Eminent Domain?

[MarkC]

Have you heard about the situation in New London, Conn.?
The city is trying to take the land away from about a dozen property onwers so it can develop the area with a hotel and conferense center, etc. The claim is that this will boost the economy, etc.
Now, there is a Constitional amendment that allows this, as long as the owners are compensated,a nd the land will will used for "public use".
Do you guys agree with this? Should a governemnt be allowed to throw you some cash and take your property to build hotels and conference centers?

 

[keith]

I doubt the state Supreme Court will go along with this. Let's hope not! If they do, nobodies house is safe because there is always some higher tax revenue option for your land.

If I were much wealthier, I'd find out where the judges live and immediately execute plans to evict them and put in higher tax revenue car washes. Maybe they would see the danger in this issue.

 

[ruking77]

Sorry guys, this has been normal, normal stuff for a long long time. As a matter of fact, New England has a lot of conservation groups that in effect mask the almost run away "nazi" est behaviors, i.e., kinder and gentler. aka citizen activists, community concerns, coastal authority, historical societies, etc, etc, and yada yada. In fact, "eminient domain" has a whole process that it follows to make sure it passes muster on the "Public's Right To Know" Again, some of the principles applied have been around since Washington chopped down cherry trees, such as highest and best use, etc. The cornerstone to why this is even possible is NONE of us owns the LAND in perpetuity. We are fee simple. Pay the fee: excercise the rights to the land. The only one that owns the land in perpetuity is GOVERNMENT.

I was on a silicon valley citys' planning commission for more than 4 years during its building hay day.

[ February 21, 2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: ruking77 ]

 

[brian]

Happens frequently. Those who shop at Costco should know the company openly approves this policy. There was an article in the WSJ about this a few weeks ago. A property owner in Kansas (near KC) had some buildings taken away even though were home to local businesses, etc so Costco could build a store there.

-brian

 

[ruking77]

Yes, around here the prices are so sky high, that landowner's really don't see a lot of "red" when some stuff is slated for EM. Years ago I help to get sides together for a quasi EM gig. One that happened is the environmental lobby had studied and documented some concerns about reparian concerns for an area of land that for our purposes would be freeway right of way land owned by a private landowner and the sewage treatment plant had "proximity" concerns to the new right of way AND would truncate reparian habitat (on a private owners property). So the land was bought for tri fold reasonings 1. reparian habitat 2. buffer for a sewage treatment plant. 3 buffer right of way for freeway.

While this is my own opinion, this land was not even fit to build a farm shed on and in fact the private owner left it unprepared and unfarmed. It sold as "buffer" land for $950,000 per acre.

[ February 21, 2005, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: ruking77 ]

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by k1xv:
The US Constitution permits the taking of property for "just compensation".

---

I'm afraid you've left out a fair bit there. Something about "for the public good" and all that.

The Connecticut situation is the taking of non blighted property and transfering it to private owners for other uses that generate higher tax revenues.

Like I said, I'd love to put a car wash on your land. Where do you live? I'll start the paperwork and you'll get just compensation.

It's not just Connecticut either. There are no limits to the ambitions of politicians and their desire for more and more and more spending:

New Jersey

 

[k1xv]

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution reads as quoted below. It also applies to State takings through the adoption of the fourteenth Amendment.

"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 offense 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."

The issue you have is not the compensation, but rather what constitutes a "public use".

I am not going to provide you with a legal treatise. However, the various courts of this land do not agree with your view of public use. An activity need only be found by the legislature to be publicly beneficial to meet the public use requirement.

Thus, to be able to take property for just compensation, all the legislature needs to do is empower a public agency to condemn property and purchase land for some project that the state views as beneficial to the public, and it is a "public use".

Under this view of things, private property has been condemned for housing projects, industrial parks, utility facilities, airports, railroads, etc., things that you might view as private activities.

Therefore, if the legislature finds that the public interest is served by setting up an industrial improvement authority, and that authority seeks land to build an industrial park to be occupied by private firms, the industrial improvement authority may indeed be empowered by the legislature to condemn land for that purpose.

In some cases, such as public utility corporations, the state condemnation power has even been delegated by the legislature to private corporations to exercise on their own.

Can you cite me any examples where the public taking/just compensation provisions have been expressly used to take private property to turn it over to a car wash operator?

 

[rg144]

This happened to an uncle of mine. A highway was built south Bethlehem PA. He had had his property taken away. Of course it destroyed him - he was retired, had a small business building grandfather clocks - all taken away from him for the highway. That's the reality of it.

 

[k1xv]

Sadly, the "just compensation" provision only goes to fair market value, and does not take into account the emotional value of a property to an individual, or the major disruption it may cause in their lives.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

It's happened in other states. The courts shut it down, the elected officials were ousted in next election.

 

[k1xv]

The US Constitution permits the taking of property for "just compensation". So it is a matter of valuation. Just compensation ususally means the fair market value of the property for the "highest and best use" permitted under law (in other words, consistent with the zoning and other laws).

 

[pbm]

quote:

---

Originally posted by k1xv:
The US Constitution permits the taking of property for "just compensation". So it is a matter of valuation. Just compensation ususally means the fair market value of the property for the "highest and best use" permitted under law (in other words, consistent with the zoning and other laws).

---

I don't think the "Founding Fathers" meant that property could be taken for a "hotel and conference center" but rather for roads , bridges, military bases and other "necessary" things. The ACLU should be jumping all over this one.