... over being 370 sq. ft. to big (local code)
... protest sign size has to now be reduced in size
Thanks for typing in that it's a video and not text source. Appreciate
that. I wish more people would do that...
Here's an article for those who'd rather read the news than watch it:
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.
So much for your precious freedom and liberty and property rights in the
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
The only situations in Canada where private land-owners were forced to
sell is either for the development of a roadway / highway, or an
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
On Jun 27, 4:19 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org 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
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
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.
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.
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"?
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
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
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?
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
let people who want to help the country run for congress.
it cant be worse than the current arrangement
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.