Posted on 02/15/2020 4:48:38 AM PST by karpov
Bike paths are not used much and they take two lanes of road from a street. They are a net negative wherever they appear.
This project was being funded by the Feds under the "shovel ready jobs" B.S. As such the project was subject to Federal regulation and part of those regs required a minimum distance between the pathway and the street. This in turn meant destroying the value of the private residence as the Federal rules would require the pathway built right up against the home and the substantial lose of the carport and garage.
Our Democrat Mayor said NO! We were not going to treat our people like that. Emanate Domain be damned. His point being we can do something nice for the community without abusing individuals.
The result was the bike path was built,without Federal funds. At the home in question a much smaller chunk of land was taken, and fully paid for. To make things better for the home owner, the entire driveway and carport area was remade into a very attractive "herring bone brick" style which in the end will probably increase the property value. All this with the fully negotiated approval of the home owner. All this resulting in all parties being satisfied.
That is how E.D. was supposed to work.
They're too slow. They don't get out of the way.
Property taxes opened the door to that sort of confiscation generations ago. You are at best renting your property from the all powerful State.
“”Just compensation” means that the government should have to pay the full value of the property that the government used to assess property tax upon the owner.”
That is likely to screw over the property owner if the assessment is based on current and historical use, and there is a higher-profit use it could be put to.
I support eminent domain for the construction of these pedestrian/bike paths.
But it must be done fairly and in accordance with the law.
That also applies to those "pesky pedestrians."
Regards,
Yes, it ended up being a Pfizer building from across the river, then when they wanted out, my old company Electric Boat bought the building (LITERALLY across the river, so actually more sensical than the Pfizer complex to the south).
We finally visited again in 2015 and I got to see what happened with all this. It’s next to the old Fort Trumbull which I never got to visit when I lived there. Frankly I would not be happy as an engineer all the way across the river from the actual shipyard (yes, my old mentor told me about moving them), but there you go.
This is about pathways specifically for bikes (and peds).
Better they keep them off the roads.
Sincere thanks for your work at Electric Boat - one of the companies that keeps America safe.
Personally I think it must be done with an eye to ROI.
Seriously, are these going to be used much? “Parks” and the like allegedly a “public good”, but again - will it be used much? We KNOW “bike roads” as in primary transport lanes will NOT be used much. Huge ROI failure.
We have this nonsense all over our PC NAZI county now - and in Baltimore, FGS!
Wow, you’re welcome. That was a long time ago, and a short time, but a period I will NEVER forget.
The bike trails in our area are enormously popular. They are not just for biking. Children roller skate and play. People walk their dogs and there are many who simply enjoy a pleasant stroll.
It would be my guess that most people only use about a mile or two from their nearest trail entrance.
No it isn't. Bike paths are not a necessary element for any community.
Yes they are usually popular for fun, but is that what this is? And is the area OK that it’s really used, or avoided? We also have parks that while perfectly safe, are unknown because they’re hidden. Unsafe or hidden, some parks don’t cut it for attendance.
I agree with you. There is no “need” for fun.
It’s nice, but Teddy Roosevelt’s idea was actually flawed and a violation of constitutional principles.
Do you see the word "necessary" anywhere there?
I'd make the case that public schools, fire departments, police departments, hospitals, and almost any other public use is not a "necessary element" of a community.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Governments should have to pay, at a minimum, a 20% premium over the value assessed for property tax purposes.
I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this. Let's see what the Constitution has to say about it...
From Article 1, §8, "To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;"
I fail to see how a park is related in any way to any of these 'needful buildings'. Sure, parks are nice things, but they are certainly not, in any way, 'needful', and bear no relation to a fort, magazine, arsenal, or dockyard. I would be willing to extend the above to necessary infrastructure, but a park does not qualify as such in any way. If they want to build a park, great. They should, like any other developer, find a willing seller. By virtue of being a government agency, they already have advantages as a buyer, in that they can offer tax abatements and other incentives that most other buyers would not have.
Kelo was an absolute travesty of justice, and has led to much nastiness and abuses by government at every level.
You’re citing a provision of the Constitution that relates to the powers of CONGRESS, not a state government. Read Amendment #10.
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.