Cris Member Username: Cris
Post Number: 428 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 6:57 pm: | |
I'm trying to understand what Proposal 4, which would put limits on the government's ability to seize private property, might do to development in Detroit. Would it be a good thing or a bad thing? Would it make it harder for the city to seize derelict, dangerous buildings? Would it make big projects (like Ford Field, etc) less likely to happen? Hoping you all will share your thoughts on this one... |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 1448 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 8:02 pm: | |
the sword cuts both ways but I gotta go with the 'little people' on this one |
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 2195 Registered: 02-2005
| Posted on Saturday, November 04, 2006 - 9:56 pm: | |
Cris, great question. This is an under-reported proposal. I say, look at the Poletown fiasco. That is eminent domain at work. Look at the building of the extensive freeway system, which tore apart our urban fabric. That was eminent domain, too. These days, some have defined the taking of property for any purpose that will create 'economic development,' as legitimate. It is not right for a bunch of tax-payers homes to be seized so that a shopping mall that will bring 100 jobs can be built. I also think that downtown Detroit has moved past the stage of "big ticket" developments pushed by the local government. We have our casinos and stadia, and development is driving itself, on several smaller stages. I don't think eminent domain could help downtown development much at all anymore. Beyond this, there is almost an ideological aspect to eminent domain. Some liberals, many conservatives, and just about all libertarians believe in the absolute right to property ownership. It is American and it is fundamental to our economic system. Eminent domain gives too much power to the government, and thus for individual property owners in this state, and for the sake of ensuring real, market-driven economic development, we should approve Prop 4. |
Gistok Member Username: Gistok
Post Number: 3029 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 12:03 am: | |
Mackinaw... I usually agree with you... but... as far as downtown goes, there are 2 areas of Eminent Domain where it might do some good... 1) a new Olympia Hockey Arena, and 2) Cobo Expansion. |
Traxus Member Username: Traxus
Post Number: 20 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 2:26 am: | |
I'm on the fence with this as well. Awhile back I heard a story on NPR about lakefront property, regarding wether people could walk on specific parts of the beach of lake michigan if it was private property. It was a pretty silly sounding issue but I think thats what brought this to the ballot. |
Crash_nyc Member Username: Crash_nyc
Post Number: 667 Registered: 08-2004
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 5:39 am: | |
I'm right there with you Macinaw. Here's a view from Brooklyn, NYC, where Eminent Domain has recently gone horribly wrong: Developer Bruce Ratner is well on his way to getting his $4.2 billion-dollar "Atlantic Yards" project approved. This will comprise of multiple skyscrapers featuring luxury condos and commercial space, and of course, a new SPORTS ARENA, which will house the "Brooklyn Nets" NBA basketball team -- which is what the New Jersey Nets will become if this deal goes through. Incidentally, this would be the most expensive sports arena ever built: $550 million. There is an old rail yard in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, that the Long Island Rail Road has agreed to sell to Ratner, who is in bed with Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg. But the development will extend well-beyond the boundaries of the rail yard, and include densely-populated land. Under Ratner's plan, numerous long-existing neighborhood businesses and apartment buildings will be torn down, displacing over 500 people, some of whom live in apartments that have been occupied by their families for generations. He did the equivalent of "throwing a bone" to displaced residents, saying that they would have first-pick of the new condos/apartments, a percentage of which will be classified as "affordable housing". These plans for "affordable housing" involve rents/prices that revolve around what is deemed as "moderate income". Here's what they pulled out of their arses: they set "moderate income" at $109,000/year (by who's math?..). The average income in Brooklyn is $35K, and Prospect Heights, while not poor, is certainly not considered a monied-neighborhood by any stretch of the imagination, and very few (if any) of these potentially-displaced residents actually make 6-figures. The actual base of the neighborhood is a nice mix of Caribbean immigrants and caucasions. Not only are the residents of Prospect Heights upset, but all of the surrounding neighborhoods are vehemently against the Atlantic Yards development, as well. Congestion in this area of Brooklyn is is bad enough as it is. Shoe-horn in a 18,000-capacity arena, and the congestion would become unbearable, if not completely unmanageable. The potential for disaster in this neighborhood is certainly glaring, but cold hard cash makes an easy blindfold. Besides, Ratner doesn't live in Brooklyn, so why should he give a shit past his own bank account? So what gives this asshole the power to destroy an already-vibrant and lively neighborhood, and force over 500 people out of their apartments? You guessed it: EMINENT DOMAIN! This is a psychotic plan that that only has legs because of the promise of "economic development" -- with little concern for the thousands of people who's lives will be negatively affected by it. Furthermore, the funding for this project will be heavily subsidized by tax dollars. So not only will the affected residents be screwed by this development, but they'll be PAYING for it out of their own pockets! The scope and reach of Eminent Domain laws needs to be limited. I wish I could see Prop 4 on the ballot this Tuesday in NYC. http://www.ratnerville.com/ |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4646 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 5:43 am: | |
I'd be much more in favor of support this if our state's supreme court (along those of Illinois, Ohio, and Georgia) hadn't already prevented things like this for the most part. Like the dove amendment, I think this is an over-kill amendment. |
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 2197 Registered: 02-2005
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 10:38 am: | |
Gistok, what this amendment reels in is the government taking of private property so that it can be transferred to another private person/company for development. I can see that, in the case of the new Olympia, you believe that the city ought to use eminent domain to take the last few plots that Ilitch needs, plots which the current owners have jacked up the price tremendously, and sell them to Ilitch at lower cost. I'd say that, while this might speed up development of a new arena, this is the government engaging in something like arbitrage, and this is not the place for the government. Ilitch's pockets are deep enough to pay off the fellow slumlords that want a piece of the pie when it comes to the new arena. Plus, I'm not so sure that a new arena can't fit on a collection of his existing, abundant parking lots. I don't think Ilitch will go running to the suburbs if the government won't help him get one overpriced parking lot. A Cobo expansion shouldn't involve land takings at all! If the Wings move then they can expand straight back onto the JLA--City Owned--property. Of course, I don't see why they can't build up. |
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 2198 Registered: 02-2005
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 10:40 am: | |
And just to clarify my first post, eminent domain for the building of the freeways, unfortunately, would still be legal. But Poletown explicitly would not have happened if a law like this was on the books then. (Message edited by mackinaw on November 05, 2006) |
Fnemecek
Member Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2052 Registered: 12-2004
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 10:53 am: | |
quote:Of course, I don't see why they can't build up.
