Posted on 07/04/2005 4:30:29 PM PDT by tryon1ja
ROMULUS, Mich. — The sign at the edge of Romulus, Mich. (search) proclaims: "Industry and its citizens working together." But try convincing cabinet shop owner Ed Hathcock.
snipe.
Hathcock's property abuts Detroit's airport where the county had planned a 1,300-acre industrial park. But when Hathcock turned down the county's buyout offer, the local government made a play to take his land to use on the project.
The Supreme Court of the United States (search)' recent ruling that local governments can seize private property for private economic development has put the affected property owners across the country in a fighting mood, but those in favor believe taking property is justified if it suits the public good.
snipe
The majority of landowners accepted Wayne County's buyout offer for the industrial park, but Hathcock claims he got a raw deal.
So the county took him to court to seize his land, wielding its power of eminent domain (search). Hathcock lost in two lower courts but won a ruling last year in Michigan's Supreme Court.
"Every American believes that ... they have sanctity in their land, that holding land is a right and that it's not a right that can be alienated by a politician because he feels he has a better use for it," Hathcock said.
Hathcock's victory reversed two decades of legal precedent in Michigan and made the state's eminent domain laws among the strictest in the nation. For a government to take land from a private property owner, it has to be for public projects only, such as road construction or for parks.
snipe
... A company says, 'Do I locate in China or do I locate in the Midwest? What are the advantages that I have?' One of the biggest advantages is being able to assemble land," Fiacano said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Fiacano.
Is he an American?
No, he's an American resident.
I somehow believe this guy's land wasn't the only piece of available property between Romulus and Peking.
"Nothing capitalist about doing business in China."
Quite right.
A misuser of eminent domain, like Wal-Mart, is not a capitalist, it is a communist.
If you have to get into bed with government to do business, you're doing it just like the Chinese do.
"...actually for free in most places..."
Try Akron, Ohio.
Not to me!
That is very arbitrary....
There are still a lot of good clear thinkers at 75, needs to be something other than just an age thing!!!!
Thanks for the ping!
Kind of reminds you of the grade school bully. He always wanted what someone else had. Never satisfied until he got it.
Thou shalt not covet! Greed!
That is very arbitrary....
There are still a lot of good clear thinkers at 75, needs to be something other than just an age thing!!!!
Actually, I think 75 and out without conditions makes it non arbitrary. Everyone knows that it you make it to 75, it is time to retire. If you still need to work be a volunteer or a greeter at Walmart, or usher at your church. I don't plan on being working full time when I reach 75.
I don't know about every American believing that, but Mr. Hathcock is absolutely correct.
Our Constitution should be amended so that property ("Land") is free of any and all taxation (fed, state and local
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/land31_20040731.htm
Poletown seizures are ruled unlawful
State Supreme Court restricts government rights to take land
July 31, 2004
BY JOHN GALLAGHER
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER
Reversing more than two decades of land-use law, the Michigan Supreme Court late Friday overturned its own landmark 1981 Poletown decision and sharply restricted governments such as Detroit and Wayne County from seizing private land to give to other private users.
The unanimous decision is a decisive victory for property owners who object to the government seizing their land, only to give it to another private owner to build stadiums, theaters, factories, housing subdivisions and other economic development projects the government deems worthwhile.
…Backers of the Poletown standard warned that Friday's decision could be a "significant blow" to revitalization efforts in blighted cities like Detroit. John Mogk, a professor of land-use law at Wayne State University, said Detroit needs to use its powers, known as eminent domain, to seize land to clear large tracts for new economic development, including retail centers, office parks and residential projects.
"Any limitation on the power of eminent domain will reduce the chances of the city accomplishing those kind of projects," Mogk said. "No other city with which Detroit competes has such limitations placed upon its ability to acquire tracts of land for future development."
In the original Poletown ruling, the court allowed the City of Detroit to seize private homes and businesses on the east side so General Motors Corp. could build an auto factory. The bitterly contested seizures and the court's ruling in favor of the city had national implications and led to similar rulings elsewhere.
Thousands of homes and dozens of churches and private businesses were bulldozed in Detroit's former Poletown neighborhood to make way for the GM plant.
Of 1,300 acres needed for Wayne County's Pinnacle project, property owners representing about 2 percent of the land have refused to sell. They have resisted, in part because much of the project would later be turned over to private developers and other entities.
