More Emminent Domain Abuse

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I believe if you followed the tone of our previous conversations regarding taxation etc. you'll find the theme the same.

[David Floyd]

As Ogie already pointed out, Kid, you are making a circular argument when you refer back to eminent domain as a case in which value is not relative. Of course that's the case, and that's the whole problem - it's an artificial creation of value, in that it is one sided. Any moral transaction involves two people agreeing on value - if I don't think apples are worth $1.50/lb, I won't buy them. If the price goes down to $.99, then I will. Mutual consent.

What eminent domain does is to place the decision making power in the hands of only one party - actually, two decisions. They - the government - first decides that you ARE going to conduct the transaction, and then the government decides what price you are going to have to accept. It's anti-free market.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's not a transfer at all. It's compensation, and more importantly it makes things better for people. The land owner is compensated fairly and a lot of people are made better off.

… You guys are like religious zealots. They are compensated and usually very well.

As soon as hints of such plans leak out property values start to fall. Buyers know they will not be fairly compensated if the state or city takes the land.

On the other hand, if New London Development wants to build condos and a hotel so badly they can make offers acceptible to the residents. If the planned development is truly that much more valuable there is no reason why the current landowners shouldn't profit from the developers' desire to use the land.

I never claimed that the Constitution is fair. What the govt did was legal though.

Actually, the Constitution is a good deal more "fair" than almost anything else the government has done since. And according to that Constitution we are protected from unjust seizure. It would be unjust for the private developer to seize land for an arbitrary price (obviously) then it is unjust for the govt to act as their agent via eminent domain.

Obviously the intent of the framers was to allow the govt to use property for the good of all and to compensate the owner fairly. Compensating owners more than usual amounts is not in the best interest of all. The compensation has to be reasonable.

But this isn't "for the good of all," it is for the good of a few investors and developers with a tiny percentage redounding to the public good via taxes. That argument is a non-starter.

The way to measure "reasonable" compensation depends on the value of the prospective use. If the prospective use is public, then the government may fairly arbitrate that value.

In this case the prospective use is in fact private, and the profitability of that private venture is the measure of "reasonable" compensation to the present landowners.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Buy land? Plan ahead? Tell the damn baseball team to build it's own stadium... I can't believe some of you guys think this is okay, it's no surprise eminent domain is being used more and more to transfer property from the less wealthy to the more wealthy...

at liberals

I'm a liberal, and I deplore the abuse of eminent domain to make the wealthy more wealthy.


You're painting with too broad of a brush -- get a smaller one.

[Berzerker]

Conservatives are just as addicted to stealing people's property.

Admitting liberals are addicted to stealing people's property?

Yes, and liberals prey on the rich. What's your point? Neither Berzerker nor I can be considered conservative by any means.

And yet the greatest outrage at stuff like this comes from the libertarians and conservatives, not the liberals. The thread is a micro-cosm of reality

Kid - go back and look at your 9:53 post (it makes no sense), you keep claiming they are compensated and ignoring the article which says the property was condemned... I don't care if people are compensated, this power was given to government for one purpose - government built, government owned structures to enhance Congress' ability to fulfill it's duties/powers authorised by the Constitution. It was not a power to transfer property around among the citizenry, usually the highest bidder. But many liberals still like this power for some reason and shrug their shoulders at such abuses. I guess it's the notion that eminent domain would work only if honest liberals get to use the power,
a notion that ignores reality - they rarely get the power.

You sure can. You are the most conservative people here. You advocate the worst possible govt for the least fortunate among us.

Ever wonder if those least fortunate are being produced by the very welfare state enacted to benefit them? I sure do when I see out of wedlock birthrates, apparently the strongest indicator of poverty, continue to climb since "the Great Society" nonsense from LBJ. But let us look toward the day when we all can live in poverty under your ideology.

Obviously the intent of the framers was to allow the govt to use property for the good of all and to compensate the owner fairly.

No, read what they said instead of interpreting "intent".
They tied that power directly to the construction of federal facilities - post offices, roads, dockyards, arsenals, etc... Inherent to the phrase "eminent domain" is Congress' role as the "eminent" party in the situation, so eminent domain can only be both an exchange and transfer of wealth resulting in Congress' possession of the property. Congress can not "buy" the property and give it to me, I'm not the eminent party. The origin of this power goes back to the monarchs and their seizure of land from lesser beings, the framers saw a need for the power but saw the danger and tried to restrict it's use to prevent the re-distributionist abuses that come with it. No wonder why so many liberals like the power...

I don't think anyone gets shafted. We were renting in an area that is going to be turned into industrial zone and they were going to give us 6 months rent for forcing us to move.

Renters aren't usually as attached to property as homeowners, but going by that logic, I could say no one ever died jumping off a cliff because I jumped off one and survived.

