Imminent domain

cubsfan6506

Got u
Joined
Oct 5, 2006
Messages
6,266
Location
Awesome Land
First off I would like to state probaly 70 perent of the people in my town live in a house of over 350,000 dollars including myself. Most of these people are the kind of people that would vote for bush for lower taxes. I remember in the 04 elections i said I would vote for Kerry. I got ina a instant what's wrong with you he want's to raise taxes.

Well the whole redevelpmont thing got started when a local stand that sold things like pumpkings got kicked out to make a giant outdoor mall. I do believe they got bought out without the state being involved though. Next about a year later across the street a forest was torn down to build another shopping center. Two lots over their was this guy that owned a huge tract of land with two room house literally. he got bought out for yet another shopping center.

Now we will go to the downtown. The downtown is based aroud a lake. Their is Just a bunch of stores and stuff. Well their is this one building that got torn down to put some nice townhouses up but that building was abandoned. The town has however acquired all of the downtown properties for buetification. Including one mans house and apartments where an upwards of 200 people live.

But what im wondering is isn't it the goverments job to help people not to kick them out of their houses. It doesn't help me. It doesn't help the small business owners it doesn't help the 200 people being evicted. It does help the people moving into the new houses who are moving into the nice house but that probaly going to be 100 people. They are hurting two hundred people to help 100 rich ones. How is this remotely ok.
 
First off I would like to state probaly 70 perent of the people in my town live in a house of over 350,000 dollars including myself. Most of these people are the kind of people that would vote for bush for lower taxes. I remember in the 04 elections i said I would vote for Kerry. I got ina a instant what's wrong with you he want's to raise taxes.

Well the whole redevelpmont thing got started when a local stand that sold things like pumpkings got kicked out to make a giant outdoor mall. I do believe they got bought out without the state being involved though. Next about a year later across the street a forest was torn down to build another shopping center. Two lots over their was this guy that owned a huge tract of land with two room house literally. he got bought out for yet another shopping center.

Now we will go to the downtown. The downtown is based aroud a lake. Their is Just a bunch of stores and stuff. Well their is this one building that got torn down to put some nice townhouses up but that building was abandoned. The town has however acquired all of the downtown properties for buetification. Including one mans house and apartments where an upwards of 200 people live.

But what im wondering is isn't it the goverments job to help people not to kick them out of their houses. It doesn't help me. It doesn't help the small business owners it doesn't help the 200 people being evicted. It does help the people moving into the new houses who are moving into the nice house but that probaly going to be 100 people. They are hurting two hundred people to help 100 rich ones. How is this remotely ok.
I'm guessing they're trying to "improve" the community by getting wealthier people, able to pay more for goods and services to move in. Best way of doing that is forcing the poor people to exercise their "freedom" to move out, somewhere out of sight and mind, where they become Somebody Elses Problem. No community want to be stuck with a bunch of poor people. They really are a drag, and if there's not a very strong community feeling, or even one of the entire nation being a matter of common cause, then local communities often decide to try to shift the dead-weight onto someone else, if they can. (Heaven help the poor place that find itself at the bottom of the dogpile.)
It's too bad if "poor" here just mean relatively speaking not quite as wealthy as the people they would like to see.
 
Traditionally, the general rule in the states is that Imminent domain can't be used unless their property is going to be used for the general public (no exceptions). In real life, however, the whole imminent domain is an incredibly corrupted practice. In New Brunswick (NJ, not Canada :P), the council did the same thing and pushed all the communities "away" from the main street where all the college students' parents drive through.

Beautification, I would imagine, would count a for the public. But in some instances, I've heard of towns that sold it again to private entities anyway.

The sad part though? Call me incredibly Marxist, but New Brunswick looks a lot cleaner (and safer) now after the push. I still don't like it, however, and it seems towns just exploit it to kick out the undesirables. The fifth just isn't being used the way it was meant to.
 
Eminent domain.
 
Over in Australia we actually have a section in the constitution which restricts Eminent Domain (well actually mandates fair terms)
 
THats good. No they are houses not public.
 
What is eminent domain? What has the government got to do with kicking people out of their homes?
 
What is eminent domain? What has the government got to do with kicking people out of their homes?

From wiki:

Eminent domain (U.S.), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (Canada, South Africa) in common law legal systems is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate private property, or rights in private property, without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to "public uses." The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are public utilities, highways, and railroads. Some states require that the government body offer to purchase the property before resorting to the use of eminent domain.

The usual use is if the government is building a highway and has a 50-mile strip of land except for one holdout, it can use eminent domain to prevent that holdout from scotching the whole project. The use by city councils arm-in-arm with developers for commercial development projects under the justification of "it'll bring in much more tax revenue" is much more controversial and IMHO complete BS.
 
From wiki:



The usual use is if the government is building a highway and has a 50-mile strip of land except for one holdout, it can use eminent domain to prevent that holdout from scotching the whole project. The use by city councils arm-in-arm with developers for commercial development projects under the justification of "it'll bring in much more tax revenue" is much more controversial and IMHO complete BS.

In the UK you can just about manage it for major transport initiatives like widening or creating motorways. But the thought of compulsory purchase just to give land to a commercial developer would make huge waves.

I'd be interested to know if this ever succeeded in the UK, out of Feudal times...
 
Back
Top Bottom