Eminent Domain Leads to Blackmail

[joshsmom]

I've always thought Eminent Domain was a slippery slope to start going down. I understand the original intention--highways, etc., but I think this whole system needs to be seriously looked at because it seems the little guy always gets it in the end and big government stomps all over people's rights.

 

[salmoneous]

I have NEVER heard of this working out such that the majority of individuals involved come out ahead.

I'm no far of these projects - but many do work out. I've read a number of reports on the Best Buy Headquarters' in MN. The vast majority of folks were eager to sell out. The few holdouts had their property taken (mostly a few old car lots that weren't viable business). The folks who wanted to sell benefited from the government action. The holdouts got more than fair value for their land. And the entire community had undergone a tremendous economic boom.

Again, not saying it is the right thing to do - just that it can work out for the benefit of most people and the community.

 

[DancingBear]

I'm sure the judges would have voted differently if it was their homes that were being threatened like the New Londoners where.

Just to be clear, there were 115 homes in that neighborhood. 100 owners wanted to sell. Of the remaining 15, 5 were owned by investors who presumably were just holding out for more money. So perhaps 10 homeowners loved their neighborhood too much to sell (even though 90+% of their dear neighbors were ready to move). If they win the case, the City of New London loses a huge new development aimed at economic revival of the city.

 

[cardaway]

I'm no far of these projects - but many do work out. I've read a number of reports on the Best Buy Headquarters' in MN. The vast majority of folks were eager to sell out. The few holdouts had their property taken (mostly a few old car lots that weren't viable business). The folks who wanted to sell benefited from the government action. The holdouts got more than fair value for their land. And the entire community had undergone a tremendous economic boom.

Again, not saying it is the right thing to do - just that it can work out for the benefit of most people and the community.

Thanks. That does sound great for those involved, but I do have a question. Wouldn't it be true to say that the Domain part really only applied to those the holdouts. That since most of the people willingly gave up their land, it really didn't apply.

The holdouts may have got "fair value" but most of the time the same people could get more in private sales.

Asking because I don't know and possibly have only seen the bad side of the whole system. In this area a lot of people were screwed over the light rail project. A few members of my wife's side of the family were really close to be being screwed but lucked out as placement shifted.

 

[eclectics]

The holdouts may have got "fair value" but most of the time the same people could get more in private sales.

People who have to rely on "fair value" are at the whim of the market at the time of the sale. If it is poor at the time, they are not given the chance to wait for a better selling enviornment.

 

[shirleyb]

Just to be clear, there were 115 homes in that neighborhood. 100 owners wanted to sell. Of the remaining 15, 5 were owned by investors who presumably were just holding out for more money. So perhaps 10 homeowners loved their neighborhood too much to sell (even though 90+% of their dear neighbors were ready to move). If they win the case, the City of New London loses a huge new development aimed at economic revival of the city.

Sorry, but isn't that just too bad? If my family has owned the property for a 100 years, and wants to continue to own it and pass it down through the family for another 100 years, why are my rights less important than some development project?

 

[cardaway]

People who have to rely on "fair value" are at the whim of the market at the time of the sale. If it is poor at the time, they are not given the chance to wait for a better selling enviornment.

Which is exactly what I bet happens more often than not. For example: When the project is a light rail system that has been widely reported as in the works and redcuces the value of all the land near the project.

 

[DancingBear]

The holdouts may have got "fair value" but most of the time the same people could get more in private sales.

Not sure what you're basing this on but in most cases I've seen the holdouts end up getting more than what anyone would have considered market value prior to the subject project being announced.

I don't have any problem with safeguards being strengthened to insure that the displaced property owners get fair compensation.

 

[DancingBear]

Sorry, but isn't that just too bad? If my family has owned the property for a 100 years, and wants to continue to own it and pass it down through the family for another 100 years, why are my rights less important than some development project?

It's not your rights vs. "some development project," it's your property rights vs. the public good. If the project is a school, or road improvements, or similar, your family's desires aren't gonna work even for the minority in the New London case.

 

[cardaway]

Not sure what you're basing this on but in most cases I've seen the holdouts end up getting more than what anyone would have considered market value prior to the subject project being announced.

I don't have any problem with safeguards being strengthened to insure that the displaced property owners get fair compensation.

I'll have to say the same thing about not being sure what you are basing this on. I also think the "fair" part is pretty subjective.

IMO "fair" is getting what the person could get on their terms, not what some third party is forcing them to do based on their schedule or rules.

 

[cardaway]

It's not your rights vs. "some development project," it's your property rights vs. the public good. If the project is a school, or road improvements, or similar, your family's desires aren't gonna work even for the minority in the New London case.

IMO the oppsite angle of that is the people involved arguing that it's quite debatable if the project is really the best option for the public good. Lots of angles including whether every option was really even considered. Too much money in play to simply trust everybody at let something like the word "fair" come into play.

