In a nutshell, Mrs. Brazell has a signed contract to sell 311 acres of land to a developer.
The country wants her to sell 323 acres to them for about two million dollars less. They want it for a park, despite the fact that the Parks department has said the land is not suitable for what the county wants to do with it. Hall County is attempting to complete the sale before the lame duck commissioners leave office by using eminent domain.
Oh, why does the county want 323 acres and the developer only wants 311?
The county wants the 12 acres that her home sits on.
Well, i guess it sucks for her that the offer is less than that of the contractor. I also don’t understand why the county can’t let her keep the 12 acres with the buildings. But, on the whole, this is actually one of the few cases where i would support the principle of eminent domain. The land is intended for public use, and it appears that at least some local residents would prefer a park to more residential housing.
If the hearing mentioned in the articles finds that the county’s offer is too low, then the county should be forced to make an offer at market rate. And the contractor should be compensated for any expenses incurred so far in its attempt to purchase the site. And i think the woman should be allowed to keep her twelve acres and a house. But if these conditions were met, i’d really have no trouble with the affair.
If you want to see some really egregious abuses of eminent domain, check out this report.
Now, if there were going to pay her what the developer is going to pay her, fine. But again, the Parks department doesn’t want the parcel, and the county wants the land her house is on as well.
I don’t care if the Parks Department doesn’t want the land. I think the county is doing the right thing by saving it from developers. Better to let it stay fallow than to give it to those rapists.
You know, usually you and I have similar politics, though we use completely different ways in which to express ourselves, however you are one fucked up human being.
The developer is offering X+$2M for less land than the county is offering X for and you say “fuck her”? Fuck you. It is HER land, and fuck the county for trying to brow beat her into taking less money for more land that the Parks Department does not want, and trying to steal her house in the process.
I’m sorry, DtC, that was a personal attack on you where it was nto necessarily warranted, and even if it is, yit was still way over the top. I have been in a shitty mood all morning and you didnt deserve that.
Hey Diogenes - fuck you. If the county wants the land so bad, they should offer more money than the developer is. If she doesn’t want to sell it to them, too bad.
I swear, if there was a way to go back in time and amend the constitution, I would throw in a clause specifically prohibiting the taking of property under eminent domain.
<previews>
CuriousCanuck, no need to apologize. That is indeed one fucked up view that Diogenes apparently holds.
So you do not believe that people should have a right to sell private property to anyone besides the gov’t?
She’s going to use that money for her retirement. I also have a problem with sprawl, but the gov’t condemning land via eminent domain is not the way to solve it.
How about forcing developers to make sure the schools and roads are in place before building a subdivision? How about setting a minimum lot size so you don’t have houses crammed cheek to jowl?
The property is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. The developers want to pay $8 million or so. The least the gov’t can to is pay at least that much. But how is that a wise use of taxpayer dollars, buying a piece of land that the county cannot use?
I have no problem with the town wanting to buy the land to avoid having more residential property going up.
I do, however, object to the idea that eminent domain puts the proposal at anything other than theft: market value for the property has already been established. If the town wanted to keep the land from being developed, they could and should have bought, at least, the development rights before this. If they want to match the offer already on the table, fine. If they increase the compensation for her house and the attendant 12 acres, likewise fine. As it stands, however, this is nothing more than NIMBY dressed up in pretty shabby clothing.
I will admit, however, my view of eminent domain and the reasons people do it is a bit stunted by family history. My grandfather, when he moved out of the city bought a very large plot of land, with the intent of letting the trees on it grow until he could log it, and then repeating the procress. While the trees were growing, he allowed his neighbors to hunt on his land, with no problems, since, after all, what will a few deer hunters do to the value of timber land?
As it turned out, quite a lot. When it came time to start logging, my grandfather got slapped with an injuction against logging, while they began eminent domain proceedings to take the land from him. Because they didn’t want to lose their hunting grounds. They tried to pay him what he’d paid for the land approximately 10-15 years previously, and were kept from doing that - but, they still didn’t pay near what the logging rights would have netted. And there’s logging equipment out there, still, rusting into nothingness, since it was purchased before they began their eminent domain proceedings.
Emminent domain is being (ab)used for an awful lot more then just transportation, though. For example, some counties and cities are beginning to use an emminent domain to take (older, lower-density) land from homeowners and resell it to developers with the justification that they need to increase their tax revenue. It’s scary stuff. There’s currently a case before the Supreme court on this very topic.
Or google Costco eminent domain. There’s a few doozies. My two favorites are the one where Costco got the city of Cypress to try and take a church’s property and give it to Costco and the Lancaster incident where Costco threatened to move out of the city unless the council voted to use eminent domain to shut down a competing 99 cent store next door and give the property to Costco for $1.
To clarify my position, I think the lady should still be paid market value and that eminent domain should only be invoked to serve environmental concerns or some compelling community interest (like keeping out a Walmart).
So the Australian government can exercise eminent domain, but only “on just terms”. Note, however, that this provision does not apply to the states of Australia: they can acquire property on unjust terms.
What the hell has become of you? I have been your staunchest defender in the past, but I’m now beyond the end of my rope. Posts like that are poison and all I can think is that I wish you had to drink it. On preview, I see your clarification, but it is no better. All you’ve done is clarify that as long as it suits you, it’s okay. How can you complain about the tyranny of George Bush when you yourself are a petty advocate of tyranny against people you don’t even know? When you say things like that, you look like a George Bush bobble-head doll. You constantly complain about being victimized by someone else’s idea of what is good for you, and yet you turn around and do the same yourself. You’re like the man who has been forgiven an enormous debt, and then hounds everyone who owes him a nickle. I doubt this post will change your mind, and so I hereby bid you good-bye as a friend.
Of course, “compelling community interest” can also mean bringing IN a Walmart, which is just as much bullshit as keeping one out. Anyway, if you want to keep a business out, you do it via zoning, not eminent domain. Taking away someone’s property is not something to be done lightly.