Bush Library Up In the Air- 5th Circuit tosses out judgment

by **smu diamond m** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:30 am

So I'm guessing Vodicka is still not going to take a buyout offer? Isn't his whole argument that he didn't receive fair market value for his units?

by **ponyboy** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:50 am

OC Mustang wrote: I can surmise all by myself that the answer is yes b/c of money, but in your estimation, is it all about the money, or is he irked about the project concept being a Bush library and policy institute?

A lawyer standing on principle? That's a good one.

by **jtstang** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:09 am

Vodicka is holding out ffor money, pure and simple.

And in defense of lawyers, he's acting in the capacity of a litigant, not a lawyer, when doing so.

by **ponyboy** » Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:28 am

You're a good guy lawyer of course. An exception to the rule.

by **ponyte** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:40 pm

Do we get the library or not?

by **ponyboy** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:35 pm

Of course we do. Unfortunately Vodicka may be the richer for it.

by **jtstang** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:14 pm

Do we know where the library goes? Is it on the U Gardens property? If he wanted to be a real [deleted] he could just refuse to sell....

by **Stallion** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:23 pm

I thought the Supreme Court recently ruled that eminent domain doesn't have to be reserved for strictly publc projects but can in certain situations be used for urban renewal projects that benefit the community. Based on that decision why couldn't they just eminent domain his [deleted].

by **couch 'em** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:23 pm

Can you refuse to sell something that no longer exists?

by **jtstang** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:57 pm

Stallion wrote:I thought the Supreme Court recently ruled that eminent domain doesn't have to be reserved for strictly publc projects but can in certain situations be used for urban renewal projects that benefit the community. Based on that decision why couldn't they just eminent domain his [deleted].

I did not read that opinion, but somehow I doubt that the interest of a private university would fall into that exception.

by **ponyte** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:53 am

jtstang wrote:
Stallion wrote:I thought the Supreme Court recently ruled that eminent domain doesn't have to be reserved for strictly publc projects but can in certain situations be used for urban renewal projects that benefit the community. Based on that decision why couldn't they just eminent domain his [deleted].

I did not read that opinion, but somehow I doubt that the interest of a private university would fall into that exception.

Would the archives of a former president fall into that exception? Perhaps other libraries are different, but the Clinton library is the official achieves for President Clinton's records. The records are maintained by The National Achieves.

For the Clinton Library, research is open to anyone. Of course proper request and such have to be initiated. I would assume that is true for all Presidential Libraries as all records are maintained by The National Archives. Since the records are public and are maintained by a Federal agency, would not a Presidential Library meet the definition of a public project subject to Eminent Domain?

by **jtstang** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:37 am

Eminent domain is the government's right to take your property. In this instance, it is SMU, not the government that wants the property. As I said, I have not read the case that Stallion alluded to, but I cannot imagine it authorizes a private citizen to take the property of another private citizen for the sole purpose of allowing the former to expand his improvements onto the property of the latter.

The fact that the records are kept by the National Archives does not mean that the property is owned by the National Archives. We are dealing with a real estate title issue, not an issue of use of the property.

I expect Vodicka's going to have his day in court. A new Democrat on the bench is not going to be particularly sympathetic to SMU's desire to host the library of the least popular Republican president in history.

by **ponyte** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:10 am

So it comes down to money. If so, then there is a good possibility that SMU will keep the library.

by **jtstang** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:23 am

Honestly, it's been so long since I thought about this suit, I'm not sure whether it's all about money or not. Blogster was way more attuned to this than I was so maybe he can fill in the blanks, but I think his suit was as much about declaring SMU's purchase void because of the way SMU allegedly manipulated the HOA rules, as it was about damages.

If the purchase is declared void, Vodicka will still be the owner of the property. Then we will see what his price is. Or, like I said, he could just be so pissed that he refuses to sell.

Also, you assume that the library bid is contingent on SMU getting Vodicka's property. I'm not sure that is correct. As I understand it, the library has already been awarded. I assume SMU has a contingency plan around the Vodicka problem.

by **ponyte** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:28 am

The Clinton Library faced similar obstacles. Folks refusing to sell and court orders issued but not served until demolition had already occurred. Secret City Council meetings with out of thin air decisions. Despite obstacles, the Library ended up where Clinton wanted it. I would assume that Bush has similar determination to get his Library built as Clinton did.

If so, then money and legal maneuvers will play a role. Of course this is Arkyland which may have its own set of standards not recognized in Texas.

Bush Library Up In the Air- 5th Circuit tosses out judgment

Who is online