Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Eminent domain, by any other name . . . still stinks (Montgomery, AL)
Daily Caller ^ | August 26, 2010 | Christina Walsh

Posted on 08/26/2010 10:34:27 AM PDT by Captain Kirk

Imagine you come home from work one day to a notice on your front door that you have 45 days to demolish your house, or the city will do it for you. Oh, and you’re paying for it.

This is happening right now in Montgomery, Ala., and here is how it works: The city decides it doesn’t like your property for one reason or another, so it declares it a “public nuisance.” It mails you a notice that you have 45 days to demolish your property, at your expense, or the city will do it for you (and, of course, bill you).

Your tab with the city will constitute a lien on your property, and if you don’t pay it within 30 days (or pay your installments on time; if you owe over $10,000, you can work out a deal to pay back the city for destroying your home over a period of time, with interest), the city can sell your now-vacant land to the highest bidder.

Alabama law empowers municipalities to do just this. Officials can demolish structures that they determine, “due to poor design, obsolescence, or neglect, have become unsafe to the extent of becoming public nuisances…and [are] causing or may cause a blight or blighting influence on the city and the neighborhoods in which [they are] located.” Keep in mind, so-called standards like “obsolescence” are so vague they can mean anything, so even a well-maintained home that government officials don’t like the look of can be fed to the bulldozers

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/26/eminent-domain-by-any-other-name-still-stinks/#ixzz0xjYVXqgM

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: economy; eminentdomain; montgomery; property; propertyrights; rapeofliberty

1 posted on 08/26/2010 10:34:29 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Developer’s love eminent domain.


2 posted on 08/26/2010 10:40:32 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Taking personal property like someone’s house is theft.

That is not what Eminent Domain was meant for. It was used to make roads, furnish living quarters for our soldiers, and other projects. A few years ago the law was changed so that personal property could be confiscated and sold to developers to make things like shopping malls.

What it should be used for is confiscating the property where the mosque is to be built close to ground zero, and tell the muzzies to look elsewhere.


3 posted on 08/26/2010 10:40:51 AM PDT by Frenchtown Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frenchtown Dan

‘What it should be used for is confiscating the property where the mosque is to be built close to ground zero, and tell the muzzies to look elsewhere.’

Disagree, but that is off the thread. Using Gov’t to take any property for someone else is tyranny.


4 posted on 08/26/2010 10:42:57 AM PDT by Palter (If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it. ~ Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

I guess Day Street is destined to begone soon.


5 posted on 08/26/2010 10:44:29 AM PDT by razorback-bert (Some days it's not worth chewing through the straps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

If your house is declared a public nuisance it probably is a public nuisance. I would say that in most cases the house is either empty or owned by a slumlord.


6 posted on 08/26/2010 10:44:56 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Politicians exist to break windows so they may spend other people's money to fix them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

I was talking to a guy yesterday who said he had family in Pennsylvania that lived on a family farm for anumber of years. In the 70’s he thought, the government forced them off the land because they were going to build a dam. To this day there is no dam there, and he said it’s a dumping ground for trash and junk now. Pretty sad. Thanks guvmnt.


7 posted on 08/26/2010 10:46:59 AM PDT by vpintheak (Love of God, Family and Country has made me an extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz

These aren’t cases of eminent domain.


8 posted on 08/26/2010 10:47:39 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Politicians exist to break windows so they may spend other people's money to fix them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Frenchtown Dan
That is not what Eminent Domain was meant for.

Exactly. This is a case of a blogger jumping up and down and wanting attention by calling something that isn't eminent domain, eminent domain.

9 posted on 08/26/2010 10:49:31 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Politicians exist to break windows so they may spend other people's money to fix them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert

And Bell Street, Air Base Blvd, Troy Hwy, South Blvd.....


10 posted on 08/26/2010 10:54:21 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Step 1. Buy Killdozer

Step 2. Find address of all local Government offices and program them into a GPS

Step 3. (omitted due to FR rules)


11 posted on 08/26/2010 10:54:23 AM PDT by agere_contra (...what if we won't eat the dog food?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palter

And I disagre with you, but that’s what makes this country what it is.

I can think of several cases where Iminent Domain could be useful and benefit the majority of Americans, and that’s what it was intended for, but the interpretations of laws is unfortunatley up to unscrupulous politicians.

Lets say China buys a couple thousand acres of U.S. forest for its lumber ( I don’t think the U.S. should sell to foreign countries, but that’s for another post). After China buys the land we find out that it’s using the land to build weapons or some other devious use.
Would you have a problem with Eminent Domain in this case?


12 posted on 08/26/2010 10:54:28 AM PDT by Frenchtown Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Frenchtown Dan

You wouldn’t use Eminent Domain in such a case: that’s a strawman. Eminent Domain is not our last, best defense against the Chinese.

If the new owners of the land were committing a crime then you would prosecute in the usual way.

But if they came by their property legally and are doing nothing illegal, then seizing their property is criminal and immoral.


13 posted on 08/26/2010 10:57:53 AM PDT by agere_contra (...what if we won't eat the dog food?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Yes, but he does have a point.

The laws covering Eminent Domain were changed a few years ago so that personal property can be confiscated and then sold to developers so that housing projects, shopping malls, just about anything, can be built where the tax dollars collected would be more than it was before.

This is in my mind criminal.


14 posted on 08/26/2010 10:58:58 AM PDT by Frenchtown Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra

Ok. Bad example, but I still think using it to prevent the mosque from being built is feasable. It can be used for National Security reasons, and the terrorist money used for building the mosque is grounds enough.


15 posted on 08/26/2010 11:01:47 AM PDT by Frenchtown Dan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Frenchtown Dan

Easier to clear things up by charging the GZ Immam and his wife with being unregistered agents of a foreign power. B’bye.


16 posted on 08/26/2010 11:12:24 AM PDT by Pecos (Liberty and Honor will not die on my watch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
If your house is declared a public nuisance it probably is a public nuisance. I would say that in most cases the house is either empty or owned by a slumlord.

R U still under the allusion that things makes sense or are right?

Since that disastrous Supreme Court ruling - many towns are taking ANY property they want - if it's profitable to someone else who will slip some green into some pockets - and/or can be developed into a property that will bring in more taxes - private home ownership be damned.

17 posted on 08/26/2010 11:17:33 AM PDT by maine-iac7 (g)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk

Leftists hate private property. They only “allow” us to “own” our houses because they can collect property taxes from us. But really, they own our property and can do whatever they want with it.
You really don’t own anything. The government owns it and out of the kindness and goodness of its benevolent heart lets you use it until it stops letting you use it.


18 posted on 08/26/2010 11:27:10 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (Annoying liberals is my goal. I will not be silenced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

“If your house is declared a public nuisance it probably is a public nuisance”

How can the house be a nuisance? Is it wandering around anoying people?


19 posted on 08/26/2010 11:39:47 AM PDT by Colvin (Proud Owner '66 Binder PU, '66 Binder Travelall,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7

Property was being condemned long before the Kelso ruling.


20 posted on 08/26/2010 11:48:27 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Politicians exist to break windows so they may spend other people's money to fix them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Colvin
Property Nuisance

Knock yourself out.

21 posted on 08/26/2010 11:53:45 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Politicians exist to break windows so they may spend other people's money to fix them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Captain Kirk
“due to poor design, obsolescence, or neglect.....

The Brady Bunch house is obsolescent...suppose the government has a right to take that land too and give Mike and Carol the demo bill....

22 posted on 08/26/2010 12:30:19 PM PDT by libertarian27 (Ingsoc: Department of Life, Department of Liberty, Department of Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

So they say


23 posted on 08/27/2010 8:21:07 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson