Eminent Domain....

Eminent Domain.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

ShiftedJewel -> Eminent Domain.... (6/30/2005 4:41:48 AM)
How scary is that? I've always known that when you buy a home that you take the chance that someday a road will go through there or something like that... but now if the city or county believes it would be in the best interest of the public they can force you to leave your home and let them build a mall there??? Jewel

kisshou -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (6/30/2005 5:18:53 AM)
It was with great sadness watching my grandparents lovely farmhouse and small acreage be turned into an overflow parking lot for a nearby school. So instead of a loving home where fresh produce was grown and sold locally, it 'better served the public' for that all to be paved over. What made it worse was no one even ended up parking there. Where I live now this is happening all the time. Thank you for bringing this subject up! This and zero lot lines both infuriate me!

stormsfate -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (6/30/2005 7:44:14 AM)
I really, really hope they turn David Souter's farmhouse into a hotel. Never happen, but just the possibility that it could must be causing him to wish he hadn't been so hasty. Now my home state of Kentucky bears the brunt of much teasing for various reasons (and I confess...many of those reasons are somewhat valid), but at least they can't exercise eminent domain to give to someone else to better the economy unless there is a blight. Horrible law! best regards, fate

onceburned -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (6/30/2005 8:01:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stormsfate Horrible law! I agree. So it is up to the U.S, Congress to pass a new law/consitutional amendment which would set limits on the power of eminent domain. Heck, this might be a blessing in disguise. It will give Congress something important to fret about so they can spend their time productively instead of engaging in circus antics like the Terri Schiavo case, or steroids in major league baseball, etc. BTW, eminent domain has long been used to condemn 'blighted neigborhoods' and bulldoze them down for 'urban renewal'. The main difference I see is that the Supreme Court case affects middle class folks, instead of the poor.

Faramir -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (6/30/2005 8:22:58 AM)
quote: The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. I dunno - it's been around for over 200 years - Im not too worried about this clarification. I'd prolly prefer my state to set some limits - I prolly don't want municipalities to use eminent domain willy-nilly, but really I don't see the big deal here. It has always been this way - 13 miles from where I live people started losing homes and farms for an interstate (I-485), starting 10 years ago. You know what? I'd be pissed as hell if one farmer or homeowner stopped that interstate. Do folks undersatnd the sole import of this is the (correct) clarification that "the state" means the states of the union as well as the federal government? This is a clarification - the 5th amendment applies to all 50 states as well.

proudsub -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (6/30/2005 12:26:55 PM)
quote: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Usually the government's idea of "just compensation" and the property owner's idea are very far apart. Here it's supposed to be real market value, but it never seems to work out that way.

Raphael -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (6/30/2005 12:44:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: proudsub Usually the government's idea of "just compensation" and the property owner's idea are very far apart. And there's a reason for that. It's impossible (literally, mathematically, impossible) to determine just compensation when the deal is nonconsensual.

Faramir -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (7/1/2005 8:47:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael And there's a reason for that. It's impossible (literally, mathematically, impossible) to determine just compensation when the deal is nonconsensual. If you construe just to mean "pleasing" or "satisfactory" - no, non-consensual compensation wouldn't be - it would not be trade. I think the use of the word 'compensation" is a clue here - this isn't bilateral, voluntary trade. If "just compensation" is construed to be "the market value you would get if you choose to sell" then you could easily have "just compensation."

RiotGirl -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (7/1/2005 8:53:50 AM)
Darlings, darling darlings, i agree its terrible. But seriously, i thought we all knew we lived in a capatilist society? Where wars were created to produce a higher cash flow and people were allowed to be tortured and murdered because it created media attentioned (producing a higher cash flow.. never mind the legalities of suicide and murder) Ummmm... yeah. Get with the Program! Sheesh! dont ya know every nasty thing that is allowed to go on is because it produces money? Dont you KNOW that the goverment is just a LEGAL form of the mafia? (mafia's are about um.. money) heh shall i cite referneces and specific examples? Hate to be cyncial here, but um.. thats normal! <snickers> Shall i start enlightening to the evil of this world? anyone want some RED jello to make it go down abit smoother? (tongue in cheek.. whatever thats supposed to mean.. as really i always thought it was the sign for a BJ)

Youtalkingtome -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (7/1/2005 9:06:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Faramir quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael And there's a reason for that. It's impossible (literally, mathematically, impossible) to determine just compensation when the deal is nonconsensual. If you construe just to mean "pleasing" or "satisfactory" - no, non-consensual compensation wouldn't be - it would not be trade. I think the use of the word 'compensation" is a clue here - this isn't bilateral, voluntary trade. If "just compensation" is construed to be "the market value you would get if you choose to sell" then you could easily have "just compensation." They do tell you that the amount that they will pay you for your property is fair market value.But I have never met or talked with anyone that did get fair market value.More like a percentage of fair market value.Most resent (6/10/05) is my boss.The state took about an 1/2 acre of road frontage from his front lawn and they said fair market value is $200 for that piece of land.It is high land not in a swamp.One acre of land on that road would sell between $ 5000-10000 depending on the location. I have a coworker that has had this happen twice in front of his house by the town that he lives in.And they still tax him on all the land that they took from him.About five acres.He has had his land resurveyed and a new deed made up and they still tax him on the land they took from him.This is a very common practice.

Faramir -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (7/1/2005 10:24:07 AM)
I have had several clients come to me when they first took land for I-485, very pleaed with the money they got - I did have one who was very angry about loosing family farmland. Sure - the state may or may not act fairly given the choices and conduct of state actors. My point in all this is not "The state is always the good guy" - my point is that we have a clear Constitution (consider the Athenian Constitution - an amalgam of various laws and traditions, some written, some not) that clearly has functioned well over 200+ years. We have had emminent domain since the start, and no one here, no one, would ever argue that the limits in the Constitution only apply to the Federal government - we have always understood "the state" to be the States individually and the collective power they share in the Federal government. No one here would argue that due process of law and equal protection under the law apply to the Federal government ("the state") but doesn't apply to States - that NC can decide to arrest red-haired people or sterilize people based on IQ. I understand people being unhappy or worried by a poicy they don't like - I don't understand the befuddled "How can this be?" stuff. It's called "The Constitution of the United State of America."

Raphael -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (7/1/2005 11:34:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Faramir We have had emminent domain since the start, and no one here, no one, would ever argue that the limits in the Constitution only apply to the Federal government - we have always understood "the state" to be the States individually and the collective power they share in the Federal government. You're flat out wrong about this. The Constitution indeed, through most of our history, was understood to refer only to federal powers, not to state powers. But beyond that, there's always been an understanding that eminent domain could be used only to build public infrastructure. This ruling opens the door to seizing property and giving it to another private owner, for private purpoese, simply because the new 'owner' will pay higher taxes.

Faramir -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (7/1/2005 11:53:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael You're flat out wrong about this. The Constitution indeed, through most of our history, was understood to refer only to federal powers, not to state powers. That's a novel position - that 14th amendment doesn't exist. I did notice the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. Could you point to a SC decision, or a framing document to support that position? Did you even read Kelo vs New London? The applicability of the clause in question is the first note in the decsion.

Faramir -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (7/1/2005 12:03:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael But beyond that, there's always been an understanding that eminent domain could be used only to build public infrastructure. This ruling opens the door to seizing property and giving it to another private owner, for private purpoese, simply because the new 'owner' will pay higher taxes. You're flat out wrong. please see Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229 (1984), and Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954).

Raphael -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (7/1/2005 12:06:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Faramir That's a novel position - that 14th amendment doesn't exist. The 14th Amendment dates to 1868. The constitution is considerably older than that. And there was certainly nothing at all like it in pre-constitution days either.

Faramir -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (7/1/2005 1:26:46 PM)
To the best of my understanding, the 14th Amendment makes this explicit - but surely you dont think that the Constitution is soley Federal. Do you mean to say that the 1st Amendment only applies to the Federal government because it says "Congress shall pass no law abridging..." - the the Federal government has an establishment clause and and abridgement clause that applies to it, but the states individually are free to establish religions and abridge free speech? That's nonsensicle.

Raphael -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (7/1/2005 3:48:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Faramir To the best of my understanding, the 14th Amendment makes this explicit - but surely you dont think that the Constitution is soley Federal. Of course it was. quote: Do you mean to say that the 1st Amendment only applies to the Federal government because it says "Congress shall pass no law abridging..." - the the Federal government has an establishment clause and and abridgement clause that applies to it, but the states individually are free to establish religions and abridge free speech? That's nonsensicle. No, it's not. In point of fact that's exactly how it was understood at the time it was written, at the time it was ratified, and for many years thereafter. At the time that was adopted, in fact, at least one of the States DID have a state religion, and no one saw any contradiction there because there wasn't one. It was Congress that was forbidden from making any law on the subject. Go ahead, read something on the subject. Read the federalist papers. Read the bill of rights itself, for that matter. Read the ninth amendment. Only after the 14th amendment was ratified were the constitutional prohibitions of the federal government extended to the States, and even with it there is some question just how far it goes. Now in many cases State constitutions had much the same guarantees in them, of course, and THOSE were binding.

Faramir -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (7/1/2005 5:08:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael Go ahead, read something on the subject. Read the federalist papers. Read the bill of rights itself, for that matter. Well, you fail as a correspondent. I will not waste time responding to any posts from you in the future.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (7/1/2005 7:55:20 PM)
You know, I don't often agree with Raphael, but I hardly see how he has "failed as a correspondent." You're getting into the habit of cutting off conversations with people who disagree with you. Lam quote: ORIGINAL: Faramir quote: ORIGINAL: Raphael Go ahead, read something on the subject. Read the federalist papers. Read the bill of rights itself, for that matter. Well, you fail as a correspondent. I will not waste time responding to any posts from you in the future.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Eminent Domain.... (7/1/2005 8:08:00 PM)
quote: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The keywords being "public use"...not public benefit, as some seem to want to say. And this was not for public use. It was for a private party. I don't care if it's happened before. And I do believe it bodes ill for our future. Important rights are eroded in little ways, here and there, and all of a sudden we wake up and say "What the hell happened?". Time to smell the coffee, folks. Arizona already has a good law on the books concerning this type of abuse of public power. It is specific to eminent domain and the 5th amendment. But 48 other states don't. So when they come to take your house away because Costco will give them a better tax base, I hope you are as tolerant.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875