PDA

View Full Version : McCloskeys lose again


OSUFan
12-13-2009, 10:21 PM
I didn't see anyone had posted this. Now, it is down to how much OSU owes the McCloskeys. McCloskeys will be lucky to break even after all the legal fees.

------------------------------------

Supreme Court: OSU can use eminent domain for athletic village

By TIM TALLEY Associated Press Writer
Published: 12/9/2009 3:15 PM
Last Modified: 12/9/2009 5:47 PM

OKLAHOMA CITY — The state Supreme Court says Oklahoma State University was authorized to use eminent domain to obtain the final piece of property needed for an athletic village in a case where the university battled two brothers over the future of their tiny ranch house.

In an 8-1 decision handed down Tuesday, the state's highest court affirmed Payne County Judge Donald Worthington's July 2007 ruling that authorized OSU to take title to the house a half-block from the school's Stillwater campus, a decision appealed by property owners Kevin and Joel McCloskey.

But the Supreme Court remanded the case back to Worthington for a jury trial on how much the university must pay for the 631 square-foot property.

The brothers, who operate a small business called McCloskey Brothers, Inc., challenged OSU's use of eminent domain — the taking of private land for a public use — for the $316 million athletic complex. They also claimed the university's Board of Regents was unconstitutional because it did not abide by a requirement that at least five of its eight members be farmers.

The McCloskeys' attorney, Harlan Hentges of Edmond, said they are considering asking the Supreme Court to rehear the case.

"The troubling thing is that your property can be taken by people who don't hold their offices lawfully," Hentges said. "You can say that law's not important if you want. But who gets to decide what laws we abide by and what ones we don't?"

The McCloskeys have maintained their home was worth more than
OSU's offers of $50,000, $54,000, $59,000 and $62,000 because of its proximity to campus and the task of finding a similar property to replace it. Their final counter to OSU asked for more than $89,000.

"OSU wants to pay less," Hentges said.

The brothers purchased the property for about $25,000 in September 2005, about the same time OSU began expressing interest in the property for an athletic village. OSU's regents filed a petition to acquire the property through eminent domain in August 2006 after negotiations broke down.

In its 27-page ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the McCloskeys' claims that the regents' actions were invalid because a majority are not farmers as required by the state Constitution. Justices ruled they were legally authorized to launch eminent domain proceedings because they were appointed by the governor and approved by the Senate.

They also rejected accusations that the regents did not act in good faith and that the McCloskeys' property was not taken for a valid public purpose under eminent domain guidelines.

Under state law, "the regents are authorized to take land for the construction of, among other things, field houses, stadiums and other revenue-producing buildings," the ruling says. "The proposed athletic village fits squarely within this stated purpose."

Although the home was bulldozed in late 2007, Hentges said the athletic complex has not yet been built.

"It's just a vacant lot," he said.

Plans for the athletic complex include an indoor practice complex, outdoor practice fields and a baseball stadium. It is due in large part to a $165 million gift from oilman alumnus T. Boone Pickens, the biggest donation ever made to an NCAA sports program.

OSU wants to eventually install outdoor practice fields where the home stood.

wood911
12-14-2009, 04:32 AM
I can't imagine what those guys were thinking. As I understand it, they were offered a substantial return on their investment and chose to fight it.

CaliforniaCowboy
12-14-2009, 05:15 AM
They were thinking they could set a precedent for the other properties that they've purchased in close proximity to the campus.

MajorMike
12-14-2009, 06:52 AM
I think it serves them right. Nothing to do with my position on OSU, but these dirtbags had insider info, tried to buy all the property around campus as possible, and then tried to act like they had the property for years and would be out a substantial investment when OSU paid above market value for it. They bought property that wuold have had to have a bunch of money sunk into them to make them viable as rentals and that's how they got them so low. The only reason they bought it was because they knew OSU was going to buy properties regardless of condition, so they bought junkers and tried to act like they were caddies.

I'd love to see how much they are actually going to lose on the whole deal; I'm sure their legal fees are pretty high.

GoPokes83
12-14-2009, 10:04 AM
It's all just vacant land now. They should turn it into a park at least, or a huge tailgating area. It'd be cool with all the streets and all those trees.

AggieSpice
12-14-2009, 10:30 AM
$89000 for a 600 square foot house in stillwater???? that's in the neighborhood of what we paid for our 1300 square foot house in midtown tulsa in 2003. give me a break!!!

Lewis the Pike
12-14-2009, 10:30 AM
I think the McCloskey are dickheads, but any use of eminent domain for utility that is not essential to a supermajority of the citizens is a dickhead move as well.

This wasn't for a waterline, power grid, grade school, municipal building, whatever, not even a university classroom. THIS WAS FOR AUXILLIARY SUPPORT FOR ATHLETES.

Neither side looks like very intelligent in this conflict.

PokesFanatic
12-14-2009, 11:15 AM
I think the McCloskey are dickheads, but any use of eminent domain for utility that is not essential to a supermajority of the citizens is a dickhead move as well.

This wasn't for a waterline, power grid, grade school, municipal building, whatever, not even a university classroom. THIS WAS FOR AUXILLIARY SUPPORT FOR ATHLETES.

Neither side looks like very intelligent in this conflict.

In its 27-page ruling...

...also rejected accusations that the regents did not act in good faith and that the McCloskeys' property was not taken for a valid public purpose under eminent domain guidelines.

Under state law, "the regents are authorized to take land for the construction of, among other things, field houses, stadiums and other revenue-producing buildings," the ruling says. "The proposed athletic village fits squarely within this stated purpose."

(emphasis added)

CaliforniaCowboy
12-14-2009, 02:44 PM
I think the McCloskey are dickheads, but any use of eminent domain for utility that is not essential to a supermajority of the citizens is a dickhead move as well.

This wasn't for a waterline, power grid, grade school, municipal building, whatever, not even a university classroom. THIS WAS FOR AUXILLIARY SUPPORT FOR ATHLETES.

Neither side looks like very intelligent in this conflict.


Yes it was Lewis... it is part of the Master Plan.. although the university classrooms won't be on this exact spot, they will be on the spots where these facilities currently exist.

Besides, you seem to be suggesting that athletics are not learning endeavors... like the golf class I took, or the tennis/racketball class I took.

osutuba
12-14-2009, 05:14 PM
Besides, you seem to be suggesting that athletics are not learning endeavors... like the golf class I took, or the tennis/racketball class I took.
<snarkattempt>You learned how to watch the ladies effectively from behind while watching their swing (golf) or during mixed doubles (tennis/racquetball), right Cali? ;)</snarkattempt>

ARPoke
12-15-2009, 08:10 AM
Some people seem to forget that this is the ONLY property out of the 87 where eminent domain was used. All the other properties were purchased through reasonable negotiation with the owners. If these guys hadn't been unreasonable in their demands (yes, > $141/sqft is unreasonable), this would have been resolved long ago.

http://osu.okstate.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=343&Itemid=90

OrangeCat
12-15-2009, 08:28 AM
Some people seem to forget that this is the ONLY property out of the 87 where eminent domain was used. All the other properties were purchased through reasonable negotiation with the owners. If these guys hadn't been unreasonable in their demands (yes, > $141/sqft is unreasonable), this would have been resolved long ago.

http://osu.okstate.edu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=343&Itemid=90

You should see the lottery some of the other folks won that DIDN'T contest the sale. They hauled a termite ridden house into my neighborhood from that area. You should see the two story the lady lives in now! She definitely won the lottery!

Lewis the Pike
12-24-2009, 08:48 AM
I would just like to point out that everyone who supports Eminent Domain, in turn supports "Big Government", and in turn.....supports Barrack Hussein Obama.

I guess "Change" even happened in a red state.

;)

jaredddick
12-24-2009, 09:14 AM
I would just like to point out that everyone who supports Eminent Domain, in turn supports "Big Government", and in turn.....supports Barrack Hussein Obama.

I guess "Change" even happened in a red state.

;)

You are an idiot.

Lewis the Pike
12-24-2009, 09:51 AM
You are an idiot.

how so?

:party-smiley-018:

jaredddick
12-24-2009, 10:08 AM
how so?

:party-smiley-018:

Because you are relating the fifth amendment to "Change".

Lewis the Pike
12-24-2009, 01:49 PM
you like eminent domain and big government....when it suits your desires.

My convictions are a little different than yours. I'm not saying whose better or worse. And I am not the one calling people names.

wickerbill
12-25-2009, 11:52 AM
What's funny is the McCloskeys love eminent domain. That's the only reason they bought that property. They were just hoping to get more money out of it. That's the ONLY reason they fought this much.

CaliforniaCowboy
12-26-2009, 05:21 PM
I would just like to point out that everyone who supports Eminent Domain, in turn supports "Big Government", and in turn.....supports Barrack Hussein Obama.

I guess "Change" even happened in a red state.

;)


That is just flat out not true Lewis.

I understand the need for Eminent Domain and the need for it in the instance for public good.. but I do not support the recent Supreme Court ruling (5-4 BTW) that allowed the government to take private property and give it to other private citizens... that was just flat out wrong.

So, you see, Lewis, you can support and oppose the CONCEPT, and not be for big government.

And, for the record, big government does not mean the acquisition of more land, it is a term most often used to describe new agencies and bloated administration.

Jonno
12-28-2009, 09:40 AM
I think the McCloskey are dickheads...

And I'm not the one calling people names...

I'm not saying what side of the fence I land on but let's keep things honest here.