Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This is a rather odd situation.
The Holmen Village Board will have at least three offers to buy the land under the Star Hill cross/star display when it meets May 8, including one bid of 12 times the value of the property.The American Humanist Association based in Washington, D.C., sent an offer to buy the land for $1,000 and included a check for the full amount. The Madison-based Freedom from Religion Foundation topped that with a bid of $1,200.
Apparently this community in Wisconsin has a 40 foot lighted cross on public property. And it turns out that they did decide on Friday to sell the cross to the Lions club for $600. Clearly the only reason they accepted that offer was so the cross could be kept on the property, since both the FFRF and the AHA would remove it if their bids had been accepted. Is there a legal case there? Good question.
Courts have generally not allowed the sale of property to avoid an establishment clause violation, but those cases have typically involved selling only a tiny portion of a public park, like just a few feet under a 10 commandments display, while leaving the government in ownership of everything around it. That is apparently not the case here, where the property appears to be on its own and they're selling the whole thing.
Comments
Seems to me that the council would be required to accept the highest bid for the parcel. If the Lions want to keep the land, let 'em put up the money. Otherwise, it's religious discrimination in selling the land.
If the same village had refused a higher bid from a black person using the lame excuse that "the village has the right to sell land to whomever it chooses", there would be riots (or at least vigorous shouting). But hey, atheists are only 3/5 of a person anyway.
Posted by: Shygetz | May 14, 2008 9:50 AM
If the cash from the sale goes into the city coffers and the city accepts a lesser bid from a party who will leave the cross up because they will leave the cross up, that's stiffing the citizens out of the best deal in order to promote the council's views.
I dont see much, if any, of a difference between that and awarding a contract to somebody who did not present the best offer for it in exchange for a kickback.
In this case the contract is the land and the kickback is getting to keep their precious eyesore.
Posted by: tincture | May 14, 2008 10:01 AM
I can think of a similar case where the sale of land was allowed (sorry, can't remember the parties), but like this, the land being sold was a significant portion of the property.
Reading the article raises an interesting point. The village has apparently only owned the property for 5 years, yet the structure was built in the 60s. So how do we deal with the constitutionality of a government entity purchasing land with a pre-existing religious symbol?
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | May 14, 2008 10:02 AM
Ed, I'm not a legal expert, and certainly don't know much about the legal subtelties of land sales, so take this with a grain of salt. (And maybe you can find some more info about it, I don't even know what terms to google.)
In Arizona, there was a case...I want to say in the late 80s...where the Federal land was being 'auctioned' to ranchers for lease for about $1/acre. The government basically accepted these prices at no bid and defaulted giving it to the ranchers. Of course, cows and the desert don't get along so well. When the Nature Conservancy (I'm pretty sure) put in higher bids to lease the land, the Feds still gave it to the ranchers. The NC filed a lawsuit and won.
There may be grounds based on that ruling (it had to do with federal land, so it might not apply directly) to force the city to accept the highest bid, so if the Lion's Club wants it, they will have to cough up the dough, and of course, the FFRF and other sources can still out bid them.
Maybe I'll shoot an email off to FFRF and see if I can find any info on that case in Az. (Any help from you legal types would also be great!).
Cheers.
Posted by: FastLane | May 14, 2008 10:31 AM
W. Kevin Vicklund: Did the Village buy the land, or was it acquired as a gift or bequest? If the Village purchased it for the purpose of making sure the cross remained in place, obviously, thats a problem. Otherwise, not so much.
Ed: When you say "slightly used," do you mean someone was crucified on it? In a liberal state like Wisconsin?
Posted by: kehrsam | May 14, 2008 10:43 AM
Let's see. A person who is selling a parcel of land accepts a bid far below the value of land, on the condition that the l;and they buy is kept as before? That the situation right?
Isn't the seller of the the land perfectly within their rights to accept any offer the seller mekes? What business do we have in proposing condtions in a private sale? Does it matter how much we might privately disagree with the use of the land? - Curious DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | May 14, 2008 10:58 AM
DJ: It is not a private sale, the Village owns the property. Therefore, the Village has a fiduciary duty to get the best deal possible. Also, in most states, the sale of public property is controlled by a statute that says essentially the same thing, with a variety of exceptions for sales to public utilities and such that shouldn't apply here.
Note that I haven't looked up the Wisconsin statute, so it might be completely different.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 14, 2008 11:05 AM
The thing is that in the eyes of the townspeople they just got bilked 600$. The council is there to represent the people's wishes which in this case is to make the largest amount of money possible for the sale.
