SC Eminent Domain Case

[WayneConrad]

Rights flow from property

We should oppose all but the most necessary applications of emminent domain, and even then with much anguish, because all rights flow from the ownership and control of real property. On my land I am king. If government can take property with ease, then it has knocked the base of our rights out from under us and made moot all of our efforts to retain them.

 

[2nd Amendment]

Well Said!

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Quote:
When the gubmint takes land under eminent domain, it hires an independent, unbiased appraiser to estimate the value of the land at the time of taking.


This is funny. And very, very fanciful. It may be what the gooberment is supposed to do. in reality they set an arbitrary value, take the property and pay what they want...when they want. We lost beachfront property in Floriduh this way, for a "national park project", during the Carter Admin. Shortly thereafter the "project" fell apart and the land was sold to developers(along with that belong to several hundred others). It took the goobermint 2 years AFTER that sale to pay us less than one fifteenth what they sold it for.

And that, my friend, is how eminent domain always works today. While I am certain someone somewhere has gotten something close to fair market value I personally have not encountered a single such instance. Ever. Anywhere. It's just the way it's been for the past 30 or 40 years. Especially out west. All this case does it further legitimize it if the locality wins, and I am certain they will.

I don't know how to say this delicately, so I'll just be blunt: You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

First, the "goobermint" doesn't have any say over what the values are. I work in an appraisal office, and I KNOW this to be true. In over five years here, I have NEVER seen any government employee attempt to influence an appraiser. People from the private sector (banks, investors, developers) attempt this occasionally, but NEVER has the government. It's simply not in the governments best interest to do so. (You should know this, if you truly know what you are talking about...)

I'm sorry to hear that you lost beach front property. But I'm inclined to ask: why you didn't buy the property back from the gov once they decided not to use it? The gov is required by law to sell any property it doesn't need. It is required by law to offer that property first to the original owners. That would be you, 2nd Amendment, so why didn't you buy it back? If you didn't have the opportunity to buy it back, why didn't you talk to a lawyer? (You knew about these laws, and about your rights as a property owner, right? Afterall, you know all about this eminent domain stuff, according to your post...)

I won't respond the the second half of your post. You seem to think yourself an expert in these matters, even though you clearly are not. So I won't waste my time. And I'll even ignore your insults against my integrity, and that of the appraisers I work with.




There are plenty of us in this industry who have a conscience, and actually care about what happens to property owners. We are all very concerned about how often and how easily eminent domain is being misused for "public good" projects. These projects are usually nothing more than government officials doing favors for their friends, or attempting to increase their tax revenues at the expense of small property owners. We have a much clearer view of these activities than you do, and we're even more disgusted than you are.

We also recognize the difference between abuse of eminent domain and legitimate use. The former must be eliminated, and I wish those in Conn all the best luck. (You can't imagine how refreshing it is to see poperty owners stand up for their rights. Most just stand by and allow themselves to be taken advantage of...)

But legitimate use of eminent domain is a good and necessary power for the government to have. People are treated fairly under it, despite the ingorant ravings of some on these boards. Condemning any use of eminent domain based on the illegal actions of a few gov't officials is both irrational and irresponsible.

 

[Gray Peterson]

A good example of eminent domain being used properly was during the construction of public transit facilities, for example, Sound Transit's Link Light Rail system that's currently being constructed down to Sea Tac here in the Seattle metro area.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

"But I'm inclined to ask: why you didn't buy the property back from the gov once they decided not to use it?"

Sheesh. Maybe it appreciated while the government held it, and he couldn't afford to buy it back? There are plenty of potential reasons.

 

[2nd Amendment]

So, are you attempting to claim that what happened to my grandparents did not happen? I'm fairly certain my grandmother still has the paperwork and court documents... Oh, we were unaware of the resale until the time we finally received the check for their "purchase" of our land. Yes, two years later, so if I didn't make it clear before it was something like four actual years to get the cash. Add failure to notify to the list of abominations. BTW, your attack the messenger style is a sure sign of a weak argument. I did not say nor in any fashion even imply I knew diddly back then. I doubt many people did. Certainly not the rest of my family, though they did in fact talk to attorneys. Those attorneys made it perfectly clear that the only thing fighting it would do was cost money.

Rather like these people are about to find out in their SCOTUS case.

