This Is Just WRONG!

[Nanner]

This scares the sh*t out of me! :angry:

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050623104909990004

[rockin500]

i agree that it does suck. but there is a pretty strong caveat there. If a communityh does allow this to happen more than once, how likely do you think a city leader will remain in power? especially if it is in a smaller to medium community?

only idiotic community leaders would do something like that that would have those implications for many residents.

[Durango53]

You are right that is bull crap. In Cheyenne there is a big fight on this with the town trying to steal houses way outside of city limits for the community. It is BS. I feel that if the goverment does feel the need to take your place they should have to pay double of what a place is worth.

[Thedatch]

don't they still have to pay you face value for the proporty they take over? that's what happens if they take your land anyway...

not that that justifies it at all, but "what's best for the government is best for the people" afterall...

edit...whatever happened to right to property?

[Durango53]

I dont know about other places but here in Wyoming they will condem the land and then you get the price of the condemed land. Taxes is the reason they do that. So they can keep taxes up on your land but when they want to steal it from you they find something wrong with it and you get the shaft.

The city wanted to rip a tree out on my land one time. Keep in mind I dont live in the city limits. I told them they couldnt and they shot right back that if I said one more thing they would condem the whole place I would get about a quarter of the value of my place and be out on the road. Then they would rip out the tree and the place would then be ok to live again and they would then sell it at a jacked up price.

And the reason they had to rip out a tree was to put a new sewer line in and the back-hoe they was using was the biggest they got and it wouldnt get close enough with a tree that was a great nice big tree and they didnt want to bring a smaller one in (which they have) to put the line in.

[rockin500]

hey i really have no problem with taking peoples property for construction purposes. as long as you pay for the property, its not a problem. And Shad, they only condemn your property if you refuse to sell your land at a reasonable rate. And thats a last resort. They can threaten to do it, but they wont do it willingly as its a lengthy problem in courts . trust me with that, since it does pertain to my job. Eminent Domain only goes so far.

[Rockin Robin]

Eminent Domain, as I understand it, would only pertain if it's the government taking the land for services such as utility lines, railroads, highways, and things of that nature. If it does indeed include taking the land just for development, then that just ain't right.

[SportsChick237]

I say we all just boycott malls and shop online...then maybe they wont take peoples property away from them.

[PissedPrincess]

Emiment Domain is tricky. I notice the article didn't say what price these folks got. The Red Sox tried to buy up some residenial buildings by way of eminent domain when they were still thinking of building a new park, and we're told it would be too pricey.

My understanding of the law is you make a HUGE profit. Perhaps the law differs from state to state? :notme:

[Thedatch]

Emiment Domain is tricky. I notice the article didn't say what price these folks got. The Red Sox tried to buy up some residenial buildings by way of eminent domain when they were still thinking of building a new park, and we're told it would be too pricey.

My understanding of the law is you make a HUGE profit. Perhaps the law differs from state to state? :notme:

the way I understand it is that you have to buy the land for face value...so it gets appraised by someone, and they give you that amount. However, it's usually less than what you could get on the open market with competiton, etc. Besides, usually it isn't really about the money, but more about sentimental value, etc.

[rockin500]

appraised value is what it should go for. If your property is appraised for 196K (using that as an example, since thats what my parents ranch house is currently appraised at) than i do believe you have to sell it for that price. Appraised value is almost always more than you paid for the property (My parents paid like 130K back in 1992) and is likekly more than you can get on the open market now that there are so many homes on the market. As i said, i dont have a problem with eminent domain as its a consideration in my line of work when designing roads/bridges/airports.

[Thedatch]

appraised value is what it should go for. If your property is appraised for 196K (using that as an example, since thats what my parents ranch house is currently appraised at) than i do believe you have to sell it for that price. Appraised value is almost always more than you paid for the property (My parents paid like 130K back in 1992) and is likekly more than you can get on the open market now that there are so many homes on the market. As i said, i dont have a problem with eminent domain as its a consideration in my line of work when designing roads/bridges/airports.

I suppose it depends on where you're living...if you have a house in boston somewhere you will probably lose out more than if you had a ranch somewhere in texas or something. I don't necessarily have a problem with it...i was opposed to it at first, but on second thought, if it's best for the community, then i'm fine with that