Ustwo

Can there be ANY defense of this? Its for a golf course of all things, which I rather doubt is popular with our tilted friends on the left. This sort of thing is insane, and should never even get to the courts.

__________________
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.

2wolves

Are not Rush and G. W. Bush both big golfers? "Country club conservative" is a standard catch phrase for good reason.

Now to address the theme of your post: I defend it as the family and the courts have gone through the proper legal channels. The family has gotten the city to amend it's charter. Business interests in the immediate region have been mobilized.

Yet the law appears to be on the city's side to this point. Rule of law, not men.

If the situation brings such an overwhelming onus onto local citizens they'll vote with their feet and no one will remain to dress badly, pollute the local environment with excessive feritlizer, and swear while playing a game they claim to love. How much more American can you get?

2Wolves

__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

Phaenx

They shouldn't take peoples land because they want to build a golf course, that's stupid.

__________________
"I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

wilbjammin

In the Energy Policy, the Bush admin wants to take a lot of eminent-domain for combining the power grids into one mega-system. Of course, that will just make it much easier for the California-type problem to happen to anyone in all of the US and, as you can see here, also displace quite a few people.

I have trouble with a lot of eminent-domain cases... such as the Native Americans, for instance. I guess it is the American way. Salute manifest destiny and its glorious rewards.

Eminent-domain has been a great tool for capitalism, and it will continue to be. Apologies to the unfortunates caught in the middle.

__________________
Innominate.

Moskie

Ustwo.... I agree with you. (can't believe those words escaped my mouth! ) If the family owns it, it should be theirs until they decide otherwise.

But seriously, remarks like "I dare you to defend it" and "I rather doubt [golf courses are] popular with our tilted friends on the left" really do nothing but help to start a flame war. I suggest you ask yourself if what you say can be phrased in a way that can still be convincing without pissing people off.

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

Ustwo

Because in this case I want to piss people off to some extent. I had a lot of 'the left' saying its ok when it was a court house, so I want to rub a golf course in their faces. This is something I find intolerable, and it doesn't matter if its a golf course, a court house, or a home for orphans, the government should NOT have the right.

__________________
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.

apechild

Capitalism cannot exist without property rights. Eminent domain is the enemy of capitalism.

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

Superbelt

Do you like driving everywhere you want to go?

Cause without eminem domain you would have one hell of a messed up road network where you live.

Liquor Dealer

Of course you're right but - unlike a lot of those who have commented, I agree with you most of the time - eminent domain should never come into play unless it is an absolute necessity - such as blocking a major highway or the like. I'm not sure, but in this part of the country, the price gets really high on land that the state or some other entity is trying to take by force. The point at which "for the good of the general public" as our law reads is reached, is sometimes a difficult point to acheive and when it is reached it is often a very expensive point - A golf course - not in my lifetime.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

apechild

I don't disagree with that one bit. I do, however, disagree with the premise that eminent domain is a necessary component of capitalism. Quite the contrary - it smacks of authoritarianism, where property rights and individual freedoms are subverted to the authority or the will of the state.

The pure capitalistic response to your transportation example would be that free market forces would satisfy the nation's demand for transportation infrastructure. Land would be purchased and sold in a competitive market where its value would be determined in part by its ability to generate profits for its owner. Roads would be privately owned, and the right to their use would be purchased (via tolls).

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

wilbjammin

I didn't say I was an advocate of capitalism, nor of eminent-domain. It just clearly has been a great tool for capitalists. Authoritarians can be capitalists, in fact, wasn't it Mousselini that said Fascism is the combination of government and business. Property rights are the enemy of true capitalism, rights prevent those with capital from taking capital from others. Isn't that the goal of deregulation? - improved profit-making... Property rights regulate capitalism, and eminent-domain is the exception created to improve capitalism (generally, it can be done for other reasons as well, such as safety and environmental concerns).

__________________
Innominate.

ARTelevision

I don't have a problem with legal action. If it's legal, it's legal.
I'm not one to campaign for changing laws ( I have other fields of expertise ) or stating idealistic positions about what is right or wrong or how things should or shouldn't be. There seems to be a lot of people who are like that, so I don't really see a need to be one of them myself. As long as something is done legally it's not a problem for me.

__________________
create evolution

Ustwo

At what point does a law become unjust ART?

__________________
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.

The_Dude

we have to take up private lands for certain causes. think of the interstates or local highways. land was taken whether or not the owners wanted it. yes, they were compensated for the land, but they still lost the land.

i dont think the line is clear enough when the govt can take up your property in the name of public good.

to me, building a golf course doesnt warrant that they take up this land. an interestate? maybe, but i'm not 100% sure about that either.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

ARTelevision

Ustwo,
I guess there's a bunch of unjust laws.
That's the lawmakers' job to fix. Not mine.
I believe in a division of labor.
They do their job. I do mine.
I have some opinions but they aren't very important.
If I care a lot about something I can vote.
That's good enough for me.

__________________
create evolution

lordjeebus

I consider the corrupt use of eminent domain to be one of the biggest abuses of governmental power. It often frustrates me that so many people are ignorant of the issue.

I refuse to shop at CostCo, for instance, because of their manipulation of local governments to exercise eminent domain for their profit. One article (google for others): http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru021803.asp

Other superstores manipulate local governments in similar ways (eg. Wal-Mart http://www.rmpn.org/weblog/archives/...ink/000616.cfm) and I avoid giving them my business too.

I'm not giving them my money when they might take my home someday.

Thank you Ustwo for bringing up this topic. I think that there can be legitimate use of eminent domain but I don't think golf courses nor court houses are such uses.

onetime2

Well said. Use of eminent domain is abused far too often. There are some who rant about "big business hurting the little guy", "tax breaks for the wealthy", and the like and these same people, when it comes to this topic claim that it's all ok because it's the government that's doing it. It's sickening to me.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

sailor

The thing that bothers me is that its for a damn GOLF COURSE. If it was for a necessary highway or some other such necessity (and it really was necessary), fine, so be it. The ability of the government to take land for *necessities* is something that it truly needs to be able to do. But for a damn golf course?

__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
--Plato

2wolves

Use versus abuse; of the implementation of eminent domain in the United States, for however long good records are available, can you show the number of times (roughly) that its been abused? I'm not trying to rain on your parade but I can see how the immediate persons impacted would always consider it abuse.

The other point is that its easy to get worked up over the nice old couple getting kicked off their land by the big evil government. Consider for a moment if the land in question had been a (fill in the blank like the HQ for the American Communist Party or White Power) building.

From my view its a bitch when it happens to you & yours or anyone. Yesterday with carbines, today with city councils, and tomorrow with loyalty tests. At least they're not being shot off the land so things are improving.

In closing, if the law applies equally to all then it might be considered fair, but we all know how many mansions get grabbed for elementary schools or returned to tribal lands....

2Wolves

__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

apechild

No. It has been a great tool for the state.

Um, why compete in a free market when you can just take whatever you want?

OK, time out. I think it's time you read a basic definition.

Capitalism - An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
American Heritage definition

Property rights are a necessary condition for capitalism.

Here (link) is an excellent article that discusses just that. I suggest you read it.

This is getting absurd. Do you honestly believe that free market capitalism is about "taking capital from others?" No. That's what occurs under communism, where commerce is regulated by a forceful redistribution of wealth. Capitalism is quite the opposite, where transactions are based upon mutual agreement.

This is so elementary, wilbjammin.

I'm not trying to be obnoxious here, but you really ought to brush up on your economics.

Now, continuing on with the discussion...

Eminent domain presents what economists would call a market inefficiency. The risk of having one's property seized by the state is a risk one assumes when purchasing land, and that risk is translated into a risk premium by the informed consumer. That risk premium is expressed by a lower price that the consumer is willing to pay for the land, or a higher expected rate of return that an investor will require to invest in the land.

Put it this way - if you're trying to decide between two identical houses which one you want to buy, and one offers a guarantee by the state that it will never, under any circumstances, be subject to seizure, you will favor that house. All else being equal, you will be willing to pay more for it.

The finance geeks among us recognize that the ownership of land in this country carries with it a "short call option," with no expiration date and a strike price determined by the call option's owner - the state.

That's a pricey option to be short.

Now imagine if the transportation infrastructure in this country were privately owned. Roads for example. They would be easier to pay for (EZ-pass?) than the current system of federal, state, and local tax codes, fees, and pork-filled appropriations bills. They would be cheaper to build and maintain than they are in their current state, where protected monopolies and beaurocracies control the market. Competition among road owners would drive down prices and improve services. And property owners wouldn't be faced with the threat of having their homes seized by the state.

The economic benefits would be enormous. It would be a huge victory for free market capitalism.

It'll never happen, but interesting to think about nonetheless...

