eric76 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

eric76 said:

---

dlance said:

---

I have a coworker who has old family land on the border. The government ED'd a strip of his land and built part of the existing fence on it. He said they paid pretty quickly and a fair amount. The problem is he has about 75 acres left on the other side of the fence that he no longer has access to. They won't put and won't let him put a gate in for access and there is nowhere to cross it for miles, and no way to access the land from anywhere you can cross.

It is horse*****

---

That matches what I've read elsewhere.

As I've said many times, eminent domain is for people who don't believe in Capitalism and Free Markets.

---

I get what you're saying, but eminent domain is probably the #1 tool the government has at its disposal to support free markets and capitalism. It may suck in the individual cases or people whose land is taken - and I'm not really even defending the practice, here - but it's definitely not anti-capitalist.

---

How the hell does using the might of the state to run roughshod over private property owners support Free Markets and Capitalism?

---

Have you ever heard of the Interstate Highway System? What about State Highways? What about County Roads? Do you have electricity? What about water from a municipality? Telephone? Internet? Cable? How many of those things do you think have something to do with free markets and capitalism?

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

Sgt. Hartman said:

---

Just the free market at work

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2017/04/19/dallas-man-admits-fraudulently-buying-fliping-highway-land-state-huge-profit

---

Criminal acts =/= Free Markets

Seriously, pick up an economics book.

---

You'd be surprised how often this happens; most people are just more discreet about it. I don't know how many "development plans" I've seen that "TXDOT's road project is going to absolutely destroy."

I was recently involved in a case where the landowner and his appraiser said the property after the roadway acquisition could not be developed for a residential subdivision, and were seeking all kinds of damages. Due to circumstances out of our control (namely incompetent local government who refused to talk to us), the case settled with the landowner getting pretty much all the damages they sought. Six months after the case settles (the road is currently built, the case just took a while), there's a marketing flyer with the before acquisition lot plan overlaid onto the after property. So a property that could not be developed as a residential subdivision is now being marketed as a residential subdivision. Needless to say, I was a little pissed when I saw this.

There are times in the course of my job that I'm upset that landowners are getting screwed and there isn't anything that I can do about it. Then there are cases like this one.

Everything has a price.

Public works like interstates and utilities are very different than the sports stadiums you've referenced. The first group should be allowed ED, the second should not, is a clear abuse of the system, and should be put down.

It's an extremely rare situation where people don't get fair market value. Not opportunistic hosing as you prefer, but FMV. And if you don't think you've gotten FMV, that's what the courts are for.

I may be wrong, I'm going to go out on a limb and bet you've never been through that process though. While frustrating and difficult at times, it usually comes out "fair", with fair being designated in the constitution (which you're likely a big fan of).

I was an economics major.

Pick up a sarcasm book.

Stive said:

---

Public works like interstates and utilities are very different than the sports stadiums you've referenced. The first group should be allowed ED, the second should not, is a clear abuse of the system, and should be put down.

It's an extremely rare situation where people don't get fair market value. Not opportunistic hosing as you prefer, but FMV. And if you don't think you've gotten FMV, that's what the courts are for.

I may be wrong, I'm going to go out on a limb and bet you've never been through that process though. While frustrating and difficult at times, it usually comes out "fair", with fair being designated in the constitution (which you're likely a big fan of).

---

There was a guy in Seabrook who was awarded $1 for property worth at least a million.

The judge denied his expert witness testimony as to the value of the property and than since he had no testimony as to its value, the judge ruled it was worth $1.

Burdizzo said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

eric76 said:

---

dlance said:

---

I have a coworker who has old family land on the border. The government ED'd a strip of his land and built part of the existing fence on it. He said they paid pretty quickly and a fair amount. The problem is he has about 75 acres left on the other side of the fence that he no longer has access to. They won't put and won't let him put a gate in for access and there is nowhere to cross it for miles, and no way to access the land from anywhere you can cross.

It is horse*****

---

That matches what I've read elsewhere.

As I've said many times, eminent domain is for people who don't believe in Capitalism and Free Markets.

---

I get what you're saying, but eminent domain is probably the #1 tool the government has at its disposal to support free markets and capitalism. It may suck in the individual cases or people whose land is taken - and I'm not really even defending the practice, here - but it's definitely not anti-capitalist.

---

How the hell does using the might of the state to run roughshod over private property owners support Free Markets and Capitalism?

---

Have you ever heard of the Interstate Highway System? What about State Highways? What about County Roads? Do you have electricity? What about water from a municipality? Telephone? Internet? Cable? How many of those things do you think have something to do with free markets and capitalism?

---

That's bull**** whether you know it or not.

Most people are happy to sell rights of way for various things for an honest price. For example, my oldest brother has some property along a highway on the edge of one small town and he is happy to let them build a power line or a pipeline on the property if they can work out an honest deal. And the people who live out in the country have a vested interest in having roads and highways -- without them, they would have a hell of a time getting their product to town.

Your imagination of the horrors of Free Markets is running overboard.

---

Eminent Domain does not exist because of honest people who are happy to sell their property to the government in an honest transaction. Eminent Domain exists because some stubborn people are perfectly fine bilking the government and the taxpayers in these situations when the people actually have a need for public works and common carriers. That is not to say government has not abused the system. They have, but without it, an individual private citizen can abuse the rest of us taxpayers too when there is a legitimate public necessity.

---

If the land becomes more valuable because of what the government intends to do with it, than the owner should be able to benefit from that increase in value.

Otherwise, you would have to argue that if someone digs a well on your land with the mineral rights intact and makes a major oil strike, you shouldn't be able to benefit from it just because you own the land.

Think about the old Socialist mantra: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Eminent domain is not far removed from that. It is about as far removed from Capitalism and Free Markets as one can become.

What is the land worth? If you take 100s or 1000s of acres of prime growing land from a farmer, do you pay what the ground currently is worth- or do you pay for the livelihood that land would have given him for the foreseeable future?

AP4P2020 said:

---

What is the land worth? If you take 100s or 1000s of acres of prime growing land from a farmer, do you pay what the ground currently is worth- or do you pay for the livelihood that land would have given him for the foreseeable future?

---

And if you take half the land or deny him reasonable access to it, then he might be left without enough to make much of a living farming it

AP4P2020 said:

---

What is the land worth? If you take 100s or 1000s of acres of prime growing land from a farmer, do you pay what the ground currently is worth- or do you pay for the livelihood that land would have given him for the foreseeable future?

---

It's both at market value. The current market value is the present value of future benefits.

eric76 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

eric76 said:

---

dlance said:

---

I have a coworker who has old family land on the border. The government ED'd a strip of his land and built part of the existing fence on it. He said they paid pretty quickly and a fair amount. The problem is he has about 75 acres left on the other side of the fence that he no longer has access to. They won't put and won't let him put a gate in for access and there is nowhere to cross it for miles, and no way to access the land from anywhere you can cross.

It is horse*****

---

That matches what I've read elsewhere.

As I've said many times, eminent domain is for people who don't believe in Capitalism and Free Markets.

---

I get what you're saying, but eminent domain is probably the #1 tool the government has at its disposal to support free markets and capitalism. It may suck in the individual cases or people whose land is taken - and I'm not really even defending the practice, here - but it's definitely not anti-capitalist.

---

How the hell does using the might of the state to run roughshod over private property owners support Free Markets and Capitalism?

---

Have you ever heard of the Interstate Highway System? What about State Highways? What about County Roads? Do you have electricity? What about water from a municipality? Telephone? Internet? Cable? How many of those things do you think have something to do with free markets and capitalism?

---

That's bull**** whether you know it or not.

Most people are happy to sell rights of way for various things for an honest price. For example, my oldest brother has some property along a highway on the edge of one small town and he is happy to let them build a power line or a pipeline on the property if they can work out an honest deal. And the people who live out in the country have a vested interest in having roads and highways -- without them, they would have a hell of a time getting their product to town.

Your imagination of the horrors of Free Markets is running overboard.

---

Eminent Domain does not exist because of honest people who are happy to sell their property to the government in an honest transaction. Eminent Domain exists because some stubborn people are perfectly fine bilking the government and the taxpayers in these situations when the people actually have a need for public works and common carriers. That is not to say government has not abused the system. They have, but without it, an individual private citizen can abuse the rest of us taxpayers too when there is a legitimate public necessity.

---

If the land becomes more valuable because of what the government intends to do with it, than the owner should be able to benefit from that increase in value.this is contrary to the project influence rule, which states that any increase or decrease in the fair market value of the property being acquired which is the result of the project shall not be considered.

Otherwise, you would have to argue that if someone digs a well on your land with the mineral rights intact and makes a major oil strike, you shouldn't be able to benefit from it just because you own the land.This makes no sense and is not at all applicable. Besides, we even have compulsory pooling in o&g leases, so free markets don't even truly exist here.

Think about the old Socialist mantra: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Eminent domain is not far removed from that. It is about as far removed from Capitalism and Free Markets as one can become.Taking someone's land by the tip of the spear would be farther removed.

---

eric76 said:

---

AP4P2020 said:

---

What is the land worth? If you take 100s or 1000s of acres of prime growing land from a farmer, do you pay what the ground currently is worth- or do you pay for the livelihood that land would have given him for the foreseeable future?

---

And if you take half the land or deny him reasonable access to it, then he might be left without enough to make much of a living farming it

---

If that's the case, then that would result in a change in highest and best use and compensation may be due.

