MSNBC poll: 98% against seizure of homes/bldgs for private project

125,839 responses
Mr. *: HERE IS A MANDATE!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8331958/

Should cities be allowed to seize homes and buildings for private projects as long as they benefit the public good? *
125839 responses

Yes, all parties benefit in the long run
2%

No, property owners will lose and developers gain
98%

Edited to add: THIS might make it as a constitutional amendment. Then we could resolve this issue once and for all (I was so disappointed in Justice Stevens on this one!)

SCOTUS knows what we want better, right? Just ask 'em, they'll tell ya!

:grr:

Despite being voted down numerous times (including a failed proposal for a sales tax increase), the city finally flexed their imminent domain muscle to get PNC Park built. I believe they also tried to pull the same crap with a number of small businesses downtown.

Pillow talk rules with bush.

way around?

...what we want, don't mean jack.

That is what has happened in my area. Under the right circumstances, I can see it. In real life emminent domain seizures can really benefit the whole community.
:popcorn:

and I think most people wouldn't have a problem with that.

Real Example: In the City of Norwood (a suburb of Cincinnati), a private developer wanted to construct yet another shopping mall/office park. Part of the parcel that he required, unfortunately, was littered with well-kept, middle-class homes. Homes owned by people who didn't want to move. The developer bought out those who were willing, then relied on the city government to declare their clean and safe neighborhood a "blighted area" so that they could sieze the property.

It's one thing to use eminent domain for a highway or a bridge or a dam -- but to benefit a private developer? It just doesn't get any more wrong than that.

If the city is going to knock down a blighted neighborhood and pay to redevelop the area, the taxpayers will have to pay. But, if they let a private developer do it, it doesn't cost the taxpayers and then the city collects tax revenue from the project itself.

There's always an opportunity for corruption in such a situation, but I don't think the involvement of private developers is necessarily evil.

Then you're basically throwing people out of their homes to benefit a commercial developer. The involvement of private developers is not a problem -- it's when the government summarily siezes a person's property.

retirees or working class folks, who don't generate a huge tax revenue, living in older houses, in a desirable area, can be labeled "blighted" by city officials (who may be getting benefits of some sort - not necessarily illegal (or easy to prove to be illegal) from the developer) who know they can get more taxes from new development.

How is it right that we punish folks who have lived in a neighborhood for decades simply because they don't have huge houses which the city can get more taxes from? Lots of homes could be in jeopardy if "generation of taxes and/or jobs" is allowed to be a reason for taking of property under eminent domain.

This is what the situation in New London CT seems to be, if I'm remembering correctly.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050624-120942-4179r.htm
Justice O'Connor said "under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be ... given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public."
----------

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-28-justices-property_x.htm
The New London dispute touches on a controversial issue that has been simmering in several states, as local governments have sought new sources of tax revenue. Traditionally, governments have used their eminent-domain powers to condemn — and then improve — blighted areas. But governments increasingly have sought to take property that is not in a slum, but that nonetheless could be used in a private redevelopment plan.

Larry Morandi, environmental program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures, says that "tough economic times and (efforts) to make urban areas more vital" have led local governments to broadly interpret their "public use" power — and spurred new complaints from property rights advocates. He says that about a dozen state legislatures have considered proposals to limit local authorities from using eminent domain for private development.

of the package.

.

The stadium's lease is a case in point. Unlike an apartment tenant, the rent that the team's owners pay is applied toward purchasing the stadium. The maximum yearly rent and maintenence fees for the Rangers are $5 million; the total purchase price for the Ballpark at Arlington is $60 million. Thus, after 12 years the owners will have bought the stadium for less than half of what taxpayers spent on it.

But Bush and his partners weren't satisfied lining their pockets with average Texans' hard-earned cash. They wanted land around the stadium to further boost its value. To that end, they orchestrated a land grab that shortchanged local landowners by several million dollars.

As part of the deal, the city created a separate corporation, the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority, to manage construction. Using authority granted to it by the city, the ASFDA seized several tracts of land around the stadium site for parking and future development.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2675

And if this did become a constitutional amendment, it might actually be one that's beneficial!

Unlike, say, a certain amendment that W proposed!