These people in their private homes in Conn. are having their houses torn down in order for a builder to come in and build private homes.
Does that sound right to you?
OK, Jim, but is it right for the local gov't to give the property owners a price for their land now, then build the property up to double that price.
In other words, this is waterfront property. The county offers $200k, the owner accepts. After the developer gets thru, the same parcel is worth $500K.
Your point is eloquent, well thought out and will serve some to assuage some feelings.
However, it does not change the fact that government will have a right to take your property.
Scenario: My city takes my land, following all of the rules you have set forth. They build a new shopping center. 10 years later, the center closes due to lack of business and investors. What has happened to my house, land and other? Now the city can sell my land again, at a much higher value and I am left with nothing but memories.
What has happened is a travesty, pure and simple and no amount of rhetoric is going to change the fact a city or government can take your land. Period.
I appreciate your defense of the government processes.
But when a rightful land owner is forced to give up their property for public use all sense of fair market goes out the window.
This is because as the rightful land owner I am the one to establish what is fair to me. Having anything else imposed on me eviscerates any concept of fair.
How do you defend the following? I have a friend who inherited 50 acres in Boulder County in Colorado. The land is vacant as his father used to farm it. When he applied for a permit to build his retirement home on the property Boulder County informed him they had slated that land for use as open space. Is that a taking?
I believe we will see a backlash against the current court system as a result of this ruling.
Thanks for posting that info. But I don't think you understand the underlying principle here.
and were not paid anything for it either don’t know the true facts of the case or are lying.
I didn't see anyone post that someone wasn't paid for their property. But that's not the point. The point is, if someone doesn't want to move, they shouldn't be forced into moving because a private developer wants to build there. Whether or not they're paid a large sum of money, moving costs are paid, etc. etc.
and the property owner is not encouraged to wildly inflate the value.
The property owner should be permitted to wildly inflate the value and to keep the property if he or she doesn't receive that value.
My understanding (feel free to tell me I'm off the wall)...
Eminent Domain before 6/23:
* to transfer it to another private owner it had to be condemned... and yes, local officials had great leeway in what could be considered condemnable
* for truly public use (highways etc) any property could be taken (good or bad)
Since yesterday:
* any land can be transfered to another private owner without the need to condemn it first if it is for the "greater good" (yeah, that's specific)
Of cource compensation has to be paid - but market value, and value to an owner are two completely different things and once a government marks a property as being targeted for eminent domain it becomes unsellable to the owner and it is just a matter of court cases to define a $.
Good post.
I just wish people would read the actual opinion because it is not as broad as the fearmongers and muckrakers would have you believe.
Everybody!
Read the opinion! Read the opinion! Read the opinion!
Read it here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108
Please do not tell me that you agree with this 'political insider' reward-your-donor program.
A church pays NO TAXES. Under this new ruling, where it is in the public interest to collect taxes on that property, could not the local officials condemn the church property, sell it to a developer, and gain taxable property?
"A home is NOT an investment, W/G, but merely a place to live."
Posted on 03/26/2001 16:27:50 PST by pigdog
To: pigdog, Willie Green
It's amazing how many people view a home as an "asset," as well. It's a frickin' LIABILITY.
(The following is from from FoxNews.com)
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was also clearly outraged at the decision, and issued a stinging dissent.
“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,” Justice O'Connor wrote. “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
“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 ie given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public,” she wrote.
You could always be executed for treason. If some local government decides being a Christian is treasonous because it puts God before the country, then they decide to start executing Christians.
The Supreme court in a divided vote agrees. You come on and post a screed saying nothing has changed. All you need to do is elect different people, and it will stop.
Sensible answer.
A more permanent remedy would be to amend the state constitution. About a half dozen states already prohibit these kinds of takings.
The Constitution says nothing about "projects"; it specifies "public use". This is the crux of the problem. Government officials and the courts have been allowed to redefine and expand the definition of public use beyond the original intent of the Founders and beyond the original meaning derived from centuries of Engish common law.
It is very telling that the term used in the language of the majority decision is "public purpose", not "public use". They are not the same thing.
All true, but the paraphrased legal definition of "fair market value" is "what a willing buyer pays a willing seller". In eminent domain, the seller is not willing, otherwise the property would not have to be condemned, the transaction would take place in the usual course of business.
I could live with the "public use" concept, after all, it sez so in the Constitution. But the extension to "private use" is alarming and unconscionable IMHO.
The couple in CT may have wanted to pass on that family home to their own family. "Fair market value" as determined by a court today may be 1/2 of what the property will be worth in 5 years. These families will be forced to sell now as opposed to reaping the financial benefits of holding on to the property for longer if they choose. That's just wrong.