NY - Gov using eminent domain to seize property and turn it over to private corps.

[Anti Federalist]

This remains my single biggest opposition to "private" roads.

To put a profit motive on state theft, is twice as bad as the state theft itself.



Using Eminent Domain to Screw the Little Guy in Spring Valley, New York

John K. Ross|May. 11, 2013 9:00 am

http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/11/using-eminent-domain-to-screw-the-little

Probably what will cheer you up this morning is a story about eminent domain abuse paid for by you. If so, you’re in luck, gentle reader.

Officials in Spring Valley, New York, which is about 20 miles north of Manhattan, have been seizing properties in the village’s 15-block downtown area for the past decade and flipping them to private developers. Federal community development block grants helped pay for the acquisitions.


From The Journal News:

Mercy Anim can’t bring herself to drive down Main Street, where she had cared for young children at her day-care center before being displaced by a condo complex as part of the village’s urban renewal project.

She never found a spot to reopen Little Angels. The condo builder offered her pre-manufactured trailers to care for infants to 12-year-olds. She chose to close in 2009.

“My heart was so broken,” Anim said. “I’ve never driven on the street since I closed. They took away from me the children and their parents. I want to cry. I don’t go to Spring Valley no more.”


Village leaders, two of whom are now under federal indictment for extortion and wire fraud in an unrelated matter, demolished Anim’s business and several others in 2009. What they haven’t done is pay Anim for improvements made to the property. They’ve offered $96,000. Anim’s appraiser says she should be getting north of $1 million.

In the meantime, the developers, aided further by a variety of state and local subsidies, built senior housing as well as expensive condominiums designed to meet kosher standards.


Back to The Journal News:

[The developers] are accused of steering the condos to ultra-Orthodox Jews and discouraging non-religious people from buying units.

The NAACP filed a complaint after people tried to buy a condo, saying they were given more expensive prices and the runaround.

The village could be liable to repay HUD up to $1 million for not reporting the sale of property to the developer, according to a HUD audit.


Former officials say everything is above board; they knew going in that the condos would go to Orthodox Jews. But that may violate federal fair-housing rules all the same. HUD is investigating.

That’s little consolation to Anim: “I had an investment in that building,” Anim said. “They put up condos to benefit certain people. I can’t believe this can happen in America. Eminent domain is not supposed to be used that way.”

[fr33]

It happens literally all the time in Texas. One of the more famous cases was when George W Bush used the govt to take land from unwilling owners to build a huge hotdog stand... err I mean baseball park.

[Anti Federalist]

It happens literally all the time in Texas. One of the more famous cases was when George W Bush used the govt to take land from unwilling owners to build a huge hotdog stand... err I mean baseball park.

Without blowing my own horn too much, I still regard my efforts locally that shot down a 125 acre ED confiscation and saved a local family's heirloom property, and the effort that resulted in the following NH constitutional amendment:


[Art.] 12-a. [Power to Take Property Limited.] No part of a person's property shall be taken by eminent domain and transferred, directly or indirectly, to another person if the taking is for the purpose of private development or other private use of the property.

It was one of many actions that various states took, in the wake of Kelo v. City of New London the previous year, to limit the uses of eminent domain permitted by that decision.

...as my "proudest" moments in a lifetime of political agitating.

[WM_in_MO]

Happens here in st Louis all the time.

[Christian Liberty]

None of us who support private roads support eminent domain. For any reason. That's anti-liberty.

[Anti Federalist]

None of us who support private roads support eminent domain. For any reason. That's anti-liberty.

I understand.

I'm convinced it cannot be done without it.

You will have hold outs that will take no amount of money.

And as encouraging as that picture of a road in China was, the fact is that road and home became pretty much unusable.

[Christian Liberty]

I understand.

I'm convinced it cannot be done without it.

You will have hold outs that will take no amount of money.

And as encouraging as that picture of a road in China was, the fact is that road and home became pretty much unusable.

We may just be stuck with the roads that already exist. I can live with that.

[Anti Federalist]

We may just be stuck with the roads that already exist. I can live with that.

Quite possibly.

Shame more railroads can't be built.

Much less of a "footprint".

But I'd be opposed to turning over roads already built by theft and ED to private firms for private profit.

Maybe a co-op, like my town electric grid, might be the answer.

[Christian Liberty]

Quite possibly.

Shame more railroads can't be built.

Much less of a "footprint".

But I'd be opposed to turning over roads already built by theft and ED to private firms for private profit.

Maybe a co-op, like my town electric grid, might be the answer.

I don't know exactly who should get them. But I don't think government should continue to control them.

[TheTexan]

This remains my single biggest opposition to "private" roads.

To put a profit motive on state theft, is twice as bad as the state theft itself
---

You dont think that profit motive isnt already there?

The only difference between having your land stolen, public vs private, is if they steal your land on behalf of the state it is deemed "legitimate."

Theft will always occur this is true, but its a lot easier to get away with when a man with a badge, or an elected criminal, does it.

[Brian4Liberty]

They’ve offered $96,000. Anim’s appraiser says she should be getting north of $1 million.

That doesn't sound like reasonable payment, and would be a violation of the law.

[TheTexan]

I understand.

I'm convinced it cannot be done without it.

You will have hold outs that will take no amount of money.

And as encouraging as that picture of a road in China was, the fact is that road and home became pretty much unusable.

This is why baby jesus invented option contracts. The holdout problem is easily solved.

[Brian4Liberty]

Back to The Journal News:

[The developers] are accused of steering the condos to ultra-Orthodox Jews and discouraging non-religious people from buying units.

The NAACP filed a complaint after people tried to buy a condo, saying they were given more expensive prices and the runaround.

The village could be liable to repay HUD up to $1 million for not reporting the sale of property to the developer, according to a HUD audit.

Former officials say everything is above board; they knew going in that the condos would go to Orthodox Jews. But that may violate federal fair-housing rules all the same. HUD is investigating.

That’s little consolation to Anim: “I had an investment in that building,” Anim said. “They put up condos to benefit certain people. I can’t believe this can happen in America. Eminent domain is not supposed to be used that way.”

Is this an analogy for Palestinians? At least there were no tanks present when they kicked them out, bulldozed the properties, and took it for themselves...

[jclay2]

Wow, this is like the 6th af thread I have replied to.

AF: You seriously need to consider an internet radio show/blog.

[Anti Federalist]

This remains my single biggest opposition to "private" roads.

To put a profit motive on state theft, is twice as bad as the state theft itself
---

You dont think that profit motive isnt already there?

The only difference between having your land stolen, public vs private, is if they steal your land on behalf of the state it is deemed "legitimate."

Theft will always occur this is true, but its a lot easier to get away with when a man with a badge, or an elected criminal, does it.

And you also have the "monopoly interest" angle as well.

Suppose bxm042 decides one day that AF is a bag of douche and throws ol' AF off his roads?

Where does that leave me?

That's why I'm really liking the co-op model.

It works, I use it, my whole town does, for electricity and we have the best service and some of the lowest rates in the state.

I'll have to flesh that out some, see how could apply to roads.

[TheTexan]

And you also have the "monopoly interest" angle as well.

Suppose bxm042 decides one day that AF is a bag of douche and throws ol' AF off his roads?

Where does that leave me?

Does not the state already possess, exercise, and abuse this power?

And when was the last time, outside of a bar, that you were thrown out of a private, profit seeking establishment, and told never to return?

[Anti Federalist]

Does not the state already possess, exercise, and abuse this power?

And when was the last time, outside of a bar, that you were thrown out of a private, profit seeking establishment, and told never to return?

Sean Shamity's forums...

1...

2...

3...

4...

5...times and counting.

[Anti Federalist]

Does not the state already possess, exercise, and abuse this power?

And when was the last time, outside of a bar, that you were thrown out of a private, profit seeking establishment, and told never to return?

Oh, and that is only because we bought a line of shit about driving being a "privilege" and not a right.

But it can't be a "right" if I have to exercise it against someone else's will.

[Anti Federalist]

This is why baby jesus invented option contracts. The holdout problem is easily solved.

Explain, plz.

[amy31416]

Sean Shamity's forums...

1...

2...

3...

4...

5...times and counting.

How very Eduardo/Fire11-ish of you. :p

[TheTexan]

Explain, plz.

Theres two types of holdouts
1) the kind that cant be bought, no matter the price (rare)
2) the kind that demands an exorbitant price because he knows hes one of the last to sell

Option contracts get around this by paying a small fee ($1 is not unheard of) to secure the option to buy your property at a specific price within a certain amount of time.

If you need a highway built, you would first plan many different paths this highway might be built on. If you only plan one route this highway might take, you are setting yourself up for failure. You would then set out to make as many option contracts as you can, and find the "path of least resistance" without having to invest a large amount of money.

You can possibly get around type2 holdouts by adding a confidentiality clause to your contracts, so they wont know that they are the last property that you need to buy. And these holdouts also have less leverage, because you still havent invested a large amount of money.

For type1 holdouts, there really is no moral way to take their land, but with good planning you can probably build around them without having to resort to the china-solution

[TheTexan]

Sean Shamity's forums...

1...

2...

3...

4...

5...times and counting.

Im not so sure I would call any part of the mainstream media a "private establishment". Their goals, objectives, and relationship to the government is far too interwoven I think.

[Carson]

Agenda 21?

[fr33]

Quite possibly.

Shame more railroads can't be built.

Much less of a "footprint".

But I'd be opposed to turning over roads already built by theft and ED to private firms for private profit.

Maybe a co-op, like my town electric grid, might be the answer.

There used to be more railroads. The communities I live near used to be boom-towns during those days. Technology, division of labor, and central planning-subsidies made most of the people move to the city.

[fr33]

That doesn't sound like reasonable payment, and would be a violation of the law.

Under current laws, the only recourse a property owner has in these cases is to beg a judge and that doesn't usually work out that well. I've been through it a few times and judging from some mail I received, I'll be doing it again. In my case it's buried pipelines and electric lines (with huge towers carrying them). It's bad enough that we can't refuse it, but the judges so far tend to favor the terms that the big energy companies provide and not us peon landowners.

[Anti Federalist]

Under current laws, the only recourse a property owner has in these cases is to beg a judge and that doesn't usually work out that well. I've been through it a few times and judging from some mail I received, I'll be doing it again. In my case it's buried pipelines and electric lines (with huge towers carrying them). It's bad enough that we can't refuse it, but the judges so far tend to favor the terms that the big energy companies provide and not us peon landowners.

Arrrgg...

Ron Paul could have won NH on this issue, right here.

Northern Pass.

Grrrr...

[Anti Federalist]

How very Eduardo/Fire11-ish of you. :p

I know, right?

[Anti Federalist]

Im not so sure I would call any part of the mainstream media a "private establishment". Their goals, objectives, and relationship to the government is far too interwoven I think.

Oh, there are plenty of other examples...

In fact, do you have any idea how nice it would be for somebody to call me "Sir"?

Without saying right after that, "you're making a scene".

:D

[Acala]

None of us who support private roads support eminent domain. For any reason. That's anti-liberty.

Exactly