California and Eminent Domain

[NatGertler]

Eliminating eminent domain sounds good on paper but is a pretty dumb idea anyway, since there is such a thing as the public interest. Probably a better idea to limit application of eminent domain by arriving at a consensus of what constitutes "the public interest."

Well, that's what California's prop 98 does. It doesn't eliminate the use of eminent domain; it limits it to the use of public projects. Government needs to build a road where your house is? They can use eminent domain. Setting up a nature preserve? Sure. But if they want to take it because Target wants to go there (and doesn't want to be bothered to pay you what you think your house is worth)? No go. Your town wants to get rid of some affordable housing to replace it with a fancy new development so that your town isn't burdened by poor folks and instead has rich folks paying more taxes? That would be a no-go as well.

There's also a competing measure which looks like it exists merely to convince people not to vote for the first measure; Prop 99 doesn't have any effect on rent control, and limits its very limited protections to homes lived in by their owners. That business which has been in your family for three generations? Nope, not protected.

Whether prop 98 is reasonable, or is merely an attempt to exploit the public reaction to the Kelo decision in order to eliminate rent control, that's a different question. (If it wasn't for the rent control stuff, I'd vote for it in a second. With that in there, I'm still thinkin'.)

[Brenz]

Even if not perfect, 98 is a step in the right direction. Eminent domain needs to clearly delineate between public use (and the onus of that use superceding an individual's right to private property) and public good.

I'm cranky about this topic, having grown up in New London, CT, which recently brought a shameful case of eminent domain all the way to the Supreme Court.

It was further befouled by the seizures' origins in the city's development corporation, an unelected group of public and private interests that did some good, but still had no place in that mess. So yeah, I still believe in public domain, but it needs a whole lot of redefinition.

[badMike]

If Prop 98 eliminates rent control, I'm definitely going to go vote against it, which is a shame because the eminent domain reform sounds like a good idea.

[bartl]

Even if not perfect, 98 is a step in the right direction. Eminent domain needs to clearly delineate between public use (and the onus of that use superceding an individual's right to private property) and public good.

I'm cranky about this topic, having grown up in New London, CT, which recently brought a shameful case of eminent domain all the way to the Supreme Court.

But here's the thing that confused the hell out of me. With eminent domain, the state is supposed to pay a fair value for the property. However, eminent domain is being used so that the state can force people to sell WELL BELOW what they could get if they dealt with the eventual owner privately. I was surprised that this was not brought up in the court case.

[Lord Destiny]

The business thugs in New London, CT ran straight to the government to force a sale that they could not gain using Free Market principles.

Funny how Big Business defends THEIR right to price goods as high as the market will bear, but when that principle is turned back on them by the little guy they squeal like a stuck pig.

It was a major battle in the taboo-to-mention class war, and the rich won big time.

[NatGertler]

If Prop 98 eliminates rent control, I'm definitely going to go vote against it, which is a shame because the eminent domain reform sounds like a good idea.

Which is exactly why they shape propositions like this. They write a proposition that does A and B, when A is something that has a lot of support... but B is the part that the people funding it really want, and A doesn't cost them anything anyway.

Which is not saying that the two parts of this are philosophically divorced anyway; rent control is government again setting the value of your property and forcing it on you whether or not you agree.

My default position is to vote against propositions, just to discourage folks from trying this sort of thing. That doesn't mean that I will vote against a proposition which I consider a good idea, but in the case of a tie, my thumb goes down.

[bartl]

Which is exactly why they shape propositions like this. They write a proposition that does A and B, when A is something that has a lot of support... but B is the part that the people funding it really want, and A doesn't cost them anything anyway.

And the people supporting it scream loudly that if you don't support their solution, it's because you don't want the problem that A is supposed to solve fixed.

The logical fallacy involved is the "false dilemma"; where a choice is presented as being between two possibilities when, in fact, there are more than two.

A wonderful example of this is a dirty trick pulled by George Bush on John McCain in the 2000 New York Republican Primary. It was pretty much a "must win" for McCain, and he was doing very well in the polls. Well, turns out that breast cancer is a major issue in the heavily populated Long Island section (where there's a disproportionate number of cases). And there was a bill purportedly for breast cancer research, but really to send research money to a bunch of crooks, that McCain voted against. So, of course, the ads that came out on "Smear Thursday" (the Thursday before an election is the ideal time to put out a half-truth implying a lie, because that gives it sufficient time to spread, but not sufficient time to be countered) were, "John McCain voted against this bill. Do we want a president who is against breast cancer research?" John McCain lost the primary, and the nomination. Which is too bad; he would have made a far better President than Bush.

