If the government says "We're taking your home",

[Occulus]

and it's for a private business purpose, and there will be living arrangements constructed on the private premises being built:

Should the company that will end up owning the facilities be required to house the people it displaced?

[GiovanniC]

1. It Should Never Get to That Point

In other words, eminent domain is not intended to be used as a crowbar that the government weilds to pry you away from your property in the interests of enriching corporations. There are a very small set of circumstances in which eminent domain is acceptable and it has been abused far too much, far too often, for far too long.

[Occulus]

2. I agree, but it does.

As unfortunate as it is.

[GiovanniC]

3. I'm Not Saying That it Doesn't

I know that it does... HOWEVER, if we're going to talk about hypotheticals and what SHOULD happen, we should not then accept the premise that the government can do a Reverse Robin Hood -- stealing from the (relatively) poor and giving to the rich.

[forgethell]

5. They don't do it

so much to enrich corporations. Rremember, most fo the eminent domain seizings are by local governments, not the Feds. They do it because they will get higher revenues from the new property owners.

[GiovanniC]

6. Who Are Often Rich Corporations

Which is the whole point of the local, state, or federal government stealing from you in order to give to them. I have seen it in action, I know how it works.

[forgethell]

13. I can't deny that rich

corporations are most often the beneficiaries. But the government doesn't do it for them; it does it for the government. More money to spend, more power, more perks, more salary, more votes. Democrats & Republcans both enjoy dipping into your wallet, but they shouldn't take your goddamned home.

[GiovanniC]

19. I Think We Agree, But In Different Ways

The government enriches big corporations in order to get a cut of that in tax revenue. I agree on that. I am not saying by any means that the governments are just selflessly giving money to corporations -- of COURSE there's something in it for them.

But when push comes to shove, they are stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

[forgethell]

23. Well, we certainly agree

on your last statement.

[Occulus]

15. Disgusting, isn't it?

Hearing about it always traces a finger of cold chill down my spine. Usually makes me angry, too.

[Occulus]

7. Well, that's what they tell us, anyway. n/t

[forgethell]

14. What?

you don't believe them? Does it make it better to take someone's small business or house for tax revenue purposes? I don't think so.

[Occulus]

18. That's exactly my point.

If it's obviously being done strictly for tax purposes, well, basically, the city is saying, "You're not rich enough to live here. We want more money out of your space."

If there is then constructed living arrangements in the same general location, the displaced people ought to be able to get compensation way if they wish. Everyone ends up having a benefit out of it.

[forgethell]

22. There should be a

just compensation to begin with. Including the cost of rerplacement, and moving. But the government doesn't have to do that becasue, over many administrations, Republican and Democrat, we have ceded more and more power to the politicians.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. The 'taking' has to represent a unique need

for example, highway right of ways typically require 'taking' private property to complete- you must assemble contiguous and geometrically aligned properties to build your highway. The case in New London must likewise demonstrate the unique and exclusive opportunity reprsented by these properties.

found a good opinion piece: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-garbus21feb21,0,6314864,print.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[GiovanniC]

8. Where I Live, an Electric Company Wanted to Build a New Headquarters

The town agreed to help them and bought up a whole city block with taxpayer dollars, which they sold to this company for a fraction of the cost. In the end, there were only two holdouts... small businesses. They didn't want to move, as the cost of moving would be prohibitive (and the price the city offered was not enough to cover the cost of a new facility AND an expensive move... they would lose money on the deal). So the city invoked emminent domain and forced them out. They then built parking lots where those businesses had been.

It wasn't a unique or exclusive opportunity. It wasn't even necessary. It was done out of greed. Governmental greed and corporate greed.

[Occulus]

11. And that wasn't even homeowners holding out

Personally, I think there ought to be a clearly defined set of purposes; 'public use' is far too nebulous these days to use as a valid yardstick for yanking away someone's home.

If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the city in the eminent domain case currently before it, there'll be little dictinction between 'public' and 'private' use because tax income will become a consideration. The more money involved, the more likely the power will be used, regardless of whether the end result is a truly public facility or not.

What was that we were hearing from the Right about property rights?

[forgethell]

17. Tax income is

already a consideration. about the only one working nowadays.

[Occulus]

9. It's *supposed* to be public use, but

it's being abused.

For things like hospitals, larger schools, roads, and whatnot, fine. But for something like a stadium, mall, golf course, etc... well, if they're going to build living facilities there as well, should it be their responsibility to house the persons displaced by their development?

Living facilities is exactly a reverse robin hood situation, as someone else here said. That's what I'm talking about- they get rid of low-rent or bought-and-paid-for houses and property owners so they can build bigger and more expensive PRIVATE homes, in addition to all the other construction? Come on.

I'm thinking they should be forced to give the people a house at their previous tax rate, or the new private owner of the property should be required to cover the tax difference. These requirements would have the added benefit of stopping this kind of eminent domain abuse in its tracks, and I'm all for that as well.

[ultraist]

10. In my city...

If the city purchases a private property and there are tenants in the property, they pay the tenant's rent for one year. (Landlords of course receive the proceeds of the sale of the property).

So, yes, the displaced tenant should have their rent paid for a period of time, at least six months. If the tenant is the owner of the property, then no, they shouldn't receive compensation beyond the purchase monies.

[Occulus]

12. So these *can* be local laws

That's good to know.

[booksenkatz]

16. Ask the people who used to live where Arlington Stadium stands now

The Bush family took their land and used it to make some good money for themselves (so what else is new).

[Occulus]

20. That's one reason I'm asking the question. n/t

[booksenkatz]

21. I figured that, but

it still kills me to this day that so few people are even aware of it, AND that they got away with it. AND it wasn't the first horror perpetrated by the Bush family. AND it hasn't been the last. Why do they get away with such things, time after time after time? Don't answer that, I'm just wondering aloud. If it were not for DU, I'd think I'm the only person who agonizes over this shit.