municipal authorities using eminent domain to seize land

TillEulenspiegel · 13th January 2005, 09:31 AM

Municipal authorities have taken to using Eminent Domain to seize private property to be able to sell or deed it to businesses that will generate higher Tax income then the single household owners. One case (where the owner prevailed at the appellate level) involved condemning a house because it didn't meet newly revised building codes.

The offense That made the property condemned was the fact that it didn't have Central heat and air. The house had central heat and window air conditioners in various rooms. The Mayor who pushed for the seizure wanted to sell the property to a developer for a mall. The Mayors house BTW does not have central heat and air. SCOTUS is currently considering the case. Be aware that this is not an aberration but a trend which is becoming more and more prevalent.

Supreme Court May Limit Land Seizure for Private Development

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case early next year that could set new limits on the ability of cities to condemn and take property for private redevelopment projects.

There have been many cases in recent years where local governments have seized homes and small businesses to make way for chain retail development. In downtown Port Chester, New York, for example, bulldozers are currently leveling a 27-acre site that once housed numerous small businesses.

The property was taken by the town and transferred to a developer who plans to build a Stop & Shop superstore, several chain restaurants, and a movie theater....

http://www.newrules.org/retail/news_...lug&slugid=266

Thoughts?

Khonshu · 13th January 2005, 09:48 AM

Eminent domain is necessary for public works (some would argue, a necessary evil). Many entities, both public and private (e.g. utility companies & railroads) have the right of eminent domain for projects for the public good.

To me, this is clearly an abuse of the intent, as the project was to build a privately owned project for the profit of the owners, not for the public good. Ultimately, I think many states, if not the federal gov't, will pass restrictions on the use of e.d. to prevent this type of abuse, but they will have the unintended consequence of limiting the use of the power for many projects that are in fact for the public good.

As a civil engineer, it's a subject that holds a good deal of interest to me.

Ed · 13th January 2005, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Khonshu
Eminent domain is necessary for public works (some would argue, a necessary evil). Many entities, both public and private (e.g. utility companies & railroads) have the right of eminent domain for projects for the public good.

To me, this is clearly an abuse of the intent, as the project was to build a privately owned project for the profit of the owners, not for the public good.

Well, suppose the taxes collected pre were x and the taxes collected post are 100 x. Seems to me that that works for the public good.

That said, it also seems to me that such an action would have to be done only in extreme cases like where a municipipality is dieing.

Portchester does not strike me as a place that has a very robust tax base.

It is hard to generalize without knowing the specifics of the case.

CBL4 · 13th January 2005, 10:31 AM

The conde case seems absurd but it is a hard line to draw.

30 years ago a man had some sort of dispute with the my city. I do not know the details but he lost some access to his property (two rental houses) and decided to "show" the city by letting them rot. 20 years ago the city said the houses were unsafe and tried to condemn them. He turned the houses into junk storage and declared them to be "warehouses" which meant they no longer needed to have electricity or water.

20 years more of rotting means I have two neighboring houses (warehouses) that look as if they are about to fall down. He will not sell the houses. He will not fix them. He will not bulldoze them. The absurd thing is that these lots have a wonderful water view and are worth a fair chunk of change.

So I am stuck with these eyesores. I am not sure if I think it would be appropriate for the city to use eminent domain to take these houses to build new houses. (The new houses could have a value of over $250,000 which would provide much more tax revenue.) I certainly would like it but I am not sure if it would be right. I also do not really approve of changing zoning laws to get rid of the warehouse loophole.

CBL

CBL

Ed · 13th January 2005, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CBL4
The conde case seems absurd but it is a hard line to draw.

30 years ago a man had some sort of dispute with the my city. I do not know the details but he lost some access to his property (two rental houses) and decided to "show" the city by letting them rot. 20 years ago the city said the houses were unsafe and tried to condemn them. He turned the houses into junk storage and declared them to be "warehouses" which meant they no longer needed to have electricity or water.

20 years more of rotting means I have two neighboring houses (warehouses) that look as if they are about to fall down. He will not sell the houses. He will not fix them. He will not bulldoze them. The absurd thing is that these lots have a wonderful water view and are worth a fair chunk of change.

