Posted on 06/27/2025 5:19:16 AM PDT by MtnClimber
That is a very interesting insight. Thanks for sharing that.
yep... Take from what whites have built and destroy it with non-white people...
I feel the equality from waaaaay over here!!
So the leaders saved costs for the constituents and shifted the burden to other municipalities. Thus they should be burdened with the cost by paying the landowner 25x real value - because it's not the landowners fault, it's the city/county leaders fault
The city took my first beautiful property for a park bathroom . Gave me “fair market value” which was about 10% of what it would have sold for on the market. It was river front property in a popular growing resort town. This establishing my mistrust and hatred of all things government and bureaucrats.
This went nuts years ago. Here in CaCaLand, the gov’mt stated that it is OK to seize land if the gov’mt gets more income by the new owner.
So, a chunk of land along a road can be seized if some businesses (e.g., a strip mall) agrees to pay more property tax than the owner of the strip of land. It is just business, kinda like the envelop from the mall owner to the committee members who approve the deal.
This is Newscum’s plan on not allowing anyone to re-build any houses on PacificPalisades. Approvals are only given if the re-build is multi-family apts. Wanna guess who will own the apts? I’m not kidding, this is already underway.
That stinks!
God bless him and his administration.
Maybe NJ is getting a deal from China that they can’t refuse. Too much land in the USA is owned by China.
I’m not sure how one has anything to do with the other. Eminent domain takings are predicated on fair market compensation, not extraneous things related to municipal government decisions that date back decades.
East Palestine, OH
Makes sense, citizen gets screwed by government again.
If the citizen owns a property that is legitimately worth $2.5 million and the government pays you $2.5 million under an eminent domain taking, then how is the citizen being screwed?
1) He didn't want to sell 2) He cannot purchase a similar property in a similar area - thus he is forced to change lifestyle 3) He cannot pass the land to relatives 4) He loses opportunities to sell in the future - opportunity cost. 5) He is involuntarily forced into a tax situation - perhaps capital gains taxes fall in future years and it would be better to wait to sell. I could list 100
“”If the citizen owns a property that is legitimately worth $2.5 million and the government pays you $2.5 million under an eminent domain taking, then how is the citizen being screwed?””
How? They don’t want to frigging SELL (duh).
The excuse for the forced sale of the property, a several generations-owned family farm, is invalid. Welfare housing? They could put that crap literally anywhere. No, this is no doubt targeting by the radical left of another independent whitey.. and the fact that it’s a food production property is a two-fer for these tyrannical goons.
I guarantee you that if the owners of this farm were black, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But nooo... more punish whitey for their hard work, independence and daring to provide food by farming. They must be destroyed by putting them outta business.
One more thing... try to put yourself in the family’s place. If it was happening to you ... you would feel quite differently, I’m betting.
Trump is looking into putting a stop to it.
Think of an example where someone owns a $2.5 million property that is covered by a property/casualty insurance policy. If there is some disaster that is covered by the insurance policy and it results in a total loss, then every one of those five factors you listed (along with the 100 you could list) would come into play -- but it would not change anything about the provisions of the insurance policy that may allow the insurance company to dictate terms to the owner after paying out a $2.5 million claim.
For what it's worth, I believe the family that owns the New Jersey property doesn't live there.
I'm actually indirectly involved in a situation not unlike this one, and due to our unique circumstances I would LOVE to have the government take the property under an eminent domain process.
Eminent domain shouldn’t be a risk.
In this particular case in New Jersey, the strongest argument the property owners have is that "affordable housing" isn't a legitimate public use that would justify an eminent domain taking.
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.