Eminent domain deadline comes, but family stays put...

[Chicago526]

I've always been against eminant domain for all but the most nessesary reasons (like highways). In this case, I am against it as well. If the place is an eyesore, then go after it for code violations and possible EPA violations. Otherwise, if anyone, government or buisness, wants the land, make and offer and negotiate.

That said, I've always beleived into going to the source for these kind of things. Here's the text of the 5th amendment of the US Constitution. It looks like it IS allowed, the goverment can take your property as long as they compensate you for it!

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[bevtoy]

Just compensatrion was my whole point.

 

[NewJersey]

I won't say I'm against imminent domain in all cases. I think there are cases where it is necessary, i.e., public transportation, the public good, etc.

But for "open spaces"? Please If the government wants open spaces, then let them offer enough money that the property owner will sell. And to use it to keep a property owner from selling to whom they want to sell (Wal-Mart seems to be the favorite whipping boy at this point) is just wrong, IMO.

Wait a minute, you come down on me for anything I have said back to you and you say this? This is totally hypocritical on your part. You said back on page 2 I believe:

And that's the problem I have - people deciding that land belonging to other people would be better if it belonged to "everyone".

Socialism at it's best.

But oh okay, I see now what you really meant. When *you* decide if the land is better fit for everyone, then eminent domain is necessary. Who are you to judge whether open space or a new train station is better served for the community?

 

[Teejay32]

That said, I've always beleived into going to the source for these kind of things. Here's the text of the 5th amendment of the US Constitution. It looks like it IS allowed, the goverment can take your property as long as they compensate you for it!

Yes, following the rule of law, which is usually laid out in state constitutions. I'm not for or against eminent domain itself, because for every private property owner today who's getting railroaded, there was (or will be) a slumlord, a polluting company or developer who makes government interference a positive force.

But right now the problem is with municipal boards who are interpreting parts of eminent domain laws to the fullest, so that any use is "public use", and every modest neighborhood is a potentially "blighted" one that would be better off redeveloped. Laws can be passed putting more restraints on government...which probably should be written "the government can pass more laws to restrain the government"...which ain't gonna happen without a tidal wave of public fury.

 

[ducklite]

Anne, don't think for a second that if the government wanted to grab up your property, and your entire neighborhood for that matter, so they can build a superhighway, that you're protected. It can happen and it does, all the time.

Whether you have a nicely manicured lawn or not, if the gov't wants your space, they can and will take it.

Given that thought, I'm schocked that anyone would support this.

Frankly if they wanted to take it so that I made that kind of a profit, it's all their's, I'd move on. I don't get as emotionally wrapped up in real estate as some people do I guess. To me, real estate is the same thing as a bank account. As long as I profit from it in the end, it's nothing more than collateral.

Anne

 

[noodleknitter]

Frankly if they wanted to take it so that I made that kind of a profit, it's all their's, I'd move on. I don't get as emotionally wrapped up in real estate as some people do I guess. To me, real estate is the same thing as a bank account. As long as I profit from it in the end, it's nothing more than collateral.

Anne

To some it isn't real estate, but heritage and family. Our land has been in the family for 175 years. The original part of the house is 15 in. logs. It is a treasure to us. On the other hand there are many that think our valley should be flooded so a bunch of littering fools would have a closer place to jet ski.

Our land will not be willingly sold in our generation, and our children are making memories of a lifetime, and hopefully will not sell out for a mere profit. There is much more to life than a buck.

 

[BuckNaked]

Wait a minute, you come down on me for anything I have said back to you and you say this? This is totally hypocritical on your part. You said back on page 2 I believe:



But oh okay, I see now what you really meant. When *you* decide if the land is better fit for everyone, then eminent domain is necessary. Who are you to judge whether open space or a new train station is better served for the community?

No, it isn't "me" deciding anything. There has been long standing precedent for using iminent domain when a real public interest is being served. Unfortunately, thanks to people like you in our legislatures and courts, the narrow scope of iminent domain is being expanded such that it is now considered reasonable to take people's land for something as ridiculous as "open space".

I believe there are legitimate cases where iminent domain comes into play, with public transportation being one of the biggest. However, I believe the bar should be set extremely high, and there should be a very real and very tangible public interest being served.


But for an "open space" or to keep out a retailer that you personally don't like? The situations aren't even comparable, sono, I'm not being hypocritical.

 

[roger_ramjet]

I have to agree with those on here disputing the government's actions. I don't care whether the place is falling into a hole in the ground - it is their property and the government has no right to seize it simply for open space. And I am a huge advocate of open space for planning purposes, but the county needs to PLAN for that sort of thing instead of seizing someone's land when they realise they've foolishly run out of space after selling out to developers.

As others have said, there are better ways to bring the housing 'up to code' - the EPA and other agencies have regulations regarding such things. Even then, it's nobody's place to mandate the condition of someone's property, as it belongs to no one but the owners. If they want to live in a hazardous mess then that is their problem.

 

[LuvDuke]

Yes, following the rule of law, which is usually laid out in state constitutions. I'm not for or against eminent domain itself, because for every private property owner today who's getting railroaded, there was (or will be) a slumlord, a polluting company or developer who makes government interference a positive force.

But right now the problem is with municipal boards who are interpreting parts of eminent domain laws to the fullest, so that any use is "public use", and every modest neighborhood is a potentially "blighted" one that would be better off redeveloped. Laws can be passed putting more restraints on government...which probably should be written "the government can pass more laws to restrain the government"...which ain't gonna happen without a tidal wave of public fury.

Exactly! These out-of-control governments are redefining, to the nth degree, the basis for seizure of land. And, in our local case, the out-of-control government created the very condition, blight, that they used as an excuse.

