| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
 |
|
Menu
| Home Ownership (misc.consumers.house) |
| Reply |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
| Home Ownership (misc.consumers.house) |
| Reply |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hey, where did our "rights" go?
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 |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ... 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 Note that it was not the cold, mean, nasty, big business conservatives on the court who sold out the common people. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:22:34 -0400, someone wrote:
Note that it was not the cold, mean, nasty, big business conservatives on the court who sold out the common people. Yup. 5 to 4 vote, wasn't it? Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
wrote: 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 Our rights went nowhere. It has always been legal for government to use "eminent domain" to take property for the greater good. Highways and downtown renewal projects get done like this all the time. The only thing new here is that the Supreme Court validated the practice. There have been a number of challenges over the years, but this is the first one that the court decided to hear. A famous one was the case of the City of Richfield that sized a car dealership to incorporate that property into a tract big enough give the land to Best Buy for a new building. The car dealership argued that the land at the corner of I-35W and I-494 was the single best location in the midwest for a car lot, and the land was not replaceable at any price. They lost in the state supreme court. -john- -- ================================================== ==================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ================================================== ==================== |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
I thought the conservatives were supposed to be against the little man
and for big business---but the Dems are strangely silent on this. Just another reason I'm proud to be a Libertarian. Stephanie "When the government's boot is on your throat, it matters not if it's a right boot or a left boot." http://www.lp.org John A. Weeks III wrote: In article , wrote: 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 Our rights went nowhere. It has always been legal for government to use "eminent domain" to take property for the greater good. Highways and downtown renewal projects get done like this all the time. The only thing new here is that the Supreme Court validated the practice. There have been a number of challenges over the years, but this is the first one that the court decided to hear. A famous one was the case of the City of Richfield that sized a car dealership to incorporate that property into a tract big enough give the land to Best Buy for a new building. The car dealership argued that the land at the corner of I-35W and I-494 was the single best location in the midwest for a car lot, and the land was not replaceable at any price. They lost in the state supreme court. -john- -- ================================================== ==================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ================================================== ==================== |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I thought the conservatives were supposed to be against the little man
and for big business" Then you must not know what conservatives really stand for. It has nothing to do with big business and everything to do with a strict interpretation of the constitution and believing the less govt intervention into the free market and peoples lives the better. Four of the conservative justices gave a good demonstration of exactly that. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
The "greater good" of whom? The benefits are going to the corporation
who the government seized the property for, e. g. Wal-Mart. W : ( |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Conservatives stand for strict interpretation of the constitution and less govt intervention? Sounds good on paper. What about medical marijuana? Terry Schiavo? The overriding of the Florida courts by the Supreme Court in the 2000 election? The Patriot Act? Attempts to undermine the constitutional authority of the judicial branch? To undermine the advise and consent role of congress? To take away from the states the right to allow gay marriage? Etc., etc Problem is, the label "conservative" no longer means what it used to. More than anything else, it now suggests an obsession with asserting control over others, rather than reducing government influence. How I wish that most people who call themselves "conservative" these days actually WERE conservative in the sense that the above poster described. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"John A. Weeks III" wrote: In article , wrote: 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 Our rights went nowhere. It has always been legal for government to use "eminent domain" to take property for the greater good. Highways and downtown renewal projects get done like this all the time. The only thing new here is that the Supreme Court validated the practice. There have been a number of challenges over the years, but this is the first one that the court decided to hear. A famous one was the case of the City of Richfield that sized a car dealership to incorporate that property into a tract big enough give the land to Best Buy for a new building. The car dealership argued that the land at the corner of I-35W and I-494 was the single best location in the midwest for a car lot, and the land was not replaceable at any price. They lost in the state supreme court. -john- Better yet is the land seized to build Dodger Stadium. Baseball is definately a public good. LOL |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Conservatives stand for strict interpretation of the constitution and
