Eminent Domain (1 Viewer)

[n currency]

Eminent domain refers to the power possessed by the state over all property within the state, specifically its power to appropriate property for a public use. In some jurisdictions, the state delegates eminent domain power to certain public and private companies, typically utilities, such that they can bring eminent domain actions to run telephone, power, water, or gas lines. In most countries, including the United States under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the owner of any appropriated land is entitled to reasonable compensation, usually defined as the fair market value of the property. Proceedings to take land under eminent domain are typically referred to as "condemnation" proceedings.

 

[T Bell]

It's a tool that can be used for productive or corrupt ends. It's not inherently good or bad. Your question is very poorly framed.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Neccessary evil that is sometimes abused. Most often not, though. That doesn't make it good or bad.

 

[videoguy505]

Eminent domain refers to the power possessed by the state over all property within the state, specifically its power to appropriate property for a public use. In some jurisdictions, the state delegates eminent domain power to certain public and private companies, typically utilities, such that they can bring eminent domain actions to run telephone, power, water, or gas lines. In most countries, including the United States under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, the owner of any appropriated land is entitled to reasonable compensation, usually defined as the fair market value of the property. Proceedings to take land under eminent domain are typically referred to as "condemnation" proceedings.

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.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

yesno

 

[n currency]

It's a tool that can be used for productive or corrupt ends. It's not inherently good or bad. Your question is very poorly framed.

its not poorly framed, im looking for whether you believe its good or bad and state your reasons. I am neither here nor there on this issue so for me to tilt the question in a negative or positive light would ruin what im looking for. Its obvious that it has pros and cons and definately can be used for a positive thing and can be used for to make a profit allowing commercial builders to come in bringing up profits for government. so whats everyones thoughts.

 

[Tybeeman]

When used to build schools, hospitals, roads I believe its a necessary evil. When it's used to increase tax revenue, I believe that should not be allowed. To force people out of their homes and property they have worked for their entire life to obtain, to build condos or malls, is un-American.

 

[urbanhack]

depends on the situation?

 

[One]

get naked.

 

[MrPhoenix]

If we had a choice, I'd say it shouldn't be legal because I don't trust our government to use it appropriately. I've seen it used locally to put in a Lowes, Dierbergs (local grocery store) and a shopping mall.

 

[StrikeS2k]

It's a tool that can be used for productive or corrupt ends. It's not inherently good or bad. Your question is very poorly framed.

its not poorly framed, im looking for whether you believe its good or bad and state your reasons. I am neither here nor there on this issue so for me to tilt the question in a negative or positive light would ruin what im looking for. Its obvious that it has pros and cons and definately can be used for a positive thing and can be used for to make a profit allowing commercial builders to come in bringing up profits for government. so whats everyones thoughts.

It IS poorly framed because, as with many issues, the answer isn't black and white.

 

[Tom in Albany]

Always Yes. Screw your little home, it's for the greater good.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Always Yes. Screw your little home, it's for the greater good.

Well said, comrade.

 

[n currency]

It's a tool that can be used for productive or corrupt ends. It's not inherently good or bad. Your question is very poorly framed.

its not poorly framed, im looking for whether you believe its good or bad and state your reasons. I am neither here nor there on this issue so for me to tilt the question in a negative or positive light would ruin what im looking for. Its obvious that it has pros and cons and definately can be used for a positive thing and can be used for to make a profit allowing commercial builders to come in bringing up profits for government. so whats everyones thoughts.

It IS poorly framed because, as with many issues, the answer isn't black and white.

thats why we have a thing called discussion and exactly what this question creates. Does your mind overload and you walk away when people ask the question of right and wrong on black and white issues.

 

[Dragons]

When used to build schools, hospitals, roads I believe its a necessary evil. When it's used to increase tax revenue, I believe that should not be allowed. To force people out of their homes and property they have worked for their entire life to obtain, to build condos or malls, is un-American.

Even when used properly, people get screwed with "fair market value", but otherwise, I agree with this.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

When used to build schools, hospitals, roads I believe its a necessary evil. When it's used to increase tax revenue, I believe that should not be allowed. To force people out of their homes and property they have worked for their entire life to obtain, to build condos or malls, is un-American.

Even when used properly, people get screwed with "fair market value", but otherwise, I agree with this.

I have seen this claim made before, but the evidence I've seen seems to be to the contrary.

 

[Dragons]

When used to build schools, hospitals, roads I believe its a necessary evil. When it's used to increase tax revenue, I believe that should not be allowed. To force people out of their homes and property they have worked for their entire life to obtain, to build condos or malls, is un-American.

Even when used properly, people get screwed with "fair market value", but otherwise, I agree with this.

I have seen this claim made before, but the evidence I've seen seems to be to the contrary.

I didn't intend to make it absolute, so how about this:Even when used properly, people can get screwed with "fair market value", but otherwise, I agree with this.

 

[apalmer]

When used to build schools, hospitals, roads I believe its a necessary evil. When it's used to increase tax revenue, I believe that should not be allowed. To force people out of their homes and property they have worked for their entire life to obtain, to build condos or malls, is un-American.

Even when used properly, people get screwed with "fair market value", but otherwise, I agree with this.

I have seen this claim made before, but the evidence I've seen seems to be to the contrary.

I agree. Local property owners subject to condemnation proceedings generally feel like they've hit the jackpot.

 

[StrikeS2k]

It's a tool that can be used for productive or corrupt ends. It's not inherently good or bad. Your question is very poorly framed.

its not poorly framed, im looking for whether you believe its good or bad and state your reasons. I am neither here nor there on this issue so for me to tilt the question in a negative or positive light would ruin what im looking for. Its obvious that it has pros and cons and definately can be used for a positive thing and can be used for to make a profit allowing commercial builders to come in bringing up profits for government. so whats everyones thoughts.

It IS poorly framed because, as with many issues, the answer isn't black and white.

thats why we have a thing called discussion and exactly what this question creates. Does your mind overload and you walk away when people ask the question of right and wrong on black and white issues.

You made it a poll.

 

[munga30]

ED is about as "American" as it gets, seeing as how it's in the Constitution. Call it lots of things, but un-American it's not.

 

[Christo]

It's a tool that can be used for productive or corrupt ends. It's not inherently good or bad. Your question is very poorly framed.

"Do you Agree with the Goverments use of Eminent Domain?"

Yes and no.

Eminent domain is a necessity. Whether I agree that with the government's "use" of eminent domain completely depends upon the circumstances of each case.

I recently defended an eminent domain case where I represented a small business owner who is close to retirement. The village was trying to stick the guy with the clean up costs caused by seepage from the dry cleaner next door--nearly $100,000. He almost agreed before coming to see me. Soon after I filed my appearance I "reminded" them that they had not gone to the trouble of getting a ruling from the EPA. They decided to settle the case quickly without the clean up costs. Got my client $10,000 more than the appraised value of the property.

 

[Follows Closely]

...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.

 

[Osaurus]

I used to do some work for a client in the Tampa area that specializes in ED (law firm obviously). A good portion of their clients were those that FDOT (Florida DOT) wanted to put a road through their house and or property. Their definition of "fair market value" is insulting at best. I can see how ED can be used in a positive way, but I think most of the time it is not. Check out their case results and you will see what I mean.

 

[NCCommish]

It's a tool that can be used for productive or corrupt ends. It's not inherently good or bad. Your question is very poorly framed.

"Do you Agree with the Goverments use of Eminent Domain?"

Yes and no.

Eminent domain is a necessity. Whether I agree that with the government's "use" of eminent domain completely depends upon the circumstances of each case.

I recently defended an eminent domain case where I represented a small business owner who is close to retirement. The village was trying to stick the guy with the clean up costs caused by seepage from the dry cleaner next door--nearly $100,000. He almost agreed before coming to see me. Soon after I filed my appearance I "reminded" them that they had not gone to the trouble of getting a ruling from the EPA. They decided to settle the case quickly without the clean up costs. Got my client $10,000 more than the appraised value of the property.

This is where I am on it. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

 

[Orange Crush]

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

Excellent. Now he can afford to pay your bill.

 

[cstu]

It's a tool that can be used for productive or corrupt ends. It's not inherently good or bad. Your question is very poorly framed.

Agreed, what matters is the motivation.

 

[Dragons]

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

Excellent. Now he can afford to pay your bill.

That leaves the $100k he saved in cleanup costs for hookers.

 

[GregR_2]

It's a tool that can be used for productive or corrupt ends. It's not inherently good or bad. Your question is very poorly framed.

"Do you Agree with the Goverments use of Eminent Domain?"

Yes and no.

Eminent domain is a necessity. Whether I agree that with the government's "use" of eminent domain completely depends upon the circumstances of each case.

I recently defended an eminent domain case where I represented a small business owner who is close to retirement. The village was trying to stick the guy with the clean up costs caused by seepage from the dry cleaner next door--nearly $100,000. He almost agreed before coming to see me. Soon after I filed my appearance I "reminded" them that they had not gone to the trouble of getting a ruling from the EPA. They decided to settle the case quickly without the clean up costs. Got my client $10,000 more than the appraised value of the property.

