If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Watchdog.org)   Yo dawg, I hear you like parking lots, so we'll use eminent domain to turn your parking lot into a parking lot   (watchdog.org) divider line 147
    More: Asinine, Yo Dawg, Seattle, eminent domain, parking lots, just compensation, private property  
•       •       •

10374 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Oct 2013 at 2:18 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



147 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-24 01:28:13 PM
They paved parking lot and put up a parking lot.
 
2013-10-24 02:13:31 PM
According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.
 
2013-10-24 02:21:02 PM

DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.


b-b-b-but Socialism!  Every city should be assembled with regard to neither traffic flow nor how many people are expected to turn up, like Los Angeles and Houston!
 
2013-10-24 02:21:37 PM

Sybarite: They paved parking lot and put up a parking lot.


Don't it always seem to go...
 
2013-10-24 02:23:21 PM
Typical government waste.  Forcibly take over a perfectly good parking lot so they can build a useless parking lot in its place.
 
2013-10-24 02:24:31 PM

DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.


So the 103 year old broad is an asshole who charges too much for parking? Park somewhere else, it's her land
 
2013-10-24 02:24:33 PM
done in one.

man, you got get up early to be the boobies
 
2013-10-24 02:26:08 PM

jim32rr: DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.

So the 103 year old broad is an asshole who charges too much for parking? Park somewhere else, it's her land


Not anymore!
 
2013-10-24 02:26:26 PM
I didn't wade through all 769 comments on that article (for obvious reasons), but based on the few I did look at, there must be an "Agenda 21" comment in there somewhere.
 
2013-10-24 02:26:44 PM

DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.


Well, the "article" sucks anyway... I figured it was along the lines of the city wanting to put on a PUBLIC parking lot and eminent domain-ing one and then having to repave it because it's a shiathole.
 
2013-10-24 02:28:36 PM

DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.


How is it a false alarm?  It seems to me that the current owner is engaging in free enterprise charging what he feels the market will bear.  If the city thought that was too much they were free to purchase the lot from the current owner.  Instead they are seizing it
 
2013-10-24 02:30:29 PM

DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.


You are missing the point.  If I own it, I have the right to use it as I please, barring injuring others.  If I only get to use it for what you think I should, then its not mine.  If she wants to close it off and use it for suntanning her dog, that's her right.  How many park there is no one else's business, or even if she uses it as a parking lot at all.  If the city wants to add parking, buy land from willing sellers.  If there are none, they're not offering enough money.

Freedom is the right to be wrong, which explains Republicans.
 
2013-10-24 02:30:39 PM
So, they are stealing the parking lot.

I read the justification post but that doesn't work for me. They should not be taking someone's land in order to combine it with another project that would essentially make it a parking lot in the place of the other one. You are simply taking away someone's land and possibly income in the name of a city project.
 
2013-10-24 02:31:24 PM

Mr. Eugenides: DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.

How is it a false alarm?  It seems to me that the current owner is engaging in free enterprise charging what he feels the market will bear.  If the city thought that was too much they were free to purchase the lot from the current owner.  Instead they are seizing it


CRY MOAR!

This is not a seizure where she doesn't get paid. This is them forcing her to sell at fair market prices.
 
2013-10-24 02:31:32 PM
Just because she's currently using it as a parking lot it doesn't mean she or her heirs will always be using it as a parking lot. Once the city finishes the construction, that's going to be very valuable land for development.

And this isn't some poor little old lady getting her family's only means of livelihood taken away. She's a multimillionaire heiress.
 
2013-10-24 02:31:36 PM

jim32rr: DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.

So the 103 year old broad is an asshole who charges too much for parking? Park somewhere else, it's her land


or use eminent domain and give her due process before taking her stuff (which would include compensation for the lost property) as is provided in the constitution.
 
2013-10-24 02:34:45 PM
Okay, so she is getting some compensation. Still, she shouldn't have to sell. Especially if the land is about to become park front realty. They are basically stealing away any possible future worth of the land away from her.
 
