• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What should eminent domain should be used for?

What should eminent domain should be used for?

  • Total voters
    29
radcen said:
I might be with MaggieD on this one. The fact that it will be owned by a private company is a very important consideration, but not the sole consideration. Most telephone and power companies are technically private companies, albeit regulated.

I have to think about this particular scenario more.
Click to expand...

Telephone and electricity companies use those poles to directly supply you with electricity and power. Last I checked the pipelines do not directly pump oil into your home. These electrical and telephone poles are directly from the power company to your house, just like the gas,water and sewer pipes directly provides your property with those services. What this oil company is doing amounts to a privately owned company seizing part of your property so they can build a space to park their car on it.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Telephone and electricity companies use those poles to directly supply you with electricity and power. Last I checked the pipelines do not directly pump oil into your home. These electrical and telephone poles are directly from the power company to your house. What this oil company is doing amounts to a privately owned company seizing part of your property so they can build a space to park their car on it.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.
 
roads, schools, bridges, tunnels, hospitals, universities, ....basically things that adds to the public good.

baseball and soccer stadiums? no friggin' way.
 
radcen said:
Not necessarily.
Click to expand...

Most Americans at least get power. Phone and cable lines generally share the same poles as the electrical ones.
 
jamesrage said:
Most Americans at least get power. Phone and cable lines generally share the same poles as the electrical ones.
Click to expand...
Most Americans put gas and oil in their cars, too. In some cases it might even be used to generate the electricity that gets sent to their homes. If it were a natural gas line, which many Americans use to heat their homes via direct pipelines, would that make a difference?
 
radcen said:
Most Americans put gas and oil in their cars, too.
Click to expand...

And we go to gas stations to get gas and we go to walmarts, Autozones and other stores to get oil for our cars.

In some cases it might even be used to generate the electricity that gets sent to their homes.
Click to expand...


Does a huge pipe go across everybody's yard from the refinery to the electricity company?


If it were a natural gas line, which many Americans use to heat their homes via direct pipelines, would that make a difference?
Click to expand...

A natural gas line connected to someone's house to supply that person's home with natural gas is not the same as a company taking your property to build a huge pipe.
 
jamesrage said:
And we go to gas stations to get gas and we go to walmarts, Autozones and other stores to get oil for our cars.

Does a huge pipe go across everybody's yard from the refinery to the electricity company?

A natural gas line connected to someone's house to supply that person's home with natural gas is not the same as a company taking your property to build a huge pipe.
Click to expand...
And neither is a small electric line to an individual house the same as a huge transmission tower that that crosses many counties and/or states to bring you your electricity.
 
Arcana XV said:
For necessary infrastructure exclusively. Roads, airports, etc..
Click to expand...

To echo a comment above, I have yet to see in my adult lifetime a single justifiable use of eminent domain. And municipalities will use "necessary infrastructive" as an excuse too. In the case I observed up very close and very personally, the city wanted to grab over six thousands of rural acreage and not only used a tiny subsidiary airport used by a few private planes and skydivers as an excuse. Renamed it "City of ___ Airport," in fact, and threatened a very well known winery that was part of the acreage that if it didn't play ball, the city would extend the landing strips right over the vineyards.

Now it's been over ten years. The airport's use hasn't expanded even a little bit, and worse, the state-required necessary services that were promised--sewage and city water lines and fire services--still haven't been delivered. Not even one fire hydrant by the so-called "City" airport.

In my observation, "eminent domain" is a euphemism for "rapacious land-grab."
 
First off, eminent domain should only ever be used for publicly owned projects. So I can accept roads, bridges, airports, shipping ports, public schools and universities, municipal buildings, public utilities, and pretty much any other public project.

However, there should be some caveats to that. There should be a strong and valid reason why that particular piece of land is needed for the project. This should have to be proved either in court or to a neutral arbitrator (if such a thing exists). Then the property should be appraised by a licensed appraiser of the owner's choice, and after that the government should have to pay the appraised value plus say 20 or 25 percent as a way to both compensate the owner for his/her loss and encourage the government to only use such a measure as a last resort.
 
I only picked roads because roads are the only item listed that will span numerous plots of land owned by numerous people. Any one of which could prevent necessary infrastructure construction by demanding outrageous rates for their land, or not allowing the purchase at all. Beyond that, the other listed items can be built on just about any plot of land with minimal differences.
 
No one in this country truely OWN's land. Everyone pays rent via property taxes and thier land can be siezed by the government for apparently just about any reason under the sun. Abolish ED for all but the construction of roads imo. Everything else should be bought at market price plus 10-20 percent more and if the owner so FU then the gov is S.O.L.
 
molten_dragon said:
First off, eminent domain should only ever be used for publicly owned projects. So I can accept roads, bridges, airports, shipping ports, public schools and universities, municipal buildings, public utilities, and pretty much any other public project.

