It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Round 1: TheMythLives vs maria_stardust: Modern Manifest Destiny?
page: 111
share:
The topic for this debate is “Eminent Domain Is A Necessary And Positive Government Policy.”
TheMythLives will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
maria_stardust will argue the con position.
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
There is a 10,000 character limit. Excess characters will be deleted prior to judging.
Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.
Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.
Videos are not permitted. This includes all youtube links and other multi-media video sources.
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.
This Is The Time Limit Policy
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.
Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.
In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.
Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
TheMythLives will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
maria_stardust will argue the con position.
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
There is a 10,000 character limit. Excess characters will be deleted prior to judging.
Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.
Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.
Videos are not permitted. This includes all youtube links and other multi-media video sources.
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.
This Is The Time Limit Policy
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.
Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.
In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.
Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
Oh boy, the nerves are heating up..lol.. anyway, much thanks to MemoryShock for setting this up and wishing good luck to Maria_Stardust, as this
debate is obviously going to be a tough one.
Eminent Domain is necessary and positive for the government to hold. To start off lets get an understanding of what this is. Eminent Domain is simply: A states power to sieze all property and citizens rights without there consent.
As I have stated many times before; my opening statements lack quality and therefore lets just get to the point. I will be using news articles, government court cases, and other neccessary sources to prove that Eminent Domain is not only necessary, but vital to the States power and safety of not only its citizens, but the States themselves.
Why is this necessary and important will be explained further into the debate and will be proven. Lets Get This Debate Rolling!
Eminent Domain is necessary and positive for the government to hold. To start off lets get an understanding of what this is. Eminent Domain is simply: A states power to sieze all property and citizens rights without there consent.
As I have stated many times before; my opening statements lack quality and therefore lets just get to the point. I will be using news articles, government court cases, and other neccessary sources to prove that Eminent Domain is not only necessary, but vital to the States power and safety of not only its citizens, but the States themselves.
Why is this necessary and important will be explained further into the debate and will be proven. Lets Get This Debate Rolling!
Well, the first debate tournament of the year is off to a brilliant start. First of all, I would like to thank MemoryShock and SemperFortis for
emceeing this series of intellectual battles. Also, I would to wish my opponent, TheMythLives, the best of luck in what is sure to be a spirited
debate.
Opening Statement
The topic for this debate is “Eminent Domain Is A Necessary And Positive Government Policy.” This is an overreaching and broad statement that could not be further from the truth. The sad reality is that the policy of Eminent Domain has been grossly manipulated to cater to the whims of an elite few.
Just about anything the government does can be labeled as “necessary and positive government policy” provided the spin doctors play their cards right and paint a pretty picture. However, as with many things, views of government policy vary dependent upon an individual’s perspective. No doubt, my opponent will attempt to portray the seizing of private property under the auspice of Eminent Domain as a noble pursuit that should only endear our government to our hearts. After all, the government is only looking after the best interests of its citizens.
At this point I will concede that there are indeed instances where the government will need to procure private property to improve or expand roadways and transit systems; or to perhaps build or expand a school under the fair application of public use. Ultimately, though, what may have started out as a “necessary and positive” government policy has been reduced to nothing more than a loophole through which unscrupulous special interest groups can essential participate in cheap land grabs to better line their coffers.
Throughout the course of this debate, I urge you to lay aside any notions or preconceptions you may have regarding the subject of Eminent Domain and examine the issue with an open mind. Together we will delve into the following:
At the conclusion of this debate, it will become apparent that Eminent Domain is NOT the “necessary and positive” government policy, as my opponent will attempt to portray it, but a brutally blunt policy that forcefully strips private citizens of their personal property to the detriment of the public good.
Socratic Questions
SQ 1: Under what circumstance do you feel Eminent Domain would be beneficial to the public good?
SQ 2: Do you feel that the government’s policy of Eminent Domain has the potential to be abused?
Opening Statement
The topic for this debate is “Eminent Domain Is A Necessary And Positive Government Policy.” This is an overreaching and broad statement that could not be further from the truth. The sad reality is that the policy of Eminent Domain has been grossly manipulated to cater to the whims of an elite few.
Just about anything the government does can be labeled as “necessary and positive government policy” provided the spin doctors play their cards right and paint a pretty picture. However, as with many things, views of government policy vary dependent upon an individual’s perspective. No doubt, my opponent will attempt to portray the seizing of private property under the auspice of Eminent Domain as a noble pursuit that should only endear our government to our hearts. After all, the government is only looking after the best interests of its citizens.
At this point I will concede that there are indeed instances where the government will need to procure private property to improve or expand roadways and transit systems; or to perhaps build or expand a school under the fair application of public use. Ultimately, though, what may have started out as a “necessary and positive” government policy has been reduced to nothing more than a loophole through which unscrupulous special interest groups can essential participate in cheap land grabs to better line their coffers.
Throughout the course of this debate, I urge you to lay aside any notions or preconceptions you may have regarding the subject of Eminent Domain and examine the issue with an open mind. Together we will delve into the following:
- The original intent of Eminent Domain as established by the Constitution
- The ethical issues surrounding Eminent Domain
- The exploitation of Eminent Domain by special interest groups
At the conclusion of this debate, it will become apparent that Eminent Domain is NOT the “necessary and positive” government policy, as my opponent will attempt to portray it, but a brutally blunt policy that forcefully strips private citizens of their personal property to the detriment of the public good.
Socratic Questions
SQ 1: Under what circumstance do you feel Eminent Domain would be beneficial to the public good?
SQ 2: Do you feel that the government’s policy of Eminent Domain has the potential to be abused?
A quick History:
Very Interesting, so the government cannot just swoop down and take away land, it has to go through processes and go through the law first, once cleared the actions can be executed.
Now for the Questions:
Well lets see there are many instances in which Eminent Domain is good for the public. It allows communities to recieve land necessary for schools, roads, parks and urban renewal projects. It also allows communities to preserve historic sites and purchase part of a conservation area to protect open space, habitat, scenic views and farmland. Eminent domain protects taxpayers from being held hostage by what economists call "holdouts." Without it, property owners could extort windfall profits from the taxpayers when they happen to hold key property necessary to complete a proposed road, park or project. Alternatively, they could stop community initiatives by refusing to sell.
Very interesting, lets have another look at that, extortion of the taxpayers. Who are the tax payers you and I, I do not know about you, but if someone was causing me to lose money through taxes I would want my government to do something about it and this is the power that they need to do that something.
Absolutley, it would be stupid not to think that. But lets not forget that the government also has limits as to what it can do, to protect you and I, from the evils of the Eminent Domain.
LINK
Thats all fine and dandy, but what about the person? 'The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' The Fifth amendment is most often relating to the federal Government Just compensation? What is that? Compensation is:
Interesting, so the owner does have protection, he has the protection of law and law is the supreme rule of the lands. But what law does he have protection with? Amendements and states laws and of course lawyers, to help him/her.
Also its not over there is more protection:
So if the state is found to be in violation, that person is compensated and possibly gets more money or even recieves land back.
But lets review what is done before Eminent Domain is signed off on:
1)The government attempts to negotiate the purchase of the property for fair value.
2) If the owner does not wish to sell, the government files a court action to exercise eminent domain, and serves or publishes notice of the hearing as required by law.
3) A hearing is scheduled, at which the government must demonstrate that it engaged in good faith negotiations to purchase the property, but that no agreement was reached. The government must also demonstrate that the taking of the property is for a public use, as defined by law. The property owner is given the opportunity to respond to the government's claims.
4)If the government is successful in its petition, proceedings are held to establish the fair market value of the property. Any payment to the owner is first used to satisfy any mortgages, liens and encumbrances on the property, with any remaining balance paid to the owner. The government obtains title.
5) If the government is not successful, or if the property owner is not satisfied with the outcome, either side may appeal the decision.
LINK To REVIEW
So lets review one more time: Eminent Domain is a PROCESS a very long process that can take up to years, there are laws protecting the owners from eminent domain, there are compensation for land taken or sold, and most important, is that the government is not the only ones who can act upon the Eminent Domain towns and neighborhoods can also attempt Eminent Domain, but only For Public Use. Eminent Domain is prefered to be PUBLIC use, after all Private use is just not that right, but in cases it is necessary.
Socratic Questions:
1) Do you feel that Eminent Domain is necessary at times?
2) Does the government reserve the right to take property away, which the owner is using as extortion and making taxpayers pay more money?
it was not until 1876 that its existence was recognized by the Supreme Court. In Kohl v. United States any doubts were laid to rest, as the Court affirmed that the power was as necessary to the existence of the National Government as it was to the existence of any State. The federal power of eminent domain is, of course, limited by the grants of power in the Constitution, so that property may only be taken for the effectuation of a granted power....
This prerogative of the National Government can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a State. Whenever lands in a State are needed for a public purpose, Congress may authorize that they be taken, either by proceedings in the courts of the State, with its consent, or by proceedings in the courts of the United States, with or without any consent or concurrent act of the State.
Very Interesting, so the government cannot just swoop down and take away land, it has to go through processes and go through the law first, once cleared the actions can be executed.
Now for the Questions:
SQ 1: Under what circumstance do you feel Eminent Domain would be beneficial to the public good?
Well lets see there are many instances in which Eminent Domain is good for the public. It allows communities to recieve land necessary for schools, roads, parks and urban renewal projects. It also allows communities to preserve historic sites and purchase part of a conservation area to protect open space, habitat, scenic views and farmland. Eminent domain protects taxpayers from being held hostage by what economists call "holdouts." Without it, property owners could extort windfall profits from the taxpayers when they happen to hold key property necessary to complete a proposed road, park or project. Alternatively, they could stop community initiatives by refusing to sell.
Very interesting, lets have another look at that, extortion of the taxpayers. Who are the tax payers you and I, I do not know about you, but if someone was causing me to lose money through taxes I would want my government to do something about it and this is the power that they need to do that something.
SQ 2: Do you feel that the government’s policy of Eminent Domain has the potential to be abused?
Absolutley, it would be stupid not to think that. But lets not forget that the government also has limits as to what it can do, to protect you and I, from the evils of the Eminent Domain.
