Eminent Domain Leads to Blackmail

[reeeoga]

The only use for I.D. that I will agree to: Building of Public Roads, Use for Pubilc Infrastructure (Powerlines, Sewer, FLoad Control), Public Buildings (schools, courthouse, prison, Fire Stations, government offices/complexes). Everything else is for private use and should be aquired using private use laws. This includes the building of "Sport Arenas" and anything used to "increase tax revanues". If private companies want to make money, then they can spend the money needed to get there.

Edit to add: and if local governments want more taxes, they should do things to encourage buisnesses to expand or locate there. Tax ensentives, better road planning, better schools, better public works. All things that can be done using the laws as they where before Kilo.

 

[DancingBear]

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...

Not exactly. There are substantial procedural protections involved. But, again, I don't oppose additional measures to insure that this happens.

 

[DancingBear]

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.

I understand that is your line, but I just don't think it's all that simple. Suppose that a developer builds those condos just up the road, and due to the increased traffic, the government ends up taking your home to expand the roads. Is that okay?

 

[iloveboardwalk]

I understand that is your line, but I just don't think it's all that simple. Suppose that a developer builds those condos just up the road, and due to the increased traffic, the government ends up taking your home to expand the roads. Is that okay?

It is not a "line." If the government proposes to take land from one private owner by emminant domain for the sole purpose of allowing another private owner to do whatever on it, it is a grevious miscarriage of justice and not in any way keeping with the constitutional intention of life, liberty and property.

A public road is a public use. It is not that complex at all, it seems very straight forward to me.

I would like to add that as a Realtor I see everyday the emotional ties to property that people have. It is a very big deal to own property, is is a fundamental part of living the American Dream to many, many people. It means something to sign on that dotted line to buy and sell, to see the public record, to own something that is real and fixed. I cannot even begin to explain the ways in which the abuses of emminant domain offend my belief in freedom.

 

[Spoodleink]

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 don't know the specifics of the case but I would imagine there was some price at which the hold outs would have sold ? even if it was well above fair market value. My family has a farm (which is not farmed any longer) it has been in the famliy for generations going back to the early 1800s the real value of the land is not a lot but the sentimetal value is very vey high. If someone offered a million dollars for the farm (many many times its value) I am pretty sure the family would agree to sell. I do think there are some stubborn people who will never sell but I bet mayber 1 or 2 of the people at the most were the stbborn ones.To me a least with out all the facts it seems that they are trying to get the land cheaper by using eminant domain.

 

[DancingBear]

....To me a least with out all the facts it seems that they are trying to get the land cheaper by using eminant domain.

Cheaper than what a few holdouts say is their idiosyncratic value for selling the property? Sure.

 

[DancingBear]

It is not a "line." If the government proposes to take land from one private owner by emminant domain for the sole purpose of allowing another private owner to do whatever on it, it is a grevious miscarriage of justice and not in any way keeping with the constitutional intention of life, liberty and property.

A public road is a public use. It is not that complex at all, it seems very straight forward to me.

Okay, let's try this hypothetical. Developer wants to build a big development on land adjacent to yours. Municipality says this development will mean we need a new fire station in the area, so as a condition of approving the developer's site plan, municipality requires developer to pay the costs for municipality to buy the land for the fire station. Then the municipality condemns your property for the new firehouse. You okay with that?

 

[LuvDuke]

Okay, let's try this hypothetical. Developer wants to build a big development on land adjacent to yours. Municipality says this development will mean we need a new fire station in the area, so as a condition of approving the developer's site plan, municipality requires developer to pay the costs for municipality to buy the land for the fire station. Then the municipality condemns your property for the new firehouse. You okay with that?

Answer #1 to hypothetical: They wouldn't need the new firehouse if a private developer didn't put in another development.

Answer #2 to hypothetical: The developer builds fewer homes which may negate the need for a new firehouse.

Answer #3 to hypothetical: The land the developer already owns can be used for a new firehouse.

Solutions get real easy when you take eminent domain off the table.

 

[iloveboardwalk]

Answer #1 to hypothetical: They wouldn't need the new firehouse if a private developer didn't put in another development.

