Eminent Domain

[sefnfot]

What is the name of your state? CALIFORNIA

i just want to add this real true story that happened out in LA to me and my family:

the city of West hollywood took away a property from my uncle and gave him 4 millions for it. the developer recenly sold it for 72 million.

and what did they build?

the city built something very super important something a city cant do without!!!

a starbucks, best buys and a target. this is outrageous, but i guess the city gets revenue from the parking facility. my uncle could have built anything the city wanted, but no they had to take it away because he couldnt keep his own property.

 

[shortbus]

4 million = piece of dirt in a good location

72 million = fully developed retail complex w/anchor tenant leases

Apples and oranges

 

[sbd]

4 million = piece of dirt in a good location

72 million = fully developed retail complex w/anchor tenant leases

Apples and oranges

4 million = piece of dirt that I own can can develop myself when I want to.

72 million = The price for taking away the owner's fundamental right that used to be protected by that document called the Constitution.

Capitalism and Communism

 

[shortbus]

There is no such fundamental right when it comes to real property. For example, every state has an adverse possession statute that allows 'trespassers' to gain legal title over other people's real estate.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

4 million = piece of dirt that I own can can develop myself when I want to.

72 million = The price for taking away the owner's fundamental right that used to be protected by that document called the Constitution.

Capitalism and Communism

My response:

Oh, so you're invoking the "ghost" of the Federal Constitution, are you? Sounds to me like you have a gripe with the United States Supreme Court, rather than the City of West Hollywood.

You see, the City didn't want to wait for you to get around to developing the land. They needed it developed now - - not when you decided to get around to it.

You need to read the very recent U.S. Supreme Court case of KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. You can read it, here - -

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-108

That's the reason why the City of West Hollywood can legally take, and build a mall. On a side note, some City authorities are now actively going after the land and homes of the Supreme Court justices, themselves, because of this decision. Should be interesting to follow. Their "Kelo" decision is going to come back to haunt them.

IAAL

 

[BL]

Oh Christ My City Took a Rock Star's Property , Guess What , Appeals said The City Had a Right .

Hullabaloo , what the hell ever that means .... Clap your hands , Join in ...

 

[revere787]

kelo v. city of new london.

If i had millions of dollars, i would put up shopping centers on every persons property on the supreme court. when they moved i would do it again. That law is bull****, but all we can do is complain.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

If i had millions of dollars, i would put up shopping centers on every persons property on the supreme court. when they moved i would do it again. That law is bull****, but all we can do is complain.

My response:

Apparently, you don't know how to read. I have already mentioned this concept, above. And, no, they are doing more than "complaining." How about reading next time?

IAAL

 

[BL]

What was that tune " If I had a million Dollars " ?

You are not beyond reproach ..

 

[sefnfot]

well i invite you to take a look at the final mall they built. it is rampant will mistakes and problems
leaking water, mammoth block shapes that are irritating to the eye. they should tear it down before an earthquake makes them rebuild it. but then they cant have the insurance pay for it...

anything the Gov't can do we can do better!

 

[Spin-Zero]

Well regardless of the justifications, I hate to hear that your family lost the property.

Someone here posted a link to the Kelo v. New London, CT ruling, which does set a precedent for such action. Furthermore, with regards to this case, I can understand New London's concern over having a small group of people impeding the betterment of the community as a whole. However, I don't necessarily agree with the ruling. I think the USC has taken some liberties with the intrepetation of "public use and eminent domain", as originally intended by the founders.

But with that said, there's not too much you can do about it at this point except appeal to your state legislature for stricter eminent domain laws. The USC ruling in Kelo v. New London essentially put the burden of protecting private property squarely on the shoulders of each state. Which, in my humble opinion, is exactly where it belongs. Texas will vote on an amendment to the state's constitution this November, which will severely restrict the state's ability to claim eminent domain.

You can also ask your state legislature to establish criteria for "just compensation" when eminent domain is applicable. I know neither help your family out now, but they may help other families in the future.