Communities seeking jobs and economic growth also encounter holdout problems. Corporations attempting to bring jobs into a community frequently find it impossible to assemble the land necessary for a proposed facility. When such holdouts threaten desperately needed jobs, a community may decide to help the corporation through use of eminent domain. It is not at all a "stretch" of community authority to take property in order to enhance economic well-being. Indeed, this is a quintessential example of community action on behalf of the public interest. The constitutional guarantee of "just compensation" ensures that the holdouts are compensated for their property loss.
LINK
Thats all fine and dandy, but what about the person? 'The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says 'nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.' The Fifth amendment is most often relating to the federal Government Just compensation? What is that? Compensation is:
Definition< br />
something (such as money) given or received as payment or reparation (as for a service or loss or injury)
''legislature may prescribe a form of procedure to be observed in the taking of private property for public use, . . . it is not due process of law if provision be not made for compensation. . . . The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner . . . cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the necessary result be to deprive him of his property without compensation.''
Interesting, so the owner does have protection, he has the protection of law and law is the supreme rule of the lands. But what law does he have protection with? Amendements and states laws and of course lawyers, to help him/her.
Also its not over there is more protection:
Explicit in the just compensation clause is the requirement that the taking of private property be for a public use; the Court has long accepted the principle that one is deprived of his property in violation of this guarantee if a State takes the property for any reason other than a public use.
So if the state is found to be in violation, that person is compensated and possibly gets more money or even recieves land back.
But lets review what is done before Eminent Domain is signed off on:
1)The government attempts to negotiate the purchase of the property for fair value.
2) If the owner does not wish to sell, the government files a court action to exercise eminent domain, and serves or publishes notice of the hearing as required by law.
3) A hearing is scheduled, at which the government must demonstrate that it engaged in good faith negotiations to purchase the property, but that no agreement was reached. The government must also demonstrate that the taking of the property is for a public use, as defined by law. The property owner is given the opportunity to respond to the government's claims.
4)If the government is successful in its petition, proceedings are held to establish the fair market value of the property. Any payment to the owner is first used to satisfy any mortgages, liens and encumbrances on the property, with any remaining balance paid to the owner. The government obtains title.
5) If the government is not successful, or if the property owner is not satisfied with the outcome, either side may appeal the decision.
LINK To REVIEW
So lets review one more time: Eminent Domain is a PROCESS a very long process that can take up to years, there are laws protecting the owners from eminent domain, there are compensation for land taken or sold, and most important, is that the government is not the only ones who can act upon the Eminent Domain towns and neighborhoods can also attempt Eminent Domain, but only For Public Use. Eminent Domain is prefered to be PUBLIC use, after all Private use is just not that right, but in cases it is necessary.
Socratic Questions:
1) Do you feel that Eminent Domain is necessary at times?
2) Does the government reserve the right to take property away, which the owner is using as extortion and making taxpayers pay more money?
1st Reply
The topic of this debate is “Eminent Domain Is A Necessary And Positive Government Policy.” Let’s take a moment to examine this premise, as it warrants further scrutiny. As I have noted in my opening statement, there are instances were Eminent Domain is a necessary government policy as long as fair application of public use is applied. However, Eminent Domain is NOT a positive government policy.
And, therein lies the rub.
The policy of Eminent Domain is derived from the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states:
Source 1: Fifth Amendment
My opponent seems to be of the opinion that somehow just compensation is enough to justify any application of Eminent Domain. As we will discover throughout the course of this debate, what constitutes public use is not always clear cut, and what constitutes just compensation is not necessarily fair market value.
So, what does my opponent deem to be a fair application of public use under which private property can be seized through Eminent Domain?
For the most part, this view of public use seems fair enough. Schools and improved road ways can most certainly be deemed as a fair application of public use. Urban renewal projects are another story, as it looks and sounds good taken at face value, but the truth of the matter is that such things can be deceiving. But, we’ll get to that soon enough.
It would seem that America’s Founding Fathers had faith that the government would indeed uphold and protect the rights and needs of its citizens via the Constitution. However, there is enough ambiguity rendered in the Fifth Amendment to allow for broad interpretations concerning Eminent Domain. The determination of what can be construed as public use is left to the discretion of the state and local governments, and as such, can vary greatly.
We will be reviewing select cases which demonstrate that what is deemed public use of land seized under Eminent Domain is open to creative interpretation and clearly flawed. We will also look at the abuses and ethical ramifications that are inherent as a result of this policy, as well.
At this time, I reserve the right to revisit the issue of the just compensation clause further in the debate.
Extortion as a means to an end…
This is an interesting way to frame things, considering that the government for the most part has unlimited means at its disposal to handle any kind of litigation or appeals that may come its way regarding Eminent Domain, as opposed to the average citizen who, in the vast majority of cases, are doing their best to hold on to their private property with modest means.
And, yes, the government can swoop down and take away land in literally the bat of an eye, but I’ll get to that in just a moment.
Extortion is such an ugly word with dreadful connotations. It’s ironic you should choose to encroach the issue of Eminent Domain in conjunction with extortion, as it is something normally associated with thugs and common thieves. You see, in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Kelo v. City of New London that private property could be seized under Eminent Domain for the sole purpose of economic development.
Source 2: Kelo v. City of New London
Exactly, what does this case have to do with extortion, you ask?
Well, you see, Kelo v. City of New London literally blew the lid off of Pandora’s Box. It created an insidious loophole that allows for private development companies to engage in government-sanctioned extortion.
Source 3: U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Eminent Domain Extortion Case
Whoa, wait a minute. How could something like this possibly happen in America? Simple. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the decision rendered in Kelo v. City of New London could allow for such situations to occur under the auspice of “redevelopment.”
But, wait! What about the safeguards and protections of law my opponent has alluded to?
Really? That certainly was not the case here. The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to consider the appeal of eminent domain in this particular case under these unfortunate circumstances. In short, the highest court of the land has turned a blind eye to what is essentially government-sanctioned extortion.
Sadly, this is not a far-fetched event. Unscrupulous special interest groups have already discovered a rather gaping loop hole allowing them to extort private property owners with no relief in sight.
So, let’s do a quick review regarding the issues of Eminent Domain as it relates to extortion:
Answers to Socratic Questions
Yes, as I have conceded in my opening statement, there are indeed times when the government needs to procure private property such as to improve or expand roadways and transit systems; or to perhaps build or expand a school under the fair application of public use.
Yes, it is called Eminent Domain.
Socratic Questions for my Opponent
SQ 1: Do you believe that the rights of private developers and other special interest groups outweigh the rights of private property owners?
SQ 2: Do you believe that there is adequate recourse and safeguards in place to protect the interests and rights of private property owners against unscrupulous special interest groups? Please specify.
SQ 3: Do you believe it is “right” that Kelo v. City of London completely precludes all claims of private purpose takings within a redevelopment zone, including the claim that Eminent Domain can be used for financial extortion and monetary gain of a single special interest group?
SQ 4: You claim that Eminent Domain safeguards the taxpayers from extortion by private property owners. Can you cite valid instances of this occurring in the United States?
SQ 5: Do you believe that private property owners whose land has been seized under Eminent Domain always receive fair market value via “just compensation”?
The topic of this debate is “Eminent Domain Is A Necessary And Positive Government Policy.” Let’s take a moment to examine this premise, as it warrants further scrutiny. As I have noted in my opening statement, there are instances were Eminent Domain is a necessary government policy as long as fair application of public use is applied. However, Eminent Domain is NOT a positive government policy.
And, therein lies the rub.
The policy of Eminent Domain is derived from the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states:
No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Source 1: Fifth Amendment
My opponent seems to be of the opinion that somehow just compensation is enough to justify any application of Eminent Domain. As we will discover throughout the course of this debate, what constitutes public use is not always clear cut, and what constitutes just compensation is not necessarily fair market value.
So, what does my opponent deem to be a fair application of public use under which private property can be seized through Eminent Domain?
Originally posted by TheMythLives
Well lets see there are many instances in which Eminent Domain is good for the public. It allows communities to recieve land necessary for schools, roads, parks and urban renewal projects. It also allows communities to preserve historic sites and purchase part of a conservation area to protect open space, habitat, scenic views and farmland.
For the most part, this view of public use seems fair enough. Schools and improved road ways can most certainly be deemed as a fair application of public use. Urban renewal projects are another story, as it looks and sounds good taken at face value, but the truth of the matter is that such things can be deceiving. But, we’ll get to that soon enough.
It would seem that America’s Founding Fathers had faith that the government would indeed uphold and protect the rights and needs of its citizens via the Constitution. However, there is enough ambiguity rendered in the Fifth Amendment to allow for broad interpretations concerning Eminent Domain. The determination of what can be construed as public use is left to the discretion of the state and local governments, and as such, can vary greatly.
We will be reviewing select cases which demonstrate that what is deemed public use of land seized under Eminent Domain is open to creative interpretation and clearly flawed. We will also look at the abuses and ethical ramifications that are inherent as a result of this policy, as well.
At this time, I reserve the right to revisit the issue of the just compensation clause further in the debate.
Extortion as a means to an end…
Originally posted by TheMythLives
Very Interesting, so the government cannot just swoop down and take away land, it has to go through processes and go through the law first, once cleared the actions can be executed.
This is an interesting way to frame things, considering that the government for the most part has unlimited means at its disposal to handle any kind of litigation or appeals that may come its way regarding Eminent Domain, as opposed to the average citizen who, in the vast majority of cases, are doing their best to hold on to their private property with modest means.
And, yes, the government can swoop down and take away land in literally the bat of an eye, but I’ll get to that in just a moment.
Originally posted by TheMythLives
Very interesting, let’s have another look at that, extortion of the taxpayers. Who are the tax payers you and I, I do not know about you, but if someone was causing me to lose money through taxes I would want my government to do something about it and this is the power that they need to do that something.
Extortion is such an ugly word with dreadful connotations. It’s ironic you should choose to encroach the issue of Eminent Domain in conjunction with extortion, as it is something normally associated with thugs and common thieves. You see, in 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Kelo v. City of New London that private property could be seized under Eminent Domain for the sole purpose of economic development.
Source 2: Kelo v. City of New London
Exactly, what does this case have to do with extortion, you ask?
