Eminent Domain (1 Viewer)

[NCCommish]

Seattle uses eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can build... a parking lot.

SEATTLE — The city is forcing a 103-year-old Spokane woman to sell her parking lot in Seattle to make way for, well, a parking lot.

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

The lot is owned by Spokane resident Myrtle Woldson. She doesn’t want to sell, so the City Council voted unanimously to use it’s power of eminent domain to take it after paying Woldson “fair market value.”

None of the City Council members would speak about their vote, but property rights advocates call it ridiculous.

”In this case, the city of Seattle is using eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can use it as a parking lot,” said Glen Morgan of the Freedom Foundation, which is an Olympia-based, conservative, free-market think tank. “There’s no public good in that at all.”

Morgan said there are several bills in the Legislature that would revamp eminent domain and give Washington property owners more rights.

“Eminent domain was originally intended for stuff like roadways, expanding roads, schools,” said Morgan. “Situations that are for the public good.”

Woldson can still challenge the move in court. She can also challenge the eventual selling price that the city decides on.

It should be noted the city tried to lease the parking lot they were told no. And then tried to buy it again no. Then they went ED on it.

Being told "no" is not justification for Eminent Domain. Being able to say "no" is what having private property means.

They decided they need the lot for what they are doing which is a public works project. They tried to lease it. They tried to buy it. They used ED as a last resort. I have no problem with that use.

I don't see if the lot is "needed", or if the city just thinks they'd rather have the revenue for people parking there, than have it go into private hands. The "need" is for ample parking in the area, and surely the lot already provides that as is.

If they tried to lease it, then their need for it is a lot less eminent than, say, the need to take over a house to build a freeway.

Say the Mayor likes your house. He'd like to live there as his official residence. He asks if you'd move out so he can rent it from you, you say no. He then offers to buy it, you say no. So he says, "That's OK, we'll seize it from you." Being told no twice doesn't in of itself justify ED.

Yeah pretty sure your example isn't close. This isn't for a house it's for a public works project meant to improve the city.

 

[cstu]

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

It doesn't seem to be just for another parking lot but to build a replacement tunnel.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'm sorta sympathetic to most folks that have their residences taken by eminent domain. I understand that people become attached to their homes and that it can be traumatic to be forced to move. But taking somebody's parking lot doesn't really seem like the same thing. If the city actually pays her what the property is worth she can just go buy another parking lot somewhere, if she likes parking lots that much.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

First, they came for our parking lots...

 

[Godsbrother]

Seattle uses eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can build... a parking lot.

SEATTLE — The city is forcing a 103-year-old Spokane woman to sell her parking lot in Seattle to make way for, well, a parking lot.

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

The lot is owned by Spokane resident Myrtle Woldson. She doesn’t want to sell, so the City Council voted unanimously to use it’s power of eminent domain to take it after paying Woldson “fair market value.”

None of the City Council members would speak about their vote, but property rights advocates call it ridiculous.

”In this case, the city of Seattle is using eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can use it as a parking lot,” said Glen Morgan of the Freedom Foundation, which is an Olympia-based, conservative, free-market think tank. “There’s no public good in that at all.”

Morgan said there are several bills in the Legislature that would revamp eminent domain and give Washington property owners more rights.

“Eminent domain was originally intended for stuff like roadways, expanding roads, schools,” said Morgan. “Situations that are for the public good.”

Woldson can still challenge the move in court. She can also challenge the eventual selling price that the city decides on.

It should be noted the city tried to lease the parking lot they were told no. And then tried to buy it again no. Then they went ED on it.

Being told "no" is not justification for Eminent Domain. Being able to say "no" is what having private property means.

They decided they need the lot for what they are doing which is a public works project. They tried to lease it. They tried to buy it. They used ED as a last resort. I have no problem with that use.

I don't see if the lot is "needed", or if the city just thinks they'd rather have the revenue for people parking there, than have it go into private hands. The "need" is for ample parking in the area, and surely the lot already provides that as is.

If they tried to lease it, then their need for it is a lot less eminent than, say, the need to take over a house to build a freeway.

Say the Mayor likes your house. He'd like to live there as his official residence. He asks if you'd move out so he can rent it from you, you say no. He then offers to buy it, you say no. So he says, "That's OK, we'll seize it from you." Being told no twice doesn't in of itself justify ED.

Yeah I am not understanding why they would want to lease a parking lot unless they want it to park government vehicles and the vehicles of government employees exclusively.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

It doesn't seem to be just for another parking lot but to build a replacement tunnel.

No, I think what's happening is that the city has a bunch of parking lots already. But they're about to lose a bunch of them because of this tunnel. So they seized this woman's parking lot to make up for the parking lots that they're losing.

 

[Sarnoff]

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

It doesn't seem to be just for another parking lot but to build a replacement tunnel.

from what I gather from the article, the building of the tunnel displaces existing parking in the nearby area. So they want to take over an existing parking lot and claim it as a city parking lot.

I get that if they were actually building a large project, like a stadium, and the footprint for the parking lot of the stadium overlapped where this lot is, of course ED is appropriate. If the land for this lot is needed for the tunnel, then, yeah, ED is appropriate.

If the city just needs to say "downtown has 500 city-owned parking spaces" and is seizing this lot because the city parking revenue is more attractive than having the $ go into private hands, then F them.

 

[Godsbrother]

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

It doesn't seem to be just for another parking lot but to build a replacement tunnel.

from what I gather from the article, the building of the tunnel displaces existing parking in the nearby area. So they want to take over an existing parking lot and claim it as a city parking lot.

I get that if they were actually building a large project, like a stadium, and the footprint for the parking lot of the stadium overlapped where this lot is, of course ED is appropriate. If the land for this lot is needed for the tunnel, then, yeah, ED is appropriate.

If the city just needs to say "downtown has 500 city-owned parking spaces" and is seizing this lot because the city parking revenue is more attractive than having the $ go into private hands, then F them.

Perhaps they have a number of prepaid parking leases and they don't have the lots for all of them?

 

[Sarnoff]

Seattle uses eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can build... a parking lot.

SEATTLE — The city is forcing a 103-year-old Spokane woman to sell her parking lot in Seattle to make way for, well, a parking lot.

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

The lot is owned by Spokane resident Myrtle Woldson. She doesn’t want to sell, so the City Council voted unanimously to use it’s power of eminent domain to take it after paying Woldson “fair market value.”

None of the City Council members would speak about their vote, but property rights advocates call it ridiculous.

”In this case, the city of Seattle is using eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can use it as a parking lot,” said Glen Morgan of the Freedom Foundation, which is an Olympia-based, conservative, free-market think tank. “There’s no public good in that at all.”

Morgan said there are several bills in the Legislature that would revamp eminent domain and give Washington property owners more rights.

