Emminent Domain

[wesfau2]

At play to get that wall up.

https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-border-wall-mexico-condemnation-letter/

Are we ok with the government strong arming people for this wall?  Patriotic duty or government overreach?

[GH2001]

It's quite a quandary indeed.

I'm firmly against emminent domain. I'm also for the wall.

The national border being part of someone's private property is another issue altogether. It shouldn't have even happened. My guess is the same thing will happen that happens in cities when they want to four lane a road or widen one with a sidewalk. They'll end up offering more than fair market value for that tiny strip of land.

[Kaos]

Are we ok with the government strong arming people for this wall? 

Yes.  Pretty much so.

[Snaggletiger]

It's quite a quandary indeed.

I'm firmly against emminent domain. I'm also for the wall.

The national border being part of someone's private property is another issue altogether. It shouldn't have even happened. My guess is the same thing will happen that happens in cities when they want to four lane a road or widen one with a sidewalk. They'll end up offering more than fair market value for that tiny strip of land.

This sums it up for me.

[wesfau2]

It's quite a quandary indeed.

I'm firmly against emminent domain. I'm also for the wall.

The national border being part of someone's private property is another issue altogether. It shouldn't have even happened. My guess is the same thing will happen that happens in cities when they want to four lane a road or widen one with a sidewalk. They'll end up offering more than fair market value for that tiny strip of land.

Perhaps they'll pay more, but they haven't changed their appraisal of the value in 9 years.

This is not the first time the federal government has wanted to seize the land for a border wall. In the wake of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, the Bush administration put up 110 miles of border fencing, much of it on private land in Texas. In 2008, Salinas’ family received a condemnation notice offering them the same low, low price of $2,900.

[AUChizad]

Yes.  Pretty much so.

Top. Right. Corner.

[Kaos]

Top. Right. Corner.

I only did what was expected. 

Given the turn to the absurd we've seen from the thread originator here, there's no need to really attempt to explain any more nuanced positions. 

My feelings on eminent domain in general are mixed.  It's more okay when it's somebody else than it is when it's me, but it's unfortunately a necessity of life.  I felt bad for the people whose houses moved closer to the road when they turned the two-lane into a four-lane several years ago, but I definitely appreciate the fact that I no longer have to sit in long lines of traffic (or take circuitous alternate routes) just to get to my house. 

I'm sorry for the people who have land that abuts the border, but their rights to that property end where national security begins.  They will be compensated, even if it's not as much as the THINK they should get for a patch of scruffy desert populated by cacti, sand fleas, scorpions and coyotes (both human and canine).

I think maybe, perhaps, they should have a choice to pay for and maintain -- to standards -- the wall themselves if it's on their land, but that would likely require too much to keep up with. 

Long and short?  While it bothers me that this kind of stuff is necessary, the fact remains that it is.   Hate it for them, but "strong arming" is a little bullshitty.  Eminent domain claims happen every single day all over the place. If you want to argue the merits of eminent domain as a practice in general, that's a different discussion.  It happens. It has happened. It will happen again.

Shining a bright light on this one particular instance is just more "Trump BAAAAAD" bleating from the lefty sheep. 

You prefer that answer?

[wesfau2]

. If you want to argue the merits of eminent domain as a practice in general, that's a different discussion. 

By all means, I hoped to have a broad discussion on the issue.  This article was simply topical.

[Kaos]

By all means, I hoped to have a broad discussion on the issue.  This article was simply topical.

I'm so accustomed to the Trump BAAAAAD bleating, I assumed this was merely another shot at him or an assault on the wall in general. 

I'm not sure a good solution exists in regard to eminent domain.  There's no easy answer.  Do you not widen the road and permit traffic gridlock or do you inconvenience the homeowners and ease that congestion?  Do you leave gaps in the wall (and render it even more useless) or do you inconvenience the landowners? 

It's unfortunate, but if you're purchasing land that forms part of the nation's border you should probably expect at some point that the nation's going to need access to that land, whether it's to defend it in time of war, patrol it to prevent smuggling or even... yes... build a border wall to help prevent illegal migration.

The practice is legal, it's stood the test of time and I don't see any other viable options.  I don't like it as it pertains to me -- in fact I think we once had a discussion where I was pissed off that AT&T or somebody was ripping my yard to shreds in order to put cable or some shit in.  I also believe it might have been you who said I'd just have to deal with it because of the rules of eminent domain.  I had little recourse. 

[Snaggletiger]

"My feelings on eminent domain in general are mixed.  It's more okay when it's somebody else than it is when it's me, but it's unfortunately a necessity of life."