So I am stuck with these eyesores. I am not sure if I think it would be appropriate for the city to use eminent domain to take these houses to build new houses. (The new houses could have a value of over $250,000 which would provide much more tax revenue.) I certainly would like it but I am not sure if it would be right. I also do not really approve of changing zoning laws to get rid of the warehouse loophole.

CBL

CBL

I was under the impression that a change in zoning generally grandfathers existing structures. That means that if the code changes regarding my home I need not changeit to match the code but new construction must measure up.

Khonshu · 13th January 2005, 11:33 AM

Ed,

Increasing taxes on the citizens would increase the income as well. Is that for the public good? Does the gov't have the right to seize your house to give to Wal-Mart, because that would increase the tax value of your property? Who benefits from the increased tax income? I think it would be on the shoulders of the local gov't to prove how they plan on benefitting the local citizens by giving the land over to private enterprise.

It may be "legal", but it sure seems like an abuse of powers to me.

And, I would ask, if the local gov't can do that, why couldn't the railroads (eminent domain was largely created for them) or utility companies acquire land through eminent domain with the express purpose of selling it for profit?

crimresearch · 13th January 2005, 11:35 AM

This abuse of the original concept behind eminent domain has been evolving for years, has been discussed in previous threads, and is the focus of a USSC decision coming up, I believe, this term.

Art Vandelay · 13th January 2005, 07:02 PM

Three thoughts:

If the concern is for more tax money, they should just tax property owners, not at the current market value of their property, but at the value of the most valuable use. That would be more honest. If they are unable to secure voter approval for such a policy, they have no right to do something that has the same net effect.

The standard should not merely be "public interest". If property can be taken the moment it is in the public interest to do so, we might as well not have private property to begin with; it would mean that only property already being used to further the public interest would be safe. And if only such property is safe, what benefit would ownership bestow? The moment any owner tries to use his property for private gain, he risks having it taken away.

The government should have to sue for the property, and the property owner should have the right to a jury trial. The jury would decide not only whether the claim of eminent domain is legitimate, but also set the minimum compensation.

jay gw · 13th January 2005, 07:30 PM

I read some articles about the horrendous problems with abandoned buildings in Detroit Michigan. Apparently, there are 15,000 abandoned buildings!

If no one ever comes back to pay taxes or occupy them, why shouldn't governments sell them to private developers??

Mycroft · 13th January 2005, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
I read some articles about the horrendous problems with abandoned buildings in Detroit Michigan. Apparently, there are 15,000 abandoned buildings!

If no one ever comes back to pay taxes or occupy them, why shouldn't governments sell them to private developers??

When property is abandoned, there are ways by which ownership can pass to those who will maintain them. The issue here is not property abandonment, but government theft of private land.

Khonshu · 14th January 2005, 05:00 AM

It could also be that the gov't doesn't want them. To seize the buildings would require legal procedures, and then the gov't would have the responsibilities of ownership. Like being responsible for maintenance, being responsible if someone is injured on the property, etc.

Beerina · 14th January 2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Well, suppose the taxes collected pre were x and the taxes collected post are 100 x. Seems to me that that works for the public good.

Your assumption is that giving money to government is good, even assuming the overinflated multiplier. Detroit seized the entire Poletown area (Polish immigrants) and tore it down for jobs and taxes. Nevermind that it would take an estimated 35 years to reclaim via taxes what the city (over)paid for the land and business contents like small factory contents. (There was a scandal because the businesses, which my dad saw from a nearby factory he managed, were being loaded up for weeks beforehand with new junk machinery that was placed just to force the city to buy it. The city did, using very bad overestimates. The city, of course, had no use for such machinery, so they sold it and the vast bulk was bought back by the very same businesses for -- 2 cents on the dollar!

So anyway, the actual tax situation is nowhere near what you're saying, and was not envisioned as a "public use" (which isn't the same as your "public good", by the way). It was railroads and roads and power lines that was envisioned.

Quote:

That said, it also seems to me that such an action would have to be done only in extreme cases like where a municipipality is dieing.

In business, if the business is crappy, it dies a deserved death. Should not city governments do the same? Detroit (city proper) is a dying city. 30 years ago it had 1.6 million people. Now it has 910,000. Every time anybody gets any money, they leave the city for the suburbs. Why? Why stay? It's a high crime, high taxation unionized kleptocracy. Fully half the people who live in the city and work in the city, work for the city.

Heck, the big news story of today is that, the day after the Mayor's pathetic "state of the city" speech, where he's demanding 10% pay cuts for all employees (presumably this includes the city council member's daughter who's simultaneously away in New Jersey or Paris or somewhere in college, yet full time on the city payrole) while leasing a loaded SUV for the mayor's wife for $25,000 for one year.

The city loses tax base because of it's own misdoings more often than not.

And you wanna take my house to help repair that hellish crap? Thanks, but no thanks.

Ed · 14th January 2005, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beerina
Your assumption is that giving money to government is good, even assuming the overinflated multiplier. Detroit seized the entire Poletown area (Polish immigrants) and tore it down for jobs and taxes. Nevermind that it would take an estimated 35 years to reclaim via taxes what the city (over)paid for the land and business contents like small factory contents. (There was a scandal because the businesses, which my dad saw from a nearby factory he managed, were being loaded up for weeks beforehand with new junk machinery that was placed just to force the city to buy it. The city did, using very bad overestimates. The city, of course, had no use for such machinery, so they sold it and the vast bulk was bought back by the very same businesses for -- 2 cents on the dollar!

So anyway, the actual tax situation is nowhere near what you're saying, and was not envisioned as a "public use" (which isn't the same as your "public good", by the way). It was railroads and roads and power lines that was envisioned.

In business, if the business is crappy, it dies a deserved death. Should not city governments do the same? Detroit (city proper) is a dying city. 30 years ago it had 1.6 million people. Now it has 910,000. Every time anybody gets any money, they leave the city for the suburbs. Why? Why stay? It's a high crime, high taxation unionized kleptocracy. Fully half the people who live in the city and work in the city, work for the city.

Heck, the big news story of today is that, the day after the Mayor's pathetic "state of the city" speech, where he's demanding 10% pay cuts for all employees (presumably this includes the city council member's daughter who's simultaneously away in New Jersey or Paris or somewhere in college, yet full time on the city payrole) while leasing a loaded SUV for the mayor's wife for $25,000 for one year.

The city loses tax base because of it's own misdoings more often than not.

And you wanna take my house to help repair that hellish crap? Thanks, but no thanks.

Gotcha. Detroit sucks. OK with me and I sorta think that most cities suck because there is little accountability on the part of elected officials.

That said, revenues for worthy things (like teachers, computers and like stuff) can fall behind.

Beerina · 14th January 2005, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
I was under the impression that a change in zoning generally grandfathers existing structures. That means that if the code changes regarding my home I need not changeit to match the code but new construction must measure up.

I have relatives that used to live across the street from a house that burned down. The lots were rather narrow, and the "new code" for that city demanded minimum distances between the lot edge and the house edge. These lots were so narrow it was functionally impossible to build a new house. So it's now an empty lot. 1. That should be grandfathered in, and 2. I hope their insurance company paid for a new house somewhere else, although why private concerns should eat the cost in either case, I don't know. Should qualify as a "taking".

Beerina · 14th January 2005, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
I read some articles about the horrendous problems with abandoned buildings in Detroit Michigan. Apparently, there are 15,000 abandoned buildings!

If no one ever comes back to pay taxes or occupy them, why shouldn't governments sell them to private developers??

The reason they don't tear them down has something to do with various federal laws -- it's advantageous to leave them standing vs. have an abandoned lot. To say nothing of the costs. Occasionally a local news station will embarass the city over a particularly bad house (or filthy lot) and presto! Work crews are there the next day. But for the unlucky 99.9999% of residents, T. S.

TillEulenspiegel · 14th January 2005, 02:33 PM

This issue seems to be a basket of snakes..which one must plunge their hand in.

Salient points being ( this order in my head at least):
Does the government have the ability to seize personal property.

