Eminent domain abuse

[TheTick]

The "Ethical Engineering Work" thread touched on this subject. What are the opinions on the abuse of eminent domain? I'm especially interested in the opinions of civil and structural engineers who are more closely involved.

Eminent domain has "expanded" from power lines and highways to parking lots, strip malls, and restaurants. It's shameful theft. It is not right for a government to commandeer property simply to increase revenue.

 

[TheTick]

Beautiful! I'm learning to like Texas.

Wisconsin just began action to curtail eminent domain abuse by the university system.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/81053842.html

 

[IRstuff]

The critical clause should be:
(b) In this section, "public use" does not include the taking of property under Subsection (a) of this section for transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.

This is part that has been allowed by the US Supreme Court in several cases, and had established precedence for communities to take property and convert to strip malls and the like.

However, it appears that this Texas law has a double negative. It says that property cannot be taken for "public use" without, blah, blah, blah, but "public use" does not include taking for transfer to a private entity. Using that definition, the law basically says nothing about the taking property and transferring it to another private entity, so I would read this as affirming the Supreme Court's prior decisions.


TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[bpattengale]

IRstuff,
The Texas bill states the no property can be taken for "public use" without adequate compensation. It then states that "public use" does not include the transfer of said property to a private entity for the primary purpose of increasing the tax revenue or economic development.

I read that as saying you can't use eminate domain to take property and then sell it off to just increase the tax revenues.

The Texas bill is a step in the right direction, but if you look at it carefully there are still loop holes. "In this section, "public use" does not include the taking of property under Subsection (a) of this section for transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues"

So if you think about it all you'd have to do as a developer is say that project would be a job creator or some other creative way to describe the project. You know some high priced lawyer will come up with that argument its only a matter of time.

I should put in a wall, moat, and draw bridge on my property. Might keep them out for a couple of days.

 

[IRstuff]

THAT's the double negative. Since transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development ISN'T "public" use, it's not covered by the law, since it only prohibits non-compensatory seizure for "public" use.

Had the legislature really want's to do the right thing, added wording would have been:

No person's property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied for any private use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person.

I would also question the usage "adequate compensation" since my "adequate" isn't going to be the same as the county's "adequate"


And, just to show that politics is politics:

"A last-minute change allows the state to give any entity—including private entities—the power of eminent domain."

http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2738&Itemid=165

so, the wording and semantics that we've been arguing is moot, isn't it?

also:


“HJR 14 provides absolutely no guarantees when it comes to addressing the problem of government taking property through eminent domain for private redevelopment projects,” said Miller. “In addition to the problem of giving eminent domain authority to private parties, the final language is far too vague. If it passes in November, we hope courts will interpret it in a way that is consistent with the legislature’s intent—to make sure that no home or business owner ever loses their property for a shopping mall, condominium or other private development project. But it is going to take years of litigation before we can be confident that this language actually protects property owners.”

So, I'm not the only one that thinks the wording actually did anything terribly new.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[bpattengale]

I see your point about the double negative now. I'd agree with you on the adequate definition too, but thats always been a problem with eminate domain. I also noticed that I can be granted eminate domain powers in the state of Texas, maybe I should and try to get that new stadium of theirs just to make a point.

I agree politics as usual in the end. What are you going to do, in the end it all comes down to those pesky lawyers anyway and developers have deep pockets.