Landowners must yield to ballpark

[Tekneek]

Washington Times article.

The District will begin using eminent domain to acquire parcels of land at the site of the Washington Nationals' ballpark by the end of this month, after unsuccessful negotiations with nearly half of the landowners.

...

Many property owners on the site said the city's offers are inadequate. Others are suing the city on the grounds that it has no right to use eminent domain to acquire land at the site, despite a Supreme Court ruling affirming the right of municipal governments to take private property for the purpose of economic development.

In April, the city notified property owners on the site that they would be required to move out by Dec. 31.

[Blackadar]

Great...GET OUT BY CHRISTMAS!!! Your government at work.

[albionmoonlight]

No one likes the Kelo decision. I wonder if there might be enough momentum to pass a constitutional amendment overturning it. Probably not because there are political people who see it as a rallying cry against the judicary and don't want to remind us that we have the power to change it. But it would be interesting.

[Subby]

City officials said they expect to file court documents to take over at least some of the 21-acre site in the coming weeks and have $97 million set aside to buy the properties and help landowners relocate.

I can't imagine that is anywhere near market value.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Subby

I can't imagine that is anywhere near market value.

This is a VERY hard case to assess market value. Do you assess the value before the stadium was going to be built? In this case, the land was worth very little in that area. If you assess the market value now that the stadium is built, it is worth quite a lot. However, if you make that the rule, you will find a lot of landowners lobbying their local governments to condemn their property to build something new and better (and they make the profit). Eminent domain is not an easy area of law and stadium construction is one of the hardest cases (because of the incredible increase in land value).

[lighthousekeeper]

anyone know if the US is unique in this, or is eminent domain a standard for other countries?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Great...GET OUT BY CHRISTMAS!!! Your government at work.

I don't know all of the details of this instance. I have no idea if they are getting fair market value or not. And that's what prevents me from agreeing with you fully here.

If they are being given fair market value, the government has a legal right to do what they are doing. It may suck and it may piss people off, but if this process has been going on for months and they are in the right legally, the homeowners need to follow the law and get out.

These homeowners obviously have legal representation. They should have been told that this isn't a game and what the law was. They should have also been warned far in advance that if negotiations stalled that this would be a possible scenario and to be prepared for it.

The government eventually has to issue a drop dead date so they can move forward with their project. (whatever it may be, highway, stadium, public works)


Now, if these people aren't being given fair market value for their homes (and that's something that isn't difficult to prove in court), we have a different story. Still, the families should have been prepared for this inevitability and 1/4 of the year should be enough to go through with those preperations.

edit: John, my grandfather had to move for something like this years back. Aren't the laws pretty well set that the value of the land is judged by the previous quarter and not by future value?

[Draft Dodger]

ignorant question: do the landowners still get money for their land at this point?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by TroyF

edit: John, my grandfather had to move for something like this years back. Aren't the laws pretty well set that the value of the land is judged by the previous quarter and not by future value?

Yes. And that's why I only meant to address the normative question of how the law should be. A lot of people don't like it the current way because what you value your house at is higher than what people are willing to pay for it. Presumptively, that is why these people haven't moved. And it has to suck, that your house will be torn down and the condos built with the stadium will sell for 5x what you received for your house.

There are no easy answers, but the current system leaves a lot to be desired.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

ignorant question: do the landowners still get money for their land at this point?

Yes. You can always get compensation. The question is: what is "fair compensation?"

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Yes. And that's why I only meant to address the normative question of how the law should be. A lot of people don't like it the current way because what you value your house at is higher than what people are willing to pay for it. Presumptively, that is why these people haven't moved. And it has to suck, that your house will be torn down and the condos built with the stadium will sell for 5x what you received for your house.

There are no easy answers, but the current system leaves a lot to be desired.

I understand all of that and my post was not to say the law is correct or anything of the sort. But I think it's a little ridiculous to lay this one all on the government. They are following the laws that are on the books and the people in this situation have to know what those laws are and be ready. I can empathize with their plight, but I can't and won't empathize with them not being prepared to make this move. They've had months and as much as life and the government sucks sometimes, you have to do what you can to take control of it.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I understand all of that and my post was not to say the law is correct or anything of the sort. But I think it's a little ridiculous to lay this one all on the government. They are following the laws that are on the books and the people in this situation have to know what those laws are and be ready. I can empathize with their plight, but I can't and won't empathize with them not being prepared to make this move. They've had months and as much as life and the government sucks sometimes, you have to do what you can to take control of it.

I agree. I do find it amazing how much more press these cases get post-Kelo. This has been the law for over 50 years and has been used plenty of times. It is funny how so many people believe this is a new thing.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

No one likes the Kelo decision. I wonder if there might be enough momentum to pass a constitutional amendment overturning it. Probably not because there are political people who see it as a rallying cry against the judicary and don't want to remind us that we have the power to change it. But it would be interesting.

The stadium will be built and owned by the city, the team is being sold by Major League Baseball to some other private group. The city will never own the team, MLB will never own the stadium. MLB has a lease agreement with the city, both for RFK and the new stadium, that the new owner will be bound by.

Doesn't the recent Kelo decision relate to the government seizing land to give to private developments it deems in the public interest? This seems more along the lines with good old fashioned eminent domain - the government seizing private land for public projects.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Samdari

The stadium will be built and owned by the city, the team is being sold by Major League Baseball to some other private group. The city will never own the team, MLB will never own the stadium. MLB has a lease agreement with the city, both for RFK and the new stadium, that the new owner will be bound by.

Doesn't the recent Kelo decision relate to the government seizing land to give to private developments it deems in the public interest? This seems more along the lines with good old fashioned eminent domain - the government seizing private land for public projects.

Isn't a lot of the land being seized also for accompanying private development? Or am I wrong about that?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I agree. I do find it amazing how much more press these cases get post-Kelo. This has been the law for over 50 years and has been used plenty of times. It is funny how so many people believe this is a new thing.

I thought Kelo dealt with private companies putting up shopping malls and gas stations. At least that has been the rallying point in St. Louis. One alderman was voted out of office in a recall election because of it. And I can't say that I disagree in that particular case.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Isn't a lot of the land being seized also for accompanying private development? Or am I wrong about that?

Don't know.

I thought albion was confusing the stadium development as a private development project.

[HomerJSimpson]

Wouldn't 1.25 of fmv, or even 1.50 of fmv be much "fairer" for people who had no desire to move and help off-set the costs of the move?

[oykib]

I think that the slution is simple. Pay market value at the midpoint between what market value prior to and after construction.

Real Estate is all about speculation, as are all other types of investments.

Basically, the govenment is stealing from these people and then giving their property away to people with political clout.

It's unreasonable for these big developers to say that the land'd be wothless without their project. Everyone buys property with the notion that it'll improve. By taking the land they are infringing on the true owners' ability to realize their investments' improvement over time.

By choosing the midpoint you'd be fairly giving these people a benefit, as they couldn't argue that they weren't getting far and above what they'd normally get for it. But the developers could also not argue that they wouldn't stand to make a nice profit, if not the outright theft that these robber barons are used to.

BTW, it exists in other countries to. It happens in Japan all the time. Particularly since construction companies are the defense contractors of this country. They have more political clout than anybody.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by panerd

I thought Kelo dealt with private companies putting up shopping malls and gas stations. At least that has been the rallying point in St. Louis. One alderman was voted out of office in a recall election because of it. And I can't say that I disagree in that particular case.

It did. But private companies have been using local governments for these types of deals for decades. The railroads wouldn't exist without them.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I agree. I do find it amazing how much more press these cases get post-Kelo. This has been the law for over 50 years and has been used plenty of times. It is funny how so many people believe this is a new thing.

Absolutely true.

I know in my state, there is going to be a huge debate about eminent domain in the year ahead (when our legislature convenes in January) and the debate will not at all be limited to matters of and what does or does not quality as "public use" (the heart of the Kelo decision). Instead, the debate will be a far-reaching battle over the entire concept of eminent domain (and the subsidiary issue of fair compensation).

It's as if the public is completely unaware that nearly every major roadway, downtown redevelopment, and large-scale public works project has depended on the concept of eminent domain for the history of this country. (As I read that, I can see how silly it sounds to have, once again, vastly overestimated the public's knowledge level) And now, we're going to see a lot of political opportunism involved in a large-scale fight to "get the government off our backs" in these cases, or something of that sort.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It did. But private companies have been using local governments for these types of deals for decades. The railroads wouldn't exist without them.

Wasn't this a similar type of situation to stadiums/privately held sports teams though? Didn't the government own the rails for a long, long time?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by oykib

I think that the slution is simple. Pay market value at the midpoint between what market value prior to and after construction.

Real Estate is all about speculation, as are all other types of investments.

Basically, the govenment is stealing from these people and then giving their property away to people with political clout.

It's unreasonable for these big developers to say that the land'd be wothless without their project. Everyone buys property with the notion that it'll improve. By taking the land they are infringing on the true owners' ability to realize their investments' improvement over time.

By choosing the midpoint you'd be fairly giving these people a benefit, as they couldn't argue that they weren't getting far and above what they'd normally get for it. But the developers could also not argue that they wouldn't stand to make a nice profit, if not the outright theft that these robber barons are used to.

BTW, it exists in other countries to. It happens in Japan all the time. Particularly since construction companies are the defense contractors of this country. They have more political clout than anybody.

The arguments against doing this way (and I'm not sure they are persuasive) are 1) many "good" things will never get built because of the increased cost because the increased value is only speculative; and 2) it will encourage condemnation shopping where people buy up crappy land and try to get someone else to propose a project to build there. 2) is just the inverse of the current approach of using the local government to make a profit.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Wasn't this a similar type of situation to stadiums/privately held sports teams though? Didn't the government own the rails for a long, long time?

Original railways, yes. And they are a special case. However, many railways, private roads, dams, and other projects like that have used eminent domain to benefit private organizations. This is also not the first stadium to use this approach.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by John Galt

The arguments against doing this way (and I'm not sure they are persuasive) are 1) many "good" things will never get built because of the increased cost because the increased value is only speculative; and 2) it will encourage condemnation shopping where people buy up crappy land and try to get someone else to propose a project to build there. 2) is just the inverse of the current approach of using the local government to make a profit.

I think eminent domain was an overcorrection to the problem of people being unwilling to part with land that was neccesary for the public good. With the midpoint solution, most of these situations would be settled. No one would want to muck up the works of a big pay day.

I think what happens now is that big developers know they can essentially steal your land and so never bargain in good faith with these types of projects. They offer in the range of what they think they'll have to pay in 'fair' market value and then if the people don't sign up, they go crying to the gov't.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by TroyF

But I think it's a little ridiculous to lay this one all on the government. They are following the laws that are on the books...

I'm no lawyer, but this one sets off my bullshit meter. Not calling you out specifically, Troy, just the concept of the government being only partially to blame here. My reasoning:

The government is the entity that puts the laws on the books in the first place. IF the law is a bad law, and the government wrote the law, then IMO the goverment is completely to blame for an unjust action predicated upon an poorly-written law.

Basically what I'm saying is that I can't see this as a shared-fault proposition. If the law is flawed, the homeowners have every right to challenge the evictions, as the government would be in the wrong to act based on a flawed law. If the law is not flawed, or the government is not acting upon a flawed interpretation of the law, then the situation the homeowners find themselves in is their own fault.

Saying "The law is flawed, but the homeowners should have taken an improper settlement and let the district have the land, so it's partly their fault, too" just doesn't set well with me.

[Galaxy]

Any chances of changing the law?

[lordscarlet]

I don't feel that much sympathy for these people.

A year ago, Patricia Ghiglino's two-story, yellow-brick art studio in a drab, largely industrial neighborhood in Southeast Washington was worth $654,000 to the District government, which collected taxes based on that assessment.

This month, the city, clearing the way for a new baseball stadium for the Washington Nationals, offered Ghiglino nearly $1.8 million for the property. Her response?

"We're not accepting this offer. No way," she said. "We're definitely going to court."

[The Washington Post]

If it weren't for the stadium being built their homes would still be worth nothing (comparatively). I think the earlier $600k pricetag was also inflated based on the stadium site speculation. The city is being more than fair, and these people feel like they can just milk the situation. Guess what? They're going to end up getting the assessed value if they're not careful. That's probalby $200k.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Any chances of changing the law?

The Supreme Court just decided on it their last session. So, no, unlikely. Unless a Constitutional Ammendment were passed (which it won't be).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

The Supreme Court just decided on it their last session. So, no, unlikely. Unless a Constitutional Ammendment were passed (which it won't be).

That's not true. Any local government can change the law. Kelo and related decisions only say this practice is constitutionally PERMISSIBLE not REQUIRED. Several states and localities are already considering bills to outlaw the practice. I think Alabama may have even passed one, but I could be wrong on that.

[lordscarlet]

OK, well, it won't happen in places where the government wants to use it.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Absolutely true.

I know in my state, there is going to be a huge debate about eminent domain in the year ahead (when our legislature convenes in January) and the debate will not at all be limited to matters of and what does or does not quality as "public use" (the heart of the Kelo decision). Instead, the debate will be a far-reaching battle over the entire concept of eminent domain (and the subsidiary issue of fair compensation).

It's as if the public is completely unaware that nearly every major roadway, downtown redevelopment, and large-scale public works project has depended on the concept of eminent domain for the history of this country. (As I read that, I can see how silly it sounds to have, once again, vastly overestimated the public's knowledge level) And now, we're going to see a lot of political opportunism involved in a large-scale fight to "get the government off our backs" in these cases, or something of that sort.

I don't know, count me as one the stupid I guess. But I was aware of land being "taken" for highways, an airport, and railroads. However it seems like only recently that people around here have been losing their houses to put up Target Supercenters and Quik-Trip gas stations. Maybe that has been going on for years, but I haven't heard about it until recently and neither have a lot of the people raising the stink. I am pretty sure that K-Mart was not bulldozing houses until recently.

[ISiddiqui]

Dodger Stadium was built using property seized under eminent domain. And that was quite a while ago .

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't know, count me as one the stupid I guess. But I was aware of land being "taken" for highways, an airport, and railroads.

This is what I'm talking about. There seem to be a remarkable number of people who are shocked to hear that this ever happened ... setting aside the more egregious examples. Just the idea of using eminent domain to build a road. To hear people talk about it, that idea was first hatched about six months ago.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

This is what I'm talking about. There seem to be a remarkable number of people who are shocked to hear that this ever happened ... setting aside the more egregious examples. Just the idea of using eminent domain to build a road. To hear people talk about it, that idea was first hatched about six months ago.

I don't know, I think here in St. Louis people are more outraged that municipalites are taking over neighborhoods to put up shopping centers to compete with neighboring cities and shopping centers. I think that is where most of the outrage is from, at least in my opinion.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't know, I think here in St. Louis people are more outraged that municipalites are taking over neighborhoods to put up shopping centers to compete with neighboring cities and shopping centers. I think that is where most of the outrage is from, at least in my opinion.

And if that's the debate, I'm all for it.

Here, amidst the on-point debate over this sort of thing, there is just about as much talk among people who are shocked about the existence of eminent domain for any purpose at all, and are seeking to do away with it entirely.

Perhaps I am just too close to the issue... and that the policy discussion (even here) will eventually settle on the issues that were raise in the Kelo case, rather than the whole ball of wax.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

anyone know if the US is unique in this, or is eminent domain a standard for other countries?

Dola: this link helps answer my question...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_Domain