24-06-2005 04:37									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Of course most home owners have only limited funds to with which to seek legal recourse, and we all know who sets "fair market value" - the city/county real estate assessor and/or the guy with the most highly paid lawyer.

So true, our property taxes are based on an inflated evaluation of our property's value. Wanna bet if the politicians wanted our property for development, they'd discover our property is not worth as much as they claimed when imposing property taxes on us.

quote: Interestingly enough the dissent would allow the seizure if it was for a strip mall or small office buildings or housing development. It had a problem with having most of it benefiting one private party. SOOO, if this was a strip mall case, the decision would be 9-0.

Based on what? I dont see such a distinction in the Constitution. I dont see anything about state eminent domain, just what the power can be used for by the feds.

	24-06-2005 04:41									#62
	Got spare money?

quote: Based on what?

I believe the dissent said benefiting one party was not public use (private use instead). But a strip mall was sufficient public use since it wouldn't benefit one company or something (I guess it is also assumed that a strip mall is built and then lots sold to various companies, so it can encourage more competition among stores instead of just having a mega store... I dunno).

	24-06-2005 04:54									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

here is something that Bush could do that would win him a great deal of support: Use eminent domain to sieze the land(this particular piece of property) away from the developers for supposed military purposes, and that they will evict and bulldoze it at a later date.

	24-06-2005 05:04									#64
	Suffering from ads?

Actually, there is a 5th Amendment restriction on eminent domain that applies to the states because of the 14th Amendment. No property shall be taken for "public use" without fair compensation. So what is "public use"? I'd say it refers to the examples given in the Constitution limiting federal eminent domain power - public facilities, not private development.

Bad decision, public use means public use, not private use. Government schools, hospitals, parks, etc are public use, strip malls are not. Those are owned by other private citizens, not the government.

This and past decisions expanding "public use" to include "economic development" is similar to how the interstat commerce clause has been expanded to include anything "affecting" interstate commerce.

	24-06-2005 05:17									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Actually, there is a 5th Amendment restriction on eminent domain that applies to the states because of the 14th Amendment. No property shall be taken for "public use" without fair compensation. So what is "public use"?

Yes, Berz, that's the point . It was a discussion about what 'public use' is.

	24-06-2005 05:26									#66
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Ya ya

	24-06-2005 05:32									#67
	Got spare money?

It is important to game out what would actually happen if the Court created a blanket protection for property owners against development. While it might protect people who want to keep their homes, it would also create a massive potential for abuse.

Remember that most civic development projects are discussed publicly before they are approved. This means that once a project is near approval, speculators could buy up a tiny piece of land in the area and hold the project developers to ransom. Buy my piece of land or you can't build. Period.

Or they could simply offer a blanket arrangement to all property owners in the area to jack up the price for a large commission.

"Fair market value" is the correct formula for eminent domain.

I think, however, that the court probably could have crafted a limited ruling in this case.

	24-06-2005 06:26									#68
	Get a bigger avatar today!

THIS IS FREAKING INSANE!!! There are STEEP ramifications for this ruling....... basically Corporations can now use the government to destroy private property for bulding other private property by corporations........ NOTHING IS SAFE..... this includes CHURCHES!!!

I've never thought this day would come, that the marxists would turn out to be correct..... I am very upset indeed.

Residents in most of these houses are not getting paid fair market value, as the corporations/aka gov't is using the excuse that as comdemned property its value has gone down. THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT!

I mean some residents are refusing to leave, so we are going to see SWAT TEAMS and police drag people out of there houses.... This is a very bad day for America.

Republicans are blaming the democrats and vise versa, who is really to blame, SCOTUS!!!

I wouldn't be surprised if this ruling creates civil unrest and all of the consequences that goes with that.

I Hope to god that the congress and the president does something about this. Probably will take an amendment so that the supreme court can shut their trap!

	24-06-2005 06:33									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: basically Corporations can now use the government to destroy private property for bulding other private property by corporations........ NOTHING IS SAFE..... this includes CHURCHES!!!

