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 will swear on the bible that property in NJ is seized for development.
Compensation is FMV of the PROPERTY, not the HOUSE, STRUCTURES and PROPERTY.
AND, if the landowner tries to fight it, they condemn the property. Then it is FMV of the CONDEMNED property (minus any home, building or structure.
Remember this story? Political bribes a la McGreevey "Machiavellian" style?
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/publicaffairs/NJ_Press/files/dami0127_r.htm
I stupidly thought the Halper Farm issue was put to rest since this scandal was busted.
Washington Stables http://www.washingtonstables.com owned by Halper's Family Farm will be shut down by October 2005 a la eminent domain.
Here you go. Read for yourself how excited our officials are about the SCOTUS ruling.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429894/posts
Top court favors eminent domain (Dozens of NJ towns thrilled! "Open season on neighborhoods!")
I Know of a case here where the thieves (government) want to only pay the "assessed" value, not the going rate, and only the land, not the buliding. I can't agree with you that there are fair hearings and fair compensation. It just ain't so.
These black robes should impeached; these black robes have been ruling for quite a while by international law...that alone is an impeachable offense...IMPEACH THE BASS TURDS!!!!
Why would O'Connor, Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist then dissent? Surely they're not anathema to state's rights.
Whass' Eminem Domaim?
They did not support States Rights when it came to medical marijuana either, did they? I sometimes question if States Rights are as important to ANY of the Supremes as it is to the people who post here.
"I Know of a case here where the thieves (government) want to only pay the "assessed" value, not the going rate, and only the land, not the buliding. I can't agree with you that there are fair hearings and fair compensation. It just ain't so."
Well, that changes everything. Forget everything I posted. Obviously, I only imagined the rules I have followed for the last 12-15 years.
bump for later
Delorian flys off ;)
PS Remember our recently ended WA gubenatorial election?
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.