Export thread
Eminent domain for private business failure
#1
strawman
strawman
It's not the ideal outcome, but I'm somewhat pleased that this development is failing. The developer who was able to get the gov't to force people out of their homes so he could lease/sell the land to private businesses has yet to build anything.
He claims that the 10 year delay while the case went to the supreme court, and the bad economic climate are to blame. I suspect a lot of the reason he can't get financing, though, are the bad ill will from the public.
I am very glad, however, that due to this case 40 states have enacted laws that would prevent the same loopholes from being used to take private property for non public uses.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jV-KB6t5TnnZ4pF71h4oAiviGOSgD9AUBCR80
-Adam
He claims that the 10 year delay while the case went to the supreme court, and the bad economic climate are to blame. I suspect a lot of the reason he can't get financing, though, are the bad ill will from the public.
I am very glad, however, that due to this case 40 states have enacted laws that would prevent the same loopholes from being used to take private property for non public uses.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jV-KB6t5TnnZ4pF71h4oAiviGOSgD9AUBCR80
-Adam
#2
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
I have to admit to some schadenfreude here. I dunno about eminent domain in general, but the idea of forcing people to give up their land so some other guy can do private development really rubs me the wrong way. It just seems like an abuse of public powers.
#3
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
And the idea of the government taking it away to build a military base or such doesn't seem just as wrong?I have to admit to some schadenfreude here. I dunno about eminent domain in general, but the idea of forcing people to give up their land so some other guy can do private development really rubs me the wrong way. It just seems like an abuse of public powers.
#4
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Normally when the Fed's do it they set up the victims in similar housing instead of tossing them to the curb, like the locals do.
#5
strawman
No. I accept that there are situations when the government has to re-allocate land use to serve greater public purpose, but only in a very limited fashion.
For instance, enlarging a major road along farmland will often consume dozens of feet of additional property along the road on one of both sides of the road.
Condemning abandoned buildings and reclaiming the land (where taxes are past due, etc) for a public park is, IMHO, not at all a bad thing.
Crossing the line into, "We're fording you to sell your house and we're going to turn around and sell the property to a private individual/corporation" is out and out wrong.
There are shades of gray inbetween those extremes. Military bases - give me a good reason (and not just 'cost effective') and fair market value and I'm good to go.
Public park - probably not, though I might make an exception for areas that are obviously under-served by parks and recreation and there is an obvious and very significant public benefit to it.
-Adam
strawman
And the idea of the government taking it away to build a military base or such doesn't seem just as wrong?[/QUOTE]I have to admit to some schadenfreude here. I dunno about eminent domain in general, but the idea of forcing people to give up their land so some other guy can do private development really rubs me the wrong way. It just seems like an abuse of public powers.
No. I accept that there are situations when the government has to re-allocate land use to serve greater public purpose, but only in a very limited fashion.
For instance, enlarging a major road along farmland will often consume dozens of feet of additional property along the road on one of both sides of the road.
Condemning abandoned buildings and reclaiming the land (where taxes are past due, etc) for a public park is, IMHO, not at all a bad thing.
Crossing the line into, "We're fording you to sell your house and we're going to turn around and sell the property to a private individual/corporation" is out and out wrong.
There are shades of gray inbetween those extremes. Military bases - give me a good reason (and not just 'cost effective') and fair market value and I'm good to go.
Public park - probably not, though I might make an exception for areas that are obviously under-served by parks and recreation and there is an obvious and very significant public benefit to it.
-Adam
#6
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
... that's not why your supposed to be outraged. They are taking YOUR land, without YOUR consent and using for something YOU may not approve of. You bought it fair and square... it is yours, not the governments.Normally when the Fed's do it they set up the victims in similar housing instead of tossing them to the curb, like the locals do.
#7
strawman
The gov't has always interfered in private land use - take zoning, for instance. Some gov't's even own all the mineral rights.
Eminent domain has always been an option for the gov't, but in the US with (usually) very strict limits, and it happens so rarely for bad reasons that it's simply not an issue in the US.
