Eminent Domain
What was that line about starting with the lawyers?
Posted by jackbrownii
02/28/2005 at 10:53 AM
This is why W. needs to appoint strong constitutionalists to the Supremes. Without property rights no other rights can exist.
BobF - What part of the country are you from?
I have seen this same type of shit going on in Colorado, where the city governments are condemning property and then confiscating the property with eminent domain and reimbursing the owner for a fraction of it’s true value. It is a chickshit precedent that if I remember right was first started in NYC in the late 60’s or early 70’s but is now all too common all over the country. I am very interested in what the Supreme’s are going to do with their ruling. Renquist is very sick and I don’t know if he is even hearing any more cases right now. Which bodes bad for property owners in this country.Chris W., you are absolutely correct. I am concerned though that most Republican politicians are not truly concerned with individual rights (I’m not saying Democrats are however). Republicans generally are pro-business to the peril of individual rights. I am not sure that Presisent Bush is any different. This is something for all folks to consider when electing officials. It is a fundamental assualt on our liberty.
Posted by CT
02/28/2005 at 02:24 PM
Eminent Domain was intended for use as a national security issue if I remember correctly. Joe Public owns land that is militarily strategic for the defense of the country (i.e. a river mouth) and if the feds need to build a naval base there, then the gov could step in and forcibly offer him a certain amunt of money for your land and force him off it.
This business about arbitrarily making land “more profitable” is nonsense, but I believe it when they say it’s going on. The government does not exist to make profits for itself nor for it’s citizens. A slippery slope for sure.
You folks have your own laws based on your Bill Of Rights and the Constitution. However, like Canada, they were originally based on British Common Law. We have “Expropriation” which is the same as your “Eminent Domain”. Same shit; different pile.
-Dan D,
CanuckistanDanD: really the same? Could be. Vilmar said it—it should be exercised only for important public projects. I’ll bet big the The Supremes will can this crock of
!
Posted by Oink
02/28/2005 at 06:04 PM
Aren’t the basic inalienable rights Life, Liberty, and The Persuit of Happiness?
And before anyone gets on the Persuit of Happiness, it is really the right to property. I guess Jefferson thought that putting Property wouldn’t sound so poetic.
It is said that money cannot buy you happiness; and by extension, stuff money can get you (property) won’t get you happiness. But we all know we use the getting of gain to persue happiness. Never going to catch it, but that isn’t the right, now is it?
Bob F - Missouri is good country. Do you support the Missouri Tigers.
Chris W - Dan D has it right. Idea of Eminent Domain comes out of British Common Law and in short it gives the “King”, or in our case the Federal Government, the ultimate “right of use” of any land. Unlike the British Monarchy of old, the constitution places the duty on the Federal Government to reimburse the property owner at “fair market value” for any land that the Fed’s confiscate. The idea of eminent domain then extends down to state, county, and city governments with the “right of use” becoming weaker as the government becomes more local.
Now then, the idea of using eminent domain to make the land “more profitable” is as old as eminent domain has been around, but it is not called “more profitable”, it is termed “public use”. Most, not all, but most of the property taken by government with eminent domain is to increase the economy, therefore profits, therefore taxs, with the idea that the land would be put to “public use” and benefit the greater public at large. That is the idea behind all of the Highway, railroad, airport, marine, etc construction that was built on land taken with eminent domain. You get more goods, commodities, people from point A to point B more efficiently the economy grows, etc, etc.
But the government owns the property.
I don’t have a problem with the government trying to encourage profitable growth. But I have a huge problem with government useing eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another private owner for any reason. I have a even bigger problem with local governments useing condemnation proceedures to circumvent paying “fair market value” for land pocessed through eminent domain.LC Geno: that is the crux of the whole thing - the LAND and its fair market value - on which a person dwells. A recent case up here (and I’m not totally familiar with the US wording of Eminent Domain) meant that the land was expropriated and the ‘owner’ offered fair market value for THE LAND on which he had built a $500K house - but the dwelling is not covered! (The result was that the owner had two choices - move or dismantle the house - I think dynamite got involved.)
So I’d want to know what your take on what your laws say on what the terms of “fair market value of the land” really means.
How about someone who ‘owns’ land, with a dwelling in a wilderness area that the gummint suddenly decides to declare as a state (provincial) or federal park or reserve?
Keep an eye on the 2010 Olympics in Whistler, BC. Watch what happens / is happening there re: “private” land. It’s “get out yer jar of Vaseline” time.
Vilmar said it: “Be afraid, people. Be very afraid.”
-Dan D,
CanuckistanIf one private owner is not safe from expropriation and transfer of property to another private owner, then no private owner is safe. It could happen to any, anywhere, at any time.
Q.E.D.
Dan D
Well, I will give it a shot. Fair market value is usually determined by what similar properties, with similar improvements, are selling for in your local area. Outside of that there is no specific rule or law to determine what fair market value is. One thing that is different from what you say that you have to deal with is that improvements to the land, i.e. a residence, are included in the fair market value. Legally, Real Estate is the land and any permanent improvements that where put on that land, hence with a eminent domain seizure you are supposed to receive fair market value for the whole package. How you actually come to that value is pretty much the same way it happens in the private world. The government gets their assessor, who looks at the current selling prices of similar properties in your area. They then sit down and find the absolute rock bottom price they can find, shave off a little more, and then make you an offer. You, being wise, get your own assessor and do the reverse. After you both tell each other to fuck off, you then sit down and proceed to negotiate until you reach an agreeable price. What has been happening in Colorado of late is that the local governments have been unwilling to negotiate, and if you don’t take their offer they condemn the property. That action puts the burden on you to take them to court. Most people can’t afford that so they end up caving in.Wilderness areas are a different gig. There are different rules for different designations (i.e. BLM, Nat.Forest, Nat.Park, Wilderness Area, etc). The worst designation is a “Wilderness Area”. I’m not sure of the specifics, or if it is uniform with every wilderness area that is created. But I think that typically the government will buy out the property, and allow you to live there and lease back user rights for grazing cattle and such. As far as I know, it then becomes a basic tenant/owner relationship and as long as your paying your rent you can stay there till you die. What is unique about a wilderness designation is that no future developement is allowed. Absolutely none. It is also my understanding that any user rights go away with the death of the original owner, but I’m not sure about this.
That sucks. I understand they were doing it in Detroit too. I can understand it for clearing the blighted areas but they continued the process to perfectly good residential neighborhoods in order to encourage industrial development. States, cities and localities have been whoring themselves out to industries for years now and it’s getting worse now that they’re expropriating private property for the use of private businesses.
This has to be stopped. Tax breaks and infrastructure improvements to lure business and tax base to a community is one thing. Stealing the land under the premise of the “public good” is still stealing.
The “public good” is served just fine when property changes hands in the normal honest manner: Make a generous offer and buy it honestly.
I’m okay with eminent domain for property that is to serve a public good and will stay public, like the aforementioned roads, airports, etc., but not for private use.
FWIW I hope O’Connor was measuring the depth of depravity that New London would sink to for its own profit over that of the welfare of the residents with that Motel 6 question.
LCG & SK - thanks for the clarifications and comments. I have a tough enough time trying to understand Canadian laws without worrying about US laws and that’s why I back off the Social Security posts/issues being discussed lately as well.
It would seem that Allan has posted a follow-up above that on the surface appears even scarier than I originally thought.
-Dan D,
Canuckistan
02/28/2005 at 03:42 PM
