A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I understand what you're suggesting, but not why.* Do you think it should have been unconstitutional for the federal government to take land by eminent domain to give the railroads? Private business, but the public benefits are clear. OK to build a freeway, but what if it's a toll road owned by an authority with private bondholders?

* eta: I take it back: I'm not sure what you're suggesting. How do you decide what's appropriate?

The public benefit in this case (i.e., marginal increase in tax revenues) is too remote in this case for my tastes. The public benefit should be direct, and not simply a proxy for a tax increase.

I'm not familiar with the RR cases. Did the RR actually own the land or did it just get a easement? I think it makes a major difference.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The public benefit in this case (i.e., marginal increase in tax revenues) is too remote in this case for my tastes. The public benefit should be direct, and not simply a proxy for a tax increase.

I'm not familiar with the RR cases. Did the RR actually own the land or did it just get a easement? I think it makes a major difference.

C'mon, there's a clear public benefit to urban development. [ASIDE]I can't believe I'm having this conversation with a conservative.[/ASIDE]

On the railroad cases, I think the railroads got the land, but what difference does it make? If you lay down RR track, you can't build a firehouse on top of it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
C'mon, there's a clear public benefit to urban development. [ASIDE]I can't believe I'm having this conversation with a conservative.[/ASIDE]

But does that benefit outweight the taking? New condos substituted for old homes does not IMHO.

On the railroad cases, I think the railroads got the land, but what difference does it make? If you lay down RR track, you can't build a firehouse on top of it.

Don't get me wrong, I think a RR, much like a freeway, is in the public interest, but it strikes me as different if the land that is the subject of the taking is not owned by the government - it then starts to look like redistribution or a micromanaged econmony.

[megaloman]

Originally posted by sgtclub

I'm not familiar with the RR cases. .

Fuck the RR cases, the case we need to take note of is the USSR case. In it, the USSR took all of the private property of the people for the good of all under the name of marxist-socialist-communism. The Court's decision in the present case will decide if we are still a nation of free peoples with property rights or if we are embarking down the slippery slope to the depths of socialistic oppression and the tyranny that our Founding Fathers died for.

Where amongst us is a modern day Patrick Henry with a ready to fire musket at his side?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by megaloman
The Court's decision in the present case will decide if we are still a nation of free peoples with property rights or if we are embarking down the slippery slope to the depths of socialistic oppression and the tyranny that our Founding Fathers died for.

Our Founding Fathers died for tyranny?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But does that benefit outweight the taking? New condos substituted for old homes does not IMHO.

Does it "outweigh" what? The property owners must be compensated, so it only happens if someone in charge thinks the redeveloped land is worth more.

And new condos are usually worth more than old homes. You may like slums and urban blight, but most people like to see money spent to develop cities.

Don't get me wrong, I think a RR, much like a freeway, is in the public interest, but it strikes me as different if the land that is the subject of the taking is not owned by the government - it then starts to look like redistribution or a micromanaged econmony.

I think you'll find that railroads were given huge tracts of land, but I don't know.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop



I think you'll find that railroads were given huge tracts of land, but I don't know.

The railroads were given the land. And lots of it. Not just a thin strip of land but huge tracts surrounding the RR. The taking of the land does not really bother me as long as the people are compensated. What bothers me is when the land is taken for the public good but the government does not acknowledge it has actually taken the land. LIke when a puddle forms in your back yard and the government decides you live on a wet land and therefore cannot develop. You still own title but the government has really taken your land for the public good without compensation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The railroads were given the land. And lots of it. Not just a thin strip of land but huge tracts surrounding the RR. The taking of the land does not really bother me as long as the people are compensated. What bothers me is when the land is taken for the public good but the government does not acknowledge it has actually taken the land. LIke when a puddle forms in your back yard and the government decides you live on a wet land and therefore cannot develop. You still own title but the government has really taken your land for the public good without compensation.

You start with a baseline assumption that you should be able to do whatever the hell you want with your own land. But that's never been the law. Paving over wetlands hurts other people, because of the particular value of wetlands for wildlife, etc. At common law, nuisance law limited how you could use your own land to harm others. In this century, as the common law couldn't keep pace with technological and scientific advancement (e.g., we trust EPA scientists to assess the harm of certain chemicals more than we would trust elected state court judges), these lines have been drawn by government agencies instead of courts, but the principle is the same.

And the whole "puddle forming" hypothetical is a little bit out there. You've been hanging with the Republican doctors a little too much.

[megaloman]

Originally posted by Spanky
What bothers me is when the land is taken for the public good but the government does not acknowledge it has actually taken the land.

You should talk to your friends in Europe and Asia, maybe they can explain to you the virtues of socialism.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by megaloman
Fuck the RR cases, the case we need to take note of is the USSR case. In it, the USSR took all of the private property of the people for the good of all under the name of marxist-socialist-communism. The Court's decision in the present case will decide if we are still a nation of free peoples with property rights or if we are embarking down the slippery slope to the depths of socialistic oppression and the tyranny that our Founding Fathers died for.

Where amongst us is a modern day Patrick Henry with a ready to fire musket at his side?

Slave?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Does it "outweigh" what? The property owners must be compensated, so it only happens if someone in charge thinks the redeveloped land is worth more.

Does the public benefit outweight the harm to the takees. The compensation need only be just relative to the value of the property, but it need not account for relocation costs and emotional harm. Shit, you were the one on here a few weeks ago saying that people don't move in CA because they can't replace what they've already got.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Does the public benefit outweight the harm to the takees. The compensation need only be just relative to the value of the property, but it need not account for relocation costs and emotional harm. Shit, you were the one on here a few weeks ago saying that people don't move in CA because they can't replace what they've already got.

OK, now I think you're with me on principle. I think the compensation to the takees should be fair, and that can be a generous "fair." E.g., if you're tearing down houses to build new houses, and the takees won't be able to afford anything in town at the market value of their new houses, then I think they should enough $$$ to afford something in town. Don't make them move. And, sure, compensate for relocation costs, etc. Go nuts. But I don't want to decide whether any of this rises to the level of constitutional principle. If I'm in charge, I legislate all this.

If the government is willing to incur these costs, and wants to seize the property by eminent domain to do some urban renewal, why not?

[megaloman]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Slave?

If that is true, then it is a start, but I would suggest he put down his musket and get something a little bit more substantial. I got my sister a Bersa Thunder .380 for Christmas. Or he could step up to the lastest addition to my arsenal, a Springfield 9mm. It was named the 2004 Gun of the Year by the NRA.

That's all the response I need to eminent domain.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Does the public benefit outweight the harm to the takees. The compensation need only be just relative to the value of the property, but it need not account for relocation costs and emotional harm. Shit, you were the one on here a few weeks ago saying that people don't move in CA because they can't replace what they've already got.

Why don't you find this argument for compensation appropriate when it comes to free trade? Free trade with a country that has a lower standard of living bids down the price of labor and depresses wage. Why don't you want full and fair compensation to the workers getting shafted?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, now I think you're with me on principle. I think the compensation to the takees should be fair, and that can be a generous "fair." E.g., if you're tearing down houses to build new houses, and the takees won't be able to afford anything in town at the market value of their new houses, then I think they should enough $$$ to afford something in town. Don't make them move. And, sure, compensate for relocation costs, etc. Go nuts. But I don't want to decide whether any of this rises to the level of constitutional principle. If I'm in charge, I legislate all this.

If the government is willing to incur these costs, and wants to seize the property by eminent domain to do some urban renewal, why not?

I'm with you on the principle that the compensation should be fair, and certainly better than FMV. But I don't think I'm with you that eminent domain in this case should be upheld because, given how attenuated I view the public benefit, I think it completely eviserates any notice of real (i.e., legitimate) property rights.