Ahh, Danny, this isn't Russia. Is this Russia? This isn't Russia, is it?

[cwb124]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/sc....ap/index.html

Local cities can now take your house for private economic development.

This is a terrible ruling, and we will see the effects of this for a long time.

O'Connor makes a good point at the end. Read the article.

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[TubeDriver]

Amerika

[imprezton]

Eminent Domain.

There is nothing "now" about it. This has been happening for a long time. You are compensated market value and moving expenses for the property.

[kbcr3]

***?!!

[Mike Wevrick]

"Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority."

How about the private property rights of the owners, you statist nitwit?

[Fish]

I didn't think Eminent domain applied to private ventures tho..

[imprezton]

Originally Posted by Fishguy

I didn't think Eminent domain applied to private ventures tho..

If it can be shown that the private venture is in the best interest of the community, E.D. applies.

Personally, I think it's abused.

[RaceCarRiot]

in soviet russia, house sells you!

[Strider]

Originally Posted by imprezton

If it can be shown that the private venture is in the best interest of the community, E.D. applies.

Personally, I think it's abused.

Yep, and I agree that it's abused. They're supposed to reimburse you for the cost of the assets they're seizing, but you end up getting shafted.

[cwb124]

Originally Posted by imprezton

Eminent Domain.

There is nothing "now" about it. This has been happening for a long time. You are compensated market value and moving expenses for the property.

Yes there is something "now" about it. Used to be for public use ONLY. This case in CT was the first that I know about that was about taking private land for private development, and I can't believe the Supreme Court did this. Huge respect for O'Connor, Thomas, and Rehnquist for standing up to this, it's just too bad they lost 5-4. It's really sad, and Imprezton if it were to ever happen to you I think you'd change your tune.

[imprezton]

Originally Posted by Mike Wevrick

"Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority."

How about the private property rights of the owners, you statist nitwit?

Without some form of Eminent Domain, we could have no highways, unless they were planned before a land grab 100-500 years ago.

Scenario: You, as a city, need to build a new causeway, because the city has grown and commutes are taking hours in light-to-light traffic. Over 3 years, you have systematically bought up property for the route of this causeway, and are now left with six or seven properties that won't sell. When you try to negotiate a deal with them, half of them refuse to sell outright, and the other half want $50M each for properties that range in market value from $50K to $200K.

What do you do? Give up the project? Punish the whole city because a few sentimentals and greedballs are holding out? Redesign the causeway to zig-zag around through properties that were willing to make way?

There IS a place for Eminent Domain in community planning. I DO think an office park shouldn't warrant ED, though.

[imprezton]

Originally Posted by cwb124

Yes there is something "now" about it. Used to be for public use ONLY. This case in CT was the first that I know about that was about taking private land for private development, and I can't believe the Supreme Court did this. Huge respect for O'Connor, Thomas, and Rehnquist for standing up to this, it's just too bad they lost 5-4. It's really sad, and Imprezton if it were to ever happen to you I think you'd change your tune.

As early as 1985, that I KNOW OF, ED was applied in downtown Las Vegas to make way for a private parking garage.

[Damn Yankee]

in GA the state can claim ED and take 12 feet of your property to widen roads.

I want to know what stops them from doing it more than once.....

[Anglophile]

Late 50's, early 60's:Chavez Ravine, Los Angeles CA. Entire community bulldozed by city to make way for privately owned Dodger Stadium. Nope, nothing new about this

[Gcbinc]

I'll argue that the Arthur Dent idea of Eminent domain is real...if a bypass has to go through, that's fine. To the folks that are holding out...yes, force them out. If it's a clear improvement to the city. They may or may not be 'greedballs' but even 1 person's sentimental reasons are not paramount to a city/town needing a new road.

But when homes are 'taken' (and they are in both instances) for a waterfront hotel, a gym, and an office, then I am on Sandra's side here.

And she makes a point...mega rich developers, and the public officers they are in bed with/control, will be jumping at the bit to go after the little guy.

Example (a real one):There is an old woman in Atlantic City that owns a little teeny house. Her house is the only one stopping Trump from putting up another hotel/casino. He has, over the years, offered her about 100 times the value of the property. This little old lady likes where she lives, she's been there like 50 yrs, and won't move.
Trump built all around her house, to the point where I don't think sunlight ever hits her house.
I bet that the second he reads this ruling, he'll run the AC development board, article in hand, and that lady is gone, probably for pennies.
I feel for her, and the hundreds/thousands like her that have a house in a place deemed 'desireable'.
GeoB

[semabe]

Supreme Court Ruling=no point in whining about it now.

Game over.

[YoungWilliams]

Originally Posted by semabe

Supreme Court Ruling=no point in whining about it now.

Game over.

You're right, they'll probably declare whining about their verdicts unconstitutional sometime next week.

[Mike Wevrick]

Originally Posted by imprezton

Without some form of Eminent Domain, we could have no highways, unless they were planned before a land grab 100-500 years ago.

Scenario: You, as a city, need to build a new causeway, because the city has grown and commutes are taking hours in light-to-light traffic. Over 3 years, you have systematically bought up property for the route of this causeway, and are now left with six or seven properties that won't sell. When you try to negotiate a deal with them, half of them refuse to sell outright, and the other half want $50M each for properties that range in market value from $50K to $200K.

What do you do? Give up the project? Punish the whole city because a few sentimentals and greedballs are holding out? Redesign the causeway to zig-zag around through properties that were willing to make way?

There IS a place for Eminent Domain in community planning. I DO think an office park shouldn't warrant ED, though.

The problem is that ED has been used more and more for purely private use. This is the first major case to (wrongly IMO) decide that takings for private use are Constitutional.

Highways are a "public use," which is allowed by the 5th amendment. Private office buildings are not. This ruling essentially destroys private property rights in land completely.

[semabe]

Originally Posted by YoungWilliams

You're right, they'll probably declare whining about their verdicts unconstiutional sometime next week.

It's really starting to get silly.

[semabe]

Originally Posted by Mike Wevrick

The problem is that ED has been used more and more for purely private use. This is the first major case to (wrongly IMO) decide that takings for private use are Constitutional.

Highways are a "public use," which is allowed by the 5th amendment. Private office buildings are not. This ruling essentially destroys private property rights in land completely.

I've seen this applied in California before the Supreme Court rulings.

Example:
Where I used to live in the San Gabriel Valley, there was a medical center (really just medical suites) constructed in the center of town around 1985. Only problem was, it had to be constructed around an existing home of an elderly couple. They wouldn't sell or move. So the center was built (private funds, private center, in partnership with the city for the deveolpment.) The private home took away from the parking area of the center. So, a year later, with the doctors complaining about business being hurt due to the parking situation, the City pulled ED and seized the property. Elderly couple got tossed, house was bulldozed.

[imprezton]

Originally Posted by Gcbinc

I'll argue that the Arthur Dent idea of Eminent domain is real...if a bypass has to go through, that's fine. To the folks that are holding out...yes, force them out. If it's a clear improvement to the city. They may or may not be 'greedballs' but even 1 person's sentimental reasons are not paramount to a city/town needing a new road.

But when homes are 'taken' (and they are in both instances) for a waterfront hotel, a gym, and an office, then I am on Sandra's side here.

And she makes a point...mega rich developers, and the public officers they are in bed with/control, will be jumping at the bit to go after the little guy.

Example (a real one):There is an old woman in Atlantic City that owns a little teeny house. Her house is the only one stopping Trump from putting up another hotel/casino. He has, over the years, offered her about 100 times the value of the property. This little old lady likes where she lives, she's been there like 50 yrs, and won't move.
Trump built all around her house, to the point where I don't think sunlight ever hits her house.
I bet that the second he reads this ruling, he'll run the AC development board, article in hand, and that lady is gone, probably for pennies.
I feel for her, and the hundreds/thousands like her that have a house in a place deemed 'desireable'.
GeoB

EXACTLY the same scenario exists at Mirage in Las Vegas. If you drive around back of the property, you will see a little apartment building nestled in amongst the megaresort and plant structures.

[Charge]

This just happened in my city. Norwood(near Cincinnati) had a similar issue. They wanted to expand a shopping center/office complex. All but like 5 homeowners agreed to sell. The holdouts were mostly older couples who just didn't want to move, they weren't interested in any amount of money(one was a business owner, located in a house, who prized his location above all else). So the city of Norwood declared the area "blighted". Most people locally thought it was bull. The houses were old and a little run down. It was a lower income neighborhood, but there was no significant amount of crime or anything like that. Either way, the homeowners took the city to court, but lost. The homes are now gone and the construction is about to begin. It was pretty sorely contested around here. Most people were against it...but the city of Norwood was nearly bankrupt and this office complex will bring in a lot of tax revenue, so most Norwood residents were for it.

[Mike Wevrick]

Originally Posted by semabe

I've seen this applied in California before the Supreme Court rulings.

.

Yes, I know. The problem was it was a grey area before. The SC had a chance to stand up for property rights and instead they squashed them

[well_armed]

Originally Posted by cwb124

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/sc....ap/index.html

Local cities can now take your house for private economic development.

This is a terrible ruling, and we will see the effects of this for a long time.

O'Connor makes a good point at the end. Read the article.

Fletch!


This is totally bogus.

"Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said."

Right

[wickedscorpion]

Originally Posted by Fishguy

I didn't think Eminent domain applied to private ventures tho..

Exactly, it does now.