Cities Use Eminent Domain To Clear Lots for Big-Box Stores

Wall Street Journal ^ | December 8, 2004 | DEAN STARKMAN

[investigateworld]

The more I look at the garbage sold by the big box stores, the more I think of the Indians who sold Manhattan for a bunch of shiny beads.....will our grandchildren and their children cuss us as well?

[spunkets]

"Property-rights advocates say the use of condemnation for big boxes is an abuse of government power that subsidizes big retailers at original landowners' expense. "They're the new generation of robber barons...." "

Absolutely!

[spunkets]

"In August, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed a landmark 1981 ruling, widely cited by other states, that effectively barred condemnations for purely economic purposes in that state...."

Liberals take over the MI SC?

[Dan from Michigan]

Actually, the new court is usually very conservative. The old court was very liberal.

[spunkets]

So a conservative court took private land to give to other private concerns?

[Dan from Michigan]

The old court in 81 was anti-property rights.

The overturning supported property rights.

[spunkets]

"In August, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed a landmark 1981 ruling, widely cited by other states, that effectively barred condemnations for purely economic purposes in that state...."

THe excerpt ends here. It's not clear what the original ruling was and what was overruled. Did the original ruling support condemnation for private economic purposes? Lack of subscription here...

[Nov3]

That's really not the issue because the church can relocate and again operate without property taxes.

That is utterly moronic. People used to be able to own things in this country before moronic thinking like that took over.

[ClintonBeGone]

That is utterly moronic. People used to be able to own things in this country before moronic thinking like that took over.

Well before we get to decide whether it's a moronic point, why don't you share with us all your thoughts on whether it is true or not. If that's not too difficult for you.

[nutmeg]

land grab ping!

[BJungNan]

For public works, eminent domain is acceptable. But so that another private party can have the land, that is not acceptable.

Property rights are no longer.

[BJungNan]

Now, if I could only find something still made in the USA...

American Made

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[Nov3]

Whether what is true? Whether the government can take your rightfully property and sell it for their profit? Not for a street or something but just something that makes them more money? Whether someone with political pull can steal your property?

[Labyrinthos]

The BIG BOX stores are an ideal solution: big taxes and small prices. Lol. THEN we whine when jobs are outsourced to foreigners. We TALK the talk about saving American jobs. We do a great job at sounding American. But our wallets to the REAL walking. We buy cheap and it DON'T matter from where the cheaper product comes from.

Here's the real funny part: A couple years down the road, the big box people go back to the municipality and demand a real property tax reduction or even an abatement, and if the municipality says "no" the big box people threaten to pull out of town and leave the municipality with a big empty box and nominal tax revenues.

[ClintonBeGone]

Whether what is true?

Follow closely. We were discussing the statement I made which you chose to respond to. It's not hard to follow if you keep track of the post # on the bottom of the post.

[tarheelswamprat]

That's really not the issue because the church can relocate and again operate without property taxes. No, the issue is how long must a government hold a property to make it a taking for public use?

CBG and C_G, your argument is not constitutionally supported. The concept of eminent domain as referenced in the US Constitution is only concerned with the "taking" of private property and the purposes for which it is "taken", namely that it must be for "public use" or "public purpose". This portion of the text of the Fifth Amendment is actually referred to by constitutional scholars as "the Takings Clause".

The phrase "public use" has traditionally meant things like schools, highways, bridges, government buildings, etc.. In all of these cases the determining factor is the use or purpose to which the property is put; the length of time for that use is irrelevant. More specifically to your argument, the length of time the government "owns" the property before selling it to a private concern is not just irrelevant, it is a violation of the clear constitutional intent of the concept of eminent domain.

The fact that in recent decades a corrupt alliance of courts, politicians and corporations has been able to subvert the intent of the Constitution with a wink and a nod and embark on an orgy of raping the property rights of American citizens does not make it right.

Consider this carefully: If public officials are allowed to get away with the brazen sophistry that taking private property from one person to give/sell to another private person or entity because the new owner will pay more property tax constitutes a "public use", then what would prevent them from declaring at some point that the mere fact that a certain area is populated by particular individuals or particular classes of individuals affects the property values, or degrades community moral values or even promotes bad fashion in dress and grooming, and thus they must take their property "for the public good"?

As absurd as these examples are, they are the logical extension of the application of your argument. It's really not a very long distance from government telling you to get off your land just because they can, to them telling you to shut up and get into the railroad cars if you dare to complain about it. George Washington warned us that "government, like fire, is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master." Judging by current events, any sane person should be very afraid, not just for themselves, but for their country.

[ClintonBeGone]

The phrase "public use" has traditionally meant things like schools, highways, bridges, government buildings, etc.. In all of these cases the determining factor is the use or purpose to which the property is put; the length of time for that use is irrelevant.

I'm not sure your definition of public use has a basis in the constitution, but even if it does, are you saying that property acquired via a takings can never be sold to a private person/entity? What about a lease/buyback? There are many permutations that can only be addressed by first answering the question - how long does a government have to own a piece of property for it to be considered in use for the public?

[ClintonBeGone]

As absurd as these examples are, they are the logical extension of the application of your argument.

Look, as long as the government pays 'just compensation' there is no violation of the constitution. Please understand that. One who spreads disinformation the way you have by reading selected parts of the takings clause is no worse than the liberals who pervert and bastardize the reading of the second amendment or the establishment clause.

[Nov3]

I did.