Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Opposing Views)   Eight years ago these people lost their homes so that developers could build something "for the betterment of the community." Let's check in and see how the community has been improved   (opposingviews.com) divider line 146
    More: Sad, Thames River, U.S. Supreme Court, New London  
•       •       •

23632 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Mar 2014 at 2:27 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



146 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-19 11:27:40 PM  
I remember this case causing lots of teeth gnashing and hair tearing on Fark, because the justices that Farkers hate the most were the ones to dissent, while their judicial heroes were the ones who felt that everything should be torn down.  It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.
 
2014-03-19 11:40:52 PM  
And this is not yet another example of the worthless shiatheap that is Opposing Views blatantly plagiarizing other articles to add yet more turds to the open latrine that is their site, because their article begins this way:

It has been a little over eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that homeowners in New London, Conn., had no property rights.

and the Boston Globe article that was clearly only a source for this meticulously researched and well-reported article begins like this:

NEARLY NINE years have elapsed since the US Supreme Court, decided that seven homeowner in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. had no property rights which City Hall was bound to respect.

I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.
 
2014-03-19 11:53:57 PM  

devildog123: I remember this case causing lots of teeth gnashing and hair tearing on Fark, because the justices that Farkers hate the most were the ones to dissent, while their judicial heroes were the ones who felt that everything should be torn down.  It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.


Meh. It was crazy for sure. Nothing compared to the registered libertarian I once saw whose entire family income was courtesy of the federal government. Now THAT was crazy.
 
2014-03-20 12:01:19 AM  
"Pfizer wants a nice place to operate," one Pfizer executive said at the time. "We don't want to be surrounded by tenements."

Then why didn't you, I don't know, BUILD YOUR FACILITY SOMEWHERE ELSE?!?
 
2014-03-20 12:13:29 AM  
Non OV Link

/sad tag for OV making its unwelcome return
 
2014-03-20 12:21:02 AM  
Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.
 
2014-03-20 12:31:06 AM  

cman: Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.


Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool, but it should be used rarely, and only for public works projects for the good of the community, never for private developers.

Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.
 
2014-03-20 12:36:41 AM  

DanZero: /sad tag for OV making its unwelcome return


No sh*t, that was my first thought. I'd been thinking we were done with that site.
 
2014-03-20 12:43:31 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: cman: Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.

Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool, but it should be used rarely, and only for public works projects for the good of the community, never for private developers.

Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.


Necessary evil, you mean?
 
2014-03-20 12:57:04 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: cman: Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.

Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool, but it should be used rarely, and only for public works projects for the good of the community, never for private developers.

Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.


The permission for eminent domain should have to be decided by a grand jury type of body.
 
2014-03-20 02:30:15 AM  
On of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, Kelo literally attacks the principles that are the basis for the U.S. Bill of Rights.
 
2014-03-20 02:36:11 AM  

Frederick: TuteTibiImperes: cman: Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.

Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool, but it should be used rarely, and only for public works projects for the good of the community, never for private developers.

Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.

The permission for eminent domain should have to be decided by a grand jury type of body.


From my POV in California, anything that makes NIMBY's even more powerful and infrastructure more expensive and harder to use is BAD.

/For all, by all.  You don't get to gentrify via eminent domain, you get to build the new mass transit and let gentrification naturally happen.
 
2014-03-20 02:40:16 AM  

cman: TuteTibiImperes: cman: Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.

Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool, but it should be used rarely, and only for public works projects for the good of the community, never for private developers.

Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.

Necessary evil, you mean?


Yeah, and so's the draft. It should only be used for things that really really matter, and the affected should be richly compensated.

A "better business climate" most certainly doesn't qualify. Kelo was an utterly shiat decision, I don't give a shiat if Jesus himself wrote it.

I like the grand jury idea, even though that can still be gamed.
 
2014-03-20 02:43:04 AM  

fusillade762: "Pfizer wants a nice place to operate," one Pfizer executive said at the time. "We don't want to be surrounded by tenements."

Then why didn't you, I don't know, BUILD YOUR FACILITY SOMEWHERE ELSE?!?


Because that's how these weasels work the system.


1.  build in a crappy area because you can get the land cheap.
2.  once your site is built, biatch about the crappy neighborhood and push to have it changed/re-zoned.
3.  get your way, have it re-zoned and hit with eminent domain so your site is worth more.
4.  sell for ungodly profit
5.  go elsewhere and repeat.
 
2014-03-20 02:54:50 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.


Make it 200% of the tax value, and I'm with you. Has a property tax eval ever gone down, anywhere?
 
2014-03-20 02:57:40 AM  

Aulus: fusillade762: "Pfizer wants a nice place to operate," one Pfizer executive said at the time. "We don't want to be surrounded by tenements."

Then why didn't you, I don't know, BUILD YOUR FACILITY SOMEWHERE ELSE?!?

Because that's how these weasels work the system.


1.  build in a crappy area because you can get the land cheap.
2.  once your site is built, biatch about the crappy neighborhood and push to have it changed/re-zoned.
3.  get your way, have it re-zoned and hit with eminent domain so your site is worth more.
4.  sell for ungodly profit
5.  go elsewhere and repeat.


 You forgot to beg township/county for tax exemptions/reimbursements for "bettering the community" and jerbs.
 
2014-03-20 03:02:18 AM  

Frederick: The permission for eminent domain should have to be decided by a grand jury type of body.


Or, I dunno, maybe it could be something that would have to be passed by the legislature, signed by the executive, and survive a challenge in the courts.

Wait a sec! That's exactly the system that we had, up until Midkiff abdicated the role of the courts and deferred all judgment about what was and wasn't a public use to the political branches.

Yes, I said Midkiff, not Kelo.  Midkiff was the decision that screwed over eminent domain law in this country, but no one in the media cared because that case was about the government stealing land from the rich to redistribute to the poor.  That decision was cheered in the media.

http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1369 &c ontext=urbanlaw
 
2014-03-20 03:07:53 AM  
"Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution."  - Justice Thomas, Kelo v. New London

I have a coffee mug with this quote on it.
 
2014-03-20 03:08:23 AM  
Chavez Ravine in LA. Bought it out, tore down the houses, were supposed to build low income housing that the previous residents would have first shot at getting, city agency was accused of being run by communists, and then magically some big businessmen built Dodger Stadium on it instead. Still a black mark on Los Angeles and reason enough to root for the Angels.
 
2014-03-20 03:13:50 AM  
So, Pfizer failed to have an erection on this occasion? I hear they have a pill for that.
 
2014-03-20 03:19:36 AM  

Pocket Ninja: And this is not yet another example of the worthless shiatheap that is Opposing Views blatantly plagiarizing other articles to add yet more turds to the open latrine that is their site, because their article begins this way:

It has been a little over eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that homeowners in New London, Conn., had no property rights.

and the Boston Globe article that was clearly only a source for this meticulously researched and well-reported article begins like this:

NEARLY NINE years have elapsed since the US Supreme Court, decided that seven homeowner in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. had no property rights which City Hall was bound to respect.

I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.


I OPPOSE THIS VIEW!
 
2014-03-20 03:19:58 AM  

Talondel: Yes, I said Midkiff, not Kelo

Berman v. Parker?
 
2014-03-20 03:23:42 AM  
It reminds me when my city got into the "We can take their property lol" action. There was a very large and mostly empty lot with a single store on it, the local game and hobby store. It was where all the scout troops, model builders and tabletop gamers got their supplies and it was the "hub" of those communities. On the far end of the lot were some old beat-up houses, the kind with scrap sheet metal used as fencing (and not in the 'artistic' way). Then a developer said that if the city gave him the land, that he'd bring an entire Whole Foods market to the lot. The city was thrilled at the tax revenue prospects and promptly used the domain law and took the gaming shop. The nice old couple that ran it were unable to open a new shop with the paltry sum that the city forced them to take. Then the city went to domain the ramshackle houses on the far side, and it turned out they were owned by the same person who owned half the car dealerships in the city. He said that if ANY of his property was taken, he'd move ALL of his dealerships out of the city. The crappy houses were suddenly allowed to stay.

It gets worse

Eventually one of the city council actually called Whole Foods to congratulate them on their choice to move to the town and send them a gift basket. Their reaction: "Uh... we have no plans to open a store there." It turns out the "developer' was just a fraudster who was hoping the city would straight-up give him the land (which it almost did) so he could sell it and walk away with the money.

Ten years later, the land (Which is in the heart of the town on the 'main' road, surrounded by other commercial development) is still empty. Nobody will buy it because they know what happened to the last owner.
 
2014-03-20 03:28:48 AM  

cman: Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.


I understand the need to build roads. No city would ever be able to put in a rail system if it couldn't use eminent domain. HOWEVER... the current system is that they get the "Fair market value" of it, which is of course appraised by someone who knows that the city is about to take it so the value goes to crap.

The law should be: If the government takes your property, you get DOUBLE the "fair market value."
 
2014-03-20 03:32:19 AM  
Pocket Ninja:
I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.

Vote with the wallet and don't pay for TF.
Well, actually, you probably remain sponsored 100% of the time now that I think about it...
But yes, one of Fark's revenue streams is from copy/pasta news aggregates like Gawker
 
2014-03-20 03:32:21 AM  

Elmo Jones: Has a property tax eval ever gone down, anywhere?


Yes, mine dropped quite a bit in Los Angeles. Over the course of about 4 or 5 years, it dropped from $550K to about $400K. One of those good thing/bad thing situations.
 
2014-03-20 03:34:47 AM  
http://spiritplumber.deviantart.com/art/Zero-Tolerance-427102917  This is what I post every time there's a retarded zero-tolerance story. Fortunately, it is a dramatization of something that really happened to me. My dad kicks ass.
 
2014-03-20 03:37:22 AM  
This is an America worth fighting for, so my vote is to send more troops overseas, ASAP.
 
2014-03-20 03:39:59 AM  

spiritplumber: http://spiritplumber.deviantart.com/art/Zero-Tolerance-427102917  This is what I post every time there's a retarded zero-tolerance story. Fortunately, it is a dramatization of something that really happened to me. My dad kicks ass.


Wrong thread I think
 
2014-03-20 03:45:50 AM  

hervatski: spiritplumber: http://spiritplumber.deviantart.com/art/Zero-Tolerance-427102917  This is what I post every time there's a retarded zero-tolerance story. Fortunately, it is a dramatization of something that really happened to me. My dad kicks ass.

Wrong thread I think


Yeah, apologies.
 
