Ustwo

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1104condemn.html


This is the sort of act I find reprehensible in government, and while you can argue 'the needs of the many outweigh blah blah blah...' that doesn't mean that 'the few' aren’t getting a royal screw job.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

onetime2

Eminent domain is a travesty in many cases. Here in NJ it is a primary tactic used in concert by casinos and local/state governments to seize land to build everything from more rooms to parking lots. Little old ladies being kicked out of their homes for more slot machines is sickening. It's all about generating money for the inefficient governments and the campaign donor casino owners.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Astrocloud

Have you ever been to Peoria? That's not exactly "big government".

MuadDib

The public good not only outweighs private interests, but the concept of the "private" citizens, as though they are opposed to "public" citizens, is repugnant. Nothing rubs me worse than people that think they have no obligation to to society or their fellow man. Guess what? A court house infinately more important than the Kid's Gap that would occupy the space of the strip mall. I'm sure the owner gets paid, though not as much as if some trend store occupied the lot. I'll shed a tear for him when he starts to have trouble feeding his family because the government called on him to do his part.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

onetime2

How do you know that he's not struggling? It's not about him doing his part, it's about him doing more than his part by foregoing income that none of his peers have to forego or contribute to.

Why should the property owner be obligated to give more than the rest of the citizens for the public good?

MuadDib

Because he is in the position to help and the opprotunity has fallen upon him! I'm quite sure if he was struggling then the article, which is clearly on his side by the fact that it doesn't even mention the governments reasons for being there, would have mentioned it. The property owner should be obligated to give more because he has more and because he has what is needed to help whereas nonproperty owners in can not very well provide the government with facilities!

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

mml

Public domain issues are thorny at best. With the booming growth in the Phoenix metro area, you hear about it all the time and it begins to frustrate people. Honestly, in a society, there are times we have to make sacrifices for the good of the community as a whole. But so often, in these cases, they just want to widen a road and not put a curve it it or slap up yet another Walgreens and to do so they take the land out from a tax-paying citizen. In addition, if the owner refuses to sell, and the land is then condemned, the owner may potentially receive less compensation - ah, extortion! Yes, there are occations when governments need the ability to take land, but at least in Phoenix it is often overused.

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

MuadDib

I am certainly not trying to imply that local/state/national government X or Y isn't corrupt or doesn't act outside the public interest at times. However, in the case of a court house in a strip mall? I don't think this is the same as widening a road to put in a Walgreens for your buddy who contributes $5000 to your campaign. Like all power, it can be abused by officials who are callous. However, it does not negate the duty of the citizen to give to his community.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

onetime2

Why can't the government get its own land and building? It shouldn't be up to this individual to subsidize the locality's need for a courthouse.

filtherton

This isn't about "big government". I thought counties were more along the lines of the smaller, more ideal goverment that most big gov't opponents seem to favor.

The rest of the citizens are paying the property owner money to use his property. How is that unfair. He is getting his money. I realize that sometimes eminent domain amounts to getting bent over a barrel, but i hardly think this fellow is getting screwed.

onetime2

It's unfair because they are not paying the going rate for the property that means he's subsidizing them. It's most definitely getting screwed. If you could sell your car for $10k and the government says "no you will sell it to us for $5k" then you get screwed out of $5k.

Ustwo

Comrade, You have no right to what I have, I'm sorry. You did nothing for it. If taxes arn't enough for you, tough.

Quote:

Nothing rubs me worse than people that think they have no obligation to to society or their fellow man. Guess what? A court house infinately more important than the Kid's Gap that would occupy the space of the strip mall.

Two things here. First off no one said they have no obligation to society, but taking a store is like saying you have to sell milk to the government or work in its factories. Its a form of serfdom. Secondly, there is this thing called the economy, and guess what, kids gaps are just as important as courthouses. Its arrogance to assume that government is the pinnacle of human endeavors.

Quote:

I'm sure the owner gets paid, though not as much as if some trend store occupied the lot. I'll shed a tear for him when he starts to have trouble feeding his family because the government called on him to do his part.

