Baby Pants Classic "NUK 6" baby pink adult pacifier
Posted on 02/09/2016 2:32:45 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Memo to The Donald: There are ways to acquire property without using government force.
"Eminent domain is an absolute necessity," said Donald Trump during Saturday's Republican presidential debate. "Without it," he claimed, "you wouldn't have roads, you wouldn't have hospitals, you wouldn't have anything. You wouldn't have schools, you wouldn't have bridges. You need eminent domain." In fact, though, we would still have roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals.
It's a relatively new phenomenon for the government to seize property on behalf of private development projects. And yet, so very many of these projects somehow used to get done. Only one thing is certain when it comes to eminent domain: Those who have their property seized don't get paid enough for it.
Admittedly, trying to clear out all the homes from a certain area can be a seemingly insurmountable challenge. But there are free-market solutions.
Suppose that Trump wants to build a skyscraper and has to tear down the houses on an entire block. The obvious approach is to buy everyone's house, but this doesn't always work. Because of sentimental attachment, some homeowners will refuse even offers that far exceed the fair market value.
Other homeowners might act strategically, refusing early offers in the hopes of enticing much higher bids. This presents a complex problem, for a single holdout could stop the project in its tracks. Eminent domain seeks to solve this problem by forcing owners to accept a "fair market value" price. The government determines this price by seeing how much similar houses in the neighborhood have sold for. If the homeowner refuses, the government can pay this price anyway and seize the property.
RELATED: Kelo v. City of New London Ten Years Later
Until 2005, eminent domain was usually invoked only for government projects such as highways and railroads. But in that year, the U.S. Supreme Court decreed, in Kelo v. New London, that eminent domain can be enforced for private development projects. So long as local authorities believe that the project will benefit the wider community, there is no problem.
Unfortunately, the "fair market value" price is typically too low. If people only valued their homes at the market price, they would have already sold them before receiving the developer's offer. The fact that they haven't means that they value their abodes more than what is being offered on the free market. The real difficulty lies in figuring out how much more. If the government takes the property of someone who values the property more than does the person who is getting it, society is poorer.
Fortunately, there is a solution - one that businesses used for years before they gained access to eminent domain. Whether they seek to build a pipeline, a road, or a building, companies almost always consider multiple possible locations. For decades, Koch Industries, the largest privately owned company in the United States, built natural-gas and oil pipelines, just like the Keystone Pipeline, across many thousands of miles without using eminent domain.
Their approach was to offer a contract to property owners along different possible routes; the deal would go to whichever complete set of property owners signed the contract first. The owners might be offered, for example, 25 percent above the fair market value. If they value their property more than that, they don't have to sell. But the Kochs' approach discourages people from indefinitely holding out for better offers. If the homeowners wait, they risk losing this 25 percent profit. This is clearly a better alternative to forced sales at prices that, in reality, are anything but "fair."
Trump's claim that "The Keystone Pipeline, without eminent domain, it wouldn't go ten feet" is just wrong. Nor was Jeb Bush right that eminent domain is necessary for the government, which faces the same alternatives.
During the Saturday debate, Trump was asked about his attempt to seize the house of an elderly woman in Atlantic City, N.J., because he wanted a place to park limousines for his casino.
Trump claimed: "The woman ultimately didn't want to do that. I walked away." In fact, Trump didn't simply accept the woman's decision not to sell him her property. Trump neglected to mention that the Superior Court of New Jersey upheld the woman's right to keep her home.
Once again, the Atlantic City case raises the important point that there are almost always different places that a parking lot or a building or a pipeline can be built.
Trump should follow the Kochs' example. For that matter, the government itself would be well advised to use this market-based approach.
John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of Freedomnomics (2007).
Maybe these would suit you better:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3394682/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3394702/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3394691/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3394690/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3394684/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3394508/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3394326/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3394272/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3394116/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3393958/posts
There. Fixed it.
That's not exactly true. I own two cars in two different states. I'm not allowed to have them insured together. One contributing factor is the possibility that the rates are different in the two locations. This gives the insurance company the incentive to make sure I'm paying the proper rate for the location of the car. The other, though, are the state requirements. I'm required by each state to license the car in the state it is located. I'm then required by each state to insure the car in the state for which it has plates.
It is, but a key part of it is “for public use.” There is no mention of taking it for private use.
Rehash of rehashed hash.
Caution: It’s not advisable to let others do your thinking for you.
Information is your friend.
I understand Trump’s attractiveness as a candidate to those of us who are mad as hell and we aren’t going to take it anymore. He’s taken on the political establishment and crashed barriers that they have erected to keep interlopers out.
What I find disturbing, but no longer shocking, is the willingness of people on a conservative blog to defend Trump’s unconservative positions and actions.
On eminent domain, he attempted to use it, and was defeated. We have had four local attempts at eminent domain, and fought off two of them, and failed in the other two. It is my opinion that eminent domain is to be used only when there is a compelling public purpose.
Two local cases, (York, PA) involved attempts to use eminent domain to expand the hospital and the local college into a historical neighborhood, in which some pretty affluent people lived, although not as affluent as the old money interests pushing for the eminent domain.
The neighborhood has a well organized neighborhood association that successfully fought off the seizure of their neighborhood.
The next one involved the construction of a baseball stadium. After several attempts they finally decided on a location, where there were homes and busnesses. we successfully stopped the local governments from funding or guaranteeing the project, but the state agreed to fund half of the cost. One of the businesses had been persuaded to locate there by the city, and then found the city attempting, successfully, to take its property for the stadium, not a compelling public purpose.
Then there was High Point, an issue that cost two county commissioners their jobs because of the voters’ commitment to justice.
High Point was a part of the bankrupt Lauxmont Farms, and a developer purchased it from the bankrupt estate because it has the best views of the Susquehanna River in the county. he jumped through the township hoops got permission, and was ready to build homes for sale. A local organization supposed dedicated to agricultural preservation talked two of the three county commissioners into taking the land using eminent domain to create another county park that nobody ever uses.
The developer sued and won a huge settlement, paid for by the taxpayers of the county.
I may vote for Trump, if he is the GOP candidate, but I will never defend the use of eminent domain where there is no compelling public purpose.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Baby Pants Classic "NUK 6" baby pink adult pacifier
Ridiculous debate. E.d. is here to stay. Move on.
Whatever. Make yourself useful and “like” Jeb Bush, just for maybe an hour or two, maybe you can force that moron out of the race.
: )
Have a nice day. ;)
Make it a good day!
Ha! Ha! Ha! Got plenty of those,eh? You are gonna need to pass them out to your peeps after today! Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
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.