 

[RickinNYC]

Frankly if they wanted to take it so that I made that kind of a profit, it's all their's, I'd move on. I don't get as emotionally wrapped up in real estate as some people do I guess. To me, real estate is the same thing as a bank account. As long as I profit from it in the end, it's nothing more than collateral.

Anne

Ok, so say your house and property are valued at $400,000 and you know it for certain based upon current market price in your township. Yet the government is only going to pay you $92,000 and not a penny more for it, and you don't have any choice. There is no profit there, right? If there is a profit that I'm not seeing, then by all means, show me and I'll apologize.

If that family's land, admittedly a sorry eyesore and downright disgusting if not repulsive, is valued at $17mm and is only getting $4mm, how is that a profit? I think I already know what you're going to say. It was in the family, they inherited it, they didn't have to pay a dime. That doesn't matter. It's still their property.

You're saying that you'd happily accept only 23.5% of the value of your property because the gov't deemed it was fair in their estimation?

 

[LuvDuke]

Ok, so say your house and property are valued at $400,000 and you know it for certain based upon current market price in your township. Yet the government is only going to pay you $92,000 and not a penny more for it, and you don't have any choice. There is no profit there, right? If there is a profit that I'm not seeing, then by all means, show me and I'll apologize.

If that family's land, admittedly a sorry eyesore and downright disgusting if not repulsive, is valued at $17mm and is only getting $4mm, how is that a profit? I think I already know what you're going to say. It was in the family, they inherited it, they didn't have to pay a dime. That doesn't matter. It's still their property.

You're saying that you'd happily accept only 23.5% of the value of your property because the gov't deemed it was fair in their estimation?

You won't need to apologize because your reasoning and facts are dead on. One of the most difficult things to defend against is an honest broker.

 

[NewJersey]

No, it isn't "me" deciding anything. There has been long standing precedent for using iminent domain when a real public interest is being served. Unfortunately, thanks to people like you in our legislatures and courts, the narrow scope of iminent domain is being expanded such that it is now considered reasonable to take people's land for something as ridiculous as "open space".

I believe there are legitimate cases where iminent domain comes into play, with public transportation being one of the biggest. However, I believe the bar should be set extremely high, and there should be a very real and very tangible public interest being served.


But for an "open space" or to keep out a retailer that you personally don't like? The situations aren't even comparable, sono, I'm not being hypocritical.

Sorry buddy, you're being a hyopcrite, even if your "standards" are set "extremely high." You said you find it disheartening or whatever when people think someone's private property is better off used by everyone. Yet, you see that fitting only when you decide, err I mean courts, that that land which was held privately is better off used by the community for public transportation. You said it's wrong for me to want that private land used for the community as open space, but you don't find it wrong for that private land used for mass transportation for the community.

Call it what you want..it's hypocrisy.

 

[ducklite]

Ok, so say your house and property are valued at $400,000 and you know it for certain based upon current market price in your township. Yet the government is only going to pay you $92,000 and not a penny more for it, and you don't have any choice. There is no profit there, right? If there is a profit that I'm not seeing, then by all means, show me and I'll apologize.

If that family's land, admittedly a sorry eyesore and downright disgusting if not repulsive, is valued at $17mm and is only getting $4mm, how is that a profit? I think I already know what you're going to say. It was in the family, they inherited it, they didn't have to pay a dime. That doesn't matter. It's still their property.

You're saying that you'd happily accept only 23.5% of the value of your property because the gov't deemed it was fair in their estimation?

Based on current zoning the farm is worth less than $4 million. For it to be worth anywhere near $17 million it would ahve to be rezoned.

The value was based on the land at current zoning and the value of the "business" of which there really wasn't one. There's no guarantee that zoning would ever be changed for the land to be valued at the higher value, so why should they get the higher number based on sheer speculation?

Anne

 

[Geoff_M]

Based on current zoning the farm is worth less than $4 million. For it to be worth anywhere near $17 million it would ahve to be rezoned.

However, the new "owners" would have the power to make that change happen... and presto! it's a $17M piece of land. This is probably one of the reasons the jury went with the higher figure.

 

[BuckNaked]

Sorry buddy, you're being a hyopcrite, even if your "standards" are set "extremely high." You said you find it disheartening or whatever when people think someone's private property is better off used by everyone. Yet, you see that fitting only when you decide, err I mean courts, that that land which was held privately is better off used by the community for public transportation. You said it's wrong for me to want that private land used for the community as open space, but you don't find it wrong for that private land used for mass transportation for the community.

Call it what you want..it's hypocrisy.

Oh sweetie, don't get so upset just because someone disagrees with you. Take a few minutes and go unwad those panties before you hurt yourself.

I didn't limit the "takings" to public transportation, but that is a precedent that is pretty set in stone. Public transportation or roads benefit most if not all of a community, unlike your ambiguous "open space".

But if you choose to believe I'm a hypocrite, please have at it. Doesn't make it true of course, but if it will help you calm down, then by all means, do it!

 

[NewJersey]

Oh sweetie, don't get so upset just because someone disagrees with you. Take a few minutes and go unwad those panties before you hurt yourself.

I didn't limit the "takings" to public transportation, but that is a precedent that is pretty set in stone. Public transportation or roads benefit most if not all of a community, unlike your ambiguous "open space".

But if you choose to believe I'm a hypocrite, please have at it. Doesn't make it true of course, but if it will help you calm down, then by all means, do it!

Please, I've encountered plenty of people, just on here, who disagree with my views. Don't give yourself too much credit and think I get upset by having a debate with you.

I see no problem in having a discussion on a topic.