“Eminent domain was originally intended for stuff like roadways, expanding roads, schools,” said Morgan. “Situations that are for the public good.”

Woldson can still challenge the move in court. She can also challenge the eventual selling price that the city decides on.

It should be noted the city tried to lease the parking lot they were told no. And then tried to buy it again no. Then they went ED on it.

Being told "no" is not justification for Eminent Domain. Being able to say "no" is what having private property means.

They decided they need the lot for what they are doing which is a public works project. They tried to lease it. They tried to buy it. They used ED as a last resort. I have no problem with that use.

I don't see if the lot is "needed", or if the city just thinks they'd rather have the revenue for people parking there, than have it go into private hands. The "need" is for ample parking in the area, and surely the lot already provides that as is.

If they tried to lease it, then their need for it is a lot less eminent than, say, the need to take over a house to build a freeway.

Say the Mayor likes your house. He'd like to live there as his official residence. He asks if you'd move out so he can rent it from you, you say no. He then offers to buy it, you say no. So he says, "That's OK, we'll seize it from you." Being told no twice doesn't in of itself justify ED.

Yeah pretty sure your example isn't close. This isn't for a house it's for a public works project meant to improve the city.

It's not a public works project meant to improve the city, it's a parking lot merely changing ownership. The city is using ED because they'd rather own the lot than let the woman own it. They're not using the land for any other use than it's current one.

 

[NCCommish]

Seattle uses eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can build... a parking lot.

SEATTLE — The city is forcing a 103-year-old Spokane woman to sell her parking lot in Seattle to make way for, well, a parking lot.

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

The lot is owned by Spokane resident Myrtle Woldson. She doesn’t want to sell, so the City Council voted unanimously to use it’s power of eminent domain to take it after paying Woldson “fair market value.”

None of the City Council members would speak about their vote, but property rights advocates call it ridiculous.

”In this case, the city of Seattle is using eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can use it as a parking lot,” said Glen Morgan of the Freedom Foundation, which is an Olympia-based, conservative, free-market think tank. “There’s no public good in that at all.”

Morgan said there are several bills in the Legislature that would revamp eminent domain and give Washington property owners more rights.

“Eminent domain was originally intended for stuff like roadways, expanding roads, schools,” said Morgan. “Situations that are for the public good.”

Woldson can still challenge the move in court. She can also challenge the eventual selling price that the city decides on.

It should be noted the city tried to lease the parking lot they were told no. And then tried to buy it again no. Then they went ED on it.

Being told "no" is not justification for Eminent Domain. Being able to say "no" is what having private property means.

They decided they need the lot for what they are doing which is a public works project. They tried to lease it. They tried to buy it. They used ED as a last resort. I have no problem with that use.

I don't see if the lot is "needed", or if the city just thinks they'd rather have the revenue for people parking there, than have it go into private hands. The "need" is for ample parking in the area, and surely the lot already provides that as is.

If they tried to lease it, then their need for it is a lot less eminent than, say, the need to take over a house to build a freeway.

Say the Mayor likes your house. He'd like to live there as his official residence. He asks if you'd move out so he can rent it from you, you say no. He then offers to buy it, you say no. So he says, "That's OK, we'll seize it from you." Being told no twice doesn't in of itself justify ED.

Yeah pretty sure your example isn't close. This isn't for a house it's for a public works project meant to improve the city.

It's not a public works project meant to improve the city, it's a parking lot merely changing ownership. The city is using ED because they'd rather own the lot than let the woman own it. They're not using the land for any other use than it's current one.

No they would have rather leased it than own it.

 

[RCon]

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

It doesn't seem to be just for another parking lot but to build a replacement tunnel.

from what I gather from the article, the building of the tunnel displaces existing parking in the nearby area. So they want to take over an existing parking lot and claim it as a city parking lot.

I get that if they were actually building a large project, like a stadium, and the footprint for the parking lot of the stadium overlapped where this lot is, of course ED is appropriate. If the land for this lot is needed for the tunnel, then, yeah, ED is appropriate.

If the city just needs to say "downtown has 500 city-owned parking spaces" and is seizing this lot because the city parking revenue is more attractive than having the $ go into private hands, then F them.

If this description is accurate, then I'd say eminent domain has no place here.

In fact, if these are the facts of the situation, then the analogy of a mayor wanting to lease/buy your house as his residence seems spot on.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Just to remind folks that this isn't a 103 year old lady protecting her sole property and income. She brought this property to develop (IMO) and she has developed it. She, or most likely her estate, has lawyers managing her best interests. Woldson stands to lose a ton of of income from parking, and the increase of the property value once the project is completed.

That said, there has got to be a better way than ED to solve this problem.

If viaduct's down, what will rise?

By Bob Young and Justin Mayo
Seattle Times staff reporters

Originally published March 9, 2007 at 12:00 AM

Myrtle Woldson, a 96-year-old Spokane heiress, owns one of the last big blocks of undeveloped land along Seattle's waterfront.

Her property between Seneca and Spring streets already is considered prime land but would be even more valuable if the Alaskan Way Viaduct gets torn down.

All along the waterfront, property values would increase up to 25 percent if the area is no longer cast in shadow by the 54-year-old roadway, a city study says.

The more desirable land is unlikely to produce a wall of new condo towers, however, next to where the viaduct now stands. Most of the properties are already developed, and historic protections and zoning restrict what can be built.

Still, there would be change. With a more attractive waterfront, rents likely would rise, buildings would get facelifts, and many would be re-oriented to take advantage of better views, new open space and an improved connection to the waterfront.

"Now most buildings have turned their backs on the waterfront," because of noise and the hulking underside of the elevated highway, said city Planning Director John Rahaim. Loading docks, but not ground-floor shops and restaurants, face the waterfront, he said.

A study by the Downtown Seattle Association, which is campaigning to replace the viaduct with a tunnel, predicts 2.5 million to 5 million square feet of new office, retail and residential space would be built if the viaduct went away.

The development likely would be dispersed over a large area — from the water up to Second Avenue, and from near the Olympic Sculpture Park all the way down to Starbucks headquarters in the Sodo neighborhood. It would occur on more than two dozen parking lots, by adding a few stories to existing buildings, and on an eight-acre tract near Safeco Field. There, developer Greg Smith plans four, 15-story residential buildings and six, nine-story office buildings — if he can get a zoning change, which he says is more crucial than what happens to the viaduct.

Large, undeveloped lots such as Smith's and Woldson's are not common, particularly near the central waterfront.

On one side of Woldson's property is a 13-story condo building; on the other is a seven-story office building. A block away is Seattle Steam, a private energy company that provides heat to about 200 clients such as Swedish and Harborview medical centers.