less govt intervention? Sounds good on paper. What about medical marijuana? " Nothing in the constitution says anything about individuals having the right to marijuana. And there are conservatives who have no problem with allowing marijuana use for medical purposes. "Terry Schiavo? " Conservatives place a high value on human life. I personally think some conservatives went too far with the Schiavo case, with Congress and the President getting involved, but at's it's core this was a medical and moral debate between Shiavo's parents and her husband that had to play out. You have to realize that even among conservatives, while there are a core set of values we tend to agree on, there are still a wide variety of issues we disagree on. "The overriding of the Florida courts by the Supreme Court in the 2000 election? Attempts to undermine the constitutional authority of the judicial branch? " Whine... Which is it? When the courts don't rule the way you want, then you have a problem with it. If someone else bitches about the courts, then it's undermining their authority. LOL As for the Florida election, I've never seen such a bunch of self centered sore losers. Long after the election was over, several major newspapers went back and re-counted all the ballots using every one of the proposed standards. The result was always the same, Bush still won. "The Patriot Act?" You're one of the liberals Karl Rove was talking about when he said that after 9/11 conservatives prepared for war, liberals prepared for indictments and therapy sessions. This is a war and I see nothing that unreasonable in the Patriot Act. Apparently, you have a problem with things like the govt being able to get one phone tap court order for an individual and have it be good for any phone the guy happens to use. Instead, you'd prefer to spin wheels in every court in the land while a suspected terrorist goes from land phone, to cell phone, to his buddy'd phone, planning the next 9/11. And of course we know when that happens who you will blaim, don't we? "To undermine the advise and consent role of congress? " Now this is real special. You have a bunch of liberal Democrats using a filibuster to BLOCK THE ADVISE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE. This has never been done before in the history of judicial appointments in the US. You can use a filibuster to stall a farm bill, the constitution says zippo about that. But when the constitution provides for judges selected by the President to be approved by a vote of the senate, it's clearly unconstitutional for a minority of liberals to sit there and block it. Have the conservatives ever done this? They could have certainly done it with judges like Ginsburg, who was a liberal ACLU lawyer, but they didn't stoop so low did they? "Problem is, the label "conservative" no longer means what it used to. More than anything else, it now suggests an obsession with asserting control over others, rather than reducing government influence. " And the term liberal now means "chronic whiners who would do anything, including putting US troops and citizens in harms way to undermine a president in time of war." Take a good look at the remarks Dick Durbin made comparing the US treatment of suspected terrorists to what the Nazis, Soviets, and Pol Pot did. That was dispicable. It is an insult to the millions that died in real murderous concentration camps and the survivors. His remarks are being run by Al Jazeera to incite more acts of violence against the US and our troops. Think that makes the job of our troops easier? Then, the scum bag didn't even issue a real appology, only one to anyone who might have been offended by what he said. That is the new modern liberal. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John A. Weeks III" writes:
In article , wrote: 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 Our rights went nowhere. It has always been legal for government to use "eminent domain" to take property for the greater good. Highways and downtown renewal projects get done like this all the time. The only thing new here is that the Supreme Court validated the practice. There In particular, takings for public *use* have been validated for a long time. The distinction in this case was that it was for *private* use, otensibly for the public good. ie. the claim that the developers were building something which, while benefitting themselves, benefitted the community. Takings and eminent domain are something that need to be used lightly and carefully and should be viewed with great skepticism. Such powers can be severely abused too easily. -- |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , wrote:
