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).
Personally, I wish Federalism was stronger than it is today, but that doesn't mean I believe states have the right to enslave citizens or deprive people of basic rights. The proper division of Federal / State power has been the exclusive province of the Courts for decades; I think that it is long past time for this to be an honest debate politically.
I entirely agree with your statement. The Supremes have bumped it back to the States. Isn't this what most of the people around here are always yelling for? Now they are saying, "Thats too hard. The Supremes should agree with my definition so I won't have to fight for what I consider "my" rights".
What I see is a bunch of lazy people who don't really support State's rights.
I think you are right.
Your experiences are different from mine (12 years of working daily with it) If things are that bad where you are at, why don't you do something to fix it. The Supremes said that there was absolutely NOTHING preventing States from enacting more stringent requirements than are allowed by the Feds. In other words, they were bumping it back to you.
Can a State legally confiscate all guns? Should it be able to?
More generally, does the Bill of Rights bind States, or just the Federal Government?
Even more generally, what does the Fourteenth Amendment mean and how does it bind the States?
IMHO it is "lazy" to assume that this issue is simple or obvious. It isn't.
Covered by homeowner's insurance, I'm hoping???
Boy, I really blew it. I am building a new home and purchased a residential lot last October for $85,000. The few months before my purchase the property was appraised at $15,000 because no sewer lines were available to service the residential lots and they could not accommodate a septic system because the sole conditions. The homeowners, applied to the township for a special assessment district to install sewer lines at the homeowners expense. Once the township approved the special assessment district the lots immediately increased in value from the 15,000 number to the $85,000 number.
I should have asked the township to deny the special assessment district and condemn the lots (paying the present value of course) and sell them to me to build a large house on an increase the township's taxes. I'm sure I could have accomplished this for a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions, dinners, and a trip or two to Las Vegas for preoject study purposes, etc. The original owners would have no legitimate complaint because they were compensated fair market value under the existing conditions and I have a large windfall for this immediately increased tax dollars. Everyone's happy.
It's too bad I didn't think this sooner. Silly me, I paid the homeowners what the property was worth.
That is a problem with this case. The city knew it intended to re-zone the property for industrial use. This would increase the property value substantially. The city chose not to give this increase to the owner of the property but to pass it on to the Corporation.
You just got here but adios.
Rather than get sidetracked by your attempt to obscure the issue (which is the inaccurate postings at freerepublic.com about eminent domain), let me say this about the second amendment.
About 18 years ago, Sarah Brady made my state her pet project. She flew in every other week to wine and dine politicians. I (and a surprisingly small number of others) took my vacation time off one day at a time to lobby my legislator and others to oppose Sarah. We could not wine and dine them and certainly could not get the TV cameras in front of any politician. However, we were able to turn the worst of her proposed laws back. We did not win everything, but I believe we could have it more gunowners showed up like we did.
I heard a number of people at my gun club and at gun shows afterward blowing off about this, that, or another thing to do with the situation shortly afterward. I never saw a single one of them at the legislature when I was there knocking on doors and talking to anyone who would listen. When I confronted some of them, they said they were not there because they had their vacations planned or they had to work overtime or some other stupid excuse. BS. They were just plain lazy.
It is hard to get politicians to do the right thing. If they don't, and you don't do anything, it is your fault. It really is that simple.
Oh no, you don't get off that easy. Just not wasting any more ink on you today.
Stop by any time but come armed with an argument, not a link. Comeuppance is good for your soul.
Did you intend to include me in that?
Much of your post pertains to the "just compensation" aspect with regard to eminent domain. However, the main point of Kelo Vs. New London pertained more to the definition of "public use". "Just compensation" is another issue altogether and one that is endowed in vague definitions owing more to relative worth rather than actual worth.
For example, if it is locally known that an area is planned for redevelopment (which often becomes public knowledge some years prior), actual property values can often fall rather than increase or remain despite the assessed value. If the property in question is slated for a redevelopment project, it is effectively removed from ever being placed on an open competitive market where the final bidding to acquire the property would therein determine it's actual worth. In a scenario where a municipality has already decided to redevelop an area, any competition to acquire that property by another interested party is effectively quashed and the "value" of the property is effectively frozen.
Condemnation is another aspect inherent of dubious and relative definitions. Illinois is one of a few states where a law exists prohibiting the taking of residential property by eminent domain unless that property is "blighted". Here, we have seen by experience that two recourses still remain for a municipality to acquire residential property by eminent domain. First, the municipality can have the property rezoned. Second, the definition of "blighted" has been construed to include property that for whatever reason, could be redeveloped to generate more tax revenue than it presently generates. It is therefore "blighted' because it does not generate as much revenue as want. By these methods and concepts, perfectly good, non-vacant residential housing areas (and cemeteries too) have been routinely razed and redeveloped into shopping malls and office buildings, despite laws that seemingly protect that residential property.
Again, the main issue in Kelo Vs. New London as I see it pertains to the definition of "public use". That definition has been misconstrued by federal courts over many years to be equivalent to "public benefit" and "public purpose". "Public use" is quite clearly different in meaning from "public benefit" or "public purpose" and if the Fifth Amendment meant "benefit" or "purpose", it would have said so. The framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were neither lacking intelligence or education nor a mastery and full understanding of the English language. Clearly, the federal courts and the federal government have been rewriting the Constitution and Bill of Rights for over 200 years to serve their favor at the cost of it's citizens.
In the day that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were framed, drafted and ratified, "private property" was defined as just that.. private property that was privately owned. Today, the term is a myth and a misnomer and the current environment and government system in this country bears little difference from a socialist system... a system that the Founding Fathers clearly abhorred, predicted and warned against. It was not their intent nor wish for this country to pursue that path which we are already following.
With the misconstrued twists in meaning that have been applied to the U.S. Constitution over the years that have turned that document into a worthless doormat of broken guarantees, I consider it to be a null and void contract whose clauses and promises have been routinely violated, unenforced, demeaned and distorted to serve best the parties of whom it was intended to protect us from. The "We" in "We the People" was clearly intended to pertain to individual citizens and not to any government entity. Today, "We" means "the government" and it's subservient citizens are the public servants who truly own nothing and are forced to heavily pay in perpetuity for that which they have little control of.
Let me know when you discover your telling counterargument to my postings. Judging by what you have posted thus far, I am justifiably underwhelmed by your analysis of the Court's opinion.
No I didn't. I ask your pardon.
That's because you don't have the wherewithal to understand the English language, a common affliction to liberals, activists and RINO's. Which part of the 5th Amendment is causing you the most trouble wrapping your feeble mind around, the takings clause or the public use clause?
My original post was NOT to support the decision, but to correct the many grossly incorrect posts I have seen here. Concerning the heart of your statement:
"With the misconstrued twists in meaning that have been applied to the U.S. Constitution over the years that have turned that document into a worthless doormat of broken guarantees,"
Agreed. However, if you want to look at why that has happened, look into the mirror. Not just you, but all of us. Anyone who depends on a piece of paper with words on it to protect them is a fool. The only way to keep the protections in place is to elect politicians who want to protect the Constitution rather than curcumvent it.
That is what depresses me. Most of the people around here think that words, not actions will protect them. That judges will protect them. That someone, anyone, will protect them. They are wrong. As long as they think that, our Constitution will continue to erode.
I once (a year or two ago) saw a report that crossreferenced gunowners names to voting lists and found that there was only a VERY small percentage of them registered to vote (I forget the exact number, but it was depressingly small). As long as that continues, you can expect to continue to lose gun rights, too.
Try reading the opinion. Even the dissenters understood those issues were settled law. Sheesh.
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.