Seattle Steam wouldn't be inclined to move its network of pipes, said company President Stan Gent, and isn't going to sell its property.

Neither would some of the biggest landowners in the area. Five of the 10 largest owners are public entities — the Port, the city, the county, the state and the federal government — and it's unlikely they would sell much, if any, of their property.

Protections for historic buildings in the Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market areas also would prevent new developments from dominating the waterfront, Rahaim said.

Zoning rules are another impediment, he said. The rules prohibit condos and hotels on piers over Elliott Bay.

They also cap building heights at 160 feet, or roughly 15 stories, for properties just east of the viaduct. The cap could discourage owners from demolishing many buildings because it wouldn't prove lucrative to simply gain a few more floors, Rahaim said.

If a tunnel is built — now a political longshot — Mayor Greg Nickels has proposed tapping owners of properties near the waterfront for up to $250 million in extra taxes as part of a special district.

A preliminary study by the city reports that such properties would see values increased by a total of $400 million to $600 million.

The property values could increase similarly if the viaduct were replaced by surface streets and upgraded transit, rather than a tunnel.

"There seems to be the potential, but we haven't taken the steps of studying it yet," said Nickels aide Michael Mann.

Much would depend on whether putting so much of the viaduct traffic and noise on the street would become its own barrier to the water.

Some owners, such as Smith and Jonathan Diamond, president of Diamond Parking, say they will develop their properties regardless of what happens to the viaduct.

Still, Smith, who has contributed $20,000 to the anti-viaduct campaign for the March 13 election, said tearing down the viaduct would make his other properties that much more attractive.

"Existing real estate would benefit just because downtown would be a more vibrant place to live and shop, which equates to higher rents," Smith said.

As for Woldson, she has no plans to sell or develop her parking lot, said her real-estate adviser Don Spencer.

But it's not hard to imagine a deal she couldn't refuse.

"Their story may change dramatically because someone will make an offer that's so enticing," said John Taylor, policy director for the Downtown Seattle Association.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Wow. if she did this on her own, kudos to her.

Looks like she bought the land in 2004, for $2.5 million.

Now valued at $7 million.

And it looks she's quite a character. Saved a theater from being turned into a parking garage, and withdrew a gift to a gardens project because they didn't cut down trees that blocked her view.

 

[cstu]

Just to remind folks that this isn't a 103 year old lady protecting her sole property and income. She brought this property to develop (IMO) and she has developed it. She, or most likely her estate, has lawyers managing her best interests. Woldson stands to lose a ton of of income from parking, and the increase of the property value once the project is completed.

And what a beautiful development it is.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Just to remind folks that this isn't a 103 year old lady protecting her sole property and income. She brought this property to develop (IMO) and she has developed it. She, or most likely her estate, has lawyers managing her best interests. Woldson stands to lose a ton of of income from parking, and the increase of the property value once the project is completed.

And what a beautiful development it is.....

for people looking for a place to park.

 

[Redwes25]

This makes no sense. She is using it as a parking lot and they want do use ED so it remains a Parking Lot that city owns and earns income from. This is inappropraite in my mind.

 

[bigbottom]

Seattle uses eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can build... a parking lot.

SEATTLE The city is forcing a 103-year-old Spokane woman to sell her parking lot in Seattle to make way for, well, a parking lot.

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

The lot is owned by Spokane resident Myrtle Woldson. She doesnt want to sell, so the City Council voted unanimously to use its power of eminent domain to take it after paying Woldson fair market value.

None of the City Council members would speak about their vote, but property rights advocates call it ridiculous.

In this case, the city of Seattle is using eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can use it as a parking lot, said Glen Morgan of the Freedom Foundation, which is an Olympia-based, conservative, free-market think tank. Theres no public good in that at all.

Morgan said there are several bills in the Legislature that would revamp eminent domain and give Washington property owners more rights.

Eminent domain was originally intended for stuff like roadways, expanding roads, schools, said Morgan. Situations that are for the public good.

Woldson can still challenge the move in court. She can also challenge the eventual selling price that the city decides on.

It should be noted the city tried to lease the parking lot they were told no. And then tried to buy it again no. Then they went ED on it.

Being told "no" is not justification for Eminent Domain. Being able to say "no" is what having private property means.

They decided they need the lot for what they are doing which is a public works project. They tried to lease it. They tried to buy it. They used ED as a last resort. I have no problem with that use.

I don't see if the lot is "needed", or if the city just thinks they'd rather have the revenue for people parking there, than have it go into private hands. The "need" is for ample parking in the area, and surely the lot already provides that as is.

If they tried to lease it, then their need for it is a lot less eminent than, say, the need to take over a house to build a freeway.

Say the Mayor likes your house. He'd like to live there as his official residence. He asks if you'd move out so he can rent it from you, you say no. He then offers to buy it, you say no. So he says, "That's OK, we'll seize it from you." Being told no twice doesn't in of itself justify ED.

Yeah pretty sure your example isn't close. This isn't for a house it's for a public works project meant to improve the city.

It's not a public works project meant to improve the city, it's a parking lot merely changing ownership. The city is using ED because they'd rather own the lot than let the woman own it. They're not using the land for any other use than it's current one.

No they would have rather leased it than own it.

Okay, but assuming they're seizing this parking lot to use it as a parking lot simply because a project elsewhere is reducing the number of city-owned parking spaces, do you support the use of ED to take it? And what if the property stands to increase greatly in value in the relatively near future?

 

[Rick James]

Seattle uses eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can build... a parking lot.

SEATTLE The city is forcing a 103-year-old Spokane woman to sell her parking lot in Seattle to make way for, well, a parking lot.

The Seattle City Council voted Monday to take the lot near the waterfront by eminent domain, using a portion of the $30 million provided by the state to take care of parking issues around the waterfront. Hundreds of public parking spaces will be lost when the state begins dismantling the Alaskan Way Viaduct for the digging of the tunnel. The construction will last until 2020.

The lot is owned by Spokane resident Myrtle Woldson. She doesnt want to sell, so the City Council voted unanimously to use its power of eminent domain to take it after paying Woldson fair market value.

None of the City Council members would speak about their vote, but property rights advocates call it ridiculous.

In this case, the city of Seattle is using eminent domain to seize a parking lot, so they can use it as a parking lot, said Glen Morgan of the Freedom Foundation, which is an Olympia-based, conservative, free-market think tank. Theres no public good in that at all.

Morgan said there are several bills in the Legislature that would revamp eminent domain and give Washington property owners more rights.

Eminent domain was originally intended for stuff like roadways, expanding roads, schools, said Morgan. Situations that are for the public good.

Woldson can still challenge the move in court. She can also challenge the eventual selling price that the city decides on.

It should be noted the city tried to lease the parking lot they were told no. And then tried to buy it again no. Then they went ED on it.

Being told "no" is not justification for Eminent Domain. Being able to say "no" is what having private property means.

They decided they need the lot for what they are doing which is a public works project. They tried to lease it. They tried to buy it. They used ED as a last resort. I have no problem with that use.

That's because you're an idiot.

 

[T Bell]

Here's my take on Seattle, based upon the information that's (quickly) available to me:

1) The city wants to construct a tunnel which will contain a two-level road, to replace a viaduct which was damaged by an earthquake. This is a classic condemnation scenario, as far as it goes - there are few purposes for condemnation more classic than right of way construction, which is unarguably a "public purpose" and which the government is uniquely positioned to carry out, particularly in a dense, urbanized environment with a large amount of separately and privately owned lots that would need to be acquired.

2) The parking lot in question is not directly part of the project insofar as acquisition and/or alteration of that property is not necessary to carry out the project. Instead, the city seems to be recognizing that the construction project itself, for the ~5 years or so that it will go on, will obstruct a great deal of downtown parking, which means something on the order of 600 parking spaces will be lost in that area. This appears to be due to lane closures and use of existing public lots by the construction crews to park vehicles and construction materials. It's unclear whether any of those soon-to-be-lost spaces are anything other than truly "public", i.e. dedicated for use for particular city agencies or employees, etc. We should assume that city zoning requires these spaces to exist given the population density and the overall zoning of the area, which would be typical, however the articles don't directly address this nor do they address what temporary zoning variances may be made or have been made to accommodate the construction.

3) The lot in question is a simple, surface level paved parking lot with marked spaces. It looks to be in good condition, so "blight" is not an issue here. It's probably being used at its "highest and best use" given the high need for parking spaces in the area, such as for people parking there to work nearby or to patronize nearby businesses.

4) If the city is simply going to take the property and use it precisely as it is being used, in its current condition*, then I'm against this taking as it's not necessary. The lot, owned privately, already provides the use that the condemnation is supposedly necessary to achieve.

*I doubt that this is the case as I don't think the city would do this simply to allow the public to use it just as it is already being used. That wouldn't make much sense given that the city knows that it's going to get a bunch of blowback for using eminent domain here.

5) If the city is taking the parking lot in order to improve it, i.e. by constructing more spaces such as in a parking garage (which this article implies might happen) then the city has a better case to make that it needs a certain number of parking spaces in the area and this is the only place it can build those additional parking spaces, and the owner has forced the use of ED because of her refusal or inability to build those additional spaces. It should be pointed out that this would be a "public use" insofar as available spaces in this area are a benefit to the community at large, and particularly the business community.

6) If the city is taking the parking lot so that it can use a portion of it during construction to park/store construction vehicles and/or materials, it could arguably condemn a temporary construction easement that would enable this (and which would expire at the end of the project) and which would mean that an entire taking of the property was not necessary. This might also be the case with city vehicles (not involved in the project) which were displaced by the project from other parking lots, but this would be a somewhat shakier argument on "necessity" grounds.

 

[Sarnoff]

Here's a link to Seattle's notice & order.

Page 3 says "the city will own & operate the established parking facility on the property". While certainly in the future they may build a full parking structure there, I don't see any mention of it. In the future maybe they'll build a hospital or a school or a spaceport there; who knows? But I don't think a hypothetical future use is grounds for ED.

Apparently the city would have been satisfied if it was able to lease the existing property. So presumably no further improvements are necessary to meet their needs. It's only due to failing that that caused the ED move, but I just don't see why it's necessary now. I agree with T Bell's thoughts on #5 above that if there are plans to significantly increase the number of spots on the lot to satisfy the parking needs of the area, and if this is the only place in the area which could meet those needs, then ED is reasonable, I just don't see evidence that all those conditions are met. It really seems as if the city intends to take over operation of a privately run business in order to run it themselves the exact same way.

 

[Statcruncher]

BS parking grab.

 

[D in the D]

I asked this question on another forum, so if you are a poster there, I apologize for the duplication.

Question re: Eminent Domain.

City of Detroit has lost roughly a million residents since the 1950s (from 1.8 million to 800k). It still remains the same size, square mile-wise. If I were put in charge of fixing detroit, the first thing i would do is move people out of houses that are on blocks with literally one or two houses occupied.

I would give them a good deal to move to any abandoned homes in existing, still decent, neighborhoods. Stipends to fix the houses, and a short-term property tax breaks. Ultimately raze the now empty neighborhoods and sell the land to adjacent cities, or farm it, or whatever.

The question I have is, could Eminent Domain be used to "force" these people to accept this offer.

 

[jhib]

It's not a public works project meant to improve the city, it's a parking lot merely changing ownership. The city is using ED because they'd rather own the lot than let the woman own it. They're not using the land for any other use than it's current one.

No they would have rather leased it than own it.

I would imagine this is only the case if they could have leased it at the rate they offered. Has there been any mention that she was entirely against leasing it out, or did she just want more money than they wanted to spend on the lease?

I would guess that if they were going to run the parking, they would be charging less than she does and would therefore want to pay less for their lease than she would be able to make otherwise.

 

[T Bell]

I asked this question on another forum, so if you are a poster there, I apologize for the duplication.

Question re: Eminent Domain.

City of Detroit has lost roughly a million residents since the 1950s (from 1.8 million to 800k). It still remains the same size, square mile-wise. If I were put in charge of fixing detroit, the first thing i would do is move people out of houses that are on blocks with literally one or two houses occupied.

I would give them a good deal to move to any abandoned homes in existing, still decent, neighborhoods. Stipends to fix the houses, and a short-term property tax breaks. Ultimately raze the now empty neighborhoods and sell the land to adjacent cities, or farm it, or whatever.

The question I have is, could Eminent Domain be used to "force" these people to accept this offer.

The short answer is "yes". You're fixing blight and engaging in community redevelopment.

I've not read the body of this article, but it generally addresses these issues.

 

[D in the D]

I asked this question on another forum, so if you are a poster there, I apologize for the duplication.

Question re: Eminent Domain.

City of Detroit has lost roughly a million residents since the 1950s (from 1.8 million to 800k). It still remains the same size, square mile-wise. If I were put in charge of fixing detroit, the first thing i would do is move people out of houses that are on blocks with literally one or two houses occupied.

I would give them a good deal to move to any abandoned homes in existing, still decent, neighborhoods. Stipends to fix the houses, and a short-term property tax breaks. Ultimately raze the now empty neighborhoods and sell the land to adjacent cities, or farm it, or whatever.

The question I have is, could Eminent Domain be used to "force" these people to accept this offer.

The short answer is "yes". You're fixing blight and engaging in community redevelopment.

I've not read the body of this article, but it generally addresses these issues.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Sarnoff]

California judges just blocked the state from proceeding with it's high speed rail project, finding the state failed to meet the criteria to issue the $8 Billion in bonds to fund the project that were required by the voters in Prop 1A.

Nevertheless, the Rail Authority Board will continue to use eminent domain to take land for the now hopelessly stalled project. California farms and middle-class neighborhoods in the Central Valley are at risk.

 

[Koya]

California judges just blocked the state from proceeding with it's high speed rail project, finding the state failed to meet the criteria to issue the $8 Billion in bonds to fund the project that were required by the voters in Prop 1A.

Nevertheless, the Rail Authority Board will continue to use eminent domain to take land for the now hopelessly stalled project. California farms and middle-class neighborhoods in the Central Valley are at risk.

What are we happy about? Not investing in infrastructure that, honestly, will be necessary for the U.S. to retain a global economic advantage in the years and decades to come, or that ED is still being used, even though (for now) the project won't even be moving forward?

 

[Sarnoff]

Politicians in MD are trying to use "eminent domain" to prevent a business from moving out of state. If "House of Cards" tries to film season 3 in a different state, lawmakers want Maryland to seize their sets, property, and equipment. How is that constitutional?

The threat was proposed Thursday afternoon by Del. C. William “Bill” Frick (D-Montgomery) and quickly approved with barely any debate or even a roll-call vote.

“I literally thought: What is an appropriate Frank Underwood response to a threat like this?” said Frick, referring to the the show’s lead character, a charming but conniving politician who murders, blackmails and threatens his way to greater power. “Eminent domain really struck me as the most dramatic response.”

After the “friendly amendment” to the budget was approved and applauded, Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery) tweeted: “How did that happen?! Is @billfrick the new Frank Underwood? All that and more will be revealed in the coming days.”

The makers of “House of Cards,” Media Rights Capital of Los Angeles, shouldn’t be too worried — yet.

Maryland’s Senate is not expected to agree to the powerful property grab, especially after star-struck senators voted 45 to 1 last week to increase the amount of available tax credits in the coming year to $18.5 million, hopefully enough to appease the show so it doesn’t have to follow through on its threat.

The amendment does not actually mention “House of Cards.” It simply states that the Department of Business and Economic Development “under certain circumstances” can “exercise certain powers of eminent domain” to aquire the property of a film production company that has claimed more than $10 million in tax credits and then ceases filming in the state.

Apparently, they tried the same maneuver against the Colts, which is why they had to flee in the middle of the night. Seriously, is this a legit gov't power?

 

[T Bell]

Politicians in MD are trying to use "eminent domain" to prevent a business from moving out of state. If "House of Cards" tries to film season 3 in a different state, lawmakers want Maryland to seize their sets, property, and equipment. How is that constitutional?

The threat was proposed Thursday afternoon by Del. C. William “Bill” Frick (D-Montgomery) and quickly approved with barely any debate or even a roll-call vote.

“I literally thought: What is an appropriate Frank Underwood response to a threat like this?” said Frick, referring to the the show’s lead character, a charming but conniving politician who murders, blackmails and threatens his way to greater power. “Eminent domain really struck me as the most dramatic response.”

After the “friendly amendment” to the budget was approved and applauded, Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery) tweeted: “How did that happen?! Is @billfrick the new Frank Underwood? All that and more will be revealed in the coming days.”

The makers of “House of Cards,” Media Rights Capital of Los Angeles, shouldn’t be too worried — yet.

Maryland’s Senate is not expected to agree to the powerful property grab, especially after star-struck senators voted 45 to 1 last week to increase the amount of available tax credits in the coming year to $18.5 million, hopefully enough to appease the show so it doesn’t have to follow through on its threat.

The amendment does not actually mention “House of Cards.” It simply states that the Department of Business and Economic Development “under certain circumstances” can “exercise certain powers of eminent domain” to aquire the property of a film production company that has claimed more than $10 million in tax credits and then ceases filming in the state.

Apparently, they tried the same maneuver against the Colts, which is why they had to flee in the middle of the night. Seriously, is this a legit gov't power?

No, it's not legit. It's an ignorant state politician making a populist appeal. It won't happen.

 

[Koya]

Politicians in MD are trying to use "eminent domain" to prevent a business from moving out of state. If "House of Cards" tries to film season 3 in a different state, lawmakers want Maryland to seize their sets, property, and equipment. How is that constitutional?

The threat was proposed Thursday afternoon by Del. C. William Bill Frick (D-Montgomery) and quickly approved with barely any debate or even a roll-call vote.

I literally thought: What is an appropriate Frank Underwood response to a threat like this? said Frick, referring to the the shows lead character, a charming but conniving politician who murders, blackmails and threatens his way to greater power. Eminent domain really struck me as the most dramatic response.

After the friendly amendment to the budget was approved and applauded, Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery) tweeted: How did that happen?! Is @billfrick the new Frank Underwood? All that and more will be revealed in the coming days.

The makers of House of Cards, Media Rights Capital of Los Angeles, shouldnt be too worried yet.

Marylands Senate is not expected to agree to the powerful property grab, especially after star-struck senators voted 45 to 1 last week to increase the amount of available tax credits in the coming year to $18.5 million, hopefully enough to appease the show so it doesnt have to follow through on its threat.

The amendment does not actually mention House of Cards. It simply states that the Department of Business and Economic Development under certain circumstances can exercise certain powers of eminent domain to aquire the property of a film production company that has claimed more than $10 million in tax credits and then ceases filming in the state.

Apparently, they tried the same maneuver against the Colts, which is why they had to flee in the middle of the night. Seriously, is this a legit gov't power?

No, it's not legit. It's an ignorant state politician making a populist appeal. It won't happen.

Sniff test suggests this is a HUGE abuse of power.

That said, if there were contractual strings attached to receiving the tax breaks I could see a legit cause. I do know that many state economic development tax breaks are predicated on certain milestones to be reached, although the complete lack of mention of any such clause makes you assume not in this case.

 

[Sarnoff]

Politicians in MD are trying to use "eminent domain" to prevent a business from moving out of state. If "House of Cards" tries to film season 3 in a different state, lawmakers want Maryland to seize their sets, property, and equipment. How is that constitutional?

The threat was proposed Thursday afternoon by Del. C. William “Bill” Frick (D-Montgomery) and quickly approved with barely any debate or even a roll-call vote.

“I literally thought: What is an appropriate Frank Underwood response to a threat like this?” said Frick, referring to the the show’s lead character, a charming but conniving politician who murders, blackmails and threatens his way to greater power. “Eminent domain really struck me as the most dramatic response.”

