[ojibweindian]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85753,00.html

I really hate the idea of Eminent Domain, but in the past I have rationalized my loathing away by saying it was a ncessary evil. However, I now believe that allowing the government to keep such power is a HUGE mistake.

How can we get rid of it, or severely restrict the government's use of it?

[Marko Kloos]

How can we get rid of it, or severely restrict the government's use of it?

In the history of this republic, there hasn't been a single power unwisely handed to the government that hasn't been subsequently abused. The government never returns any power once it has been given up.

Remeber that next time someone tries to ramrod something like the Patriot Act through Congress. You may cheer for it now because the "right guy" sits in the White House, but the provisions of the PA do not go away once the next Democrat moves into the White House.

[Chipper]

The government will plead the fifth:

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

Of course, it is the government who determines what public use and just compensation are. Just remember, this is your right. Happy serfing!

Chipper

[CZ-75]

http://www.foxnewschannel.com/story/0,2933,85753,00.html


Homeowners Battle to Keep Their Property

Friday, May 02, 2003
By Liza Porteus


NEW YORK ? Matt Dery of New London, Conn., has been fighting for almost six years to hold on to his property.

Four homes sit on the land that has been in Dery's family since they moved from Italy in the 1890s, surviving even through the struggles of the Great Depression. Dery lives in one of the four homes with his wife, son and niece. His father and mother live next door. His mother, Wilhelmina, 85, has lived in her house for her entire life.

But since the city of New London ceded eminent domain powers to the New London Development Corporation, the NLDC is trying to take the property for various private uses.

"I'm not going to have somebody take it away from us," Dery said. "There's no legitimate reason anybody should lose their homes so that someone can put money in their pockets."

Dery checks the state Supreme Court's Web site daily to see when his case is going to be heard. A lower court sided with the family, but NLDC appealed the ruling.

"It's really a powerless feeling," Dery said.

Eminent domain allows the government to take real estate to fulfill a public purpose, like building a police station or public road. Private residents are supposed to be compensated under eminent domain, however, owners are frequently not given market value.

Last week, the Institute for Justice released a report showing that in the last five years, state and local governments have taken or threatened to take more than 10,000 homes, businesses, churches and private land. But the property was not to be used for government projects.

According to examples from the report, governments condemned a family's home so that a manager of a planned new golf course could live in it; evicted four elderly siblings from their home of 60 years so developers could build a private industrial park; and removed a woman in her 80s from her home of 55 years in order, they said, to expand a sewer plant. Instead, the municipality ended up giving the woman's home to an auto dealership.

"It's one of those situations where the government just looks and says, 'We own the whole city, how would we like to design it?'" said study author and IJ senior attorney Dana Berliner.

"All of the incentives are towards freely using eminent domain as a club to threaten private, small home and business owners into giving up their property to large private developers."

But defenders say the process of eminent domain is needed to clean up faltering communities.

"Things are not being done in a slaphappy way," said Juan Otero, legislative counsel for the National League of Cities.

"Cities have to deal with a whole host of issues in terms of protecting the health, welfare and safety, and economic development of cities and towns. I take issue of the premise that somehow cities are profiteering when they have to take a holistic approach to all of these factors."

Some experts say eminent domain helps clean up grungy neighborhoods quickly and attract investment.

"Eminent domain has been used most often for economic housing and economic development in some of the worst-off areas of the city ? areas where no one will invest," said John Kromer, senior consultant at the Fels Institute of Government at the University of Pennsylvania, and author of the book, Neighborhood Recovery.

According to the IJ report, California, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan and Ohio have the largest track records of employing eminent domain to give property to private parties. Cities accused of being the worst abusers of eminent domain include Detroit, Riviera Beach, Fla., San Jose, Calif., and Philadelphia.

"It certainly is not what the founding fathers of the United States had in mind when they put in the Constitution that private property could only be taken for public use ? they weren't thinking of shopping malls," Berliner said.

On the upside, the report says Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming have not employed eminent domain for private uses.

Philadelphia acquired 2,500 of the area's 30,000 abandoned properties last year through eminent domain laws. A blight program launched two years ago allows the city to acquire old dilapidated buildings and sites that owners have walked away from.

"We were looking at that as a sign of progress," said city spokeswoman Barbara Grant. "What we are trying to do is clear the way for developers to be able to build the land" with housing and businesses.

But a growing movement has emerged to fight what some call government "land grabs."

"We've seen grassroots groups springing up all over the country from people who are really energized about this," Berliner said. "They aren't political people but they see what's happening and they realize it's wrong."

Arizona state Rep. Eddie Farnsworth has sponsored a bill to limit eminent domain. It has passed the state House and is awaiting state Senate action. Different versions of the bill could be hammered out next week.

"Municipalities simply want to maintain absolute authority to take away private property and that's wrong," Farnsworth, a Republican, told The Arizona Republic. "Abuses are rampant and we must stop them."

Supporters of eminent domain say their efforts are not meant to worsen their area's homeless rates but to improve the quality of life in the communities.

"These city council folks work very hard to make sure there's transparencies and make sure the processes are open," Otero said. "In terms of the greatest good for the greatest dollar for the greatest benefit ? it is a last resort ? Local governments have to build livable communities ? that's the bottom line."

But that's simply no justification for taking people's homes away, say opponents.

"Nobody should have that power," Dery said.

[Art Eatman]

The basic idea of eminent domain is to allow the construction of a highway, a dam/reservoir project, an electric transmission line or equivalent public purpose.

This particular travesty has nothing to do with a public purpose. It is an abuse of power by government--and I'd bet the power-structure has financial ties to the private interests who seek to take others' private property for their own gain, you should pardon my cynicism.

Art

[SteelyDan]

There certainly are times when the use of eminent domain is justified, such as constructing highways and the similar public uses mentioned. Historically, the courts have pretty much "rubber stamped" such condemnations, and over time governmental bodies came to believe they had carte blanche to condemn private property whenever the whim struck them. For the most part, the courts--relying on the earlier precedents--didn't do too much to stop the abuses. Which further emboldened the renegade governmental bodies to continue and to expand their land grabs.

Now, finally, I think the pendulum is starting to swing the other way, at least a little. Especially in the area of so-called "redevelopment cases," where cities take property from one business to transfer it to a developer who plans to construct a new business, some courts are beginning to say "enough is enough." I actually worked with the Institute of Justice and Dana Berliner (who are quoted in the article) on such a case last year. They're good folks.

Not to minimize the many abuses of the power of eminent domain, but I'll tell you what's even worse. Many times a city will use its zoning powers to effectively "take" private property, but because they're not physically acquiring it they think they don't have to go through eminent domain and pay for the damages. For example, if a city wants a park, but doesn't want to pay for it, it may rezone residential property to "park" uses. Then the owner can't develop it, or sell it for anything but pennies on the dollar, and if the city ever decides to acquire the land it can get it for next to nothing. There are dozens and dozens of other examples. At least when the government uses its eminent domain powers the owner gets paid something approximating fair market value.

[HABU]

you should pardon my cynicism. Who is it that has the signature line:
People that posses the power of accurate observation are often called synics by those that do not. :D :neener:

[Ian Sean]

There has been a nasty battle going on here in PA I have been keeping tabs on. Family has their own website, worth a look.

http://www.saveourfarm.com/

They also list the names of the city council people and party affiliation, its no surprise there either.

[spartacus2002]

The 5th Amendment allows takings of private property by government, so long as the owner is compensated.Taking such private property was supposed to be the last resort, and to be avoided at almost all costs. In fact, the requirement to pay the owner was supposed to be a deterrent to govt.

The Supreme Court used to look at the taking, and determine the amount of "loss" to compensate the owner for. Unfortunately, nowadays the SC looks at the amount of "loss" first to determine whether there is actually a "taking" for which the owner must be compensated.

So much for private property rights.........

[SteelyDan]

Just want to clarify a couple things, since this is what I primarily do for a living.

First, the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights and the 5th Amendment) does not grant government the power of eminent domain. Instead, the power is regarded as "an essential attribute of the sovereign," to quote the Supreme Court, meaning that it is an implicit or inherent power of the state and federal governments. The Fifth Amendment merely limits that power by requiring that private property may only be taken for a "public use," and that when such property is taken the owner must be paid "just compensation."

Second, when the government expressly uses its power of eminent domain, it doesn't matter if you're only damaged by $1.00; you have a constitutional right to recover that dollar. But, in cases where governmental action diminishes the value of your property but there is no actual eminent domain action (e.g., the zoning example I gave above), then the landowner must sue the government to prove there has been a "taking." In many of those cases, it is true that unless you have been deprived of nearly all of the value of your property, you have no right to recover. And that is the point I was trying to make about what's even worse than eminent domain.

[Jeeper]

The real issue is whether there is a public purpose. The supreme's have held the using eminent domain for private companies was legal if it served a great public purpose. Some of these are taking a huge chunk in a city to open a new factory. The ones that are the issue are the ones where the zoning restrcitions dont allow use of the land as intended. Thent he total loss is looked into. That is a more grey area. If the land is completely taken including total title then they must pay. there also MUST be a public purpose. Taking for a golf course would not fly unless it is possibly public and is part of an urban renewal or other large project to benefit the public.

[CZ-75]

They did this in KC, KS when they built a new Speedway there for NASCAR. Folks there probably came out ahead, but not w/o about a year's worth of court battles with the demokrat controlled county legislature.

This area was pretty rural and about the only nice part of Wyandotte Co. I'm not sure, even with compensation, if the owners could duplicate their spreads anywhere near a decent commute from KC at the price they were given.

SteelyDan made a good point I never thought of regarding devaluation of property and your right to compensation.

[spartacus2002]

Ditto what Steely Dan said.

There is always a tension between what the law should be and what the law has been interpreted to be. When the Supremes start interpreting the law to enable govt to carry out its desires, instead of upholding the law, that's when you lose the Republic.

[Glock Glockler]

Ian Sean,

Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to put up flyers around town, in very visible places, with the pictures, names, phone numbers, email addresses, and street addresses, and recreational places that they frequent, of every last one of those city council SOBs that want to seize your property. The purpose, of course, would be so that concerned citizens could contact them to express their disapproval.

Try to get people and businesses to refuse them service, to cut off business relations with them, and to not associate with them in the slightest, or even their family for that matter. Shunning, like this, is only effective when you have complete participation amongst the townspeople, and while some might find it cruel to forbid your children from playing with theirs, it is far less cruel than many alternatives.

I also recommend contacting as many media outlets as you can. Bring as much pressure on them as possible, get Fox news to do a story about John Q. Citycritter, that wants to seal a family farm for personal gain. Make it impossible for them to show their face in public without people looking at them with scorn and contempt.

[Chipper]

Since eminent domain is regarded as an "essential attribute of the sovereign", I would then argue that the constitutional duty of the fedgov is to guarantee a republican form of government, ie., sans sovereign. Again the constitution fails to provide what is regarded as an attribute of Amerian political society.