This quote from K hits home.  Several years back, plans were proposed for a 4-lane from Montgomery and north all the way to the coast at Panama City, I believe.  A couple of proposals had it coming straight through Dothan while another slightly bypassed it.  One of them showed it within half a mile of my house at the time and definitely affecting my neighborhood.  I had torches and pitch forks at the ready. 

The other proposals were much more to my liking.  Obviously. 

My thoughts are while it is a necessity of life, as K stated above, there needs to be a different standard of compensation for the taken land.  We can and will take it.  But your $2,900.00 acre is now a $10K piece of scrub brush.

 

[AUChizad]

It's more okay when it's somebody else than it is when it's me

I don't like it as it pertains to me

I don't mean this to come off as harsh as it inevitably will, or to imply you're an axe murderer (shovel murderer, maybe?).

But look up the definition of psychopathy. I think you has it.

[Kaos]

I don't mean this to come off as harsh as it inevitably will, or to imply you're an axe murderer (shovel murderer, maybe?).

But look up the definition of psychopathy. I think you has it.

And now HE'S back.

Spare me your amateur personality typing there Briggs. It's bullshit and it's insulting.

Everybody in the world has a different perspective when something impacts them personally as opposed to conceptually. I'm for the death penalty but would I maybe think differently if my mom was sentenced to die? I support entrance requirements to Auburn but when my kid is a point away from making the cut then I wish it were different.  I live in a neighborhood and abide by the covenants. Don't agree with them all. Hate some of them actually. 

It's basic human nature to question the rules when they impact you negatively.  It's hardly psychotic or psychopathic to be generally in favor of something until it directly intrudes on your life. 

[GH2001]

I don't mean this to come off as harsh as it inevitably will, or to imply you're an axe murderer (shovel murderer, maybe?).

But look up the definition of psychopathy. I think you has it.

I think in our structure its human nature. We're all for that new mall or 4 lane - unless it's our property that's in the way.

[AUChizad]

I think in our structure its human nature. We're all for that new mall or 4 lane - unless it's our property that's in the way.

I think that empathy is something you should strive to consider in all decisions/opinions of this type.

[GH2001]

I think that empathy is something you should strive to consider in all decisions/opinions of this type.

Agree. And I'm kind of somewhere in the middle. It needs to be something absolutely necessary for the public. Not just some mall. Or for some developer.

But I'm still generally against it. But also know there are going to be extreme cases where it has to happen.

[Kaos]

I think that empathy is something you should strive to consider in all decisions/opinions of this type.

Strive all you want.  Doesn't matter. 

When they take somebody else's front yard to make a road it's not going to make as much of a shit to you as it will if they're taking your yard. 

[Snaggletiger]

I said the same thing.  When one proposal had the interstate coming through my back yard, I was ready to stage a sit-in at City Hall.  When a new proposal had it going around Dothan, helluva plan.  Love it!

[Kaos]

I said the same thing.  When one proposal had the interstate coming through my back yard, I was ready to stage a sit-in at City Hall.  When a new proposal had it going around Dothan, helluva plan.  Love it!

[CCTAU]

As long as they don't Throw up a Walmart or a strip mall, this is exactly why eminent domain exists!

[wesfau2]

I'm so accustomed to the Trump BAAAAAD bleating, I assumed this was merely another shot at him or an assault on the wall in general. 

I'm not sure a good solution exists in regard to eminent domain.  There's no easy answer.  Do you not widen the road and permit traffic gridlock or do you inconvenience the homeowners and ease that congestion?  Do you leave gaps in the wall (and render it even more useless) or do you inconvenience the landowners? 

It's unfortunate, but if you're purchasing land that forms part of the nation's border you should probably expect at some point that the nation's going to need access to that land, whether it's to defend it in time of war, patrol it to prevent smuggling or even... yes... build a border wall to help prevent illegal migration.

The practice is legal, it's stood the test of time and I don't see any other viable options.  I don't like it as it pertains to me -- in fact I think we once had a discussion where I was pissed off that AT&T or somebody was ripping my yard to shreds in order to put cable or some shit in.  I also believe it might have been you who said I'd just have to deal with it because of the rules of eminent domain.  I had little recourse.

I am also of two minds on the issue...generally depending on the use to which the taken land will be used.

If it's a necessary infrastructure improvement, then I'm a utilitarian: the needs of the many will outweigh the inconvenience to the few.

If it's a developer forcing the municipality's (or other appropriate govt entity) hand, pushing for the land to be put to its "highest and best" use: that developer can eat a bag of dicks.

In the case of this article, I disagree with the "assumption of risk" argument and, obviously, the necessity argument.