2014-03-20 03:47:41 AM  
Seems to me that if they hadn't spent so long fighting it it would have been finished before the crash. That'll teach them to fight city hall.
 
2014-03-20 03:50:50 AM  

Securitywyrm: I understand the need to build roads. No city would ever be able to put in a rail system if it couldn't use eminent domain. HOWEVER... the current system is that they get the "Fair market value" of it, which is of course appraised by someone who knows that the city is about to take it so the value goes to crap.

The law should be: If the government takes your property, you get DOUBLE the "fair market value."


Nah, that would just get even more people to dig their heels in and force an eminent domain action. A lot of the time, the people doing so don't have any personal attachment to the property, they're just hoping to extort a bunch of extra money by blocking the only good route. That would just give people even more reason to try for that.

I'm pretty sure the land can be competently appraised not taking the future eminent domain action into account, using the historic appraisals of the property, the value of equivalent property, etc.
 
2014-03-20 03:52:34 AM  

devildog123: I remember this case causing lots of teeth gnashing and hair tearing on Fark, because the justices that Farkers hate the most were the ones to dissent, while their judicial heroes were the ones who felt that everything should be torn down.  It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.


Well it just goes to prove the 2establishment parties are about protecting the establishment machine.
 
2014-03-20 03:55:15 AM  

Elmo Jones: TuteTibiImperes: Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.

Make it 200% of the tax value, and I'm with you. Has a property tax eval ever gone down, anywhere?


Mitch Daniels, his big business cronies, and Republican majorities in both houses managed to push through "Property Tax Reforms" here in Indiana that amounted to removing several ways municipalities assess property value, and for good measure capping all property taxes at a 1%, 2%, or 3% rate depending on your property. I know the assessed value of my property dropped about $3,000 when it went through. It did a good job of slashing millions out of the operating budgets of every town, city, and county, resulting in large public safety and service cuts. But hey, Eli Lilly gets to pocket a few extra million at the end of the year! Go Indiana!
 
2014-03-20 03:58:11 AM  

Pocket Ninja: And this is not yet another example of the worthless shiatheap that is Opposing Views blatantly plagiarizing other articles to add yet more turds to the open latrine that is their site, because their article begins this way:

It has been a little over eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that homeowners in New London, Conn., had no property rights.

and the Boston Globe article that was clearly only a source for this meticulously researched and well-reported article begins like this:

NEARLY NINE years have elapsed since the US Supreme Court, decided that seven homeowner in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. had no property rights which City Hall was bound to respect.

I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.


welcometofark.jpg and stuff.
 
2014-03-20 03:58:46 AM  
Here's a lesson in corporate think.

Fifteen years ago, Osco Drug decided Des Moines was ripe for a head to head attack on Walgreens. They proceeded to put up big, monster drug stores within 3 or 4 blocks of every Walgreens in the area of Des Moines and its suburbs. One is about 10 blocks from where I live. In order to do this, they and their crack legal team strong armed the city council (don't even get me started on what a bunch of wusses they are) into condemning a quarter of a city block so they could put in their store. This meant displacing 6 small businesses, several of which were "mom & pop" operations with out the realistic means to resist or effectively relocate and who had been in the same location for over 20 years, two private homes and major alterations to one side street.


In one of the suburbs, they proceeded to tear down a building holding doctors' offices on a nice rolling hill. They tore into the front of the hill to created a winding driveway up the hill that turned out to be well near impossible to safely use in the winter. It also had to be closed off entirely after a year, as it was done so poorly that the face of the hill by it threatened to slide into the six lane street it fronts. It also changed the drainage patterns of the whole block, making for wet street conditions most of the spring and fall and icy all winter.


Three years later, Osco declared it was all a mistake. They were losing money hand over fist to Walgreens. They stated all the stores would close in 30 days. Two of the six stores would be sold to Walgreens, the others would just close and they hoped they could find buyers. One sat empty until this winter. All prescription records were dumped on Walgreens. Customers were told to go there to get their records. At the time of the announcement, one of the local TV stations did a story on the closing. They had the usual smarmy sound bite from the corporate spokesperson who tried to spin it so it would make Osco look ever so responsible. Then it got ugly.


At the end of the piece, in the studio, the reporter had a little addendum to the piece. After they had interviewed the corporate shill, they interviewed an employee. The employee stated she was sad the store was closing. She said she really liked working at Osco. She liked the pay. She liked the benefits. She liked the hours. She liked her boss. She was really sorry Osco was going as it was going to be hard to find as good a place to work as Osco. After the inteview, the corporate shill approached them both. She told the employeee and the reporter that if the interview with the employee was aired, the employee would be fired that day, she would get no severence pay and no help in finding another job, as had been promised to all employees. This for saying nice things about her employer.


For years, the city was stuck with four empty stores, each taking up a quarter of a block. The windows are covered over with wrapping paper. The parking lots filling with blown in trash and debris, the grass strips in front unmowed. This is coprorate morality at its worst. These are bully boy tactics.
Of course, you can say that it is just an example of the people choosing who wins and who loses by means of where they chose to shop. It is more than that. It is predatory retail marketing that does not give a damn for the consequences. I suppose that this makes me some anti-capitalist liberal. BFD. I am not. I am very much for capitalism. Capitalism that does not run rough shod over the community it pretends to serve. I find very little in this sorry history that commends Osco. Instead, it condemns it. I am sure that the usual crowd will come up with a plethora of excuses for Osco's actions. Still, to any one with a conscience, it is wrong, stupid and if not immoral, at least amoral.
 
2014-03-20 04:14:21 AM  

Mitrovarr: Securitywyrm: I understand the need to build roads. No city would ever be able to put in a rail system if it couldn't use eminent domain. HOWEVER... the current system is that they get the "Fair market value" of it, which is of course appraised by someone who knows that the city is about to take it so the value goes to crap.

The law should be: If the government takes your property, you get DOUBLE the "fair market value."

Nah, that would just get even more people to dig their heels in and force an eminent domain action. A lot of the time, the people doing so don't have any personal attachment to the property, they're just hoping to extort a bunch of extra money by blocking the only good route. That would just give people even more reason to try for that.

I'm pretty sure the land can be competently appraised not taking the future eminent domain action into account, using the historic appraisals of the property, the value of equivalent property, etc.


In the past, wealthy developers (or companies like Pfizer) would have to negotiate directly with each home owner for the property.  After the city or town approved the building of a major project, the property owners would jack up the asking price for their homes.  Thanks to Kelo, the developer or business can simply negotiate a bulk deal for all of the homes with local politicians, leading to unfair negotiations and inviting corruption.  One would argue that the home value one minute before the city approved the project was substantially less than one minute after.  So the tax asesment does not reflect the market price. Some states have banned Kelo type eminent domain actions, others have not.
 
2014-03-20 04:38:21 AM  
The final triumph of privatization.
 
2014-03-20 04:47:31 AM  

wildcardjack: So, Pfizer failed to have an erection on this occasion? I hear they have a pill for that.


ladies and gentlemen, i believe we have a winner.
 
2014-03-20 04:55:04 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool


Would you please explain why?
 
2014-03-20 05:01:24 AM  

Mitrovarr: Securitywyrm: I understand the need to build roads. No city would ever be able to put in a rail system if it couldn't use eminent domain. HOWEVER... the current system is that they get the "Fair market value" of it, which is of course appraised by someone who knows that the city is about to take it so the value goes to crap.

The law should be: If the government takes your property, you get DOUBLE the "fair market value."

Nah, that would just get even more people to dig their heels in and force an eminent domain action. A lot of the time, the people doing so don't have any personal attachment to the property, they're just hoping to extort a bunch of extra money by blocking the only good route. That would just give people even more reason to try for that.

I'm pretty sure the land can be competently appraised not taking the future eminent domain action into account, using the historic appraisals of the property, the value of equivalent property, etc.


The core problem of "Fair market value" is that it neglects all the costs of moving. Let's say you have a little house that is appraised for $250,000. The government uses eminent domain on your property and gives you $250,000. However there are no other properties within a hundred miles for sale for $250,000, or even remotely in that range. Looks like you're farked.
 
2014-03-20 05:13:19 AM  
cman

Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.


So nice to hear a rational voice shining through the darkness of stupidity like a beacon.

Emanate domain originally was set up to be used by the Federal Government in times of great need. Like moving out all of those hill folks who lived in the valley which would later be flooded by a great dam -- the object of which was to generate cheap power for thousands (which it did), provide more irrigation for local agriculture (which it did) and provide jobs as well as homes for the thousands of workers during the Great Depression (which it did).

However, only a few years ago, Congress, pressured by special interest groups, passed a bill which increased the use of Emanate Domain by local city governments for the 'benefit of their communities' -- meaning, the rich can steal your land and you can't do anything about it. Taking your land no longer has to be 'For The Good of the Nation' but for the good of the greedy.

I'm surprised the public didn't raise hell about it when the new version of the law came out. People were actually kinda quiet about it all instead of rising in rage and threatening lawsuits and refusing to vote certain congressmen back in.

They probably won't unless their homes come in danger of being bulldozed because their city needs an over priced parking lot.

You don't see these million dollar homes along assorted predominate beaches being bulldozed to put in a shopping mall. Rich folks have the means to throw highly paid lawyers at the city leaders and tie them up in expensive litigation for decades. Plus, big campaign checks will go to someone else.
 
2014-03-20 05:45:18 AM  
As much as I disagree with taking land from private citizens to give to corporations, SCOTUS made the right call.

They said the constitution doesn't prevent the practice, but that the individual states have the right to pass laws preventing this practice. Since this decision, a number of states have passed laws making this practice illegal.

If you're in favor of States Rights, it's hypocritical to criticize this decision.
 
2014-03-20 06:03:48 AM  

RandomRandom: As much as I disagree with taking land from private citizens to give to corporations, SCOTUS made the right call.

They said the constitution doesn't prevent the practice, but that the individual states have the right to pass laws preventing this practice. Since this decision, a number of states have passed laws making this practice illegal.

If you're in favor of States Rights, it's hypocritical to criticize this decision.


Oh, you and your reason, and thinking, and stuff. You must be some kind of liberal.
I want to be outraged at the gummint, dammit!
 
2014-03-20 06:48:16 AM  
Seizing residential property so private developers can get rich building more expensive residential property on the site is wrong and should be a crime.  Period.

What's to stop me from taking your house to build a nicer house on your lot when property values have risen?  I mean, after all, the public would benefit from the higher property taxes that would be collected.....
 
