Poll: Eminent domain

[Kirk_Allen]

The worst case of Eminent domain I can think of was in Chicago.  Mayor Daily's wife wanted to turn Miggs Field Airport into a park.  With the stroke of a single pen, ON A WEEKEND, Mayor Daily ordered the runway destroyed.  Over night  Trackhoes dug up large X shaped portions of the rundway so no one could take off.

http://flyguides.com/destinations/?d=364

There were numerous plains still parked at the airport but with no runway they were faced with high dollar relocatoin to another airport by contractors who would take them apart and move them by truck.

Many faught that issue and with the aproval of the FAA those planes took off from the taxi-way. 

Today, Migs Field is a water front park.   >:(

[Larry]

Kansas and Missouri are among the worst land grabbers around.  Witness the use of eminent domain to seize land from over 150 property owners to build the Kansas Speedway for Nascar.   

This is a big money issue...local and state governments will not change until we vote the land grabbing politicians out of office.

Looks like the US Supreme Court has backed away from the issue to let local governments do what they want, so no help there.

The only way we can change government is to let them know that WE WILL NOT TOLERANT USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. Today would be a good time to write a nice letter to your elected officials to let them know your views. 

[Tom]

I find it a saddening and perplexing situation when our Government (of and for the people) is referred to so frequently as "they".  What's that tell us?

[Buzz-sawyer]

Tom
It tells me they (politicals) are dis-associated from our interests, and we(voters) arent concerned enough yet to really do anything about it ???

[redpowerd]

I find it a saddening and perplexing situation when our Government (of and for the people) is referred to so frequently as "they".  What's that tell us?

excellent point tom

[iain]

http://www.teetimeking.com/Content/ItemDetails.asp?SID=4&TID=11&CID=124&NID=809

check the "legal right to" at the end of the short paragroph
your all USAasions what righd do they mean?



  iain (not USAasion)

[Roxie]

That is what the eminent domain laws give to local and state governments. 
The government ( of the City of Coatesville) currently has the "legal right to" take the Saha farm for a golf course. 
The way that our system works, however, the Saha family has the "legal right to" seek every legal recourse to keep them from taking it. 
The courts battle it out, and the lawyers get richer. 
The unfair part comes that the taxpayers of the City of Coatesville are paying for Coatesville's legal costs.....no one individual feels the financial burden, the Saha's have to pay out of their own pocket to defend property that belongs to them.  To date they have paid over $200,000 which they had in retirement savings. 

[iain]

But what was eminent domain originaly for?
why was it introduced?
and when?

iain

[Papa Dave]

Did you know that Railroad Companies have the power of iminent domain,too. :

[Roxie]

Eminent Domain is part of the Fifth Amendement of the Constitution.  I found this explanation:

The Supreme Court has held that the federal government and each state has eminent domain, that is to say, the power to take private property. The Fifth Amendment provides that private property may only be taken for public use if just compensation is paid. The provision did not, originally, directly apply to the states. Like all clauses except the grand jury clause, however, the Supreme Court has extended the eminent domain clause to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Ron Wenrich]

Its the same as compulsory purchase in English law.  The eminent domain clause is a holdout from old English law.  

Most think of eminent domain used for such things as roads and schools.  But, it was used to take land and give to railroads back in the mid-19th century.  It has also been used to provide land for utilities, including the electric companies.  Both of these endeavors have been a huge benefit to the national economy and progress.

My state has condemened thousands of acres of land so that we have a park within 25 miles of every person.  The one near me has been condemned for about 30 years.  They also condemned one house that had a really scenic waterfall in the backyard.  Reason:  it would make a really neat office.  They still haven't developed the park.  

Taking for a park is one thing, but taking and turning over to someone else for their own corporate or personal profit is something else.  Who says we don't have a ruling elite?   And retention of elected officials is higher in the US than in the old USSR. 

