Anti Eminent Domain Bill

[Meister]

The same way James J. Hill built his Great Northern Railroad. You buy the private property.

All the land was bought at fair market value, Kevin.
But, if the party doesn't want to sell, what then...just scrap the project?

There's no such thing as "fair market value." If they didn't pay the property owner what the property owner demanded then they stole their property.

You change the plan if the property owner doesn't want to sell.

You are naive.

People who were forced to sell their property usually got a premium over fair market value, Kevin. Nothing was stolen outright. James Hill paid way over fair market value for the properties he bought, he wasn't the government.
There is no way that the freeway system could have been built without doing what they did. The government could have kept changing the plan, but every new plan would have had the same scenario with property owners.
There is a place for eminent domain when it comes to the good of the public...not the good of the deep pockets.
You and I will never agree on this, Kevin. But, our government was set up for the people. I just want it to get back doing it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

All the land was bought at fair market value, Kevin.
But, if the party doesn't want to sell, what then...just scrap the project?

There's no such thing as "fair market value." If they didn't pay the property owner what the property owner demanded then they stole their property.

You change the plan if the property owner doesn't want to sell.

You are naive.

People who were forced to sell their property usually got a premium over fair market value, Kevin. Nothing was stolen outright. James Hill paid way over fair market value for the properties he bought, he wasn't the government.
There is no way that the freeway system could have been built without doing what they did. The government could have kept changing the plan, but every new plan would have had the same scenario with property owners.
There is a place for eminent domain when it comes to the good of the public...not the good of the deep pockets.
You and I will never agree on this, Kevin. But, our government was set up for the people. I just want it to get back doing it.

I prefer to think of it as principled. If a gas station is charging $2.00 for a Snickers and I refuse to pay that and instead give the cashier $1.00 and take the Snickers is it alright because I haven't stolen it outright? After all, $1.00 is still over "fair market value" for a Snickers bar.

As for Hill not being the government, that's true. The government had and has access to more money than he did, and yet he was still able to build his transcontinental railroad without stealing anybody's property.

 

[Meister]

There's no such thing as "fair market value." If they didn't pay the property owner what the property owner demanded then they stole their property.

You change the plan if the property owner doesn't want to sell.

You are naive.

People who were forced to sell their property usually got a premium over fair market value, Kevin. Nothing was stolen outright. James Hill paid way over fair market value for the properties he bought, he wasn't the government.
There is no way that the freeway system could have been built without doing what they did. The government could have kept changing the plan, but every new plan would have had the same scenario with property owners.
There is a place for eminent domain when it comes to the good of the public...not the good of the deep pockets.
You and I will never agree on this, Kevin. But, our government was set up for the people. I just want it to get back doing it.

I prefer to think of it as principled. If a gas station is charging $2.00 for a Snickers and I refuse to pay that and instead give the cashier $1.00 and take the Snickers is it alright because I haven't stolen it outright? After all, $1.00 is still over "fair market value" for a Snickers bar.

As for Hill not being the government, that's true. The government had and has access to more money than he did, and yet he was still able to build his transcontinental railroad without stealing anybody's property.

This is what you want to hang your hat on?
Hill had nobody to answer to except to himself and his backers. The government wasn't so privy to that, remember....this was in the 1950's.

Like I said...you are naive.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You are naive.

People who were forced to sell their property usually got a premium over fair market value, Kevin. Nothing was stolen outright. James Hill paid way over fair market value for the properties he bought, he wasn't the government.
There is no way that the freeway system could have been built without doing what they did. The government could have kept changing the plan, but every new plan would have had the same scenario with property owners.
There is a place for eminent domain when it comes to the good of the public...not the good of the deep pockets.
You and I will never agree on this, Kevin. But, our government was set up for the people. I just want it to get back doing it.

I prefer to think of it as principled. If a gas station is charging $2.00 for a Snickers and I refuse to pay that and instead give the cashier $1.00 and take the Snickers is it alright because I haven't stolen it outright? After all, $1.00 is still over "fair market value" for a Snickers bar.

As for Hill not being the government, that's true. The government had and has access to more money than he did, and yet he was still able to build his transcontinental railroad without stealing anybody's property.

