"Lab Lover" wrote in message
...

In the example you cited, it would appear people were not required,
through

eminent domain, to sell their property as the man you mention was able
to keep

his land.


The man got to keep his property, but it was with the understanding that
part of it was going to be under water and that at a later time he could not
come back and want money for it just because it was under water. That was
many years ago (like over 60 years) so the law may be differant now, I don't
know.

That way he could put in whatever kind of dock and boat ramp he wanted to
out to the end of where his land was under water.





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:51:01 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Lab Lover" wrote in message
.. .

In the example you cited, it would appear people were not required,
through

eminent domain, to sell their property as the man you mention was able
to keep

his land.


The man got to keep his property, but it was with the understanding that
part of it was going to be under water and that at a later time he could not
come back and want money for it just because it was under water. That was
many years ago (like over 60 years) so the law may be differant now, I don't
know.

That way he could put in whatever kind of dock and boat ramp he wanted to
out to the end of where his land was under water.


Sounds like the owner had excellent instincts and was quite clever.

On Monday, February 10, 2014 3:20:52 PM UTC-5, Lab Lover wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:18:31 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



On Monday, February 10, 2014 1:56:25 PM UTC-5, Lab Lover wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:39:52 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"



wrote:











"Lab Lover" wrote in message



.. .







When a government entity acquires a piece of property from a private



owner, even



if the process of condemnation is used, it is common place for both



parties to



hire a private, licensed property appraiser.







Appraisers are usually indemnified against errors and omissions by a O&E



insurance policy. If the price paid by the state was based upon such an



appraisal, the logical recourse would be to go after the appraiser.







If they purchased without an appraisal or ignored the appraisal



completely, I



would speculate they have little chance of success. However, if they can



prove



the seller materially misrepresented the property, they might have



legitimate



recourse.







If I were a member of the jury, on the basis of the known facts, I would



find in



favor of the homeowner.







There is one thing I have not seen factored into the land grab by the



government.







Land in the country is not worth very much. Once the road or lake is built



the land next to the road/lake can become very valuable. Why is the



government forced to pay the price of the projected value of that land ?







In this area many years ago a river was damed up and a lake made. Many



people had to sell their land for almost nothing. One fellow did not sell



much of his land.



Move forward about 20 years. The land around this lake is now worth many



times the origional price. Part of the land that the fellow did not sell is



under water and part of it is not. The people in charge of the lake have



many restrictions on the boat docks and ramps that can be built. Because



this one person did not sell his land for the low price the lake people



wanted to give him, his land is now worth much more because he can build any



kind of dock he wants to, and do whatever he wants to right up to and into



the water where some of his land is.







In my opinion the governmnet should be forced to look at the highest priceof



the land with in 10 miles or more and have to pay tht price.











We are the government. The government is us. I would not wish to see a



government which I fund, pay any more than current fair market value as



determined by impartial appraisers.







In the example you cited, it would appear people were not required, through



eminent domain, to sell their property as the man you mention was able to keep



his land.





Of course it was a case of eminent domain. That's why there was

no completed sale. They didn't take the entire property, just

piece of the land.



If the man who did not sell his property (above) were subject to an eminent

domain condemnation of all his property and was unable to challenge such

successfully, he would not have been able to keep his property



I suspect this is what you were conveying?



No, I don't see any evidence that they ever wanted all of his
property. They just wanted a small portion of the land from
the lot his house is on for the additional exit lane. Very
common.




\







Even in the case of eminent domain, there is no justification in paying more



than current fair market value as no one has yet invented a reliable, prescient



crystal ball.



I'd say there is some justification. You took someone's home or

land. If you're taking a whole home, you're forcing someone to move.

IDK about you, but if someone forced me to give up a house that I've

lived in for 30 years, that I like a lot, that I'm comfortable ien,

I think some additional compensation beyond

just the fair market value of the house is in order. And as a taxpayer,

I have no problem with the govt going with a somewhat higher number.

Instead in all the cases I see, the govt tries to lowball it to the

extent possible.





In the case on eminent domain condemnation of primary residences, most

jurisdictions will provide for reasonable relocation expenses, above and beyond

FMV of the property.



I have yet to see a jurisdiction in the USA where a government has been able to

acquire property, through eminent domain, where the property owner did not have

the right to due process and judicial appeal. Are you aware of any such

omnipotent jurisdictions?

Sure you have the right to due process and judicial appeal. So
what? You're 80 years old and have lived there all your life.
They offer you $250K, because that is what their appraiser says
your homestead is worth. You have an appraiser that says it's
worth $325K. The typical case here is they won't budge, screw
you. They rather start the legal bill clock running, because
those that write the laws anc control the process, ie the
politicians, etc a lot of them
are lawyers. Lawyers are their friends. So, they actually
prefer that $75K go to law firms, their contributors, friends,
connected, etc instead of just giving the old guy the $325K

That kind of sounds like what's going on here. They already
have racked up $35K in outside legal bills, trying to recover
$160K, on the *chance* that they might win. It's not like
it's clear that he owes them $160K, the trial result could be
that he wins.

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:12:20 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2014 3:20:52 PM UTC-5, Lab Lover wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:18:31 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



On Monday, February 10, 2014 1:56:25 PM UTC-5, Lab Lover wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:39:52 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"



wrote:











"Lab Lover" wrote in message



.. .







When a government entity acquires a piece of property from a private



owner, even



if the process of condemnation is used, it is common place for both



parties to



hire a private, licensed property appraiser.