2013-10-24 02:35:14 PM

DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.


Last I checked, it wasn't illegal to be an asshole and overcharge for your business.
 
2013-10-24 02:36:51 PM
There's nothing wrong with Eminent Domain.  Every property owner is equally subject to it, and gets fair market value for the property.  Besides, shouldn't all these "constitutional conservatives" support it because it's constitutional?
 
2013-10-24 02:37:24 PM

lockers: Mr. Eugenides: DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.

How is it a false alarm?  It seems to me that the current owner is engaging in free enterprise charging what he feels the market will bear.  If the city thought that was too much they were free to purchase the lot from the current owner.  Instead they are seizing it

CRY MOAR!

This is not a seizure where she doesn't get paid. This is them forcing her to sell at fair market prices.


So... the city of Seattle is forcing the owner to hand over the property at a "fair market price" that was determined by..  the city of Seattle.

Yeah that seems right.
 
2013-10-24 02:39:07 PM
"Lack of affordable parking" is in the goddamn notice.  If she hadn't been gouging, maybe she wouldn't have been targeted.
 
2013-10-24 02:39:23 PM

lockers: Mr. Eugenides: DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.

How is it a false alarm?  It seems to me that the current owner is engaging in free enterprise charging what he feels the market will bear.  If the city thought that was too much they were free to purchase the lot from the current owner.  Instead they are seizing it

CRY MOAR!

This is not a seizure where she doesn't get paid. This is them forcing her to sell at fair market prices.


This is eminent domain abuse, you shouldn't be forced to sell something at fair market value unless there is overwhelming public need (school, highway, etc).  The fact that their plan is to replace the private ownership of a parking lot with another parking lot shouldn't meet the requirements for using eminent domain.
 
2013-10-24 02:40:00 PM

Highroller48: There's nothing wrong with Eminent Domain.  Every property owner is equally subject to it, and gets fair market value for the property.  Besides, shouldn't all these "constitutional conservatives" support it because it's constitutional?


BWAHAHAHA!!!!!
 
2013-10-24 02:40:04 PM
If you are on the side of the city, you are wrong or a dick or a dick who is wrong.
 
2013-10-24 02:42:38 PM

DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.


You can take your false alarm and eabod. This is an asshole owner who refuses to sell, and the city flicks it's bean every night thinking of more taxpayer money.

You won't sell us your land? Fine, we'll take it anyway. We're going to make money from you whether you like it or not.

I love this city. Can't wait until The Big One levels this place to glass.
 
2013-10-24 02:45:00 PM

lockers: This is them forcing her to sell at fair market prices


This is double speak, plain and simple.  Yes, they will compensate her for the taking, but it is still a taking.  What winds up being deemed the fair price may or may not be fair in truth.  If they are taking it while planning to undertake a subsequent city project that would increase the value of the land, they are screwing her out of future appreciation.
 
2013-10-24 02:46:29 PM

Highroller48: There's nothing wrong with Eminent Domain.  Every property owner is equally subject to it, and gets fair market value for the property.  Besides, shouldn't all these "constitutional conservatives" support it because it's constitutional?


Well, none of us should really support it as it's a private property being taken with the intention of selling it to a higher bidder in the future. What changed it all was New London, CT ruling by the Supreme Court (a huge mistake in my opinion), which made it possible for one private property owner to have their land taken and given only fair market value to another private property owner because that property owner *might* bring in higher tax revenue for the municipality. In the past Eminent Domain was used for public good, such as a new thruway, school, fire station, etc; but now your house can be knocked down and you given a probably paltry sum instead of what you could negotiate for (or if you refuse to sell) because someone wants to put up condos and make the area look "nice". (See the Asbury Park, NJ waterfront today to see how well that plan is working out)
 
2013-10-24 02:51:43 PM

Teufel Ritter: lockers: This is them forcing her to sell at fair market prices

This is double speak, plain and simple.  Yes, they will compensate her for the taking, but it is still a taking.  What winds up being deemed the fair price may or may not be fair in truth.  If they are taking it while planning to undertake a subsequent city project that would increase the value of the land, they are screwing her out of future appreciation.


