Eminent Domain (1 Viewer)

[pantagrapher]

Any thoughts on the convergence of ED & "blight"?

 

[QUEZILLA]

Yes, because it keeps me busy I work for a planning firm that works primarily with eminent domain lawyers.

 

[T Bell]

Any thoughts on the convergence of ED & "blight"?

Yes.

 

[whoknew]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

 

[Zow]

Generally no, but it has its place so I guess that's technically a "yes" answer?

FWIW, Scalia wrote some awesome caselaw on this.

 

[Zow]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Because otherwise it would costs the state and the rest of society millions of extra dollars jst to build around a few 100 thousand dollar homes.

 

[whoknew]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Because otherwise it would costs the state and the rest of society millions of extra dollars jst to build around a few 100 thousand dollar homes.

So? Does that matter? Should it? Is that their only option?

 

[Zow]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Because otherwise it would costs the state and the rest of society millions of extra dollars jst to build around a few 100 thousand dollar homes.

So? Does that matter? Should it? Is that their only option?

greater good>individualpretty standard political choice In this case, it's either "force" the sale of a house (in which case the owners is usually compensated pretty well) or quit some project very beneficial to society or cost society as a whole a lot more money. So yeah, I'd say it's usually the "only" option. IMO emminent domain law is pretty well written and litigated that it usually happens only when it should.

 

[whoknew]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Because otherwise it would costs the state and the rest of society millions of extra dollars jst to build around a few 100 thousand dollar homes.

So? Does that matter? Should it? Is that their only option?

greater good>individualpretty standard political choice In this case, it's either "force" the sale of a house (in which case the owners is usually compensated pretty well) or quit some project very beneficial to society or cost society as a whole a lot more money. So yeah, I'd say it's usually the "only" option. IMO emminent domain law is pretty well written and litigated that it usually happens only when it should.

I don't know what your experience is, but in my experience your last sentence isn't close to true. Why not just make the gov't buy land on the free market like everyone else? Why should they have special privileges?

 

[videoguy505]

Why not just make the gov't buy land on the free market like everyone else? Why should they have special privileges?

1) How would that possibly work? When my father was growing up, the street he grew up in was demolished to make way for the I-95 freeway. Once it was determined that the Eisenhower Interstate System was required for national security and economic growth, how would the government otherwise proceed? Miles of land were needed in a straight line, so the government picked a route and started the process. Otherwise, the government would pick the ideal route and then have to negotiate individually. What do they do if one guy sells and his neighbor doesn't? Move the freeway over a block? What if they've already bought 10 homes, or a hundred, on that path? If the last guy they need says he won't budge unless the government pays him 500 million dollars, what should they do? The freeway will be delayed while the engineers figure out an alternate route, and the government is stuck owning a thousand parcels of land it can't use. Or, they use your tax money to pay this other guy's lottery ticket.2) The government has special privileges because they provide things no one else does, and are charged with protecting the greater good. If you don't like the rules, feel free to secede. Good luck raising your own army.

 

[whoknew]

Why not just make the gov't buy land on the free market like everyone else? Why should they have special privileges?

1) How would that possibly work? When my father was growing up, the street he grew up in was demolished to make way for the I-95 freeway. Once it was determined that the Eisenhower Interstate System was required for national security and economic growth, how would the government otherwise proceed? Miles of land were needed in a straight line, so the government picked a route and started the process. Otherwise, the government would pick the ideal route and then have to negotiate individually. What do they do if one guy sells and his neighbor doesn't? Move the freeway over a block? What if they've already bought 10 homes, or a hundred, on that path? If the last guy they need says he won't budge unless the government pays him 500 million dollars, what should they do? The freeway will be delayed while the engineers figure out an alternate route, and the government is stuck owning a thousand parcels of land it can't use. Or, they use your tax money to pay this other guy's lottery ticket.2) The government has special privileges because they provide things no one else does, and are charged with protecting the greater good. If you don't like the rules, feel free to secede. Good luck raising your own army.

1) Your argument is - "It would cost the gov't more if we didn't have it." My response is -- so? Shouldn't it? Shouldn't they have to pay fmv (real fmv, not ed fmv)?2) I'm not sure "love it or leave it" is such a good argument. And why can't others do what the gov't does?

 

[Chaka]

Why not just make the gov't buy land on the free market like everyone else? Why should they have special privileges?

1) How would that possibly work? When my father was growing up, the street he grew up in was demolished to make way for the I-95 freeway. Once it was determined that the Eisenhower Interstate System was required for national security and economic growth, how would the government otherwise proceed? Miles of land were needed in a straight line, so the government picked a route and started the process. Otherwise, the government would pick the ideal route and then have to negotiate individually. What do they do if one guy sells and his neighbor doesn't? Move the freeway over a block? What if they've already bought 10 homes, or a hundred, on that path? If the last guy they need says he won't budge unless the government pays him 500 million dollars, what should they do? The freeway will be delayed while the engineers figure out an alternate route, and the government is stuck owning a thousand parcels of land it can't use. Or, they use your tax money to pay this other guy's lottery ticket.2) The government has special privileges because they provide things no one else does, and are charged with protecting the greater good. If you don't like the rules, feel free to secede. Good luck raising your own army.

