Family to lose home by eminent domain for Costco store

Boortz online ^ | September 12, 2003 | Neal Boortz

[tdadams]

YOU FOLKS HAD BETTER BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS

I'm going to revisit the eminent domain issue again for a few minutes here so that I can share with you an incredible display of arrogance from an elected official.

As you know, I've been talking about a situation in Alabaster, Alabama where the city council of this community of 24,000 is trying to seize the property of about ten homeowners so that a shopping center featuring a Wal-Mart can be built there. The politicians say that it is perfectly OK to condemn and seize this property for a privately owned shopping center because, after all, the shopping center will generate more tax money than these private homes do.

We are seeing the evolution of a new standard for government seizure of private property. Its very simple. If some politician decides that your property would generate more tax revenue for government if it was owned by someone else, the politician can seize that property from you and turn it over to the government-preferred owner.

For our example of obscene government arrogance we turn our attention to Duncanville, Texas. Duncanville calls itself "A warm community of friends," and "A wonderful place to raise a family." Well, Duncanville may be a wonderful place to raise your family, just so long as some politician doesn't decide that the city could get more tax revenue if your home were to become a Costco.

Deborah Hodge has been living in her Duncanville home for 13 years. The Hodge property has a four bedroom house, a bar, pasture and swimming pool. It has been a family gathering place for over a decade. Just like the city motto says, "A wonderful place to raise your family."

A few months ago the city told Deborah to sell her property. They didn't ask her if she wanted to sell. They told her that she would sell. She would either sell, or they would just take it. The city, you see, wants a Costco store to be built on her land. The Costco would, after all, generate a lot more tax revenue than her little house and barn. So ... Duncanville is using its right of eminent domain to seize the property.

Now ... listen to this. These are the words of Duncanville city manager Kent Cagle. This is what Kent Cagle thinks about private property rights in America. Cagle told the Dallas Morning News "They don't have the option to say no to us. We have made it clear we want that property. The only thing that will be settled in court is how much we have to pay for it."

There is no freedom without property rights. What is it going to take to get Americans upset about this latest craze in local government revenue raising. You just identify the properties that could produce more taxes, seize those properties, and turn them over to developers.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

Of those things, I believe eminent domain to be the most legitimate. This example, in my opinion, is not one of them.

I agree. Eminent domain is legitimate in very limited cases. To help a private developer make money, or to increase a tax base, are not legitimate reasons.

[still lurking]

I do not believe the government has the right to take her property. This case appears in part to be a major mistake on her part. She wanted to negotiate the deal without any advice or help. Unsophisticated? No, naive.

[longtermmemmory]

As in Montgomery, homeowners in the area soon found their houses were worth far less than the mortgage balance.

*** *** *** **

Which is why lean stripping in bankruptcy court is becoming popular. Before a secured creditor thought the home would keep their mortgage secured, now if you have a house valued at 100k but a mortgage for 150k you can have the unsecured 50k stripped off the house. This is especially driving the second mortgage and debt consolodation lenders crazy.

This would not change under the absurd proposed new bankruptcy laws either.

[pgyanke]

Maybe they didn't cash the checks.

This is hardly the point. If they had agreed to sell, there would be a contract for the checks. If the government just sent checks and took possession of the property as an assumption, that's still theft.

A financial reality for you... money is only useful to purchase property. If you have no right to the property your purchase, your money is worth squat.

Here's your concern back at you... I'm sending you a check for $1.00. The bulldozers will be there in a few hours...

[HurkinMcGurkin]

If the government just sent checks and took possession of the property as an assumption, that's still theft.

And its extremely highly unlikely that happened. Its nearly impossible. That's not how eminent domain works. Some people ignorant of the law do get screwed from time to time, but overwhelmingly, they get more than a fair price. If the home were bulldozed, the owners accepted, in writing, the offer. I don't know anything about the case, but almost every time I argue with someone about this type of thing, then waste hours researching it, it turns out the person who originally told the story didn't come close to having the facts.

A financial reality for you... money is only useful to purchase property. If you have no right to the property your purchase, your money is worth squat.

As demonstrated by my many posts, I agree. No one really owns property if there is property tax.

Here's your concern back at you... I'm sending you a check for $1.00. The bulldozers will be there in a few hours...

Right. This is why I hate arguing about eminent domain with people. Its a waste of time. Good day.

[pgyanke]

I absolutely agree with your post. Another example of the impact of the EO for environmental justice... this one is from CA also (surprise, surprise).

Just north of Santa Barbara along US101, there is a beautiful piece of property that you can see from the highway. The landowner wanted to develop his land and that would have required the cutting of some Live Oak trees. The "citizens" sued because the trees are rare for the area... FOR THE AREA.

As I recall, the citizenry won over the property owner and the trees were spared.

Forget about justice to redress wrong done to you. It is nothing more than a tool now.

[pgyanke]

Negotiations are one thing. If there's no contract, there's no deal. If there is a contract, I would expect the local government would produce it to forestall any more delays. That they have to fight in court doesn't bolster their position.

So she negotiated poorly... for this she loses her property? If she signed no contract, she is under no obligation.

[montag813]

You scream "her property" like this is the old West, or like that movie "Far and Away".

I can't believe you just said this. This is the most moronic quote I've heard all week.

Yeah, I said it. And I'll damned well say it again. If my home is worth $400,000 and the town says they have decided through a democratic process that I have to move, but that they are offering me $700,000 for my home, I would take the money, or even try to get a bit more through negotiations with an attorney. Then I could buy a new home (at cheap rates) a few blocks away, have $300,000 or more in the bank, and smile smile smile.

