Yorktown Domain Case

[djd09]

At least i understand the constitution.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Being an 'oil and gas' guy, do you think one owner that doesn't want to sell should have the right to stop progress on a major pipeline?

Or maybe anyone downwind from a refinery or anyone affected by the earthquakes from fracking should be able to claim inverse condemnation against the oil companies?

Numerous suits have been lost attempting to claim false impacts over fracking...since fracking is not involved, rather injection wells are the cause of quakes. Yes, I think companies should be held accountable for damages but not inverse condemnation. In both AR and OK where quakes occurred, the quakes were naturally occurring prior to injection wells but increased. Therefore, if the injection ceases, such as it has in Arkansas, a quake now is almost certainly a nature occurring event.

Regarding a pipeline, or highway, etc. I am not opposed to eminent domain. What I am concerned is whether the intent of "just compensation" is merely "market value". Rather believe there is an element of the intangible - historic value to someone, who say, has six generations of ownership in a property, or operates a business on it. The Cherokee Turnpike sliced many farms into two, making them uneconomic units. They did not offer to buy the entire property even. So 80 acres became 23 acres on one side and 45 on the other...and no way to easily get cattle from one side to the other. The remainder lands were much less valuable as a farm, and wrecked at least two dairy operations. It is not economic to operate a dairy on 23 acres. There was no compensation for the dairy, no compensation for the on going enterprise, etc. just paid for the land value. The farmer was left with two pieces of property to sell, and hope he could with the amount paid (about $1000/acre) buy another 80 acres and rebuild new barns and a home...going far into debt doing so. For older farmers that was not an option.

I appraised a parcel a few years ago where the state had cut off a square cornered road, widened it to 4 lanes and cut across a small farm of 20 acres. They took about 4 acres or so. But they left a pie shaped piece on the other side of about 1.5 acres. Completely worthless to the farm, but unsuitable for a homesite since it was too close to the road. What is it useful for? nothing and he was paid nary a cent for it.

Another estate appraisal I did the owner wanted me to investigate. It too was a highway widening and bypass the "Old 68" road with Hwy. 412. On the south side of the road from an original 80 acres, the state left him a sliver of land which they did not pay for. That plot was in the bend where the new road met the old, and was on a steep hill. It's unsuitable for a building site. Everywhere else along these roads the state took property back along all the roads entering the new highway for 100' or more... Why did they not take that? The owner had an even smaller sliver that took him years to get the highway to take since they were actually mowing it and it wasn't more than a few feet wide.

A pipeline pays that same "just compensation" and in most cases a pipeline (or power line) does not prevent agricultural uses. I am stuck with one myself. But the real issue is does giving "just compensation" (i.e.- market value) for the property NOW mean that it does not impact the future use for years or decades? Just because something is a farm NOW does not mean it will be forever in the face of continued development. We cannot build anything within the ROW, could not develop into house lots, nor build poultry barns, and the same with the pipeline. With three greenfield subdivisions within 2 miles of me, can I develop this for a subdivision? Nope. It is pasture and a woodlot forever... The proper way to obtain such ROW, if I had my way, would be to require all such ROWs to be leases paid annually with escalation clauses where rents would be renegotiated if the HBU of the land as if free of the ROW changes. I was just offered $80 an acre for the rent of my land...double what it was worth 5 years ago. But the $300/acre paid for the ROW ???

 

[Mark K]

At least i understand the constitution.

Your lack of understanding of the issue and the process is boundless or else you wouldn't have started this ranting, kneejerk thread. Have you ever thought about going to work for CNN or Huffpo?

 

[Elliott]

djd,
I think 'just compensation' is about as good as it gets. Hitler and Stalin had a different method of taking.
SCOTUS gave cities and "agencies" a little too much power. I think if your property is being taken for purposes of urban renewal or a developers new shopping center, you should get 'just compensation' x 2.

 

[Mark K]

A pipeline pays that same "just compensation" and in most cases a pipeline (or power line) does not prevent agricultural uses. I am stuck with one myself. But the real issue is does giving "just compensation" (i.e.- market value) for the property NOW mean that it does not impact the future use for years or decades?...

Pipelines and powerlines don't stop development in this area. Two new residential subs have 150' powerlines running thru them; they area called greenspace and the bare land value isn't affected since the developments are required to include greenspace.

Of course the land will be affected in perpetuity but the courts require compensation as of an effective date, generally the date of court filing. No different that any other appraisal. The law says appraise it as of the effective date, not some future date with a speculative value based on the desire of the owner. No different than mortgage appraising.

I've heard all of these reasons from landowners since about 90% of my work is r/w, eminent domain, or court appointed appraiser. To hear some owners every piece of land is the new location for Walmart or CVS. Why not, according to some 'logic'. Hey anything is possible.

 

[Michigan CG]

I was involved in many eminent domain cases and I have never seen anyone (taker) trying to screw anyone over.

Recently here (I was not involved), a national park is being expanded and a group of about 15 houses were going to be purchased by the government. Most of the houses were in disrepair and the offers were more than fair; I doubt any of them were worth more than $100,000 with most being worth significantly less.

On top of the price paid for the houses each owner was also given an insane amount of money for "relocation" which I believe was in the range of $50,000, which is more than some of the houses were worth.

 

[djd09]

The constitution doesn't say just compensation based on a mortgage appraisal.

 

[berniek]

https://www.chieftain.com/45f00d08-302f-11e0-bc86-001cc4c002e0.html

This rancher got paid over $7 million, way over any appraisal, plus he was paid good money every time cattle was moved around

 

[TRESinc]

At least i understand the constitution.

no, you don't.

I think if your property is being taken for purposes of urban renewal or a developers new shopping center, you should get 'just compensation' x 2.

he doesn't own any property, but a really, really close family member does...

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Again market value may or may not be just compensation...and remainder tracts can be orphans or impact an entire farm operation. The constitution does not say market value is just compensation, that is a construct of courts. There has been more eminent domain takings in the past 30 years than in the previous 200.