Talk:Eminent domain/Archive 2

Getting What They Want

Believe it or not, in some cases, the land owner gets the amount of compensation they actually want! I interviewed a lawyer who has been practicing eminent domain law for the past 32 years. He explained that if a piece of property is needed, although not needed at that particular time, it cannot be condemned. In lay terms, they can't take the property and simply hold it. If they forsee a need for the property, like building overpasses across a major intersate, they must pay the owner whatever he or she wants. to quote the lawyer, who shall remain nameless, "If the property is worth five hundred thousand and they want a million, we pay a million." Great to hear that this happens at all, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.9.38.5 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 28 November 2005

WinWin Solution

If at all the State can provide then why not. Justice after all is fairness and equitability. But if what the owner wants is beyond the means of the Estate, then the final decision rests ultimately still with the State. It is to be noted that by IMMINENT DOMAIN, a single centavo shall suffice as payment for private property expropriated by the State. But by principle of justice, the State, with all its reasonableness, do its best to apply good jusdgment and fairplay. At any rate, as my father has honed us the principle used to say; KUNG AYAW MONG PASAKUPAN, LUMABAS KA SA BAKURAN. 120.28.126.9 (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't happen. It's an "urban legend." As demonstrated time and again property owners whose land is taken are undercompensated; The offers they get are often "lowballs," and when they go to court to get their full compenmsation, out of their recovery they have to pay their lawyers, appraisers, engineers etc. So they never get the full amount of the court award, except in Florida where they get reimbursed for their litigation expenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.13.136 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 June 2007

sometimes, we have to think that payments and due compensation shall not always be in monetary consideration. If it is your property that shall provide your country with the safetynet it needs as to keep its system afloat, would it not be the best compensation to know that it is you who provided that to your FATHERLAND? Is it not the best compensation to know you have served your country and the generations to come in a way like nobody else have as nobodyelse can? Sometimes there are values that cannot be quantified. Anyway, whether we think of it as such -- as a service to MOTHEREARTH in general, the will of the State prevails. And ultimately so, THE WILL OF GOD. 120.28.126.9 (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you try to track property after eminent domain in the normal manner, like at a register of deeds, you will not find it. The deed is removed by manner of judgement and sent to the proper property office of the state and I suppose the federal government. That is why eminent domain lands are hard to track. If the owner holds out for money it will be appraised for a fair market value and that is what will be paid. The sherrif will remove anyone from the property. Any leased building or land that I have found is usually declared under eminent domain and taken. The state laws are the key laws. ^{http://www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=issues.domain}The taker of these lands has full rights to sell it and make a profit or to let it sit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magiccaptian (talk • contribs) 23:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

let us understand that payment of fair market value by imminent domain is that sum total computed after all obligations or liabilities of the owner due the State have been deducted. This is precisely the reason why imminent domain always in-lined with the other two inhenrent rights of the State. Again as I may enumerate, THE THREE INHERENT RIGHTS OF THE STATE ARE: 1) Taxation; 2) Police Power; and, 3) the Imminent Domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.126.9 (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It certainly isn't true in the United Kingdom, valuations for compulsory purchases are made independently by the Valuation Office Agency, and these valuations can be contested and appealed. DuncanHill 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

ACTUALLY, IN THE UK VALUE CAN BE TRIED IN COURT. IT IS TRIED IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL, A SPECIALIZED COURT THAT HEARS SUCH MATTERS. ITS JUDGMENTS ARE APPEALABLE DIRECTLY TO THE BRITISH COURT OF APPEAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.186.64 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 25 August 2007

Clarification -- Frequently property owners are under-compensated from what they think their property is worth. Don't confuse this. Many instances in the States, the independent evaluation whether by the owner or the government body is always the middle ground between the owner's value and the appraised value. When owners sue, they gamble in order to gain more than what the middle ground would be. And consider that property exists in thousands if not millions of dollars, and they're literally fighting over small amounts of money compared to the actual value if they sold their home that day on the market. Not everyone lives in Beverly Hills. .:DavuMaya:. 22:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of this discussion ignored what the initial commenter actually said. The situation was not eminent domain, it is the situation where the state cannot justify eminent domain standards because there is no project, merely the idea that the property would be necessary were there ever to be a project. For instance, the government knows it will eventually have to build a new school and that parcel X would be a good place to put it. There are no actual plans to build it though, just the vague notion that it should go there. In that case, the government could not use eminent domain, and would be in the same position as any other buyer. The seller can ask for whatever price he wants. If it is too high, the government won't buy the property. There is a good economic reason for overpaying in a situation like this. If it waits, the government will have to go through the cost of eminent domain and may have to pay more if the property is developed by the time they get in position to use eminent domain power. -Rrius (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This might be a good section to have on its own to dispel some users such as one that re-added the Controversy section. It also ties into how ED is sometimes used as bargaining. See [1] Recently in my city we had a situation in which the County had to negotiate for a land purchase for a ballpark knowing that ED would not fly in this instance. However if we cite such examples, we must make sure a source stated that ED was considered but not used, otherwise it becomes our own OR. .:davumaya:. 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bruce L. Benson pretty much demolished arguments that use the type of simplistic holdout dilemmas mentioned in that UConn reference. See http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=544 Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Public Benefit

It has been wrongly stated that current Supreme Court standing favors eminent domain for public use. However, the 2005 ruling shifted eminent domain from public use to public benefit, where the land under question had to be used for building an industrial plant for a pharmaceutical giant. This should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.201.60 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 October 2006

Correction: The US Supreme Court's use of the term "public purpose" as synonymous with "public use" goes back to the early 20th century. See Clark v. Nash and Highland Boy Gold Mining Co. v. Strickley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.174.87 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 23 June 2007

This is the summary [2]. I will expand the section to indicate why the Supreme Court favored the eminent domain for that case, the current text is not sufficient to describe the action. .:DavuMaya:. 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Cleanup

I'm no lawyer, so I restricted myself to obvious jargon and grammar. Please try to keep legalese out of articles wherever possible, as it messes with the heads of we poor few who understand some English grammar. The page still needs someone with the background to look through it. And if you don't like the link I added - it is the exact subsection and is decidedly famous here in Australia - please just delete the link, don't revert me overall. --Callix 12:52, March 27 2007 (UTC)

As I promised I edited the US history section. It had a significant anti-eminent domain bias as well as factual problems. Please tweak it further. Doshwa (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo caption

I removed the line that said "Chinese law does not have eminent domain" from the photo caption. It contradicts a statement later in the article and clearly China takes private property for public purposes. See 3 Gorges damn if you don't believe me. Doshwa (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the part differentiating between feodal and allodial title has nothing to do with emient domain which can be used by the government in either case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.19.90 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over eminent domain

There are obvious reasons why there is a heated argument over these government rights. Perhaps, there should be a new section in this article explaining these disadvantages. --Nebula2357 (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was just about to start this section. ED is evil, IMO, and must be stopped. A controversy section in highly needed!User:Novjunulo (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Because you think ED is evil probably means you should step back and take a breather -- work on other articles and come back to this one. How will you achieve an objective point of view if you are out to destroy it? And WP discourages controversy sections they are to be integrated into the article's main points themselves. .:DavuMaya:. 21:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's okay for those who consider eminent domain evil to write about it here, as long as they cite sources. Those convinced of its evil are, after all, likely to be subject matter experts on its alleged evils; while those who favor eminent domain are more likely to be subject matter experts on its goodness. Thus, the efforts of these two groups ultimately can lead to a well-balanced, informative article. Where would Wikipedia be today if it weren't for our many hardworking POV pushers! Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Such content must be framed within the context of the article, not merely poised against one another. The weighted positions of BOTH must be carefully arranged into the article, not haphazardly thrown into new sections. .:davumaya:. 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Failure