"John A. Weeks III" writes: In article , wrote: 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 Our rights went nowhere. It has always been legal for government to use "eminent domain" to take property for the greater good. Highways and downtown renewal projects get done like this all the time. The only thing new here is that the Supreme Court validated the practice. There In particular, takings for public *use* have been validated for a long time. The distinction in this case was that it was for *private* use, otensibly for the public good. ie. the claim that the developers were building something which, while benefitting themselves, benefitted the community. I don't find this all that new. I remember when eminent domain was threatened so that a developer building a skyscraper in downtown Philadelphia can demolish some established privately owned businesses. This ended up not playing out in court, but few expected the developer to be unable to legally win. This happened in the mid 1980's, and the skyscraper in question was One Lberty Place - privately owned. And it sure appeared to me then that there have been times before when eminent domain was used to make way for privately owned skyscrapers. Defense: Elect politicians that either don't let it happen or (more likely) get a good fair price to the property losers. Fire politicians that do otherwise, even if their skin color is wrong or they are on the "wrong" side of some hot-button issue that does not even affect you or your wallet or your neighbor's wallets or your neighborhood, municipality, etc. - Don Klipstein ) |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 05:15:19 GMT, someone wrote:
Yep. The 4 "liberal" judges (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) voted against the homeowners and in favor of the big business property takeover. The 4 "conservative" judges (O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) stood up for the (literal reading of the constitution) and the common folk. Well, there is a saying that "Liberals" want to regulate what you can do with your property. And "Conservatives" what you can do with your body.... Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I don't find this all that new. I remember when eminent domain was
threatened so that a developer building a skyscraper in downtown Philadelphia can demolish some established privately owned businesses. This ended up not playing out in court, but few expected the developer to be unable to legally win. This happened in the mid 1980's, and the skyscraper in question was One Lberty Place - privately owned. And it sure appeared to me then that there have been times before when eminent domain was used to make way for privately owned skyscrapers. " You're right that having governments use eminent domain to take private property for projects being done by private developers is nothing new. It has been done before. The problem here is that until now, it was somewhat of a grey area. While municipalities were doing it, no one was certain if it was constitutional or would stand up to a court challenge. Now the SC has given it a very broad endorsement, basicly a green light. That is what is troubling, as it will greatly expand the scope of it being done. Here in NJ, Long Branch has done exactly this to force people to sell private homes near the ocean to a developer for a beachfront redevelopment. The developer will be demolishing perfectly fine modest single family homes to put up expensive condos. Long Branch is in mon cty, where the feds recently concluded a sting investigation where they arrested two mayors, about 7 council members, and a host of others for taking bribes, complete with vidoe tapes and audio. In a seperate investigation they arrested the former mayor of Marlboro, who has pleaded guilty to taking $250K in bribes from a developer to get zoning changes and approval for homes the builder built. The builder has been arrested too. There have been many other arrests here and I understand there are plenty of corruption investigations going on in Phil too. I think you see my point. With the green light to allowing govts to take private property for any purpose they deem worthwhile, a new avenue ripe for corruption and abuse is now wide open. A developer can make a homeowner an offer for property, with the implied threat, either take it or I'll get my buddy politicians to take it from you for less. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
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. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wordsmith wrote: The "greater good" of whom? The benefits are going to the corporation who the government seized the property for, e. g. Wal-Mart. If you feel that emiment domain powers of the state are wrong, then you can't agree with this decision at all. But you also have a couple of hundred years of law against you. But I don't think this case is not a sweeping as it is being reported. -- When land is taken for "public use," it does not mean that the government has to take title and keep the land for "public access." "Public use" does not equal "public access." -- This is hardly the first time that private land has been condemned by state or local government and transferred from one private owner to another. The court heavily cited a Hawaii case that did just that, though for different reasons, on a huge scale. -- The New London, CT case was not a case of a developer coming to town with an idea to make money and going to the city to take the property. The order in which things were done, and who did them were key to this court decision. New London has been designated a economically distressed city. The city created a nonprofit redevelopment agency to look at ways to revitalize the city's economy. This development idea was one of the things they came up. The developer was picked from a group that applied to create what the city authorized the redevelopment agency to do. -- The owners of the land are compensated as they are under all eminent domain condemnations. This was a minority of property owners that didn't want to sell (a couple of them were not residents, they were investors that owned rental property that was targeted). -- This is not a case where the U.S. Supreme Court undid something by overturning lower courts. The