[still lurking]

I read an article in the Dallas News yesterday. The city offered her almost $700,000 for a home valued at $400,000. The homeowner claims that the offer was not made. The offer now is $223,000. I'm sure they wish that they hadn't been so greedy.

[pgyanke]

You consider that a good point? I don't care whether they offered her $10 million, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORCE HER TO RELINQUISH HER PROPERTY TO ANOTHER CITIZEN. Eminent domain is meant to be used (or has properly been used) to establish roadways and public usage. To take personal property from one citizen for the enrichment of another is not only immoral, it's illegal under our best traditions and most written law!

[blackdog]

If a city official or any government official makes an offer on a contract, it's in writing. Why don't you find out just who is lying to who on that "almost $700,000 offer" by seeing it in writing. In todays estimating world of math, $100,000 is close to $700,000.

I find it interesting that the author who reported the city's offer of $700,000 did not ask to see the offer?

[calljack]

No, they probally wish that the city would leave them alone so they could live in their home in peace. I have raised my kids in the house I live in now and would turn down offers even if they were 1/2 million above market value. There is a huge difference between "a house" and "a home". the size of the offer is not relevent to this conversation.

[Orangedog]

I read an article in the Dallas News yesterday. The city offered her almost $700,000 for a home valued at $400,000. The homeowner claims that the offer was not made. The offer now is $223,000. I'm sure they wish that they hadn't been so greedy.

Not wanting to sell your home to a developer makes you greedy these days...nice. I'd be more inclined to believe the homeowner that the offer was never made.

This is an abuse of eminent domain. The city isn't taking those homes to build a highway or a power plant. They are using that power to force them to sell their homes to developers who will make a very large profit from this deal. Is the government going to force the developers and new owners of this mall to share part of the rents they will collect on this property? No, they just want to force out the current owners as cheaply as possible and at the end of a gun if required.

[Jonx6]

"I'm sure they wish that they hadn't been so greedy."

Yeah! What were they thinking? Trying to live on thier own land, the nerve of some people!

[HurkinMcGurkin]

There are typically more to these stories than what is reported in a one sided comentary. I deplore eminent domain in 90% of all cases. A property owner can always take the municipality or State to court and make them prove the need for eminent domain. And that is a State court too. Even if the court agrees, the property owner has the right to hire their own consultant to value the property. Juries typically are sympathetic to property owners and side with them. I wonder if the property owner in this case did. I doubt it.

[moehoward]

"I'm sure they wish that they hadn't been so greedy."

Who is "they".

I seriously doubt that the home owner was offered nearly twice the appraised value.
On the other hand it is completely believable that the city would misrepresent their "offer" to the press.

[Blood of Tyrants]

It just may be that not all people are motivated by greed. Perhaps thay just didn't want to sell at ANY price.

[dirtboy]

I read an article in the Dallas News yesterday. The city offered her almost $700,000 for a home valued at $400,000. The homeowner claims that the offer was not made. The offer now is $223,000. I'm sure they wish that they hadn't been so greedy.

So what? If I don't want to sell, I shouldn't be forced to sell just because the government can make more taxes off my property. That is hardly the compelling interest upon which eminent domain was initially based.

[Orange1998]

The city offered her almost $700,000 for a home valued at $400,000.

Yeah Right! Don't believe everything you read. On this one it's best to read between the lines.

[HenryLeeII]

Its not necessarily greed - its THEIR HOME!!! If they don't want to move they don't want to move. Its not the government's right to force them out just to put in a freakin' Wal-Mart!

[Mulder]

The city offered her almost $700,000 for a home valued at $400,000. The homeowner claims that the offer was not made. The offer now is $223,000.

If they're only willing to pay her half what the house is worth, they need to be arrested on criminal charges of violating her civil Rights.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Who the hell cares how much they offered. It's not THEIRS to sell.

[countrydummy]

I'm sure they wish that they hadn't been so greedy.

Greedy? What about I don't want to sell?

[WackyKat]

I see. Giant Costco comes in, buys the local politicians and instructs them to force local people out of their homes so Costco can make a profit, and its the homeowners under attack who are greedy.

[Constantine XIII]

What if she didn't want to sell her house in the first place, eh? She never had the option of saying no. THAT is what is wrong, and that wouldn't change if they offered Bill Gates' bank account.

[Thumper1960]

Greedy?

You sure have alot to learn about personal property rights and what it means to be an "American", (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, et al.) and have the God given rights to be left alone. That land is their land. Not the land of some tyrant. Better the "official" be popped and his reign of treasonous thinking and behavior be wiped out than these folks lose their property.

Get real, poser.

[Protagoras]

I'm sure they wish that they hadn't been so greedy.

People who want to keep their own property = greedy.

The bizarro world of "conservatism" on FreeRepublic reveals itself again.