Comments on: Eminent Domain

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:50:38 +0000

Chase, something you wrote has been preying on my mind since I read it. You seem to dismiss the notion of the “common good” rather easily. I find this sort of libertarian thinking dangerous and hurtful to the life of the community. The lone cowboy never built a civilization, a hospital, a university, a city.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 21 Nov 2004 06:30:46 +0000

“There is no justification for the government coercing a citizen out of his land, whether they “compensate” him or not, Patrick.”

I respectfully disagree. Let me ask you. The freeway is bottle necked. It needs to be expanded. The only way to widen it is to use eminent domain to acquire the land. A few hundred people might have to be relocated. Meanwhile, the widening of the freeway would serve hundreds of thousands of commuters every day. Business and industry functions thereby benefitting the entire region.You don’t think that’s justified?

I tend to think nefarious is a nefarious word.

By: dustbury.com

dustbury.com — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:13:30 +0000

Hands off
With Kelo v. City of New London on the Supreme Court’s docket this term, the city of Anaheim, California is actually taking steps to avoid this sort of thing in…

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:17:45 +0000

As the article itself says, a policy adopted by one council can easily be reversed at a later date.

By: Chase

Chase — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:01:12 +0000

One of my biggest charges is a constitutional amendment limited the eminent domain powers of government to cases of insurection or foreign invasion. There is no justification for the government coercing a citizen out of his land, whether they “compensate” him or not, Patrick. The “common good” is a nefarious term that can only be defined by the State. If the state deems it in the common good to destroy property rights, which are our most important liberties once we move past the right to life, then the individual no longer is sovereign.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:53:34 +0000

Not really. Courts have been a bit more lenient as to what they will accept as a “public use,” in some cases, merely taking property from one owner and giving it to another who will pay more taxes.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:01:10 +0000

Doesn’t that just put into print what the Eminent Domain thing was originally intended?

By: Patrick

Patrick — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:31:05 +0000

As a planner I have mixed feelings about this. I see teh benefit of eminent domain, but agree that it has been abused in some cases. I think it’s a difficult task balancing private property rights with the common good.

Keep in mind that the need to acquire land for commercial development is not soley due to private developers’ desire to turn a profit. Prop 13 caused the fiscalization of land use, which causes cities to fight among themselves for retailers and go out of their way to zone land for tax-revenue-producing uses.

By: A Stitch in Haste

A Stitch in Haste — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:24:02 +0000

Eminent Domain: Are We Seeing a Paradigm Shift?
It’s looking good for the restoration of property rights in the court of public opinion. Here’s one small example, courtesy of damnum absque injuria…

By: SayUncle : Good news in the Eminent Domain front

SayUncle : Good news in the Eminent Domain front — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

[...] 4218"> Good news in the Eminent Domain front |By SayUncle| XRLQ alerts us to an eminent domain ban in Anaheim: It is the policy of the City of Anaheim that the power o [...]