The Owners' Counsel of America was honored with the opportunity to present the Crystal Eagle Award to Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes on Tuesday, January 6, 2009 for their dedication to the protection of private property rights and for exposing the many eminent domain abuses of our government. OCA Members Alan Ackerman (MI), Michael Rikon (NY), and Edward McKirdy (NJ) accompanied by Anthony Della Pelle (NJ), presented each gentleman with a Crystal Eagle statue engraved with an inscription recognizing each for his contributions to the protection of private property rights.
Stop the property pirates!!!!!
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
More eminent domain abuse
http://showmeinstitute.org/publication/id.88/pub_detail.asp\
The Specter of Condemnation: The Case Against Eminent Domain for Private Profit in Missouri
October 17, 2007
By Timothy B. Lee, Shaida Dezfuli
Private property rights have long been regarded as the foundation of a free society. Traditionally, the taking of private property by eminent domain has only been allowed for public use. But over the last 50 years, courts have increasingly allowed municipalities in Missouri to take property for private developments. Under the pretext of remedying “blight,” cities now condemn ordinary middle-class neighborhoods to make room for retail, corporate offices, and apartments.
Proponents claim the practice promotes economic development, but the reality is just the opposite. The threat of eminent domain casts a cloud of uncertainty, discouraging owners from investing in their property. And many “redevelopment” projects do not create wealth; they divert jobs and revenues from neighboring jurisdictions.
Some developers argue that the problem of “holdouts” — property owners who demand exorbitantly high prices — justifies the private use of eminent domain. But there are a number of other strategies developers can employ for holdouts. What they don’t mention is that simply the threat of eminent domain has often allowed them to obtain property at below-market rates.
Some planners argue that eminent domain is needed for urban slums. However, if slum redevelopments are intended to help residents, permitting eminent domain is counterproductive. Eminent domain is often used to demolish low-income housing and replace it with more expensive housing. Many former residents are forced into even more squalid housing elsewhere.
Last year’s eminent domain legislation did not provide adequate protections for property owners. Municipalities can still seize “blighted” property, and the definition of “blight” is so broad that almost no neighborhood is safe. Missouri needs a constitutional amendment prohibiting eminent domain for private use.
The Specter of Condemnation: The Case Against Eminent Domain for Private Profit in Missouri
October 17, 2007
By Timothy B. Lee, Shaida Dezfuli
Private property rights have long been regarded as the foundation of a free society. Traditionally, the taking of private property by eminent domain has only been allowed for public use. But over the last 50 years, courts have increasingly allowed municipalities in Missouri to take property for private developments. Under the pretext of remedying “blight,” cities now condemn ordinary middle-class neighborhoods to make room for retail, corporate offices, and apartments.
Proponents claim the practice promotes economic development, but the reality is just the opposite. The threat of eminent domain casts a cloud of uncertainty, discouraging owners from investing in their property. And many “redevelopment” projects do not create wealth; they divert jobs and revenues from neighboring jurisdictions.
Some developers argue that the problem of “holdouts” — property owners who demand exorbitantly high prices — justifies the private use of eminent domain. But there are a number of other strategies developers can employ for holdouts. What they don’t mention is that simply the threat of eminent domain has often allowed them to obtain property at below-market rates.
Some planners argue that eminent domain is needed for urban slums. However, if slum redevelopments are intended to help residents, permitting eminent domain is counterproductive. Eminent domain is often used to demolish low-income housing and replace it with more expensive housing. Many former residents are forced into even more squalid housing elsewhere.
Last year’s eminent domain legislation did not provide adequate protections for property owners. Municipalities can still seize “blighted” property, and the definition of “blight” is so broad that almost no neighborhood is safe. Missouri needs a constitutional amendment prohibiting eminent domain for private use.
Info on Eminent Domain
Eminent Domain
The right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner.
Right of a government entity to seize private property for the purpose of constructing a public facility. Federal, state, and local governments can seize people's homes under eminent domain laws as long as the homeowner is compensated at fair market value. Some public projects that may necessitate such Condemnation include highways, hospitals, schools, parks, or government office buildings.
The right of the government or a public utility to acquire property for necessary public use by Condemnation the owner must be fairly compensated.
