Flight 93 families ask Bush to OK land seizure

[Modbert]

i DID answer yoiu stupid ******* question asshole
you just didnt like the answer so you pretend i didnt answer

I'm not lying, I didn't see it. Mind pointing me to it before assuming I'm lying and neg repping me like a whiny *****?

 

[tigerbob]

The government buying something for a "fair market value" against the owners wishes is stealing.

No, it isn't. Can I ask you to read the following and, unless you disagree that a public park is indeed "Public Use", what it is about the use of eminent domain in this instance that you disagree with?

PROCESS OF EMINENT DOMAIN

1. The government attempts to negotiate the purchase of the property for fair value.

2. If the owner does not wish to sell, the government files a court action to exercise eminent domain, and serves or publishes notice of the hearing as required by law.

3. A hearing is scheduled, at which the government must demonstrate that it engaged in good faith negotiations to purchase the property, but that no agreement was reached. The government must also demonstrate that the taking of the property is for a public use, as defined by law. The property owner is given the opportunity to respond to the government's claims.

4. If the government is successful in its petition, proceedings are held to establish the fair market value of the property. Any payment to the owner is first used to satisfy any mortgages, liens and encumbrances on the property, with any remaining balance paid to the owner. The government obtains title.

5. If the government is not successful, or if the property owner is not satisfied with the outcome, either side may appeal the decision.

FAIR VALUE

Fair value is usually considered to be the fair market value - that is, the highest price somebody would pay for the property, were it in the hands of a willing seller. The date upon which the value is assessed will vary, depending upon the governing law. If the parties do not agree on the value, they will typically utilize appraisers to assist in the negotiation process. If the case is litigated, both sides will ordinarily present expert testimony from appraisers as to the fair market value of the property.

PUBLIC USE

Ordinarily, a government can exercise eminent domain only if its taking will be for a "public use" - which may be expansively defined along the lines of public "safety, health, interest, or convenience". Perhaps the most common example of a "public use" is the taking of land to build or expand a public road or highway. Public use could also include the taking of land to build a school or municipal building, for a public park, or to redevelop a "blighted" property or neighborhood.

Eminent Domain

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, it isn't. Can I ask you to read the following and, unless you disagree that a public park is indeed "Public Use", what it is about the use of eminent domain in this instance that you disagree with?

PROCESS OF EMINENT DOMAIN

1. The government attempts to negotiate the purchase of the property for fair value.

2. If the owner does not wish to sell, the government files a court action to exercise eminent domain, and serves or publishes notice of the hearing as required by law.

3. A hearing is scheduled, at which the government must demonstrate that it engaged in good faith negotiations to purchase the property, but that no agreement was reached. The government must also demonstrate that the taking of the property is for a public use, as defined by law. The property owner is given the opportunity to respond to the government's claims.

4. If the government is successful in its petition, proceedings are held to establish the fair market value of the property. Any payment to the owner is first used to satisfy any mortgages, liens and encumbrances on the property, with any remaining balance paid to the owner. The government obtains title.

5. If the government is not successful, or if the property owner is not satisfied with the outcome, either side may appeal the decision.

FAIR VALUE

Fair value is usually considered to be the fair market value - that is, the highest price somebody would pay for the property, were it in the hands of a willing seller. The date upon which the value is assessed will vary, depending upon the governing law. If the parties do not agree on the value, they will typically utilize appraisers to assist in the negotiation process. If the case is litigated, both sides will ordinarily present expert testimony from appraisers as to the fair market value of the property.

PUBLIC USE

Ordinarily, a government can exercise eminent domain only if its taking will be for a "public use" - which may be expansively defined along the lines of public "safety, health, interest, or convenience". Perhaps the most common example of a "public use" is the taking of land to build or expand a public road or highway. Public use could also include the taking of land to build a school or municipal building, for a public park, or to redevelop a "blighted" property or neighborhood.

Eminent Domain

I don't deny that a public park is for public use. As I said before, however, I do not acknowledge the right of the government to steal private property.

 

[tigerbob]

well, as someone pointed out. the WW 2 Memorial is not on the exact spot either.

I wasn't aware that WWII took place on an exact spot, so whoever wrote that I think (without reading it admittedly) is making an utterly pointless point.

 

[DiveCon]

I don't deny that a public park is for public use. As I said before, however, I do not acknowledge the right of the government to steal private property.

again, its NOT stealing when it is a proper use of ED

 

[tigerbob]

It costs a small fortune to actually build a mining operation or even lot of time and a sizable amount of money. It took my husband and I several years and several hundred thousand dollars to build just the areas to prepare to mine an operation. Just because we did not sellout to a large company does not mean the mine was not very valuble. We used our own paid for equipment and time to establish the means to be able to facilitate a mining operation. A larger company came along later and told me it would have cost his company a million dollars to do the work we had already performed and even another million would not complete the operation he would establish at my mine site.

There is a case on the books in Idaho where DOT took a mans mining operation for an enlargement of the Interstate. The state ended up paying over five million for the theft of the man's operation. He won that case because they took away his property on an eminient domain claim. The state argued that they only took the property. Giving no regard to the man's livelyhood.

The facts are people should not have to fight over what property they already own for any reason.

Well, the facts are, rightly or wrongly, that they sometimes do.

But, as I've already said, they should be paid fair market value.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

again, its NOT stealing when it is a proper use of ED

When one entity takes property from another entity that has not agreed to give up it's property, it is stealing. Thus, the government is stealing private property.

 

[tigerbob]

For once Willow, we agree.

DC has still not answered my question on how many people have to die on his property before he's willing to agree it should be sold off at a "reasonable price" which is much lower then what it's actually worth and made into a memorial.

What makes you say the price offered is lower than it is worth? If you've seen something about this, can you link?

 

[tigerbob]

I don't deny that a public park is for public use. As I said before, however, I do not acknowledge the right of the government to steal private property.

So what you are saying is that you think the law is wrong (a point I haven't been debating and one which I potentially have some sympathy for)? Or am I misunderstanding you?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So what you are saying is that you think the law is wrong (a point I haven't been debating and one which I potentially have some sympathy for)? Or am I misunderstanding you?

You are correct.

 

[tigerbob]

You are correct.

OK now I'm with you.

Tough one that. I'd have to take it on a case by case basis. Much of the country's infrastructure might not be here if it were not for the ability of government to force people to sell key parcels of land for use in key public projects.

On the other hand, I will not attempt to convince anyone that this power has not been abused. It has.

Once again, you appear to see clear black and white. I'm unfortunately stumbling around in an ever changing grey area!!!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

OK now I'm with you.

Tough one that. I'd have to take it on a case by case basis. Much of the country's infrastructure might not be here if it were not for the ability of government to force people to sell key parcels of land for use in key public projects.

On the other hand, I will not attempt to convince anyone that this power has not been abused. It has.

Once again, you appear to see clear black and white. I'm unfortunately stumbling around in an ever changing grey area!!!

In your opinion, would this case be an abuse of power?

 

[DiveCon]

OK now I'm with you.

Tough one that. I'd have to take it on a case by case basis. Much of the country's infrastructure might not be here if it were not for the ability of government to force people to sell key parcels of land for use in key public projects.

On the other hand, I will not attempt to convince anyone that this power has not been abused. It has.

Once again, you appear to see clear black and white. I'm unfortunately stumbling around in an ever changing grey area!!!

the case in new london CT was a prime example of an abuse of the system
(at least i think it was in New London)

 

[WillowTree]

It costs a small fortune to actually build a mining operation or even lot of time and a sizable amount of money. It took my husband and I several years and several hundred thousand dollars to build just the areas to prepare to mine an operation. Just because we did not sellout to a large company does not mean the mine was not very valuble. We used our own paid for equipment and time to establish the means to be able to facilitate a mining operation. A larger company came along later and told me it would have cost his company a million dollars to do the work we had already performed and even another million would not complete the operation he would establish at my mine site.

There is a case on the books in Idaho where DOT took a mans mining operation for an enlargement of the Interstate. The state ended up paying over five million for the theft of the man's operation. He won that case because they took away his property on an eminient domain claim. The state argued that they only took the property. Giving no regard to the man's livelyhood.

The facts are people should not have to fight over what property they already own for any reason.

Now that's a bullseye. The heart of the matter.

 

[DiveCon]

In your opinion, would this case be an abuse of power?

see my last post

 

[tigerbob]

In your opinion, would this case be an abuse of power?

I don't think it would be, but I'd like to know the results of the appraisal scheduled for Jan 5 before committing to that position.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

see my last post

I assume you mean...

again, its NOT stealing when it is a proper use of ED

I was merely asking what his opinion was regarding this case, I know you think it's legit. I also know that Eminent Domain is theft regardless.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't think it would be, but I'd like to know the results of the appraisal scheduled for Jan 5 before committing to that position.

But you believe it's ok for the government to steal this company's land because this group of people think the company is asking for too much money?

 

[DiveCon]

the case in new london CT was a prime example of an abuse of the system
(at least i think it was in New London)

I assume you mean...



I was merely asking what his opinion was regarding this case, I know you think it's legit. I also know that Eminent Domain is theft regardless.

no, this one

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

no, this one

Well I believe it is theft regardless, so that would infer that I believe it was abuse.