Right now I am assembling websites for a couple groups, one focusing on Eminent Domain and another on Watershed issues. It's an enlightening experience. Maybe a bit of research on your part and less knee-jerk defense of your profession(which really has little or nothing to do with the subject here) would help you. But I am going to put this as delicately as I can: You are either lying or have very little actual experience in the issue. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Government almost always sets the price. Maybe you just live in a nice area full of honest bureaucrats. It has about zip to do with your job.

I suppose what I am curious about at this point is why you exhibit such determination to link your employment with this issue, and attempt to defend it that way, when the government abuses are so rampant and thoroughly documented? Especially since such things occupy such a relatively small part of an appraiser's total work load? Seems you'd be far better off disassociating yourself(and appraisers in general) from the entire issue.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Then I guess we'll just have to disagree. All of the eminent domain work I've taken part in has been legitimate and fair. I'll say it again: Around here you're more likely to be ovecompensated than undersompensated.

I suppose if you go out of your way looking for abuses you'll find plenty. If that's all you focus on, you're likely to conlude that all cases, or even most cases, of eminent domain are abusive.

But if you look at a true random sampling, you'll find that the great majority are ethical. Road widenings account for the bulk of eminent domain takings. This is an appropriate and just use of eminent domain. I don't have any numbers, but from what I've seen over the years I'd guess that 98% of all parcels taken are taken for road improvement projects.

I link my "profession" to this discussion because you insist on denigrating it. Your posts state that the government decides what value a parcel should be purchased for, and that the appraisers who work on the project are simply there to "rubber stamp" the government's number. This is absolute bull????, and you ought to know better. Integrity matters a great deal to most of the appraisers I've met, and it galls me to see you insulting people you haven't even met.

(It isn't my profession, incidentally. It's a part time job while I finish college, so I don't have any vested interested in promoting the profession. I'm just calling it like I see it)

Where are these websites you're working on? I'd like to have a look at them.

And as for your grandma's land, y'all got screwed. You could have, and probably should have, fought harder against what was done to you. Ignorance is a poor excuse for not standing up for your rights. It can be done, just ask the folks from Conn.

 

[MFH]

Even if an ED dispute resulted in payment of fair market value, so what. Just try to replace a home or business for FMV of the old one. ED payment should include all costs of re-establishment. IMO, ED even for a "approved" purpose is nothing more than theft, unless the "goobermint" makes the damaged party "whole" again. I doubt that they are willing to do that. Unimproved ground is one thing, but homes /businesses are another.

MFH

 

[2nd Amendment]

I was not looking to insult appraisers. It wasn't even an aspect I was thinking of. I will say that appraisals seem to be very subjective, though. An example would be my property vs a piece of property less than a half mile from me that I was looking into buying. My 12 acres, with a new 3000+ square ft home, a lake and decent woods appraised at 210k recently. I was pretty well disgusted(and had three appraisals done, which varied from a low of 168 to the high of 210). The parcel I want is 4 acres, undermined with sinkholes and four rundown trailers and non-code septic systems on it(which is why I wanted it, to remove them and clean it up, the trailers literally being junk I would have hauled away). It borders a railroad track. The owner wants 85k and has an appraisal to back up that price. Give a logical explanation for that? *shrug*

Of course my grandmother got screwed. I knew that as a teen at the time. So did the 100 or so other property owners in that area. But back then there was a lot less understanding of many abuses. When you talk to an attorney and the attorney tells you there's no hope what else are you supposed to do? Especially when there was no method of research or contacts such as the net provides today?

The watershed sight is www.watershedus.com , which should be up in a few days in a rough form. The ED site hasn't got an addy yet and I have no idea when the'll be setting it up, or if I'll have to do that as well.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Even if an ED dispute resulted in payment of fair market value, so what. Just try to replace a home or business for FMV of the old one. ED payment should include all costs of re-establishment. IMO, ED even for a "approved" purpose is nothing more than theft, unless the "goobermint" makes the damaged party "whole" again. I doubt that they are willing to do that. Unimproved ground is one thing, but homes /businesses are another.

Around here, the government does exactly what you say it should. Making the damaged party whole is PRECISELY what the appraiser is hired to do.

If you had a property that's been improved for some particular purpose, you will be awarded enough to buy a new, comparable property and improve it to the same standards as before. I can't tell you how many times we award property owners enough money to build an entirely new building on a new lot to replace an old, decrepit building we're taking.