first trial court granted some relief, in the form of a restraining order, to some of the plaintiffs, but most of the property owners lost at the original trial. When the plaintiffs applealed to get more relief in the Connecticut courts, they lost again - they all lost. This went to the Connecticut Supreme Court where the property owners lost again. Then it went to the U.S. Supreme court where the final word was the city acted legally. -- The SCOTUS considered some of the hypthetical scenerios that people came up with, like the notion that private developers would have Carte Blanche to come into a town wanting to build something and the city could give them land if all they do is say it will increase tax revenue. In a nutshell, the court answered by saying, "That isn't what happened here," and were very clear that if it had been the case, they probably would have ruled differently. -- The SCOTUS clearly stated that the decision did not prevent states from enacting laws or state constitutional provisions that made it harder for their local governments to condemn property. This decision was based soley on the 5th ammendment question - not whether the city or state had violated Connecticut law. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
no mail wrote: 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. This just isn't true. Let us say that you bought a beachfront property for $100K 20 years ago. It's now paid off. Further, let us assume the property is in California and Prop 13 is in effect, so that your property taxes are low relative to the value of the property, which is now $500K. You are now retired and on a fixed income. If you are offered $750K for the property, for many people this is not a fair deal - especially if the beachfront is now littered with much larger houses costing $1M+. In addition to the emotional attachment and the prospect of higher taxes, there is the real possibility that you have lost your ocean view forever. Property is often not easily interchangeable. There are plenty of houses that cost the same as mine that I hate, whether it be because of location, neighbors, or whatever. It would take a substantial premium over the appraised value (probably 50%) for me to consider putting up with the hassle of finding and moving into a new house. If someone wants to pay me 4x the value I'll take it, though. I think that the government should simply 'make me an offer I can't refuse' when it wants my property. Dimitri |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article , no mail wrote: 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. This just isn't true. Let us say that you bought a beachfront property for $100K 20 years ago. It's now paid off. Further, let us assume the property is in California and Prop 13 is in effect, so that your property taxes are low relative to the value of the property, which is now $500K. You are now retired and on a fixed income. If you are offered $750K for the property, for many people this is not a fair deal - especially if the beachfront is now littered with much larger houses costing $1M+. In addition to the emotional attachment and the prospect of higher taxes, there is the real possibility that you have lost your ocean view forever. Property is often not easily interchangeable. There are plenty of houses that cost the same as mine that I hate, whether it be because of location, neighbors, or whatever. It would take a substantial premium over the appraised value (probably 50%) for me to consider putting up with the hassle of finding and moving into a new house. If someone wants to pay me 4x the value I'll take it, though. I think that the government should simply 'make me an offer I can't refuse' when it wants my property. Dimitri I meant 150% of market value. I would certainly happy to sell my house for 120% of market value, and find an equivalent house nearby and pocket that difference. I guess the key is that "market value". If there is no houses for sale in the area, the houses would sell at very high prices. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. Perce |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
no mail wrote: I meant 150% of market value. I would certainly happy to sell my house for 120% of market value, and find an equivalent house nearby and pocket that difference. I guess the key is that "market value". If there is no houses for sale in the area, the houses would sell at very high prices. My point here is that 150% of market value wouldn't be enough in many instances. It's easier to 'make an offer you can't refuse'. Everyone has a price and I don't think it (the price) is something that should be legislated. "Fair market value" (or even 150% of FMV) often isn't. Dimitri |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
v wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 05:15:19 GMT, someone wrote: Yep. The 4 "liberal" judges (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) voted against the homeowners and in favor of the big business property takeover. The 4 "conservative" judges (O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) stood up for the (literal reading of the constitution) and the common folk. Well, there is a saying that "Liberals" want to regulate what you can do with your property. And "Conservatives" what you can do with your body.... And reactionaries don't care about either, they just want you to get the hell out of the way. -- Cheers, Bev ------------------------------------------------------------------- "We need to cut more slack for the stupid; after all, somebody has to populate the lower part of the bell curve." -- Dennis (evil) |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
