General Discussion

annabanana

(52,791 posts)

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

Reply to Renew Deal (Original post)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 11:59 PM

Feb 2016

In spite of the SC ruling.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you support eminent domain? [View all] Renew Deal Feb 2016 OP

No way. leftofcool Feb 2016 #1

when the Texas Rangers used it to build a stadium, I fully understood the potential for abuse. virtualobserver Feb 2016 #4

And therein lies the problem. leftofcool Feb 2016 #7

The current Rangers Ballpark was built on a parking lot tammywammy Feb 2016 #29

they seized 13 acres through eminent domain for the stadium complex virtualobserver Feb 2016 #33

No, just that I had forgotten. tammywammy Feb 2016 #34

I believe George W. Bush was involved in that sleazy deal hibbing Feb 2016 #30

ED has been abused time and again for "Public Good." Many times "Public Good" is bullshit! TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #39

I do. Agschmid Feb 2016 #2

"for public use" - does that include making you sell it so they can build a Walmart store? n/t PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #3

No. Public use is a park, hospital, train tracks, road, etc. Renew Deal Feb 2016 #5

Ok so you are positing a more restricted version of eminent domain than that allowed... PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #10

That right there is the case that changed my mind entirely. dorkzilla Feb 2016 #13

Public use can also be a pipeline womanofthehills Feb 2016 #40

A private NJ pizza shop EDed someone's backyard for off-street parking, seen as "Public Good" TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #41

It was never meant to be that way Warpy Feb 2016 #18

Exactly. HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #27

I voted yes HassleCat Feb 2016 #6

If I recall correctly, in the SC case from Connecticut related to this, the progressive justices hughee99 Feb 2016 #12

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)... PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #14

The question that raises for me HassleCat Feb 2016 #17

I think they thought of this as the government helping the little guy? hughee99 Feb 2016 #19

Yes, it can get subtle HassleCat Feb 2016 #20

NOT in any way Old Codger Feb 2016 #8

For public use and public ownership. rug Feb 2016 #9

Public use: yes. Nye Bevan Feb 2016 #11

That is a wonderful idea - the idea that the persons so dispossessed would get a share in Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #24

Yes, for public works, even though it cost my grandmother her house Retrograde Feb 2016 #15

No. metroins Feb 2016 #16

If I am fairly compensated for property I am not intensly attatched to, and for the public good - Kali Feb 2016 #21

Public only! THis does NOT include "expanding the tax base" annabanana Feb 2016 #22

In NJ, a Pizza Shop EDed a neighbor's backyard for a parking lot. Reason, move cars off the street! TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #38

I do support eminent domain for public use for public purposes. Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #23

I guess it makes me sort of right-wing-ish, but no, I don't support the concept. begin_within Feb 2016 #25

Yes, if they are paid equal to or more than market value and the purpose is for urban renewal. ErikJ Feb 2016 #26

It's in the constitution. Until it is amended. . .gotta support the constitution. Feeling the Bern Feb 2016 #28

In the Kelo case... HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #31

I voted to pass on the existing options because my response is merrily Feb 2016 #32

You are absolutely right. They must be fairly compensated, and go through due process as you stated still_one Feb 2016 #35

And as long as the state doesn't mess with 'fair value' by saying the property is devalued.. X_Digger Feb 2016 #36

Of course. A truly fair value and a bonus for using the power of the state to force a sale. merrily Feb 2016 #37

thank you for taking the time hopemountain Feb 2016 #42

I did address that kind of thing in my response, but I know it's merrily Feb 2016 #43

And there's no way anyone would get "fair market value" here. EllieBC Feb 2016 #45

Freeways and such... not for developers Liberal_in_LA Feb 2016 #44