Frivolous eminent domains
The Rancho Water District wants to build some water tanks in DeLuz and they have already acquired a 20-acre parcel to build it on, yet the district still wants to place an eminent domain on 5 additional acres of avocados belonging to Bill Burmeister of Temecula. They have already admitted that they don't really need his property unless they build a seven million gallon facility, but they just want to grab his land just in case and "sell one (of the two parcels) if it's not needed" prudent advice, but if they are unsure of whether they will even need his land, what right do they have to arbitrarily confiscate it from the rightful owner?
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Friday, September 09, 2005
3 Comments:
I know that the eminent domain issue has been debated ad nauseum on this blog, but I still get disturbed when I see land theft going on. Do you think the water district will sell the unused parcel for what they paid for it?
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Friday, September 09, 2005 11:27:00 PM
There is no power granted to governing entities which calls for greater restraint and respect for the property rights of citizens than the power of eminent domain. And there is no area of government in which governing entities demonstrate more clearly and consistently that they really don't give a rat's a** about any such restraint or respect.
By
Anonymous, at Friday, September 09, 2005 11:30:00 PM
In a state known for laws favoring agriculture, I have heard, but have been unable to locate information about, a state law requiring cities trying an eminent domain of agricultural lands (i.e., orchards), to pay a certain amount of additional funds for each tree to cover all future produce therefrom. I had heard that it amounts to around $30,000 per tree.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Saturday, September 10, 2005 8:42:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home