2014-03-20 06:48:35 AM  
It's quite a feat to have made New London even more of a shiathole than it already was.
 
2014-03-20 06:49:06 AM  

Pocket Ninja: And this is not yet another example of the worthless shiatheap that is Opposing Views blatantly plagiarizing other articles to add yet more turds to the open latrine that is their site, because their article begins this way:

It has been a little over eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that homeowners in New London, Conn., had no property rights.

and the Boston Globe article that was clearly only a source for this meticulously researched and well-reported article begins like this:

NEARLY NINE years have elapsed since the US Supreme Court, decided that seven homeowner in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. had no property rights which City Hall was bound to respect.

I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.


So instead of actually making a comment about the issue, you instead attack the website that posted it. Utterly worthless, you say?
 
2014-03-20 06:57:14 AM  

Elmo Jones:  Has a property tax eval ever gone down, anywhere?


Yes, California in the '70s passed Proposition 13, lowering property taxes. I remember when that happened, because suddenly the free after-school programs all got cut.

With nothing constructive to keep us latch-key kids occupied, we all turned to hoodlinism, where we remain today.


i102.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-20 06:58:11 AM  

Aulus: Here's a lesson in corporate think.

Fifteen years ago, Osco Drug decided Des Moines was ripe for a head to head attack on Walgreens. They proceeded to put up big, monster drug stores within 3 or 4 blocks of every Walgreens in the area of Des Moines and its suburbs. One is about 10 blocks from where I live. In order to do this, they and their crack legal team strong armed the city council (don't even get me started on what a bunch of wusses they are) into condemning a quarter of a city block so they could put in their store. This meant displacing 6 small businesses, several of which were "mom & pop" operations with out the realistic means to resist or effectively relocate and who had been in the same location for over 20 years, two private homes and major alterations to one side street.


In one of the suburbs, they proceeded to tear down a building holding doctors' offices on a nice rolling hill. They tore into the front of the hill to created a winding driveway up the hill that turned out to be well near impossible to safely use in the winter. It also had to be closed off entirely after a year, as it was done so poorly that the face of the hill by it threatened to slide into the six lane street it fronts. It also changed the drainage patterns of the whole block, making for wet street conditions most of the spring and fall and icy all winter.


Three years later, Osco declared it was all a mistake. They were losing money hand over fist to Walgreens. They stated all the stores would close in 30 days. Two of the six stores would be sold to Walgreens, the others would just close and they hoped they could find buyers. One sat empty until this winter. All prescription records were dumped on Walgreens. Customers were told to go there to get their records. At the time of the announcement, one of the local TV stations did a story on the closing. They had the usual smarmy sound bite from the corporate spokesperson who tried to spin it so it would make Osco look ever so responsible. Then it got ugly.


At the end of the piece, in the studio, the reporter had a little addendum to the piece. After they had interviewed the corporate shill, they interviewed an employee. The employee stated she was sad the store was closing. She said she really liked working at Osco. She liked the pay. She liked the benefits. She liked the hours. She liked her boss. She was really sorry Osco was going as it was going to be hard to find as good a place to work as Osco. After the inteview, the corporate shill approached them both. She told the employeee and the reporter that if the interview with the employee was aired, the employee would be fired that day, she would get no severence pay and no help in finding another job, as had been promised to all employees. This for saying nice things about her employer.


For years, the city was stuck with four empty stores, each taking up a quarter of a block. The windows are covered over with wrapping paper. The parking lots filling with blown in trash and debris, the grass strips in front unmowed. This is coprorate morality at its worst. These are bully boy tactics.
Of course, you can say that it is just an example of the people choosing who wins and who loses by means of where they chose to shop. It is more than that. It is predatory retail marketing that does not give a damn for the consequences. I suppose that this makes me some anti-capitalist liberal. BFD. I am not. I am very much for capitalism. Capitalism that does not run rough shod over the community it pretends to serve. I find very little in this sorry history that commends Osco. Instead, it condemns it. I am sure that the usual crowd will come up with a plethora of excuses for Osco's actions. Still, to any one with a conscience, it is wrong, stupid and if not immoral, at least amoral.


Same exact thing happened here, but it was USA Drug instead if Osco. Walgreens brought most if the stores because they where less than 2 years old. The others where sold on the cheap.
 
2014-03-20 07:00:40 AM  
Yeah, using eminent domain to zone in non-infrastructure private developments has always been dodgy, and by "dodgy" I mean that like 95% of Americans consider it completely and unambiguously morally unacceptable.

// I specify "non-infrastructure" because tollways and power plants are reasonably legitimate uses of eminent domain even though the government is usually only part-owner.
 
2014-03-20 07:00:57 AM  

fusillade762: "Pfizer wants a nice place to operate," one Pfizer executive said at the time. "We don't want to be surrounded by tenements."

Then why didn't you, I don't know, BUILD YOUR FACILITY SOMEWHERE ELSE?!?


Phizer already had at least 2 Campuses in this area. (I live near New London.) One in Groton, One in New London. Not only did they not use Fort Trumble, they also picked up and left the campus that they already had in New London.

Story here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13pfizer.html?_r=0
 
2014-03-20 07:21:02 AM  

Biner: Elmo Jones: Has a property tax eval ever gone down, anywhere?

Yes, mine dropped quite a bit in Los Angeles. Over the course of about 4 or 5 years, it dropped from $550K to about $400K. One of those good thing/bad thing situations.


The state of Michigan realized property values were spiraling downward so they passed something to the effect you had to pay property taxes based on your old valuation. Really makes ya wanna move there.
 
2014-03-20 07:29:30 AM  

karmachameleon: TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool

Would you please explain why?


As many others have pointed out, there are projects that are location-sensitive and have a clear and lasting public benefit, such as roads or light rail.  Prior to ever reaching the eminent domain stage, stakeholders will have typically expended considerable resources to evaluate concepts and identify the best location.

Buying up property from willing owners prior to knowing where something is going to go opens up the politicians/agencies to the criticism of needless land purchasing.
Having a project halted after expending huge amounts of resources, only to be stopped by, say, one property owner out of 50, is equally wasteful.

Therefore, if there is a desire to invest in infrastructure, there must be a means for  the government to take critical property inexchange for a fair price.  Without eminent domain, the government would be forced to pay an exceedingly large price for property, kept in check only by the cost of whatever other alternative project location there might be.  Switching to that location would only repeat the process.  Nothing would get built.
 
2014-03-20 07:46:16 AM  
Well, that's big business as usual in CT.
Probably laying fallow for a resort in the future.
Chess game.
 
2014-03-20 07:55:58 AM  

vudukungfu: Probably laying fallow for a resort in the future.


And that's all kinds of stupid as well. The only reason outsiders are anywhere near New London is if they're headed to Mystic (Kitchen Little FTW) or the casinos, and there is already plenty of hotel space in both locations. Nobody's going to stay in New London proper if their actual destination is a dozen miles away.

It's like expecting Las Vegas visitors to stay en masse at some dump ten miles out in the desert, or Atlantic City visitors to clamor for a nice Motel 6 on Route 9.
 
2014-03-20 07:58:01 AM  

The_Mad_Dutchman: Elmo Jones: TuteTibiImperes: Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.

Make it 200% of the tax value, and I'm with you. Has a property tax eval ever gone down, anywhere?

Mitch Daniels, his big business cronies, and Republican majorities in both houses managed to push through "Property Tax Reforms" here in Indiana that amounted to removing several ways municipalities assess property value, and for good measure capping all property taxes at a 1%, 2%, or 3% rate depending on your property. I know the assessed value of my property dropped about $3,000 when it went through. It did a good job of slashing millions out of the operating budgets of every town, city, and county, resulting in large public safety and service cuts. But hey, Eli Lilly gets to pocket a few extra million at the end of the year! Go Indiana!


images.profileengine.com
 
2014-03-20 07:58:28 AM  

cman: Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.


I'm ok with it, for things like hospitals, highways, utilities, and military bases...IF the homeowners are given full market value AND relocating expenses AND reasonable time to relocate AND full due process AND their kids get priority in whatever new public school system they're relocated to, if there's magnet schools or the like available.  Yes, eminent domain sucks for the homeowners, so the rest of us have a duty to a) make it suck as little as possible, and b) make sure it's REALLY necessary to take their homes.

Pfizer I'm sure does good work, but at the end of the day, it's a private company; it doesn't fall into the necessary public categories.  Jobs are important to any community...but they're not worth destroying the community for.  Kinda self-defeating, even when it works...and here it's just an expensive clusterfark.
 
2014-03-20 08:02:31 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: cman: Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.

Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool, but it should be used rarely, and only for public works projects for the good of the community, never for private developers.

Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.


I didn't know that there were reasonable people who subscribed to TF. Impressive.
 
2014-03-20 08:04:24 AM  

TerminalEchoes: Pocket Ninja: And this is not yet another example of the worthless shiatheap that is Opposing Views blatantly plagiarizing other articles to add yet more turds to the open latrine that is their site, because their article begins this way:

It has been a little over eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that homeowners in New London, Conn., had no property rights.

and the Boston Globe article that was clearly only a source for this meticulously researched and well-reported article begins like this:

NEARLY NINE years have elapsed since the US Supreme Court, decided that seven homeowner in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. had no property rights which City Hall was bound to respect.

I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.

So instead of actually making a comment about the issue, you instead attack the website that posted it. Utterly worthless, you say?


It's best to appreciate Pocket Ninja's posts as a unique art form, rather than a direct commentary on whatever the matter at hand is.

Some of them are uniquely beautiful, once you get in the proper mindset...I've got him color-coded mind-bending purple, so I don't accidentally take his performance art in a matter-of-fact way.
 
2014-03-20 08:10:14 AM  

fusillade762: "Pfizer wants a nice place to operate," one Pfizer executive said at the time. "We don't want to be surrounded by tenements."

Then why didn't you, I don't know, BUILD YOUR FACILITY SOMEWHERE ELSE?!?


Because fark YOU, that's why.


This case pisses me off and is a glaring example of how corrupt our government has become. Pathetic.

Opposing Views still sucks.
 
2014-03-20 08:16:08 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: 1. Return ED to it's previous incarnation.


I know this story is about Pfizer, but I'm unsure how restoring erectile dysfunction to pre-Viagra times would help in any way...
 
2014-03-20 08:20:15 AM  

devildog123: I remember this case causing lots of teeth gnashing and hair tearing on Fark, because the justices that Farkers hate the most were the ones to dissent, while their judicial heroes were the ones who felt that everything should be torn down.  It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.


