|
View Poll Results: Eminent Domain.
|
|
Sure the government can do anything they want with it after they take it.
|
   
|
0 |
0% |
|
Its ok for government to rent or lease property taken by eminent domain
|
  
|
0 |
0% |
|
Its ok for the government to SELL property taken by emeint Domain
|
  
|
1 |
0.90% |
|
Its ok for Government to lisence the use of property they take by Eminent Domain.
|
  
|
0 |
0% |
|
Its ok for governmen TO GIVE property taken by emnent Domain away.
|
  
|
0 |
0% |
|
No Its never right for the government to place property taken By emenint Domain in private hands
|
  
|
110 |
99.10% |
 |
|
01/23/12, 04:58 PM
|
 |
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: IL, right smack dab in the middle
Posts: 6,787
|
|
|
The Rights of Eminent Domain ?
Do you think its right For government to use the right of Eminent Domain to take property from one person and then give it , sell it or lisence it to another privite business or individual to profit on?
|
01/23/12, 05:02 PM
|
 |
Too Complicated For Cable
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Washington
Posts: 10,120
|
|
|
Not even a little.
__________________
Know why the middle class is screwed? 3 classes, 2 parties...
To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself. ~ Einstein
|
01/23/12, 05:02 PM
|
 |
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: far north Idaho
Posts: 11,134
|
|
|
Depends on the situation. I can see why it might be necessary but not so that someone can build a stadium or something like that. If the land was needed for something absolutely vital to the community, like maybe a levee or something like that.
My DH started a successful recall in our town back in AZ when the city council started eminent domain proceedings to take private land and develop it into a shopping area that two of the city council members were backing. We got the two members out and the land was saved.
|
01/23/12, 05:03 PM
|
|
Outstanding in my field
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,186
|
|
Obviously not !!!
...so why did the supreme court agree that it is ok to do so ????
it was a 4 to 5 vote in favor of
.... and 5 Supreme Court justices should be hung for it 
|
01/23/12, 05:11 PM
|
 |
Miniature Horse lover
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: West Central WI.
Posts: 21,249
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaInN.Idaho
Depends on the situation. I can see why it might be necessary but not so that someone can build a stadium or something like that. If the land was needed for something absolutely vital to the community, like maybe a levee or something like that.
|
I agree 100% with that.
|
01/23/12, 05:20 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: IL, right smack dab in the middle
Posts: 6,787
|
|
|
But shouldnt something absolutely vital to the community be OWNED by the Community(government) ?
|
01/23/12, 05:21 PM
|
|
Too Complicated For Cable
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Washington
Posts: 10,120
|
|
|
AK, you really believe the government should be able to use eminent domain to take land form a person and sell it to someone else?
__________________
Know why the middle class is screwed? 3 classes, 2 parties...
To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself. ~ Einstein
|
01/23/12, 05:33 PM
|
 |
Appalachian American
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW VA
Posts: 10,637
|
|
|
I believe it is legal for them to place property taken By emenint Domain in private hands, but it is not right. I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but I also believe our legislators have the ability and responsibility to change the law to prevent that from happening.
|
01/23/12, 06:12 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: far north Idaho
Posts: 11,134
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fantasymaker
But shouldnt something absolutely vital to the community be OWNED by the Community(government) ?
|
Yes, it should. Sorry...missed that part.
|
01/23/12, 06:19 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SW Missouri
Posts: 8,010
|
|
|
One of the main principle this country was based upon is property rights. The supremes set a terrible precedent in the Kelo decision. Now what is your's might not be.
|
01/23/12, 06:29 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,448
|
|
|
One of the things the state of Ms. voted on in the last election.
The people voted no.
|
01/23/12, 07:06 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dwelling in the state of Confusion - but just passing thru...
Posts: 8,092
|
|
|
Mixed feelings on the matter......
Quote:
Originally Posted by fantasymaker
But shouldnt something absolutely vital to the community be OWNED by the Community(government) ?
|
************************************************
on the one hand, local and state gooberments have an absolute right to take property by right of
eminent domain (after paying the fair market value of said property) to ensure that highways
continue without needless detouring, that land is reserved for wastewater treatment plants or
community water sources, etc., but it seems that it goes against what the founding fathers
envisioned for the federal gooberment to appropriate lands for national parklands and other
such beneficial projects when they only granted the following powers:
The Constitution grants numerous powers to Congress. Enumerated in Article I, Section 8,
these include the powers to levy and collect taxes; to coin money and regulate its value;
provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, promote progress of
science by issuing patents, create federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, combat piracies
and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the
regulation of land and naval forces, provide for, arm and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive
legislation in the District of Columbia, and to make laws necessary to properly execute powers.
|
01/23/12, 07:22 PM
|
 |
Bitter Clinger
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,780
|
|
|
I totally disagree with the Kelo decision, but I agree with Lisa that the govt has the right to take land (take being a poor choice of words since the govt is required to compensate owners FMV for the taking) for a legitimate govt purpose. IMO, a shopping center that would earn more taxes for the local govt is not a legitimate reason, contrary to what the Court found in Kelo.
__________________
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."
|
01/23/12, 07:34 PM
|
|
Too Complicated For Cable
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Washington
Posts: 10,120
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeralFemale
I totally disagree with the Kelo decision, but I agree with Lisa that the govt has the right to take land (take being a poor choice of words since the govt is required to compensate owners FMV for the taking) for a legitimate govt purpose. IMO, a shopping center that would earn more taxes for the local govt is not a legitimate reason, contrary to what the Court found in Kelo.
|
The government doesn't have to pay FMV, they have to pay assessed value. There is a real distinction there. Look at the assessed value of your home (it's on your property tax bill) then look at the selling price of similar homes in your area are going for.
__________________
Know why the middle class is screwed? 3 classes, 2 parties...
To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself. ~ Einstein
|
01/23/12, 07:40 PM
|
|
Appalachian American
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW VA
Posts: 10,637
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeralFemale
I totally disagree with the Kelo decision, but I agree with Lisa that the govt has the right to take land (take being a poor choice of words since the govt is required to compensate owners FMV for the taking) for a legitimate govt purpose. IMO, a shopping center that would earn more taxes for the local govt is not a legitimate reason, contrary to what the Court found in Kelo.
|
The courts didn't necessarily rule that it was a legitimate reason, they ruled that the law (as written) allows the government to do it. Although I don't like the ramifications of the decision, I believe they read the law correctly. What the courts have done is point out to us that there is a law on the books that needs to be changed.
|
01/23/12, 07:44 PM
|
|
Bitter Clinger
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,780
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvalidID
The government doesn't have to pay FMV, they have to pay assessed value. There is a real distinction there. Look at the assessed value of your home (it's on your property tax bill) then look at the selling price of similar homes in your area are going for.
|
FMV is determined, partially, by assessed value.
__________________
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built."
|
01/23/12, 08:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,481
|
|
|
A lot states (including Florida) passed laws after that decision that specifically prohibits using eminent domain to condemn property for any private purposes.
|
01/23/12, 08:38 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UT
Posts: 3,840
|
|
|
all i know is that ANYONE taking MY property has just declared war & i will make the cost exceed the gain.
|
01/23/12, 09:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Central OK
Posts: 443
|
|
|
We own property next to a small but busy airport. A few years ago they were buying surrounding properties and sent us a letter that they were assessing our property to make an offer. We had already listed the property for sale and had proof of recent sales in the area to back up our claim of value. They never came up with an offer but it did get back to us that we should have been willing to GIVE them our home and property to advance the expansion of the airport!
Now with the economy we no longer worry about them but this would be a situation where eminent domain would prevail. One of our now gone neighbors fought for 7 years before settleing with the city, their property was in the flight pattern.
But is it right for eminent domain to be used to build a racetrack? NO!!
But what about a university to expand their campus? We had a local university do this, it wouldn't have been so bad if they had just offered a fair price for the dozens of homes but they were like bulldozers forcing people to accept low ball offers and then bringing in the bulldozers.
|
01/24/12, 08:45 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 1,828
|
|
|
In the state of Missouri, private business can come into a town with their lawyers with the okay of local developers, condemn what they want and take it. I know, I was there when it was done. In this case it was Walgreen Pharmacy---evicted several locally owned small businesses. It just wasn't right. I refuse to shop there but it doesn't seem to matter to others in the area.
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Rate This Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 PM.
|
|
