Eminent Domain

[kennythebomb]

Read all about it

What do you think.... should city and state governments be allowed to exercise this law?

 

[Solid Fro]

If Eminent Domain is used correctly, then I am all for it, but not when the local governments abuse and rip people off for their own gain.

The only news outlet that even covers this is Hannity & Colmes. Surprising? Not really.

 

[kennythebomb]

Just how do you define proper use?

Suppose part of a given neighborhood, in which the city wants to tear down and put up some new businesses and more expensive property that will improve the image of the town. Say they want to knock down some houses that have become community icons. Your house is one of them.

Now, of course it is for the gain of the community as a whole.... but should the gov't be able to have that right to kick you off your own land?

 

[Duke]

Nope. Eminent domain is only excusable - and then only just barely excusable - when there is a critical civic function that can only be accomodated in that particular area.

Simply booting a bunch of people because you think you can make more money with their property than they do is not acceptable under any circumstances. I hope the Ohio Supreme Court rams this right back down their throats.

 

[FoolKiller]

I despise the idea of eminent domain. It is even worse when the property is taken and given to a private corporation.


However, every time I drive down the interstate I can see farmland on both sides and I know that eminent domain is the reason why we have our infrastructure today.

I guess I have to agree with Duke in that it is only just barely acceptable when it is for a critical civic function.

 

[Swift]

I would like to see the gov't come to one of the homes of the representatives and say, "We want to sell your property to Wal-mart because we'll make more in taxes with them then you" Yeah, I'm sure that'll fly. 👎

 

[FoolKiller]

I would like to see the gov't come to one of the homes of the representatives and say, "We want to sell your property to Wal-mart because we'll make more in taxes with them then you" Yeah, I'm sure that'll fly. 👎

Yeah, but if I had to choose between living next to a politician or a Wal*Mart I would have to seriously think that one over.

Who am I kidding? Definitely Wal*Mart.

 

[Danoff]

Nope. Eminent domain is only excusable - and then only just barely excusable - when there is a critical civic function that can only be accomodated in that particular area.

Unfortunately I agree with this. Eminent domain is excusable if there is a critical civic function that requires a particular peice of land. It should be difficult to prove and we need some sort of economic measure to ensure that it isn't abused. I'd suggest forcing the government to pay twice the retail value of a particular peice of land insteand of "just compensation". I say any excercize of emminent domain is inherently unjust (though perhaps necessary) and therefor the compensation should also be unjust.

Yes that would create business opportunities for people who would go around figuring out what land the government would need and buying it up in hopes that they would have to buy it back for twice the amount paid. But it would ensure that the government really needed the land.

...and even then, I think some effort needs to be expended to ensure that the land is "critical" to the proper operation of government.

 

[Pupik]

It has been losing population and was fundamentally changed 35 years ago, when Interstate 75 was built through the middle of town. The neighborhood on one side of the highway started to deteriorate, becoming home to bars and auto repair shops, Williams says.

Basically, the city's original plan for eminent domian was to just sell the cheapest land to begin with. Thus, it allowed for a self-fulfilling prophecy by allowing businesses that nobody wants in a residential neghborhood in the first place, so a suddenly "deteriorating" area occured thanks to poor planning. Basically, the city of Norwood screwed up years ago by allowing the highway to rip through the guts of the city (hell, even Gainesville, Florida and Las Vegas saw that coming in the early-1960s), so by re-re-vitalizing the area with buisness that can be found everywhere else in the country, they're going to just buy out people from their land?

Sorry, I disagree. You can't force anyone off their land in a free country just because you want the land to go to private development. The gains of economic revitalization are negligible to the public good in the short term, it offers a gain a few individuals. The need for a roof over your head and to keep what's rightfully yours is a short and long-term need.

I also disagree with it for government use, short of (as stated above) critical need, and even then, temporary use only...say, disaster relief, etc.

I also suppose Norwood can go back to making some money the old fashioned way, by changing the speed limits of the interstate that runs through their municipality and garnering a little cash by writing speeding tickets, just like every other podunk town.

 

[Keef]

I think this use of eminant domain is absurd. I believe local governments should not be allowed to use this power, only state and federal governments, and only in important situations. Only when it is in dire need, like in an emergency or when the military needs it, and I mean REALLY needs it. Taking people's homes just because you can make more money should be illegal. You can't win anything in this country without loads of money. I was thinking that maybe if the Olympics was coming to town...but, no. The room needed for that would take so many acres of land it'd be just stupid. Did I get everything I wanted to say? I can't remember; somebody remind me.

 

[kennythebomb]

Seems like most people oppose it. I do, too... and I agree with how Duke put it.

Does anyone really favor it?

If your town knocks some houses down and puts up some successful condos, it can improve the image and increase the value of other buildings nearby, and over time it can change a neighborhood around.

Knocking down houses to enlarge the city's airport (like they wanted to do at O'Hare) could generate much more revenue for your town that can be used for the benefit of each resident... and it can be argued that things like an airport need to be enlarged to accomodate larger planes and needs of the passengers..... in such a case, is it right for the city to come in and knock the houses down?

Oh, and Keef.... I read something about this in Time today. Amazing, isn't it??

Read the related articles below it, too!

 

[ledhed]

After the most recent Supreme court ruling no one 's property is safe . Unless of course you are very rich . This situation sucks and needs to be fixed before the torches and pitchforks and .44 magnums start to come out .

 

[Keef]

Kenny, I really think that's uncool, what the Chinese government has done to its people and continue to do. But they're a Communism, so whatever they say goes. I really don't feel like meesing with that counrty--they have numbers on their side.
But have you seen the architecture engineers are constructing for the Olympics in China? The buildnis they're planning and working on are stunning! They complex designs are things that have never been done, like making a huge cube-shaped building out of "bubbles" made of steel rods attached in three-dimensional polygons. They have some sort of translucent material covering the entire building; it actually looks like bubbles! I saw it on the Discovery Channel a week or so ago. They also are working on one that is modeled after a bird's nest--you can imagine how complex its structure is. They also have buildings for repoters and for the athletes that are shaped just crazy. the fourth building they wanted to build was planned to be a cube, but the sides would be enourmous LED screens, kind of like what you might see at a big auto show. That turned out to be too expensive, though, so they have to be smaller. They might have info on Disco's website.

I've already said what I think about eviction; I just wanted to add a little something.

 

[kennythebomb]

Wow, too bad they have to evict so many people to put up the amazing buildings. I can't wait to see how those buildings turn out.

 

[FoolKiller]

BB&T Denies Loans to Businesses Benefiting from Eminent Domain

Monday, February 27, 2006
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — Banks give away millions of dollars in charitable donations and loan guarantees to the underserved each year, but BB&T may have just become the first bank in recent memory to withhold money from developers who don't line up with the bank's view of eminent domain law.

I actually considered opening a new account when I read this.

 

[Integrafan]

I Don't agree AT ALL with Eminent Domain!!
Why should the Government be allowed to take your property for pennies on the dollar after you have worked hard for what you own?
Do you want to fix up a neighborhood? Good, pay the market value for it!
Do you want to put up office buldings, shopping mall's, schools etc etc........
then make a really generous offer. Don't just assume that the owner is willing to take whatever you decide to give or offer. These people should not be allowed to have that much power!

 

[FoolKiller]

I Don't agree AT ALL with Eminent Domain!!
Why should the Government be allowed to take your property for pennies on the dollar after you have worked hard for what you own?
Do you want to fix up a neighborhood? Good, pay the market value for it!
Do you want to put up office buldings, shopping mall's, schools etc etc........
then make a really generous offer. Don't just assume that the owner is willing to take whatever you decide to give or offer. These people should not be allowed to have that much power!

Actually it is a case to case basis as to how much people get. Some people get triple the value and others get half. I guess it just depends on who is determining the value.

 

[Swift]

I actually considered opening a new account when I read this.

Same here. That's an excellent stance.

 

[Dave A]

Nope. Eminent domain is only excusable - and then only just barely excusable - when there is a critical civic function that can only be accomodated in that particular area.

Simply booting a bunch of people because you think you can make more money with their property than they do is not acceptable under any circumstances. I hope the Ohio Supreme Court rams this right back down their throats.

I agree 100%, I think it's pathetic that they'll take away your homes to build a few shops, if the town needs it economically theres other places to build 99% of the time. a home is a home, money doesn't always cover it, and a shopping center certainly isn't a reason to take peope's homes forcibly.

 

[FoolKiller]

a home is a home, money doesn't always cover it,

While I generally think that emotions should not get involved in politics and/or business this is where I deviate. You don't just take the house, you take a home. There's more than just wood, bricks, and paint in that place.

It's like my mom is getting remarried and is going to sell the house that I grew up in. That kind of bothers me even though I don't live there anymore. Anytime I went by it felt comfortable. I would still lay on the floor to watch TV because that is how I did it as a kid. I don't do that in my own house. I know wherever she moves won't be the same and I will act like a guest, not family. When they use eminent domain you force that kind of feeling on people in their own home when they had no desire or need to leave.

Factor that in with the whole property rights issue and eminent domain is just evil.