Well, you see, Kelo v. City of New London literally blew the lid off of Pandora’s Box. It created an insidious loophole that allows for private development companies to engage in government-sanctioned extortion.
The Village’s chosen developer approached property owner Bart Didden and his business partner with an offer they couldn’t refuse. Because Didden planned to build a CVS on his property—land the developer coveted for a Walgreens—the developer demanded that Didden either pay him $800,000 to make him “go away” or give him an unearned 50 percent stake in the CVS development. If Didden refused, the developer would have the Village of Port Chester condemn the land for his private use. Didden rejected the bold-faced extortion. The very next day, the Village of Port Chester condemned Didden’s property through eminent domain so it could hand it over to the developer who made the threat.
Source 3: U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Eminent Domain Extortion Case
Whoa, wait a minute. How could something like this possibly happen in America? Simple. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the decision rendered in Kelo v. City of New London could allow for such situations to occur under the auspice of “redevelopment.”
But, wait! What about the safeguards and protections of law my opponent has alluded to?
Originally posted by TheMythLives
Interesting, so the owner does have protection, he has the protection of law and law is the supreme rule of the lands. But what law does he have protection with? Amendements and states laws and of course lawyers, to help him/her.
Really? That certainly was not the case here. The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to consider the appeal of eminent domain in this particular case under these unfortunate circumstances. In short, the highest court of the land has turned a blind eye to what is essentially government-sanctioned extortion.
Sadly, this is not a far-fetched event. Unscrupulous special interest groups have already discovered a rather gaping loop hole allowing them to extort private property owners with no relief in sight.
So, let’s do a quick review regarding the issues of Eminent Domain as it relates to extortion:
- It is possible for the government to swoop down and take away private property in as little as one day.
- The checks and balances my opponent vaguely refers to blatantly favor the government and special interest groups.
- Government-sanctioned extortion does exist and favor special interest groups.
Answers to Socratic Questions
1) Do you feel that Eminent Domain is necessary at times?
Yes, as I have conceded in my opening statement, there are indeed times when the government needs to procure private property such as to improve or expand roadways and transit systems; or to perhaps build or expand a school under the fair application of public use.
2) Does the government reserve the right to take property away, which the owner is using as extortion and making taxpayers pay more money?
Yes, it is called Eminent Domain.
Socratic Questions for my Opponent
SQ 1: Do you believe that the rights of private developers and other special interest groups outweigh the rights of private property owners?
SQ 2: Do you believe that there is adequate recourse and safeguards in place to protect the interests and rights of private property owners against unscrupulous special interest groups? Please specify.
SQ 3: Do you believe it is “right” that Kelo v. City of London completely precludes all claims of private purpose takings within a redevelopment zone, including the claim that Eminent Domain can be used for financial extortion and monetary gain of a single special interest group?
SQ 4: You claim that Eminent Domain safeguards the taxpayers from extortion by private property owners. Can you cite valid instances of this occurring in the United States?
SQ 5: Do you believe that private property owners whose land has been seized under Eminent Domain always receive fair market value via “just compensation”?
Eminent Domain is NOT a positive government policy.
Yes and the military is also not a positive government agency, but it is vital and neccessary to the governments survival and the states protection. Not only does the military protect the land it protects the citizens, much like Eminent Domain does. It may not be positive, but it is necessary.
It would seem that America’s Founding Fathers had faith that the government would indeed uphold and protect the rights and needs of its citizens via the Constitution.
Agreed 100%, however, the Constitution is a living document and can be added upon. The founding fathers knew this and that is the reason for many areas of the constitution seem to have little information, because they are meant to be grown upon. The living document grows with the nation and the nation conforms to the documents standards.
The determination of what can be construed as public use is left to the discretion of the state and local governments, and as such, can vary greatly.
Yes, every state has its own rights, because if every state did not have its own rights, the government would have full control and this country would be coumminst or even facist. There is a reason why the states can submit there own laws and that is important to democracy.
the most part has unlimited means at its disposal to handle any kind of litigation or appeals that may come its way regarding Eminent Domain, as opposed to the average citizen who, in the vast majority of cases, are doing their best to hold on to their private property with modest means.
Lets examine a good state...hmmm...Florida for instance. Lets look at what the legal Eminent Domain is over there.
SOURCE
While the statutes and constitution have been recently amended to prevent someone’s home being taken to build a Wal-Mart, Florida has long deemed that corporations “organized for the purpose of constructing, maintaining or operating public works” may appropriate lands or any materials necessary for the construction of those works, using the state’s power of eminent domain.
When a non-government agency seeks to acquire private property in Florida using this delegated authority of eminent domain, the fundamental constitutional protections for the rights of the landowner remain firm.
No private property shall be taken except for a public purpose and with full compensation therefore paid to each owner.
Remember this is for a non-government agency. We'll get into govenrment agencies soon.
The full compensation requirement of the constitution is intended to place the private landowner on a level playing field with the condemning authority, and to make the owner whole as much as possible and practicable. In fact, some aspects of the condemnation process are even more strict for private companies exercising the power of eminent domain. See §74.051(2) Florida Statues (2008) (requiring a private condemning authority to place twice the good faith estimate of value upon deposit in a quick taking proceeding).
A level playing field, interesting. So basically the state of Florida will even hire, a lawyer for you and your case, to make it even, a very level playing field. So in a hurried proceeding, which (remeber the rules they have to follow from my first reply, it would still take months and even years), that they are willing to double the estimate for the property and even in some cases hire a company to move your house to any location that you want. The government does not just abadon the person, they help them and even non government agencies are forced to do the same thing.
To review: Non-government and government eminent domain requests must put the owner on a fair playing field, double money in terms of a quick proceeding and even house relocation to anywhere you want. Seems more than fair, but then lets be honest, even I am not stupid enough not to see the sentimental value of the land and that is important and could be heartbreaking. I know more information to use against me Maria_Stardust, but lets face it if you moved before you feel the attachment to your old land and if you sell an old toy you still feel it. But after a while don't you start to get used to your new place? This way, not only do you get a new location, but you recieve extra money and a any location to choose from.
SOURCE
Since Kelo, two state supreme courts have rejected the decision as violating protections in their state constitutions.
Forty-two states have changed their eminent domain laws either through citizen initiative or legislation. About half are viewed as substantive. Florida's reforms are considered among the strongest in the nation.
In many cases the citizens actually win there appeal, so if the government has all of this mind blowing power (Which in some cases it does, BUT not here) they would win every case for eminent domain. But we see that they continue to lose, its fair, sometimes the citizens win and sometimes they don't, but it is not lopsided.
Ah yes the old Kelo vs. New London case, I agree with you. There are things that happen, that just should not happen. Thats the fact of life, people get murdered and then brought to court, only for the judge to say that his due process is up (which simply means that his time limit to be convicted is up) its wrong, but it happens. I agree with you on this case, but there are many cases in which the hearings and appeals are heard and are found in favor of the citizen. The Government or Private Organization does not always win.
SQ 1: Do you believe that the rights of private developers and other special interest groups outweigh the rights of private property owners?
That really depends on the situation, for example, a private company wants to buy land to expand. Now it can either A) Buy a forest and tear down the trees and kill all the habitat and animals in it, B) Buy a lot (but thats not always possible), or C) Buy the homeowners land and pay them considerable compensation. But then again, how can you reject the private groups interests and rights to expand, they have rights as well and must go through a PROCESS to perform Eminent Domain. I have never heard of the Government taking land in one day, they have to go through a Process and then if they win- they have to give the homeowners more time to leave. To deny one, would to be to deny the rights of both.
SQ 2: Do you believe that there is adequate recourse and safeguards in place to protect the interests and rights of private property owners against unscrupulous special interest groups? Please specify.
Special Interests groups? I thought this Debate was about the government... Anyway, I will answer this question, now we are talking about the nasty stuff, the corporations..lol.. They have power that far outways the power of government anyday. Have you ever heard of the Business Plot of 1933, that basically tells you the power that they held then and the power that they have now. I personally believe that 'Special Interests Groups' have very special powers and special reach, that even the government cannot match. But luckily they try, the government is making an effort, but the Corporations are a much, much different story. Special Lawyers are needed that KNOW the law very well, that the corporations may not hire for you, unlike the government when they HAVE to hire them for you.
SQ 3: Do you believe it is “right” that Kelo v. City of London completely precludes all claims of private purpose takings within a redevelopment zone, including the claim that Eminent Domain can be used for financial extortion and monetary gain of a single special interest group?
I have stated this above, but in short NO. Unfair things happen, its unfortunately the way things are.
SQ 4: You claim that Eminent Domain safeguards the taxpayers from extortion by private property owners. Can you cite valid instances of this occurring in the United States?
Its simply law really- The government has to spend more resources and more money in this process of eminent domain and where does the money come from? The taxpayers, we pay for everything! Of a legal issue, probably not, only because the taxpayer cannot sue the holdout person. Eminent Domain does protect the taxpayer, by allowing the taxpayer to put that money in his/her pocket instead of to the governments resources.
SQ 5: Do you believe that private property owners whose land has been seized under Eminent Domain always receive fair market value via “just compensation”?
Not always, like i have stated unfair things happen, but in most cases they are given a very fair compensation. A huge Eminent Domain is happening right now in Shreveport, with oil land. They are offering quite a hefty amount of money to get that land and the people there have lawyers hired by the Government, to help with the issue. What they do is up to them, but if I saw that check I would leave..lol.. thats how hefty the check is. But I do know that if the case is lidigated apprasisers from both sides are brought in to appraraise the property. This is one way of fair being implemented into the Eminent Domain Issue.
I would list more facts, but do to me running out of characters, this site holds some interesting reading:
LAW
Mind you it is a little hard to understand in some spots, its easy to understand in most areas, but this is just for reading purposes.
No socratic questions.
2nd Reply
Unfortunately, the topic of this debate is “Eminent Domain Is A Necessary And Positive Government Policy.” While it is true that there are circumstances that deem Eminent Domain a necessity, that certainly does NOT mean or imply that overall it is a positive policy.
Furthermore, I fail to see how Eminent Domain protects American citizens, as my opponent claims. If anything the policy can easily be construed as overly oppressive and brutish, which is hardly protective by any means.