If you understand the need for eminent domain then why do you call it theft?

Because it is theft. But unless we're going to a voluntary revenue system, there will always be theft involved to fuel government. But we should not forget what we're doing, or try to justify expanding the practice beyond it's stated purpose.

Mr Fun -

I'm a liberal, and I deplore the abuse of eminent domain to make the wealthy more wealthy.

You're painting with too broad of a brush -- get a smaller one.

Apparently you deplore me more since your entry into this debate is to chastise me and not the government.
Obviously not every liberal believes the same thing, ever hear of generalisations? But it's no coincidence that liberals love this power given how it fits right in with their re-distributionist philosophy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
As Ogie already pointed out, Kid, you are making a circular argument when you refer back to eminent domain as a case in which value is not relative. Of course that's the case, and that's the whole problem - it's an artificial creation of value, in that it is one sided. Any moral transaction involves two people agreeing on value - if I don't think apples are worth $1.50/lb, I won't buy them. If the price goes down to $.99, then I will. Mutual consent.

This doesn't make any sense. Say the apples are worth $.99, but the price is $1.50, you will still buy them if you are hungry. Price doesn't equal value. It just equals price.

What eminent domain does is to place the decision making power in the hands of only one party - actually, two decisions. They - the government - first decides that you ARE going to conduct the transaction, and then the government decides what price you are going to have to accept. It's anti-free market.

Yeah? Good. It's usually more fair.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Straybow
Originally posted by Kidicious
As soon as hints of such plans leak out property values start to fall. Buyers know they will not be fairly compensated if the state or city takes the land.

Not true. The price is more likely to stay pretty firm. Buyers know they will be a certain buyer in the future. Again, the property is always purchased at least at market value.

On the other hand, if New London Development wants to build condos and a hotel so badly they can make offers acceptible to the residents. If the planned development is truly that much more valuable there is no reason why the current landowners shouldn't profit from the developers' desire to use the land.

Absurd. The owners could hold out.

I never claimed that the Constitution is fair. What the govt did was legal though.

Actually, the Constitution is a good deal more "fair" than almost anything else the government has done since. And according to that Constitution we are protected from unjust seizure. It would be unjust for the private developer to seize land for an arbitrary price (obviously) then it is unjust for the govt to act as their agent via eminent domain.

Obviously the intent of the framers was to allow the govt to use property for the good of all and to compensate the owner fairly. Compensating owners more than usual amounts is not in the best interest of all. The compensation has to be reasonable.

But this isn't "for the good of all," it is for the good of a few investors and developers with a tiny percentage redounding to the public good via taxes. That argument is a non-starter.

The way to measure "reasonable" compensation depends on the value of the prospective use. If the prospective use is public, then the government may fairly arbitrate that value.

In this case the prospective use is in fact private, and the profitability of that private venture is the measure of "reasonable" compensation to the present landowners.

Strawman. Your talking about corruption in govt, which I'm certainly against.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid - go back and look at your 9:53 post (it makes no sense), you keep claiming they are compensated and ignoring the article which says the property was condemned...

I'm really not concerned with specific cases. If there was corruption then fine, deal with the specific case, but from what I know voters usually approve of such policies.

I don't care if people are compensated, this power was given to government for one purpose - government built, government owned structures to enhance Congress' ability to fulfill it's duties/powers authorised by the Constitution. It was not a power to transfer property around among the citizenry, usually the highest bidder. But many liberals still like this power for some reason and shrug their shoulders at such abuses. I guess it's the notion that eminent domain would work only if honest liberals get to use the power,
a notion that ignores reality - they rarely get the power.

Look. City govts use eminent domain all over the country to make things better for their city. If the Constitution is interpreted in a way with improves peoples lives then great. Only libertarians will agrue against an interpretation that will improve peoples lives.

Ever wonder if those least fortunate are being produced by the very welfare state enacted to benefit them? I sure do when I see out of wedlock birthrates, apparently the strongest indicator of poverty, continue to climb since "the Great Society" nonsense from LBJ. But let us look toward the day when we all can live in poverty under your ideology.

This has what to do with eminent domain?

No, read what they said instead of interpreting "intent".
They tied that power directly to the construction of federal facilities - post offices, roads, dockyards, arsenals, etc... Inherent to the phrase "eminent domain" is Congress' role as the "eminent" party in the situation, so eminent domain can only be both an exchange and transfer of wealth resulting in Congress' possession of the property. Congress can not "buy" the property and give it to me, I'm not the eminent party. The origin of this power goes back to the monarchs and their seizure of land from lesser beings, the framers saw a need for the power but saw the danger and tried to restrict it's use to prevent the re-distributionist abuses that come with it. No wonder why so many liberals like the power...

Yeah, the framers ****ed up. So we do things better now. Great! It's called progress.

Renters aren't usually as attached to property as homeowners, but going by that logic, I could say no one ever died jumping off a cliff because I jumped off one and survived.

Bull ****. Ownership has nothing to do with attachment to property. Living at the property is what creates attachment.

Because it is theft. But unless we're going to a voluntary revenue system, there will always be theft involved to fuel government. But we should not forget what we're doing, or try to justify expanding the practice beyond it's stated purpose.

Theft is illegal. If you call making things better for people theft then whatever. I guess we can go aroung calling all kinds of things theft, but it doesn't matter, because people still approve of it, because it's GOOD.

[David Floyd]

This doesn't make any sense. Say the apples are worth $.99, but the price is $1.50, you will still buy them if you are hungry. Price doesn't equal value. It just equals price.

No, I'll buy something else to eat for cheaper. On the other hand, I do need to eat, and I might decide that the value of me eating exceeds the value of me saving money, and I'll buy the apples anyway. Of course price equals value! If the price is perceived as too highly out of proportion to preceived value, then people won't buy the product. If enough people feel this way, then the price will have to drop.

Yeah? Good. It's usually more fair.

It's more fair for the government to impose both a transaction and a price than for two individuals to agree to a transaction and a price? How do ya figure that one?

If the Constitution is interpreted in a way with improves peoples lives then great. Only libertarians will agrue against an interpretation that will improve peoples lives.

Great, so it doesn't actually matter what the Constitution says or means, just what some lawyer can twist the words to seem to mean, right?

[David Floyd]

I guess we can go aroung calling all kinds of things theft, but it doesn't matter, because people still approve of it, because it's GOOD.

So if enough people approved of me taking all your money or, for that matter, killing you, it would be OK?

[Mr. Harley]

OK, folks, I live in Kentucky. Blue state, Bush has a 15% lead. Two Republican Senators, I think our entire house delegation minus one is Republican, a Republican Governor and a Republican state Senate. My local county is also all Republican.

We are addicted in this state to using eminent domain for industrial development. We use it locally (my county used eminent domain to force farmers to sell their land, and to further subdivide their fields for an access road, to a new light industrial park) to coerce people who don't want to sell family farms that have been in those families for over 100 years. The "benefit" is for the industrial concerns who locate into the industrial park, to the detriment of the farmers.

That is the problem with eminent domain, as currently abused. If you use it for the reservoir for the dam, or for the new interstate, the government retains ownership - or at least it did, the TVA WAS a governmental body. That is what the framers of the constitution envisaged. If the government DOES NOT retain ownership AND use (i.e. I own the land and then I rent it to you for $1 a year for the next 50 years) then it is government coerced transfer of property - read wealth - from one group to the next.

This makes it a nice and simple litmus test. It has become a major problem in my state, and the courts have been very passive about enforcing individual rights against this. If I own a family farm and want to keep the area rural, why should I be FORCED to sell my land to an industrial development "authority". I live in the country, and the farmer behind my house keeps peafowl, cocks, and specialty donkeys at least in part I am convinced to get back at all of us "city types" who have moved into her back yard. I just smile and turn on my fan to sleep, it's her right and she was here first.

One comment about those of you using the liberal brush to tar the eminent domain debate. In the majority of modern cases where eminent domain is being abused, it's for industrial development. As in larger businesses. Excuse me, liberal industrial businesses? (I know one of you can find an exception, I'm talking about the rule - for example, which party do MOST businesses contribute do) I think you protesteth too much. A much better analysis was the one about corruption due to a non-dynamic political market place, and both parties are very bad about that when they feel immune to election pressures. Can anyone say "Haliburtion" and overcharge - oh, excuse me, that's different. My point exactly.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The joys of the free market.

Yea, I'm dying to go back to the days where we had to do backbreaking agricultural work rather than surfing the net for a few hours.

[David Floyd]

Oh, didn't you hear? It isn't fair that you don't have to do that. After all, someone somewhere in the world has to

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Everytime a Palestinian home is bulldozed, the Israeli's cheer... and yet the US continues to support the practise.

Constitutional law at home, the law of the jungle for all others... that seems the path of the USA.

Wow, good one. Wrong on every count.

[Mr. Harley]

It depends. Most grains raised in the US instead require sitting in the cab of a large mega-sized harvester for hour after boring hour (my uncle raises seed corn and soy beans). Some vegetable harvesting is automated, while some is by hand, as is most fruit harvesting. When it comes to grain production, the amount produced per man hour on US farms is huge, even though on a per acre basis small farms can produce a higher yield. It depends on which you want to optimize - yield per man hour, or yield per acre. Given our land resources, the US tends towards the former.