[iain]

I dont think compulsory purchase is used much for golfing,
roads etc yes, but anly after a good bit of appeal, and then there is the protesters to convince, all of which takes lots and lots of time 8) 8)


iain

[WH_Conley]

HERE, HERE. Ron, yer thinkin like I am now

[isawlogs]

  I voted NO  ,,,
I went trough this a few years ago .. they came here and wanted to take part of my property to widen out the highway ...  They where only taking our well and our weeping bed , one half of the circle driveway ... and would of compensated us for relocating the house ... After a year and a half through the courts and never ending meetings with the engeneers and lawyers it was all droped .... They where all happy to give us fair compensation for the trouble that this all brought upon us ....   that fair compensation only coverded the expenses that was encountered by us ... and that just that ... not a penny extra to order in a pizza ... let alone go to the restaurant ...... So NO they should not have this wright ....  NO WAY

Chet  ... I dont understand really long word in engish ....  But I think it is a big big NO ...

[mhburton]

  As grandpa told the survey crew about to stake twenty feet off the front of his property for a highway RoW, "The Sovereign State of Texas can kiss my ass."  There is now a prominent jog to the South in the short stretch of highway in front of that place, courtesy of S&W.  ;D

[Gipper]

Agree with so many of the above of the above I can't single out any to emphasize, except I certainly liked and concur withPercy's idea and what the grandpa in Texas said ;D ;D  It's very saddening and sickening to think that some of our elected official are simply using this "right" to eliminate some who might have opposed them, or might be a threat to them in the future. >:(  As someone said about the freeways in Lousiville, KY, it does happen, and if you can check the deeds, you probably will find that some of them or their relatives, business associates, etc., had recently purchased land in the direction the changes were made.  This is common practice - helps keep the old "rich get richer" theory alive! 

I live in one of the highest taxed states in the country, and it is near the bottom in per capital income, and "they" just recently passed laws that will allow cities to condem property if it will enhance the financial development of the city.  In Lexington, KY there is a small farm within the city limits.  The developers have been trying for years to buy him out.  Will be interesting to see how long he will be able to hold out now!!  On the other side of town, the city or developers (not sure which) wanted to build a golf course across a fourlane highway from one of the world famous horse farms.  The "absentee owner" of the farm objected and therefore the golf course/development is no longer an issue.  A lot of what is condemed and taken depends on who in favor and who it will benefit.  Sad, but real :( :(   Theres not much we can do on our own property anymore without paying a large fee to the local and state government.  Think "fee" is the key word there. :D

Probably the saddest part of all is how every military conflict we engage in, including the one now, is always preceded with the propaganda of protecting the freedom of the American people.  Unfortunately, these freedoms are becoming less and less each year.  Guess it's not hard to guess how I voted in the poll.

Gipper

[Papa Dave]

Must not have much to do today, so let me stirr the pot a little. ;D

In the begining, the original purpose of the law was probably ok. I mean having interstates to drive on is beneficial, having railroads is necessary and having State and National Parks is real nice, too.

However, this law like all others must be implemented in a capitalistic society where there is no shortage of greed and the desire for profit. Anytime a developer gets involved, you can bet they are looking to make big money and generally don't care of the problems they cause others.

But the point I am trying to make is that we do not have desireable checks and balances with this law and it is our fault.

First, because the politicians many times do not represent us properly. That is most likely our fault. Only about 40% or so of the people who can vote, do so on any regular basis. And we are not even getting shot at like in Iraq when we go vote. Then, we gripe when they don't do what we want.

Second, we do not generally go down to City Hall and protest anymore in large numbers. That is an effective concept that we choose to ignore.

Third, we do not band together and file lawsuits to protect our common interests on a consistent basis. But, I have noticed that the ACLU has no problem in filing a lawsuit at the drop of a hat. I do not think they are protecting most Americans interests. Certainly, not mine.

So, in the end, I believe we as Americans have become lazy and ignore the issues until it is too late. Then, we sit back and wonder what went wrong. And who can I blame.

I blame me because I am not doing anything to help. So, perhaps we should start a movement of some type.

Just one man's opinion.

[chisel]

isawlogs:
the long word that Chet used translates to "emphatiquement."

