Posted on 12/02/2004 11:35:47 AM PST by freebilly
I'll be interested to see how this plays out in Skanky Cruise....
They can take it for a road or something of a public nature, but they have to pay fair market value.
Hmmm. This seems like a wildlife preserve, preserving the nuances of nature against the evils of man....Anybody got a couple of extra Kangaroo rats handy?..../smirk
I'm thinking about sneaking a few Tiger Salamanders into a puddle on the site. That'll twist everyone's panties into a wad....
Hey, this is Santa Cruz. They'll probably want to seize the property and put in an anti-war museum, Taoist meditation center, and Reiki massage school....
They're not taking it for something of a public nature... they want to sell it to a developer who wants to put in shops, restaurants and condos.
This kind of thing has been contentious since the founding of the country because the founders weren't clear and because there were tyrannical actions after the founding. What we need is clarification, and if I were to take office as Pres, I would clarify these issues the first morning, and by Exec Order. Get the public sector out of the land business.
If that's it, then the city is way out of line. Way, way, way out.
That's my opinion, too... unfortunately, the issue of using eminent domain for economic development projects has made its way to the Supreme Court.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/28/seizing.property.ap/
The USSC might say it is legal, but that doesn't mean it is right, ethical, moral, or coherent with the ideals behind the founding of the country or even a good idea. It is a close cousin to the Teapot Dome scandal.
"The 20,000-square-foot lot has been appraised at $1.4 million."
I'd like to know who did the appraisal. The tiny 1100 sf homes sitting on postage stamp lots in the area are selling for $500K+. Liberals have no qualms about stealing other people's property or money. They think like Hillary, "the end justifies the means", and they always profit in the end, at someone else's expense.
They need to clean the lot up and plant some medical marijuana on it. Then the value will go up to $2.8 million....
"They need to clean the lot up and plant some medical marijuana on it. Then the value will go up to $2.8 million...."
Ten to one the value of that lot is already well over $2.8 million. It's a huge lot, right in the middle of downtown. They're just trying to rip this guy off.
"Well, Lau is a whack-job, but I'm not a fan of eminent domain."
What is so whacky about the man wishing an eco-responsible project, on HIS OWN property?
He is attempting to enact his conscience, ON HIS OWN land.
And yet in Santa Cruz, no less, the council gives the man zero support.
The council will opt for an entrenched building interest.
Redevelopment means the council buys the subject land, for "X" dollars, but may give it to the redevelopment builder, for next to nothing.
The builder can make a killing on such projects, since they often get the land for next to nothing.
The accounting and public reporting is so confusing to lay people, that virtually NOBODY understands what takes place.
One thing redevelopment does, is to give much power to local councils. The city council usually is the same as the redevelopment council.
Another factor is the definition of "blight."
The originally envisioned process of "redevelopment" was to replace inner-city slums. This was blight.
Now, a vacant lot in pristine coastal California is "blight" to these folks.
In Huntington Beach, the council planned to use eminent domain to take some residential units, to be replaced with pink stucco shopping.
A big local reaction forced them to vow (temporarily) to not take housing by ED.
I don't doubt you. Theat's some expensive real estate on Pacific Avenue. Anything that gets built there will be worth many millions of $$$$.
The guys a whack-job, period. In 15 years he hasn't come up with a viable project? I'm not in favor of the city taking his property, but the guy is still a dick.
LOL!
"Eminent domain is the power of government to condemn private property and take title for public use, provided owners receive fair compensation."
When the government condemns private property, it should be for a reason so good no one would object to compensating the owner at tens times the appraised value. That would curtail the thievery that gets committed by condemning someone's property under eminent domain.
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.