Private Businesses ask state to seize homes(Eminant Domain)

[PROGRESSIVE1]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=15&u=/usatoday/20050221/ts_usatoday/connresidentsfightforhomes

:wtf: is this? How can there be private property if the government can take your land for business purposes? :wtf:

[shraby]

1. I think that very question is before the Supremes

right now.

[Kali]

2. It's an issue ranchers in the west have been dealing with for decades

even those (maybe especially) that use "Public" lands.

[lastliberalintexas]

58. Public land ranchers

do not need to fear eminent domain. They do not own the land, it is already owned by the government, and therefore there is nothing for the government to seize. Their complaints often have to do with increases in fees for grazing etc., even though it still costs them less to use MY/OUR public lands than it does for them to own their own and have to maintain anything. Plus, the economic externalities of overgrazing and the like are not borne by the rancher, but are instead shouldered by we, the taxpayers. Public lands ranchers (and esp public lands miners) are the "welfare queens" of the West.

Sorry for the mini-rant- it's just a pet peeve of mine that a block of solidly repub voters is allowed to be such vocal hypocrits.

[mitchtv]

63. add to them Mining Cos. and timber cos.

also subsidized by taxpayers' largesse

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Gary Greenberg (Mother Jones): The Condemned

From Mother Jones
(January/February 2005 issue)

The Condemned
In Ohio, and across the country, homeowners are battling cities and developers conspiring to seize their property.
By Gary Greenberg

From his office at the top of Rookwood Tower, the seven-story, glass-and-steel building that his family’s real estate company built, Jeffrey Robert Anderson Jr., or J.R. as he is known here in Norwood, Ohio, can easily survey his empire. Directly below the tower and its 185,000 square feet of professional and financial services offices is Rookwood Pavilion, 23 acres of shopping and eating. A little farther to the left is Rookwood Commons -- not, Anderson advises me, a shopping plaza, but a "lifestyle center" containing a Gap, Ann Taylor, and 46 of the other usual suspects. This former brownfield, abandoned when a machine tool factory left Norwood, is now the premier shopping destination in Greater Cincinnati, if not all of Ohio, according to anyone around here that you ask. It’s an impressive sight, and perched high up in his well-appointed office with its sculptures and paintings and enormous glass-topped table, you might believe that this tall and fit 32-year-old with flaxen hair and bright blue eyes rules over all that he sees, or at least all that lies this side of the interstate.

And he would, were it not for the 13-acre, triangular spit of land directly below the tower. There, under the spruce and maple trees, are the asphalt-shingled roofs of a tidy neighborhood of modest houses. Bounded by the Cincinnati city line to the east and Rookwood to the south, and cut off from the rest of Norwood by an interstate highway, these 97 homes and small businesses are glaringly out of place, a mid-20th-century remnant amid all this 21st-century glitz. They’re also in Anderson's way. He wants to expand the Rookwood complex, but he has to buy and raze all these houses first, and while most property owners have eagerly accepted his offer to buy their houses at a premium price, five have refused. And so the $125 million-plus project, known as Rookwood Exchange, slated to be under construction by now, is at a dead standstill.

But Anderson has an ace up his sleeve. At his behest, and using his money, the city of Norwood has invoked its powers of eminent domain -- the right, granted by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, of a government to seize private property and turn it to public use -- to condemn a neighborhood and order residents out of their homes. Norwood is not the first city to act as a real estate broker whose offer can’t be refused, nor is Anderson the first businessman to benefit from this kind of largesse. A 1954 Supreme Court decision stating that the economic benefits of private development are a legitimate "public use" has forged an unholy alliance between cities strapped for cash and entrepreneurs promising economic bounty. (Anderson, for example, forecasts that Rookwood Exchange will net Norwood, a city with an annual budget of $18 million, between $1.5 and $3 million in annual taxes.) Struggling cities have placed their urban renewal hopes in the hands of developers like Anderson, who in turn rely on governments to assemble the parcels for their projects.

