Determining who ultimately owns your home

Determining who ultimately owns your home

By Samuel R. Staley
February 23, 2005

Who owns your home?

a. You own it free and clear;

b. The bank;

c. A landlord;

d. Donald Trump.

If you answered anything other than Donald Trump, a case that the Supreme Court will rule on this spring or summer should have you worried. If the court sides with earlier decisions, local politicians may try to steal your property and hand it to Trump or some other real estate developer because they can generate more tax revenue than your home. It sounds crazy, but it's much more possible than you'd think.

Wilhelmina Dery still lives in the New London, Conn., home that she was born in back in 1918. Her son lives next door. Their family has lived in the neighborhood since 1895. And the government is trying to take their homes. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kelo v. City of New London pitting middle-income homeowners, including the Derys, against politicians and powerful land developers.

In 2000, the city of New London condemned the Dery's neighborhood to make way for new office space, a hotel and luxury apartment complex. New London isn't even trying to justify its actions on the traditional criteria of "urban blight" – the idea that a neighborhood has so badly deteriorated that only the government can clean it up and revitalize it using public subsidies.

The city is openly razing the neighborhood simply because officials believe the government will reap great financial rewards by destroying the homes and replacing them with commercial uses to complement the nearby Pfizer, Inc. research facility. A stable, moderately priced neighborhood of historic homes owned by longtime city residents just isn't good enough when a city is eyeing new revenue streams.

The plight of New London's homeowners is increasingly common throughout the country. More than 20 years ago, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the infamous Poletown decision. In that case, the city of Detroit bulldozed an entire neighborhood to make way for a General Motors plant. At the time, the Michigan court (which reversed itself in 2004) said that economic development was a sufficient "public purpose" to allow the city to force residents from their homes.

(snip)

Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050223/news_lz1e23staley.html

Staley is director of urban and land use policy at Reason Foundation and co-editor of the book "Smarter Growth: Market-Based Strategies for Land-Use Planning in the 21st Century."

being extended to privately owned corporations. I'm sure it will get done. The corporatists rule this country now.

You never own a home "free and clear". Think about all the city taxes you have to pay on your home to pay for the costs of local utilities, maintenance of your roads, and schools. Unless you rent, you carry a great deal of this burden.

to say the state can do anything it wants with property?

Couldn't you end up with a local government taking over everything?

of their collective asses and sides with us for once.

it is communism. If it takes it to benefit wealthy developers - is is capitalism

Interesting that without even being asked, the Bush administration has filed a friend of the court papers in support of this "taking."

(OK, sarcasm off)

It seems to me that if it's shown the new complex doesn't help the economy, then the local government can simply once again take it away from any parties that invested in building it. What is to stop them?

When I was in Law School, I took an elective in "American Legal History" - don't know what I really expected -- but I ended up with an absolutely pompous and boring New England Aristocrat who had a JD (Haaaarvaard) and Ph.D. in the History of Pre-Colonial Massachusetts (also Haaarvaard) and we never got past the history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony's court system.

But- he did teach us that the ultimate title to our real estate rests in the sovereign - goes back to the feudal system in Merrye Olde Englande. And, while we have a "Due Process" requirement that the Sovereign has to pay you if he ever exercises his "Superior Right To Possession As Sovereign" - all land in the US ultimately is "owned" by the US Government as the heir/representative/successor to the King of England (even the lands we obtained by the Louisiana Treaty and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo) and as the representative of all of the people (even "Indians not taxed" and "slaves" and "all other persons")

In Arlington. He got the city there to confiscate a bunch of land, supposedly to build a stadium for the Texas Rangers, but in fact they confiscated way more land than was needed for the ballpark. The Rangers then made a bunch of money selling off the land to developers. The deal was one of the primary reasons the Rangers went up in value so much during *'s time there...

The local city government down here in Port Aransas Texas is trying a similar thing, taking land confiscated for a public park/nature preserve and turning it over to developers so they can build a big marina/hotel complex. This has many of the locals upset, as one might imagine. So far it is unclear if it will go through, but I suspect it will, in the name of "progress" and "jobs".

There has to be a "public purpose." Well settled law. The question before SCOTUS is "Can the "Public Purpose" be resale to a developer who will pay higher taxes."

As a Realtor in Texas I am very aware of eminent domain. The concept is that a government can claim private property for public use if it compensates the owner at fair market value. The key is PUBLIC use. The decision spoken of here is whether it is appropriate and legal for government to declare eminent domain and turn the private property over to private corporations for their use and benefit.

Case in point. Here in Arlington, TX--home of the Texas Ranger's Baseball team--the property the Stadium sits on was acquired by eminent domain and turned over to private developers (George W Bush was part of this). The very same thing is happening now with the new Cowboy's stadium project.

In truth and fact the property owners are fairly compensated at fair market value plus 10% and those leasing are also fairly compensated for moving expenses and re-location. Some leasees meeting income requirements can collect up to $10,000 toward the purchase of property in the city limits, so it isn't an issue of fair compensation but of legality in transferring private property from one owner to another for commercial development.

As long as everybody is placated with monetary reward nobody squawks but it sets a precedent for transferring property ownership from one private entity to another outside the free market. Sure, everybody got fair market +10%, but if the corporations wanting the property had to bid on the open market property values would increase to meet demand instead of being artificially set by city government. It changes the definition of "fair market value" to something set by city government.

not everyone is... there was an NPR show on eminent domain and while there have been no conclusive studies on it there is enough anecdotal evidence that not everyone got fair market value...

In some states "fairly compensated" means the value of the "Highest and best use."

If your property is worth $100,000 in its present use (single family residence) but the land is worth $1,000,000 to a developer who wants to build an office park, then it's eminent domain value, under the "Highest and Best Use" rule is $1,000,000. Then, there's the adders of the "dislocation" and "relocation" etc. So in a "Highest and Best Use" state, you might get as much as $1,500,000 for your $100,000 home.

This has the effect of flushing out lots of crazy plans.


BTW- as to the argument about "Well I want to live there, no place else, in that house, that exact house, I am emotionally attached to it -- my memories." My response-- some years ago I probated a large estate. And when we got the Distribution Decree from the Probate Court, I was going over the decree with the widow. She looks at me and says "Yosie, I would give half of this to have him back." :bounce:

Another probate joke. Similar facts, and the widow asks - "Can I get a certified copy of the decree? I am going on a cruise -- and if I meet somebody nice, I want him to know what I'm worth." :bounce:

what about their desire to remain in a community where they're happy? How can you place a monetary value on a sense of community and tradition?

The government institutes and enforces the instruments that
legally create and define property and ownership. This is too
easily forgotten. It isn't a mandate from the deity, however
much the wealthy might like to think so.

The proper question here is should the needs of the city and
the developers for "growth" be allowed to abrogate the normal
ownership rights of these people? And the answer is no. Let them
build their crap somewhere else, if they must.

he really is thinking of his buddy the corporations.

And where are all the Republicans who, one would think, be the first against a government intervention over private individuals?

are leading a charge for seizure of private property to hand over to developers. The bill is sponsored by the Senate Majority Leader who is - wait for it - a developer.

Neal Boortz, the local talk radio wingnut says he is shocked.

He must be the only one.

B.

a crying shame. If there was ever an abuse of govt power this is it.

The people in New London who are doing this are evil, pure and simple.