1) Your argument is - "It would cost the gov't more if we didn't have it." My response is -- so? Shouldn't it? Shouldn't they have to pay fmv (real fmv, not ed fmv)?2) I'm not sure "love it or leave it" is such a good argument. And why can't others do what the gov't does?

The government is financed by the taxpayers. If we make the government pay market value the taxpayers are the ones who foot the bill. Why would we want to tax ourselves more?

 

[videoguy505]

Why not just make the gov't buy land on the free market like everyone else? Why should they have special privileges?

1) How would that possibly work? When my father was growing up, the street he grew up in was demolished to make way for the I-95 freeway. Once it was determined that the Eisenhower Interstate System was required for national security and economic growth, how would the government otherwise proceed? Miles of land were needed in a straight line, so the government picked a route and started the process. Otherwise, the government would pick the ideal route and then have to negotiate individually. What do they do if one guy sells and his neighbor doesn't? Move the freeway over a block? What if they've already bought 10 homes, or a hundred, on that path? If the last guy they need says he won't budge unless the government pays him 500 million dollars, what should they do? The freeway will be delayed while the engineers figure out an alternate route, and the government is stuck owning a thousand parcels of land it can't use. Or, they use your tax money to pay this other guy's lottery ticket.2) The government has special privileges because they provide things no one else does, and are charged with protecting the greater good. If you don't like the rules, feel free to secede. Good luck raising your own army.

1) Your argument is - "It would cost the gov't more if we didn't have it." My response is -- so? Shouldn't it? Shouldn't they have to pay fmv (real fmv, not ed fmv)?2) I'm not sure "love it or leave it" is such a good argument. And why can't others do what the gov't does?

How is FMV determined if there's only 1 entity interested in buying the property? The owners in most cases won't sell unless they have to. And what others are you proposing build the highways?

 

[Christo]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Because people live in this thing called a society, see? Where people have to live side by side in at least what appears to be harmony, see? And the way that the people accomplish that goal is to utilize a special organization, see? And that organization is called a government, see? And the purpose of the government is to promote the good of the people by striking a balance between the rights of the people as a group and the rights of the people as individuals, see? And one of the situations where the people in the society through their government have determined that the rights of the people as a group trump the rights of the people as individuals is land use, see? This manifests itself through zoning ordinances, planning permission laws, restrictive covenants and easements, see? With these the people living in the society through the government can make the society more efficient, attract business and industry (thus providing the people with more job opportunities) and provide services to the people that the people wish to receive, see? A sensible plan to coordinate industrial growth, allow residential building and permit commercial activity has a dramatic impact on land values, safety and other community interests, see? Without the government's ability to override the people's individual rights in their land none of this would be possible and the people might as well still live in caves, see?

 

[Zow]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Because people live in this thing called a society, see? Where people have to live side by side in at least what appears to be harmony, see? And the way that the people accomplish that goal is to utilize a special organization, see? And that organization is called a government, see? And the purpose of the government is to promote the good of the people by striking a balance between the rights of the people as a group and the rights of the people as individuals, see? And one of the situations where the people in the society through their government have determined that the rights of the people as a group trump the rights of the people as individuals is land use, see? This manifests itself through zoning ordinances, planning permission laws, restrictive covenants and easements, see? With these the people living in the society through the government can make the society more efficient, attract business and industry (thus providing the people with more job opportunities) and provide services to the people that the people wish to receive, see? A sensible plan to coordinate industrial growth, allow residential building and permit commercial activity has a dramatic impact on land values, safety and other community interests, see? Without the government's ability to override the people's individual rights in their land none of this would be possible and the people might as well still live in caves, see?

God you're a ####### #####. You're right of course here, but man are you a pompous ****. Awesome.

 

[whoknew]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Because people live in this thing called a society, see? Where people have to live side by side in at least what appears to be harmony, see? And the way that the people accomplish that goal is to utilize a special organization, see? And that organization is called a government, see? And the purpose of the government is to promote the good of the people by striking a balance between the rights of the people as a group and the rights of the people as individuals, see? And one of the situations where the people in the society through their government have determined that the rights of the people as a group trump the rights of the people as individuals is land use, see? This manifests itself through zoning ordinances, planning permission laws, restrictive covenants and easements, see? With these the people living in the society through the government can make the society more efficient, attract business and industry (thus providing the people with more job opportunities) and provide services to the people that the people wish to receive, see? A sensible plan to coordinate industrial growth, allow residential building and permit commercial activity has a dramatic impact on land values, safety and other community interests, see? Without the government's ability to override the people's individual rights in their land none of this would be possible and the people might as well still live in caves, see?

No. I don't see.So unless we have ed we will all live in caves?

 

[whoknew]

Why not just make the gov't buy land on the free market like everyone else? Why should they have special privileges?

