Forced sale of your real estate

[twinstackram]

we shouldn't let any lawyer hold office,what we need up there are farmers ,truckers,and bikers.

oh,but those guys up there in D.C. have all these big decisions and problems like baseball players using steroids and stuff like that that are so important to all the nation.

 

[slowrev]

Dullpain,
The revoloution is going on now and the little guys are losing. This property stealing decision is just one more victory for the other side.
Ben

 

[jmc]

Danny has the right theoretical solution in voting out locals who support this practice. But by then, its too late. Better would be to raise **** when the motion comes up so that it looks politically omminous to potental supporters. One problem though, is collectively, we're not interested enough in the business of government to keep up with all these issues. That's part of the reason some of these bozos get elected in the first place.

Jeff, From what I read, the conservative judges opposed this based on fundamental conservative support of property rights.

John

 

[psuedofarmer]

distrubing.

4 yrs ago i purchased a 100+ a farm in NH. i began restoring the entire farm operation; the circa 1740 house, outbuildings, fields. i did it myself - with the help of friends and family - foregoing a vacation for the last 4 years so i can work non-stop.

a developer (owner of the local hardware/lumber company) purchased land behind my farm. the only way to that land is over the dirt road that lays 5 feet from my front porch.

i can see the possibility:

developer (who also sits on the planning board) gets town blessing to increase the town's tax roles by adding a couple hundred houses on his land. town pays for road development:

- takes my restored house
- takes my restored fields
- takes my rebuilt stone walls
- takes my ancient maple trees

i don't want to hear about 'fair market value'. tell that to my aching back that just rebuilt 1/4 mile of stone wall..

NH's motto = Live Free of Die.

i know what i'll choose if someone decides to take what belongs to me.

pf

 

[bczoom]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( i don't want to hear about 'fair market value'. tell that to my aching back that just rebuilt 1/4 mile of stone wall.)</font>

I think that FMV should be thrown out the window for all of this.

Eminent domain = 2x FMV
Municipality wants to buy = 3x FMV
Developer = 5x FMV

For all, I also think it needs to come to a public vote. Especially for the cases where a government wants to buy since it's the taxpayers money.

 

[PitbullMidwest]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Eminent domain = 2x FMV )</font>

Not sure what you mean here. Are you saying the owner wants 2 x FMV or that they receive 2 x FMV?

 

[Spiffy]

<font color="blue"> I think that FMV should be thrown out the window for all of this. </font>

Oh yeah, actually I'd say at least 10X of<font color="red"> maximum market value</font> for some private developer.

Or better yet, if the city is arguing that the land needs to be developed to enhance their tax base; so be it, but shouldn't the original owner have the first opportunity to create the "developement"? Just how many greedy policical types would be greasing the wheels of eminant domain if they stood to lose all their profits to the original owners?!

 

[bczoom]

Receive.
If someone wants/takes someone elses land, the buyer needs to compensate at higher than FMV. Depending on who's taking the multiplier goes up.

 

[Spiffy]

I think he means the owners should receive at least twice what the place is worth. When you consider some of the intangibles mentioned in earlier posts, this is not at all unreasonable.

 

[timb]

Not good enough. Remember if the municipality is actually the intial purchasing party, they're just spending everyone else's money. Deep pockets - yours.

It's needs to be simple. NO emminent domain forced sales for private redevelopment. Of any kind. For any purpose. Ever.

Use of emminent domain should be restricted to an extremely limited and clearly defined and listed finite number of public uses, i.e. road construction. Don't leave any gray areas or wiggle room.

Even that has it's gotcha that should be limited. Under that plan, the big developer buys the property next door through a bilaterally agreeable sale from that landowner - but can't force you off your land. But the municipality can still take your land to build the access road infrastructure that supports that development - which allows the developer to use ALL of his land for income producing property rather than carving off a portion to provide the needed access.