The recent changes most states have made make it much harder for the gov't to do this, which is good.
But don't get confused - the gov't can take anything away from you that it likes given the proper setting.
In other words, KEEP YOUR HEAD DOWN AND GET BACK IN LINE!
:tongue:
-Adam
strawman
You bought it fair and square... it is yours, not the governments.
The gov't has always interfered in private land use - take zoning, for instance. Some gov't's even own all the mineral rights.
Eminent domain has always been an option for the gov't, but in the US with (usually) very strict limits, and it happens so rarely for bad reasons that it's simply not an issue in the US.
The recent changes most states have made make it much harder for the gov't to do this, which is good.
But don't get confused - the gov't can take anything away from you that it likes given the proper setting.
In other words, KEEP YOUR HEAD DOWN AND GET BACK IN LINE!
:tongue:
-Adam
#8
Adammon
The gov't has always interfered in private land use - take zoning, for instance. Some gov't's even own all the mineral rights.
Eminent domain has always been an option for the gov't, but in the US with (usually) very strict limits, and it happens so rarely for bad reasons that it's simply not an issue in the US.
The recent changes most states have made make it much harder for the gov't to do this, which is good.
But don't get confused - the gov't can take anything away from you that it likes given the proper setting.
In other words, KEEP YOUR HEAD DOWN AND GET BACK IN LINE!
:tongue:
-Adam[/QUOTE]
Technically you never even 'own' the land you purchase. You're just getting a long term lease from the government for it. Try not paying your taxes and see how long it's 'your land'.
Adammon
You bought it fair and square... it is yours, not the governments.
The gov't has always interfered in private land use - take zoning, for instance. Some gov't's even own all the mineral rights.
Eminent domain has always been an option for the gov't, but in the US with (usually) very strict limits, and it happens so rarely for bad reasons that it's simply not an issue in the US.
The recent changes most states have made make it much harder for the gov't to do this, which is good.
But don't get confused - the gov't can take anything away from you that it likes given the proper setting.
In other words, KEEP YOUR HEAD DOWN AND GET BACK IN LINE!
:tongue:
-Adam[/QUOTE]
Technically you never even 'own' the land you purchase. You're just getting a long term lease from the government for it. Try not paying your taxes and see how long it's 'your land'.
#9
Covar
Covar
Also the Government doesn't just take your land. They must offer just compensation for it.
\"[url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv said:The Fifth Amendment[/url]\"]...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
#10
Kitty Sinatra
Though I don't like all the smurfing billboards.
Kitty Sinatra
Toronto did this a decade ago to create a new central public square downtown. (Yonge/Dundas Square for you Torontonians) . I remember feeling it was inappropriate back then, but having seen the result I think it was a successful and good use of this power.No. I accept that there are situations when the government has to re-allocate land use to serve greater public purpose, but only in a very limited fashion.
Public park - probably not, though I might make an exception for areas that are obviously under-served by parks and recreation and there is an obvious and very significant public benefit to it.
-Adam
Though I don't like all the smurfing billboards.
#11
Pojodan
Pojodan
The highway going north out of Boise, ID has a story behind it where the farmer that the government used eminent domain on to buy the land from him for the highway (He got paid very well for it, but refused to leave) used his tractor to till 'FUCK YOU' in 200 foot tall letters on the land before he was forced out.
It was, apparently, visible from airplanes for many years afterwards.
As far as my feelings on eminent domain, 'The good of the many' holds true, where sometimes a publics works project which would greatly benefit the community requires taking over private land.
I'd be a bit miffed if I'd put a lot of work into the land, but so long as I was receiving just compensation, then I'd hardly raise a stink, so long as it was being used for something worthwhile, unlike this case.
It was, apparently, visible from airplanes for many years afterwards.
As far as my feelings on eminent domain, 'The good of the many' holds true, where sometimes a publics works project which would greatly benefit the community requires taking over private land.
I'd be a bit miffed if I'd put a lot of work into the land, but so long as I was receiving just compensation, then I'd hardly raise a stink, so long as it was being used for something worthwhile, unlike this case.