However, there should be some caveats to that. There should be a strong and valid reason why that particular piece of land is needed for the project. This should have to be proved either in court or to a neutral arbitrator (if such a thing exists). Then the property should be appraised by a licensed appraiser of the owner's choice, and after that the government should have to pay the appraised value plus say 20 or 25 percent as a way to both compensate the owner for his/her loss and encourage the government to only use such a measure as a last resort.
Click to expand...

How are Universities publicly owned?
 
ksu_aviator said:
I only picked roads because roads are the only item listed that will span numerous plots of land owned by numerous people. Any one of which could prevent necessary infrastructure construction by demanding outrageous rates for their land, or not allowing the purchase at all. Beyond that, the other listed items can be built on just about any plot of land with minimal differences.
Click to expand...

This is why I picked roads too. A school, hospital, municipal building or any other building can be built anywhere. So there is no reason to allow eminent domain to be used for those other things.
 
liblady said:
state universities are publically owned, aren't they?
Click to expand...

Some of them might be partially subsidized by the state but I do not think the states actually own any of the Universities, even the ones with a state's or city's name in the name of the University.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Some of them might be partially subsidized by the state but I do not think the states actually own any of the Universities, even the ones with a state's or city's name in the name of the University.
Click to expand...

they are operated by state entities, so who owns them?
 
jamesrage said:
How are Universities publicly owned?
Click to expand...

I suppose they aren't really publicly owned the way public schools are. They're sort of publicly owned though. They're funded through money from the states, and usually the state owns the land the University sits on. And for most public universities, the people in charge of the university overall are elected or appointed by the state.

Who would you say owns a public university if not the state?
 
Eminent Domain was originally meant as a last resort to obtain land necessary for the infrastructure and buildings needed by the public, owned by the public. This included roads, public schools, public universities, libraries, municipal facilities such as courthouses, city halls, police and fire stations, water treatment plants, etc.

In the mid-1980's, it became perverted by greedy municipalities who began to condemn agricultural land, then sell that land at bargain prices to private companies to build things that would bring the city money... things like big box stores (Walmart, K-Mart, Target, strip malls, etc.), anything that would generate large amounts of sales tax revenue. To entice these corporations to build in this ill-gotten land within city limits, the city would do an underhanded quid-pro-quo deal by cutting the property taxes on the land to a mere pittance.

People are now being driven from their farms, their homes, anything they own that's on potentially lucrative property to make way for highrises, shopping malls, trendy restaurants. It's a travesty.

How do I know all this? I worked for a city back in the day, and saw all the manipulations that took place to steal land and get money for their own coffers (which paid their salaries) rather than use Eminent Domain as it was intended, for projects serving the public good and owned by the public itself.
 
DiAnna said:
Eminent Domain was originally meant as a last resort to obtain land necessary for the infrastructure and buildings needed by the public, owned by the public. This included roads, public schools, public universities, libraries, municipal facilities such as courthouses, city halls, police and fire stations, water treatment plants, etc.

In the mid-1980's, it became perverted by greedy municipalities who began to condemn agricultural land, then sell that land at bargain prices to private companies to build things that would bring the city money... things like big box stores (Walmart, K-Mart, Target, strip malls, etc.), anything that would generate large amounts of sales tax revenue. To entice these corporations to build in this ill-gotten land within city limits, the city would do an underhanded quid-pro-quo deal by cutting the property taxes on the land to a mere pittance.

People are now being driven from their farms, their homes, anything they own that's on potentially lucrative property to make way for highrises, shopping malls, trendy restaurants. It's a travesty.

How do I know all this? I worked for a city back in the day, and saw all the manipulations that took place to steal land and get money for their own coffers (which paid their salaries) rather than use Eminent Domain as it was intended, for projects serving the public good and owned by the public itself.
Click to expand...

wasn't eminent domain corrupted much earlier
seems that the privately owned railroads of the mid/late 1800's were constructed on land taken under this manner ... ostensibly, for the greater good

in the 1960's there was urban renewal. that was the taking of land where black owned businesses and residences were located - since undeveloped land needed for urban growth no longer existed - and converting it to other uses ...

the nuclear power companies in the late 60s thru the early 80s took rural property purportedly for the lakes needed to cool the nuclear plants. then they made a killing selling the now excess water front property they paid the original owners peanuts for, under eminent domain. (which is why i believe that the property owners from whom land was taken under eminent domain should have first right of refusal to repurchase that property - at the same price they received for it - should that property ever become available to private owners)

the taking of detroit property for development of auto manufacturing facilities in the early 80's has already been cited

the point being, there is a lengthy history of eminent domain being misused
 
justabubba said:
wasn't eminent domain corrupted much earlier
seems that the privately owned railroads of the mid/late 1800's were constructed on land taken under this manner ... ostensibly, for the greater good

in the 1960's there was urban renewal. that was the taking of land where black owned businesses and residences were located - since undeveloped land needed for urban growth no longer existed - and converting it to other uses ...