Well my estimate is yes it clearly does, for many reasons...unpaid taxes, abandon property, dangerous property ( unlicensed auto - junk yards...)Right of way for a Turnpike,road or railway.

Does the government have the ability to seize personal property on an arbitrary basis? That being where the case for condemnation under ED is a sliding scale that is crafted not by lawful or constitutional consent, but driven by bureaucrats who always proclaim that the effort is done in the name of "The Common Good"?

Does the property owner have a right to expect any "reasonable compensation" as it is described or can the authority cheat them and even if they don't want to acquiesce to the demands of state, take their property?

This issue is not just a mom and pop little guy scenario, the right has been screaming for years about re-classification of lands (as to which I agree ) where the government can reclassify the status of land and preclude any development. That's just as egregious as Mr. Jones losing his home to Wal-mart.

If politics makes strange bedfellows , I think the whole spectrum of right and left can rally on this example of the government clearly overstepping it's bounds.

If your house burns down or if Jr. doesn't have textbooks vote directly on a tax to provide for the necessary services or blame Yourselves, we shouldn't accept this kind of overreaching of the government,,,,,,,,,,a position my Friends of both the right and left can surly agree on. ??

jay gw · 14th January 2005, 03:28 PM

Quote:

The issue here is not property abandonment, but government theft of private land.

The government stole the land to make the United States.

Do you have problems with THAT?

Grammatron · 14th January 2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jay gw
The government stole the land to make the United States.

Do you have problems with THAT?

I am sure the people who's land it use to be have a problem with that.

13th January 2005, 09:31 AM	#1
TillEulenspiegel Master Poster Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,310	municipal authorities using eminent domain to seize land Municipal authorities have taken to using Eminent Domain to seize private property to be able to sell or deed it to businesses that will generate higher Tax income then the single household owners. One case (where the owner prevailed at the appellate level) involved condemning a house because it didn't meet newly revised building codes. The offense That made the property condemned was the fact that it didn't have Central heat and air. The house had central heat and window air conditioners in various rooms. The Mayor who pushed for the seizure wanted to sell the property to a developer for a mall. The Mayors house BTW does not have central heat and air. SCOTUS is currently considering the case. Be aware that this is not an aberration but a trend which is becoming more and more prevalent. Supreme Court May Limit Land Seizure for Private Development The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case early next year that could set new limits on the ability of cities to condemn and take property for private redevelopment projects. There have been many cases in recent years where local governments have seized homes and small businesses to make way for chain retail development. In downtown Port Chester, New York, for example, bulldozers are currently leveling a 27-acre site that once housed numerous small businesses. The property was taken by the town and transferred to a developer who plans to build a Stop & Shop superstore, several chain restaurants, and a movie theater.... http://www.newrules.org/retail/news_...lug&slugid=266 Thoughts?
	__________________ "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein "Who is Einstein to tell God what to do?" Niels Bohr Remember, %97.3 of all accidents occur %100 of the time.

13th January 2005, 09:48 AM	#2
Khonshu Thinker Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 128	Eminent domain is necessary for public works (some would argue, a necessary evil). Many entities, both public and private (e.g. utility companies & railroads) have the right of eminent domain for projects for the public good. To me, this is clearly an abuse of the intent, as the project was to build a privately owned project for the profit of the owners, not for the public good. Ultimately, I think many states, if not the federal gov't, will pass restrictions on the use of e.d. to prevent this type of abuse, but they will have the unintended consequence of limiting the use of the power for many projects that are in fact for the public good. As a civil engineer, it's a subject that holds a good deal of interest to me.
Khonshu Thinker Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 128

13th January 2005, 10:00 AM	#3
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Quote: Originally posted by Khonshu Eminent domain is necessary for public works (some would argue, a necessary evil). Many entities, both public and private (e.g. utility companies & railroads) have the right of eminent domain for projects for the public good. To me, this is clearly an abuse of the intent, as the project was to build a privately owned project for the profit of the owners, not for the public good. Well, suppose the taxes collected pre were x and the taxes collected post are 100 x. Seems to me that that works for the public good. That said, it also seems to me that such an action would have to be done only in extreme cases like where a municipipality is dieing. Portchester does not strike me as a place that has a very robust tax base. It is hard to generalize without knowing the specifics of the case.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

13th January 2005, 10:31 AM	#4
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349	The conde case seems absurd but it is a hard line to draw. 30 years ago a man had some sort of dispute with the my city. I do not know the details but he lost some access to his property (two rental houses) and decided to "show" the city by letting them rot. 20 years ago the city said the houses were unsafe and tried to condemn them. He turned the houses into junk storage and declared them to be "warehouses" which meant they no longer needed to have electricity or water. 20 years more of rotting means I have two neighboring houses (warehouses) that look as if they are about to fall down. He will not sell the houses. He will not fix them. He will not bulldoze them. The absurd thing is that these lots have a wonderful water view and are worth a fair chunk of change. So I am stuck with these eyesores. I am not sure if I think it would be appropriate for the city to use eminent domain to take these houses to build new houses. (The new houses could have a value of over $250,000 which would provide much more tax revenue.) I certainly would like it but I am not sure if it would be right. I also do not really approve of changing zoning laws to get rid of the warehouse loophole. CBL CBL
CBL4 Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 2,349

13th January 2005, 11:12 AM	#5
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Quote: Originally posted by CBL4 The conde case seems absurd but it is a hard line to draw. 30 years ago a man had some sort of dispute with the my city. I do not know the details but he lost some access to his property (two rental houses) and decided to "show" the city by letting them rot. 20 years ago the city said the houses were unsafe and tried to condemn them. He turned the houses into junk storage and declared them to be "warehouses" which meant they no longer needed to have electricity or water. 20 years more of rotting means I have two neighboring houses (warehouses) that look as if they are about to fall down. He will not sell the houses. He will not fix them. He will not bulldoze them. The absurd thing is that these lots have a wonderful water view and are worth a fair chunk of change. So I am stuck with these eyesores. I am not sure if I think it would be appropriate for the city to use eminent domain to take these houses to build new houses. (The new houses could have a value of over $250,000 which would provide much more tax revenue.) I certainly would like it but I am not sure if it would be right. I also do not really approve of changing zoning laws to get rid of the warehouse loophole. CBL CBL I was under the impression that a change in zoning generally grandfathers existing structures. That means that if the code changes regarding my home I need not changeit to match the code but new construction must measure up.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

13th January 2005, 11:33 AM	#6
Khonshu Thinker Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 128	Ed, Increasing taxes on the citizens would increase the income as well. Is that for the public good? Does the gov't have the right to seize your house to give to Wal-Mart, because that would increase the tax value of your property? Who benefits from the increased tax income? I think it would be on the shoulders of the local gov't to prove how they plan on benefitting the local citizens by giving the land over to private enterprise. It may be "legal", but it sure seems like an abuse of powers to me. And, I would ask, if the local gov't can do that, why couldn't the railroads (eminent domain was largely created for them) or utility companies acquire land through eminent domain with the express purpose of selling it for profit?
Khonshu Thinker Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 128

13th January 2005, 11:35 AM	#7
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	This abuse of the original concept behind eminent domain has been evolving for years, has been discussed in previous threads, and is the focus of a USSC decision coming up, I believe, this term.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

13th January 2005, 07:02 PM	#8
Art Vandelay Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,790	Three thoughts: If the concern is for more tax money, they should just tax property owners, not at the current market value of their property, but at the value of the most valuable use. That would be more honest. If they are unable to secure voter approval for such a policy, they have no right to do something that has the same net effect. The standard should not merely be "public interest". If property can be taken the moment it is in the public interest to do so, we might as well not have private property to begin with; it would mean that only property already being used to further the public interest would be safe. And if only such property is safe, what benefit would ownership bestow? The moment any owner tries to use his property for private gain, he risks having it taken away. The government should have to sue for the property, and the property owner should have the right to a jury trial. The jury would decide not only whether the claim of eminent domain is legitimate, but also set the minimum compensation.

13th January 2005, 07:30 PM	#9
jay gw Suspended Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,824	I read some articles about the horrendous problems with abandoned buildings in Detroit Michigan. Apparently, there are 15,000 abandoned buildings! If no one ever comes back to pay taxes or occupy them, why shouldn't governments sell them to private developers??
jay gw Suspended Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,824

13th January 2005, 10:14 PM	#10
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,105	Quote: Originally posted by jay gw I read some articles about the horrendous problems with abandoned buildings in Detroit Michigan. Apparently, there are 15,000 abandoned buildings! If no one ever comes back to pay taxes or occupy them, why shouldn't governments sell them to private developers?? When property is abandoned, there are ways by which ownership can pass to those who will maintain them. The issue here is not property abandonment, but government theft of private land.
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

14th January 2005, 05:00 AM	#11
Khonshu Thinker Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 128	It could also be that the gov't doesn't want them. To seize the buildings would require legal procedures, and then the gov't would have the responsibilities of ownership. Like being responsible for maintenance, being responsible if someone is injured on the property, etc.
Khonshu Thinker Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 128

14th January 2005, 01:40 PM	#12
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Quote: Originally posted by Ed Well, suppose the taxes collected pre were x and the taxes collected post are 100 x. Seems to me that that works for the public good. Your assumption is that giving money to government is good, even assuming the overinflated multiplier. Detroit seized the entire Poletown area (Polish immigrants) and tore it down for jobs and taxes. Nevermind that it would take an estimated 35 years to reclaim via taxes what the city (over)paid for the land and business contents like small factory contents. (There was a scandal because the businesses, which my dad saw from a nearby factory he managed, were being loaded up for weeks beforehand with new junk machinery that was placed just to force the city to buy it. The city did, using very bad overestimates. The city, of course, had no use for such machinery, so they sold it and the vast bulk was bought back by the very same businesses for -- 2 cents on the dollar! So anyway, the actual tax situation is nowhere near what you're saying, and was not envisioned as a "public use" (which isn't the same as your "public good", by the way). It was railroads and roads and power lines that was envisioned. Quote: That said, it also seems to me that such an action would have to be done only in extreme cases like where a municipipality is dieing. In business, if the business is crappy, it dies a deserved death. Should not city governments do the same? Detroit (city proper) is a dying city. 30 years ago it had 1.6 million people. Now it has 910,000. Every time anybody gets any money, they leave the city for the suburbs. Why? Why stay? It's a high crime, high taxation unionized kleptocracy. Fully half the people who live in the city and work in the city, work for the city. Heck, the big news story of today is that, the day after the Mayor's pathetic "state of the city" speech, where he's demanding 10% pay cuts for all employees (presumably this includes the city council member's daughter who's simultaneously away in New Jersey or Paris or somewhere in college, yet full time on the city payrole) while leasing a loaded SUV for the mayor's wife for $25,000 for one year. The city loses tax base because of it's own misdoings more often than not. And you wanna take my house to help repair that hellish crap? Thanks, but no thanks.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

14th January 2005, 01:55 PM	#13
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Quote: Originally posted by Beerina Your assumption is that giving money to government is good, even assuming the overinflated multiplier. Detroit seized the entire Poletown area (Polish immigrants) and tore it down for jobs and taxes. Nevermind that it would take an estimated 35 years to reclaim via taxes what the city (over)paid for the land and business contents like small factory contents. (There was a scandal because the businesses, which my dad saw from a nearby factory he managed, were being loaded up for weeks beforehand with new junk machinery that was placed just to force the city to buy it. The city did, using very bad overestimates. The city, of course, had no use for such machinery, so they sold it and the vast bulk was bought back by the very same businesses for -- 2 cents on the dollar! So anyway, the actual tax situation is nowhere near what you're saying, and was not envisioned as a "public use" (which isn't the same as your "public good", by the way). It was railroads and roads and power lines that was envisioned. In business, if the business is crappy, it dies a deserved death. Should not city governments do the same? Detroit (city proper) is a dying city. 30 years ago it had 1.6 million people. Now it has 910,000. Every time anybody gets any money, they leave the city for the suburbs. Why? Why stay? It's a high crime, high taxation unionized kleptocracy. Fully half the people who live in the city and work in the city, work for the city. Heck, the big news story of today is that, the day after the Mayor's pathetic "state of the city" speech, where he's demanding 10% pay cuts for all employees (presumably this includes the city council member's daughter who's simultaneously away in New Jersey or Paris or somewhere in college, yet full time on the city payrole) while leasing a loaded SUV for the mayor's wife for $25,000 for one year. The city loses tax base because of it's own misdoings more often than not. And you wanna take my house to help repair that hellish crap? Thanks, but no thanks. Gotcha. Detroit sucks. OK with me and I sorta think that most cities suck because there is little accountability on the part of elected officials. That said, revenues for worthy things (like teachers, computers and like stuff) can fall behind.
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

