Sidebar

Eminent Domain Abuse

G

gmart74

Hall of Fame
Oct 9, 2005
12,344
2
57
Baltimore, Md
seebell said:
In response to this, Alabama and many other states revised their eminent domain laws to prevent this. However, our wonderful Governor and legislature revised the law again so this could happen in Alabama. Technically, according to the Alabama Constitution, any business that wants to expand can take your property.
Click to expand...
I am always amazed at how weak and cowardly america has become. it's getting to the point that if the law said people had to eat their children, half of the lemings would do it without hesitation, and another sizable chunk would do it while complaining.
 
MegaVars

MegaVars

All-American
Nov 17, 2002
4,510
0
0
59
Warrior, AL.
gmart74 said:
I am always amazed at how weak and cowardly america has become. it's getting to the point that if the law said people had to eat their children, half of the lemings would do it without hesitation, and another sizable chunk would do it while complaining.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the ones who would claim it as a deduction on their taxes. :biggrin2:
 
4

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Staff member
Nov 8, 2004
9,627
13,066
237
Tuscaloosa
jthomas666 said:
There was a 2005 SC case several years ago that drastically (and wrongly, IMO) expanded the limits of ED. One of the keys of the case was whether the relevant state constitution specifically limited ED; if not, then states and municipalities had a lot of latitude, particularly in economically depressed areas. Several states passed such legislation in the wake of the decision.
Click to expand...
I remember that case, and was going to bring it up if you hadn't.

I think it was the worst SCOTUS decision in my lifetime. One of the worst in history. In essence gives federal, state and local governments the ability to take your property for any reason.

Sure, they may have to make something up, but the rule is so broad that virtually any convoluted and tortured logic will work.
 
crimsonaudio

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,470
67,439
462
crimsonaudio.net
Maybe I'm just paying more attention, but it seems like we've had more awful SCOTUS decisions in the last 15 years than I can ever recall. Just fundamentally wrong decisions.
 
RammerJammer14

RammerJammer14

Hall of Fame
Aug 18, 2007
14,666
6,688
187
UA
seebell said:
The case that started it all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[SUP][1][/SUP] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot, which was eventually turned into a temporary dump.[SUP][2]

In response to this, Alabama and many other states revised their eminent domain laws to prevent this. However, our wonderful Governor and legislature revised the law again so this could happen in Alabama. Technically, according to the Alabama Constitution, any business that wants to expand can take your property.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/31/alabama-brings-back-eminent-domain-for-p
his month, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed into law a bill that allows local officials to condemn private property and turn it over to private developers

This month, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed into law a bill that allows local officials to condemn private property and turn it over to private developers.[/SUP]
CommonsThis month, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed into law a bill that allows local officials to condemn private property and turn it over to private developers.
Alabama’s statutes had contained some of the best protections in the nation for property owners; officials couldn’t seize property for private development unless it was a true threat to human health and safety.
Welcome back to the bad old days.
Click to expand...
That really is absurd. They could seriously confiscate anything for any reason.
 
4

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Staff member
Nov 8, 2004
9,627
13,066
237
Tuscaloosa
RammerJammer14 said:
That really is absurd. They could seriously confiscate anything for any reason.
Click to expand...
That's largely true. It isn't exactly confiscation, because they do have to pay you for it.

But even then, determining value can often be an imprecise exercise, and there's a good chance of getting a sigmoidoscopy on the price. To add insult to injury, that's in addition to being forced to sell in the first place.

Orwell's 1984 missed only the year, not the end result.
 
Last edited:
Displaced Bama Fan

Displaced Bama Fan

Hall of Fame
Jun 5, 2000
23,344
39
167
Shiner, TX
4Q Basket Case said:
That's largely true. It isn't exactly confiscation, because they do have to pay you for it.

But even then, determining value can often be an imprecise exercise, and there's a good chance of getting a sigmoidoscopy on the price. To add insult to injury, that's in addition to being forced to sell in the first place.

Orwell's 1984 missed only the year, not the end result.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the police state.
 
twofbyc

twofbyc

Hall of Fame
Oct 14, 2009
12,222
3,371
187
4Q Basket Case said:
That's largely true. It isn't exactly confiscation, because they do have to pay you for it.

But even then, determining value can often be an imprecise exercise, and there's a good chance of getting a sigmoidoscopy on the price. To add insult to injury, that's in addition to being forced to sell in the first place.

Orwell's 1984 missed only the year, not the end result.
Click to expand...
If the payoff was equal to the assessed value (here in Bama that pretty much mirrors what the RE appraisers would guesstimate the value to be, or comes close), and I wasn't averse to moving, I'd take the money and move, at least right now. If they want to give pennies on the dollar, or I am planning on making my last stand where I am living, then somebody besides me dies, simple as that.
Only time property should ever be seized under such terms are national security (not bogus claim but the real thing), or for the "real" public good - not just to make a few people rich. Creating low-middle paying jobs ain't enough to give up my house. Building a hurricane evacuation route would be.
 
seebell

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
11,919
5,105
187
Gurley, Al
A little off topic but...

Nebraska judge strikes down legislature’s move allowing Keystone XL route



http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/nebraska-judge-strikes-down-legislatures-move-allowing-keystone-xl-route/2014/02/19/5601e916-99a7-11e3-b88d-f36c07223d88_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboPEN_p

Stacy concluded that the state legislature’s decision to take the siting power away from its Public Service Commission and give it to Heineman violated the state’s constitution.
“from taking any action on the governor’s January 22, 2013 approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline route,” such as allowing land to be acquired by eminent domain for the project.


 
Tidewater

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,481
13,328
287
Hooterville, Vir.
skrayper77 said:
In Virginia, we limited eminent domain back in 2012 in an open election for the amendment:

http://ballotpedia.org/Virginia_Eminent_Domain_Amendment,_Question_1_(2012)

It can never be taken for private enterprise, job creation, etc. Only public works and the removal of a public nuisance. Not perfect, but a lot better than other places.
Click to expand...
Until someone gets a Federal judge to overthrow that provision of the Commonwealth's Constitution, because it restricts some local government officer's "privileges and immunities."
 
Tide1986

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
seebell said:
The case that started it all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[SUP][1][/SUP] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a “comprehensive redevelopment plan.” However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot, which was eventually turned into a temporary dump.[SUP][2]

In response to this, Alabama and many other states revised their eminent domain laws to prevent this. However, our wonderful Governor and legislature revised the law again so this could happen in Alabama. Technically, according to the Alabama Constitution, any business that wants to expand can take your property.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/31/alabama-brings-back-eminent-domain-for-p
his month, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed into law a bill that allows local officials to condemn private property and turn it over to private developers

This month, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed into law a bill that allows local officials to condemn private property and turn it over to private developers.[/SUP]
CommonsThis month, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed into law a bill that allows local officials to condemn private property and turn it over to private developers.
Alabama’s statutes had contained some of the best protections in the nation for property owners; officials couldn’t seize property for private development unless it was a true threat to human health and safety.
Welcome back to the bad old days.
Click to expand...

Seized Property Sits Vacant Nine Years After Landmark Eminent Domain Case

The controversial Supreme Court ruling that expanded eminent domain to give government the right to take private property to allow economic development may have been all for nothing, according to a report.

Nine years after the high court sided with a Connecticut municipality in Kelo v. City of New London, a rulingAssociate Justice Antonin Scalia has likened to the court's disastrous Dred Scott decision, the 90-acre plot once earmarked for office buildings, luxury apartments and a new marina, remains vacant.
Click to expand...
:puke:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a> <br /> <!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \--> <p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.

Top Bottom