There were other vacant properties, the government could have moved the courthouse, they didn't want to. Its not like it was either put the courthouse HERE or there won't be a courthouse at all. The government had a 5 year lease, if they wanted it longer they should have had a longer lease. Instead they decided they don't have to play by the rules that everyone else does, which is typical government behavior.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

You say that like only one person is going to benefit from this courthouse. And i think the precedent is that the collective "we" has every right to what you have if it is for the greater good, comrade.


The economy? What's that?
It is probably going to be much cheaper for the county to stay in their current spot than it would have been for them to find a new spot and move all of their shit over there. You should be happy- this is just one more way the gov't is trying to reign in spending.
Besides, they aren't "taking" the store. They are forcing a renewal of the lease. OMFG!!! The injustice of it all!!!


Of course it is typical government behavior. I hate to burst your bubble, but the government has never played by the same rules as everybody else. They make the rules. Why would we even have a goverment if it wasn't capable of acting above other organizations(thoeretically) for what it saw as the collective good?

MuadDib

Well, capitalist pig-dog, I might not personally have any claim to what you have, but society at large and community do. You are dependent on them for the stuff you have and, in need, you have to give back. Thankfully, taxes are generally enough but in some cases they are not and then the logic to taxation applies to other property

In reply to your two things:
1) You are saying that there is no obligation. The city had a lease and they want it extended. It costs the taxpayers money to up and move the courthouse and get a new place for it. Not to mention that you just assume that they could have gotten a longer lease. Many places have a maximum lease to allow for review. BTW if the government needs your milk or your labor you better give it... that sort of thing is the only reason we remained a coherent country after the Great Depression and WWII... because people realized we are in this together and were willing to put petty self-interest aside.
2) This thing called the economy is less effected by the loss of a Kids Gap than a courthouse. It is stupidity to assume that capitalist economics are a great acheivement than institutes of social justice.

As I said before the other vacant properties cost money to buy and move to. The lease should be extended for ease of court access and because if they moved it would pry cause a tax hike and then the selfish would complain about that too. His minor dip in one lot of a strip mall is insignificant as long as he gets paid for its use and is not in hurt because of it.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Ustwo

The 'public' would benefit from my bank account, do you think it should be confiscated?



The lease they could have had was for 5 years. If after 2 years the government leaves and they can find no one to lease the property will the government compensate them for the loss of income? Again what RIGHT does anyone have over your property? If 51% of the people decide the other 49% should be slaves for the public good, it does not make it right.

No kidding the 'make the rules' and they abuse it too. There is no bubble to burst here, I am well aware of the power of government and its something which should be limited. There was NO critical use of this land by the government but they wanted it. Legally they COULD have claimed ownership, does this make it right? I don't care if its Kings, Premiers, Khans, Presidents, or 'the people'. Tyranny is tyranny.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Astrocloud

What a great example of a slippery slope fallacy. Is this the best you've got?

(borrowed from
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...ery-slope.html

eple

"Oh shit! The government is going crazy! Today, a forced lease, tomorrow they'll take my bank account and spend it all on saving trees or something! AAAHHH!!!!"

*picturing Utswo with tin foil hat putting savings in mattress*

seretogis

The issue with this particular example of a government overstepping its bounds is that it is creating, from thin air, a contract which did not exist before.

There are many, many, other examples of abuse of eminent domain by requisitioning PRIVATE land in order to sell it to other PRIVATE companies to use for development. There is a slippery slope when it comes to the power of the government to sieze property, all it takes is a thoroughly corrupt government to slide down it.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

eple

You're right, you are fucked.

Edit: You as in the American people and your corrupt government, not as in seretogis is fucked.

Astrocloud

So I guess that right wingers still don't think it's a government by the people and for the people even though they dominate 2/3 of the branches of government and are vying for that third branch.

Is it possible seretogis that there might be an inconsistency here?

Ustwo

This has what to do with the topic at hand? This goes beyond party lines, I'm sure you could find Republicans that think this is perfectly alright and maybe you could find freedom loving democrats. For all I know, the city in question is run by 'right wingers' which I assume you mean Republicans. This seems more like a troll.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Astrocloud

It has to do with the topic at hand because "big government" is still a government by the people and for the people. (Note those bolded words in the original statement).

So either the government is for the people and acting in a just way -even though some people may experience some inconvenience at times... OR the government does not act in a just way and is out of control (ie. NOT acting in the interests of the people).