We'll build new curb-cuts, new signs, new landscaping, new parking lots, new loading docks, and anything else needed to reconfigure a property to its original condition. If a property can't be repaird to its original condition, we'll offer to buy an entirely new property for the owner.

We'll buy an entire lot that's in floodplane, even if we're only taking a few square feet of it. That's because it's not possible for a property owner to buy comparable floodplane acreage to replace what we're taking. To make the property owner whole again we have to take the whole thing, so that the owner receives enough compensation to buy a new property somewhere else. (Anyone who owns land in floodplane will jump at this oportunity to sell land to the gov't that can't legally be sold otherwise)

The government also offers relocation assisstance. That's money that the property owner can use to transfer equipment, inventory, or personal belongings to a new location. In the case of a business, relocation asistance is also offered to help the business re-establish itself at the new location. Advertising the new location so aold customers can find it, or upgrading facilities to attract a new/different customer base are some of the more common uses of relocation assistance.

Any competant appraiser WILL make you whole again if the government "eminent domains" you.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I was not looking to insult appraisers. It wasn't even an aspect I was thinking of. I will say that appraisals seem to be very subjective, though. An example would be my property vs a piece of property less than a half mile from me that I was looking into buying. My 12 acres, with a new 3000+ square ft home, a lake and decent woods appraised at 210k recently. I was pretty well disgusted(and had three appraisals done, which varied from a low of 168 to the high of 210). The parcel I want is 4 acres, undermined with sinkholes and four rundown trailers and non-code septic systems on it(which is why I wanted it, to remove them and clean it up, the trailers literally being junk I would have hauled away). It borders a railroad track. The owner wants 85k and has an appraisal to back up that price. Give a logical explanation for that? *shrug*

REsidential appraisers are genreally worthless. Anyone can call himself an appraiser and assign any value he wants to residential property.

Commercial/industrial appraisal is different. There are standards in the commercial appraisal business. Commercial appraisers are accountable to professional review organizations, and if their work doesn't measure up they're not permitted to continue in the industry.

If you want an accurate value of the two properties you've mentioned, you'll have to seek out a qualified commercial appraiser. They're expensive, they take a long time to complete work, and you'll probably have trouble finding one who's willing to appraise residential properties. But if you want quality work that's what you have to do.

Eminent domain takings are always appraised by qualified commercial appraisers. The government sets high standards for the appaisal work it buys.

 

[2nd Amendment]

The lenders accept these appraisals as valid. As such while paying for another appraisal on my land might help me with a higher value it won't help me with the piece I want to purchase. He's going to stick with his big-bucks appraisal and the banks are going to continue to accept it, I'm sure, regardless of what I come up with.

You have said a couple things that got me to thinking where some serious discord may be, though. I've got to make some calls to area appraisers and see if I can get a few to answer some questions...

 

[Jeff White]

Headless Thompson Gunner said;

I link my "profession" to this discussion because you insist on denigrating it. Your posts state that the government decides what value a parcel should be purchased for, and that the appraisers who work on the project are simply there to "rubber stamp" the government's number. This is absolute bull????, and you ought to know better. Integrity matters a great deal to most of the appraisers I've met, and it galls me to see you insulting people you haven't even met.

You should try being a cop on this board sometime.

I don't see how the Supremes can rule against the property owners here. To do so would open up all kinds of bad things. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

We settled this issue in Illinois in 2002 when the State Supreme Court made a ruling that essentially stripped eminant domain power from these public/private development agencies. IIRC It was a case involving the taking of some property belonging to a meat packing company to use for a parking lot for a Motor Speedway. The court (correctly IMO) ruled that the taking really benefitted the speedway more then it benefitted the public.

We got ourselves into this mess when we decided that it was government's job to create jobs. All government should do as a way of creating jobs is to create a business friendly climate...capitolism will take it from there.

Jeff

 

[moa]

So, when a residence is siezed by the government under ED (not erectile disfunction), is the home owner paid moving and living expenses too?

 

[Otherguy Overby]

There's more to it.

Okay, we all know that in some cases Eminent Domain takings are abused in some cases.

Many of you need to do some research on "takings" which is what the government does with your property when it EDs you. There have been SCOTUS cases on this with probably unconstitutional outcome. The worst area for the public is when government creates a victim of a "partial taking" do a web search.

Takings can also be something like the state builds a prison next door to your house by EDing property adjoining yours. The state ultimately reduced the value of your property and, supposedly, you should be reimbursed for your loss. That's a partial taking.

You buy a property to do something with and paid an accordingly high price, the city later rezones the property so you could then only do something of lesser value and then wants to ED it at the lower value, well that's the kind of things that end up at SC.

There've been wetland rulings that've removed the "right" to build on private property. These are partial takings and there's no compensation.

There've been cases where the BLM denies access to privately owned land, which is also a taking.

There's a huge problem with this in the US and this case in front of SCOTUS right now is way more important than most realize.

The right to own property is the basis of our system and economy. If there are enough rulings against ownership, especially without just compensations, the bench will have created a back door to government control of property.

And, number 1 of the Communist Manefesto is:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
=======

How's that for wrapping it up in a cute tin-foil hat?

 

[GunnySkox]

I just like the idea that, a government -- set up by a bunch of people who specifically detested monarchs and tyranny -- now uses a page from the playbook of those selfsame despotic tyrants.

Y'see, way back in the day, nobles had a thing they liked to call "The Divine Right of Kings" which says, "I am of Noble Blood because GOD made me that way, and if you don't like it, you're a heretic." Eminent domain stems from that, saying, "Well, I'm the God-endorsed Noble around here, and since all this land is/was mine in the first place, I don't owe any single one of you little peasants a thing. Now pack up and move, I'd like a nice, big, hunting lodge right where you're all trying to grow wheat." Apparently, at some point, somebody in our favorite governing body realized, "Man, I wish those houses weren't in the way of this road I'd really like to be here. Oh, wait, I remember! It was the government's land in the first place, so we can..."

Ugh.

We argue endlessly against the government "knowing better than us" about our choice in self-defense and firearms, but suddenly, for some of us, if they "know better than us" about how to use our land, they're in the right? Screw that.

~Slam_Fire

 

[Old NFO]

REsidential appraisers are genreally worthless. Anyone can call himself an appraiser and assign any value he wants to residential property.

HTG, you might want to take a chill pill, as this comment is over the top...

That statement is patently not true, and is an insult to the appraisal community as a whole. Just for grins, I went to your state (Indiana) and pulled up your requirements- see below... then you can retract the above statement.

(d) An applicant for certified residential appraiser shall submit, on a form prescribed by the board, two thousand five hundred
(2,500) hours of appraisal experience that the applicant has performed. The experience must be obtained over a period of at least
twenty-four (24) months prior to the filing of the application. The board may request documentation in the form of reports or filed
memoranda or any appraisal in support of the claim for experience.
(e) An applicant for certified general appraiser shall submit, on a form prescribed by the board, three thousand (3,000) hours
of appraisal experience that the applicant has performed over a period of not less than thirty (30) months. At least two thousand
(2,000) hours must be in the general category. The board may request documentation in the form of reports, file memoranda, or any
appraisal in support of the claim for experience. (Indiana Real Estate Commission; 876 IAC 3-3-9

 

[beerslurpy]

Otherguy is the only poster that has made real sense in the past few pages.

ED is not about the government failing to compensate people adequately. ED is about the forceful taking being wrong in the first place unless it is done as a last resort to fulfill some constitutionally imposed governmental duty.

But ED is just at the edge of a whole can of socio-political worms that headless's posts are distratcing us from. The Poletown definition of ED is one expression of a general government disdain for private property that reached its high point during the FDR years and has subsequently found expression through environmental initiatives (EPA and BLM anyone?), the War on Some Drugs, and the War on Terror. Rolling back ED to the point where it is compatible with an ownership society that esteems Property above all other rights is the first step towards undoing the evil that has been foisted upon us in the past century.

The next step is to propertly curtail what are the "needful things" are that government is compelled to do for the citizens. I am of the opinion that the list is very, very short indeed and most certainly does not include schools, hospitals, housing projects or prisons (especially privately owned prisons, which is most of them). And we need to punish officials who mix duty with profiteering. Tar and feather or hang; or both, preferably.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That statement is patently not true, and is an insult to the appraisal community as a whole. Just for grins, I went to your state (Indiana) and pulled up your requirements- see below... then you can retract the above statement.

I stand by the content of my statement, though my language may have been a little extreme. There are surely skilled and honest residential appraisers out there. Unfortunately there are just as many unskilled quacks, and the industry doesn't make it easy enough for an average residential property owner to tell the difference.

