78 year old company threatened by eminent domain

Page 1 of 3  
... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)
... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size
Video:
<http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threatened-by-eminent-domain/?playlist_id ‡937>
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/25/2012 2:09 PM, Oren wrote:

<http://video.foxnews.com/v/1705050963001/78-year-old-company-threatened-by-eminent-domain/?playlist_id ‡937>
Thanks for typing in that it's a video and not text source. Appreciate that. I wish more people would do that...
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/25/2012 2:44 PM, Duesenberg wrote:

Here's an article for those who'd rather read the news than watch it:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/22/pushed-out-and-shut-up-78-year-old-business-threatened-by-eminent-domain-forced-to-take-down-banner /
In this case, the local housing and redevelopment authority designated an area near the campus as a redevelopment zone for future university expansion. They did this in 1998. Since then, they've been gradually acquiring property in the area via direct purchase and eminent domain. As they acquire it, they turn it over to the university's real estate foundation, who pays them for it. At some point the foundation will bring in developers to redevelop the area as a mixture of university buildings, student housing, and businesses serving the student community.
There have been three lawsuits fighting the eminent domain claims made in this redevelopment zone; all three cases have lost. There's very little land left to fight over; this company and another company are two of the largest holdouts. Part of the dispute is (as always) over the definition of fair compensation. One company said they were offered a take-it-or-leave-it settlement before an appraiser had even visited the property.
The state of Virginia has a constitutional amendment on its ballot this fall to change the terms under which eminent domain can be exercised. It is proposed to limit it to improvements made for the public good, not private profit, and that fair compensation must include paying for lost profits and access to the land besides buying the real estate.
Eminent domain can work the other way, too. If the redevelopment authority or local government is in bed with the local property owners, they'll cheerfully negotiate to purchase properties at outrageously high values. In either scenario, the taxpayers get stuck.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hell Toupee wrote:

So much for your precious freedom and liberty and property rights in the USA.
There is no such thing as eminent domain in Canada - at least none that can be excercised on behalf of a private corporation at the municipal level.
The only situations in Canada where private land-owners were forced to sell is either for the development of a roadway / highway, or an airport.
But it happens all the time in the US where the municipal gov't can declare eminent domain against a home-owner - or an entire city block of homes - just so the local Walmart can expand their parking lot.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/25/2012 7:00 PM, Home Guy wrote:

In Canada Eminent Domain is called expropriation:
Here are the laws that govern it in all jurisdictions in Canada
http://www.expropriationlaw.ca/expro005.asp
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the municipal gov't can declare all they want...that doesn't give them the property. at the very least there is negotiation for proper valuation, at the very worst there are court cases and the gov't doesn't always win those
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jun 26, 12:02 am, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-

The govt wins even when they lose. How much money does an individual or a small business spend to TRY to win? Answer, a hell of a lot. And the govt? Why they couldn't care less because it's just the taxpayers that get the legal bill, win or lose.
In case after case that I have seen, it's very rare for the municipality to offer a fair price. They lowball it time after time. Rather than give a fair price, which might cost $100K more, they would rather fight a legal battle that costs 2X that and takes years.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that's all basically true, but every time they do that they sow the seeds for future battles...battles that are becoming more and more common. the gov't may not care, but those people that are in office sure do
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jun 26, 3:51 pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-

I can't even begin to decode what that means? The govt doesn't care, but the people in office do?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

so you did decode it
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't see a zoning variance being an issue. The business is apparently there and in compliance with the zoning. It looks like the city is taking the land and turning it over to the college real estate trust so that it can be used as some kind of new development zone in the future in conjunction with the college. Apparently for college buildings and businesses that support the college.
Sure doesn't sound like one of the strongest cases for using ED to me.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, June 25, 2012 7:00:50 PM UTC-4, Home Guy wrote:

There isn't in the USA, either. The problem is there is nothing stopping a municipality from exercising eminent domain, then "changing its mind" and selling to a private developer, usually at price far below the fair market value of the property.
It's abuse of power, corruption, at its finest.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jun 27, 4:19 pm, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Wrong. There have been many cases where there is no changing of the govts mind involved. The case in this post is an example. The city is taking land with the stated intention of then giving it to Old Dominion Universtiy, a private college.
There have been many other cases where the city has taken property as part of a redevelopment with the clear intention of transfering that property to private developers. A case in CT about that very issue reached the US Supreme Court and they affirmed the city's right to take the land. The decision, driven by the libs on the court, said essentially that as long as the city had any plausible explanation for the taking being in the public interest, even if they were not using the land for a public project, it's OK. The conservatives dissented.
Locally here in NJ, the exact same thing has been done in Asbury Park and Long Branch. They took all or most of the waterfront properties via ED as part of a plan to sell them to commercial developers to build condos, apartments, commercial properties, etc.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There have been quite a few cases of abuse in the past few years. Here in CT, some houses were taken for development. After a lengthy fight, the homeowners lost and were kicked out. The project that was supposed to happen never did. Shameful what they did.
Its all about tax revenue.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Kelo was in CT, wasn't it? That decision was criminal.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/25/2012 9:59 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Wasn't their a little slowdown after it happened to one of the "supremes" in I think MA? I only vaguely remember the story but some developer paid off the right people to get the properties they wanted and one of those just happened to be owned by "justice x"?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It would probably be cheaper for them. They would know they wouldn't have to pay anyone off for a time until the replacement race sorted itself out. Now, they have to stay with the incumbent until he or she decides not to run, usually the last year of their term.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And you'd have only inexperienced politicians. Like any job, it takes a couple years to get experienced. By the time you are and are finally of value, you'd be out.
I also don't see it doing much to stop those with campaign money, etc from influencing them. They still have to run for the first election, don't they? They still need a job afterward, don't they?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

strict limits on campaign spending 200 bucks per person 200 bucks per company. no PACs etc......
make the media like tv stations provide X hours of advertising FREE as part of their license renewal
2 term limit, no lifetime benies, no lifetime jobs take the money out........
let people who want to help the country run for congress.
it cant be worse than the current arrangement
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I see you don't care much about the Constitution either.

Wow! Why not force every man, woman, and child, to work for 100hours for a candidate, too?

Watch those unexpected consequences.

"Let"? Isn't it a "right"?

Famous last words. You just threw away the Constitution.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.