U.S. Supreme Court hearing arguments on Eminent Domain

[Allison]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=522629

I hate issues like this. On the one hand, I think it's sometimes necessary for a town to use eminent domain to hinder urban decay or a failing economy. On the other hand, it seems like it's way too easy to abuse, not to mention that it feels way wrong to take away someone's home and or business.

[Roscoes_C&W]

How much do they get for selling?

[Rooster]

Government does not trump personal property.

It is misused and abused with wreckless abandon. I've seen it in Minnesota & Charlotte. It's about as close as you can come to Soviet Russia without being in Asia.

[spyder913]

it's one thing to use it because you need to put in a freeway.. taking it from homeowners and giving it to a buisness is bullshit tho

[Roscoes_C&W]

The government trumps private property when the private property is in the way of a big public project that is for the betterment of the community. Such as a highway. You can't really argue that. Over the past 50 years the growth of the transportation infrasctructure was vital to our economic growth and many times that growth required eminent domain.

[Roscoes_C&W]

It seems to me theres a serious ethical problem with the city taking peoples property, giving out a 99 year lease at $1/yr, and allowing a business to take over that property in order to make more money in taxes. Government is a business as well, and this is a giant money making opportunity for the city government. One of the main things I learned in engineering ethics is when you have an inside method of getting things done that others don't and you excersize this option in order to make more money and leap frog the necesarry steps you are being unethical. The city shouldn't be able to "cash in" like this.

Not taking into account the people who are losing their property, you can argue that this breaks business ethics, that's if you treat the government as a business. Which as far as im concerned is.

[Rooster]

Scenario:

Government decides to put in a method of transportation that is guaranteed to COST the taxpayers money just to keep it operational because even at 90% ridership - which in all actuality it would be about 3-5% capacity, it is not self-sustaining. It does nothing to reduce pollution, congestion nor does it make it convenient for a majority of riders from one area to another.

They are doing this, and using imminent domain to put it down where they like. It's a boondoggle. It's already 150% over budget (200 Million went to 480 Million and is expected to reach 750 Million by project end).

They've also secured some of YOUR tax money by managing to dupe the Federal Gov't into helping out with this.

How would you feel if this were the case?

I mean, I could understand a new freeway to relieve congestion - but to create a project that is wholly unsustainable for no reason other than ... hell, I really don't know - but it has ZERO upsides.

Talk about pissing money away.

[Allison]

If there's absolutely no reason for it, then yes, that's silly. But, take the same scenario with a downtown that's decaying, businesses moving out and heading for the hills, crime rates rising, etc. Now, if the city could show that this new rail system that will cost a fortune, doesn't reduce pollution and won't financially sustain itself ... if they can show that this is part of an urban renewal process that, in the long run, will bring people and businesses back to the city then it just may be worth it.

Urban renewal projects can work wonders in a city, or a neighborhood for that matter. They can create more jobs, more revenue, and less crime. But it's not an easy task to achieve once half of an area is already boarded up. It takes an enormous effort from the city. And sometimes eminent domain (or an expensive rail system) is necessary to prevent the area from becoming completely boarded up with nothing but crack dealers on the corner.

Having said all that, I think eminent domain is intrinsically counter to the ideal of personal freedom upon which this country is based. It should be used only in the most extreme cases, and only after the government has demonstrated a profound need for its use.

[Murrie]

Eminent domain is probably the major reason for my not shoping at walmart.

[Noleader]

Interesting... Got to see how this works out.

[Jammer]

My thoughts mirror Ailia's pretty closely on this one so I won't waste much time rehashing them. I would love to hear more about the ED/Wal-mart connection though. If it is what I think you are implying, Murrie, then it could change my willingness to do business with them, too.

Jammer

[Roscoes_C&W]

The only time I went to Wal-Mart it was filled with Mexicans and I was one of few English speaking shoppers so I left and never went back. So I don't participate in Wal-Mart shopping either, but for different reasons.

[Hammer]

Sounds bad to me. It's one thing to seize land for government use like an interstate that truly benefits a lot of people, but taking it from private owners to basically sell to other private owners strikes me as wrong. I mean an office complex can sit empty and benefit no one. It also can be built in another location. It's not like a highway project that would have to double or triple it's cost to go a different route.

[Murrie]

google search will find alot of links jammer:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=walmart+eminent+domain+abuse&btnG=Google+Search

they have used ED in several occasions to force out the land holder in order to purchase the "condemed" land for a super walmart

[Jammer]

Oh. I didn't know it was a SUPER Wal-mart. You should have said. :p

Thanks for the links. I really know how to Google, but I'm damn lazy most of the time. I'll check it out though. The thought of somebody taking my land and house for a Wal-mart makes my blood boil. Well, unless it's a Super one that is.

Jammer

[Jammer]

In my initial searching around, I actually found a similar thread on this topic at the Straight Dope boards I frequent:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=303900

Some pretty interesting discussion about it there.

Jammer

[MickeyFinn]

If the pharmaceutical company wants to have that land, then they should have to buy it from the homeowners.

[Rooster]

If there's absolutely no reason for it, then yes, that's silly. But, take the same scenario with a downtown that's decaying, businesses moving out and heading for the hills, crime rates rising, etc. Now, if the city could show that this new rail system that will cost a fortune, doesn't reduce pollution and won't financially sustain itself ... if they can show that this is part of an urban renewal process that, in the long run, will bring people and businesses back to the city then it just may be worth it.

Urban renewal projects can work wonders in a city, or a neighborhood for that matter. They can create more jobs, more revenue, and less crime. But it's not an easy task to achieve once half of an area is already boarded up. It takes an enormous effort from the city. And sometimes eminent domain (or an expensive rail system) is necessary to prevent the area from becoming completely boarded up with nothing but crack dealers on the corner.

Having said all that, I think eminent domain is intrinsically counter to the ideal of personal freedom upon which this country is based. It should be used only in the most extreme cases, and only after the government has demonstrated a profound need for its use.The ONLY thing chasing business out of downtown Charlotte is the crazy-stupid-high tax burden. Downtown is doing great otherwise.

Now they get to screw the tax payers because they want Charlotte to be a "world class city" with a choo choo. Self-righteous bastards. People won't even vote them out.

The people voted down the coliseum -- City Council said fuck it and built it anyway.

They always disregard the people's wishes because they know by the time the elections roll around - people are too disgusted with the system to bother voting.

The blatant abuse of power in Charlotte probably rivals Chicago.

[]LoL[Harm]

It was bad in Seattle too. My guess is that it is commonplace in larger cities.

[Boom]

LOL, Charlotte managed to design a rail line that: 1. Won't relieve congestion, 2. Won't reduce pollution, and 3. Won't even be able to sustain itself? That's like designing an exercise machine that makes people fatter. :rolly: Any good mass transit should meet all 3 above listed criteria, or it shouldn't be built.

Did they not see that Simpson's episode about the monorail? Not that all light rail concepts are bad, but building one just for the sake of building one, when it won't reduce pollution or congestion, is retarded. I bet anything that the local contractors who are doing the actual work and sending in those 150% inflated bills are pretty tight with the city council.

[Swifty_Johnson]

I remember years ago a family wouldn't sell their property to a casino in New Jersey so the Casino had to build around their property. I guess nowdays it's better to arm-twist the goverment into abusing it's power. :(

Swifty