Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Eminent Domain
- Thread starter Pamela
- Start date
Eminent Domain
n. the power of a governmental entity (federal, state, county or city government, school district, hospital district or other agencies) to take private real estate for public use, with or without the permission of the owner. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "private property [may not] be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fourteenth Amendment added the requirement of just compensation to state and local government takings. The usual process includes passage of a resolution by the acquiring agency to take the property (condemnation), including a declaration of public need, followed by an appraisal, an offer, and then negotiation. If the owner is not satisfied, he/she may sue the governmental agency for a court's determination of just compensation. The government, however, becomes owner while a trial is pending if the amount of the offer is deposited in a trust account. Public uses include schools, streets and highways, parks, airports, dams, reservoirs, redevelopment, public housing, hospitals and public buildings.
n. the power of a governmental entity (federal, state, county or city government, school district, hospital district or other agencies) to take private real estate for public use, with or without the permission of the owner. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "private property [may not] be taken for public use without just compensation." The Fourteenth Amendment added the requirement of just compensation to state and local government takings. The usual process includes passage of a resolution by the acquiring agency to take the property (condemnation), including a declaration of public need, followed by an appraisal, an offer, and then negotiation. If the owner is not satisfied, he/she may sue the governmental agency for a court's determination of just compensation. The government, however, becomes owner while a trial is pending if the amount of the offer is deposited in a trust account. Public uses include schools, streets and highways, parks, airports, dams, reservoirs, redevelopment, public housing, hospitals and public buildings.
Delinquent
Well-known member
This is something I wanted to chat about during the EF downtime. I can't believe such a law was passed giving the ok for the Private AND public sector authorization to take your land. What happened to the American way of OWNING land. If you own the title, how/why can someone take it from you? This is just one more step toward a police state and people seem more concerned about that brief little down time that EF had
redguru
New member
Had a very long discussion in another thread about this yesterday. Eminent Domain as long as its used for building highways, railroads, dams, is acceptable. Its when the public use clause of the Constitution is reduced to "this property user will increase our tax roles, so lets condemn this other person's property" that we reach a dangerous precedent. The Supreme Court ruling on this issue last week leaves it up to the several states to decide what is right and proper for eminent domain use. So if you live in a state that is always trying to increase its tax roles no matter what the cost, I suggest moving.
bran987
New member
I was shocked that passed. one of the newsletter I read had some commentary:
The long awaited KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON case before the U.S.
Supreme Court has been decided. It's 5-4 against property owners and
for cities and developers who want to seize privately owned land
through eminent domanin proceedings for PRIVATE (stress that again)
PRIVATE use.
Bad decision by the court. The conservative block of justices like
Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia voted against the city and filed
stinging dissents in this case.
Since when is the building of shopping malls, office towers, gambling
casinos, and health clubs a PUBLIC use of land? The traditional
definition has always made sense. Public action was tolerated by the
U.S. Constitution for PUBLIC uses, like building highways, schools, or
dams.
Now, the Court says anything "private" can have a public benefit. If
you build a store you are providing jobs and paying taxes. Since
those actions benefit the public at large your actions have a public
purpose. It's the same sort of twisted logic that allows local
governments to ban smoking in PUBLIC establishments like nightclubs,
bars, and bowling alleys. Sorry, but Joe's Bar and Grill is a PRIVATE
establishment. It's a privately owned building with a privately owned
business operating in it. Public buildings are libraries, schools,
and courthouses. Just because the public has a limited license to go
somewhere doesn't mean you operate a "public" business but the
government seems to think everything done everywhere falls under their
jurisdiction.
Wonderful, isn't it? And you thought the interstate commerce clause
gave Congress too many authority over local matters. This decision is
the thin edge of the wedge for a major expansion of public control
over land use matters.
Now you will have developers not bargaining in good faith with land
and property owners since ultimately they can run to their city or
county government and plead for seizure since their project will have
"public benefits." Of course they won't mention all those private
profits they want to earn for themselves and shareholders.
I am a developer and I work with many and this decision is not
universally applauded by us. What one hand of City Hall gives the
other can take away and if you are concerned about government control
of the economy, especially the local economy in your town, city, or
country, this decision is scary.
After today, whatever use you have planned for your land or realty
investments do not matter if someone else comes along and dreams up an
idea for your property your local government likes better. Then
POOF....your land is seized by the city and sold to developers. Nice, eh?
It is so telling in all the Democrat v. Republican political battles
over judicial appointments that the conservatives on the court GET
WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE and the liberals do not and vote for another
major expansion of government control.
I've been flooded with emails this morning on this subject from
website visitors, readers of my books, and subscribers to this
newsletter and rightly so. This is a major defeat for property rights
advocates, a real travesty.
You can read an article about the decision here:
http://snipurl.com/fsed
You can read the actual U.S. Supreme Court decision in KELO v. CITY OF
NEW LONDON by going here:
http://snipurl.com/fsef
I'm a member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court and they
have been a roll lately, all downhill. One awful decision after
another and nearly all of them split down the middle. 5-4 decisions
do not make clear law, they illustrate the Red State/Blue State split
that has paralyzed American politics. Even the simplest judicial
appointments have turned into bitter partisan fights and the country
deserves better than this.
I'm very sad today.
----------------------------------
KELO v. NEW LONDON
More shockwaves stream outward from the U.S. Supreme Court on their
idiotic decision in the KELO case yesterday.
Here's an article about how the case is being viewed in New London
itself. Pay special attention to the point of how the city is trying
to seize three homes one man owns for $638,000 even though he claims
these free-and-clear rentals net him $120,000 a year in income. It
sounds like the city, read that as a private developer in reality, is
trying to get a steal, literally.
http://snipurl.com/ft7d
The entire history of government use of eminent doman powers is very
mixed. Everyone can point to major successes like the building of the
Interstate highway system and numerous local projects like beaches,
dams, and schools but the record is ripe with disasters ranging from
the urban renewal nightmares of the 1960s to numerous political pork
projects that benefit no one.
Here is an article where the Boston Redevelopment Authority is
celebrating the KELO decision since it will make their job of seizing
land so much easier.
http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=91342
And here is a website dedicated to one of the greatest urban renewal
disasters in history which also occured in Boston, the destruction of
Scollay Square and the West End neighborhood.
http://www.bambinomusical.com/Scollay/
Here's a factural history from the National Trust for Historical
Preservation on what happened in Boston in the 1960s to the West End:
http://www.nationaltrust.org/primer/list.asp?i=29
Here's a website that has lots of pictures of what was destroyed in
Boston by the same group now so happy about KELO?
http://www.yale.edu/socdept/slc/urban/urban.html
Why did Boston destroy Scollay Square and the West End? To build a
new City Hall, now regarded as one of the ugliest buildings IN THE
WORLD, and to build luxury apartments.
Sound familiar, New London?
The long awaited KELO v. CITY OF NEW LONDON case before the U.S.
Supreme Court has been decided. It's 5-4 against property owners and
for cities and developers who want to seize privately owned land
through eminent domanin proceedings for PRIVATE (stress that again)
PRIVATE use.
Bad decision by the court. The conservative block of justices like
Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia voted against the city and filed
stinging dissents in this case.
Since when is the building of shopping malls, office towers, gambling
casinos, and health clubs a PUBLIC use of land? The traditional
definition has always made sense. Public action was tolerated by the
U.S. Constitution for PUBLIC uses, like building highways, schools, or
dams.
Now, the Court says anything "private" can have a public benefit. If
you build a store you are providing jobs and paying taxes. Since
those actions benefit the public at large your actions have a public
purpose. It's the same sort of twisted logic that allows local
governments to ban smoking in PUBLIC establishments like nightclubs,
bars, and bowling alleys. Sorry, but Joe's Bar and Grill is a PRIVATE
establishment. It's a privately owned building with a privately owned
business operating in it. Public buildings are libraries, schools,
and courthouses. Just because the public has a limited license to go
somewhere doesn't mean you operate a "public" business but the
government seems to think everything done everywhere falls under their
jurisdiction.
Wonderful, isn't it? And you thought the interstate commerce clause
gave Congress too many authority over local matters. This decision is
the thin edge of the wedge for a major expansion of public control
over land use matters.
Now you will have developers not bargaining in good faith with land
and property owners since ultimately they can run to their city or
county government and plead for seizure since their project will have
"public benefits." Of course they won't mention all those private
profits they want to earn for themselves and shareholders.
I am a developer and I work with many and this decision is not
universally applauded by us. What one hand of City Hall gives the
other can take away and if you are concerned about government control
of the economy, especially the local economy in your town, city, or
country, this decision is scary.
After today, whatever use you have planned for your land or realty
investments do not matter if someone else comes along and dreams up an
idea for your property your local government likes better. Then
POOF....your land is seized by the city and sold to developers. Nice, eh?
It is so telling in all the Democrat v. Republican political battles
over judicial appointments that the conservatives on the court GET
WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE and the liberals do not and vote for another
major expansion of government control.
I've been flooded with emails this morning on this subject from
website visitors, readers of my books, and subscribers to this
newsletter and rightly so. This is a major defeat for property rights
advocates, a real travesty.
You can read an article about the decision here:
http://snipurl.com/fsed
You can read the actual U.S. Supreme Court decision in KELO v. CITY OF
NEW LONDON by going here:
http://snipurl.com/fsef
I'm a member of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court and they
have been a roll lately, all downhill. One awful decision after
another and nearly all of them split down the middle. 5-4 decisions
do not make clear law, they illustrate the Red State/Blue State split
that has paralyzed American politics. Even the simplest judicial
appointments have turned into bitter partisan fights and the country
deserves better than this.