1) How would that possibly work? When my father was growing up, the street he grew up in was demolished to make way for the I-95 freeway. Once it was determined that the Eisenhower Interstate System was required for national security and economic growth, how would the government otherwise proceed? Miles of land were needed in a straight line, so the government picked a route and started the process. Otherwise, the government would pick the ideal route and then have to negotiate individually. What do they do if one guy sells and his neighbor doesn't? Move the freeway over a block? What if they've already bought 10 homes, or a hundred, on that path? If the last guy they need says he won't budge unless the government pays him 500 million dollars, what should they do? The freeway will be delayed while the engineers figure out an alternate route, and the government is stuck owning a thousand parcels of land it can't use. Or, they use your tax money to pay this other guy's lottery ticket.2) The government has special privileges because they provide things no one else does, and are charged with protecting the greater good. If you don't like the rules, feel free to secede. Good luck raising your own army.

1) Your argument is - "It would cost the gov't more if we didn't have it." My response is -- so? Shouldn't it? Shouldn't they have to pay fmv (real fmv, not ed fmv)?2) I'm not sure "love it or leave it" is such a good argument. And why can't others do what the gov't does?

The government is financed by the taxpayers. If we make the government pay market value the taxpayers are the ones who foot the bill. Why would we want to tax ourselves more?

I wouldn't. I know some would. There is an alternative to these, of course.

 

[whoknew]

Why not just make the gov't buy land on the free market like everyone else? Why should they have special privileges?

1) How would that possibly work? When my father was growing up, the street he grew up in was demolished to make way for the I-95 freeway. Once it was determined that the Eisenhower Interstate System was required for national security and economic growth, how would the government otherwise proceed? Miles of land were needed in a straight line, so the government picked a route and started the process. Otherwise, the government would pick the ideal route and then have to negotiate individually. What do they do if one guy sells and his neighbor doesn't? Move the freeway over a block? What if they've already bought 10 homes, or a hundred, on that path? If the last guy they need says he won't budge unless the government pays him 500 million dollars, what should they do? The freeway will be delayed while the engineers figure out an alternate route, and the government is stuck owning a thousand parcels of land it can't use. Or, they use your tax money to pay this other guy's lottery ticket.2) The government has special privileges because they provide things no one else does, and are charged with protecting the greater good. If you don't like the rules, feel free to secede. Good luck raising your own army.

1) Your argument is - "It would cost the gov't more if we didn't have it." My response is -- so? Shouldn't it? Shouldn't they have to pay fmv (real fmv, not ed fmv)?2) I'm not sure "love it or leave it" is such a good argument. And why can't others do what the gov't does?

How is FMV determined if there's only 1 entity interested in buying the property? The owners in most cases won't sell unless they have to. And what others are you proposing build the highways?

What do you mean? The value of that lot is what the owner is willing to part for it. And right, they may not sell. So?I'm not proposing anyone specifically build highways. But I'm pretty confident someone will.

 

[Christo]

I'm not proposing anyone specifically build highways. But I'm pretty confident someone will.

:(

 

[phthalatemagic]

Got my client $10,000 more than the appraised value of the property.

Excellent. Now he can afford to pay your bill.

That's beautiful.

 

[Chaka]

Why not just make the gov't buy land on the free market like everyone else? Why should they have special privileges?

1) How would that possibly work? When my father was growing up, the street he grew up in was demolished to make way for the I-95 freeway. Once it was determined that the Eisenhower Interstate System was required for national security and economic growth, how would the government otherwise proceed? Miles of land were needed in a straight line, so the government picked a route and started the process. Otherwise, the government would pick the ideal route and then have to negotiate individually. What do they do if one guy sells and his neighbor doesn't? Move the freeway over a block? What if they've already bought 10 homes, or a hundred, on that path? If the last guy they need says he won't budge unless the government pays him 500 million dollars, what should they do? The freeway will be delayed while the engineers figure out an alternate route, and the government is stuck owning a thousand parcels of land it can't use. Or, they use your tax money to pay this other guy's lottery ticket.2) The government has special privileges because they provide things no one else does, and are charged with protecting the greater good. If you don't like the rules, feel free to secede. Good luck raising your own army.

1) Your argument is - "It would cost the gov't more if we didn't have it." My response is -- so? Shouldn't it? Shouldn't they have to pay fmv (real fmv, not ed fmv)?2) I'm not sure "love it or leave it" is such a good argument. And why can't others do what the gov't does?

The government is financed by the taxpayers. If we make the government pay market value the taxpayers are the ones who foot the bill. Why would we want to tax ourselves more?

I wouldn't. I know some would. There is an alternative to these, of course.

Communism?Anarchy?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Eminent domain is widely abused and it's sad to see a lot of the responses in here. Obviously homes should go for more than FMV -- the current property owner didn't land there by luck.

The only time -- and I stress only -- that ED should be used is for "right of way" situations. The use of ED is obvious and makes a lot of sense there.

The Constitution stresses "for just compensation", but that's sadly been twisted to not mean whatever the property owner considers just. No one should have a greater right to your property than you. If you don't want to sell your property, you shouldn't have to. No matter what.

When ED is used for non-right of way situations, it's likely to both decrease general welfare and simply shift utility from the private person to the public person. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect minority rights, which don't seem to be too important in these ED discussions.

 

[Christo]

Eminent domain is widely abused and it's sad to see a lot of the responses in here. Obviously homes should go for more than FMV -- the current property owner didn't land there by luck.The only time -- and I stress only -- that ED should be used is for "right of way" situations. The use of ED is obvious and makes a lot of sense there.The Constitution stresses "for just compensation", but that's sadly been twisted to not mean whatever the property owner considers just. No one should have a greater right to your property than you. If you don't want to sell your property, you shouldn't have to. No matter what.When ED is used for non-right of way situations, it's likely to both decrease general welfare and simply shift utility from the private person to the public person. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect minority rights, which don't seem to be too important in these ED discussions.

1. Why should someone get more than FMV? Most appreciation in real estate has nothing to do with the owner.2. And where do you get limitation to "right of way" from the phrase "public use?" 3. Similarly, where do you see that the Constitution "stresses" just compensation? It merely says the owner is entitled to just compensation. And nowhere does it say that "just compensation" means what the owner believes is "just."4. No one should have a greater right to your property than you? I believe the whole idea behind eminent domain.5. When ED is used for non-right of way situations, it's likely to both decrease general welfare . . . Gotta call BS on this one;and simply shift utility from the private person to the public person. That's the whole idea.6. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect minority rights, which don't seem to be too important in these ED discussions. The "protection" is the just compensation.

 

[whoknew]

Eminent domain is widely abused and it's sad to see a lot of the responses in here. Obviously homes should go for more than FMV -- the current property owner didn't land there by luck.

The only time -- and I stress only -- that ED should be used is for "right of way" situations. The use of ED is obvious and makes a lot of sense there.

The Constitution stresses "for just compensation", but that's sadly been twisted to not mean whatever the property owner considers just. No one should have a greater right to your property than you. If you don't want to sell your property, you shouldn't have to. No matter what.

When ED is used for non-right of way situations, it's likely to both decrease general welfare and simply shift utility from the private person to the public person. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect minority rights, which don't seem to be too important in these ED discussions.

1. Why should someone get more than FMV? Most appreciation in real estate has nothing to do with the owner.

FMV is generally defined as the value a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in an open market. But we don't have a willing seller. We have a seller being forced by the government to sell his property. Why shouldn't the gov't have to pay more for that?

 

[Christo]

Eminent domain is widely abused and it's sad to see a lot of the responses in here. Obviously homes should go for more than FMV -- the current property owner didn't land there by luck.

The only time -- and I stress only -- that ED should be used is for "right of way" situations. The use of ED is obvious and makes a lot of sense there.

The Constitution stresses "for just compensation", but that's sadly been twisted to not mean whatever the property owner considers just. No one should have a greater right to your property than you. If you don't want to sell your property, you shouldn't have to. No matter what.

When ED is used for non-right of way situations, it's likely to both decrease general welfare and simply shift utility from the private person to the public person. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect minority rights, which don't seem to be too important in these ED discussions.

1. Why should someone get more than FMV? Most appreciation in real estate has nothing to do with the owner.

FMV is generally defined as the value a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in an open market. But we don't have a willing seller. We have a seller being forced by the government to sell his property. Why shouldn't the gov't have to pay more for that?

Because that wouldn't be fair market value.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Eminent domain is widely abused and it's sad to see a lot of the responses in here. Obviously homes should go for more than FMV -- the current property owner didn't land there by luck.The only time -- and I stress only -- that ED should be used is for "right of way" situations. The use of ED is obvious and makes a lot of sense there.The Constitution stresses "for just compensation", but that's sadly been twisted to not mean whatever the property owner considers just. No one should have a greater right to your property than you. If you don't want to sell your property, you shouldn't have to. No matter what.When ED is used for non-right of way situations, it's likely to both decrease general welfare and simply shift utility from the private person to the public person. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect minority rights, which don't seem to be too important in these ED discussions.

1. Why should someone get more than FMV? Most appreciation in real estate has nothing to do with the owner.2. And where do you get limitation to "right of way" from the phrase "public use?" 3. Similarly, where do you see that the Constitution "stresses" just compensation? It merely says the owner is entitled to just compensation. And nowhere does it say that "just compensation" means what the owner believes is "just."4. No one should have a greater right to your property than you? I believe the whole idea behind eminent domain.5. When ED is used for non-right of way situations, it's likely to both decrease general welfare . . . Gotta call BS on this one;and simply shift utility from the private person to the public person. That's the whole idea.6. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect minority rights, which don't seem to be too important in these ED discussions. The "protection" is the just compensation.

