Like this?
Posted on 06/24/2005 6:53:25 AM PDT by jim_trent
Definition of Eminent Domain: The power of government to take private property for public use. The owner must receive just compensation, and must receive due process before the property is taken. Often referred to as “condemnation”, which is the act of exercising eminent domain.
It looks like the Supreme Court has officially confirmed what has been going on for many years (the World Trade Center was built on land that was acquired by eminent domain – and so was the Brooklyn Bridge). Public use now officially includes the creation of jobs or economic growth. Regardless of how you feel about that, lets get our facts straight. There has been a LOT of misinformation posted here about Eminent Domain and/or Condemnation.
I cannot speak about what went on 50, 100, or 1,000 years ago. However, as long as I have been involved in obtaining property for public works projects (about 12 years), these have been the rules that I have worked with and, in major respects, it is identical to the rules in all other states that I have been in contact with. The rules were codified in the 1950’s with the creation of the Interstate road system and have only been changed slightly since then. The people who have posted that they know someone who knows someone who had their land seized and were not paid anything for it either don’t know the true facts of the case or are lying.
1. There has to be a public finding by a LOCAL government body that land is needed for a project. There are public hearings (in every case I know of) before they decide. 2. There has to be “just compensation” paid for all property taken, including the land and all real property attached to it. That includes buildings, fences, outbuildings, crops, orchards, etc. 3. Just compensation is determined by an appraisal. What the property could be sold for today is the present value. Appraisals are done daily for a number of reasons (taxes, insurance, borrowing money, etc), not just for condemnations. The procedures are well established in the (private) industry. Check the yellow pages to see how many appraisers there are in your area. 4. An appraiser is hired by the government entity to appraise the property. If the owner disagrees with the finding, the owner can hire an appraiser of their own. Usually, the two appraisals are similar (within 10% to 25%). An appraiser will usually not come up with an appraisal of 500% to 1 million percent more than the governmental appraiser, but individual owners often want that much. The owner can continue to trial even if they cannot hire an appraiser that agrees with them. 5. If the two appraisals (or amounts) are different, there are negotiations. If they are close, there is generally an agreement made. If they are not, the case goes to trial. All evidence is presented to a jury, that usually has sympathy for the little guy. 6. In our state, there is a law that the jury cannot substitute their own estimate of the value (since they are not qualified appraisers). In other words, they cannot “split the difference” between the two appraisals (this is not in all states). That would be the easy way out, but there is good reason for that rule. By forcing the jury to take one or the other, the government appraiser is not encouraged to undervalue the property and the property owner is not encouraged to wildly inflate the value. In addition, if the jury awards the owner anything more than 15% higher than what the government offered, the government entity pays all costs for both sides (the owners lawyer, appraiser, etc). 7. Sometimes (under specific cases), the rules we follow require the owner to be paid far more than the property is actually worth. If the house they are living in is unfit for human habitation (and many are), they must be paid what it would cost to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood, but in reasonable condition. 8. Moving costs must also be paid. Costs for hooking up utilities and other costs that are related to the move are paid. In addition, all monies paid are tax exempt. People who rent are also paid for moving, finding a similar property to rent, and any fees needed to enter a new place. 9. The cost of obtaining land for road projects (which I am most familiar with) is often 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of the entire project.
This will not change anyone’s mind on the Supreme Court decision, but I hope it will at least stop some of the misinformation about Eminent Domain that is being spread. It looks to me like the Supreme Court just bumped this back to the States (States Rights). If the LOCAL politicians are stealing land right and left, they can (and should) be voted out of office by the LOCAL politicians. If the States want to INCREASE the protections of property owners, they can. It is all up to the voters (you).
These people in their private homes in Conn. are having their houses torn down in order for a builder to come in and build private homes.
Does that sound right to you?
OK, Jim, but is it right for the local gov't to give the property owners a price for their land now, then build the property up to double that price.
In other words, this is waterfront property. The county offers $200k, the owner accepts. After the developer gets thru, the same parcel is worth $500K.
Your point is eloquent, well thought out and will serve some to assuage some feelings.
However, it does not change the fact that government will have a right to take your property.
Scenario: My city takes my land, following all of the rules you have set forth. They build a new shopping center. 10 years later, the center closes due to lack of business and investors. What has happened to my house, land and other? Now the city can sell my land again, at a much higher value and I am left with nothing but memories.
What has happened is a travesty, pure and simple and no amount of rhetoric is going to change the fact a city or government can take your land. Period.
what do the CT homes look like?
We had similar situation here in alabama where an old dilapidated farm house with people living in was located on a main throughfare. The owner's house was bought and the house torn down so they could build a subdivision. Some of this happens every day. I'd have to know the details in the CT case to comment on that one.
No, it doesn't. However, if the people their don't liek it, they can vote out the Demoncratic City Council that did it.
I appreciate your defense of the government processes.
But when a rightful land owner is forced to give up their property for public use all sense of fair market goes out the window.
This is because as the rightful land owner I am the one to establish what is fair to me. Having anything else imposed on me eviscerates any concept of fair.
How do you defend the following? I have a friend who inherited 50 acres in Boulder County in Colorado. The land is vacant as his father used to farm it. When he applied for a permit to build his retirement home on the property Boulder County informed him they had slated that land for use as open space. Is that a taking?
I believe we will see a backlash against the current court system as a result of this ruling.
Thanks for posting that info. But I don't think you understand the underlying principle here.
and were not paid anything for it either don’t know the true facts of the case or are lying.
I didn't see anyone post that someone wasn't paid for their property. But that's not the point. The point is, if someone doesn't want to move, they shouldn't be forced into moving because a private developer wants to build there. Whether or not they're paid a large sum of money, moving costs are paid, etc. etc.
and the property owner is not encouraged to wildly inflate the value.
The property owner should be permitted to wildly inflate the value and to keep the property if he or she doesn't receive that value.
I'm in Alabama as well and can say that some of these dumps need to go. However, we all know it will not stop there. If you'll excuse me, I have to report to my new job at the Kremlin.
The government has ALWAYS had the "right" to take your land. That part of it is no different today than it was since the creation of governments (originally the devine right of kings).
Your example has NOTHING to do with eminent domain.
Like this?
What has happened is a travesty, pure and simple and no amount of rhetoric is going to change the fact a city or government can take your land. Period...
----
Exactly. This precedent is beyond belief and is the product of a runaway socialist Supreme Court (5 members) -- it is nothing more or less than a wholesale big government move to allow the governments (all levels) to use Eminent Domain as "license to kill" at your expense, at their will. It is major BIG BROTHER SOCIALISM. Plain and simple -- the exact agenda of the radical left.
I read that they're "old historic Victorian-style homes." That they're not dilapidated and are in good condition.
My understanding (feel free to tell me I'm off the wall)...
Eminent Domain before 6/23:
* to transfer it to another private owner it had to be condemned... and yes, local officials had great leeway in what could be considered condemnable
* for truly public use (highways etc) any property could be taken (good or bad)
Since yesterday:
* any land can be transfered to another private owner without the need to condemn it first if it is for the "greater good" (yeah, that's specific)
Of cource compensation has to be paid - but market value, and value to an owner are two completely different things and once a government marks a property as being targeted for eminent domain it becomes unsellable to the owner and it is just a matter of court cases to define a $.
So, if 15 people own small bungalows on the beach and a builder comes around and wants to knock them down to build bigger more expensive bungalows, that's ok?
"The property owner should be permitted to wildly inflate the value and to keep the property if he or she doesn't receive that value."
That is what you say, but the Constitution does not say that. It has also never been the case anywhere in the world since the beginning of recorded history.
BTW, I have often had people here post to me about people who were paid nothing for their property. If you have not seen them, you have not been reading.
Smith Street property owner Bill Von Winkle reacts to the Supreme Court eminent domain ruling that sided with the City of New London.
Susette Kelo, the owner of a house on East Street in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, fights back tears as she speaks on the phone to a supporter from the South, following the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain that sided with the City of New London.
From here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.