Questions Spawned From Supreme Court Ruling

[James Boston]

I didn't want to hijack the other thread, but the Supreme Court's idiotic ruling spawned a few questions.

1) What are your thought's on Zee's suggestion that it be mandatory that property taken in this fashion be paid for at well above appraisal value, to ensure it only be done in the most necessary cases?

2) What if it's farm land? Should the future cash flow of the crops be compensated for?

3) What is the best approach to a situation where a stubborn minority is preventing a lucrative private venture that could benefit many? This question is especially interesting to me because I see this dilemma coming in the next few years where I live.

[ACPlayer]

Harming a few for the benefit of many is a standard part of all governance. Take taxation, we harm some for the benefit of many. Take the police, we take away the liberty of some for the benefit of many. Take a demand for vacinnation, we demand your child be put at risk by taking the shot so that the population as a whole is proected, etc, etc.

The only real solution is to continue to demand excellence in governance. Unfortunately, today instead of demanding excellence we put a premium on party loyalty, which of course then hands over power to the Party at the expense of the voice of your representative.

This case also highlights the risk we are facing of the governing bodies being controlled by industry. Any govt project has private parties interested in chomping at the bit -- a new road is pushed by the contractors who will build it, the bankruptcy laws are pushed by credit card companies who will benefit from it.

Regarding your specific points:

1. I am sure your local government can be lobbied to have their takings at 3x the market price.
2. The future cash flow of the crops is included in the fair market price of the farms.
3. Eminent domain when applicable. Otherwise you get to blackmail the potential developer [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
3. Eminent domain when applicable. Otherwise you get to blackmail the potential developer

[/ QUOTE ]

But sometimes blackmailing the developer is bad. I'm in no way siding with the Court on their ruling, but it could be that the Phizer facility will be a jolt to the town's economy. Here's where I see a catch 22 in many of these deals (but maybe not the specific one in question):

Person A has something valued at X. Person B wants that asset for a use that person A cannot use it for. Person A then realizes that because of what Person B will be using the assest for, it could be worth 5x, so they ask for more. Person B realizes that without being personally involved, it's ONLY worth x, so that's what they are willing to pay.

When the owner of an asset has a limited ability to use that asset to its full earning potential, are they justified in requiring someone else to pay for it based on what the untapped potential is worth, even though the second parties involvement is the deciding factor in how much it's worth?

Did I completely botch that, or do you see my point?

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]


1) What are your thought's on Zee's suggestion that it be mandatory that property taken in this fashion be paid for at well above appraisal value, to ensure it only be done in the most necessary cases?



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a middle of the road guy...part of the corporate world, and I don't believe we're all 'greedy.' Having said that, [censored] any developer (and town) that would want to take my property for development.

Originally, the standard was "public use"--roads, etc. Then I think in the 50's verbage from some court ruling morphed it to "public good." I think the dissenting opinion (from O'Connor?) is spot on...the wealthy who have the ability to influence the political process will always dominate and exploit this system.

Having said that, looking at your suggestion above, this would be even worse! A policy meant to benefit the little man will definitely be exploited by the same wealthy/influential people.

"Oh, you need 5000 acres for an industrial park? I have just the swampland for you! Don't worry about displacing those poor homeowners...just pay me 3X its (overinflated) value."

Either way, people will always game the system. This really pisses me off...not because I hate big business. It's the principle. A man's home is his castle.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't worry about displacing those poor homeowners...just pay me 3X its (overinflated) value."


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know who "me" is in your example, but I meant paying the "poor homeowners" for a higher value.

[masse75]

I think we're in agreement. My example is what we'd expect from those wealthy enough to exploit a "pay well above assessed value" system.

Also, could you fairly say, "Well, this guy is poor, so we'll give him a significant amount above assessed value. This other guy is upper-middle class, so we'll only pay assessed value." Nope. Subjective and discriminatory.

[shots]

I think the 3X assesed value suggestion was brilliant in your example of the industrial park who looses? the guy with the land makes money the developer gets the land cheaper (oviously swampland will have a lower assesed value the a whole bunch of smaller property with houses on them) And the homeowners are not upprooted. Of course the whole example makes no sense because if the developer does not need to demolish houses to put his industrial park in that exact spot then he could just go to the swampland and make him an offer since he's not attempting to take the land the whole 3x question never comes into play.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
Person A has something valued at X. Person B wants that asset for a use that person A cannot use it for. Person A then realizes that because of what Person B will be using the assest for, it could be worth 5x, so they ask for more. Person B realizes that without being personally involved, it's ONLY worth x, so that's what they are willing to pay.

When the owner of an asset has a limited ability to use that asset to its full earning potential, are they justified in requiring someone else to pay for it based on what the untapped potential is worth, even though the second parties involvement is the deciding factor in how much it's worth?

Did I completely botch that, or do you see my point?


[/ QUOTE ]