6 ms·

This article uses language which far overstates the case, and ignores many facts. For instance, it claims that the government is "seizing" the land, which indic

by lambda 16y ago

This article uses language which far overstates the case, and ignores many facts. For instance, it claims that the government is "seizing" the land, which indicates taking property without compensation; eminent domain, however, requires paying fair market value for any land taken (it's basically just an offer to buy your land that you can't refuse). The article uses incorrect terminology ("public domain" when "eminent domain" is meant, though it uses the correct term later). The article sets up strawmen, like the politicians who denounce property rights, without ever quoting any politicians as actually denouncing property rights. The article tries to position Columbia University as a big bad meanie, only catering to the rich and wealthy; while Columbia is a large institution with considerable resources, it is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and while it does have many rich and well connected students, it also provides need-based scholarships so that anyone who gets in will be able to afford it regardless of their financial status. For many less well-off students, top tier and Ivy-league schools can be more affordable than lower tier or state schools, as there is much more need-based financial aid available. Now, I disagree strongly with eminent domain being used to buy land and resell it to private for-profit developers. For an educational non-profit like Columbia, it's more of a grey zone. Using language like "seize" and implying that Columbia is a big rich bully doesn't really help to clarify this situation.

meterplech 16y ago
Why- Columbia is a big rich bully in this situation. Sure, they are a non-profit, but they have a 6.5 Billion dollar endowment that they are using to lawyer up and kick people out of their land. And, the article is right to note that the people who mostly benefit from this are the mostly affluent students and professors at Columbia. Yes, they are paying them "fair value," how would you feel if someone supposedly wanted to use your startup/company/car and decided took it while giving you an amount they determine as appropriate? This is a slippery slope that shouldn't be encouraged.
- nostromo 16y ago
  I have to disagree. My own sense is that it has become impossible for the US to complete publicly-beneficial projects anymore. You see it in many cities that want high-speed rail or simple public transit. These projects have become unaffordable. Why? Not because of the labor or materials cost, but because every piece of land needed for such a project will require a protracted legal battle spanning many years in order to squeeze money from the government and determine a "fair value" that in the end is usually very inflated. I think the US could find itself in a very sorry situation if we remain paralyzed when it comes to building publicly beneficial infrastructure. Meanwhile China (who I am loathe to imitate) is building itself into the 21st century overnight, while we litigate for years (or decades) over the abandoned lot or corner gas-station that was in the way of something that provides much more value to the public.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Columbia has apparently purchased the overwhelming majority of the land needed for this project on the private market. They didn't simply decide to "lawyer up and kick people out of their land" (also, for what it's worth, the "land" in question was a largely abandoned warehouse district). The appeal to personal feelings is also misguided. How would I feel if the State of Illinois decided that a new light rail project should run right through my house? Very, very bad! Burn the witches! But that's a textbook case of eminent domain, not an abuse; the only way to argue against it is to enter into a very unproductive argument about whether all eminent domain claims are abusive. I disagree with Columbia in this case; the doctrine that says eminent domain comes into play simply because the benificiary can make the property more productive is unsettling. But it's still incumbent on us to make valid arguments.
anamax 16y ago
> requires paying fair market value for any land taken "fair market value" in this case does not mean "what the seller would take". It means "what the buyer thinks that the seller should take". The seller will argue that a gas station isn't worth much, that a house in that area isn't worth much, etc. However, that land is clearly worth a lot more to the seller, so I'd argue that the "fair market value" is the value to the seller. > anyone who gets in will be able to afford it regardless of their financial status. "anyone who gets in" isn't "anyone" - it's folks selected by Columbia, which is a small fraction of "anyone". For example, that "anyone" doesn't include significant numbers of folks from that neighborhood. You know, the folks who are being displaced....
javert 16y ago
> This article uses language which far overstates the case, and ignores many facts. I beg to differ. > (it's basically just an offer to buy your land that you can't refuse). That's more akin to seizing than not. > The article sets up strawmen, like the politicians who denounce property rights, without ever quoting any politicians as actually denouncing property rights. You can't be serious. What about the politicians that want higher taxes? That's a violation of property rights. What about the bailout? What about net neutrality? What about the "socialist" Bernie Sanders? The problem with this particular case, as with the ones that I just mentioned, is that they are premised on the idea that it's OK to sacrifice somebody for the good of "society" (i.e., someone else). Frankly, human sacrifice is barbaric.
- person_b 16y ago
  Big Rand fan? I love it. :)
  - javert 16y ago
    Yeah. But since many people don't realize it, I'd like to point out that the vast majority of Rand's work--and her most important work--is fundamentally not about politics.
BrandonM 16y ago
> eminent domain, however, requires paying fair market value for any land taken (it's basically just an offer to buy your land that you can't refuse) If it's "fair market value," then why do they need to exercise eminent domain in order to force the sale? I don't see how this can ever be considered OK. If you want to buy someone's land and they won't sell it, you offer them more. You get creative and offer to help them relocate their business. How do you determine "fair market value," anyways? The land and the building on it might be worth like $800,000 according to a property appraiser, but that completely ignores the value of the business. They're going to have to get new property elsewhere and build similar facilities; this will almost certainly cost more than their existing property is worth. So you're forcing a business to eat the cost of relocating, and they're losing revenue during the relocation, and this is fair how? You can't make people do anything, you can only give them incentive to do what you'd like them to do. In a fair system, that incentive is a compensation package that works for both parties. It's not getting the government on your side to use force as the incentive. And if the person is irrational and refuses to sell their land at any price, you freaking change your plans. I don't understand why we should accept the idea that certain people have more rights to property ownership than others, for no other reason but money and clout. Although the article wasn't the most well-written, I think it did a good job of conveying that idea.
- ekidd 16y ago
  If it's "fair market value," then why do they need to exercise eminent domain in order to force the sale? I don't see how this can ever be considered OK. In the U.S., this is specifically discussed in the fifth amendment to the Constitution: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. This suggests that government may choose to take private property for public use so long as the compensation is "just". Note that "just" may not be the price that you want the government to pay, but it might instead be based on some other theory of justice, such as the current market value for similar property. Now, not everything allowed for by the Constitution is morally desirable. (Recall the "3/5ths of a person" compromise.) But the U.S. government does have a defensible rationale for eminent domain; our ancestors agreed to the Constitution, and we haven't ever amended that part of it. However, the Constitution also says "public use." I'm always very leery when there are private actors involved, not the least because there's a huge incentive to corrupt the government.
firemanx 16y ago
Considering that value is an abstract concept - ie, ultimately (in usual business dealings), its determined by how I "vote" with my dollars and not some empirical physical rule, I think the concept of "fair market value" in the case of eminent domain is a complete sham, much like property taxes based on fair market value. If I haven't made any monetary choices and someone else has decided those choices for me, there is no value whatsoever. Not that it really matters in the scope of the legal world, it's more of a philosophical argument, but its something thats constantly pissed me off about eminent domain, easements and property taxes.
tcskeptic 16y ago
A couple of points: The term seizing implies the use of force, not necessarily the absence of compensation. When you have no choice but to sell, seizing is indeed the appropriate term. I'm not educated in the law, so I cannot speak with authority to your assertion about the incorrect use of the term "public-domain". However, given that the term is in quotes and the the author is Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee, my guess is that the term has a historical context of which I am unaware. Just because Columbia serves many "less well-off" students, or is a 501(c)(3) non-profit does not mean that Columbia is not the big bad meanie in this case. They are an enourmously powerful and influential institution. Using this legal power to seize (And I use this term advisedly) a small business owners property makes them a bully in my book. There is probably a price at which he would sell willingly, Columbia almost certainly has the resources to pay that price, they are using the power of this law to twist his property out of his hand backed by the power of the state, this in order to further their "Vision". That is wrong.
patio11 16y ago
it's basically just an offer to buy your land that you can't refuse That is a seizure, full-stop. Imagine if Microsoft or Oracle decided to get into the bingo business and convinced the state of Illinois that the public would be best served by them running BCC rather than me. Fair market value for BCC is almost certainly south of $50k, based on sales of other websites, revenue multiples, and the like. I have no desire to sell BCC for anything close to that number: I have plans for the future, get psychic enjoyment out of it, etc etc. Tough to be me, though, if someone with deep pockets convinces the government to pretend they have constitutional authority to be an M&A team with guns.
- tptacek 16y ago
  It is not reasonable to compare the "fair market value" of a small business with the fair market value of Manhattan real estate, which is far more liquid and easily valued.
  - Dilpil 16y ago
    The real estate is part of the business. A large part of the value of the business comes from customers knowing that those businesses were where they were. By stealing the land, Columbia is stealing the business as well.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      I don't really understand this point, but I don't think I need to. It is objectively true that some assets are more liquid and easier to value than others; one of the hardest assets to value is a going business concern, and one of the easier assets to value is Manhattan real estate. Similarly, a (fictitious and nonsensical) eminent domain claim on a portfolio of treasury bills would be inherently fairer than a (fictitious and only slightly less nonsensical) eminent domain claim on Bingo Card Creator; the holder of the bills can easily calculate the fair value of his assets, and Patrick can't. On a spectrum running: <-- small business --------------------- treasuries --> where is a gas station in Manhattan? It's not right next to Bingo Card Creator.
tptacek 16y ago
As has been pointed out by many people, while Columbia is to a large extend a social club for extremely privileged young people, the extensions being built are largely intended to support research work, the output of which is a public good. Apparently, Columbia's research facilities are genuinely and alarmingly overcrowded. It is misleading to suggest that Columbia is arranging to have private property seized simply for the benefit of those wealthy enough to attend Columbia. I'm opposed to the underlying doctrine of eminent domain that suggests that land can be seized if the parties who it will be granted to can make better overall economic use of it, and thus I suppose "opposed" to this instance of eminent domain, but it's still important to have the facts straight.
duffbeer703 16y ago
You don't have the context to understand the anger held by many of Columbia University's neighbors towards the university. Columbia U has a long history of being a bad neighbor and bad citizen, including being both directly and indirectly one of the larger slumlords in Northern Manhattan, and pushing down the property values of neighboring property through active neglect. They also timed the use of political weapons like eminent domain to acquire properties at the worst possible time instead of using the free market. 2010 is the worst possible market to sell property for an operator of a self-storage business, and eminent domain almost always results in a below market payments to property owners with significant delays -- and ruined businesses. Who is going to rent storage space from someone whose property is about to be seized?