This is what you want to hang your hat on?
Hill had nobody to answer to except to himself and his backers. The government wasn't so privy to that, remember....this was in the 1950's.

Like I said...you are naive.

I'd say it's naive to assume that the government answers to anybody, regardless of what decade we're discussing. Hill had to answer to market forces, whereas the government does not. Hill had a limited amount of money to build his railroad (He couldn't just tax the people to raise revenue) and he had to respect people's property rights 100% (He couldn't steal people's property through eminent domain).

 

[Meister]

I prefer to think of it as principled. If a gas station is charging $2.00 for a Snickers and I refuse to pay that and instead give the cashier $1.00 and take the Snickers is it alright because I haven't stolen it outright? After all, $1.00 is still over "fair market value" for a Snickers bar.

As for Hill not being the government, that's true. The government had and has access to more money than he did, and yet he was still able to build his transcontinental railroad without stealing anybody's property.

This is what you want to hang your hat on?
Hill had nobody to answer to except to himself and his backers. The government wasn't so privy to that, remember....this was in the 1950's.

Like I said...you are naive.

I'd say it's naive to assume that the government answers to anybody, regardless of what decade we're discussing. Hill had to answer to market forces, whereas the government does not. Hill had a limited amount of money to build his railroad (He couldn't just tax the people to raise revenue) and he had to respect people's property rights 100% (He couldn't steal people's property through eminent domain).

He and his backers had deep pockets and could give huges amounts of money to the landowners, Kevin. Make no mistake about that. They knew it was going to pay huge dividends when completed.
Our government had the Senate and Congress to deal with in the funding of this project. Not to mention much more private land in the 50's. There were finite numbers of revenue at their disposal. Our government today....is not our government of the 1950's.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is what you want to hang your hat on?
Hill had nobody to answer to except to himself and his backers. The government wasn't so privy to that, remember....this was in the 1950's.

Like I said...you are naive.

I'd say it's naive to assume that the government answers to anybody, regardless of what decade we're discussing. Hill had to answer to market forces, whereas the government does not. Hill had a limited amount of money to build his railroad (He couldn't just tax the people to raise revenue) and he had to respect people's property rights 100% (He couldn't steal people's property through eminent domain).

He and his backers had deep pockets and could give huges amounts of money to the landowners, Kevin. Make no mistake about that. They knew it was going to pay huge dividends when completed.
Our government had the Senate and Congress to deal with in the funding of this project. Not to mention much more private land in the 50's. There were finite numbers of revenue at their disposal. Our government today....is not our government of the 1950's.

If what you say regarding Hill and his backers were true then there would have been more private transcontinental railroads.

 

[FA_Q2]

All the land was bought at fair market value, Kevin.
But, if the party doesn't want to sell, what then...just scrap the project?

There's no such thing as "fair market value." If they didn't pay the property owner what the property owner demanded then they stole their property.

You change the plan if the property owner doesn't want to sell.

You are naive.

People who were forced to sell their property usually got a premium over fair market value, Kevin. Nothing was stolen outright. James Hill paid way over fair market value for the properties he bought, he wasn't the government.
There is no way that the freeway system could have been built without doing what they did. The government could have kept changing the plan, but every new plan would have had the same scenario with property owners.
There is a place for eminent domain when it comes to the good of the public...not the good of the deep pockets.
You and I will never agree on this, Kevin. But, our government was set up for the people. I just want it to get back doing it.

Sure it could have been built. I don't see why anyone needed to have their property taken if they didn't want to sell. How many people do you think would hold out if you simply built the freeway directly around the one hold out hose (whose home value would be zero after the project is complete). I really do not see any reason to have eminent domain. If the government can't get the particular piece of land then they can adapt and in all honesty, I think that would be an extremely rare situation.

 

[FA_Q2]

It looks like it had pretty wide support from both parties. Hopefully it does pass. I could not locate the actual vote from the house though. Do you know what it was?

The House passed it on a voice vote. The Senate though is where the hang up is and they are trying to attach a lot of riders on it.

Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012 - (Sec. 2) Prohibits a state or political subdivision from exercising its power of eminent domain, or allowing the exercise of such power by delegation, over property to be used for economic development or over property that is used for economic development within seven years after that exercise, if the state or political subdivision receives federal economic development funds during any fiscal year in which the property is so used or intended to be used.

Defines "economic development," generally, as the taking of private property, without the consent of the owner, and conveying or leasing such property from one private person or entity to another for commercial enterprise. Sets forth exclusions from such definition, including: (1) conveying private property for specified public uses, (2) leasing property to a private person or entity that occupies an incidental part of public property or facility, (3) acquiring abandoned property, (4) taking private property for use by a public utility, and (5) redevelopment of a brownfield site.

Renders a state or political subdivision ineligible for any federal economic development funds for a period of two fiscal years following a final judgment by a court that it has violated such prohibition.

Declares that a state or political subdivision shall not be ineligible if it returns all real property constituting a violation, replaces any property destroyed, and repairs any other property damaged as a result of the violation. Requires a state to pay applicable penalties and interest to reattain eligibility.

Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - H.R.1433 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

I hate voice votes. I don't think it should even be an option. Better to have everything recorded so that you can hold your representatives accountable.

 

[Meister]

There's no such thing as "fair market value." If they didn't pay the property owner what the property owner demanded then they stole their property.

You change the plan if the property owner doesn't want to sell.

You are naive.

People who were forced to sell their property usually got a premium over fair market value, Kevin. Nothing was stolen outright. James Hill paid way over fair market value for the properties he bought, he wasn't the government.
There is no way that the freeway system could have been built without doing what they did. The government could have kept changing the plan, but every new plan would have had the same scenario with property owners.
There is a place for eminent domain when it comes to the good of the public...not the good of the deep pockets.
You and I will never agree on this, Kevin. But, our government was set up for the people. I just want it to get back doing it.

Sure it could have been built. I don't see why anyone needed to have their property taken if they didn't want to sell. How many people do you think would hold out if you simply built the freeway directly around the one hold out hose (whose home value would be zero after the project is complete). I really do not see any reason to have eminent domain. If the government can't get the particular piece of land then they can adapt and in all honesty, I think that would be an extremely rare situation.

Have you ever looked at the 5 freeway going through Orange County and LA in Ca.?
Or, the 105 freeway...or the 210 freeway? Sure...just onsies or twosies...
Not rare at all......I don't particuliar care for eminent domain, but I do see a purpose when it's for the right cause. I can't go along with it being used for the private sector, like the SC legislated.

 

[whitehall]

I wouldn't count on EITHER PARTY coming down against the notion that the point of government is to help big capital.

The purpose of government now seems to be almost nothing EXCEPT to help BIG CAPITAL keep getting BIGGER.

In case you haven't looked around it seems that government isn't doing much to help "big capital". Big capital ..r..us. It ain't your enemy unless you are a socialist.We try to elect the best people who can balance the needs of the people with the power of the government and so far all we see is the government trying to change the social fabric of the American people with anti-capitalist rhetoric and foolish regulations designed to reduce the influence of the United States in the world.

 

[jillian]

Lets hope they get this right and bipartisan politics prevails. Reverse what a runnaway judicial system that did not interpret, but legislated a law.

Seven years after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of cities to use eminent domain to secure land for proposed private commercial development, and after more than 40 States that have reassessed and limited their own state eminent domain laws in response, a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers is still seeking to legislatively overturn the decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

Anti-Eminent Domain Bill Passes House, Senate Consideration Possible | nlc.org

Kelo was a bad result, but the right decision. Happens sometimes. It wasn't the judiciary that was the problem.....

Would you suggest that the entire line of zoning cases be erased? Pretty silly given that government need the right and should have the right to make basic land use decisions.

Now, citizen's united, on the other hand, THAT was a problem with the judiciary.

 

[Meister]

Lets hope they get this right and bipartisan politics prevails. Reverse what a runnaway judicial system that did not interpret, but legislated a law.

Seven years after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of cities to use eminent domain to secure land for proposed private commercial development, and after more than 40 States that have reassessed and limited their own state eminent domain laws in response, a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers is still seeking to legislatively overturn the decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

Anti-Eminent Domain Bill Passes House, Senate Consideration Possible | nlc.org

Kelp was a bad result, but the right decision. Happens sometimes. It wasn't the judiciary that was the problem.....

Would you suggest that the entire line of zoning cases be erased? Pretty silly given that government need the right and should have the right to make basic land use decisions.

Now, citizen's united, on the other hand, THAT was a problem with the judiciary.

I think if you look at my discussion on this...we aren't too far off on our opinions, Jillian.
I made my opinion on this rather clear. I feel we need to go back to square one where it was before.

 

[rdean]

The decision was 5 to 4.

What I don't understand is why any Republicans would be against this. Take a poor man's land so money can be made to benefit the few rich and create some low paying jobs. Isn't that what Republicans are all about?

Nope. As a worthless hack I don't expect you to actually understand but the bill PREVENTS what you are talking about and was passed BY THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE. Still waiting on the senate.

BTW, the OP was on a bill, not a SCOTUS case though it was mentioned. Care to actually address the point or do you want to continue to be a hack.

Eminent Domain. Isn't that what Bush used in Texas? Besides, no one answered the question. Why would Republicans be against "eminent domain"? Take a poor man's land so money can be made to benefit the few rich and create some low paying jobs. Isn't that what Republicans are all about? Isn't it? How is that different than cutting taxes on the very rich and raising them on the middle class? It's all about redistributing the wealth to the top 1%.

 

[California Girl]

The decision was 5 to 4.

What I don't understand is why any Republicans would be against this. Take a poor man's land so money can be made to benefit the few rich and create some low paying jobs. Isn't that what Republicans are all about?

Nope. As a worthless hack I don't expect you to actually understand but the bill PREVENTS what you are talking about and was passed BY THE REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE. Still waiting on the senate.

BTW, the OP was on a bill, not a SCOTUS case though it was mentioned. Care to actually address the point or do you want to continue to be a hack.

Eminent Domain. Isn't that what Bush used in Texas? Besides, no one answered the question. Why would Republicans be against "eminent domain"? Take a poor man's land so money can be made to benefit the few rich and create some low paying jobs. Isn't that what Republicans are all about? Isn't it? How is that different than cutting taxes on the very rich and raising them on the middle class? It's all about redistributing the wealth to the top 1%.

This thread is above your intellectual pay grade, dweebie. It's a tad harder than 'evil rich Republicans wanna steal the poor guy's stuff'.

 

[jillian]

Lets hope they get this right and bipartisan politics prevails. Reverse what a runnaway judicial system that did not interpret, but legislated a law.

Seven years after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of cities to use eminent domain to secure land for proposed private commercial development, and after more than 40 States that have reassessed and limited their own state eminent domain laws in response, a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers is still seeking to legislatively overturn the decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

Anti-Eminent Domain Bill Passes House, Senate Consideration Possible | nlc.org

Kelp was a bad result, but the right decision. Happens sometimes. It wasn't the judiciary that was the problem.....

Would you suggest that the entire line of zoning cases be erased? Pretty silly given that government need the right and should have the right to make basic land use decisions.

Now, citizen's united, on the other hand, THAT was a problem with the judiciary.

I think if you look at my discussion on this...we aren't too far off on our opinions, Jillian.
I made my opinion on this rather clear. I feel we need to go back to square one where it was before.

where do you think it was before? going back to the earliest cases, like Euclid v Ambler, the reasoning was pretty sound.

And eminent domain is a concept going back as far as the origins of government... not just ours.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Seven years after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of cities to use eminent domain to secure land for proposed private commercial development, and after more than 40 States that have reassessed and limited their own state eminent domain laws in response, a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers is still seeking to legislatively overturn the decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

Kelo is among the more misunderstood of recent Court cases. The actual meaning of the ruling was lost as both liberals and conservatives contrived their own meanings to serve their respective political agendas.

