Posted on 10/02/2005 6:12:29 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
The key thing is that no legislature ever voted to permit the "state" to seize these properties. The law that permitted what is being called eminent domain granted seizure powers only in the case that the land was condemned. So the "state" (actually Jerry Jones, of course) is taking property by condemning the land. In other words, by ruling that the land is unfit to be dwelled in.
Once authority is given to a state to seize a land based on conditions set by that state, the state will inevitably be corrupted by that authority. THAT is why the founding explicitly denied the state that authority. It was NOT because it was concerned about people being asked to sacrifice for the good of the state. If it truly were for the greater good, then the state seizure of personal property could be justified. The issue is that the founding fathers recognized that states were not God; they were inherently corruptible. Thus freedoms and protections are granted to individuals, not because they believed that it was good that individuals did bad. That belief would be simply illogical. Rather, they believed that the state possessing such authority to determine for others what was good or bad would be corrupted by such authority, and thus the good of the many would be destroyed as well. And so the founding fathers created a system which sought the common good by ensuring that the manifold pursuit of individual interests led to the common good.
They took the wrong tack. Primary use should have been for a shelter in a time of disaster. Yeah, that'd work. ;/)
Well I don't care for pro sports of any kind requiring stadiums and their financings being intermingled with public funds, taxes, local governments and the like.
I don't know that voting in legislature is necessary, although I am probably wrong. I think in this case, the plans just needed to be approved by a voting quorum of the city government.
Takings can actually occur in three ways: actual condemnation for safety or health reasons, developments to land or buildings which restrict access to property and cause hardship upon the owner, or takings of property for public use with just compensation. All levels of government -- local, state, and federal -- must adhere to the principles of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. In the past, SCOTUS usually ruled that certain strictly authored zoning restrictions or building permits were violations of the takings clause, mainly because the government must prove a tight fit between the taking and its purpose.
I just don't see this ending as quickly as Jones might wish, although in the end he'll probably prevail.
Love them Cowboys, but this ain't right
The "offers" have nothing to do with the issue.
A stadium for a multimillion $ private corporation, sports team, does not constitute public use.
Dozens of economic history studies have been done that show that the local taxpayers never get back the $$ they invest in grand stadiums for private sports teams, except decades after the public was supposed to be repaid.
The reason is that the amount of annual income/revenue gain to the locality has never been what any of the stadium promoters said it would be. Never.
Publicly built/funded stadiums for major sports teams are no more than economic-political blackmail based on false premises.
Premise one - they need public support to build the stadiums. False. If that were true, then they could not afford the multi-million dollar salaries for players, and the owners would not all be multi-millionaires themselves. And if it is a good venue, economically, then there really is no problem for the team to obtain commercial bank financing. But banks have different standards than politicians and that would crimp the ROI the team owners want for themselves. Politicians are more generous with your money than banks are with theirs.
Premise two - they can build the stadium anywhere. False. They will build it where it is economically advantageous to them. But that would never be in the middle of nowhere because without the TV broadcast rights there's not enough money in it - TV viewers are not going to keep watching games played in empty stadiums. So, unless they finance the stadium themselves, they will blackmail some large city into the venture and play-off different cities against each other.
Premise three - Local revenue. The blackmail only works because the politicians promise the public what they cannot deliver - revenues from the team will pay off the public investment in a certain amount of time and after that it will continue to generate great income to the city. But they never have, ever. The stadiums get tax rebates usually, so right away local property owners will wind up paying more than if the stadium property was fully taxed. Most of the payroll is with the teams and most of the people connected to the team do not live in town and do not spend their money in town. The TV networks and the team owners receive the bulk of the large money and most of their money does not stay in town either. Per square foot of space - land or building - sports stadiums create far less permanent, fixed local jobs than any other industrial or commercial enterprise of the same size. And, their temporary but huge game-attendance creates traffic conditions that actually increase commercial transportation costs in the surrounding local area.
Premise four - they will "attract" other businesses. There are very few neighborhoods around a major stadium where the stadium alone has brought in alot of additional businesses and few stadium neighborhoods are considered areas that people desire to go to for reasons other than a game. Most stadium areas become single-venture areas that are deserted when there is not a game. The economic magnet never happens. The hotel/resturant business is helped far less by stadiums than other types of tourist venues because most of any additional business comes from the teams, not the fans.
I wish there was a league of major American city governments where they jointly told the sports teams to pay 100% of their own money for their stadiums and where the economics was understood well enough that the mayors did not give in to blackmail. Some big cities might then lose teams for purely economic reasons. That's O.K., they shouldn't worry or cave-in to pressure, there are greater economic uses that the land can be put to.
gee, how about nuking the old stadium in Urving, and building a new one in it's place?
I guess that's thinking too far outside the box.
I agree, now that would be a good idea!
Just another reason for me to hate and not watch professional sports.
Let the owners and PRIVATE financers of the stadium negotiate one on one with each property owner in the free market. No government involvement
those home values will drop
Irving doesn't want to pay for a new stadium. Jerry Jones never paid his rent for the stadium anyway
Altho the situation with NE mall in Hurst makes me mad to this day. It isn't the mall itself that expanded. What is now where those neighborhoods were is a BIG strip center. . . called the shops at NE Mall or somesuch. Not physically a part of the mall, but a strip center attached to the road into the mall.
And if I recall there was a woman dying of cancer that they threw out of her house too.
*shrugs* I grew up in this area. And I am just sickened by the greed in the mid-cities city gov'ts.
I kinda thought so, especialy residental areas.
Now we are wondering what to do with this big thing with a hole in the top. If we want to keep it as a municipal school stadium it would be cost effective to just take off the entire roof. Maintainence is a pain. Most of the parking could be sold off to businesses.... if they wanted it.
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.