Sasappis said:

---

Stive said:

---

You mean the guy that was originally offered 1.9 million? (Left that part out conveniently, right?)

If I remember correctly, that got cleared up on appeal.

---

Eric continuously uses that example although he knows it is invalid.

---

Ah well....I guess he has to stick with the only example that works for his narrative. I also like the part of that story where the land owners lied (or at best mislead) about their intentions and values for the land. You know....since everyone in his fantasy world just willingly plays along for the better good of society.

That's why the landowner's expert was struck.

FIL's ranch is on the river/lake at the head of Falcon. When the dam was built, everyone was paid for land below a certain elevation, but allowed to utilize it if the lake was down. Technically, if a wall goes in they are SOL because it is guv land already. I'm concerned about water because There is no water to drill for to put in a windmill.

bmc13 said:

---

Quote:

---

I've always believed if you owned property then you own it

---

in the US, and especially in Texas, we've "rented" land for a long time.

---

Since we take all of our federal land laws (both common and statute) from the English crown (Spanish crown in Texas), land in the US has always been subject to its police power. Some of those include eminent domain, zoning, taxation, escheat, etc. In fact, I can't think of an instance where land hasn't been subject to some type of governmental control, and that includes biblical times.

exactly

schmellba99 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Snow Monkey Ambassador said:

---

eric76 said:

---

dlance said:

---

I have a coworker who has old family land on the border. The government ED'd a strip of his land and built part of the existing fence on it. He said they paid pretty quickly and a fair amount. The problem is he has about 75 acres left on the other side of the fence that he no longer has access to. They won't put and won't let him put a gate in for access and there is nowhere to cross it for miles, and no way to access the land from anywhere you can cross.

It is horse*****

---

That matches what I've read elsewhere.

As I've said many times, eminent domain is for people who don't believe in Capitalism and Free Markets.

---

I get what you're saying, but eminent domain is probably the #1 tool the government has at its disposal to support free markets and capitalism. It may suck in the individual cases or people whose land is taken - and I'm not really even defending the practice, here - but it's definitely not anti-capitalist.

---

How the hell does using the might of the state to run roughshod over private property owners support Free Markets and Capitalism?

---

Not a supporter of ED in most cases.

But without the power of ED, you would, in all likelyhood, not be able to drive to work in the morning. Odds are you would not have clean potable water piped to your house. You would probably be crapping in a home in your back yard and you and every neighbor would be burning garbage in a hand dug fire pit on a daily basis.

Because almoat every road, every easement for a pipeline (whether it be for something like water or sewer for a municipality or a P3 or private venture for a private utility like petroleum or electric) is in existence indirectly or directly because of the power that ED gives for such purposes.

And pretty much 100% of every consumable you use on a daily basis uses one of the avenues listed above. And those support and promote capitaliam and free market trade.

Unfortunately it can be an ugly thing, and when looked at in a vacuum or a single instance, it is generally bad. But the thing is that it is not a mechanism that really can be looked at in a vacuum or for a single solitary case, because you would not be looking at the big picture.

---

I would be very surprised if eminent domain was necessary for more than a small percentage of right of ways for highways, power lines, and pipelines. Sure, there are people out there who would not sell at any price, but most people will. I see no reason to force them to take a price less than what they consider fair.

Sasappis said:

---

Stive said:

---

You mean the guy that was originally offered 1.9 million? (Left that part out conveniently, right?)

If I remember correctly, that got cleared up on appeal.

---

Eric continuously uses that example although he knows it is invalid.

---

Are you saying that the judge did not order him be given $1 for his property? If not, then what is invalid about the example?

I've often wondered what happened on appeal and hoped that the imbecile judge was overturned.

On the flip side, I don't know of many (any) public works projects where there wasn't at least one case of ED used. There is almost always at least one person that won't sell for any reason or any price, or wants to hold the buyers feet to the fire because they think they're the one case that is the exception on the whole project and thus should be exempt from constitutional law.

You give people too much credit.

ETA: My stance above also includes threatening ED. The fear/reality of it and the legal fees and headaches that become involved is enough to push many to the decision point. But if it weren't there, most public projects would be impossible and definitely the exception....not the norm.

I work for a utility, and we often need to get temporary and permanent easements for our projects. Most of my projects are in town around existing infrastructure. Most residents understand the issue, and we don't take large swaths of land, usually a few feet off the back or corner of a lot. And once the project is declared a "public necessity" they know the fight in condemnation can get expensive. We also recognize that and try to avoid condemnation to the extent possible. It does not make sense to pile up tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees over an easement worth a few hundred dollars.

Our bigger problem is that we often have easements on property that the fee owner is unaware of. When we need to access the property to maintain our assets the property owner can sometimes become an obstacle in spite of an existing agreement. We also have a problem with people building things on top of our easements that are not supposed to be there.