More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

Florida city considers eminent domain

Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

want to speak about this point... can't access the article link without become a member / registering.

Please cut and past article please.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

This is a good idea if, and only if, they add a lot of 65+ ft slips in the marina.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

Not that hard to find if you really want to read it

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
want to speak about this point... can't access the article link without become a member / registering.


[/ QUOTE ]

Try www.bugmenot.com for all such sign-ins

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

good link for Favorites, too

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

thanks...

Read the article... I think eminent domain is necessary anywhere where people making $19,000 a year get to live on the beach.

I'm going to be a jealous zealot on this subject... sorry.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

emminent domain is the issue that i'm least sure about in the entire current political spectrum.

I have no idea what i think, but i think we need to at least concede that we can't critize these redevelopements for being "solely" economic, as a solely economic plan clearly will have and is intened to have more far reaching consequences then generating wealth.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

I agree with. I had a very negative kneejerk response to the Kelo case. But then I realized that it the idea of using eminent domain in the fashion is very compatible with my view of economics and how to help the less fortunate. In a nutshell, I believe the best way to help people is through a combination of private aid and pursuit of economic policies conducive to growth. If the best way for the government to help someone is by creating a climate favorable economic growth in a particular region is to rezone a certain area to attract businesses , its hard for me to argue against it. I need to think through it some more but its most definitely not as simple as some have made it out to be.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

If the region was really primed for economic developement, why does the government need to get involved. Can't the developers simply buy the land on the free market?

It\'s Simple
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the region was really primed for economic developement, why does the government need to get involved. Can't the developers simply buy the land on the free market?

[/ QUOTE ]
But then the developers would have to pay retail. What's the point of buying politicians if you can't use them?

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with. I had a very negative kneejerk response to the Kelo case. But then I realized that it the idea of using eminent domain in the fashion is very compatible with my view of economics and how to help the less fortunate. In a nutshell, I believe the best way to help people is through a combination of private aid and pursuit of economic policies conducive to growth. If the best way for the government to help someone is by creating a climate favorable economic growth in a particular region is to rezone a certain area to attract businesses , its hard for me to argue against it. I need to think through it some more but its most definitely not as simple as some have made it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the confiscation of private property at the point of the gun is okay if the intentions are good? A rather Marxist line of thought for a supposed conservative.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
So the confiscation of private property at the point of the gun is okay if the intentions are good? A rather Marxist line of thought for a supposed conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's simple economics. We know that both governments and courts are superior to markets. Duh.
[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: It\'s Simple
 

[ QUOTE ]
But then the developers would have to pay retail. What's the point of buying politicians if you can't use them?


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly right.

The original linked article noted that all homeowners would be compensated "at least assessed value" for their homes. Wow what a deal. Assessed value is nearly always less than market value. So the poor saps that get kicked out from their own homes can't even go buy themselves a comparable house with the proceeds they get from the sale.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
So the confiscation of private property at the point of the gun is okay if the intentions are good? A rather Marxist line of thought for a supposed conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats actually not what I said. My point was that on the face of it it would seem it is logical that eminent domain might be used in cases like this when we believe the increase in economic prosperity in the region is of a net benefit to those who lose their land. I was just trying to generate some discussion, which of course you didnt provide.

PS My line of thinking isnt Marxist, do you see why?

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the confiscation of private property at the point of the gun is okay if the intentions are good? A rather Marxist line of thought for a supposed conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats actually not what I said. My point was that on the face of it it would seem it is logical that eminent domain might be used in cases like this when we believe the increase in economic prosperity in the region is of a net benefit to those who lose their land. I was just trying to generate some discussion, which of course you didnt provide.

PS My line of thinking isnt Marxist, do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

You may not realize it, but it is what you said. And you just said it again. Sad that you don't realize it because of your focus on the "net benefit" (being provided at the point of a gun).

