Delores wrote on Mar 17, 2006 4:50 AM:The city used eminent domain to take land for a specific purpose. The city never used the land for that purpose. Now the city wants to treat the land as an investment. But the city never would have orginally used eminent domain to acquire land as an investment. This activity by Escondido is nothing less than legalized theft. The Escondido City Council should be ashamed of their outrageous behavior in this matter.

marilyn wrote on Mar 17, 2006 11:12 AM:I have rarely been so ashamed as I am by this action of the Escondido City Council, their Attorney, and quotes by our Mayor, whom I usually support fully. Where does it say that the City should take land by emminent domain and then, not using it for the project planned, be able to profit from the action? This is wrong and should not be allowed. The family should pay property taxes for the time while the City of Escondido wrongfully held their property, but who is to say that this family would have had the ability to put the money to work and earn much interest at all? Who is responsible for the trees that were lost? Who is responsible for the legal bills, the upset for the family? Can the government take land by emminent domain? Yes. BUT it is morally WRONG WRONG WRONG to take it, not use it, and then sell it to a developer! I am embarrassed and ashemed of our City Government, and hope the family which lost its property will continue its struggle to regain its land rightfully.

Mike wrote on Mar 17, 2006 11:46 AM:The city had 7 years to use the land for the purpose that they acquired it for. If it isn't use for that purpose then the city is to offer it back to the sellers at the price that it was sold for. If that isn't done then the city is going against the law. What else does the city attorney have to look at?

Bryan wrote on Mar 17, 2006 12:25 PM:Right. Only a government office can bully it's way around, force people off of their land and then try to make a profit on it 7 years later. Wow! Something wrong here. City Council you should GIVE the land back to these people.

Angry but not surprised wrote on Mar 17, 2006 1:55 PM:Was it a unanimous vote? Or is this even done by vote? I want to be sure I know which members of the council make decisions like this. It shows a total disrespect for all of us. Escondido seems to be in a downward spiral. I hope the rest of you will be paying as close attention to the next election as I will.

Disgusted wrote on Mar 17, 2006 2:49 PM:This is theft. How can the Escondido City Council stomach this? I hope the owners challenge this in court. So they can take someone's land, then resell it to a developer, and keep the profit, all under the guise of being fiscally responsible to the citizens of Escondido? When will your land be next?? Disgusting.

Dane wrote on Mar 17, 2006 4:29 PM:Alert to Escondido residents - Find out which council members reject doing the moral, correct thing in selling this land back to the owners (it should rightfully be given back at no cost for the aggravation caused), and DO NOT VOTE for them when the run for re-election - vote for their opponents who speak out against this travesty. You can be sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, i.e. if it was their land effectively stolen from them by the city, they wouldn't have voted the way they did. If the mayor supports not selling the land back to them at the low fee, vote her down as well. I also hope the family takes this to court. To the NCT - You have a great opportunity to have this story gain more widespread visibility if you can push to the national news.

GOD FEARING wrote on Mar 17, 2006 4:52 PM: THE CITY COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE MAIN COUNCIL ONE DAY !

Sell it Back! wrote on Mar 17, 2006 5:49 PM: What seperates a bank robber from a city council member here in Escondido? They can do it under a legal umbrella,and call it "eminent domain",and get away with stealing. Like other's,I also would like to find out who is responsible for this,and get them the media coverage they deserve.

AJ wrote on Mar 17, 2006 7:18 PM:Sell it back. You'll still make money out of this deal.

Susan wrote on Mar 17, 2006 7:24 PM:This isn't an eminent domain issue folks. The family agreed to sell the land to the city BEFORE eminent domain proceedings. Eminent domain never took place. The city did the right thing by offering the family first dibs on buying the land back - and at less than market value.

Dane wrote on Mar 18, 2006 9:34 PM:Susan - Unless the article is in error, this WAS part of an eminent domain process - "city purchased as part of an eminent domain process nearly a decade ago." The city failed the citizens on this one.

Pepper wrote on Mar 19, 2006 10:54 PM:We need a new city attorney. The current one is the Mayor's lap dog.

Old Salt wrote on Mar 20, 2006 4:44 PM:I can't believe Pepper got this past the censors. When the Mayor leaves, maybe her little dog will too. But this might cause a problem for the Wizard.

fred wrote on Mar 22, 2006 9:56 AM:Over paid yes{200K per year], but lap dog?

Alarmed wrote on Aug 1, 2006 10:43 AM:Escondido is being run by a band of theives. Residents of Escondido need to take notice and put a stop to the damage before it's too late.