Skip to content
 
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.

(NBC Washington)   Attention citizen. Your home is in the path of an interstate that must be widened for it to be more profitable to the private company who's making money on its tolls. We will compensate you what we believe is a fair value for your home. Now move   ( nbcwashington.com) divider line
    More: Sick, Real estate appraisal, VDOT, Interstate Highway System, functionally equivalent home, fair market, Del. Mark Keam, new home, market value homes  
•       •       •

9554 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Aug 2018 at 12:52 AM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
Xai [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2018-08-10 05:13:10 AM  
Sorry submitter but this is exactly the point of eminent domain and it's entirely right. It certainly does suck, but roads etc have to go somewhere.
 
2018-08-10 05:44:35 AM  
Using Eminent Domain to benefit private land developers expand the tax base still OK?
 
2018-08-10 05:57:53 AM  

Sgt Otter: [img.fark.net image 850x656]


The 'hero' of this book sounds like he was the grandpa of the guy from Falling Down.
 
2018-08-10 06:13:03 AM  
Do they have their towels?
 
2018-08-10 06:40:07 AM  

Langdon_777: ED payments should at minimum be x2 market rates and probably more like 3x or 4x.

People are not moving because they want to, so market rate is just wrong - they need to be compensated for being forced to do something.


A hundred times this. "Fair market value" is simply inadequate compensation.
 
2018-08-10 06:45:30 AM  

DarkVader: Animatronik: Without knowing what they were offered, there's no way to know the validity of their beef .  This is what ED is for.

No it isn't.  It would be what ED is for, IF the government was going to own, maintain, and operate the extra lanes.  As it is, it's for private profit.  And it won't help anyway, you can't widen your way out of gridlock.


There was literally a Supreme Court case over that question.  Note who approved ED for the benefit of private developers, and who opposed it.
 
2018-08-10 06:49:28 AM  

Justin Beaver: But with eminent domain, they are not required to pay you market share. They only have to offer what THEY believe it's worth

And believe me, it's not even enough to put a down payment on a new house


That's not true at all.  The government will make an offer based on its appraisal of the property's value, but if that doesn't meet the constitutional standard for just compensation, the owner can challenge it in court.
 
2018-08-10 06:54:37 AM  

Warlordtrooper: In a free country eminent domain should be illegal. Make me an offer I feel is fair considering the cost of the property the stress and hassle of the whole thing or GFY.


Do you think the interstates, or the railroads, could ever have been built it they had to negotiate individually with every single property owner along the way, cross-country and reroute interstates every time they found a property owner who was not willing to sell at any price?

While it can definitely be abused, and often is, the basic underlying concept is there for a good reason.
 
2018-08-10 06:55:59 AM  

Dork Gently: DarkVader: Animatronik: Without knowing what they were offered, there's no way to know the validity of their beef .  This is what ED is for.

No it isn't.  It would be what ED is for, IF the government was going to own, maintain, and operate the extra lanes.  As it is, it's for private profit.  And it won't help anyway, you can't widen your way out of gridlock.

There was literally a Supreme Court case over that question.  Note who approved ED for the benefit of private developers, and who opposed it.


Shhhhh. I'm coming back latter and doing a word searches for "Trump", "republicans" and "conservatives" just for fun.
 
2018-08-10 06:59:15 AM  

thrillbilly1967: They decided to dam a river and create huge lake with 600 miles of shoreline and use it for hydroelectric. My family had over 2000 acres that had been in the family for close to 150 years. They forced my great grandfather to sell it under eminent domain. This was in mid 1950s. At that time land nearby was running 250 to 350 an acre and they forced him to take 84 dollars an acre of theyd take it for free.
He fought it best he could but was forced to sell. Fast forward 6 years and they change where they plan to build the dam. It would be half a mile to the north of his old property boundary. He tried to get the land back. He was told because it would be on both sides of the river below the dam it wasnt safe for habitation. It was all crop fields and he lived on the mountain nearby. Didnt matter. They kept it. They completed the dam and the next thing you know they sold it to a man who just happened to be one of the higher ups in the electric company that built the dam for 24 dollars an acre.

After the lake filled it turned out somehow thousands of land above the high water mark ended up in the hands of the power company due to eminent domain. Land that now was worth a 100 times more than they paid for it because now it was lakeside. The last large tract of this stolen land was sold this last year. Waterfront acreage went for 100k to 250k...per acre. A good investment for the power company. Pay 30 bucks an acre average in 1958 wait til 2018 sell same for 100k and up per acre.


