What's something modern you won't miss when it becomes obsolete?

[HudsonHawk]

I see economic development as used in this context as not being as important as a benefit for the good of the community as what will raise more revenue for the taxing bodies involved. If a strip mall built on your property will raise more in property tax and sales tax, the current property owners are well and truly screwed. Whether the courts have favored it or not, that is not right, and I can't believe that was the intent of the original law. It has only been in recent years that this tactic has been employed (at least in this area) whether because when tried before there was a backlash and too high of a political price to be paid or some other reason I am not aware of. In the end, I believe the benefit is directed toward government, and if there happens to be a "benefit" to the public of having a dollar store closer to your home, it's a bonus.

I'm not familiar with a case of anyone having their house taken in order to build a dollar store. Where has this happened?

As for using ED for economic development, there's a long history of it, from the Indian Removal Act to the building of the railroads to the "re-vitalization" of Times Square in the 1990's, the poster child for this tactics "success".

As for the intent of the "takings clause", it's pretty well accepted that the Fifth Amendment doesn't grant the government the right of ED, but rather places restrictions on what was understood to be a given, a power inherent in government itself.

 

[jamespowers]

I'm not familiar with a case of anyone having their house taken in order to build a dollar store. Where has this happened?

You don't get around much then. Over here they did that for Costco. Back East they took a whole town for a Cadillac plant---that closed a few years later. :eusa_doh: They really got more tax money then. Good! Serves them right.

 

[3fingers]

I'm not familiar with a case of anyone having their house taken in order to build a dollar store. Where has this happened?

To build just a dollar store, no. To build shopping malls or other private businesses yes.
Here is a link to one from a few years back. The supreme court upheld the city, but it didn't turn out well. After the city won the case, the developer involved couldn't get financing for the project and it stayed an empty lot.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_108

Edit to add: The city and state spent $78 million dollars to do this and as far as I can find, the property is not generating any tax revenue at all.

 

[jamespowers]

To build just a dollar store, no. To build shopping malls or other private businesses yes.
Here is a link to one from a few years back. The supreme court upheld the city, but it didn't turn out well. After the city won the case, the developer involved couldn't get financing for the project and it stayed an empty lot.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_108

Edit to add: The city and state spent $78 million dollars to do this and as far as I can find, the property is not generating any tax revenue at all.

Kelo was a perfect case against Redevelopment agencies that use this power for the benefit of developers and shilling for tax money. Fortunately, in this state we finally killed Redevelopment Agencies and took their money.

 

[sheeplady]

When Griffith Stadium in Washington DC was being built in 1911, several property owners refused to sell -- and because the project was being mounted for the interests of a private business, the Washington American League Baseball Club, the authorities refused to allow eminent-domain proceedings to claim the lots. As a result, for as long as the ballpark existed -- into the 1960s -- there was a deep notch cut into the center-field corner of the stands.

Here we have a Walmart whose parking lot used to surround a woman's house. The rest of the neighborhood sold, but she refused. Walmart simply had the parking lot surround her house and changed their plans for where to build the store. She was older and a few years later she passed away, and the estate sold her house. Walmart was the buyer.

There was a lot of talk here about seizing property for a local mall but then the economy crashed.


As far as the Chinese photographs, I find them interesting. In the U.S. for a highway they'd have you forcibly removed by police. I'm kind of surprised given China's reputation that they don't do the same.

 

[3fingers]

Kelo was a perfect case against Redevelopment agencies that use this power for the benefit of developers and shilling for tax money. Fortunately, in this state we finally killed Redevelopment Agencies and took their money.

After Kelo, Illinois changed their eminent domain law. Unfortunately, while some things were narrowed, overall it still contains language that allows these things to happen. We have TIF districts and the definitions are very broad as to what "blighted" means. We also have historical districts that allow local governments to tell you what you can and can't do to your own home in those areas, regardless of how long you have lived there or how good the present condition of your home is. We aren't talking about run down properties here. This includes paint colors, roof design, windows and doors that have to be approved, etc. It's crap and it needs to be stopped.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Here we have a Walmart whose parking lot used to surround a woman's house. The rest of the neighborhood sold, but she refused. Walmart simply had the parking lot surround her house and changed their plans for where to build the store. She was older and a few years later she passed away, and the estate sold her house. Walmart was the buyer.

We have exactly the same situation brewing here. Walmart is in the process of abandoning the store they built here twenty years ago to build a "Super Walmart" in the next town, on a stretch of Route 1 that's turning into a big-box "miracle mile" sort of monstrosity. It used to be rural farmland, and one of the popular stops along the way was a little family-owned ice cream stand. It's been there for almost sixty years -- and the original family still owns it, and has absolutely refused to sell their lot to Walmart. So Walmart has surrounded their lot with an approachway for their new monster store, and is doing everything it can to make them as uncomfortable as possible -- the way it's set up the traffic in and out will be a terror, and it'll kill the ice cream place off within a year or two, I am sure.

I've been supporting the ice cream place as much as possible this summer, just to thumb my nose at the Bentonville Horror.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Our Piggly Wiggly had a silo in the lot for years. The farmhouse is still standing, and surrounded by tons of businesses and the new high school.

 

[jamespowers]

After Kelo, Illinois changed their eminent domain law. Unfortunately, while some things were narrowed, overall it still contains language that allows these things to happen. We have TIF districts and the definitions are very broad as to what "blighted" means. We also have historical districts that allow local governments to tell you what you can and can't do to your own home in those areas, regardless of how long you have lived there or how good the present condition of your home is. We aren't talking about run down properties here. This includes paint colors, roof design, windows and doors that have to be approved, etc. It's crap and it needs to be stopped.

I am glad we no longer have Redevelopment Agencies here that used to use "blighted" frequently and, in most cases, unfounded ways. I am sure the city can still use eminent domain against us but it is far more restricted now. lol lol It needs to be stopped across the country though.

 

[Zombie_61]

...We also have historical districts that allow local governments to tell you what you can and can't do to your own home in those areas, regardless of how long you have lived there or how good the present condition of your home is. We aren't talking about run down properties here. This includes paint colors, roof design, windows and doors that have to be approved, etc. It's crap and it needs to be stopped.

Here in my home town (Whittier, California) the city dictates what you can or can't do with your house (and the property is sits on) regardless of whether or not it has any historical value. And we're often subject to the whims and idiosyncrasies of the person who happens to be holding the position of "decision maker" at any given moment, so the "rules" that applied six months ago may or may not be applicable today if there's a different person holding that position. [huh]

 

[3fingers]

I've been supporting the ice cream place as much as possible this summer, just to thumb my nose at the Bentonville Horror.

We need a like or thanks button here. For now I will use this.

 

[HudsonHawk]

To build just a dollar store, no. To build shopping malls or other private businesses yes.
Here is a link to one from a few years back. The supreme court upheld the city, but it didn't turn out well. After the city won the case, the developer involved couldn't get financing for the project and it stayed an empty lot.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_108

Edit to add: The city and state spent $78 million dollars to do this and as far as I can find, the property is not generating any tax revenue at all.

Yes, everyone is familiar with this case. This was another affirmation of the interpretation, right or wrong in your mind, that the wording of the Fifth Amendment was not literally intended to restrict takings to public "use". In other words, just because ED was used does not mean that the property must necessarily be open to the public. This was not particularly new.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I am glad we no longer have Redevelopment Agencies here that used to use "blighted" frequently and, in most cases, unfounded ways. I am sure the city can still use eminent domain against us but it is far more restricted now. lol lol It needs to be stopped across the country though.

It's not going to stop. It's a practice as old as government.

 

[Foxer55]

3fingers,

Edit to add: The city and state spent $78 million dollars to do this and as far as I can find, the property is not generating any tax revenue at all.

And it won't be long before some coucilman's nephew buys it for a half million and finances it with a county loan.

 

[Foxer55]

HudsonHawk,

It's not going to stop. It's a practice as old as government.

One of the problems here is if you bought a house in the 'suburbs' 40 years ago the local metropolis has expanded to your doorstep and will now do what it can to keep expanding. If you bought a house forty years ago somewhere within that metropolis it is now rehabbing those older areas and will do what it can to keep on rehabbing.

 

[Widebrim]

Referring to a pet's owners as its "parents." No, I'm not the father of my cats...

 

[Gregg Axley]

Referring to a pet's owners as its "parents." No, I'm not the father of my cats...

Like the stickers that read "I love my granddog?"
My wife and I refer to our dogs as our "girls" but not our daughters.

 

[Widebrim]

Like the stickers that read "I love my granddog?"
My wife and I refer to our dogs as our "girls" but not our daughters.

Dang, I've never seen that sticker...lol

 

[Talbot]

Like the stickers that read "I love my granddog?"

That's just wrong on so many levels.....

 

[jamespowers]

3fingers,



And it won't be long before some coucilman's nephew buys it for a half million and finances it with a county loan.

I have seen that before here too.