Eminent Domain Leads to Blackmail

[cardaway]

I should point out that while I'm no expert on Domain law, I do have a lot of inside information on how this stuff goes down in my area due to a cousin who is a civil engingeer (mostly road projects) in this area. While he lives in a different part of the state, they see all the projects in his office and knows the full history of almost all of them.

Some are pretty straight forward, some confirm the "mob" like way these things go down. It was bizarre for his to tell me all about the changes in my direct area before anybody was even notified, and it was because it was one of the shady ones.

 

[DancingBear]

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

Yes, in DC a portion of the parcels were acquired through eminent domain, or at least the threat thereof--there was litigation filed by some of the holdout landholders. I don't think Charlotte had to use eminent domain for its project.

But that's really not the point of the example. The point is that it's not always very clear what is a public project and what is for the benefit of private enterprise.

Look again at road projects. An area may grow up over time, creating road congestion so roads have to be widened and improved. But suppose a company is interested in building a new headquarters building on open land adjacent to an already-congested roadway, but they will go elsewhere if the municipality doesn't agree to widen the road, or create a highway interchange, to address the existing congestion on the road, as well as the additional traffic the headquarters will generate--and the company is willing to make substantial contributions to the costs of the improvements. Is that project being undertaken for the benefit of the private project, or because the need exists?

 

[cardaway]

But suppose a company is interested in building a new headquarters building on open land adjacent to an already-congested roadway, but they will go elsewhere if the municipality doesn't agree to widen the road, or create a highway interchange, to address the existing congestion on the road, as well as the additional traffic the headquarters will generate--and the company is willing to make substantial contributions to the costs of the improvements. Is that project being undertaken for the benefit of the private project, or because the need exists?

Thank you. That is exactly what I was trying to get at. It's pretty debatable if that HQ is in the public interest. Will it create jobs? Maybe, maybe not. Will it hurt home owners in who live in the direct area, almost certainly.

 

[Heidict]

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.

I live very close to New London so I am very familiar with the case. Revival of the city? PLEASE. Pfizer wants it, not the city. It is not for economic revival. It is greed for the tax money. It's a pathetic excuse and it's dispicable that the courts have ruled the way they have.

So, just because 90% have decided to take the money and run the other 10% can't fight for their homes? The homes that many have probably lived in for many many years? The homes that are worth much more then the city is offering them? Real estate prices are out of control in this state. They would never be able to buy a home for the prices that the sity is paying them.

 

[DawnCt1]

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?

Because they couldn't tax you enough to provide all the neat perks that people who don't care about about you and your family want. One wonders what went on behind the scenes between the major and other zoning board members when this project was proposed.

 

[DancingBear]

I live very close to New London so I am very familiar with the case. Revival of the city? PLEASE. Pfizer wants it, not the city. It is not for economic revival. It is greed for the tax money. It's a pathetic excuse and it's dispicable that the courts have ruled the way they have.

So cities shouldn't try to increase tax revenue? Would you rather they raise property taxes on residential properties?

So, just because 90% have decided to take the money and run the other 10% can't fight for their homes? The homes that many have probably lived in for many many years? The homes that are worth much more then the city is offering them? Real estate prices are out of control in this state. They would never be able to buy a home for the prices that the sity is paying them.

Again, I don't have any problem with assuring that people get a fair price for their homes. Generally, though, existing protections should insure that they get a market price--I sincerely doubt that these homes were "worth much more than the city was offering them". It's an interesting question as to whether fair compensation should take into account the lack of alternative affordable housing. But if that's an issue for the community, maybe the communities' tax money should be used to to build affordable housing.

 

[cardaway]

Generally, though, existing protections should insure that they get a market price--I sincerely doubt that these homes were "worth much more than the city was offering them".

Why do you doubt that? I think it's pretty well documented. Maybe the issue is with what you define as "fair" and "much more" in these cases. How "much more" would it have to be before you agreed people got screwed?

 

[DancingBear]

Thank you. That is exactly what I was trying to get at. It's pretty debatable if that HQ is in the public interest. Will it create jobs? Maybe, maybe not. Will it hurt home owners in who live in the direct area, almost certainly.

I'm not talking about taking the land for the HQ, only for the road improvements--ones which arguably were already needed due to the road congestion, and certainly would be needed if the land was developed for the HQ or any other purpose. It's a classic chicken and egg issue. Is there really a difference between widening the road now to accomodate the HQ development, vs. widening the road in a year or two when the land gets developed for some other use?

 

[cardaway]

I'm not talking about taking the land for the HQ, only for the road improvements--ones which arguably were already needed due to the road congestion, and certainly would be needed if the land was developed for the HQ or any other purpose. It's a classic chicken and egg issue. Is there really a difference between widening the road now to accomodate the HQ development, vs. widening the road in a year or two when the land gets developed for some other use?

Most road projects like that involve taking land from at least a small number of people. In some cases it's a lot of people.

And no, most road deals would not need to be done otherwise. The one in my area that I posted about is a joke. It's taking a lot of private land and will not even solve the problem. They have barely started and there is talk of the project to fix the project, and the fix is the real solution that takes away less private land and actually will work.

 

[Heidict]

So cities shouldn't try to increase tax revenue? Would you rather they raise property taxes on residential properties?

Increasing tax revenues is one thing but to do it at the expense of making people homeless? Of stripping them of the homes that they have lived in for years? It is greed pure and simple.

Pfizer comes along and decides that they want to build and that they want to do it in this particular place. They go to the city. God knows how many palms were greased or how many back room deals were wagered.

The city throws out their trump card, Eminant Domain and then proceeds to take who's ever home and property that they want. It has nothing to do with "improving the city". If it was for a road, a school or something of some importance then it would be a little bit more understandable. Instead, Pfizer is a big bully and the city is strong arming these people out of their homes for the sack of one company. Greed.

 

[DancingBear]

Who's being greedy? Pfizer? Do you think they're building their building at this location for a lot less than they could do somewhere else? In some other city or state perhaps?

Or are the elected officials greedy for more tax money?

 

[LuvDuke]

Maybe it's time we start setting specific rules as to what constitutes "in the public interest" and leave the politicians with no wiggle room. If they want to redefine, the politicians have to go back to the voters and let them decide if it's in their interest or not.

 

[DancingBear]

Maybe it's time we start setting specific rules as to what constitutes "in the public interest" and leave the politicians with no wiggle room. If they want to redefine, the politicians have to go back to the voters and let them decide if it's in their interest or not.

Part of what I'm trying to say here is that these situations are too complex to put some clear definition in writing and say that's it. I think some of the fairly simplistic legislation that was enacted in a knee-jerk response to Kelo is going to create a lot of litigation in the future for just that reason.

Why don't we just let the voters hold the politicians accountable for these decisions just like all of the other decisions they make?

 

[punkin]

Part of what I'm trying to say here is that these situations are too complex to put some clear definition in writing and say that's it. I think some of the fairly simplistic legislation that was enacted in a knee-jerk response to Kelo is going to create a lot of litigation in the future for just that reason.

Why don't we just let the voters hold the politicians accountable for these decisions just like all of the other decisions they make?

How? You can vote them out of office, but it's already too late by that point.

 

[iloveboardwalk]

Our government is supposed to be set up to protect people from "mob rule" Sure, increasing tax revenue sounds great. I guess it doesn't matter that people do not want to sell their homes which they legally purchased. It's a very socialistic, Marxist view, the good of the many outweigh the good of the few? You don't really own anything, it all belongs to the government! The Libertarian in me is just screaming at the injustice.

 

[iloveboardwalk]

Part of what I'm trying to say here is that these situations are too complex....

It's not that complex to me. If I own a home, which I love and I do not want to sell, the government should not be able to take it so some developer can put up condos. Maybe it's not about money for "fair market value." Property ownership is a fundamental part of true freedom and autonomy. It's easy to to be blase' about it until the heavy hand of the government comes down on you or someone you know.

 

[DancingBear]

How? You can vote them out of office, but it's already too late by that point.

Just like with any other issue, you can tell them that you will vote them out of office the next chance you get.

 

[LuvDuke]

Part of what I'm trying to say here is that these situations are too complex to put some clear definition in writing and say that's it. I think some of the fairly simplistic legislation that was enacted in a knee-jerk response to Kelo is going to create a lot of litigation in the future for just that reason.

Why don't we just let the voters hold the politicians accountable for these decisions just like all of the other decisions they make?

Why is it so complex to specify that you can invoke eminent domain for a public school but not for a condo complex to bring in more tax dollars? Why is it so complex to specify you can invoke eminent domain for a public hospital and not for a strip mall? What is so complex to specify that if you want to invoke eminent domain outside the rules, you have to go back to the voters and sell the idea?

What's so complex about that? Why make the voters input after the fact?

 

[punkin]

You know, courts are supposed to protect minorities from tyranny by the majority. I think the supreme court was completely wrong here, giving power solely to elected officials and stepping back from their constitutional role.

This country was founded on Locke's principals of "Life, Liberty, Property" and while sometimes any one of these things can justifiably be taken by the state, it should be in VERY extraordinary cases with lots of procedural protections. This was not the case in Connecticutt.

 

[Heidict]

Who's being greedy? Pfizer? Do you think they're building their building at this location for a lot less than they could do somewhere else? In some other city or state perhaps?

Or are the elected officials greedy for more tax money?

The city is using emiment domain for the wrong reasons. If the city can come along and take anyone's property to give to someone else just so they can get more tax money it is wrong. Why is that so hard to understand.

Do you own some property? Would you be happy if the home that you live in and raised your children is is being taken out from under you so that the city can give it to someone else so that they can build on it? How is that fair? What right do they have to do that? Apparently nobody owns their property. They just think they do. The city can just come along, give you what THEY think is a fair price and then resell it to someone just because they can get more tax dollars from it. This is not how our society is supposed to work.

The town is being greedy because they want more tax dollars. If they are having financial issues then maybe they need to look at the books and find out where they can cut expenses. I'm sure that there is some money on the books that is going to something that is ridiculous and outrageous.

Pfizer and greed. That is a whole nother story. There was alot of fighting going on in New Haven also about them.