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).
Here's one that is NOT from my experience:
"The Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority gave the Fanning family $1.09 million for their property in 1991. A real estate company had offered him $3.5 million three years earlier.
Fanning sued the stadium authority, claiming it had not given him a fair price for the ranch. The IRS, meanwhile slapped him with a $1 million tax bill in 1992, saying the land was more valuable than $1.09 million.
The two cases dragged on for years. The Arlington stadium authority agreed to pay Fanning an additional $4 million just before the case went to trial in 1998. Fanning settled with the IRS in 1999 for $1.2 million. "
"My original post was NOT to support the decision."
That is understood and I did not intend to infer that you did support it.
"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."
Solidly agreed. Furthermore, anyone who depends on an elected official to protect them is also a fool. How can we elect an official that would serve to our benefit when the norm is that they promise one thing during the election, but deliver something else once elected? They know that the chances of them being removed is slim and come the next election, most find a way to "make nice" so they get reelected only to fall back to serving their own interests once elected again.
I think that history shows us something of the character of a good politician versus that of the corrupt politician. George Washington served very well much to his dismay that he did not want to serve in the first place. He therefore had no personal self-serving motive, but instead one of public duty --a true public servant. Compare that type of character to the likes of Ted Kennedy. Ted and his ilk will never be looked upon in history with the reverence commanded by that of Washington and his contemporaries.
I also agree with your understanding of how this has come to be. Ask your average citizen, "If your rights are being violated, what or whom is your first line of defense?" The answers are generally in the realm of "the police", "my senator", "my representative" and so on.
(a big flaming) WRONG!
YOU are ALWAYS your own first line of defense.
But we all know how it goes... the big game, that new reality show on TV or Michael Jackson's escapades are more important than keeping abreast of actual news of what goes on around you and what potentially happen to you. Suddenly one day, BAM! It's you who's life is being trampled under foot and you wonder why it happened. Well, it's the "law".
For many reasons and then some, Thomas Jefferson and others were right. We are doomed and it is our own fault. Worse yet, no amount of Freeping, letter writing, blogging or demonstrating will change it, but only slightly slow it's course. Those who sounded the warning bells now and long ago are only looked upon as loud-mouthed fringe wackos looking for attention. Those who try to rebel and resist by using something more forceful than mere failing words to defend their life and property are looked upon as criminals or even terrorists.
Sometimes it seems that only way to true personal freedom is the approach of "every man for himself" and staying under the radar. While we are our own first line of defense, not all of us can afford to be. While "justice" in this country is proclaimed to be "equal" and "fair" to all, history has repeatedly demonstrated that it is neither... unless you can afford high-priced lawyers.
Like I said before, your experience is different from mine.
Congressional hearings do look like theater. That is NOT where eminent domain proceedings start. They start locally. A City Council, County Board, or similar. As a Consulting Engineer, I have attended at least 400 City Council meetings, maybe 150 County Board meetings, maybe 100 Planning Board meetings, and a few hundred other miscellaneous meetings in the last 15 years. They are not scripted. I have to answer hard questions and explain the pros and cons of any decision we recommend. If the people who are affected by these decisions don't bother to show up, don't work to defeat politicians who want to screw them, and don't vote, what do you expect to happen?
Once a property changes hands (whether by eminent domain or any other method) any imagined "rights" to claim the future revenue that is made by someone else cease to exist. I can't even believe you would think you could have a future claim against the hard work of others. Putting up buildings, filling them with paying clients, keeping them going, maintaining them, and making a profit are not easy. If they failed, would you also be responsible for paying any future claims against the corporation? If you want one, you get the other.
The courts are how any differences between "your" market value and "my" market value are decided. Market value and appraisal value are supposed to be the same. In about 80% to 85% of the cases I have been involved in, they are. If they are not, you have the chance to convince 12 of your peers (who start out sympathetic to the "little guy") that your are right and the "damned gubbamint" is wrong. If you fail, you lose. It is as simple as that.
You sound like you have the makings of a great developer. Get out their and start making money.
Sounds like you and I agree on many things. I do not have a solution. I try to follow my conscience and teach my kids to do the same. Unfortunately, EVERYONE thinks their own conscience is the correct one and everyone else should follow it. That is how the little Hitler's get started. The only thing that keeps me going is the thought that regardless of how bad it may seem here, living in the United States is infinitely better than living anywhere else in the entire world.
That's my experience too. Far too many conservatives are too lazy or uniformed to get involved in the political process at the local level where they can accomplish the most good. They hate politicians and gripe about them endlessly, and consider politics nasty and beneath contempt. They have got to change their outlook.
This week there will be hundreds of thousands of city council meetings convening across this country. How many FReepers know the day and at what time their city's meeting will be held? How many will show up and participate? I know I will. I don't attend all of my city council meetings, I but I attend the ones that I know will impact me--and that's a fair number over the course of a year.
Do you have a link to the dissenting opinions?
The Indians of Calif. were paid 25 cents an acre. My share was $600. I would like to buy back a few hundred acres now for the same price.
What??? and move back from Hawai'i????
"Do you have a link to the dissenting opinions?"
Try this--
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-108
See above post for link to pro & dissenting opinions.
Yes, I already read it (unlike many who have posted here). It doesn't matter if they said those words or not. They said this:
"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose “public use” requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law,"
Sounds like States rights to me.
The professional land grabber speaks. Bite it.
The more I think about it the more I agree with your above opinion.
It is strange to hear a bunch of conservatives crying for a public outcome as opposed to a private outcome when it comes to Eminent Domain and urban renewal. A renewed urban core is better for the public. Why shouldn't the final ownership of such an urban renewal be private.
Think of it this way. What if we had Eminent Domain to build roads and then we sold off those roads to private companies who ran those roads instead of big government.
That said, New London seems to being doing well with urban gentrification without Eminent Domain. Add to that a bunch of crooked politicians and Chris Dodd's good old Pfizer expanding into town and I'm still inclined to say that this ED in this case is not needed.
Not all powers are reserved to the state. See BOR.
Linking for a must read
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430722/posts
When Leninists rule the nation - (SCOTUS decision bodes ill for American liberties)
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.