Sounds like Lake Lanier...but I think that's the story all the TVA lakes as well.
 
2018-08-10 07:00:58 AM  

VogonPoet: Firm Tautology: They seem to be having tremendous difficulty with their lifestyle.

HA!


Username checks out.

/Oh freddled gruntbugglies
//Thy nacturations are to me
//and now I must put slashies, that total up to three.
 
2018-08-10 07:02:42 AM  

Gordon Bennett: Abuse of eminent domain to benefit private developers is one of those rare issues when both the left and the right are against it. The left hate it because of crony capitalism and the right hate it because it's using government power to deprive people of their property. The last time we had a thread on this I noticed Farkers from both sides agreeing it was wrong.

So naturally the practise continues unabated.


Because the rich love it and they are spread evenly on both sides to prevent anything that resembles a true democracy.
 
2018-08-10 07:03:38 AM  
BTW-this project is what ED is supposed be used. for. If you have a bulldog lawyer, you can usually get a better price than the original offer, since the government really doesn't want to have it stuck in court.

Given it is NoVa, I doubt the new housing will be anything close to equivalent, especially in convenience.
 
2018-08-10 07:05:07 AM  
Huh I didn't realize eminent domain was used for private roads, too.  That doesn't seem right.
 
2018-08-10 07:10:44 AM  
eminent domain Merica is a great country long as one obeys the 3 rules 1 get the money, 2 get the money, & 3 get the money.  if for what ever reason some monkey see's a buck to be made from Your land and pays the payola to the right gubermunt criten, Your basically F*** yeah yeah a few wins now & then but the majority of these "deals" go to the bigger a**hole.

Lives are torn up, nobody wins, deals fall apart, no advantage ever appears, except big busiess /Utility/politicians We are little more than cerf's ,share cropper's, pesants unless We have big dollars
 
2018-08-10 07:11:53 AM  

big pig peaches: Dork Gently: DarkVader: Animatronik: Without knowing what they were offered, there's no way to know the validity of their beef .  This is what ED is for.

No it isn't.  It would be what ED is for, IF the government was going to own, maintain, and operate the extra lanes.  As it is, it's for private profit.  And it won't help anyway, you can't widen your way out of gridlock.

There was literally a Supreme Court case over that question.  Note who approved ED for the benefit of private developers, and who opposed it.

Shhhhh. I'm coming back latter and doing a word searches for "Trump", "republicans" and "conservatives" just for fun.


It's probably not worth pointing out that I represented my company at a pre-bid meeting for the project back in 2015 - and the preliminary plans focused heavily on this area at that time.
 
2018-08-10 07:15:40 AM  

BlippityBleep: Huh I didn't realize eminent domain was used for private roads, too.  That doesn't seem right.


It's not half as bad as what happened in New London, CT.  You can watch the movie if reading about Kelo et al.'s case is not your speed.

Interestingly, WaPo and NYT reviews panned Little Pink House because the movie is critical of using eminent domain to give houses to a private developers.
 
2018-08-10 07:24:14 AM  

Dork Gently: DarkVader: Animatronik: Without knowing what they were offered, there's no way to know the validity of their beef .  This is what ED is for.

No it isn't.  It would be what ED is for, IF the government was going to own, maintain, and operate the extra lanes.  As it is, it's for private profit.  And it won't help anyway, you can't widen your way out of gridlock.

There was literally a Supreme Court case over that question.  Note who approved ED for the benefit of private developers, and who opposed it.


THIS.  And IIRC the Fark threads about it trended the same way.
 
2018-08-10 07:28:58 AM  

Rik01: Things like this chaps my butt. You're not even guaranteed that the land you bought and paid for is yours and in some places you only own just so deep because the state keeps the mineral rights of what's under your house.

That's like how one of the major oil companies cheat the Amish. They have oil under their lands in a lot of places and are willing to let companies drill for it for a fee. I guess the fees are too high because the companies now buy up cheaper lands that are not Amish but right next to them and slant drill across property lines to grab the oil. The Amish don't sue people either. However one lawyer is filing suit for them for damages, trespassing, theft of minerals and whatever else he can toss in.

