Jump to content

Exit Poll


GRDadof3

Exit Poll, How'd you vote?  

75 members have voted

  1. 1. Governor

    • Devos
      35
    • Granholm
      40
  2. 2. Proposal 2 - Affirmative Action Ban

    • Yes
      33
    • No
      41
  3. 3. Proposal 4 - Eminent Domain Prohibition

    • Yes
      41
    • No
      33
  4. 4. Proposal 5 - Mandatory School Funding

    • Yes
      20
    • No
      54
    • 0


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I struggled with my decision at election time, but ultimately I voted NO on the proposal.

The results here mirror the results of francishsu's POLL in the Michigan section. I think a lot of people who lurk on UP are VERY pro-development. I don't think people here equate it with kicking ma and pa off the family farm, but moreso with kicking property squatters off of potentially valuable parcels in the city. Anyone else think that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we may not like property "squatters," they do own the property and can do as they see fit within the limits of the law. Let the free market do it's job. A squatter won't hold onto a piece of property forever if the market is willing to pay for it. Further, taking land through eminent domain for private use is clearly unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court rule incorrectly, so this proposal just ensures that the government doesn't overstep its bounds.

Sorry if this is taking the thread off-topic, if you'd like to move this post to a new thread feel free.

-nb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we may not like property "squatters," they do own the property and can do as they see fit within the limits of the law. Let the free market do it's job. A squatter won't hold onto a piece of property forever if the market is willing to pay for it. Further, taking land through eminent domain for private use is clearly unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court rule incorrectly, so this proposal just ensures that the government doesn't overstep its bounds.

Sorry if this is taking the thread off-topic, if you'd like to move this post to a new thread feel free.

-nb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I struggled with my decision at election time, but ultimately I voted NO on the proposal.

The results here mirror the results of francishsu's POLL in the Michigan section. I think a lot of people who lurk on UP are VERY pro-development. I don't think people here equate it with kicking ma and pa off the family farm, but moreso with kicking property squatters off of potentially valuable parcels in the city. Anyone else think that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, even a good number of the people against the proposal in that thread seemed to support the principle of the proposal, but not amending the state Constitution to accomplish it. My decision to vote against it in the end was along the same lines. However, probably would have voted for it if they allowed for taking of property for private development if they compensated the owner higher than the 125% of FMV for public projects. Like maybe 150% or even 200% of FMV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, even a good number of the people against the proposal in that thread seemed to support the principle of the proposal, but not amending the state Constitution to accomplish it. My decision to vote against it in the end was along the same lines. However, probably would have voted for it if they allowed for taking of property for private development if they compensated the owner higher than the 125% of FMV for public projects. Like maybe 150% or even 200% of FMV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's going to be for a non-public project, I think the minimum compensation required should be higher than if it's used for a public project, frankly. My objection to the proposal was flat out prohibiting the taking of property for private developments and putting that prohibition in the state constitution. I think there are a small number of people who have such an attachment to their property that they simply won't give it up for virtually any price.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proposal didn't affect eminent domain for public use, M-DOT will still get to build freeways all over the place. Other than transportation, recreation, and preservation I see little need to ever take private land without just purchasing it through normal means. Really only situations where a large contiguous piece of land is required.

I'll give a somewhat realistic example. Let's suppose this whole RiverGrand project is finally unveiled and involves a few properties other than the city's land to go forward. Would you let the city or the state just take the land for the benefit of the the RiverGrand project simply because the economic benefit is for the public good? That just seems like a stretch. I'm sure RiverGrand would see a much bigger benefit than the public would.

-nb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give a somewhat realistic example. Let's suppose this whole RiverGrand project is finally unveiled and involves a few properties other than the city's land to go forward. Would you let the city or the state just take the land for the benefit of the the RiverGrand project simply because the economic benefit is for the public good? That just seems like a stretch. I'm sure RiverGrand would see a much bigger benefit than the public would.

-nb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll give a somewhat realistic example. Let's suppose this whole RiverGrand project is finally unveiled and involves a few properties other than the city's land to go forward. Would you let the city or the state just take the land for the benefit of the the RiverGrand project simply because the economic benefit is for the public good? That just seems like a stretch. I'm sure RiverGrand would see a much bigger benefit than the public would.

-nb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming the RiverGrand hype is true (going hypothetical here), you're talking thousands of jobs generated. Sure, the people involved in the project would make a tidy profit as well. But the positive economic impact on the city would be undeniable.

In my opinion, there should be some sort of compensation threshold where the city should be able to take that property. For a private development like RiverGrand I would expect that compensation to the owners to be pretty high.

Budgie Frisket is correct that it's hard for me to relate to people who have the level of emotional attachment to their house that they just won't give it up for any price. I don't think I'll ever "be in that situation" because if someone offered me 2x the appraised value of my property I'd take it in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how hard would it be to build around the store? Those thousands of jobs certainly don't hinge on one holdout, but rather the developer's refusal to be flexible. It certainly doesn't seem like a small modification in plans would be such a big deal that the state should get involved. Hell, they're planning to build around Mark London's strip club. I don't trust the state to wield that sort of power.

The state should be protecting people's rights, not abusing them. Let the free market do it's thing.

-nb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how hard would it be to build around the store? Those thousands of jobs certainly don't hinge on one holdout, but rather the developer's refusal to be flexible. It certainly doesn't seem like a small modification in plans would be such a big deal that the state should get involved. Hell, they're planning to build around Mark London's strip club. I don't trust the state to wield that sort of power.

The state should be protecting people's rights, not abusing them. Let the free market do it's thing.

-nb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I had to comment on, as I'm reviewing the county by county results, is how a great majority of the counties in the state went democrat. In the '04 presidential elections, almost all of the states 83 counties wen't for bush while only the burgeoning urban counties carried the state for Kerry. In norther Michigan and in the UP almost every single county voted for Stabenow and Granholm. Even some west Michigan counties suprised me, Ionia, and Montcalm both went blue, where I had long thought they to be tied to the more red Barry, Allegan, Kent, Ottawa. Demographic. I think though the biggest thing that suprised me was that Dick Devos only took Kent County by 7 points (18,532 votes). That is a wide margin, but given it's traditional staunch Republican history, and the fact that he's from Kent county, coupled with the fact that he's invested millions upon millions of dollars here in the past 20 years. I would have thought he'd have taken it by a much wider margin.

Do you guys think this is indicitive of where the state is heading over all? Is Kent county further purpling itself to the middle and away from it's sister Ottawa county? Or is this just the way mid term/local elections go where incumbents just stand a better chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I had to comment on, as I'm reviewing the county by county results, is how a great majority of the counties in the state went democrat. In the '04 presidential elections, almost all of the states 83 counties wen't for bush while only the burgeoning urban counties carried the state for Kerry. In norther Michigan and in the UP almost every single county voted for Stabenow and Granholm. Even some west Michigan counties suprised me, Ionia, and Montcalm both went blue, where I had long thought they to be tied to the more red Barry, Allegan, Kent, Ottawa. Demographic. I think though the biggest thing that suprised me was that Dick Devos only took Kent County by 7 points (18,532 votes). That is a wide margin, but given it's traditional staunch Republican history, and the fact that he's from Kent county, coupled with the fact that he's invested millions upon millions of dollars here in the past 20 years. I would have thought he'd have taken it by a much wider margin.

Do you guys think this is indicitive of where the state is heading over all? Is Kent county further purpling itself to the middle and away from it's sister Ottawa county? Or is this just the way mid term/local elections go where incumbents just stand a better chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an apple to oranges comparison to me, so it's not convincing me. If someone wants to place value on a piece of land/house equivalent to that of a loved one, that's just not something I'll be able to wrap my head around. Sorry. I don't like going down this line of picking extreme hypotheticals to poke holes in a person's argument. I'm not claiming that my opinion is the best view, nor am I even saying that other people should share my opinion in this case.

To me, there is no black and white to this issue (100% property rights vs. 100% public interest). It's only a matter of where you draw the line somewhere between. Like I said, I was on the fence on Prop 4 and I only decided at the last minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your example (forgetting about the particular developers for a minute), let's say the NAPA Auto Parts place was the last holdout, and they refused to accept an offer of 125% of their FMV, or even 150%, and they would essentially kill the project. I certainly would support the city claiming eminent domain in that situation. The owners would STILL be compensated for their property (probably 125%).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.