When is eminent domain acceptable to you?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Aharami

Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
21,205
165
106
Originally posted by: patentman
Here is a good read that is on point:

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty1.html

After the Kelo decision, someone tried to convince New Hampshire use eminent domain to take Justic Souter's home (Justice Souter authored the opinion in Kelo as I recall) for the purpose of building a hotel. Pretty funny IMO.

hah! I was just gonna bring this up. I had such a huge smile on my face when i heard that someone was trying to use eminent domain to take the judge's summer home away. suits him right
 

Luthien

Golden Member
Feb 1, 2004
1,721
0
0
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: Flyback
Never. Not even for public infrastructure.

Want the land? Pay what the owner is willing to sell it for.

Don't like that? Tough. It's not yours to take.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Unfortunately people like the OP and at least 5 members of the current US Supreme Court seem to feel that stretching the meaning of this to cover tax revenue derived from redevelopment is a "public use".


Disgusting
 

kevnich2

Platinum Member
Apr 10, 2004
2,465
8
76
I see more abuse of eminent domain than good. The only good I can think of is a city that NEEDS to expand it's roads and then all of the business owners sell their property to the city for more than the going property value for like real estate but some idiot who wants to get as much as he can asks for 10x that amount just to abuse the situation. The reason I say this is because this is what happened in a city I used to live in. They had a city vote and everyone voted for the road expansion and the city government discussed everything with the business owners where the road expansion would occur and all agreed to sell their location and relocate but ONE business owner changed his mind at the last minute and wanted something like 4-6x what they agreed to pay him. These businesses weren't taken advantage of, they all agreed to sell and made a substantial profit and simply relocated because the city needed a wider road. That's the only time when I can see using ED.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Aharami
Originally posted by: patentman
Here is a good read that is on point:

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty1.html

After the Kelo decision, someone tried to convince New Hampshire use eminent domain to take Justic Souter's home (Justice Souter authored the opinion in Kelo as I recall) for the purpose of building a hotel. Pretty funny IMO.

hah! I was just gonna bring this up. I had such a huge smile on my face when i heard that someone was trying to use eminent domain to take the judge's summer home away. suits him right

yeap. to bad they didn't win.


anyway. i think its ok to take it for roads, schools, parks etc. or when its a public hazard. We had a few in a flood zone that were flooded every year (i am talking 2-4ft of water) the town took them.

takeing it for a store or such is BS and should be against the law. to bad the SCTUS screwed up.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: UCDAggies
To seize controle of assets of large companies who are providing services such as electricity.

Since this thread is obviously a spin-off from your thread about public utilities, why didn't you just post in that thread and keep all of your trolling in one place? :roll:
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: FoBoT
let me read the US Constitution to see what it says on this subject and I'll get back to you

Why would you assume the constitution is what you should believe?

I mean it's more consistent than the Bible, but still...

*hides in corner*
 

Thorny

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,122
0
0
Never. The government should NEVER be able to sieze your land from you for any reason.
 

Dacalo

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2000
8,778
3
76
Originally posted by: UCDAggies
When is eminent domain acceptable to you?

Personally I think it is acceptable as long as the government thinks it will benifit most of the citizens.

Example:

Your business/home located where the city thinks a grocery store would benifit the most people, they should be able to use ED and take your land from you.
To seize controle of assets of large companies who are providing services such as electricity.

WTF.... as an alumni of UCD, you are giving the school a bad name.
 

SampSon

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
7,160
1
0
I just finished up a class on eminent domain recently for my continuing education credits.
Only a few of you seem to understand how eminent domain works. I've had to do some projects that were done directly for the cause of taking.

There are many situations where eminent domain makes sense. Most have to do with infrastructure improvement/expansion, public use expansion (parks, wildlife management, social service expansion), gentrification of residential areas etc. Up until recently ED wasn't heavily used for anything but public infrastructure and defense infrastructure. Now it is becoming an issue more people and politicians are paying attention to due to clear cut abuses. The supreme court kelo decision was what really started the heavy abuse of ED by municipalities, corporations and development companies.

Just this past January the supreme court decided not to look at the case against the municipality of Port Chester, NY. If you look at the case it's basically extortion.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: UCDAggies
When is eminent domain acceptable to you?

Personally I think it is acceptable as long as the government thinks it will benifit most of the citizens.

Example:

Your business/home located where the city thinks a grocery store would benifit the most people, they should be able to use ED and take your land from you.

To seize controle of assets of large companies who are providing services such as electricity.

I hope they take the land out from under your feet.
 

Thorny

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,122
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Thorny
Never. The government should NEVER be able to sieze your land from you for any reason.
Why not? They seized it for you.

If the government had a legitimate need for my land I would most likely sell it to them at fair market value. Heaven help the person that ever comes and tries to TAKE my land from me because I am willing to die for my beliefs and freedom. Hopefully this will never be an issue for me though.
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
34,545
1,707
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
NEVER. The entire concept of the government forcibly taking anything from anyone is beyond me. I understand the point of easements, and those are specifically written into contracts. But ED is a crock of steaming communist sh1t.

I agree.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Eminent domain is only acceptable to me in a case where, say, it is announced that a new highway will be built over a patch of land and someone buys part of that land just to stop the highway from being built. Its one thing if someone has lived in a house for a while, its another when they buy a house to purposely obstruct business. In general, eminent domain is acceptable when it is seizing land owned for six months or less. Beyond that it is like stealing someones home.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,849
146
This is a big debate here as they're wanting to do a lot of big development (they've already started some of it and used ED). The thing is when they built the mall here they used it and they're going to end up using it again on some of those same people.

Supposedly, they're starting their offers at 125% of the appraised value of the property (including the homes/business), although I'm not certain who is doing the appraising.

They're also going to install a roundabout at what is already a very busy intersection and will become even moreso after the development.

I don't recall what the timetable is, but I think within 5 years this is going to be a very different place (for better or worse).
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Thorny
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Thorny
Never. The government should NEVER be able to sieze your land from you for any reason.
Why not? They seized it for you.

If the government had a legitimate need for my land I would most likely sell it to them at fair market value. Heaven help the person that ever comes and tries to TAKE my land from me because I am willing to die for my beliefs and freedom. Hopefully this will never be an issue for me though.
You know that ED requires payment right?

You also completely dodged the point I was making.
 

Thorny

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,122
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Thorny
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Thorny
Never. The government should NEVER be able to sieze your land from you for any reason.
Why not? They seized it for you.

If the government had a legitimate need for my land I would most likely sell it to them at fair market value. Heaven help the person that ever comes and tries to TAKE my land from me because I am willing to die for my beliefs and freedom. Hopefully this will never be an issue for me though.
You know that ED requires payment right?

You also completely dodged the point I was making.

Sorry, I guess I didn't catch your point, I wasn't trying to dodge it. I know that ED requires payment, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable to me. I'm just saying that if the landowner doesn't wish to part with thier land that the government shouldn't be able to take it from you.

What I was getting at was that if I felt the government actually needed my land, I would probably not contest ED. But if it wasn't going to be used for some extremely good purpose I would not care to part with it. Some of my family's land has been in the family for over 150 years and I'll be damned if they thing they are going take it away involuntarily, payment or not.