Posted on 08/28/2015 8:48:55 AM PDT by reaganaut1
recently discussed George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin’s excellent book on the infamous Kelo case and the abuse of eminent domain generally, The Grasping Hand.
The Wall Street Journal also ran a favorable review of Somin’s book by Harvard professor Edward Glaeser, which promptly drew a negative response from a professor who defended the use of eminent domain for “economic development.”
I’m an ardent opponent of governmental seizures of private property and maintain that the professor’s case is a complete failure – but see what you think.
In his August 5 letter to the editor, Wayne State University professor John Mogk took issue with Somin’s book and Glaeser’s review. He claims that they did not adequately weigh what he regards as a successful use of eminent domain to promote economic growth – that of Detroit’s Poletown.
The New London redevelopment project that cost Suzette Kelo her little pink house was, Mogk admits, a fiasco. But he says we shouldn’t paint all eminent domain cases with that brush. He wants to buttress the case that the public welfare can be enhanced by using eminent domain to obtain land needed for projects that are supposed to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
Mogk seems to think that the apparent success of Poletown saves the day for eminent domain enthusiasts.
Here are three reasons for believing that he is mistaken.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Which ever serves the interests and income of the area best.
Highest and best use.
They are supposed to allow payment and moves without tax consequences if they do it correctly.
House to house searches for drugs and weapons “works”. Doesn’t mean that trumps the constitution. And the negative affects are disastrous to personal freedom and the relationship between the state and the individual.
If the project is for the public good as a public work, like a school or hospital, then it is acceptable.
If a private developer wants to buy the property, they should have to compete on the open market to do so. They shouldn’t get to take the property on promises of big tax benefits to the city and not have to pay market rate for the properties.
I am of the opinion that any such use (abuse) should require that the original owner be paid 115% of the greater value of either current tax assessment or current fair market value. This will greatly reduce the desire for public entities to take anything.
Eminent domain is intended for necessary public infrastructure. The new Gordie Howe bridge over the Detroit river is a good example.
It will be a much needed bridge at the second busiest freight crossing on the continent. On the Canadian side the land is pretty much all clear now since they’ve wanted the bridge for decades. On the Detroit side is the DelRay neighborhood which is one of the worst in Detroit where $5000 would be considered a very high property value.
The fact that Canada is paying the entire cost of the bridge is a big selling point. Despite his liberal republicanism, Rick Snyder worked out one hell of a deal.
RE: “highest and best use”
Having lived in CT during the state’s confiscation of Kelo’s land, I can tell you that it was sheer abuse of power, and like all too many gov’t endeavors turned out to be an expensive development failed misadventure.
Although the people’s republic of California real estate law places great virtue of “highest and best use” of land, an inconvenient question asks:
Who determines “highest and best use”, the property owner, or the government?
Also, what if the property owner does not want to sell or vacate their land, regardless of state compensation offers?
Does potential gov’t tax revenue trump a property owner’s right to possess and enjoy their land and dwelling?
The Constitution mentions nothing about the "highest and best use." The Fifth Amendment is clear on this: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
There's nothing in the Constitution about taking private property from one and selling it to another. Nor is Kelo the taking of private property for "public" use.
Regardless of the outcome, by principle, eminent domain is wrong. The right to own property and be able to decide its use seems fundamental to our rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I'm sure that is very comforting to Suzette Kelo.
Something tells me Donald Trump would disagree.
"In 2005, however, Trump was delighted to find that the Supreme Court had okayed the brand of government-abetted theft that he’d twice attempted. “I happen to agree with it 100 percent,” he told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto of the Kelo decision.Source
>> Regardless of the outcome, by principle, eminent domain is wrong <<
Then why did the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, allow it in the Constitution?
I wonder how many people on FR would support the government taking their guns as long as they are justly compensated?
Private property is private property. Rights are rights. The right to own a firearm assumes the right to own private property.
They didn't allow it as applied to Kelo.
They didn't allow it as applied to Kelo.
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.