After the “friendly amendment” to the budget was approved and applauded, Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery) tweeted: “How did that happen?! Is @billfrick the new Frank Underwood? All that and more will be revealed in the coming days.”

The makers of “House of Cards,” Media Rights Capital of Los Angeles, shouldn’t be too worried — yet.

Maryland’s Senate is not expected to agree to the powerful property grab, especially after star-struck senators voted 45 to 1 last week to increase the amount of available tax credits in the coming year to $18.5 million, hopefully enough to appease the show so it doesn’t have to follow through on its threat.

The amendment does not actually mention “House of Cards.” It simply states that the Department of Business and Economic Development “under certain circumstances” can “exercise certain powers of eminent domain” to aquire the property of a film production company that has claimed more than $10 million in tax credits and then ceases filming in the state.

Apparently, they tried the same maneuver against the Colts, which is why they had to flee in the middle of the night. Seriously, is this a legit gov't power?

No, it's not legit. It's an ignorant state politician making a populist appeal. It won't happen.

While I agree it's totally bogus, it was tried before on the Colts, and we know what happened there. That they keep trying this is disturbing.

 

[Koya]

Politicians in MD are trying to use "eminent domain" to prevent a business from moving out of state. If "House of Cards" tries to film season 3 in a different state, lawmakers want Maryland to seize their sets, property, and equipment. How is that constitutional?

The threat was proposed Thursday afternoon by Del. C. William Bill Frick (D-Montgomery) and quickly approved with barely any debate or even a roll-call vote.

I literally thought: What is an appropriate Frank Underwood response to a threat like this? said Frick, referring to the the shows lead character, a charming but conniving politician who murders, blackmails and threatens his way to greater power. Eminent domain really struck me as the most dramatic response.

After the friendly amendment to the budget was approved and applauded, Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery) tweeted: How did that happen?! Is @billfrick the new Frank Underwood? All that and more will be revealed in the coming days.

The makers of House of Cards, Media Rights Capital of Los Angeles, shouldnt be too worried yet.

Marylands Senate is not expected to agree to the powerful property grab, especially after star-struck senators voted 45 to 1 last week to increase the amount of available tax credits in the coming year to $18.5 million, hopefully enough to appease the show so it doesnt have to follow through on its threat.

The amendment does not actually mention House of Cards. It simply states that the Department of Business and Economic Development under certain circumstances can exercise certain powers of eminent domain to aquire the property of a film production company that has claimed more than $10 million in tax credits and then ceases filming in the state.

Apparently, they tried the same maneuver against the Colts, which is why they had to flee in the middle of the night. Seriously, is this a legit gov't power?

No, it's not legit. It's an ignorant state politician making a populist appeal. It won't happen.

While I agree it's totally bogus, it was tried before on the Colts, and we know what happened there. That they keep trying this is disturbing.

If this is truly the same failed methodology that contributed to the Colts bolting in the middle of the night, I can't see that playing well in Baltimore. Those wounds are still very much fresh.

 

[Sarnoff]

A line in the middle of this article really bugs me.

Downtown L.A. carwash owner cleans up in sale estimated at $25 million

One of the most sought-after real estate parcels in downtown Los Angeles is a carwash — and it's been sold for an estimated $25 million.

Purchased for $525,000 in 1980, the Downtown Car Wash across the street from L.A. Live was bought by a local developer who plans to build a high-rise hotel-and-residential complex at the busy crossroads of Olympic Boulevard and Figueroa Street.

During the carwash's more than three decades of operation, its surrounding neighborhood has undergone a dramatic transformation that has left the sprawling one-story business looking out of place, like a go-cart among sleek race cars.

The intersection was once on the edge of the city's business center, but it is now in a key link between the booming new neighborhood around Staples Center known as South Park and the financial district.

"This is a Los Angeles real estate trophy," said buyer Ben Neman, a longtime downtown landlord, "and we want to make it a much better trophy."

In addition to constant car traffic rolling through the busy intersection, thousands of people trudge by the carwash on most days heading to and from basketball games, concerts and conventions.

"It's like the corner of Main Street and Main Street," said real estate broker Rod Delson of NAI Capital, who arranged the sale.

Neman bought the property from Robert Bush, who built the carwash in 1980, Delson said. Bush could not be reached for comment.

The price was not disclosed, but Bush was asking $25 million for the 36,300-square-foot lot that holds the carwash, two restaurants and a ticket-selling business. Experts familiar with the downtown market say that the owner had been approached for years to sell the carwash and finally agreed. They said he came close to getting his asking price.

Bush paid $525,000 for the land in 1980, the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office said. It was reassessed at $953,000 after the carwash was built. It was most recently assessed at $2.4 million.

Although many drivers will no doubt be sorry to see the carwash disappear, the president of the Los Angeles Downtown Center Business Improvement District is not among them.

"That was always my example of why we still needed eminent domain," Carol Schatz said. "We have created a new city center, and we don't need a carwash smack dab in the middle of it."

What should be there?

"Hotel, hotel, hotel," Schatz said. "Anything but a carwash."

Downtown has a hotel shortage, according to city officials hoping to attract more business to Los Angeles Convention Center just south of Staples Center.

Neman said he is in the early stages of planning what to do with the site, but that he envisions a hotel and perhaps luxury condominiums in a tall structure with shops and restaurants at street level. He hopes to build about 500,000 square feet.

Planning will take at least two years, Neman said, during which the carwash will remain open.

On Thursday afternoon, about 15 people crowded the faux wooden tables with orange seats at Fernando's Taco Inn restaurant inside the carwash building, where diners can watch cars make their way down the automated wash line.

Tim Ahern, a 64-year-old radio engineer who works at L.A. Live, comes to Fernando's a couple of times a month for lunch, he said. Word of plans for a new hotel didn't surprise the Culver City resident.

"They are killing each other to get land to build the hotels," he said while eating a quesadilla.

Matias Perez, 44, has operated his MP Shoe Repair & Shine inside the carwash for 24 years and remembers what the neighborhood was like before Staples Center and L.A. Live arrived starting in 1999.

"Everything used to be parking lots, prostitution and drugs," he said as he shined a pair of black dress shoes. "But now it's changing."

Neman and his affiliated companies own more than 5 million square feet of commercial real estate downtown, he said. He helped develop the Medallion, an extensive apartment and retail complex at 4th and Main streets in the Old Bank District.

Family pride is on the line now at Olympic and Figueroa, Neman's nephew Simon Neman said.

"Right now it's probably the most iconic corner downtown," he said. "We want to build something that is going to last."

The Nemans outmaneuvered would-be buyers, including the owners of the Figueroa Hotel next door, said downtown real estate broker Adam Tischer of Colliers International, who was not involved in the deal.

