Do you support eminent domain?

[Renew Deal]

"the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation."

https://www.google.com/#q=eminent+domain

34 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, I support eminent domain to expropriate private property for public use
	19 (56%)
	Yes, I support eminent domain to expropriate private property for any use
	0 (0%)
	No
	13 (38%)
	Not Sure
	1 (3%)
	Other
	1 (3%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[leftofcool]

1. No way.

[virtualobserver]

4. when the Texas Rangers used it to build a stadium, I fully understood the potential for abuse.

[leftofcool]

7. And therein lies the problem.

I did not support eminent domain when the coal mining companies stole the land from the mountain people and I don't support it for the Keystone Pipeline or anything else people want to say is for "public use."

[tammywammy]

29. The current Rangers Ballpark was built on a parking lot

There was no eminent domain, it was built on top of one of the parking lots of the previous stadium.

[virtualobserver]

33. they seized 13 acres through eminent domain for the stadium complex

are you saying that it didn't happen?

[tammywammy]

34. No, just that I had forgotten.

[hibbing]

30. I believe George W. Bush was involved in that sleazy deal

Was funny hearing Jeb! talking about the horrors of eminent domain when his brother was involved with the Rangers when that deal went down. A baseball stadium for a billionaire owner is not public use. That is for private profit.

Peae

[TheBlackAdder]

39. ED has been abused time and again for "Public Good." Many times "Public Good" is bullshit!

.


Sure there are times when capital projects need to be done, but the pipeline for KXL use ED to steal property.


I posted below a pizza parlor stealing a guys property in NJ to build a parking lot. It was justified as 'public good' because it took cars off of the street. The property owner was years before the pizza parlor was built.


There are cases all over the place of Public Good being perverted by those in power or those with influence.


.

[Agschmid]

2. I do.

[PoliticAverse]

3. "for public use" - does that include making you sell it so they can build a Walmart store? n/t

[Renew Deal]

5. No. Public use is a park, hospital, train tracks, road, etc.

Walmart would be private use

[PoliticAverse]

10. Ok so you are positing a more restricted version of eminent domain than that allowed...

by the US Supreme court in Kelo v. City of New London (2005, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London ).

[dorkzilla]

13. That right there is the case that changed my mind entirely.

No no no no. That was just wrong in the wrongest way.

[womanofthehills]

40. Public use can also be a pipeline

And they take part of your property and endanger your life.

[TheBlackAdder]

41. A private NJ pizza shop EDed someone's backyard for off-street parking, seen as "Public Good"

.


It depends on how Public Good is defined by the powers to be, and presented to the court.

A community in NJ was razed to build a tunnel for a casino operator, who backed out of the deal after $330M of taxpayer money was spent on the tunnel and nine homes torn down. YES, PRIVATE BUSINESS CAN EMINENT DOMAIN PROPERTY!


http://articles.philly.com/1997-01-24/news/25559008_1_tunnel-plan-feasibility-study-wynn-s-mirage-resorts


Donald Trump EDed a window's home for a casino parking lot:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/09/trump-eminent-domain-attacks-right


Most time, the little guy loses.


.

[Warpy]

18. It was never meant to be that way

It was meant taking land for hospitals and public buildings and road projects, not so some fat billionaire can get fatter.

[HooptieWagon]

27. Exactly.

Ok for public use. Not ok for private profit.

[HassleCat]

6. I voted yes

But I realize there are problems when they use eminent domain to seize property to build shopping malls. That's not the intended purpose. We need some progressive action to get things back on track.

[hughee99]

12. If I recall correctly, in the SC case from Connecticut related to this, the progressive justices

were the problem. A very rare occasion where I found myself on the same side as Fat Tony Scalia.

[PoliticAverse]

14. Kelo v. City of New London (2005)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

[HassleCat]

17. The question that raises for me

How progressive are they? I think they're liberal enough to be on the side of government, but not progressive enough to believe government should be helping the ordinary citizen, not the big corporation.

[hughee99]

19. I think they thought of this as the government helping the little guy?

When the government generates more in tax revenue, they have more money to do more things and help more people.

Personally, I don't have an issue with the concept of eminent domain, but I do have an issue with a way-to-vague definition of what is "the public good"

[HassleCat]

20. Yes, it can get subtle

Is in the public interest to help businesses make money and hire people,and so on. The problem occurs when we use the power of government to enable business to step on the neck of property owners. Not all things are in the public interest in the same way, and a shopping mall is not the same as a new high school or public hospital.

[Old Codger]

8. NOT in any way

the way they have basterdized it and used it help big business and fucked people on it , they need to stop it and get rid of it..

[rug]

9. For public use and public ownership.

[Nye Bevan]

11. Public use: yes.

But people should be paid at least double the fair market value of their property.

Private use: pay them five times market value, at least, and give them an equity stake in whatever the project is.

[Yo_Mama]

24. That is a wonderful idea - the idea that the persons so dispossessed would get a share in

the resulting project.

It would solve a lot of problems.

[Retrograde]

15. Yes, for public works, even though it cost my grandmother her house

Her house was in the way of a road re-routing project. She did get paid enough to build a new one (already owning the land, and having her sons and sons-in-law do the actual building (I help by fetching and carrying - I was 5 at the time) helped a lot).

[metroins]

16. No.

It's actually progressive to protect citizens property from being taken by the government.

If you need a project done, you find a way or pay a price they'll accept.

[Kali]

21. If I am fairly compensated for property I am not intensly attatched to, and for the public good -

sure. If it were my home, I doubt it - at any price.

[annabanana]

22. Public only! THis does NOT include "expanding the tax base"

In spite of the SC ruling.

[TheBlackAdder]

38. In NJ, a Pizza Shop EDed a neighbor's backyard for a parking lot. Reason, move cars off the street!

.


So, a private business can steal someone's property if it benefits them, under the guise of "Public Good!"


Christie Whitman EDed dozens of homes in Barnegate to build a tunnel for a Casino mogel's casino.


After the homes were razed and tens of millions spent by taxpayers to build a tunnel to this guy's casino...

the fucking guy backed out of the deal and there's a tunnel to nowhere and a community destroyed!


.

[Yo_Mama]

23. I do support eminent domain for public use for public purposes.

I am much more hesitant to support eminent domain for uses which are called public but which will really enrich a few members of the local government.

A lot of what is called public use isn't.

I am very, very unwilling to support emininent domain for any project that is non-government. Roads, schools, hospitals, etc are legitimate. Private development often does more harm than good, and eminent domain is used to get land more cheaply than it could otherwise be purchased.

More tax dollars is not a public purpose, IMO. Eminent domain is way, way overused.

[begin_within]

25. I guess it makes me sort of right-wing-ish, but no, I don't support the concept.

[ErikJ]

26. Yes, if they are paid equal to or more than market value and the purpose is for urban renewal.

Which is most often done in conjunction with private developers.

[Feeling the Bern]

28. It's in the constitution. Until it is amended. . .gotta support the constitution.

[HooptieWagon]

31. In the Kelo case...

The developer never got financing (despite acquiring the waterfront property for $1/yr), and the development was never built. The land remains vacant, and was even used as a dump for a while for storm debris. This clearly was an abuse of power, and the SC justices who voted for it should be ashamed.

[merrily]

32. I voted to pass on the existing options because my response is

I support the centuries old power of eminent domain, recognized in the US Constitution, if "public" is defined very narrowly and the price paid is very fair, meaning a bonus for the involuntary nature of the move, not simply fair market value of the property.

If a city really needs a right of way or a piece of property for a valid and necessary city use and the owner(s) won't sell, something has to give for the good of the city's population. But, eminent domain has been abused and the results have been highly detrimental to the general population.

The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5-4 decision received heavy press coverage and inspired a public outcry criticizing eminent domain powers as too broad. In reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering state legislation that would further define and restrict the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock [2004]), Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney [2006]), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.

The redevelopment in New London, the subject of the Kelo decision, proved to be a failure and as of ten years after the court's decision nothing has been built on the taken land in spite of the expenditure of over $100 million in public funds. The Pfizer corporation, which owned a $300 million research facility in the area, and would have been the primary beneficiary of the additional development, announced in 2009 that it would close its facility, and did so shortly before the expiration of its 10-year tax abatement agreement with the city.[12] The facility was subsequently purchased in 2010 for just $55 million by General Dynamics Electric Boat.[13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

[still_one]

35. You are absolutely right. They must be fairly compensated, and go through due process as you stated

[X_Digger]

36. And as long as the state doesn't mess with 'fair value' by saying the property is devalued..

.. because of the proposed project (e.g., who wants a house in the median of an interstate..)

[merrily]

37. Of course. A truly fair value and a bonus for using the power of the state to force a sale.

I guess that could be abused, too, by the owner, holding out to hold up the state. I'm not sure how to prevent that, but the state has more power and more ability to raise money than the average property owner. I might also make special provision for an owner occupied residence, as opposed to a commercial or rental property.

[hopemountain]

42. thank you for taking the time

to provide the extra step for more information and a explanation of what it used to mean.
i voted no because we have a huge issue right now with the threat of an lng pipeline from canada down eastern side of oregon and across southern oregon watersheds to west coast loading docks - under and over rivers, forests, desert, mountains, etc. by private corporations. it is disgusting!

[merrily]

43. I did address that kind of thing in my response, but I know it's

hard to trust government not to find loopholes or imagine their existence. Hell, imagining huge loopholes in the bill of rights is the only "justification" for government spying as we currently know it. And oil is always a law unto itself in this country, at least until we manage solar. (Amazing--and fishy--that that has not happened already, isn't it?)

[EllieBC]

45. And there's no way anyone would get "fair market value" here.

Not with what homes cost in many parts of BC. The government would not pay that much at all.

Frankly, I could see the government very easily undervaluing homes.

[Liberal_in_LA]

44. Freeways and such... not for developers