4 ms·

Eminent domain is not theft. You are compensated at market value for your loss. The market value is not whatever you decide to hold up billion dollar government

by yardie 9y ago

Eminent domain is not theft. You are compensated at market value for your loss. The market value is not whatever you decide to hold up billion dollar government works. Eminent domain is government theft in the same way the hot coffee lawsuit was legalized grift.

wernercd 9y ago
That ignores honest situations where ED IS theft and Hot Coffee IS grift. Random examples: http://mentalfloss.com/article/63514/7-maddening-examples-eminent-domain http://mentalfloss.com/article/63514/7-maddening-examples-em... There are examples of good uses of ED... but to say "ED isn't theft" ignores plenty of examples of corruption or incompetence.
- addicted 9y ago
  Actually, to say Eminent Domain = Theft misleads because it implies all uses of it are theft which even you agree is not the case. If we did, however, use that logic, then one could say Startup = Scam, because Theranos.
  - jjawssd 9y ago
    > If we did, however, use that logic, then one could say Startup = Scam, because Theranos. And there are many more examples even though it is obvious that startups are generally not scams.
sokoloff 9y ago
The only eminent domain case that I'm familiar with was not compensated at anywhere near fair market value. Yes, a check was cut, but at a small fraction of what it would take to make the seller a "willing seller".
- yardie 9y ago
  The most recent eminent domain case I'm familiar with was the school board wanted to build a new elementary school. They managed to get 90% of the lot except 1 owner. Everyone else was fairly compensated except he wanted 10x market rate because why not. This guy assumed taxpayers had unlimited amounts of money to pay his price. And this is when cases of eminent domain are usually invoked. The road you travel to work on, the school you went to, the park you play in if you ask enough questions you'll find out someone was an unwilling seller when it came to building it.
  - brewdad 9y ago
    Where I've seen eminent domain fall down most often comes when you consider the lost value to property owners "just outside" the development zone. Say you own the house right next to the new school being built. Your home may well lose value due to the increased traffic and noise but you won't see a penny in compensation in most cases.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 9y ago
      That has nothing to do with Eminent Domain. The same thing would be true if the owner of the land willingly sold it for a song.
leggomylibro 9y ago
Yeah, I was being facetious - I'm not totally against the idea, although I don't know how it might actually work in practice. Rights of the individual are all good and well, but they only work when we collectively agree not to be complete and utter assholes to each other for personal gain. That's sort of the whole point of laws and regulations, right? Not to further the interest of whatever special interest group has captured the regulatory agency. Like, I expect people not to butt into my personal business for no good reason, but I recognize that that expectation is predicated on me not unreasonably intruding on other peoples' affairs.

by yardie 9y ago

wernercd 9y ago

That ignores honest situations where ED IS theft and Hot Coffee IS grift. Random examples: http://mentalfloss.com/article/63514/7-maddening-examples-eminent-domain http://mentalfloss.com/article/63514/7-maddening-examples-em... There are examples of good uses of ED... but to say "ED isn't theft" ignores plenty of examples of corruption or incompetence.

addicted 9y ago
Actually, to say Eminent Domain = Theft misleads because it implies all uses of it are theft which even you agree is not the case. If we did, however, use that logic, then one could say Startup = Scam, because Theranos.
- jjawssd 9y ago
  > If we did, however, use that logic, then one could say Startup = Scam, because Theranos. And there are many more examples even though it is obvious that startups are generally not scams.

sokoloff 9y ago

The only eminent domain case that I'm familiar with was not compensated at anywhere near fair market value. Yes, a check was cut, but at a small fraction of what it would take to make the seller a "willing seller".

yardie 9y ago
The most recent eminent domain case I'm familiar with was the school board wanted to build a new elementary school. They managed to get 90% of the lot except 1 owner. Everyone else was fairly compensated except he wanted 10x market rate because why not. This guy assumed taxpayers had unlimited amounts of money to pay his price. And this is when cases of eminent domain are usually invoked. The road you travel to work on, the school you went to, the park you play in if you ask enough questions you'll find out someone was an unwilling seller when it came to building it.
- brewdad 9y ago
  Where I've seen eminent domain fall down most often comes when you consider the lost value to property owners "just outside" the development zone. Say you own the house right next to the new school being built. Your home may well lose value due to the increased traffic and noise but you won't see a penny in compensation in most cases.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 9y ago
    That has nothing to do with Eminent Domain. The same thing would be true if the owner of the land willingly sold it for a song.

leggomylibro 9y ago

Yeah, I was being facetious - I'm not totally against the idea, although I don't know how it might actually work in practice. Rights of the individual are all good and well, but they only work when we collectively agree not to be complete and utter assholes to each other for personal gain. That's sort of the whole point of laws and regulations, right? Not to further the interest of whatever special interest group has captured the regulatory agency. Like, I expect people not to butt into my personal business for no good reason, but I recognize that that expectation is predicated on me not unreasonably intruding on other peoples' affairs.