They also use the court system. re: Eminent domain taking in New London for potential economic development. Over a decade later, the land is still undeveloped.

While I have to admit that the power of eminent domain is a necessary evil, it is one that should be exercised with extreme reservation. It should only be used for critical infrastructure needs and similar. It should never be used to promote economic development -- that is a private sector responsibility and if the private sector wants a piece of property to move a project forward, then they can either come to terms with the property owner or move their project elsewhere.

One way to do this would be to acknowledge that paying property owner "fair market value" for property seized under eminent domain is completely inappropriate -- the fair market value is based on the premise of a willing buyer and a willing seller. If the seller is not willing, then the price goes up. This could be handled automatically by first determining the fair market value and then increasing it by some fraction for every year that the current owner has owned it. The goal there is to prevent people from profiting by buying up land in an area where they believe (possibly due to insider information) that imminent domain is going to be exercised, while also acknowledging that long-time owners should have stronger property rights -- the family farm that has been in the family for generations should cost a LOT more than the land bought on speculation a few years ago by an investor.

One way to balance this might be to only pay fair market value to land owned fewer than three years. Beyond that, the price goes up 10% for each year owned up to a maximum of five times fair market value. The numbers, of course, can be tweaked, but I think a scale like this would discourage governments from exercising eminent domain too capriciously for other than critical projects and would encourage them to negotiate with property owners in the vicinity to find willing buyers at prices above the normal fair market but below the costs of exercising eminent domain.

 

While I have to admit that the power of eminent domain is a necessary evil, it is one that should be exercised with extreme reservation. It should only be used for critical infrastructure needs and similar. It should never be used to promote economic development -- that is a private sector responsibility and if the private sector wants a piece of property to move a project forward, then they can either come to terms with the property owner or move their project elsewhere.

One way to do this would be to acknowledge that paying property owner "fair market value" for property seized under eminent domain is completely inappropriate -- the fair market value is based on the premise of a willing buyer and a willing seller. If the seller is not willing, then the price goes up. This could be handled automatically by first determining the fair market value and then increasing it by some fraction for every year that the current owner has owned it. The goal there is to prevent people from profiting by buying up land in an area where they believe (possibly due to insider information) that imminent domain is going to be exercised, while also acknowledging that long-time owners should have stronger property rights -- the family farm that has been in the family for generations should cost a LOT more than the land bought on speculation a few years ago by an investor.

One way to balance this might be to only pay fair market value to land owned fewer than three years. Beyond that, the price goes up 10% for each year owned up to a maximum of five times fair market value. The numbers, of course, can be tweaked, but I think a scale like this would discourage governments from exercising eminent domain too capriciously for other than critical projects and would encourage them to negotiate with property owners in the vicinity to find willing buyers at prices above the normal fair market but below the costs of exercising eminent domain.

It all sounds much more arbitrary than fair.

 

Actually, solar supply may be coming on line faster than electric car demand. That's certainly Tesla's approach.

http://driving.ca/auto-news/news/motor-mouth-more-inconvenient-truths-on-banning-gas-engines

 

It all sounds much more arbitrary than fair.

Anything like this is going to be arbitrary. What isn't arbitrary about the current practice of the government telling an property owner that is unwilling to sell that they must sell their property at the same price that other willing sellers of similar property have sold theirs?

 

Anything like this is going to be arbitrary. What isn't arbitrary about the current practice of the government telling an property owner that is unwilling to sell that they must sell their property at the same price that other willing sellers of similar property have sold theirs?

Arbitrary is exactly what everyone hates about eminent domain. Your solution is just a different version of arbitrary, not better. I don’t see the benefit of your option vs the existing situation.

 

Arbitrary is exactly what everyone hates about eminent domain. Your solution is just a different version of arbitrary, not better. I don’t see the benefit of your option vs the existing situation.

Well, I do.

I think that making it significantly more expensive for the government to exercise eminent domain than to find options that involve the purchase of land from willing sellers is a significant benefit.