The hotel now charges advertisers $80,000 a month to advertise on the building's vast walls overlooking L.A. Live, Tischer said. A new tower on the carwash site could, he said, obscure the view of ads, such as the Apple iPhone advertisement there now.

"The only group that will be sorry to learn of this sale will be owners of dirty cars," he said, "and the owners of the Figueroa Hotel."

Now I gotta figure out if this broad is someone I can vote against. Guy has a hot property. Has built his own business on it and poured 35 years of his own sweat into it. Has an asking price, which, apparently, is real market value because that's what he got for the place. And this lady thinks the city should have seized it, given him 1/10th the price, and sold it to someone else to run a different business on. Makes my blood boil.

 

[NCCommish]

A line in the middle of this article really bugs me.

Downtown L.A. carwash owner cleans up in sale estimated at $25 million

One of the most sought-after real estate parcels in downtown Los Angeles is a carwash — and it's been sold for an estimated $25 million.

Purchased for $525,000 in 1980, the Downtown Car Wash across the street from L.A. Live was bought by a local developer who plans to build a high-rise hotel-and-residential complex at the busy crossroads of Olympic Boulevard and Figueroa Street.

During the carwash's more than three decades of operation, its surrounding neighborhood has undergone a dramatic transformation that has left the sprawling one-story business looking out of place, like a go-cart among sleek race cars.

The intersection was once on the edge of the city's business center, but it is now in a key link between the booming new neighborhood around Staples Center known as South Park and the financial district.

"This is a Los Angeles real estate trophy," said buyer Ben Neman, a longtime downtown landlord, "and we want to make it a much better trophy."

In addition to constant car traffic rolling through the busy intersection, thousands of people trudge by the carwash on most days heading to and from basketball games, concerts and conventions.

"It's like the corner of Main Street and Main Street," said real estate broker Rod Delson of NAI Capital, who arranged the sale.

Neman bought the property from Robert Bush, who built the carwash in 1980, Delson said. Bush could not be reached for comment.

The price was not disclosed, but Bush was asking $25 million for the 36,300-square-foot lot that holds the carwash, two restaurants and a ticket-selling business. Experts familiar with the downtown market say that the owner had been approached for years to sell the carwash and finally agreed. They said he came close to getting his asking price.

Bush paid $525,000 for the land in 1980, the Los Angeles County Assessor's Office said. It was reassessed at $953,000 after the carwash was built. It was most recently assessed at $2.4 million.

Although many drivers will no doubt be sorry to see the carwash disappear, the president of the Los Angeles Downtown Center Business Improvement District is not among them.

"That was always my example of why we still needed eminent domain," Carol Schatz said. "We have created a new city center, and we don't need a carwash smack dab in the middle of it."

What should be there?

"Hotel, hotel, hotel," Schatz said. "Anything but a carwash."

Downtown has a hotel shortage, according to city officials hoping to attract more business to Los Angeles Convention Center just south of Staples Center.

Neman said he is in the early stages of planning what to do with the site, but that he envisions a hotel and perhaps luxury condominiums in a tall structure with shops and restaurants at street level. He hopes to build about 500,000 square feet.

Planning will take at least two years, Neman said, during which the carwash will remain open.

On Thursday afternoon, about 15 people crowded the faux wooden tables with orange seats at Fernando's Taco Inn restaurant inside the carwash building, where diners can watch cars make their way down the automated wash line.

Tim Ahern, a 64-year-old radio engineer who works at L.A. Live, comes to Fernando's a couple of times a month for lunch, he said. Word of plans for a new hotel didn't surprise the Culver City resident.

"They are killing each other to get land to build the hotels," he said while eating a quesadilla.

Matias Perez, 44, has operated his MP Shoe Repair & Shine inside the carwash for 24 years and remembers what the neighborhood was like before Staples Center and L.A. Live arrived starting in 1999.

"Everything used to be parking lots, prostitution and drugs," he said as he shined a pair of black dress shoes. "But now it's changing."

Neman and his affiliated companies own more than 5 million square feet of commercial real estate downtown, he said. He helped develop the Medallion, an extensive apartment and retail complex at 4th and Main streets in the Old Bank District.

Family pride is on the line now at Olympic and Figueroa, Neman's nephew Simon Neman said.

"Right now it's probably the most iconic corner downtown," he said. "We want to build something that is going to last."

The Nemans outmaneuvered would-be buyers, including the owners of the Figueroa Hotel next door, said downtown real estate broker Adam Tischer of Colliers International, who was not involved in the deal.

The hotel now charges advertisers $80,000 a month to advertise on the building's vast walls overlooking L.A. Live, Tischer said. A new tower on the carwash site could, he said, obscure the view of ads, such as the Apple iPhone advertisement there now.

"The only group that will be sorry to learn of this sale will be owners of dirty cars," he said, "and the owners of the Figueroa Hotel."

Now I gotta figure out if this broad is someone I can vote against. Guy has a hot property. Has built his own business on it and poured 35 years of his own sweat into it. Has an asking price, which, apparently, is real market value because that's what he got for the place. And this lady thinks the city should have seized it, given him 1/10th the price, and sold it to someone else to run a different business on. Makes my blood boil.

To be fair the government almost always overpays for property that is seized. No one gets 10% of the value.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

And this lady thinks the city should have seized it, given him 1/10th the price, and sold it to someone else to run a different business on. Makes my blood boil.

Fair market values for eminent domain are not just the assessed value. He would not have only received 10% of the price.

 

[NCCommish]

With that said ED should never be used to force someone to sell so someone else can make money. Airports, highways, public infrastructure is one thing. Private money is another.

 

[Sarnoff]

The free market worked. But this gov't official is unhappy because she didn't get take something from one hardworking businessman and sell it to some rich developer herself.

 

[apalmer]

The free market worked. But this gov't official is unhappy because she didn't get take something from one hardworking businessman and sell it to some rich developer herself.

Or she's upset he delayed development so long. As the posts above said, ED cases almost always overpay for property. When our town had a redevelopment project, people rushed out to by properties in the area so they could then make a quick profit from the condemnation.

 

[Sarnoff]

The free market worked. But this gov't official is unhappy because she didn't get take something from one hardworking businessman and sell it to some rich developer herself.

Or she's upset he delayed development so long. As the posts above said, ED cases almost always overpay for property. When our town had a redevelopment project, people rushed out to by properties in the area so they could then make a quick profit from the condemnation.

While I'm sure that the city would have "overpayed" from the assessed value, no way L.A. would have paid him the full $25mil.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The free market worked. But this gov't official is unhappy because she didn't get take something from one hardworking businessman and sell it to some rich developer herself.

Or she's upset he delayed development so long. As the posts above said, ED cases almost always overpay for property. When our town had a redevelopment project, people rushed out to by properties in the area so they could then make a quick profit from the condemnation.

