Using eminent domain to take church-owned property
 

The Supreme Court is about to consider a major case that could decide if and how local governments can seize properties owned by religious groups in order to promote economic development. Obviously, there are some strong voices for and against the idea. What do you think should be done?


http://csmonitor.com/2005/0216/p15s01-lire.html

My biggest problem with this is that throughout the whole buying process, including the zoning and everything, nobody told the church that it was essentially predetermined that this land was going to be taken. They should get that land back, or at least the money they paid for it, based on that fact.

Eminent domain is nothing but theft and coercion. A government body feels that they can reassign the land to better benefit themselves (or, "the community," they claim) and they order private citizens to leave their property and allow it to be taken over by whoever is chose by the government.

It's armed robbery if I take your property, and it's armed robbery if the government takes your land without you expressing a desire to sell and negotiatiung a fair-market price. The government has the police and the military defending what they do, so they get away with it.

Any Judge or city official who signs an order to take a property by eminent domain should be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and any government representative, whether police, military or otherwise who attempts to remove you from your property should be prosecuted as accomplices to that crime.

There is no way to justify the infringement of an individual's right to life, liberty, privacy, or property regardless of who is infringing on that right, except in defense against an aggressor who wishes to violate your rights.

We had a revolution last time infringement of citizens' rights got too far out of hand, and the government we instituted in place of the one we got rid of should not be committing these same crimes against its people.

For those that missed it.....there it is again. :thumbsup:

Exactly and exactly. If the government/state wants your property they can do what everyone else has to do and submit a bid to the real estate agent. The land is mine. I paid for it and continue to pay for it every year in taxes. They even gave me a title and everything. To say that anyone can come along and force me to sell them my land is theft and coercion doesn't matter what their names are or what they want to do with it.

It's an eminence front, an eminence front, it's a put on.

This doesn't just involve churches of course. Governments/states/cities do this all the time. In most cases this is legal for state projects like highways etc... but not to obtain the land for private developers. In Norwood, Ohio they are currently trying to buy the land for a private developer which is not legal so they have declared the neighborhood as a blight in order to make it legal. The neighborhood is not a blight. Out of about 90 home owners most have agreed to sell at 125% of current value.

The remaining holdouts are trying to fight the city in court. This does seem like theft to take the property of private owners and give it to a private developer. Norwood stands to gain an additional one to two million dollars a year in taxes if they can force the home owners out.
Many owners in the neighborhood wish to sell, but rather than building on that property, the developer demands the entire neighborhood or none of it.
The Institute for Justice represents the property owners who wish to stay in this landmark challenge to the City’s bogus “blight” designation of the neighborhood and the City’s misuse of eminent domain in the area.
http://www.ij.org/images/clients/pri...es_norwood.jpg

At 125% market-price, who could complain?

With eminent domain cases you are garunteed a fair-market price. If you don't recieve one, or have economic damages as a result, you can take your case to court and generate work for an economist.

Therein lies the rub. I completely agree with MSD, eminent domain is theft. However, your continuing to pay for your land every year in taxes is exactly the reasoning behind it. It's NOT your land. You're renting it from the government. The title? That's for things ON the land. The land itself? Not yours. So, that's how the government justifies all this, and legally they have every right to. We all agree to it every time we purchase "real estate." The biggest crime is the fact that there are no real options to purchase land otherwise.

Most people don't have the finances to take the government to court, and most victims of eminent domain DON'T get a fair price. Besides for that, it doesn't change the fact they're being FORCED to give up their property and, in many cases, their HOMES. There is more than the monetary value to a home.

People are complaining. The good news is that the chronic misuse (as if there is such a thing as proper use) of eminent domain has led to a slew of news specials on prominant, nation-wide programs such as 20/20. The bad news is that they don't seem to be having enough of an effect to couse the citizenry to speak out loudly against it. It is, I think, the most disturbing trend in American culture today - most people don't care unless it happens to them or someone they know.

MSD speaks for myself as well.

Unfortunately, as SM stated, the government feels that it can tax land, which amounts to a defacto renting of said land by the "owner".

It is bad enough when they take your property for state projects like highways but it is outright theft when one private citizen can get the government to force another private citizen to sell to them. If the developer wants the property bad enough let them offer 1000% of market value or whatever it takes.

In this case when people wouldn't sell to them the developers went to the city to force the sale at their price. The city knew it couldn't legally do this so they declared the area a blight which legally gives them the right to take it. This just isn't right, legally or morally.

Perhaps I should read the leading article first, huh?

In a case of legitimate eminent domain, who can complain about 125%?

In this case, after reading the article, this isn't eminent domain, it's theft.

I guess 'blight' is being redefined as 'commercial zoning area where private residences dot the landscape'.

:lol: got a good chuckle out of this one. :lol:

If you're referring to flstf's article, I heard about it a week ago and apparently the mayor's response when asked how it is considered to be deteriorating is that noise levels have increased since the neighborhood has built.

edit: just checked and it's in the artcle he linked to.

I challenge anyone to try to defend this.

As I'm completely out of my league as I'm not a tax attorney, real estate agent, etc. I am reticent to respond at the risk of looking like a fool.

Oh well....

You're not renting it from the government. You're paying tax on property, which is used to fund local services, and it's that distinction and only that distinction that forces local governments to pay market value for your property rather than pay nothing at all. If you were, in fact, renting your land from the government, what's to stop them from simply kicking you off it whenever they deem fit for whatever reason? Because it is your property and under your ownership, which means that local governments have to demonstrate a viable reason for seizing your property using eminent domain so they can 'improve' it.

Again, it's my understanding that there are two types of property, real and personal. Generally speaking, real property consists of the land and every permanent improvement on that land, which is why, for lack of better phrasing, 'house tax' and 'property tax' are usually one and the same even though homeowners generally have seperate titles. Even if there's nothing on the property you still get a title, which from what I've seen, describes acreage, location, etc...

Personal property is generally property that isn't real property. I assume that's why you pay a personal property tax (cars, boats, etc.) seperate from all other taxes.

Again, all this is based on my finite knowledge of the tax system and how it works, so, there's a very good chance that I'm blowing smoke up my own ass.

The argument in my first post was poor. I will be the first to admit it as my mind was elsewhere. So, let me redact....
There, that better reflects what I'm saying. While the government may reserve the right and be in accordance with the law in seizing land under the guise of 'eminent domain,' in my opinion, the whole practice of is nothing short of theft and coercion.

(forgoing the bad Eminem joke)

Eminent domain is a necessary evil for any population that has to rework roadways, utilities, civil offices, etc. constantly to keep up with population growths. Does it suck for those involved? Of course. I watched a friend lose his martial arts studio that he had just built 1 year earlier because the city decided they needed a fire dept. in that exact spot. He fought for a while, but it is pretty useless once the decision is made. He was heart broken, and had to fight for market value in court.

But, what is the alternative? Roads will be built, land will be needed. The need of the many outweigh the need of a few - that's how they have always run this gov't. The price of progess and all that, I guess.

With a commercial interest it is trickier, but what if the decision is between moving 20 homeowners vs. watching 3000 jobs go somewhere else? Sure the city wants the tax revenue, but your neighbors need the jobs too. And you can't allow one or two people to hold out and negotiate your tax dollars away because of a "fair market" struggle, it has to be all or none. But I do agree it's one of the worst things to find yourself in the middle of...

I do find it offensive that the church's feel they derserve some sort of special exemption - take a private residence, but you can't touch a church? It's not like they even pay taxes! What ego.

I don't agree that the government should be able to force one private citizen to sell to another private citizen. It is not legal in Norwood either that's why they had to declare the area as a blight.

Just because someone is willing to build something more expensive or that will generate more taxes should not be reason enough to take private property. There are many areas where developers are willing to demolish older inexpensive homes and put up several expensive megahouses on the same lot but the government should not be able to force the old homeowners out.

If the developers want the property then they should buy it on the open market just like the rest of us. It is the cost of doing business and the polititians should stay out of it. I'm sure the polititians would welcome the additional revenue by replacing the older inexpensive houses but it is just not right. Many developers contribute heavily to the polititians but the government should not be for sale. How naive does that sound, :) .

Like a freshman at prom :) kidding ~

In theory I agree flstf, but after watching the devastation of Flint, MI when GM closed the assemblage factory and moved it to Mexico, It makes you rethink the priorities of a community. Cities grow, roads get built, new hospitals are needed, etc.... Someone has to have authority to take care of the needs of the population. It is a part of developed society.

That's different. GM closed up. GM didn't force 100+ homeowners out of their homes. Big difference, there, I think.

I agree 110% with flstf's last post. If developers want the land, they need to buy it like the rest of us. The government IS NOT a realtor.

DEI37 - I was referring to a corporate case from the article here:

My point was that I believe relocating people may be the better alternative if GM wants the land bad enough, and your city needs the jobs. Flint raised its corporate income tax rate .05% on GM by a Mayor who thought there was nothing they could do about it. 6 mos. later GM was gone, 1 year later no one had a house left in Flint anyway. I am sure Detroit paid close attention.

Eminent domain s legal theft, no matter if it is church property or Joe Schmucks house. I've seen school districts use it and the pain it has caused. It's BS.

But the use of eminent domain is not 'relocating people'. That is a term to make it less offensive than it really is and is intellectually dishonest. Every city needs jobs but allowing the government to be manipulated by corporate entities to force people to sell their homes on prime real estate is already having a corrupt government and NO ownership society at all. How secure in our citizens property rights can anyone be if at the signing of a document we can be forced to accept whatever 'just' offer from the government and have to find new homes? On top of that, what happens when theres no more private land to buy, when its all being used for 'jobs'????