Posted by: pascal leduc | May 14, 2008 11:09 AM
Even still. If the seller decides to sell, who are we to make moral judgements on thier motives? If you sell your Clapped out Toyota to a Christian offering far below the "market" value and you are happy with that, are we in any postion to object? Not that I condone such as sale for this reason, just for the record. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 14, 2008 11:15 AM
DJ, if you got permission from the entire body of people represented by the village council then there is no harm, no foul there. However, if instead the village council followed through with a plan of action that hurt the economical interests of the people they are set up to benefit, without prior approval, and without any evidence that they are following their appointed mandate to benefit the community first, well there's a problem there.
There would be the same problem if a board of directors of a public corporation were found to be doing something not in the corporation's best interests by acting in a similar way. In fact, most municipal bodies are set up as corporations (or corporate equivalents) and have all these responsibilities and requirements spelt out in their founding documents (including the rights, responsibilities and expectations of Board of Director members)
So ya, you want to screw yourself out of money with your own full permission? Great, enjoy! You want to screw others who you represent out of money without their permission... unethical (ironic, since they are doing this to support and promote a religion from which, they believe, flows ethical behaviour)
Posted by: kodiak | May 14, 2008 11:23 AM
DJ-
As far as I understand, the issue is not of a private party selling something. A _private_ party can sell for as little as they want. This is the issue of a _government body_ taking a low bid at the expense of the townspeople, which is quite the different story than you selling a clapped out Toyota.
Posted by: Heather | May 14, 2008 11:27 AM
Regular readers know that I am hardly a big fan of eststablished relgion but, if the community has elected these clowns, then surely they can sell land owned by the community to whomever they want. Please be advised I don't in any way support such a sale. I am just saying what do we have to do with it? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 14, 2008 11:39 AM
If the giant cross is an asset to tourism, thereby creating a revenue stream for the town, I can see choosing to sell it to a low bidder that will preserve it over a high bidder that will remove it. If the town takes that position I think it would be a very difficult to fight them.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 14, 2008 11:43 AM
DJ, I don't say that you support it*. I'm saying that from what I can see the council members are acting in an unethical way. Unless they actively got the permission of their constituents they are violating the public trust that has been entrusted to them. We may have nothing at all to do with them... but that doesn't make their actions ethical or defensible.
*and I apologize if my generic "you" in my earlier example was read as a specific "you". That was not my intent.
Posted by: kodiak | May 14, 2008 11:45 AM
Abby, I think, from recalling previous discussion about the case, that the cross isn't all that huge. It's big yeah, but not enough that people come from miles around. Not like that one in Brazil for example. I can't imagine the symbol as previously described attracting tourist dollars.
Posted by: kodiak | May 14, 2008 11:55 AM
here's a link to a story with a picture
http://www.holmencourier.com/articles/2008/03/06/news/00lead.prt
Posted by: kodiak | May 14, 2008 11:56 AM
Imagine this.
What if if the local councils in Maryland had agreed to sell land back to the original inhabitants for one dollar an acre, despite an oil company offering $5,000,000 per acre? would that be "bad" or "good"?
If an elected government makes a decision, what are the limits of legitimate protest against thier decisions? - curious DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 14, 2008 12:01 PM
This is so hilarious to me because a former (now fundy) boyfriend of mine lives in Holmen with his splattering of kids.
Municipalities are not required to take bids when they sell public property, Gill said, but if the village turns down a $1,200 offer in favor of a $100 offer, "that might be considered an abuse of discretion."
Sounds like the whole issue stems from an abuse of dscretion!
The Lions Club has made no secret of its intent in buying the property -- to preserve the star and cross display -- and neither do the FFRF and the AHA. Both say they would remove the cross display, with Gaylor saying the star would go, too.
"We would take them down, and maybe we could sell them to somebody," Gaylor said.
In order to prevent this blechy cross being erected in my neighborhood, may I make the first bid...
;-)
Posted by: Kristine | May 14, 2008 12:19 PM
The cross need not be a tourist attraction in and of itself in order to be a asset to tourism. If it differentiates to town from it's neighbors, becomes part of it's branding so to speak, that's all it takes. This sort of benefit is very difficult to quantify. So it would give the town a non-establishment, economics based argument for their decision that would be difficult to counter.
DJ, legitimate protest could include (but is not limited to) picketing, letter writing campaigns, editorials, town hall meetings, and when it rolls around, voting. But having elected officials who are slaves to the public opinion of the moment is a recipe for disaster. Does that mean that elected officials have the power to royally screw their constituents? Absolutely. But they have many incentives not to and the alternative would be even worse.
This is of course assuming that the officials are acting within the bounds of the law. If the officials are acting illegally, that's a whole new ballgame.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 14, 2008 12:24 PM
Not exactly the same thing. For one, removing an eyesore wouldn't cause the ecological harm that drilling for oil would be expected to. So a city might have good reason to turn down a higher bid from an oil company.
Posted by: tincture | May 14, 2008 12:27 PM
Believe me I am in no way supporting such a sale.
