But it’s always had the potential for massive abuse.
My grandfather, at one point, tried to make a long term investment in buying a tract of wooded property in upstate NY. Since he was holding onto the land to allow the wood to grow to be harvestable timber, he saw no reason to keep the neighbors from hunting on the land.
Well, come time to harvest the timber, and not only was eminent domain used to take his land from him before he could harvest, but they tried to pay him for the land as “undeveloped,” ignoring the economic potential of the wood. As best I can date this, it happened in the late fifties.
One of the tragic aspects of this ruling, beyond the personal toll, is that of architecture lost. When Victorian-era structures are razed, a hole has been cut in the cloth of a city, and whatever is built in their place won’t make the hole disappear. I’ll take a block of brownstones with brackets, dentil molding, and ceiling medallions of plaster over any glass and EFIS structure, bereft of character.
This isn’t a surprising decision; these laws have been on the books for some time. But it was, in my opinion, a wrong decision.The government should not have the power to force one private citizen to sell his property to another private citizen for the good of the “community” - which is essentially what this decision supports.
I am not sure that I get your question. I think that you are trying to make some point about Constitutional Originalism, or some such, but I would need clarification.
Basically, what I was trying to do is to be intellectually honest here and point out from the beginning that I am not so blinded by my political biases that I am unable to agree with folks that I normally find vile.
Look, when it comes to matters of interpreting the law and the constitution I have no trouble admitting that I am a laymen. While I am sure that you find that quaint, in your lawyerly way, I will point out that there is also inherent value in my perspective. This is because I am one of the people that the Law should be trying to serve as it attempts to more perfectly reflect the Good.
Cliffy, thank you for your little refresher course on exactly where most Liberals are coming from. It’s one of the scariest concepts I can think of, it’s good to be reminded of exactly how terrifying and dangerous that Liberal philosophy actually is. Try to mention it to a few more people each day, will you? Thanks awfully.
When it went from government ownership to private ownership, it went wrong.
People have been getting around that for a long time but no easily. Now it will be easy.
The lone holdout on the new expressway or mega anything can be accommodated as a lone house with attendant ‘old guy’ has shown. Expressway curves when ‘entire communities’ were united in defense of… and had a good argument.
The worth of the individual right is to be fought for, not against and even if it is not efficient in all ways, I feel that the expense of accommodating the individual is worth it if it protects a fundamental right. ( define it anyway you want, that is why the SCOTUS heard the case ) I think the decision is wrong in general but understand where it could be correct in individual cases. So why not decide on a case by case instead of a big brush law?
Often not as simple as that especially when it comes to major developments. Things like full size shopping malls and high schools have huge impacts on traffic and other infrastructure around the area. They also have to be placed where people will actually go. If you live in a nice neighborhood you usually to go to a nearby grocery store. If relevant commercial space was not zoned for initially or conditions change in the area adjustments need to be made to allow everyone access to the various service we all need. If 200 people need to move so that 3000-5000 people (probably including the 200) have better access to schools, grocery stores, banks, whatever then yes it is a good thing. Its inconvenient, but an important part of preserving the integrity of property values for everyone, not just the developers of comercial real estate. New businesses are usually a benefit to everyone, more taxes, more jobs, more opportunities.
Any eminent domain thread invariable screams about how homeowners are having their homes effectively stolen from them. That is pure bullshit and you know it.
I have an ex-gf who did home buyouts and relocation assitance for these types of situations. The only time you see heavy jackbooted thuggery is when people accept the buyouts and or relocation assistance money and THEN refuse to move, drag out the process, etc, etc. OF course the now displaced people are crying to the reporters about how unfair it all is, but they were more than happy to accept the big fat check the city gave them to find a new apartment.
You can choose to believe that, but I just don’t think it’s true. I think city officials miht like it that way, but as long as people who cut taxes get elected and re-elected, there is a natural check on the horrors you imagine.
Weirddave. To be fair, I really don’t think that this is where most Liberals are coming from (although your post makes an excellent sound byte). While it is true that Liberals believe that the State can (and perhaps should) solve social problems, and while it is true that Liberals tend to not think about unintended consequences (not that the current “Conservatives” in power at the moment are, either), I think that you will find that most Liberal will feel that this is way over the line.
Sure, the focus may be more on the issue through the filter of Big Money screwing The Little Guy (rather than, say, Property Rights ) but the fact remains that IMO this particular issue has a huge potential to bring folks from a lot of differing camps together.
And keep in mind that most people here are not arguing against eminent domain for public use projects, such as roads, high schools, libraries, et cetera. The concept of someone’s house being taken away so a developer can build a strip mall or movie theater or parking lot (hey, it generates revenue!) is what rankles.
Whaddaya mean, “most liberals”? He’s the only liberal in this entire thread who thinks this is a good idea. And that includes me. We need a constitutional ammendment banning the entire concept of “emminent domain.” Of course, protecting the property rights of the individual is apparently going to have to wait until we hammer out the far more vital ammendments about locking up hippie freaks who burn flags and making sure Godless homos don’t get married. We’ve got priorities in this country!
“Most liberals”? You’re basing this on what, exactly? I’m a liberal, and I think Cliffy is 100% full of shit. I know quite a few liberals, and I can guarantee that not a single one of them thinks this is a good thing.
I’m sure it’s easier to deal with liberals as you’ve created them in your head, but when you make sweeping statements about what we all think or believe that contradicts what we actually think and believe it makes you look like an ignorant dumbass.
The problem is that your logic is flawed. Let me give you a very real life example. Before I moved to Seattle, I lived in Vermont for many, many years. Time after time and in election after election the people of that state voted for people that were going to raise taxes over folks that stated that they were going to cut them.
The analogy is not 100% perfect, because the motivation was different. Specifically, Vermonters (as a voting group) valued things like land conservation, universal healthcare for children and so forth and made those values clear in the way that they voted.
While it is a trend for voters to blindly vote for the low tax guy, and indeed one that has been rather ruthlessly exploited, it is by no means universally true.
How about financing loans to small businesses from tax revenues?
I’m not putting up a strawman here, because I really don’t know your politics on this issue. To me, the principle is the same, and I’m interested if you see if a difference.
This provides way too much power to corporations and the local governments that they buy. Eminent domain is great for freeways, as that’s the only way they’d get built. And I can even see if for great mega-projects that truly have a huge economic impact. You might recall the General Motors Poletown project some 20 odd years ago in Detroit (Hamtramck). A case like that, where thousands of good jobs are the prize is one thing. A strip mall is something else.
Some of this kind of stuff can be compensated for, moving expenses, differentials in finding comperable housing, etc, etc. If anything else nearby is $100,000 more than your appraisal something is wrong with your appraisal or your house. You have every right to get your OWN appraisal and challenge a significant difference in value. If I was faced with an eminent domain issue I would be getting my own appraisal promptly no matter what the city was offering. If you are loooking at the buyout of a home you have lived in for any significant time, the cost of an appraisal is pocket change compared to the amount of money you will recieve from the buyoff. You will most likely be able to put a nice down payment on a nicer house in a nicer neighborhood and buy yourself a new car.