Landowners must yield to ballpark

The Washington Times ^ | 10-6-05 | Tim Lemke

[sitetest]

"City officials said they expect to file court documents to take over at least some of the 21-acre site in the coming weeks and have $97 million set aside to buy the properties and help landowners relocate. The city made offers to all 23 landowners on the site..."

I don't know how much any particular owner was offered, but this seems to suggest that the average total compensation offered each owner was north of $4 million.

The site is 21 acres, and that suggests that the property was valued, on average, at nearly $5 million per acre.

This is near waterfront in Southeast Washington. Although waterfront property is inherently valuable, Southeast Washington in general is not a very good area.

It appears that the city has at least attempted to treat the owners fairly.

[Pessimist]

That's exacty correct. Property rights, so crucial to a free market and society are little more than a ruse anymore.

[AmishDude]

I was just refuting the idea that the poster had that the deals were bad. I suspect if they aren't forced to sell, they'll find themselves owning a house in the middle of a stadium parking lot, though.

[counterpunch]

Nice one!
I wonder if Souter will get to throw out the first pitch.

[whershey]

Or Detroit

[Protagoras]

What does Bush say? Oh,,silence? Nevermind.

[foreverfree]

bump

[Protagoras]

Sounds like they were offering reasonable deals.

My property is not for sale. That's reasonable in a free society.

[freeeee]

Citing "the common good" as justification, a communist holds that the will of the people outweighs the rights of the individual, hence they will themselves to become owners of, well, pretty much anything, by collectively assigning themselves property rights by force. It is said communist governments assert this "ownership" on behalf of the people. But at least communists are honest and upfront about it: they tell you right to your face that you have no property rights.

However a more insidious form of communism exists: government, always seeking power and therefore money may seek to take advantage of the prosperity of the free market. Government then operates under a false façade of ownership, alleging private property rights exist and doling them out in barely sufficient amounts as privileges in order to lure productive individuals to create wealth. This is properly called fascism.

[Hatteras]

"They could just be holding out."

Okay, Mr. Mayor, here's the deal, take it or leave it.... $3.6 million and 12.5% of all future gross receipts from concessions and parking. Sign it and not only will I give you the keys, I'll throw in the keys to my Coupe de Ville as well!

[freeeee]

Bread and circuses trumped property rights in the waning days of the Roman Empire as well.

They say Nero torched a large section of a desirable section of Rome, then proceeded to build himself a large estate on the property.

When Nero died, his successor tore down his estate and built the Colluseum.

[Cementjungle]

$97 million divided by 23? What's that? About $4.2 mil per landowner? Heck, just give me my $4.2 million and I'll relocate myself! Not that it actually will work out that way, but I would be real curious to see the properties and see what the offers amounted to.

Its probably $200K for the landowners and the other $96.8M set aside for the lawyers involved!

[andyk]

I was just refuting the idea that the poster had that the deals were bad.

It's really not possible to know whether the deals are good without knowing the market value of the properties in question, and their respective offers of compensation.

The only part of the article that seems to address whether the offers are fair is:

Many property owners on the site said the city's offers are inadequate.

[AmishDude]

You're welcome to that. Oh, I hear there's a buyer that's willing to offer 20 times what it's worth. Still want to sell? Oh, and if you don't that means your property taxes will go up . . . 20 times, because the market value just shot up. Remember, market price is what a buyer is willing to spend.

Also, if you don't sell, your property will be surrounded by a stadium parking lot. And nobody needs you to sell for that.

I'm very much against the Kelo decision, but I hate it when people lie about it and other property rights cases. Stadiums were in most cases considered "public use". Remember that even a park is "public use". A public parking garage is "public use". There was a thin line that hadn't been crossed before Kelo, but it was there.

In addition, I think courts should be forced to calculate market price as the maximum of what the parcel of land is currently worth and what the developer claimed in his application to the city what it was worth.

[Protagoras]

I don't want to sell at any price for any reason no matter what. If the property is going to anyone other than the government under the former correct interpretation of eminent domain, I don't have to sell.

You aren't against the Kelo decision, please do not pretend you are.

[mewzilla]

Which party, by and large, runs the District....?

[sandbar]

>>>Sounds like they were offering reasonable deals.

So you should be FORCED to give up property you OWN as long as they offer you something REASONABLE??

We aren't talking a road, or even a hospital, we are talking a BALL FIELD.

[sandbar]

>>>Sounds like they were offering reasonable deals.

So you should be FORCED to give up property you OWN as long as they offer you something REASONABLE??

We aren't talking a road, or even a hospital, we are talking a BALL FIELD.

[Protagoras]

The frog is cooked. Property rights are dead. Not a whimper from Republicans. The President is out to lunch.

Now, people who claim to oppose the judgement are apologising for it and trying to make accomodations, as if the genie could go back in the bottle.

There will be a war in this country, and it won't be against some 9th century camel humpers.

This decision is probably the tipping point although it may take some time for the sheep to understand they have been shorn. I hope I'm not alive to see the bloodshed which is certainly coming at some point.

[jackbenimble]

The site is 21 acres, and that suggests that the property was valued, on average, at nearly $5 million per acre.

You are making it sound like raw land without improvements. I don't know this area but you can put a hefty apartment building on an acre and $5 million for such a building might be a gross undervaluation. At today's real estate prices it does not take much of a building to be worth $5 million. Particularly on the waterfront.

And a lot of this money sounds like it is intended for the relocation of occupants who may or may not be the owners. If tenants get a bunch of this money for relocation costs then the owners will obviously be getting less.