More fuel for the eminent domain fire

[DVaut1]

[ 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.

[Jdanz]

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.

[Sifmole]

[ 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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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?

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[DVaut1]

[ 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.

[DVaut1]

[ 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?)

[etgryphon]

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

[SheetWise]

[ 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).