Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unless NC citizens will use the exchange/road to work at the Ford plant, this is a misuse of NC taxpayers money!
This is in Tennessee. I doubt NC citizens will be commuting that far for work.
Local TN residents will be using these roads/exchanges to commute to work.
Well, I think that issue has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. I’m no legal scholar but I believe the gist of the ruling is based upon the increased tax revenue of the new private construction serves as a public good much like a road does. Regardless, it strikes me that a private business that generates more taxes than an existing farm is different than a public road. For you to be forced to sell your home to me so I can put up a store just seems unfair. If you don’t want to sell to me, then too bad for me.
The road to get to the new plant is vital though. They do it for much less important reasons. They did it here, in Atlantic City, in order to build a road that connected the AC Expessway to the marina casinos. So tourists didn't have to drive through a bad neighborhood to get to the casinos out there. They tried to use it on one woman, who wouldn't sell her home to Trump for one of his casinos on the boardwalk. That one went all the way to NJ Supreme Court (she won). At least this plant will benefit the entire community, enable small businesses, etc. When they did it here for their road it was to benefit casinos, not the community.
It is being abused by the government taking private land for a private company, not a public good.
There's an argument to be made that this is for the public use, even if it's not for public use. Specifically, increased state revenues and jobs associated with this plant certainly advance the public good in my book.
There is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread.
How eminent domain works. The state tells you they need your property to widen a road or build a new road. They make and offer. If you do not like the offer, you negotiate. If you do not like the result of negotiations, you go to court and a court decides the fair market value for the land - based on professional appraisers, not based on badly written newspaper articles, one-off anecdotes about property prices once upon a time someplace in Tennessee, and not on the random unsupported opinions of posters on CD. That fair market value is based on the condition or situation of the property right now. The value is based on a rural property on a small rural road, not on the possible future development in the area and not assuming the road in question is already improved.
For all the complaining, the Farmer's remaining property will increase in value due to the improved road. It will even increase in value for farm property as it will be more accessible.
The land is being taken for building a road, not for building a Ford plant. This is a normal practice. When development in an area requires better or bigger roads, the government needs to supply better and bigger roads. This is true whether the development is a factory, a hospital, a university, subdivisions, or whatever. When development occurs, it falls on the government to improve roads as necessary. What some people are really arguing is that the government should not allow or support development anywhere ever. While there may be some merit to saying we should not have any more development, it is not realistic.
The article is discussing public roads. Not a private road and not a special purpose road. The State has realized that the road is going to get a lot of heavy traffic and decided to begin improvements' to address that traffic. The State could decide not to improve the road. In fact, the State can decide that it will not improve, maintain or expand any of its roads. However that would be silly. Here the State is looking at where they expect the most need for improved roads and doing that work. That is what States are supposed to do.
States have long competed vigorously to attract big developments like this. They spend billions to attract such projects. That is because it brings tax revenue, jobs (and more tax revenue) increased property values (and more tax revenue). From a national perspective, it is kind of silly for the states to compete like this. Tennessee undoubtedly spend millions, if not billions to get this project in Tennessee instead of Michigan. Meanwhile Michigan and Ohio and probably other states likely also spent millions to try to attract this project to their state and failed. Tennessee won. That is not something to complain about.
There's an argument to be made that this is for the public use, even if it's not for public use. Specifically, increased state revenues and jobs associated with this plant certainly advance the public good in my book.
The public good is not "public use".
You can torture the definition of "public use" to include everything. I would say "keep it simple, stupid" should prevail with regard to stealing someon's private property. It should be for a relatively straight forward public use, and not some serpentine, peripheral public use.
The Federal government provides many things useful to the populace, so should they be allowed to take anybody's private property at any time for any reason, because ultimately the government is useful providing an army to defend our shores?
No.
The 1960s space program resulted in the silicon microchip that revolutionized everyone's life and improved our lives dramatically. Should they have been able to condemn private property to build the launchpads for the space program, because decades in the future the resulting technology would someday be useful for most people?
That is not the intent of the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
There is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread.
How eminent domain works. The state tells you they need your property to widen a road or build a new road. They make and offer. If you do not like the offer, you negotiate. If you do not like the result of negotiations, you go to court and a court decides the fair market value for the land - based on professional appraisers, not based on badly written newspaper articles, one-off anecdotes about property prices once upon a time someplace in Tennessee, and not on the random unsupported opinions of posters on CD. That fair market value is based on the condition or situation of the property right now. The value is based on a rural property on a small rural road, not on the possible future development in the area and not assuming the road in question is already improved.
For all the complaining, the Farmer's remaining property will increase in value due to the improved road. It will even increase in value for farm property as it will be more accessible.
The land is being taken for building a road, not for building a Ford plant. This is a normal practice. When development in an area requires better or bigger roads, the government needs to supply better and bigger roads. This is true whether the development is a factory, a hospital, a university, subdivisions, or whatever. When development occurs, it falls on the government to improve roads as necessary. What some people are really arguing is that the government should not allow or support development anywhere ever. While there may be some merit to saying we should not have any more development, it is not realistic.
The article is discussing public roads. Not a private road and not a special purpose road. The State has realized that the road is going to get a lot of heavy traffic and decided to begin improvements' to address that traffic. The State could decide not to improve the road. In fact, the State can decide that it will not improve, maintain or expand any of its roads. However that would be silly. Here the State is looking at where they expect the most need for improved roads and doing that work. That is what States are supposed to do.
States have long competed vigorously to attract big developments like this. They spend billions to attract such projects. That is because it brings tax revenue, jobs (and more tax revenue) increased property values (and more tax revenue). From a national perspective, it is kind of silly for the states to compete like this. Tennessee undoubtedly spend millions, if not billions to get this project in Tennessee instead of Michigan. Meanwhile Michigan and Ohio and probably other states likely also spent millions to try to attract this project to their state and failed. Tennessee won. That is not something to complain about.
Developments often require a new connection to an existing highway or freeway, and a new road to service the development. If it is a private development and nobody else is expected to use the road at the time the road is constructed, then it does not qualify as "public use". It is a road added exclusively for people to access the development.
If you build a shopping mall and add a road and interchange to the mall, that road is "public use" even though the mall is privately owned. That retail establishment will be used by the general public to shop at stores and to eat at restaurants, at their discretion. Nobody is prohibited from going or forced to go. The public can use it or not.
If you build a workplace such as Ford's that is exclusively to be used by Ford managers and employees, that is NOT public use. A road exclusively used by private employees of a privately held company is not "public use" just because the employees can be considered part of the general public for other things.
As I said, this is all moot every since the Supreme Court allowed eminant domain for private use in the Kelo decision. I am not saying Tennessee is violating the law. They are following the law as the Supreme Court rewrote it.
There is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread.
How eminent domain works. The state tells you they need your property to widen a road or build a new road. They make and offer. If you do not like the offer, you negotiate. If you do not like the result of negotiations, you go to court and a court decides the fair market value for the land - based on professional appraisers, not based on badly written newspaper articles, one-off anecdotes about property prices once upon a time someplace in Tennessee, and not on the random unsupported opinions of posters on CD. That fair market value is based on the condition or situation of the property right now. The value is based on a rural property on a small rural road, not on the possible future development in the area and not assuming the road in question is already improved.
For all the complaining, the Farmer's remaining property will increase in value due to the improved road. It will even increase in value for farm property as it will be more accessible.
The land is being taken for building a road, not for building a Ford plant. This is a normal practice. When development in an area requires better or bigger roads, the government needs to supply better and bigger roads. This is true whether the development is a factory, a hospital, a university, subdivisions, or whatever. When development occurs, it falls on the government to improve roads as necessary. What some people are really arguing is that the government should not allow or support development anywhere ever. While there may be some merit to saying we should not have any more development, it is not realistic.
The article is discussing public roads. Not a private road and not a special purpose road. The State has realized that the road is going to get a lot of heavy traffic and decided to begin improvements' to address that traffic. The State could decide not to improve the road. In fact, the State can decide that it will not improve, maintain or expand any of its roads. However that would be silly. Here the State is looking at where they expect the most need for improved roads and doing that work. That is what States are supposed to do.
States have long competed vigorously to attract big developments like this. They spend billions to attract such projects. That is because it brings tax revenue, jobs (and more tax revenue) increased property values (and more tax revenue). From a national perspective, it is kind of silly for the states to compete like this. Tennessee undoubtedly spend millions, if not billions to get this project in Tennessee instead of Michigan. Meanwhile Michigan and Ohio and probably other states likely also spent millions to try to attract this project to their state and failed. Tennessee won. That is not something to complain about.
There is a lot of misunderstanding in this thread.
How eminent domain works. The state tells you they need your property to widen a road or build a new road. They make and offer. If you do not like the offer, you negotiate. If you do not like the result of negotiations, you go to court and a court decides the fair market value for the land - based on professional appraisers, not based on badly written newspaper articles, one-off anecdotes about property prices once upon a time someplace in Tennessee, and not on the random unsupported opinions of posters on CD. That fair market value is based on the condition or situation of the property right now. The value is based on a rural property on a small rural road, not on the possible future development in the area and not assuming the road in question is already improved.
For all the complaining, the Farmer's remaining property will increase in value due to the improved road. It will even increase in value for farm property as it will be more accessible.
The land is being taken for building a road, not for building a Ford plant. This is a normal practice. When development in an area requires better or bigger roads, the government needs to supply better and bigger roads. This is true whether the development is a factory, a hospital, a university, subdivisions, or whatever. When development occurs, it falls on the government to improve roads as necessary. What some people are really arguing is that the government should not allow or support development anywhere ever. While there may be some merit to saying we should not have any more development, it is not realistic.
The article is discussing public roads. Not a private road and not a special purpose road. The State has realized that the road is going to get a lot of heavy traffic and decided to begin improvements' to address that traffic. The State could decide not to improve the road. In fact, the State can decide that it will not improve, maintain or expand any of its roads. However that would be silly. Here the State is looking at where they expect the most need for improved roads and doing that work. That is what States are supposed to do.
States have long competed vigorously to attract big developments like this. They spend billions to attract such projects. That is because it brings tax revenue, jobs (and more tax revenue) increased property values (and more tax revenue). From a national perspective, it is kind of silly for the states to compete like this. Tennessee undoubtedly spend millions, if not billions to get this project in Tennessee instead of Michigan. Meanwhile Michigan and Ohio and probably other states likely also spent millions to try to attract this project to their state and failed. Tennessee won. That is not something to complain about.
Eminant Domain is appropriate as "public use" to widen roads to accommodate increased traffic resulting from a new development. I agree. If that is the reason for eminant domain takings for the Ford Blue Oval campus in Stanton TN, then that is appropriate.
I am not talk about that. I am talking about new roads.
The proposed roadway improvements include a south-north extension of State Route (SR) 194 (proposed SR 194 extension) on a new alignment from the existing intersection of SR 59 and SR 194 in Fayette County to a new intersection with SR 1 (US 70) in Tipton County, a new interchange on I-40 at proposed Exit 39, a west-east connector (proposed SR 468) on a new alignment between the proposed SR 194 extension and existing SR 222 and interchange modifications on I-40 at existing Exit 42. The proposed improvements would total approximately 13.7 miles in length.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
