[conspiracy theory]Is it possible these commissioners have a vested interest in the land? It’s odd that the commissioners would force the issue considering the statement from the Parks Department that the land is not suitable for their purposes. Unless of course, said commissioners are just idiots and/or assholes…[/conspiracy theory]
Well, %75 of market value isn’t too bad for government work. If this were in California I bet %75 of market value would be what she was taxed on, if even that!
On the balance of things, if the gov’t paid her at least %90 of market value and indeed intended to use the land for public purposes, I see no reason not to allow it.
But since the park service doesn’t even want it, it seems fishy to me, and I wouldn’t be surprised if not too soon after they take the land from her if it isn’t sold to another party for, ohhh, $8 million. Perhaps that same developer. (Or, more likely, sold to a mall developer or other quasi-public-but-not-really developer for $7 mill or even less, who coincidentally has tight ties with the government.)
I’m not talking about taking away someone’s property, I’m talking about a community having the right to buy a piece of property which is in danger of being sold to a dangerous or unscrupulous party. I do not favor invoking eminent domain for a property which an owner does not want to sell at all, only that they should have the right to pay fair market value and keep it from being sold to an entity which will hurt the entire community. Communities have rights too. One person does not have a right to harm a whole town. The “county” is nothing but other individuals protecting their own interests. If development will hurt their own interests, their own property values, their own quality of life then they should have a right to protect themselves collectively. They can pay Grandma whatever the land is worth, stay away from her residence and everybody’s happy.
I’m sure that someone is going to try to argue that she has a right to sell it for as much as she can get and if someone offers more then she should not be prevented from getting more. I disagree that any such right exists, or at least that any such right can trump the vital interests of the community which would be affected by it, but then again, I am pretty much an out and out commie.
What is “fair market value” if not “as much as she can get”?
Eh. Looks pretty typical.
County makes a lowball offer. Property owner insists on review by appraisers and a decision by a special master. If the special master still comes in with a low number, the property owner can take it to a jury to determine “fair market value.” I’m sure a jury would weigh heavily the offer by the developer in making this determination.
It is premature to evaluate this case before it has reached its end.
Note: The county was unaware of the developer’s offer when it set its own valuation. It is not like the county heard about the developer’s offer and then came in and tried to condemn the property for less.
And the reason for the rush? The incoming commissioner has a financial interest in seeing the sale to the developer go through. (Read the whole article carefully.)
I have no idea how that’s determined but I’m sure that someone like Walmart could offer mor than the land is worth. Just because an offer is not the highest doesn’t mean it’s not fair.
I should clarify my last post by saying that the county did not know the terms of the developer’s contract before setting its price.
In terms of money, a thing is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it. The offer from the developer has set the value of the property. If the county wants it, they need to pay that much.
Aw, bullshit. It’s worth what it’s worth. It’s possible to pay more than it’s worth.
Worth is relative. What’s worth $20 to you may only be worth $5 to me. The worth of the land is what the developer has estimated it’s worth to be, the city needs to match it.
And who decides who is dangerous or unscrupulous?
Correct. But neither does a county have to right to harm an individual.
You are advocating governmental interference and mob rule in private transactions, something I cannot suport. The individual is the smallest minority. Trample an individual’s rights, and you trample society as a whole.
All well and good, as long as they are going to match her current offer. If not, it’s stealing.
That would be me, but I’m a die hard capitalist. I guess never the 'twain shall meet. 
A nonsensical contradiction. A good or service is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it. No more, and no less.
So, do you live in a cave or on a piece of forrested, undeveloped land? Or do you live in a subdivision that was created by rapists?
NO. I think the community has a right to protect itself from getting unfairly outbid by evil, conniving, raping corporations. Just because an offer isn’t the highest doesn’t mean it isn’t fair.
So how do you determine the fair price?
I don’t care if the old woman wants to sell it to the government to perform nuclear testing. It is her land. She should be able to sell it to whomever she wants for whatever price she can obtain. If that upsets her neighbors who want to use HER land for something else, too bad. They should have bought the land for $1 more than the “greedy developers”.
As for communities having rights, :rolleyes: . They have rights, alright…the right to buy the land themselves. They shouldn’t have the right to whine to Mama Gubmint because they aren’t getting their way.
I hope she makes a killing on her land, and the developers come in and pave the entire thing. We don’t need more parks. In a vote between trees, woodland creatures, and PEOPLE, I choose people. Every time.
Just because some land has been developed doesn’t mean that it should be open season on all available undeveloped land. Don’t be absurd.
I totally agree. I know I am in the minority here (and you probably didn’t mean this either), but I have absolutely no intrest at all in the environment. People should be able to do whatever they want with land that they own, including huge tracts of land owned by huge corporations. If someone wants it preserved then they can buy it and preserve it.
I don’t know. Aren’t there assayers or something who do that? Let the community hire some objective real estate experts or something and settle on an average estimate.
I think there has to be a way for a community to protect itself from a Satanic entity like Walmart from paying a grotesquely inflated price that the town can’t match.
All the people bitching in this thread about how this lady’s imaginary rights are being violated would be the first to complain about anything that compromised their own property values, or the businesses or the quality of life in their community. Private land cannot be segregated or compartmebtalized in a fashion that does not affect anyone else. Everyone that owns a house has to comply with certain standards about maintaining the lawn and the house so it doesn’t fuck with other people’s property values.
Conservatives complain all the time about strip clubs in their neighborhoods or homeless shelters or other legal uses of property that they don’t like. I sense a little hypocrisy here.
Well, I wouldn’t go that far, but it is her land. She has the right to dispose of it as she feels best. If she can get $8 million, go for it.
What I cannot stand for is the government coming in and deciding what one should do with one’s property. It’s not theirs, it’s hers. If she wants to donate it to the Catholic Church or the KKK, it’s all the same to me.