Answer #2 to hypothetical: The developer builds fewer homes which may negate the need for a new firehouse.

Answer #3 to hypothetical: The land the developer already owns can be used for a new firehouse.

Solutions get real easy when you take eminent domain off the table.

Exactly right, if the developer has purchased a large enough lot as to require a fire house for all the houses they will build then the deloper can build a few less houses and put the firehouse on their own property.

 

[shirleyb]

Exactly right, if the developer has purchased a large enough lot as to require a fire house for all the houses they will build then the deloper can build a few less houses and put the firehouse on their own property.

I agree. OR, they can purchase my neighbor's property across the street. She's been anxious to move to FL. There's no particular reason it has to be my property.

In this example, sorry, ED (NOT ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION ) does not fly with me.

 

[DancingBear]

Answer #1 to hypothetical: They wouldn't need the new firehouse if a private developer didn't put in another development.

Answer #2 to hypothetical: The developer builds fewer homes which may negate the need for a new firehouse.

Answer #3 to hypothetical: The land the developer already owns can be used for a new firehouse.

Solutions get real easy when you take eminent domain off the table.

Solutions also get real easy when you push the responsibility for filling all of the community's needs onto developers.

Growing communities need more schools, fire stations, parks, roads, etc., to serve the existing homes and new houses. That's the local government's responsibility. Why should the developer of the last house in the neighborhood be required to put a fire station on his property, when the developer that built your house and all of the others in the area that will also be served by that station didn't do so?

Suppose that the municipality thinks the better location for the firehouse, to serve that entire community, is not within the new development, but where your house is located.

Suppose that instead of one huge project by one developer, the area requires a new fire station because of many new smaller subdivisions built in the area?

 

[Charade]

Solutions also get real easy when you push the responsibility for filling all of the community's needs onto developers.

Growing communities need more schools, fire stations, parks, roads, etc., to serve the existing homes and new houses. That's the local government's responsibility. Why should the developer of the last house in the neighborhood be required to put a fire station on his property, when the developer that built your house and all of the others in the area that will also be served by that station didn't do so?

Suppose that the municipality thinks the better location for the firehouse, to serve that entire community, is not within the new development, but where your house is located.

Suppose that instead of one huge project by one developer, the area requires a new fire station because of many new smaller subdivisions built in the area?

Building a new shopping mall, a sports stadium or a high income (as opposed to low income) housing "project" is beyond the scope of the local governments responsibility and they shouldn't have the authority to do it under new interpretations of eminent domain. Sure, it "helps" the community but at what cost? IMO, no one's property is safe from development by private companies *if* it's in a location desired by the developer.

 

[DancingBear]

Building a new shopping mall, a sports stadium or a high income (as opposed to low income) housing "project" is beyond the scope of the local governments responsibility and they shouldn't have the authority to do it under new interpretations of eminent domain. Sure, it "helps" the community but at what cost? IMO, no one's property is safe from development by private companies *if* it's in a location desired by the developer.

Okay, but that wasn't the hypothetical. In the hypothetical, the municipality uses eminent domain to acquire property to build a firehouse.

 

[cardaway]

I still wonder how much less somebody should have to receive for their property before everybody can agree it's not a "fair" price and people are getting screwed. It doesn't take a high percentage before we're talking about losing thousands of dollars.

 

[LuvDuke]

Solutions also get real easy when you push the responsibility for filling all of the community's needs onto developers.

Growing communities need more schools, fire stations, parks, roads, etc., to serve the existing homes and new houses. That's the local government's responsibility. Why should the developer of the last house in the neighborhood be required to put a fire station on his property, when the developer that built your house and all of the others in the area that will also be served by that station didn't do so?

Suppose that the municipality thinks the better location for the firehouse, to serve that entire community, is not within the new development, but where your house is located.

Suppose that instead of one huge project by one developer, the area requires a new fire station because of many new smaller subdivisions built in the area?

All of this starts with a private developer, developing land for a new development. How is that for the "public good"? Can I use any of those homes in the new development? Can I hop into their pool for a dip on hot days? Maybe I'll join them in their hot tub?

Building a new development is NOT for the public good since the public cannot use that development. That land, being used for a develpment, is for the private good.

