Eminent Domain

69mach351 said:

He should get around the sign issue by painting it on his building. Game over. I don't know why they would want to impose ED if they have no use for the land. Sounds like a joke.

Click to expand...

benjamen said:

My thought was to to have a bunch of signs close together (but not touching) that as a collection make one big sign.

Click to expand...

Eminent domain and the ongoing development of the Mountain Parkway Expansion have left a widow in the dark, hoping for answers before it’s too late to save one of the only things she has left of her late husband.

Janet Arnett’s Magoffin County home has been a hub of hope and love for generations of family members.

The property was purchased in 1969 and, from there, Arnett worked with her late husband Lowell to carve out a special space in Salyersville. Though the family lived in a couple of different mobile homes on the property over the years, in 1998 they built Arnett’s permanent home. Or, so she thought.
...
So, when news of the last segment of the Mountain Parkway Expansion came to Magoffin County during a community meeting, the family was shocked to learn that the development would demolish the homeplace that built them.
...
Arnett said the developers had visited over the years, warning that she may lose a small piece of her land to the new road. But the current plan shows the road running through the middle of her 63-acre property, which means her home will be demolished.

“We don’t want her to be collateral damage for a project that has been in the works for years,” said her daughter, Lanessa DeMarchis.

The family said they have contacted the county, the transportation cabinet, local representatives, and Gov. Andy Beshear’s office about the situation, but have yet to feel heard in any meaningful way.

After requesting that the road be moved in front of or behind the home, they claim they were told there are development and structural issues that make that impossible. So, Arnett requested to move her home from its current foundation to a lower piece of the property. However, she claims officials told her there is no room for a septic tank to be installed for a move of that caliber.

“I mean, if I want to build the road, that’s fine. But just leave me alone. Build it in front of me; build it behind me. You know, I just want to stay at my house. Here,” Arnett pleaded. “Why did it have to come through my house?”
...

Click to expand...

Institute for Justice Applauds Tennessee General Assembly For Passing Bill Codifying Right To Have Court Determine If Eminent Domain Is Necessary; Urges Governor To Sign Into Law​

• The land, real estate, premises, or other property the condemner seeks to acquire is required for a public use;
• The condemner has a plan that reflects a reasonable schedule to complete the public use after the condemner takes ownership of the property;
• The condemner has access to funding to complete the public use; and
• The public use cannot be accomplished by using or acquiring other property with the consent of the owner of the other property without an unreasonable increase in cost or delay.

Rural Georgia Community Keeps Fighting Despite Railroad’s Win to Take Their Land​

Missouri Bill Would Ban Eminent Domain, but Only for Wind and Solar Projects​

City Destroyed Her Property. They Refuse to Pay.​

Caroline County claims eminent domain over local couple's farmland​

searcher said:

Rural Georgia Community Keeps Fighting Despite Railroad’s Win to Take Their Land​

A hearing officer with the Georgia Public Service Commission says a private company can take land from 18 property owners in Sparta for a new spur.

After a year-long legal battle with a railroad company over their land, landowners in a rural, majority-Black town in Georgia may be forced to sell their homes.

In an initial decision on Monday, a Georgia Public Service Commission officer approved a proposed rail spur in Sparta. Several property owners had refused to sell the land to Sandersville Railroad Co. In March, the centuries-old, white-owned private railroad company sought to acquire the property through eminent domain — a process that allows the government to take private land for public use. However, property owners must receive fair compensation.

The company petitioned the state’s public service commission to condemn the land parcels from 18 property owners along Shoals Road. The railroad company planned to construct a 4.5-mile rail spur that would connect the Hanson Quarry, a rock mine owned by Heidelberg Materials, to a main train line along a nearby highway. The proposed project would create 20 temporary construction jobs, a dozen permanent jobs averaging $90,000 a year in salary and benefits, and bring in over $1.5 million annually to Hancock County.

More:

Rural Georgia Community Keeps Fighting Despite Railroad’s Win to Take Their Land

A hearing officer with the Georgia Public Service Commission says a private company can take land from 18 property owners in Sparta for a new spur.

capitalbnews.org

Click to expand...

searcher said:

City Destroyed Her Property. They Refuse to Pay.​

Jul 30, 2024

3:54

The U.S. Constitution says that when the government takes your property, it must pay you “just compensation.” But what if, instead of paying you just compensation, it gives you an IOU that you can never cash in? That’s exactly what happened to Melisa and Mike Robinson.

In 2009, public workers in Okay, Oklahoma, devastated a small mobile-home park Melisa and Mike own and operate. The local sewer authority, which had a sewer easement on the property next door, sent workers out to build a new sewer line. Instead of working on the property they owned, though, they dug up sewer lines on Melisa and Mike’s land without any legal authorization. The damage was massive—beyond the damage from the digging itself, misaligned sewer lines failed to drain, and clipped power lines sparked power outages. Inside the tenants’ homes, toilets couldn’t flush, showers wouldn’t drain, and appliances blew out. It was a disgusting mess. When Okay officials refused to fix their mistake, Melisa and Mike ended up fixing the pipes themselves.

Then they sued. Exercising the same rights enjoyed by property owners nationwide, they filed a lawsuit claiming that the unauthorized construction on their property was a “taking.” The logic is simple: If Okay had followed the rules, it would have been required to use eminent domain to take the Robinsons’ property before building a sewer line, and eminent domain requires the government to pay just compensation. Since the government didn’t pay compensation before it wrecked the property, it should be required to pay now. In other words, the rule in the Constitution is the same as the rule in Pottery Barn: You break it, you buy it.

And they won. In a case that went all the way up to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, Melisa and Mike were awarded tens of thousands of dollars in compensation for the taking of their property. So far, the system was working the way it was supposed to. The government took Melisa and Mike’s property, but a court ordered the government to pay them for what it took.

Then things took a turn. The problem is that sewer construction in Okay isn’t run by the Okay town government. It’s all run by the Okay Public Works Authority—a “public trust” that was legally established by the town. The Public Works Authority is run by the same six officials that were elected to run the town, but technically, it’s not part of the town. That’s where Okay officials tried to get clever. As it turns out, the Public Works Authority doesn’t have any money. It has the power of eminent domain, sure, but it doesn’t have any assets or revenues it could use to pay for the property it takes—those all belong to the town. And so Melisa and Mike, despite the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling in their favor, haven’t received a single cent in compensation, even though they are owed more than $200,000 at this point. The court judgment in their favor is just an unenforceable IOU.

That’s not just wrong—it’s unconstitutional. That is why Melisa and Mike have teamed up with the Institute for Justice to file a federal civil-rights lawsuit demanding that Okay officials pay them for what they took. Okay is far from alone in thinking that it’s come up with a clever way to avoid its constitutional obligations. This lawsuit will make sure that it joins the ranks of government officials who learned the hard way that the Constitution is not a suggestion. It’s mandatory.

Click to expand...

Eminent Domain DISASTER May Finally Be Overturned​

searcher said:

Eminent Domain DISASTER May Finally Be Overturned​

Dec 19, 2024

Can the government take your property just to hand it over to your business competitor?

That is the question New York developer Bryan Bowers is asking the United States Supreme Court after New York’s courts said it was perfectly fine for a county redevelopment agency to condemn his property and give it to a rival developer to use as a private parking lot. In most states, that kind of one-to-one transfer of property between private owners would be forbidden—or at least be subject to serious judicial scrutiny. In New York, though, it’s business as usual.

The culprit is the Supreme Court’s much-maligned 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London. In that case, the Court blessed the condemnation of the working-class Fort Trumbull neighborhood—not to build a road or a school, but because the government wanted to hand the land over to new private owners who would pay more in taxes. The Constitution says eminent domain is reserved for public uses, like building roads or parks, but the Court held that the public-use requirement was satisfied by the prospect of the public benefiting from claimed higher tax revenues.

The backlash to Kelo was swift and widespread. Between legislation, constitutional amendments, and court decisions, 47 states changed their laws to make Kelo-style private-purpose takings more difficult. But in the few states that didn’t, eminent domain abuse continues to occur.

Bryan’s case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to reconsider and hopefully overturn its decision in Kelo and to restore some constitutional protections against eminent-domain abuse—an opportunity that several Justices have publicly supported.

Learn more about this important case at IJ.org

Kelo Eminent Domain - Institute for Justice

One of the Supreme Court’s most controversial cases made it much easier for the government to seize homes and small businesses.

ij.org

Click to expand...