Posted on 05/24/2002 12:01:16 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
if they are lucky!
This has actually never been the case. Eminent domain is part of the constitution, and the sovereign governments have always had the power to take property for public use.
The only two inquiries allowed by the 5th Amendment are (1) whether the property is being condemned for a public use; and (2) whether the property owner is receiving just compensation. The first inquiry is often abused - as the article suggests - but has generally be interpreted as primarily a political question. As long as the condemning authority has any rational public purpose for the taking, then it's ok. The second inquiry requires full compensation to the affected landowner or leaseholder, which most courts interpret to include payment of attorneys fees by the government if the landowner can prove that the property is worth more than the state offered. That means that it's not as hard to fund these cases as the article appears to suggest.
25% of value? 30 days? I doubt it.
Ping.
Wednesday, May 22, 2002
By Rick Nowlin,(Pittsburgh) Post-Gazette Staff Writer
A zoning dispute apparently was the spark that caused a Hampton man to threaten township officials and pupils, leading to a lockdown of schools Monday.
John K. Baker, 37, was arrested later that day and charged with terroristic threats and harassment after saying he would carry out "a Columbine incident at one of the Hampton schools," Police Chief Dan Connolly said.
The reference was to the April 1999 incident in suburban Denver in which two students shot and killed a dozen fellow students and a teacher before turning their guns on themselves.
Baker was arraigned before District Justice William K. Wagner of McCandless and was held in the Allegheny County Jail in lieu of $100,000 cash bond.
Baker threatened to take firearms to one of the schools, shoot children as they exited the building and "hope one was a police officer's child," Connolly said.
Hampton School District spokeswoman Pat Forest referred to it as "a general threat" and not directed toward any one of the district's five schools. As a precaution, the district had all schools under lockdown from noon to 1:30 p.m. Monday. Parents were not notified during the lockdown, Forest said.
Although the threats were new, Connolly said police were familiar with Baker. Police arrested him Sunday for threatening to kill township officials. Connolly said one threat came by telephone to state Rep. Jeff Habay, R-Shaler.
He was released on $10,000 bond in that case but subsequently went to CVS pharmacy in Hampton and made the other threats, this time to a clerk who was a Hampton resident.
Land use administrator Larry Moore said the township has cited Baker numerous times for operating a junkyard, in violation of township zoning ordinances, at his Hampton Avenue home over the past 10 years. Connolly said Baker has accrued fines of at least $25,000 because of 38 cars plus boats, all-terrain vehicles and various large automotive parts scattered about the property.
The township took Baker to Common Pleas Court in February, and Judge Cynthia Baldwin gave Baker seven days to clean up the site. He did not comply with that order, Moore said.
Baker has insisted that other township properties also violate zoning ordinances and that he was being singled out because neighbors complained. "We told him to put together a list" of properties he felt were also in violation, Moore said.
Connolly said police also arrested Baker in February for trespassing and harassment for visiting other properties he believed violated township ordinances.
"Because of that situation, he's made threats to numerous police officers, the township manager, even the magistrate," Connolly said.
I have the notion that Libertarians would really want to give Mr. Baker a medal.
Using the methods of liberals is not what I would call intellectually honest.
You are the first Libertarian when presented with this article to say Mr. Baker is a kook. Good for you. When I first posted this article as thread on FR, I got a deafening silence from the rabid Libertarians on FR.
I am surmising that many Libertarians on FR are supportive of Mr. Baker's tactics, just look at Eagle Eye's response #10 of this thread.
Tar, feathers, torches and pitchforks would work better, imo.
Do you support such measures, oppose them, or don't care?
Do tell.
Because it is there doesn't mean politicians have an obligation to use it. It has been used as a tool by the state to redistribute wealth. In this day and age ED is really no longer needed. It is imcompatible with private property.
The phrase "just compensation" is totally subjective and cannot realistically be determined by the state. Just compensation can only be determined by a willing seller and buyer.
Which measures? The measures of the govt. or property owners?
I would generally oppose the govt. measures, especially federal or state. Local is another whole bag. Localities and municipalities are the heart of America and from where the greatest power should derive from.
How about the local governments using eminent domain in cases not related to roads or airports or other necessary public amenities, but rather to cater to developers and to increase the tax base, or to provide for section 8 housing, or whatever other social engineering goals the local government has.
Do you think that is the proper use of eminent domain laws? Or do you think eminant domain is being abused? How about your opinion on some of the cases in the article, for example the case of Vera Coking's house trying to be seized to make way for Donald Trump's limo parking lot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.