I'm glad you derived such partisan enjoyment out of a ruling that is terrible for average American citizens.  Maybe we can completely defund school lunches next and you can go gloat at some starving inner city children.  Won't that be fun.
 
2014-03-20 08:28:30 AM  

Gulper Eel: It's like expecting Las Vegas visitors to stay en masse at some dump ten miles out in the desert, or Atlantic City visitors to clamor for a nice Motel 6 on Route 9.


So it's been "appropriated" for future military use.
 
2014-03-20 08:39:34 AM  

Elmo Jones: Talondel: Yes, I said Midkiff, not Kelo
Berman v. Parker?


Osborne vs Parker
 
2014-03-20 08:41:07 AM  

karmachameleon: TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool

Would you please explain why?


It's how you get things like roads.  Roads kick ass.  Especially when you have to go places.

It's also how they got all that land to build power lines.  Electricity is awesome.  I'm using some right now.  I'm all warm and in the light and crap.

Without eminent domain there would be some jackoff that delayed things like this for years trying to squeeze a couple extra grand out of his property value because you can't have an 8 lane highway narrow to 6 just because there is an empty lot that the government doesn't own in the way.
 
2014-03-20 08:46:23 AM  
Possibly a Top 10 worst SCOTUS decision ever.
 
2014-03-20 08:47:00 AM  

Aulus: Here's a lesson in corporate think.

Fifteen years ago, Osco Drug decided Des Moines was ripe for a head to head attack on Walgreens. They proceeded to put up big, monster drug stores within 3 or 4 blocks of every Walgreens in the area of Des Moines and its suburbs. One is about 10 blocks from where I live. In order to do this, they and their crack legal team strong armed the city council (don't even get me started on what a bunch of wusses they are) into condemning a quarter of a city block so they could put in their store. This meant displacing 6 small businesses, several of which were "mom & pop" operations with out the realistic means to resist or effectively relocate and who had been in the same location for over 20 years, two private homes and major alterations to one side street.


In one of the suburbs, they proceeded to tear down a building holding doctors' offices on a nice rolling hill. They tore into the front of the hill to created a winding driveway up the hill that turned out to be well near impossible to safely use in the winter. It also had to be closed off entirely after a year, as it was done so poorly that the face of the hill by it threatened to slide into the six lane street it fronts. It also changed the drainage patterns of the whole block, making for wet street conditions most of the spring and fall and icy all winter.


Three years later, Osco declared it was all a mistake. They were losing money hand over fist to Walgreens. They stated all the stores would close in 30 days. Two of the six stores would be sold to Walgreens, the others would just close and they hoped they could find buyers. One sat empty until this winter. All prescription records were dumped on Walgreens. Customers were told to go there to get their records. At the time of the announcement, one of the local TV stations did a story on the closing. They had the usual smarmy sound bite from the corporate spokesperson who tried to spin it so it would make Osco look ever so responsible. Then it got ugly.


At the end of the piece, in the studio, the reporter had a little addendum to the piece. After they had interviewed the corporate shill, they interviewed an employee. The employee stated she was sad the store was closing. She said she really liked working at Osco. She liked the pay. She liked the benefits. She liked the hours. She liked her boss. She was really sorry Osco was going as it was going to be hard to find as good a place to work as Osco. After the inteview, the corporate shill approached them both. She told the employeee and the reporter that if the interview with the employee was aired, the employee would be fired that day, she would get no severence pay and no help in finding another job, as had been promised to all employees. This for saying nice things about her employer.


For years, the city was stuck with four empty stores, each taking up a quarter of a block. The windows are covered over with wrapping paper. The parking lots filling with blown in trash and debris, the grass strips in front unmowed. This is coprorate morality at its worst. These are bully boy tactics.
Of course, you can say that it is just an example of the people choosing who wins and who loses by means of where they chose to shop. It is more than that. It is predatory retail marketing that does not give a damn for the consequences. I suppose that this makes me some anti-capitalist liberal. BFD. I am not. I am very much for capitalism. Capitalism that does not run rough shod over the community it pretends to serve. I find very little in this sorry history that commends Osco. Instead, it condemns it. I am sure that the usual crowd will come up with a plethora of excuses for Osco's actions. Still, to any one with a conscience, it is wrong, stupid and if not immoral, at least amoral.


Capitalism doesn't serve the community, it serves the owners and shareholders. Running roughshod over the community is expected if it makes money.
 
2014-03-20 09:04:12 AM  
Remember, this is the government most of you farkers want to have a monopoly on violence
 
2014-03-20 09:05:19 AM  

jso2897 : The final triumph of privatization.


Tyrone Slothrop:  Capitalism doesn't serve the community, it serves the owners and shareholders. Running roughshod over the community is expected if it makes money.

----------

Seriously, are you two flat out stupid or just trolling?  This is anything but capitalism or privatization.  The government stealing land from one private owner to sell to another is so far removed from either concept it's laughable.  This is a clear cut case in the dangers of too much and too powerful government and at least two of the dumbest people on the planet are complaining about lack of government.
 
2014-03-20 09:07:54 AM  

Animatronik: On of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, Kelo literally attacks the principles that are the basis for the U.S. Bill of Rights.


FWIW, the Court has signaled it screwed up and is waiting for another case like it so it can overturn Kelo.
 
2014-03-20 09:09:23 AM  
In Gainesville, the city tore down perfectly good buildings right next to UFand gave huge tax breaks to developers.

It's still an empty farking lot you can't even park in.
 
2014-03-20 09:16:47 AM  

clancifer: devildog123: I remember this case causing lots of teeth gnashing and hair tearing on Fark, because the justices that Farkers hate the most were the ones to dissent, while their judicial heroes were the ones who felt that everything should be torn down.  It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.

Meh. It was crazy for sure. Nothing compared to the registered libertarian I once saw whose entire family income was courtesy of the federal government. Now THAT was crazy.


Eh - that makes sense to me.

I have a lot of issue with out tax system/federal programs.  I vote and try to change them, but it's not actually going to happen.  When I file my taxes, I accept that I'm forced to deal with a system I do not like, so I do my best to minimize the cost to myself.

Regardless of my personal feelings, I will claim a deduction if it is available to me.  That doesn't mean I wouldn't support that deduction being removed.
 
2014-03-20 09:18:16 AM  
Corporations are people my friend and they want to look out the windows of the building they exist in and see pretty things because it makes the corporation happy and when the corporation is happy it feels generous enough to become a job creator and hire human people to do its bidding. If the corporation is sad it lays people off and then hires another happier corporation to send human people to lobby other human people to take away unemployment benefits of the humans the sad corporation laid off.
 
2014-03-20 09:20:57 AM  

Pocket Ninja: And this is not yet another example of the worthless shiatheap that is Opposing Views blatantly plagiarizing other articles to add yet more turds to the open latrine that is their site, because their article begins this way:

It has been a little over eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that homeowners in New London, Conn., had no property rights.

and the Boston Globe article that was clearly only a source for this meticulously researched and well-reported article begins like this:

NEARLY NINE years have elapsed since the US Supreme Court, decided that seven homeowner in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. had no property rights which City Hall was bound to respect.

I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.


Remember kids, when you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.  Sometimes it's the only way to protect yourself from ugly truths.
 
2014-03-20 09:21:07 AM  
You can't own land.  Just ask the Native Americans.  Or people in the Ukraine.

Land is owned by whomever controls it.  That control comes from force.  The US government has plenty of force and it owns all the land within it's borders.  You can be the designated property maintainer, if you want.  But if the government wants the property, it is theirs and you can't stop them.  If the government wants to charge you a fee so that you can keep living on the land (IE property tax), they can, will and do.  If you don't pay, you will be evicted.

People can huff and puff all day long, but that's the truth.  In the United States you will never own property.
 
2014-03-20 09:22:02 AM  

Rik01: cman

Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.

So nice to hear a rational voice shining through the darkness of stupidity like a beacon.

Emanate domain originally was set up to be used by the Federal Government in times of great need. Like moving out all of those hill folks who lived in the valley which would later be flooded by a great dam -- the object of which was to generate cheap power for thousands (which it did), provide more irrigation for local agriculture (which it did) and provide jobs as well as homes for the thousands of workers during the Great Depression (which it did).

However, only a few years ago, Congress, pressured by special interest groups, passed a bill which increased the use of Emanate Domain by local city governments for the 'benefit of their communities' -- meaning, the rich can steal your land and you can't do anything about it. Taking your land no longer has to be 'For The Good of the Nation' but for the good of the greedy.

I'm surprised the public didn't raise hell about it when the new version of the law came out. People were actually kinda quiet about it all instead of rising in rage and threatening lawsuits and refusing to vote certain congressmen back in.

They probably won't unless their homes come in danger of being bulldozed because their city needs an over priced parking lot.

You don't see these million dollar homes along assorted predominate beaches being bulldozed to put in a shopping mall. Rich folks have the means to throw highly paid lawyers at the city leaders and tie them up in expensive litigation for decades. Plus, big campaign checks will go to someone else.


What would be really weird is if predominate beach houses got seized by eminate domain.
 
2014-03-20 09:25:19 AM  

Elmo Jones: TuteTibiImperes: Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.

Make it 200% of the tax value, and I'm with you. Has a property tax eval ever gone down, anywhere?


I bought my house in 2011 (in Vermont), where the town had my house valued at $150k, and I bought it for $120k, and I managed to argue the tax value down to $134k
 
2014-03-20 09:26:50 AM  
CSB:

My local municipality was in negotiations to buy a chunk of land to build the new police station/admin building. When the talks fell though (they were low balling the guy), the locality assumed they could just institute eminent domain.....and they built the building on land they didn't actually own.  Local courts no-no'd the eminent domain under the reasoning "you can't offer to buy it then just take it when the buyer rejects your low ball offer". They eventually settled....

/csb
 
2014-03-20 09:27:10 AM  

wildcardjack: So, Pfizer failed to have an erection on this occasion? I hear they have a pill for that.


Well played!
 
2014-03-20 09:29:43 AM  

Rik01: cman


However, only a few years ago, Congress, pressured by special interest groups, passed a bill which increased the use of Emanate Domain by local city governments for the 'benefit of their communities' -- meaning, the rich can steal your land and you can't do anything about it. Taking your land no longer has to be 'For The Good of the Nation' but for the good of the greedy.



Thanks! I was thinking back and there was an example in my area, too. I'd forgotten about that bill. There wasn't much outrage at the time, because people had equity credit - and they were too busy spending it. At the same time big business looked at people's equity credit as disposable income. Lobbying for eminent domain was just good business sense, in someone's warped little mind.