the nuclear power companies in the late 60s thru the early 80s took rural property purportedly for the lakes needed to cool the nuclear plants. then they made a killing selling the now excess water front property they paid the original owners peanuts for, under eminent domain. (which is why i believe that the property owners from whom land was taken under eminent domain should have first right of refusal to repurchase that property - at the same price they received for it - should that property ever become available to private owners)

the taking of detroit property for development of auto manufacturing facilities in the early 80's has already been cited

the point being, there is a lengthy history of eminent domain being misused
Click to expand...
I remember reading in Reason magazine a few years ago about New York City doing this several decades ago.
 
Seems like a lot of eminent domain issues stem from property VALUE instead of the actual seizing of the property (although I’m sure there are sentimental reasons for keeping real estate, too). For the most part, if full replacement value is paid, then the property owner would be able to replace the asset. The problem comes in when the contemplated improvement is the cause for the increase in value of the asset.

Meaning, if I’m going to put a 5 lane highway through your $50,000 house on ½ acre, most people don’t want the $50,000. They want the $250,000 that the ½ acre MIGHT be worth, in someone’s opinion, if it were right on the 5 lane highway. Without the highway, the property isn’t worth much, but most people want the extra property value the highway might bring. However, when the highway comes in and increases the value of surrounding property, no one ever volunteers to pay part of their increased value toward the cost.

The same can be said for economic development projects. A guy has a $10,000 house. Rumors start of a new project coming to the area and the value goes up to $20,000 because of speculation in the market. It turns out his is right in the middle of where the big project wants to locate. Usually, he’d end up getting $30-$50,000 just for the development entity or government body to avoid attorney’s fees and bad PR. But he holds out for $250,000 threatening to stop an entire project which would have great benefit the entire community. So, he ends up getting into eminent domain issues. Maybe he get's $20,000, maybe more - probably he gets moving expenses covered, too - whatever it is, it's still more than it was worth before speculation began and enough to replace the asset with an equal asset.

On one hand, I don’t think the government should be able to TAKE someone’s property from them. On the other hand, if the government PAYS what the property is worth (and even a little extra), then I don’t really see harm. There are no capital gains taxes if the property is replaced, and, typically, the owner can even get extra to cover other expenses.

Yes, it irks me that I don’t see much harm, but there are many much worse ways to lose your property.
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
Seems like a lot of eminent domain issues stem from property VALUE instead of the actual seizing of the property (although I’m sure there are sentimental reasons for keeping real estate, too). For the most part, if full replacement value is paid, then the property owner would be able to replace the asset. The problem comes in when the contemplated improvement is the cause for the increase in value of the asset.

Meaning, if I’m going to put a 5 lane highway through your $50,000 house on ½ acre, most people don’t want the $50,000. They want the $250,000 that the ½ acre MIGHT be worth, in someone’s opinion, if it were right on the 5 lane highway. Without the highway, the property isn’t worth much, but most people want the extra property value the highway might bring. However, when the highway comes in and increases the value of surrounding property, no one ever volunteers to pay part of their increased value toward the cost.

The same can be said for economic development projects. A guy has a $10,000 house. Rumors start of a new project coming to the area and the value goes up to $20,000 because of speculation in the market. It turns out his is right in the middle of where the big project wants to locate. Usually, he’d end up getting $30-$50,000 just for the development entity or government body to avoid attorney’s fees and bad PR. But he holds out for $250,000 threatening to stop an entire project which would have great benefit the entire community. So, he ends up getting into eminent domain issues. Maybe he get's $20,000, maybe more - probably he gets moving expenses covered, too - whatever it is, it's still more than it was worth before speculation began and enough to replace the asset with an equal asset.

On one hand, I don’t think the government should be able to TAKE someone’s property from them. On the other hand, if the government PAYS what the property is worth (and even a little extra), then I don’t really see harm. There are no capital gains taxes if the property is replaced, and, typically, the owner can even get extra to cover other expenses.

Yes, it irks me that I don’t see much harm, but there are many much worse ways to lose your property.
Click to expand...
I have read of instances where the property value went down after rumors of eminent domain became public, so it can work both ways. The trick, and I think I am agreeing with you here, is that the assessed value for payment should be what the property would be worth on the presumption that eminent domain were never a possibility. I do like the idea put forth somewhere else in this thread about actual value plus 10%, or something like that.

I'm not quite so ready to say that any piece of real estate can be replaced given fair payment, though. Sentimental reasons are just as good as any for not wanting to sell, and not all pieces of real estate are equal even if they are valued equally.
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
Seems like a lot of eminent domain issues stem from property VALUE instead of the actual seizing of the property (although I’m sure there are sentimental reasons for keeping real estate, too). For the most part, if full replacement value is paid, then the property owner would be able to replace the asset. The problem comes in when the contemplated improvement is the cause for the increase in value of the asset.

Meaning, if I’m going to put a 5 lane highway through your $50,000 house on ½ acre, most people don’t want the $50,000. They want the $250,000 that the ½ acre MIGHT be worth, in someone’s opinion, if it were right on the 5 lane highway. Without the highway, the property isn’t worth much, but most people want the extra property value the highway might bring. However, when the highway comes in and increases the value of surrounding property, no one ever volunteers to pay part of their increased value toward the cost.

The same can be said for economic development projects. A guy has a $10,000 house. Rumors start of a new project coming to the area and the value goes up to $20,000 because of speculation in the market. It turns out his is right in the middle of where the big project wants to locate. Usually, he’d end up getting $30-$50,000 just for the development entity or government body to avoid attorney’s fees and bad PR. But he holds out for $250,000 threatening to stop an entire project which would have great benefit the entire community. So, he ends up getting into eminent domain issues. Maybe he get's $20,000, maybe more - probably he gets moving expenses covered, too - whatever it is, it's still more than it was worth before speculation began and enough to replace the asset with an equal asset.

On one hand, I don’t think the government should be able to TAKE someone’s property from them. On the other hand, if the government PAYS what the property is worth (and even a little extra), then I don’t really see harm. There are no capital gains taxes if the property is replaced, and, typically, the owner can even get extra to cover other expenses.

Yes, it irks me that I don’t see much harm, but there are many much worse ways to lose your property.
Click to expand...

In reality, that's rarely how it works. The owner of the property is paid what the property is assessed to be worth, which is usually what the tax records indicate. Negotiation of price is not required. What the property will be worth after the improvement is made is NOT relevant to what the property owner is going to be paid. Ever. Most public entities don't want bad PR, but the fact is that an entity can condemn the property without the owner's approval and hand him a check for the legal value of the property whether he likes it or not.

Are there worse ways to lose your property? Sure, it could burn down after your insurance lapsed. But to watch the seaside home your parents' built and lived in for 40 years bulldozed so a group of rich investors can put up a multi-billion dollar resort is certainly high on my list of crappy ways to lose your home.
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
In reality, that's rarely how it works. The owner of the property is paid what the property is assessed to be worth, which is usually what the tax records indicate. Negotiation of price is not required. What the property will be worth after the improvement is made is NOT relevant to what the property owner is going to be paid. Ever. Most public entities don't want bad PR, but the fact is that an entity can condemn the property without the owner's approval and hand him a check for the legal value of the property whether he likes it or not.

Are there worse ways to lose your property? Sure, it could burn down after your insurance lapsed. But to watch the seaside home your parents' built and lived in for 40 years bulldozed so a group of rich investors can put up a multi-billion dollar resort is certainly high on my list of crappy ways to lose your home.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The property owner will never be paid fairly. Seen it so many times. One notable time in my community was an old lady whose family has lived here for generations. Property in the family for 150 years. Three times now the city has seized her land under "eminent domain." Just shocking. So wrong.

This old lady just fought and fought, but during the last battle, her sweetheart was dying, so she just said, "Screw it," and accepted the city's shamefully unacceptable offer because she had more important stuff going on.

The possibly happy ending of this story is that this old lady's grandson, a very successful realtor, is now the mayor of the city. :mrgreen:
 
DiAnna said:
The owner of the property is paid what the property is assessed to be worth, which is usually what the tax records indicate.
Click to expand...
The first part of this statement is true. The second part is false except when the tax record assessment is correct. The two assessments are independently derived.
DiAnna said:
What the property will be worth after the improvement is made is NOT relevant to what the property owner is going to be paid. Ever.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But, property owners rarely agree with this statement.
DiAnna said:
Most public entities don't want bad PR, but the fact is that an entity can condemn the property without the owner's approval and hand him a check for the legal value of the property whether he likes it or not.
Click to expand...
There is always, at minimum, a legal process available to the property owner.
DiAnna said:
But to watch the seaside home your parents' built and lived in for 40 years bulldozed so a group of rich investors can put up a multi-billion dollar resort is certainly high on my list of crappy ways to lose your home.
Click to expand...
Very true, but it doesn't mean the property owner wasn't paid the value of the asset. Do you know if the homeowners complained about the tax value when they owned it? I've seen many examples of people complaining that the tax value was too high for years, and then they complain that a proposed sale value is too low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom