Update to SCOTUS legalizing of Property Theft

[Fretmute]

It seems to me, that there are some things that are more important than property rights... as long as you are fairly compensated... the needs of the community can outweigh your right to refuse to sell.

The community's rights end where mine begin. They can't possibly outweigh me. If it could be conclusively proven that my murder would cure cancer, it still shouldn't be legal for the state to terminate my life against my wishes. Likewise, my right to own land should be sacrosanct, regardless of the good that may come if it were turned over to the state, compensation or no.

[Mr. Sparkle]

It seems to me, that there are some things that are more important than property rights... as long as you are fairly compensated... the needs of the community can outweigh your right to refuse to sell.

The community's rights end where mine begin. They can't possibly outweigh me. If it could be conclusively proven that my murder would cure cancer, it still shouldn't be legal for the state to terminate my life against my wishes. Likewise, my right to own land should be sacrosanct, regardless of the good that may come if it were turned over to the state, compensation or no.

That's like playing SimCity without using the bulldozer.

[Fretmute]

That's like playing SimCity without using the bulldozer.

Your assumption that no one will sell is an extreme, as is mine that local governments will start abusing ED to enrich GloboCorp.

If the public need for new construction is so great, then the state ought to be in a position to offer compensation according to that need. If the city of Allen wanted to put a Taco Bell where I live, I'd gladly move for 150% of my home's value. Either it's worth that much to the city, or it isn't. But I feel that as the landowner, I ought to have the leverage.

The government's best contribution to the benefit of the public would be the assurance that all citizens enjoy their rights all of the time.

[edit] - Grammarification.

[Mr. Sparkle]

If the city of Allen wanted to put a Taco Bell where I live, I'd gladly move for 150% of my home's value. Either it's worth that much to the city, or it isn't. But I feel that as the landowner, I ought to have the leverage.

And what if the city of Allen wanted to have the Biggest Taco Bell In The World... and did offer you and all your neighbors 150% of your houses' values, a free year's subsciption to Barely Legal, and a lifetime supply of orange tick tacs... but one lone member of your neighborhood wanted 500% of his house's value and a date with Jessica Alba.

Should that one unreasonable guy be able to hold the city hostage? Isn't there a point where you need to be able to say: the Biggest Taco Bell In The World is going to benefit our community in ways too fantastic even to list, the offer is more than fair, and you're just being an asshat - so take the check and STFU.

ED gets invoked when people hold out for a big payoff... most gladly accept the offers and move on with their lives.

[Fretmute]

Should that one unreasonable guy be able to hold the city hostage?

Yes. This is where we differ.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Should that one unreasonable guy be able to hold the city hostage?

Yes.

Why? What is your reasoning behind having property rights sacred above and beyond the entity that grants and protects it?

[noxiousdog]

Should that one unreasonable guy be able to hold the city hostage?

Yes.

Why? What is your reasoning behind having property rights sacred above and beyond the entity that grants and protects it?

Because they don't grant it. They only protect it. And I pay them for it.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Because they don't grant it.

I'm sure the Native Americans would beg to differ.

[noxiousdog]

Because they don't grant it.

I'm sure the Native Americans would beg to differ.

They didn't have a deed sitting in the state capitol.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Because they don't grant it.

I'm sure the Native Americans would beg to differ.

They didn't have a deed sitting in the state capitol.

If God didn't give you your Condo as a mandate from Heaven, then is there a difference between enforcing and granting property rights?

[Fretmute]

What is your reasoning behind having property rights sacred above and beyond the entity that grants and protects it?

My reasoning is rooted in what I think the proper role of government is. It should exist to protect my rights. I believe one of those rights should be that of choosing the disposition of property that I own on my own terms.

In addition to safeguarding my rights, I'm not opposed to the government providing me with services. I think Fire Departments are a Good Thing, and I'm glad that my local government was kind enough to provide me with one.

You seem to think that role one can be ignored when role two reaches a critical mass. I consider role one inviolate; no matter how much happiness the Great Taco Bell will provide, its status as a service means that it can't trump rights, even those of a single person.

[edit] - Nevermind, I do know how I feel.

[noxiousdog]

Because they don't grant it.

I'm sure the Native Americans would beg to differ.

They didn't have a deed sitting in the state capitol.

If God didn't give you your Condo as a mandate from Heaven, then is there a difference between enforcing and granting property rights?

Apparently. That's why we no longer have Kings.

[Mr. Sparkle]

You seem to think that role one can be ignored when role two reaches a critical mass. I consider role one inviolate; no matter how much happiness the Great Taco Bell will provide, its status as a service means that it can't trump rights, even those of a single person.