Appraisers are usually indemnified against errors and omissions by a O&E



insurance policy. If the price paid by the state was based upon such an



appraisal, the logical recourse would be to go after the appraiser.







If they purchased without an appraisal or ignored the appraisal



completely, I



would speculate they have little chance of success. However, if they can



prove



the seller materially misrepresented the property, they might have



legitimate



recourse.







If I were a member of the jury, on the basis of the known facts, I would



find in



favor of the homeowner.







There is one thing I have not seen factored into the land grab by the



government.







Land in the country is not worth very much. Once the road or lake is built



the land next to the road/lake can become very valuable. Why is the



government forced to pay the price of the projected value of that land ?







In this area many years ago a river was damed up and a lake made. Many



people had to sell their land for almost nothing. One fellow did not sell



much of his land.



Move forward about 20 years. The land around this lake is now worth many



times the origional price. Part of the land that the fellow did not sell is



under water and part of it is not. The people in charge of the lake have



many restrictions on the boat docks and ramps that can be built. Because



this one person did not sell his land for the low price the lake people



wanted to give him, his land is now worth much more because he can build any



kind of dock he wants to, and do whatever he wants to right up to and into



the water where some of his land is.







In my opinion the governmnet should be forced to look at the highest priceof



the land with in 10 miles or more and have to pay tht price.











We are the government. The government is us. I would not wish to see a



government which I fund, pay any more than current fair market value as



determined by impartial appraisers.







In the example you cited, it would appear people were not required, through



eminent domain, to sell their property as the man you mention was able to keep



his land.





Of course it was a case of eminent domain. That's why there was

no completed sale. They didn't take the entire property, just

piece of the land.



If the man who did not sell his property (above) were subject to an eminent

domain condemnation of all his property and was unable to challenge such

successfully, he would not have been able to keep his property



I suspect this is what you were conveying?



No, I don't see any evidence that they ever wanted all of his
property. They just wanted a small portion of the land from
the lot his house is on for the additional exit lane. Very
common.


I see the confusion. I was talking about the other scenario of the man who kept
his property which ultimately became lakefront property. See the posts from
Ralph Mowery.




\







Even in the case of eminent domain, there is no justification in paying more



than current fair market value as no one has yet invented a reliable, prescient



crystal ball.



I'd say there is some justification. You took someone's home or

land. If you're taking a whole home, you're forcing someone to move.

IDK about you, but if someone forced me to give up a house that I've

lived in for 30 years, that I like a lot, that I'm comfortable ien,

I think some additional compensation beyond

just the fair market value of the house is in order. And as a taxpayer,

I have no problem with the govt going with a somewhat higher number.

Instead in all the cases I see, the govt tries to lowball it to the

extent possible.





In the case on eminent domain condemnation of primary residences, most

jurisdictions will provide for reasonable relocation expenses, above and beyond

FMV of the property.



I have yet to see a jurisdiction in the USA where a government has been able to

acquire property, through eminent domain, where the property owner did not have

the right to due process and judicial appeal. Are you aware of any such

omnipotent jurisdictions?

Sure you have the right to due process and judicial appeal. So
what? You're 80 years old and have lived there all your life.
They offer you $250K, because that is what their appraiser says
your homestead is worth. You have an appraiser that says it's
worth $325K. The typical case here is they won't budge, screw
you. They rather start the legal bill clock running, because
those that write the laws anc control the process, ie the
politicians, etc a lot of them
are lawyers. Lawyers are their friends. So, they actually
prefer that $75K go to law firms, their contributors, friends,
connected, etc instead of just giving the old guy the $325K

This has not been my personal experience, most jurisdictions I have encountered
are more than willing to negotiate in good faith. However, I have seen
homeowners, thinking they have the city over a barrel, make very poor tactical
choices and find themselves behind the 8 ball with the jurisdiction.


That kind of sounds like what's going on here. They already
have racked up $35K in outside legal bills, trying to recover
$160K, on the *chance* that they might win. It's not like
it's clear that he owes them $160K, the trial result could be
that he wins.

The state of Virginia sounds like they are very unethical if not downright
gangster-like.

On 2/10/2014 11:27 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:06:31 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

So, you think we're total idiots?

Emoticons are for inarticulate ****ers.

I must be an unarticulate copulating denizen of Usenet? ^_^

TDD

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:09:06 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 11:27 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:06:31 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

So, you think we're total idiots?

Emoticons are for inarticulate ****ers.

I must be an unarticulate copulating denizen of Usenet? ^_^

TDD

:-\

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:09:06 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 11:27 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:06:31 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

So, you think we're total idiots?

Emoticons are for inarticulate ****ers.

I must be an unarticulate copulating denizen of Usenet? ^_^

Hey, get your own title, that one is mine!

On 2/10/2014 6:10 PM, Lab Lover wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:09:06 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 2/10/2014 11:27 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 07:06:31 -0500, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

So, you think we're total idiots?

Emoticons are for inarticulate ****ers.

I must be an unarticulate copulating denizen of Usenet? ^_^

Hey, get your own title, that one is mine!

I thought you was Super Fly? o_O

TDD

Oren posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


Buyer's remorse. Bought land 30 feet from home owners bedroom window.

Video:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3171625043001/buyers-remorse-state-says-it-overpaid-for-homeowners-yard/#sp=show-clips

Court is in session on Monday.

Haaaaaaa poor Mr. Ramsey. He will get screwed...

--
Tekkie