This is where I am on it. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

Yep, same here. The poll is on the Government's use of eminent domain, but he never described what use the Government puts it to, only described what it is. I could see myself agreeing with some uses but not others.

 

[GroveDiesel]

It's a tool that can be used for productive or corrupt ends. It's not inherently good or bad. Your question is very poorly framed.

"Do you Agree with the Goverments use of Eminent Domain?"

Yes and no.

Eminent domain is a necessity. Whether I agree that with the government's "use" of eminent domain completely depends upon the circumstances of each case.

I recently defended an eminent domain case where I represented a small business owner who is close to retirement. The village was trying to stick the guy with the clean up costs caused by seepage from the dry cleaner next door--nearly $100,000. He almost agreed before coming to see me. Soon after I filed my appearance I "reminded" them that they had not gone to the trouble of getting a ruling from the EPA. They decided to settle the case quickly without the clean up costs. Got my client $10,000 more than the appraised value of the property.

This is where I am on it. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

Yup. Like others have said, poorly worded question. Sorry. Eminent Domain is a necessary evil at times. But it's often used in ways that most people should find unacceptable. Eminent domain is simply a tool. How it's used is what is important. Just like a knife is a tool. A knife can be very useful, but it's not such a great thing when somebody sticks a knife into someone else.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Like most instances of "personal rights" versus "public good" "we the people" have allowed the pendulum to swing too far to the "public good" side of the equation and have only recently started fighting back. In my neck of the woods it was called Maryland Senate Bill 509 which woke up public a bit before Kelo did it for the rest of nation.

ETA: Just because we are out of balance in the fact that we abuse ED, doesn't mean the solution is to get rid of it either.

 

[T Bell]

It's a tool that can be used for productive or corrupt ends. It's not inherently good or bad. Your question is very poorly framed.

its not poorly framed, im looking for whether you believe its good or bad and state your reasons. I am neither here nor there on this issue so for me to tilt the question in a negative or positive light would ruin what im looking for. Its obvious that it has pros and cons and definately can be used for a positive thing and can be used for to make a profit allowing commercial builders to come in bringing up profits for government. so whats everyones thoughts.

Like I said, it's like a tool. Your question may as well be asking whether I'm in favor of or against hammers. You need to be more specific to get a meaningful set of answers from your poll.

 

[John Mamula]

It's a tool that can be used for productive or corrupt ends. It's not inherently good or bad. Your question is very poorly framed.

its not poorly framed, im looking for whether you believe its good or bad and state your reasons. I am neither here nor there on this issue so for me to tilt the question in a negative or positive light would ruin what im looking for. Its obvious that it has pros and cons and definately can be used for a positive thing and can be used for to make a profit allowing commercial builders to come in bringing up profits for government. so whats everyones thoughts.

Like I said, it's like a tool. Your question may as well be asking whether I'm in favor of or against hammers. You need to be more specific to get a meaningful set of answers from your poll.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

When used to build schools, hospitals, roads I believe its a necessary evil. When it's used to increase tax revenue, I believe that should not be allowed. To force people out of their homes and property they have worked for their entire life to obtain, to build condos or malls, is un-American.

Even when used properly, people get screwed with "fair market value", but otherwise, I agree with this.

I have seen this claim made before, but the evidence I've seen seems to be to the contrary.

I agree. Local property owners subject to condemnation proceedings generally feel like they've hit the jackpot.

If they weren't getting jobbed, why would it even exist? Why wouldn't they just buy the property and not have this system in place?I used to support it for government projects like roads, but realistically, our roads are built for the most part. Buy it or build around, the government can not be trusted with this sort of program, saying nothing of the outright theft engaged in when this is used for private enterprise.

 

[eoMMan]

What do I care about Eminem's website?

 

[videoguy505]

Like I said, it's like a tool. Your question may as well be asking whether I'm in favor of or against hammers. You need to be more specific to get a meaningful set of answers from your poll.

Yes on claw.No on ball-peen.

 

[T Bell]

When used to build schools, hospitals, roads I believe its a necessary evil. When it's used to increase tax revenue, I believe that should not be allowed. To force people out of their homes and property they have worked for their entire life to obtain, to build condos or malls, is un-American.

Even when used properly, people get screwed with "fair market value", but otherwise, I agree with this.

I have seen this claim made before, but the evidence I've seen seems to be to the contrary.

I agree. Local property owners subject to condemnation proceedings generally feel like they've hit the jackpot.

This may depend upon the jurisdiction, and also (if being handled by a private developer) how stringent they are in screening claims. In SoCal, my experience has been that it's generally not a good thing to be a property or business owner who is subject to an eminent domain taking. People also forget that the property or business owners inevitably have to hire attorneys, and the attorneys of course need to get paid. IMHO there should be a reasonable attorneys fees provision worked into all condemnation actions, meaning the agency/public entity pays.

 

[The Commish]

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%.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

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%.

So offer him 2x, 3x, etc. Personally, I would consider my inconvience and "trouble" part of the market value. Why should he sell for a private enterprise if he doesn't want to?

 

[Christo]

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

Excellent. Now he can afford to pay your bill.

Nope, under Illinois law the government entity has to pay the defendant's reasonable legal fees and costs. I cleared $20,000 without my client having to pay me a dime.

 

[T Bell]

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%.

That's (I assume) poor legislating. CA has a "quick take" procedure to avoid such problems, wherein the condemning agency can get an "Order of Immediate Possession" after filing the eminent domain lawsuit, and with the support of an appraisal make a "good faith deposit" with the court for what they contend is the fair market value of the property, in exchange for getting possession of the property and preventing a holdout. The deposit is inevitably low, but the property/business owner can use the lawsuit to prove they're owed more. The property owner is then compensated based upon the outcome of the litigation, if it doesn't settle, and the agency can move forward with its project.

 

[The Commish]

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%.

So offer him 2x, 3x, etc. Personally, I would consider my inconvience and "trouble" part of the market value. Why should he sell for a private enterprise if he doesn't want to?

Inconvience? It was a condemed house that he was gonna have to pay to have torn down....now it's a "landmark" of the area. It's no sweat off his back if it's sold. I can't see any reason not to sell, other than "because I don't want to". When it's for greed, I have an issue with it for some reason....call me silly.

 

[The Commish]

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%.

That's (I assume) poor legislating. CA has a "quick take" procedure to avoid such problems, wherein the condemning agency can get an "Order of Immediate Possession" after filing the eminent domain lawsuit, and with the support of an appraisal make a "good faith deposit" with the court for what they contend is the fair market value of the property, in exchange for getting possession of the property and preventing a holdout. The deposit is inevitably low, but the property/business owner can use the lawsuit to prove they're owed more. The property owner is then compensated based upon the outcome of the litigation, if it doesn't settle, and the agency can move forward with its project.

This seems reasonable, but it's not what has happened in this case. I am no lawyer and don't know the specifics, but now he's in so deep with lawyer fees etc, he wants 4-5 times the market value just to make some money which is since he could have had a lot more cash in his pocket at the beginning than he is ever going to have now. They are now talking about just building around his propery, leaving his shack there and planning on his space being a little park should he ever choose to sell.

 

[apalmer]

When used to build schools, hospitals, roads I believe its a necessary evil. When it's used to increase tax revenue, I believe that should not be allowed. To force people out of their homes and property they have worked for their entire life to obtain, to build condos or malls, is un-American.

Even when used properly, people get screwed with "fair market value", but otherwise, I agree with this.

I have seen this claim made before, but the evidence I've seen seems to be to the contrary.

I agree. Local property owners subject to condemnation proceedings generally feel like they've hit the jackpot.

This may depend upon the jurisdiction, and also (if being handled by a private developer) how stringent they are in screening claims. In SoCal, my experience has been that it's generally not a good thing to be a property or business owner who is subject to an eminent domain taking. People also forget that the property or business owners inevitably have to hire attorneys, and the attorneys of course need to get paid. IMHO there should be a reasonable attorneys fees provision worked into all condemnation actions, meaning the agency/public entity pays.

In PA there is--Condemnee also gets reasonable atty's fees. I see Christo says that's teh way it is in Illinois, also.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

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%.

So offer him 2x, 3x, etc. Personally, I would consider my inconvience and "trouble" part of the market value. Why should he sell for a private enterprise if he doesn't want to?

Inconvience? It was a condemed house that he was gonna have to pay to have torn down....now it's a "landmark" of the area. It's no sweat off his back if it's sold. I can't see any reason not to sell, other than "because I don't want to". When it's for greed, I have an issue with it for some reason....call me silly.

I've had less issue in principle with projects going to a clearcut public use/good. A highway, a transit hub, MAYBE a school or a park. But this entity is a private, for profit group building a business. You can call it greed or you can call it what you want, but this guy has the other guys over the barrell. I think if they offer more money, he'll give in. Its kind of how business works. Should I go to home depot and tell them they're being greedy because their grills cost too much money or should I pay OR take my business elsewhere.