[Steven Grant]

Even if not perfect, 98 is a step in the right direction. Eminent domain needs to clearly delineate between public use (and the onus of that use superceding an individual's right to private property) and public good.

This is one of the problems with discussing eminent domain: there's no national standard. Every municipality or sometimes state sets its own rules regarding the scope of its eminent domain powers. Connecticut's were extremely broad, leading to the abuses there. But eminent domain in itself doesn't necessarily suggest abuse, and it's easy enough to set parameters to keep its use in check, for serious things and not nonsense like some developer wanting to put a shopping center where some poor guy has his koi pond.

But eminent domain opponents tend to present it like Connecticut has the baseline standard for usage.

As for "fair market value," that's a thorny topic too, since generally it's the municipalities employing eminent domain who get to determine what "fair market value" is. And the landowners e.d. gets imposed on tend toward the high end of valuation, so they almost never feel they're getting what the land is worth.

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

Which is too bad; he would have made a far better President than Bush.

My dog would make a far better president, and he's been dead two years now...

- Grant

[NatGertler]

And the landowners e.d. gets imposed on tend toward the high end of valuation, so they almost never feel they're getting what the land is worth.

And that's reasonable, because if its value on the fair market was more than its practical value to the landowner, the owner would've already been selling it.

The "fair market value" for a storefront is what it's worth to a new store that would move into the place. The practical value to a current profitable store is much more -- it's the value of being where your customers already know to find you, where your yellow pages listings point to, it's the value of not having to take everything apart and set it up again elsewhere, costing a lot of effort and money and lost sales time.

The fair market value of the house you've lived in for thirty years doesn't include the comfort you have there or the memories you have in the place you worked so long to pay off so that it could be yours.

[bartl]

As for "fair market value," that's a thorny topic too, since generally it's the municipalities employing eminent domain who get to determine what "fair market value" is. And the landowners e.d. gets imposed on tend toward the high end of valuation, so they almost never feel they're getting what the land is worth.

Although sometimes, inductive logic works. For example, if the state is paying fair market value, then why aren't the corporations just buying the property directly?

(note that similar logic works with the safety of SUV's: if they're so much safer than cars, then why do the manufacturers fight tooth and nail to keep them from being judged by car safety standards, and insist on having them judged on the less stringent truck safety standards?).

[Paul McEnery]

[INDENT]
Whether prop 98 is reasonable, or is merely an attempt to exploit the public reaction to the Kelo decision in order to eliminate rent control, that's a different question. (If it wasn't for the rent control stuff, I'd vote for it in a second. With that in there, I'm still thinkin'.)

That's exactly what it is. A complete trojan horse.

And this is why I think we should do away with the Proposition system. As if Prop 13 wasn't reason enough.

[NatGertler]

But you ain't gonna be able to get rid of the proposition system without a proposition.

[bartl]

That's exactly what it is. A complete trojan horse.

And this is why I think we should do away with the Proposition system. As if Prop 13 wasn't reason enough.

Is this the philosophy that the state should be ruled by the Will of the People, but most people have been brainwashed so they don't know what they really want, so we need elites who know what the Will of the People really is so that they can tell the people what it is they really want?

[Steven Grant]

Is this the philosophy that the state should be ruled by the Will of the People, but most people have been brainwashed so they don't know what they really want, so we need elites who know what the Will of the People really is so that they can tell the people what it is they really want?

No, I think the philosophy is that you can scare the people into believing they want just about anything. In this case, the state is an evil monster just aching to snatch their homes and other property from them and give it over to developers, corporations and whoever else puts money in politicians' pockets and whisper in their ears, and the only way to stop them is to rally and crush them, and get their fingers out of all private property matters because those are trojan horses to give the state almighty power. If we don't stop them here and now, we will never be able to curb their unholy lusts! (Doubles over and gasps for breath.)

Don't know about California, but in Manhattan most rent controlled buildings were those which accepted it in return for tax breaks and other considerations from the city and state, at least when I was living in there. (I lived my last few years there in a rent-controlled apartment, and the owner lived upstairs on the top two floors of a brownstone he had bought and was renovating. restoring, and rent control was part of the deal, in return for which he got tax breaks and help with the purchase money.) I've never lived anywhere where the amount a landlord could jack the rent up each renewal period wasn't restricted by law, with considerations for inflation and other factors. Is that considered "rent control" by California landowners?

- Grant