TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Eminent domain
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Eminent domain

post #1 of 20
1/18/08 at 5:13am
Thread Starter 
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...C?OpenDocument

I don't know if this is really an issue around you or not but it seems like I have been hearing about it more and more lately. This case involves a dentist that doesn't want to give up his practice and it went all the way to our state Supreme court. They haven't made the ruling yet but this one could have pretty big implications for the future of eminent domain. I really don't know how I feel about it's use. What do you think?
Reply
post #2 of 20
1/18/08 at 7:22am
I think eminent domain is being abused. I think it was the supreme court justice Souter that is at fault here if I remember right. There was a horrible ruling by the SCOTUS a few years ago, I don't remember the details but it was bad.
Reply
post #3 of 20
1/18/08 at 7:35am
Thread Starter 
I really hope the man gets to keep his practice. I understand that development is necessary, but it should not be at the expense of private citizens who have worked very hard to get what they have.
Reply
post #4 of 20
1/18/08 at 8:09am
Are you kidding, his practice is history, most likely.

I have read about people in the homes, old people, that had lived in the same house for 50 years being kicked to the curb so developers could build shopping malls for Heavens sake. Developers are blood suckers and so are the city officials that allow such things.

Now, I CAN see eminent domain being used for necessary things such as here it was an absolute necessity that the freeway in town had to be widened due to the population explosion. They had to take some people's houses.

But to build a shopping mall is horrible.
Reply
post #5 of 20
1/18/08 at 8:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I think eminent domain is being abused. I think it was the supreme court justice Souter that is at fault here if I remember right. There was a horrible ruling by the SCOTUS a few years ago, I don't remember the details but it was bad.
no joke, they can just step in and take your house and stuff anytime they want now..


gee they seem to forget we had a war over stuff like this once,
sometimes i really think its time to scrape this goverment and start a new one
Reply
post #6 of 20
1/18/08 at 8:40am
I think this is yet another case of eminent domain abuse. I can't imagine that eminent domain was originally intended to be used for commercial purposes.

I hope the dentist wins his case. If this sort of practice is allowed to continue, no home owner, land owner, or commercial property owner will be safe - cities will continue to take whatever property they wish 'for the sake of the common good' (translation: increased property tax revenue from more commercially valuable property).
Reply
post #7 of 20
1/18/08 at 12:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I think eminent domain is being abused. I think it was the supreme court justice Souter that is at fault here if I remember right. There was a horrible ruling by the SCOTUS a few years ago, I don't remember the details but it was bad.
This is probably the case you mean, Cindy: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rights...a/eminentd.htm
ETA: We also have an older IMO thread on the subject: http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho...+Supreme+Court
Reply
post #8 of 20
1/18/08 at 12:26pm
They're using the same thing to try and get land to build that stupid border fence, too. One woman has had the land in her family since before the US was a country, and they want to take it.
Reply
post #9 of 20
1/18/08 at 12:36pm
Thread Starter 
I really hope they rule for the guy. I'm sorry but a shopping center is not a good use of this law. It is just a way for the county to make more money off taxes.

Do you guys think that our supreme court ruling will have any effect on eminent domain issues in other states? Although, if the dentist does win, I wouldn't be too surprised if they appealed it to the supreme court.
Reply
post #10 of 20
1/18/08 at 1:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
This is probably the case you mean, Cindy: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rights...a/eminentd.htm
ETA: We also have an older IMO thread on the subject: http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho...+Supreme+Court
Yep, that is exactly the one I remembered. Thank you for posting it.
Reply
post #11 of 20
1/18/08 at 1:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
They're using the same thing to try and get land to build that stupid border fence, too. One woman has had the land in her family since before the US was a country, and they want to take it.

BUILD THE FENCE.
Reply
post #12 of 20
1/18/08 at 1:53pm
Eminent domain was never intended to be used so someone can take your home to plop down a Starbucks or a bank. As far as I understand it, it was to be used for projects that are vital to the public interest. IMO, that means infrastructure, not supporting the greed of private developers.

Ohio recently revised its eminent domain laws, I believe it was last year. Supposedly they made it tougher for local governments in the state to do this, I have to look at it again to be sure.

The Supreme Court dropped the ball big time with this and the government is way past the stage of getting too big for its britches. Our founding fathers would be appalled.
Reply
post #13 of 20
1/18/08 at 1:58pm
After this horrendous ruling, many states had ballot initiatives to limit the power of eminent domain. Some states already had laws in place. More have probably been passed.

I don't think it's quite as simple as they can take your house whenever they want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
BUILD THE FENCE.
Amen.

http://www.slate.com/id/2143104/
Reply
post #14 of 20
1/18/08 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
BUILD THE FENCE.
Of course it's that simple. The man who ran border patrol doesn't even think the fence is going to work. You know, cause it won't.
Reply
post #15 of 20
1/19/08 at 10:06am
I hope the guy wins! I don't think anyone has the right to force you to sell your property if you are not in foreclosure. The whole purpose of buying something is so that you own it and have the say as to what happens to it. The fact that the government can abuse it's power by coming to you and demanding you to sell your property to them is horrid!!
Reply
post #16 of 20
1/19/08 at 10:13am
What the government wants the government gets.
Reply
post #17 of 20
1/19/08 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zao_cat View Post
What the government wants the government gets.
And big-time developers control the government. When California had such a big budget crisis, one of the first state programs to go was funding for the counties to go after people who don't pay property tax. Turns out the most delinquent payers are the developers who are companies owned by companies back East who are owned by companies off-shore, such as Royal Dutch Petroleum. So to save hundreds of thousands of dollars, the state loses millions
Even in our small town, the high school forced a very elderly woman off her land & bought the property at a low cost, so they could expand the high school parking lot. I signed the petition in support of her, but was sadly amazed at how out-voted her supporters were
Eminent Domain bulldozes American Rights
Reply
post #18 of 20
1/19/08 at 11:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsknowme View Post
Eminent Domain bulldozes American Rights
That could be a bumper sticker!

It's true though. Sad but true.
Reply
post #19 of 20
1/19/08 at 1:11pm
I seriously doubt that the buildings in that area were "blighted" enough for eminent domain to work. I agree that they probably just wanted the property and are using underhanded tactics in the name of the Missouri Constitution and the law for their own benefit.

I hope they rule for the dentist.

Oh, and Arnold is an awful place. There's nothing that town can do to make itself better.

Tricia
Reply
post #20 of 20
1/22/08 at 9:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
Eminent domain was never intended to be used so someone can take your home to plop down a Starbucks or a bank. As far as I understand it, it was to be used for projects that are vital to the public interest. IMO, that means infrastructure, not supporting the greed of private developers
You are right!! And, if you do lose your property to eminent domain, you are supposed to get just compensation for your property as well. A shopping center or any other business, is NOT vital for public interest.
Quote:
The Supreme Court dropped the ball big time with this and the government is way past the stage of getting too big for its britches. Our founding fathers would be appalled
You can say that again. I know for one thing, I am appalled. That is why I cringe and feel sick every time I hear people say, something needs to be done about that, this or that should be illegal, the government needs to do something about... and so on. Each and every time you want the goverment to control, run, ban or regulate something, the more the goverment takes away our rights. I understand that there needs to be some laws to protect the public interest, but it has gone much to far and is no longer of public interest.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Eminent domain