Posted on 08/05/2005 11:16:36 AM PDT by WayneLusvardi
I'm glad to see there are politicians who think the same way I think about this issue and are preparing legislation based on that thinking.
There is nothing here that defines "full appreciated value". Every public works project I have ever worked on has required property and most of them have required the use of eminent domain. The full value of the property, all moving costs, taxes, and miscellaneous costs are paid to the owner. What does "full appreciated value" do differently?
Full value of the property as what? It's current use or its highest value use?
A funny twist is when somebody buys a piece of land that appears to be in the proposed ROW of a street extension, puts up a cheap shopping mall, and then waits for eminent domain to take the property, and then the project is delayed, and delayed, and delayed, and disappears, and there is this silly little strip mall renting out spaces by the month for next to nothing.
Redevelopment is different than eminent domain for a utility line or street. Under redevelopment a property is upzoned, say from single family residential to commercial; but compensation is paid only for the residential use not the highest and best commercial use. While this sounds fair what really happens is that politicians broker off your property appreciation to the politically connected. Conversely, if your property is downzoned you have to incur the loss. Can't have it both ways. WL
Good question. If you own a home to be acquired by eminent domain for redevelopment you are paid for highest use as residential; but the city will upzone the property to a new higher and better use for commercial which you will not be paid for. The market appreciation of your property is sucked up by politicians and sold to others under the public use doctrine. Conversely, if you property is downzoned and value declines, you are not paid for that loss. So why should the appreciation of your property be any different?
At its current use. If you change to pay to the future use, shouldn't that be zero if the use is a road? No one is making money off of that.
I live is a backwater part of the US, so maybe I have not seen the problems you have. I have been involved in several TIF projects for stores or condos. The people who redevelop depressed areas are not the rich, greedy, capitalists that they are pictured as in FreeRepublic. The politically connected, rich people are busy developing land on the outskirts of town were they can build on an ex-cornfield and don't ahve to get involved with condemnations (note that there is ONE exception to this).
The people who redevelop near downtown cannot build what they do and cannot sell or rent them for enough to pay for the moving of utilities, demolishing deserted properties, or disposing of the asbestos and other things in them safely. The people who develop in cornfields don't have any of those problems. The TIF funds are supposed to make the development near downtown equal to developing in a cornfield. Of course, it never really does, though.
There are many here who say that the property should not be redevloped, then. The problem is that you have people moving, and moving, and moving again out to the moving suburbs while the center of the city gets burned out and becomes a perfect place to breed crime. In addition, the size of the City grows, placing more of a burden on the taxpayer to maintain the additional roads, sewers, and other things in the physically larger, but little more populated, city.
Not redeveloping the center of the City hurts conservatives as well as liberals. BTW, I believe that the biggest source of stealing in condemnation/redevelopment/TIF is with sports stadiums (which thankfully, my town has refrained from doing). That is the only time you seen the rich, politically connected messing about downtown. And many of the people here support sports stadiums.
Eminent domain for redevelopment is for shopping centers, big box retail centers, auto malls; not public streets. WL
A road has tremendous value. Just because you aren't charged to use it doesn't mean it has zero value. It also increases the value of nearby realestate.
Good post. The proposed eminent domain initiatives sweeping many states in the U.S. are NOT for abolishing redevelopment. Instead they are for removing coercive eminent domain and low ball prices for property acquired for redevelopment. Let's say you are farmer Joe and the path of development finally creeps out to your cornfield. Your cornfield appreciates immensely in value from $5k acre to say $100K acre! Under redevelopment that $95 K appreciation wouldn't be yours but would be appropriated by others in the name of a public use. Capish?
Actually, I hear almost daily from people who say putting a road near their home wil DECREASE its value. I have NEVER heard a person next to a road we are going to build say that it will increase the value of their property.
Actually, except for roads or utilities, I have never ever heard of the property of a farmer being condemned (the use of eminent domain). In every case that I am aware of where a cornfield is developed, there is a willing buyer and a willing (VERY willing) seller.
The only place I have heard or seen eminent domain used for redevelopment is for inner city property. The increase in value for the inner city development is entirely due to the cost of developing the property, the cost of which the original owner did not contribute. There are risks and rewards in redevelopment. Some have failed. It is not an automatic cash machine (at least the ones that I am aware of around here).
I still see posts on this website saying that people are offered nothing. I have been doing public works projects (including some redevelopment) for 12 years and I have never seen that happen.
It can increase the value of commercial property. In Texas most freeways have frontage roads built along side the highway from which drivers can enter or exit the highway. The land adjacent to these frontage roads usually greatly increases in value in anticipation of highway construction. There have been cases where land owners have been willing to donate land for rights of way in order to profit from from the increase in value of their land adjacent to the freeway.
I don't doubt what you say is true. The point I am getting at is what the people involved say and what the truth is are not always the same.
I have seen many things posted here about eminent domain that are either outright lies or (if it is true) what was done was totally illegal and any lawyer looking for an easy score would be pounding down the doors of the people involved begging to represent them. Since that is not reported as happening, I think what is being reported is not true.
But roads aren't private property and not salable except in rare cases of private streets. Roads are public goods; shopping centers, sports stadiums, and auto malls are private commercially transactable goods. By the way, when private streets sell, it is usually for a huge discount or for a premium, neither of which reflect fair market value. Roads do add value to landlocked land; but may detract from nearby properties if the traffic becomes a nuisance. Good question though. WL
Here in California before the Redevelopment Law was reformed, you could condemn vacant "cornfields" or lots for redevelopment. And many cities did so before the law was changed. Actually, agricultural lands were condemned for flood channels, roads, etc. Before acquiring by eminent domain however a redevelopment project area must be formed, which is nothing more than a dragnet thrown over property so that the redevelopment agency can have first dibs at buying it in the future. I will try and write a sequel explaining more about redevelopment. WL
In reply to your unsupported charge that what I've written is untrue I offer the following. I've worked for three different public agencies buying land by eminent domain for public utilities and redevelopment. I've written over 35 articles in academic and professional journals on the subject. I've been a speaker numerous times at legal and real estate seminars on the subject. Outside of government, I have appraised property for owners impacted by redevelopment, including the three largest eminent domain court awards in California. WL
I never said that anything YOU said was untrue. However, I have posted on many eminent domain threads and there are MANY people there who post about a friend of a friend knew somebody who had their land taken without any compensation at all. If you have posted here very often on the subject, you know that it true. You also know (from you experience) that that is untrue.
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.