OT: Eminent Domain

[paramount]

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.

[Ricechex]

[quote=EconProf]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]

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.

[Ricechex]

[quote=EconProf]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]

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.

[Ricechex]

[quote=EconProf]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]

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.

[Ricechex]

[quote=EconProf]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]

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.

[Ricechex]

[quote=EconProf]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]

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.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Ricechex][quote=EconProf]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]

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.[/quote]

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.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Ricechex][quote=EconProf]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]

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.[/quote]

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.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Ricechex][quote=EconProf]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]

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.[/quote]

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.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Ricechex][quote=EconProf]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]

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.[/quote]

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.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Ricechex][quote=EconProf]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]

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.[/quote]

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.

[EconProf]

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.

[EconProf]

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.

[EconProf]

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.

[EconProf]

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.

[Author]

Posts