61 replies to this topic

[TheAnk]

eltron, on Jun 28 2005, 01:00 PM, said:

What you propose here is what already happens in 99% of cases. Its not like people are getting kicked off their land with NO compensation. That is expressly NOT a part of eminent domain, or any other land use law, for that matter. Eminent domain is only used as an absolute last resort. Local governments have learned a great deal since the misguided plans of the 50's and 60's (slum clearance and interstate highways), and most property owners are bought out at levels well above fair market, not assessed values.

Take TF Green Airport for example. Hundreds of property owners have been bought out of their property in the high-noise contours at attractive prices, and none were taken by eminent domain. But the power to take land by eminent domain remains as an important tool IF NECESSARY.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am sure they get compensated. But not market value and certainly not emotional value.. And the attitude is "we are the gov, you don't like it, sue us"... To put that in perspective, the assessed value of a 3 family I own is 179k, whereas the market value is probably ~300k..

If you want a good example of the gov screwing people with ED, check out this:

http://www.bushfiles...theartDeal.html

Hey, I'm not saying it happens all the time, but it happens..

Not that I consider this a left/right issue, its more of a libertarian issue.. But I am surprised the liberals in here aren't siding with the displaced people.. Its odd to me that big corporations and/or wealthy residents displacing people and altering their livelihood is catastrophic, but if the government does it its ok.. Just doesn't add up..

[TheAnk]

http://www.freestarm...stliberty2.html

Awesome..

[eltron]

TheAnk, on Jun 29 2005, 10:28 AM, said:

http://www.freestarm...stliberty2.html

Awesome..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow.

Thats the most assinine load of crap I've ever read....

[Cotuit]

TheAnk, on Jun 29 2005, 10:28 AM, said:

http://www.freestarm...stliberty2.html

Awesome..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I read that in the Globe this morning, thought you'd appreciate it.

[Cotuit]

eltron, on Jun 29 2005, 10:58 AM, said:

Wow.

Thats the most assinine load of crap I've ever read...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, a hotel on a dead end street in the middle of nowhere will be a great economic generator for Weare. Nice publicity stunt though.

[TheAnk]

Cotuit, on Jun 29 2005, 10:09 AM, said:

Yes, a hotel on a dead end street in the middle of nowhere will be a great economic generator for Weare. Nice publicity stunt though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, its a stunt.. And you are right Cotuit, I loved it!

[Frankie811]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...domain_measure/

[Garris]

Frankie811, on Nov 3 2005, 02:45 PM, said:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...domain_measure/

I think, if I recall correctly, I was the only person in favor of the Supreme Court decision here... I think the measure detailed in the article that is being considered is quite stupid...

As a hypothetical, if there was a property in Providence that you wish could be taken by eminent domain for any reason, what would it be and why?

- Garris

[Frankie811]

Garris, on Nov 3 2005, 04:08 PM, said:

I think, if I recall correctly, I was the only person in favor of the Supreme Court decision here... I think the measure detailed in the article that is being considered is quite stupid...

As a hypothetical, if there was a property in Providence that you wish could be taken by eminent domain for any reason, what would it be and why?

- Garris

Since the owner/operator of a golf course in Cranston has refused to sell out to the state in order to build a new state police HQ's the state is threatening to use eminent domain.

[Cotuit]

Garris, on Nov 3 2005, 04:08 PM, said:

I think, if I recall correctly, I was the only person in favor of the Supreme Court decision here... I think the measure detailed in the article that is being considered is quite stupid...

I agreed with it in that reading the 5th Ammendment, I think the Court made the right call, and I think it is a state's rights issue. But I think the states should define what can and cannot be taken and what things can be taken for.

Garris, on Nov 3 2005, 04:08 PM, said:

As a hypothetical, if there was a property in Providence that you wish could be taken by eminent domain for any reason, what would it be and why?

North Main Street, all of it. Knock everything down. Knocking it down and leaving empty lots would be better than what's there now, but I'd like to see affordable housing with ground floor retail built and buses or trolleys running every 5 minutes to Kennedy Plaza and Downtown Pawtucket. A boy can dream right?

[eltron]

Garris, on Nov 3 2005, 04:08 PM, said:

I think, if I recall correctly, I was the only person in favor of the Supreme Court decision here... I think the measure detailed in the article that is being considered is quite stupid...

