Define “having a hand.” Private corporations “had a hand” in developing nearly every piece of environmental legislation ever passed. You don’t think that the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangerd Species Act, etc. etc. etc. (and as flawed as some are) came about without significant input from private corporations, do you?
Who are you suggesting develops laws in the first place? Just the legislators? Have you ever spoken with one for any length of time? They are generally the LAST people who should be making laws without any input from all the stakeholders.
Well, it could be easily abused and that is troubling.
But there are certain areas that simply won’t see economic development without this. To me, what it comes down to is the ‘just compensation’ and the states should write clear guidlines to what is a declining neighborhood.
All of the above, in my case. I think this is a bad idea because it violates the principle of property rights and I think it will be applied in ways that favor big corporations and will create a whole new arena for government corruption.
I have one simple rule. Absent extrordinary circumstances, a buy-out offer should never leave the prior owner “upside down” with regards to their equity in the property, especially if it is a homestead. Many homeowners are upside down for at least part of their time as a homeowner with the understanding that they will build equity in a few years. If, during that time, their property is condemned and sold for below market value then they have no equity and a sound, prudent financial decision(buying a home) has been turned into ruin.
Exceptions would be given for those who buy property and then run its value into the ground. I don’t care how much the people who let their dogs piss all over the house and knock holes in the walls for fun owe on the house they are busily trashing. They ruined the value of the house themselves an it was not the disparity between the free market and the government assessments which did that particular homeowner in.
Still, a good-faith homesteading owner or family should not bear individual financial burden because of a decision they had nothing to do with. Especially in today’s housing markets someone could buy a home with very little equity(taking advantage of low rates) and suddenly find that property condemned and they lose not only the home but all the loan fees and closing costs as well. It is hard enough to break even on a home in a short period of time. If the state/county wants to take it from someone who is “upside down” then the least they could do is pay the value of the note the homeowner still owes.
The thing is, there already is a blight exception in most states. This seems to have been opposed by residents with a good prima facie case that their properties weren’t blighted, & allowed by a Supreme Court that said, “Well, we think the city government knows best, because it’s the city government.” Anyone who has ever organized for a local politics issue is likely to be chilled by that one.
The government didn’t even use eminent domain when setting up the national parks. When I was at the Grand Canyon several years ago, I saw a private home within park land. It was near the campsite on the South Rim, it sat on a small plot of land surrounded by a split-rail fence, and a sign on the fence said PRIVATE PROPERTY. NO TRESSPASSING. Someone told me that there were indeed holdouts who refused to sell their land, so the government just set up the park around them. Supposedly, the owners can only sell these houses to the government, or else leave them to family members.
I think the person who wrote that article hit the nail on the head. Developers always sell their projects as a sure success that will boost the city’s economy. But, as the reporter observes:
What happens when some of these projects fail, as some of them inevitably will? The city will be in the same straightened financial position that it was before, and the only difference is that some people will have been turfed out of their homes.
Also, one of the ways that cities and towns often sell the benefits of such developments is that they will boost the town’s economy by bringing in tax revenue. But, as the reporter also notes, in attempting to attract these sorts of developments,
Now, you can argue about whether taxing businesses is a good of bad thing. But, whatever your position on this issue, the fact is that it would be rather inconsistent of a city to argue that a new development will bring in tax revenue, while at the same giving massive tax breaks in order to encourage that development. I see very little good coming of this decision.
Another liberal who disagrees with the Supreme Court here. Frankly, I was shocked and stunned by the “liberal” lineup coming down with this.
Now had an excellent show covering this decision last week.
As I think about it, I believe that one strong factor in this phenomenon is the illogical manner in which municipal jurisdictions are created. When you can have tiny, homogenous areas that can incorporate as cities, it seems to me that you take a greater risk that economic swings will have disproportionate effects on one municipal entity or another.
All this is a way of saying that this is another reason we need to move towards metropolitan local government. A municipal government that has the benefit of a diverse economic and land-use base and must take into consideration the good of a wide variety of interests is more likely to be able to survive short-term downswings without having to sell the store in order to pay today’s bills.
The ruling stinks. Even if I thought it was a good idea (I don’t) I would still be against it because this is way too much power for government to have.
Thanks everyone, but all I was really looking for was for someone who supports the ruling to spell out the connection between that particular position and their ideological stance in general.
The legitimate definition of “blight” is “a condition where the neighbors have demonstrable cause to demand that you clean up your vermin-infested firetrap, or else the government will act to protect their health and safety”.