Urban renewal gone wild…
In the past, when local and state governments decided to seize land for urban renewal purposes through Eminent Domain, the property or properties involved were normally blighted. Initially, the idea behind razing and redeveloping these deteriorated areas was essentially one of economics. Marginalize the undesirable poor to the sidelines, and seduce the wealthy with promises of revitalization via luxury condos and shopping malls.
After all, who’s going to complain? Well, besides the marginalized poor who have been tossed to the side. They generally don’t have the wherewithal to fight the government, lest they resort to the ACLU or their regional legal aid office. Additionally, the poor tend to lack standing or adequate representation in their respective communities, thus placing them at a disadvantage against elected officials and groups with special interests in redevelopment. So, it is fair to say that playing field has been and continues to be uneven.
But, what happens when local and state governments start eyeing property that is not blighted for redevelopment?
Case in point, Kelo v. City of New London…
Source 1: Eminent Domain
This landmark case turned Eminent Domain policy upside down. Not only did state government seize private property, but it turned around and handed that property to a private entity for redevelopment. That’s right, property was seized and transferred from one private owner to another private owner for $1 a year. Unbelievable.
Now the door is open for elected officials to regularly use Eminent Domain as a pretense to create facades—finely maintained planned communities—and to add to city coffers. Toss out a few buzz words and catch phrases and watch the wheelers and dealers line up. It’s a multi-tiered process for generating municipal revenue. Whose wallets are lined? The redevelopers! Who ultimately foots the bill for all this? The taxpayers and disenfranchised private property owners, of course!
As for the City of New London, that little revitalization project didn’t quite pan out as anticipated.
Source 2:Kelo v. City of New London
Wow! It’s safe to say that $80 million dollars is a definite waste of taxpayer money on an economic project that never materialized. That’s quite a bit to spend on an area with a population of less than 30,000 people and where the median household income is less than $35,000. In the end, it seems that it’s always the taxpayers who suffer.
It should come as no surprise that people were upset over what occurred in New London, Connecticut. States had to act quickly as their constituents were mad as Hell. But to what degree have things really changed? Sure, 42 states made changes, but only half are considered to be substantive. That means only 21 states made changes that provide measures to better protect private property owners in cases involving Eminent Domain. That hardly constitutes an overall necessary and positive policy nationwide.
It makes no sense that the rights of private property owners should be weighed against the wishes (not rights) of private special interest groups. It’s one thing if a private property owners decides to sell their land outright to a second party, it’s quite another if a private special interest group tries to force the transfer of property via the government’ power of Eminent Domain. These are two extremely different scenarios. What right does one private party have to force their wishes/actions upon a second private party? It practically renders the expression “Possession is nine-tenths of the law” moot.
If this is what my opponent believes, then special interest groups do indeed have the upper hand regarding the government’s use of Eminent Domain. After all, how can a mere private property owner possibly compete with the special powers and reach of special interest groups. Especially since private special interest groups are continually pressing the government to wield their power of Eminent Domain over private property owners who don’t necessarily want to part with their land.
Socratic Questions
SQ 1: Do you think private special interest groups should have the right to request the government to seize private property via Eminent Domain for their own financial gain?
SQ 2: Do you believe that it is fair for local and state governments to disenfranchise poor private property owners via Eminent Domain to better accommodate and attract more affluent residents and tourists?
SQ 3: Since you side-stepped the question the first time around, I’ll pose it to you once again. You claim that Eminent Domain safeguards the taxpayers from extortion by private property owners. Can you cite valid instances of this occurring in the United States?
Originally posted by TheMythLives
Not only does the military protect the land it protects the citizens, much like Eminent Domain does. It may not be positive, but it is necessary.
Unfortunately, the topic of this debate is “Eminent Domain Is A Necessary And Positive Government Policy.” While it is true that there are circumstances that deem Eminent Domain a necessity, that certainly does NOT mean or imply that overall it is a positive policy.
Furthermore, I fail to see how Eminent Domain protects American citizens, as my opponent claims. If anything the policy can easily be construed as overly oppressive and brutish, which is hardly protective by any means.
Urban renewal gone wild…
In the past, when local and state governments decided to seize land for urban renewal purposes through Eminent Domain, the property or properties involved were normally blighted. Initially, the idea behind razing and redeveloping these deteriorated areas was essentially one of economics. Marginalize the undesirable poor to the sidelines, and seduce the wealthy with promises of revitalization via luxury condos and shopping malls.
After all, who’s going to complain? Well, besides the marginalized poor who have been tossed to the side. They generally don’t have the wherewithal to fight the government, lest they resort to the ACLU or their regional legal aid office. Additionally, the poor tend to lack standing or adequate representation in their respective communities, thus placing them at a disadvantage against elected officials and groups with special interests in redevelopment. So, it is fair to say that playing field has been and continues to be uneven.
But, what happens when local and state governments start eyeing property that is not blighted for redevelopment?
Case in point, Kelo v. City of New London…
The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed New London’s authority to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5-4 decision received heavy press coverage because the Court sided with the city's argument that this sort of taking and private redevelopment was a public benefit. Kelo inspired a public outcry that eminent domain powers were too broad.
Source 1: Eminent Domain
This landmark case turned Eminent Domain policy upside down. Not only did state government seize private property, but it turned around and handed that property to a private entity for redevelopment. That’s right, property was seized and transferred from one private owner to another private owner for $1 a year. Unbelievable.
Now the door is open for elected officials to regularly use Eminent Domain as a pretense to create facades—finely maintained planned communities—and to add to city coffers. Toss out a few buzz words and catch phrases and watch the wheelers and dealers line up. It’s a multi-tiered process for generating municipal revenue. Whose wallets are lined? The redevelopers! Who ultimately foots the bill for all this? The taxpayers and disenfranchised private property owners, of course!
As for the City of New London, that little revitalization project didn’t quite pan out as anticipated.
In November 2007, it was reported that the economic benefits that had been promised by supporters of the Kelo ruling had failed to materialize. Corcoran Jennison, the developer, had failed to obtain financing by the promised deadline, and was said to be technically in default…
...No redevelopment has taken place in spite of government expenditures of some $80 million.
Source 2:Kelo v. City of New London
Wow! It’s safe to say that $80 million dollars is a definite waste of taxpayer money on an economic project that never materialized. That’s quite a bit to spend on an area with a population of less than 30,000 people and where the median household income is less than $35,000. In the end, it seems that it’s always the taxpayers who suffer.
Originally posted by TheMythLives
Since Kelo, two state supreme courts have rejected the decision as violating protections in their state constitutions.
Forty-two states have changed their eminent domain laws either through citizen initiative or legislation. About half are viewed as substantive.
It should come as no surprise that people were upset over what occurred in New London, Connecticut. States had to act quickly as their constituents were mad as Hell. But to what degree have things really changed? Sure, 42 states made changes, but only half are considered to be substantive. That means only 21 states made changes that provide measures to better protect private property owners in cases involving Eminent Domain. That hardly constitutes an overall necessary and positive policy nationwide.
Originally posted by TheMythLives
But then again, how can you reject the private groups interests and rights to expand, they have rights as well and must go through a PROCESS to perform Eminent Domain… To deny one, would to be to deny the rights of both.
It makes no sense that the rights of private property owners should be weighed against the wishes (not rights) of private special interest groups. It’s one thing if a private property owners decides to sell their land outright to a second party, it’s quite another if a private special interest group tries to force the transfer of property via the government’ power of Eminent Domain. These are two extremely different scenarios. What right does one private party have to force their wishes/actions upon a second private party? It practically renders the expression “Possession is nine-tenths of the law” moot.
Originally posted by TheMythLives
I personally believe that 'Special Interests Groups' have very special powers and special reach, that even the government cannot match.
If this is what my opponent believes, then special interest groups do indeed have the upper hand regarding the government’s use of Eminent Domain. After all, how can a mere private property owner possibly compete with the special powers and reach of special interest groups. Especially since private special interest groups are continually pressing the government to wield their power of Eminent Domain over private property owners who don’t necessarily want to part with their land.
Socratic Questions
SQ 1: Do you think private special interest groups should have the right to request the government to seize private property via Eminent Domain for their own financial gain?
SQ 2: Do you believe that it is fair for local and state governments to disenfranchise poor private property owners via Eminent Domain to better accommodate and attract more affluent residents and tourists?
SQ 3: Since you side-stepped the question the first time around, I’ll pose it to you once again. You claim that Eminent Domain safeguards the taxpayers from extortion by private property owners. Can you cite valid instances of this occurring in the United States?
Unfortunately, the topic of this debate is “Eminent Domain Is A Necessary And Positive Government Policy.” While it is true that there are circumstances that deem Eminent Domain a necessity, that certainly does NOT mean or imply that overall it is a positive policy.
Yeah, I know, I was comparing Eminent Domain to Military, while it is not positive it is necessary. Not sure how you missed that, maybe you read it wrong or something.
Furthermore, I fail to see how Eminent Domain protects American citizens, as my opponent claims. If anything the policy can easily be construed as overly oppressive and brutish, which is hardly protective by any means.
It proects the citizens from hold outs and unnecessary hassles. I mean seriously, if a road needs to be built for the military for protection against an invader, you do not want some person or a group of people to become stubborn, for the better of the people.
Additionally, the poor tend to lack standing or adequate representation in their respective communities, thus placing them at a disadvantage against elected officials and groups with special interests in redevelopment. So, it is fair to say that playing field has been and continues to be uneven.
But you fail to realize that if the government does decide to use Eminent Domain, the civilian is covered by the government, in which the government will pay the costs of there lawyer and legal actions (read above). They are not left alone. The playing field is not always 50/50, but thats the way life is, sometimes bribes are taken and the good that eminent domain does, recieves a bad name and is labeled unconstitutional and unethical, all because a few bad seeds. Look at the psychic issue, while i believe that some possess the gift, the real ones are given a bad name by the frauds, that in itself is unfair.
Wow! It’s safe to say that $80 million dollars is a definite waste of taxpayer money on an economic project that never materialized. That’s quite a bit to spend on an area with a population of less than 30,000 people and where the median household income is less than $35,000. In the end, it seems that it’s always the taxpayers who suffer.
