Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Another abuse of emminent domain.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Another abuse of emminent domain.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: 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.
Collapse -
I hope every official who gets involved

In reply to: Another abuse of emminent domain.

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.


click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
I thought the use of emminent domain

In reply to: Another abuse of emminent domain.

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.


Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I'm sure it's who wants it, as always.

In reply to: I thought the use of emminent domain

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) A religious school, at that.

In reply to: I thought the use of emminent domain

Collapse -
I can't be totally opposed to the concept

In reply to: Another abuse of emminent domain.

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

In reply to: I can't be totally opposed to the concept

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

In reply to: The Poor

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 ...

In reply to: Another abuse of emminent domain.

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

Collapse -
You'll have to explain that one, Evie.

In reply to: This violation of your rights brought to you by ...

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



Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Sublime suburban chariot

High on style and technology, the 2019 Volvo XC90 is an incredibly satisfying everyday crossover.