I did not support eminent domain when the coal mining companies stole the land from the mountain people and I don't support it for the Keystone Pipeline or anything else people want to say is for "public use."

There was no eminent domain, it was built on top of one of the parking lots of the previous stadium.

are you saying that it didn't happen?

Was funny hearing Jeb! talking about the horrors of eminent domain when his brother was involved with the Rangers when that deal went down. A baseball stadium for a billionaire owner is not public use. That is for private profit.

Peae

.


Sure there are times when capital projects need to be done, but the pipeline for KXL use ED to steal property.


I posted below a pizza parlor stealing a guys property in NJ to build a parking lot. It was justified as 'public good' because it took cars off of the street. The property owner was years before the pizza parlor was built.


There are cases all over the place of Public Good being perverted by those in power or those with influence.


.

Walmart would be private use

by the US Supreme court in Kelo v. City of New London (2005, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London ).

No no no no. That was just wrong in the wrongest way.

And they take part of your property and endanger your life.

.


It depends on how Public Good is defined by the powers to be, and presented to the court.

A community in NJ was razed to build a tunnel for a casino operator, who backed out of the deal after $330M of taxpayer money was spent on the tunnel and nine homes torn down. YES, PRIVATE BUSINESS CAN EMINENT DOMAIN PROPERTY!


http://articles.philly.com/1997-01-24/news/25559008_1_tunnel-plan-feasibility-study-wynn-s-mirage-resorts


Donald Trump EDed a window's home for a casino parking lot:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/09/trump-eminent-domain-attacks-right


Most time, the little guy loses.


.

It was meant taking land for hospitals and public buildings and road projects, not so some fat billionaire can get fatter.

Ok for public use. Not ok for private profit.

But I realize there are problems when they use eminent domain to seize property to build shopping malls. That's not the intended purpose. We need some progressive action to get things back on track.

were the problem. A very rare occasion where I found myself on the same side as Fat Tony Scalia.

How progressive are they? I think they're liberal enough to be on the side of government, but not progressive enough to believe government should be helping the ordinary citizen, not the big corporation.

When the government generates more in tax revenue, they have more money to do more things and help more people.

Personally, I don't have an issue with the concept of eminent domain, but I do have an issue with a way-to-vague definition of what is "the public good"

Is in the public interest to help businesses make money and hire people,and so on. The problem occurs when we use the power of government to enable business to step on the neck of property owners. Not all things are in the public interest in the same way, and a shopping mall is not the same as a new high school or public hospital.

the way they have basterdized it and used it help big business and fucked people on it , they need to stop it and get rid of it..

But people should be paid at least double the fair market value of their property.

Private use: pay them five times market value, at least, and give them an equity stake in whatever the project is.

the resulting project.

It would solve a lot of problems.

Her house was in the way of a road re-routing project. She did get paid enough to build a new one (already owning the land, and having her sons and sons-in-law do the actual building (I help by fetching and carrying - I was 5 at the time) helped a lot).

It's actually progressive to protect citizens property from being taken by the government.

If you need a project done, you find a way or pay a price they'll accept.

sure. If it were my home, I doubt it - at any price.

In spite of the SC ruling.

.


So, a private business can steal someone's property if it benefits them, under the guise of "Public Good!"


Christie Whitman EDed dozens of homes in Barnegate to build a tunnel for a Casino mogel's casino.


After the homes were razed and tens of millions spent by taxpayers to build a tunnel to this guy's casino...

the fucking guy backed out of the deal and there's a tunnel to nowhere and a community destroyed!


.

I am much more hesitant to support eminent domain for uses which are called public but which will really enrich a few members of the local government.

A lot of what is called public use isn't.

I am very, very unwilling to support emininent domain for any project that is non-government. Roads, schools, hospitals, etc are legitimate. Private development often does more harm than good, and eminent domain is used to get land more cheaply than it could otherwise be purchased.

More tax dollars is not a public purpose, IMO. Eminent domain is way, way overused.

Which is most often done in conjunction with private developers.

The developer never got financing (despite acquiring the waterfront property for $1/yr), and the development was never built. The land remains vacant, and was even used as a dump for a while for storm debris. This clearly was an abuse of power, and the SC justices who voted for it should be ashamed.

I support the centuries old power of eminent domain, recognized in the US Constitution, if "public" is defined very narrowly and the price paid is very fair, meaning a bonus for the involuntary nature of the move, not simply fair market value of the property.

If a city really needs a right of way or a piece of property for a valid and necessary city use and the owner(s) won't sell, something has to give for the good of the city's population. But, eminent domain has been abused and the results have been highly detrimental to the general population.

The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5-4 decision received heavy press coverage and inspired a public outcry criticizing eminent domain powers as too broad. In reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering state legislation that would further define and restrict the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock [2004]), Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney [2006]), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.

The redevelopment in New London, the subject of the Kelo decision, proved to be a failure and as of ten years after the court's decision nothing has been built on the taken land in spite of the expenditure of over $100 million in public funds. The Pfizer corporation, which owned a $300 million research facility in the area, and would have been the primary beneficiary of the additional development, announced in 2009 that it would close its facility, and did so shortly before the expiration of its 10-year tax abatement agreement with the city.[12] The facility was subsequently purchased in 2010 for just $55 million by General Dynamics Electric Boat.[13]

.. because of the proposed project (e.g., who wants a house in the median of an interstate..)

I guess that could be abused, too, by the owner, holding out to hold up the state. I'm not sure how to prevent that, but the state has more power and more ability to raise money than the average property owner. I might also make special provision for an owner occupied residence, as opposed to a commercial or rental property.

to provide the extra step for more information and a explanation of what it used to mean.
i voted no because we have a huge issue right now with the threat of an lng pipeline from canada down eastern side of oregon and across southern oregon watersheds to west coast loading docks - under and over rivers, forests, desert, mountains, etc. by private corporations. it is disgusting!

hard to trust government not to find loopholes or imagine their existence. Hell, imagining huge loopholes in the bill of rights is the only "justification" for government spying as we currently know it. And oil is always a law unto itself in this country, at least until we manage solar. (Amazing--and fishy--that that has not happened already, isn't it?)

Not with what homes cost in many parts of BC. The government would not pay that much at all.

Frankly, I could see the government very easily undervaluing homes.