Many pf the "appraisals" people tell me about aren't really apraisals at all. Usually they're the (biased or unfounded) opinion of a realtor or a broker, not a true appraiser. The "appraisal report" is dressed up to look like an actual appraisal, but doesn't have the research and justifications that a true appraisal would have. This practice is dishonest, unethical, probably illegal, and very common.

Regarding the certification requirements you mentioned, consider this: Before receiving certification as a residential appraiser, an applicant must have, as you cited, thousands of hours of experience appraising property. How is one to achive this experience, if not through conducting appraisals before seeking certification. The obvious implication is that you don't need to be certified before performing any appraisal work. But don't take my word for it:
876 IAC 3-2-3 (d) - "Nothing about this article [the requirements for seeking certification] shall be construed to limit the right of licensed real estate brokers to conduct appraisals of real estate..."

I've not studied the requirements in depth, as I have no interest in becoming an appraiser. But my exposure to the industry has led me to believe that many (not all) residential real estate agents tend more towards unskilled when it comes to appraising a property. Most mortgage companies have no trouble securing an "appraisal" for a property that gives just about any value they need. It's just a matter of finding the right "appraiser".

2nd Ammendment's inconsistent residential appraisal numbers tend to back this up.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I get the feeling that I'm going around in circles here, so I'm not going to pay any more attention to this thread. Sorry for any distractions I may have caused. I just wanted to straighten out a few misguided notions I heard.

Regards y'all,
John

 

[cracked butt]

Maybe if the homeowners lose in the SC, they can all pitch in to buy a Caterpillar D9, a welder, some scrap steel plate, and a .50 Barret. We need more pissed off people sticking it to the local govt, not less, when the little guy gets stomped on by a corrupt government.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

I was letting it slide...

I was gonna let this slide....

I stand by the content of my statement, though my language may have been a little extreme. There are surely skilled and honest residential appraisers out there. Unfortunately there are just as many unskilled quacks, and the industry doesn't make it easy enough for an average residential property owner to tell the difference.

Because there was a bit of an apology included. But

You went on...

Many pf the "appraisals" people tell me about aren't really apraisals at all. Usually they're the (biased or unfounded) opinion of a realtor or a broker, not a true appraiser. The "appraisal report" is dressed up to look like an actual appraisal, but doesn't have the research and justifications that a true appraisal would have. This practice is dishonest, unethical, probably illegal, and very common.

Uh, I'm a Realtor. You may be mixing up what's commonly called a "market analysis" with a paid appraisal from actual licensed appraiser. Both are opinions of value. They just come from different kinds of professionals. HOWEVER, lenders only accept the latter.

I am very careful NOT to call what I do an appraisal, it's not. BTW, I would quickly lose my license if I was "dishonest, unethical probably illegal" and was so commonly. Grasshopper, you really do need to apologize now.

Now, regarding my opinion of property value, I do much of the same work an appraiser would commonly do to approach/justify it. Besides, it would not be in a client's best interest to recommend a value too low, would it? Conversely, if I recommended an ammount too high, the property wouldn't sell, and if it did sell it probably wouldn't appraise for that value, which is also not in the client's best interest. One more thing, because I may be more familiar with an area I work in, my opinion might even be better than an actual appraiser's might be.

For example, the appraiser would look at comparable properties but would probably only drive by when I've actually been in them, and could explain a difference in value. As a matter of fact, at least where I've worked, it is common practice for Realtors to provide our own list of comparable properties for an appraiser and then explain why there might be a difference.

And, you just couldn't leave it alone...

I've not studied the requirements in depth, as I have no interest in becoming an appraiser. But my exposure to the industry has led me to believe that many (not all) residential real estate agents tend more towards unskilled when it comes to appraising a property. Most mortgage companies have no trouble securing an "appraisal" for a property that gives just about any value they need. It's just a matter of finding the right "appraiser".

Uh, Realtor's opinions, or "Market Analysis" or whatever are FREE. Sure a property owner could pay for an apraisal prior to listing his property, but why? There's gonna have to be a licensed appraisal to get a loan to close in most cases anyway. Also, appraisals are usually a buyer's expense. It's much more effective to just interview several Realtors.

There's also a possible downside for a seller. If his appraisal comes in low, it then becomes a material fact and must be disclosed in writing to a buyer during a transaction in many states. If disclosure is not required it would still be unethical, which professionals are actively discouraged from being. Now, with all your experience you may think this particular paragraph is BS. It's not, and I've got more than 20 years of experience to back my statement up. Just ask any of your appraisor buddies which will come in at a higher dollar value, a re-fi appraisal, or a purchase appraisal?

In a loose money market where lenders have to compete and RE prices are rising, an appraiser is often a bit more liberal with his opinion for a purchase money loan. Of course the opposite is true for a down market.

BTW, my RE experience has mostly all been in California, which is about the most tightly regulated and policed area a Realtor can work in.

Did I piss on your profession, or possibly a lack thereof?

Lastly, it is very common in areas apparently more blue than yours to have significant differences between actual property value and ED values. That's where all those pesky lawsuits come from.

--- Now back to the topic:

Maybe you now understand my interest in takings and Emminent Domain cases. This has a direct bearing on not only my kind of business, but property rights for all of us, much of what the original idea our country was based on. IOW, it is a constitutional case.

Takings and ED cases are JUST as important as second ammendment cases. What if SCOTUS waffles on the ED case before it now? IOW, they say the government can continue taking private property for tax revenue purposes as long as it remains "reasonable". Of course this made it all the way to the Supremes because what's been going on is NOT reasonable.

That would be very much the same as SCOTUS ruling that the second ammendment is an individual right, but, in this day and age, it should be subject to reasonable restrictions. For the common good, of course, and we all know who gets to decide what's "reasonable".

You catching on to the importance here?

Thank you.

 

[publius]

Headless:

When the gubmint takes land under eminent domain, it hires an independent, unbiased appraiser to estimate the value of the land at the time of taking. The compensation paid to the property owner is exactly the value indicated by the appraisal. This is strictly fair, both to the property owner and the tax payers.

Any competant appraiser is able to recognize the future developmental potential a property might have, and his/her valuation will reflect that potential.

A property owner forced to sell under eminent domain is given sufficent compensation to be able to purchase a comparable piece of property elsewhere and resume his economic activities at the new property.

That's not how it happened to my former employer. She had a gliderport on the edge of the Everglades National Park outside Miami. One day, the government announced they were expanding the park. Soon AFTER that, an appraisal was done on her property. Guess what? The future potential and market value of the property was practically nothing, given that it had already been announced that it was a target. They offered her about 1/4 of her TAX appraisal, which everyone knows is always low. That was about what her hangar building was worth, ignoring the 5,000 foot runway and attached land next to it.

This was in the early 90s. When I last spoke to her a couple of years ago, she was still fighting them. It looks like they intend to just fight until she dies. She has no kids, and is in her 70s. The gliderport was her retirement plan.

 

[ken grant]

Question??????????

What gives the right for a private company to practice the taking of property as can be done in Ga.
Ga. Power Co. has used E.D. in many cases in the past such as lakes,property surrounding lakes and right-of-ways.
In fact, they have taken property and either sold it or leased it to someone other than the original owners.
A good example is lakefront property used as marinas and purchased or leased by others and not the original owners.
The income from these properties were much greater than what the original owners were paid and in most, if not all cases the original owners were not given the chance to purchase the property back.

 

[hammer4nc]

Anecdotal case #259: A road building project was proposed here in Wake County. The first written communication given to affected homeowners came in the form of certified checks in the amount of $3-$10k, with the warning that this was the last and final offer; and cashing the checks would automatically waive all legal rights to challenge the settlement valuation.

Some homeowers believed what .gov told them...and cashed the checks. My good friend had a vacant building lot (value $30k) that was rendered useless by the taking. Obvious and indisputible situation. When he went to question the settlement rationale, you would think the response would be "OK, we'll take a look at it, and get back to you". The actual response was "this is the last and final offer, forget it". Now, most suckers...er believers in .gov promises, would have gone away with their tails between their legs, thinking this was just their chosen day to be the bug on the governments windshield.

My friend, whose prior dealings with .gov left him somwhat jaded; simply said "OK, we'll see you in court". (+ strong letter to that effect from his lawyer). He had a check for $30k inside of three weeks.

Moral of this story: Initial offers for condemnations or takings buyouts are lowball, surrounded by false claims (last and final); and designed to prey on people's weakness to cash checks immediately (fast found money), thus waiving any future rights to challenge the settlement.

Quite a bit different from the "indpendent, fair, and open" scenario that some in the industry have tried to glibly pass off in this thread.

General observation, based on personal experience: "The government is not your friend."