I voted NO. I think Norm F mentioned the current Supreme Court case. I donate $ to the Institute for Justice, and they are representing the plaintiffs in this case.

www.ij.org

Also, after reading this article:{LINK}

things don't look very optimistic. Here's a snippet of the article (Bullock is with IJ):

"When Bullock argues that New London wants to throw people out of their homes for the sake of ordinary economic development, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asks why that's a problem. New London is depressed, she says; what's wrong with trying to ''build it up and get more jobs?'' If the city could buy property on the open market and turn it over to a developer, wonders Justice David Souter, why can't it use eminent domain to achieve the same end? Justice Stephen Breyer notes that there is bound to be some public benefit from almost any land taking. Isn't that enough to satisfy the Constitution's ''public use'' requirement?"

[johnjbc]

The Libertarian Party is very strong on this issue.



http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/righprop.html



Did you vote Libertarian?

[chisel]

The Libertarian Party is very strong on this issue.



http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/righprop.html



Did you vote Libertarian?

Thanks for the link.

Yes, I vote Libertarian whenever possible. I don't think the LP presidential candidate even rcv'd 500,000 votes in the 2004 election.  :( I had a Badnarik bumper sticker on my car before the election. My dad saw it and said: "who is that freak?"    >:(

[Junior437t]

A couple comments here. Emminent domain has been abused too many times and I am sure we can all think of an incident where it has happened. My grandfather's land was "taken" in the late 1950's by the Corps of Engineers. They built a flood control dam on the Gauley River in central WV. None of the employees at this lake live in this area (within 40 miles). There are many qualified unemployed veterans. Now the water release is partially controlled by whitewater rafting associations. When a company from North Carolina wanted to build a hydro electric plant at the dam,  the whitewater rafting companies caused it to be delayed almost 10 years. The trout fishermen were told that the hydroelectric plant and whitewater rafting were more profitable for the area, so they just have to deal with water fluctuations. The plant was built in the name of a town 15 miles away, so they get about $25,000  a year from the plant. The electricity is sent to Virginia. None of the families that I know of, that "lost" the homes, is profiting from this dam. Flood control is wonderful, but why should all of these families have their homes flooded. 
      Now a situation that is going to directly affect me. I own 44 acres near the area designated as the Gauley River National Recreation Area. My land is bounded on 2 sides by a state park and one side by a timber company that owns 10,000 acres. The forth side was owned by an out of town owner, who donated it to the National Park Service. My nearest neighbor is 1 mile away, and it is the Superintendent of the state park. The road that goes in front of my house goes to the river and is used by hikers to get to the river.  We built a log house from timber we sawed on this property. I have seen the "official" maps from the NPS and they do not show my land as land they intend to acquire. A friend of mine that works for the NPS has told me that he has seen "unofficial" maps that show my house designated as an "Office and Visitors Center". If and when this comes about, I will hopefully have time to cut the rest of the timber and saw it into lumber on my Woodmizer, so that I can try to make up the money from their "fair value". The NPS has claimed in meetings that they do not intend to "take" any land but they also say that they reserve the right to use eminent domain and pay "fair market value" for the land they need or want. As far as I am concerned "fair market value" for my place is $1,000,000.  Seriously doubt they would see it that way.

[TnAndy]

IF it was my farm the city of Coatsville, PA was trying to take, I'd walk into a city council meeting and NONE of them would walk out.

[J_T]

They might take my land but they would need to build a new office ;D

[DanG]

Why would they want to build an office in the middle of a desert?   ;D

I'm in the middle of an eminant domain case, myself.  A large, for profit, electric company is building a transmission line along my west border.  The purpose is to feed some developments to the south, about 40 miles.  The company who is building the developments owns over a million acres in this area, and the line could be almost entirely built on their land.  The power company has scrupulously avoided impacting any of the development company's land, but has seriously deteriorated the value of numerous small tracts, while offering a pittance as compensation.  Some of the plots that are affected will become almost worthless, yet the power company is offering less than 10% of the current value.

Yeah, I'm against the use of the eminant domain law for private, profit-making purposes.  I can think of nothing more repugnant, in this time when our young people are fighting and dieing for the personal freedoms of people in foreign lands! >:(

[Gipper]

Well put DanG!  It is absolutely amazing how we, as the world's policeman, will order our young people to fight and die in distant lands, and take some of the same freedoms away from our own citizens. >:(

In my earlier post, I said I concur with Percy -- it should have been concur with Norm and the grandpa in Texas!  Both were well said!