Eminent Domain...again

[jb52761]

Sorry if I posted this in the wrong section...in local news this morning...Illinois senate passes bill for more protection for landowners....

http://www.wandtv.com/dsp_story.cfm?storyid=29221   .....JB

[glenn kangiser]

Not a problem JB -- it deserves more space.  

I was surprised at my neighbor who is ex-LAPD bringing up this issue when a couple of years ago he told me he didn't talk politics. ( Fortunately I don't either.  I only talk anti-politics. ) That was before he realized how corrupt most of our government has become.  He was absolutely outraged and said that there is not much the common man can do to stop it.  He said that one bureaucrat gets dirty money - an honest one finds out and rather than straighten it out, they just share it with the honest one corrupting him too.  This was from a law man who was for the system as little as two years ago.  He is one of the few deserving respect in my opinion.  He said he did the bad cop thing -- asked himself --Hey ---What am I doing --and turned himself around.  He's one of the good ones.  

[Member anonymously(Guest)]

I'm a member with a new computer at home that can't seem to get logged in.  That's okay for this post...

I was sexually assaulted by the son of a government official in a small town that was the state capital.  The only police officer that investigated sexual assaults for the whole county happened to be his good friend- actually an ex-girlfriend.  Doing my own research, I found out he had assaulted 10-20 other women, and had gotten away with it.  There were two restraining orders against him at the time.  He also had committed several other felonies that had mysteriously vanished from the books.  Even worse, this guy was able to get a job with the state maximum security prison transporting prisoners and carried a gun.  The local newspaper wouldn't even do an article because the editor was his aunt.  I called the police dept to get a copy of my report and it was "buried" under the investigating officer's name.  The clerk that helped me find it was fired the next day.

I toughed it out for a few months (I was politically appointed to the job and it ended.)  After I went back to my home town I went to the FBI and got several people fired from the police department, including the chief.  One of the ladies I worked with dated one of the "good" officers and was very encouraging through this ordeal, although he couldn't do anything about it either.  I know there are good ones out there, but they're few and far between, and sometimes it's hard to find them when you need them.  

It's best to keep to yourself and take care of your own business, whenever possible.

[glenn kangiser]

Thanks for your comments.  Hopefully you will be able to get the computer problem worked out and get logged in.

Problems like this are the reasons that the eminent domain issue is so far out of hand.  If the whole string of corruption behind the issue were known, then the way it got there would be easy to see.  Somebody is making big money off of this.  Somebody knows what is happening.  Somebody is in fear for their life if they talk.  Most are smart enough to keep their mouth shut and close their eyes to it or are using it for leverage to gain wealth.

As you mentioned -- trying to do something about it could be deadly as the honest sheriff here found out in 1980--
ended up at the bottom of the lake.  The coverup trail went to our state capitol and from there clear to Washington DC DOJ.  We currently only have 1700 people in town - 18000 countywide total population. The issue has been ignored  by the "law".  -As the airline security person who lives up here told me, you leave them alone -they will leave you alone.

Wal Mart to Steal Organic Farm

Note: Brought to my attention by Bart - The City of LA previously stole this land under false pretenses since they didn't use it for the purpose they stole it for- gave land they didn't own to the farmers -then sold it back to the previous owner -  What a mess government theivery causes.  Check Bart's links for more information -- the issue takes a turn --but remains the same---

[bartholomew]

Glenn, you seem to be really conflicted on the issue of eminent domain.

L.A. uses eminent domain to seize private land. The previous owner spends twenty years fighting in court to get his property back, and the city is eventually forced to sell the land back to him...

http://www.southcentralfarmers.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=7
After nearly 20 years of uncertainty, the fate of these 14 acres in South Los Angeles was finally decided in court earlier this month. The land, known as the South Central Community Garden, must be turned over to its owner, who plans to build a warehouse on it.... Horowitz, who has been through a legal odyssey of his own,...has a string of court victories to back him.... The land has been mired in dispute since the mid-1980s, when the city used its legal powers to forcefully buy the property from Horowitz.

But in the meantime, local residents have been using the land as a community garden. They call on government officials to again seize the land by eminent domain...

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/SCF_eviction_notice.pdf
We are calling on Congressman Xavier Becerra, Speaker of the California Assembly, Fabian Nuñez, County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and the whole city council to 1) nullify the sale with Ralph Horowitz, or 2) take the land by eminent domain

So Glenn, do you support eminent domain if farmers want to seize a developer's privately owned land (not Walmart's btw)?

[harry51]

I feel the need to throw my two cent's worth into this discussion. At stake here is the basis of liberty: when is it appropriate and morally justified to bring the force of government to bear upon an individual?

It doesn't matter one whit whether the property owner is to be dispossessed by force to open the way for a Wal-Mart warehouse, a community garden, or a strip club, he has still been deprived of his legally purchased property against his will by force of government acting on behalf of another private party. That is flat-out wrong. Moreover, he will likely be paid what government wishes to pay, not a price attractive to him; he will certainly receive absolutely nothing for lost future income/profit/enjoyment, which is the reason he bought it in the first place, or for the time, effort, and expenses incurred to reinvest the proceeds.

So, the property owner has spent his time selecting the property in which he has invested, has spent his money buying it and having his warehouse plans drawn up,and then everything stops because the strip club pimp convices (or bribes) the city council that he will pay more taxes than the warehouse would, or because a bunch of neighborhood gardeners really like the idea of having the use of productive land they have no investment in and pay no taxes on, and convice the city council that they would look like heros in the press if they "acquire" the land for the continued use of these poor urban minority wanna-be farmers.  Where is the equal protection under the law in that?  Where is the justice? Can we fool ourselves any longer into believing that we actually "own" something when it can be transferred to another private party against our will at any time?  What would the Founders say? My guess is they'd say it's time for a revolution!

[glenn kangiser]

I have to admit I didn't dig as far into the story as you did, Bart.  I saw the current issue, not the previous issue so in light of more knowledge I still have to say-- No I'm not conflicted on my views, just not completely informed --the issues are the same although the person who has been wronged is a different one at a different time than indicated in the original posting.

I agree with Harry -- stealing is stealing whether from the farmers or from Mr. Horowitz.  Apparently this would make the farmers guilty of wanting to keep the property stolen originally by the city which is still the issue.  Government is still the guilty party - they not only stole the property - they gave it to someone else making them losers because of their actions also.

[bartholomew]

Ok, I wasn't sure what your position was, now it's clear.

I don't particularly agree with your last statement though. I don't see that the gardeners have lost anything. On the contrary, they gained 13 years use of the land for absolutely free. Now that past wrongs are being righted, they are pulling out all the stops in order to get further advantage. The city has offered the use of other parcels as a new location for the garden. According to the L.A. Times article, one was rejected by the gardeners because of nearby transmission lines. It seems they would rather pretend to be oppressed and downtrodden instead of accepting a reasonable solution.

[glenn kangiser]

I can agree with you on that -- there are a lot of different angles to consider - sometimes what you first see is not the whole issue.

In reality if they worked at it, each of the farmers could grow enough food for their own families on a very small lot, back yard or possibly rooftop container garden.  Apartments may pose a challenge but something can even be done there.

I suppose not all of them have over a foot of dirt on their roof. :-/

[Sassy]

Here's a link to another article on land use - this one involving former Beatle Paul McCartney...  interesting, whatever your views might be.  

PAUL McCARTNEY: A VICTIM OF HIS OWN GIBBERISH

[Daddymem]

Phew...Bart you and I think the same way...I thought something might be wrong with me  

[glenn kangiser]

I suppose this was a bad example of what is wrong with eminent domain once more of the issues have been brought to the front.

I am not totally against eminent domain as it originally stood - I don't like what it did to long time family property etc. but can see how it could benefit everyone to have for example a cross town freeway - but only as long as the public - reperesented but their humble servant, the government, paid the person fair market value or trade on the property at the value of similar properties that were not condemned reducing its value - or trade for equal value etc.  The owner should not be a loser just because the public wants their land.

The new developer maximum  tax revenue generation eminent domain. as ruled by the _{supreme court} is just plain wrong.  That is the one I have a real problem with -  example or not.

[Amanda_931]

According to this article, the previous owner was paid $4.7 million by the city so they could build a garbage incinerator.

That was a NIMBY, even for that area, so eventually the project morphed into the community garden.  All the gardeners are officially below the poverty level, and it has become a truly successful community garden, growing mostly food.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/3/7/145627/2798

But the birth of a thriving, productive community garden wasn't the only thing that changed in the area after the King riots. In the 1990s, the city of Los Angeles dropped a cool $2 billion building out the Alameda Corridor, "a modern rail and big-truck super-pipeline from the Port of Los Angeles straight through the warehouses of South L.A. and Vernon," Kuipers writes. And that made the once-depressed warehouse district an important hub for big-box retailers to organize the booming influx of goods from points west, including China. In turn, South Central land suddenly became very valuable.

In his dealings with the city in the 1980s, Horowitz had retained right of first refusal if the city ever decided to sell the land. In 2003, he successfully sued to force the city to sell it back to him for $5 million --a figure many observers find extremely low, given the city had a few years earlier valued it at $13 million. Since then, he's been wrangling to evict the farmers from the land, a goal he looks set to reach on March 13.

[jb52761]

Well, I may see this issue come up very close to home in the next several years. The city council here have been disclosing their plans to build a new interstate bypass/access road,whatever ya want to call it, starting from the south side of town on US 51, then it would curve around town and end up on the northeast corner to lock into US 72, about a mile from my property here. If it goes as planned, I can guarantee you there will be folks forced into some pretty ugly situations.

[Amanda_931]

Yes.  But if you could sell your property for a gas station, it might be wonderful!   :-/  If multiple gas stations in an area are going to be going concerns by the time they get around to doing it.

In Nashville, the wonderful idea was to split neighborhoods in the black community for the interstate.  Ten years later I was in those areas talking to people in some of the split areas.  Still not happy.

I keep thinking that all these people who are gung ho for interstate access, or making US 64 four lane all the way across Tennessee are going to be unhappy about having spent all that money fifteen years from now.  But the powers that be are still thinking "all we need is more highways and there will be development--we'll all be rich."  Somehow I don't think it's going to work that way.   Nothing special about 15 years, though.

But then Judith Moffett's Ragged World is one of my favorite books.

[Epiphany]

I love the intelligence on this forum.  

[John Raabe]

"Whatever Happened to Justice", by Richard J. Maybury is probably the most readable legal history book ever written.

It cleared away a lot of legal fog for me...

Maybury says there are really just two laws that the whole legal system is derived from:
• "Do all you have agreed to do" (the basis of contract law)
• "Do not encroach on other persons or their property" (tort and criminal law)

Eminent Domain is about encroachment and the whole big issue of when does "the public" have the right to encroach on what the owner thinks of as private property.

[harry51]

I'd echo John's recommendation of Richard Maybury's books. He offers a very clear explanation of legal, economic, and political issues, which are all inextricably intertwined. And, the books are short! The longest one I've seen is around 230 pages, the others are 100-150.

On the original thread, in order to avoid abuse of power, it seems as if an action to exercise the power of eminent domain should have to satisfy some prerequisite tests. Among them might be:

Is there a clear and present, specific public need for the project the proposed condemnation will expedite?  

Will the project be publicly owned and maintained during its useful life?

Will the project be of direct benefit to the public, like a road, bridge, etc., or only indirect, by providing increased revenue to government? (I could argue that increased government revenue is likely the greatest of all threats to our liberty! Maybe the best route to the Founder's ideal of limited government is through limiting gov't. revenue!)

Do practical alternatives exist that would confer the benefits of the project without the need for condemnation?

Examples: In the last several years, property has been condemned for the widening of Hwy.99, the main N-S artery through this area. It would be very hard for a reasonable person to argue against the need for the project after observing current traffic conditions and local demographic trends, so a compelling public need can be demonstrated. There is a direct public benefit, in that all can use the road. It will be owned and maintained by the government for public use, and  no approach to satisfying the specific public need exists that would not require condemnation.

Conversely, a few years ago, the City of Merced condemned a large tract of land along 99 for the building of a privately-owned auto mall. One of the victims was a long-time locksmith who had just completed a large, new, state-of-the-art plant for his business. He fought the action and lost. Although he was compensated according to the rules, he was unable to replace what he had with what he was paid. The ordeal nearly ruined him emotionally as well as financially, and he no longer has any employees. Here, the case can be made that the government acted to enrich one private party at the expense of another, that no specific clear and present public need existed, that insufficient direct public benefit resulted from the action to justify it, and that viable alternatives existed.  

