Court: Cities May Seize Homes For Economic Development

[honeychile]

Frankly, I blame public domain on the rapid decline of many cities I know - Pittsburgh being one of them.

Consider that you have inherited a building & business. When you own your own business, there are many times that you work 24/7 - and still have to pay someone else to do the necessary maintainance etc. Your whole livlihood has been poured into this building & business. But wait! The local government has decided that your business won't look right next to Lord & Taylor's, or the new Cheesecake Factory! They declare public domain, and you are forced to accept roughly half of the building's worth, and next to nothing of what the business is worth. A family business that has florished for as many as ten generations is wiped out on the whim of an inept mayor and/or council. You are forced into the working poor because you're not old enough to retire, and not young enough to get the type of job that you deserve.

If anyone thinks that public domain is so wonderful, just drive down Fifth Avenue in Pittsburgh after 6pm. It makes the case for me!

[preciousjeni]

You know what's funny to me about it all? The U.S. was FOUNDED on land ownership. That's one of the things about which we disagreed with the Native Americans.

This is unbelievably bad for our future. It's incredible to me that we started out as a Republic that protected our rights. These days, everyone believes that we are a Democracy and that our rights should be protected unless they are a detriment to the common good. But, what are we becoming now? Socialist?

[WCUgirl]

Between this and the flag thing, moving somewhere tropical is starting to sound good.

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by AXiD670
Between this and the flag thing, moving somewhere tropical is starting to sound good.

I was JUST talking to my dad about the state of this country. We still believe it is better (and more luxurious) to remain here, but I would transfer my citizenship to Switzerland if it came down to that. No joke.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

In 1999 New Rochelle, NY tried to seize private property under eminent domain by condemning 15 acres of land where about 200 people lived in order to build an Ikea. Luckily, for the residents that didn't happen because Ikea backed out after negative news coverage.

The same thing happened in Times Square recently in order to seize private property to build a new headquarters for the NY Times. The old building was knocked down and new construction is going on right now. Times Square is not a blighted community anymore.

Link to the 60 Minutes story about eminent domain. It includes the story about the new NY Times HQ.

[kddani]

I never said that I agreed with eminent domain or thought that it was always a good thing. I pointed out that people do get some compensation because the way it was posted it made it seem like the gov't was just taking it off of them.

The problem with eminent domain is that "public good" or "public use" is VERY liberally interpreted by the courts, so these things get taken care of.

And honeychile, i'd rather they took most of the 5th-Forbes corridor by eminent domain and knocked it all down. Hell, even if it was just ending up grass. That place is a mess. More than half the storefronts are vacant, and business that are there aren't long time family owned businesses, they're pager and fake-bling selling stores.
I do miss the old downtown of my childhood.

[krazy]

Well, as long as I get to keep the 2nd Amendment, this does not bother me.

Come to my house and try to take my title so you can build a Starbucks, you will have to get by my Remington first.



These SC Justices need to go back to 5th grade and read some Orwell.

[kddani]

Originally posted by krazy
Well, as long as I get to keep the 2nd Amendment, this does not bother me.

Come to my house and try to take my title so you can build a Starbucks, you will have to get by my Remington first.



These SC Justices need to go back to 5th grade and read some Orwell.

Haha, and that takes us back to the point (this was talked about in another thread recently) that you can't use deadly force to defend your property unless you or your family are in danger of physical harm so don't be too quick with that trigger!

[honeychile]

Originally posted by kddani
I never said that I agreed with eminent domain or thought that it was always a good thing. I pointed out that people do get some compensation because the way it was posted it made it seem like the gov't was just taking it off of them.

The problem with eminent domain is that "public good" or "public use" is VERY liberally interpreted by the courts, so these things get taken care of.

And honeychile, i'd rather they took most of the 5th-Forbes corridor by eminent domain and knocked it all down. Hell, even if it was just ending up grass. That place is a mess. More than half the storefronts are vacant, and business that are there aren't long time family owned businesses, they're pager and fake-bling selling stores.
I do miss the old downtown of my childhood.

I agree with your statement, especially about mowing down the Fifth-Forbes corridor - what a MESS that's become!! I'm sooo glad that I don't work in town anymore.

One of the buildings my mother owns has been under the threat of eniment domain for a few years now by Port Authority. The prices bandied about are a joke! She laughed at the last offer, telling them that they would have to put three zeros on the end just to break even, let alone take care of the tenants etc. They haven't come back with any new numbers.

What gets me mad is the matter of who decides the public good? Because we've learned here that the politicians certainly don't!

[33girl]

As far as the Fifth-Forbes issue, if they would have spent the money they wasted on Lazarus and L & T and given it to the businesses to fix their storefronts etc, this wouldn't be an issue. If you're under the threat of Mayor Asshole whoops I mean Murphy stealing your business, you certainly aren't going to do anything to fix it and then have it taken from you.

That whole debacle was a racial thing, plain and simple. If Murphy wasn't such a @$%#ing racist we wouldn't have a downtown full of empty storefronts. Apparently he believes it's better to have no patrons than black patrons.

[Tom Earp]

While I was not happy with The Major Court of the Land giving an Opinion of this Nature no matter How Close it was, I can only relate to an Area in My Vacinity.

Just West of Me, the Properity was worth Taxes of $224,000 a Year.

Now, there is The Kansas Speedway, Cabelas, Nebraska Furniture Mart, a Lot Of Resturants and New Businesses coming in to a depressed City that was losing Population.

$$$ coming into The Market.

More Population with Roof Tops and a growing Population.

While I do not Beleve in Carte Blanc for doing this, there does have to be a line drawn.

I was also thinking the same way When the USA Supreme Court cam upon this vote.

So, once again the Small People may get screwed.

If there is a very fair Market Value with a + given then Okay, but, just to say, Hey, This is going to do good. Well, let me see it first!

[Kevin]

While the SC decision allows this to happen, can't it still be forbidden by state law?

For me, this decision will probably be very nice since my dad's firm does so much work in condemnation. In Oklahoma, we have some laws on the books that go a long way towards protecting the land owner when the city, state or county takes their land through eminent domain. If an attorney is able to secure them 10% more than the "FMV" offered by the condemning entity, the condemning entity has to pay attorney's fees. What y'all have been saying about the FMV that is offered is generally correct though. I've never seen a case where we didn't get at least 10% higher than what was the property was originally appraised to be worth.

There are also loopholes that have been being used for quite some time in these parts when it came to the taking of property through eminent domain to build something like a Wal-Mart. In those cases, the city would simply condemn the land, then lease it for some low price to whatever business they wanted to have there. For example, Oklahoma City obtained a large piece of property for Bass Pro Shops in our riverwalk area, even built their building, and now leases it to them for something like $75,000/year.

In the long run though, don't expect to see much land grabbing or anything like that. In fact, due to the public finally having the awareness that this is going on, perhaps we'll start to see legislation appear that will give landowners more protections.

[Tom Earp]

ktsnake, that is what is so interesting.

The Federal Govt. Will not usurp Local Laws. But, it seems to be happening more and more.

States rights are becoming about as ridiged as Individual rights. Right!

KC Metro area is doing a lot of this and hopefully for the Total Betterment.

Now, I agree with Ememinet Domaine, "If and Only If" it is done for a Total betterment such as was done in KC Ks.

The People were offered 125 % of appraised cost. If did not agree, they could get a appraisal and then went from there. They also had the right to move their Homes or take anything that they wanted. They also had help if wanted to move houses.

It has turned the Area totally around and is benefiting the County and City. Oh for some that dont know, We had Unification of both sevearal years back.

KC Metro also has a Big Problem about moving a person out for a Shopping center and is not on their land! They just want it!

Wal_Fart, Hell, they want what they want, but is becoming harder for them to be so strong.

Metro Area had killings and shabby Housing and sleeze Bars, not is a Finally working shopping center of Mid Town.

If, and I emphasize If, it is used right, it can be for a larger Bettement.

There will always be some unhappy people. It has to be used with some restraint. But, once it is a Law Now, I am sure it will be abused!

[texas*princess]

I think this is WAY scary.

It's really sad to be pretty honest... especially for families that have been there all their lives.

In north texas, there are many homeowners who are definitely upset about this because their homes happen to be where the city wants to build the new stadium for the Dallas Cowboys (personally I think if they are the "Dallas" Cowboys they should be in Dallas not Arlington, but that's another conversation for another day..)

I would be seriously pissed if some city person told me I had to move because they wanted to make a mall or stadium....no amount of money would make me want to move out of a house that I grew up in and have so many memories at.

[LexiKD]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard about.
Eminet domain is not when a big company can talk the city into buying property for the sake of larger property taxes when they turn around and sell it to the company. It is one thing to take land for roads/city buildings and the betterment of the community and it is another when wal-mart wants your house and the city forces you to sell it.
Private property is private property. These judges need some new blood to see reality when CVS or Walgreens wants to take their house.
Not to mention there goes the real estate business, no more bidding wars it will be who gets to the city council first wins.