Example: Ready Watts Electric Company is granted the power of eminent domain by the state government. This allows the company to acquire private property for specified purposes through the process of condemnation.
The right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner.
Right of a government entity to seize private property for the purpose of constructing a public facility. Federal, state, and local governments can seize people's homes under eminent domain laws as long as the homeowner is compensated at fair market value. Some public projects that may necessitate such Condemnation include highways, hospitals, schools, parks, or government office buildings.
The right of the government or a public utility to acquire property for necessary public use by Condemnation the owner must be fairly compensated.
Example: Ready Watts Electric Company is granted the power of eminent domain by the state government. This allows the company to acquire private property for specified purposes through the process of condemnation.
Social factor to eminent domain abuse
Some social factors influence social problems more than others. But the media seems to be the most centralized in social problems, although it is not necessarily the biggest influence of eminent domain abuse. Through the analysis of cases, articles, and other media avenues it seems that the Government (both local and federal levels) and large corporations and developers are the largest faciliators to eminent domain and its abuses. The Government has the most influence on controlling the social problems of eminent domain abuse because they are the ones who ultimately decide if the eminent domain is being used for its original use, "public use."
Monday, March 16, 2009
Eminent Domain in the Media
The is a number of political comics related to the US and even England for that matter portray the abuses of eminent domain. Even television stars like Drew Carey are making it a point to show the abuses of eminent domain in California on a new website reason.tv or reason.org.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Think Tank on Eminent Domain from an Ethical Perspective
http://www.eminentdomaintoday.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=5&id=32&Itemid=107
It states that since the landmark Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London was extremely controversial and yet no one has looked at it from an ethical perspective, only a legal perspective. There as been a major misunderstanding in most cases since Kelo regarding the proper ethical behavior that should be associated with eminent domain. This think tank looks at something called descriptive ethics and normative ethics when analyzing cases. Descriptive ethics is the study of people's beliefs and morality, while normative is designed to describe a set of rules guiding and governing human conduct, or a set of norms of action.
It states that since the landmark Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London was extremely controversial and yet no one has looked at it from an ethical perspective, only a legal perspective. There as been a major misunderstanding in most cases since Kelo regarding the proper ethical behavior that should be associated with eminent domain. This think tank looks at something called descriptive ethics and normative ethics when analyzing cases. Descriptive ethics is the study of people's beliefs and morality, while normative is designed to describe a set of rules guiding and governing human conduct, or a set of norms of action.
Think Tanks
http://www.njeminentdomain.com/state-of-new-jersey-new-jersey-eminent-domain-think-tank.html
Some conclusions to the social problem of eminent domain in NJ suggested by an attorney since eminent domain has moved away from using the taking clause strictly for public use:
?Abolish the "project enhancement" doctrine
?Business damages should be included in just compensation
?Expense of litigation should be borne by the condemnor
?Compensation for emotion distress that results in being forcibly removed from one's home.
In addition, they require a extensive redevelopment plan which includes:
1.Require a redevelopment element of the municipal master plan.
2.Enhance planning content of redevelopment plans.
3.Provide greater public notice and enhanced public participation
4.Guarantee adequate compensation for property taken.
5.Provide more opportunities for public scrutiny in redeveloper designation.
6.Offer enhanced financial participation to affected property owners.
7.Guarantee enhanced consideration of historic and environmental resources.
8.Provide immediate clarification of "smart growth" criterion.
9.Improve relocation assistance
Some conclusions to the social problem of eminent domain in NJ suggested by an attorney since eminent domain has moved away from using the taking clause strictly for public use:
?Abolish the "project enhancement" doctrine
?Business damages should be included in just compensation
?Expense of litigation should be borne by the condemnor
?Compensation for emotion distress that results in being forcibly removed from one's home.
In addition, they require a extensive redevelopment plan which includes:
1.Require a redevelopment element of the municipal master plan.
2.Enhance planning content of redevelopment plans.
3.Provide greater public notice and enhanced public participation
4.Guarantee adequate compensation for property taken.
5.Provide more opportunities for public scrutiny in redeveloper designation.
6.Offer enhanced financial participation to affected property owners.
7.Guarantee enhanced consideration of historic and environmental resources.
8.Provide immediate clarification of "smart growth" criterion.
9.Improve relocation assistance
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