Leaving aside, the particulars of kicking middle class families to the curb to feed Corporate Greed and make more Yacht Clubs for Bunny and Chip... I find it unfathomable that you would stop something like the Tennessee Valley Authority because some old lady didn't want to move.

Apparently. That's why we no longer have Kings.

Same difference.

You are a tenant of the The State. What happens if you fail to pay your rent... er... "property tax"?

[Fretmute]

You are a tenant of the The State. What happens if you fail to pay your rent... er... "property tax"?

That's a different topic, is it not? Real world exigencies require the government to collect funds. The debate on the various means through which this can be done and the consequences of defaulting, should payments be made mandatory, is only related to the concept of property rights tangentially.

[Mr. Sparkle]

You are a tenant of the The State. What happens if you fail to pay your rent... er... "property tax"?

That's a different topic, is it not?

It's the same process and principle. They condemn and seize your house for public use - in this case paying taxes.

[Fretmute]

It's the same process and principle. They condemn and seize your house for public use - in this case paying taxes.

They're entirely different if you believe that citizens ought not be obligated to sell their property to foment the public good. When the government seizes property in lieu of taxes, it's doing so because someone's not upheld his obligation to the government. ED is exercised against people who have.

[Mr. Sparkle]

It's the same process and principle. They condemn and seize your house for public use - in this case paying taxes.

They're entirely different if you believe that citizens ought not be obligated to sell their property to foment the public good. When the government seizes property in lieu of taxes, it's doing so because someone's not upheld his obligation to the government. ED is exercised against people who have.

I'm just telling you that your property is fee simple not allodial... except in the sense that the Queen doesn't own our land anymore, though we just replaced her with the Feds in a property law sense... even if we didn't do it explicitly as the Brits did, the common law stuff is all the same... ironically, the American Indians are probably the closest to having true allodial ownership of their lands. Though obviously, our Government has never been particularly good about keeping promises to Native Americans.

If you want absolute property rights, you are going to have to rewrite the Constitution.

Oh, and Friendly Neighborhood Lawyermen please feel free to correct missuse of any common or property law terms.

[GuidoTKP]

It's pretty much semantics, I suppose, but the government isn't the "real" owner of your land. Fee simple title to land is true ownership; neither you nor the government can "own" the land any more than that. It's just that fee simple title is subject to certain government powers; eminant domain, for example. It may be a distinction that makes little difference, but the government isn't considered the "true" owner of all land in the United States, but rather, in certain circumstances, simply has the ability to transfer fee simple ownership from an individual to itself (against the individual's will, if need be). That's the reason for the "just compensation" requirement -- if the government was the true owner, it might not have to pay you off.

[Zarathud]

It's the same process and principle. They condemn and seize your house for public use - in this case paying taxes.

They're entirely different if you believe that citizens ought not be obligated to sell their property to foment the public good. When the government seizes property in lieu of taxes, it's doing so because someone's not upheld his obligation to the government. ED is exercised against people who have.

Correct.

Creditors have the right to collect against debtors and force the sale of property. The government just refuses to enforce your property rights to the house until your taxes are paid in full. The house is not siezed for public use -- it's used to pay your overriding debts to the public so that you can't freeload off the rest of us responsible taxpaying citizens.

Oh, and Friendly Neighborhood Lawyermen please feel free to correct missuse of any common or property law terms.

Your wish is my command.

The King was basically "above the law" -- not having to pay himself taxes or let creditors take the land to pay debts -- so title was alloidal. Fee simple absolute is basically the fullest extent of property rights in the land "under the law" -- which means the rest of us owning our land in fee simple absolute are bound by the laws which can force the sale of land for taxes, unless the government decides to grant immunity to such laws under bankruptcy. Fat chance.

Still, many states have homestead exceptions which protect the value of homes (and land) from creditors -- unless the creditor is owed money by both spouses. It's used to reduce the amount of property taxes (by exempting certain value of the house) rather than to protect the house from the local taxman. For example, Florida's homestead exemption provision has no limit to the value of property that can be protected from general creditors so long as the property meets certain technicalities. This means that YMMV -- check with someone who knows the property laws in your area.

[Mr. Sparkle]

It may be a distinction that makes little difference, but the government isn't considered the "true" owner of all land in the United States, but rather, in certain circumstances, simply has the ability to take transfer fee simple ownership from an individual to itself (against the individual's will, if need be). That's the reason for the "just compensation" requirement -- if the government was the true owner, it might not have to pay you off.

I, of course, think the distinction makes no difference... that, while we do not have a King, we do have sovereign... though it is not embodied in a person, but in our Government.

I have trouble understanding property taxes, if the Government doesn't "truely" own the land... if they can seize your house and sell it because you don't pay your taxes... doesn't that make them a creditor with a lien on your house? They own the property at least as much as the bank that secures your mortgage does.

[Tareeq]

I have trouble understanding property taxes, if the Government doesn't "truely" own the land... if they can seize your house and sell it because you don't pay your taxes... doesn't that make them a creditor with a lien on your house? They own the property at least as much as the bank that secures your mortgage does.

Not de jure but de facto, that is correct.

Your problem is that you think that is a desirable state of affairs.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Your problem is that you think that is a desirable state of affairs.

I've drunk a lot of libertarian kool-aid in these here parts, but I haven't renounced my pinko commie roots quite yet. I ferverently support market economies, but am still anti-laissez faire capitalism.

Some public problems require a little despotism to solve, and I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why property rights should be put on such a high pedestal.

[Zarathud]

I have trouble understanding property taxes, if the Government doesn't "truely" own the land... if they can seize your house and sell it because you don't pay your taxes... doesn't that make them a creditor with a lien on your house? They own the property at least as much as the bank that secures your mortgage does.

Liens and other interests aren't technically ownership -- they're interests. Think of property as a bundle of sticks. The sticks are the rights of an owner. Sometimes the owner gives (or loses) parts of the bundle of sticks -- "ownership" and "title" to the property are just another stick in the bundle.

Put another way, property ownership or title implies a degree of control, which don't exist for property interests. Property interests are limited to particular issues/circumstances. For a lien, it's the failure to pay. For rights of way, it's the ability to travel across a designated path.

I'm sorry it's a bit complicated. I may have paid a bit too much attention in property law class after find feudal concepts of property interesting.

Some public problems require a little despotism to solve, and I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why property rights should be put on such a high pedestal.

Propery rights cannot be absolute when government has to be called in to referee disputes ad protect those sacred property rights. Classical economic theory can provide a number of examples where private property rights unfairly trample over the rights of others in society, without getting into pinko commie theory.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Liens and other interests aren't technically ownership -- they're interests. Think of property as a bundle of sticks. The sticks are the rights of an owner. Sometimes the owner gives (or loses) parts of the bundle of sticks -- "ownership" and "title" to the property are just another stick in the bundle.

I understand that they aren't the same in the, as Tareeq said, de jure sense... but in the de facto? Practically speaking, I can't really see the point of saying you "own" a house that you are paying a mortgage on... really, the bank owns it since they paid for it and are the penultimate authority you have to answer to... same difference with The State and property tax.

Some public problems require a little despotism to solve, and I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why property rights should be put on such a high pedestal.

Propery rights cannot be absolute when government has to be called in to referee disputes ad protect those sacred property rights. Classical economic theory can provide a number of examples where private property rights unfairly trample over the rights of others in society, without getting into pinko commie theory.

But I think, even if a property owner is hurting no one else directly, if she is standing in the way of a public project of sufficient benefit, respect of her property rights is not a large enough barrier to be daunting.

Hence: pinko commie territory

[GuidoTKP]

Think of property as a bundle of sticks.

Aaaaaaaaaargh! The Bundle of Sticks analogy. Serious law school flashback for a second there ....

[GuidoTKP]

Practically speaking, I can't really see the point of saying you "own" a house that you are paying a mortgage on... really, the bank owns it since they paid for it and are the penultimate authority you have to answer to... same difference with The State and property tax.

That one is easy to think about. I purchased my condo in the Summer of 2000. It has nearly doubled in value during that time. If I stopped paying on my mortgage, the bank would be able to foreclose and sell my home to pay off the mortgage ... but it would have to give me every penny that was above the amount of my loan (well, and the crushing foreclosure penalties and fees). Why? Because I own the property, not the bank. The property is just security for a loan.

Another way to think about property ownership is to consider what is frequently considered to be the most important property right: the right of possession. Neither the bank, nor the gubmant, has the right to wander on your property whenever they want to. A bank may negotiate certain inspection rights for itself on property used as a security interest and the government may have a limited right of access flowing from specific purposes, but in general you have a right to exclude bank and government personnel from your land. That's because you, and not they, own it.

[Zarathud]

Think of property as a bundle of sticks.

Aaaaaaaaaargh! The Bundle of Sticks analogy. Serious law school flashback for a second there ....

Heh. My life is a combination of taxes, trusts/estates, property, and corporate law mixed together. The "bundle of sticks" analogy works really nicely when you're moving trust/property law concepts back and forth into tax issues -- certain sticks of property rights are toxic for tax purposes, others are unimportant. When I create a trust or corporation, I want to get rid of certain sticks but keep others.

Another way to think about property ownership is to consider what is frequently considered to be the most important property right: the right of possession. Neither the bank, nor the gubmant, has the right to wander on your property whenever they want to. A bank may negotiate certain inspection rights for itself on property used as a security interest and the government may have a limited right of access flowing from specific purposes, but in general you have a right to exclude bank and government personnel from your land. That's because you, and not they, own it.