I think that making it significantly more expensive for the government to exercise eminent domain so as to discourage its use except where critically needed is also a significant benefit.

We are not going to eliminate the right of eminent domain. Simply is not going to happen. Since it is frequently used in situations that are not warranted by critical infrastructure needs, I see a benefit in putting mechanisms in place to reduce such abuse.

You are, of course, free to be content with the existing situation.

 

I think that making it significantly more expensive for the government to exercise eminent domain than to find options that involve the purchase of land from willing sellers is a significant benefit.

I agree with the sentiment but the biggest unintended consequence is that this will increase the profit incentive from speculating. There are a lot of people that often hear of government plans before they are fully formed or approved or in the news. These few individuals could then buy land 5-10 years before anything happens. If nothing comes of it, no big deal, just sell it at market. If you had a portfolio built up on such tidbits and rumors, one winning property out of twenty would be more than enough to make a winning portfolio.

 

You are, of course, free to be content with the existing situation.

I’m sorry if my disagreement with your proposal meant, in your mind, that the only other option is contentment with the current process. Digital Electronics was a perfect career option for you, Mr Binary Mr Bahn.

 

I agree with the sentiment but the biggest unintended consequence is that this will increase the profit incentive from speculating. There are a lot of people that often hear of government plans before they are fully formed or approved or in the news. These few individuals could then buy land 5-10 years before anything happens. If nothing comes of it, no big deal, just sell it at market. If you had a portfolio built up on such tidbits and rumors, one winning property out of twenty would be more than enough to make a winning portfolio.

You can set the initial hold limit so as to make this a rare event. Purchasing land ten years in advance of a project that may or may not come to fruition is a pretty risky endeavor and entails significant opportunity cost. Plus, the actual sale prices are not too likely to be that far above "fair market value" since the person that bought the land on speculation hoping that it would be seized by eminent domain is taking the big risk that the government will be able to pay just a modest premium needed to entice alternate land owners to sell. The whole point is to discourage the forcible seizure of property by encouraging the government to engage in the market as a willing buyer needing to pay enough for what it needs/wants so as to create a pool of willing sellers.

Another alternative, which could be done separate or in conjunction, is to discourage excessive uses of eminent domain by putting a look-back period on such transactions. Again, using numbers that are just thrown out for illustration purposes, when the government went to invoke eminent domain you could total up the inflation-adjusted fair market value of all such seizures in the last ten years and, based on that, establish a premium that the government must pay above and beyond the price that it otherwise would. The more they seize, the higher the premium, giving them an incentive to keep total seizures at a reasonable level. To prevent single individuals from profiting excessively from a history of seizures, the premium could be paid out on a prorated basis to all individuals who had property seized during the look-back years.

There are plenty of other things that can be looked at. Laws that place severe restrictions on the types of situations in which the exercise of eminent domain are even a possibility are high on the list. Requiring supermajority legislative approval or even voter approval for the exercise of any eminent domain action is another.

 

Eminent Domain involves TAKING the property for public use. In other words, the owners has lost title to the property.

Easements is the key word I've seen in the articles. Easements and eminent domain are two different things. I've still haven't found a transcript of a case. I've read lots of opinions. There are some bills in the Texas Legislature geared to strengthen the property owners side of this argument. The Texas Supreme court did not side with the railroad commission with respect to the pipeline.

Critters? Yes, the GOP Rats wrote it and passed it.

Can you provide a link to the law? You know, the "bill" as it was passed by Congress and signed by the President. Once I find which congress it was, we can look up the voting record --- name by name. I wouldn't want to write to a critter that wasn't even in office at the time of the vote.

I have one senator and one representative who were in office at the time of the 2004 stuff. I'll write after I read the law, not what some internet blog opines or a newspaper opine.

 

Eminent Domain involves TAKING the property for public use. In other words, the owners has lost title to the property.

Easements is the key word I've seen in the articles. Easements and eminent domain are two different things. I've still haven't found a transcript of a case. I've read lots of opinions. There are some bills in the Texas Legislature geared to strengthen the property owners side of this argument. The Texas Supreme court did not side with the railroad commission with respect to the pipeline.



Can you provide a link to the law? You know, the "bill" as it was passed by Congress and signed by the President. Once I find which congress it was, we can look up the voting record --- name by name. I wouldn't want to write to a critter that wasn't even in office at the time of the vote.

I have one senator and one representative who were in office at the time of the 2004 stuff. I'll write after I read the law, not what some internet blog opines or a newspaper opine.

Joe, it was 2015. It was all over the news that the GOP were two-faced about eminent domain. They were boxed in because they had to be Pro-keystone XL pipeline so they couldn’t be anti- eminent domain at the same time. I’ll let you use your Googler, I’m busy watching the second episode of The Orville.

 

Eminent Domain involves TAKING the property for public use. In other words, the owners has lost title to the property.

Easements is the key word I've seen in the articles. Easements and eminent domain are two different things. I've still haven't found a transcript of a case. I've read lots of opinions. There are some bills in the Texas Legislature geared to strengthen the property owners side of this argument. The Texas Supreme court did not side with the railroad commission with respect to the pipeline.



Can you provide a link to the law? You know, the "bill" as it was passed by Congress and signed by the President. Once I find which congress it was, we can look up the voting record --- name by name. I wouldn't want to write to a critter that wasn't even in office at the time of the vote.

I have one senator and one representative who were in office at the time of the 2004 stuff. I'll write after I read the law, not what some internet blog opines or a newspaper opine.

And, I’m sorry you are confused by a citation that references a 2004 incident that shows when the GOP claimed anti-eminent domain as a tenant of their platform. You certainly like to ask for citations but they certainly confuse you when they are in links. Read my previous link slowly, sound out the words the first time. The second time you read it it will become more clear.

 

In the 2004 case, I spoke against the Kelo taking in other forums at that time, here is an overview by OLR Research Report

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0394.htm1

Loosely defined public takings are bad, plain and simple. Future economic development is not one. Eminent domain is useful. Easements are useful. I see the right of way easements all around here with respect to the high voltage distribution wires.

New London gave Pfizer a number of tax breaks that expired in 2009. Care to guess which city lost 1000 jobs when the company left as the tax breaks expired.

It happens all the time. It happened in the Carolina's when the hog farmers and plants moved west. So the business comes to an area by agreeing to the temporary tax relief and then leaves when it's expired. And yet, the governments that offer those temporary measures haven't learned that the jobs and influx to the government coffers is also temporary.

 

In the 2004 case, I spoke against the Kelo taking in other forums at that time, here is an overview by OLR Research Report

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0394.htm1

Loosely defined public takings are bad, plain and simple. Future economic development is not one. Eminent domain is useful. Easements are useful. I see the right of way easements all around here with respect to the high voltage distribution wires.

New London gave Pfizer a number of tax breaks that expired in 2009. Care to guess which city lost 1000 jobs when the company left as the tax breaks expired.

It happens all the time. It happened in the Carolina's when the hog farmers and plants moved west. So the business comes to an area by agreeing to the temporary tax relief and then leaves when it's expired. And yet, the governments that offer those temporary measures haven't learned that the jobs and influx to the government coffers is also temporary.

I see your attention span has expired. Thanks for stopping by.

 

MOD NOTE: Let's please stop the snide remarks now before the discussion devolves further. If that's the only thing you can contribute, then please refrain from commenting entirely.

 

I’m so disappointed that I didn’t grab a copy of @tcmtech ’s post before it was deleted. I would have printed it on acid-free paper, framed it and put it on my mantel.

 

What post?

 

The constant dueling doth grow tiresome guys.

 

Is it just me or is it becoming political in here?

With genuine concern
HP

 

Is it just me or is it becoming political in here?

With genuine concern
HP

Becoming?