Either way you look at it, from the claim of the sovereign or the clause of the fifth amendment to the US Constitution, it nullifies the property rights of the individual at the whim of government, regardless if that government is based on a sovereign or a representative form of government. Not even a "just compensation" mollifies this blatant disregard of individual property rights because part and parcel of the property right to hold or dispose of the property at the sole will of the property owner. The exercise of eminent domain remains a coercive act. Not only that, the claim of eminent domain nullifies any notion of an individual right to property.

It is from the basis of this concept of eminent domain that all property seizure can be extrapolated. Individual property rights do not, therefore, exist within the United States as all citizens remain serfs. Tax laws, criminal laws and all others that affect our alleged property rights are little more than the definitions of our modern-day serfdom. They are skillfully constructed to maintain the illusion of property rights but, all claims to all property, both real and chattel, remain with the property holder of origin, the sovereign.

In the case of the United States, the sovereign is the federal government. The acts of the colonies AFTER the ratification of the constitution in dividing the various land holdings via such laws as the Northwest Ordinance and others were simply pro forma acts as all claims to property held by the several states (former colonies) were surrendered to the federal government upon ratification of the constitution. So that now, we can see that the US Constitution not only centralized all political power and authority into the hands of those in the central government but, also all control of both law and economy as the central government is the ruling sovereign of this nation.

As lesser political units, such as states, counties and others exercise this claim to eminent domain, they do so as the agents, barons and nobles of the sovereign who operate clearly and constitutionally under both the authority and protection of the sovereign (US Con. Art. 1, Sec. 8 cls 15; Art.1, Sec. 10 cls 3; Art. 4, Sec. 4).

In essence, Messrs. Hamilton, Madison, Jay, et al. have provided us with a monarchy yet without a single king. Despite the changes in names, titles and positions, both in form and function we remain a monarchy with the congress standing in as king. Though congress is composed of many individuals, the rule of the majority makes it function as an individual. It acts in its own self-interest. Even though members of the congress rotate in out over a period of time, the self-interest remains. Individual claims to ideologies and philosphies have little to no impact as all must submit to the will of the majority which will always act in the interest of it's own preservation, enhancement and power.

What we think of as the basis of America, the freedom, the liberty, the rights, what is and what is not constitutional, is all a grand delusion as there is no basis in either law or fact for these popular and prevalent notions. They are all limited in one way or another since property rights for the individual do not exist in America. By depriving ourselves of the most fundamental premise of a society, our experiment in self-government is doomed to failure.

I come here regularly as to other pro-American boards and the song remains the same on every one of them..."support the government, support the constitution, ratchet up the power of government to control the actions and people we do not like that we may live securely and be the most powerful and benevolent people on earth". There are some dissenters to this who are quickly branded as anti-government, America haters.

Quite the opposite is true. People who think in a manner similar to that outlined in the paragraphs above, indeed, love America the most We are the ones who take seriously the promises of America and expect deliverance on those promises. Where is that freedom and liberty? Where are the rights to keep and bear arms? Where is the justice that we are to be provided? What of the pursuit of property?

It is obvious that the notions left-over from the medieval times such as serfdom and eminent domain have been enshrined in the document that most laud as the the greatest scheme of government ever to befall mankind. Yet, most remain blinded by this illusion of glory. The constitution provides none of what was promised. The basis for America is not to be found in the constitution. If it is to be found at all it would mostly be in the Articles of Confederation. The document overthrown by the b@st@rd of St. Croix, one Alexander Hamilton and, of course, his agents of deception.

If the people on these pro-America boards really wish to have the liberty, freedom and rights as promised then it is time to break the illusion of the constitution as a means to the end we desire as that document simply cannot provide it. In fact, it was designed to provide just exactly the conditions we have now in government structure and function. Do not bother to speak of intent as the Federalist Papers are little more than a sales pitch for the adoption of the constitution. Besides, it is the letter of the law that concerns government. It is here where one begins to see the true deception of the constitution. Much of what is claimed to be unconstitutional is, in fact, in alignment and harmony with the constitution.

Of course, many will not be swayed by lengthy rants and arguments. Many are satisfied in referring to their lengthened leg-chains as freedom or liberty. How can they not? For it is all they ever known or dared to imagine. With certain projects such as the Free State Project, Project Exodus and other similar movements already on the burner.

Perhaps it is time to consider or, for some, reconsider the idea of secession. Since few are satisfied with the current political conditions or their roots, secession becomes a practical solution. People are free, despite laws and constitutional declarations to the contrary, to devise and implement a government that they believe to be most likely to secure their freedoms and liberties for themselves and their posterity.

This is how this nation came to be. Did not the Founders have to deal with same questions? In defying the crown and rebelling they were criminals and terrorists of the worst sort. They didn't care about England, it's laws, the blood they had to spill to break free from the crown's grip. Lives and property were lost and on our part we deemed it a righteous action because we gained the victory. It was deemed a righteous action by the Founders because they struggled for what was greater than government, law or property. Freedom.

Certainly on the part of England they tasted the bitterness of loss. They branded us brigands and criminals of every sort. Rebellion, insurrection, sedition were all terms used liberally in describing the actions of the people of the colonies.

Today it would be America-hater, anti-government tin-foil hatters, rebels, terrorists, kooks and the entire dictionary of old and new terms to describe those who choose to stand against the old order, who choose not to submit passively or by force to the endless stream of the tyrannical dikta that emanates from all seats of government in this land.

The days ahead in America are not certain. They will be what we make of them. Were something to happen that provides us with an opportunity to reshape the structure of government and politics in this land we would do well to rethink some or much of what we take for granted now in order to realize something much closer to the promises of America. A good starting point would be property rights.

Chipper

[Jeeper]

"support the government, support the constitution, ratchet up the power of government to control the actions and people we do not like that we may live securely and be the most powerful and benevolent people on earth".

Are you serious? What people on this board want to ratchet up the power of goverment?

As far as eminent domain goes. What is your real argument? That the govement is opressing us whenever they want to. Do you know what the actual supreme court tests are for this type of action. It isn't really that easy. Do you think eminent domain is bad? Or just overused? What would you have the gov. do when it needs new roads or schools or powerplants? Should property rights be absolute? If I lived next door to you and wanted to store toxic waste you would be fine with that? I would like to hear your ideas on alternatives to eminent domain and to unrestricitive property rights. I am not being a smarta$$ just curious how your ideas could work in an actual society.

[Chris Rhines]

(Bows head in direction of Chipper.)

For all practical purposes, the concept of Eminent Domain gives the state a priori ownership of every piece of property within the state borders. How anyone can find this acceptable is totally beyod me.

Roads, schools, powerplants, and other 'public' services should not be the domain of government. However, if you insist on having the government run such utilities, they can offer a fair price to the original owner, and go elsewhere if the owner declines to sell. The needs of the government do not trump the property rights of the individual.

- Chris

[Art Eatman]

Chris, were it not for eminent domain--whether or not one approves of it--there would be no roads beyond a few wagon trails from the 1800s. I gayrawndangtee you there wouldn't be any Interstate System as we know it today.

Art

[Jeeper]

On top of that you would be paying 100 times what your current electric bill is if the companies had to negotiate for rights to cross property.

[hammer4nc]

Question for legal eagles: In the original story, how can a government "cede" its power of eminent domain to a corporation?

I get real spooked when I read stuff like this...moving the decision-making authority for condemnations, to unelected, unaccountable appointees is a recipe for disaster.

Ditto the previous comments concerning zoning regulations...and, those are often written by appointed regional "planning" commissions, who can't be voted out of office. Its quite easy to achieve condemnation, for all practical purposes, without officially declaring it (and thus avoiding compensation claims).

Various non-profit groups, such as the Trust for Public Lands, and the Nature Conservancy, have become financial giants, in the land-grab arena. By filling the niche between government/quasi-government agencies and landowners, defacto condemnation is achieved. Property owners, like those mentioned in the article above, eventually run out of money or patience, and come out the other side as "willing sellers". Its a crock, and not many people are aware of the pattern of abuse in this area. Zoning is ultimately a boring topic, except for those affected by it.

[Don Gwinn]

Art, you can probably help me with this. I have a friend who served in Germany with the Air Force in the 1980s. He says that most of the roads in Germany are full of zany, madcap turns and twists because they don't have the equivalent of Eminent Domain there, and the roads often detour wildly around property lines.

True? It sounded strange to me, in a nation that we perceive as very submissive to government, and the place that built the first superhighways to boot.

[Jeeper]

The government cant "cede" its power to anyone for this. Only the govenment can use eminent domain. They can use their power to benefit the private party if there is a large public interest at stake.

[mohican]

I've lost land to the government through eminent domain, and I got jobbed. It was a tiny sliver (only 1/3 acre), but I got per acre what I had paid for it 8 years prior. I showed them sales in the paper of land on the same state route, and that acreage was bringing 5-6 times what I was compensated for. And I got taken on the amount that they used vs the amount I was paid for. When you buy land with road frontage in Ohio, your property goes to the middle of the road, unless you own on both sides, which means the road is completely over your property. The State based its compensation not on the net with the road, but on a small section they surveyed off the road. So the state ended up with 1/3 acre that they paid 1/4 acre for, and underpaid at that. If it wasn't such a small amount, I probably would have made them take in court, just to hassle them.

So from experience I can say that sometimes there is not "just compensation" for eminent domain.

[Chris Rhines]

Art and Jeeper -

If emminent domain did not exist, there would most certainly still be an interstate highway system; just a privately owned and administered one. Same with power distribution, and I doubt that it would be much (if any) more expensive than our current tax-subsidised, no-liability utility monopoly.

- Chris

[Chipper]

Jeeper asks and states:

Are you serious? What people on this board want to ratchet up the power of goverment?

As far as eminent domain goes. What is your real argument? That the govement is opressing us whenever they want to. Do you know what the actual supreme court tests are for this type of action. It isn't really that easy. Do you think eminent domain is bad? Or just overused? What would you have the gov. do when it needs new roads or schools or powerplants? Should property rights be absolute? If I lived next door to you and wanted to store toxic waste you would be fine with that? I would like to hear your ideas on alternatives to eminent domain and to unrestricitive property rights. I am not being a smarta$$ just curious how your ideas could work in an actual society.

Yes. I am serious. The support of the power of eminent domain is a support of your serfdom. It's like going to jail and supporting getting punked by Bubba.

What is my real argument? You read it. I'll try to condense it for easier reading:
Property ownership is the basis for all economic action within a society. Without a right to property, the individual MUST engage in activity supporting those who do own the property. The existence of eminent domain as a concept, principle, power and authorization to the federal government and ALL lesser political units precludes the ownership of property by all individual within the territories comprising the entire jurisdiction of the United States. In short, the federal government owns it all.

This claim makes it impossible for you or any other person or entity to own property within the territorial and jurisdictional boundaries of the United States.

