Pure, unadulterated communism.
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 do not advocate revolution. I only think of what I foresee.
FMCDH(BITS)
and I quote, from your link:
"Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process."
Read Sandra O'Connor's dissent, read the dissent! read the dissent! read the dissent!
You say read the opinion, and we did, and we agree with the dissent.
Justice O'Connor and the conservative justices are looking out for the middle class, while "liberal" justices hosed us.
And DU will continue their drum-beat that conservatives are the party of vested business interests.
I really resent, I find insulting your innuendo that those of us appalled at this further erosion of our constitutional rights, well, like those "gun nuts", they just don't . . understand, you know, those neanderthal conservatives. Sounds like something you'd hear from the "loyal opposition".
"AS VALIDATED BY REVIEW IN COURTS OF LAW"
ah, so you have to find a judge on your side too -- not just local official.
as if that's so difficult.
Yeah. The city my folks live in has been agitating to level their entire lovely suburban neighborhood to build an adult Disneyland (casinos, etc.) for years.
SCOTUS just handed the city the keys to the 'dozers.
The only reason it won't be my dad that takes them out is that he is too feeble and blind to do it.
He does have plenty of neighbors, though...
I read the opinion and the dissents last night. If you have something to offer defending government theft at the point of a gun to make deeper already deep pockets offer it.
I issed this little piece of condescension. Here's my comment on it:
Kind of short and simple like you?
Pure, unadulterated communism.
You own a construction company, don't you?
That's from the dissenting opinion which has NO EFFECT on the case (except blowing off built-up judical gas, I guess).
Right. The issue is a gray one not black and white. Yes, local governments can force residents to sell their homes for new development. That has been going on for eons. Shacks have been destroyed so homes can be built in their place, interstates have been built, etc. The question is under what circumstances, where is the line drawn as to what kinds of property can be handled this way and what is the fair process for doing this? The Supremes skirted that apparently and left that descretion up to the communities and left it open-ended. I would want to see some strict criteria and limits on how any government can force a resident to sell property.
More's the pity...
I have a better idea. Why don't we take all of your property, auction it off to the highest bidder in an auction with one buyer and give it to the folks who lost their jobs in 1996. You can keep enough for a tent, I've lived in one it's not too unpleasant, and a bicycle.
I read the opinions, and your earlier point that this decision is supported by caselaw is correct, but not exhaustive. That's why, for me, the key dissenting opinion is that of Justice Thomas, not Justice O'Connor.
You stated that Eminent Domain exists becuase of "greater public good" and that the check on this is the Courts. The problem is, what is the practical limit on what the Courts can do if that is the standard? How is "greater public good" defined? Over time, we have seen a steady erosion in the limit of the governmental power; the concept of "greater public good" could be used to justify FORCIBLY taking a property with an old house and giving to someone else who will tear it down and build a new house that will beautify the neighborhood and generate more tax revenue. Far-fetched, you may say; under the "greater public good" concept, there is no guarantee that this won't happen.
Trust the Courts, you say, that's the guarantee. That is so blindingly naive that I really don't know how to adequately respond to that. Judicial power is already out-of-control; we're supposed to believe that Courts won't misapply "greater public good"?
Takings for public USE I support; Takings for alleged public benefit that actually just transfers title by FORCE to another private owner is not something I support. I have changed my mind on this in the past 24 hours; the abuses have gone too far and need to stop. Justice Thomas is correct; another few years continuing the case law trend will make all of us renters.
it is a valid interpretation which will be used by local authorities and lower courts -- maybe not directly in their cases and opinions but as an understanding of what the decision will allow.
Your pals just pimp slapped their politcal base. The backlash is coming. You're going to split your party and real conservatives are going to take it back, lock stock and barrel.
This is going to be the political equivalent to "let them eat cake" and we're going to use this decision to run neocons out of the party on a rail.
That is how it used to be. In my county the city of Charlotte asked our county to take over some land for the city. My county always voted it down. Now Charlotte can say "Union county we supply your residents along the county line our services anyway we want to tax them now!"
Even the DUmmies can see that. I guess anyone who can't get the fact that this decision hits the poor, the downtrodden and the oppressed (but proud homeowners) the hardest (weren't they once the 'Rats core constituency?) are dumber than DUrt.
He does have plenty of neighbors, though...
I originally posted this to another thread, but it appears to be appropriate here as well:
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Recall how, during the initial organization of labor in the US, the tactics of the management forced labor into the camp of La Cosa Nostra simply so they could compete on the same playing field.
Now envision 1000's of little zoning commissions behaving like Child-Protective-Services-on-Steriods.
The possibility of this turning ugly is very real.
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.