I realize this wasn't directed my way, but I agree with some of Chase's stuff so I thought I'd jump in.1. Most Appreciation in real estate: Location Location Location. If the property is a strategically strong place, bully for the owner. 2. Right of way to me would presumably mean a highway, which I would agree with. It has been argued that shopping centers and condo developments fall under the "public use" umbrella since the public uses them. However, I think most people would logically conclude that such a development is a private use. 3. Don't really know where to split hairs on this point. I do know that it shouldn't be soley up to the seizurer to decide what the seizee is a just compensation. Very muddy territory here that inherently favors the machine over the cog.4. That was his point. And Eminent Domain is what we're arguing...5. I'll agree with you on this on most levels, but we get into the dicey territory of what we value. I think generally its good for revenue but it can have social costs. If the mom and pop diner goes for a Taco Bell, we've lost something. If a neighborhood is severed and both ends die when you cut a highway through it(as has happened in dozens if not hundred of cities across America), we've paid a cost that isn't measured when you get to the bottom line of ratables and the "jobs" that come with it.6. The crux of the debate, but your point here holds water.

 

[snitwitch]

Eminent domain is widely abused and it's sad to see a lot of the responses in here. Obviously homes should go for more than FMV -- the current property owner didn't land there by luck.

The only time -- and I stress only -- that ED should be used is for "right of way" situations. The use of ED is obvious and makes a lot of sense there.

The Constitution stresses "for just compensation", but that's sadly been twisted to not mean whatever the property owner considers just. No one should have a greater right to your property than you. If you don't want to sell your property, you shouldn't have to. No matter what.

When ED is used for non-right of way situations, it's likely to both decrease general welfare and simply shift utility from the private person to the public person. The Bill of Rights is designed to protect minority rights, which don't seem to be too important in these ED discussions.

1. Why should someone get more than FMV? Most appreciation in real estate has nothing to do with the owner.

FMV is generally defined as the value a willing buyer would pay a willing seller in an open market. But we don't have a willing seller. We have a seller being forced by the government to sell his property. Why shouldn't the gov't have to pay more for that?

Because that wouldn't be fair market value.

The government is obviating the free market by taking property like this. More than FMV should be paid.And it should only be used when the need is strong for the public good. Not for erecting a Wal-Mart or condo complex.

 

[cstu]

Why not just make the gov't buy land on the free market like everyone else? Why should they have special privileges?

1) How would that possibly work? When my father was growing up, the street he grew up in was demolished to make way for the I-95 freeway. Once it was determined that the Eisenhower Interstate System was required for national security and economic growth, how would the government otherwise proceed? Miles of land were needed in a straight line, so the government picked a route and started the process. Otherwise, the government would pick the ideal route and then have to negotiate individually. What do they do if one guy sells and his neighbor doesn't? Move the freeway over a block? What if they've already bought 10 homes, or a hundred, on that path? If the last guy they need says he won't budge unless the government pays him 500 million dollars, what should they do? The freeway will be delayed while the engineers figure out an alternate route, and the government is stuck owning a thousand parcels of land it can't use. Or, they use your tax money to pay this other guy's lottery ticket.2) The government has special privileges because they provide things no one else does, and are charged with protecting the greater good. If you don't like the rules, feel free to secede. Good luck raising your own army.

That's all well and good for something like an interstate, but it's an entirely different matter when the land is used for a developer to built retail stores.

 

[videoguy505]

Why not just make the gov't buy land on the free market like everyone else? Why should they have special privileges?

1) How would that possibly work? When my father was growing up, the street he grew up in was demolished to make way for the I-95 freeway. Once it was determined that the Eisenhower Interstate System was required for national security and economic growth, how would the government otherwise proceed? Miles of land were needed in a straight line, so the government picked a route and started the process. Otherwise, the government would pick the ideal route and then have to negotiate individually. What do they do if one guy sells and his neighbor doesn't? Move the freeway over a block? What if they've already bought 10 homes, or a hundred, on that path? If the last guy they need says he won't budge unless the government pays him 500 million dollars, what should they do? The freeway will be delayed while the engineers figure out an alternate route, and the government is stuck owning a thousand parcels of land it can't use. Or, they use your tax money to pay this other guy's lottery ticket.2) The government has special privileges because they provide things no one else does, and are charged with protecting the greater good. If you don't like the rules, feel free to secede. Good luck raising your own army.

That's all well and good for something like an interstate, but it's an entirely different matter when the land is used for a developer to built retail stores.

Agreed:

For "public use" it's an unfortunate necessity I have no problem with.Forcing people to give up their homes to build strip malls, though, I don't agree with.

 

[ren hoek]

I agree with the idea that people have a right to their own property. It's easy to say "necessary evil" when your family isn't the one that's getting herded out of their own home like a bunch of cattle.

 

[NCCommish]

I agree with the idea that people have a right to their own property. It's easy to say "necessary evil" when your family isn't the one that's getting herded out of their own home like a bunch of cattle.

I feel the same way. However there sometimes are circumstances that make the community good more important than the indivduals rights. I don't mean to build a mall or some condos or to any way transfer property to a commercial entity to make a profit from. I am talking abotu the building of roads, airports, railways, schools, etc. Things that truly benefit everyone in the community long term.

 

[Christo]

1. Most Appreciation in real estate: Location Location Location. If the property is a strategically strong place, bully for the owner.