The recent SCOTUS decision concerning eminent domain is nothing less than scandalous, and to me marks a new low in american jurisprudence.  It clearly tramples upon an individual's rights of property, and his basic right to be left alone by government unless he breaks the law. It is, as Glenn pointed out, a prescription for the corruption of those controlling the levers of power. This is a question that screams out for reconsideration. The only question is, how much damage will we have to suffer before we come to our senses?

[glenn kangiser]

Sorry, Harry -- you're not supposed to question things like that, per the stated goals of our education system and the powers that be. :-/

http://www.thememoryhole.org/edu/school-mission.htm

[John Raabe]

It is going to be interesting reading about this period of history. I just hope to be around long enough to see some objectivity develop.

[glenn kangiser]

I think if you listen to everything that is going on now, you will see that history is being re-written as we speak.  Make it more pleasing to the ears of the masses.  Tell a lie often enough--they will believe it.  Later you will be able to take your pick of history any way you want to see it.  If there was only some way of being sure of getting the true history, but it hasn't happened in the past --why would it now.  All that is left of the true history of most ancient civilizations  are the questions of why they actually failed.  The real true details of why they failed were probably hidden and obscured just as they are being today.  

Just as we can learn from true history, so can we apply results of the current events that we see today --greed, lust for power and money -corruption- self righteousness----   and we can assume that these also are part of the causes of the failures of the ancient civilizations.

[Amanda_931]

Nota Bene

(I had to find a place to put it in somewhere!)

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php

When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.
The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.

Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions -- essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted -- not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward -- similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

[Billy Bob]

This is one of those subjects I have to tap dance around, on account of my blood pressure.
I liked Harry's precis of the subject, and particularly agree that tightening the purse strings a bit might reign 'em in some.

This will never happen as long as the electorate is composed in great part of the ignorant and indigent, whose rallying cry is "Gimmee, gimmee".  Universal sufferage has resulted in an explosion of entitlements for the least common denominator such that no legislator, comfortably ensconced in what often appears a sinecure sine qua non, would dare suggest a return to a time when one worked or did without, or relied inpart on the kindness of friends, family, and charitable institutions, as applicable.

On the other side of the aisle are the fatcat neo-robber barons who see nothing wrong with the status quo as long as their record profit taking and tax sheltered fortunes continue.

I admit to some bias and bitterness about the whole idea of "Right of eminent domain", as the family farm in New Jersey was sacrificed to the failed Tocks Island dam project.

Glenn's point about history is interesting in that there are a number of seeming parallels between the current state of the U.S. and the Roman Empire in the period before its disolution.

It's good to be a barbarian!

[glenn kangiser]

I love your choice of words, Billy Bob.  You, Amanda and Harry have my brain smoking.  Lucky I have Google.

On the Hi Speed train in France several years ago, a French professor type kept telling Kathy and I to move because he had reserved all the seats in the area for his students.  It seemed he was trying to impress his students with his manliness.  I had a bag so big I could hardly carry it.  He kept standing in my way telling me to move.  I was putting up with his spouting off until he wised off to Kathy.

I said in an extremely loud voice (OK - so I yelled), "If you don't shut up and get out of the way so we can move I'll hit you over the head with this f*****g bag.  We are barbarians from America."  He whines --"I was just trying to talk to you in your own language."

His students were cracking up -probably early college students, and several of them broke into the "America"
song from Westside Story.  It seemed they didn't like him either and I became an instant hero.

We stumbled with our luggage to the next car.  So much for my fine example of my education. :-/

[timby]

I've seen this in our neck of the woods. It seems that the Dallas Cowboys have more rights than a neighborhood full of tax payers. It seems that more taxes will be paid by the Cowboy franchise than the existing home owners. These home owners will have to try and purchase a new home else ware with the limited funds they received. I feel this is making a dangerous precedent. Since when has football become more important then land owners rights.

This is truly a sad day for folks. Greed is truly the word of the day
:'(