Force me to sell

MikePA · Jun 30, 2005

( they stated this is a local issue, dealt best at the local level ) And apparently state legislatures are already working on it, as they are in Texas. 
Agreed.

(Not meant for anyone in particular.)

Let's not get off track and begin talking about spending, schools and everything under the sun. Trying to convince legislators that they're spending too much diverts attentions from the issue at hand, i.e., eminent domain abuse. If you do not like the SC decision, stop complaining here (which accomplishes nothing) and contact your local and state legislators. If you haven't already and really want to make a difference, take the time you spend composing a post here and put it in an email to someone in your local, state or federal government. Sorry to be so blunt, but with all the convenience of modern electronic communication, no one has an excuse for not getting involved.

Cityboyfarmer · Jun 30, 2005

Amen to that Mike! I have been on vacation on Sanibel Island for the past two weeks and my wife and I have fired off emails to every official we could think of with hard-copy stamped envelopes to follow when we get back home. (Every vacation rental should have a cable modem flat screen computer system) /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

And don't just stop with electronic communication. It is easy to send messages electronically and just as easy for a bureaucrat's staffer to delete them. Get off your butts and attend some county commission meetings and set up a town hall meeting with your state legislator. That will get their attention!

Meanwhile, there is no harm and probably great beneifit to continue to share ideas here in this forum. It may just provide the spark needed to get someone up off the couch and into action. As to taxes, they are the ultimate root of this evil and bears discussion in the context of the Supreme Court decision.

MikePA · Jun 30, 2005

Meanwhile, there is no harm and probably great beneifit to continue to share ideas here in this forum. 
Good point, John! All TBNers should share their ideas and thoughts, but only after they've shared them with their local, state and federal officials. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

DannyD · Jun 30, 2005

Send them a link to TBN, shoot they might just need a tractor. I got an email back from one Senator, none of the others have yet to comment.

txdon · Jun 30, 2005

"And apparently state legislatures are already working on it, as they are in Texas." - Bird

Bird and all other Texans here is the Resolution:

IN TEXAS This week State Representative Frank Corte of San Antonio filed A Joint Resolution (HJR19) that could limit Governmental power of eminent domain use for economic development projects. If passed this would put the issue of amending the State Constitution on the ballot in November.

IN TEXAS CALL GOVERNOR PERRY AND . . .
ASK THAT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE BE PUT ON THE SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA

CALL NOW - GOVERNOR’S CITIZEN OPINION HOTLINE 800-252-9600.

cowboydoc · Jul 1, 2005

Just because I can afford a bigger house, doesn't mean that I should be subsidizing the tax system to a larger degree.


I agree with you 100% Junkman. I am going through another run in with our wonderful "communist" tax assessors. Last year we built on to our house. The total cost of the addition was $94,000. I knew my assessed value was going to go up but figured it would be proportional to the cost of building. I got the assessed value and they raised my assessment $264,000!!! Nevermind that this was $170,000 OVER the appraised value. I had just had a new appraisal done as we needed this for the bank loan. We went through the appeal process. Now add insult to injury when they do this they send SIX people out to go through your whole house. They are allowed to look in closets, go in crawl spaces, whatever they want to do. After all of this they lowered the assessment by $20,000. The bank, the appraisal office, everyone involved said that the assessed value was an absolute minimum of $163,000 over the vaule of the property and that was if the property sold at the top of the market!! I don't know what to do at this point. All of the value is on the house. If it was on the land it's taxed at a tenth of the value because it's agriculture, but the house is taxed at 10x the rate, thus the reason for them putting a high value on it. Basically we have no recourse left. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Junkman · Jul 1, 2005

I believe that if you don't agree with the appeal process, then you can take it to the next level, which might mean getting a attorney involved. It will be worth the expense since if you don't take it to the next higher level, you will be paying an inflated tax bill forever. Once you drop the ball, it is "assumed" that you agree with the assessment and it is very hard to roll the assessment back to where it should be. They know that you can afford the taxes, so they will keep you on the ropes until either you or they win. Once you win, then you can claim harassment if they try it again. In fact, if you find a particularly aggressive attorney, he can make their lives just as miserable if he claims that they are acting outside of there authority and go after the individuals personally. I would rather give the money to the attorney once than have them fleece my pockets for the rest of my term on the property.

rozett · Jul 1, 2005

This quote is from an article on CBSNEWS.com...

( At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — already forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question. )

It turns out that our congresspeople are not asleep at their desks in Washington after all. A bill has been introduced in each house that would bar federal transportation funds from being used to make improvements on lands seized via eminent domain for private development. Legislation in the works also would ban the use of federal funds for any project getting the go-ahead using the Kelo v. City of New London (Conn.) decision. You can find the article at: article.

Of course that liberal itch (b omitted on purpose... sort of /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif) Nancy Pelosi is opposed to any legislation that would withhold federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court...".

slowrev · Jul 1, 2005

A bill has been introduced in each house that would bar federal transportation funds from being used to make improvements on lands seized via eminent domain for private development.
//
this is a detriment??? how many hotels use federal transportation funds. How many wally world stores get federal transportation funds ? Sounds like hot air just to try and placate us.

Ben

MikePA · Jul 1, 2005

this is a detriment??? 
Yes, and a large one. Local and state governments depend quite a bit on federal highway funds. These same government entities will not be so likely to initiate/approve eminent domain seizures with the possibility of losing these federal funds.

 Sounds like hot air just to try and placate us. 
It's anything but hot air.