And what caused that particular location to be so valuable? Usually zoning ordinances and planning that occurred a long time before the owner got there. Including infrastructure that wouldn't have been possible if not for eminent domain.

2. Right of way to me would presumably mean a highway, which I would agree with. It has been argued that shopping centers and condo developments fall under the "public use" umbrella since the public uses them. However, I think most people would logically conclude that such a development is a private use.

Disagree. "Public use" is not the same thing as "use by the public."

3. Don't really know where to split hairs on this point. I do know that it shouldn't be soley up to the seizurer to decide what the seizee is a just compensation. Very muddy territory here that inherently favors the machine over the cog.

The government doesn't decide what the just compensation is.

4. That was his point. And Eminent Domain is what we're arguing...

But arguing that no one has the right to take your property when eminent domain is a fact is just like arguing that you don't have to follow the laws just because you didn't agree to be bound by them. That dog just won't hunt.

5. I'll agree with you on this on most levels, but we get into the dicey territory of what we value. I think generally its good for revenue but it can have social costs. If the mom and pop diner goes for a Taco Bell, we've lost something. If a neighborhood is severed and both ends die when you cut a highway through it(as has happened in dozens if not hundred of cities across America), we've paid a cost that isn't measured when you get to the bottom line of ratables and the "jobs" that come with it.

If this was Europe I'd agree with you. They live in the past. But the U.S. is all about progress, it's always been that way. History belongs in books.

6. The crux of the debate, but your point here holds water.

 

[T Bell]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Let's say you've got a developed area with increasing population. You need a firehouse, and the firehouse needs to be located within an area defined by four square blocks to have proper ability to respond to calls around the area it's to cover, and it also needs to have proper access to roads, both for immediate ingress and egress into the fire station, and also to the local highway for longer distance calls. Nobody with a suitable property wants to sell to you. Now what?

 

[whoknew]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Let's say you've got a developed area with increasing population. You need a firehouse, and the firehouse needs to be located within an area defined by four square blocks to have proper ability to respond to calls around the area it's to cover, and it also needs to have proper access to roads, both for immediate ingress and egress into the fire station, and also to the local highway for longer distance calls. Nobody with a suitable property wants to sell to you. Now what?

Raise the price. Or don't build it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I agree with the idea that people have a right to their own property. It's easy to say "necessary evil" when your family isn't the one that's getting herded out of their own home like a bunch of cattle.

I feel the same way. However there sometimes are circumstances that make the community good more important than the indivduals rights. I don't mean to build a mall or some condos or to any way transfer property to a commercial entity to make a profit from. I am talking abotu the building of roads, airports, railways, schools, etc. Things that truly benefit everyone in the community long term.

Roads, railways, in limited situations, yes.Schools, no.Airports, probably not, but because of the enormous acreage involved, I'll put it in the middle category.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Let's say you've got a developed area with increasing population. You need a firehouse, and the firehouse needs to be located within an area defined by four square blocks to have proper ability to respond to calls around the area it's to cover, and it also needs to have proper access to roads, both for immediate ingress and egress into the fire station, and also to the local highway for longer distance calls. Nobody with a suitable property wants to sell to you. Now what?

Raise the price. Or don't build it.

Some of the ED backers are mind-boggling. Kelo is one of the worst decisions the court has made in years. ED may not be a sexy topic like abortion, gay rights, or the death penalty, but that doctrine is suffering from much more serious problems than many of our hot button social issues.

 

[T Bell]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Let's say you've got a developed area with increasing population. You need a firehouse, and the firehouse needs to be located within an area defined by four square blocks to have proper ability to respond to calls around the area it's to cover, and it also needs to have proper access to roads, both for immediate ingress and egress into the fire station, and also to the local highway for longer distance calls. Nobody with a suitable property wants to sell to you. Now what?

Raise the price. Or don't build it.

Not building it is out of the question if you don't like your cities burning down en masse due to slow response times from fire departments. That's out. As for "raise the price", I assume that you're operating on the assumption that public funds are limitless? Even so, quite often these projects require more than one property to be taken in whole or in part. For example, the fire station itself might be wholly constructed on one property, but it's not unusual for slivers from teh frontages of adjacent properties to be taken to enable better ingress and egress for the trucks, a necessity for the project to go forward. You have two problems that not only can arise, but inevitably do arise. First nobody wants to be the first person to do the deal with the government - they want to wait for the others to set the price. Second, and closely related to the first problem, is that the last person, aka the "holdout", has the most bargaining power. They can allow the government to make several other transactions, but then hold up the entire project with ridiculous demands for compensation, all while a town in need of a firestation nearby is left waiting. That's very poor public policy to allow that to happen. And I say that as an attorney who represents property and business owners (exclusively) against public agencies in eminent domain cases.

 

[T Bell]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Let's say you've got a developed area with increasing population. You need a firehouse, and the firehouse needs to be located within an area defined by four square blocks to have proper ability to respond to calls around the area it's to cover, and it also needs to have proper access to roads, both for immediate ingress and egress into the fire station, and also to the local highway for longer distance calls. Nobody with a suitable property wants to sell to you. Now what?

