A Letter Regarding the Corrupt Manipulation of a Local Man and his Trees

UPDATE IN STARNEWSONLINE  I just heard this sad story. I hope something can be done to stop the Airport Authority. It seems they are cutting down this man’s trees on his property today. A letter below from Wes Taylor explains the situation.

Dear Commissioners, my name is Wes Taylor. I own and operate a consulting company, Sherwood Consulting Group Inc., that specializes in eminent domain acquisitions. I have been asked by my client, Mr. Charles Joyce, to contact you to insure you fully understand the gravity of Mr. Joyce’s situation with the New Hanover County Airport Authority. You may be somewhat familiar with this, by way of two stories printed in the Star News, as well as communications you may have had with the County Attorney’s Office. The purpose of this communication, again, is to insure that you have heard the whole story, and hope that upon this, you will see cause to intervene. The time is very short, and you are Mr. Joyce’s last hope for justice.A brief history of events: In 2003, a zoning ordinance was purposed by the Airport Authority and granted by the sitting Commissioners, that encumbered huge areas with Airport Residential Zoning. Within this ordinance, there is a provision for existing trees.In 2005/2006, the Airport Authority acquired, in fee simple, a FAA mandated “Runway Protection Zone”, a quadrilateral shaped area as specified by FAA rule 150/5300-13, at the end of runway 6-24. These acquisitions were required by the FAA and were backed by the power of eminent domain, as a necessity for the safe operation of the airport. A small area of Mr. Joyce’s private property was acquired in this eminent domain action (0.10 ac., the far right corner of the FAA mandated quadrilateral RPZ). Mr. Joyce, understanding that he had no choice in this matter, agreed and conveyed to the Airport Authority, through his agent, Mr. Vance Moore Jr., that portion of his private property. This area, now owned by the Airport Authority, was cleared of all structures and trees. In June of 2008, Mr. Joyce was again contacted by the Airport Authority for the purpose of acquiring an “avigation easement” across the entirety of his property. Mr. Joyce was contacted directly, and through his agent, Mr. Moore, by the same NHCAA representatives. The documents for this new easement were presented in the same format as the previous eminent domain acquisition. Subsequently, Mr. Joyce’s understanding of this new action was that this was an eminent domain acquisition, and that he had no choice but to comply. Based upon conversations with the Airport Authority, as well as, and more importantly, the first documents outlining the avigation easement forwarded to Mr. Joyce, it was his further understanding that his trees were to “only be topped” as the phrase “or topped” was plainly stated, and therefore, a viable option ( as shown in the complaint drafted by attorney Michael Davenport).In August of 2008, Mr. Joyce signed the agreement granting an avigation easement that he was led to believe, 1) was an FAA mandated action, 2) was backed by the power of eminent domain, and 3) that his trees were to only be topped. Mr. Joyce soon thereafter received the unquestioned compensation for this action in the sum of $44,800.00.It was not until Mr. Joyce spoke to some tree-cutting crews early this year that he learned of the impendin “clear-cutting” of his property. Mr. Joyce contacted the attorney Mr. Davenport. Mr. Davenport contacted me. Upon further investigation, we found the following: In speaking with Julie Wilsey of the NHCAA, she expressed that the agreement she had, signed by Mr. Joyce, and recorded in the NHC Register of Deeds Office, did not state “or top”, and thus called for the clear-cutting of the entire property. Indeed, the document presented for signing was exactly the same, except for the two word omission of “or top.”Ms. Wilsey also stated that this was a voluntary action, and that all 27 property owners contacted were fully informed and understood that they could say “NO”, and no further action would be taken against them as this particular action was not backed by eminent domain authority.Mr. Joyce contends, in his complaint, that he was never informed that he could say “NO.” Mr. Moore contends that he “does not recall” any such option provided by the Airport Authority. This “option to decline” is not expressed in any of the documentation provided by the NHCAA. However, the words “required” and “necessary” are riddled throughout. Ms. Wilsey stated that this new avigation easement was necessary for the optimal operation of a newly purchased and installed Instrument Landing System. The Wilmington International Airport has had the one ILS, as required by the FAA, for some fifteen plus years. Additional ILS’s are simply not required by the FAA, and therefore not necessary. This new ILS and the easements attempted to be obtained by the Airport Authority were all purchased with FAA grants (tax-payer’s dollars) which were to be used for necessary airport improvements. The FAA grant expires later this year. Mr. Joyce, Mr. Davenport, and I met with Airport Authority reps. at the NHC Attorney’s Office to discuss our findings and a possible solution. Mr. Joyce offered to return the tax-payer’s dollars and exercise the “opt-out” option. The Airport Authority made it very clear that they were not interested in the money, and that they had a signed agreement, all options were fully disclosed, and that they intended to cut-to-the-ground all of the trees on Mr. Joyce’s property as soon as possible. Mr. Davenport filed for a temporary restraining order to stop irreparable harm to Mr. Joyce’s property. I personally conducted interviews with the property owners in close proximity to Mr. Joyce, that I could reach on very short notice. I spoke at length with four property owners to determine their understanding of this acquisition process.ALL indicated to me that they believed this to be an eminent domain action backed by the power of the government. NONE of them indicated ANY KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER of an “opt-out” option. Three of the four signed affidavits to that effect (included in the complaint).At the TRO hearing, despite the discrepancies with the documentation, despite the absences of eminent domain backing, despite the signed affidavits (two property owners in the courtroom were never heard from), and apparently relying heavily on the reportedly “critical safety issues”, Judge Gorham ruled in favor of the airport, stating in part “that there was no mistake or fraud”, “that if the funds provided for the cutting contemplated by the avigation easement are not used before the expiration of the FAA grant in September 2009 they will revert to the federal government”, and “that the cutting required by the avigation easement is in the public interest for the safety of the public.” In no way does Mr. Joyce, a former pilot, wish to hamper the safe operation of the airport but if this were indeed a critical safety issue, why does the Airport Authority not have eminent domain backing, as they did in the FAA mandated acquisitions of 2005/2006? If all of those questioned had no knowledge or understanding of the opt-out option, does that and that alone not raise an alarm and give cause for pause?The Power of Eminent Domain is daunting and foreboding to say the least, and to allude to or represent a power you do not possess, is simply wrong. And granted, maybe there is some prestige in having an airport with multiple Instrument Landing Systems. But, if FAA grant money designated for necessary airport improvements is being used, that is to say tax-payer’s dollars, for systems and easements not mandated by the FAA how is this not a misuse of public funds?Let me be perfectly clear. This is not about some little old man and a few big old trees. These issues strike at the very heart of what it means to be a citizen of these United States, to seek shelter and relief within the Constitution, and to have that shelter guarded and relief administered by those elected and duly sworn. The occasional injustice is an inevitable by-product of such a grandiose experiment relying upon the fundamentally flawed, as we are all merely human. But it is a part of what we are to question judgment when judgment needs to be questioned. And if so compelled, it is our duty to stand and be heard. For those elected as representatives of the people, your obligation is greater still. In lieu of personal opinion, desire, or gain, you are called upon to protect and defend the rights of both citizen and citizenry, to weigh what is good against what is right. The citizen, Mr. Charles Joyce, calls upon you now. The Airport Authority will begin clear-cutting Mr. Joyce’s property on June 10. The clock is ticking. Thank you for your time and immediate attention.Sincerely, Wes Taylor, on behalf of Mr. Charles Joyce 910-520-5082