Eminent Domain

[swarch]

Strictly opposed. If someone wants something, they should pay whatever the owner asks, which doesn't even have anything to do with "fair market value". Anything else leads to--has led to--abuse.

The woman in the Donald Trump story is Vera Coking. Trump tried to get her property through eminent domain, and the Institute for Justice (a libertarian version of the ACLU) stopped him. They've been involved in many other cases where eminent domain has tried to benefit private interests, often shopping mall developers. One scam is declaring a neighborhood "blighted", even though it isn't any such thing, and then razing it. Another is publishing a notice in the newspaper (that the owner never sees) and then seizing the property after the deadline for appeal expires. Such behavior merits long prison terms, but the officials involved enjoy sovereign immunity (another execrable concept).

When we accord government this kind of power, it will be abused. Some people seem to believe that giving government various powers will lead to Good, but that (naturally) giving the same powers to any private interest--corporations, unions, you name it--will lead to Evil. To put it politely, this is naive.

[Bogart]

Scams aside, there are times when it is necessary. You will always have someone refusing to sell at any price.

[muon2]

Strictly opposed. If someone wants something, they should pay whatever the owner asks, which doesn't even have anything to do with "fair market value". Anything else leads to--has led to--abuse.

The woman in the Donald Trump story is Vera Coking. Trump tried to get her property through eminent domain, and the Institute for Justice (a libertarian version of the ACLU) stopped him. They've been involved in many other cases where eminent domain has tried to benefit private interests, often shopping mall developers. One scam is declaring a neighborhood "blighted", even though it isn't any such thing, and then razing it. Another is publishing a notice in the newspaper (that the owner never sees) and then seizing the property after the deadline for appeal expires. Such behavior merits long prison terms, but the officials involved enjoy sovereign immunity (another execrable concept).

When we accord government this kind of power, it will be abused. Some people seem to believe that giving government various powers will lead to Good, but that (naturally) giving the same powers to any private interest--corporations, unions, you name it--will lead to Evil. To put it politely, this is naive.

It is also naive to think that the system never corrects abuse. Some people will abuse a situation if they think can get away with it. The same is true with governments. Our system does catch most of the abuse of power, but like any system will miss cases that should have been caught.

There are times when the public good requires the ability to acquire land at a fair price, even if the seller is unwilling. Everyone who has purchased land knew (or should know) what restrictions were on that land when it was purchased. One of those restrictions is the right of the government to acquire the land if necessary. This is little different than buying a property with a deed restriction with a right of first refusal.

It sounds like you would take all property deeds and benefit the owners by removing restrictions that certainly affected the price of the sale. Why should the current owners get such a benefit when he seller fairly understood those restrictions and set a price accordingly? Note that I draw no distinction between private and public deed restrictions - they both affect the land value at the time of the transaction.

[Schmitz in 1972]

Wow, option 8 has the most votes. As Locke wrote in the second treatise, everyone has a right to life, liberty, and property. Eminent domain is one of the more abhorrent points of the United States that needs doing away with ASAP

[John Dibble]

I recognize that eminent domain might be construed as necessary sometimes, but it is just as necessary if not more so to keep it to a bare minimum. The people need to start watching politicians like hawks - they really need to fear the consequences of getting caught with some under the table agenda.

[swarch]

It sounds like you would take all property deeds and benefit the owners by removing restrictions that certainly affected the price of the sale. Why should the current owners get such a benefit when he seller fairly understood those restrictions and set a price accordingly? Note that I draw no distinction between private and public deed restrictions - they both affect the land value at the time of the transaction.

I wouldn't remove restrictions from deeds. Eminent domain, however, is a political issue. And as such, I would eliminate it. This would benefit everyone equally. By your argument, the rate of a sales tax should never change because this would benefit or hurt subsequent buyers as opposed to previous ones.

[muon2]

It sounds like you would take all property deeds and benefit the owners by removing restrictions that certainly affected the price of the sale. Why should the current owners get such a benefit when he seller fairly understood those restrictions and set a price accordingly? Note that I draw no distinction between private and public deed restrictions - they both affect the land value at the time of the transaction.

I wouldn't remove restrictions from deeds. Eminent domain, however, is a political issue. And as such, I would eliminate it. This would benefit everyone equally. By your argument, the rate of a sales tax should never change because this would benefit or hurt subsequent buyers as opposed to previous ones.

We'll have to disagree on this. First, sales tax is fundamentally different than a restriction on the use of land. Sales tax is a fee based on the transaction and does not encumber the item after the transaction takes place.

Restrictions can be both public and private, and they act in much the same way. A subdivision may have private covenants, a utility company can have an easement, a city can have zoning restrictions, all of which define the land as surely as the location defines in part the value of the land. It is also the case that any of the above mentioned restrictions can be modified through a contract between the parties. Private parties can mutually negotiate the change, and public entities negotiate changes as welll. For instance, through a submittal of an application, fees, and through a public hearing, the zoning restrictions can be changed on a property. It is not a unilateral action.

Eminent domain, like zoning, is a restriction on the land. It is not only reserved to the government - private railroads have been granted the power as well. The buyer knows that zoning and other restrictions exist on the land by its location within a government's jurisdiction.

Eminent domain can be negotiated just as other restrictions are. It can be negotiated through a public process that influences the elected officials to not use the process, and it can be negotiated directly by a landowner requesting a higher value in exchange for the government forgoing its power and the cost associated with the exercise of that power. In the great majority of cases, negotiation through either of the two mechanisms listed is the actual outcome.

The execution of eminent domain is almost always a last resort. But like a private utility that owns an easement on the land, without the binding restriction, there would be little to allow enforcement or negotiation if the land owner acted without the other party's consent.