The case had nothing to do with the ‘little people’ at odds with ‘evil corporate monsters’ or a ‘cruel and capricious government.’ At issue only was the definition of ‘public use,’ and if the City’s development plan met the public use requirement. Indeed, Ms. Kelo was requesting the Court make her case an exception to the established definition:

…this is not a case in which the City is planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public. Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all comers. But although such a projected use would be sufficient to satisfy the public use requirement, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public." Id., at 244. Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158-164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company's use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes' opinion for the Court stressed "the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test." Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U. S. 527, 531 (1906).9 We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since.

The majority, therefore, merely followed the precedent established in Fallbrook and rejected the petitioners’ argument for a literal requirement.

Consequently:

The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City's development plan serves a "public purpose." Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.

So again, the Court acknowledges precedent and accedes to the local jurisdiction’s definition of a public purpose.

With regard to opposition from the right, the irony being the ruling is a victory for local jurisdictions (as opposed to mandates from the Federal level), illustrates the Court’s respect for the legislative process (as opposed to ‘legislating from the bench’), and acknowledges the free market is a better model for economic development (as opposed to government policy).

One fails to see the point of this legislation, other than to – again – provide election year stump speech fodder for the GOP.

The House can attempt to ‘legislatively overturn’ all it wants, but if a similar case comes before the courts again, it will likely realize the same result.

KELO V. NEW LONDON

 

[Meister]

Kelp was a bad result, but the right decision. Happens sometimes. It wasn't the judiciary that was the problem.....

Would you suggest that the entire line of zoning cases be erased? Pretty silly given that government need the right and should have the right to make basic land use decisions.

Now, citizen's united, on the other hand, THAT was a problem with the judiciary.

I think if you look at my discussion on this...we aren't too far off on our opinions, Jillian.
I made my opinion on this rather clear. I feel we need to go back to square one where it was before.

where do you think it was before? going back to the earliest cases, like Euclid v Ambler, the reasoning was pretty sound.

And eminent domain is a concept going back as far as the origins of government... not just ours.

Where I think it was before? Right here: "Public welfare or public interest".
Not private interest, Jillian. I'm not a lawyer, I have no clue about Euclid vs. Ambler.
I just know what they were doing in Ca. after the SC legislated the new law on eminent domain.

 

[FA_Q2]

Have you ever looked at the 5 freeway going through Orange County and LA in Ca.?
Or, the 105 freeway...or the 210 freeway? Sure...just onsies or twosies...
Not rare at all......I don't particuliar care for eminent domain, but I do see a purpose when it's for the right cause. I can't go along with it being used for the private sector, like the SC legislated.

Yes, used to live in Diamond Bar and Rancho Cuccamonga. What's your point? It would be extremely rare that someone would be willing to hold out if the government was going to build a freeway on your lawn or right over your house.

 

[FA_Q2]

One fails to see the point of this legislation, other than to – again – provide election year stump speech fodder for the GOP.

The House can attempt to ‘legislatively overturn’ all it wants, but if a similar case comes before the courts again, it will likely realize the same result.

If there is a new law, would not the judiciary need to look at that as a modifier to previous precedent? How can the judiciary ignore new law and rely on precedent set by laws that no longer apply?

 

[FA_Q2]

Lets hope they get this right and bipartisan politics prevails. Reverse what a runnaway judicial system that did not interpret, but legislated a law.

Seven years after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of cities to use eminent domain to secure land for proposed private commercial development, and after more than 40 States that have reassessed and limited their own state eminent domain laws in response, a bipartisan group of federal lawmakers is still seeking to legislatively overturn the decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

Anti-Eminent Domain Bill Passes House, Senate Consideration Possible | nlc.org

Kelo was a bad result, but the right decision. Happens sometimes. It wasn't the judiciary that was the problem.....

Would you suggest that the entire line of zoning cases be erased? Pretty silly given that government need the right and should have the right to make basic land use decisions.

Now, citizen's united, on the other hand, THAT was a problem with the judiciary.

I don't agree to be honest. The use of eminent domain in order to allow commercial development is simply wrong. If you are a company and want to build or open a business then it is up to you to obtain the land. Having the government do so for you is crazy. The government is to protect the people, not protect businesses at the expense of the people.