My place was rural, surrounded by acres and acres of wild pine forest, palmettos, scrub Oak, meadows full of wild grasses colorful butterflies and equally colorful Dragonflies. Then it got developed. I'm surrounded by houses which sit where there were meadows, some guy parks his truck where I used to have a tree fort, the wonderful night sounds are gone and during the day I hear less birds and more weed eaters --- gas, no mufflers.

My home never flooded in hurricanes since it was build in 1958. The lay of the land has changed, the road out front has been paved and repaved, drainage ditches in front of properties, called Swales, have been allowed to close up and some guy dumped a load of rock in his to make an extra parking spot -- and the last three hurricanes have flooded me. I'm getting the swale reopened hopefully before the next hurricane. After three years of biatching to officials about it.

Basically the zoning laws were changed without consideration to properties like mine. They didn't care. I'm also very aware that if they chose my land for something, they could use Eminent Dominion to steal it right from under me.

I feel sorry for those folks. Even the next property they move to can be taken away at the whim of a business. You can't fight the ...


Either your land is yours to do with as you see fit or it isn't, make a choice. Either the government gets a say on how private land is used so you don't flood or it doesn't get a say on how private land is used and STFU and boot strap your own flood defenses on your land..
 
2018-08-10 07:43:52 AM  
Yeahhhhh, no.

Eminent Domain is real. And your house is in the way. Now, Heres your money, Move.

Yes it sucks that its happening to them. If it happened to me Id be pissed too. But thats the deal when you're born into this country. Always has been the rule, always will be.

/ "Sux 2 B U"
 
2018-08-10 07:52:18 AM  
Fair market value is determined by what houses have sold for in the area not what they will be worth after the government buys it
The 5 need to find houses in the neighborhood and tell them this house is for sale we want this house and some extra for moving expenses

/Have spent the last year going thru the same thing with the city I used to live in
//Was actually surprised with the city and the offer (way more than I expected)
/// More to the story but I got to clock in
 
2018-08-10 07:53:06 AM  
I66 is a public highway, not a private toll road.
 
2018-08-10 07:54:35 AM  
Right, the alternative is we let an entire city get snarled in traffic to protect five houses. I live on 66. Right now, the only way to directly deal with traffic on the road is to leave for work at around 10:30 and come back home at 8 pm. Complaining about powerful people and eminent domain doesn't get people to work any quicker. Also, do you know what fair market value is on these properties? These people are hardly getting screwed.
 
2018-08-10 07:58:27 AM  

Rik01: My place was rural, surrounded by acres and acres of wild pine forest, palmettos, scrub Oak, meadows full of wild grasses colorful butterflies and equally colorful Dragonflies. Then it got developed. I'm surrounded by houses which sit where there were meadows, some guy parks his truck where I used to have a tree fort, the wonderful night sounds are gone and during the day I hear less birds and more weed eaters --- gas, no mufflers.


So, to be clear, you didn't own those meadows or pine forests. Some developers bought them fairly on the market. But now that they've chosen to build on those properties, you find their usage of their own private property to be not in the public (i.e., your) benefit, and wish the government intervened with zoning regulations to force the developers to use their private property in such a way that others (i.e., you) benefit. You're also petitioning the government to force property owners to maintain public infrastructure (i.e., swales) for the benefit of the public (i.e., you), even at the possible expense of forcing property owners to demolish improvements they've made.

So really what I'm hearing is that you are attuned to the fact that some property usage creates noxious externalities. You understand that sometimes people use their property in ways that damages other people, and that means it is appropriate for the government to regulate how people use their property. You accept that while property rights are important, sometimes the public good requires that critical infrastructure be built and maintained even in places that conflict with certain individuals' property rights, or else everyone suffers due to one person's selfishness.

Or, in other words, you approve of eminent domain.
 
2018-08-10 08:04:12 AM  
sometimes they take your house/land and announce years later the project is officaly cancelled
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocks_I​s​land_Dam_controversy
 
2018-08-10 08:09:03 AM  

Justin Beaver: But with eminent domain, they are not required to pay you market share. They only have to offer what THEY believe it's worth

And believe me, it's not even enough to put a down payment on a new house


That's 100% not true regarding market value. Market value is EXACTLY what the government has to pay you. Granted, your number is not necessarily the same as theirs but the government works with market value. In disputes, there is often 3 appraisals completed with the judge accepting the middle one.

And down payment on a new house? WTF are you talking about?
 
2018-08-10 08:14:41 AM  

Sgt Otter: [img.fark.net image 850x656]


LOL! My FIL keeps telling me to read that. I dont like steven kings "good" stuff, I'm certainly not about to read something he wouldn't even put his name on.
 
2018-08-10 08:24:26 AM  

Silverstaff: Do you think the interstates, or the railroads, could ever have been built it they had to negotiate individually with every single property owner along the way, cross-country and reroute interstates every time they found a property owner who was not willing to sell at any price?


Case in point. Long Island, NY, Robert Moses wanted to expand the Northern State Parkway from Hauppauge to all the way out to Riverhead and beyond since early 1920's to 1965. The parkway was already in place from Queens out to Hauppauge, but the residents, beyond Hauppauge refused be be bullied into losing their homes and the Parkway now ends in Hauppauge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norther​n​_State_Parkway
 
2018-08-10 08:26:54 AM  

Relatively Obscure: Well, at least the wider roadway will solve nothing. So you can't discount that benefit.


People often misunderstand the concept of induced demand, I think. So, first, you're right: it is 100% true that building and expanding roads does not alleviate road congestion. People have known this for almost a century now. If you build a bridge or some new roads or freeway lanes, two things will happen:

1. Traffic will remain exactly as congested as it had been.
2. The average commute time will remain exactly what it had been.

So many people -- especially left-wingers -- stop the line of reasoning there, saying, "Okay, great: roads are useless. That's fine, because cars suck anyway. Don't build roads. Invest in public transit."

But, of course, the same thing happens with public transit. If you increase bus or subway or light-rail capacity, two things will happen:

1. The average bus or train car will remain exactly as crowded as it had been.
2. The average commute time will remain exactly what it had been.

So what gives?

---

What gives is induced demand. If you build new capacity on your roads, that means your roads will become less congested, making them more attractive. More people will want to drive to work rather than take public transport, making public transport more attractive. People will be able to move farther out from the city and buy a larger/cheaper house while still getting to work in the same amount of time. The property market will expand. New people will move to the area to take advantage of the superior transport links or the houses being vacated by people moving outwards. The area will grow to fill the new capacity, until the roads are exactly as congested as they used to be. And the same goes if you build new subways or commuter railroads or bike paths or whatever else.

Building road capacity isn't really meant to create empty roads. It's meant to enable a region to grow.

(However: given all of the above, it's a much *better* idea to grow your city by investing in public transit, because that is *equally effective* at alleviating traffic as drivers choose instead to take the bus or train to save time/money, it pollutes less, it requires less land use, it directs revenue towards the public coffers that paid to build it rather than towards the freeloading auto industry, and it's more expandable.)
 
2018-08-10 08:34:18 AM  

pkjun: you build new capacity on your roads, that means your roads will...


(let me expend upon his for a moment, thanks...)

You build new capacity on your roads, that means your roads will only bring more cars on the road.

Thanks.
 
2018-08-10 08:36:20 AM  

RodneyToady: That's what eminent domain is supposed to be used for, submitter.  It sucks for these five families, but it's not exactly Robert Moses-esque in overall impact.


This.

This isn't Kelo vs. City of New London, where houses were condemned even though they were perfectly livable simply because the town wanted the higher tax revenue that a business would have provided.

This is a public benefit, widening a road that anyone can access and use.

I'm not a big fan of eminent domain seizures, but this is precisely the sort of thing it *SHOULD* be used for.
 
2018-08-10 08:37:27 AM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: [img.fark.net image 480x360]
/Don't Panic


Oh, and I'm getting a real kick out of these call-outs to Douglas Adams.
 
2018-08-10 08:39:52 AM  

steklo: pkjun: you build new capacity on your roads, that means your roads will...

(let me expend upon his for a moment, thanks...)

You build new capacity on your roads, that means your roads will only bring more cars on the road.

Thanks.


And this is inherently bad because.....  why?

Unless you propose to use dictatorial powers to enforce your mandates, people gonna do what they wanna do, and the smart thing from a safety standpoint is to accommodate that.  Otherwise, you end up with situations like The Beltway in the DC area that is basically a parking lot during the increasingly inaccurately named "rush hours".
 
2018-08-10 08:47:09 AM  

dittybopper: And this is inherently bad because..... why?


I've lived in Northern VA. I suffered and lost so many hours in traffic in and out of the beltway. I've been on I-66. It's a hell hole of a long parking lot during rush hours.