 

[apalmer]

When used to build schools, hospitals, roads I believe its a necessary evil. When it's used to increase tax revenue, I believe that should not be allowed. To force people out of their homes and property they have worked for their entire life to obtain, to build condos or malls, is un-American.

Even when used properly, people get screwed with "fair market value", but otherwise, I agree with this.

I have seen this claim made before, but the evidence I've seen seems to be to the contrary.

I agree. Local property owners subject to condemnation proceedings generally feel like they've hit the jackpot.

If they weren't getting jobbed, why would it even exist? Why wouldn't they just buy the property and not have this system in place?I used to support it for government projects like roads, but realistically, our roads are built for the most part. Buy it or build around, the government can not be trusted with this sort of program, saying nothing of the outright theft engaged in when this is used for private enterprise.

Because the property owner knows it's the government (in some form) that wants the property and everybody knows the government has lots of money. So, everybody wants more than FMV for their property. Usually, the government entity doesn't fight that too much--in cases I've seen 150-200% of FMV can usually be negotiated (plus atty's fees and moving expenses). Nevertheless, you invariably run into a greedy SOB who won't settle for that and you have to go the Condemnation route and fight about just compensation in court.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

When used to build schools, hospitals, roads I believe its a necessary evil. When it's used to increase tax revenue, I believe that should not be allowed. To force people out of their homes and property they have worked for their entire life to obtain, to build condos or malls, is un-American.

Even when used properly, people get screwed with "fair market value", but otherwise, I agree with this.

I have seen this claim made before, but the evidence I've seen seems to be to the contrary.

I agree. Local property owners subject to condemnation proceedings generally feel like they've hit the jackpot.

If they weren't getting jobbed, why would it even exist? Why wouldn't they just buy the property and not have this system in place?I used to support it for government projects like roads, but realistically, our roads are built for the most part. Buy it or build around, the government can not be trusted with this sort of program, saying nothing of the outright theft engaged in when this is used for private enterprise.

Because the property owner knows it's the government (in some form) that wants the property and everybody knows the government has lots of money. So, everybody wants more than FMV for their property. Usually, the government entity doesn't fight that too much--in cases I've seen 150-200% of FMV can usually be negotiated (plus atty's fees and moving expenses). Nevertheless, you invariably run into a greedy SOB who won't settle for that and you have to go the Condemnation route and fight about just compensation in court.

Lets put aside government cases for the time being. I generally do have less issue with that. At least in NJ and most other areas where people really and rightly get hot and bothered is the seizure for private business.Just because a guy wants to build a Condo or an Olive Garden, and the ratables might go up and yadda yadda, why should his property be taken? Property that, who knows, maybe it was in his family for years, maybe he has senitmential value, or hell, whats wrong WITH that good ol' American principle of greed? Eventually that Greed reaches a tipping point where if you are TOO greedy, you get nothing. Whats wrong with a developer paying market value, above or beyond, for that property. Idont' think we'll ever have a consensus that development is a GOOD thing, lord knows the last thing we need in NJ is another Bed Bath and Beyond or TGI Fridays.

 

[The Commish]

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%.

So offer him 2x, 3x, etc. Personally, I would consider my inconvience and "trouble" part of the market value. Why should he sell for a private enterprise if he doesn't want to?

Inconvience? It was a condemed house that he was gonna have to pay to have torn down....now it's a "landmark" of the area. It's no sweat off his back if it's sold. I can't see any reason not to sell, other than "because I don't want to". When it's for greed, I have an issue with it for some reason....call me silly.

I've had less issue in principle with projects going to a clearcut public use/good. A highway, a transit hub, MAYBE a school or a park. But this entity is a private, for profit group building a business. You can call it greed or you can call it what you want, but this guy has the other guys over the barrell. I think if they offer more money, he'll give in. Its kind of how business works. Should I go to home depot and tell them they're being greedy because their grills cost too much money or should I pay OR take my business elsewhere.

I understand what you are saying. You should probably know too that the guy had originally agreed in principle along with everyone on the two streets being sold. When it came time to sign the papers, he went back on his word....there is no question that the guys is slim in this case. Like I said, they are moving on without him, I think. I left before the planning commission had made their final decision so I'm not sure what's happened in the last few months.

 

[Moe Green]

It depends.

 

[Chaka]

Sometimes you need to knock down some homes to build an aqueduct.

 

[dirtyhalos]

Neccessary evil that is sometimes abused. Most often not, though. That doesn't make it good or bad.