The facist press discusses eminent domain

[el Guapo]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85753,00.html

 

[gkmo62u]

Guap--no smiley face?

Folks bitch and bitch and about fox framing issues from a conservative point of view but I'd argue no other press outlet would bring this issue to ight in this manner.

Heck commie grey lady would run a headline like:

"Selfish owners block progress"

 

[el Guapo]

Gitmo -
Sorry it was late, I spent most of the day on the road. I meant to smiley. Here, this one is for Jenean Garaffalo (sp?) from the whole gang at Fox and Friends.

 

[jresta]

here's a good article on eminent domain/takings/redevelopment

http://citypaper.net/articles/2003-03-06/cover.shtml

btw - the press doesn't get much more "lefty" than this weekly

*****

ahh . . . fox news, our libertarian warriors borne on the waves of television to fight for our personal freedoms!

 

[SGB]

A sign I'm beginning to lean to the right?

I have to agree with the editorial slant put on this issue by Fox.

Use of eminant domain for private development is just plain wrong, and (dare I say it?) unAmerican!

 

[Repo Man]

Re: A sign I'm beginning to lean to the right?

Use of eminant domain for private development is just plain wrong, and (dare I say it?) unAmerican!

A lot of Cities use eminant domain to acquire properties and re-sell them to private developers. A lot of successful projects in the City where I work have been the reult of it. You just need to show that there is a legitamite public interest. If you have a street filled with blighted and contaminated sites, I think it is a legitimate public interest to acquire these properties, clean them up, and re-sell them to private developers. Afterall, having a strong tax base, clean soils, stormwater quality and quantity control, safe streets, pedestrain access, and more employment opportunities seems like a legitamite governmental interest to me.

 

[SGB]

Re: Re: A sign I'm beginning to lean to the right?

If you have a street filled with blighted and contaminated sites, I think it is a legitimate public interest to acquire these properties, clean them up, and re-sell them to private developers. Afterall, having a strong tax base, clean soils, stormwater quality and quantity control, safe streets, pedestrain access, and more employment opportunities seems like a legitamite governmental interest to me.

I think it is a legitimate public interest to encourage private parties to acquire these properties to improve them.

Alternatively, the muncipality can actually use the police powers (zoning, building codes) and financial incentive programs they already have to get the properties cleaned up and improved.

Too often eminent domain for private economic develop is used because gov't officials believe that one type of commercial use is better than the existing uses.

I say let the free market (willing seller & willing buyer) make that determination!

[Off topic: EG - is there a 12 step program somewhere to help closeted moderate republicans like myself?]

 

[Greenescapist]

I agree with jtfortin on this one.

 

[el Guapo]

ahh . . . fox news, our libertarian warriors borne on the waves of television to fight for our personal freedoms!

I like your little political poster. But, weren't you griping about labels like "liberal" in another recent post? And to poor Beaner of all people. There is your Irony.


PS - I just loved your score on the political test.

 

[el Guapo]

Re: Re: Re: A sign I'm beginning to lean to the right?

[Off topic: EG - is there a 12 step program somewhere to help closeted moderate republicans like myself?]

Come to the Darkside my friend. Feel the righteous indignation flow through your body. Bitch about your taxes going to feed unwed welfare mothers and other leaches upon the middle class. Feel the welcoming warmth emanating from the grip of your new AR15 Colt Bushmaster in .308. Turn both the front and rear air conditioning on in your new Cadillac - Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier – SUV on a day when you do not really need it. Laugh at a crippled old man begging beside a city street and say, “where’s your precious President Roosevelt now?” Ha ha ha…(more Maniacal Laughter)…

Smithers...release the hounds upon those hippies.
Ha ha ha…(more Maniacal Laughter)…


And another switches to Fox News! Ha ha ha…(more Maniacal Laughter)…

 

[Repo Man]

Re: Re: Re: A sign I'm beginning to lean to the right?

I think it is a legitimate public interest to encourage private parties to acquire these properties to improve them.
I say let the free market (willing seller & willing buyer) make that determination!

A lot of times the free market doesn't cooperate, especially when properties are contaiminated or blighted. It sometimes takes a more pro-active, coordinated approach. Private developers rarely want to take on the cost of cleaning up contaiminated sites. If the City where I work waited for the free market to run its course, the City would be a mess.

 

[The Irish One]

Turn both the front and rear air conditioning on in your new Cadillac

with the windows down

 

[jresta]

My apologies to Beaner - i didn't catch the sarcasm in that post.

Guapo - i think you're missing my tongue in my cheek.
but seriously, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "liberal" but i'm pretty sure i wouldn't fit your description.

To get back to the thread. The only time I could see eminent domain being necessary is if someone's house was standing in the way of some critical public facility, perhaps a water delivery system or something similar that a town couldn't go on with out (sorry, i'm short on good scenarios right now). In the case that the condemnation did go through i think fair market value isn't enough. Recent repairs should be taken into account, as well as compensation for the inconvenience of moving.

I agree that eminent domain should never be used for private development. I think a better way to do it, if a local government was dead set on moving people, would be to offer people enough money so that they move voluntarily. If the project is that important the money would materialize. Maybe as a last resort wait until people put their property on the market then take it for the asking price.

and Guapo - i think that is perfectly consistent with my score way down there on the libertarian scale. I do think the test put me a little too far to the left. The enjoyment of the fruits of one's own labor is a basic human right - that's where me and the reds don't jibe too well. Anyway, i'm glad you enjoyed my score.

 

[el Guapo]

The enjoyment of the fruits of one's own labor is a basic human right - that's where me and the reds don't jibe too well

As my pal Mike "Chronic D" says; Peace Dude.

 

[jresta]

A lot of times the free market doesn't cooperate, especially when properties are contaiminated or blighted. It sometimes takes a more pro-active, coordinated approach. Private developers rarely want to take on the cost of cleaning up contaiminated sites. If the City where I work waited for the free market to run its course, the City would be a mess.


i agree in condeming commercial or private properties that have been abandoned/contaminated and the owners refuse to clean them up or sell them. As long as there are cheap lots in the hinterland and developers know they can get the city to pay for clean-up the market isn't going to pay any attention to a place like that unless you're in a place like manhattan where land is so expensive that the cost of a demolition/environmental cleanup could be included in the sale price and people wouldn't blink.

condeming businesses or homes that are occupied? that's an entirely different story.

I've been thoroughly impressed by "market forces" in this city because most of the growth here has been individuals and small time real estate interests buying, rehabing, and selling one block at a time. But then again the big government projects, even though they didn't have much to do with development per se probably did have a lot to with attracting investors in the first place.

 

[Mud Princess]

condeming businesses or homes that are occupied? that's an entirely different story.

I agree completely. Displacing an 80-year old woman who has lived in the same house for 55 years is outrageous -- it's an abuse of power.

The Fox News story gave the example of Philadelphia taking over abandoned properties - I don't think that's really eminent domain. If the owners haven't paid their property taxes for years, it makes sense to me that the city should take over the property.

I did some work recently for a community where a private developer had purchased a large, empty building with the intention of renovating it for retail and office use. However, the property did not have enough space for parking. Next door were two vacant, dilapidated buildings that the city wanted to acquire and demolish to create a parking lot that the tenants could use. I'm curious what would you think of eminent domain in those circumstances?

 

[SGB]

I did some work recently for a community where a private developer had purchased a large, empty building with the intention of renovating it for retail and office use. However, the property did not have enough space for parking. Next door were two vacant, dilapidated buildings that the city wanted to acquire and demolish to create a parking lot that the tenants could use. I'm curious what would you think of eminent domain in those circumstances?

If the parking lot were to be publicly owned and maintained to benefit more than one property owner, I don't think I would have a problem with the use of eminent domain.

 

[SGB]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A sign I'm beginning to lean to the right?