I've been on a jury for a dispute over the price of an eminent domain. They previous owner made no assertion on what the land was worth. On the other hand the government could show multiple sales from other areas (all private sales) including what the owner had payed just a couple of months earlier. There is plenty of due process involved.
 
2013-10-24 02:52:55 PM

DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.


This.  Sure, people don't like Eminent Domain.  I get that.  And it seems ridiculous to take the parking lot away from her - but the difference is public parking vs. private parking.  They're taking it away to make it a public parking lot for a short term while they remodel the area.  Fully justified.

/I'm in Tulsa, and there's a parking lot i really wish they'd do that to.  Of course, we're home to the World's worst parking crater
 
2013-10-24 02:55:35 PM

pute kisses like a man: jim32rr: DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.

So the 103 year old broad is an asshole who charges too much for parking? Park somewhere else, it's her land

or use eminent domain and give her due process before taking her stuff (which would include compensation for the lost property) as is provided in the constitution.


So if the city you live in decides to take the property that you live at, tear it down, and build a McMansion because it'll bring in more tax revenue I'm sure you'd be just fine with that.  Especially if other improvements they are going to be installing over the next few years are likely to make the land much more valuable.

The woman is 103, how much longer does the city think that she's going to live?  Her heirs may be more amicable to a sale, after all.  And the replacement of the viaduct has "Big Dig" written all over it, so it'll take longer than this woman is likely to live.
 
2013-10-24 02:58:21 PM
As soon as the ink is dry on the Affordable Parking Act, TeaBagger Anarchists will shut down the Seattle city government, costing billions.
 
2013-10-24 02:58:56 PM

lockers: Teufel Ritter: lockers: This is them forcing her to sell at fair market prices

This is double speak, plain and simple.  Yes, they will compensate her for the taking, but it is still a taking.  What winds up being deemed the fair price may or may not be fair in truth.  If they are taking it while planning to undertake a subsequent city project that would increase the value of the land, they are screwing her out of future appreciation.

I've been on a jury for a dispute over the price of an eminent domain. They previous owner made no assertion on what the land was worth. On the other hand the government could show multiple sales from other areas (all private sales) including what the owner had payed just a couple of months earlier. There is plenty of due process involved.


That's missing the point though.  Eminent domain is suppose to be used in cases where the social benefit is direct and concrete; schools, roads, perhaps some infrastructure upgrades (airports, public transportation trains, whatever).  What's the benefit of using eminent domain in this case?  Higher revenue for the city because they get to collect the parking meters instead of a private owner?  That's what the argued benefit from the Kelo v City of New London was, and it is as terrible now as it was then.
 
2013-10-24 03:00:22 PM

lockers: Teufel Ritter: lockers: This is them forcing her to sell at fair market prices

This is double speak, plain and simple.  Yes, they will compensate her for the taking, but it is still a taking.  What winds up being deemed the fair price may or may not be fair in truth.  If they are taking it while planning to undertake a subsequent city project that would increase the value of the land, they are screwing her out of future appreciation.

I've been on a jury for a dispute over the price of an eminent domain. They previous owner made no assertion on what the land was worth. On the other hand the government could show multiple sales from other areas (all private sales) including what the owner had payed just a couple of months earlier. There is plenty of due process involved.


Trust me, I'm familiar with it.  The government could bring in experts to show value.  The owner may not have been able to afford such assistance.  The owner is often at a huge disadvantage in these cases.  Further, unless the owner presses the issue, I believe in many jurisdictions the value is set by a panel of appraisers (who rely on repeat business from the government, not the owner).  Not exactly as fair as you think.

Beyond those practical issues, it is double speak to mention forced sale and fair market value at the same time.  It would be better to say a forced sale at an approximation of fair market value for other similar properties.  The fair market value of the property in question may well be priceless if the owner wishes not to sell.
 
2013-10-24 03:00:43 PM

BitwiseShift: As soon as the ink is dry on the Affordable Parking Act, TeaBagger Anarchists will shut down the Seattle city government, costing billions.


Seattle doesn't have teabaggers.  That's why the city actually works.
 
2013-10-24 03:01:36 PM

Hoblit: Okay, so she is getting some compensation. Still, she shouldn't have to sell. Especially if the land is about to become park front realty. They are basically stealing away any possible future worth of the land away from her.


The future is NOW. The parking lot is right next to the waterfront rebuild and the viaduct, and will be seriously impacted by the viaduct being torn down. The "future value" of that particular lot is zero, as it is going to become part of the remodeling project which is a City Property project.

It's just an empty goddamn lot for chrissake. The company in question is famous in Seattle for putting tickets on cars that had indeed paid for the space. Put yer $8 in the little slot, and come back two hours later to a ticket on the car, and when you call them to tell them you paid for the space, they just sneer and tell you to fark off. This is NOT a "nice" company.
 
2013-10-24 03:04:18 PM

Deathfrogg: Hoblit: Okay, so she is getting some compensation. Still, she shouldn't have to sell. Especially if the land is about to become park front realty. They are basically stealing away any possible future worth of the land away from her.

The future is NOW. The parking lot is right next to the waterfront rebuild and the viaduct, and will be seriously impacted by the viaduct being torn down. The "future value" of that particular lot is zero, as it is going to become part of the remodeling project which is a City Property project.

It's just an empty goddamn lot for chrissake. The company in question is famous in Seattle for putting tickets on cars that had indeed paid for the space. Put yer $8 in the little slot, and come back two hours later to a ticket on the car, and when you call them to tell them you paid for the space, they just sneer and tell you to fark off. This is NOT a "nice" company.


But is rendering unto Caeser their property the right way to police shady businesses?  Should eminenet domain ever be justified by that?
 
2013-10-24 03:05:40 PM

DarkSoulNoHope: New London, CT ruling by the Supreme Court (a huge mistake in my opinion)



In pretty much everyone's opinion, especially considering what they did with the land.  (Hint: nothing.)
 
2013-10-24 03:07:57 PM

Krieghund: Just because she's currently using it as a parking lot it doesn't mean she or her heirs will always be using it as a parking lot. Once the city finishes the construction, that's going to be very valuable land for development.

And this isn't some poor little old lady getting her family's only means of livelihood taken away. She's a multimillionaire heiress.


So what? It's her land. If she just wants to cordon it off and grow grass it should be her right to do so.
 
2013-10-24 03:09:34 PM

Teufel Ritter: Deathfrogg: Hoblit: Okay, so she is getting some compensation. Still, she shouldn't have to sell. Especially if the land is about to become park front realty. They are basically stealing away any possible future worth of the land away from her.

The future is NOW. The parking lot is right next to the waterfront rebuild and the viaduct, and will be seriously impacted by the viaduct being torn down. The "future value" of that particular lot is zero, as it is going to become part of the remodeling project which is a City Property project.

It's just an empty goddamn lot for chrissake. The company in question is famous in Seattle for putting tickets on cars that had indeed paid for the space. Put yer $8 in the little slot, and come back two hours later to a ticket on the car, and when you call them to tell them you paid for the space, they just sneer and tell you to fark off. This is NOT a "nice" company.

But is rendering unto Caeser their property the right way to police shady businesses?  Should eminent domain ever be justified by that?


The State of Washington outlawed using the Boot wheelclamp because of these people. It didn't matter if you paid for the space, they had workers waiting to run out and clamp your wheel literally the moment you turned your back on the car so they could charge you something like $250 to get it taken off. Money? What Money? We didn't actually see you put any money in the slot, so fark you, pay me.
 
2013-10-24 03:13:40 PM

Deathfrogg: Teufel Ritter: Deathfrogg: Hoblit: Okay, so she is getting some compensation. Still, she shouldn't have to sell. Especially if the land is about to become park front realty. They are basically stealing away any possible future worth of the land away from her.

