We're turning into communist!!!(eminent domain story)

[skinz1972]

2005 supreme court ruling. its dispicable.

all they do is take it and give it to a fatcat deepocket developer.

[Thiebear]

This is THE CASE...

And the more its used.. the more it will be cut back when the people finally get off their asses and say "DEFINE" it better leaches.

[Larry]

2005 supreme court ruling. its dispicable.

Does the fact that this action (publicly siezing land and giving the land to a private entity) has been going on for over 100 years just not soak in to some people?

The Supreme Court didn't create anything new.

You may not like it. (I don't like it. I wouldn't mind, here in Florida, a Constitutional Ammendment prohibiting it. Heck, we've got constitutional rights for pregnant pigs, here, so why not?)

But can't people at least complain about it without switching on the Reality Distortion Field?

[iheartskins]

Amen Larry. Amen.

[Rumrunner6900]

Does the fact that this action (publicly siezing land and giving the land to a private entity) has been going on for over 100 years just not soak in to some people?

The Supreme Court didn't create anything new.

You may not like it. (I don't like it. I wouldn't mind, here in Florida, a Constitutional Ammendment prohibiting it. Heck, we've got constitutional rights for pregnant pigs, here, so why not?)

But can't people at least complain about it without switching on the Reality Distortion Field?

There are some of us who know stuff like that has been going on....and I would say it can even have a place if applied properly. You want 5 feet of my front yard to improve the road...sure....go ahead. (As this benefits all) You want my whole property to benefit someone else? Not so much.

[MoeRedskins]

This case actually is bad news for home owners in highly dense areas. Emient domian originally (in my estimation) said that the government could take your property if it was going to be used for government activities. Now that the supremem court didn't stop this case, emient domain has be widened to also state that the government can take your property if they feel that it will benefit the community in some way to rezone it.

[Larry]

:gus:

OK, I'll try one more time.

Please, could one of the people who're upset at this new government power, please explain to me the difference between:

1. A city decides that a railroad will benefit the economy of the entire community, so they decide to sieze the necessary land (at fair market value) and make the land available to the railroad.
   
2. A city decides that a planned community will benefit the economy of the entire community, so they decide to sieze the necessary land (at fair market value) and make the land available to the developer.
   

Or could you at leatst explain why you think one is acceptable and the other is not. (Or why you think they're both unacceptable, but we're going to treat item b as though it's something new, revolutionary, and communist anyway.)

-----

In fact, can you explain to me what's different between option b and what I'll call option C: Forcing people (through easements) to allow private corporations to string wires through your property to deliver power, telephone, and cable TV to people.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

1. A city decides that a railroad will benefit the economy of the entire community, so they decide to sieze the necessary land (at fair market value) and make the land available to the railroad.
   
2. A city decides that a planned community will benefit the economy of the entire community, so they decide to sieze the necessary land (at fair market value) and make the land available to the developer.
   

Or could you at least explain why you think one is acceptable and the other is not. (Or why you think they're both unacceptable, but we're going to treat item b as though it's something new, revolutionary, and communist anyway.)

Larry, so far as I'm concerned, unless the railroad happens to be Amtrak (which is federally owned and controlled), neither one of those options is legal. So far as I have read, the eminent domain statutes only allow the property to be taken for public uses. That would be a highway, school, courthouse, etc.... Not for ANY private enterprise. Of course now that that USSC has decided that the law says more than that, we'll have to see where they now draw the line.

In fact, can you explain to me what's different between option b and what I'll call option C: Forcing people (through easements) to allow private corporations to string wires through your property to deliver power, telephone, and cable TV to people.

Here's one that I CAN talk about with some specificity. Some of you know that I work for an electrical utility company designing new underground services....

Easements are PRIVATE issues. The government has nothing to do with them. They're attached to your deed and have to be agreed to by the property owner at the time the easement is requested. If the property owner doesn't sign the easement we are not required to provide service to the customer (if the easement is for their service). If we're looking for an overhead distribution/transmission easement there is no requirement that they sign it. What most people get po'd about is that they and their lawyer didn't pay any attention to what they were signing when they closed on the property and don't know they've signed the easment when they bought the property.

[iheartskins]

Mass, check out the thread that I linked. The discussion of the evolution of eminent domain principles might prove illustrative in light of your comments to Larry.

[zoony]

I empathize very strongly with the need to clean up this country. Many parts of it are in desperate need of cleaning up... especially the NE where this case took place.

