Eminent Domain?

[vvvvvvv]

I think eminent domain goes against the concept of the third amendment "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

It seems the idea of the amendment is a man's home is his castle. Eminent domain flies in the face of that.

As an FYI there are many idiots out there who think the "evil rich conservatives" were the ones on the supreme court who went for eminent domain. The reality is that the liberal justices with kennedy where the ones who allowed it.

They why did it take four communist, atheist, anti-American justices and one RINO to decide it?

/sigh

A lot of ignorance, these posts reek of.

Eminent domain goes back much further than Kelo. Kelo simply expanded it to redefine "public use" as anything that a legislature could show would provide jobs or increase tax revenue for the state.

Which one was the "RINO"? And I take it since he was probably appointed by a Republican, he must not be "anti-American". Only Justices appointed by non-Republicans are anti-American. Got it.

Also, I learned from your second post that Protestants, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews are "atheist". Thank you for the enlightenment.

As a Republican once said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

 

[Thomas]

Get a lawyer.

If they lowball you, you can most likely make them pay your legal expenses.
(see the fee shifting provisions)
http://www.mcafeetaft.com/Resources...-for-effectively-settling-eminent-domain.aspx

 

[Lenonthelake]

Dont forget to have them take the amount of land they take off the tax rolls.

 

[druryj]

I sat on a jury trial a few years back where the State was taking a cut out of the middle of this guys land for the construction of the turnpike. There was no question they had the right to do that, but we (the jury) saw fit to make sure the guy was compensated quite fairly for the property being taken. He came out about quite a bit better than the offer they initially gave him. The matter boiled down to the amount they paid an adjacent landowner for his similar piece and the low-ball offer they made the fellow in the trial.

Bottom line: Contact an appropriate attorney and ensure you aren't being "bulldozed" too. Oh; and no wielding of pea shooters at the bulldozers by the way; you'll end up doing the hokey-pokey.

 

[Surveyor1653]

OP:

(None of the following is to be considered legal advice. It's free on the internet and well...you know: Getting what you paid for and all that.)

As has been stated, get an attorney. Make sure that your attorney is one who's pled these types of cases before...with success. Your attorney may also suggest that you have your own appraisal done. You should request a copy of the engineer's design plans for the project to provide to your appraiser, whether or not your attorney advises it and possibly even if he advises against it. That request may come in handy later.

If this property lies along a section line, then you're dealing with, at least, statutory right-of-way. There is no eminent domain claim here, it is what it is and that "take" will not include any financial compensation unless they want it to. You must also be careful of prescriptive easements. I've seen jurisdictions get away with an uncompensated take beyond statutory right-of-way because the landowner fenced well off of the ROW line. They simply claimed a prescriptive easement between the fence and ROW line, stopped the take at the landowner's fence, and didn't pay a dime in damages. I cannot state this clearly enough to you and everyone else: Know the limits of your interest in your property. The courts WILL expect this of you.

For any take beyond the statutory right-of-way, there are numerous considerations that their appraiser will take into account. They will consider the highest and best use of the property, diminished capability of use based on the take and any improvements, etc. Those considerations will be made both in your favor and to your detriment, so it's good to understand the nature of the improvements to be made. The appraisals (if you also have one done) should come even with one another. If not, argue your case to the powers that be.

The simple fact of the matter in many of these cases is that there is rarely the same deal for all parties because there are those who put up more resistance than the rest. It all comes down to how big a deal it is for you./



For the record: The 5th states "....public use...." and that was the rub in Kelo: Whether or not a commercial enterprise constituted public use. That particular gaggle took a crayon and subsituted one noun for another in the Constitution.

 

[henschman]

Good advice, Surveyor. I am a lawyer but don't do those kinds of cases. However, I know that in an eminent domain situation, the ones seizing the land frequently try to first pick the low-hanging fruit by low-balling all the land owners and seeing how many agree to the initial offer. There are usually some hold-outs, who they usually have to pay more money to and/or go to court with in order to get their land from. Of course you have to balance how much more you think you can get with how much you will end up paying to lawyers and appraisers to be that big of a pain in their ass.

 

[rebel-son]

/sigh

A lot of ignorance, these posts reek of.

Eminent domain goes back much further than Kelo. Kelo simply expanded it to redefine "public use" as anything that a legislature could show would provide jobs or increase tax revenue for the state.

Which one was the "RINO"? And I take it since he was probably appointed by a Republican, he must not be "anti-American". Only Justices appointed by non-Republicans are anti-American. Got it.

Also, I learned from your second post that Protestants, Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Jews are "atheist". Thank you for the enlightenment.

As a Republican once said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Wow a mod acting tough on a BOARD because they are a mod.

I never said those groups where athiests and would like to know when I did.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Wow a mod acting tough on a BOARD because they are a mod.

I never said those groups where athiests and would like to know when I did.

They why did it take four communist, atheist, anti-American justices and one RINO to decide it?

In the plurality -

Justice John Paul Stevens - Protestant - Republican-appointed

Justice David Souter - Episcopalian - Republican-appointed

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Jewish - Democrat-appointed

Justice Steven Breyer - Unknown - Democrat-appointed

Separate concurring opinion making a majority with perhaps a narrower application -

Justice Anthony Kennedy - Roman Catholic - Republican-appointed

------

So based on what you said previously, there are three choices to be the "RINO". The two that are left from that group of three are logically both described by the adjectives "communist" and "atheist", along with the two Democratic appointees.

And no, not acting tough. Just would rather misinformation be corrected promptly.

 

[rebel-son]

"The devil can cite scripture for their own purposes". They might claim to be Christian, but that does not mean they are.

Barak Obama claims to be a Christian, but I don't know what kind of Christianity he practices. It was not what I learned at Sunday School.

 

[vvvvvvv]

"The devil can cite scripture for their own purposes". They might claim to be Christian, but that does not mean they are.

ויהי כאשר הוסיפו לשאל אתו וישא את עיניו ויאמר אליהם מי בכם זך בלי פשע הוא ראשונה ידה בה אבן׃