"Eminent Domain" compromise?

[welshTerrier2]

most DU'ers, by my assessment, hated yesterday's SC ruling on "eminent domain" ... one thing's for sure, the decision will be politically unpopular whether it's a good decision or not ...

i've thus far supported the decision although i think there have been some excellent arguments made on both sides ... fwiw, i'm in the process of rethinking my position but haven't come to any conclusions yet ...

the Fifth Amendment, as it relates to eminent domain (ED) seizures, talks not only about "public use" but also about "just compensation" ... historically, that has meant that you check out similar properties in the area that have recently been sold and use that as a guideline to set the price ...

but is that really "just" compensation? in an ED seizure, homeowners are giving up more than the value of their homes ... they are giving up their right to choose whether to remain in their homes or leave ... what value is included in "just compensation" to recognize that?

assuming, for the moment, that you are stuck with the ED ruling of the Court (whether you agree with it or not), please comment on the following proposal ...

Situation One: an ED seizure occurs on property that will be subsequently owned by the government and used for such purposes as roads, schools (public), libraries, parks, etc ...

The "just compensation" clause should be replaced by: "fair market value plus an additional 33 and 1/3 percent of fair market value".

Situation Two: an ED seizure occurs on property that will be subsequently owned by private parties and used for such purposes that a duly elected government believes is in the best interests of the community ...

The "just compensation" clause should be replaced by: "fair market value plus an additional 66 and 2/3 percent of fair market value".

I understand that many disagree completely with the idea that there should ever be an ED seizure that results in private ownership ... but that's not the question i'm asking here.

Comments??

[wtmusic]

1. No ED except for three uses:

Transportation
Utilites
Government structures or uses

each with a strict necessity requirement.

[whistle]

2. Sorry, it is still unjust, fair market value is what the market will pay

...not what some government bureaucrat and a bunch of crooked developers and bankers tell you it's worth. Once "Eminent Domain" is applied the property owner has no recourse but to turn the property over for the compensation amount offered. Fighting this in court has always been expensive and often a loosing proposition. Now with the SCOTUS ruling, there is no apparent recourse.

It will be great for clearing out neglected slum areas I suppose. All other situations where I can envision this being applied pretty much fall into the realm of government confiscation of property and land for special interests who can set the price and influence bureaucrats to move in and steal your property at bargain basement prices.

The question I have is why are republicans so up in arms over this? This kind of government and special interest larceny is right up their alley.

[fryguy]

3. here's a better idea

if the gov't is going to be taking land and giving it to private development under the guise that it is a "public use" (which i am wholly against), then just compensation should include not only the fair market value of the land but also a continuing percentage of the profits realized by the private developer (or their successor in interest) for the natural life of the person who's property interest has been taken.

[Ron Mexico]

4. Too late. In a dream world, the price would be

twice what your home is "worth" at tax time, with no taxes on any proceeds in forced eminent domain sales. That would at least make up for moving expense and lost time at work.

However, make no mistake: "fair and just compensation" is whatever the hell the government wants to pay you, and not one fucking cent more. Think about it: the whole thing is to increase tax revenues, so why would the government be fair with you while it was fucking you over? Do you really think any government will tie its hands by passing legislation to be fair to homeonwers?

I still can't grasp the idea of anyone approving of the USSC decision.

[wtmusic]

5. "why would the government be fair with you while it was fucking you over?"

Exactly. Good one.