General Discussion

TheBlackAdder

(28,262 posts)

39. ED has been abused time and again for "Public Good." Many times "Public Good" is bullshit!

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 03:04 AM

Feb 2016

.

Sure there are times when capital projects need to be done, but the pipeline for KXL use ED to steal property.

I posted below a pizza parlor stealing a guys property in NJ to build a parking lot. It was justified as 'public good' because it took cars off of the street. The property owner was years before the pizza parlor was built.

There are cases all over the place of Public Good being perverted by those in power or those with influence.

.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

45 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you support eminent domain? [View all] Renew Deal Feb 2016 OP

No way. leftofcool Feb 2016 #1

when the Texas Rangers used it to build a stadium, I fully understood the potential for abuse. virtualobserver Feb 2016 #4

And therein lies the problem. leftofcool Feb 2016 #7

The current Rangers Ballpark was built on a parking lot tammywammy Feb 2016 #29

they seized 13 acres through eminent domain for the stadium complex virtualobserver Feb 2016 #33

No, just that I had forgotten. tammywammy Feb 2016 #34

I believe George W. Bush was involved in that sleazy deal hibbing Feb 2016 #30

ED has been abused time and again for "Public Good." Many times "Public Good" is bullshit! TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #39

I do. Agschmid Feb 2016 #2

"for public use" - does that include making you sell it so they can build a Walmart store? n/t PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #3

No. Public use is a park, hospital, train tracks, road, etc. Renew Deal Feb 2016 #5

Ok so you are positing a more restricted version of eminent domain than that allowed... PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #10

That right there is the case that changed my mind entirely. dorkzilla Feb 2016 #13

Public use can also be a pipeline womanofthehills Feb 2016 #40

A private NJ pizza shop EDed someone's backyard for off-street parking, seen as "Public Good" TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #41

It was never meant to be that way Warpy Feb 2016 #18

Exactly. HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #27

I voted yes HassleCat Feb 2016 #6

If I recall correctly, in the SC case from Connecticut related to this, the progressive justices hughee99 Feb 2016 #12

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)... PoliticAverse Feb 2016 #14

The question that raises for me HassleCat Feb 2016 #17

I think they thought of this as the government helping the little guy? hughee99 Feb 2016 #19

Yes, it can get subtle HassleCat Feb 2016 #20

NOT in any way Old Codger Feb 2016 #8

For public use and public ownership. rug Feb 2016 #9

Public use: yes. Nye Bevan Feb 2016 #11

That is a wonderful idea - the idea that the persons so dispossessed would get a share in Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #24

Yes, for public works, even though it cost my grandmother her house Retrograde Feb 2016 #15

No. metroins Feb 2016 #16

If I am fairly compensated for property I am not intensly attatched to, and for the public good - Kali Feb 2016 #21

Public only! THis does NOT include "expanding the tax base" annabanana Feb 2016 #22

In NJ, a Pizza Shop EDed a neighbor's backyard for a parking lot. Reason, move cars off the street! TheBlackAdder Feb 2016 #38

I do support eminent domain for public use for public purposes. Yo_Mama Feb 2016 #23

I guess it makes me sort of right-wing-ish, but no, I don't support the concept. begin_within Feb 2016 #25

Yes, if they are paid equal to or more than market value and the purpose is for urban renewal. ErikJ Feb 2016 #26

It's in the constitution. Until it is amended. . .gotta support the constitution. Feeling the Bern Feb 2016 #28

In the Kelo case... HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #31

I voted to pass on the existing options because my response is merrily Feb 2016 #32

You are absolutely right. They must be fairly compensated, and go through due process as you stated still_one Feb 2016 #35

And as long as the state doesn't mess with 'fair value' by saying the property is devalued.. X_Digger Feb 2016 #36

Of course. A truly fair value and a bonus for using the power of the state to force a sale. merrily Feb 2016 #37

thank you for taking the time hopemountain Feb 2016 #42

I did address that kind of thing in my response, but I know it's merrily Feb 2016 #43

And there's no way anyone would get "fair market value" here. EllieBC Feb 2016 #45

Freeways and such... not for developers Liberal_in_LA Feb 2016 #44