Your land is their land -- Part 2

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 8/4/5 | Debra J. Saunders

[SmithL]

ON JULY 1, Oakland took possession of two properties that housed two viable businesses -- Revelli Tires and Autohouse, which provided the livelihoods of John Revelli and Tony Fung -- by eminent domain so that a private developer can build apartments in the redevelopment zone. On Aug. 1, Oakland took possession of a parking lot about one block away -- on which owner Alex Hahn says he wants to build housing -- so that Sears can relocate its Auto Center to that lot.

If you had to re-read the above paragraph, it is because this story makes no sense. Oakland, you see, is using government's supreme power -- the ability to seize citizens' private property -- so that bureaucrats can trade years of sweat and dreams as if they were property cards for a Monopoly game board. Except Oakland pols view all properties as if they are the inexpensive purple ones, Baltic and Mediterranean.

"When my clients first contacted me with this story, I didn't believe them," wrote attorney Wallace Smith, who represents Hahn, in an e-mail to me. But it's true. Oakland used its big-gun power to take property for public use -- and in this case, the public use was giving the land to Sears. Director of Redevelopment Dan Vanderpriem told the City Council in October that the city needed other land owned by Sears. In order to get it without exercising eminent domain, the city agreed to find a lot that would allow Sears to relocate its Auto Store within a block of the main store. So Oakland used eminent domain on Hahn.

Don't expect the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn this scheme. . . .

[DH]

Looks like the peoples' only hope to preserve their rights to property and freedom will end up in an armed rebellion.

There is no other way other than civil war...a war to protect the Constution, the Bill of Rights and the American way of life.

We have already demonstrated that we will give power to anyone who tells us what we want to hear and who will protect us for a small price of freedom.

Sad but true.

[Poodlebrain]

"Vanderpriem also told me that the city offered the Oakland Three $80 per square foot, which is $10 less per square foot than Sears got. Wallace said Sears can settle for $90 per square foot for because it will get Hahn's land - - which is worth "substantially more" than the city offer."

$80 per square foot cannot be considered ample compensation if Sears is willing to take it in exchange for land valued at $90 per square foot. Disregarding the problems with using eminent domain to transfer the property to another private citizen, it is outrageous that Sears would get 12.5% more money than the others on a per unit basis.

[Mr. Jeeves]

To be honest, I don't have a problem with cities making these kinds of redevelopment decisions. When you live in a city, you take the risk that the nature of its evolution may not allow your home or business to endure in its current form forever. I just think the city should be forced to compensate the property owners at 1.5 or even 2 times the market rate to make up for the disruption.

[PissAndVinegar]

What's the market rate on a condemned property?

[hadit2here]

To be honest, I don't have a problem with cities making these kinds of redevelopment decisions.

It's not the price, it's the principle. No government should have, or have been given, the right to take one's private property - at any price.

When you have no principles, you have no freedom.

"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
--Protestant minister Martin Neimoller, regarding Germany's fall to the Nazis

And if you don't think this is happening now, you are a liberal.

Who's going to be there to speak up when they come for you?

[Mr. Jeeves]

No government should have, or have been given, the right to take one's private property - at any price.

Fine, except that there hasn't been any such thing as private real property since the founding of the Republic. All government is doing here is asserting the prerogative they have always had, but no one liked to talk about.

[RipSawyer]

The last nail has been well and truly driven into the coffin of freedom in this land. A short time ago there was a thread on this forum discussing the connection between property rights and right to life, one Freeper seemed to see no connection. I replied that any government which refuses to respect the right to property will soon enough refuse to respect the right to life.
We now have a nation full of young people who have almost no knowledge of the history of this country and the world, it seems all the old lessons must be learned anew!

[Old Student]

"We now have a nation full of young people who have almost no knowledge of the history of this country and the world, it seems all the old lessons must be learned anew!"

There is a way to fix this problem. Become a teacher in a public school. I should like to point out that Dred Scott and Separate but Equal were both the law of the land, based on Supreme Court decisions that were later overturned. TEACH THE CHILDREN WELL!