I heard on the radio today the San Diego city counsel voted 8-1 to sieze a cigar store so the Mariot can build a hotel there. While I cannot find this story, here is a similar one where a city in Virginia is taking a junkyard and giving it to Coca Cola. I’ve heard of this happening in Alabama as well.
I’m guessing the theory is the city can either a) keep the coorporations happy or b) generate more tax revenue by having a huge hotel in there district instead of a tiny cigar store.
How can this be a legal use of imminent domain? The city/state isn’t building a public highway thorugh the cigar shop, or putting up a building of their own, or turning it into a public park - they’re just stealing someone’s land and handing it to a higher bidder. This worries me. Will this/has this reached the Supreme Court, and what was/will be their decision?
When the Texas Rangers needed a new stadium, they not only got the local govt to condemn the land for the stadium, but also a lot of surrounding farm land. That extra land is now covered with malls and other developments. The people who owned the land got diddly. They’d be rich if they had been allowed to keep it.
Since the Texas Rangers have a Friend in The Highest Place in the US, who in turn got there via his friends in The Highest Court in the US, don’t expect any decisions against these kind of shenanigans in our lifetimes.
I’ve rewritten this because we’re in GQ and not GD. I think the following is, ahem, fair and balanced.
The use of eminent domain to benefit businesses, because businesses will almost invariably pay more in taxes than the residences they displace, was the subject of a Wall Street Journal editorial denouncing it. (April 22.) Since the editorial staff there almost always sides with business against government, this is noteworthy to the extreme.
The editorial mentioned that Michigan’s Supreme Court heard arguments this week to reverse a 1981 landmark case that has been used as a precedent for such takings. There a good Detroit Free Press article about the issues.
A group in Ohio has also taken a similar case to state court.
What the “public interest” is has been redefined a million times over the past two hundred years, however. Lots of things we take for granted today were once bitterly protested because they were built on land seized under eminent domain.
Saying that taking underused land to increase taxes is always bad is one of those classic slippery slope arguments. It could lead to further horrible abuse, or it could help save cities in decline.
This issue has the look and feel of something that is heading for the Supreme Court in a few years. At present, it appears that the courts are allowing local communities to use their own best judgment what is in their “public interest.”
That is exactly what I was looking for, I’m glad that the courts are aware of the issue. Of course, that doesn’t mean they’ll side with the private land owners, but at least the cases will get some press and hopefully people will become aware of the problem because it’s an important issue. Thanks for the info.
Personally, I think that such seizures for less than truly important reasons violates the Fourth and Fourthteenth Amendements to the constitution. In other words I think that the state should be required to have a so called compelling state interest to seize your property rather than the lower rational basis test where the government only need to demonstrate a legitimate interest (few law fail the rational basis test, and equally few rise to the level of a compelling state interest).
It’s basically being taken due to the San Diego Padre’s new Petco Park Stadium. Hotels, businesses, etc will go up to create more revenue and jobs. I guess Mr. Mesdaq’s cigar store didnt fit in with those plans.
[QUOTE=Roland Deschain]
Personally, I think that such seizures for less than truly important reasons violates the Fourth and Fourthteenth Amendements to the constitution.QUOTE]
Nitpick: you mean the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Yes you are correct the 5th Amendment is more relevent. However, one might also argue that the taking of private property is an “unreasonable seizure” under the 4th amendment. Of course you will lose that argument.
I apologize for the GD-ness of this post, but I’m confused on a couple of points.
If not for emminent domain, a lot of stuff would never get built. For example, a new grocery store may require an entire city block. All of the homeowners on the block gladly sell the land to the developers. All, that is, except the old widow Bessie Throckmorton, who don’t cotton to none of them fancy supercenters and who ain’t a-sellin’ her home. So either the grocery store doesn’t get build, or the city steps in and takes Bessie’s property (and pays her for it).
IOW, one or two property owners can thwart an entire commercial development unless the gov’t steps in.
Now, is this scenario fair to Bessie Throckmorton? No.
Is it fair to the consumers who need a new grocery store in their part of the city? Yes.
Is it fair to the city, which is always itching for more tax revenue? Yes.
Again, I don’t mean to sound GD-ish. I’m just wondering how commercial development would ever be built were it not for eminent domain being used for business?
I have an old GF who works for a county agency helping relocating people in eminent domain areas. I don’t know if its different here but they get appraised value for their house (you can get your own appraisals as well) So you don’t just get tossed out on your ear. They help you find alernative housing in your price range, help with arranging financing, yadda, yadda,
Several that my friend has run into who are quite vocal when the bulldozers come, happily accepted the check for their house, blow it all on stuff, and think they can still keep their house if they cry to the news crew about the EEEEVVVILLL corporate overlords stealing their property, that was paid for 3 months ago.
Yet another of her favorites are the people who basically try to blackmail the system. They play the “I wont move unless you give me $500,000 for my house” that was just privately appraised for $85,000 by an appraiser hired by the homeowner. The city being more than happy to pay the $85,000, but Mr Butthead thinks he won the lottery because the city wants his property.