As a hypothetical, if there was a property in Providence that you wish could be taken by eminent domain for any reason, what would it be and why?

- Garris

Perhaps in one of our few moments of agreetment ( ) I went to bat for the supreme court on this one.

I have a list of about 100 properties that should be taken, starting with the half-burned crackhouse across the street from me...

[Frankie811]

Frankie811, on Nov 3 2005, 04:19 PM, said:

Since the owner/operator of a golf course in Cranston has refused to sell out to the state in order to build a new state police HQ's the state is threatening to use eminent domain.

http://www.projo.com/business/content/proj...26.79c83fd.html

[Soren]

I think the one that got to me the most was the land out in Smithfield (Johnston?) that was taken by eminent domain so that it could be re-sold to Fidelity so they could expand their office park. At some point increasing the tax base is simply not a good enough reason to grab property.

But I'm not above fantasizing. Eminent domain exercised on almost any part of the waterfront off Eddy St. could pave the way for interesting developments.

[HartfordTycoon]

eltron, on Nov 3 2005, 05:46 PM, said:

Perhaps in one of our few moments of agreetment ( ) I went to bat for the supreme court on this one.

I have a list of about 100 properties that should be taken, starting with the half-burned crackhouse across the street from me...

I wrote a letter to the Courant in support of the supreme court and it was published. You should have seen how people were looking at me at work. I still think New London needs that project though, alot more than that wasteland they're stuck with now. People get so emotional they don't see the logic that sometimes you need government to function like a business and some may not get what they want all of the time. I think all major U.S. cities could benefit from smart use of Eminent Domain, but I understand why people are against it, I just couldn't see myself fighting that hard against something that could help my community out so much.

Edited by HartfordTycoon, 03 November 2005 - 07:00 PM.

[Frankie811]

Soren, on Nov 3 2005, 07:45 PM, said:

At some point increasing the tax base is simply not a good enough reason to grab property.

Yes, it was Smithfield at the intersections of Rt 116 and 7. And it wasen't all about the tax base, but about building a new building at the complex and adding 500+ jobs. I believe an additional 500 new jobs are planned there in a 3rd new building. When Fidelity is threw building and adding jobs we may see as many as 2,000 jobs located there. Of course I would have loved to have seen all these jobs downtown somewhere.

[Cotuit]

2000 jobs on how many acres? Using eminent domain to increase sprawl and our state's dependence on the automobile is the worst use for eminent domain.

[Frankie811]

Cotuit, on Nov 3 2005, 09:41 PM, said:

2000 jobs on how many acres? Using eminent domain to increase sprawl and our state's dependence on the automobile is the worst use for eminent domain.

I'm not sure on the acreage but it is a large complex, currently with two 225 - 250,000 sq ft buildings and a parking garage. I believe the job total now is somewhere between 1,200 - 1,500. A 3rd building with up to 500 new jobs are planned. And I agree with you on sprawl which is why I said I would have loved to have seen these jobs/building go downtown.

[TheAnk]

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all.../pub_detail.asp

Why it is so important.. A real life case study..

Those in favor of Eminent Domain, I think you should read up on this real life example.. It may change your mind..

[Frankie811]

http://www.projo.com/news/content/projo_20...n5.8618e57.html

[mr2448]

HartfordTycoon, on Nov 3 2005, 07:59 PM, said:

I wrote a letter to the Courant in support of the supreme court and it was published. You should have seen how people were looking at me at work. I still think New London needs that project though, alot more than that wasteland they're stuck with now. People get so emotional they don't see the logic that sometimes you need government to function like a business and some may not get what they want all of the time. I think all major U.S. cities could benefit from smart use of Eminent Domain, but I understand why people are against it, I just couldn't see myself fighting that hard against something that could help my community out so much.

"Smart use of eminent domain", that's an oxymoron if I ever heard one. This is just a new way of saying lets do redevelopment as they did in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Lets knock down a whole area, mainly because it is sub standard, and redevelop it. It was a way to knock down a getto or lower income area. If that part of New London were upscale single family homes as you see in Milford, Hammonasset or any other upscale suburb, this never would have happened. You don't rezone property and then take it from the landowners. That being said they should be paid not for the current value of their property, but at the improved revaluation as it will be 5 years from now.