Um yeah, the government does that. Thats why we are in a trillion dollar debt, because the government cannot and does not know how to spend money conservitavly and rationally. Eminent Domain is far from being the biggest waste of money.
Check out these xpensive governments projects, paid for none other than the taxpayers:
. The mess with Texas: Superconducting that's less than super[
The great idea: Build a miracle machine that can replicate the Big Bang, help treat life-threatening illnesses, and maybe even unfold the mysteries of the universe.
The great big problem: You get what you pay for -- and miracle machines cost way, way too much.
Cost to taxpayers: Roughly $12 billion -- and the lives of billions of innocent atoms.
_____________________________________________________________
Leave it to beavers: Troubles with the Teton Dam
The great idea: Dam the Snake River in Idaho. Sounds easy enough.
The great big problem: Holding back the river's 80 billion gallons of water proved more difficult than engineers thought.
Cost to taxpayers: $100 million in construction fees and another $2 billion in damage.
It should come as no surprise that people were upset over what occurred in New London, Connecticut. States had to act quickly as their constituents were mad as Hell. But to what degree have things really changed? Sure, 42 states made changes, but only half are considered to be substantive. That means only 21 states made changes that provide measures to better protect private property owners in cases involving Eminent Domain. That hardly constitutes an overall necessary and positive policy nationwide.
What? How? If it was not positive, the states would have never signed off to protect the citizens, they would have kept the laws the same. But seeing that Eminnet Domian could be used for evil, those states sadles up and decided to lay laws for there government, at least the proper measures are being done. Its not like nothing is being done to protect them and as I have stated before, if this is so unfair. Why is it that the citizens can win, surely if this was a negative policy the government would win every single time, but instead we see that the civilians win.
It makes no sense that the rights of private property owners should be weighed against the wishes (not rights) of private special interest groups. It’s one thing if a private property owners decides to sell their land outright to a second party, it’s quite another if a private special interest group tries to force the transfer of property via the government’ power of Eminent Domain
What? It makes perfect sense, how can you accept one and not the other. Provate special interests groups have rights as well and eminent domain is one of them! Yes, but you see, they are doing it the LEGAL way. And remember that Eminnet Domian Process is far from cheap for the Government and Special Interests groups.
These are two extremely different scenarios. What right does one private party have to force their wishes/actions upon a second private party? It practically renders the expression “Possession is nine-tenths of the law” moot.
They have EVERY right, its completely legal and within the LAW for them to this.
After all, how can a mere private property owner possibly compete with the special powers and reach of special interest groups
He/she competes legally and is issued a lawyer of his/her choice. Remember special interests groups are not government and therefore, they by far have more power. But they also do not win every case, the citizen wins as well.
Especially since private special interest groups are continually pressing the government to wield their power of Eminent Domain over private property owners who don’t necessarily want to part with their land
Actually, if special interests groups have a good reason for there issue. The government will here it, if it is not that important they are put on a list and must wait for there issue to be brought up. They can pressure them all they want, but until the government gets to that companies issue, they must wait.
SQ 1: Do you think private special interest groups should have the right to request the government to seize private property via Eminent Domain for their own financial gain?
Yes thats the foundation for capitalism. Financial gain.
SQ 2: Do you believe that it is fair for local and state governments to disenfranchise poor private property owners via Eminent Domain to better accommodate and attract more affluent residents and tourists?
Remember that compensations follow and chances are that poor private home owner wil have enough money for a new home.
SQ 3: Since you side-stepped the question the first time around, I’ll pose it to you once again. You claim that Eminent Domain safeguards the taxpayers from extortion by private property owners. Can you cite valid instances of this occurring in the United States?
I told you, side stepped what? I told you that the Taxpayer cannot legally sue or press charges against an Eminent Domain holdout person. If there were I would label it, but it is just basic law. If you cannot sue there is no case and if there is no case there are no instances of this happening, because the Taxpayer cannot sue a holdout. But holdouts just cause more money to be spent by the taxpayer, but legally no legal action can be taken.
Home owner wins eminent domain battle
The website you cited, that ij.com also has Citizens defeating Eminent Domain cases. So if it is so unfair why are the citizens winning, it sounds like Eminent Domian is more fair than what you are letting it on to be.
Here's the rationale to the Kelo v. New London, Wiki is not really a great source, but it is good for quick information.
(a) Though the city could not take petitioners’ land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted “to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals,” ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land–at least not in its entirety–to use by the general public, this “Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the … public.” Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power. Berman, 348 U.S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986. Pp. 6—13.
For the correct and detailed rationale of Kelo vs. New London
No socratic questions.
Sorry, a real life situation came up. I am taking my 24 hr. ext.
3rd Reply
About that legal representation thing and just compensation…
And…
No, this is most certainly not the case. It is true that private property owners do have the right to seek the legal representation of their choice to handle their complaint. However, the government is NOT required to foot the bill for any and all legal expenses or obligations incurred by private property owners in cases involving Eminent Domain.
Far from it, many legal firms are willing to provide representation on a contingency basis. That is if the firm agrees there is a high probability that they will be able to obtain a higher offer of payment for the private property owners than the government originally offered the owners. Additionally, many law firms stipulate that they receive a certain percentage of the settlement that has been obtained. Even then, the private property owner is still responsible for associated costs such as hiring expert witnesses regardless of whether or not they win the case.
A prime case in point is just wrapping up in Freeport, Texas. The city of Freeport tried to seize the waterfront property of the Gore family who operated a shrimp business to open up an upscale marina. After numerous lengthy battles, the Gore family was able to settle with the city and keep their property. However, the settlement came at a high price.
Source 1: Freeport Eminent Domain Case
While ultimately, the Gore family was able to keep their property and business, they still lost a great deal of money in the process.
Unlike the rosy picture my opponent has attempted to paint, private property owners who attempt to appeal Eminent Domain proceedings, do so at their own risk. By and large, the government is NOT required to provide property owners whose land is being seized with paid legal representation, much less representation of their choice.
Furthermore, certain states are actively striving to quell property owners from disputing state offers for their land. For example, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation wants to amend state laws to cap legal fees awarded by the court. As it stands, if a court awards Wisconsin property owners 15 percent more that what was originally offered by the state, the state is required to pick up the entire legal bill.
Source 2: Wisconsin DOT wants to cap legal fees for takings
At this point, my opponent is probably jumping up and down for joy. Finally, a wisp of something that may be construed as evidence to bolster his argument that property owners routinely hold out on selling for a bigger payout. However, this line of logic only holds water if the government had indeed offered a fair and just compensation offer from the start. Remember, it is the court that ultimately decides whether or not the government has indeed made a fair and just compensation offer or if a higher award is necessary.
Which begs the question: Is the government making adequate just compensation offers to private property owners in the first place?
As to why capping legal fees is a bad thing. Well, for one, it severely limits the options the property owner has when seeking just compensation for their land.
[2]
So, while some states are attempting to bring forth changes in Eminent Domain law to better protect private property owners, other states governments are attempting to curtail the appeal process. Needless to say, this is hardly a necessary or positive reflection upon Eminent Domain.
There have also been too many instances in which private developers have strived to swipe land from private property owners at a much lower price than fair market prices through the process of Eminent Domain. Such cases are blatant examples of special private interest groups attempting to circumvent what should be just compensation for the property they are interested in procuring.
In Arizona, for example, there is the case of Ken Lenhart who was looking for a bundle of land on which to expand his hardware business. However, he decided not to even attempt to negotiate with the various property owners and opted instead to push the local government to exercise Eminent Domain in an effort to secure the land cheaply.
Source 3: Wrecking Property Rights
Unfortunately, part of the land that Lenhart was intent on securing belonged to Randy Bailey, whose family had operated a brake service business there for more than 40 years.
In short order, Lenhart coveted the private property on which Bailey’s Brake Service operated. He then purchased an adjoining property, boarded it up and purposely contributed to the blight of the area. Afterwards he petitioned the City Council in order to have the area condemned through Eminent Domain. To top it off, his company was one of two developers chosen to revitalize the area. Lenhart’s ultimate aim, of course, was to purchase the property from the city at a cut rate price at the expense of Randy Bailey.
This comes across not only as abusive and self-serving, but a far cry from the mantra of just compensation.
Wrapping things up…
Yes, we are all quite aware as to how wasteful government spending can be the vast majority of the time. However, the comparisons of wasteful government spending between the $80 million dollars spent on the lone Kelo v. City of New London case and the construction of a super collider has absolutely no merit in this debate.
My opponent has conceded that the government’s policy of Eminent Domain can be and has been used for evil, and thus renders his argument that it is a necessary and positive policy moot. Unless, his point is that Eminent Domain is a necessary evil.
Socratic Questions
SQ 1: Do you consider the government’s policy of Eminent Domain to be a necessary evil?
SQ 2: Does the government make adequate just compensation offers to private property owners from the start or just the lowest offer it thinks it can get away with?
SQ 3: If the government offers the lowest just compensation offer it thinks it can get away with, can it truly be considered a fully fair and just compensation?
About that legal representation thing and just compensation…
Originally posted by TheMythLives
But you fail to realize that if the government does decide to use Eminent Domain, the civilian is covered by the government, in which the government will pay the costs of there lawyer and legal actions (read above). They are not left alone.
And…
Originally posted by TheMythLives
He/she (private property owners) competes legally and is issued a lawyer of his/her choice.
No, this is most certainly not the case. It is true that private property owners do have the right to seek the legal representation of their choice to handle their complaint. However, the government is NOT required to foot the bill for any and all legal expenses or obligations incurred by private property owners in cases involving Eminent Domain.
Far from it, many legal firms are willing to provide representation on a contingency basis. That is if the firm agrees there is a high probability that they will be able to obtain a higher offer of payment for the private property owners than the government originally offered the owners. Additionally, many law firms stipulate that they receive a certain percentage of the settlement that has been obtained. Even then, the private property owner is still responsible for associated costs such as hiring expert witnesses regardless of whether or not they win the case.
A prime case in point is just wrapping up in Freeport, Texas. The city of Freeport tried to seize the waterfront property of the Gore family who operated a shrimp business to open up an upscale marina. After numerous lengthy battles, the Gore family was able to settle with the city and keep their property. However, the settlement came at a high price.