Raise the price. Or don't build it.

Some of the ED backers are mind-boggling. Kelo is one of the worst decisions the court has made in years. ED may not be a sexy topic like abortion, gay rights, or the death penalty, but that doctrine is suffering from much more serious problems than many of our hot button social issues.

Kelo is irelevant to the scenario I outlined. I happen to agree strongly with Justice O'Connor's dissenting position. You're not recognizing any nuance here, which is a problem.

 

[Redwes25]

I said No. While in concept it is a good thing it has been abused to much and the S.C has a string of horrible decisions most notably Kelo v. City of New London. I can understand taking for roads and other public property but more and more Emminent Domain is being used to take private proprety from one individual and give it to another, which is beyond what I think Emminent Domain was ever intended for.

 

[Redwes25]

Null vote....it depends case to case.Ask the people of Norwood, OH if it's a good concept. A great asset to them is being prevented because of a guy and his shack. He was originally offered 1.5 times the FMV of his abandoned house just like everyone else. He refuses to sell and is preventing a qualty shopping area from going into an area that needs that kind of revenue.In this scenario, I support the concept 100%.

This is the worst abuse in my mind. Purely taking from one person to set up a mall owned by owned by another person.

 

[videoguy505]

I agree with the idea that people have a right to their own property. It's easy to say "necessary evil" when your family isn't the one that's getting herded out of their own home like a bunch of cattle.

"Ownership" doesn't mean unfettered right to do whatever you want. Just because you "own" property, doesn't mean you can use it to hold nuclear waste, or build a tower afoul of zoning laws, in many towns you can't even build a fence over 4 feet high. Ownership isn't like you're a separate country. You still live in a greater community. Sometimes the needs of the community as a whole outweigh the needs of the individual. If one wishes to take advantage of the benefits of living in the community--Police, Fire, Military protection, nearby hospitals, Waste Disposal, pre-negotiated utility services, etc--one should be willing to abide by the occassional, and hopefully rare, need of the community to impose upon them.

 

[Christo]

Some of the ED backers are mind-boggling.

Do you mean Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and the rest of that group? You do realize that when the Constitution was drafted the 5th Amendment didn't even apply to the states and they could take property without just compensation, don't you?

 

[NCCommish]

I agree with the idea that people have a right to their own property. It's easy to say "necessary evil" when your family isn't the one that's getting herded out of their own home like a bunch of cattle.

I feel the same way. However there sometimes are circumstances that make the community good more important than the indivduals rights. I don't mean to build a mall or some condos or to any way transfer property to a commercial entity to make a profit from. I am talking abotu the building of roads, airports, railways, schools, etc. Things that truly benefit everyone in the community long term.

Roads, railways, in limited situations, yes.Schools, no.

Airports, probably not, but because of the enormous acreage involved, I'll put it in the middle category.

Why? Everyone wants neighborhood schools. That means building them in neighborhoods. To say roads yes, schools no is a bit strange.

 

[NCCommish]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Let's say you've got a developed area with increasing population. You need a firehouse, and the firehouse needs to be located within an area defined by four square blocks to have proper ability to respond to calls around the area it's to cover, and it also needs to have proper access to roads, both for immediate ingress and egress into the fire station, and also to the local highway for longer distance calls. Nobody with a suitable property wants to sell to you. Now what?

Raise the price. Or don't build it.

Some of the ED backers are mind-boggling. Kelo is one of the worst decisions the court has made in years. ED may not be a sexy topic like abortion, gay rights, or the death penalty, but that doctrine is suffering from much more serious problems than many of our hot button social issues.

Kelo has done exactly what it was intended to do. Make the states get their act together on ED. And who are these mind boggling backers? As far as I can tell everyone here that is saying you have to have ED is being very specific about it's application being for the community good and not some developers pocket.

 

[videoguy505]

I've never, never been able to play a game of Sim City and not have to occasionally rezone to put in a police station or fire station somewhere that desperately needed one.

Although I guess if the government waited for a neighborhood to burn down in some inferno then it'd be easier to acquire the land in probate from the dead than deal with refusal to move from the living.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Let's say you've got a developed area with increasing population. You need a firehouse, and the firehouse needs to be located within an area defined by four square blocks to have proper ability to respond to calls around the area it's to cover, and it also needs to have proper access to roads, both for immediate ingress and egress into the fire station, and also to the local highway for longer distance calls. Nobody with a suitable property wants to sell to you. Now what?

Raise the price. Or don't build it.

Not building it is out of the question if you don't like your cities burning down en masse due to slow response times from fire departments. That's out. As for "raise the price", I assume that you're operating on the assumption that public funds are limitless? Even so, quite often these projects require more than one property to be taken in whole or in part. For example, the fire station itself might be wholly constructed on one property, but it's not unusual for slivers from teh frontages of adjacent properties to be taken to enable better ingress and egress for the trucks, a necessity for the project to go forward. You have two problems that not only can arise, but inevitably do arise. First nobody wants to be the first person to do the deal with the government - they want to wait for the others to set the price. Second, and closely related to the first problem, is that the last person, aka the "holdout", has the most bargaining power. They can allow the government to make several other transactions, but then hold up the entire project with ridiculous demands for compensation, all while a town in need of a firestation nearby is left waiting. That's very poor public policy to allow that to happen. And I say that as an attorney who represents property and business owners (exclusively) against public agencies in eminent domain cases.

Not raising it isn't out of the question. Not every town has a fire department. If it's too costly, then it shouldn't be built. Nothing prevents the town from secretly bargaining with multiple landowners, even adjacent ones. And it sounds like in your example, you're not just taking some person's property: you're kicking them out of the town. So you're excommunicating someone so others in the town can live better. Sounds great.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I hear a lot of "it's a necessary evil." Why? Why is it necessary at all?

Let's say you've got a developed area with increasing population. You need a firehouse, and the firehouse needs to be located within an area defined by four square blocks to have proper ability to respond to calls around the area it's to cover, and it also needs to have proper access to roads, both for immediate ingress and egress into the fire station, and also to the local highway for longer distance calls. Nobody with a suitable property wants to sell to you. Now what?

Raise the price. Or don't build it.

Some of the ED backers are mind-boggling. Kelo is one of the worst decisions the court has made in years. ED may not be a sexy topic like abortion, gay rights, or the death penalty, but that doctrine is suffering from much more serious problems than many of our hot button social issues.

Kelo has done exactly what it was intended to do. Make the states get their act together on ED. And who are these mind boggling backers? As far as I can tell everyone here that is saying you have to have ED is being very specific about it's application being for the community good and not some developers pocket.

The problem is the "just compensation" part.

 

[togo]

Here is a story about eminent domain that I have recently become very fascinated with. It was the construction of the Quabbin Reservoir in Massachusetts during the 1930's to get more water for Boston. There were 4 towns that were disincorporated by the state and the people were told they had to leave. (read below about a story from someone who lives right near there but google it for a lot more stories, info, and pictures, etc.)

It is an extrememy interesting, mind boggling, emotional, and sad piece of history. Last weekend I took my 2 kids and went down to see one of the 4 "Lost Towns", called Dana. This was the town the water covered the least when they were flooded.

It was about a mile and a half walk to the old center of the town from a gate off a main road. We walked down the old roads and you see old foundations and where homes, yards, and farms used to be.

We had a book as a guide with maps and pictures of buildings from the old center and saw the foudations of the Town Hall, the Schoolhouse, and the the Town Hotel along with other homes in the center. It was pretty neat to see and a little eerie.

I can't believe this story has not been made into a Hollywood Movie yet!

"During the 1920's it became apparent that Eastern Massachusetts did not have a large enough water supply to satisfy its growing needs for water. Thirsty Eastern Massachusetts inhabitants looked westward to the Swift River 100 miles away. The Swift River flowed through some small towns nestled in the Swift River valley. Through a series of "buyouts" the inhabitants of these towns were tossed out of their homes in preparation for construction of a reservoir.

Houses were bulldozed, bodies dug up (except for Native Americans), factories demolished and millions acres of trees were cut down. Four towns: Dana, Enfield, Greenwich and Prescott were "discontinued" and seven other towns were altered. A half mile long dam was built on the Swift River in Belchertown MA, and one of the longest tunnels in the world was constructed to carry the water a hundred miles to the east.

Flooding of the valley started in mid August 1939 and in 1946 the reservior was filled to capacity ( 412 billion gallons.) Nearly 40 square miles were covered with water. The new reservoir was named after a Native American chief of a local tribe. The chief's name was Nani-Quaben. The name, which was given to a hill in Enfield and a lake in Greenwich means " well watered place."

If I walk out my back door I can be inside the confines of the Quabbin within moments and I have spent many hours exploring its silent wilderness. It's also my favorite fishing spot.

Old cellar holes, stone wall, abandoned roads and hand-dug wells abound. I see deer (although hunting has made them pretty rare,) now and then a coyote, fisher cats, a great variety of birds and water fowl. There are moose and bear; in the reservation. When fishing it's common to see Bald Eagles. The watershed area encompasses nearly 200 square miles.

Countless unnamed streams and brooks feed into the reservoir. When you are on the water you can look down and see the ghostly remains of old foundations and stonewalls built many years ago by the long dead inhabitants of the four lost towns. Some people claim that the Quabbin is haunted and if you've ever been within it's borders after dark you'd find yourself hard pressed to argue with them."

 

[whoknew]

Some of the ED backers are mind-boggling.

Do you mean Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and the rest of that group?

Bandwagon propaganda. Nice. Of course, they also supported slavery, TJ wanted an agrarian economy, etc.

You do realize that when the Constitution was drafted the 5th Amendment didn't even apply to the states and they could take property without just compensation, don't you?

And the traditional "well it sucked even worse before/somewhere else so you should just shut up and be happy" defense. This is usually seen from the "America: Love it or Leave it" crowd, as if something that sucks a lot makes the current suck suck less.

 

[Osaurus]

Viva el blighto!