Capitol Ideas

By Rhonda

January 25, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

NO

By D.H. in Lawrenceville

January 25, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

Though it is beneficial at times for the government to use emminent domain, I think they are here and now over stepping their boundaries. It is one thing, for both parties to mutually agree upon giving/taking land for the use of roadways, utilities and schools… it is completely another for emminent domain to be used for in essence private ventures, to which everyone profits big except for the person or people who originally owned the land and gained possession of such land through their hard work, blood, sweat and tears. I am not sure where the America went that I grew up with and defended for 21 years, but I sure don’t see anymore.

By John

January 25, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

Eminent Domain by it’s very nature is never “just” but sometimes is necessary. However, the government should only take someone’s property as the very last resort. Taking someone’s property so you can upgrade a neighborhood is wrong, market forces can do that anyway. And no one…i.e., developers, should profit more than the property owner. By taking someone’s land the government is stealing the owner’s future value, so it is only fair that the property owner receive that profit…not the developers.

By Dave

January 25, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this

Building roads is one thing. To just have developers increasing the property tax base with campaign contributions is just people lining their pockets. Do we really want the lobbyists running America?

By Bob

January 25, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

Depends on the need. In some cases roads and other parts of our infastructure has to be expanded on or built. But, to take away the private property of a person to build a Wal Mart or another stripmall when we have more than enough of both already, NO WAY. We need to look at whats behind this, the greed of politicians and lobbyist. Look at whats going in Washington today with Jake Abernoff and Tom Delay and the money he greased crooked palms with in DC and here in Atlanta with the crook on trail Bill Campbell.

By Tara

January 25, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

It is absolutely possible for the power of eminent domain to be used responsibly, and with respect for private property rights. It is a knee-jerk reaction to assume that the government taking one’s property is always a bad thing. Baltimore’s Inner Harbor is a prime example; before the massive revitalization that included an aquarium, children’s museum, and mall, the area was full of abandoned industrial complexes. If Georgians want to limit the right of eminent domain, do so, but please think of the consequences before banning it altogether. Without eminent domain, it only takes one stubborn landowner to prevent the development of an entire city block.

By ltc

January 25, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Tara—As you stated, the harbor was full of abandoned industrial complexes…not someones home, farm, or business. Wake up and smell the coffe….if you do not like the area, you should move not drive me out.

By Mickey

January 25, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

Using eminent domain is never justified! The governments can always find someone willing to sell property, even if it is not in the exact location they want! Want is overrated! Building roads, schools, etc. is a necessary job, but, location is a variable! Taking private property for a shopping center, power lines, redevelopment and such is never justified!!! In South Carolina in the 60’s the state siezed about 200 acres of a private farm that had been in this family since well before the civil war just so a power company could build it’s 10,000 acre lake exactly as they wanted! The family was compensated, but, never wanted to sell any portion of this family treasure! No price was high enough! This country is based on private property ownership and not public property or government property like national forest! The government owns too much property now and should be forced to sell it! Government, public, ownership is marxist, communist and socialist! This is not the USA way!

By Bob

January 25, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Tara, which of the local developers that has helped blight our landscape are you married to? And what if that one person, the propert OWNER who happens to legally own the house and property that they have lived in for decades, rasied kids in and buried beloved family pets in the backyard wants to stay there and not succumb to some greedy developer who’ll throw up another row of shops that you can get the same stuff from only a mile away. Push landowners in a corner and see what you get. This country was founded on personal rights, rights we have seen slowly erode and be taken away from us. I’d rather look out my yard and see my trees than see a greedy developer rape my neighbrohood so his trophy wife can botox her trashy past off her face and his arrogant kids can attend a snobby private school on the other side of town.

By bphilb

January 25, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

The concept of eminent domain irks me in the first place. As a victim of a road widening, the fight just to get the actual value of the property was amazing. Now, the government believes thay have the right to take property for the benefit of the private sector. When the Supreme Court came down with their decision it opened pandora’s box. Where will it stop? I recognize that we truly never own our property. With the requirement to pay property tax, we merely rent our property. Don’t pay your property taxes and see how fast you lose your property. With that said, each and every local, county and state government should pass legislation which would prohibit the utilization of eminent domain for any thing other than utilities, roads and schools. Other than that we need no more reservoirs, malls, office buildings or other uses which eminent domain can be used. Last time I looked this country was founded on the right of the individual and eminent domain in its present form is the very first true threat to the American way of life!!

By Veronica Wells

January 25, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

Someone please explain to me HOW the government is able to come take .38 acres of my mother’s land- the land she has worked so hard on & the land that I grew up on- and rip up our beautiful horse pasture to run a sewer easement across the middle of our farm! This area of our property is home to beautiful 200-300 year old trees and black board fencing. As far as the “JUST” payment- $125 dollars - for .38 acres. Only half a mile down the road, .38 acres is valued for $140,000 - $168,000. Now, I am only 21 years of age, and I know that there are many things I do not yet understand. However, in this point of my life, I am working as hard as I can to become an educated, prosperous, and philanthropic citizen; knowing that at any point someone could come and literally yank my hard work out of my hands- well you tell me why I should keep this up.

By Fran

January 25, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

When you purchase a home or land you would think it’s yours. your future, Your investment.However the goverment thinks differently. There should most definitely be a law or a bill that makes it difficult, actually make it so it can’t happen especially when it’s not necessary. And by that I mean for a shopping mall, Walmart, grocery store or anything in that category. If it’s not for a fire station or school then it’s not necessary. It’s awful hwo they abuse their powers. I wish someone would do something about it.

By NLE

January 25, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

If they want it, then the government or developers should pay what you want FOR it. One of the only things that anyone can invest in which can be guaranteed to increase to some degree in value is your property. When the government is allowed to decide what THEY will pay rather than what the land is rightfully worth, and more importantly, what a land owner wants to voluntarily give up their property, as Veronica Wells pointed out, then it becomes not an issue of public good but a violation of a public trust. If we can’t count on our investments of our property, then nothing is sacred and no government is trustable.

By slickshea

January 25, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Eminent domain goes against capitalism and every other principle that America was founded on. More often than not there are other places to build schools, roads, power lines where people are willing to sell their property.

By Joseph Cowart

January 25, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Eminent domain should be used as a last resort. It should be used only to provide facilities to support the greater good. These include transportation, education, government buildings, the physical environment, clean air and clean water. Using eminent domain to support commercial development is plain wrong and unjust.

By MrLiberty

January 25, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

Its real simple. Either YOU own your property or you don’t. If the government can take it whenever it wants (no matter how much they pay you) then it is not your property. Just think of what this country would look like and what problems we might be without today if property rights had actually been respected by the government over the last 225+ years.

The same applies to businesses. Again, either it is your property or it is not. If the government can tall you who you must hire, who you must serve, who you must sell to, etc. then that is fascism.

Even more importantly, this applies to one’s own body. If the govt. can tell you what you can or cannon put in your body, or can tell you what you can or cannot do with it, then you do not own your own body either.

That we even have to discuss or debate this is a clear, fundamental sign that the right to private property no longer exists in amerika.

By pnt

January 25, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Actually, Eminent Domain IS the American way. That is how the government and homesteaders took control of land that belonged to the Native American tribes. The entire push westward was in the name of Eminent Domain. I’m quite sure the Native Americans felt exactly as you do now when they were rounded up and moved to reservations. It just kind of hurts when YOU are on the other end of it, right?

By Frances

January 25, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

As a child, my grandmother’s house was taken for eminent domain. The township wanted to remove all the black families that lived in this particular area. They said they were putting in a “green acres” project that would allow natural animals in the area to survive. The “green Acres” project acted as a buffer between the previous black area of town and the white area of town. My grandmother’s home was roomy and was not in a diplated condition. She was paid $10,000.00 for the property .This was in the late 1960’s. Even then in that area of town, houses were going for at least $40,000.00.

Today, the town has decided that most of the land is no longer is needed for the “green acres” project and has sold the land to a developer who is now building huge homes for $450,000.00 each.This is considered low to moderate income homes.

So, how do I feel about eminent domain? I think it should be illegal for the town, city, state or government to take any land that belongs to a citzen who pays taxes and maintains their property.

By Bob

January 25, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Pnt and Frances you are both so right! The US Government started using this practice with Native Amercians and it has tried to be used, sometimes with success and sometimes without, in South Carolina to remove black families from potentially rich beach front property given to them after slave emancipation. Also, if the government has the right to tell me what I can and can’t do with my body, or put in my body, they essentially own my body, right? Then they should repair it when it’s broken or sick and pay for the maintenance. For a Republican administration in DC, we have more BIG government that I ever remember seeing before.

By Rock

January 25, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

In my humble opinion eminent domain goes against everything this nation was founded on. I believe that politicians of every party should be held responsible for this horrible practice. I believe that it is time for Americans to take their country back. We should not bow to our leaders, instead we should making them represent the people who put them there.

By Carrie

January 25, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

Rock - see pnt comments above (I am pnt - just mistyped). If you truly believe that Eminent Domain is against everything that America was founded on then we should all hand over the keys to our houses to the Native Americans. I would also suggest a quick history refresher course to anyone on here who states anything resembling the statement “this is not the American way”. It is EXACTLY the American way. We are all okay with it as long as it is unfair in our favor, but the minute it is unfair AND NOT in our favor….then, and ONLY then, is it a travesty.

Do I agree with taking someone’s property for a Wal Mart? No, but at least those people are getting something for their land - Native Americans got NOTHING, but heartache and genocide.

By Tom Doniphon

January 25, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

“Eminent domain” is a fancy government euphemism for theft. It is an archaic remnant of monarchy. This country was founded upon a desire to renounce such a system. And, as such, it should be abolished. Oh, to be sure, the Constitution states that no property shall be taken without “just compensation,” but, in practice, that is a farce. The government has all the cards: unlimited resources, time and the cyncial belief that jurors are ignorant, unsympathetic or both. Moreover, the philosophy upon which the basic concept stands is intellectually corrupt, that is, one can never reap justice from a procedure which depends upon confiscation of private property at the point of a gun (which is what it boils down to, no matter how mendacious government offcials try to dress it up).

All you people who think eminent domain is fine & dandy have never experienced how arrogant, crude and diabolical the government is when they steal your land.

By Carrie

January 25, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Again - take a history refresher course and study eminent domain and you will see that it is the practice that our entire country was founded on. You can call it what you want and spin it any way you want, but the fact is that the United States of America exists on land that was stolen under the premise of Eminent Domain.

By Rock

January 25, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

Actually having a strong Indian lineage in my family I understand your view, but that history lesson you spoke of would help you realize there was a time when settlers and Indians who peacefully co-existed. There where many tribes to helped America during the revolutionary war. Some fought against us as well.

By MrLiberty

January 25, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

You and I don’t get to exercise “eminent domain.” For us it is called theft, plain and simple.

To those speaking of the original american’s situation, my point is as appropriate as ever. Just think of what this country would be like today if the government had respected private property. We would have been forced to deal with the native peoples as individuals or groups of individuals and would have had to come to mutually agreable terms. Face it, the only reason any native is living on a reservation is because of the actions of government and its standing army, not because of the action of an individual acting alone.

The primary take-home message in all of this is that individuals can certainly pose a risk to your rights and your property, but only a government that is allowed to wield excessive power is a real threat to us all. No matter how much good they say they are going to do, if they are allowed to get big enough, that power can be just as easily used against the citizens.

It seems as though only the Libertarian Party gets this. God knows the republicans and democrats love big government, so long as it is doing their bidding, but only the libertarians seem to understand as Barry Goldwater once said “any government big enough to give you everything you want is bid enough to take it all away.”

Maybe someday people will wake up and elect Libertarians so that all of us can feel secure in our property, our possessions, and our persons again.

By Jason

January 25, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

This is where the government oversteps their boundary. Despite the good it might bring over the long term, kicking people out of their homes for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER is immoral, unjust, unethical, and against your freedom of speech, if you ask me. Your home is a form of self expression - perhaps one of the ultimate forms of self expression - your home is a statement of who you are, where you come from, and is your voice to the world to say: this is my little corner of the world. It might seem silly or even stupid to say that a home is a matter of speech - but it is. Say you hang a flag from your home - an American flag, a Bulldogs flag - that is a form of expression. By asking you to tear it down to build something else - that violates your freedom of speech.

There are some unwritten laws that exist - and one of them is first come, first serve. Your house was there way before the business or government trying to overtake it. It’s no different than someone cutting in line at the grocery store, hockey game, or concert - would YOU let someone just cut in front of you? Hell no. When driving, do you smash into the car in front of you just so you can have their space and be closer to being to your destination? No. To you take a bulldozer to the local adult video store just beacuse you’d rather it not be there? No. It’s the same principle. When the government starts taking propery, that’s when the government needs to be taken over.

By Carrie

January 25, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

We wouldn’t be here if our government hadn’t stolen property. If it is so wrong etc then we need to return all property to the Native Americans. You just don’t like it when eminent domain works against you. When it worked for you then it was fine and the government was right in doing it, but when it works against you then it is immoral, unethical and against freedom of speech??!! (BTW - you’re reaching on that one)

Face it, this is who we are as Americans. We are people who decided that it is okay for our government to impose Eminent Domain with no stipulations.

By Scott

January 25, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Government couldn’t function in the US without emminent domain. Every time one of the whiny souls above turns on their lights, drives their car, or flushes their toilet they are benefiting from emminent domain.

In a VERY FEW cases elected people (because that is who makes up the “government”)have misused this power. Some restrictions should be necessary and in most cases are already in place. Owners are rarely if every financially harmed from emminent domain. Emminent domain by its very nature is a last resort effort. Few governmental entities desire to utilize emminet domain. It is expensive, time consuming, and politically unfriendly.

Most of the outrage is just a media driven frenzy. Take away emminent domain and see what happens to your taxes when governments have to spend millions on small pieces of property to run necessary utilities.

By Bob

January 25, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

Scott you sound like a over gelled-hair sleazy developer that would sell his mothers soul for a profit. I hope a tree falls on your head, but with all that gel…only the tree would suffer. Bite me.

By Scott

January 25, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

I am totally opposed to Eminent Domain in all cases except one. I feel the newly formed City of Sandy Springs should use Eminent Domain to redevelop many of the blighted, criminal infested, apartments along Roswell road. These are nothing but a nuisance to this community and nothing but good could come from removing these dangerous ghettos from this area.

By slickshea

January 25, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

Yeah. The Indians. Blah, blah, blah. I prefer to live in 2006, and I have little to do with what happen 2-300 years ago. But if you insist - if you say it wasn’t right then, it certainly isn’t now.

By l

January 25, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

You can’t stop progress but you can certainly delay it being constructed. Way to go BB&T! The contractors will have to find another way for a loan on that one in Charlotte NC. Communitees have to band together to see what is premiseable to build in their area. Schools…great. Wal-mart and shopping malls? NO!

By momoftwo

January 25, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

The largest issue here IS property taxes. The reason that some governments are using the farce of eminent domain is that they would like someone to ‘develop’ the property so that they can raise more in taxes. I truly honestly don’t understand why property taxes are calculated the way they are. They should be calculated on how much land you own or how many square feet your house is. Those ways are undeniable - but when you start by having the govt calculate how much my house is worth in order for them to calculate how much my taxes are - that’s ridiculous. Does it mean I use more government services if my house is worth more than someone else’s - if they have the same square footage or number of bedrooms. Unequivocably NO NO NO. Then why do I pay more in property taxes? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. If you got rid of the way that property taxes were calculated (and collected taxes another way - because face it, the govt needs a little bit of money) we’d all be way better off.

By CAS

January 25, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

I never said it was right or wrong. I just said that the argument that this is not the American way or any derivation thereof is incorrect. That is exactly the American way and it is the philosophy upon which we built our entire country. You can’t just say something is wrong or unethical or anything else if you don’t have any facts to back up that claim. BTW- claiming “I prefer to live in 2006” is not a fact that backs up your opinion. Should we throw out the constitution because it was written so long ago? Also, is the Bible now null and void because you want to live in 2006 and forget anything before that time?