Is there a website forum all these corporate and government hacks go to discuss and plan macro economics? We have a bunch of posts in this thread from people going, "Oh yeah, that happened here, too." This is just one example, but generally when local change like this happens it'll occur all over at about the same time. Like, the change is a planned and organized event where the strategy is to work from local government up on a large scale. It must take a lot of logistics to pull something like this off. Because of public transparency laws public corporations have to follow - I'm sure company A can't just call up company B and say, "Hey, we were thinking of lobbying for something, you in?" No, they can't do that. They have to have a way to communicate outside public channels, like a private club.

When I think of the Fed, like most I picture the big building in DC where a few guys sit around and decide interest rates. I used to not know there were 12 districts of the Fed all over the country, and the members of these local districts are not just bankers, but officers of mid and large cap corporations; people that have a large local network. Check out the Fed Reserve website and look at Fed in your local district. This is a private club where the government, mom and pop business, and the general public is not invited. Transparency laws don't apply. Kind of like Total Fark.
 
2014-03-20 09:30:21 AM  

devildog123: I remember this case causing lots of teeth gnashing and hair tearing on Fark, because the justices that Farkers hate the most were the ones to dissent, while their judicial heroes were the ones who felt that everything should be torn down.  It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.



It was wierd. But in a way I don't think many people understood. The Supreme Court essentially said: "Local Standards Apply". The justiices opined that it was up to the city/county/state to determine what their own limits were for Eminient Domain.

It was a victory for federalism, and not a consolidation of power on the federal level. In the wake of Kelo, I believe something like 30 states enacted more stringent requirements for ED. As opposed to your claim that they wanted "Everything torn down", Kelo did not prevent these new restrictions.

So in other words, you had the more progressive leaning judges favoring "states rights", while the more conservative leaning judges wanted to enact a restrictive national standard (one that I agreed with).
 
2014-03-20 09:38:33 AM  

Rik01: cman

Emanate domain should be abolished.

Just my simple opinion. Wont ever happen, however, because there is too much money to be made from taking other peoples land.

So nice to hear a rational voice shining through the darkness of stupidity like a beacon.

Emanate domain originally was set up to be used by the Federal Government in times of great need. Like moving out all of those hill folks who lived in the valley which would later be flooded by a great dam -- the object of which was to generate cheap power for thousands (which it did), provide more irrigation for local agriculture (which it did) and provide jobs as well as homes for the thousands of workers during the Great Depression (which it did).

However, only a few years ago, Congress, pressured by special interest groups, passed a bill which increased the use of Emanate Domain by local city governments for the 'benefit of their communities' -- meaning, the rich can steal your land and you can't do anything about it. Taking your land no longer has to be 'For The Good of the Nation' but for the good of the greedy.

I'm surprised the public didn't raise hell about it when the new version of the law came out. People were actually kinda quiet about it all instead of rising in rage and threatening lawsuits and refusing to vote certain congressmen back in.

They probably won't unless their homes come in danger of being bulldozed because their city needs an over priced parking lot.

You don't see these million dollar homes along assorted predominate beaches being bulldozed to put in a shopping mall. Rich folks have the means to throw highly paid lawyers at the city leaders and tie them up in expensive litigation for decades. Plus, big campaign checks will go to someone else.


This post reminds me of a chrome emblem from good old State University on the back of a rusting dented Toyota Cressida. It does a disservice to that which it intends to support.
 
2014-03-20 09:50:54 AM  

Securitywyrm: Mitrovarr: Securitywyrm: I understand the need to build roads. No city would ever be able to put in a rail system if it couldn't use eminent domain. HOWEVER... the current system is that they get the "Fair market value" of it, which is of course appraised by someone who knows that the city is about to take it so the value goes to crap.

The law should be: If the government takes your property, you get DOUBLE the "fair market value."

Nah, that would just get even more people to dig their heels in and force an eminent domain action. A lot of the time, the people doing so don't have any personal attachment to the property, they're just hoping to extort a bunch of extra money by blocking the only good route. That would just give people even more reason to try for that.

I'm pretty sure the land can be competently appraised not taking the future eminent domain action into account, using the historic appraisals of the property, the value of equivalent property, etc.

The core problem of "Fair market value" is that it neglects all the costs of moving. Let's say you have a little house that is appraised for $250,000. The government uses eminent domain on your property and gives you $250,000. However there are no other properties within a hundred miles for sale for $250,000, or even remotely in that range. Looks like you're farked.


Not only that, but it assumes "fair market value" for someone who is already WILLING to sell their property, which they obviously aren't since the gov. is using E.D. to take it.  People who want to keep things always ask (and deserve) MORE for things that they want to keep. This is completely ignored.  You should get some sort of "bonus" percentage of the value on top of the "fair market value" for every year you lived there or owned the property to make up for sentimental value/equity/trouble in moving. Instead they put a figurative gun to peoples' heads and say "you'll sell it to us at the price WE say is fair, not what YOU would sell it for."  The last time E.D. was used properly was likely when building the interstate system 60+ years ago.
 
2014-03-20 09:58:21 AM  
As someone whose grandparents lost the family home and land to eminent domain i kind of despise it the government takes it for public works purposes but still cant believe the Kelo decision. For the government to take your land and give it to a PRIVATE entity legally is still astonishing.

Forsyth technical college in winston salem is built on top of what was the family homestead. Our family got screwed in compensation imo.
 
2014-03-20 10:01:29 AM  

BMFPitt: Possibly a Top 10 worst SCOTUS decision ever.


Pretty close to the top, though it'll be hard for anything to beat the overreach and implications of  Wickard v. Filburn.

/I'm only counting court decisions that still stand.
//Overturned ones have been "corrected."
 
2014-03-20 10:04:31 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: devildog123: I remember this case causing lots of teeth gnashing and hair tearing on Fark, because the justices that Farkers hate the most were the ones to dissent, while their judicial heroes were the ones who felt that everything should be torn down.  It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.


It was wierd. But in a way I don't think many people understood. The Supreme Court essentially said: "Local Standards Apply". The justiices opined that it was up to the city/county/state to determine what their own limits were for Eminient Domain.

It was a victory for federalism, and not a consolidation of power on the federal level. In the wake of Kelo, I believe something like 30 states enacted more stringent requirements for ED. As opposed to your claim that they wanted "Everything torn down", Kelo did not prevent these new restrictions.

So in other words, you had the more progressive leaning judges favoring "states rights", while the more conservative leaning judges wanted to enact a restrictive national standard (one that I agreed with).


They didn't favor the states over the federal government. They favored all levels of government over the people.
 
2014-03-20 10:09:30 AM  

Elmo Jones: TuteTibiImperes: Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.

Make it 200% of the tax value, and I'm with you. Has a property tax eval ever gone down, anywhere?


Mine has.  It dropped by something like $50k, and was as low as $2k at one point.  My area tends to prop. tx eval below fair market value, but it doesn't really affect my prop. tx bill much.  We have so many fees and millages tacked on that when my eval dropped, it only changed my tx bill by about $100.  And since so many people moved away, new fees are popping up on our water bill instead.  That's what pisses me off, my water bill was half what it is now compared to ten years ago when I had twice the people living in my house.
 
2014-03-20 10:12:34 AM  
Eminent Domain...meh.

Now, extra-territorial jurisdiction, that's the one that gets me riled up.

/Stupid San Antonio
 
2014-03-20 10:13:23 AM  

karmachameleon: TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool

Would you please explain why?


So you don't wind up with things like this:

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-03-20 10:17:04 AM  
If you look at how some towns in California are using the law, they are actually taking this ruling and using it for an arguably good purpose.  These are "blighted" communities in which many of the homes are underwater because of the ridiculously loose lending during the run up to 2009.  The families are bankrupt and not making payments, but still largely living in the homes.

The banks involved keep putting off a resolution.  They won't evict until the homes are worth something again.  They won't refinance or restructure with the current owners for a variety of money-losing reasons.  Everthing sits in limbo and the town gets no property tax revenue and the blight tailspin continues.

Now another finance company is petitioning the towns to use eminant domain to seize the homes because of the tax revenue issue.  The new company finances the siezed house at its current value, returns it to its owner, and the original bank takes a haircut.

I still think it's a bad ruling.
 
2014-03-20 10:22:20 AM  

Elmo Jones: TuteTibiImperes: Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.

Make it 200% of the tax value, and I'm with you. Has a property tax eval ever gone down, anywhere?


Yes.
 
2014-03-20 10:26:31 AM  

James Rieper: If you look at how some towns in California are using the law, they are actually taking this ruling and using it for an arguably good purpose.


Just because you approve of them stealing those properties doesn't make it a good purpose.
 
2014-03-20 10:30:42 AM  
That sucks...at least I can drive on the highway that took away our family home back in the 80's
 
2014-03-20 10:32:32 AM  

Igor Jakovsky: As someone whose grandparents lost the family home and land to eminent domain i kind of despise it the government takes it for public works purposes but still cant believe the Kelo decision. For the government to take your land and give it to a PRIVATE entity legally is still astonishing.

Forsyth technical college in winston salem is built on top of what was the family homestead. Our family got screwed in compensation imo.


That blows. As I look out over my .2 acre empire I think about the 1500 acres a few miles away that used to be the family homestead. In my case, I think the problem was the guys in my family couldn't keep their fly's zipped.

They always lowball on emanate domain. Wonder what would happen if they approached you with a dollar number for your property and you went the residual route. Like you counter their offer with, "That's too much money. How about a third of your offer upfront and 1% of the pretax gross the property produces for 4 generations or 100 years, whichever comes first, regardless of ownership." These guys have a mindset of greed and privilege - they might just fall for a royalty counter. On one hand It might end up an empty lot for a while, but your kids might love you - or a Walmart, MDonalds, and strip mall could be built by next year. I'd be like, Emanate Domain! Hell Yeah!
 
2014-03-20 10:34:54 AM  

karmachameleon: TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool

Would you please explain why?


If you want to build a:

1. Road
2. School
3. Power line
4. Sewage Treatment Plant
5. Retaining wall to prevent erosion
6. Similiar governmental uses

...sometimes you need to use such a process.  Especially for roads.  Otherwise, one guy could hold up an entire freeway project if his house was in the middle of where it was supposed to go.

It shouldn't be used for commercial development, however.
 
2014-03-20 10:45:32 AM  
How do you build a freeway without commercial development? On a municipal level, when property is acquired through ED and a road is built, the developers on either side of that road have to pay the city for utility and traffic upgrades. That cost is passed on to the community. It just spreads out from there. It's never, "just a road".
 
2014-03-20 10:46:24 AM  

Geotpf: It shouldn't be used for commercial development, however.


That's the real issue.  If someone else can sieze your land because they can pay more in taxes, that means you don't have actual ownership.  You're just a placeholder.

Almost any property could generate more tax revenue given the right circumstances.
 
2014-03-20 10:47:35 AM  
Having worked on software that was used by local jurisdictions to determine/collect property tax....keep in mind that the value of your property used in the calculation is basically meaningless.  This is how it works:

1.)  The city decides how much money they want.
2.)  The city 'assesses' the value of every parcel of land.
3.)  They divide the amount they want to get / all the land and call that the Mill Levy.

So, when property prices were dropping, a lot of people would get upset that the city said their house was worth $400k instead of $350k.  What they didn't get was, the city didn't care.  They could cut appraisals in half and call it $200k.  The Mill Levy would double and your tax bill would be the same.

Any time the city adjusts your value for you, rest assured, you aren't getting a discount - because they are adjusting everyone else's value too.  If the whole market is down (which is how it almost always goes) everyone's value goes down, and the mill levy goes up.

The only time you actually 'win' is when you get the value of your property reduced on it's own.  That never happens unless you fight about it with the city.  Right after you move in you've got a good chance of arguing it down.

Our system had a built in 'auto return to the mean' feature.  So if you buy a former crack-house for 100k in a neighbourhood where the other houses are 200k - the city will bill you as if your place is worth 200k.  If you fill out the paperwork and show that you paid 100k and that the property is in horrible condition and only worth 100k, they will accept it and make your value 100k.  The next year, the software will see your property as under appraised and automatically move it 20% towards the median value in your neighborhood.  Even if you have improved your house in anyway.  In five years, it's back to 200k.

The way most jurisdictions value properties are based on comps or comparables.  Those are similar houses that have been sold, and the amount they were sold for.  Since most houses aren't crack houses, they'll find one with the same beds/baths sq. footage and use those to deny your claim that the super-poor quality of your home should reduce the price.  If you REALLY stick to your guns - instead of 200k, you might end up with 185k for a few more years.

There is no way to win.
 
2014-03-20 10:49:55 AM  

give me doughnuts: karmachameleon: TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool

Would you please explain why?

So you don't wind up with things like this:

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]


static1.stopklatka.pl

or this...
 
2014-03-20 11:04:06 AM  

BMFPitt: They didn't favor the states over the federal government. They favored all levels of government over the people.



To reiterate, I agreed with the dissentng opinion, and am unhappy with the ruling. But the ruling did not ban restrictions on ED in any way. It just stated that the implicit limits of ED were smaller than most people assumed, and the Federal Government would not overrule the states' decisions on the matter.

Consequently, the net result was a strengthening of explicit protections against ED in most states.

I would have preferred that the explicit protection was enacted from the federal level, but this was not the truly disastrous ruling that people are making it out to be.

Rik01: However, only a few years ago, Congress, pressured by special interest groups, passed a bill which increased the use of Emanate Domain by local city governments for the 'benefit of their communities'


In fact, if the above is accurate, if the law is ever challenged, Kelo could be used as stare decisis to strike the law down. Which law is it, by the way, these are the only enacted candidates since Kelo I could find, and they don't seem to address what you claim they do?

http://www.opencongress.org/issues/defunct/4981_eminent_domain?filte r= enacted
 
2014-03-20 11:09:19 AM  

RandomRandom: As much as I disagree with taking land from private citizens to give to corporations, SCOTUS made the right call.

They said the constitution doesn't prevent the practice, but that the individual states have the right to pass laws preventing this practice. Since this decision, a number of states have passed laws making this practice illegal.

If you're in favor of States Rights, it's hypocritical to criticize this decision.


"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

That's in the U.S. Constitution.

It's why the conservatives on the SCOTUS were actually correct on this one.

Eminent domain can be a necessary tool for local governments in building roads, rails, drainage, sea walls, etc.  But it shouldn't be used because a corporation doesn't want their new building located next to poor people.
 
jmf
2014-03-20 11:10:45 AM  
We should use eminent domain all the time, with one slight modification...  When Pfizer wants to tear down a neighborhood of tenements and replace them with high end condos, they should then give the condos to the residents of the tenements that were torn down.
 
2014-03-20 11:11:18 AM  

devildog123: It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.


Why is that "hilarious"?  Basing one's views on the merits of the case and the law rather than which team is winning is bad or hypocritical or something, in your view?

That you found this "hilarious" says a lot more about you than than it does about "Farkers", dude.
 
2014-03-20 11:13:20 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: To reiterate, I agreed with the dissentng opinion, and am unhappy with the ruling. But the ruling did not ban restrictions on ED in any way. It just stated that the implicit limits of ED were smaller than most people assumed, and the Federal Government would not overrule the states' decisions on the matter.


There was no "federal decision" involved, unless you're referring to the 5th Amendment, which the majority wiped their assess with.

Consequently, the net result was a strengthening of explicit protections against ED in most states.

That's one way of saying that 30 states reiterated what everyone understood the law to be for centuries prior to the decision.

I would have preferred that the explicit protection was enacted from the federal level, but this was not the truly disastrous ruling that people are making it out to be.

I think the level of disaster is being downplayed.
 
2014-03-20 11:16:42 AM  

Aulus: Here's a lesson in corporate think.


stoppedreadingthere.tga
 
2014-03-20 11:18:49 AM  

PunGent: TerminalEchoes: Pocket Ninja: And this is not yet another example of the worthless shiatheap that is Opposing Views blatantly plagiarizing other articles to add yet more turds to the open latrine that is their site, because their article begins this way:

It has been a little over eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that homeowners in New London, Conn., had no property rights.

and the Boston Globe article that was clearly only a source for this meticulously researched and well-reported article begins like this:

NEARLY NINE years have elapsed since the US Supreme Court, decided that seven homeowner in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. had no property rights which City Hall was bound to respect.

I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.

So instead of actually making a comment about the issue, you instead attack the website that posted it. Utterly worthless, you say?

It's best to appreciate Pocket Ninja's posts as a unique art form, rather than a direct commentary on whatever the matter at hand is.

Some of them are uniquely beautiful, once you get in the proper mindset...I've got him color-coded mind-bending purple, so I don't accidentally take his performance art in a matter-of-fact way.


Oh yea, that is some classic PN wordsmithing!

/Also coincidentally Opposing views is a POS website.
//The double irony is the joke.jpg
 
2014-03-20 11:19:17 AM  

deadlyplatypus: Securitywyrm: Mitrovarr: Securitywyrm: I understand the need to build roads. No city would ever be able to put in a rail system if it couldn't use eminent domain. HOWEVER... the current system is that they get the "Fair market value" of it, which is of course appraised by someone who knows that the city is about to take it so the value goes to crap.

The law should be: If the government takes your property, you get DOUBLE the "fair market value."

Nah, that would just get even more people to dig their heels in and force an eminent domain action. A lot of the time, the people doing so don't have any personal attachment to the property, they're just hoping to extort a bunch of extra money by blocking the only good route. That would just give people even more reason to try for that.

I'm pretty sure the land can be competently appraised not taking the future eminent domain action into account, using the historic appraisals of the property, the value of equivalent property, etc.

The core problem of "Fair market value" is that it neglects all the costs of moving. Let's say you have a little house that is appraised for $250,000. The government uses eminent domain on your property and gives you $250,000. However there are no other properties within a hundred miles for sale for $250,000, or even remotely in that range. Looks like you're farked.

Not only that, but it assumes "fair market value" for someone who is already WILLING to sell their property, which they obviously aren't since the gov. is using E.D. to take it.  People who want to keep things always ask (and deserve) MORE for things that they want to keep. This is completely ignored.  You should get some sort of "bonus" percentage of the value on top of the "fair market value" for every year you lived there or owned the property to make up for sentimental value/equity/trouble in moving. Instead they put a figurative gun to peoples' heads and say "you'll sell it to us at the price WE say is fair, not what YOU would ...



Or to boil it down to a super-simple analogy... your pants are worth $30. I am going to eminent domain your pants and take them, and give you $30. You now have no pants and have to go to the store to buy some, all without pants. You have to carry your wallet because you have no pants. Then you find that they no longer make the pants you like and all the other pants are $40. Eventually you settle for an old beat-up pair of pants that is $30... but then there's sales tax. You have no pants. NO PANTS!
 
2014-03-20 11:21:11 AM  

Aulus: fusillade762: "Pfizer wants a nice place to operate," one Pfizer executive said at the time. "We don't want to be surrounded by tenements."

Then why didn't you, I don't know, BUILD YOUR FACILITY SOMEWHERE ELSE?!?

Because that's how these weasels work the system.


1.  build in a crappy area because you can get the land cheap.
2.  once your site is built, biatch about the crappy neighborhood and push to have it changed/re-zoned.
3.  get your way, have it re-zoned and hit with eminent domain so your site is worth more.
4.  sell for ungodly profit
5.  go elsewhere and repeat.


Monorail?
 
2014-03-20 11:34:22 AM  
In Illinois, they've passed new laws to make Eminent Domain easier, and effectively prevent owners from staying the seizure in court.

http://www.nwitimes.com/business/local/illinois-passes-quick-take-fo r- illiana-expressway/article_7ad81295-221e-5040-9d65-7d16b869e1fc.html

From the above link: "If the property owner does not accept the appraised price, the state can take the land. The property owner can then head to court to argue about the price but not the taking of the land itself."

The above article refers to a newly proposed tollway that no one can seem to decide how to fund... but this also pertains to something called the "Peotone Airport".

This also leads to other fun topics involving Fark-favorite Jesse Jackson Jr. and private investors with allegedly suspicious backgrounds. Then on to  the BloombergSuperPAC-funded replacement for JJJ, Robin Kelly, and her apparent comfort with Quick-Take & Eminent Domain.

There seem to be a number of parties anxious to seize property for questionable benefit in that area.
 
2014-03-20 11:35:53 AM  
Not sure which is worse, the OV link or the fact that it is a Joe Jacoby article.

Both should be smashed in the face.
 
2014-03-20 11:36:51 AM  

Snort: Not sure which is worse, the OV link or the fact that it is a Joe Jacoby article.

Both should be smashed in the face.


Erm, Jeff Jacoby.

