San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

Besides fair market value, the people getting evicted should get a percentage of all future profits from the land and airspace above. If 30 stories go up they get a percentage of profit on all those assets.

I have 20 acres and I am allowed to build just two houses. What would piss me off, is that any of the potential beyond that would be taken and given to a third party by eminent domain and re-zoning favors.

Many people buy and hold property and wait for demographic shifts or population growth to benefit them. To turn around a give the value/potential of that mostly to the few connected, is stealing.

Wow Russell that is so true. That would be incredulous if you had to maintain your two home policy for your land, unable to generate more tax revenue and another entity could come in and take over for that exact reason. That is another way to look at it; the restrictions you have on your own property in making it more profitable and how your rights are not as inalienable as that of a powerfully wealthy person or business.

I also agree that people buy and hold property hoping to see an increase in its value "To turn around a give the value/potential of that mostly to the few connected, is stealing". You are forced to sell out early unable to enjoy the benefits of a place that might have been a piece of coal, but you saw a diamond in it.

In regards to the beginning of your reply-not only did Mr. Mesdaq not get any future share or even stock options- Marriot has fought him tooth and nail in the 7.5 million they were ordered to pay. They appealed and won one time and I'm not sure where it's out now, but I don't think he has yet to see any money and he claims his lawyer fees exceed 3 million.

That case is sad. Sure, hard work will usually trump luck, but Mesdaq can work and work, but the location he relocated to on J is yet comparable to his original Gaslamp one.

Also, if eminent domain legally upholds only seizing property at fair market value- what if an owner bought at the top of the market and they were forced out at the bottom? Could they be upside down in their home and unable to even buy another one?

There is that group of homes on Mission Bay, some trailers I think too, and for years they have been battling developers who want to put up condos there. The people that live there have been there for eons, and are mostly elderly and on fixed incomes. Not only would it push them out, but the developers would likely build an ugly, several story condo building.

I also feel the need to admit my own racism...if eminent domain were happening in Detroit or South LA I don't know if at first I would be so opposed. Even if the people forced out had owned their for 100 years my initial reaction would be: Well it's only going to make the city better.

I do think that eminent domain is not a question of race as many landmark cases show all people of every race can affected.

Which only the wealthy could afford. Some of the recent owners might be of a substantial income, but you are right many people have lived there for years and chose to live in a trailer home so they could practically and frugally live by the water and have that lifestyle.

That's what I fear. Eventually all beautiful locations will be bought out by developers and sold to the very wealthy and the middle and lower class will have the undesirable locations.

To me its scary. The San Diego shore line has enough 1 million dollar homes- the few trailer homes give it a little character.

Will one day this entire town be over priced high rise condos and track housing and we can do nothing to stop it?

Ricechex: there is a lot more to that story than you know. First of all it is city-owned land, not owned by the tenants, who enjoy valuable space and pay way under market value for it. When they were granted tenancy decades ago, they were told it was not permanent and they were strictly tenants. But as they got older and politically savvy and able to gin up a sympathetic media sob story, they became entrenched and the City (read: us taxpayers) could not put to the valuable land to its highest and best use. I believe they have been offered attractive inducements to leave, but they are staying as long as possible...at the public's expense.
As far as the public good is concerned, I'd rather see the city sell off ITS land to a condo or hotel builder so a lot more people could be utilizing that valuable site.

[quote=sdgrrl
Also, if eminent domain legally upholds only seizing property at fair market value- what if an owner bought at the top of the market and they were forced out at the bottom? Could they be upside down in their home and unable to even buy another one?[/quote]

I would imagine the evicting party would have to take liabilty for debt. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny though? I guess if that scenario is true it works as a bailout for the underwater owner.

I would imagine the evicting party would have to take liabilty for debt. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny though? I guess if that scenario is true it works as a bailout for the underwater owner.[/quote]

Hi Russell, I'm not discounting that idea, but it almost seems to be too good to be true. If people got wind of an eminent domain push for their property- what would stop people from refinancing quickly, keeping the money and having the pursuant pay off all their debts?

I really have no idea and look forward to hearing the correct way this would be handled.

Eminent Domain is something to really consider when buying land. It is much easier for the gov't to take your land under ED if the property is located in a sparsely populated area.

I think it is harder for the gov't to take your land/RE if you buy in areas with higher populations.

Interesting info Econ. Thanks. Then, if it is public land and owned by the city and the people get bumped then the land should be used for the public such as a park and recreation area. We should all have use of the land. It would be a shame to see the developers profiting from land that is public space. I guess I would rather have those folks living there now, rather than condos that will obstruct the skyline and only affordable for a few.

I agree ricechex. Who would get to enjoy that land if the current owners/renters were relocated? Would it be more open to the public? It really doesn't need to be since Fiesta Island and Mission Bay Park surround. It would go from their hands into wealthier hands.

I would rather see the Hilton and that strip redeveloped, but...do we really need it? We have all the beach communities-will that one little strip make all the difference in the world?

I'm not sure if I agree with Paramounts observation that the more urban areas have little to worry about. I lived through eminent domain when I was just a renter- and it benefited me. I got paid thousands just for renting in Kensington. There is also the case in National City. The New York Times just won their new location in Manhattan through ED and of course Mr. Mesdaq in SD.

The case that actually went to the Supreme Court with 5-4 ruling was a 90 acre spread in a rural part of Connecticut.

We think it stays in more rural areas, but that's the catch- by the Supreme Court ruling unless it prohibited by state and local governments; for the public good can mean anywhere urban or rural.

I can't believe that eminent domain has not been applied to Casa di Baffi in Hillcrest- that is blight in my opinion. The owner has not used it for any usable function in over 27 years! Not as a business, a residence, even parking is not allowed. There is just an ugly chain link fence, busted windows and the smell of urine from the bums.

The trailer park that juts into Mission Bay is the City's land, and I'd just like to see property rights enforced here. The City (us) should have the right to decide what to do with the land--whether making it into a park for all of us, or selling it for a princely sum to a developer, thus also (supposedly) benefiting us taxpayers.
I'm sure a lively community discussion would follow the City's gaining control of its land as to how it could/should be used. The point is that a few tenants who lucked out decades ago should not continue to thwart the needs of the broader public.
This isn't really connected to eminent domain, but to property rights of owners. We are all the owners, indirectly, of this land.

What if your property was "under-water" (you owe more mortgage on it than it's worth) when the government exercises eminent domain on your house? As far as I know, the government only has to pay the fair market share. Would you get slapped with a bill from the bank? Or would the bank just have to eat the difference for a non-recourse loan? I wonder if this has ever happened before.

I would love to hear the answer on this also!