Eminent domain revisited
At JLM's request, this post is intended to continue discussion about the eminent domain issue. The term "just compensation" is so relative that it can span from "full market value" all the way to "for the good of the community, zero monetary compensation) - the logic here being that the property holder thus victimized, as a citizen for whom losing his/her land was of benefit to the whole, being a member of the whole benefits in turn. — Complicated.
I guess you can chock up those taxes you have paid and the payments you and your families have made over the years to just another form of public service.
I guess you can chock up those taxes you have paid and the payments you and your families have made over the years to just another form of public service.
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Monday, July 18, 2005
10 Comments:
JLM is paranoid. If the government wants to be to take someones land for the benefit of several others, what's wrong with that? One person or one family and their sentimental feelings are nothing compared to the pleasures to be found in a public park. People get paid for their property, and that makes it even. And if their property turns into a park, they get to use it like everyone else. Where's the beef?
By
Anonymous, at Monday, July 18, 2005 6:28:00 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but I find 6:28's logic a bit strained, and some of his/her wording a tad creepy.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, July 18, 2005 6:55:00 PM
Thank you, J.L. Kunkle.
Yes, this issue is in some ways complicated, but mainly because some local governing entities look for complicated formulas to deal with an uncomplicated truth: Anyone who is forced to "sell" a property under threat of eminent domain deserves nothing less than top dollar for being FORCED to hand over their property.
A property "transaction" involving a governing entity is often not a mutually willing seller/buyer situation; and the property owner in such circumstances deserves to be treated with the highest possible degree of respect and compensation.
If we and our properties are easily expendible to the whims and designs of city hall, then our property values and our rights as citizens are all greatly diminished.
JLM
By
Anonymous, at Monday, July 18, 2005 8:14:00 PM
The property zoning is what is used to determine fair market value.
1. - You own five unimproved acres sandwiched between two housing tracts.
2. - Your zoning hasn't been upgraded to reflect the change in property value.
3. - The City needs some of it for road-widening.
The City will try to imminent domain using your current zoning, irregardless of whether it has increased in value by the neighboring tracts.
Since the increase in property value was not through any action of the property owners, are they justified in demanding more for the City for their unimproved property?
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:11:00 PM
Response to JLKunkle, 12:11:
The value of land is determined by a whole bunch of various factors, very few of which have anything to do with the current owner. But that does not make the land worth any less.
If the city could use such factors in determining imminent domain payments due, they could probably whittle payments down to zero. Hmmm. Zero dollars for land. Does that sound familiar?
Sounds crazy to me, but I can see the city trying it. Oh well! What can we do? Like the old saying goes, you can't fight city hall.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:48:00 PM
Hi Chris,
This string has been quiet for a good number of days, so your post was missed by myself and probably many others. Anyway, glad to have you in the conversation.
The best answer to your question is that there is no clear answer, and that's why we all have to be vigilant, active, and stick together. By doing so we will keep anyone from stealing anyone's land. It all boils down to politics, and that means public opinion put into action. This is where the action is.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, August 07, 2005 6:59:00 PM
The Castle Coalition's Hands Off My Home campaign will give ordinary citizens the means to protect their homes from government-forced takings for private development. The campaign was initiated in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's dreadful ruling in Kelo v. New London, which allows the government to take any property from home and small business owners anywhere in the country and hand it over to another private party.
The approach to ending eminent domain abuse in the Hands Off My Home Initiative is multi-faceted. The Institute for Justice will continue to pursue common sense restrictions on eminent domain based on the public use clauses of each state constitution. Upon the launch of the campaign, governors and the mayor of the District of Columbia were asked to sign the Hands Off My Home Pledge, which will ultimately be extended to legislators and city officials. In addition, IJ and the Castle Coalition will support activists nationwide who are urging substantive change to state and local eminent domain laws and host an annual conference teaching the tools and techniques essential to effective grassroots opposition to eminent domain abuse. The Castle Coalition's Eminent Domain Abuse Survival Guide, which has helped communities everywhere stop greedy government land grabs, will be updated and expanded as well.
