Outdoors
Sponsored by

Eminent Domain

12,843 Views | 99 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by schmellba99
aggiedent
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:20p, 5/4/17
AG
The outdoors board has often discussed eminent domain issues, and being more sane that the politics forum, I thought I'd post this here.

Did anybody see the article in Monday's Houston Chronicle about folks who have had all or portions of their land acquired for current or future Wall construction along the border? It was written by a guy from the San Antonio paper, so I assume it appeared in that paper as well.

The part that surprised me was that a few folks who had their land acquired through ED, as far back as 2008, have yet to see a penny from the government. How is it even possible that your land can be taken and built on, prior to getting any compensation?
Reply Quote
1
ursusguy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:29p, 5/4/17
AG
Yeah, that's a not so minor detail that is conveniently overlooked.
Reply Quote
17
Post removed:
by user
2:09p, 5/4/17
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 2:36p, 5/4/17
AG
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.
Reply Quote
9
Snow Monkey Ambassador
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 2:43p, 5/4/17
AG
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's 100% a taking. If they won't allow him access, he can get money for the amount he no longer has access to. There should be infinity lawyers in the Valley who are willing to help him get his money - and he should hire one.
Reply Quote
18
Snow Monkey Ambassador
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 2:44p, 5/4/17
AG
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.
Reply Quote
9
Trigger06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:24p, 5/4/17
AG
It might support capitalism, but it sure doesn't support FREE markets.
Reply Quote
2
Burdizzo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:28p, 5/4/17
AG
I support ED for public works projects that benefit the public such as roads, drainage, pipelines, etc. and owners are compensated with fair market value and legitimate expenses.

What I don't support ED being used for is projects like economic redevelopment where a government condemns property and resells it at a profit to someone else. I watched it happen in College Station when Northgate was redeveloped, and some of those events were simply criminal.
Reply Quote
30
aggiedent
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:49p, 5/4/17
AG
Quote:
It might support capitalism, but it sure doesn't support FREE markets.

I totally agree with this.

Sure it helps speed up the land acquisition process which helps corporations build pipelines or governments build walls. But free market? Anything but.

If it was a true free market, people would hold out for more money if they knew their land was needed for a project. Instead, the process of ED, sets the price of the land based on what the land was worth "prior" to a corporation/government/etc needing it for a project.

So no....not free market at all.
Reply Quote
7
Post removed:
by user
4:39p, 5/4/17
Jason C.
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:20p, 5/4/17
AG
FYI (and I'm sure most of you know), eminent domain is expressly provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, and I can usually get behind the federal government doing what's it's expressly authorized to do. In most cases it's the definition of "public use" that's problematic. The federal government also has express constitutional authorization to regulate immigration and provide for national security; to me, and as others have noted, a border wall has public use written all over it.
Reply Quote
7
water turkey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:21p, 5/4/17
Leaving a piece of land that the landowner can no longer use is called an uneconomic remainder. A lot of times, the uneconomic remainder is acquired as well.

If the land owner can't access his own land, he won't be able to sell it to anyone either.

Sounds like he really got screwed.
Reply Quote
15
aggiedent
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:51p, 5/4/17
AG
Quote:
If the person demanded a billion dollars a linear foot do you think that is the free market at work?

Well actually, yes. I'm not saying it's right, nor is it proper for one person to deter something necessary for national security, but it is 100% free market. I agree that ED is necessary in various instances. I agree that ED is abused as well. But getting back to my original post, having your land taken and 9 years later the government has yet to reimburse you, is unforgivable.

Knowing that other folks have been waiting 9 years for payment is hardly the kind of thing to inspire other people to cooperate with the government, is it?
Reply Quote
2
Post removed:
by user
In reply to aggiedent • 5:57p, 5/4/17
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Snow Monkey Ambassador • 6:09p, 5/4/17
AG
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?
Reply Quote
7
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 6:11p, 5/4/17
AG
Sasappis said:
Except something like the border wall shows the absolute necessity of eminent domain. You literally could have one land owner wreck national security policy by refusing to sell his land. There is no where else to put a border fence but on the border. If the person demanded a billion dollars a linear foot do you think that is the free market at work?

There absolutely are abuses of ED, but the border is not one. As monkey said , if someone loses land on the other side of the wall they should be compensated for it all as that is a taking. But that is a different discussion than saying all ED is bad.
If an owner demands more than the property is worth, then you do something else. Find another route, for example.
Reply Quote
3
HTownAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:16p, 5/4/17
One of the issues that may be in play is the federal rules governed by the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Land Acquisition, commonly referred to as the Yellow Book. In that book, the rules are such that you value the property before the taking, and the property after the taking. The difference is what the Feds pay. This differs from the State Rule (which Texas uses), which basically says you value the whole, and you value the part acquired, and subtract the part acquired from the whole. Then you value the remainder after the taking, and compare that to the remainder before. If the remainder after is less than the remainder before, you pay the damages plus the part acquired. If it's the opposite, you get payment for the part acquired only. The biggest difference between the two is that with the Federal rule, is enhancements can offset the part acquired; the State rule says the enhancements can only offset damages, so the landowner still gets paid for the part acquired. You can have cases when using the Federal rule, the landowner gets $0 in compensation.

All this being said, the only situation where I can see the landowner gets $0 in compensation is if the part acquired was worth little to nothing, or the project resulted in enhancing the remaining property. If the land was acquired, and there is compensation that has been paid, the money is sitting in a federal court registry somewhere. The landowner just has to go get it.
Reply Quote
2
aggiesq
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 6:17p, 5/4/17
AG
n/m
Reply Quote
1 edit
Post removed:
by user
In reply to eric76 • 6:28p, 5/4/17
Stive
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 6:50p, 5/4/17
AG
eric76 said:
Sasappis said:
Except something like the border wall shows the absolute necessity of eminent domain. You literally could have one land owner wreck national security policy by refusing to sell his land. There is no where else to put a border fence but on the border. If the person demanded a billion dollars a linear foot do you think that is the free market at work?

There absolutely are abuses of ED, but the border is not one. As monkey said , if someone loses land on the other side of the wall they should be compensated for it all as that is a taking. But that is a different discussion than saying all ED is bad.
If an owner demands more than the property is worth, then you do something else. Find another route, for example.

What do you want them to do? Move the border?
Reply Quote
7
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 6:54p, 5/4/17
AG
Sasappis said:
eric76 said:
Sasappis said:
Except something like the border wall shows the absolute necessity of eminent domain. You literally could have one land owner wreck national security policy by refusing to sell his land. There is no where else to put a border fence but on the border. If the person demanded a billion dollars a linear foot do you think that is the free market at work?

There absolutely are abuses of ED, but the border is not one. As monkey said , if someone loses land on the other side of the wall they should be compensated for it all as that is a taking. But that is a different discussion than saying all ED is bad.
If an owner demands more than the property is worth, then you do something else. Find another route, for example.


How do you find another route for a border fence. Last I checked international borders are petty static.
From what I've read, the fence cuts across quite a few places. It's not necessarily all that close to the border in places.

Some people might prefer to be on the US side of the wall even if it splits their property in half (or worse) and others might prefer to have their land intact even if they are on the Mexico side of the wall and still on US soil.
Reply Quote
5
Stive
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 6:59p, 5/4/17
AG
There are ranches down there that own land that goes MILES inland from the border. If one of those owners doesn't want to sell, how many miles inland would you suggest is a practical number?

The free market is not a perfect system. There are times that the greater good is at stake, and in those moments ED is a tool that should be (rarely) used.
Reply Quote
7
Post removed:
by user
In reply to eric76 • 7:08p, 5/4/17
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 7:10p, 5/4/17
AG
Sasappis said:
eric76 said:
Sasappis said:
eric76 said:
Sasappis said:
Except something like the border wall shows the absolute necessity of eminent domain. You literally could have one land owner wreck national security policy by refusing to sell his land. There is no where else to put a border fence but on the border. If the person demanded a billion dollars a linear foot do you think that is the free market at work?

There absolutely are abuses of ED, but the border is not one. As monkey said , if someone loses land on the other side of the wall they should be compensated for it all as that is a taking. But that is a different discussion than saying all ED is bad.
If an owner demands more than the property is worth, then you do something else. Find another route, for example.


How do you find another route for a border fence. Last I checked international borders are petty static.
From what I've read, the fence cuts across quite a few places. It's not necessarily all that close to the border in places.

Some people might prefer to be on the US side of the wall even if it splits their property in half (or worse) and others might prefer to have their land intact even if they are on the Mexico side of the wall and still on US soil.


How does that work? The US just fences citizens off from the country? They have no access to the us and have an international border on the other side. They are just stuck in purgatory for perpetuity?
There will be areas where they can cross the border to get to their property on the other side. Or do you think that if the border cuts your land in half that you will forever lose access to the rest of your property?
Reply Quote
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stive • 7:11p, 5/4/17
AG
Stive said:
There are ranches down there that own land that goes MILES inland from the border. If one of those owners doesn't want to sell, how many miles inland would you suggest is a practical number?

The free market is not a perfect system. There are times that the greater good is at stake, and in those moments ED is a tool that should be (rarely) used.
It may not be perfect, but it is far better than giving the government all the power they want to control your life.
Reply Quote
3
Stive
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 7:24p, 5/4/17
AG
Classic
Reply Quote
8
KellerAg98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:10p, 5/4/17
I'm not a big fan of eminent domain, but if there is 1 good reason to use it, that reason would be to secure our border.

The government should pay a fair price, but they should have the ability to restrict and/or monitor access into the country.
Reply Quote
3
YellowPot_97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to eric76 • 8:31p, 5/4/17
AG
eric76 said:
Sasappis said:
Except something like the border wall shows the absolute necessity of eminent domain. You literally could have one land owner wreck national security policy by refusing to sell his land. There is no where else to put a border fence but on the border. If the person demanded a billion dollars a linear foot do you think that is the free market at work?

There absolutely are abuses of ED, but the border is not one. As monkey said , if someone loses land on the other side of the wall they should be compensated for it all as that is a taking. But that is a different discussion than saying all ED is bad.
If an owner demands more than the property is worth, then you do something else. Find another route, for example.

The interstate system wouldn't exsist if your logic was followed. We'd be stuck with a bunch twisting ass FM roads.
Reply Quote
12
Sean98
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YellowPot_97 • 9:05p, 5/4/17
AG
YellowPot_97 said:

The interstate system wouldn't exsist if your logic was followed. We'd be stuck with a bunch twisting ass FM roads.

Hell, we wouldn't even have most of those, and none of you would have power or water.

The thought of some AHole demanding a billion dollars and being fenced out of the US with no access definitely amuses me though.
Reply Quote
16
Stive
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YellowPot_97 • 9:12p, 5/4/17
AG
No no that can't be right. According to eric76 there must be another way. Don't worry about electricity, telephone, water, highways, etc. Just up the price....or reroute it.

He's forgetting one thing...he's assuming people are logical, and practical. Many are neither and all it takes is one to shut things like that down.
Reply Quote
2
Sgt. Hartman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:51p, 5/4/17
AG
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
Reply Quote
2
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to YellowPot_97 • 12:14a, 5/5/17
AG
YellowPot_97 said:
eric76 said:
Sasappis said:
Except something like the border wall shows the absolute necessity of eminent domain. You literally could have one land owner wreck national security policy by refusing to sell his land. There is no where else to put a border fence but on the border. If the person demanded a billion dollars a linear foot do you think that is the free market at work?

There absolutely are abuses of ED, but the border is not one. As monkey said , if someone loses land on the other side of the wall they should be compensated for it all as that is a taking. But that is a different discussion than saying all ED is bad.
If an owner demands more than the property is worth, then you do something else. Find another route, for example.

The interstate system wouldn't exsist if your logic was followed. We'd be stuck with a bunch twisting ass FM roads.
We would have bought the right of ways at honest, mutually agreeable prices.

Anyone who is happy with eminent domain had better not be upset over government spending. After all, what eminent domain really does is enable the government to take land for their projects without concerning the financial merits of the plan.
Reply Quote
3
eric76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sean98 • 12:16a, 5/5/17
AG
Sean98 said:
YellowPot_97 said:

The interstate system wouldn't exsist if your logic was followed. We'd be stuck with a bunch twisting ass FM roads.

Hell, we wouldn't even have most of those, and none of you would have power or water.

The thought of some AHole demanding a billion dollars and being fenced out of the US with no access definitely amuses me though.
That would be very unlikely to happen. Sure, there would be someone who didn't have a price, but most will take an offer at some point.
Reply Quote
1
helloag99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:45a, 5/5/17
Hey free marketeers, I am with you in general, but it is no where near a free market if you have the only piece of dirt to sell. ie along an international border

Reply Quote
BlackGoldAg2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:20a, 5/5/17
AG
So a hypothetical property owner knows they have a critical piece of land for an important project and requests an exorbitant amount of money for their land? Call me crazy but that sounds like textbook scarcity principles and like economics 101 for what drives capitalism and the free market.

To the land owner fenced out of the country, not that big a deal really, he can just use the same tunnels Mexican smugglers will be using to cross the wall

And finally, if your entire national security plan hinges on a border wall so thoroughly that a single land owner not cooperating and forcing a gap in the wall can "wreck the national security plan" then your national security plan sucks and you have no business being in charge of securing the border.

And my view on ED has always been nothing short of hatred. Call me crazy but I've always believed if you owned property then you own it, and any law that lets the gov take it without consent means you are basically renting it. I believe if the fed wants to take my land they need to take it from me the same way they took it from the Natives, come and take it.
Reply Quote
8
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.