Eminent domain my ass.
Now I will tell you how I really feel. I hate the concept of emininent domain which is basically the government's way of telling you that the your rights mean squat when compared to everyone else's. Seriously, how can you be serving the public by removing the rights of one of its citizens?
Most of you know that I believe government should have a very limited role in our lives. One of the few things I think government should do is protect private property. In other words, nobody has the right to steal anything from you, and that includes the government. This notion that the "public's" interest in a new hotel and health spa is more important than the rights of the individual home owner is just ridiculous. This is NOT a case when the NEED of the many outweight the RIGHTS of a few.
I can't even think of a circumstance where I think it is OK for the government to sieze your property. If anyone can and wants to try and convince me feel free, I'll listen. If the government can't come up with what the property owner thinks is fair value for the land then government, like everyone else, needs to find an alternative plan.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
i say we seize the government's property. after all, it's not private property because the government is a public entity.
I can see a few situations in which eminent domain would be a good thing. What about a crack house in a residential neighborhood? Or an abandoned apartment copmlex whose land could be repurposed into a community center or VA hospital or, um,a nunnery?
Forcing residents, however, off of their property to build strip malls purely to derive more property tax revenue is a but much. Unfortunately, I think it's a difference of degree, not of kind between that and the community center thing. Where do you draw the line?
The crack house is not an example of eminent domain. The house could be taken because it was used in the execution of a criminal act.
Your last example I would also say is not a reason for government to take over a building. If it truely abandoned then sure, but if someone owns it and just wants to let it sit there, then no. It is that person's right to do nothing with the property. Could you imagine if the government said you couldn't have a savings account and that everyone had to spend whatever money they earned right away?
Terrence, I think you're right.
(This was originally posted by Meghan but I accidently removed it. Sorry Meghan)
How can anyone really say that they OWN property, anyway? I mean, what do you own? The house? What if that burns down? The land? What if an earthquake swallows-up half your property? Do you get part of someone elses to make up for what you lost? How long will you own it? What if you die and don't leave it to anyone specifically, but no one realizes it for a few weeks? Who owned the land all of that time? And who paid the first people that ever "owned" it. Did they get a fair price? What's a fair price?
Your property ends up owning you, after awhile, doesn't it?
Wow Meghan, you and I finally really disagree on something.
I absolutely believe someone can "own" something. In fact, I don't think a free society can properly function without the idea of property rights (This in and of itself is a very long topic). Are you saying you do not? Does that mean I have the right to come to your house and just decide that I want to live there too. How about if I like your car? Can I just take it from you? I mean, if you don't own it then there can be no crime if I take it from you. I'll try and answer each of your other questions in turn.
I mean, what do you own? The house? What if that burns down? The land?
You own it all.
What if an earthquake swallows-up half your property? Do you get part of someone elses to make up for what you lost?
Of course not. Nobody ever said you should be compensated for something that was an act of god or not caused by someone else's actions.
How long will you own it?
Indefinately until you decide to do something else with it.
What if you die and don't leave it to anyone specifically, but no one realizes it for a few weeks? Who owned the land all of that time?
You technically still do as it belongs to your estate. If you have no heirs than it is proper for the government to reclaim the land for public use.
And who paid the first people that ever "owned" it?
Are we talking Native Americans here? I agree that it was wrong to take the land away from them without just compensation but this is in the past and trying to fix this problem now would only be an injustice to those today. This too is a very long topic I won't get into now.
Did they get a fair price? What's a fair price?
A fair price is whatever the owner thinks is fair. If I think my pen is worth $1 million nobody has the right to tell me otherwise. If you don't want it don't buy it. Simple as that. If someone offered me $1000 and I didn't want to take it, that is my choice. I would be an idiot but it is my right to be so.
Post a Comment