Posted on 06/24/2005 6:53:25 AM PDT by jim_trent
Definition of Eminent Domain: The power of government to take private property for public use. The owner must receive just compensation, and must receive due process before the property is taken. Often referred to as “condemnation”, which is the act of exercising eminent domain.
It looks like the Supreme Court has officially confirmed what has been going on for many years (the World Trade Center was built on land that was acquired by eminent domain – and so was the Brooklyn Bridge). Public use now officially includes the creation of jobs or economic growth. Regardless of how you feel about that, lets get our facts straight. There has been a LOT of misinformation posted here about Eminent Domain and/or Condemnation.
I cannot speak about what went on 50, 100, or 1,000 years ago. However, as long as I have been involved in obtaining property for public works projects (about 12 years), these have been the rules that I have worked with and, in major respects, it is identical to the rules in all other states that I have been in contact with. The rules were codified in the 1950’s with the creation of the Interstate road system and have only been changed slightly since then. The people who have posted that they know someone who knows someone who had their land seized and were not paid anything for it either don’t know the true facts of the case or are lying.
1. There has to be a public finding by a LOCAL government body that land is needed for a project. There are public hearings (in every case I know of) before they decide. 2. There has to be “just compensation” paid for all property taken, including the land and all real property attached to it. That includes buildings, fences, outbuildings, crops, orchards, etc. 3. Just compensation is determined by an appraisal. What the property could be sold for today is the present value. Appraisals are done daily for a number of reasons (taxes, insurance, borrowing money, etc), not just for condemnations. The procedures are well established in the (private) industry. Check the yellow pages to see how many appraisers there are in your area. 4. An appraiser is hired by the government entity to appraise the property. If the owner disagrees with the finding, the owner can hire an appraiser of their own. Usually, the two appraisals are similar (within 10% to 25%). An appraiser will usually not come up with an appraisal of 500% to 1 million percent more than the governmental appraiser, but individual owners often want that much. The owner can continue to trial even if they cannot hire an appraiser that agrees with them. 5. If the two appraisals (or amounts) are different, there are negotiations. If they are close, there is generally an agreement made. If they are not, the case goes to trial. All evidence is presented to a jury, that usually has sympathy for the little guy. 6. In our state, there is a law that the jury cannot substitute their own estimate of the value (since they are not qualified appraisers). In other words, they cannot “split the difference” between the two appraisals (this is not in all states). That would be the easy way out, but there is good reason for that rule. By forcing the jury to take one or the other, the government appraiser is not encouraged to undervalue the property and the property owner is not encouraged to wildly inflate the value. In addition, if the jury awards the owner anything more than 15% higher than what the government offered, the government entity pays all costs for both sides (the owners lawyer, appraiser, etc). 7. Sometimes (under specific cases), the rules we follow require the owner to be paid far more than the property is actually worth. If the house they are living in is unfit for human habitation (and many are), they must be paid what it would cost to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood, but in reasonable condition. 8. Moving costs must also be paid. Costs for hooking up utilities and other costs that are related to the move are paid. In addition, all monies paid are tax exempt. People who rent are also paid for moving, finding a similar property to rent, and any fees needed to enter a new place. 9. The cost of obtaining land for road projects (which I am most familiar with) is often 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of the entire project.
This will not change anyone’s mind on the Supreme Court decision, but I hope it will at least stop some of the misinformation about Eminent Domain that is being spread. It looks to me like the Supreme Court just bumped this back to the States (States Rights). If the LOCAL politicians are stealing land right and left, they can (and should) be voted out of office by the LOCAL politicians. If the States want to INCREASE the protections of property owners, they can. It is all up to the voters (you).
I know. I lurked there as they went positively ballistic yesterday. One of them defended the decision and was widely branded a communist in DU of all places.
This isn't a Republican vs Democrat issue. This is free people against communism. We're going to win in the long run. This is going to be a very costly decision for the elites.
Indeed, it might.
But to remove someone from their home for the "greater good" is wrong.
That's the theory. It is NOT the practice.
I agree. In the Hye/Stonewall, Tx area, there were a lot of farms that had been in familes for over a hundred years and was condemned by the state so that LBJ could have a state park. Of course, they got "compensated" but who can compensate someone whose parents and grandparents lived there.
Only if you believe the courts and the entire legal system are incapable, however imperfectly, of rendering justice. And if you believe that is the case in the United States, do you have a example of a country where it is functioning to your satisfaction?
The USSC is once again amending the Constitution without a 2/3 vote in the Congress or a 3/4 vote among the States.
So, thanks for pointing people to the opinion posted at FindLaw. It shows exactly what is being done with this case, and it is a very bad thing. Future cases will measure the facts against the term "public purpose" rather than "public use". So, the Founders' Constitution is shredded in this regard.
The taking of private property has been going on as long as there has been gov't. It has been going on since the Constitution was signed. It has been entirely legal. The surprise with this decision is that so many are shocked. Reality can be shocking.
See Houston, Texas. County seat of Harris County...but City of Houston expanded some years ago into Fort Bend County and other surrounding counties.
No, I don't and I'm not a lawyer, investor, or anything else involved with construction (as my wife would readily demonstrate by pointing out my seemingly innumerable botched projects around our home).
The Opinion of the Court was very respectful of Federalism. How hypocritical. The Liberals on the Court hate Federalism and only use it when they need it to get the result they want. When they didn't want it on the medicinal marijuana case, they junked it in a flash.
Thomas is consistent, though, since he applied the plain language of the Fifth Amendment to show that the drift away from original intent has just gone too far. (His embrace of the incorporation doctrine is not Federalist, of course, but that issue is pretty much settled. Nobody would argue that states can conduct searches in clear violation of Amendment IV, nor impose cruel and unusual punishments).
Ad hominen attacks are not permitted. Make your case with the facts at issue or quit the field.
Only if you believe the courts and the entire legal system are incapable, however imperfectly, of rendering justice.
Communism has defining characteristics. A properly running legal system (which we lack) is irrelevent to that fact.
The chief defining characteristic of communism is that the economic "common good" is held to be superior to private property rights. Court decisions do nothing to change that.
Your claim is analguous to saying a motor vehicle is something else because of the competence of its driver.
LOL! Fair enough. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Folks its not communism you here is Socialism
so·cial·ism Audio pronunciation of "socialism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
com·mu·nism Audio pronunciation of "Communism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
2. Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
2. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
Perhaps I'm a little jaundiced here? I just lost $75,000 because a drunk/drugged up woman tried to grab a less than one day old puppy from mommy dog, and got bit.
Did I mention that I wasn't there?
Did I mention that it's NOT MY DOG?
See tag line...
You will make a very fine serf.
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.