I think the gov is going about it the wrong way though. If I were in power for a day, here's what I'd do to clean things up:

-No power lines above ground anywhere in the country, for any reason. (okay, sort of kidding, but I HATE power lines)

-New commercial construction may not go forward as long as there is like property for sale or lease within a 10 mile radius. i.e. building a new Wal Mart next to an abandoned one, which I've seen :doh: Or brand-new waterfront condominiums built next to a vacant building... which I've seen as well. :doh:

-No billboards outside city limits

-Strong tax credits for property improvements... both commercial and residential

The problem with this country, aesthetically speaking, is that we have too much room. Most developed countries have severe geographic restrictions on developing land... mostly because the land/space is just not available. But here in the U.S. ... there is no reason why any developer would ever renovate an old shopping plaza or an older apartment building closer to downtown... when they can just go a few more miles out, buy up land for a few bucks, and build a new one. Meanwhile, that old apartment building or shopping plaza just sits abandoned and decaying. The cycle of urban sprawl and decay is a vicious one for sure.

In places such as Europe, they don't have that choice. So they find themselves renovating and reviving existing structures.

It makes for a much nicer country. I wish developers were forced to do that in this country.

[gchwood]

I am proud to say that the company i work for (you can easily figure who it is from this) refuses to lend to those who are using the emminent domain desicion to aquire land (we were the first to do this)

[Larry]

Of course now that that USSC has decided that the law says more than that, we'll have to see where they now draw the line.

The Supreme Court decided that in (going from memory) 1880-something.

Reality check. Which part of "It's not new" isn't sinking in?

[zoony]

The Supreme Court decided that in (going from memory) 1880-something.

Reality check. Which part of "It's not new" isn't sinking in?

Does the fact that "it's not new" make it more or less right?

[Thiebear]

Larry,

Grabbing land to widen a road of fix the railroad is needed for the entire community as a whole: Government deal....

Grabbing my house and 7 others to give to a Condo company so they can make a ton of money and add 20 more units for taxes? Not the same..

Making me shutdown and move my business because another business gave them more in donations....

Grabbing for a very specific public good = good.

Grabbing for another private industry = bad.

each should be weighed by the community on an individual basis...

[Larry]

Does the fact that "it's not new" make it more or less right?

Oh, I'll agree that just because something is "a tradition" or some such doesn't make it right. (For example: I personally have this rule: Anybody who tries to defend the government by mentioning that Lincoln suspended habaes corpus or that FDR rounded up japs, is defending an immoral, unconstitutional action.)

OTOH, I'd claim that having railroads really did "promote the general welfare". The country as a whole benefited from that action.

I'd say that things like electricity and indoor plumbing have really improved the quality of life, too. And I don't think there's any way in the world those things would exist today, if the power company had to get unanimous consent to run power lines around the county.

Now, show me some city council that wants to use emminent domain to build a Wal-Mart, or a housing addition, and I'll show you a city council that needs to be reminded who they work for. But the proper place to administer such lessons is the ballot box.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

-No power lines above ground anywhere in the country, for any reason. (okay, sort of kidding, but I HATE power lines).

zoony, are you the fine fellow I explained the unrealisticness of this to a couple of months ago?

As I have said, I work for the nation's 3rd largest electric utility company. The concept you're interested in would be so expensive and completely unrealistic to maintain that it's totally outside the realm of possibility. Many areas now require all new subdivisions to be served with underground utilities, but in rural areas and for transmission lines, that's just totally impossible.

[Larry]

Grabbing for a very specific public good = good.

Grabbing for another private industry = bad.

each should be weighed by the community on an individual basis...

I agree with you.

So did the Supreme Court.

What the Supreme Court said was that the city council was the appropriate body to decide whether a proposal was for the public good or not.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Reality check. Which part of "It's not new" isn't sinking in?

Larry, what part of "IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL" isn't sinking in? No matter what the USSC may believe and decide, the concept of the government (at any level) taking property (even with compensation) for use by a PRIVATE entity is unConstitutional.

[chomerics]

Grabbing for a very specific public good = good.

Grabbing for another private industry = bad.

each should be weighed by the community on an individual basis...

Bear, read the other thread Iheart linked, it debates this ad nauseum, and it is WITHIN the law!!!

Here is what Larry is saying, and it is something people are failing to grasp. . .

The language used is for the greater good of the public, and this fits the bill. This IS for the benifit of the public, as they are going to be pouring over a billion dollars into the community. Just as the land grab for the railroad system was for the public good, so is this.

What he, and a bunch of us here are arguing is that it AGREES with the law!!! People, for whatever reason, don't seem to be comprehending this, but it has been going on for over 100 years. This is common place, and it happens ALL the time. It went through three courts, and EACH court ruled it was legal. There is nothing about this that is illegal at all, and the SCOTUS did their job correctly!!!

Isn't it the same group of people who are complaining about "legislating from the bench" proposing the courts to do exactly that in this instance? Why should the SCOTUS ignore the laws because they don't like them? Their goals are to INTERPERT the laws, not to inact new ones, and they interperted this correctly.

Now, if SOMEONE would PLEASE show me where they interperted the law wrong, and WHY it is illegal (as so many are falsely stating) then bring that argument forth. Otherwise you are only arguing a moot point, and are indeed using a false premise when you say this is illegal, it is not!

Like I said earlier, you may not agree with the decision, but it was the correct one, argue the law, not the decision.

[chomerics]

Larry, what part of "IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL" isn't sinking in? No matter what the USSC may believe and decide, the concept of the government (at any level) taking property (even with compensation) for use by a PRIVATE entity is unConstitutional.

Ummm, no it isn't it is IN OUR LAW!!! If it was "unconstitutional", do you think EVERY COURT this law was argued in front of would have said it???

Here is what you SHOULD have said. I believe it to be against the law because. . .

Not "it is unconstitutional". If you believe that, then you already lost the argument.

[zoony]

zoony, are you the fine fellow I explained the unrealisticness of this to a couple of months ago?

As I have said, I work for the nation's 3rd largest electric utility company. The concept you're interested in would be so expensive and completely unrealistic to maintain that it's totally outside the realm of possibility. Many areas now require all new subdivisions to be served with underground utilities, but in rural areas and for transmission lines, that's just totally impossible.

If it can happen in Europe, it can happen here.

...

[Mass_SkinsFan]

If it can happen in Europe, it can happen here.

...

That's true. I'm sure we'd all love the national average electic rate to go from 9.4 cents per kwh to 65 or 75 cents per kwh so that all the companies can accomplish it as well. Multiply your monthly electric bill by 5-7 times and see if you're still interested in the idea.

[zoony]

That's true. I'm sure we'd all love the national average electic rate to go from 9.4 cents per kwh to 65 or 75 cents per kwh so that all the companies can accomplish it as well. Multiply your monthly electric bill by 5-7 times and see if you're still interested in the idea.

I'm talking about government $'s being used to bury the lines.

For instance... the city of Knoxville recently built a multi-million dollar convention center. That nobody uses. :doh:

And don't even get me started on the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame that Knoxville built a few years back. That's right... Women's Basketball Hall of Fame :doh: :jerk: (and yes, this facility cost millions too)

I'm talking about using that government $$ to bury power lines. That would go more towards creating a beautiful city than any of that other silliness. Wouldn't you agree?

.....

[Larry]

Larry, what part of "IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL" isn't sinking in? No matter what the USSC may believe and decide, the concept of the government (at any level) taking property (even with compensation) for use by a PRIVATE entity is unConstitutional.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Section 8

Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Now, as far as I'm aware, I've quoted every single word that the Constitution has to say on the subject of emminent domain.

Now, #1, the US Constitution contains a nifty clause that says

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What that says is that as far as the US Constitution is concerned, if an activity isn't mentioned in the Constitution, then it's up to the states to decide. (Article 6 goes further, and says that if something is prohibited in the Constitution, then it's prohibited to the states, too.)

What that means is that in order to claim the federal government can do something, (say, make american citizens disapear), you have to find something in the Constitution that says it can.

But in order to say that a state can't do something, you have to find something in the Constitution that prohibits it.

That means, in short, in order to claim that siezing private property is unconstitutional, you have to find something that forbids it.

Now, #2: Frankly, that pesky (I hate it too) "general welfare" clause says that the federal government has the authority to pull this, um, "stuff". It doesn't say that they can't. It says that they can.

(Now, "should", is another matter completely. I'm not arguing "should". To me, the correct solution for this problem is the immediate defeat of every politician who voted for it. Unfortunately, it appears that the voters in that town think greed is more important than princaple. (Not an uncommon event in American politics.))

[Larry]

Zoony,

Yeah, underground power lines for neighborhood distribution are neater looking. And I'd suspect they're more reliable. but a couple of things.

They cost a lot more. Like (to pick another example from this thread), I wouldn't be surprised if it wouldn't be cheaper to require all railroads nationwide to be dug up and turned into subways. Like, I'd bet that the money for those two buildings wouldn't pay to bury the power lines for a one-mile radius around those buildings.

And when you start talking anout the "high tension" lines (Those things on the huge metal towers that run between towns):

Well, as I understand it, some of those lines run at such a high voltage that the power is capable uf jumping accross several inches of air. (And air is just about one of the best insulators there is.) The voltage is so high that the power actually repells itself (net result: only the outside edge of the wire actually carries power. The inner part of the wire isn't carrying as much.) Often, the "wire" on those towers is actually six wires, with insulators holding the wires in a hexagonal pattern a foot accross or so. (The power actually travels through the parts that're on the outside of the hexagon. Those six wires in forming a foot-wide hexagon will carry almost as much power as a foot-thich wire would.)

Net result: In order to bury that wire, your "wire" would need to have a conductor a foot thick, with a rubber insulator over two feet thick (and I mean in radius), and the wires would have to be burried twenty feet apart from each other.

In short, I'm not an engineer, but a cost of a million dollars a mile to bury that stuff wouldn't surprise me. (If it's possible at all.) Heck, it makes storing nuclear waste look easy.

Pretty steep price to pay just so that Clint Eastwood can film westerns without power lines ruining the shot.