Putting new lanes on a highway, only brings more cars to the same highway and we're right back where we started from but now there's even more cars...

If we want to alleviate traffic and congestion? The logical thing is to remove the cars from the road. How we do that? I don't know. Metro, telecommuting from home, public rail, buses, monorails, transporter beams?

It's been a problem for a long time. I'm not privy to the answers, just pointing out, we need to somehow get rid of cars.
 
2018-08-10 08:48:08 AM  

AmbassadorBooze: Have the developer trade houses with one of the houses up for taking.  Then have the 4 others trade with the heads of the government officials in charge of the departments involved.  If it is real important, the 5 will do it willingly for the good of the state or country.  Then, allow the developer and officials to sell the houses to the state at the compensation level that was previously agreed upon.  Do it for the good of the nation.

I would also accept the developer putting everything on the line, and doing a 5v1 thunderdome.  Winner takes all.  If the home owners win, the survivors split the development company.  The larger the number of eminent domain takings in a project the lower the chance of survival for the developer.  But the higher the chance of mega payoff.  Hopefully developers like developing their muscles.


This comment really made my day. You have received one (1) farkie. May your intoxicant of choice flow freely this weekend!
 
2018-08-10 08:56:21 AM  

WriteInCandidate: [mikechurch.com image 640x492]


The old fark, this would be the Boobies and thread done in one.

/ Adjusting onion on belt
// Get off my lawn
 
2018-08-10 08:59:14 AM  

pkjun: (However: given all of the above, it's a much *better* idea to grow your city by investing in public transit, because that is *equally effective* at alleviating traffic as drivers choose instead to take the bus or train to save time/money, it pollutes less, it requires less land use, it directs revenue towards the public coffers that paid to build it rather than towards the freeloading auto industry, and it's more expandable.)


But public transit is socialism.
 
2018-08-10 09:07:37 AM  
Eminent domain: stealing from the poor to benefit the rich
 
2018-08-10 09:13:52 AM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: [img.fark.net image 480x360]
/Don't Panic


Wait until Beeblebrox hears about this.
 
2018-08-10 09:23:13 AM  

DarkVader: Animatronik: Without knowing what they were offered, there's no way to know the validity of their beef .  This is what ED is for.

No it isn't.  It would be what ED is for, IF the government was going to own, maintain, and operate the extra lanes.  As it is, it's for private profit.  And it won't help anyway, you can't widen your way out of gridlock.



I agree with what you're saying in principle, that private use should not support ED, and this has been argued in state legislatures; however, if the project in question is for public use, it can be argued that it doesn't matter if the state used a private contractor to manage and operate the road; if it is a public road intended to benefit everyone and relieve traffic congestion, that is for public use.

In the Kelo decision, though the SCOTUS majority got it completely wrong; they allowed a city to use ED to authorize demolition for private use.  One of the worst decisions in the 21st century so far.
 
2018-08-10 09:24:48 AM  

steklo: pkjun: you build new capacity on your roads, that means your roads will...

(let me expend upon his for a moment, thanks...)

You build new capacity on your roads, that means your roads will only bring more cars on the road.

Thanks.


But, to put that exact sentiment another way, "you build new capacity on your roads, that means your roads will be useful to more people who will be able to drive more places more often."

"Roads make traffic" is true. But the point of roads is to be used by people. That's literally why they build them.
 
2018-08-10 09:29:19 AM  

RodneyToady: That's what eminent domain is supposed to be used for, submitter.  It sucks for these five families, but it's not exactly Robert Moses-esque in overall impact.


Actually, eminent domain is supposed to be used for Public Good, not Private Profit.
 
2018-08-10 09:35:18 AM  

pkjun: "Roads make traffic" is true. But the point of roads is to be used by people. That's literally why they build them.


I blame the Romans....

thegamethatgotaway.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2018-08-10 09:53:26 AM  
1. The Notorious RBG is perfectly fine with giving your house to a private party because their taxable value was higher
2. I-66 isn't a toll road. Indeed, neither is I-495, at whose junction these houses lie
3. This isn't a far-flung suburb. Dunn Loring is on the beltway.
4. There is mass transit here. Hell, it runs along the I-66 median.

So, subby, pretty much none of what you said was true.
 
2018-08-10 09:54:19 AM  

pkjun: steklo: pkjun: you build new capacity on your roads, that means your roads will...

