Eminent Domain Abuse

eminent domain was first abused by the state of new york in the 40's, when the NY supreme court redefined the public USE portion of the 5th amendment to read public BENEFIT, meaning that a higher tax base and revenue could then be spent on public goods and services, thereby satisfying the public USE clause. It's been a downhill slide of property rights since then, the fault of BOTH left and right. Liberals AND conservatives don't believe you deserve property rights, get over it of fight violently for them. up to you.
 
uscitizen said:
Correct , but with a right wing slant, but few of us are perfect :clink:
Click to expand...

I guess I still don't get the relevance of your comment to this decision or the motives of the people involved. Was it some philosohpical statement that had no specific relevance to this thead?
 
It was very relevant, and the root cause of the problem with eminent domain.
Keep thinking on it perhaps will one day overcome our republicanism and understand.
 
uscitizen said:
It was very relevant, and the root cause of the problem with eminent domain.
Keep thinking on it perhaps will one day overcome our republicanism and understand.
Click to expand...

the issue was government wanted more tax dollars.

As far as me going Marxist, not happening.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
eminent domain was first abused by the state of new york in the 40's, when the NY supreme court redefined the public USE portion of the 5th amendment to read public BENEFIT, meaning that a higher tax base and revenue could then be spent on public goods and services, thereby satisfying the public USE clause. It's been a downhill slide of property rights since then, the fault of BOTH left and right. Liberals AND conservatives don't believe you deserve property rights, get over it of fight violently for them. up to you.
Click to expand...

I honestly just about haven't heard many people but the supreme court justify it. It was one of their most unpopular decisions in years.
 
cawacko said:
the issue was government wanted more tax dollars.

As far as me going Marxist, not happening.
Click to expand...

That was the excuse / rationalization. The reason was developers wanted to make money on the deal.

all that valuable real estate just sitting there under run down houses when someone could make money off of it.
 
uscitizen said:
That was the excuse / rationalization. The reason was developers wanted to make money on the deal.
Click to expand...

Since it's hard to tell tone on this board I can't tell how you are stating this second sentence. I work with many developers. I haven't heard one say we want to do a deal because it was not profitable.

Since politicians don't do anything for free or goodwill what do you believe their reason was for allowing this development since you don't think they did it for more tax revenue?
 
uscitizen said:
That was the excuse / rationalization. The reason was developers wanted to make money on the deal.

all that valuable real estate just sitting there under run down houses when someone could make money off of it.
Click to expand...

by god you've figured out how real estate works. You might have a future in our business. Looking for undervalued real estate is what we do.
 
cawacko said:
Since it's hard to tell tone on this board I can't tell how you are stating this second sentence. I work with many developers. I haven't heard one say we want to do a deal because it was not profitable.

Since politicians don't do anything for free or goodwill what do you believe their reason was for allowing this development since you don't think they did it for more tax revenue?
Click to expand...

You don't get it do ya ? Where did I say it was not profitable ?
I said just the opposite.
 
uscitizen said:
You don't get it do ya ? Where did I say it was not profitable ?
I said just the opposite.
Click to expand...

I was being facetious. Of course developers want to make money. That is a given. No investor would give a developer money if he felt he was going to lose it (doesn't mean developers don't lose money but they don't on their pro-formas beforehand).
 
uscitizen said:
Yep you are part of the cause of the problem dude.
Click to expand...

Ok, real estate is part of the evil capitalist system. Too bad we can't be like Russia or Cuba where basically non-profits build the housing and commercial buildings and the government owns them.

How do socialists such as yourself end up with so much money? Maybe that is my problem. I might need to evaluate what I'm doing.
 
cawacko said:
Ok, real estate is part of the evil capitalist system. Too bad we can't be like Russia or Cuba where basically non-profits build the housing and commercial buildings and the government owns them.

How do socialists such as yourself end up with so much money? Maybe that is my problem. I might need to evaluate what I'm doing.
Click to expand...

I am speaking of this particular type of instance dude. Where a developer wants to develop an area but the people do not want to sell, so he convinces the local govt what a good idea it is and says how much more taxes they would get,etc...
 
uscitizen said:
I am speaking of this particular type of instance dude. Where a developer wants to develop an area but the people do not want to sell, so he convinces the local govt what a good idea it is and says how much more taxes they would get,etc...
Click to expand...

yeah, the government needed to say no in this case. I'll promise you the politicians weren't swindled in this deal. From my reading it sounds like this was a city that was struggling economically and thought new development could help jumpstart its resurgence. (As I'm sure you're aware this type of thinking goes on in cities across America.) So the local politicians saw increased tax dollars and probably the hope that more would follow. The developer of course saw a chance to make money.
 
cawacko said:
yeah, the government needed to say no in this case. I'll promise you the politicians weren't swindled in this deal. From my reading it sounds like this was a city that was struggling economically and thought new development could help jumpstart its resurgence. (As I'm sure you're aware this type of thinking goes on in cities across America.) So the local politicians saw increased tax dollars and probably the hope that more would follow. The developer of course saw a chance to make money.
Click to expand...

Yep and it was still wrong, but an acceptable real estate business practice per the industry.
 
uscitizen said:
Yep and it was still wrong, but an acceptable real estate business practice per the industry.
Click to expand...

Developers must work with cities when attempting new development. You must get multiple approvals along the way. The city takes the lead as far as eminent domain. The City is not a victim here. They are the ones that did this.
 
cawacko said:
Developers must work with cities when attempting new development. You must get multiple approvals along the way. The city takes the lead as far as eminent domain. The City is not a victim here. They are the ones that did this.
Click to expand...

Yeah right, and if no developer wanted to take peoples homes thru eminent domain and make a profit ?

Easy problem to solve ban all projects on land taken by iminent domain from turning a profit.

that would limit it to true public works projects. highways and such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top