Eminent Domain: Take from small company and give it to a big one
Since Smijer’s anti-boortz blog, I have been reading Boortz off and on.
Boortz identifies and eminent domain abuse:
Today on the Boortz show another story of eminent domain abuse. This one is from St. Louis where the Richmond Heights city council has decided that the “public good” demands that it seize the property of a catering company, a company that has been at that location for 58 years, and hand that property over to a private group to build a hotel.
This is pretty awful. It’s one thing to do so for the public good as that is understandable (such as to build a road) but to take property and give it to another is absolutely abysmal. Both are stealing, mind you, but at least the latter has the guise of being for the public good.
January 5th, 2004 at 2:03 pm
I’d be fighting that all the way through the Justice System…..
January 5th, 2004 at 2:08 pm
I don’t think your comments are remembering my info…….
just an FYI
January 5th, 2004 at 2:20 pm
Apparently, they’re nore remembering other people’s too. Will look into it.
January 5th, 2004 at 4:38 pm
One thing you should probably remember: “seizing” and “stealing” are not occuring here. As you know, eminent domain requires a restitution of fair market value to the owners. To imply the city’s jackbooted thugs are going to move in, toss out the proprieters and bulldoze the place while they lie dazed in the street is disingenious.
That doesn’t make the situation any less reprehensible – I agree with you and *cough cough* Boortz on this one completely. But a lot of the eminent domain opponents seem to let that point slide.
A related point: “Fair market value” obviously doesn’t make up for 58 years of history or sentiment and will never be enough to satisfy the owners (nor should it, probably) but it is there.
Now, if “fair market value” is determined to be $1.49 and a coupon to Burger King, that’s something else.
By the way, Boortz doesn’t bother to add a verification link – here’s one:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/0/57FA9B3098603B8586256E10003E0581?OpenDocument&Headline=History+doesn't+give+business+the+right+to+stay+put
January 5th, 2004 at 4:43 pm
If i am unwilling to sell and am forced to, it is stealing. I don’t care what you offer me. Remember the mafia’s offer you can’t refuse? The city should offer then counter offer until the business says yes if they want it that bad.
Also, who decides fair market value? city inspectors would be my guess.
January 5th, 2004 at 6:14 pm
Barry,
The problem is that in cases like this, the properly is almost always condemned immediately prior to the seizure. Since condemned property essentially has no market value, the money received by the land owner is usually a small fraction of what the land is really worth.
Personally, I think Cost of Replacement would be a far better standard than Fair Market Value.
January 5th, 2004 at 11:16 pm
If i am unwilling to sell and am forced to, it is stealing
Not if it’s legal. Libertarians seem to have problems recognizing the actual legality of laws they don’t agree with or philosophically oppose.
It may be morally reprehensible, fiscally irresponsible and its mother dresses it funny, but that doesn’t make it illegal.
If they don’t like it, work with the City Council to change the regulations or work to vote in someone who will.
January 6th, 2004 at 1:12 am
No one said it’s illegal, they said it’s theft. You statists seem to have problems recognizing that just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s not theft.
January 6th, 2004 at 9:08 am
No one said it’s illegal, they said it’s theft.
Werd.
January 6th, 2004 at 10:35 am
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary of law:
(emphasis mine) In other words, it can’t be “theft” and be legal, unless you’re using a non-standard definition of “theft.” 🙂
Also, “stealing” is defined as “[taking] (the property of another) without right or permission.” They may not have permission, but like it or not, they have the legal right.
And I agree with all present when they say it sucks. And that we should work to change it. But wrapping it in inaccurate incendiary terms doesn’t really advance the debate. It just gives your opponent an unnecessarily easy target with which to attack you.
I do notice that [l/L]ibertarians are often guilty of overusing such terms in debate, and it makes it harder to take them seriously.
/semantics snob
January 6th, 2004 at 10:40 am
Tom,
Yawn.
January 6th, 2004 at 4:57 pm
“Legal right” is an oxymoron. Rights are inherent in the individual, not granted by government. They exist as rights whether they are legally recognized or not. Likewise, the legal dispensation to do something does not necessarily make it your right to do so.
Consider slavery. Was slavery any less of violation of human rights because it bore the blessings of law?
January 6th, 2004 at 11:36 pm
Dragon:
Not exactly an oxymoron, although it depends heavily on your definition of rights. You’re talking about “human rights” which are very different from “legal rights.” You have a legal right to counsel. You have a human right to not have me enslave you. In many cases, those two types of rights are in direct conflict, and this may be just such a case.
January 6th, 2004 at 11:37 pm
Uncle:
Yawn? Fair enough. Just understand that’s also how many of us feel about the libertarian propensity to describe everything they don’t like as “theft” or some other such incendiary term.