Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jttIII t1_j7grppk wrote

Reply to comment by Cthepo in Hotel of Terror in downtown Springfield faces condemnation by Maxwyfe

Eminent Domain is trash...

−6

Jimithyashford t1_j7gw6w5 wrote

All public interest should grind to a halt if a stubborn owner refuses to sell?

7

Wyldfire2112 t1_j7gxi4j wrote

Problem is, it gets abused horribly, just like Civil Asset Forfeiture.

17

Jimithyashford t1_j7gzaon wrote

So is the sentiment here "it sucks but it's necessary" or "it sucks and should not exist"?

Cause I might be willing to agree with the former, but not the latter.

There are a hell of a lot of things that are terrible but it's good it can be done when needed.

5

Wyldfire2112 t1_j7h0ewj wrote

Eminent Domain definitely has a hell of a lot more reason to exist than Civil Asset Forfeiture, for sure.

My main complaints, personally, are stem from using Eminent Domain to screw the people being bought-out out of the value of their property. Stuff like paying the value of the undeveloped land, not the actual sale price of the property if they listed it.

11

toxcrusadr t1_j7h8ycz wrote

As I understand it, the Eminent Domain process has to involve a neutral third party who assesses the fair market value of the property.

I assume you're referring to a case where there were buildings (etc.) and the owner did not receive the value of them? That does seem unfair on the face of it.

5

Wyldfire2112 t1_j7h9iyv wrote

Exactly. Paying someone out for a home on an acre of land as if it were an acre of empty fields, rather than what a realtor could get for the property, is a scam I've seen several times. That "neutral" third party is often anything but.

2

Jimithyashford t1_j7gzj5k wrote

Also I agree whole heartedly about asset forfeiture. I very rarely hear of cases of imminent domain where it seems clear to me there wasn't' a genuine public interest and I am left feeling like the process was abused. Not never mind you, just not often that I can think of.

2

jttIII t1_j7hi62k wrote

Mostly yes... To think think that you could work your ass off to buy and build a life or a home or a business and pay taxes all along the way then 30 years later a committee decides to forcibly take it from under the guise of paying you "fair market rates" for their "greater good" is f*cking trash.

That's like buying a stock you want to hold forever because you believe it will continue to appreciate and pay dividends and when there's no outstanding shares left then someone comes along and says "nah" we're forcing you to sell your stock to this us at the current rate whether you like it or not cause we really want the future gains.

No.

5

VaderTower t1_j7hrekn wrote

Not a perfect analogy. Sometimes eminent domain is necessary. Such as ... say a highway or an interstate.

Today it only takes 4 hours to get down to little rock, or 1 hour to get down to Branson. I'm old enough that I remember a time that wasn't the case. I've to old timers and it was a several hours journey to get to Branson or table rock lake, and Little Rock took 8+ hours.

If you didn't have eminent domain, one landowner could completely stall a highway.

In this articles case, they want to improve the bridge and make the area more usable. They can't because of this building.

−2

jttIII t1_j7i6yn4 wrote

You're correct that it puts the leverage in the hands of the original Landowner and that's the point... that's how I think it should be. And in the long term it would, I believe, sort itself out without heavy handed government strong arming.

It's likely obvious to me, you and everyone with a mind that there are profound community benefits to being able to make that commute... and because of that the original owner should be able to hold out for the highest value possible until another alternative becomes more economically viable.

The idea that at any given time your families 3rd generation farm could be split up for a highway and you get paid out by a less than honest brokers appraisal with little to no recourse is asinine to me and akin to a serfdom dystopia.

The only middle ground I could maybe concede on this on a principled level is if somehow your private property was like a national security blindspot... IE your farm in Maine on the border is a strategically important foothold for a bloodthirsty Canadian invasion.

Outside of that wildly extreme scenario I am of the philosophy I owe you and you owe me literally nothing nor either of us have a right to acquire each others respective properties without consent.

3

toxcrusadr t1_j7h9sd4 wrote

This is a classic case of a public infrastructure improvement that can't be done otherwise.

Now, if the city acquired a bunch of land by ED then leased it to someone else to build a casino, THAT would be trashy. But we'd never do that in MO. <coughcoughboonvillecough>

7

erichkutslilpp t1_j7hbaw2 wrote

People down-voting this would be saying the same thing if it was their property being seized.

4

jttIII t1_j7hj7yj wrote

Absolutely... but the people who are for it tend to be collectivists and don't hold individual rights on the same pedestal as the "collective need" of the day, until it steps on their yard.

Many of these same types of people were up in arms about the VOTE that happened on Galloway being rezoned for instance but are somehow okay with the government saying "Bend over, this is gonna happen" when it's a gross haunted house that isn't their backyard.

3

erichkutslilpp t1_j7ibsxp wrote

I can get on board with a very select few instances of eminent domain. This one seems sus considering they don't seem to be considering the business in their offers. I don't see that business doing well in very many places. Also it seems hard to believe that little bridge cannot be repaired/replaced without requiring removal of the building.

5