Seeking info : Property Rights Question

[ProdigalJunkMail]

Those of you who know me will understand why I pose this question...those of you who do not, well, suffice it to say, that I came here under less than desirable circumstances and am in many situations unfamiliar with the Democratic Party position on certain policies...that caveat aside...

In recent days I have been hearing hideous stories of people being forced from their homes (sometimes homes that have been in families for generations) all in the name of Eminent Domain. While I agree that there are certain situations where Eminent Domain is a correct policy, there are more and more times that it is being abused. Two cases specifically are where a gentleman who owns a modest home near the ocean-front is being pushed out to destroy his home to make way for larger homes (the ED policy is being utilized because the larger, more valuable homes will generate more tax revenue) and a second is a situation where several families are being forced to move so that a Wal-Mart shopping center can be constructed (once again to generate more revenues). Can this possibly be an appropriate use of Eminent Domain?

My question comes here : Where does the Democratic Party stand on property rights? For that matter, where do YOU, dear reader, stand on property rights?

Thanks for any and all insights!
TheProdigal

[ProdigalJunkMail]

1. kick

hello...any is there anybody in there?

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Use of emminent domain

And its expanded use is a big national question. Sure, a jurisdiction can take your land or home to build a road or a firehouse or something like that. But can it legally take your home in the course of economic development and turn around and sell it to a developer who wants to build a big building, a mall, etc.?

I would argue no. That's abuse of the concept. Sure economic development is a societal good, however, it is a private development and the government should have no right to take that land.

[salin]

5. It shouldn't happen... but there are ways for it to happen

and indeed there is a bit of history with the current president on this front.

When the president was a citizen, and part owner of a baseball team, and said team wanted to build a new stadium - but land owners didn't want to sell... they created a quasi governmental organization (I think it was a public/private partnership - but was somehow given some powers through the public side.) The organization then used power of eminent domain to "take" land for the stadium. ("Taking" is the term often used by eminent domain - when the government forces sales of private property to the government... often at below actual market value.)

In the recently stalled Energy bill - there was a controversial provision (that still remains) about eminent domain. It seemed to allow FERC to confer the power on behalf of energy companies in order to get land for energy transmission (wires/towers, etc.) In short, the government works as an agent for the companies to force the sale of the desired land. It used to be that to budget for such projects, the companies would have to budget such costs (procurring land at market values - or above to induce sales) as a cost of doing business. It seems that we, as a country (right now under GOP rule, btw), are moving towards a model where many large corporations look to the government to subsidize major expenditures... subverting the "free market" economy as midsized and smaller companies can not secure the same benefits (and thus lower business costs.)

I don't know if the democratic party has taken a stand on this issue, but I do know that some dem. congressional reps were raising loud objection to this provision in the Energy Bill.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. I might even agree that a stadium project is public

But it gets grayer and grayer walking down the line. Is a housing project a public project? No. Is a mall? No. Etc.

Do we have a stated position on this? Anybody?

[salin]

17. Actually on the stadium - they (the private owners and the city)

created an entity solely to buy the property. It wasn't that the elected local government took this stand, or had been the case in other cities that there was a referendum (to raise money and give certain authority) - where the voters had a say. In this case the private entity -gets the public entity to create a new "quasigovernmental" entity for the sole purpose of taking land.

Watching how it was structured in the energy bill - demonstrates a new thinking on the topic... make the government an active agent for the private interest - so the private interest gains - the land owner loses property - with no necessary public good (with energy dereg the transmission does not necessarily benefit the local tax payers or those losing land). This model could easily be replicated by local governments for a private "store" or "development" and sold as a public good (eg bringing more jobs, or bringing more housing) - so the local govt takes the land on behalf of the private interest - again with providing no real good to the taxpayers paying for the land (as the companies don't do so) or for those losing the land - as a case might be made for public utility / safety projects (eg a new fire house.)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

19. has been done already

and probably will continue in the future!

TheProdigal

[mmonk]

3. eminent domain

is something which is supposed to be in the public interest (such as a highway being built) and the authority using eminent domain must reimburse the property owner according to fair market value.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. what if they are not willing to sell?

The practice at that point seems to be to condemn the property and force the owner out with little compensation...it frankly makes me sick.

TheProdigal

[mmonk]

7. I agree

but one can fight back through the courts based on the compensation offered.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. unfortunately the courts don't have a good record on this

I don't think. What would you think of passing a law that states something to the effect, "Lands and properties seized under the use of Eminent Domain may not be sold by the government or used for non-municipal purposes for 100 years" or something like that? Would that stem the tide that is rushing on us?

TheProdigal

[mmonk]

14. good idea

I fight hard for property rights since I'm a Realtor. Sometimes, the property owner does ok if they bring a hardship case.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. glad to hear that!

I have heard of very few instances where this situation is helped by the courts.

TheProdigal

[Throckmorton]

4. This Organization while kinda right wing,

Has some good info on it.

http://www.ij.org/index.shtml

[HFishbine]

12. A lesson on labels

You label the Institute of Justice as "kinda right wing." I might have thought so too at first glance, but I had an experience with them that served as a cautionary lesson in labels.

My city council passed an ordinance that would have allowed city building inspectors to make inspections of apartments without permission of the tenant. This was a clear violation of the Constitution (and in fact, had already been ruled on by the SCOTU). The IJ was intrumental in helping me persuade the city council of the errors in the ordinance and the city council quickly changed it to prohibit what would have amounted to warrentless searches.

The left/right labels are not always appropriate.

[BeFree]

9. ED is terribly misused

Case in point: The Texas Rangers stadium built by the * gang.

Most pug supporters are also staunch property rights supporters. They are caught in a quandry these days with the desires of the new energy policy which would allow power companies to ED land anywhere, anytime.

It has always been a successful tactic to buy land that you know will be EDed in the near future. It really helps if you have connections in gov as the appraisal can then be manipulated upward. If you are a nobody you ae generally screwed.

ED csn be, and has been, terribly misused.

[HFishbine]

10. My opinion and a link

It is my belief that emminent domain should never be used for any purpose other than a clear need for the public good. It is wrong, wrong, wrong, when emminent domain is employed for the advantage of one individual over another or for a corporation over an individual.

Fortunatley, there are people working to defend reasonable property rights. Check out http://www.ij.org/index.shtml

[FlaGranny]

13. I agree with

what you said. Any use of eminent domain should only be for the benefit of all, never for one (or a few) over another.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

15. the sad point is

that the governments in question here (city and county, I believe) are saying that it IS for the benefit of all because it will raise the tax revenues for the given property and therefore an acceptable use of the policy. How do you deal with politicians that twist the law in this manner? Especially when you can be most certain that there are 'kickbacks' involved. I hope the peoples of those communities have recall options for their representatives.

TheProdigal

[betio]

18. Good topic--

Worth reading and thinking about. Thanks.

[library_max]

20. You need to watch out for stories like this.

Unless you can substantiate the facts on your own, horror stories about eminent domain are like horror stories about "lawsuit abuse." Some are outright lies/urban legends, and some present only one side of the case in a particularly biased manner. Some of them present things that people or organizations tried to do without mentioning that they failed utterly.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

22. both of the stories here

have hit major media in the last three months and have real people at their centers. I know this can be a big 'look out below...the sky is falling' sort of thing...but these are substantiated.

TheProdigal

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. Great question Prodigal...but look to your own post for tha answer

as to how the parties stand. Developers largely favor Republicans. In the Cheney energy plan is a plan for emminent domain for transmission lines...once of course, they are transferred to private interests.

Look at who Wal Mart funds.

One of the more famous cases was a case in which Donald Trump got New Jersey to attempt to use these laws to force a woman out of her property when she would not accept his offer. He was overruled so her built the garage of his structure around her property.

Where I stand is on the side of the individual in most cases. Serving the public interest and enriching private interests are not the same thing.