Public Power, Private Profit? Developer Forces Family Off Historic Farm With Eminent Domain
When a private developer chairs the board that seized Palizzi Farm, the lines between public good and personal gain are blurred—raising urgent questions about ethics, law, and the future of America’s
Family Farm vs. Eminent Domain: The Palizzi Case, Private Power, and the Future of American Agriculture
A 95-year-old Colorado family farm is facing its greatest threat—not from drought, pests, or markets, but from the forced hand of eminent domain. The Palizzi Farm, a fixture in Brighton since 1929, recently lost a bitter court battle against a government entity determined to cut a pipeline through their fertile fields. Despite generations of hard work and a deep-rooted legacy of providing food for the community, the Palizzi family found their land rights powerless in the face of a local government’s infrastructure plans.
At the center of this dispute is a question that goes beyond one family or one pipeline: What happens when those with a vested financial interest in development are allowed to wield the government’s power to take private land? The Parkland Metropolitan District No. 1, a quasi-municipal body, was created specifically to pave the way for a new subdivision. Sitting as its president is Jack Hoagland—a private developer who stands to benefit from the very project that forced the Palizzi family to give up their land.
What Happened to the Palizzi Farm?
The Palizzi Farm, established in 1929, is one of the last working farms in Brighton, Colorado. Generations of the Palizzi family have grown vegetables and raised crops on the same soil, feeding not only their local community but serving as a living link to Colorado’s agricultural heritage.
Everything changed when Parkland Metropolitan District No. 1—formed in November 2023 to facilitate the Bromley Farms housing development—targeted the farm for a 40-foot-wide, two-acre pipeline easement. The purpose: to construct four 48-inch stormwater drainage pipes to serve the needs of a massive new subdivision.
Despite offers of compensation reportedly double and even five times the land’s market value, the Palizzis refused. Their concern was not just about money, but about the long-term viability of their farm. The proposed pipeline route would run directly through crucial cropland, disrupting their unique flood-irrigation system and interfering with plowing, planting, and harvesting.
How Is This Legal? The Loophole of “Public Purpose” and Conflicts of Interest
Colorado law allows metropolitan districts—quasi-governmental entities often formed by private developers—to exercise the power of eminent domain for “public purposes” such as infrastructure (C.R.S. § 32‑1‑103, C.R.S. § 38‑1‑105). In theory, these powers are meant for roads, sewers, and projects that benefit the wider community.
But Parkland Metropolitan District No. 1’s situation exposes a troubling gray area. Jack Hoagland, a private developer and president of the district, presided over the very committee that authorized using eminent domain against the Palizzi family—directly advancing a project in which he has a financial stake. While the law does not expressly forbid this arrangement, it raises deep ethical concerns about conflicts of interest.
The district made two offers to the Palizzis, both well above market value. When these were refused, the district moved forward with condemnation proceedings. The court found the district had followed proper procedure, that the pipeline served a “public purpose,” and that there was no fraud or bad faith—thereby granting the taking of the land. Yet, as critics have pointed out, the “public purpose” in this case closely aligns with private development interests, blurring the intended line between public benefit and private gain.
The Controversy of Public Power and Private Profit
1. The Jack Hoagland Factor: Public Office, Private Gain
Jack Hoagland’s dual role as a private developer and president of the very district using eminent domain is at the heart of the controversy. Critics argue that this amounts to letting developers “wear two hats”—one as a businessman, the other as a government official with the power to take land. This unique arrangement is legal under current state law, but many believe it is fundamentally unfair and open to abuse.
The question is not only “can he do this?” but “should he?” Hoagland’s involvement raises doubts about whose interests are truly being served—those of the wider community, or those of the developer and his partners.
2. Impact on Farming Viability
While the district and its engineers insist the pipeline will allow farming to continue, the Palizzis argue otherwise. Their gravity-fed flood irrigation system requires at least 4–4.5 feet of topsoil over any underground structure. The district’s plan calls for only 3 feet, which would likely disrupt irrigation flow and make it difficult for farm equipment to safely operate.
The pipeline will also create permanent obstacles (“manholes” and access points) across the field, further complicating crop cycles and reducing overall productivity.
3. Failure to Consider Alternatives
Engineering testimony in court revealed there were at least 19 alternative routes or configurations that could have lessened the impact on the farm. Yet, these were not fully explored or brought to the Palizzi family for discussion. Cost and convenience—not agricultural preservation—appeared to drive the final routing decision.
4. Procedural Fairness and Transparency
The Palizzi family was not directly notified prior to the city council granting condemnation powers, and public statements minimizing the impact on farming were made without thorough, independent analysis. This has raised broader questions about transparency, community input, and the obligations of local government to protect small businesses and heritage farms.
5. Compensation Doesn’t Restore a Lost Way of Life
Although the district offered substantial financial compensation, no amount of money can replace the loss of a generational family business, community food production, and the legacy built over nearly a century. For many farmers, their land is their life—and losing it, even for “the greater good,” can never be made whole.
Changes need to be made to protect farmers.
1. Independent Impact Assessment
A third-party agronomist and irrigation specialist should be engaged to fully assess the short- and long-term impacts of the pipeline on Palizzi Farm’s productivity and viability.
2. Reroute or Engineer Alternatives
The city and district should re-examine the 19+ alternative pipeline routes and configurations, prioritizing those that minimize harm to farmland—even if they are more costly or complex.
3. Legally Binding Restoration Guarantees
If the pipeline proceeds, the district must be required to restore the land to pre-construction condition, guarantee topsoil depth, repair irrigation systems, and provide ongoing monitoring to ensure the farm remains operable.
4. Fair Compensation for Livelihood Loss
Compensation should reflect not just land value but business interruption, reduced productivity, and loss of heritage—calculated with input from agricultural economists and local advocates.
5. Policy and Legislative Reform
Colorado lawmakers should review metropolitan district powers and require meaningful, community-driven impact studies and public hearings before approving eminent domain for non-critical infrastructure projects affecting heritage farms. Most importantly, reforms must address the legal and ethical risks of allowing private developers to chair entities with the power to seize land for their own projects.
This is NOT an isolated incident.
The Palizzi Farm’s struggle is not an isolated incident—it is a symptom of a larger trend threatening small farms nationwide. As suburban expansion accelerates and eminent domain powers are increasingly wielded for development, family farms are losing not just land, but their future. The fact that private developers like Jack Hoagland can legally lead government bodies that exercise such powers only heightens concerns about accountability and fairness.
Legal authority does not always align with ethical conduct or the public good. For communities that value food security, heritage, and open space, now is the time to demand transparency, stronger protections, and genuine respect for those who feed us.
The fight to save farms like the Palizzis’ is a fight for the soul of American agriculture—and for the principle that public power should not be privatized for profit.
For further reading and sources: