Eminent domain exploitation

[Erik]

Is it really bothering anyone else that we're seeing more and more cases of government taking people's property in the name of eminent domain, only to turn around and sell it to private developers?

There was another case on Hannity & Colmbs last night (I never watch this show, but I got taken in by the blurb) in which a small town is quietly trying to force a woman from her home so private development can move in and raise the town's tax base.

I don't have a problem with traditional eminent domain, where a public use (street, highway, park, library, school) property modification is the justification. It's still got to be a very big need in the particular location to justify eminent domain, but at least those reasons can be reasonable. But taking property from a private citizen/business in order to give it to another private citizen/business? That's just wrong - and goes against everything that makes America unique and strong.

If private citizens can no longer resort to the law to protect their property, then there are no more property rights. This might sound a bit extreme, but I'm thinking down the road a bit here. If this trend continues, you better have friends in high places if you want to hold onto any property you have in a desirable location.

Check out a Google news search on "eminent domain" - there's quite a bit of this going on all over the country.

http://news.google.com/news?q=eminent+domain

Thoughts?

[Erik]

Here's a link to a good article from that news search:

http://www.therant.us/staff/burkhart/12142005.htm

[Greg]

Agree 100%.

Funny thing is my street is being developed at a rapid pace. Unfortunately it is not residential. Business is moving in. Not just small business.

Kohls, Target, Loews, Cinema, Restraunts, Gas Stations, Strip Malls, and all within a half mile on my street.

My road is going to need expanded and the traffic is getting rediculous.

If I by land I should own it and no one should take it "ALL" away!

What was being developed in this situation?

[Erik]

You might become victim to this, Greg, based on your location.

In the example I mentioned above, they were taking the land for a condo development.

[Greg]

Was it raw land or did it have a home on it?

Yeah believe me it is "EMINENT"

But.... I do have 1 thing going for me. The county line is in between the developing area and I. I sit 500 ft from the border.

[Erik]

That's good - you're subject to a different local government at least.

The land in question has a house on it that also had some sort of business. An old lady lives there and her only income is from the business. Been there 65 years or something like that.

[The Wizard]

I have noticed the spike in stories regarding this topic. What constitutes using eminent domain?

It makes you feel that your American Dream could turn into a nightmare.

[Greg]

I was understanding that it could be used for city, state, and government needs such as parks and recreation.

But I know it is happening beyond that more so these days. But come on a condo developement?

Who is under who's desk on this one!

Erik edit it if u want lol.

[Erik]

As far as I understand it, the traditional interpretation of eminent domain was that government could force a citizen to sell their private property if the government needed to use the land for something that served the general public. Public streets, water processing plants, public schools, etc. I'm fine with that, if there's solid justification for the location and the need.

What I am not ok with is the new idea that future tax revenue and jobs serves the public good and therefore invoking eminent domain to take land for private developments like retail shopping areas, industrial parks, and condo developments is all okay. Yes, those things will help a city generate more tax revenue, but to forcibly take a private citizen's land/home for these purposes is nothing less than government abuse of power. The article that I linked to in my second post of this thread puts it well - this kind of thing is what we had under British rule - what we fought against to call ourselves free from tyranny in the Revolutionary War.

The problem with allowing this sort of thing is that there is no longer a line that can be drawn on what defines any use of eminent domain as illegal. If a city can show that a change in ownership would result in more tax revenue (thereby serving the public by having more money for city budgets), then nobody is safe from forcible takeover of their property.

Our land is simply on loan from the government, until they decide to take it and give it to someone else. Whether a person is given "fair market value" is not the point - the point is that the person has no right to simply say "no - I want to keep my land".

This one really gets me hot under the collar.

[Greg]

I see what you mean now. I understand how they are twisting the rules. Yes they need something to counter that law.