Like this?
Posted on 06/24/2005 6:53:25 AM PDT by jim_trent
These people in their private homes in Conn. are having their houses torn down in order for a builder to come in and build private homes.
Does that sound right to you?
OK, Jim, but is it right for the local gov't to give the property owners a price for their land now, then build the property up to double that price.
In other words, this is waterfront property. The county offers $200k, the owner accepts. After the developer gets thru, the same parcel is worth $500K.
Your point is eloquent, well thought out and will serve some to assuage some feelings.
However, it does not change the fact that government will have a right to take your property.
Scenario: My city takes my land, following all of the rules you have set forth. They build a new shopping center. 10 years later, the center closes due to lack of business and investors. What has happened to my house, land and other? Now the city can sell my land again, at a much higher value and I am left with nothing but memories.
What has happened is a travesty, pure and simple and no amount of rhetoric is going to change the fact a city or government can take your land. Period.
what do the CT homes look like?
We had similar situation here in alabama where an old dilapidated farm house with people living in was located on a main throughfare. The owner's house was bought and the house torn down so they could build a subdivision. Some of this happens every day. I'd have to know the details in the CT case to comment on that one.
No, it doesn't. However, if the people their don't liek it, they can vote out the Demoncratic City Council that did it.
I appreciate your defense of the government processes.
But when a rightful land owner is forced to give up their property for public use all sense of fair market goes out the window.
This is because as the rightful land owner I am the one to establish what is fair to me. Having anything else imposed on me eviscerates any concept of fair.
How do you defend the following? I have a friend who inherited 50 acres in Boulder County in Colorado. The land is vacant as his father used to farm it. When he applied for a permit to build his retirement home on the property Boulder County informed him they had slated that land for use as open space. Is that a taking?
I believe we will see a backlash against the current court system as a result of this ruling.
Thanks for posting that info. But I don't think you understand the underlying principle here.
and were not paid anything for it either don’t know the true facts of the case or are lying.
I didn't see anyone post that someone wasn't paid for their property. But that's not the point. The point is, if someone doesn't want to move, they shouldn't be forced into moving because a private developer wants to build there. Whether or not they're paid a large sum of money, moving costs are paid, etc. etc.
and the property owner is not encouraged to wildly inflate the value.
The property owner should be permitted to wildly inflate the value and to keep the property if he or she doesn't receive that value.
I'm in Alabama as well and can say that some of these dumps need to go. However, we all know it will not stop there. If you'll excuse me, I have to report to my new job at the Kremlin.
The government has ALWAYS had the "right" to take your land. That part of it is no different today than it was since the creation of governments (originally the devine right of kings).
Your example has NOTHING to do with eminent domain.
Like this?
What has happened is a travesty, pure and simple and no amount of rhetoric is going to change the fact a city or government can take your land. Period...
----
Exactly. This precedent is beyond belief and is the product of a runaway socialist Supreme Court (5 members) -- it is nothing more or less than a wholesale big government move to allow the governments (all levels) to use Eminent Domain as "license to kill" at your expense, at their will. It is major BIG BROTHER SOCIALISM. Plain and simple -- the exact agenda of the radical left.
I read that they're "old historic Victorian-style homes." That they're not dilapidated and are in good condition.
My understanding (feel free to tell me I'm off the wall)...
Eminent Domain before 6/23:
* to transfer it to another private owner it had to be condemned... and yes, local officials had great leeway in what could be considered condemnable
* for truly public use (highways etc) any property could be taken (good or bad)
Since yesterday:
* any land can be transfered to another private owner without the need to condemn it first if it is for the "greater good" (yeah, that's specific)
Of cource compensation has to be paid - but market value, and value to an owner are two completely different things and once a government marks a property as being targeted for eminent domain it becomes unsellable to the owner and it is just a matter of court cases to define a $.
So, if 15 people own small bungalows on the beach and a builder comes around and wants to knock them down to build bigger more expensive bungalows, that's ok?
"The property owner should be permitted to wildly inflate the value and to keep the property if he or she doesn't receive that value."
That is what you say, but the Constitution does not say that. It has also never been the case anywhere in the world since the beginning of recorded history.
BTW, I have often had people here post to me about people who were paid nothing for their property. If you have not seen them, you have not been reading.
Smith Street property owner Bill Von Winkle reacts to the Supreme Court eminent domain ruling that sided with the City of New London.
Susette Kelo, the owner of a house on East Street in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, fights back tears as she speaks on the phone to a supporter from the South, following the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain that sided with the City of New London.
From here.
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.