A lot of times the free market doesn't cooperate, especially when properties are contaiminated or blighted. It sometimes takes a more pro-active, coordinated approach. Private developers rarely want to take on the cost of cleaning up contaiminated sites. If the City where I work waited for the free market to run its course, the City would be a mess.

That's where brownfield programs come into play: financial assistance and liability protection for a public/private partnership to clean up a contaminated property. Use of eminent domain should not be a prerequisite in such cases.

 

[jresta]

That's where brownfield programs come into play: financial assistance and liability protection for a public/private partnership to clean up a contaminated property. Use of eminent domain should not be a prerequisite in such cases.



If you own a (not hypothetical) barrel factory in camden and you've been doing a little rustproofing with some chromium in the back yard and letting stuff fall here or there - knowing full well that it was dangerous stuff - and contaminated the aquifer and sent a plume headed straight for the river, well then you should pay for the clean-up. Not the state. If your assets are liquidated and you still come up short then it's the states job to pick up the slack

No one public or private is going to invest that much money into a property that they don't own or have a stake in. Condemnation becomes the only legal way to clean the property and recoup some of the costs in the end. If ownership isn't clear investors won't be clear with their cash.

If you're still operating your business on the property and are working with the state on cleaning it up that's different but if you've abandoned the property, have no intention of cleaning it and are waiting for the state to clean your land so you can sell it -- well the welfare office is on the other side of town. get lost.

Next door were two vacant, dilapidated buildings that the city wanted to acquire and demolish to create a parking lot that the tenants could use. I'm curious what would you think of eminent domain in those circumstances?

If parking was required or otherwise necessary the developer should have included them in the design of the space that he had to work with. But i agree, if the the buildings were abandoned, not of historic value, and the parking structure was publicly owned and deemed the highest and best use for that property then i wouldn't have a problem with it. But generally i have a hard time with condeming property for parking under any circumstances. Especially when it involves knocking buildings down. I just don't see how it's critical to the health and welfare of the people unless it's for a hospital or something.

 

[Cardinal]

I'll weigh in on this one in support of jfortin and the others who support eminent domain. There is certainly a fine line in deciding when the public good outweighs an individual's interest in private property. It is much more difficult to guage this when the property will not be used for a road, park, or other public purpose, but for a private development. Still, there are private development which can generate enough good to warrant site assembly by the municipality through its eminent domain authority.

Interestingly, in Wisconsin, private property can only be acquired through eminent domain for private redevelopment through a community development or redevelopment authority. It is not a power specifically granted to a municipality. The process is to create the authority, to create a redevelopment district which must establish a finding of blight, and then initiate the eminent domain action.

I have been involved a handful of eminent domain actions. Some of the subjects have been willing sellers who wanted to proceed through the initial procedures for tax purposes. One, by far the worst of any of the properties, was one of the most difficult. We only acted after years of nothing happening with the property, despite our programs and incentives.

 

[pete-rock]

It all depends on where you work/live...

Count me as one of those supporting eminent domain, even after working in an environment where it was abused.

In Illinois, blight and obsolescence factors are taken into account when determining whether eminent domain action should be taken. It's understood that municipalities can be proactive in eliminating blight and obsolesence, and doing so serves the public good. However, I think I would favor having a redevelopment authority or CDC intercede on behalf of municipalities, like Michael Stumpf mentions in Wisconsin.

Frankly, the market does not work the same way in all places. I'm like jfortin -- if we waited for the market to work in all parts of this city, we'd wait forever. Contaminated sites, blighted sites where the owner has no incentive -- or resources -- to improve, sites rendered obsolete because of multiple ownership of narrow, shallow lots... Most developers would pass on the headaches these would cause and head to the nearest greenfield site.

 

[jresta]

speaking of obsolesence - is anyone familiar with the law in Germany that requires companies to tear their buildings down when they're done (if they can't sell them)?

I heard there is a big market now in buildings that can be disassembled quickly and recycled in one way or another.