What some of you people need to realize about eminent domain

[superwalrus]

Many of you people are lambasting about "individual property rights" etc etc. What you people fail to realize is that there are more property rights at stake then just those whose property are being seized.

For hundreds of years the government has been able to stop people from doing things on their own property through use of the nuisance doctrine, negative easements, irrevocable licenses, easements by necessity, easements by prescription, etc. In the groundbreaking zoning case, Euclid, the SC adopted nuisance laws to accomodate zoning. In Subsequent zoning + eminnent domain cases (ie. drawing the line when zoning is a taking) the SC has adopted a legislative deferential standard, basically, the legislation knows best unless proven otherwise.

So what does all of this have to do with this current ruling? You people are failing to grasp the larger picture. Because of these people who refuse to sell their homes, OTHER homes are suffering. Neighborhoods suffer all the time because stubborn people refuse to sell their shanty. The government needs to be able to step in and clear out shitty neighborhoods for the better of the community. This ruling isn't about "screw the little guy and yay for the community." Its about finding a necessary BALANCE between the two. There needs to be a balance between what one person can do to the rest of us, and what the rest of us can do to that person.

Some of you may lambast this ruling as against individual property rights, and how it goes against the very reason we founded this country, blah blah blah. This is not so. Nuisance law has been around for a LOT longer than this country, and has been used extensively. This is not a dangerous precedent or something that MOST educated people did not expect. Just look at all the famous zoning / eminent domain rulings since Euclid and you'll understand.

Walrus

[Embar Angylwrath]

Troll

[Croinc]

Embar is begining to sound like Zanypher.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Embar is begining to sound like Zanypher.

Oh.. Cro... don't make me bitch-slap you like some Thai whore.

[Croinc]

Did I say you could take your lips off my schlong???

Get back to suckin bitch! LOL

[superwalrus]

Embar... trolls are usually like a sentence long ;P

If you look at ANY of the eminent domain cases / zoning cases, you'd see that this ruling is not that unpredictable. If you want a list of them, just ask.

Walrus

[Chants Evensong]

Walrus,

The properties condemned were not a nuisance. They were clean, habitable homes, not shanties. The owners had put them to productive use. Thus, nuisance law does not apply.

The case did not involve the taking of a portion of land for ingress or egress. It does not involve the validation of a long standing private use. So the law of easements does not apply.

Anglo-American law has always recognized that property rights are not absolute. This is true. And it is a good thing.

But never before has it been recognized in law that the government can take property from a private individual and give it to another simply because the latter's use will generate more tax revenues. That is, however, the law of the land now.

I think that's why people are so upset about this decision.

[Torakus]

This case was a sham. I can't even comprehend how the SC came to the decision they did. All they really accomplished was disenfranchise more folks and create a bloc of anti-ED folks when ED is a very usable tool. In fact the city of San Diego showed this clearly by imposing ED on a large group of, for lack of a better term, slum lords a couple years ago. They condemned hundreds of rental homes in the hands of tens of land lords declared ED, then executed a deal with a development company that got those hundreds of former renters back into new construction homes on the same properties, as home owners rather than renters. When the idea was introduced I was completely opposed, but when my son-in-law, a former renter of one of these run down shit holes, was able to purchase a new home in the same area for 250,000 (that appreciated in value during construction to 300,000, and is now valued at 420,000), I was quite pleased. So there is a place for ED, but the Conn case was not it.

Ron

[superwalrus]

Chants, I never said that this situation was exactly like anything like it before, I was just giving examples of how property rights were not absolute (which you pointed out).

Obviously people are going to be upset when they just read the news articles, thats what the masses do, but when you look at the reality of current property law it was not surprising. I don't know what you're profession is so whatever.

However, eminent domain law is the most ad hoc of all the property law out there. The current test for eminent domain is the Penn Central test, and even that test recognizes that there are no real tests for eminent domain (obviously this did not stop my property teacher from devoting an exam question to that subject).

So yes, people are going to be upset, but people are always going to be upset. This change is something not unexpected by any means.

Walrus

[superwalrus]

Torakus, so you're saying that taking private property away from slum lords and giving it to private citizens is different from the Conneticut case? Please explain how it is different, because, its not.

Walrus

[Chants Evensong]

Increased tax revenues were once thought of as a means to obtain a public good, depending on how is is spent.

Now it is considered a public good in and of itself, regardless of how it is spent.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Torakus, so you're saying that taking private property away from slum lords and giving it to private citizens is different from the Conneticut case? Please explain how it is different, because, its not.

Walrus

Those properties were seized under established nuisance laws. The Conn case had nothing to do with correcting a nuisance. It had everything to do with a government entity forcibly reallocating property soley on the basis of the new owners ability to generate tax revenues. THAT'S the difference.

[SicTimMitchell]

This has the potential to fuck with a lot of people.

I'd hate to have just bought a $3M condo in Manhattan right now. (That tiny island that's been out of elbow room for quite some time.)

Our place, right across the river from downtown Minneapolis, was bought partially because it was a mid-priced home in an up-and-coming neighborhood. The developers have moved in on my neighborhood more than we expected, with lofts, condos and townhomes in the $1-$2M range going up all around us, and lots of upscale retail and entertainment. (Our property taxes rising have been the biggest concern, until this ruling. BTW, flippers hurt, too. When an identical property gets sold for twice what you paid, city appraisals go up. Which is great if you're an idiot who wants to suck all the equity out of your home.)

The association of 13 townhomes we live in has a private, fenced backyard that's half a city block by itself, with it and the townhomes talking up nearly a full city block of prime real estate smack dab between downtown and the U of MN. Now it can be taken to build a fuckin' Marshall Fields. And "fair market price" my ass. What about fair market price 10 years from now? 20?

My wife and I specifically said we were buying the home we intend to die in. Then it's our legacy to our daughter. No one has the right to take that away, unless they discover a huge fuckin' oilfield underneath it.

[Arclan Cirel]

My Dad owned an apartment building in the Chicagoland area; and the city had harassed him for years in an attempt to force him to sell so they could use the land for private investment.

He finally sold about four months ago and moved. My dad never believed the SC ruling would go that way.

If you have income producing property that you make a living on, it hits home in a huge way when cities have power to take it from you in favor of another.