Mississippi Militia standoff(lasting 1997-1999)

[Cosmoline]

Emminent Domain is justified only if absolutely necessary for
a public use, and then the victim should be compensated for
top dollar for their property plus 50% as compensation for
their forced sacrifice.

That's not required by the 5th and it never has been. If you want it to be required, you simply need to pass a law to that effect at the state level. But you can't just announce it and pretend it's law. The Constitution requires only "just compensation," not an extra 50% or a showing of "absolute necessity." Taking property for airports, highways and land around airports and highways has long been an accepted use of the power of emminent domain. If it were otherwise, you could pretty much forget about an interstate highway system or even basic city development.

If you want to add more protection for homeowners or provide for something more than basic compensation, you need to pass a law to that effect. And you'll have to pay for it in higher taxes and increasingly odd highway routes.

 

[lucky_fool]

This sort of intervention should be reserved for cases where a house is being demolished for a private mega mall...

This case may be worse than that. These houses were supposedly being bought by the state as a favor to the people who lived there: "In 1987 the Memphis and Shelby County Airport Authority instituted a noise abatement program because of complaints by local residents. A significant portion of the program was a buyout plan designed to purchase certain properties near the airport."

If the noise didn't bother them they shouldn't be forced move. Period.

 

[Cosmoline]

I, along with others participating in that thread, received an unsolicited SPAM mail from the Mississippi Militia. I didn't ask for your e-mail

Spamming members is way, way over the line!

 

[NineseveN]

Like it or not, the state has always had the power to take property for public use provided they provide "just compensation." I'm not really sure where these folks are getting the idea that taking property around an airport is unconstitutional.

This sort of intervention should be reserved for cases where a house is being demolished for a private mega mall or where regulations are so extreme that the government has effectively barred all use of the property.

Didn't the mall scenario just happen? And what makes a golf course different than a mega mall? Hell, if anything, at least the mall is open for everyone, not everyone can afford to play golf.

 

[Cosmoline]

This case may be worse than that. These houses were supposedly being bought by the state as a favor to the people who lived there: "In 1987 the Memphis and Shelby County Airport Authority instituted a noise abatement program because of complaints by local residents. A significant portion of the program was a buyout plan designed to purchase certain properties near the airport."

If the noise didn't bother them they shouldn't be forced move. Period.

How do YOU get to decide that a noise abatement buffer zone isn't sufficiently compelling to justify a taking? Since the founding of the Republic these decisions have been left to elected officials, who can be kicked out by vote if their choices upset the community.

I hate highways. If I don't want a highway, why should I have to move my house just because it's sitting right in the path of a proposed route that elected officals have agreed upon? Hey if I don't want to use the highway why should I leave?

 

[NineseveN]

"just compensation," not an extra 50% or a showing of "absolute necessity."

Point me to where "just compensation" is defined...any ideas?

 

[Cosmoline]

Didn't the mall scenario just happen? And what makes a golf course different than a mega mall? Hell, if anything, at least the mall is open for everyone, not everyone can afford to play golf.

If it's PUBLIC property being used as a PUBLIC golf course, then yes it's very different from letting a private developer grab the property. The elected officials made the decision that taking surrounding properties and preventing future private housing developments in the area was in the public interest. Like it or not THEY get to decide that. The Constitution merely says they have to provide "just compensation," it does not outlaw the exercise by states of their inherent power of emminent domain.

 

[brufener]

I believe that citizens should be free of any and all government intrusion as long as they aren't interfering with the rights of others.

I don't agree completely with this. Your statement taken to the extreme would mean that government could not use eminent domain for roads. However, I am a libertarian (note the small "l").

I have answered your questions Bryce I have explained where I stand. You have made several intellectual arguements on this topic. However, I did ask you before, as I ask you now.

I guess you won't let me sidestep the issue. It is much easier to regurgitate intellectual arguments than it is to think for yourself.

Do you believe it is RIGHT/MORAL etc. for the government (in this case local) to force a person to leave his/her house and land to make a golf course?

No I do not. I would support a law/consitutional amendment that limited eminent domain to "essential" public uses. My moral reason is similar to yours - if you leave others alone, the government should leave you alone (although this must be limited - see above).

One of my main concerns with eminent domain is the possibility of corruption/undue influence on elected officials (another poster noted this same concern). You'll note that all of my arguments assumed that officials were not corrupt. If you assume they are corrupt, the only solution is to take away all power. Since only some are corrupt, it seems the best solution is to limit their power.

I also do not believe that the government should take people's land to perform an economic revitilization on the area, it just seems like the government is wasting good money (our tax money) on bad projects (this is what happened in the Poletown case I mentioned - Detroit condemmed a large area for a GM plant to revitalize Detroit, and the plant closed a few years later). The problem with letting the market take care of it is that the poor/underprivileged are left behind. I don't have a solution for them, except the hope that as the market makes the economy better, their situation will become better also.

Bryce

 

[brufener]

Edit: Sorry, double post.

 

[Cosmoline]

Point me to where "just compensation" is defined...any ideas?

The bare requirement in the 5th is not defined there, but the meaning of the phrase has been fleshed out by 200 years of caselaw from the federal courts. States are free to add MORE requirements for a taking or provide for MORE compensation, but this is to be done through the democratic process NOT AT THE BARREL OF A GUN!

 

[georgeduz]

What I said was that a bunch of clowns who declared a jehad against eminent domain was idiotic.

If that is the mentality of your "militia" then they are criminals and should not even be allowed to own guns mr moore these men did not break any laws,seems to me they have more balls than u.maybe u should change ur name to miss moore.

 

[Attala_County]

This was a 'noise abatement' program.People were complaining about the noise so the government(who owns the airport), said 'fine', we'll buy and tear down the houses in the worst noise areas.The Cockrell owned this home for 16 yrs.They owned the property before the government said they needed space for noise.This was not property bought from the government in the first place either.The family had no problems with the nearness of the airport and were willing to stay despite others leaving.In my opinion, another case of emminent domain being misused to justify the taking of private property for frivolous general use.

Nobody would've had to move if they hadn't complained about the noise.
And the government saw a chance to make some tax money for the"community"
"the people's soviet republic of Southhaven."

 

[brufener]

Nobody would've had to move if they hadn't complained about the noise.

So is your solution that people shouldn't complain, or that the government should ignore them, or that the government should only buy out people who complain?

No way to stop people from complaining, and I hope that our government doesn't ignore us.

Should the government only buy out those who complain? It seems like this would make the homeowners worse off. If the government only bought houses here and there in a neighborhood, what are they going to do with them? I assume that nobody else wanted them - that is why the people didn't sell them on the market. So the government leaves the houses vacant? Sounds like a recipe for a crime/war zone. The homeowners that are there have their property values go down (property values go down in high crime areas). Then when they finally complain, their property is worth less and they get paid less. Not to mention that the government has paid for land with your tax dollars, and is doing nothing with it, and is not collecting property taxes on it. Sounds like things could get expensive for the local government real quick.

When the government purchases/takes land, an all or nothing approach is the only one that makes sense.

Bryce

 

[Cosmoline]

another case of emminent domain being misused to justify the taking of private property for frivolous general use.

Well YOU don't get to decide whether or not it's frivolous. The elected officials apparently felt the costs of buying the property outright was cheaper in the long run than having to soundproof the houses. So they exercised the state's power to take private property. Apparently the self-styled "mississippi militia" had never bothered to read up on the law of takings, or they just didn't care.

Again, I may think a highway is not only frivolous but dangerous to the environment. SHould I have a right to block a highway project?

 

[NineseveN]

The bare requirement in the 5th is not defined there, but the meaning of the phrase has been fleshed out by 200 years of caselaw from the federal courts. States are free to add MORE requirements for a taking or provide for MORE compensation, but this is to be done through the democratic process NOT AT THE BARREL OF A GUN!

My point in fact: the government gets to decide what is just compensation, not the people. Remember, this is a government for the people, not to rule the people.

Just compensation is still heavily debated. I could find nothing conclusive of what "just compensation" means...which is the problem, because it leaves things too open-ended and prone to government abuse. You're going to give someone exact market value + $20,000.00 for a plot of land you're going to build a multi-million dollar golf course or marina on? The value of the project upon completion (revenue, land value) should somehow factor in to "just compensation", like it does in the private sector when you have two interested parties negotiating to come to a fair deal without one having power over the other...oh wait, like it did before the SCOTUS ruined that.

The founding fathers did not envision private property being collected so that some fat politician could get his buddy's fur-trader store on a more traveled plot of land, or so that some greedy developer could build a marina or a mini-mall on the site. I can assure you of that. For government and military installations in key areas where no other sight would be strategically suitable? Sure, that makes sense...golf course, malls and marinas and other economic reasons...I sincerely have my doubts that this is what was intended, because to my knowledge, it did not go on then.

Does anyone have a cite for early US government seizing property, like anytime shortly after Amendment V went into law? What kinds of land did hey take and for what purpose?

 

[White Horseradish]

The vast majority of people drive. A small minority plays golf. I really don't see why this minority should get preferential treatment from the government. You, apparently, can. Care to enlighten me?

 

[EghtySx]

Again, I may think a highway is not only frivolous but dangerous to the environment. SHould I have a right to block a highway project?

These people weren't alone though. Without knowing all the facts, you can say that there were others who agreed with them.

And you certainly have the right to try and block anything you want to with whatever legal resources are at your disposal. This doesn't make you right as it didnt necessarily make them right or wrong. All I am saying is there were obviously others who agreed with them so strongly that they left their homes and camped out to help with their fight. So, without knowing all the facts, that tells me that there just might have been something to the claims made by these people.

Unless they are just all crazy. Several people succumbing to the same mental condition at the same time. Stranger things have happened I guess.

 

[Cosmoline]

Does anyone have a cite for early US government seizing property, like anytime shortly after Amendment V went into law? What kinds of land did hey take and for what purpose?

They certainly took vast amounts of land from natives and turned it over to private use. And they didn't even give compensation for it.

 

[Cosmoline]

These people weren't alone though. Without knowing all the facts, you can say that there were others who agreed with them.

If so, the proper response would have been to oust the elected officials and reverse the decision. I also have sympathy for a HOMEOWNER who defends HIS property. I have much less sympathy for the intervention of a self-styled militia.

 

[NineseveN]

They certainly took vast amounts of land from natives and turned it over to private use. And they didn't even give compensation for it.

Oh, well that's the model we want to be emulating now isn't it?

I don't think this applies, not because it does not coincide with my point, but because of the various other factors...let's try to keep this in the realm of what transpires between the US gov and the citizens of the US...the native Americans had a bad deal all around, but I don't think it applies here.

And all the incentives given even in apology after the fact might qualify as compensation, though it's certainly not "just" compared to what was taken.

 

[Cosmoline]

The problem is, who gets to decide? Traditionally that's been left to the elected officials, with the proviso that they must provide just compensation. A public golf course and noise abatement, however frivolous you may fell they are, are still legitimate reasons to take private property.

The question of taking property and turning it over to private developers is a different matter.

 

[lucky_fool]

How do YOU get to decide that a noise abatement buffer zone isn't sufficiently compelling to justify a taking? Since the founding of the Republic these decisions have been left to elected officials, who can be kicked out by vote if their choices upset the community.

I hate highways. If I don't want a highway, why should I have to move my house just because it's sitting right in the path of a proposed route that elected officals have agreed upon? Hey if I don't want to use the highway why should I leave?

The noise abatement buffer zone relocation was for the benefit of the people living in said zone. If Cockrell didn't mind the noise then he gets no benefit from being forced to move.

Your analogy of highways doesn't match this case. Other people get the benefit of driving on the highway, nobody other than Cockrell is affected by his living in the noisy area.

 

[Sinsaba]

If so, the proper response would have been to oust the elected officials and reverse the decision. I also have sympathy for a HOMEOWNER who defends HIS property. I have much less sympathy for the intervention of a self-styled militia.

Remember, this "intervention" was requested by the rightful owners of the property.

I wonder, if this person had gathered a number of people together (no militia, no talk of guns) and they all said "no we won't move", etc. would that have been acceptable?

The courts obviously thought their arguments had merit and should be heard (granted they didn't win) had they not stood up and made people (media etc.) notice wouldn't they have just been pushed aside?

In general, I am not in favor of acts of civil disobedience most particularly at the point of a gun. I have to ask though, at what point does government misuse of power justify it? I know I don't have any fast and hard answer to that but I do know there is such a point. For these individuals that point was obviously reached.

If the above sounds at odds with my earlier comment about the government leaving me alone etc. it is because not only am I a libratarian (small "L") but I am also a realist and understand that today's society doesn't work the way I think it should.

I think it great that the individuals on both sides of the conflict were reasonable enough that no body got hurt.

 

[Jeff White]

Attala_County said;

Actually about half of Mississippi Militia members are either active or former military or police.Commander of my unit is a former Navy Seal.I work hard for Attala Engineering.There are no underacheivers in my unit.If you can't pass level 1 training,then all you can be is supply carrier or messenger in a time of war.

Let me get this right, a good number of members of the Mississippi Militia are serving police officers? Doesn't whatever agency regulates peace officers in Mississippi have standards requiring background checks and fingerprints before someone is certified? Doesn't membership in an organization that advocates violent overthrow of the government disqualify them?

Perhaps you'd care to discuss your level 1 training. What's so difficult about it?

Jeff

 

[DunedinDragon]

BIG Reality Check

Actually about half of Mississippi Militia members are either active or former military or police.Commander of my unit is a former Navy Seal.I work hard for Attala Engineering.There are no underacheivers in my unit.If you can't pass level 1 training,then all you can be is supply carrier or messenger in a time of war.

Sheesh....sounds like little boys that never grew out of wanting to play Army.

Time for a reality check.

The Commander is a former Navy Seal? Seals are a tactical response unit used to support strategic operations. Wars are not about tactical responses except on individual engagements, and those are refered to as "battles". Wars are fundatmentally about strategic, choreographed initiatives to achieve the overall plan.

Don't fool yourself, at best you are only prepared to engage in a battle, and a limited battle at that...not a war. IF you ever did engage the military in a full force strategic engagement (which is highly doubtful) you would quickly understand the difference when (just like Iraq...BOTH times) within the first 24 hours your ability to communicate orders, make plans that are not compromised, feed your soldiers, and logistically stage personell and supplies for a battle are totally disrupted by the strategic planners that know how to use all of their resources to effectively emasculate your army as step ONE of a WAR.

Militia are only as effective as the formal military planners allow them to be by arming, supporting, and directing them.

By the way...I wasn't a Seal...however, I did work for the JCS for 9 years and learned a thing or two about "War".