Yes Peoria seems to be Republican controlled. My words were meant to bring up the fact of legitimacy... Many Republicans don't see a government as legitimate if it's run by anyone other than Republicans. Sorry if this seems like a troll. But it's not.

filtherton

Yes, give me all your money.
How would it be for the greater good, in capitalist free market america, for the government to start confiscating random bank accounts? How would that be for the public good?


Well, since we aren't in a position to know what the lease says, i think it is a bit premature for us to speculate whether the owner would get compensation for lease breakage.


You seem to be confusing the issues. Maybe you think that you live in a country where you have the absolute right to your property, but clearly that country is not america. In fact, if a constitutional amendment passed specifically stating that you have no right to wear pants, well, you'd be wearing shorts or chaps for the rest of your life.

Furthermore, what RIGHT do YOU have over your property? Well, you only have as many rights as the constitution allows and i haven't read it in a while, but i'm not sure it mentions eminent domain. Or strip malls and courthouses.


I'm pretty sure that saving money in this day and age of deficit spending would qualify as a critical use. Why wouldn't it?

So they could have taken away all of this guys things, and yet all they did was force some strip mall owner to let them lease the space? Sounds pretty abusive to me. What next, reserved parking?

You're making a mountain out of an anthill.
First of all, how can you possibly label the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors big government? They're like a step bigger than the school board.
Second, calling "the people" tyrants over a forced lease seems a bit dramatic.

Ustwo

So answer me this, what % of the people is it ok for the government to exploit?

10%?
20%?
49%?

Are they not all, of the people and for the people?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Astrocloud

It's not exploitation. It's participation, even if you think it's unfair -it's still a part of living in this country. We obey the laws of the land... if you disagree then try living in Anarchy.

ARTelevision

Please be careful with the name-calling around here.
Even if it can be taken as slightly friendly repartee it tends to get out of control.
You know it.
I know it.
Check it at the door.
And when you see an opportunity to extend it just a bit farther - instead of doing that, make a choice that reflects an interest in the ongoing tone of the community as a whole, please.

__________________
create evolution

filtherton

Well, techinically the government "exploits" all of us so i guess 100%. What percentage would be good for you?

And since, allegedly, our goverment is by the people for the people, we are only exploiting ourselves.



You know what i always say, ustwo...


Love it or leave it.

Ustwo

Some more on the joys of 'big government'.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102319,00.html

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Superbelt

That one is illegal, and would not hold up to court challenges.

onetime2

If you mean the one Ustwo just posted, you're right. Just trying to fight it costs big $ though and many people don't get free representation to overcome the initial seizure.

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/oct_2003/judges.htm

Judges rule in favor of Mesa brake shop after 60 Minutes tackles eminent domain cases

Suzanne Starr/The Arizona Republic


Randy Bailey gets to keep his property

Adam Klawonn and Brandon Babcock
The Arizona Republic


Oct. 2, 2003 12:00 AM


Mesa, AZ - Vindication finally came for a family-owned Mesa auto shop Wednesday when the state Court of Appeals ruled in its favor, saying that City Hall wrongly tried to take their property so developers could use it.

The 15-page decision took more than 14 months, left at least two local businesses in legal limbo and the city with a black eye. It caught the attention of producers from CBS News 60 Minutes, which aired the story Sunday.

It is a landmark ruling that will affect cases everywhere that involve eminent domain, the right local government has to take private property for the public good.

And for Randy Bailey of Bailey's Brake Service, the victory couldn't have been sweeter.

"This ruling today means that justice has prevailed and America is what America is supposed to be about," said Bailey, smiling through a thick beard and covered with grime and sweat from working on cars.

"Property rights are still sacred in this world."

Motorists drove by his shop Wednesday afternoon, honking horns and shouting support from their car windows. The parking lot was full of media, well-wishers and customers needing a tuneup.

The phone rang constantly while Bailey rang up the bill for brake work on Paula Whittington's BMW.

Greg Western, 34, of Mesa, a mobile mechanic and acquaintance, stopped by after he heard the news while pulling out of a nearby auto parts store.

"I'm a man that believes in property rights, and this is a victory for the common citizen," he said.

