of police calls and a large unpaid water bill.

City Councilman Mike Barber began beating his chest demanding that the city shut down the building.  Sure enough, all the residents were evacuated; and many were to face the spectre of homelessness.

I would rather have an unsafe, unhealthy home than to have no home whatsoever.

Complicating the matter is that this was not an apartment building.  Instead, it was a condominium complex where the individual units were privately owned.  I imagine that it is probably a bit unusual for the city to have to condemn a condominium complex.  But in the case of Heritage House, there were a number of absentee owners and slumlords.

It should be noted that at least some of the residents owned their own unit.

Billy Jones has been doing an outstanding job covering this story.  Check out his work here.  In any event, he posted a YouTube featuring one of the former residents within the last few days:

In addition to those rendered homeless, we have a number of homeowners who effectively have had their property taken away.

The city might attempt to justify its actions by claiming safety or health considerations.  But here is the problem.

The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to safe or healthful housing.  However, it does speak about improper seizures of property in the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And here is the 5th amendment that discusses the taking of private property:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Inspection of the 4th Amendment raises the question as to whether the seizure of the individual properties was reasonable; and whether a proper warrant had been issued based on probable cause.

The 5th Amendment raises the question as to whether the owners and residents were granted due process; and whether the owners were justly compensated for the properties that were effectively taken.

Property rights have a much firmer constitutional basis than any putative "right" to a condominium complex that is safe or healthful.

By focusing on safety and health-- and by reacting impulsively-- the city appears to have given short shrift to property rights and other constitutional protections.  There simply must have been a better way.  Proactive policing, for instance, would have emphasized problem-solving and interventions to prevent recurrent issues.

It is a great legal question as to what can be done when a homeowner's association and certain landlords in a condominium complex repeatedly shirk their obligations.  But their irresponsibility does not warrant the city violating the constitutional protections that should be afforded to owners and residents.

Perhaps there were darker motives-- on the part of the homeowners' association, the slumlords and/or the city.    It's hard to say.

But this is such an awful situation that I do not think the city of Greensboro can necessarily be trusted to clean up the mess it has created.  Perhaps it is time for the state of North Carolina to get involved.

Perhaps our state legislators from this region ought to prevail upon the leadership of the General Assembly to request an investigation by the SBI.   Breaches of property rights-- and illegal seizures of property-- are very serious matters that warrant a high level of scrutiny.  If municipalities overstep their bounds, they need to be held accountable by the state.

Comments

[Billy Jones]

Isn't it great when Liberals and Conservatives come together to fight corruption and stand up for the rights of all Americans? Your post is so dead on target.

People need to understand that Heritage House is a neighborhood consisting of 177 individually deeded properties and should have been treated as such. Instead, the City treated it as if it were 1 property. The only difference between Heritage House and any other Greensboro neighborhood is a roof and nowhere in the law are exceptions made for roofs.

Thanks as always.

[Triad Conservative]

Billy, thanks for your hard work on this topic.

As I think you pointed out, the individual units themselves were not necessarily unhealthful or unsafe. Instead, it was the common areas that were most problematic.

Also, the big question is whether the city exhausted all measures it could have taken from a policing standpoint; or from an administrative/legal standpoint against the homeowners' association and/or the landlords. Could they have arrived at another resolution with regard to the water bill?

It seems they should have exhausted every possible alternative to avoid putting people out of their homes, and taking property. That doesn't mean giving the homeowners' association a blank check for free water. Instead, it means navigating the complex relationships and somehow overcoming them.

At the very least, there should have been due process; and compensation for the owners who met their responsibilities.

[Tommy Seabolt]

Indeed, it IS time for Liberals and Conservatives alike, to link arms and stand for freedom!

[Triad Conservative]

Absolutely, Tommy.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Very good post, Joe. I've been following Billy's posts and the Constitutional issues are troubling.

The thing is (based on my own past experience in a nearby jurisdiction), contrary to popular belief, neither the SBI nor the NC AG can/will touch this case unless a local LEO asks them to.

And if the local LEO's are covering tail for the city, it's not going to happen.

The bad guys (in this case, the city of Greensboro) and their lawyers always want you to sue in civil court.

[Triad Conservative]

Mary, I wonder if that has changed now that the SBI is under the control of the Governor through his Department of Public Safety.

It would be good to know for sure what precisely can trigger an SBI investigation at this point. (I remember hearing in the past about the need for a local LEO to make the request also. What I had heard certainly is in agreement with what you suggest.)

[Billy Jones]

What I can't get over is how little interest there seems to be among the public in this story. The Constutionial issues you and I have both pointed out are astounding and yet the public at large appears to have bought the City's version of the story hook, line and sinker.

No neighborhood in America is safe should this be allowed to continue. Right now the City is working to declare Heritage House a public nuisance because of all the crime there but it is clearly the lack of police patrols that allowed the crime to go on and there's ample documentation to prove it.

This is an engineered land grab-- the 21st Century version of burning out anyone who won't sell cheap-- and the faster people come to realize that fact the safer all Americans will be.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Joe, according to the "Department of Public Safety" (SO LAME) website, the SBI has ORIGINAL (key word) jurisdiction in these areas:

Drug Investigations
Arson Investigations
Election Law Violations
Child Sexual Abuse in Day Care Centers
Theft and Misuse of State Property
Computer Crime Investigations that Involve Crimes Against Children

Heritage House is not state property as far as I know, so we are back to a local LEO requesting help.

Also, as I understand it, politicians are limited in terms of what they can do (or request) in law enforcement matters.

So again, the average (in this case, homeless) citizen would be kicked back to the $500/hr lawyers.

[Triad Conservative]

Billy, there are crime-ridden neighborhoods in Greensboro that have not been condemned. I agree with you that they used the crime issue to do what they otherwise wanted to do. I think the problems there could have been managed using other tools at the disposal of local government.

Mary, sometime I wish our county sheriff would stick out his neck and intervene when inappropriate matters such as these take place at the hands of our city government. Last year, we had the civil rights museum incident when a loan was handed over without proper papers. And now this.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Billy, I am not surprised at all.

Sixteen years ago, I thought I had rights as a public servant and physician. Laws only matter/work when they are enforced.

The general public are (is?) sheep - easily led to slaughter. They graze at their own troughs - deaf, dumb and blind to everything - until someone comes for them.