“seize – 1 to put in legal possession of a particular thing; assign ownership to; 2 a) to take forcible legal possession of; confiscate”
– Webster’s New World Dictionary

“seize – 1. To forcibly take possession (of a person or property). . .3. To be in possession (of property).
– Black’s Law Dictionary

“seizure – The act or an instance of taking possession of a person or property by legal right or process.”
– Black’s Law Dictionary

Above are the dictionary definitions of the word “seize” and “seizure.”
Those words are a completely accurate description of what the village did on July 1, 2003 when it decided to take control of the old fire hall.
Oxford Village President Steve Allen stated in his opinion piece last week that he doesn’t believe the word “seize” was an appropriate or accurate description of what took place that day.
He claims the word was only “coined by the print media” for “shock” value and the village didn’t “seize” the building.
Allen wrote that “the Village was exercising its control over the real property that it rightfully owned.”
This newspaper used the word “seize” to accurately describe the village’s action.
The village changed the locks on the old fire hall and is the only entity in possession of the means by which to enter the old fire hall.
The day of the “seizure” Allen told me that village attorney Bob Bunting (a.k.a. the Minister of Billable Hours) “advised us retake possession of what we rightfully own.” Even Allen’s column refers to it as “retaking control of the old fire hall.”
The village’s actions and statements fit the definition of the word “seize.”
The village’s action was a “seizure.”
The word is not meant to “shock” readers, as Mr. Allen seems to believe, it was simply meant to be an accurate description of what happened.
Two other newspapers, The Oakland Press and Oxford Eccentric, also repeatedly used the word “seize” to describe the situation.
Here’s what those papers wrote (Caution: I have bolded the offending word for extra “shock” value):
n Headline: “Village seizes old fire hall in dispute with township” (July 3 Oxford Eccentric)
n “The Oxford Village Council on Tuesday seized control of the 5,000-square-foot building, changing the locks and taking over the utility bills.” (July 3 Oxford Eccentric)
n “The old fire hall on Burdick in Oxford was seized last week by Oxford Village in a mistaken gesture of bravado.” (July 10 Oxford Eccentric)
n “Last week the village seized the old fire hall.” (July 10 Oxford Eccentric)
n “Oxford Village officials seized control Tuesday of the former Oxford fire station, in the parking lot behind the Oxford village and township offices.” (July 2 Oakland Press)
n “Allen. . .said village attorney Robert Bunting suggested the village seize the building.” (July 2 Oakland Press)
n “The seizure, Allen said, ‘means that there was no lease that had been executed.’” (July 2 Oakland Press)
Amazing, three different newspapers with three different reporters all got the same story wrong.
Let’s move on to Mr. Allen’s statement that, “As an additional courtesy, Manager Slown DID contact OPFEC Chairperson Bill Dunn prior to taking action.”
This newspaper, as well as the Press and Eccentric, reported that township Supervisor Dunn first learned of the SEIZURE while attending a July 1 morning meeting at the new fire hall on M-24.
On that morning, Fire Dept. Administrative Assistant Margie Payne said she received a telephone call from Fire Chief Jack LeRoy informing her that the village was seizing control of the old fire hall.
LeRoy told me Slown informed him on the morning of July 1 of the village’s intent to seize the old fire hall later that day. The chief was on vacation when he was notified of the impending village action.
So much for Allen’s claim that LeRoy was contacted “well in advance.”
Payne told me she then informed Dunn about the village’s action as well as Treasurer Joe Ferrari, who was also at the meeting.
“If Bill (Dunn) already knew about it, he sure seemed surprised (by the news),” Payne said.
Ferrari said Dunn “acted pretty surprised” when he heard the news from Payne. The treasurer said Dunn stated that it was the first he’d heard of it
Ferrari said Dunn stated he would “look into” the situation and “do some follow-up” after the meeting.
After the meeting, Dunn said he later telephoned Allen to confirm what he had heard from Payne.
Dunn said Slown never personally contacted him about the seizure, either before or after it happened.
Here’s what Slown said happened – “At 10 o’clock in the morning (on July 1) I went to Bill Dunn’s office. (Deputy Supervisor) Deanna Burns was sitting there. I said, ‘Is Bill in?’ She said, ‘No, he’s at a meeting. He’ll be back in an hour.’ I said, ‘I have information for him that were going to be changing the lock in the fire hall later today. Please let him know.’ She said she would. And if he has any questions, I will be available. That’s what happened.”
Burns verified what Slown said and told me she called Dunn on his cell phone after the village manager left, but found out the supervisor had already heard the news from someone else during the fire meeting. Moving on. . .
Allen’s claim that “the Village has paid the insurance on the building from Day 1 and is the ONLY named party as payee in the event of loss” is only half true.
It’s true the village does have its own insurance policy on the building.
However, according to both Payne and LeRoy, OPFEC also pays insurance on the old fire hall and is listed as a payee in the event of loss.
There’s old saying that “truth is stranger than fiction.” To that I would add “And Steve Allen’s version of the truth is the strangest of all.”
Note: Should Mr. Allen respond to this column with a letter to the editor next week, it will be the final word on the matter. I have no intention of turning this into a endless back-and-forth debate in print. My only intention here was to clarify Mr. Allen’s “facts.”