Eminent Domain?

[english_teacher]

Originally Posted by Vicman

But, I'll play devil's advocate.

How do you think the 610 Loop was built?

In areas where homes occupy all areas of land, how will the government build essential services such as roads and schools?

Now, I agree that government should be careful with eminent domain, and it should manage who it effects. I agree that ED has to exist, but NOT for private businesses. They should not be established by ED.

If only you were right. I really wish you were. The "public use" requirement of the 5th Amendment no longer exists.
The government can now take property from one private owner to give to another private owner. Yes VICMAN, you read that right.

We used to think that ED was used just for things like building the 610 Loop--essential public needs only. Not anymore. Actually, that hasn't been the case since 1959. Why do people continue to think the govt only uses ED for public needs? In 2007, our right to secure possession of private property barely exists.

Read the Kelo v City of New London decision(2006)...though this erosion of rights started earlier with the Courtsey Sandwhich Shop, Ic. v Port of New York Authority (1959).

And I'm not even bringing up the issue of socialist policy and taxes taking property from owners........

[Vicman]

Well, I knew about the the Kelo v. City of New London ruling, BUT, I expressed my opinion about the ruling.

Also, some states revised their own eminent domain procedures after the ruling: http://www.nahb.org/news_details.aspx?newsID=2719

Some states do not allow transferring of private property by eminent domain.

"Legislation prohibiting eminent domain for economic development purposes or to transfer private property to another private entity. (Alabama, Idaho, Maine, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas and Vermont)"

Originally Posted by english_teacher

If only you were right. I really wish you were. The "public use" requirement of the 5th Amendment no longer exists.
The government can now take property from one private owner to give to another private owner. Yes VICMAN, you read that right.

We used to think that ED was used just for things like building the 610 Loop--essential public needs only. Not anymore. Actually, that hasn't been the case since 1959. Why do people continue to think the govt only uses ED for public needs? In 2007, our right to secure possession of private property barely exists.

Read the Kelo v City of New London decision(2006)...though this erosion of rights started earlier with the Courtsey Sandwhich Shop, Ic. v Port of New York Authority (1959).

And I'm not even bringing up the issue of socialist policy and taxes taking property from owners........

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by samvit

I too live in Northeastern PA, and I am very familiar with this case. I can certainly understand why the pizza owner would be upset, but I think it's important to take a look at the larger picture. A development project of this magnitude can be every bit as important to the economic vitality of a community as a public works project like a new highway. It should not be treated as nonessential simply because it's financed by a private developer. I fully appreciate the scenario where gov't officials and private developers do not act in the best interests of a community, but I don't view this project in that manner. It can be a very important piece in the puzzle of creating a more vibrant downtown, and if that transformation eventually takes place it will be tremendously beneficial to the city residents and to the region as a whole. It's all about the greater good.

Now, of course the pizza owner should be sufficiently compensated for his property. As I understand it, he has been offered fair real estate value for the property. In addition to that, perhaps he should be a given a relocation allowance for the inconvenience involved in finding another location, getting the building properly equipped and re-establishing his presence in the city. But as I understand it, he wants to be compensated for not only the property value of the building, but for the value of the pizza business itself. This is unreasonable in my opinion, since the developer has no interest in the running pizza business. The pizza owner is free to resume his business elsewhere. I know this upheaval must be difficult for him, but he is being accommodated and needs to think beyond his own personal interests.

Exactly my sentiments. The impending redevelopment of an entire city block, which will include a public walkway and various boutiques, restaurants, and galleries, hinges solely upon the ability for this developer to obtain the Buona Pizzeria property. In this sense, while I know most on this forum don't think the government, much less another private entity, has any right to overtake another private property by eminent domain, you need to look at the "bigger picture."

With the exception of Buona Pizza, the entirety of the rest of this city block is blighted and abandoned, producing no benefit to the city's tax revenues or to other nearby businesses in terms of additional foot traffic. By inconveniencing this one business owner and asking him to relocate to another downtown spot (or possibly back into the same restored city block), will allow for around a dozen new businesses to establish themselves on this block, bringing in additional tax revenues and, together with the planned residential space, will generate significant foot traffic that will greatly benefit businesses in surrounding blocks as well.

Once this block is fully-occupied, you'll see vacant storefronts on surrounding blocks likewise starting to welcome new business ventures, eager to capture some of the added foot traffic produced by the 500-block of Lackawanna Avenue. The restoration of this entire city block will help to put a HUGE boost into the downtown's livability and may even help the city to attract new residents after decades of steep population decline. This proposed project, coupled with other upcoming endeavors, such as the Scranton Medical School, the commuter rail link to NYC, Jefferson Pointe, St. Peter's Square, the RiverWalk, etc. are all vital to helping our city to flourish once again.