“All I’ve ever wanted was to be left alone, and I’m just thrilled at being able to get back to work,” Gore said. “Every dime went to Western Seafood’s attorneys. We still lost several hundred thousand dollars as a result of these lawsuits, but we’re glad that it’s over and the FEDC (Freeport Economic Development Corp.) decided it’s not necessary to have Western Seafood’s property.”
Source 1: Freeport Eminent Domain Case
While ultimately, the Gore family was able to keep their property and business, they still lost a great deal of money in the process.
Unlike the rosy picture my opponent has attempted to paint, private property owners who attempt to appeal Eminent Domain proceedings, do so at their own risk. By and large, the government is NOT required to provide property owners whose land is being seized with paid legal representation, much less representation of their choice.
Furthermore, certain states are actively striving to quell property owners from disputing state offers for their land. For example, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation wants to amend state laws to cap legal fees awarded by the court. As it stands, if a court awards Wisconsin property owners 15 percent more that what was originally offered by the state, the state is required to pick up the entire legal bill.
Under the new law, the state would cap legal fees at one-third of the increased compensation awarded by the court. For example, if WisDOT offers $100,000 for a piece of land, and a court deems the land worth $160,000, the state would only pay $20,000 in legal fees.
Source 2: Wisconsin DOT wants to cap legal fees for takings
At this point, my opponent is probably jumping up and down for joy. Finally, a wisp of something that may be construed as evidence to bolster his argument that property owners routinely hold out on selling for a bigger payout. However, this line of logic only holds water if the government had indeed offered a fair and just compensation offer from the start. Remember, it is the court that ultimately decides whether or not the government has indeed made a fair and just compensation offer or if a higher award is necessary.
Which begs the question: Is the government making adequate just compensation offers to private property owners in the first place?
As to why capping legal fees is a bad thing. Well, for one, it severely limits the options the property owner has when seeking just compensation for their land.
Now, attorneys advise clients to accept a government’s initial offer and then challenge the amount in court. Accepting the offer locks in the bottom line and makes it easier for attorneys to win the 15 percent increase in compensation needed to have their legal fees covered.
The new law would force property owners to negotiate up front with governments, and it limits owners’ appeal options. Both changes tip legal battles in WisDOT’s favor, said Gretchen Schuldt, of the advocacy group Citizens Aligned for Sane Highways.
[2]
So, while some states are attempting to bring forth changes in Eminent Domain law to better protect private property owners, other states governments are attempting to curtail the appeal process. Needless to say, this is hardly a necessary or positive reflection upon Eminent Domain.
There have also been too many instances in which private developers have strived to swipe land from private property owners at a much lower price than fair market prices through the process of Eminent Domain. Such cases are blatant examples of special private interest groups attempting to circumvent what should be just compensation for the property they are interested in procuring.
In Arizona, for example, there is the case of Ken Lenhart who was looking for a bundle of land on which to expand his hardware business. However, he decided not to even attempt to negotiate with the various property owners and opted instead to push the local government to exercise Eminent Domain in an effort to secure the land cheaply.
After buying a few parcels at auction, he asked the city to condemn the rest and "sell" it to him at $4 per square foot. At the time the agreement was made, the full cash value of the properties averaged more than $8 per square foot, according to the Maricopa County tax assessor.
Source 3: Wrecking Property Rights
Unfortunately, part of the land that Lenhart was intent on securing belonged to Randy Bailey, whose family had operated a brake service business there for more than 40 years.
In short order, Lenhart coveted the private property on which Bailey’s Brake Service operated. He then purchased an adjoining property, boarded it up and purposely contributed to the blight of the area. Afterwards he petitioned the City Council in order to have the area condemned through Eminent Domain. To top it off, his company was one of two developers chosen to revitalize the area. Lenhart’s ultimate aim, of course, was to purchase the property from the city at a cut rate price at the expense of Randy Bailey.
This comes across not only as abusive and self-serving, but a far cry from the mantra of just compensation.
Wrapping things up…
Originally posted by TheMythLives
Um yeah, the government does that. Thats why we are in a trillion dollar debt, because the government cannot and does not know how to spend money conservitavly and rationally. Eminent Domain is far from being the biggest waste of money.
Yes, we are all quite aware as to how wasteful government spending can be the vast majority of the time. However, the comparisons of wasteful government spending between the $80 million dollars spent on the lone Kelo v. City of New London case and the construction of a super collider has absolutely no merit in this debate.
Originally posted by TheMythLives
But seeing that Eminnet Domian could be used for evil, those states sadles up and decided to lay laws for there government, at least the proper measures are being done.
My opponent has conceded that the government’s policy of Eminent Domain can be and has been used for evil, and thus renders his argument that it is a necessary and positive policy moot. Unless, his point is that Eminent Domain is a necessary evil.
Socratic Questions
SQ 1: Do you consider the government’s policy of Eminent Domain to be a necessary evil?
SQ 2: Does the government make adequate just compensation offers to private property owners from the start or just the lowest offer it thinks it can get away with?
SQ 3: If the government offers the lowest just compensation offer it thinks it can get away with, can it truly be considered a fully fair and just compensation?
First of all whatever, your situation was, I hope that it is taken care of and that all is going well for you.
To the debate:
They may not be required, but they certainly can. In the case in Shreveport, Louisiana, a very good friend of mine that housed me during Katrina and Rita and Gustav, are being represented by a Government paid lawyer. They are paying everything, well so far, at least. But lets face it, in how many cases is the private property owner alone? Not many, in most cases it is a an entire neighborhood. So the bill is generally divided equally and not as much.
Of course it came at a high price, they didn't negoiate with the Government. They chose to use a lawyer at there own expense. Communication is vital.
What was that? There own risk, that sounds about right. Yes the key word is Required, they are NOT required, but if negoiated, they will.
More like, staring in awe and confusion. The court does not decide the final price, the appraisers do, as I have stated above, but you are not entirely wrong. When the hammer goes down, the price is final.
___________________________________________________________
Lenhart is a greedy person and like I have stated over and over, every policy has its abusers. Lenhart is one of those abusers, like I said before:
Look at the psychic issue, while i believe that some possess the gift, the real ones are given a bad name by the frauds, that in itself is unfair.
NO MERIT! Lets look at what you said:
I showed you that 80 million is like pocket change, in the project area. Then I listed huge economic projects that never materialized, to show how inexpensive Eminent Domain is. Wait thats not inexpensive! Yeah it kinda of is, when we start to toss around 750 billion dollars out for the bailout I think it is.
Um, no, I actually showed that the governmnet needs it. It is so necessary, so if you are going to deny Eminent domain, you also have to deny the Military, the Federal Reserve, Loans, Grants, and other policies. They can be used for good and in most cases they are. Mind you that evil is everywhere and it infiltrates everything, but lets not let a few bad seeds ruin the bunch. Eminent Domain has recreated schools, road ways, hospitals and other public neccesities. We always complain that there is not enough schools, not enough helath care, not a shorter way to work, and when the governmnet attempts to do something, its evil. We cannot have it both ways, we invade Iraq and we are seen as evil, we bombed Japan and we are seen as evil, we helped liberate the Jews and were condemned for not finding them sooner. People will find evil in everything if they look hard enough, but like I keep saying, just because a few abuse the power does not mean that everything is evil. Much like Eminent Domain.
No.
I have already demonstarted and proven that if either side doe snot agree on the price of the property appraiser are brought in. There is no getting away with it, with experts in there field.
If they offer, the home owner BETTER have enough BRAINS to hire an appraiser and find out the real price of the house before accepting a quick check. The law is there to protect them and it shows that it is done. You cannot put all the blame on the government, the home owner needs to use common sense before accepting a check, which is mentioned above in the rules of Eminent Domian, if no common ground can be found in the price an appraiser is hired to estimate the houses value.
I am sorry if this is beginning to sound like a broken record skipping to the same spot. But the facts cannot be ignored, the law clearly expresses what can and cannot be done and if it is so unfair why is it that the home owner and neighborhoods are winning there cases. Which leads me to this:
Socratic Question (don't worry its only one):
If the cases in Eminent Domain are so unfair and unequal on a playing field, why is it that the citizens are winning?
_________________________________________________________
Again, I hope whatever it was Maria that all is well.
To the debate:
No, this is most certainly not the case. It is true that private property owners do have the right to seek the legal representation of their choice to handle their complaint. However, the government is NOT required to foot the bill for any and all legal expenses or obligations incurred by private property owners in cases involving Eminent Domain.
They may not be required, but they certainly can. In the case in Shreveport, Louisiana, a very good friend of mine that housed me during Katrina and Rita and Gustav, are being represented by a Government paid lawyer. They are paying everything, well so far, at least. But lets face it, in how many cases is the private property owner alone? Not many, in most cases it is a an entire neighborhood. So the bill is generally divided equally and not as much.
A prime case in point is just wrapping up in Freeport, Texas. The city of Freeport tried to seize the waterfront property of the Gore family who operated a shrimp business to open up an upscale marina. After numerous lengthy battles, the Gore family was able to settle with the city and keep their property. However, the settlement came at a high price.
Of course it came at a high price, they didn't negoiate with the Government. They chose to use a lawyer at there own expense. Communication is vital.
Unlike the rosy picture my opponent has attempted to paint, private property owners who attempt to appeal Eminent Domain proceedings, do so at their own risk. By and large, the government is NOT required to provide property owners whose land is being seized with paid legal representation, much less representation of their choice.
What was that? There own risk, that sounds about right. Yes the key word is Required, they are NOT required, but if negoiated, they will.
At this point, my opponent is probably jumping up and down for joy. Finally, a wisp of something that may be construed as evidence to bolster his argument that property owners routinely hold out on selling for a bigger payout. However, this line of logic only holds water if the government had indeed offered a fair and just compensation offer from the start. Remember, it is the court that ultimately decides whether or not the government has indeed made a fair and just compensation offer or if a higher award is necessary.
More like, staring in awe and confusion. The court does not decide the final price, the appraisers do, as I have stated above, but you are not entirely wrong. When the hammer goes down, the price is final.
___________________________________________________________
Lenhart is a greedy person and like I have stated over and over, every policy has its abusers. Lenhart is one of those abusers, like I said before:
Look at the psychic issue, while i believe that some possess the gift, the real ones are given a bad name by the frauds, that in itself is unfair.
