View Full Version : Eminent Domain
w7lpn
12-08-2005, 02:31 AM
I wonder what would happen if somebody shot that mayor down in Florida who is pushing for big investors to build condos and yacht clubs, using eminent domain to steal their homes. What would happen if hundreds of people told the investors, "Take our homes to build your condos, and we'll burn your condos to the ground", or "You'll never build on my property, because we'll burn it down". If enough people refuse to allow it, they can't proceed. If the people pushing this suddenly fall victim of strange accidents, or disappear without a trace, do you think this abuse would stop? Just wondering what you think? Not trying to give anyone any ideas. Well, not REALLY....?
KI4BNC
12-08-2005, 02:36 AM
no not really.but if you mix...
nevermind.
I would not go as far as to threaten anyone but WE as a people need to stand up and do something.imminent doom-ain is the biggest "land grab" enacted by the GOVERNMENT in the last 100 years.It is awful that they can do it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
w7lpn
12-08-2005, 03:05 AM
Quote[/b] (KI4BNC @ Dec. 07 2005,19:36)]no not really.but if you mix...
nevermind.
I would not go as far as to threaten anyone but WE as a people need to stand up and do something.imminent doom-ain is the biggest "land grab" enacted by the GOVERNMENT in the last 100 years.It is awful that they can do it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
If a thousand people called and threatened to burn down anything they built their, would that raise their property or builders insurance to the point it would be prohibitive to build, and would they then drop the idea? #Just an idea. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
KI4BNC
12-08-2005, 03:11 AM
good question/bad timing-
time to go home-
no internet at the house yet.
inbetween isps:)
k6pme
12-08-2005, 04:51 AM
Quote[/b] (ke7eke @ Dec. 07 2005,20:05)]Quote[/b] (KI4BNC @ Dec. 07 2005,19:36)]no not really.but if you mix...
nevermind.
I would not go as far as to threaten anyone but WE as a people need to stand up and do something.imminent doom-ain is the biggest "land grab" enacted by the GOVERNMENT in the last 100 years.It is awful that they can do it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
If a thousand people called and threatened to burn down anything they built their, would that raise their property or builders insurance to the point it would be prohibitive to build, and would they then drop the idea? #Just an idea. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Great concept but very bad idea. It's called making terrorist threats. But I agree, the recent eminent domain decision just knocked a huge pillar of American values flat to the ground. Being that the top Court made the ruling there is basically no method for a 'redress of grievances'. It's license for legalized stealing for the pure purposes of greed. I haven't read it yet but I plan to when it gets published in the right place.
Quote[/b] ]Being that the top Court made the ruling there is basically no method for a 'redress of grievances'. It's license for legalized stealing for the pure purposes of greed. I haven't read it yet but I plan to when it gets published in the right place.
Ahh, but that isn't what the ruling said.
In a nutshell it left the decision up to state and local and even federal government. Any of whom could pass legislation banning eminent domain for "private" entities.
There's a big difference between taking someones property to build a highway or bridge, something in the "public" interest and taking for a private entity that might, someday, maybe, increase property values and thus tax income which might, someday, maybe be of benefit to the whole community.
k6pme
12-08-2005, 01:43 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Dec. 08 2005,06:12)]Quote[/b] ]Being that the top Court made the ruling there is basically no method for a 'redress of grievances'. It's license for legalized stealing for the pure purposes of greed. I haven't read it yet but I plan to when it gets published in the right place.
Ahh, but that isn't what the ruling said.
In a nutshell it left the decision up to state and local and even federal government. Any of whom could pass legislation banning eminent domain for "private" entities.
There's a big difference between taking someones property to build a highway or bridge, something in the "public" interest and taking for a private entity that might, someday, maybe, increase property values and thus tax income which might, someday, maybe be of benefit to the whole community.
Mmm...OK. You could be right. Like I said, I haven't read it yet. But if that is the case and the concerned Governmental agency DOESN'T pass legislation banning the practice then the outcome is still the same.
If a developer decides that he/she wants your land to make a nice fat profit then he/she can legally acquire your property and there nothing that can be done about it. And the justification is that it might generate increased tax revenue. Is there a conflict of interest there?
k4kyv
12-08-2005, 03:48 PM
Quote[/b] (KG6QQL @ Dec. 07 2005,21:51)]Great concept but very bad idea. It's called making terrorist threats.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
KD6NIG
12-08-2005, 04:02 PM
Quote[/b] (ke7eke @ Dec. 07 2005,19:31)]I wonder what would happen if somebody shot that mayor down in Florida who is pushing for big investors to build condos and yacht clubs, using eminent domain to steal their homes. What would happen if hundreds of people told the investors, "Take our homes to build your condos, and we'll burn your condos to the ground", or "You'll never build on my property, because we'll burn it down". If enough people refuse to allow it, they can't proceed. #If the people pushing this suddenly fall victim of strange accidents, or disappear without a trace, do you think this abuse would stop? Just wondering what you think? Not trying to give anyone any ideas. Well, not REALLY....?
The mayor of that city is simply following the law.
If the local/city/state government doesn't block such a seizure, then he can do what he wants, and they can seize what they want.
Its up to the local municipality to stop it, and up to the people being seized to try and get the local laws changed to stop it.
If the laws aren't changed, what they are doing is perfectly legal, and it is the fault of the local government from not protecting them. Legally though, they won't have a leg to stand on.
Going to the extent that you are describing will just earn them a legnthy jail sentance, as they will be breaking the law, not the people who did the seizure, if the law isn't changed.
Quote[/b] ]AC0H Posted on Dec. 08 2005,06:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahh, but that isn't what the ruling said.
In a nutshell it left the decision up to state and local and even federal government. Any of whom could pass legislation banning eminent domain for "private" entities.
There's a big difference between taking someones property to build a highway or bridge, something in the "public" interest and taking for a private entity that might, someday, maybe, increase property values and thus tax income which might, someday, maybe be of benefit to the whole community.
I think you need to do your homework a little better. The Takings Clause says that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." What the Supremes said is that taking property to be used for private purposes met this condition as long as it was to increase taxes. In other words, the Constitution does not protect the property rights as many of us have thought for years. Your comments are the same as if they had said the states are free to pass legislation to give their citizens the freedom of speach. Many of us feel that the Constitution gives all of us rights that do not need state or local legislation to protect.
k4kyv
12-08-2005, 05:49 PM
What it amounts to is that you don't really own your home or property. You just lease it from the local county or city. The local government is your landlord. In order to maintain your lease, you must keep your rent payments, AKA "property tax" up to date. Just as when you sign a lease to rent an apartment, if you default on your rent, the landlord can eventually have you evicted. If you default on your property tax, the city or county will eventually have you evicted. Even if you keep your rent payments up to date, the landlord may, if he thinks it's in his interest, decide to stop renting the apartment, have you evicted, and convert the property to some other use, or raze the building. Eminent domain gives the state the same right as any other landlord, to break the lease and evict the tenants (property owners) if they think they have a better use for the land.
That sucks for sure, and they never taught it that way in grade school social studies class.
Quote[/b] ]What the Supremes said is that taking property to be used for private purposes met this condition as long as it was to increase taxes.
They also said in the same ruling that state and local governments were free to either expand the reach of eminent domain, as some have been doing, or restrict it. There is a movement affoot by several local/state governments to do exactly that. I don't think they'd bother if the supremes had said it was unconstitutional.
Quote[/b] ]Restricting Eminent Domain: Model State Statutory Language & Local Ordinance/Charter Provision (7/25) In the wake of the Supreme Court's Kelo vs. New London decision, state and local governments nationwide are starting to take action to oppose or restrict the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. To assist state and local elected officials in these efforts, Reason has made available a variety of tools that can serve as a starting point toward eminent domain reform.
Linkage (http://www.rppi.org/emdomain/index.shtml) #.More Linkage (http://www.rppi.org/emdomain/EminentDomain_StateStatutoryLanguage.pdf)
People need to jump on their local elected officials and stop this now.
KD7WHQ
12-09-2005, 04:11 AM
Ever hear of property patents?
If you are a landowner, this could be the saving grace.
Basically (and simplified) it files into record incontrovertably that you own the land.
It can't be siezed, as you OWN it.
Takes some research, but I think it worth it...
KK0CQ
12-09-2005, 04:42 PM
Two Eminent Domain stories: First, a supermarket owner, in his wisdom purchased land down the street from him to insure that a competitor could not build too close. Ha! The city politicians used eminent domain laws to "take" this land & sell it directly to his competitor. I heard the Mayor justify this action on the radio & he came across as a full blown weasel. His reason for taking the land was "the land in question was blighted & rundown, therefore it is takeable". The courts agreed.
# #The second instance was local: a farmer owned land near the local lake & the State Parks Dept thought his land would make a good park, so through eminent domain they "took" it. They grabbed his whole farm, even the farmstead, house & all. The park director got the house to live in. They took hundreds of acres needlessly. This was in the courts for years before the states highest court found for the state. I spoke with the farmer & asked him if the compensation was proper & he said the money was ok but now I hafta leave my home, my job, my way of life. I could see it in his eyes that this man was very sad.
# I see that petitions are being circulated to force the politicians to do something. Shame on the courts, shame on the lazy politicians. # 73, KK0CQ
k4kyv
12-09-2005, 09:05 PM
Quote[/b] (KD7WHQ @ Dec. 08 2005,21:11)]Ever hear of property patents?
If you are a landowner, this could be the saving grace.
Basically (and simplified) it files into record incontrovertably that you own the land.
It can't be siezed, as you OWN it.
Takes some research, but I think it worth it...
Tell me how I can get a patent on my property. Does that also mean that the county can't auction it off if I fail to pay my property tax?
I once read that many landowners lost their property in New Mexico when it came under the control of the United States. Traditionally, Mexico and other former Spanish colonies had no property tax; the landowner enjoyed unconditional possession of his land. When US took over, many peasants who had lived and subsistence farmed on their land for generations lost their property because they had no money to pay the newly-imposed real estate tax, an Anglo-Saxon institution that was totally foreign to Latin culture.
KD7WHQ
12-10-2005, 03:44 AM
Yup. Do a google, or jeeves search.
At least 6 sites detailing the process will come up
NB, it is an exact process; papers have to be in a specific order, and it will take research to pull it off..
You know, this could open up new frontiers. Like buying land/houses in Canada. Be a long commute, but heck, at least you'd have a house to come home to...
Quote[/b] (KD7WHQ @ Dec. 08 2005,21:11)]Ever hear of property patents?
If you are a landowner, this could be the saving grace.
Basically (and simplified) it files into record incontrovertably that you own the land.
It can't be siezed, as you OWN it.
Takes some research, but I think it worth it...
There is a tiny amount of Federal patent land in Alaska, but I don't think that anything precludes the government from seizing it as long as they follow due process.