Just saying that in case anyone thinks I am some kind of fundie nutcase.
However if the people elected these (nutcase) councils, then why are they complaining when they make a bad decision? If they don't like it then protest, and finally throw them out of office, If your not in the communoty, then what business is it of yours? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 14, 2008 12:37 PM
By the council's logic, what would prevent them from selling the land for $1 to a council member, family member, or favored citizen?
I suppose they thought the $600 would provide sufficient cover for de-horning the dilemma: accepting alarmingly less money to keep the cross or accepting more and losing it. If they'd gone for much less than $600, they might have incurred the wrath of one too many tax-paying, albeit religious, citizens.
Posted by: TimB. | May 14, 2008 12:39 PM
@DingoJack
But it is their community, The United States of Jesus.
Posted by: tincture | May 14, 2008 12:51 PM
I would be pretty patently pissed to see my taxpayer dollars going to support people who pray in public, which is - last I heard - pretty much anti-Christian.
Posted by: Reginald | May 14, 2008 1:41 PM
Kehrsam wrote:
"Liberal state" might be overdoing a bit. It's more like a republican state oppressed by the liberal, twin overlords of Madison and Milwaukee.
(I'll admit it. I enjoy being a member of the ruling elite. Ha ha! Take that, rural yokels!)
Posted by: Leni | May 14, 2008 1:45 PM
Further, the reason many states have laws restricting the ability of local councils to choose a lower offer is to prevent corruption. Say MegaCorp offers $100,000 for a piece of public property for sale, but the mayor's brother-in-law wants it and can only afford to pay $25,000. While this case is not the kind of corruption, the laws--if there be such in Wisconsin, which I don't know--aren't written that narrowly, so they would apply to any such attempt to ignore the best fiscal interests of the public.
Third, perhaps Australia's different from the U.S., but here we always get upset about what other communites are doing! It's a grand part of our political tradition, because in the heart of most freedom-loving Americans is a latent fascist wanting to control others--that is, we're not genetically different than any other nation. But there's also a principle at work here, which is ensuring that all communities abide by the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. and of their own states. One of the arguments made by Southern whites during the Civil Rights movement was that race relations in the South were a southern issue, so the North should stay out of it. That argument didn't fly, and the way the southern whites used it is still echoing in this country, in that we remain skeptical of any state's claim that its potentially discriminatory actions are no-one else's business.
Posted by: James Hanley | May 14, 2008 3:30 PM
if the community has elected these clowns, then surely they can sell land owned by the community to whomever they want.
I don't think it is strictly the case that just because someone was elected means they can do anything they want.
Posted by: Coin | May 14, 2008 4:25 PM
It's been quite a few years since I've dealt with Wisconsin Statutes, but I am almost certain that there is a provision that requires a level of openness in the sale of public property. Also the question arises regarding the market value of the land, if it is above a certain limit, then they have to provide a public opportunity to bid, whether open or closed bids is dependent upon the property being sold. If they were found to be accepting a lower bid at the expense of the community, they would be open to potential charges and removal from office.
It depends on the precise wording of the statutes, as well as the council's guidelines. My guess would be that they do stand a good chance at legal action against them.
Posted by: dogmeatib | May 14, 2008 8:11 PM
According to the article that kodiak linked to, this is the story:
The display has been there since the 60s, and is maintained by the Lions Club.
The village bought the land five years ago partly to preserve the "natural beauty" (presumably the land is mostly undeveloped) and partly because it's the catchment for a water reservoir that they want to build.
Now it seems to me that if you ignore the first amendment issues associated with the fact that there's a star that's sometimes lit as a cross on it, the village is faced with the following choice: Either sell the land to a local community organisation who has been maintaining it for 40 years, or to some crowd in Washington or Madison who had never even heard about it until recently.
This is a piece of land on top of a hill that overlooks the village. What if the highest bidder had been a big property developer from out of town who planned to build a huge shopping mall? Does the village have a right not to accept the highest offer in that case?
Posted by: Pseudonym | May 14, 2008 9:49 PM
Apologies for not keeping up.
I just kept emphasising my non support, in case anyone thought I was some kind of Fundie and my "what's to you" question got lost.
Now I see, it's public land and so they can't sell it to just anyone. But in that case, couldn't they say: "Move the cross/star thingy elseqwhere, it's in the middle of a catchment area"? Here people aren't allowed into catchment area for fear of contaminating the waster supply (either delibrately or accidently) let alone build stuff there.
Here we are more NIMBYs (Not In My BackYard) so delvelopers have a tendancy to "offer incentives" to thier poilican mates. Wollongong council got sacked for this.
Also, here if a council wanted to erect an ugly, bloody great cross/star thingy on public land, the outcry would be deafening. But mostly in the local area (see NIMBY) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 15, 2008 1:13 AM