According to the Institute for Justice (IJ), a public-interest law firm, this is a growing trend. The institute analyzed eminent domain cases between 1998 and 2002 and found more than 10,000 instances where local governments had attempted to use a power once reserved for indisputably public projects like highways and railroads to obtain properties for private development projects such as box stores and golf courses.

Read more.

[oscar111]

9. I have seen a "Project" of thousands of apartments for the poor, torn down

Then, later on, a WallMart is built on that site. I have to assume that the original plan was to build that Wallmart, and the Project poor were moved to do it.

The False Front excuse now being given in a similar case, tearing down a Project... is "we are doing this to "renovate" the Project". " we will renovate by tearing down, and then putting up mostly upscale townhouses, and twenty five percent lo rent new housing like the old Project housing".

Net result: tear down seventy five percent of the poor's housing. Call it "renovating" which sounds like we are improving things for the poor.

Truth, is the poor are mostly being booted out.

This is evil.

the re above, says 1O OOO cases of siezing homes recently, across the nation.

This is a new ballpark of harm, and i see very little on the tv condemning it. Just one story abut a middleclass home area attacked to put up a Mall. The attack failed, or was expected to.

The developer here who got the project torn down is treated in the media as a Tycoon and one who should be admired for his energy.
Disrupting the lives of the OWS.. Old, Weak and Sick .... can easily kill the frail among them.

People should be safe in their homes. People should also all own the places they live in. 25% of our citizens do not own their abodes. Landlords do. "Rentiers" is a term sometimes used for LL's.

There is no Board that makes sure LL's are kind and intelligent enough to rule people. I have seen a very dumb one who also happened to be cruel. No city agency exists to prevent her from continuing to rule a chunk of the lives of tennants.

[ultraist]

36. There are laws to reign in landlords, Miminum housing Codes

But I do think there should be more opportunities for people to purchase their own homes. Owning a home is the main vehicle in which people transmit wealth to their heirs(even if it's a small amount of money, 30k-40k). Minorities are have the lowest homeownership percentages. This discrepancy should be addressed.

[Jack Rabbit]

43. That would be good, but it would solve this problem

What's going on here is that local governments are using eminent domian in the service of private enterprise. Owning your home is no protection against that.

It was one thing for the government to take land to construct a park, a highway, a dam or some other public facility. It is quite another for the government to use this power so that the land can be used for private development.

[aquart]

4. This is how Georgie got rich.

He used eminent domain in Texas to get the land for a stadium. Took more than needed and made a fortune on resale. So don't expect him to oppose this wonderful method to wealth without effort.

[lastliberalintexas]

59. Nah, he was already wealthy

It was just a way for him and his partners to screw over a few poor, mostly minority, homeowners so that they could raze the structures in order to build a parking lot for The Ballpark. What an imaginative, original name that is.

[mitchtv]

64. Dodger stadium was obtained like that

In mexican-american Chavez ravine.

[bush_is_wacko]

5. They did this in Colorado a few years back to build...

A MALL. This poor family had been living in the house they built with their own hands for something like 10-15 years way out in the country and suddenly the city said let's build an office park, a mall, a golf course and some high end apartment units for all these wealthy execs working in the office park. The family fought them until the bitter end. When the last high end apartment building was near completion the government kicked them out of their home!

The office park is now almost deserted due to the crash of the dot.com industries. The execs have moved out of their high end apartments and the mall, well, if it's like EVERY other mall around here the last Christmas season led to the close of about 20% of the business within it's walls.

I guess it was all worth kicking a FAMILY out of their home though, right?

WE have been living in a fascists country for MANY years now and apparently ONLY the ones that lost their homes over it have noticed it.

[jojo54]

6. Saw this in the Phila. Inquirer this morning

This sucks! I can understand when it's a case of unused old buildings or "some" open land (although I hate that-there's not much "open" land left in N.J.). But once again, the Powers-That-Be are bending the rules to play their game.

The complete article is here: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. It's an abuse of the concept of 'eminent domain'

The New London case is an out and out abuse. What needs to be proven is that the site represents a unique and exclusive opportunity for the public benefit to be achieved. What that arguement is up against here is what the holdout home owners are saying: that their property represents a unique and exclusive end to their own personal happiness and freedom.
The NYTimes also bent the rules with their new tower here in NYC.
I suspect with Bush himself being a beneficiary of 'taking land' in Arlington for his own baseball team, that the USSC will rule in favor of the corporations.

[blurp]

8. It's for the greater good.

Often times these new developments increase tax revenues for the city.

If we wish to continue funding programs, then sometimes individual property owners need to get out of the way.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

10. PRIVATE PROPERTY! The only people getting rich on this scam...

are the MILLIONAIRE developers!

:eyes:

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. but there is the public benefit of the jobs and tax revenues

the project will represent. The question is, why couldn't they do it elsewhere? Or why can't they build around these holdouts as is done frequently in other cases?

[LeftyMom]

42. Not always, though

Eminent domain gets used to create sports arenas, which don't create many good jobs at all.

[blurp]

16. As long as it helps the city increase it's revenues, so what?

Most cities get their money from property taxes.

An old shack in the middle of town isn't going to provide anywhere near the amount of property tax compared to a new development.

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few in this case.

That principle is fundamental to democracy.

Private property has always been about denying the public the use of something and is anti-democratic.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. I guess you're right

The city can use the increased revenue to improve programs for the homeless.

[oscar111]

19. increased revenues can be used to house the homeless just created, right?

wouldnt it be easier to just leave folks in their homes ?

[Jack Rabbit]

21. Ask blurp

I was just trying to be subtle.

[blurp]

23. Hey, that even made me giggle.

The trouble with your comment though, is that the city compensates the owner for their land, so buying a new house is possible.

They don't have to be homeless.

Like I said in another message, though, we should let democracy prevail here. If the representatives of The People want a house to be replaced with another development, then those standing in the way (private property owners) must move aside.

[Jack Rabbit]

31. And my point is . . .

. . . that this is becoming a pervaisive problem nationwide.

The remark about homelessness was satirical. Of course they will find new housing, although perhaps in a different community where another cash-strapped local government could send them packing again.

There is only so much land. It is a finite resource. One can only replace so much residential housing with commercial development before there is inadequate space left for residential housing.

And don't kid me about democracy working here. This is about wealthy interests, even coming from the outside the community, having more power over local government than the very people that government is supposed to serve and represent.

[oscar111]

25. Rabbit, i agree with you. I was just expanding on your good point,

to make a longer retort to blurp.

No offense meant to you, rabbit.

I liked your point.

[Jack Rabbit]

32. No offense taken

!!

[mitchtv]

65. that was quite funny

sure it will

[blurp]

22. Let Democracy prevail

The people making these decisions are the duly elected representatives of The People.

If The People think a house should be moved to make way for a business, then LET DEMOCRACY WORK.

"Private property" is an idea used often by those opposing the will of The People.

[Jack Rabbit]

27. If only it did work

This scheme is working to the benefit of only the wealthy, creating more problems than revenue for cities and marginalizing people like you and me.

Most people don't know who their local officials are. I agree, that's partly there own fault. Unfortunately, they don't think about it until they have a problem like this. Then they're blindsided. Did you read the article from Mother Jones to which I linked in post number 3?

This problem is the result of strapped state and local budgets, which are in turn a result of Bush Administration policy of shrinking federal revenues and, consequently, decreased federal aid to states and cities. This wouldn't be happening if local governments didn't feel the pinch to make a Faustian bargain with artificial persons at the expense of real people.

[ashmanonar]

44. but will they?

:/

[Jack Rabbit]

45. Probably not

Local governments are having enough trouble keeping the roads and sewers in good repair.

[ashmanonar]

46. yep. our country is going down the sewer.

and it starts with the local.

[oscar111]

18. Cities also get revenue from fed revenue sharing. See my note re about

returning to Truman's tax rate and then sharing revenue with this city.

a far superior solution to the one of destroying homes.

[GiovanniC]

11. That's a Very Interesting Take

I am sure that you would give up a house your family lived in for generations for a strip mall, right?

[ultraist]

37. For the right price, I'd consider it, depending on the location

The problem is, they pay the bottom rung of market value. It also forces people to cash out prematurely. The city forced us to sell four of our investment properties. Had we been able to hold those for five more years while they racked up in value (it was a fairly high appreciation rate area), we would have made a lot more on them.

[oscar111]

12. So tax revenues from this source is the only source?

Better to return to Truman's rate at the top, .. 90%... and use that tripling of IRS revenue to help any city .. instead of letting that city do this evil path for revenue.

re#8 reminds me of another lame excuse for many awful business plans: "but it will create jobs".

I say, "the mafia also would create jobs if we invited them to come here"

The point to raise is that there are BETTER WAYS TO

create jobs .. or in your case,

up city tax revenue.

[idiosyncratic]

20. You just don't understand

Some of these people are middle class, and upper middle class. They have lived in these homes for a long time.

The neighborhoods are not blighted. There is no reason to tear down their homes other than greed.

You need to get a new perspective . . . :mad:

[blurp]

24. You need to allow Democracy to work

The neighborhoods are not blighted. There is no reason to tear down their homes other than greed.

The elected officials doing this are the representatives of The People. That should be reason enough.

You need to get a new perspective . . . :mad:

And you should try supporting democracy.

Who comes first, the majority or private property owners?

[jdj]

29. you mean, who comes first, rich buddies of repukes

or poor property owners.

eminent domain is supposed to benefit the public good, not the private wallet.

[fat free goodness]

30. Massively WRONG

Your comments:
“Who comes first, the majority or private property owners?”
“Private property has always been about denying the public the use of something and is anti-democratic.”

Democracy (such as we pratice it) does not mean that the majority can do anything. Suppose the majority decide slavery is acceptable? Does majority rule?

Even if we limit "majority always rules" to property only (how?), it’s still a very bad idea. It means a sufficiently large group can take anything they want from smaller groups.

What if the currently elected Republican government decided to confiscate all private property in a predominantly Democratic neighborhood and give it to big business, because big business would develop it and pay more taxes?
Oh… wait. That IS what we were talking about, wasn’t it?

[Solon]

34. Weak argument...

The reason being because this isn't about something the majority will benefit from, building a private enterprise in place of homes currently taxed means precisely nothing. Many times these companies are exempt from property taxes for about 5 to 10 years to attract them to the spot anyways. The jobs most provide are substandard, minimum wage jobs, that actually increase the burden on the city in question when it comes to either housing or public assistance.

Also the idea of "Fair Compensation" is laughable, particularly if these houses are slightly older than the neighborhoods around them. They usually take the average home values of the neighborhood and use that figure to compensate the owners with. So, for example, this neighborhood has an average home value of 150 grand, the new developments in the same county have let's say, twice as much, plus, the family has to pay for moving expenses, the government doesn't, and they cannot even get the true market value of the home, for example, they could have renovated it, which would have increased the homes individual value would not be factored into the homes value to the city. They may be in debt due to such things, and the city certainly isn't going to pay for that.

At best, we are talking about families that may move out of their homes, and have to move into apartments instead. Is that a step up for them? This isn't about using immenent domain for PUBLIC use, but for PRIVATE use instead, that is an abuse of the power, plain and simple. I wouldn't even be arguing this with you if it was about building a public school that is needed, or building a road, something that provides an actual benefit to the community at large. This only sounds like someone was paid off, and they use the power given to the by the people and abuse it for corporate and private greed. Until such time when Malls and other large businesses have to worry about the same things, we will not live in a democracy, but instead live in corporate tyranny.

[Pushed To The Left]

47. That's the argument the right wing uses

when they rail against civil liberties groups like the ACLU and against civil rights cases being decided in the courts. You can't just vote away people's Constitutional rights, even though the right wing is doing a pretty good job of it as of late.

[alarimer]

48. this is NOT democracy

big businesses bullying communities to force people out of their homes for a PRIVATE enterprise is not democracy. It is bullshit. Eminent domain should only be used by the government for LEGITIMATE reasons, for highways or something.

[oneighty]

50. Yes

It was roads, railroads dams all for the good of all peoples.

Malls and such are not good for all people.

180

[girl gone mad]

51. So Wal-Mart and the New York Times are the majority?

Because that's who is benefiting from the ABUSE of eminent domain laws.

Eminent domain was intended to be used for public projects such as highways, not as a means for wealthy private investors to get prime real estate without having to pay fair market value. The law as it is now being used discriminates against small business owners and middle class families.

I could see your point if the land was really needed for a hospital or a road that would benefit the whole community, but you're on tenuous ground when you make a claim that a Wal-Mart store provides enough benefit to a community to justify kicking hundreds of families out of their homes.

[calico1]

55. I agree. I live across the river from

New London and have been following this case. Aside from everything else mentioned, some of these homes, like the one belonging to the woman in the article are from the 1800's so they have historical value. You can't replace that. These homes are all in good condition. This is not Democracy in action as someone mentioned. Its not Democracy when powerful business interests with high priced lawyers try to harrass people out of their homes that they have lived in for years. Its easy for some to say they can just move somewhere else. Easy if its not your home.

[jdj]

28. baloney.

increase tax revenues?

shit they give them breaks out the behind just to build there, and if things don't go just so then it's write-offs up the yin-yang.

[ultraist]

38. It is NOT always for the greater good

Gentrifying an area displaces lower income people pushing them out to the fringes where it's difficult to obtain employment.

Interesting that the well being of lower income people does not factor into YOUR equation of 'greater good.' Some of us consider greater good to mean the well being of ALL citizens.

[Kansas Wyatt]

13. Simple fact of life that most do not understand.

Regardless of living in a country of "freedom" where you think that you own your own life, you only rent your life until you die.

The wealthier you are, the more comfortable life that you can rent. Renters outside of the upper class are subject to eviction and/or subject to diminished amenities.

[oscar111]

15. Im not sure i understand the attitude behind the Wyatt re

would the esteemed author kindly elaborate a bit on what he meant?

I am not slamming it, just puzzled and want to get clear on what was said.

I think the author is well-intentioned and being sarcastic, so i am not flaming him. Just a bit unclear as to this new idea of renting our lives. Perhaps i need some coffee to raise my intelligence at this hour LOL.

[Kansas Wyatt]

26. Our Corporate Government wants us to believe that...

We live in a free country where we have rights to make a living, to provide for ourselves, and to own property.

The simple fact is that, unless you are part of the upper class, all people are expendable and here to contribute to our Government of Corporations, by Corporations, and for Corporations. By making contributions or "rent" payments, one may live their life, but the amenities of that life are subject to renegotiation and restructuring. 'We The People' have become subjects to the Government of by and for Corporations. The reason the upper class can oppose any of this, is because they have the resources to fight and oppose any renegotiation of their amenities in their comfortable rented lives. Redistribution of wealth has been hi-jacked and perverted into a Corporate Government tool for the wealthy on a bi-partisan level.

Did that explain anymore?

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. Well, now you know who really is behind the abuse of government.

Eminent Domain is generally a decision that is started by the Chamber of Commerce.

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. Isn't that what Bush did in Texas to get the land to build his new stadium

?

[girl gone mad]

52. Exactly.

When they found some land they liked and couldn't agree on a price, Bush called his friends in government and had the land declared blighted. In fact, there's a good chance the this was why he was given part ownership in the first place.

The land owners sued, and I'm pretty sure they won, but ended up getting less than fair market value.

[sendero]

39. Let's create a hypothetical scenario..

... that plays out all over America every damn day.

A group of shark "businessmen" propose a development project to a city. It could be a sports stadium, a shopping mall, office district, you name it. These guys are professionals, all they do is real estate development.

Their adversary? Some chump in city government. Often, city councils composed of citizen members who do it as a part time affair. Or perhaps a mayor whose great achievement was winning an election between other folks who could not make it in business.

When these to groups go against each other, who do you think "wins"?

I'll tell you who wins every damn time, the developers that's who. If the stadium does not make the money promised, or the office building doesn't create the economic opportunities promised, it is no skin off their ass. They got their money and they are gone.

I'm sick and tired of cities trying to go mano a mano with people ten times as skilled as they are. You can bet - whatever promise of "public good" has been made, they are inflated beyond any semblance of the truth.

[Ian David]

41. Same sort of thing happened here in Brockton

We helped finance a stadium and the mayor forgave $600,000 worth of debt the developer owed to the town.


Negotiators mum on Rox, complex deal
By Jennifer Kovalich, Enterprise staff writer

<snip>

Ward 3 City Councilor Dennis Eaniri last week filed a resolve to bring Condon and 21st Century Corp. Executive Director Arthur Markos before the full council to discuss ongoing negotiations for operations at the Shaw's Center.

<snip>

Under the current management agreement for the Shaw's Center, if the center has a gross operating profit of less than $500,000, the team receives 10 percent and the remaining 90 percent is paid to the 21st Century Corp. As revenues increase, so does the percentage for the team.

<snip>

"This stadium and conference center were constructed to change the image of Brockton," Condon said. "It wasn't done to generate economic development. It was done to overcome image problems."

<snip>

Councilors have said they are concerned about the $8 million debt owed on the stadium by the 21st Century Corp. to the city being paid back. Yunits last year forgave $360,000 in debt the 21st Century Corp. owed the city in repaying the $8 million loan to build the stadium. Yunits also allowed another $179,320 to be deferred, or paid later.

More:
http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2004/05/01/news/news/news07.txt

[Jack Rabbit]

40. Nominated.

!!

[fat free goodness]

53. Please sir, I am new...

What do you mean by "nominated"?

[Jack Rabbit]

54. Nominated for the Greatest Page

It was also a way of bumping the post to say so.

[Pushed To The Left]

49. Right wing logic:

To the right wing, property rights are important if you are running a business and want to practice discrimination. However, if your private property gets in the way of corporate profit, the idea of property rights isn't so attractive to them anymore. The right wing is filled hypocrites and phonies, and they must be taken out of power!

[glitch]

56. Ain't Fascism Grand?

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

[AllegroRondo]

57. When did "public use" become "public good"?

The Constitution says private land may be taken for public use, provided a fair price is paid. This land is not for public use, but only another private use that may provide more tax money. While that may be good for the city (and the developer), it is not within the letter of the Constitution.

[Willy Lee]

60. This happened in my town recently.

There was an old nursery (the garden kind) with a beautiful old home in the middle. The land totaled about 40 acres. It was right smack dab in the middle of a booming big-box-strip-mall development. The city wanted to buy a strecth of the nursery- right through the middle (not the house but the land) to build a new road for the increasing traffic. The nursery owners said no.

The city siezed the property citing eminent domain and built the road anyway. It went to court, the city won.

The nursery owners have since sold the rest of the land, as it's not too nice to have a 6 lane road through your yard.

[AllegroRondo]

61. A road is public use

and in this case I would be inclined to side with the city.

Now, what they are trying to do in my home city is more out of line. They are citing eminent domain to seize private land, then sell it to developers who want to build a Home Depot. To make it worse, part of the private land they want is the local VFW hall.

[Lorien]

62. It sounds like these people live in a beautiful historic

neighborhood. Why doesn't Pfizer try to take over a strip mall someplace? There are dozens of nearly empty malls in EVERY city!

Oh, yeah-business owners can put up more of a fight than mere citizens. :eyes: