Pandora's eminent domain box

Pandora's box has been opened and it will be the magic phrase used by city officials to steal the property from citizens in order to raise revenue for the city.

"Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex."

Six THOUSAND residents to be "displaced" (I love it. They really have a way with words, huh?) if the city decides to pursue this route.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; you do not own the property you spent money to own. The government owns it, and they can do as they darn-well please with it.

www.washtimes.com...

First up before I post my opinion, I am 100% AGAINST private companies having the ability to initiate eminent domain.

But having said that, land and property owners in any area that are subject to eminent domain will be paid fair market value for their property. So the term “displaced” is technically accurate. Its not that it’s being stolen from you, it’s just being bought against your will. Some owners may actually make a fair bit of cash.

The people I feel sorry for the most are renters. They are the biggest losers. Imagine being a renter but you have worked for a company for 20 years. You lose your home due to eminent domain and you cannot find anything else to rent. You may have to give up your job if you can’t get anything close enough.

I would hate to be on the short end of eminent domain, but in the end nothing is actually being stolen from these people, it’s just a royal pain in the wazoo. I think if I was contacted by a development company inquiring about my home, prior to any initiation of the eminent domain process I would start to negotiate right away. This way I would retain more control of the transaction. After all, they would rather pay me an elevated price than go through the hassle and cost of eminent domain only to end up paying me fair market value anyways.

Oh well, crappy situation for these people, but the property owners will get paid and “displacement” is an accurate description of the circumstance.

Hey, just remember: Judge Suiter himself is in the process of being displaced as a result of this law he helped approve.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; you do not own the property you spent money to own. The government owns it, and they can do as they darn-well please with it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would like to add this to this thread, it relates, our tax dollars do go for our parks and monuments.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by SpittinCobra]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I've said it before and I'll say it again; you do not own the property you spent money to own. The government owns it, and they can do as they darn-well please with it.

I've said the same thing, only in language not appropriate for this board.

The rich, powerful and connected take advantage of the poor, weak and disenfranchised. Same as it ever was...

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Pandora's box has been opened and it will be the magic phrase used by city officials to steal the property from citizens in order to raise revenue for the city.

Six THOUSAND residents to be "displaced" (I love it. They really have a way with words, huh?) if the city decides to pursue this route.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; you do not own the property you spent money to own. The government owns it, and they can do as they darn-well please with it.

=
I'm ashamed to admit that Souter is a resident of NH. Let's hope the Liberty Hotel petition succeeds in giving him a dose of his own.

I guess our only hope to fight this is , from TC's link,

In the Kelo ruling, a divided Supreme Court held that private development offering jobs and increased tax revenues constituted a public use of property, but the court held that state legislatures can draft eminent-domain statutes to their satisfaction.

But that would imply politicians with balls. Figure the odds.

If I'm not mistaken, they are reviewing this ruling at the Supreme Court level right now. The dems and repubs are working together on this issue, I think we'll see this ruling overturned in the near future, or at least strict burden of proof enforced with it.

Eminent Domain Reform

Originally posted by skippytjc
First up before I post my opinion, I am 100% AGAINST private companies having the ability to initiate eminent domain.

OMG you're kidding, right? Corporations can really do that in America? That is the craziest thing I have heard in a long time. Here in Australia, our constitution gives the Federal Government powers of compulsory acquisition, but there are criteria they must follow which the Courts adhere to very strictly. The idea that a private company could initiate such a process is just ludicrous, in my opinion.

First of all, you have to read between the lines in Skippy's post, the ruling does not say private companies have the power to “displace“ people. It’s up to the state government, however, if a company makes an offer with the state to build a certain amount of property, in order to bring in a certain amount of revenue, the state might take them up on it.

I am against this ruling, the law as it was before was just enough in my opinion. I hope the congress or state officials enact laws that diminish or abolish this Supreme Court ruling.

As usual the citizens are the ones losing and for the "fair value" that is just a myth, the fair value for a poor or low income community is just that, low.

Once the place is turn into a complex for the rich and well off the value of the property will multiply ten times over.

The money given to the former residents of the area will not be enough to even buy a mobile home to live in the outskirts.

It a shame.

[edit on 3-10-2005 by marg6043]

The problem I have had, and continue to have, with eminent domain (or compulsory acquisition here in Oz) is that many times there is more to a home than the sum of its parts. What I mean by this is that your home is more than a collection of bricks and wood and concrete. Your home can be the place your children grew up, the place where you grew up, the place where the majority of your memories were forged. If you are forced to leave your home, what amount of monetary payout can compensate the loss of your memories and the sense of identity that comes with living in a home for a prolonged period of time? By what yardstick do we place a value on the intangible aspects that are as much a part of a home as the foundation?

[edit on 3/10/05 by Jeremiah25]

Jeremiah25 good philosophical thinking, however, if the real world worked like that, my car would be worth millions

[edit on 3-10-2005 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Jeremiah25 good philosophical thinking, however, if the real world worked like that, my car would be worth millions

[edit on 3-10-2005 by WestPoint23]

Oh, of course. My point is simply that when government invokes the power of eminent domain, which they have every right to do, it should not be for flippant reasons or reasons which have not been given sufficient consideration. Stripping somebody of their property, even if you agree to compensate them, is an exercise in the application of staggering amounts of power. My point is that there are a number of factors to consider in the application of that power and not all of them are tangible. Of course the needs of the community and the economic factors involved must be assessed, but eminent domain should, in my personal opinion, only be exercised when it absolutely has to. Examples of this would include the need to build new infrastructure - airports, highways, etc.

This is disgusting...

If those people do not want to sell, they should not have to.

Any judges who allow private companies to purchase private land through imminent domain, any politicians who make the deals, the private purchasers who work through these channels, and any officers who enforce this garbage, should be fair game in all meanings of the phrase.

Private property is THE keystone to the success of this country and is THE reason this country is great. It's a human right to own THEIR land. If someone else wants it, they PAY THE ASKING PRICE or they don't get it, PERIOD.

Originally posted by marg6043
As usual the citizens are the ones losing and for the "fair value" that is just a myth, the fair value for a poor or low income community is just that, low.

The people that receive the fair market value are mostly landlords who don't even live in the poor but desirable areas.

What happens to the renters that live at the poverty line or lower (Florida residents where this is proposed have an average annual income of $19K)?

Who will be their advocates? What politicians will speak on their behalf? Will the developer and the gov't find them housing at the same rent they were paying? What if they are suddenly displaced far from their jobs.?

Oh, I get it. Just boot those Mexicans back to Mexico and take their jobs over, eh?

This is disgusting...

If those people do not want to sell, they should not have to.

AMM I agree with you on this case, but in the original meaning of Eminent Domain I think that the govt. should have the power to take your land for public use. For example, high ways, roads, bridges etc.

I dont mind the government having the power of eminant domain. IF used properly. Sometimes it is best to tear down and rebuild an area, sometimes its out right neccessary. But for all of you who do not know, it is now legal in the US for private companies to initiate the process, and thats just plain wrong.

Guess who was the big lobbiest for this law? WALMART. Yes, Walmart can boot you from your home if they convince the local govenment that your land would generate more tax owned by Walmart than it does owned by you. No kidding.

[edit on 4-10-2005 by skippytjc]