Looking at your words in bold ... who is the "we"? Obviously not the lawful owners of the land. Who decides what is of benefit? Obviously not the lawful owners of the land. So, you believe that seizure of lawfully-owned property is okay if "we" (somebody else) decides its of "benefit" (by our own subjective standards). Welcome to liberalism, my friend, you just earned your honorary degree.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

Point taken. Still isnt Marxist and you still have yet to provide any real insight on how the philosophy that the best way government can help people who arent well off is to provide an economic environment favorable to growth conflicts with the use of eminent domain to provide said environment.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Point taken. Still isnt Marxist and you still have yet to provide any real insight on how the philosophy that the best way government can help people who arent well off is to provide an economic environment favorable to growth conflicts with the use of eminent domain to provide said environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not the government's role to seize private property and provide a better environment for those on the property. How about I seize your house and make it a better environment for you -- by my standards, of course, not yours? If a govt or developer wants to redevelop a property, its not that complicated -- buy it on the open market, don't seize it at the point of a gun. I don't see how seizure is preferrable to legal purchase. And if they don't want to sell, well then they obviously don't want your "help", so leave them be.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is not the government's role to seize private property and provide a better environment for those on the property. How about I seize your house and make it a better environment for you -- by my standards, of course, not yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

"You" were not elected by me to be the government. It goes to what your view is on the role of government. If you think the government should play some role in helping the less fortunate, and you think that providing good economic conditions is the way to do so, where is the contradiction. Is it not the government's job to look out for the good of the society it governs as a whole?

Please understand that I am quite undecided on this whole issue, so I am mostly playing devil's advocate here.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
You may not realize it, but it is what you said. And you just said it again. Sad that you don't realize it because of your focus on the "net benefit" (being provided at the point of a gun).

[/ QUOTE ]

Focus on net benefit isn't necessarily Marxist; I think Locke or Mill would agree we should be focusing on net benefit as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Looking at your words in bold ... who is the "we"? Obviously not the lawful owners of the land. Who decides what is of benefit?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the crudest of terms, the majority. Surely it's much more complicated than that, but the 'we' is your elected representatives, who enact the will of the voters.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously not the lawful owners of the land. So, you believe that seizure of lawfully-owned property is okay if "we" (somebody else) decides its of "benefit" (by our own subjective standards).

[/ QUOTE ]

Something like that, yeah. Again, 'we' in the sense that your elected leaders carry out the will of the citizenry.

[ QUOTE ]
Welcome to liberalism, my friend, you just earned your honorary degree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this has much to do with liberalism; I suspect most 'conservatives', when pressed, don't see property rights as so particularly sacrosanct that all eminent domain is illegitimate.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the crudest of terms, the majority. Surely it's much more complicated than that, but the 'we' is your elected representatives, who enact the will of the voters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The will of the majority allows the govt to point that fat gun at any individual and take their property for the "good of all." This is exactly the kind of scenario any liberty-loving American (the few of us left) should fight against.


[ QUOTE ]
I suspect most 'conservatives', when pressed, don't see property rights as so particularly sacrosanct that all eminent domain is illegitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because most conservatives only pay lip service to freedom during war and political campaings, but don't really believe in it as a guiding principle.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. The will of the majority allows the govt to point that fat gun at any individual and take their property for the "good of all." This is exactly the kind of scenario any liberty-loving American (the few of us left) should fight against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love liberty. But I love a thriving economy, too; and I love progress; and I love non-blighted areas. Not quite sure how to balance all my interests perfectly, but I'm willing to let some of my other interests supercede liberty when the need arises - like when bad guys go to jail, or when a house gets seized to build a highway that the community needs.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

these sentiments would make way more sense if you didn't believe in building roads.

Clearly there are times when emminent domain is appropriate, so we have to conede that there is a "we" that "benifits" it's now imperative to figure out how far we're willing to go with the idea.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Florida city considers eminent domain

Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.

And later you responded w/

it would seem it is logical that eminent domain might be used in cases like this when we believe the increase in economic prosperity in the region is of a net benefit to those who lose their land


[/ QUOTE ]

And what net benefit do you think poor black people are going to get from a multi-billion dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex?

I'll answer, NONE. The people who will benefit are, in order:

1) the developers who get to build on the land and sell the results.
2) the politicians recieving kickbacks to invoke eminent domain
3) rich people who want a new yachting and housing complex.


The problem with emminent domain as it is lately being invoked, for commercial improvement of an area. Is that land which is potentially quite valuable is being seized at reduced rates so that it can be improved. This seized land is being put into the hands of a commercial interest at this very reduced rate so they can make a profit.

If they were really interested in improving the plight of those people -- an idea would be to do the following:

Create a corporation which will be granted the seized property, but each individual who owned the seized property will be given ownership in the corporation. This corporation will then contract with other companies to complete the rebuilding process. Then upon selling the property the owners of the corporation will recived the generated income.

Of course this won't work for the following reasons:
1) there will not be enough money to make it worthwhile for the people who are currently begging for emminent domain to be invoked.
2) and won't leave enough for the politician's kickbacks.
3) the business men who gain control of the corp will find many way to overpay the contracts and leave nothing for the original property owners.

Emminent domain for commercial purposes is a completely and utterly flawed idea.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Point taken. Still isnt Marxist and you still have yet to provide any real insight on how the philosophy that the best way government can help people who arent well off is to provide an economic environment favorable to growth conflicts with the use of eminent domain to provide said environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is a system where the state can take your land by force good for growth? It's good for certain politically-connected actors that get the benefits, but bad for everyone else. What kind of environment does that create?

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the crudest of terms, the majority. Surely it's much more complicated than that, but the 'we' is your elected representatives, who enact the will of the voters.

[...]

Something like that, yeah. Again, 'we' in the sense that your elected leaders carry out the will of the citizenry.

[/ QUOTE ]

The elected leaders are carrying out the will of SOME of the voters.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
I love liberty. But I love a thriving economy, too; and I love progress; and I love non-blighted areas. Not quite sure how to balance all my interests perfectly, but I'm willing to let some of my other interests supercede liberty when the need arises - like when bad guys go to jail, or when a house gets seized to build a highway that the community needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who gets to decide what "the community" "needs" and what is or is not "blighted"? I really need an X-Box, can I just steal one from my neighbor? He's not using it, it's going to become blighted, whereas I would take care of it.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
The elected leaders are carrying out the will of SOME of the voters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, like I said - it's a tad more complicated than 'the majority of voters'; but yeah, true, decision making/voting rights only exist for 'some' of the citizens, and not all.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who gets to decide what "the community" "needs" and what is or is not "blighted"?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the crudest of terms, the majority - with their will being done through their elected leaders.

--------------

[ QUOTE ]
I really need an X-Box, can I just steal one from my neighbor? He's not using it, it's going to become blighted, whereas I would take care of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd wait a few months, and steal your neighbors X-Box 360, or whatever their next generation system is called. I assume it will be much better than a regular, ole', crummy X-Box.

But seriously, he didn't consent to you stealing his X-Box; you have (whether you think so or not) given your tacit consent to the state (when is your scheduled moving day to Somalia, anyway?)

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

The guiding principle should be whether the right of someone are infringing on the rights of others. Take the eminent domain for blighted reasons (Berman v. Parker). When someones property is in such disrepair that it becomes a public safety issue, property rights can be waived to protect the rights of others. That is the fundimental principle. The price of the property should always be tied to the free market price.

The big problem with this whole economic improvement thing is that it doesn't appear to work the majority of the time. It didn't work in Pittsburgh and in LA and elsewhere.

So the danger is what happens if the economic recovery doesn't work? Do we give the land back to the rightful owners? What redress do they have if it doesn't provide the "public benefit" as advertized. There is no do-over. This is people homes and businesses and they get "assessed" value?

Its a sham with little to no accountability. I think the disenfranchized owners should be able to sue the town for damages if the revitilization does do as advertized. At least then there would be some accountability.

-Gryph

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who gets to decide what "the community" "needs" and what is or is not "blighted"?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In the crudest of terms, the majority - with their will being done through their elected leaders. ... you have (whether you think so or not) given your tacit consent to the state.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fearing this type of thinking, our founding fathers were smart enough to not create a democracy. They were also smart enough to anticipate the states action, and address the issue. And while they voiced their concerns, they just weren't smart enough to prevent statist jurists from ignoring their warnings (and their duty).

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fearing this type of thinking, our founding fathers were smart enough to not create a democracy. They were also smart enough to anticipate the states action, and address the issue. And while they voiced their concerns, they just weren't smart enough to prevent statists from ignoring their warnings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you are their contemporary liasson and officially-appointed mind reader (as they all clearly thought with a singular mind and made their intentions overtly known), I'll take your word for it.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Being their contemporary liasson and officially-appointed mind reader (as they all clearly thought with a singular mind and made their intentions overtly known), I'll take your word for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This has nothing to do with mind reading. But it does have to do with reading.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly there are times when emminent domain is appropriate, so we have to concede that there is a "we" that "benifits" it's now imperative to figure out how far we're willing to go with the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've got an idea. How about only when it's for "public use"? That should clarify it.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
This has nothing to do with mind reading. But it does have to do with reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, seriously, thanks for letting me know this. I was concerned for a moment that the Founding Fathers weren't (gasp!) in perpetual concordance. But no, I guess they were. My fears have been eased, O' Great Sheetwise the Annoited One: Founding Father Mind-Reader and Interpreter (did I get all that?).

Please feel free to stop by with your civics lessons any time. I'd ask you to post some links next time, but hey, I don't question genius when I see it. Really, I'll just take your word for it that the Founding Fathers unilaterally opposed the use of eminent domain. All the text you've cited has really opened my eyes to this.

I can't even read, anyway - so don't bother. What the hell does the 5th Amendment say? Don't stop with just the text though; it's rather vague (those [censored] Founding Fathers and their penchant for that coyness [censored] again; good thing we've got you around to speak for them). Clearly, you'll need to provide some expert interpretation, which I'm sure you're capable of, given your renown legal acumen. Since you apparently have more knowledge of jurisprudence than half of the Supreme Court, this should be amazingly enlightening. Let me know when you're finished. I'll be waiting with bated breath, to be sure.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
he didn't consent to you stealing his X-Box; you have (whether you think so or not) given your tacit consent to the state

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? When?

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
I love liberty. But I love a thriving economy, too; and I love progress; and I love non-blighted areas. Not quite sure how to balance all my interests perfectly...

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you don't really love liberty if you'd violate it in the name of a better economy or removal of "blighted" areas (as you or another entity decides).

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

You're welcome.

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the crudest of terms, the majority - with their will being done through their elected leaders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you prove you don't love liberty.

What if the majority decided to rape your wife? Oh I know that's a bit extreme. How about they just decided that you had to ride on the back of the bus, couldn't vote, couldn't use their schools, etc. Oh, so majority-rule has its limitations (to include the confiscatiuon of private property from law-abiding rightful owners)?

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
Really? When?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're here, you've consented. You've used the roads, let the military protect you, let the police patrol your neighborhoods, let the fire department put out your fires, etc.

If you the state is illegitimate and oppresses you, you're under no obligation to stay. Enjoy Mogadishu.

Why haven't you left this oppressive hell-hole for Somalia's greener pastures, anyway?

Re: More fuel for the eminent domain fire
 

[ QUOTE ]
But seriously, he didn't consent to you stealing his X-Box; you have (whether you think so or not) given your tacit consent to the state

[/ QUOTE ]

This is frightening -- more so because so many Americans think like this. Our government was set up with limited powers clearly defined, NOT to be confused with tacit approval for any majority-rule action, whether led by elected leaders or not. Amazing how some people knowingly WANT to give up their freedoms.