Back to drinking for the NCAA Playoffs!
 
2014-03-20 11:40:07 AM  

KellyX: give me doughnuts: karmachameleon: TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool

Would you please explain why?

So you don't wind up with things like this:

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

[static1.stopklatka.pl image 600x354]

or this...


Or this:
i723.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-20 11:54:59 AM  

Ficoce: Igor Jakovsky: As someone whose grandparents lost the family home and land to eminent domain i kind of despise it the government takes it for public works purposes but still cant believe the Kelo decision. For the government to take your land and give it to a PRIVATE entity legally is still astonishing.

Forsyth technical college in winston salem is built on top of what was the family homestead. Our family got screwed in compensation imo.

That blows. As I look out over my .2 acre empire I think about the 1500 acres a few miles away that used to be the family homestead. In my case, I think the problem was the guys in my family couldn't keep their fly's zipped.

They always lowball on emanate domain. Wonder what would happen if they approached you with a dollar number for your property and you went the residual route. Like you counter their offer with, "That's too much money. How about a third of your offer upfront and 1% of the pretax gross the property produces for 4 generations or 100 years, whichever comes first, regardless of ownership." These guys have a mindset of greed and privilege - they might just fall for a royalty counter. On one hand It might end up an empty lot for a while, but your kids might love you - or a Walmart, MDonalds, and strip mall could be built by next year. I'd be like, Emanate Domain! Hell Yeah!


Just did a gis of the college and the old family homestead probably wouldnt have survived progress. Suburbia seems to have taken over the area. Probably wouldnt be such a great place to live anymore even if we hadnt lost the land to the gubment. It would have been nice though if my great grandparents could have lived out the remainder of their years in their own home rather than the apartment they ended up in.
 
2014-03-20 11:57:34 AM  

Securitywyrm: deadlyplatypus: Securitywyrm: Mitrovarr: Securitywyrm: I understand the need to build roads. No city would ever be able to put in a rail system if it couldn't use eminent domain. HOWEVER... the current system is that they get the "Fair market value" of it, which is of course appraised by someone who knows that the city is about to take it so the value goes to crap.

The law should be: If the government takes your property, you get DOUBLE the "fair market value."

Nah, that would just get even more people to dig their heels in and force an eminent domain action. A lot of the time, the people doing so don't have any personal attachment to the property, they're just hoping to extort a bunch of extra money by blocking the only good route. That would just give people even more reason to try for that.

I'm pretty sure the land can be competently appraised not taking the future eminent domain action into account, using the historic appraisals of the property, the value of equivalent property, etc.

The core problem of "Fair market value" is that it neglects all the costs of moving. Let's say you have a little house that is appraised for $250,000. The government uses eminent domain on your property and gives you $250,000. However there are no other properties within a hundred miles for sale for $250,000, or even remotely in that range. Looks like you're farked.

Not only that, but it assumes "fair market value" for someone who is already WILLING to sell their property, which they obviously aren't since the gov. is using E.D. to take it.  People who want to keep things always ask (and deserve) MORE for things that they want to keep. This is completely ignored.  You should get some sort of "bonus" percentage of the value on top of the "fair market value" for every year you lived there or owned the property to make up for sentimental value/equity/trouble in moving. Instead they put a figurative gun to peoples' heads and say "you'll sell it to us at the price WE say is fair, not what YOU would ...


Or to boil it down to a super-simple analogy... your pants are worth $30. I am going to eminent domain your pants and take them, and give you $30. You now have no pants and have to go to the store to buy some, all without pants. You have to carry your wallet because you have no pants. Then you find that they no longer make the pants you like and all the other pants are $40. Eventually you settle for an old beat-up pair of pants that is $30... but then there's sales tax. You have no pants. NO PANTS!


And your hypothetical person had to change their name to Peter Pantsless. Your analogy did make me chortle fwiw.
 
2014-03-20 11:58:13 AM  

Pocket Ninja: And this is not yet another example of the worthless shiatheap that is Opposing Views blatantly plagiarizing other articles to add yet more turds to the open latrine that is their site, because their article begins this way:

It has been a little over eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that homeowners in New London, Conn., had no property rights.

and the Boston Globe article that was clearly only a source for this meticulously researched and well-reported article begins like this:

NEARLY NINE years have elapsed since the US Supreme Court, decided that seven homeowner in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. had no property rights which City Hall was bound to respect.

I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.


www.awsm.com
 
2014-03-20 12:00:49 PM  

HindiDiscoMonster: I have a simple 1-2-3 solution:

1. Return ED to it's previous incarnation.
2. Replace the home you are taking with another of equal USE* to the family you are screwing.
3. Pay for their moving expenses

This will of course never happen because politicians are evil. [FULL STOP]

*USE in this context refers to same number of features that the family enjoys at their current home (bedrooms, bathrooms, community type, school type, shopping access, pool (if applicable), etc... same value does not necessarily give them the same thing they are loosing if it's in a different neighborhood (esp. if they choose to move out of state - and yes you will have to cover that too)

/end of line


Also, introduce high fines to the company if eminent domain is used but the land is not developed for the same or very similar purpose. A "you wasted everyone's time and money" fine which will hopefully encourage them to think of other actions first.
 
2014-03-20 12:01:32 PM  

The_Mad_Dutchman: Elmo Jones: TuteTibiImperes: Compensation should also be higher, I'd suggest whichever is the highest of 200% of fair market value, the unpaid balance on the loan, or the amount necessary to buy a similar house in a similar neighborhood within a tight geographical radius, plus moving and hardship expenses.

Make it 200% of the tax value, and I'm with you. Has a property tax eval ever gone down, anywhere?

Mitch Daniels, his big business cronies, and Republican majorities in both houses managed to push through "Property Tax Reforms" here in Indiana that amounted to removing several ways municipalities assess property value, and for good measure capping all property taxes at a 1%, 2%, or 3% rate depending on your property. I know the assessed value of my property dropped about $3,000 when it went through. It did a good job of slashing millions out of the operating budgets of every town, city, and county, resulting in large public safety and service cuts. But hey, Eli Lilly gets to pocket a few extra million at the end of the year! Go Indiana!


On the flip side of this, the working poor (read:  me and most of the people I know) are not being gouged by outrageously inappropriate property tax bills every year.  Before this law was implemented, it wasn't uncommon to see a property tax bill of $1000 on a trailer that was only worth, perhaps, $12,000 dollars.  What this law did was keep the poor from being soaked for owning a home.  Here in Ft. Wayne, we saw no service cuts or cuts to public safety as a result, but the savings to the general populous was quite substantial.  So, yeah... Go Indiana!
 
2014-03-20 12:02:48 PM  
I like how at the end local politicians said it will be a "black stain" on the community. No shiat ya greedy farks, but it was classy of them to put up a plauqe for the person who died during the case. I wonder if any of the politicians involved are still in office?
 
2014-03-20 12:22:02 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool, but it should be used rarely, and only for public works projects for the good of the community, never for private developers.


I agree, the problem is that anything and everything is for the good of the community if the proper palms are greased.

I think when most people say things like this, what they really mean is, "It's okay for government to have this power as long as it's not misused." which is kind of like saying that it's okay if Paris Hilton is made president as long as she takes the job seriously.
 
2014-03-20 12:34:38 PM  
For the record, most of the 'politicians' involved at the time were spouses and friends of Pfizer board members. This was the first case I ever read in law school, and have followed the fallout ever since. It's just...disgusting.
 
2014-03-20 12:37:34 PM  
It's always amusing when people refer to America as a Christian country that has freedom of religion. We absolutely have a state religion, and this is its symbol:


                                                              $
 
2014-03-20 12:43:23 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: BMFPitt: They didn't favor the states over the federal government. They favored all levels of government over the people.


To reiterate, I agreed with the dissentng opinion, and am unhappy with the ruling. But the ruling did not ban restrictions on ED in any way. It just stated that the implicit limits of ED were smaller than most people assumed, and the Federal Government would not overrule the states' decisions on the matter.

Consequently, the net result was a strengthening of explicit protections against ED in most states.

I would have preferred that the explicit protection was enacted from the federal level, but this was not the truly disastrous ruling that people are making it out to be.

Rik01: However, only a few years ago, Congress, pressured by special interest groups, passed a bill which increased the use of Emanate Domain by local city governments for the 'benefit of their communities'

In fact, if the above is accurate, if the law is ever challenged, Kelo could be used as stare decisis to strike the law down. Which law is it, by the way, these are the only enacted candidates since Kelo I could find, and they don't seem to address what you claim they do?

http://www.opencongress.org/issues/defunct/4981_eminent_domain?filte r= enacted


I agree, there was an upside to this ruling. A lot of states immediately did the right thing to prevent this kind of thing. It's one of the few times a knee-jerk reaction has been a good thing.

And I also agree that the Kelo ruling could be used to overrule an ED claim. In the ruling, it states that it applies to this one situation; and whether or not this situation turns out well will determine how they rule on a similar issue in the future. Kelo was a test case, and if it resulted in a net poitive for the greater good (the greater good) then the court would be more likely to side with the government.

However, given how poorly it's turned out, any future cases like this will likely side with the property owner.
 
2014-03-20 12:45:32 PM  
paygun:
I agree, the problem is that anything and everything is for the good of the community if the proper palms are greased.


something something former president something something sports stadium something something Texas
 
2014-03-20 01:27:55 PM  

Pocket Ninja: And this is not yet another example of the worthless shiatheap that is Opposing Views blatantly plagiarizing other articles to add yet more turds to the open latrine that is their site, because their article begins this way:

It has been a little over eight years since the U.S. Supreme Court decided that homeowners in New London, Conn., had no property rights.

and the Boston Globe article that was clearly only a source for this meticulously researched and well-reported article begins like this:

NEARLY NINE years have elapsed since the US Supreme Court, decided that seven homeowner in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. had no property rights which City Hall was bound to respect.

I, for one, am thankful that that Fark modmins keep greenlighting links from this wholly meritorious site which should in no way by anyone be viewed as utterly worthless and completely without merit.


TY
 
2014-03-20 01:32:05 PM  

Texas Gabe: KellyX: give me doughnuts: karmachameleon: TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool

Would you please explain why?

So you don't wind up with things like this:

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]

[static1.stopklatka.pl image 600x354]

or this...

Or this:
[i723.photobucket.com image 555x427]


or this...

corbettharrison.com
 
2014-03-20 01:35:06 PM  
Karma's a biatch ain't it. :)
 
2014-03-20 02:16:21 PM  

Aulus: Capitalism that does not run rough shod over the community it pretends to serve.


