[sdgrrl]

I personally think it’s awesome that we are not getting the Olympics here. More jobs for manual blue collar workers during Chicago’s winters when those kind of jobs shrink?

My friend Gene who is an electrician in Chicago was stoked that the gainful employment he was hoping for won’t be happening.

When we lose we win. That makes complete sense to me. Please let us cheer and applaud at this loss!

[sdgrrl]

I personally think it’s awesome that we are not getting the Olympics here. More jobs for manual blue collar workers during Chicago’s winters when those kind of jobs shrink?

My friend Gene who is an electrician in Chicago was stoked that the gainful employment he was hoping for won’t be happening.

When we lose we win. That makes complete sense to me. Please let us cheer and applaud at this loss!

[sdgrrl]

I personally think it’s awesome that we are not getting the Olympics here. More jobs for manual blue collar workers during Chicago’s winters when those kind of jobs shrink?

My friend Gene who is an electrician in Chicago was stoked that the gainful employment he was hoping for won’t be happening.

When we lose we win. That makes complete sense to me. Please let us cheer and applaud at this loss!

[sdgrrl]

I personally think it’s awesome that we are not getting the Olympics here. More jobs for manual blue collar workers during Chicago’s winters when those kind of jobs shrink?

My friend Gene who is an electrician in Chicago was stoked that the gainful employment he was hoping for won’t be happening.

When we lose we win. That makes complete sense to me. Please let us cheer and applaud at this loss!

[sdgrrl]

[quote=ybitz]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.[/quote]

I would love to hear the answer on this also!

[sdgrrl]

[quote=ybitz]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.[/quote]

I would love to hear the answer on this also!

[sdgrrl]

[quote=ybitz]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.[/quote]

I would love to hear the answer on this also!

[sdgrrl]

[quote=ybitz]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.[/quote]

I would love to hear the answer on this also!

[sdgrrl]

[quote=ybitz]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.[/quote]

I would love to hear the answer on this also!

[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.

[sdgrrl]

[quote=Russell][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.[/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.

[Author]

Posts