General discussion

Another abuse of emminent domain.

Sep 30, 2005 6:54AM PDT

Discussion is locked

Follow
Reply to: Another abuse of emminent domain.
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Another abuse of emminent domain.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
I hope every official who gets involved
Sep 30, 2005 7:07AM PDT

these type of actions, gets voted out next election, and all his neighbors vote to condemn his/her house for a neighborhood park.


This type of nonsenses by our courts and officials, of any party, needs to be met by shunning the officials completely socially.


Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
I thought the use of emminent domain
Sep 30, 2005 2:03PM PDT

was to increase tax revenues. Tearing down a tavern to build an athletic field for a school seems like a reduction in property tax revenues.

Diana

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I'm sure it's who wants it, as always.
Oct 1, 2005 6:52AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) A religious school, at that.
Oct 3, 2005 2:14AM PDT
- Collapse -
I can't be totally opposed to the concept
Oct 1, 2005 1:46PM PDT

but emminent domain seizures should be strictly limited and the "greater good" does not mean tax revenue or improving the image of an area or town. This is best handled by writing proper codes and enforcing them. I would suggest that land seizures would be appropriate if there were substantial safety concerns, security needs, or the property was being used for illegal activities by or with the owners knowledge or his/her lack of proper monitoring. The resale of the seized property would need to carefully thought out but I cannot see a reason to restrict bidding on such to persons or organizations that promised public use. That's just too vague.
The article does not say whether the mentioned private organization asked the city to take the property and sell it to them. I would hope that any such requests would not be entertained. I could allow an organization to put in a contingency bid...ie to express interest....but not to actively lobby for/make a case for seizure of property it wanted. I would suggest, to deter such possibilities, that any person/organization that sought to have property removed from its present owner should automatically be disqualified from acquiring it should the property be taken. That would help resolve the potential for frivolous use of the concept of emminant domain, I would think.

- Collapse -
The Poor
Oct 1, 2005 7:02PM PDT

What I've never understood about eminent domain is why there's a greater government "right" to force the poor off of their land than to force the wealthy off of theirs? The only principle that seems firmly established thereby is a dubious "right by might" where the government won't face as big a chance of backlash against them from the poor as they might from the wealthy. Why shouldn't the person who lives on his little lot in his small home be as protected against eminent domain as the wealthier living in his mansion upon his larger estate?

The problem is everything is reversed in people's thinking from what it used to be. Private property used to be highly respected, whereas government property was looked on as community owned. Used to be eminent domain was instituted because private property rights were so strong there had to be a way to insure at least basic infrastructure could be expanded when needed. Taking private property in order to transfer to another private owner totally destroys the whole concept and rights of private ownership. The ONLY reason eminent domain should EVER be used is for government use of land.

I'd love to see a law that any government land to be disposed of should give the prior owners or their descendants a "first right" of purchase, if it's been held by the government for less than a certain number of years, such as 20 years. Furthermore, the law should set the price during that time to be the same as the government originally paid for it. I'd also see "pass through" sales banned, making such sale a constructive government purchase for purposes of such a law, in order to keep the government from trying to find a way around it. Such a law would force the government to think more about what land they took and also not to profit from it's taking from a sale in the near future, but provide those who suffered the "taking" a chance to make something back in the future on that land by purchasing it back if the government decided to dispose of it for the same price they were paid and then profiting from the resale or the resumed use of the property.

It's looking more like something may need forcing on the federal level to stop this increased expansion of eminent domain power caused lately by the federal court rulings. I like the small town concept of property rights, where in the past, less now, you often saw a very nice place, even a mansion and the neighbors were often living in much more humble abodes, all side by side.

This whole idea that seems so prevalent today that each neighbor must emulate, sometimes almost exactly, the same style home and floor space and match in most ways those of his neighbors, lest anyone impact their property values "negatively" I find to be communistic in its approach. I look on Zoning for the most part as a communist concept, intended to weaken the rights of property owners and give more power over property to the government.

Look at all those expensive condos built all along the beaches in Florida. To me they are the world's worst eyesores, more so than the guy down some street that might live in a smaller home on a smaller lot than I do. I consider those condos as a "blight" upon the landscape more than almost anything else. Just because they aren't an economic "blight" but a boon to the taxbase, they seem to have more property rights than some poor person's "eyesore".

I think this expansion of eminent domain is directly related to the expansion of unnecessary Zoning laws and their enforcement. We need to get back to sectional zoning and leave it there. Sectional zoning assigns areas for different industry, for residential, for business. Zoning, and now eminent domain is used to zone out the poor, to keep pushing them further away so they don't have to be seen.

I'm beginning to think we shouldn't even have property taxes on residential property at all. It gives the excuse for excessive zoning. Anytime a poor homeowner is told he must do something to improve his property that he is financially unable to do, it is oppression, it is a violation of his rights as a property owner. We've moved so far away from the concept of property rights that now we see this odious perversion of eminent domain being used, and blessed by the courts, to put all of us at risk of losing our property rights.

- Collapse -
I've never understood the zoning process anyway
Oct 1, 2005 10:42PM PDT

It does seem to contain too many opportunities for abuse. Folks lose their property because of changes in zoning that do no legally force them out. They just find that taxes and changes to their neighborhoods make the area less attractive and affordable. Such is what happens to family farms as the urban area grows closer to them. My problem is with the ownership of property at all. How can one own land. Anything else is purchased from another by what is, effectively, exchange for labor. Any other commodity is traceable to a "first owner". Land purchase has no such parallel. I could say that God owns the land but this just adds confusion and controversy rather than means to a solution. Perhaps, however, how land is to be used should be part of what determines one's right of posession. I would give first priority to those who actually live on the property as a primary residence.....one plot to a customer. If one lives and works on the same piece of land, that's ok. One who holds property solely for making income, like any other job, assumes the risks that come with it. His/her property is not sacred. My two cents.

- Collapse -
This violation of your rights brought to you by ...
Oct 1, 2005 11:46PM PDT

... the "Justice" you think should be the Chief Justice!

- Collapse -
You'll have to explain that one, Evie.
Oct 3, 2005 2:18AM PDT

I don't believe that I've ever expressed my feeling on who should be Chief Justice.

Thanks,

Dan

CNET Forums

Forum Info