The population of a municipality still has some control, via elections, to ensure that local governments don't go crazy
Written by someone not in NJ. This is the most corrupt state in the Union and nothing anyone has done or will do is going to change it. Where we got to choose between the lesser of two evils in the last presidential election in NJ we only get to pick between who's got shorter arms to reach in our pocket with.
This decision is very bad and flies in the face of everything this country should stand for, but we are slowly moving away from the ideals of the founding fathers and toward everything we as a country have fought against forever.
[quote="Embar Angylwrath"]The population of a municpality still has some control, via elections, to ensure that local governments don't go crazy[quote]
Unless they use eminent domain to uproot all but them who can gain from it.
Doubt it would come to that but the option is avalible now.
The population of a municipality still has some control, via elections, to ensure that local governments don't go crazy
Written by someone not in NJ. This is the most corrupt state in the Union and nothing anyone has done or will do is going to change it. Where we got to choose between the lesser of two evils in the last presidential election in NJ we only get to pick between who's got shorter arms to reach in our pocket with.
This decision is very bad and flies in the face of everything this country should stand for, but we are slowly moving away from the ideals of the founding fathers and toward everything we as a country have fought against forever.
Not arguing that the decision was a good thing. I think it's a travesty and it flies in the face of some very fundamental ideals that helped shape this country.
What I AM saying is that it appears that, short of Constitutional Amendment, the only protection against this is a movement by the citizens of a municipality to limit the scope of eminant domain within the municipality.
Won't be easy. As you noted, there are some corrupt governments in certain cities, and cities will be generally loath to limit an option that can fatten the government coffers, but right now, its the only option available.
Popular uprisings notwithstanding....
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Actually, this is a point on which I think a Constitutional amendment would be appropriate - limiting the use of eminent domain for public, not private, needs.
Which is really weird. I've opposed just about every Constituional amendment that's been proposed in my lifetime. Even the ERA seemed like gilding the lily to me.
Klast Brell wrote:
The practical application of this case I think will be that any land developer can now compare your asking price for your house to the cost of lobbying the local government to take it from you.
I spent 5 years as an urban planner and you are right on the money with this comment. Every time developers run into a person who's asking price is "outrageous" (even if the new use for the property would more than justify that "outrageous price") developers will now be able to circumvent those negotiations and use government pressure to force a sale at a lower price. Even being able to credibly threaten an ED proceeding will almost certianly force down the sellers price. Negotations between private property owners should be handled by the markets (real estate in this case) and NOT beaucracts or the courts. I would give a detailed opinion of why this decision should be incredibly objectionable to any property owner but Chants has done an excellent job covering the issues.
In answer to his question about "opening the floodgate" I think the answer is a qualified "no". Cases where a developer runs into a land owner that truly "has no price" are relatively rare. That said, even one instance where a private property owner that is maintaining his property in accordance with local codes is forced to sell to another private property owner at a price less than he is asking is a travesty. I hope this will be revisited by future courts and the right of private property owners to negotiate pricing without the threat of government interference is reasserted.
Relbeek Einre wrote:Actually, this is a point on which I think a Constitutional amendment would be appropriate - limiting the use of eminent domain for public, not private, needs.
Which is really weird. I've opposed just about every Constituional amendment that's been proposed in my lifetime. Even the ERA seemed like gilding the lily to me.
Heh, nah we only ammend the Constitution to deal with important matters like Gay Marraige and flag burining.
I would not propose ammending the Constitution over this matter but it sure as hell would be a "litmus test" for appointing/confirming future SC judges if I was President or a Senator. I believe this one will be revisited by future courts.
If used in limited ways, which is possible considering what Embar alluded to (elected officials and capriciousness of the public), there could be benefits. I think overall, there will be more strict regulation regarding ED, as mentioned, and eventually we will see the SC revisit this issue, as mentioned. There will be more cases of "legal" takings that sound horrible and wrong, I suspect, since this does open a lot more doors. I can also say that the good majority of developers that I have worked with have a decent amount of integrity in regards to public interest - it is in their best interest not be complete jackasses.