The future is NOW. The parking lot is right next to the waterfront rebuild and the viaduct, and will be seriously impacted by the viaduct being torn down. The "future value" of that particular lot is zero, as it is going to become part of the remodeling project which is a City Property project.

It's just an empty goddamn lot for chrissake. The company in question is famous in Seattle for putting tickets on cars that had indeed paid for the space. Put yer $8 in the little slot, and come back two hours later to a ticket on the car, and when you call them to tell them you paid for the space, they just sneer and tell you to fark off. This is NOT a "nice" company.

But is rendering unto Caeser their property the right way to police shady businesses?  Should eminent domain ever be justified by that?

The State of Washington outlawed using the Boot wheelclamp because of these people. It didn't matter if you paid for the space, they had workers waiting to run out and clamp your wheel literally the moment you turned your back on the car so they could charge you something like $250 to get it taken off. Money? What Money? We didn't actually see you put any money in the slot, so fark you, pay me.


I believe you.  I'm not sure why people kept parking there, then.  When honor-box lots in cities in which I have lived pulled shady shiat, they went vacant.  Presumably an owner would wise up or sell at that point.  Now, if they don't sell even after that, I am still not sure using eminent domain as a punitive tool is a good precedent to set.
 
2013-10-24 03:19:06 PM

Teufel Ritter:

I believe you.  I'm not sure why people kept parking there, then.  When honor-box lots in cities in which I have lived pulled shady shiat, they went vacant.  Presumably an owner would wise up or sell at that point.  Now, if they don't sell even after that, I am still not sure using eminent domain as a punitive tool is a good precedent to set.


It isn't a Punitive action, the City really does need the property. This is about a gigantic City remodeling project almost as big as Boston's "Big Dig". Just because some wealthy family is being impugned upon doesn't make this wrong. Boohoo for them. They dug in their heels on the property being about 4 times it's actual worth, based on projections from property value increases that somehow magically ended in 2006.
 
2013-10-24 03:19:39 PM

jim32rr: So the 103 year old broad is an asshole who charges too much for parking? Park somewhere else, it's

WAS her land.

Hi, we're from the government. We're here to help...
 
2013-10-24 03:20:16 PM

Mr. Eugenides: DemonEater: According to a friend of mine in Seattle who pays attention to this stuff, there's more to it (surprise).
It's about waterfront redevelopment - it's right next to the Viaduct, which is being destroyed (as it's too dangerous to be legally allowed to remain), and the whole thing is being turned into a combination of park land and mixed use property.

Plus it's a city licensed property, and the owner's an asshole who charges 4x what the city does for parking, even charges all night long, so it's barely used.

So yeah, shut down the outrage, false alarm.

How is it a false alarm?  It seems to me that the current owner is engaging in free enterprise charging what he feels the market will bear.  If the city thought that was too much they were free to purchase the lot from the current owner.  Instead they are seizing it


That's how.
 
2013-10-24 03:23:14 PM

Fusilier: Krieghund: Just because she's currently using it as a parking lot it doesn't mean she or her heirs will always be using it as a parking lot. Once the city finishes the construction, that's going to be very valuable land for development.

And this isn't some poor little old lady getting her family's only means of livelihood taken away. She's a multimillionaire heiress.

So what? It's her land. If she just wants to cordon it off and grow grass it should be her right to do so.


Zoning ordinances are inherently wrong then?  If your neighbor wanted to set up a car dealership on his front lawn, would that be okay?
 
2013-10-24 03:26:19 PM

Deathfrogg: Teufel Ritter:

I believe you.  I'm not sure why people kept parking there, then.  When honor-box lots in cities in which I have lived pulled shady shiat, they went vacant.  Presumably an owner would wise up or sell at that point.  Now, if they don't sell even after that, I am still not sure using eminent domain as a punitive tool is a good precedent to set.

It isn't a Punitive action, the City really does need the property. This is about a gigantic City remodeling project almost as big as Boston's "Big Dig". Just because some wealthy family is being impugned upon doesn't make this wrong. Boohoo for them. They dug in their heels on the property being about 4 times it's actual worth, based on projections from property value increases that somehow magically ended in 2006.


Impugned . . . I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Snark aside, let me start by admitting that Seattle is legally allowed to use eminent domain for this purpose.  Hell, they can take anything for any purpose thanks to Kelo (unless the local government(s) have passed laws against it).  If they need to seize land in order to build a road or some other civic work through that lot, then that would be in line with the pre-Kelo conception of eminent domain.  Here, it sounds like they are seizing it to use as a parking lot.  Which means they are replacing a parking lot with a parking lot.  That is stupid, and in my opinion is unethical.

Now, I am not sure what the city is building here; I do not follow Seattle construction.  That said, if the city is building a project that would increase the value of surrounding land, and using eminent domain to prevent these owners from ever realizing that appreciation, then this is total crap.
 
2013-10-24 03:28:24 PM

wxboy: Fusilier: Krieghund: Just because she's currently using it as a parking lot it doesn't mean she or her heirs will always be using it as a parking lot. Once the city finishes the construction, that's going to be very valuable land for development.

And this isn't some poor little old lady getting her family's only means of livelihood taken away. She's a multimillionaire heiress.

So what? It's her land. If she just wants to cordon it off and grow grass it should be her right to do so.

Zoning ordinances are inherently wrong then?  If your neighbor wanted to set up a car dealership on his front lawn, would that be okay?


In Houston, yes, probably.
 
2013-10-24 03:29:00 PM

tricycleracer: "Lack of affordable parking" is in the goddamn notice.  If she hadn't been gouging, maybe she wouldn't have been targeted.


The affordable parking is apparently all the parking around this lot. When the cheaper parking is hard to find, those who can afford this lot tend to use this more expensive lot, which reduces the pressure on the surrounding "affordable parking". What she charges is her business.
 
2013-10-24 03:30:04 PM

WelldeadLink: tricycleracer: "Lack of affordable parking" is in the goddamn notice.  If she hadn't been gouging, maybe she wouldn't have been targeted.

The affordable parking is apparently all the parking around this lot. When the cheaper parking is hard to find, those who can afford this lot tend to use this more expensive lot, which reduces the pressure on the surrounding "affordable parking". What she charges is her business.


Haven't you heard?  Efficient distribution of scarce resources is gouging.
 
2013-10-24 03:30:59 PM

that was my nickname in highschool: DarkSoulNoHope: New London, CT ruling by the Supreme Court (a huge mistake in my opinion)


In pretty much everyone's opinion, especially considering what they did with the land.  (Hint: nothing.)


My point exactly with Asbury Park, NJ. The developer in 2007 shows these shiny conceptual art of what they plan the city will look like after they knock down the local properties on the beachfront, nothing happened except for 2 - 3 new condo buildings and kicking out some long term beach pavillion store leases for "reconstruction" when they just brought in higher priced stores and Hipster restaurants (2nd pavillion, everything but the Pinball Museum is connected and owned by the same person; all the repurposed metal shipping containers except for one). They instead wait for nature to deteriorate the historical structures enough (Asbury Amusements, Metropolitan Hotel, Baronet Theater, Charms building, and others) in order for them to justify tearing it down for "safely purposes" after previously they claimed they wanted to use eminent domain to take the structures and rebuild them (and showed those shiny concept art drawings to justify it). Years later, nothing is in place of those buildings, except for where Asbury Amusements was... they knocked it down to put in a condo building that they can't even get full occupation for! (next door, west across the new street they built in front of it was supposed to be "phase 2" of the condos, which hasn't had anything built there yet!)
 
2013-10-24 03:31:45 PM
Came for thread full of dumocrats making excuses for the government, and its 'right' to take whatever it wants from whomever it wants (unless its said dumocrat) - leaving satisfied
 
Displayed 50 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report