Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GOPJ
Not actually. The law stipulates and it is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights that the owner must be compensated for their loss. Fair market value comes into play but of course sometimes FMV isn't what an owner feels is the true value of the property.

One of the problems is that there is no consistanncy. I know of one area that the local courts have ruled that in order for a governement to sieze private property the ownwer needs to be reimbursed to the tune of 3 times FMV. Obviously there's not a hell of a lot of eminant domaine there. There just has to be some consistancy and regard for personal property rights.

52 posted on 06/23/2005 8:22:20 AM PDT by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: skimbell
This is about the government taking your property to give to another privat individual, not about the government taking your property (with appropriate compensation) to build roads.
67 posted on 06/23/2005 8:26:03 AM PDT by Finger Monkey (H.R. 25, Fair Tax Act - A consumption tax which replaces the income tax, SS tax, death tax, etc.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: skimbell

The first intelligent comment I have read in this thread.

Isn't there a bill pending in Congress that would establish some definitions on what constitutes "the public interest" and set some boundries to "eminent domain" takings?

I like the 3 x FMV parameter set by the locality you mention for compensating private property owners. Not that it would stay a major development project but it would at least make the local government think twice about using the power of eminent domain capriciously.

Of course, the best way to deal with a heavy handed local council is to vote them out of office and then seize THEIR property for the "public good."


107 posted on 06/23/2005 8:42:14 AM PDT by Captain Rhino ("If you will just abandon logic, these things will make a lot more sense to you!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: skimbell
Fair Market Value? That's a joke. We got hit by imminent Domain(at least it was for a highway) but we got screwed because the land was zoned agricultural while the property next door which was zoned commercial 2 but undeveloped got 3TIMES the price we got.
Oh, it didn't hurt was a county commissioner and a big developer.
Fair Market Value? What a joke.
128 posted on 06/23/2005 8:49:14 AM PDT by RedMonqey (Keep RIGHT or get LEFT behind!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

To: skimbell
One of the problems is that there is no consistency. I know of one area that the local courts have ruled that in order for a government to seize private property the owner needs to be reimbursed to the tune of 3 times FMV. Obviously there's not a hell of a lot of eminent domain there. There just has to be some consistency and regard for personal property rights.

This is a far cry from taking someone's land for the railroad to come through or to build a courthouse. This is taking someone's land and turning it over to a private developer so he can make a profit. It's an outrage.

337 posted on 06/23/2005 10:43:07 AM PDT by GOPJ (Deep Throat(s) -- top level FBI officials playing cub reporters for suckers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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