14th January 2005, 02:20 PM	#14
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Quote: Originally posted by Ed I was under the impression that a change in zoning generally grandfathers existing structures. That means that if the code changes regarding my home I need not changeit to match the code but new construction must measure up. I have relatives that used to live across the street from a house that burned down. The lots were rather narrow, and the "new code" for that city demanded minimum distances between the lot edge and the house edge. These lots were so narrow it was functionally impossible to build a new house. So it's now an empty lot. 1. That should be grandfathered in, and 2. I hope their insurance company paid for a new house somewhere else, although why private concerns should eat the cost in either case, I don't know. Should qualify as a "taking".
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

14th January 2005, 02:24 PM	#15
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Quote: Originally posted by jay gw I read some articles about the horrendous problems with abandoned buildings in Detroit Michigan. Apparently, there are 15,000 abandoned buildings! If no one ever comes back to pay taxes or occupy them, why shouldn't governments sell them to private developers?? The reason they don't tear them down has something to do with various federal laws -- it's advantageous to leave them standing vs. have an abandoned lot. To say nothing of the costs. Occasionally a local news station will embarass the city over a particularly bad house (or filthy lot) and presto! Work crews are there the next day. But for the unlucky 99.9999% of residents, T. S.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

14th January 2005, 02:33 PM	#16
TillEulenspiegel Master Poster Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,310	This issue seems to be a basket of snakes..which one must plunge their hand in. Salient points being ( this order in my head at least): Does the government have the ability to seize personal property. Well my estimate is yes it clearly does, for many reasons...unpaid taxes, abandon property, dangerous property ( unlicensed auto - junk yards...)Right of way for a Turnpike,road or railway. Does the government have the ability to seize personal property on an arbitrary basis? That being where the case for condemnation under ED is a sliding scale that is crafted not by lawful or constitutional consent, but driven by bureaucrats who always proclaim that the effort is done in the name of "The Common Good"? Does the property owner have a right to expect any "reasonable compensation" as it is described or can the authority cheat them and even if they don't want to acquiesce to the demands of state, take their property? This issue is not just a mom and pop little guy scenario, the right has been screaming for years about re-classification of lands (as to which I agree ) where the government can reclassify the status of land and preclude any development. That's just as egregious as Mr. Jones losing his home to Wal-mart. If politics makes strange bedfellows , I think the whole spectrum of right and left can rally on this example of the government clearly overstepping it's bounds. If your house burns down or if Jr. doesn't have textbooks vote directly on a tax to provide for the necessary services or blame Yourselves, we shouldn't accept this kind of overreaching of the government,,,,,,,,,,a position my Friends of both the right and left can surly agree on. ??
	__________________ "God does not play dice with the universe." Albert Einstein "Who is Einstein to tell God what to do?" Niels Bohr Remember, %97.3 of all accidents occur %100 of the time.

14th January 2005, 03:28 PM	#17
jay gw Suspended Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,824	Quote: The issue here is not property abandonment, but government theft of private land. The government stole the land to make the United States. Do you have problems with THAT?
jay gw Suspended Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,824

14th January 2005, 04:13 PM	#18
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	Quote: Originally posted by jay gw The government stole the land to make the United States. Do you have problems with THAT? I am sure the people who's land it use to be have a problem with that.
Grammatron Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,446	__________________ Private Information, Do not read this!