I don’t dispute the legality, but the fairness. These examples are perfect. The city is profiting off the increased value of the land rather than the homeowner. In the case of the land being valued at $85,000 that’s based on the current use. As soon as a developer is interested, it’s worth more merely for the fact that there’s commercial value. The owner deserves the greater of fair market value based on the development. So what’s that $85,000 property worth to Wal-Mart? The city pays the $85,000 to the owner, but how much does the city sell it to Wal-Mart for? THERE’S the value you’re looking for.
I believe in eminent domain – it’s required at times. But when used, the owner should be fairly complicated.
Whats the assesed value of 10,000 square feet of parking lot?
I will give my friend a call but IIRC they pretty much just charge the cost of relocating and buying out all of the people in question plus whatever costs were incurred by the city and county.
The people do recieve additional compensation to cover moving expenses, lost work time to move, storage
I’m sure there is some kind of a markup but its not like you are converting 1 $85,000 parcel into millions of dollars in real estate, they are buying out and combining a hundred parcels to make $10,000,000 or so.
Like it or not its not $10mil of pure profit, its more like:
$9mil in buyouts
$200,000 in legal fees from the three that fought it
$100,000 for the salaries of the relocation agents and their agency
$300,000 for road improvements needed because of changes to traffic flow in the area
etc, etc
Even at a higher “commercial” value I’d be willing to bet its nowhere near what the holdouts want. The minute you pay off one person who pulls something like this you will have a whole slough of real estate attourneys setting up shop anywhere a new school is going to be built to try and negotiate massively inflated real estate deals for residents.
Your tax dollars then go to paying legal fees and overpriced real estate because nobody is going to care if its for a school, they want a fat payoff.
Occasional rezoning and reallocation of land in any city is not some kind of easy game for a quick buck, its a critical part of any citys growth.
I personally know of a local family that lost their home to eminent domain, and are now living in subsidized housing, partially as a result. They had only been in their home for about two years, and their credit situation had deteriorated by the time the county “took over” their property for a horse track development. It’s true they got “market value”, but they didn’t have very much equity since their home was almost 100% VA financing (one of their kids got leukemia and they have about 30K in unpaid medical bills such that they won’t even qualify for VA anymore). So the county gets their horse track, and the family with three kids (one of whom has leukemia) get to live in subsidized housing. Bottom line, getting “market value” is not always a good deal, some people simply can’t replace their housing for that.
The problem I have with this argument is it seems to be Majority Rules vs. Minority Rights. We are a democratic rebublic and cannot give in to the will of the majority in every situation, that is a straight up democracy which we are not. If I own a property, I own it, plain and simple. The government has no right to kick me off my land unless I choose to sell (except in the situations originally intended, and even that bothers me to some degree - but if your house is right in the middle of a 10 lane highway then you’ve just got to come to terms and sell). So 2% don’t want to sell their land to a grocery store - then they shouldn’t have to, the Constitution protects them. The store will either have to offer more money or move elsewhere, or change the law.
Answer A: It’s worth whatevever the store is willing to pay for it.
Answer B: It’s worth the same as 10,000 sq. ft. of building space. Which part is used for store space and which is used for parking is irrelevant.
Would you concede that there’s a huge difference between Homeowner A, whose land happens to be in the path of I-75, and Homeowner B, whose land happens to be where Wal-Mart thinks would be a good place to put a store?
How about we let Wal-Mart (or whoever) and Homeowner B negotiate to determine a fair price? Instead of having the government seize the property?
Also, what consumer’s “need a new grocery store in their part of the city”? And how is this at all relevant?
It’s revelant because a single homeowner can thwart an entire commercial development. If a homeowner isn’t selling, regardless of the price, then that leaves the developers high and dry. Is this were allowed to happen with any regularity, then nothing new would ever get built.
As to consumers’ need for a new grocery store- of course it’s relevant. If you live in a small city (say, Springfield, Illinois) with haphazard and inefficient public transportation (say, Springfield Mass Transit District), and you cannot drive (you’re too poor to afford a car, or too old/disabled to drive one), then basic services (grocery, laundry, banking, etc.) close to your home are a necessity. Walk a few blocks vs. pay $20 round trip for a cab ride halfway across town.
This very thing happened in my life when I was a kid. My great grandfather lived in an old, beat-up home in an economically depressed part of the city. A developer started buying up old homes in the area to make way for a new Jewel/Osco, and IIRC most of the homeowners gladly took the money. Everyone, that is, except granddad. He had lived in that home for 100 years (exaggerating) and was not going to sell, period. Grandma (his daughter) pleaded with him to take the money, but he stood firm. I remember my six-year-old brain at the time having visions of granddad’s house in the middle of a parking lot. Anyway, the old guy died before it all got sorted out, and today you can go shopping at Osco at 9th & North Grand if you’re ever in Springfield.