__________________
Skwerl. Its wuts fer dinner.

onetime2

One case of violating someone's rights is enough to label it abuse. I've seen a dozen cases of it in the last two years and that's without searching any out, simply from reading the local newspapers.

Whether the land being taken is from Neo Nazis or the nice old couple up the block it is wrong. Try to justify it all you want, it's wrong. Casinos use this tactic, big box stores use it, in this example it's a golf course, no matter how you slice it, it's wrong.

There needs to be SOME definition of the public good in these laws. If that's not clear to people, then I don't know what to say. Building a hospital, school, or highway is a hell of a lot different than building a PRIVATELY OWNED casino, golf course, or store.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

2wolves

Perhaps I was not clear enough, my bad. To try again I'll use the analogy of surgery: if you have a procedure that is beneficial 290 times out of 292 attempts then the procedure will continue to be done.

What I get from your post is that the evidence is anecdotal in nature and can not be compared to the over all harm or benefit to American citizens. It's a policy that when applied to a nation of 270 million individuals guarantees someone, somewhere, at some time, is going to get shat upon.

2Wolves

__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

onetime2

Your example doesn't apply as there is no willful disregard to the patient incorporated. A more fitting comparison would be that a surgeon will purposefully, with the government's blessing, without remorse, and while receiving remibursement for the murder kill 2 patients for every 290 he/she saves. Does that really sound appropriate to you?

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

2wolves

Did you get a flu shot this year? http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/conce...de-effects.htm

You are assuming a malign intent with no evidence besides the anecdotal. That attitude isn't appropriate.

2Wolves

__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

onetime2

One person's rights are being violated to improve the economic situation of another private economic entity, that seems pretty malevolent to me. Without the guidelines I call for (some method of gauging the public good) I will err on the side of the current owner. My "attitude" is entirely appropriate. I don't attempt to tell you what attitude you should take in your postings, please don't assume that you can in mine.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

2wolves

In this case as originally noted it is NOT a private economic entity but the community.

Gauging the benefit or harm to the body politic was also something I put forth, but as a policy you have to have good backup to present your case for change. I'd like to see something other than anecdotal tales. As long as it remains within the law the aggrieved party or parties have a chance.

My statement is as appropriate as your trolling about killing people out of hand for the government. Quite.

2Wolves

__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

onetime2

The community, nay the government. If you'd prefer, we can look at motives. As it stands the government in question doesn't even receive tax revenues from the property in question as it's in an adjoining town. As it will be, it will not only gain revenue from the land's eventual use but it will control that land.

As far as anecdotal tales, whatever. There are several threads here that discuss eminent domain abuse, I guess those are all "anecdotal" too and not worthy of discussion.

If you think I'm just trolling then stop responding to me. It's not that hard, you can do it, just don't hit the "submit reply" button and you've achieved it.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Tophat665

Ustwo,
I have got to admit that any defense of this specific instance of eminent domain could not be based in any part on this specific instance, but on the idea in general.

What is wrong with this (other than that I despised golf and golfers), is that the term "public interest" is being stretched well past the breaking point and right out into the absurd.

There is a vast difference in my mind between using emminent domain to build a highway that will at the very least make economic development easier, or a school to yield a better trained work force of educated citizens on the one hand, and building a damn rec center on the other. Also, there's a huge difference between forcing the sale of a functioning family farm for trivial purposes on the one hand, and forcing the sale of derelict apartment buildings by absentee landlords on the other.

Bottom line, about this case you are absolutely correct. About the general case, though... well, let's just say I would not want you bathing my kid.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

filtherton

I could see how you could look at this situation and scream abuse, but even then, it is really completely different from the courthouse example you provided. It also does nothing to invalidate the practice accross the board. I could post an article or two about the abuse of prescription drugs and then say something like- "let's see all you righties try to justify the use of prescrip[tion drugs in light of this anecdotal evidence that in some instantces they are abused." Whatever, you can cry your tears and pretend to care about the little guy, but when it comes down to it, this country would be a very different place if not for emminent domain seizures. America has a very established history of bending the little guy (or gal) over the barrel so a few big old white guys can reap the rewards. To deny that is to deny your culture.

wilbjammin

Another definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:

"Capitalism - The condition of possessing capital; the position of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists."

Which, then makes us ask, what is a capitalist?

"Capitialist - One who has accumulated capital; one who has capital available for employment in financial or industrial enterprises."

As much as you try to refute what I'm saying with your definition, it really doesn't. The process of eminent-domain has nothing to do with means of production or distribution - it specifically addresses land rights. There's a big difference.