Now, I come back to Buona Pizzeria. If I realized that I could help to propel my beloved hometown's rebirth---the same city that allowed my family to reap large profits for many years---why would I be so opposed to the notion of relocating a block away to help it to bounce back? I'd gladly take fair-market value for my building and locate a similarly-sized and priced space elsewhere in Center City. If my pizza was truly that alluring, then I'm sure my customers would follow their stomachs and watering mouths a few blocks away to my new location. Why should the redevelopment of an entire city block be halted by one "stick in the mud?" Is it better to "take a stand" to keep Buona Pizza where it is while the rest of the block decays and gives the city a "black eye" to our growing tourist trade?

Legal land territories complex quarrelling. Didn’t ever think that was within the realm of completely acceptable. Used to believe skeptical along political systems outside of Communism, or Monarchs to fully exhibit that much power. Even in relatively free democracy scenarios able to produce threats at regular national citizens. Ubiquitous, semi occasional common, or rare is suddenly first order of logic to remember when these various initial psychological then life changing calamities occur. Ever necessary to reach this stepping stone stage down the road? Can the ones in question just find replacing alternatives to not invade people’s own justifiable legitimate daily privacy.

[jetgraphics]

FWIW - there are two types of ownership : qualified and absolute.
Thanks to FICA, few Americans absolutely own private property.
What is being confiscated / condemned is real estate held with qualified ownership, and not private property that is constitutionally protected.

OWNERSHIP - “... Ownership of property is either absolute or qualified. The ownership of property is absolute when a single person has the absolute dominion over it... The ownership is qualified when it is shared with one or more persons, when the time of enjoyment is deferred or limited, or when the use is restricted. "
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 1106

PRIVATE PROPERTY - As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217.

Amendment V, US Constitution 1789
... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Pennsylvania Constitution,

Article 1, Section 1. Inherent Rights of Mankind

All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 10.
...nor shall private property be taken or applied to public use, without authority of law and without just compensation being first made or secured.

Sub-chapter TT. LAND USE PLANNING, Sec. 7.771. Commonwealth land use policies.
sub-section (c) The constitutional private property rights of Pennsylvanians must be preserved and respected.

Georgia Constitution

"... private property shall not be taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid.”
- - - Georgia Constitution, Article 1, Sec.3, Paragraph 1

PRIVATE PROPERTY IS EXPRESSLY PROTECTED


ESTATE IS NOT

LAND. ... The land is one thing, and the ESTATE in land is another thing, for an ESTATE in land is a time in land or land for a time.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.877

ESTATE - The degree, quantity, nature and extent of interest which a person has in real and personal property. An estate in lands, tenements, and hereditaments signifies such interest as the tenant has therein.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.547

REAL ESTATE .... is synonymous with real property.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1263

REAL PROPERTY ... A general term for lands, tenements, heriditaments; which on the death of the owner intestate, passes to his heir.
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed.,p.1218

INTEREST - ...More particularly it means a right to have the advantage of accruing from anything ; any right in the nature of property, but less than title.
- - -Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p. 812

PROPERTY TAX - "An ad valorem tax, usually levied by a city or county, on the value of real or personal property that the taxpayer owns on a specified date."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1218

Estate = real and personal property = real estate = qualified ownership, a revenue taxable privilege

You will not find any state statute imposing a tax upon private property, nor "taking" it for public use without just compensation (in lawful money).
No government instituted to secure endowed rights can tax rights. Only government privileges are subject to an excise tax.

" PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

[Hemlock140]

Mr. Spock once said "The good of the many over the good of the few...or the one."


In many cases a person who buys property near a freeway or airport should have anticipated that there may someday be an expansion. The main problem is with "just and adequate compensation" because in many cases the fair market value of the home being taken is not enough to be able to replace it. The local com parables will reflect the expansion of the infrastructure being closer, and drop the value, and unless they have been there for many years, the residents may not come out with anything to spend on a down payment.

[Malloric]

Can't vote in poll as both options are 100% wrong in my view. No grey area to me on this. Eminent domain to steal private property for private development is a gross abuse of the law. Kelo was a gross abuse of power.

Fortunately Kelo also serves as a cautionary case to the greed of corrupt politicians. They may be immoral and have no qualms about stealing private property for completely private benefits if they thing it will put money in their pockets, but in that case it did not. They just wasted taxpayer money to steal evict people from their homes to turn the area into a vacant lot for the tumbleweeds and feral cats.