False premise.  Capitalism serves the owner's financial interest and nothing else.
 
2014-03-20 02:19:31 PM  

devildog123: I remember this case causing lots of teeth gnashing and hair tearing on Fark, because the justices that Farkers hate the most were the ones to dissent, while their judicial heroes were the ones who felt that everything should be torn down.  It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.


I never understood the liberal hate for this.  Fark ProgressivesTMwasnt more government and generally against the conceptanof private property this was diffidently more government and anti-property rights
 
2014-03-20 02:39:36 PM  

hasty ambush: devildog123: I remember this case causing lots of teeth gnashing and hair tearing on Fark, because the justices that Farkers hate the most were the ones to dissent, while their judicial heroes were the ones who felt that everything should be torn down.  It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.

I never understood the liberal hate for this.  Fark ProgressivesTMwasnt more government and generally against the conceptanof private property this was diffidently more government and anti-property rights


The 'government' that approved this land-grab was made of individuals who would benefit...
 
2014-03-20 02:45:16 PM  

Githerax: Aulus: Capitalism that does not run rough shod over the community it pretends to serve.

False premise.  Capitalism serves the owner's financial interest and nothing else.


Yeah, but the entire concept of Capitalism is that once you've prevented fraud and theft, if I want to get rich, I have to provide you with something that you value more than your money.

And so if I'm worth $1 Billion, it's because the difference between "Value to you of thing I sold" and "Money it cost me to make it" is $1 Billion.  And that's a LOT of value-added.  So assuming that you can prevent cronyism and corruption (and fraud, theft, etc, etc.  We're talking a much more ideal capitalist system than is ever capable of existing).

So my best interest is your better interest or I don't get any of your money.

/Besides, be honest.  If given a choice between late 1980's Soviet Russia or the 3rd worst neighborhood in Detroit, which would you pick?  Heck, if you're not allowed to live in Moscow or St. Petersburg, I'll drop down to 2nd worst.
 
2014-03-20 03:08:27 PM  

hasty ambush: I never understood the liberal hate for this. Fark ProgressivesTMwasnt more government and generally against the conceptanof private property this was diffidently more government and anti-property rights


because  liberals want social service programs for the poor and a tax structure that benefits the middle class instead of the very wealthy it means they also would support this kind of ruling?
 
2014-03-20 03:17:04 PM  

Allen. The end.: hasty ambush: devildog123: I remember this case causing lots of teeth gnashing and hair tearing on Fark, because the justices that Farkers hate the most were the ones to dissent, while their judicial heroes were the ones who felt that everything should be torn down.  It was hilarious watching them have to agree with Scalia and Thomas.

I never understood the liberal hate for this.  Fark ProgressivesTMwasnt more government and generally against the conceptanof private property this was diffidently more government and anti-property rights

The 'government' that approved this land-grab was made of individuals who would benefit...


You mean like the Justices of the Supreme Court type individuals?

If I understand it correctly part of the rational behind this travesty was that government ( always a force of good in liberal eyes) could take the private property (with compensation) of some individuals and give it to other individuals whose development and use of it would generate more revenue for government (again always a good thing  according liberals) than had it been left with the original owners, thereby serving the greater good meaning justified under Eminent Domain.
 
2014-03-20 03:20:53 PM  
clancifer:

Meh. It was crazy for sure. Nothing compared to the registered libertarian I once saw whose entire family income was courtesy of the federal government. Now THAT was crazy.

That's my cousin to a tee. He's an active, screaming, crazy libertarian whose entire family (wife, him, father, grandfather) all were government employees of some kind or other.
 
2014-03-20 03:33:50 PM  

deadlyplatypus: BMFPitt: Possibly a Top 10 worst SCOTUS decision ever.

Pretty close to the top, though it'll be hard for anything to beat the overreach and implications of  Wickard v. Filburn.

/I'm only counting court decisions that still stand.
//Overturned ones have been "corrected."


Scott v. Sandford was never actually overturned.
 
2014-03-20 03:42:31 PM  

This text is now purple: deadlyplatypus: BMFPitt: Possibly a Top 10 worst SCOTUS decision ever.

Pretty close to the top, though it'll be hard for anything to beat the overreach and implications of  Wickard v. Filburn.

/I'm only counting court decisions that still stand.
//Overturned ones have been "corrected."

Scott v. Sandford was never actually overturned.


I'd say that the 13th Amendment put that to rest.
 
2014-03-20 03:43:49 PM  

This text is now purple: deadlyplatypus: BMFPitt: Possibly a Top 10 worst SCOTUS decision ever.

Pretty close to the top, though it'll be hard for anything to beat the overreach and implications of  Wickard v. Filburn.

/I'm only counting court decisions that still stand.
//Overturned ones have been "corrected."

Scott v. Sandford was never actually overturned.


The 13th Amendment would like a word with you.
 
2014-03-20 06:08:10 PM  
If you hate this stuff, remember blame liberals who supported in at the time, while conservatives opposed it and look at who voted for it on the Supreme Court

Voted For
upload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.org

Voted Against

upload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-03-20 06:42:23 PM  

Geotpf: karmachameleon: TuteTibiImperes: Eminent domain itself is a necessary tool

Would you please explain why?

If you want to build a:

1. Road
2. School
3. Power line
4. Sewage Treatment Plant
5. Retaining wall to prevent erosion
6. Similiar governmental uses

...sometimes you need to use such a process.  Especially for roads.  Otherwise, one guy could hold up an entire freeway project if his house was in the middle of where it was supposed to go.

It shouldn't be used for commercial development, however.


Understood, but that last line is the real point.  Eminent domain has outlived its usefulness.  The highways are built.  The infrastructure is in place just about everywhere.  I can see some legitimate cases still cropping up here and there, but they should be far and few between compared to, say, 50 or 60 years ago.  And turning residential into commercial for private enterprise by force is immoral and should be illegal, full stop.
 
2014-03-20 06:46:30 PM  

karmachameleon: The highways are built.  The infrastructure is in place just about everywhere.


So just in case you think I'm farking with you, it's currently 3:42 here on the West Coast and these are screenshots from Google maps.

img.fark.net

img.fark.net

Yeah, if the highways are built, it's time to build mass transit, and if the mass transit is built, they did a shiatty farking job.  And we should be building more mass transit (that's preferably at least as fast as a car with no traffic).
 
2014-03-20 07:03:51 PM  

meyerkev: karmachameleon: The highways are built.  The infrastructure is in place just about everywhere.

So just in case you think I'm farking with you, it's currently 3:42 here on the West Coast and these are screenshots from Google maps.

[img.fark.net image 424x431]

[img.fark.net image 643x358]

Yeah, if the highways are built, it's time to build mass transit, and if the mass transit is built, they did a shiatty farking job.  And we should be building more mass transit (that's preferably at least as fast as a car with no traffic).


Fair enough, but again, that's not what the issue is here.  Eminent domain should be extremely strict, and that's not how SCOTUS ruled.
 
2014-03-20 07:13:25 PM  

karmachameleon: meyerkev: karmachameleon: The highways are built.  The infrastructure is in place just about everywhere.

So just in case you think I'm farking with you, it's currently 3:42 here on the West Coast and these are screenshots from Google maps.

[img.fark.net image 424x431]

[img.fark.net image 643x358]

Yeah, if the highways are built, it's time to build mass transit, and if the mass transit is built, they did a shiatty farking job.  And we should be building more mass transit (that's preferably at least as fast as a car with no traffic).

Fair enough, but again, that's not what the issue is here.  Eminent domain should be extremely strict, and that's not how SCOTUS ruled.


Yeah, fair enough, agreed, but you're saying that eminent domain in it's entirety is wrong.

karmachameleon: Eminent domain has outlived its usefulness.  The highways are built.  The infrastructure is in place just about everywhere.


And I'm calling bullshiat.

Hell being a little bit TOO over the top would let us redo mass transit in the Bay to be good*, and maybe get some functional mass transit in this state.

*Assuming that the chucklefarks at the various agencies didn't fark it up.  I've never been quite so sympathetic to Tea Partiers as when I read about the clusterfark that is HSR/Caltrain/BART/VTA planning.  "You spent HOW MUCH?  On the PRE-STUDY for WHAT?  And it'll be ready WHEN?  Why do I pay taxes again?"
 
2014-03-20 07:24:30 PM  
Well, to be fair, I could think of a lot of neighborhoods where it would be "for the betterment of the community" if they were turned into vacant lots.
 
2014-03-20 07:33:24 PM  

meyerkev: Yeah, fair enough, agreed, but you're saying that eminent domain in it's entirety is wrong.


No, I'm not.  I asked the question and got answers that made me see some legitimacy to it.  So that's fine, it's needed in some cases where the public good far outweighs private ownership.  But things like what are described in this article should never, ever happen.  And it did, and that sucks.
 
2014-03-20 09:23:31 PM  

jedihirsch: If you hate this stuff, remember blame liberals who supported in at the time, while conservatives opposed it and look at who voted for it on the Supreme Court

Voted For
[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x284][upload.wikimedia.org image 220x275][upload.wikimedia.org image 220x330][upload.wikimedia.org image 220x287][upload.wikimedia.org image 220x280]

Voted Against

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x334][upload.wikimedia.org image 220x283][upload.wikimedia.org image 220x303][upload.wikimedia.org image 220x275]


Every one of the justices that voted for that bullshiat needs to be kicked in the dick. Especially that guy with the green earrings!
 
2014-03-20 09:57:46 PM  
I love how farkers react when the big powerful government they want undeniably shows its true nature. A partnership with select corporations screwing over ordinary people largely for the sake of doing so.
 
2014-03-21 10:24:09 AM  

meyerkev: karmachameleon: The highways are built.  The infrastructure is in place just about everywhere.

So just in case you think I'm farking with you, it's currently 3:42 here on the West Coast and these are screenshots from Google maps.

[img.fark.net image 424x431]

[img.fark.net image 643x358]

Yeah, if the highways are built, it's time to build mass transit, and if the mass transit is built, they did a shiatty farking job.  And we should be building more mass transit (that's preferably at least as fast as a car with no traffic).


The highways weren't built/finished. They are horrendously incomplete if you see the original transportation plans. All that red you see is from bottlenecks in the system because travelers are forced onto 1-2 roads in areas that were planned to have several more. Our current Gov (when he was in power in the '70s) and his dad thought we didn't need to finish them.
 
Displayed 146 of 146 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report