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
    More: Sad, Thames River, U.S. Supreme Court, New London  
•       •       •

23645 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Mar 2014 at 2:27 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-19 11:40:52 PM  
11 votes:
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.
2014-03-20 12:31:06 AM  
7 votes:

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 03:23:42 AM  
6 votes:
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 03:58:46 AM  
5 votes:
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 12:01:19 AM  
5 votes:
"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 02:43:04 AM  
4 votes:

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 02:57:40 AM  
3 votes:

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.
2014-03-19 11:27:40 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2014-03-20 03:28:48 AM  
2 votes:

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 02:36:11 AM  
2 votes:

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 12:21:02 AM  
2 votes:
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 09:57:46 PM  
1 vote:
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.
2014-03-20 11:09:19 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2014-03-20 10:34:54 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:17:04 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:13:23 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:01:29 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:58:21 AM  
1 vote:
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 09:30:21 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:21:07 AM  
1 vote:
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 08:41:07 AM  
1 vote:

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 07:58:01 AM  
1 vote:

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 07:29:30 AM  
1 vote:

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 07:00:57 AM  
1 vote:

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 06:48:35 AM  
1 vote:
It's quite a feat to have made New London even more of a shiathole than it already was.
2014-03-20 05:45:18 AM  
1 vote:
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 05:13:19 AM  
1 vote:
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 03:50:50 AM  
1 vote:

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 03:07:53 AM  
1 vote:
"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 02:54:50 AM  
1 vote:

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 02:40:16 AM  
1 vote:

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 02:30:15 AM  
1 vote:
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 12:57:04 AM  
1 vote:

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.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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