Simply put, we'll do whatever it takes to protect every American home, small business and house of worship from the government and its corporate allies. We urge you to join us in the fight.You can go to this web site for more information.
www.castlecoalition.org/HandsOffMyHome/index.asp
By
Anonymous, at Monday, August 29, 2005 5:54:00 AM
I want to respond to Hands Off my Home post.The power of the people is at great risk against the power and devices of developers,cities, county & state.Just a example is
This posted article in USA Today
'I'd leave here broke'
Chutzpah is a Yiddish word meaning brazen arrogance. The cliché example is a man who murders his parents and then begs a judge for mercy because he is an orphan.
The city of New London, Conn., deserves a chutzpah award. In 2000, it condemned 15 homes so a developer could build offices, a hotel and convention center. Susette Kelo and her neighbors spent years in a legal battle that culminated in June, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against them.
That was painful enough. But while the homeowners were battling in court, New London was calculating how much "rent" they owe for living in the houses they were fighting to save. (The city's development corporation gained title to the homes when it condemned them, though the owners refused to sell and haven't collected a cent.)
The homeowners could soon be served with eviction notices, which is justified by the court ruling. But the rent is something else. For some, it comes to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Kelo, whose name is on the landmark case, could owe $57,000. "I'd leave here broke," she told the Fairfield County Weekly. "I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."
In a letter to the homeowners' lawyer a year ago, the development corporation justified its behavior by saying, "We know that your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free."
Well, they might have expected not to be bullied for exercising their right to be heard in court.
News of the city's heavy handed tactics should add to the unusual national backlash that has followed the Supreme Court's ruling. The court said state and local governments can seize homes, not just for a public purpose such as building roads or schools, but also for someone else's private profit if the city's economic future is at issue.
The court said states can curtail abuses, and legislatures have rushed to do that. Delaware and Alabama passed laws barring the taking of private property for economic development. Similar measures are pending in eight other states and Congress.
The bills have created some strange alliances. Conservatives worry about the loss of property rights. Liberals say the seizures amount to corporate welfare at the expense of low- and middle-income homeowners who lack the power to fight City Hall.
In response, Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell is urging a compromise that would preserve the homes of Kelo and her neighbors.
Unless that happens, they will be evicted — with a rent due. Talk about chutzpah.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, August 29, 2005 6:13:00 AM
I just visited the web site of Institute for Justice .the case below relates to taking downtown small businesses and turning them over to developer(s).
'Pittsburgh Fifth & Forbes Condemnation'
Hallmarks of the Institute for Justice’s defense of its clients’ constitutional rights include thinking creatively and trying new tactics. Never was this more apparent than in our fight to save 60 buildings and more than 120 small businesses in downtown Pittsburgh from Mayor Tom Murphy’s plan to take the properties through eminent domain so he could hand the land over to a Chicago developer to construct a private mall.
In June 2000, IJ took its public interest tactics to new heights—literally—posting 10 billboards (each measuring 12 feet high by 25 feet wide) calling the public’s attention to the City of Pittsburgh’s plan to abuse eminent domain. Six different messages appeared in the ads, including one that was located only blocks from Mayor Murphy’s office. That billboard read, “Murphy’s Law: Take from Pittsburgh Families. Give to a Chicago Developer.”
As a result of this campaign and the threat of litigation by the Institute for Justice, Mayor Murphy was forced to once and for all take eminent domain off the table as a threat against property owners in the threatened Fifth and Forbes neighborhood.
In 2001, the Outdoor Advertising Association of America awarded the Institute for Justice a silver medal in recognition of its effective media plan and billboard campaign.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, August 29, 2005 7:38:00 AM
True Murrieta Native? That would mean you were born here. Like most people who have been involved in this imminent domain B.S. in Murrieta, you sound like you are EXAGGERATING. So you're not really a native of Murrieta are you? You sound like just another jerk who wants to get every last nickle possible out of this town.
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, September 03, 2005 2:36:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home