Calm down kid. Nothing prevented the government from taking any private property for their own purposes before this ruling. Nothing WAS safe. This just expands the reasons they can take land.

quote: Residents in most of these houses are not getting paid fair market value, as the corporations/aka gov't is using the excuse that as comdemned property its value has gone down.

Please learn the law. This is a 100% incorrect statement.

	24-06-2005 06:38									#70
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Calm down kid. Nothing prevented the government from taking any private property for their own purposes before this ruling. Nothing WAS safe. This just expands the reasons they can take land.

Yes but there was justification, like for a freeway (which is necessary for our national defense transporting troops) not for a freaking mcdonalds or a shopping center.

quote: Please learn the law. This is a 100% incorrect statement.

I know the law, but that isn't how it works in real life, what the gov't and the corporations are doing is counting on the fact that people can't afford the amount of litigation that it would take to actually get fair market value, and this is true most of the time.

	24-06-2005 06:41									#71
	Tired of ads?

quote: Yes but there was justification, like for a freeway (which is necessary for our national defense transporting troops) not for a freaking mcdonalds or a shopping center.

Or because the government wanted to expand a DMV... or a government agency... or whatever else the government wanted if they controlled what took over.

quote: that isn't how it works in real life, what the gov't and the corporations are doing is counting on the fact that people can't afford the amount of litigation that it would take to actually get fair market value, and this is true most of the time.

Oh please. They give the people who are subject to eminent domain the value of their house based on property tax valuations... and plenty of times more than that. If that isn't fair valuation, I don't know what is.

Without any facts backing it your statement is mere speculation with no substantiation.

	24-06-2005 06:48									#72
	Re: US Supreme Court has gone mad! Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

This is ****ing insane.

	24-06-2005 06:48									#73
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc They should have done this on the Summer Solstice - with that lovely full moon. So far we have The Diplomat, Mr. Fun, Dinodoc, Stuie, Gepap, St. Leo, Impaler, Oerdin, JohnT, Lawrence of Arabia, Tuberski, Ogie, Boann (I checked her thread) and myself (my adjective is OBSCENE) all in agreement. If we can get Ned and Che to post and agree - it's a blue moon! I'm not quite sure where dv8ed, Imran and MtG fall on this (their posts don't make it clear), and of course DanS is our lone dissenter.

Add me to the first list.

	24-06-2005 07:32									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Oh please. They give the people who are subject to eminent domain the value of their house based on property tax valuations... and plenty of times more than that. If that isn't fair valuation, I don't know what is.

You've never owned a house, have you? Tax valuation and fair market value are two very different things, especially in the current market.

	24-06-2005 07:38									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Which is why I said "plenty of times more than that". The government pays pretty well for your property a good deal of the time. A lot of times they'll look at sale prices of houses in the neighborhood as well. If that doesn't work they'll use property value assessments under a Market Value Assessment which are based on FMV.

	24-06-2005 07:39									#76
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: US Supreme Court has gone mad!

I think the key word here is "US"...actually, I'm not surprised, stupid Americans...wait, I am an American...time to move to Europe now...

See, one thing that I used to like about America was that the federal government used to have little control over such matters...until Bush and friends came along...

Anyway, most laws and issues were delt with by the state or local people, so if you didn't like the law, you simply moved 5 miles north into the next county, sometimes moving to different states if things got real bad...

But now, with stupid fascists running our country...time to head off to Russia...I guess that Russian flag is there for a reason besides the fact its easy to spot on Poly...

	24-06-2005 07:53									#77
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: I've never thought this day would come, that the marxists would turn out to be correct.....

You mean the people who made eminent domain an ideology?

	24-06-2005 07:55									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

A decade ago, I worked in L.A.'s eminent domain court. And what I saw there was that this power is usually used for is slum clearance.

For example, what is now downtown L.A. used to be old mansions which had been deteriorated and were being used as boarding houses. Now it's towering spires of glass and steel.

Chavez Ravine was taken in the late 50's, so that a private enterprise -- Dodger Stadium -- could be built.

Is just compensation paid for these takings?? Well, uh, theoretically. However, govenmental entities are notorious for undervaluing the property. A whole new breed of contingency lawyers have sprung. Their fees are based upon a percentage of the increased price they can get you.

Someone asked which governments can "take" -- all of them. Cities, states, counties, cities, school districts...what blew me away is when I found out that even California Edison (a private utility) has this power.

	24-06-2005 07:57									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker You mean the people who made eminent domain an ideology?

And managed to put it in the Constitution a full 31 years before Marx himself was even born. Those sneaky, time-travelling bastards!

	24-06-2005 08:00									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler A decade ago, I worked in L.A.'s eminent domain court. And what I saw there was that this power is usually used for is slum clearance. For example, what is now downtown L.A. used to be old mansions which had been deteriorated and were being used as boarding houses. Now it's towering spires of glass and steel. Chavez Ravine was taken in the late 50's, so that a private enterprise -- Dodger Stadium -- could be built.

Yep, and if anyone here knew about New London, CT, they'd know the entire city is basically a slum . Most politicians aren't going to go willy nilly taking over houses if it isn't located in a slum area because they like their jobs.

	24-06-2005 08:06									#82
	Remove this text

quote: And managed to put it in the Constitution a full 31 years before Marx himself was even born. Those sneaky, time-travelling bastards!

I didn't say they invented it, just that they made it into an ideology.

	24-06-2005 08:11									#83
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Most politicians aren't going to go willy nilly taking over houses if it isn't located in a slum area because they like their jobs.

Why not? It didn't stop the siezure of homes that weren't in a slum area in this case.

"Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

	24-06-2005 08:17									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

This is a true statement. The question is: is this a bad thing?

Would you rather your neighbor was a Motel 6 or the Ritz? The Ritz upgrades the neighborhood.
Shopping malls bring in a lot of sale taxes and take the pressure off other taxes.
Factory's provide more jobs and more taxes than farms.

That is why these takings are considered to be for a "public use."

	24-06-2005 08:17									#85
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker I didn't say they invented it, just that they made it into an ideology.

It already was an ideology - the ideology that the State could act in the public interest, as long as it treated fairly its private citizens while doing so. It's a good ideology and, incidently, a vast improvement over the old ideology of "the King does what he pleases." But if what that has turned into is that the State can hand your house over to a coporation for private development, it's got f*ck-all to do with Marx -- except that Marx would have predicted that, in a capitalist society, this is what the State would eventually do.

	24-06-2005 08:22									#86
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler This is a true statement. The question is: is this a bad thing?

I'd rather that the government not have the unfettered authority to sieze my land for private commercial use because a developer thought it would be easier to get the government to force me out rather than try and deal with me.

	24-06-2005 08:29									#87
	Put an end to popups!

quote: It already was an ideology - the ideology that the state could act in the public interest, as long as it treated fairly its private citizens while doing so.

You cant treat private citizens fairly when one loses their property to another, thats why the commies assumed control over everyone's property - thats fair
And that is making an ideology out of eminent domain...
The fact eminent domain was practiced in certain situations doesn't mean the Marxists didn't turn it into an ideology - the basis for structuring an entire society.

quote: If what that has turned into is that the state can hand your house over to a coporation for private development, it's got f*ck-all to do with Marx -- except that Marx would have predicted that, in a capitalist society, this is what the state would eventually do.

Which is why I pointed out the irony of Marxists predicting a bad thing only to use that bad thing as the basis for an ideology.

	24-06-2005 08:30									#88
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Why not? It didn't stop the siezure of homes that weren't in a slum area in this case. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Did you even read my post? New London, CT, is basically a huge slum. It's even worse than New Haven.

	24-06-2005 08:37									#89
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well, the decision was more limited than that. Its natural the government would call in developers to develop land it just obtained via eminent domain. The developer is getting a 99 year lease for $1 and has to operate according to government mandates, so the property is "owned" by the government. Its the reasoning I reject, its one thing when government uses eminent domain to perform a constitutional function like building and maintaining a naval fleet, like a dockyard, and quite another when the land is taken to build a hotel to increase the tax base. It isn't the function of government to increase the tax base...

	24-06-2005 08:37									#90
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Did you even read my post? New London, CT, is basically a huge slum.

Your condescension aside the New London case wasn't about houses that were in a slum. If it were, it would have already been safely covered by Berman v. Parker.