While I'm sure that the city would have "overpayed" from the assessed value, no way L.A. would have paid him the full $25mil.

What are you basing this on?

 

[Megalomaniac]

I don't care about the perceived benefit or reason. I will never approve of ED. This should have never been allowed to happen in this country. I know that many on here will give "good" reasons for allowing ED, but these are the same people that excuse everything govts do...even genocide. Most of the time ALL govts ever do is mess things up! Our govt has screwed up SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Post Office, Welfare, & our borders. They've spent the last 100 years ruining our education, brain washing our children and trapping good folk of all colors into their web of welfare and "assistance" traps by making sure they don't have jobs. What did Odumba do when he came into office? Did he concentrate on jobs or the economy? No, he lied over and over and did an overnight pass thru of yet another lie...Healthcare. They've lied, spied, experimented and even killed American citizens. They've started both the Great Depression and Recession and laid shambles to many jobs and nearly every industry with mounds of regulations. The Fed has been devalueing our dollars, savings and assets through printing. Regular Americans having been dropping from the workforce at a record pace, while six figure DC govt jobs have been growing. How many TRILLIONS has the govt wasted on "aid" for other countries, even those countries that hate the west? What sane human being, who has TRULY witnessed history or has any common sense would trust any govt. Big govts are responbile for more death and destruction than any evil corporation or private citizen ever has. There is a reason that absolute power corrupts even the best and kindest person.

Common sense and history clearly shows that people, in particular govt people in power, WILL take advantage. That is why cases like this one were going to happen eventually.....there was no stopping it. Of course some will try and rationalize it. If I was the 4th generation in my home, do reallly think a 20% or even 100% premium would make me sell the home that raised 4 generation of my family? Bottom line is that govt lovers/losers just like to steal everybody elses' stuff.....be tax money, land, or power and they will always find a "good" reason for screwing good people....and only a sheep would approve of that.

 

[Koya]

I don't care about the perceived benefit or reason. I will never approve of ED. This should have never been allowed to happen in this country. I know that many on here will give "good" reasons for allowing ED, but these are the same people that excuse everything govts do...even genocide. Most of the time ALL govts ever do is mess things up! Our govt has screwed up SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Post Office, Welfare, & our borders. They've spent the last 100 years ruining our education, brain washing our children and trapping good folk of all colors into their web of welfare and "assistance" traps by making sure they don't have jobs. What did Odumba do when he came into office? Did he concentrate on jobs or the economy? No, he lied over and over and did an overnight pass thru of yet another lie...Healthcare. They've lied, spied, experimented and even killed American citizens. They've started both the Great Depression and Recession and laid shambles to many jobs and nearly every industry with mounds of regulations. The Fed has been devalueing our dollars, savings and assets through printing. Regular Americans having been dropping from the workforce at a record pace, while six figure DC govt jobs have been growing. How many TRILLIONS has the govt wasted on "aid" for other countries, even those countries that hate the west? What sane human being, who has TRULY witnessed history or has any common sense would trust any govt. Big govts are responbile for more death and destruction than any evil corporation or private citizen ever has. There is a reason that absolute power corrupts even the best and kindest person.

Common sense and history clearly shows that people, in particular govt people in power, WILL take advantage. That is why cases like this one were going to happen eventually.....there was no stopping it. Of course some will try and rationalize it. If I was the 4th generation in my home, do reallly think a 20% or even 100% premium would make me sell the home that raised 4 generation of my family? Bottom line is that govt lovers/losers just like to steal everybody elses' stuff.....be tax money, land, or power and they will always find a "good" reason for screwing good people....and only a sheep would approve of that.

ANARCHY IN THE USA!

(The Obvious Solution)

 

[NCCommish]

Someone had Rush on today.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Keystone issue made me wonder where liberals and conservatives and indies stand on this.

I am still trying to wrap my head around how the liberal judges on the USSC decided that it would be a good idea to allow state, city or federal governments seize private property, even in poor neighborhoods, largely affecting the poor and lower class and disadvantaged living there, for purposes of private development.

The definition of "public good" used here could include almost any private or public development. They threw poor people, largely and often renters, out into the street. If I recall correctly the mall that was planned in New London never came to fruition.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html

I can tell you locally here in NO conservative Gov. Bobby Jindal used this case to seize some two score of historic neighborhoods which he promptly tore down for a boondoggle of a biomedical complex, which is part public, part private. Property speculators and insiders reaped the benefits of selling property to teh state. Meanwhile the poor, the lower class who largely populated the neighborhoods were thrown out on their bums. Jindal will further use this project for his presidential campaign run which is sure to come.

So now today we have the Keystone issue looming and the oil companies will be able to use this case to seize property from private landowners for their own profit.

Anyone left or right changed their view on this case?

 

[timschochet]

I tended to agree with the SC decision as a general rule. It depends on the situation. I think that property can be seized for the public good as a matter of principle, but it should have a high bar to hurdle. I question whether Keystone hurdles that bar .

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I tended to agree with the SC decision as a general rule. It depends on the situation. I think that property can be seized for the public good as a matter of principle, but it should have a high bar to hurdle. I question whether Keystone hurdles that bar .

What's the difference between a mall and an oil pipeline? A pipeline generates more income.

 

[timschochet]

I tended to agree with the SC decision as a general rule. It depends on the situation. I think that property can be seized for the public good as a matter of principle, but it should have a high bar to hurdle. I question whether Keystone hurdles that bar .

What's the difference between a mall and an oil pipeline? A pipeline generates more income.

maybe not by square footage. A city will have long term benefits, potentially, from a mall. What long term benefits are there for a city from a pipeline?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I tended to agree with the SC decision as a general rule. It depends on the situation. I think that property can be seized for the public good as a matter of principle, but it should have a high bar to hurdle. I question whether Keystone hurdles that bar .

What's the difference between a mall and an oil pipeline? A pipeline generates more income.

maybe not by square footage.A city will have long term benefits, potentially, from a mall. What long term benefits are there for a city from a pipeline?

Well for one Port Arthur and Houston stand to make millions in taxes. Many port cities in Louisiana will make money off the shipping. And in each locale where those pipleine properties are bought up and transferred there will be taxes and payouts galore. People will be making bank off this thing and so will the towns and counties right down the line.

Meanwhile that mall in New London never got built. They seized people's properties... and now they're just putting in townhouses. So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

http://www.theday.com/article/20100219/NWS01/100219649/1047

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

So private property got taken to give other people... their private property.

It always bothers me when folks say property "got taken" without any mention that the property owners received compensation. Just comes across as misleading.

 

[Quez]

I wish we had eminent domain like China. We would be able to get a lot more done.