In Friday's decision, known as Wayne County v. Hathcock after one of the landowners in the case, the court ruled that the sweeping powers to seize private land granted in the 1981 Poletown case violated the state's 1963 constitution.
Says who?
The state of Nevada issues an instrument it calls allodial title, if the owner holds the property free and clear of all debts and pays to the state of Nevada what amounts to a bond for future taxes.
Being a Michigan resident, I have to say this is a beautiful post. Makes me feel a whole lot safer.
I'll bet it does. Now if we can get the rest of the states to adopt the same standards, we'll have private property rights again.
Walmart certainly does use eminent domain.
---
Apologies for an erroneous post. I had read numerous stories of people getting large amounts of $ (many times their current value) from Wallmart. And that some people actually rejoiced when they heard their land was a possible site for wallmart because they knew they would be cashing in at the bank.
From what you've all said I guess Wallmart does occasionally use emminent domain. What a shame. This should be illegal.
My point was that private business certainly doesn't need it to exist and prosper in America. If you're building a Wallmart you go after 2-3 different sites in an area and play them off on each other for the best deal. Roads and highways could be constructed this way too.
That was pretty much the general basic requirement for suffrage in the original United States. Some states added other classes such as merchants.
There is no allodial title as you are thinking of it, although I understand the term is sometimes used in eastern states to distinquish the rights of the owner from earlier feudal obligations.
The state of Nevada issues an instrument it calls allodial title, if the owner holds the property free and clear of all debts and pays to the state of Nevada what amounts to a bond for future taxes.
---
hmm... I did some brief research on this some time ago, but it is quite a confusing area. Apparently there are certain lands in the east and especially in teh west that have legal titles going back to the good old days and thus have special privillages.
Although I think its slightly different, the land of Amish groups and Indian reservations fall in this legal realm.
If anyone has any expertise in this area I'd like to know more about it.
I wonder how prevalent this sort of thing is in Nevada or if it's just used by a small minority of legally connected libertarian types.
The “alloidal” right of property ownership did not exist in English common law, because all land belonged to the sovereign. There were grants of alloidal property for churches and schools making them exempt from taxes to the crown. There is no right of inheritance with this type of estate. You can think of as a right granted to an institution, not an individual.
The American concept of individual property ownership was a very radical departure from the English standard. The Treaty of Paris granted the territory of the colonies as alloidal, meaning that no property holder had an obligation to the crown, using the old term that applied in England to church estates, etc.
Our “fee simple” property rights and descriptions of land title, however, do follow the pattern created in England. “Fee” comes from the word “Fief” and simply means the rights belonging to an estate. The word “estate” really describes the rights that come with the land, rather than the land itself.
“Fee simple” is today’s most comprehensive right of estate and in English law it simply meant a type of estate with no obligations to the crown, such as the payment of a portion of rents, or crops, the obligation to provide quarters, etc. It includes the right of transfer to heirs.
To really comprehend this, you have to realize that an estate is not the land. An estate is the description of rights that come with the ownership.
Confused yet? Your property rights consist of: 1. Possession. The right to live on the property and the right to keep others out. 2. Use. The right to use property, within the law, in any way, or for any purpose. 3. Enjoyment. The right to peace and quiet without being bothered by others. 4. Encumber. The right to borrow money and use the property as security for a loan. 5. Transfer. The right to sell property, give it as a gift or dispose of it in any way permitted by law.
That is your estate. Those are your property rights in a fee simple estate. Notice that these rights do not include freedom from taxes!
The Nevada situation is interesting. Nevada is undergoing a huge revamp in it’s real estate regulations.
Because of the high increase in property values, Nevada created an “alloidal” title. It’s basically a calculation of the future tax obligation based on the current value of the property.
(But that’s not really the original use of the word “alloidal” is it?) The youngest owner of the property pays a tax bond based on the current value and his life expectancy. The taxes are paid by the Secretary of State from a trust fund. In Nevada, as I understand it, the title can be passed to one heir. The property cannot be liened (so don’t count on hiring a contractor) and it cannot be mortgaged.
I’ve heard there is also an “alloidal” title in Texas, but I don’t know anything about it.
Hope I didn’t bore you with all this! (I’m a bit of a nut on this stuff.)
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.