To be clear, the tools (instruments) and the raw material (subject) you use to create something are the means of production. Did you know its possible to have capitalism in a country where no-one owns any land at all? Means of distribution involves how one delivers goods to the market.

Another thing, free market is defined (by the American Heritage Dictionary) as "An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions."

Eminent-domain has nothing to do with supply and demand regulations.

Additionally, the Oxford English Dictionary definition gets right to the heart of what I'm saying... this system favors capitalists - those with capital and want to make more capital have a better chance to do that than people with less capital.

It really is elementary, I'll agree with you there.

The existence and survival of most authoritarian states (all that I can think of) has a lot to do with the approval of the capitalists with the government. As I mentioned earlier, Musselini said (I found the direct quote), "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." If an authoritarian system were to simply take anything it wanted, the authoritarian system would fail. Communism didn't do this, it attempted (poorly) to redistribute land and goods fairly. Like it or not, all governments do have to pay attention to the people, or else they will pay the consequences.

Eminent-domain generally has a capitalist upshot. I don't argue against the creation of roads and power lines. Capitalism is supposed to improve the quality of life for everyone. We wouldn't have supermarkets without a good transportation system, or a lot of other things. It is a good capitalistic tool.

I didn't say that. I said, "rights prevent those with capital from taking capital from others".


So, what? We have to pay a toll every time we enter a new road jurisdiction? Or what? A monthly bill? Will my car have a tracking device to show how much I use each section of each privately owned section of the road? In this case I can see the road system being owned and operated by thousands of people. How do you organize things such as freeways? How do you ensure good quality and maintenance along all stretches of the roads? How would they be cheaper to maintain and build? What about the railroad moguls that were so corrupt and manipulated markets, couldn't that happen again with that system? Government provides uniformity and standards... I don't particularly care if I spend more on roads for the guarantee that I'm going to be able to safely transverse them.

__________________
Innominate.

Ustwo

There goes my weekend plans.

I hear they are using eminent-domain as a litmus test for day care now too.

__________________
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.

Lebell

Emminant domain abused.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Sparhawk

I'd just like to say that I enjoyed reading this thread, especially the posts between apechild and wilbjammin. I'm completely unqualified to talk intelligently about this subject in the general sense, so it's fun to read the arguments of those who are.

In this specific case though, as much as I love a good golf course, I have to disagree. This sort of thing isn't distinct to this one town though, I read a year or so ago, in the atlantic I think, about a town doing the same thing up in New York, I believe. The logic of the town was that a golf course and surrounding houses bring in much needed development to dying communities.

I'd suggest to the owner he find some endangered species nesting ground on his property, ASAP.

__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

Ustwo

Yes but then they would have to have an enviromental impact statement every time they mowed their lawn, and would not be able to sell it at a future date

__________________
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

Actually, what they should do is get involved in the farmland preservation program.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Tophat665

Now that is a damn good idea!

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

MSD

This makes me physically ill. Eminent Domain is a perfect example of the raod to hell being paved with good intentions. If you want to build something, buy your own fucking property for fair prices, and stop picking on people and hiding behind an unfair law. If someone needs to build someting absolutely vital right where I live, and they can prove that, I'll sell for the 280k my house is worth, otherwise they can kiss my ass and I'll let them know in those words exactly.

2wolves

What I hearing, and correct me if I'm mistaken, is the law is ok if it is a vital need and fair prices are paid.

Is that what you mean?

2Wolves

__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.

MSD

The unfortunate fact is that "fair prices" are determined by the government, not the evictee. In every case I've seen in the tri-state are, the "fair price" has been between less than 40 percent of the actual value. Families move into tiny apartment and condos because their $300,000 Colonial on an acre of land complete with 2 car garage and in-gorun pool was ruled by a court to be worth $50,000. Others get the price of the land, not the house. Mom and pop stores shut down because the measley check they get can't possibly relocate them to the mall or shopping center whose parking lot paves over 50 years of memories and hard work because those 20 parking spaces are so vital to the local economy.

If the system worked, I wouldn't mind. The problem is, it just ends up screwing over good, honest homeowners and businesses get screwed over so that chain stores and fast food joints are more important to local campaign contributions, err, I mean, economy.

2wolves

The evictee would set as fair a price as the government agency. Binding arbitration could be a possible solution.

As for the system screwing over people; do you have a more global data set then the usual "poor old kindly farmer" bit that makes the news?

2Wolves

__________________
Nation of the Cat. Forgive maybe, forget .... not quite yet.