The city had obtained immediate possession of a 5-acre site that included the shop and other businesses on the prime corner of Country Club Drive and Main Street about two years ago to replace it with Lenhart's Ace Hardware, restaurants and other stores. Bailey's shop has operated there since 1974.

The idea was to renovate the city's "gateway," one of downtown Mesa's most visible intersections. Bailey's attorneys sued in Maricopa County Superior Court and lost. They appealed.

In a rare reverse of a lower-court decision, the appellate court's three-judge panel ruled that Mesa failed to prove that taking the land for private developers was a "public use," under state law.

The city never proved that it intended to build a street, park or other public facility on the site. Rather, the proposal would have benefited a select few rather than the public at-large, the court said.

"The developers and other private parties wold be the primary beneficiaries, rather than the public," wrote Judge John C. Gemmill. "The anticipated benefits to the public do not outweigh the private nature of the intended use."

Clint Bolick, vice president of the Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest law group that has fought eminent cases nationwide, represented Bailey. Bolick said Wednesday's ruling was very clearly written compared with other court decisions on the issue.

The group has similar cases pending in Ohio and Connecticut, he said, adding that the Arizona ruling will give them firepower.

Reached on his cellphone in Missoula, Mont., he said it was the first time the premise of eminent domain had been tested in an Arizona court, and it sent a message.

"This puts cities on notice that the days of corporate welfare dressed up as economic redevelopment are over," Bolick said.

Mesa Mayor Keno Hawker said he is "very happy" with the ruling, and that he is loathe to use the City Council's right to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

"I think the city as an entity went too far," he said, "and we got too concerned with cleaning up a corner and didn't remember there are individual property owners there that have private property rights."

State legislators changed laws governing eminent domain earlier this year, making it harder for cities to use the power by requiring a two-thirds council vote on four separate public reviews of a condemnation case.

The city was sued under the previous laws, and it's up to the City Council to decide if the city will appeal. The case has dragged on nearly four years, but city officials have said they have no idea what it has cost.

Charlie Deaton, Mesa Chamber of Commerce president/CEO, supported Bailey's right to contest the case but said the city's right to use eminent domain is one of the tools available to preserve its inner core.

"I think we'll just live with a brake shop on that corner," he said.

At Lenhart's Ace Hardware, east of Bailey's on First Avenue, it was business as usual Wednesday.

Employees said owner Ken Lenhart was out of town and declined to comment as they were closing up.

One customer, Noel Palicios, 26, a supervisor at LEJ Concrete who lives in Mesa, said he would just as soon see Lenhart's stay where it is. "I think it's great where it is; it's closer for me."


Staff reporter Sarah Muench contributed to this article.

Superbelt

Seems to me the laws work and eminent domain as a practice was protected from being corrupted in that area.

It cost him money, but he has recourses, such as suing the county for legal fees and hardships afterwards.

filtherton

How is this big government again?

BoCo

If you hate big government (which this article isn't even about) then vote Libertarian.

__________________
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

filtherton

I think that these eminent domain problems are actually the result of small goverment abuses. The same small gov't that so many claim to cherish.

seretogis

That isn't what Ustwo means by "big government" -- by "big government" he is referring to corrupt all-powerful government, be it city, county, state, or federal.

Right -- it's for all people, not just those who are rich land developers or those who are within the ranks of the government. Yes, the owner of the strip was being a bit of an ass by not helping the gov't out, but there is absolutely no reason for them to force him to. They overstepped their bounds, in my opinion.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Ustwo

What seretogis said is correct filtherton. I dont' think you understand what 'big government' is. Its not the number of people involved, its the power over peoples lives. Interestingly in the case of the autoshop, IF the city was going to put a park up or the lot, the man who owned the store for 30 years would have been screwed. As it was it took an appeals court as he lost the first time.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Sun Tzu

The problem with eminent domain is translation and the all common aspect of corruption. What appears to be happening (maybe not in the case of the court, although Id love to know what other businesses we be next to it) is private investors are using the courts for private uses. The translation is the judges interaction over what he/ or she feels is a just action of the 5th amendment. What if its not? To bad.

As much bullshit as that is you have to remember we weren’t founded on life, liberty, and pursuit of property--- that was changed for some apparent reason. . . .

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#container1089

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=32172

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking