Recent SC Ruling on Eminent Domain

JonJ

JonJ

Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
13,068
Likes
353
Location
Plymouth, MA
Feedback: 11 / 0 / 0
I'm sure everyone has heard about it
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html
What the hell is happening to this country [?] [!] It makes me sick.
How much do we have to take?
If a private developer wants to buy the property so be it but buy it properly. Make them an offer they can't refuse and if they do refuse, tough.
My little house sits in an area with some real expensive homes. Whats to stop the town from taking my house and reselling to a developer to build a home 4 times mines worth and therefore increase the taxes 4 times? NOTHING!

Sad thing is, we'll read about a homeowner who tries to defend his rights (that he thought were guaranteed by the Constitution) as he's either arrested or killed.
 
OK, so here's what I'm asking. Does the Homestead Act protect you from this?

I don't own a home, I rent a house because I can't afford a $250,000, 860 sq/ft home here in MA right now. Why? When I'm renting a 1200 sq/ft house for 1/3 the cost of a mortage, and I don't have to pay to fix anything? Granted, I got a lucky when I found where I live. But it's just not worth owning here in MA.

But that's a different topic. Like I said, I don't know that much about this, so I'm wondering if there's ANY way to protect your home.
 
C-pher said:
OK, so here's what I'm asking. Does the Homestead Act protect you from this?

I don't own a home, I rent a house because I can't afford a $250,000, 860 sq/ft home here in MA right now. Why? When I'm renting a 1200 sq/ft house for 1/3 the cost of a mortage, and I don't have to pay to fix anything? Granted, I got a lucky when I found where I live. But it's just not worth owning here in MA.

But that's a different topic. Like I said, I don't know that much about this, so I'm wondering if there's ANY way to protect your home.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong but Homesteading will protect you from losing your home as the result of a civil action. The govt will trump that for eminent domain. And if I remember correctly, even if you're Homesteaded your home can be attatched (civil action) and when sold you fork over the $$$.
 
But this isn't really about eminent domain. Eminent domain can only be used if what is going in it's place is to be used for the public. This BS allows a developer to take house(s) in order to put something in it's place that will generate more tax$ for the city/town. So as my evening ride home buddy Jay Severin 96.9 put it, Someone can simply drive down a street and say.. wow a McDonald's would be perfect here and viola they take your house!

Complete BS
Don't know what the hell I would do if they tried to take my house like that...

Adam
 
It's not that MickeyD could take the property by eminent domain, but the town/city that wanted to put the MickeyD's in could take your land/house and then sell it to MickeyD to put the greasy joint at that location.

I'm planning on having fun with this ruling!

I live in a town where the town government will go to the ends of the Earth to PREVENT any business from locating here. Next time that the Planning Board has a hearing on a proposed zoning article to rezone property for commercial use, I'm planning on bringing up the fact that no matter who's against it (the townspeople are always against any development, then they complain about high taxes!), the Selectmen can take the property and have it developed (true by SC ruling)!

Then I can just sit down and watch the fur fly! I'll need to remember to bring popcorn to the next hearing! [twisted]
 
I had not heard. Thanks, Len, just what I needed over coffee first thing on a Friday morning. Nothing short of appalling!

Wake the f*** up Amerika! King George's Court is back in session.
 
Tony, I agree that it is appalling and we've already slid down ~1/2 way on the slippery slope that allows gov't to take ALL of our freedoms from us.

Only good side of this is that the town must still pay fair market value as commercial property. Given that fact, a typical $500K house (in this area this is getting to be low-average) suddenly becomes worth more like $800K-$1Mill! I'd take the money and run if they wanted my house for that kind of money! [twisted]

I really have nothing to fear in my town. They take property for failure to pay taxes and/or buy land just to prevent ANY development and it just lays dormant forever . . . they don't make parks out of it, it just lays to waste as "conservation land". Currently >40% of the land in our town is "conservation land" and they keep screaming that we should buy more to prevent development (even of homes) . . . then they complain that our property taxes are too high! [roll]
 
I doubt it will take long before their market value is lower than the rest. And, I don't even want to get started on 'taxes'.

It is nothing more than another abuse of power, in my opinion.
 
TonyD said:
I doubt it will take long before their market value is lower than the rest. And, I don't even want to get started on 'taxes'.

It is nothing more than another abuse of power, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Comparable sales dictates market value. You can't fudge the numbers.
 
I think it's just plain scary. Also makes me wonder why there isn't more protest about such things. The way I see it it's just an effed up loophole that the govt put in to justify stealing.

And on a side note, this actually happened to my grandparents about 35 years ago. They had a very quaint house that they had lived in for 30 years. No neighbors for about a half mile, quick walk to the ocean. The local govt decided they wanted to build a school RIGHT THERE. So, they kicked my grandparents out. Today the property is a parking lot. No school, just stupid strip malls. I guess there's more money in stores than schools?


Since Manhattan is such prime real estate, why don't we use eminant domain on Harlem? Wouldn't it be much nicer to have some more million dollar brownstones than a ghetto? Maybe we could move all the gang bangers to a reservation...
sheesh what a stupid law.
 
Len, when the fur starts flying you could also rub some salt into the wounds by pointing out that the 5-4 decision resulted from all the liberal, protectors of the little people, opponents of evil corporate power justices making up the majority, while the nasty conservatives in the pocket of big business all dissented. So much for their PC profiling.

Between this decision and the earlier medical marijuana ruling, I think that there's got to be something really bad in the water there.

Ken
 
Adam_MA said:
But this isn't really about eminent domain. Eminent domain can only be used if what is going in it's place is to be used for the public.
Click to expand...

But that's just they ruled, econmic development IS "for the public good" Increased tax revenues, jobs....

Tony is right, tyrannical BASTARDS!

Len, you have more experience so maybe you know, but isn't the "fair market value" usually much less for an eminent domain taking than a private sale?
 
JonJ said:
Adam_MA said:
But this isn't really about eminent domain. Eminent domain can only be used if what is going in it's place is to be used for the public.
Click to expand...

But that's just they ruled, econmic development IS "for the public good" Increased tax revenues, jobs....

Tony is right, tyrannical BASTARDS!
Click to expand...

It's all about revenue from a commercial tax base.
 
derek said:
JonJ said:
Adam_MA said:
But this isn't really about eminent domain. Eminent domain can only be used if what is going in it's place is to be used for the public.
Click to expand...

But that's just they ruled, econmic development IS "for the public good" Increased tax revenues, jobs....

Tony is right, tyrannical BASTARDS!
Click to expand...

It's all about revenue from a commercial tax base.
Click to expand...

That's the point.
 
Jon, yes I do have some experience here. I served my town as Chairman of the Development & Industrial Commission for 25 years, only stepped down 2 years ago when the State Ethics Commission determined that my being a Constable as well amounted to a perceived potential "conflict of interest". The Selectmen and Town Administrator begged me to stay on and promised to resolve my conflict (a simple vote to grant the various boards "special municipal employee status" to meet the Ethics Commission requirements would have solved the problem - and is standard practice in other towns, but not here), but just jerked me around for 5 months so I pulled the plug on them. During those years, I was involved in rezoning some areas of town for commercial development (including a multi-zone development of 750 acres that was split between two towns). I worked closely with the Planning Board and Selectmen on these issues and I am still active although I do not sit on any boards.

The rule of thumb is that a property (house) which suddenly is rezoned commercial goes UP in value, since the buyers can profit by rehab'g and creating office condos, professional office space, etc. Even an ugly strip mall is a "higher use" (more profit potential in RE taxes and revenue to owner) than a home.

By law, eminent domain takings MUST pay the owner a "fair market value" based on the property as it is either currently or soon-to-be-rezoned use. Thus a house that is rezoned commercial will go up in value and therefore the buyer (town or RE developer) MUST pay the market rate for that property.

So only if the homeowner is sentimental about the property would they lose out (no $ value for sentiment), but pure cash value would be a windfall.
 
I would imagine the city would have to give you at least what they assessed you for divided by .70 because CT assess at 70% of market value. The market value that the cities carry is based on comparable sales during that year, and if they are using our software is very accurate. :D
 
LenS said:
The rule of thumb is that a property (house) which suddenly is rezoned commercial goes UP in value, since the buyers can profit by rehab'g and creating office condos, professional office space, etc. Even an ugly strip mall is a "higher use" (more profit potential in RE taxes and revenue to owner) than a home.

By law, eminent domain takings MUST pay the owner a "fair market value" based on the property as it is either currently or soon-to-be-rezoned use. Thus a house that is rezoned commercial will go up in value and therefore the buyer (town or RE developer) MUST pay the market rate for that property.

So only if the homeowner is sentimental about the property would they lose out (no $ value for sentiment), but pure cash value would be a windfall.
Click to expand...

OK Len,
I can see the major windfall in the rezoning to commercial.
From what I've heard though, it seems that when the Govt takes property by E.D. for "public use" (road, bridge, sewer etc) the property owner usually files a suit to try and get more $$$. I've never followed it closely so I don't know the property owner was just holding out for the sake of getting more than it's really worth.
I can only imagine that it would be a pretty crappy thing to have your property "taken away" no matter what.
 
Using the current assessment wouldn't work. Since the presumption is that the property would be rezoned and assessed at a higher value (otherwise where are the extra taxes that justify the public use claim coming from?), the fair market value for purposes of eminent domain is supposed to be the new, higher value, which is pretty subjective.

Ken
 
Back
Top Bottom