Menu

Home › Forums › Other › OT: Eminent Domain

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 71 total)
1 2 3 4 5
  • Author
    Posts
  • September 26, 2009 at 2:55 PM #16401
    sdgrrl
    Participant

    Hey all I would to hear some fresh opinions regarding the issue of eminent domain and the Supreme Courts decision’s to change the meaning from ‘public good’ to “public use”.

    How would you all feel if your non blighted home or land were confiscated by a legislative body not for a school, hospital or park, but for a condo project where you were given fair market value while a developer made millions? How would you feel if this happened to your mother, father or yourself and this was your childhood home and the only home your family had ever known or dreamed for- maybe even your parents had built it with their own two hands?

    It seems to me that the only thing sacred from being taken over for the purpose of high priced condos and strip malls are national parks- especially if you have a view or are by water.

    I know many cities and states have redefined eminent domain to make it more difficult for developers to seize land, but if left to the Supreme Court’s decision it seems to me eventually middle class and lower middle class citizens would be booted as developers could argue the increased tax revenues would benefit cities more and eventually only the wealthy would be owners in centrally located, beautiful and/or pristine areas.

    My fiance’s father has a home with acreage in Connecticut that has been in his family for well over a hundred years. It really rips my gut out thinking someone could be eying it and seeing a new subdivision or Mall of America and he would be helpless to stop it even though that’s the home where his parents and grandparents were born and died.

    How can we feel safe? How can we feel truly free?

    I think of the landmark case Kelo v. City of New London and even here in San Diego with the gentleman who owned the cigar shop in the Gaslamp and how the property has sat vacant-well in SD its a parking lot for years.

    When do you think it’s fair?

    When do you think its outrageous?

    I’ve included a clip of Chief Justice Roberts explaining his opinion:

    September 26, 2009 at 4:01 PM #461380
    NotCranky
    Participant

    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.

    September 26, 2009 at 4:01 PM #461917
    NotCranky
    Participant

    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.

    September 26, 2009 at 4:01 PM #461990
    NotCranky
    Participant

    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.

    September 26, 2009 at 4:01 PM #461574
    NotCranky
    Participant

    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.

    September 26, 2009 at 4:01 PM #462194
    NotCranky
    Participant

    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.

    September 26, 2009 at 5:07 PM #461390
    sdgrrl
    Participant

    [quote=Russell]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.[/quote]

    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?

    September 26, 2009 at 5:07 PM #461927
    sdgrrl
    Participant

    [quote=Russell]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.[/quote]

    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?

    September 26, 2009 at 5:07 PM #462000
    sdgrrl
    Participant

    [quote=Russell]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.[/quote]

    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?

    September 26, 2009 at 5:07 PM #461584
    sdgrrl
    Participant

    [quote=Russell]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.[/quote]

    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?

    September 26, 2009 at 5:07 PM #462204
    sdgrrl
    Participant

    [quote=Russell]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.[/quote]

    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?

    September 26, 2009 at 7:17 PM #461589
    Ricechex
    Participant

    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.

    September 26, 2009 at 7:17 PM #461932
    Ricechex
    Participant

    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.

    September 26, 2009 at 7:17 PM #462005
    Ricechex
    Participant

    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.

    September 26, 2009 at 7:17 PM #462209
    Ricechex
    Participant

    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.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 71 total)
1 2 3 4 5
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.