no mail wrote:
wrote: 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. Suppose the only place they can buy to replace it is 100 miles away from their children/grandchildren instead of walking distance? If that piece of land is so valuable to the government, the government should pay more than its market value. A friend who did a stint as a municipal lawyer said that the city he worked for paid more than market value + moving expenses + found them a new house + their property tax base didn't change + some other stuff that seemed extremely generous. The only bad thing is that the people can't live where they were living any more. Sometimes that matters more than money. -- Cheers, Bev \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." -- -Albert Einstein |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D. Gerasimatos" wrote:
Property is often not easily interchangeable. There are plenty of houses that cost the same as mine that I hate, whether it be because of location, neighbors, or whatever. It would take a substantial premium over the appraised value (probably 50%) for me to consider putting up with the hassle of finding and moving into a new house. If someone wants to pay me 4x the value I'll take it, though. I think that the government should simply 'make me an offer I can't refuse' when it wants my property. The whole point of condemnation is to avoid exactly that. -- Cheers, Bev \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\ "He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." -- -Albert Einstein |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
The Real Bev wrote: "D. Gerasimatos" wrote: Property is often not easily interchangeable. There are plenty of houses that cost the same as mine that I hate, whether it be because of location, neighbors, or whatever. It would take a substantial premium over the appraised value (probably 50%) for me to consider putting up with the hassle of finding and moving into a new house. If someone wants to pay me 4x the value I'll take it, though. I think that the government should simply 'make me an offer I can't refuse' when it wants my property. The whole point of condemnation is to avoid exactly that. Avoid paying me what I want for my own property? Dimitri |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D. Gerasimatos" wrote:
The Real Bev wrote: "D. Gerasimatos" wrote: Property is often not easily interchangeable. There are plenty of houses that cost the same as mine that I hate, whether it be because of location, neighbors, or whatever. It would take a substantial premium over the appraised value (probably 50%) for me to consider putting up with the hassle of finding and moving into a new house. If someone wants to pay me 4x the value I'll take it, though. I think that the government should simply 'make me an offer I can't refuse' when it wants my property. The whole point of condemnation is to avoid exactly that. Avoid paying me what I want for my own property? Bingo. If the developer was willing to offer what the owners were willing to accept, condemnation wouldn't be necessary. -- Cheers, Bev ========================================= "Welcome to Hell, here's your accordion." |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't think the law as such is worng; I do feel, however, that it
must be limited. The state is well within its rights to confiscate land for the building of a highway, but to seize private property and turn it over to another private party for their own benefit is patently unfair. W : ) |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:59:32 -0400, no mail wrote:
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. Ah, but 150% of the property value when they bought it, or 150% of the value when the project - which can't be built without confiscating his land - is built? |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
The Real Bev wrote: Bingo. If the developer was willing to offer what the owners were willing to accept, condemnation wouldn't be necessary. Good point. Dimitri |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:26:10 -0400, someone wrote:
.... I would certainly happy to sell my house for 120% of market value, and find an equivalent house nearby and pocket that difference. How many years have you lived in your home? How many generations of your family have owned that land? You speak as if a home was only an investment in real property. There ARE other factors. I don't think anybody is arguing that there should not be eminent domain at all, but rather under what circumstances it can properly be used. There is much more sensitivity to forcibly taking people's property, than merely the price. This kind of litigation has been going on for a long time. It might have been 30 years ago that there was a Detroit case where a "White ethnic" neighborhood was being "taken" so as to allow a manufacturer to expand. It sure is a "slipperly slope" with plenty of incentive and opportunity for corruption (and racial discrimination), when it is OK in principle to "take" homes in order to accomplish a profitable development. Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
There has never been tight federal control over how states use eminent