Like I said, the average American lives in their home for an average of 7 years. SEVEN YEARS! I have owned my last 3 cars for longer than that. Homes are nothing but a commodity. Let's not romanticize it into more than it is. That is why I mentioned "Far and Away". Eminent domain is never pretty but it has been done for over 200 years, with road, railroads, highways, malls, you name it. This woman was offered $700k for a $400k house. She is stupid to turn that down, imho.

[montag813]

Wrong. By the time she is done paying taxes(ie. Federal, State, City, etc. etc.) on that $700,000 she might be lucky to have half of it left. $350,000 is less than the $400,000 her house was appraised at.

Nope. She would pay ZERO taxes on capital gains up to $500,000, under current law. And this is a cap gain. So only $200,000 would be taxable. Also, since eminent domain is being used, she could negotiate a tax abatement from the State for the additional amount. She might still pay Federal on the $200,000, but she would net approx. $600,000 (or more) for a $400,000 home. Not bad. And if it were me, I would get a good attorney and negotiate a larger payment, say $800,000.

[pgyanke]

If my home is worth $400,000 and the town says they have decided through a democratic process that I have to move, but that they are offering me $700,000 for my home, I would take the money, or even try to get a bit more through negotiations with an attorney.

It takes a village, eh? I thought you belonged on DU... you've confirmed it.

I'll say it again... money is worthless unless it buys property. How much property it buys determines its worth (hence, inflation). If the property you buy can be revoked by your fellow citizens, then you never really owned it and money is truly worthless.

It doesn't matter if you were given 2X or 10X the value of the property in currency, if you allow the government to take your property without due process, currency is meaningless.

[montag813]

Good, God... Not only are you missing the point, you're missing the target, the barn, and various trees in the immediate area. If you rollover and take the money, you're validating this kind of crap and adding to the avalanche that's swamping individual rights in this country.

You make it sound like Eminent Domain is some new concept introduced by the Clintons. Remember the roads? Railroads? Highways? Pipelines? Tens of thousands of homes were destroyed to make way for the highway systems in a city like New York alone over the last 30 years. This is nothing new. It sucks, but I would take 185% of what my house is worth in a heartbeat, particularly in this bubble market, and when the appraised value (hers is $400k) typically exaggerates the market value.

[pgyanke]

You don't know cap gains.

In 1997, the rules on exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence changed to benefit the taxpayer. The changes resulted in a greater excludable gain and no age limitations. This means that taxpayers give up fewer dollars to taxes and have more dollars to invest. Briefly:

- An unmarried individual may exclude from income up to $250,000 of gain realized on the sale or exchange of a principal residence
- Married individuals may exclude $500,000 of gain Losses on sale of a residence are personal losses, and therefore, not deductible
- Only gains in excess of the excludable amount must be reported on Schedule D and receive capital gains treatment Ownership and use tests must be met:
-- Owned the home for at least two years, and
-- Lived in the home as main home for at least two years

In the example given, if she received $700K for the home she paid $110K for (assuming no improvements), her cap gain is $590K. She will owe cap gain taxes on $90K, if married, or $340K, if not.

[montag813]

But eminent domain is nothing new. Please see my Post 151

[pgyanke]

It's not that we think it's new, it's how it's being used that's the new problem. To a man, we've argued that eminent domain has its place for the public works. It doesn't allow for the transfer of property between citizens... regardless of the price.

[pgyanke]

I agree with you. My hyperbole wasn't meant to offend, just address the comment.

[hedgetrimmer]

There are thousands of environmental justice lawsuits going on right now. If you do a google search, you'd be shocked at how many are being pursued against property owners right now.

I don't know how environmental justice EO stay, its so unconstitutional. And a pox on the lawyers who have changed the court system to allow for a *.justice lawsuits. They are communist opportunists to the nth degree.

[hedgetrimmer]

the town says they have decided through a democratic process that I have to move

In a system based on laws your rights are protected. In a system based on the people having a right to say if you can stay on your property or not, you have communism. And the people who are not harmed by your use of property who try convince you that it is "democracy" to remove you from your property are communists.

[GETMAIN]

I would take the $700k as well.

But this has zero relevance to the issues of private property rights raised in this thread. Same with your comments about the 7-year average for home ownership.

Homes are nothing but a commodity. Let's not romanticize it into more than it is.

For many people, a home is much more than a commodity. Some people have a deep attachment to their homes and land, which may have been in their family for generations, built up and beautified with their own ancestor's blood and sweat. I doubt they are faking their sentimentality just to piss you off.

But this too, is irrelevant to the issue of private property rights.

[hedgetrimmer]

You obviously have no roots in your home or your town. Money obviously means more to some people than anything.

[cajun-jack]

a personal story...in 1972 my dad had a stroke that left him disabled. He loved to fish and had a very nice Monarch 14 foot heavy duty john boat. The kind they didn't make anymore. Up until he died in 1983, several people tried to buy it for as much as $500.00 (he only paid $50 for it back in the 60's). Dad wouldn't sell it and they would ask "why not, you can't use it anymore?" Daddy's reply was always the same "maybe not like I used to, but Jack can take me fishing once in a while when i feel up to it and it's paid for and doesn't take up much room and besides, dumbass, I told you I don't want to sell it!!!"

A boat might be a lot different from a home and land, but the principle was the same...maybe, dumbass, she just don't want to sell it."

not calling you a dumbass, just using the same answer my dad always gave them.