Eminet domain.

[Libertarian01]

To All,

My concern with the concept of Eminent Domain is not that it exists, but rather that it is being used by people that are unanswerable to the public and for purposes beyond the intent of the Constitution.

In many cases unelected officials, such as airport authorities or city bus authorities, are being granted the power to use eminent domain by elected officials, thus shielding the elected officials from the political fallout of taking someones private property.

My second concern is with the government taking property from one private owner only to give it to another private owner, justifying such legalized theft with "job creation" or "more property tax income" for that political subdivision. This is the foundation of Kelo v New London which I abhor! Link: Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we need a public works project such as a highway that will benefit the entire nation then I can, reluctantly, understand the need to compel the sale of property for such an endeavor. It isn't just one person being helped by a new road that may save 45 minutes, it could be hundreds of thousands of people every month saving that time. Multiplied over years this is an enormous savings to the local, state, and national community. Think about it this way, 100,000 people a month save just 45 minutes time. What does this mean? Well, 100,000 x 45 minutes = 4,500,000 minutes / month. 4,500,000 minutes / month x 12 = 54,000,000 minutes / year. 54,000,000 x 10 years = 540,000,000 minutes / decade. 540,000,000 / 60 = 9,000,000 hours. 9,000,000 / 24 hours = 375,000 days. 375,000 / 365 days = 1,027.39 YEARS saved over a decade. That is gas, time, wear & tear, for truck drivers, delivery routes, school buses routes, etc etc etc.

All the positives aside I am staunchly against the abuse of this power by all levels of the government. When I ran for City Council I was one of the only candidates that made comment about this issue.

We need to allow the use of eminent domain, but only as a last resort by elected officials for works that are truly governmental and NOT the transfer of property from one private party to another private party.

Regards,

Doug

 

[tenring]

INDOT says, "I-69 is coming whether you like it or not."

 

[Trigger Time]

"Legal" theft is all this is. I can't say how I'd react. Not really sure ad i guess it would depend on my attachment to my land and their attitude Ns the price offered. Once you **** with a mans property you have ****ed with the dearest for of freedom a man can have! In my opinion.

 

[warthog]

I'm sure it's not pleasant for a lot of people, but it's been the law for 1000+ years of common law and the entire length of time the U.S. has been a country. From what I have personally seen, the government frequently over-pays.

I once worked for the IL Dept of Conservation in the Eminent Domain area assembling all the folders of paperwork by checklist to make sure it was ready for the lawyers. I saw all those offers for the property and they were not always that great. No extra for moving, nothing added for the fact the family had owned the land since the country was a country, all those generations of family born and buried there mean nothing to the bean counters. I realize it is hard to put a price on these things but there is ZERO compensation for the grief all of this brings to a family and the actual property value is also undervalued verses what it would bring if sold on the open market to say, a developer. Many people would be able to get thrice what they are offered if they developed the property verses let the government make a highway through it.

Imagine if the gov't decided a higher use for your property was a shopping mall, this is fairly routine too. All good cronies know how to use E.D. to get what they want if YOU won't sell.

It isn't all a wonderful thing when the government decides they want to enlarge a park or feel a road should be straight rather than a bit curvy. They rarely overpay in my experience but then I am no expert, I am just a guy who used to work in the government doing this stuff. It was one of the shortest stays in a job I had, I actually found it repulsive to do and I wasn't paid well either.

 

[HoughMade]

If a thief stole my money and bought me some stuff with it, I'd be a hypocrite for accepting it?

You'd be a hypocrite if you told us how bad thievery was, a thief stole your neighbor's money, bought you something and you willingly accepted it and used it every day.

We are not talking about taxes. We are talking about real property.

 

[CarmelHP]

I agree with this concern. Deliberate misinterpretation of 'needful' is about as bad as deliberate misinterpretation of 'regulate' and 'general welfare' in contemporary usage.

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Says "public" not "needful."

 

[CarmelHP]

Since you advocate for property theft, I just wondered if you were willing to look the owner in the eye while you steal his land. Guess not, I don't blame you. I would feel like a monster.

Fifth Amendment says "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The usual common law definition of larceny from which statutory elements of theft are derived is: "the wrongful taking and carrying away of personal property which is in the possession of another with the intent to convert it or permanently deprive the owner of the value thereof."

If due process is adhered to then the taking is not wrongful, and if just compensation is given then the owner is not deprived of the value. The Constitution balances rights with limited powers. Words have meanings.

 

[jsgolfman]

If I don't wish to enter into a contract with you, private individual or state, yet you force me under color of law, threat of violence or both, how is that not theft? It makes no difference what document authorizes said theft (municipal code, constitution, etc.) or what "just" compensation is rendered, the unwanted taking remains. And the later use of said road, in this case, in no way justifies or makes proper the original forced taking.

 

[warthog]

The problem here is there is a lot of corruption in the eminent domain game. Developers who cannot get someone to sell off a piece of prime real estate but have good connections politically can have the government make a ruling that the better, higher use for the land is for it to be developed and then they seize it, pay the old owner what would be a fairly standard price for the land which is a lot lower than the actual value and then it is taken and made into a mall or some other monstrosity because this is a better use than leaving it a forrest or someones home. This is done more than it should be done since once is more than it should happen. There are few ways a person can fight Eminent Domain in the courts. They can spend money they may not have to do their own studies as to what the better use of the land would be from the public's view, they can try and prove by showing all the offers that have been made by the developer on the land that have been refused but that never works since once it is seized the work goes up for bid supposedly. In the end they loose and have wound up spending most if not all of what they are going to be paid for the land fighting to keep what was theirs to start with just because the government thought it would be nice to have mall there instead.

This is done for malls too so if needed, I will see if I can't find a few news stores about how Eminent Domain was used to build a mall.

Sometimes the question isn't so much about legal, it's about is it right to do at all.

 

[Jomibe]

I thought everyone liked eminent domain when it benefitted the Colts.

I said it then, so out of nostalgia, I'll say it again: We should not have built that damn stadium. Let the Billionaire Irsay buy some land and build his own damn stadium. If he would've took his footballs and went somewhere else to play, then good riddance.

 

[Jomibe]

This totally just made my whole day.

 

[hornadylnl]

What does it say about eminent domain when an old tree gets more consideration to be saved than your home?

http://www.jconline.com/article/20111218/COLUMNISTS30/111216021/Trending-Update-INDOT-vs-Burrows-oak

 

[CarmelHP]

If I don't wish to enter into a contract with you, private individual or state, yet you force me under color of law, threat of violence or both, how is that not theft? It makes no difference what document authorizes said theft (municipal code, constitution, etc.) or what "just" compensation is rendered, the unwanted taking remains. And the later use of said road, in this case, in no way justifies or makes proper the original forced taking.

Except it only meets your subjective definition of theft, not the objective thousand year old definition of theft. It isn't theft just because you don't like it.

 

[foszoe]

What does it say about eminent domain when an old tree gets more consideration to be saved than your home?

http://www.jconline.com/article/20111218/COLUMNISTS30/111216021/Trending-Update-INDOT-vs-Burrows-oak

Its 2013 now, what happened to the tree?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Its 2013 now, what happened to the tree?

I tried googling it and just find the same article

 

[rambone]

Fifth Amendment says "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The usual common law definition of larceny from which statutory elements of theft are derived is: "the wrongful taking and carrying away of personal property which is in the possession of another with the intent to convert it or permanently deprive the owner of the value thereof."

If due process is adhered to then the taking is not wrongful, and if just compensation is given then the owner is not deprived of the value. The Constitution balances rights with limited powers. Words have meanings.

Eminent Domain defiles the concept of property ownership.

If you actually own something then it won't transfer hands without your permission.

 

[hornadylnl]

Its 2013 now, what happened to the tree?

Chicago Tribune

 

[hornadylnl]

Eminent Domain defiles the concept of property ownership.

If you actually own something then it won't transfer hands without your permission.

Taking a portion of your paycheck for the public good is theft. Taking your land for the public good is not theft.

 

[CarmelHP]

Taking a portion of your paycheck for the public good is theft. Taking your land for the public good is not theft.

Is there some "just compensation" given to those from whence it is taken for taking a paycheck to fund that which is not among the delegated powers of a government to do?

 

[hornadylnl]

Is there some "just compensation" given to those from whence it is taken for taking a paycheck to fund that which is not among the delegated powers of a government to do?

Public services. Which are about as compensatory as the sheckles they throw at you while Irsay moves into his new digs.