Eminent Domain
his is generally a topic most Americans are unaware of. I hope BMEWS readers do not fall into that category.
Neal Boortz rants about it frequently. And rightly so.
The latest incident is taking place in New London, Ct. where the city wants to kick 7 homeowners out of their houses (because they do not generate enough tax revenue) in order to allow the building of hotels, condos and luxury apartments.
Eminent domain, according to the Constitution, allows the state to take a homeowner’s property when it is needed for public use. I interpret that to mean: putting in a highway to alleviate traffic congestion, widening a road, even schools.
But to increase tax revenue?
That’s an abomination.
Yet our Supreme Court is hearing the case now and thanks to Jeff Jacoby, who writes this article, we find out the following quotes from the Justices themselves:
When Bullock (a lawyer from the Institute for Justice) argues that New London wants to throw people out of their homes for the sake of ordinary economic development, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asks why that’s a problem. New London is depressed, she says; what’s wrong with trying to “build it up and get more jobs?” If the city could buy property on the open market and turn it over to a developer, wonders Justice David Souter, why can’t it use eminent domain to achieve the same end? Justice Stephen Breyer notes that there is bound to be some public benefit from almost any land taking. Isn’t that enough to satisfy the Constitution’s “public use” requirement?
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor presses Wesley Horton, the lawyer for New London, on whether eminent domain can really be deployed to condemn any property that could be put to better use.
“For example, a Motel 6,” O’Connor says. “A city thinks, ‘If we had a Ritz-Carlton, we’d get higher taxes.’ Is that OK?”
“Yes, that’s OK,” Horton replies.
Justice Antonin Scalia: “You can take from A and give it to B, if B pays more in taxes?”
Horton: “Yes, if it’s a significant amount.”
Be afraid, people. Be very afraid.
What was that line about starting with the lawyers?
Posted by jackbrownii on 02/28/2005 at 10:53 AM (ET)This is why W. needs to appoint strong constitutionalists to the Supremes. Without property rights no other rights can exist.
Posted by Chris W. on 02/28/2005 at 11:18 AM (ET)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.Posted by LC Geno on 02/28/2005 at 12:18 PM (ET)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 on 02/28/2005 at 02:24 PM (ET)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.
Posted by Chris W. on 02/28/2005 at 02:30 PM (ET)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,
CanuckistanPosted by Dan D on 02/28/2005 at 03:42 PM (ET)DanD: 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 on 02/28/2005 at 06:04 PM (ET)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?
Posted by Dac on 02/28/2005 at 06:34 PM (ET)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.Posted by LC Geno on 02/28/2005 at 06:45 PM (ET)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,
CanuckistanPosted by Dan D on 02/28/2005 at 09:01 PM (ET)If 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.
Posted by Tannenberg on 02/28/2005 at 09:18 PM (ET)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.
Posted by LC Geno on 03/01/2005 at 12:25 AM (ET)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.
Posted by StinKerr on 03/01/2005 at 01:25 AM (ET)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,
CanuckistanPosted by Dan D on 03/01/2005 at 02:42 AM (ET) Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.Next entry: Notice Anything?
Previous entry: Illegal Immigrants In The News
The Conservative Viewpoint From The Garden State, and somewhere in England
Mission Statement:
"Seek And Destroy Stupid"
Beware Of Guard Bat!Day By Day
Our Sponsors
Search For It!
Blog Friends
About This Blog
We maintain constant vigilance over the Barking Moonbat community; monitoring lunatics, idiotarians, and stupid people everywhere to keep America safe and sane.
Membership is required to post comments or submit Guest Posts. Submissions for Guest Posts should be sent to The Skipper at:
allan "at" barking-moonbat.comThis Blog Is Rated
Donations
Come on! Donate to your favorite blog. You know you want to. Just click here and send us some dough. We promise to spend it wisely. Really!
Required Reading
Buy Stuff
Affiliations
Other Useful Web Sites
MILITARY & IRAQ
NEWS
GOVERNMENT
Categories
Monthly Archives
- May 2024
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- January 2004
- Complete Archives
- Category Archives
Most recent entries
- Once Again, The One And Only Post
- Gee, Oops
- The ‘Rona Song
- Follow Me !
- eye candy, high plains edition
- Flowers For Algernon?
- The Death Of NYC?
- Very Funny Officer
- Rhubarb !!!
- Fauci Gets One Right
- toldja so
- Of course she isn’t, but you’re uninformed and intellectually lazy so she’ll get away with it
- Walter White Moved To Holland?
- TLH? Typical Leftist Hypocrites
- Biden Picks Kamala Harris For VP
- Feral Child Killers
- Gohmert (R-TX) Much Improved
- Still Here
- A Dark Ending
- Ospreys are up, is Trump in town?
Copyright
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
You may freely use anything for non-commercial purposes as long as you attribute the source. All non-original content must be attributed to the original source. Play fair.Fair Use
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc.
We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.Blogroll