(let me expend upon his for a moment, thanks...)

You build new capacity on your roads, that means your roads will only bring more cars on the road.

Thanks.

But, to put that exact sentiment another way, "you build new capacity on your roads, that means your roads will be useful to more people who will be able to drive more places more often."

"Roads make traffic" is true. But the point of roads is to be used by people. That's literally why they build them.


If you build it, they will come.

Want to eliminate congestion? Knock your city down. Detroit's streets are wide-open.
 
2018-08-10 09:56:00 AM  

steklo: If we want to alleviate traffic and congestion? The logical thing is to remove the cars from the road. How we do that? I don't know. Metro, telecommuting from home, public rail, buses, monorails, transporter beams?


The problem isn't cars, it's people moving.

Look at the mass transit system in New York. Totally jammed and without excess capacity to the point that minor scheduling problems cascade into ordeals.

That's not the fault of cars.
 
2018-08-10 09:58:51 AM  

This text is now purple: That's not the fault of cars.


I see your point. Correct.

What's the reasoning people are moving? To get to and from work. I would gather a good oh, 99% during rush hour, wouldn't you agree?

So therefore, if we got rid of the jobs, people wouldn't have to move so much during rush hour, right?

/ I kid, but I do see your point.
 
2018-08-10 10:02:39 AM  

Rik01: Things like this chaps my butt. You're not even guaranteed that the land you bought and paid for is yours and in some places you only own just so deep because the state keeps the mineral rights of what's under your house.

That's like how one of the major oil companies cheat the Amish. They have oil under their lands in a lot of places and are willing to let companies drill for it for a fee. I guess the fees are too high because the companies now buy up cheaper lands that are not Amish but right next to them and slant drill across property lines to grab the oil. The Amish don't sue people either. However one lawyer is filing suit for them for damages, trespassing, theft of minerals and whatever else he can toss in.

My place was rural, surrounded by acres and acres of wild pine forest, palmettos, scrub Oak, meadows full of wild grasses colorful butterflies and equally colorful Dragonflies. Then it got developed. I'm surrounded by houses which sit where there were meadows, some guy parks his truck where I used to have a tree fort, the wonderful night sounds are gone and during the day I hear less birds and more weed eaters --- gas, no mufflers.

My home never flooded in hurricanes since it was build in 1958. The lay of the land has changed, the road out front has been paved and repaved, drainage ditches in front of properties, called Swales, have been allowed to close up and some guy dumped a load of rock in his to make an extra parking spot -- and the last three hurricanes have flooded me. I'm getting the swale reopened hopefully before the next hurricane. After three years of biatching to officials about it.

Basically the zoning laws were changed without consideration to properties like mine. They didn't care. I'm also very aware that if they chose my land for something, they could use Eminent Dominion to steal it right from under me.

I feel sorry for those folks. Even the next property they move to can be taken away at the whim of a business. You can't ...


So much ^THIS^... for this very reason, I have standing requests with all of my neighbors (unused field on one side, 300 acres of well logged timber on the other) that if they ever wish to sell their property I get first crack at it.  It won't stop eminent domain, and I may not be in a financial position to outbid every buyer that comes along, but at least I can try.

Langdon_777: ED payments should at minimum be x2 market rates and probably more like 3x or 4x.

People are not moving because they want to, so market rate is just wrong - they need to be compensated for being forced to do something.


Absolutely... probably at least 5x. Eminent domain should be a last resort of the state, should only be for public benefit (schools and roads are the only examples I can think of), and should be damn painful for the state to exercise. The state should NEVER be allowed to take land and then turn it over to a private entity - even if the private entity somehow manages to convince a majority of some government that they will do what is right.
 
2018-08-10 10:13:13 AM  

RodneyToady: That's what eminent domain is supposed to be used for, submitter.  It sucks for these five families, but it's not exactly Robert Moses-esque in overall impact.


Adding more lanes to an already congested highway is just going to move the bottlenecks around and benefit the toll operator, notthe public.  If we were talking about something that adds livability, like better access to mass transportation or safe bike routes that connect where people work, shop and live, then you might have a point.
 
2018-08-10 10:13:47 AM  

pkjun: So, first, you're right: it is 100% true that building and expanding roads does not alleviate road congestion.


It's interesting when I'm right on a point I didn't even argue, but you might let the people behind the project in on that secret.
 
Displayed 50 of 145 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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