Yes, we are all quite aware as to how wasteful government spending can be the vast majority of the time. However, the comparisons of wasteful government spending between the $80 million dollars spent on the lone Kelo v. City of New London case and the construction of a super collider has absolutely no merit in this debate.
NO MERIT! Lets look at what you said:
Wow! It’s safe to say that $80 million dollars is a definite waste of taxpayer money on an economic project that never materialized.
I showed you that 80 million is like pocket change, in the project area. Then I listed huge economic projects that never materialized, to show how inexpensive Eminent Domain is. Wait thats not inexpensive! Yeah it kinda of is, when we start to toss around 750 billion dollars out for the bailout I think it is.
My opponent has conceded that the government’s policy of Eminent Domain can be and has been used for evil, and thus renders his argument that it is a necessary and positive policy moot. Unless, his point is that Eminent Domain is a necessary evil.
Um, no, I actually showed that the governmnet needs it. It is so necessary, so if you are going to deny Eminent domain, you also have to deny the Military, the Federal Reserve, Loans, Grants, and other policies. They can be used for good and in most cases they are. Mind you that evil is everywhere and it infiltrates everything, but lets not let a few bad seeds ruin the bunch. Eminent Domain has recreated schools, road ways, hospitals and other public neccesities. We always complain that there is not enough schools, not enough helath care, not a shorter way to work, and when the governmnet attempts to do something, its evil. We cannot have it both ways, we invade Iraq and we are seen as evil, we bombed Japan and we are seen as evil, we helped liberate the Jews and were condemned for not finding them sooner. People will find evil in everything if they look hard enough, but like I keep saying, just because a few abuse the power does not mean that everything is evil. Much like Eminent Domain.
SQ 1: Do you consider the government’s policy of Eminent Domain to be a necessary evil?
No.
SQ 2: Does the government make adequate just compensation offers to private property owners from the start or just the lowest offer it thinks it can get away with?
I have already demonstarted and proven that if either side doe snot agree on the price of the property appraiser are brought in. There is no getting away with it, with experts in there field.
SQ 3: If the government offers the lowest just compensation offer it thinks it can get away with, can it truly be considered a fully fair and just compensation?
If they offer, the home owner BETTER have enough BRAINS to hire an appraiser and find out the real price of the house before accepting a quick check. The law is there to protect them and it shows that it is done. You cannot put all the blame on the government, the home owner needs to use common sense before accepting a check, which is mentioned above in the rules of Eminent Domian, if no common ground can be found in the price an appraiser is hired to estimate the houses value.
I am sorry if this is beginning to sound like a broken record skipping to the same spot. But the facts cannot be ignored, the law clearly expresses what can and cannot be done and if it is so unfair why is it that the home owner and neighborhoods are winning there cases. Which leads me to this:
Socratic Question (don't worry its only one):
If the cases in Eminent Domain are so unfair and unequal on a playing field, why is it that the citizens are winning?
_________________________________________________________
Again, I hope whatever it was Maria that all is well.
This has turned out to be a very spirited debate. Once again, my most sincere thanks to TheMythLives for being both a gracious and lively opponent.
Also, many thanks to MemoryShock, SemperFortis, our judges and readers. I hope you all have found this debate to be as enlightening as I
have.
Closing Statement
We have now arrived at the end our debate. Let’s get to it.
Eminent Domain is tantamount to thievery…
Contrary to my opponent’s belief, nothing about the government renders its violations of private property rights less objectionable than those of street thieves and charlatans. In fact, in the case of Eminent Domain it could be rightfully considered one and the same. If the government, is permitted to confiscate private property, even if it is required to pay fair market value as just compensation, everyone suffers as a consequence. Tyrannical policies, such as Eminent Domain, throw the whole notion about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” out the proverbial window.
Ponder for a moment, if government is permitted to confiscate property rather than purchase it, ordinary people are less secure in regarding their personal possessions. The policy of permitting the government to take property without the express consent of its owners, for reasons other than the fair application of public use, inevitably encourages what amounts to judicial thievery.
Fair application of the “public use” rule of thumb…
As I have pointed out in my opening statement, there are indeed instances where the government will need to procure private property to improve or expand roadways and transit systems; or to perhaps build or expand a school under the fair application of public use. In these cases, Eminent Domain is a necessary evil as it provides for the betterment of the community as a whole.
Unfortunately, the policy of Eminent Domain is also ripe for abuse, thus reducing it to a mere tool to be utilized by unscrupulous special interest groups for their own financial gain. The fact that private developers are able to encourage local city governments repeatedly to wield the hammer of Eminent Domain speaks volumes as to the treacherous nature of this policy. Once again, these special interest groups encourage what is essentially judicial thievery to line their own pockets.
Throughout the course of this debate, I have pointed out several cases concerning the manipulation and abuse of Eminent Domain policy by these special interest groups. Such abuses actions CANNOT be construed as fair application of public use under Eminent Domain.
As such, Eminent Domain CANNOT be viewed as both a necessary and positive government policy.
Contradictions…
Try as my opponent may, he has failed to demonstrate that the government’s policy of Eminent Domain is both a necessary and positive one. If anything, he has admitted repeatedly that it is a policy strife with rampant abuse by special interest groups.
Also, my opponent still insists that the government will provide property owners whose land is being seized through Eminent Domain with free legal representation of their choice. However, he has yet to provide any proof of this claim, despite evidence I have provided to the contrary.
And…
My opponent seems to be contradicting himself with these two statements. First he says that the government will pick up a property owner’s legal tab during any dispute regarding Eminent Domain, only to backtrack and add a stipulation later on down the road. Notice his caveat of “but if negotiated, they will.” This stipulation do not allow for a straight out appeal to prevent the seizure, only negotiation of just compensation. These are two very different things.
When all is said and done…
As I have previously stated, there are instances in which the government’s policy of Eminent Domain becomes a necessary evil in order to provide needed infrastructure for the betterment of the community. However, as this policy currently stands, it is riddled with gaping loopholes that allows unscrupulous special interest groups the ability to manipulate Eminent Domain to the detriment of private property owners.
The argument that urban renewal and revitalization projects are prudent reasons for local governments to exercise Eminent Domain is a self-serving one. The fact is these local governments realize that what a city needs is more rich people and fewer poor ones to thrive. The fact that people of lesser means are marginalized to the sidelines or completely kicked out the door is irrelevant.
This sad fact, in and of itself, is enough to render the argument that Eminent Domain is both a necessary and positive policy moot.
The truth remains that all private property owners, from the most wealthy to the poorest (especially the poorest), are deserving of their inherent right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Unless every property owner can rest assured that their property is safe from government seizure without undue cause, exercising this most basic tenet of the Constitution is next to impossible.
As it stands, Eminent Domain is NOT a necessary and positive government policy.
Closing Statement
We have now arrived at the end our debate. Let’s get to it.
Eminent Domain is tantamount to thievery…
Contrary to my opponent’s belief, nothing about the government renders its violations of private property rights less objectionable than those of street thieves and charlatans. In fact, in the case of Eminent Domain it could be rightfully considered one and the same. If the government, is permitted to confiscate private property, even if it is required to pay fair market value as just compensation, everyone suffers as a consequence. Tyrannical policies, such as Eminent Domain, throw the whole notion about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” out the proverbial window.
Ponder for a moment, if government is permitted to confiscate property rather than purchase it, ordinary people are less secure in regarding their personal possessions. The policy of permitting the government to take property without the express consent of its owners, for reasons other than the fair application of public use, inevitably encourages what amounts to judicial thievery.
Fair application of the “public use” rule of thumb…
As I have pointed out in my opening statement, there are indeed instances where the government will need to procure private property to improve or expand roadways and transit systems; or to perhaps build or expand a school under the fair application of public use. In these cases, Eminent Domain is a necessary evil as it provides for the betterment of the community as a whole.
Unfortunately, the policy of Eminent Domain is also ripe for abuse, thus reducing it to a mere tool to be utilized by unscrupulous special interest groups for their own financial gain. The fact that private developers are able to encourage local city governments repeatedly to wield the hammer of Eminent Domain speaks volumes as to the treacherous nature of this policy. Once again, these special interest groups encourage what is essentially judicial thievery to line their own pockets.
Throughout the course of this debate, I have pointed out several cases concerning the manipulation and abuse of Eminent Domain policy by these special interest groups. Such abuses actions CANNOT be construed as fair application of public use under Eminent Domain.
As such, Eminent Domain CANNOT be viewed as both a necessary and positive government policy.
Contradictions…
Try as my opponent may, he has failed to demonstrate that the government’s policy of Eminent Domain is both a necessary and positive one. If anything, he has admitted repeatedly that it is a policy strife with rampant abuse by special interest groups.
Originally posted by TheMythLives
Lenhart is a greedy person and like I have stated over and over, every policy has its abusers. Lenhart is one of those abusers…
Originally posted by TheMythLives
But seeing that Eminnet Domian could be used for evil…
Originally posted by TheMythLives
The playing field is not always 50/50, but thats the way life is, sometimes bribes are taken and the good that eminent domain does, recieves a bad name and is labeled unconstitutional and unethical, all because a few bad seeds.
Also, my opponent still insists that the government will provide property owners whose land is being seized through Eminent Domain with free legal representation of their choice. However, he has yet to provide any proof of this claim, despite evidence I have provided to the contrary.
Originally posted by TheMythLives
if the government does decide to use Eminent Domain, the civilian is covered by the government, in which the government will pay the costs of there lawyer and legal actions.
And…
Originally posted by TheMythLives
Originally posted by maria_stardust
Unlike the rosy picture my opponent has attempted to paint, private property owners who attempt to appeal Eminent Domain proceedings, do so at their own risk. By and large, the government is NOT required to provide property owners whose land is being seized with paid legal representation, much less representation of their choice.
What was that? There own risk, that sounds about right. Yes the key word is Required, they are NOT required, but if negoiated, they will.
My opponent seems to be contradicting himself with these two statements. First he says that the government will pick up a property owner’s legal tab during any dispute regarding Eminent Domain, only to backtrack and add a stipulation later on down the road. Notice his caveat of “but if negotiated, they will.” This stipulation do not allow for a straight out appeal to prevent the seizure, only negotiation of just compensation. These are two very different things.
When all is said and done…
As I have previously stated, there are instances in which the government’s policy of Eminent Domain becomes a necessary evil in order to provide needed infrastructure for the betterment of the community. However, as this policy currently stands, it is riddled with gaping loopholes that allows unscrupulous special interest groups the ability to manipulate Eminent Domain to the detriment of private property owners.
The argument that urban renewal and revitalization projects are prudent reasons for local governments to exercise Eminent Domain is a self-serving one. The fact is these local governments realize that what a city needs is more rich people and fewer poor ones to thrive. The fact that people of lesser means are marginalized to the sidelines or completely kicked out the door is irrelevant.
This sad fact, in and of itself, is enough to render the argument that Eminent Domain is both a necessary and positive policy moot.
The truth remains that all private property owners, from the most wealthy to the poorest (especially the poorest), are deserving of their inherent right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Unless every property owner can rest assured that their property is safe from government seizure without undue cause, exercising this most basic tenet of the Constitution is next to impossible.
As it stands, Eminent Domain is NOT a necessary and positive government policy.
Post is edited (copied and to be returned to TheMythLives via u2u) and will be deleted as Maria's closing signaled the end of the debate.
[edit on 21-2-2009 by MemoryShock]
[edit on 21-2-2009 by MemoryShock]
TheMythLives has won through majority decision and will advance to the Second Round. Congratulations to both Fighters.
The Judges comments:
The Judges comments:
TheMythLives’s opening statement was short and sweet. I really enjoyed the confident, casual style. At times he became almost flippant, but it worked. Perhaps his style could use a little variation though because it became almost arrogant toward the end. I would also recommend he check his grammar on their/there as it occurred frequently. On the other hand maria_stardust’s was professional, concise and clear.
Myth says ED is vital and necessary. Which I believe he did show. Even under situations some might find uncomfortable, the law has been in place for a long time for very important reasons. Laws and processes are in place, and he showed why they exist and how they are managed under most case scenarios. Although he didn’t show any statistics to verify this, Maria used a FEW worst cases of abuse of loopholes to offset the many times the law does work.
In my view this debate becomes an issue of the good of the many vs. the good of a few.
I think we know who usually wins, and so I am siding in favor of the fighter TheMythLives.
Myth responded to Maria’s questions with simple authority. I believe Maria was put on the defensive. Maria focused on the special interests of an elite few and not on statistical outliers where public use and public purpose have been grossly mismanaged and overspent. She could have taken Myth’s example of the dam and used it to lead into cases where the public use or purpose has been abused on projects that were unnecessary and non-vital. Unnecessary parks, unused roadways...etc. Projects gone wrong.
Myth didn’t approach the good and the positive of urban renewal and development. There are some great things about it for communities and are usually the reason many developers are interested in the economic value of generating a higher tax revenue. It is in general a good business practice, when it is done well. Public use and public purpose are not mutually exclusive. Private extortion is not on the same level of evil as urban renewal. I felt Maria was trying to make it out to be so. As if urban renewal is an evil that only occurs to the poor and blighted.
I agree that loopholes need to be fixed, and more states need to follow Florida’s example which would help the law have a better more “positive” image. And just compensation is either just or it is not. If two parties come to an agreement, then it must have been just in some way or another. I know my Grandpa thought he got away with something when he had to sell a small corner of his land to a proposed switch-back and received a hefty sum and a new fence.
Again thank you for the learning experience and the opportunity to share in the debate.
Round 1: TheMythLives vs maria_stardust: Modern Manifest Destiny?
The winner is; TheMythLives
Opening;
TheMythLives- gives a rather cursory opening.
MariaStardust- may have given away the whole debate in hers.
At this point I will concede that there are indeed instances where the government will need to procure private property to improve or expand roadways and transit systems; or to perhaps build or expand a school under the fair application of public use. Ultimately, though, what may have started out as a “necessary and positive” government policy has been reduced to nothing more than a loophole through which unscrupulous special interest groups can essential participate in cheap land grabs to better line their coffers.
Nothing in her opponents opening required that concession, and if her opponent holds her strictly to the debate topic rather than let her change the topic to "eminent domain as it is used and abused is not a positive policy" she will almost surely lose. It was a surprising mistake from an experienced debater.
Round one-
TheMythLives - is not letting her change the topic. And in his/her Socratic questioning, is asking Maria to reaffirm her concession.
MariaStardust - affirms her concession, but perhaps seeing her error is trying to (belatedly) segment the topic into "necessary" and "positive" so that she can show that while necessary it is not positive. This is a very weak position to take. She also tries to force her opponent into a position he/she did not take themselves. That any use of eminent domain must be necessary and positive.
Round two;
TheMythLives- makes a concession he/she did not need to. One could have well argued that anything necessary is positive, though it may not be pleasant. Or that the question should be "positive for who?" This concession gives Maria the opening she needs to salvage her case. It was a bad move on the part of TheMythLives. He/she is also allowing Maria to direct the debate more than he/she should. Though with such a blatant error on Maria's part in opening, this may not cost him/her the debate.
MariaStardust- here TheMythLives mistake is coming home to roost. Maria is trying to capitalize for all she is worth on the positive distinction.
Round three- TheMythLives begins to draw a distinction between "positive for the whole" vs "positive for one."
It proects the citizens from hold outs and unnecessary hassles. I mean seriously, if a road needs to be built for the military for protection against an invader, you do not want some person or a group of people to become stubborn, for the better of the people.
It is poorly done, the argumentation is thin, TheMythLives is thinking that this should be self evident and not providing good solid rational, but there it is. The distinction that undoes Maria's distinction. Again, TheMythLives is allowing Maria's questions and argument bog him/her down and direct his/her actions when this case was his/hers from the opening. All he/she needed to do was not give Maria any concessions.
MariaStardust- tries to weave and spin about the specific abuses that have occurred, (which do not need to be the point unless TheMythLives allows it to be) and ends with an attempt to trap her opponent into saying that eminent domain is a necessary "evil."
Closing;
TheMythLives- does a barely adequate job of not conceding to Maria's "evil" trap." And then throws in this;
Socratic Question (don't worry its only one):
Apparently TheMythLives is not aware that all of Maria's questions are not for her own clarification, but are, in fact, designed to trap him/her into contradicting their own argument, (best case scenario for Maria,) and (worst case scenario for Maria,) waste TheMythLive's time, energy, and
character count? Socratic questions are strategies. They arent something you apologize for, or refrain asking for your opponents sake.
MariaStardust-
In these cases, Eminent Domain is a necessary evil as it provides for the betterment of the community as a whole.
As such, Eminent Domain CANNOT be viewed as both a necessary and positive government policy.
Yes it can. If the distinction is drawn between the positive for the collective, and positive for the individual. Which TheMythLives did.
Summary- This debate turned out to be an edge of the seat affair despite Maria giving the debate away in opening. Mostly due to carelessness and poor strategy on the part of her opponent. TheMythLives seemed bound and determined to give this debate to Maria by holding a conversation with her, and not debating her. I have to say, TheMythLives won this by sheer luck, not skill. It isnt that he/she did not know what they were arguing, its that their argumentation was poor. And there was virtually no strategic sense whatsoever, in terms of not letting oneself be led, not giving concession ones opponent asks for, not using Socratic questions strategically, etc. Bottom line all TheMythLives did here was survive when the case SHOULD have been a slam dunk.
Maria did a fine job trying to squirm out of her opening error. But TheMythLives did not let her out completely. Even good debaters can make a fatal error in judgment, and that is what happened here. A little over confident in the opening, but she still almost pulled it off. Excellent debating on her part. If someone was not watching the topic closely, she would have convinced.
Decision, TheMythLives wins.
I appreciate Maria for a very interesting debate, along with MemoryShock who set it up. Along with the judges, I will take your points into
consideration for future debates.
Again Thanks to Maria, MemoryShock and the judges for this opportunity.
Peace,
~TheMythLives
Again Thanks to Maria, MemoryShock and the judges for this opportunity.
Peace,
~TheMythLives
This was a great debate and learning experience all the way around. I'd like to extend a sincere and hearty congratulations to the TheMythLives for a
well earned win.
I look forward to meeting you once again in the ring sometime. Best of luck!
I look forward to meeting you once again in the ring sometime. Best of luck!
new topics
-
The mysterious death of Aileen Conway
General Chit Chat: 33 minutes ago -
Half-Life 2 is 20 Years Old - its Also Free on Steam until the 18th
Video Games: 4 hours ago -
Does the Trump win mean No More Taylor Swift??
Politicians & People: 8 hours ago -
Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden administration overtime rule
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
Don't cry do Cryo instead
General Chit Chat: 15 hours ago, 12 flags -
Does the Trump win mean No More Taylor Swift??
Politicians & People: 8 hours ago, 12 flags -
Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden administration overtime rule
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 10 hours ago, 7 flags -
Tariffs all around, Except for ...
Dreams & Predictions: 17 hours ago, 6 flags -
Half-Life 2 is 20 Years Old - its Also Free on Steam until the 18th
Video Games: 4 hours ago, 1 flags -
The mysterious death of Aileen Conway
General Chit Chat: 33 minutes ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
WATCH LIVE: US Congress hearing on UFOs, unidentified anomalous phenomena
Aliens and UFOs • 98 • : putnam6 -
President-elect TRUMP Picks MATT GAETZ for his ATTORNEY GENERAL - High Level PANIC Ensues.
2024 Elections • 78 • : RickinVa -
Does the Trump win mean No More Taylor Swift??
Politicians & People • 45 • : Oldcarpy2 -
The mysterious death of Aileen Conway
General Chit Chat • 0 • : Shoshanna -
President-Elect DONALD TRUMP's 2nd-Term Administration Takes Shape.
Political Ideology • 208 • : fringeofthefringe -
Mike Tyson returns 11-15-24
World Sports • 67 • : argentus -
The art of being offended
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 52 • : argentus -
Mood Music Part VI
Music • 3703 • : underpass61 -
Old School Punk
Music • 560 • : underpass61 -
Don't cry do Cryo instead
General Chit Chat • 9 • : Myhandle
11