In article ,
Don Klipstein wrote:

What I think is necessary is laws providing compensation that makes
those forced out generally getting ahead a little. I don't think that
someone should be allowed to be some greedy opportunistic grabber by being
having legal protection of refusing an offer that even significantly
exceeds the maximum price that would be paid in an open market with
multiple buyers and multiple sellers for comparable pieces of property.


I think such laws are useless and unnecessary. If someone doesn't want to
sell *their* property then they don't want to sell it. The developer has
every right to refuse to pay more for the land and go find land somewhere
else.


Dimitri

"I think such laws are useless and unnecessary. If someone doesn't want
to
sell *their* property then they don't want to sell it. The developer
has
every right to refuse to pay more for the land and go find land
somewhere
else.

Dimitri "

Eminent domain can certainly be abused, but few would call it useless.
Would you let one property owner stand in the way of the widening of a
highway that is overloaded with traffic? Or how about a truly
blighted area, like say Camden NJ, or Asbury Park, NJ, These areas
have decaying buildings, many vacant and uninhabitable and crime.
Let's say they have a re-development plan to knock down 6 blocks of
that and turn it into shops and new housing, which would be of great
benefit to the community. Virtually all the property owners would like
to see it happen, both those that would be able to sell their property
to a developer, as well as the surrounding area that would benefit.
Would you allow one property owner in the middle of it all to simply
refuse to sell or re-develop his property? And for those that think
eminent domain is so bad, how about taking of property rights without
compensation at all. This happens all the time with zoning changes.
You could have a piece of land that is zoned for housing and the
municipality decides to re-zone it so that you either need several
acres to build a house, or can't build one at all. These property
owners receive nothing in compensation.

The real problem here is not that the laws are unneccessary, but that
they have to be used only very cautiously and there needs to be some
reasonable limits on them.

In article .com,
wrote:

Eminent domain can certainly be abused, but few would call it useless.
Would you let one property owner stand in the way of the widening of a
highway that is overloaded with traffic? Or how about a truly
blighted area, like say Camden NJ, or Asbury Park, NJ.


Yes, I would let a property owner stand in the way of building
anything. It's his property. He sets the price, or doesn't sell at all
if he does not want to. Everyone has a price, though. If the project is
that important the price will be met. If it's not, then work around that
person. We've all seen those little houses up against the superhighway.
It's not my idea of fun, but if the owner doesn't mind why should I?
As for blight, you can certainly enforce building codes or zoning
restrictions if the property is dilapidated.


A real world example involved a run-down motel in my area that harbored
drug dealers, prostitutes, hardened criminals, and homeless. It is on the
edge of a residential area where houses cost over $1 million, but still
near to a more blighted area subject to redevelopment. The city really
wanted to build a fancy hotel there. They cited the owner many, many times
for violations (which he paid) and conducted frequent raids on the
property. Eventually, they charged him with a number of building code
violations and he had to upgrade the property. It's easy to appeal to
someone's business sense, as he would be able to charge much, much more
for the rooms after the work was done. In the end, he agreed to build the
new hotel himself. At this stage, I don't think he can really afford to do
it, but he did knock down the old motel and the land is now vacant. I
don't know what will happen to it, but I imagine it won't be vacant
forever given the good location. He'll probably sell it or else come up
with the money through investors. The point here is that the blighted
motel is gone and he kept his property. As much as I hated that motel,
I support his right to develop his own land himself.


Dimitri

wrote:
"I think such laws are useless and unnecessary. If someone doesn't want
to
sell *their* property then they don't want to sell it. The developer
has
every right to refuse to pay more for the land and go find land
somewhere
else.

Dimitri "

Eminent domain can certainly be abused, but few would call it useless.
Would you let one property owner stand in the way of the widening of a
highway that is overloaded with traffic? Or how about a truly
blighted area, like say Camden NJ, or Asbury Park, NJ, These areas
have decaying buildings, many vacant and uninhabitable and crime.
Let's say they have a re-development plan to knock down 6 blocks of
that and turn it into shops and new housing, which would be of great
benefit to the community. Virtually all the property owners would like
to see it happen, both those that would be able to sell their property
to a developer, as well as the surrounding area that would benefit.
Would you allow one property owner in the middle of it all to simply
refuse to sell or re-develop his property? And for those that think
eminent domain is so bad, how about taking of property rights without
compensation at all. This happens all the time with zoning changes.
You could have a piece of land that is zoned for housing and the
municipality decides to re-zone it so that you either need several
acres to build a house, or can't build one at all. These property
owners receive nothing in compensation.

The real problem here is not that the laws are unneccessary, but that
they have to be used only very cautiously and there needs to be some
reasonable limits on them.


Speaking of the road construction, there were a eminebt domain case in
our area last year. It was a few miles from our home. A new mixed
development of hundreds of new homes planned. And they need to build a
new road. A home, actually, a small farm was on the way. The county need
to build road and ramps there. Owner don't want to sell, because
appraser valued their home substantially lower than the property sold
previously. The reason? The county is going to build THE road there, and
their property value has to go down substantially.

It went to court, and owner lost most of his properties with
significantly less compensation than the previous market values. The
owner was allowed to keep the house though after county agreed to change
the route to bypass the house. Poor unluncky family. They now have to
live next to a busy road.

Few people have money and energy to go to higher courts.

"Yes, I would let a property owner stand in the way of building
anything. It's his property. He sets the price, or doesn't sell at all
if he does not want to. Everyone has a price, though. If the project is

that important the price will be met. If it's not, then work around
that
person. "

Any reasonable person realizes how silly this is and how no projects
like public highways or mass transit would ever get built. A real
example that is quite common is not one junk motel, but the example I
cited, where a highway needs to be widened. Without eminent domain, if
50 property owners would have to give 20 feet of land to widen a
highway, almost no one would take any reasonable offer because they
know they could just block the whole damn thing and hold out for $1mil
for something that's only worth $25k. They could hold almost any public
works project hostage and drive the cost through the roof. Then there
are some irrational guys, like you, who would say I'll never sell! Put
a few of those guys in the way of a simple highway expansion and your
solution is to reroute the whole thing at a potential cost of hundreds
of millions or billions of dollars, assuming it's even possible at all?
Face it, eminent domain has been here for a long time, it's
constitutional and it's generally been a good thing that has benefitted
us all.

In article .com,
wrote:

Any reasonable person realizes how silly this is and how no projects
like public highways or mass transit would ever get built. A real
example that is quite common is not one junk motel, but the example I
cited, where a highway needs to be widened. Without eminent domain, if
50 property owners would have to give 20 feet of land to widen a
highway, almost no one would take any reasonable offer because they
know they could just block the whole damn thing and hold out for $1mil
for something that's only worth $25k. They could hold almost any public
works project hostage and drive the cost through the roof. Then there
are some irrational guys, like you, who would say I'll never sell! Put
a few of those guys in the way of a simple highway expansion and your
solution is to reroute the whole thing at a potential cost of hundreds
of millions or billions of dollars, assuming it's even possible at all?
Face it, eminent domain has been here for a long time, it's
constitutional and it's generally been a good thing that has benefitted
us all.


I think it's not a good thing and if that highway never gets built then
too bad. If it's that big of a boon to everyone, then surely the price
will reflect that.


Dimitri

Eminent domain can certainly be abused, but few would call it useless.
Would you let one property owner stand in the way of the widening of a
highway that is overloaded with traffic? Or how about a truly
blighted area, like say Camden NJ, or Asbury Park, NJ.


Yes, I would let a property owner stand in the way of building
anything. It's his property. He sets the price, or doesn't sell at all
if he does not want to. Everyone has a price, though.

I'm not so sure that everyone has a price. Or at least not one
that a government can reasonably pay, especially when religion gets
involved. How much do you think the Arab world would demand if you
wanted to take the city of Mecca? Does that much wealth exist even
if you gave them the entire rest of Earth, and 10 copies of Earth,
in exchange? The same might apply on a smaller scale to a little
old lady who is not willing to give up her husband's grave (on the
property) or move him.

I would be inclined to ask, just out of sheer orneryness, for the
destruction of all copies of all Social Security numbers, and the
death penalty for spammers, carried out if necessary by nuking the
foreign country they are in.

I'm sure there would be others out there who would demand things
like:
- an end to abortion
- unlimited access to abortion for pre-teens and up
- an end to handguns
- an end to gun control and nuclear weapons control
- an immediate end to the war in Iraq
- an immediate nuking of Iraq
- everyone converts to insert demander's religion here
and obviously these conflict a lot.

If the project is
that important the price will be met. If it's not, then work around that
person. We've all seen those little houses up against the superhighway.
It's not my idea of fun, but if the owner doesn't mind why should I?
As for blight, you can certainly enforce building codes or zoning
restrictions if the property is dilapidated.

I can see use of eminent domain for roads and other *PUBLIC* projects,
such as parks, libraries, dams, water pipelines, etc. Cities have
no business even getting involved in, much less using eminent domain
for, private projects like stadiums (Arlington, Tx is planning on
taking a huge area for the Cowboys stadium, as mentioned on the
news last night), hotels, malls, convention centers, etc. And city
governments have no business making "bids" for things like the
Olympic games.

A real world example involved a run-down motel in my area that harbored
drug dealers, prostitutes, hardened criminals, and homeless. It is on the
edge of a residential area where houses cost over $1 million, but still
near to a more blighted area subject to redevelopment. The city really
wanted to build a fancy hotel there. They cited the owner many, many times
for violations (which he paid) and conducted frequent raids on the
property. Eventually, they charged him with a number of building code
violations and he had to upgrade the property. It's easy to appeal to
someone's business sense, as he would be able to charge much, much more
for the rooms after the work was done. In the end, he agreed to build the
new hotel himself. At this stage, I don't think he can really afford to do
it, but he did knock down the old motel and the land is now vacant. I
don't know what will happen to it, but I imagine it won't be vacant
forever given the good location. He'll probably sell it or else come up
with the money through investors. The point here is that the blighted
motel is gone and he kept his property. As much as I hated that motel,
I support his right to develop his own land himself.

Gordon L. Burditt

"D. Gerasimatos" wrote:

wrote:

Eminent domain can certainly be abused, but few would call it useless.
Would you let one property owner stand in the way of the widening of a
highway that is overloaded with traffic? Or how about a truly
blighted area, like say Camden NJ, or Asbury Park, NJ.

Yes, I would let a property owner stand in the way of building
anything. It's his property. He sets the price, or doesn't sell at all
if he does not want to. Everyone has a price, though. If the project is
that important the price will be met. If it's not, then work around that
person. We've all seen those little houses up against the superhighway.
It's not my idea of fun, but if the owner doesn't mind why should I?
As for blight, you can certainly enforce building codes or zoning
restrictions if the property is dilapidated.

Our councildroids declared a number of small businesses blighted (one of them
was a neighborhood bar which occasionally needed a visit from law enforcement)
and gave (or sold at a reduced price, or maybe even at the market price for
blighted land) to the local Caddy dealer to use to expand his parking
facilities.

Yeah, some people DO need killin'.

OTOH, a very nice barbecue place managed to avoid the wrecking ball (perhaps
the councildroids liked to eat there) and an upscale hotel was built around
it. Land here has to be "blighted" before it can be condemned.

A real world example involved a run-down motel in my area that harbored
drug dealers, prostitutes, hardened criminals, and homeless.

Near the Caddy dealer are a number of chain motels and walking up and down in
front of the motels are a number of strolling hostesses. Every once in a
while there's a push to round up the ladies and then everything goes back to
normal. Personally, I'd rather have the tire store, the laundry, the bar, and
the zipper repair shop than the Caddy dealer. The ladies of the evening don't
bother me half so much as venal councildroids.

--
Cheers,
Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx
I've enjoyed just about as much of this as I can stand.

Don Klipstein wrote:

Can anyone here think of a name for a fictitious write-in candidate to
use in unopposed elections to get a vote counted for property rights???

Mr. Burns? I don't think he'd get many votes, though.

--
Cheers,
Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx
I've enjoyed just about as much of this as I can stand.

Did anyone else see the item about the guy that wants to use eminent
domain to take Supreme Court Justice Souter's home and turn it in to a
hotel named "The Lost Liberty Hotel". It is not a hoax, he is really
trying to do it. It will only take the vote of 3 out of 5 of the powers
to be that run the town, and would most certainly increase the tax
revenue to the town.

Here's the link to the story:

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

It's a hoot.

--
-Ernie-

"There are only two kinds of computer users -- those who have
suffered a catastrophic hard drive failure, and those who will."

Have you done your backup today?

"Did anyone else see the item about the guy that wants to use eminent
domain to take Supreme Court Justice Souter's home and turn it in to a
hotel named "The Lost Liberty Hotel".

That's pretty funny. I doubt the developer will get very far, but it
does show how bad things can get if this goes to an extreme.

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 06/27/05 01:59 pm no mail tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize
people's homes and businesses, even against their will, for private
economic development.

http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_art...?storyid=40692
http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=40692

The thing I don't understand is that why the property owners can't be
compensentated more. If they are ofered 150% of the property value, I
don't think there will be many people who will complain.

If that piece of land is so valuable to the government, the government
should pay more than its market value.

I think the municipality should reckon compensation on the basis of the
resultant commercial zoning. E.g., Individual A's property is a% of the
total area whose commercial value is $X million, so s/he gets a% of $X
million rather than "fair market value" of the residence being taken.

What if the taking results in a negative impact on the value? If the
land was taken to become a park, the value of the property would be
less.

Do not forget that the question in this case was not about just
compensation, but whether or not the purpose of the taking met the
definition of "public use" under the fifth ammendment.

The reason the properties in New London were condemned was because the
owners refused to sell. The property owners didn't say that they
weren't offered enough money - they just refused to sell. We can
assume that the New London Redevelopment Corporation made a fair offer
because there was nothing in the case that said the compensation was at
issue.

"We can assume that the New London Redevelopment Corporation made a
fair offer
because there was nothing in the case that said the compensation was at

issue. "

I don't think you can assume that at all. To bring the case to the
Supreme Court, the plaintiffs needed a constitutional issue. They took
their best shot with the premise that govt taking property under
eminent domain for a private developer was uncontstitutional. That was
a valid constitutional issue. Whether the offer was fair or not
wasn't a constitutional issue and had no place in that particular case.

wrote in message oups.com...
"We can assume that the New London Redevelopment Corporation made a
fair offer
because there was nothing in the case that said the compensation was at

issue. "

I don't think you can assume that at all. To bring the case to the
Supreme Court, the plaintiffs needed a constitutional issue. They took
their best shot with the premise that govt taking property under
eminent domain for a private developer was uncontstitutional. That was
a valid constitutional issue.

No, the constitutional issue was whether a city's economic
development qualifies as a justifiable reason ("public use") for
the state to take private property under the Fifth Amendment.
The Court in this decision reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of
taking one person's private property and transferring it to
another private party:

---
(a) Though the city could not take petitioners' land simply to confer
a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467
U. S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant
to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted
"to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals," ibid.

Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land--
at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public, this "Court long
ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put
into use for the ... public." Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the
broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public
purpose." See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S.
112, 158-164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept
broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative
judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power.
Berman, 348 U. S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229; Ruckelshaus v.
Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986. Pp. 6-13.
---

But the real guts of this decision is found two sections later:

---
(c) Petitioners' proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule
that economic development does not qualify as a public use is
supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic
development is a traditional and long accepted governmental
function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the
other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g.,
Berman, 348 U.S., at 24.
---

"No, the constitutional issue was whether a city's economic
development qualifies as a justifiable reason ("public use") for
the state to take private property under the Fifth Amendment.
The Court in this decision reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of
taking one person's private property and transferring it to
another private party: "

OK, now you've got me confused. How did they reaffirm that it's
unconstitutional to take one person's private property and transfer it
to another private party? Isn't that exactly what is happening in the
case they just decided? Granted, the justification is economic
development, but they are taking peoples private property using eminent
domain and transferring it into the hands of developers who are going
to build hotels and offices. It's not being use for a public building
or purpose, only one that allegedly creates economic benefit to the
community.

wrote in message ups.com...
"No, the constitutional issue was whether a city's economic
development qualifies as a justifiable reason ("public use") for
the state to take private property under the Fifth Amendment.
The Court in this decision reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of
taking one person's private property and transferring it to
another private party: "

OK, now you've got me confused. How did they reaffirm that it's
unconstitutional to take one person's private property and transfer it
to another private party? Isn't that exactly what is happening in the
case they just decided? Granted, the justification is economic
development, but they are taking peoples private property using eminent
domain and transferring it into the hands of developers who are going
to build hotels and offices. It's not being use for a public building
or purpose, only one that allegedly creates economic benefit to the
community.

The court answered these questions in their decision. They
ruled that takings for planned economic development of a
public entity, such as a city, does qualify as public use. There
was no basis in logic for them to rule that such takings don't
qualify as public use.

There's no substantive difference between this case and
similar cases over the past 100+ years. Private parties
(railroad companies, water and power companies and 1000
others) are routinely the eventual beneficiaries of eminent
domain land takings -- even primary beneficiaries. And as
for public access, that too is not a requirement for ED
takings (such as for defense/military installations, etc).

I understand the objections raised by Justice O'Connor,
but there is simply no constitutional or even principled
basis on which to define a limitation on what constitutes
"public use", and I'm glad the court declined to fabricate
one out of thin air.

If there's a problem with increasing encroachment by
government on the Fifth Amendment, and I agree there
is, the fix should be legislative, either through another
amendment to the Constitution, or legislation at the
federal or state level, to limit the definition of "public use".

"The Court in this decision reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of
taking one person's private property and transferring it to
another private party "

"There's no substantive difference between this case and
similar cases over the past 100+ years. Private parties
(railroad companies, water and power companies and 1000
others) are routinely the eventual beneficiaries of eminent
domain land takings -- even primary beneficiaries."

Well, then I guess it's not uncontitutional to take one person's
private property and then give it to another private party, as you
stated then is it?

In article . net, "Rick" wrote:

The court answered these questions in their decision. They
ruled that takings for planned economic development of a
public entity, such as a city, does qualify as public use.

And that's the problem, right there - the court ruled that it is a "public
use" for the government to take land from a private owner, and give it to a
different private owner, solely because the second party will make a "better"
use of that land. "Better" in the government's opinion, of course.

There was no basis in logic for them to rule that such takings don't
qualify as public use.

A stunning non sequitur.

There certainly *is* such a basis: the fact that the government is putting
itself in the position of deciding who will make the more beneficial use of
the land. This decision caves in to big business interests, pure and simple,
at the expense of the "ordinary Joe". If a developer wants land badly enough,
he can damn well pay for it. Developers everywhere *love* this decision,
because it makes it easy for them to obtain land much more cheaply than if
they had to pay what the current owners want for it.

There's no substantive difference between this case and
similar cases over the past 100+ years.

And that's a *good* thing?? Just one more example of the government thinking
that it is a better steward of our resources than we are.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote in message oups.com...
"The Court in this decision reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of
taking one person's private property and transferring it to
another private party "

"There's no substantive difference between this case and
similar cases over the past 100+ years. Private parties
(railroad companies, water and power companies and 1000
others) are routinely the eventual beneficiaries of eminent
domain land takings -- even primary beneficiaries."

Well, then I guess it's not uncontitutional to take one person's
private property and then give it to another private party, as you
stated then is it?

Directly, it is. Indirectly, it isn't. We may not like it, but
that's the way the Constitution has been interpreted for
the last 100+ years.

As I said, I'd be first in line to support a legislative fix to
the problem.