And we all remember that possession is 9/10 of the law....especially when you're using a large, nasty firearm to defend your land (the Texas way!). Or, at least until the government sends in the SWAT or ATF forces. Ooops.

[Enough]

Here's a new eminent domain case.

Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.
"This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.

[Tareeq]

Here's a new eminent domain case.

Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.
"This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.

Population 29.884.

"We had to burn this village to save it."

[The Preacher]

Here's a new eminent domain case.

Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.
"This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.

Population 29.884.

"We had to burn this village to save it."

What's the problem? The median income is almost guaranteed to go up as a result of this. That's good planning.

[Tareeq]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the 6,000.

[Mr. Sparkle]

I thought the "shocker" of the decision this thread is about was that middle class people were being evicted by the Government.

Nobody cares about poor people... gentrification ain't new.

[Tareeq]

I thought the "shocker" of the decision this thread is about was that middle class people were being evicted by the Government.

Nobody cares about poor people... gentrification ain't new.

Then you completely misread everything that went into this thread and the preceding one. The new wrinkle in Kelo was that the land was being given to a private landowner for private use of no benefit to the public apart from the increased tax base.

Middle class and rich people have been subject to eminent domain as long as it's been around. As for gentrification, that's generally the work of private buyers purchasing land in uncoerced sales.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Then you completely misread everything that went into this thread and the preceding one. The new wrinkle in Kelo was that the land was being given to a private landowner for private use of no benefit to the public apart from the increased tax base.

Eliminating "urban blight" was an acceptable public use well before Kelo.

Middle class and rich people have been subject to eminent domain as long as it's been around. As for gentrification, that's generally the work of private buyers purchasing land in uncoerced sales.

How many do you think will have to be coerced?

[LawBeefaroni]

The feds are talking about invoking eminent domain in downtown Chicago. They want to "secure" the buildings around the federal building. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

[Tareeq]

Then you completely misread everything that went into this thread and the preceding one. The new wrinkle in Kelo was that the land was being given to a private landowner for private use of no benefit to the public apart from the increased tax base.

Eliminating "urban blight" was an acceptable public use well before Kelo.

And it was one of the justifications cited by New London. You may, however, want to check the discussion of specific use and recipients in past precedent. Prior to Kelo the court had not addressed whether the land could be sold to Burger King (or whatever), as opposed to some quasi-public use. That's what was new. Kelo was not about class (except perhaps as presented by the media, many representatives of which appear to possess limited reading comprehension).

The class or race of the losing parties was not what shocked people about the decision. I don't believe they're mentioned in Kelo.

In any case we've been over this. Page back or see the prior thread.

Middle class and rich people have been subject to eminent domain as long as it's been around. As for gentrification, that's generally the work of private buyers purchasing land in uncoerced sales.

How many do you think will have to be coerced?

If it's only one, it's enough to bother me.

[Mr. Sparkle]

The class or race of the losing parties was not what shocked people about the decision. I don't believe they're mentioned in Kelo.

I disagree... while you might not have been shocked by it, I think the proletariat was shocked when they realized that even their house could be taken by the government in a situation that didn't involve a football stadium.

I've not seen much mainstream criticism of ED in the many many cases of its use in revitalizing crime-ridden neighborhoods... nobody sheds a tear about where the pimps and drug dealers are going to live now.

[noun]

Yeah, here are some photos of the "slums" of Riviera Beach: http://www.reichel.net/~dennis/bridgephotos/ .

Bottom line: Someone wanted an increase in revenue, so are forcing residents off their choice land to get it.

It's only going to get worse.

[Tareeq]

The class or race of the losing parties was not what shocked people about the decision. I don't believe they're mentioned in Kelo.

I disagree... while you might not have been shocked by it, I think the proletariat was shocked when they realized that even their house could be taken by the government in a situation that didn't involve a football stadium.

Go to google news. Go back and read the news and opinion coverage at the time. Mainstream media please.

I'd be willing to bet most people know that their land can be taken for a highway, or a railroad, or a powerline right-of-way. Yet in Sparkleland, the shock was over the very existence of eminent domain, or that it could be done to people in the middle class. Balderdash. That's been happening for years.

Or are you asserting that in the 20th century only poor people had their land taken for highways?

[Mr. Sparkle]

Or are you asserting that in the 20th century only poor people had their land taken for highways?

No, but only poor people got their homes taken for the Inner Harbor. That was 20 years ago.

Many Liberals have objected for decades to ED for precisely this reason... the reason why non-libertarian conservatives have joined them now is because of Kelo and the fact that the middle class is involved.

EDIT: What you think of invoking ED to rebuild New Orleans?