However, if land is used for a new public hospital or school, the public has access to it, unlike the private homes in a development. Growing a community through private land development is NOT for the public good.

 

[LuvDuke]

Okay, but that wasn't the hypothetical. In the hypothetical, the municipality uses eminent domain to acquire property to build a firehouse.

No, in the hypothetical, a private developer decides to build a develpment and the municipality decides to use your private property to service that private development.

No matter how you want to slice this pie, it all starts with private development and NOT the public good.

 

[DancingBear]

No, in the hypothetical, a private developer decides to build a develpment and the municipality decides to use your private property to service that private development.

No matter how you want to slice this pie, it all starts with private development and NOT the public good.

The firehouse is to serve the new development AND existing private developments. Every firehouse, library, etc. "all starts with private development"--including the one your home is in.

To use round numbers, suppose the county thinks there should be a fire station serving every 1,000 homes. The new development adds 200 homes to the area, so the county now needs a fire station in this area. Why should the developer of the last 200 homes have an extra burden in this regard compared to the developers who built the first 800 homes?

 

[LuvDuke]

The firehouse is to serve the new development AND existing private developments. Every firehouse, library, etc. "all starts with private development"--including the one your home is in.

To use round numbers, suppose the county thinks there should be a fire station serving every 1,000 homes. The new development adds 200 homes to the area, so the county now needs a fire station in this area. Why should the developer of the last 200 homes have an extra burden in this regard compared to the developers who built the first 800 homes?

You need a new hypothetical as the one used before clearly states that the need for the new firehouse is a result of the new development by a private investor. I'm quoting the hypothetical:

Okay, let's try this hypothetical. Developer wants to build a big development on land adjacent to yours. Municipality says this development will mean we need a new fire station in the area, so as a condition of approving the developer's site plan, municipality requires developer to pay the costs for municipality to buy the land for the fire station. Then the municipality condemns your property for the new firehouse. You okay with that?

And if you're going to quote me, please use the entire quote and not just the first part about private development.

In fact, I liked my quote so much, I'll use it again as it still pertains to your hypothetical. And I quote:

No matter how you want to slice this pie, it all starts with private development and NOT the public good.

A library is for the public good. A school is for the public good. A hospital is for the public good. One thousand homes, built by a private developer, is NOT for the public good because, unlike the library/school/hospital, the public cannot use that development unless they own the private home.

Now, I think this horse is not only dead, but has been beaten into unrecognizable pulp. Your position regarding the confiscation of private land and your broad definition of "public good" are minority positions of a very few. Here's hoping they stay that way.

 

[iloveboardwalk]

It all sounds like the "public good" until it's YOUR home that's about to be...essentially stolen. It's EASY not to care about individual property rights when it's all just a hypothetical. Fortuneately MOST people can easily put themselves in the position of the individual getting screwed. UNfortuneately, the activist judges on the supreme court subscribe to the "good of the many" theory of socialistic BS. I hope that they come to their good senses and reverse themseves should another, similar case come their way. EVERYone wants increased tax revenue without raising their own taxes, of course, why wouldn't they? The key is, can we be creative enough to generate said income without stomping all over the constitution in the process.

 

[LuvDuke]

It all sounds like the "public good" until it's YOUR home that's about to be...essentially stolen. It's EASY not to care about individual property rights when it's all just a hypothetical. Fortuneately MOST people can easily put themselves in the position of the individual getting screwed. UNfortuneately, the activist judges on the supreme court subscribe to the "good of the many" theory of socialistic BS. I hope that they come to their good senses and reverse themseves should another, similar case come their way. EVERYone wants increased tax revenue without raising their own taxes, of course, why wouldn't they? The key is, can we be creative enough to generate said income without stomping all over the constitution in the process.

The SC doesn't have to get involved in rewriting the rules of eminent domain. That's the job of the individual citizen through their elected representative. Too many in this country look to the courts to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.

And I disagree that people don't want to have taxes raised. People are very willing to pay taxes for tangible, worthwhile reasons. What people don't like is the sense their tax dollars are going down a rat hole. And, again, that goes back to the voter and their elected representatives.