 

[DancingBear]

So who decides if this is in the public good? Now the local elected officials get to decide. Would you rather the courts substitute their judgment? Who else?

It's an interesting conservative/liberal issue. The New London/Kelo court actually is taking the approach of not interfering with decisions of the elected representatives--something social conservatives generally support. But then there is the libertarian wing. And then you have liberals who are concerned for the rights of the poor.

 

[punkin]

So who decides if this is in the public good? Now the local elected officials get to decide. Would you rather the courts substitute their judgment? Who else?

It's an interesting conservative/liberal issue. The New London/Kelo court actually is taking the approach of not interfering with decisions of the elected representatives--something social conservatives generally support. But then there is the libertarian wing. And then you have liberals who are concerned for the rights of the poor.

Just goes to show that neither the right nor the left is a monolithic bloc voting the same way on every issue. There is still some individual thought out there.

 

[LuvDuke]

If you don't like how eminent domain is used, stop voting for the politicians who are misusing it. That was a lesson lost on the voters in my district. They complained about eminent domain and then turned around and reelected all the incumbents. Go figure.

Don't reward bad behavior and the bad behavior seems to stop.

 

[shirleyb]

It's not your rights vs. "some development project," it's your property rights vs. the public good. If the project is a school, or road improvements, or similar, your family's desires aren't gonna work even for the minority in the New London


But the public good has now been defined to include private enterprise --- such as a condominium project. I understand if it's a road or a bridge, dam, etc, but not for someone to build million dollar condos, because I might have a desirable location.

 

[cardaway]

So who decides if this is in the public good? Now the local elected officials get to decide. Would you rather the courts substitute their judgment? Who else?

It's an interesting conservative/liberal issue. The New London/Kelo court actually is taking the approach of not interfering with decisions of the elected representatives--something social conservatives generally support. But then there is the libertarian wing. And then you have liberals who are concerned for the rights of the poor.

My only concern is that owning something in this nation, especially land, is supposed to mean something. Poor or rich doesn't mean anything to me in this case.

I frankly don't know enough about the process to say what spefically is wrong or what the solution is. But I do know enough to say that I believe that the way it is now doesn't give people enough say in the one thing I think everybody is this country should have say in, their property.

Given my knowledge of the current situation, individuals have abosolutely nothing to stand on and nothing keep the groups like the one in the OP in check. It should be a case where you could trust things would be on the level, and I think there is more than enough to show that is many times not the case.

 

[cardaway]

But the public good has now been defined to include private enterprise --- such as a condominium project. I understand if it's a road or a bridge, dam, etc, but not for someone to build million dollar condos, because I might have a desirable location.

More sense if it's a road, but still not safe from stuff like this. Who is to say that the decision on where to put that bridge or road was actually not some kind of deal that actually benefits some company or group rather than the actual public interest? I've seen some road projects in my area that really didn't seem to do anything but cost a lot of money and take land away from those in the area. In fact they are starting one right now in my area, and thankfully I'm not one of those directly affected.

 

[DancingBear]

But the public good has now been defined to include private enterprise --- such as a condominium project. I understand if it's a road or a bridge, dam, etc, but not for someone to build million dollar condos, because I might have a desirable location.

As Cardaway has pointed out, the distinction is not that simple. Every road project has private winners and losers. And any large-scale development also involves public improvements of some kind or another.

And the distinction between public projects and private enterprises is blurry as well. Cash-strapped local governments don't want to spend capital to build a new library, or subsidized housing, so as a condition to approving large projects they require the developer to build a library, or provide low-income housing units.

Another example--in Charlotte the City put together the land and ground-leased the land to the Carolina Panthers' owners, who built the stadium themselves. In DC the City is building the stadium, and leasing the building (on pretty favorable terms) to the owners of the Washington Nationals. Is Charlotte's stadium then a private enterprise, but DC's a public one?

What the Court decided in the Kelo case is that it shouldn't be the one to make the decisions in these grey areas--so they let the local elected officials (and so ultimately the voters) make those decisions.

 

[Charade]

Another example--in Charlotte the City put together the land and ground-leased the land to the Carolina Panthers' owners, who built the stadium themselves. In DC the City is building the stadium, and leasing the building (on pretty favorable terms) to the owners of the Washington Nationals. Is Charlotte's stadium then a private enterprise, but DC's a public one?

Were either of those sites aquired by use of eminent domain?

 

[Charade]

What the Court decided in the Kelo case is that it shouldn't be the one to make the decisions in these grey areas--so they let the local elected officials (and so ultimately the voters) make those decisions.

I suppose that was a good decision but the reaction by other states, city and local governments was to redefine the use (or IMO abuse) of eminent domain. Perhaps the verbiage in the Constitution is too vague and needs to be redefined. Not by a courts interpretation, but by amendment.