Posted on 12/08/2004 6:08:13 AM PST by OESY
Then you're beyond my pay grade. Seek help elsewhere.
>>>>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?<<<<
Um, not if they condemn the property. They are not given the fair market price. My family went through this from Conoco Philips and it was not a pleasant experience. Our situation was somewhat different than most condemnations in that Conoco Philips had a lease with us that expired and we were told to either accept their paltry offer (much less than what they paid in the lease) and be happy or they would sue us and we would lose and have to pay all court costs.
The *only* thing that saved our property was the EPA report that came out proving that they were guilty of contaminating the area and the environmental attorney threatened to countersue.
You see they think that it is okay for them to make a nice profit but the owner of the property does not have the same rights.
First, Conoco Phillips is a private company from what I understand. How could they condemn your property? Second, most state condemnation statutes provide for your attorney fees if you receive at trial an award higher than what they offered. Third, the very fact that you had the EPA declare your property contaminated lowered it's value. So I'm not sure your example really works here.
It is you who does not understand. The government must pay "just compensation" AND the "taking" must be for "public use". Both criteria must be met in order to comply with the Constitution.
One who spreads disinformation the way you have by reading selected parts of the takings clause...
My information is correct; yours is not. Furthermore, as can be plainly seen from the second paragraph above, it is you who are being selective by ignoring necessary and relevant criteria.
... is no worse than the liberals who pervert and bastardize the reading of the second amendment or the establishment clause.
I'm sure you meant that I'm "much worse" than those liberals, but it's time to feed the ducks so we'll leave that issue and speculations on the First and Second Amendments for another day. Let's cut to the chase; either you believe we are supposed to have a system of "limited government" or you don't. What is the limit on the government's exercise of eminent domain? What specific criteria or conditions must be met to prevent government from taking your land via eminent domain?
this is much more common in small towns or blighted areas that want the property and local sale taxes
They use the courts to condemn the property. That is what this article is about. IT's about the abuse of ED by the local governments and large corporations in order to obtain property for their profit. If all party's agree to the price I have no problem with fair transactions but that is not what happens a lot of the time.
Conoco Philips is a private company however, their lease with us was for a natural gas pipeline and separator station that ran to the Citgo refinery, another privately owned corporation. They tried to bully and scare us in the way the lawsuit was worded with the fact that because it was a natural gas pipeline that it was for the public use for the operation of the refinery.
It wasn't a utility therefore they did not have the right to sue under ED but the way the judges and courts rule they very well would have won had they not been proven guilty of gross contamination of the area and backed down real quickly when faced with a property contamination lawsuit.
The terms of the lease, you know a legal binding contract was for them to renegotiate a new lease or vacate the property. They did not want to do either. The piece of property has been in the family for almost 200 years. If they wanted to pay the fair price a deal would have been worked out. They wanted it for nothing, even though they made 6 Billion in profit that particular quarter.
>>>Third, the very fact that you had the EPA declare your property contaminated lowered it's value. So I'm not sure your example really works here.<<<<
We did not have the EPA declare the property contaminated it just happened that the results of the study was made PUBLIC in the middle of the "negotiations". They broke the lease with the contamination because it specifically stated that they would ensure that they would contain all chemicals while they were occupying the property. Leases with big corporations don't always mean anything either.
This particular study was the largest study done regarding industrial contamination. The terms of the lease that Conoco signed was that they would NOT contaminate the property. They are having to pay mega bucks to clean up the estuary.
This issue isn't just about money. It's about the fact that the actual property owners are being forced out of their rightful ownership by greedy corporations and corrupt local governments.
If you've followed this discussion, and I presume you have since you responded to me, you'll remember that the main point of my comments have been directed at the 'public use' part of the takings clause. It's rather disingenuous for you to accuse me of skipping that part when it's been part of the dialog all along.
How did they contaminate your property with a natural gas pipeline?
It was their own actions that caused that particular piece of property to be contaminated. They were the guilty ones, not us yet they were demanding that we give it to them because it was all of a sudden worthless. Guess what, it did not work out that way. So tell me why should we recieve nothing when they were supposed to be more careful with their use?
It's what they set the pipeline on that contaminated the property. They used cresote supports which leached into in the ground water. They aren't the only guilty ones, but they were guilty enough to back down. Their refinery was busted big time for dumping some nasty nasty stuff in a bayou that they are now cleaning up at a cost of millions. That's a whole other topic though.
It was the way they went about doing this. I mean they had usage of the property to make their profits, they destroy it and then demand we give it to them and if we don't they drag us to court and and we have to pay for it too? We actually want them off the property but because them moving would shut the Citgo refinery down we are stuck with them for the time being. The local government doesn't want to lose all those taxes and jobs. We don't want to inconvenience a bunch of working people either. It's just we would like to get paid a fair price for the land we own or receive a fair price for land we sell.
If you were in this situation wouldn't you want just compensation and the ability to tell the tenant to leave after the lease is through?
In post 59 you said: Look, as long as the government pays 'just compensation' there is no violation of the constitution. Please understand that.
You said nothing about "public use". In addition, in post 58, in response to my statement THSW "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."
You responded:I'm not sure your definition of public use has a basis in the constitution,...
On the contrary, I'm not being disingenuous; I'm responding to what you actually wrote to me in posts 58 and 59. It might be helpful to do a little review of the concepts of "necessary" and "sufficient" in logical argument.
I don't wish to grind you on this, and have assumed your sincerity throughout this discussion. However, this issue represents a mortal threat to the survival of this country; if we fail to roll-back the assaults on property rights our country, and our freedom, is lost. So, I urge you, as I said in a previous post, to ask yourself if there are any limits to the power of government, and to ponder what the answer will mean to you.
Our grandchildren will read the reasons for having these stores: "save" money by buying foreign products, getting "deals" with coupons, buying, buying, buying. Lol. They will get it.
They might even have the same flaws we have. People are the same from generation to generation; nothing changes.
You are thinking ahead to the logical conclusion.
People like you are running the show and know what is coming down the road. But, the quick buck and convenience are more important. We are, as a society, like spoiled three-year-olds. We want and we want now and it doesn't matter what the consequences are for later. It's like giving too much candy to the kid...stomachache to follow.
Yes. The 1981 decision upheld the condemnation of a Detroit neighborhood to make way for a GM plant. The more recent ruling overturned that.
The argument that government-owned land is in public use? I don't think that can be disputed. If you review my post 17 I even suggested a requirement that taken property must be held by the government for a (not insignificant) period of time.
Overturned that precedent, I should amplify. The GM plant still stands.
Ah, thanks!
I think everyone here is beyond your pay grade judging from the results your moronic post got.
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.