So, if someone wanted to build affordable, low-income housing in an otherwise middle/upper-middle class neighborhood, you’d be okay with the county using eminent domain to keep the poor people out and protect the property values of the affluent citizens already living there?
Only if you’re specifically rebutting Blalron.
I already said I oppose it in those cases. I think it should only be used to protect a community from damage, not to make the community a profit.
The question has to be considered in terms of what is need for the community as a whole, not just for one neighborhood but for the entire town. If the need for low income housing is great, and more people will be damaged by the lack of it, then those needs would take precedence. If the development can be done somewhere that doesn’t have a potential for affecting the property values of others then that should be preferred.
It’s a minor issue, though. There is a world of difference between the damage that is done to entire towns by Satan’s Walmart and the relatively minor potential for a slight dip in property values for a minority of home owners (and I would have to see a convincing case that those values would really be affected before I would invoke ED).
Only if you’re specifically rebutting Blalron.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough – and, as you know, the Constitution addresses the taking of property too - at least without just compensation. I know you’re in favor of compensation, although I think you have some funny ideas about what “just” means.
I agree that all we’re really arguing about is what constitutes “just compensation.”
This is a different can of fish. Marriage, according to the Supreme Court, is a “fundamental right” (Loving vs Virginia). And in light of precedents such as Romer and Lawrence, it’s a possibility the court could rule it’s a right homosexual couples have too.
However, it’s quite impossible for the court to overturn the explicit wording of the 5th amendment. The Constitution clearly says that you don’t have an absolute right to keep your property.
Well, the Supreme Court says it’s fair market value - what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller. US v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369 (1943).
I’m not sure how, under that standard, we can simply erase Walmart’s offer in computing just compensation.
A situation where I live:
The country declared a green line (zoning that allows only farming). The land can be sold, but it’s almost worthless (too small for farming). There it sits, growing weeds.
Someday, another developer will bribe the right polician and a WalMart will go in.
I think there should be a way to counteract grossly inflated offers that the community can’t compete with. I don’t believe that a price can necessarily be called “unjust” simply because someone else offered more.
But if they offer it, and get called on it, they presumably have to pay it. So it’s not like Wal*Mart can offer infinity-billion dollars for a tract of land that the county wants to pay $37 for to use as a hospice for crokin’ cancer kids, or something.
Don’t get me wrong: I consider corporations (as presently implemented in the US), to be inherently evil. I think that granting them the same rights as individuals without requiring that they take the risks and responsibilities of a person has created a culture of sociopathic organizations with an unparalleld amount of political and financial power who persue profits above all other interests, and I truly loathe them.
But addressing the problem by stripping rights away from individuals (like the lady in the OP) is not the right way to address the problem.
Doh! When I say “corporation” I mean “large corporation.”
I’ve had plenty of good experiences with small companies, but the bigger they get…
But she’s got huge…tracts of land!
The “Fuck you Jack, I’ve got mine” school of public policy. Very popular among American home owners.
Then stop calling it “fair market value”, and start calling it “decree of democratically elected officials, subject to the popular will value”.
How is this lady being selfish? She is being very sensible…providing for her retirement so she is not a burdern on the rest of society.
She has a signed contract with a developer who wants to put up a retirement community. It is not up to the gov’t to interfere with that agreement by spending taxpayer dollars on a tract of land it cannot use. If anything, all those retirees will spend money in the community, providing more tax dollars for the county to provide services. A park, although pretty, doesn’t generate as much revenue.
You believe the worst of people, Dio, and I’m sorry for that. You believe people are out to get you, and that Big Brother must stop them. I believe that people, left to their own devices, will (for the most part) do what is best for themselves. And how is that bad, with every individual responsible for his or her own welfare?
OK, in all honesty, I don’t really hope the developers pave the entire land. I was being facetious to express my frustration at the attitude that Mama Gubmint can do no wrong and must provide for all of our needs, despite any opinions to the contrary.
Socialism is a failure. It has failed in the past, it is failing now, and it will fail in the future. You don’t see a lot of citizens from capitalist countries sneaking into socialist countries. But you sure do see a lot of the converse. Wonder why that is? Why would they want to leave the protection of Mama Gubmint? Probably because all socialism guarantees is that everyone suffers equally.
Seems to be working well enough for most of Western Europe.
Yes, if you’re willing to pay high taxes.
I’d rather keep most of my money and provide for myself, thank you very much. Why should I let someone else take care of me? I’m young, healthy, educated, smart, and quite capable of providing a living for me and mine. Why turn over most of my money to some inefficient bureaucracy to take care of me when I can do it for better and cheaper myself?
Because you recognize that many people don’t have your education, health, gifts, and skills and are unable to procure basic social services for themselves; furthermore, you care enough about other people that you don’t mind giving up some of your money to see those services provided to them?
At least, that’s why I don’t mind paying taxes.
(And I’d take issue with “innefficient.” I don’t buy the line that government beuracracies are any less efficient then corporate beuracracies.)
And why can’t I donate to charities and help centers directly?