Okay to seize private lands

[Mindykins]

Megs in the case I was describing, the city also is trying to give the land to a private developer. They claim the tax revenue will benefit the city. A weak argument because that developer could choose a different site closeby and the revenue would still roll in and leave the poor mom & pop businesses intact!!!

[not2late]

Megs in the case I was describing, the city also is trying to give the land to a private developer. They claim the tax revenue will benefit the city. A weak argument because that developer could choose a different site closeby and the revenue would still roll in and leave the poor mom & pop businesses intact!!!

That's disgusting imo. Like I wrote before, land for widening a road or carving in a sidewalk or even land for a picnic/playground area is one thing. But kicking out homeowners to hand over land for private development is something else.

:nono I don't know what the Supremes were thinking when they decided in favor of that.

[swag]

You know, it's rare that a polictcal issue being discussed online garners this much agreement, and on other boards besides this one, too. Probably 98+% of folks seem against this use of eminant domain.

And I agree.

But it's worth noting that the SCOTUS said that it wasn't a federal matter. In other words, it's up to the states to decide what to allow. A state legislature is still free to pass laws restricting what sorts of projects cities and municipalities may condemn property for. Some already have such laws, and others are now moving in that direction (A bill was introduced in TX already this week).

So take a moment and write to your state senator or legislator. Given the groundswell against this ruling, it may actually get some attention from them.

Quit wasting time on this chit chat board and do it now!

[not2late]

I have to confirm it, but I read on one news website that a developer has petitioned some town in New Hampshire to turn over its eminent domain rights in order to acquire a property. The developer needs a simple majority of the town council to agree to it. And 3 of the 5 town councilmembers are apparently sympathetic to the developer. BTW, the property owner is Justice David Souter, who wrote the majority opinion on that SCOTUS ruling.

[Bugaboo]

Here in Oregon we had to pass Measure 37 last year because the state could basically re-zone your land and either take it out right or make it so you couldn't sell it. And not pay you one little penny. One lady and her husband had bought a bunch of land as an investment. The city of Tigard re-zoned it as commercial or something and they weren't allowed to sell it. He died and she finally got to sell the land after decades of fighting with them. The kicker...it was mistakenly re-zoned. Didn't matter. Of course they're trying to over-turn the voters decsion. I mean...what do we know right? They're just ticked because they can't steal land anymore. I have a feeling they're going to fight tooth and nail on this eminant domain thing now too. It's crazy...just crazy. And I live in a "blue" state!!!!!