I'm very sad today.
----------------------------------
KELO v. NEW LONDON
More shockwaves stream outward from the U.S. Supreme Court on their
idiotic decision in the KELO case yesterday.
Here's an article about how the case is being viewed in New London
itself. Pay special attention to the point of how the city is trying
to seize three homes one man owns for $638,000 even though he claims
these free-and-clear rentals net him $120,000 a year in income. It
sounds like the city, read that as a private developer in reality, is
trying to get a steal, literally.
http://snipurl.com/ft7d
The entire history of government use of eminent doman powers is very
mixed. Everyone can point to major successes like the building of the
Interstate highway system and numerous local projects like beaches,
dams, and schools but the record is ripe with disasters ranging from
the urban renewal nightmares of the 1960s to numerous political pork
projects that benefit no one.
Here is an article where the Boston Redevelopment Authority is
celebrating the KELO decision since it will make their job of seizing
land so much easier.
http://news.bostonherald.com/localPolitics/view.bg?articleid=91342
And here is a website dedicated to one of the greatest urban renewal
disasters in history which also occured in Boston, the destruction of
Scollay Square and the West End neighborhood.
http://www.bambinomusical.com/Scollay/
Here's a factural history from the National Trust for Historical
Preservation on what happened in Boston in the 1960s to the West End:
http://www.nationaltrust.org/primer/list.asp?i=29
Here's a website that has lots of pictures of what was destroyed in
Boston by the same group now so happy about KELO?
http://www.yale.edu/socdept/slc/urban/urban.html
Why did Boston destroy Scollay Square and the West End? To build a
new City Hall, now regarded as one of the ugliest buildings IN THE
WORLD, and to build luxury apartments.
Sound familiar, New London?
redguru
New member
I posted this in the other thread:
One of the most basic tenets of "common law" is "My Home is My Castle". One of the residents of New London whose property has been condemned is Wilhelmina Dery, She has lived in that same house her entire 87 years. Now Pfizer will own the property in the hopes that it will bring in people of a higher economic condition, hardly within the principles of the normal liberal train of thought, I would believe.
One of the most basic tenets of "common law" is "My Home is My Castle". One of the residents of New London whose property has been condemned is Wilhelmina Dery, She has lived in that same house her entire 87 years. Now Pfizer will own the property in the hopes that it will bring in people of a higher economic condition, hardly within the principles of the normal liberal train of thought, I would believe.
hamstershaver
New member
just another reason to hate the government
worst ruling ever
hamstershaver
New member
sure would be nice if wally world plopped down right on top of the property owned by those pole smoking judges that voted in favor of this
U
Ulcasterdropout
Guest
most surprising ruling ever.MattTheSkywalker said:
PIGEON-RAT
New member
redguru said:
Funny that Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist all joined O'Connor in dissenting. Liberals love to blast those 3, but I never hear anyone commending them when they try to uphold basic freedoms.
But hey, if income can't be protected under the principle of property rights, why should any other possession? We've been sliding down this slope for quite some time now, and it has reached the point of absurdity.
Y_lifter
New member
Silver lining to this crap is that it is only a Federal Standard and people can
and will still fight it at a State level..
Apparantly these Judges define "Public Need" differently than most people do.
Most of us see this as roads, bridges, hospitals etc
They see it as meaning Additional Tax Revenue for a city
and will still fight it at a State level..
Apparantly these Judges define "Public Need" differently than most people do.
Most of us see this as roads, bridges, hospitals etc
They see it as meaning Additional Tax Revenue for a city
This will be back in front of the court pretty soon.
Snypr said:
There are dozens of these cases going on in FL. Small towns are all too eager to push for redevelopment - clearly none of these people have taken an economics class....you can seize land and rebuild on it, but that alone does not guarantee growth in your town...
People are so dumb
Sometimes they just cut 20 feet off of your front yard to widen a road. Your property value drops, so they send you a check for what amounts to lunch money for a few months.
Other times, people wake up and see their front yard and driveway ruined so a communications company can lay cables. "Utility Easement" allows them to do it, and they usually get away with doing a patch job on your property which you have to pay to have fixed the right way if you wish. Then everyones phone bill goes up to cover the cost of the contractors who did the work.
Other times, people wake up and see their front yard and driveway ruined so a communications company can lay cables. "Utility Easement" allows them to do it, and they usually get away with doing a patch job on your property which you have to pay to have fixed the right way if you wish. Then everyones phone bill goes up to cover the cost of the contractors who did the work.
N
nutsnack
Guest
hi everyone!
AristotleBC
New member
Absolute bullshit. Every person I know regardless of political leaning is ardently against this ruling
Similar threads
