Candidate Marostica Sends Out Absurd Mailer
Misrepresenting His Position on Eminent Domain
On March 16, 2004, then City Councilman Don Marostica seconded a motion to impose
Eminent Domain on the Hein family property in Loveland.  Despite pleas from the family
and the public, Marostica was active in trying to assist a fellow developer (KB Homes of
California) obtain through government fiat what they were either unwilling or unable to
obtain from the proper owners through normal means.

The issue involved the proposed Aspen Knolls development on Taft where a developer
decided to build but didn't have enough property adjacent to Taft for the turn lanes.  Instead
of scaling back the density or obtaining the needed easements through fair compensation of
the adjacent property owners, the developer sought help from elected city officials like
Marostica instead.

Ignoring public pleas for respect of individual property rights, Marostica voted to condemn
private (not abandoned) property for the sole purpose of facilitating a fellow developer's
project to proceed.  The easement wasn't required since nothing had been built yet, but in
order to maximize developer profit by densely populating the project, a better access in and
out of the property from Taft was required and nothing but individual property owners were
in Marostica's friend's way.

On July 12, now House District 51 candidate Marostica, sent out a flashy color political
mailer saying:

"Don believes in private property rights and will fight to strengthen the
rights of the individual property owner.....Don favors eminent domain
only for truly legitimate public purposes, such as roads."

The spin you will hear from Marostica is the following:  The property was only being used
as roadway to access the develpment - therefore, the actual property was going towards a
city use instead of private development.  As an example, Marostica must believe that any
house in the city of New London taken for private development that happened to stand
where a future access road in or into the development was needed is OK to take using
eminent domain.  In either case, Marostica decided the private property owners in
Loveland didn't deserve to keep their land if a developer needed it to widen the access to
his development even before it was built.