Yorktown Domain Case

[djd09]

I going to stick with Scalia dissent of the power grab situation. He was the only Justice with any common sense. As he stated in his comments about eminent domain, they have made mistakes before.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Are you familiar with how just compensation is determined and who makes the decision in cases where the two sides are at a standstill in negotiations?

"Just" compensation is NOT "just" real estate market value. But that is the way it is figured. There is no $ amount spent upon the intrinsic value a property is to the individual, and I know of one case where a party paid for a ranch only to have almost the entire thing taken at a value well below the mortgage on the property, and in the end, they were forced to file bankruptcy, had to walk away broke, and the bank got less than 100%, the owners got nothing, and the state got their turnpike...so? Is that "fair'? They had not missed a payment but the market had gone down for only a couple years before recovering.

Tulsa, OK was also great about trying to affix an easement for drainage on the neighbors adjacent to a bypass - so it had a provision that the landowner remained responsible for mowing the grass and keeping any brush from growing on land that was entirely within the ROW of the road....ChickenS city.

Ask yourself, if one of those houses was lived in by Obama or George Bush, do you think they would even consider the remote possibility of condemnation? A president's house is no more valuable than any other along the same route. But what do you think would happen? I give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Keep in mind in the Kelo case, I don't believe that development ever happened....but the city still has the property right?

 

[djd09]

rare occasions

Once is too much.

central to infrastructure development.

I see you and Donald aren't so far apart.

 

[djd09]

"Just" compensation is NOT "just" real estate market value.

In the case of Yorktown, maybe they should base the value on the projected tax revenues. What is good for the Goose as they say.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Once is too much.



I see you and Donald aren't so far apart.

As is everyone for infrastructure development (or are the Dems against it? ). Road, bridges, etc. but no useless, pointless wall.

 

[djd09]

As is everyone for infrastructure development (or are the Dems against it? ). Road, bridges, etc. but no useless, pointless wall.

It is ok. Your double speak is well documented.

 

[Mark K]

Keep in mind in the Kelo case, I don't believe that development ever happened....but the city still has the property right?

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?

Or maybe life goes on and there are some winners and some losers as society progresses and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (Spock).

 

[djd09]

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?

Attorney says 2 tree-sitters are exempt from eminent domain

ROANOKE, VA. (AP) — An attorney says Mountain Valley Pipeline can't invoke eminent domain to remove two tree-sitters protesting on land where they have no legal ownership interest.

https://www.whsv.com/content/news/A...are-exempt-from-eminent-domain-504553492.html

Looks like the answer is Yes.

 

[Mark K]

Looks like the answer is Yes.

As usual you post only part of the story. The 'attorney' doesn't have the final say. The owners have lost in the state courts and are asking the SCOTUS for review. If they take it, THEY have the final say. If they don't take it, the owners lose and the tree huggers will be moved.