by lambda 16y ago

meterplech 16y ago

Why- Columbia is a big rich bully in this situation. Sure, they are a non-profit, but they have a 6.5 Billion dollar endowment that they are using to lawyer up and kick people out of their land. And, the article is right to note that the people who mostly benefit from this are the mostly affluent students and professors at Columbia. Yes, they are paying them "fair value," how would you feel if someone supposedly wanted to use your startup/company/car and decided took it while giving you an amount they determine as appropriate? This is a slippery slope that shouldn't be encouraged.

nostromo 16y ago
I have to disagree. My own sense is that it has become impossible for the US to complete publicly-beneficial projects anymore. You see it in many cities that want high-speed rail or simple public transit. These projects have become unaffordable. Why? Not because of the labor or materials cost, but because every piece of land needed for such a project will require a protracted legal battle spanning many years in order to squeeze money from the government and determine a "fair value" that in the end is usually very inflated. I think the US could find itself in a very sorry situation if we remain paralyzed when it comes to building publicly beneficial infrastructure. Meanwhile China (who I am loathe to imitate) is building itself into the 21st century overnight, while we litigate for years (or decades) over the abandoned lot or corner gas-station that was in the way of something that provides much more value to the public.
tptacek 16y ago
Columbia has apparently purchased the overwhelming majority of the land needed for this project on the private market. They didn't simply decide to "lawyer up and kick people out of their land" (also, for what it's worth, the "land" in question was a largely abandoned warehouse district). The appeal to personal feelings is also misguided. How would I feel if the State of Illinois decided that a new light rail project should run right through my house? Very, very bad! Burn the witches! But that's a textbook case of eminent domain, not an abuse; the only way to argue against it is to enter into a very unproductive argument about whether all eminent domain claims are abusive. I disagree with Columbia in this case; the doctrine that says eminent domain comes into play simply because the benificiary can make the property more productive is unsettling. But it's still incumbent on us to make valid arguments.

anamax 16y ago

> requires paying fair market value for any land taken "fair market value" in this case does not mean "what the seller would take". It means "what the buyer thinks that the seller should take". The seller will argue that a gas station isn't worth much, that a house in that area isn't worth much, etc. However, that land is clearly worth a lot more to the seller, so I'd argue that the "fair market value" is the value to the seller. > anyone who gets in will be able to afford it regardless of their financial status. "anyone who gets in" isn't "anyone" - it's folks selected by Columbia, which is a small fraction of "anyone". For example, that "anyone" doesn't include significant numbers of folks from that neighborhood. You know, the folks who are being displaced....

javert 16y ago

> This article uses language which far overstates the case, and ignores many facts. I beg to differ. > (it's basically just an offer to buy your land that you can't refuse). That's more akin to seizing than not. > The article sets up strawmen, like the politicians who denounce property rights, without ever quoting any politicians as actually denouncing property rights. You can't be serious. What about the politicians that want higher taxes? That's a violation of property rights. What about the bailout? What about net neutrality? What about the "socialist" Bernie Sanders? The problem with this particular case, as with the ones that I just mentioned, is that they are premised on the idea that it's OK to sacrifice somebody for the good of "society" (i.e., someone else). Frankly, human sacrifice is barbaric.

person_b 16y ago
Big Rand fan? I love it. :)
- javert 16y ago
  Yeah. But since many people don't realize it, I'd like to point out that the vast majority of Rand's work--and her most important work--is fundamentally not about politics.

BrandonM 16y ago

> eminent domain, however, requires paying fair market value for any land taken (it's basically just an offer to buy your land that you can't refuse) If it's "fair market value," then why do they need to exercise eminent domain in order to force the sale? I don't see how this can ever be considered OK. If you want to buy someone's land and they won't sell it, you offer them more. You get creative and offer to help them relocate their business. How do you determine "fair market value," anyways? The land and the building on it might be worth like $800,000 according to a property appraiser, but that completely ignores the value of the business. They're going to have to get new property elsewhere and build similar facilities; this will almost certainly cost more than their existing property is worth. So you're forcing a business to eat the cost of relocating, and they're losing revenue during the relocation, and this is fair how? You can't make people do anything, you can only give them incentive to do what you'd like them to do. In a fair system, that incentive is a compensation package that works for both parties. It's not getting the government on your side to use force as the incentive. And if the person is irrational and refuses to sell their land at any price, you freaking change your plans. I don't understand why we should accept the idea that certain people have more rights to property ownership than others, for no other reason but money and clout. Although the article wasn't the most well-written, I think it did a good job of conveying that idea.

ekidd 16y ago
If it's "fair market value," then why do they need to exercise eminent domain in order to force the sale? I don't see how this can ever be considered OK. In the U.S., this is specifically discussed in the fifth amendment to the Constitution: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. This suggests that government may choose to take private property for public use so long as the compensation is "just". Note that "just" may not be the price that you want the government to pay, but it might instead be based on some other theory of justice, such as the current market value for similar property. Now, not everything allowed for by the Constitution is morally desirable. (Recall the "3/5ths of a person" compromise.) But the U.S. government does have a defensible rationale for eminent domain; our ancestors agreed to the Constitution, and we haven't ever amended that part of it. However, the Constitution also says "public use." I'm always very leery when there are private actors involved, not the least because there's a huge incentive to corrupt the government.

firemanx 16y ago

Considering that value is an abstract concept - ie, ultimately (in usual business dealings), its determined by how I "vote" with my dollars and not some empirical physical rule, I think the concept of "fair market value" in the case of eminent domain is a complete sham, much like property taxes based on fair market value. If I haven't made any monetary choices and someone else has decided those choices for me, there is no value whatsoever. Not that it really matters in the scope of the legal world, it's more of a philosophical argument, but its something thats constantly pissed me off about eminent domain, easements and property taxes.

tcskeptic 16y ago

A couple of points: The term seizing implies the use of force, not necessarily the absence of compensation. When you have no choice but to sell, seizing is indeed the appropriate term. I'm not educated in the law, so I cannot speak with authority to your assertion about the incorrect use of the term "public-domain". However, given that the term is in quotes and the the author is Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee, my guess is that the term has a historical context of which I am unaware. Just because Columbia serves many "less well-off" students, or is a 501(c)(3) non-profit does not mean that Columbia is not the big bad meanie in this case. They are an enourmously powerful and influential institution. Using this legal power to seize (And I use this term advisedly) a small business owners property makes them a bully in my book. There is probably a price at which he would sell willingly, Columbia almost certainly has the resources to pay that price, they are using the power of this law to twist his property out of his hand backed by the power of the state, this in order to further their "Vision". That is wrong.

patio11 16y ago

it's basically just an offer to buy your land that you can't refuse That is a seizure, full-stop. Imagine if Microsoft or Oracle decided to get into the bingo business and convinced the state of Illinois that the public would be best served by them running BCC rather than me. Fair market value for BCC is almost certainly south of $50k, based on sales of other websites, revenue multiples, and the like. I have no desire to sell BCC for anything close to that number: I have plans for the future, get psychic enjoyment out of it, etc etc. Tough to be me, though, if someone with deep pockets convinces the government to pretend they have constitutional authority to be an M&A team with guns.

tptacek 16y ago
It is not reasonable to compare the "fair market value" of a small business with the fair market value of Manhattan real estate, which is far more liquid and easily valued.
- Dilpil 16y ago
  The real estate is part of the business. A large part of the value of the business comes from customers knowing that those businesses were where they were. By stealing the land, Columbia is stealing the business as well.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I don't really understand this point, but I don't think I need to. It is objectively true that some assets are more liquid and easier to value than others; one of the hardest assets to value is a going business concern, and one of the easier assets to value is Manhattan real estate. Similarly, a (fictitious and nonsensical) eminent domain claim on a portfolio of treasury bills would be inherently fairer than a (fictitious and only slightly less nonsensical) eminent domain claim on Bingo Card Creator; the holder of the bills can easily calculate the fair value of his assets, and Patrick can't. On a spectrum running: <-- small business --------------------- treasuries --> where is a gas station in Manhattan? It's not right next to Bingo Card Creator.

tptacek 16y ago

As has been pointed out by many people, while Columbia is to a large extend a social club for extremely privileged young people, the extensions being built are largely intended to support research work, the output of which is a public good. Apparently, Columbia's research facilities are genuinely and alarmingly overcrowded. It is misleading to suggest that Columbia is arranging to have private property seized simply for the benefit of those wealthy enough to attend Columbia. I'm opposed to the underlying doctrine of eminent domain that suggests that land can be seized if the parties who it will be granted to can make better overall economic use of it, and thus I suppose "opposed" to this instance of eminent domain, but it's still important to have the facts straight.

duffbeer703 16y ago

You don't have the context to understand the anger held by many of Columbia University's neighbors towards the university. Columbia U has a long history of being a bad neighbor and bad citizen, including being both directly and indirectly one of the larger slumlords in Northern Manhattan, and pushing down the property values of neighboring property through active neglect. They also timed the use of political weapons like eminent domain to acquire properties at the worst possible time instead of using the free market. 2010 is the worst possible market to sell property for an operator of a self-storage business, and eminent domain almost always results in a below market payments to property owners with significant delays -- and ruined businesses. Who is going to rent storage space from someone whose property is about to be seized?