From an historical perspective, this is a carryover from medieval times. We remain serfs

Do I think property rights are bad? No. I think it is the practical application of evil.

Should property rights be absolute? Absolutely.

You ask,"If I lived next door to you and wanted to store toxic waste you would be fine with that? " Actually, yes. I would be fine with that. However, (here's the caveat) if your toxic waste leaked, drained, oozed, wafted or migrated by whatever means onto my property AND caused damage to my property, I retain the right to sue you into economic oblivion and to have you block any and all further migration of toxic wastes from your pile onto my property. This same right is retained by all property owners surrounding your property and any others whose property may be affected by your toxic waste. This is a practical application of the non-aggression principle.

Chipper

[Jeeper]

If emminent domain did not exist, there would most certainly still be an interstate highway system; just a privately owned and administered one. Same with power distribution, and I doubt that it would be much (if any) more expensive than our current tax-subsidised, no-liability utility monopoly.

Saying it is so isnt really an answer. Do you know what happens when people try to use economic means to buy up a lot of land. You get hold outs. Then the price drastically increases. You could buy up little chunks of land but never get everthing you need. If you can find me examples of where this works on a large scale like the US then I will believe you. OTherwise stating a unproven theory is rather useless.

As far as your feudalism argument: Anytime you have a goverment then you are a subject. IF your theories are right with the lack of ownership of property creates a problem with the economy, why isnt our economy historically troubled by this problem? Eminent domain is a very, very small issue. As far as zoning and other restrictions go. They were originalls sarted by people who chose to live together and agree not to do certain things with their properties. They created restrictive covenants. This is the epitomy of the right to use your own property for your purpose. It then expanded through the same concept. Restrictive regulations in communities were created in the same way. People chose to live together to control what went on.

Theories are great until they hit reality. When you need to build an airport and the only land available is 200 miles from the city because everyone is hoding out for a ridiculous amount of money, it doesnt work very well.

[Marko Kloos]

Theories are great until they hit reality. When you need to build an airport and the only land available is 200 miles from the city because everyone is hoding out for a ridiculous amount of money, it doesnt work very well.

Very well. But what is it that gives a mob of people the right to commandeer another person's property so that your airport can get built? Doesn't a property owner have the right to do as he pleases with his property, including "holding out" for a better price? At what point does it become moral to send men with guns to get that property? How many people have to want that airport before it becomes moral and legal to force someone to give up their land "for the greater good"?

If you don't have the right to seize your neighbor's land against his will (whether you "compensate" him for it or not), why would it be legal for a gropup of people to do it?

There can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob. --Ayn Rand

[Sergeant Bob]

Very well. But what is it that gives a mob of people the right to commandeer another person's property so that your airport can get built?

Or sports stadium, casino, park, mall? None of which are very good reasons for forcibly throwing people out of their homes at gunpoint.:fire:

[SteelyDan]

Wow. I'm normally regarded as being somewhat extreme in my defense of private property rights, but some of you folks make me look like a bleeding heart. Which puts me in the uncomfortable position of defending that which I normally attack.

On balance, I believe that society is better off with the ability to use eminent domain for traditional public purposes such as roads, utility lines, parks, airports, etc. (gees, my fingers are trembling, they can't believe I'm writing this). Modern societies require a fairly elaborate infrastructure, and it would be extremely cumbersome and inefficient, at best, or impossible, at worst, to provide the necessary services without the use of eminent domain.

Having said that, there are still numerous abuses of even these "traditional" takings, not to mention the exciting new world of taking from Peter to give to Paul. These are the cases that pop my blood pressure and make it almost fun to go to work in the morning.

As for delegating the power to private or quasi-public entities, it happens all the time (mostly for utilities and pipeline companies), but I have the sense it used to be even more common. I've always thought it was an interesting historical snapshot that the majority of the reported eminent domain cases in this state, from about 1870 to 1915, involved private railroad companies that had been chartered to right to condemn.

[Chris Rhines]

Saying it is so isnt really an answer. Neither is saying it is not so. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of miles of private roads in the United States, and nothing at all prevents them from being funded and administered in a private fashion.

Do you know what happens when people try to use economic means to buy up a lot of land. You get hold outs. Then the price drastically increases. Sometimes. If local property owners will see an economic benefit from a nearby road beyond the negoitated price, they'll sell. Otherwise, the road doesn't really need to exist, now does it?

As far as your feudalism argument: Anytime you have a goverment then you are a subject. You took the words right out of my mouth.

IF your theories are right with the lack of ownership of property creates a problem with the economy, why isnt our economy historically troubled by this problem? The United States economy is troubled by this problem, less so than some other less-property-focused economies.

But that's not the point. The question raised in any discussion of eminent domain is; Does the government have an a priori ownership claim on the property within its borders? If so, by what moral authority do they make this claim?

They were originalls sarted by people who chose to live together and agree not to do certain things with their properties. While this is true in theory, in practice it does not and has never worked that way. For instance, I don't recall ever signing any covenant regarding what I can or cannot do with my property, with anyone...

When you need to build an airport and the only land available is 200 miles from the city because everyone is hoding out for a ridiculous amount of money, it doesnt work very well. I agree, it works much better to steal land at gunpoint rather than pay a fair price for it.

- Chris

[Jeeper]

Neither is saying it is not so. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of miles of private roads in the United States, and nothing at all prevents them from being funded and administered in a private fashion.

Private roads arent cross country interstates. Someone could buy a two foot strip of land from canada to mexico and then refuse to allow anyone from travel from east to west. Imagine the kind of power they would have. Very scary. If you are talking about some private toll roads those were taken through eminent domain.

Sometimes. If local property owners will see an economic benefit from a nearby road beyond the negoitated price, they'll sell. Otherwise, the road doesn't really need to exist, now does it?

The problem is that the last person has a total market. They can charge whatever they want in basically and EXTORTION type method. The usefullness of the road is irrelevant to them. Money rules the world. No one gives up something good for the benefit of society.

While this is true in theory, in practice it does not and has never worked that way. For instance, I don't recall ever signing any covenant regarding what I can or cannot do with my property, with anyone...

Do you live in an HOA or a city. Signing your title takes care of this. It is a stipulation BEFORE they sell the land to you.

I agree, it works much better to steal land at gunpoint rather than pay a fair price for it.

This is the real problem. The fair price idea. In a system where there is no eminent domain the holdout is king. The fair price is not what the property is sold for. It is sold for just less than scrapping the entire project. IE if you had the one last 2 foot section need to complete a 50 billion dollar road system then you could literally get billions for otherwise worthless land. Then every citizen gets screwed.

A perfect example of this in todays society is the right of ways that are held by railroad companies. Nothing ca cross a railroad track without their permission. What happens is the railroads are in competition with pipeline companies for transportation contracts. It is A LOT cheaper to pipe oil and coal than it is to ship it by rail. The railroads refuse to let the pipelines cross the tracks and therfore EVERY consumer gets screwed. This is what would happen if all utilities and roads had to deal with buying land from individuals. The cost would be off the charts.


I AM NOT SAYING that eminent domain should be used for golf courses and other private items like stadiums. It should always be available for roads, utilities and publicly relevant items.

It is funny that eminent domain is such an hotly contested idea since it is rarely used in comparison to zoning. THE REAL PROBLEM is the zoning restrictions where the courts ave allowed the government to basically take all value from you land by restricting use and then NOT have to compensate you. Those cases are scary. SCOTUS has basically said that sometimes the private person has to suck it up and take one for the team.

[Chris Rhines]

Someone could buy a two foot strip of land from canada to mexico and then refuse to allow anyone from travel from east to west. In your scenario, they would have the same problem as the road-builder company; they wouldn't be able to purchase the last piece of land, which would (in theory) have infinite value.

Of course, this is ridiculous. For one thing, nothing has infinite value; value is naturally subjective. In practice, the individual wanting to build a baricade across the US would have to find a bunch of people who are willing to sell to him, which would represent a near-impossible outlay of capital. Also, many landowners would likely refuse to buy into such a project at any price, being as how a restriction on east-west travel would have a negative impact on their own economic situations.

Do you live in an HOA or a city. Signing your title takes care of this. It is a stipulation BEFORE they sell the land to you. No, and no, and even if I did it would not matter. Neither the city nor the HOA has any title of ownership on property that I buy from another private party. Were I renting a piece of land from a holding company, they would have the right to impose conditions on my use of their land.

In a system where there is no eminent domain the holdout is king. As opposed to a system with eminent domain, where the government is king.

The fair price is not what the property is sold for. It is sold for just less than scrapping the entire project. IE if you had the one last 2 foot section need to complete a 50 billion dollar road system then you could literally get billions for otherwise worthless land. Basic economic law - the value of any good is what the buyer and seller agree upon.

If I own the last 2-foot section of land needed to complete a zillion-dollar road project, it is still my land. No one has the right to take it from me, for any reason, no matter how dire.

That said, if I like the idea of having a nearby road (perhaps I can charge tolls, or I have a buisness that could benifit) then the road-builders will find me quite reasonable. If I don't want a road built across my land, then they can go pack sand.

That's the way a free society should work. It can be messy and uncomfortable, but it beats servitude to an omnipotent government.

A perfect example of this in todays society is the right of ways that are held by railroad companies. Nothing ca cross a railroad track without their permission. Interestingly, the railroad companies were granted most of their land via eminent domain seizures. Handy, neh?

It is funny that eminent domain is such an hotly contested idea since it is rarely used in comparison to zoning. I see both cases as amounting to the same thing - the idea that the government owns the entire country and can thus control its disposure.

- Chris

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

I find it gratifying that the article specifically mentioned San Jose here in the PRK. We have been doing the merry ha-ha with this through the local media lately. It has gotten UGLY.

San Jose, and it's mayor, the matrimonially-challenged Ron Gonzales, have been trying VERY hard to bootstrap their way on up the heap. The purpose is strictly gentrification in order to live to Gonzales' grand label of "The Heart of Silicon Valley." The City Council formed a body they called the "Redevelopement Agency" to try and clean up the image (And the rattier, gang-infested neighborhoods.) of the city proper. They accomplished this by surveying the city and identifying areas of "blight". Under the new plan, "blighted" areas came under much less-restrictive conditions of the city's use of eminent domain. Ostensibly, this was to allow the city to force renovation of the cruddy parts of town. This meant places where residential and industrial uses were closely packed as a result of San Jose's haphazard sprawl from sleepy farm town to major industrial center. Seperating residences from industry was supposed to gentrify the icky spots.

A couple of things didn't go quite right with that plan. First, a lot of people living in the older mixed neighborhoods thought they were going to get run out of town, as this was happening at the tightest juncture of the insane housing crunch the Bay Area ran into during the dot.boom. They feared that once forced to move, they'd never be able to afford to buy or stay in the city, as "blighted" property was of course worth considerably less. Second, the Redevelopement Agncy was VERY fast and loose with their "blight" assessments. They even went so far as to say that one of the best neighborhoods in the WHOLE CITY (Naglee Park, the site of several blocks of huge grand Victorian houses, one of the three highest-priced districts in town and home to several Council members.) was a "blight" area! I lived in that district for the space of two years while my friend's house where I rented went from a purchase price of $265,000 to a selling price of $650,000 for one of the shabbier houses! Needless to say, the residents were none to pleased to have their clean, quiet neighborhood full of huge, elegant houses declared a "blight" zone, regardless of the city's improvement plan, particularly when the bigger houses were selling for seven figures. Third, the agency arrainged for seizure of the space for Ron's Folly, (The New City Hall That Will Put San Jose On The Map!) a huge building that the populace VOTED DOWN at an estimated cost of $287 million, yet the Council is proceeding with even in the face of a revised price of $325 million, a FURTHER revision of $343 million, and a design that violates the FAA rules for tall buildings near the San Jose Airport!

As you can imagine, everyone's pretty disgusted with the San Jose administration. They came across as uncaring to the poorer property owners, deliberately abusing and misinterpreting the mandates of their "improvement plan", completely arbitrary and hypocritical in their definition of "blight" with complete disregard for their moneyed constituents, and completely indifferent to the will of the voters of their own city by charging ahead on the new city hall when the city is now facing a HORRIBLE budget deficit.

We got winners in this town, surely.

[Chipper]

Jeeper, this is rather interesting as your responses seem to typify a lot of the popularly held thought on the topic of eminent domain. Please don't construe that comment as being in any way disparaging. Quite the contrary since you do very well in articulating the general consensus.

The biggest difficulty we face with our government is that it has assumed powers along with the grants of power from the several states and that all of these powers are subjective. A perfect example of this is:
I AM NOT SAYING that eminent domain should be used for golf courses and other private items like stadiums. It should always be available for roads, utilities and publicly relevant items.

This power of eminent domain is subjective. It is exercised by whoever is in control of it at the time for the purposes that they desire to accomplish. It is a power of the government and your consent to it's use is neither required or desired. There are no objective restraints. If there were, it could not be eminent domain.

The phrases "public use" and "just compensation" are also subjective. They do not form any level of objective restraint on the exercise of eminent domain. In current and common parlance these phrases are mere guidelines. Yes, it would be nice if you remained within the guidelines BUT, there is no requirement, regulation or law that you MUST remain within the guidelines. This gives, to the casual reader, a sense of the objective restraint without ever really providing an objective restraint. Yes, words really ARE important.

Beyond the reading of the law, what is much more important is that in the acceptance and support of eminent domain, you are really supporting your own state of serfdom. You have mentioned
It is funny that eminent domain is such an hotly contested idea since it is rarely used in comparison to zoning. THE REAL PROBLEM is the zoning restrictions where the courts ave allowed the government to basically take all value from you land by restricting use and then NOT have to compensate you. Those cases are scary. SCOTUS has basically said that sometimes the private person has to suck it up and take one for the team.
It is these zoning laws that have arisen out of the concept of eminent domain. In western civilization these can easily be traced back to the idea of the Greek polis. This was the wall built around the city-state. This physical structure provided a large measure of control over what enters and exits the city. It provided protection against invaders. It provided protection against free-ranging wild animals. This gave rise to the idea of police powers. These are NOT the powers of LEOs. They are the claims of the government to the reservation of powers to control health issues, housing codes and regulations of every sort that govern the actions and conduct of the subjects of that government's rule. In medieval times there were no walls to guard the city and boundaries were claimed by the king to be literally as far as the eye could see. Since the king claimed this land as being under his rule he also claimed possession of it. Since the king claimed this land as his property he could do with it what he would since he was the sovereign. Hence, the idea of eminent domain coagulated and has been a scab on western civilization ever since.

As to your comments about "holdouts":
This is the real problem. The fair price idea. In a system where there is no eminent domain the holdout is king. The fair price is not what the property is sold for. It is sold for just less than scrapping the entire project. IE if you had the one last 2 foot section need to complete a 50 billion dollar road system then you could literally get billions for otherwise worthless land. Then every citizen gets screwed.


and...
The problem is that the last person has a total market. They can charge whatever they want in basically and EXTORTION type method. The usefullness of the road is irrelevant to them. Money rules the world. No one gives up something good for the benefit of society.


and...
Private roads arent cross country interstates. Someone could buy a two foot strip of land from canada to mexico and then refuse to allow anyone from travel from east to west. Imagine the kind of power they would have. Very scary. If you are talking about some private toll roads those were taken through eminent domain.


There is so much that can be extrapolated from your objections, unfounded anxieties over the economy, equality, exercise of government power, the rate at which America grows, and so much more. This is not to belittle you or your concerns. It is a fact of life that some people will hold out for seemingly unreasonable amounts. I am going to make a dangerous leap here. I am going to assume that you have browsed ebay. If you haven't I would recommend that you make some time to do so. There is much you can learn about real economic interaction on ebay.

When you bought your car, house, guns (assuming they didn't fall out of the boat in a bizarre accident ;) ), did you pay the asking price or did you negotiate for a better price? Since I believe you are an intelligent, self-interested economic player I would bet that you negotiated for a better price. Why couldn't people or governments who wished to build roads do the same thing? Utility companies can do this also. Services are not services if they are imposed monopolies.

Associations that are alternatives to government supplied utilities and schools and other things can provide excellent, low-cost services without government intervention and control. You see this already in the many gated communities, the home-schooling movement, alternative energy types and others who choose to "live off-grid" around the nation. I can't remember the name of the outfit, maybe you will but, the gun-owners communty out in Nevada is a splendid example of this type of thinking and action. Look at the Free State Project. Their numbers keep growing and most likely because it is an idea whose time has come. Many seek to be out from under the yoke of centralized institutions and many of the ideas that you read here are forming the foundation for these moves.

As to how people will work within the free-market, believe or not, most Americans are wonderful people when engaged face-to-face in matters of trade and commerce and community need. Many will do what they can to help a neighbor, a neighborhood, a community and they will do it without government coercion. Many will gladly engage in commerce and trade when made aware of the benefits and likely downsides of transactions. Some will be holdouts. Some will be curmudgeonly. What of it? That's how we get bends in the roads.

Chipper

[Mike Irwin]

"Art, you can probably help me with this. I have a friend who served in Germany with the Air Force in the 1980s. He says that most of the roads in Germany are full of zany, madcap turns and twists because they don't have the equivalent of Eminent Domain there, and the roads often detour wildly around property lines."

I don't know about Germany, but it's certainly the case with the Capitol Beltway in Maryland between the Wisconsin and Connecticut street exits. There were numerous estates there held by high-ranking government officials who successfully managed to keep their property from being affected. Hence, some rather fun slalom turns.

"The government shouldn't be in roads..."

Actually, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Roads are easily covered under the commerce and national defense provisions of the Constitution.

A "private" system of interstates MAY have arisen, but it's very unlikely that it would have much wide-scale utility.

The "Greenway" is a private toll road that was opened in Northern Virginia a few years ago. Unmitigated disaster of an experiment is probably the best way of putting it.

Interesting comparison...

I forget the author, but a text I had in European history class in College drew an interesting comparison between England and France from the middle 1500s to the late 1700s.

Its main theme was that England became the predominant economic power in Europe largely for one reason -- free passage on the roads and cooperative efforts between private, public, and governmental concerns in building canals. England did have some turnpikes (toll roads), but there were relatively few of them compared to France.

In France almost ever large land owner owned the roads in his area, and charged tolls according to what he felt like charging. This had an incredibly stifiling effect on French trade.

[DaveB]

Here's a practical application (it's real, but I can't remember the specifics):

A Corporation comes to city government and convinces the city to condem a piece of land so that the corporation can build a shopping mall. Their argument is the following:

"This will benefit the public because the sales tax revenues from the mall will go into government coffers."

All perfectly understandable, but is this an abuse of E.D.?

Condemnation (with correct compensation to the property owners) for the purpose of highway construction is pretty well accepted.

In what fundamental way is condemnation for highway construction different from condemnation for to build another mall?

db

[Jeeper]

Beyond the reading of the law, what is much more important is that in the acceptance and support of eminent domain, you are really supporting your own state of serfdom.

You are correct. The problem is that basically every kind of government has an almost identical power. It is nearly impossible to NOT have this. I cant think of a civilization that didn't.

This power of eminent domain is subjective. It is exercised by whoever is in control of it at the time for the purposes that they desire to accomplish. It is a power of the government and your consent to it's use is neither required or desired. There are no objective restraints. If there were, it could not be eminent domain.

AS is every other law that is made. The objective restraints are the SCOTUS decisions that limit the power of eminent domain. They have illustrated what this power is limited to in such cases as Hawaii Housing autority, and Poletown v. Detroit to nam a few. These standards that are created are more rigid and less likely to be overturned on a whim than a normal law.

I am going to assume that you have browsed ebay. If you haven't I would recommend that you make some time to do so. There is much you can learn about real economic interaction on ebay.

Your point os taken except for the fact that property is a limited resource. THe person who owns the two foot strip is the only person who can ever own it. There are a lot of cd players but only one two foot strip.

In western civilization these can easily be traced back to the idea of the Greek polis.

Eminent domain can be traced back to early rome where the state had power to acquire land for large public items lie roads and aqueducts. Most indications are that the person whose land was taken got paid for it.

I guess that fundamentally we just differ on the role of government especially the federal government. My basic approach is enumerated powers from the consitution in which I think the TRUE LIMITED use of eminent domain is very valid. This is especially ture is very dense areas. Our world revolves around money and a greedy individual should not be able to make the rest of society suffer.

On a side note I have been checking out the Free State Project for a while. It sounded very interesting untill I went onto the foums. :what:

[Chipper]

Jeeper,

I suspected that we would reach the point of agreeing to disagree, which is fine. I do want to thank you for a civil discourse, civility being in such short supply today.

Chipper

[Betty]

Dad used to own this (http://www.pemberton-twp.com/dazell.html) hardware store in Pemberton, N.J. That store had been around since the 1930's. It's full of fond memories for me, not to mention it's what kept the food on the table and the bills paid. It was one of those old-fashioned stores where people would come in, stay for awhile and socialize. I would mix the bean seeds and chew on the baby onions in the gardening dept. (sorry dad) and play hide-and-go-seek in the warehouse with my brother.

When we moved to TN in '91, dad sold the store to his best friend Albert, who operates it with his family today.

The city has decided to widen Hampton Street, which is right on front of the store. The road is going to end up on top of it. It hit me in the gut when I learned the news.

Albert will receive "compensation," which means he may receive a fraction of what the business is worth. The store will be torn down along with the apartments and other buildings located too close to the road. Families will have to find new jobs and new homes.

:scrutiny:

[Jeeper]

Chipper,

Thanks for the intelligent and enlightening replies. I like it when people can converse in a civil manner. You did give me some good things to think about.

Keith