The article and introduction especially is littered with NPOV failure. It sounds more like an anti-Eminent Domain article than ever. While I encourage more vernacular English terms, I'm not sure if it accurate represents what ED is about. Accurately it is "seizing domain without consent." But then the legal definition of what "seizure" is and all these words that sound scary, are not noted. .:DavuMaya:. 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm okay after a careful dissection of the page I actually find it's pretty fair and haven't run into any inconsistencies or insanities. But I'll warn that editors be wary, if you feel impassioned to speak AGAINST the topic then that is a sign 'to avoid editing. .:DavuMaya:. 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I respect editors in their need to tag the page with as many gratuitous problems they can choose out of the Template. Perhaps we have not clarified that many issues are still in debate and should probably boost this Talk page to steer new editors to see what has been looked at and how the page has evolved. Tagging the page and then not helping improve the article is borderline bad faith. As well, if one is going to tag and subsequently re-tag the page (the history log is full of this back and forth) then it would be honest to ask the editor to state exactly what they feel is wrong and why they did so. I feel this is very unconstructive and it may be editors are just simply unhappy with the idea of Eminent domain itself. Obviously we must take care to ensure NPOV, part of which would be focusing more on the technical side of eminent domain as law. The second part is to weigh its effects and actions, thats another boondoggle yet to take. .:davumaya:. 07:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I often tag articles without editing if the article is outside of the scope of my abilities, but I try to make a practice of listing why I tagged it on the talk page. I'd say that is a practice to be encouraged wherever possible. --Lendorien (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

UDHR

Eminent Domain is not in violation of Article 17 found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Whoever wrote that is a tard.

Article 17 of the UDHR states that people can't be arbitrarily deprived of their property. However, eminent domain is, by definition, arbitrarily depriving people of their property. ----J4\/4 <talk> 18:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrarily is by definition without (giving) reason. It is to act arbitrarily (here and in other cases) what violates the UDHR, not expropriation itself, which usually is supported by public-interest reasons. Property is in itself an imposition from someone on the others. Eminent Domain allows the government to modulate this imposition (supposedly) on the public interest, WITH a compensation to the owner.

The fair compensation isn't that relevant, in fact. UDHR 17 merely requires a proper reason; in the case of Eminent Domain that reason is the public interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.210.249.81 (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section

In reference to this diff, I think that it is appropriate to cover the controversial aspects of eminent domain's very existence, as it is important historically, theoretically, and from the point of view of modern day libertarianism, which still argues for allodial title. Is there a place in the WP:MOS that speaks against controversy sections? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Criticism#Evaluations in a "Criticism" section Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should attempt to write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other. (similarly Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structure). Your content is not disputed, but it must be framed within the entire context of the article topic. For example your Libertarian assertion is valid but it represents a minority viewpoint in the U.S. context and very recent on a historical timeline. Such you can see how controversy sections are not very useful, it doesn't tell the whole picture. I suggest you insert your content in the appropriate sections below, overtime we will organize them. Remember eminent domain as law exists on a global context. .:davumaya:. 19:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about eminent domain date back well before the present "libertarian" era, to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, when Thomas Jefferson argued for allodial title in A Summary View of the Rights of British America and the 5th Amendment was drafted; and to the Magna Carta; etc. I'm not sure at all that the majority of Americans are that keen on eminent domain; if anything, most probably view it as a necessary evil, and the Kelo decision was not very popular at all. In any event, you can just use Template:Criticism-section rather than completely excising it. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So you want to re-insert your section and be slapped with a criticism template that states Controversy sections should be re-integrated back into other sections? How does this make sense. You should just insert your libertarian information into the History section. Your content has nothing to do with "controversy" (see Wiktionary), like any law or power of the govt, there are times when it is used and when it is not. .:davumaya:. 19:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that in removing the Controversy section, you put the content in another section. That's fine, as long as it's in there somewhere. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to come off as I opposed your content or oppose negative views, in fact there is indeed not enough talk about how ED has affected people in practice. I just want to avoid people coming along and getting worked up and deleting or tagging the page needlessly. .:davumaya:. 02:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Public Use Defined

The defined term of "public use" is: Public use is the decision to convert a property held by any individual or association of person for limited access, to be used for general access or purpose. For example a park owned by a joint family is acquired by the Government to convert it to a public park accessible by all ^{http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/public-use.htm} Magiccaptian (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)