domain. The fifth ammendment just says that the governement can't take private property for public use without just compensation. Under numerous circumstances, turning the property over to another private party may still legally constitute a public use. When we discuss this stuff, we should also remind ourselves that using terms like "seize" and "confiscate" can be misleading and get people really wound up if forget to mention that compenstation is required. I just about every case I have heard of, people are usually offered relocations deals that include fair market value for their property and a reasonable amount to cover moving costs. Of course most cases of eminent domain condemnations probably don't require anyone to move. They are often for easments, right of ways, etc. This decision did not change much. States already had wide latitude when it came to eminent domain, with this decision they still do. The court was crystal clear that this decision did not preempt states from creating stricter eminent domain laws that offer property owners more protection. Some states already have tighter laws or state constitutional limit. I have heard and read in the news that many state lawmakers are looking at this in light of this decision. The decision doesn't thrill me. But I think it was constitutionally sound. If you don't like it, you need to petition your state government to make sure tighter reigns are in place. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Appreciate the detailed reply, but I have a question: does "fair market
value" always equal "just compensation"? I have doubts. W : ) |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
In , The Real Bev wrote (condensed by me):
"D. Gerasimatos" wrote: The Real Bev wrote: "D. Gerasimatos" wrote: 'make me an offer I can't refuse' when it wants my property. The whole point of condemnation is to avoid exactly that. Avoid paying me what I want for my own property? Bingo. If the developer was willing to offer what the owners were willing to accept, condemnation wouldn't be necessary. What I believe is necessary for some law specifying degree of compensation to owners of property condemned via eminent domain. As in some figure that usually allows displaced homeowners to obtain a nearby home that is in most ways no worse plus moving expenses. Maybe double appraised value or 2.2x selling price previous year of similar next-door property, and add to maybe that 1/3 of the state's most recently determined median family income for moving expenses (probably on the generous side). Possibly add to this 1% of the ground-area-apportioned actual cost or assessed/appraised value of what got built afterwards. 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. This is a proposal of mine, open to debate. What I believe is necessary is for state and local legislatures to make laws governing this area, and if they are not adequately compensating displaced property owners then people gotta march onto the legislator's district offices. And if response to that is unfavorable, then the constituents need to follow through and fire the offending legislators as soon as they are up for re-election! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Another option: Tell your local, county and state legislators how you feel! Find their office addresses, and send them letters or postcards! Better to condense what you are saying into no more than a few sentences with most of your main point in the first couple sentences and avoid side points - letters are often read by staff being paid to handle large volumes of mail! This is a good example of "Less is more"! (This applies more to US Congress and less to at least the sleepier local governments.) Find out when your local legislators are in session - gang up on them and "mailbomb" them a week or maybe a couple weeks in advance! Gang up and let the legislators know with hundreds of pounds of mail what a lot of people want from them! And if you care more about your property rights than about "hot button" issues that push people's buttons, then be willing to vote for someone that you disagree with on the issues used to "push your buttons"! And don't stay home on primary election days. Even if the offender has no opposition from his/her/its party, people should coordinate on a token candidate (fictitious if necessary) for write-in to get actual counted votes counted as being from disgruntled constituents - that could sway the offender (or his/her/its challenger from the other party) by the following November! If the offending candidate has no opposition in the November election, a coordinated effort towards a single write-in candidate (fictitious if necessary) could motivate the offender to beware of vulnerability, and maybe convince someone else to run for that office on the "burning issue" if the numbers are impressive enough! 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??? - Don Klipstein ) |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wordsmith wrote:
Appreciate the detailed reply, but I have a question: does "fair market value" always equal "just compensation"? I have doubts. Doubts? How about total disagreement? If getting fair market value for their home was what made people move, everybody would be moving all the time and real estate people would make a much bigger fortune than they already do. If I had a beachfront home, I would think that fair market value would enable me to buy another equivalent beachfront home. Then add in moving costs, pain and suffering, fees, etc... -- Cheers, Bev ************************************************** ************* When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a thumb. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT - Christians defend GWB | Metalworking | |||
| OT-More attacks on gun rights | Metalworking | |||
| FBI SADISM, PERVERSION, MENTAL TORTURE and BLATANT human rights violations | Woodworking | |||
| Nice write up about LEDs | Metalworking | |||
| OT- VOTERS` VIEWS ON FIREARM OWNERS` RIGHTS AND HUNTING | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