Because the people who rent space in halls like Cobo want 1 million+ sq. ft. of exhibition space all on one level with few, if any, support columns blocking the way. |
Royce Member Username: Royce
Post Number: 1876 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 11:07 am: | |
Why have this proposal at all if the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that governments can't seize land from private citizens to essentially give it to other private citizens, under the guise of "economic development?" What does this proposal do, if approved, that the court decision doesn't cover? |
Wilus1mj Member Username: Wilus1mj
Post Number: 140 Registered: 05-2005
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 11:44 am: | |
Doesn't the US Supreme Court already made rulings on this? Doesn't Michigan have to follow those laws, regardless of what proposals we come up with? |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 317 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 12:06 pm: | |
I've got to vote for eminent domain in this case... I believe that the city of Detroit is prime example of why the Supreme Court left this decision up to local governments to decide instead of slamming the door shut on this issue... We are a prime example of how private development can benefit the public good...just look at the Campus Martius area and all the jobs and livelihood it's brought... Tons of potential redeveloment in Detroit may not even happen if the city is able to sieze land the way it neds to be siezed... The vacant buildings in our city are too sproadic and randomly placed wihtin the developed areas...there's simply no other way private development can move forward if the state and local governments are stripped of thier eminent domain powers... Anyhwere else I might vote against eminent domain...but again, our city us a private example of why the taking of private property for public use is both good and necessary.. |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 318 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 12:14 pm: | |
Wilus1mj: All the USSC decision in Kelo v. New London did is leave the door open to let the citizens and local governments decide how best to use eminent domain powers... The whole case circled around the language in the 5th amendment to the US Constitution, which reads: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The debate arose over what the term 'public use' means...does it mean that the land that is taken must be public-owned and used for something like a park or hospital, or can the siezed land be taken from one private owner and given to another private owner if the local government decides that what that 2nd private owner is going to build will benefit the public, such as a factory that will bring thousands of jobs to an area... In a 5-4 decision, the USSC decided that that government may take private property from individuals for private-sector economic projects. BUT, if the citizens of a state or city want to pass laws that prevent the government from siezing land for private economic development, they are free to do so... |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 10 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 12:45 pm: | |
I think that my biggest reason for voting NO would have to be that the proposal, as worded, requires that the owners be paid 125% of the market price, which is quite unreasonable and expensive for any government to acquire land for truly good/useful purposes regardless. Also the proposal doesn't specify how the market rate price is to be determined. It seems to me that it is only going to lead to more problems--it doesn't seem to solve the issue in the appropriate ways. |
Jams Member Username: Jams
Post Number: 4113 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 1:04 pm: | |
quote:I think that my biggest reason for voting NO would have to be that the proposal, as worded, requires that the owners be paid 125% of the market price, which is quite unreasonable and expensive for any government to acquire land for truly good/useful purposes regardless.
Not all owners! The law will provide that if an individual's principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of property's fair market value |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 14 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 1:11 pm: | |
DETROIT FREE PRESS: "The big hitch in this proposal is the expansion of the definition of "just compensation" to say that owners of residential property that is "taken" for public use are entitled to at least 125% of the "fair market value" of the property. Proposal 06-4 does not define "fair market value," which seems like an invitation to litigators. In theory, the 125% compensates property owners for the disruption of a forced move. In reality, it will likely prompt many to hold out for condemnation and the 125% payment, thus increasing the cost of assembling land for the government -- and the costs to taxpayers of public improvements." http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=/20061019/OPI NION01/610190314/1068/OPINION The Free Press article to me was rather convincing to vote NO. I can understand the emotions and reasoning for changing it, but in the long run it just seemed as though it was not the best way to address the issue. In the long run seems as though it would just make a mess of things. -just my opinion; not yours |
Jams Member Username: Jams
Post Number: 4114 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 1:27 pm: | |
Just pointing out it wasn't an across the board 125% compensation. No bias intended. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4650 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 5:25 pm: | |
Again, didn't the Michigan Supreme Court already rule against eminent domain for private purposes? Isn't this just overkill? Plus, why do we elect a representative government, at all? I only believe in ballot initiatives if the government is far behind the people on an issue, or if the issue is one of human/civil rights that the government refuses to act on. Otherwise, why elect a government at all? Why not just rule by tricky/deceptive ballot initiative after tricky/deceptive ballot initiative? Believe it or not, and this is something taboo to say but "The People" aren't always right, and especially when you have special interest-sponsored initiatives purposefully trying to confuse The People. I like representative government, and ballot initiatives should be last resorts, not the first which they've become. Just look what they've done to California politics/government, which is just a mess of Propositions pretty much ruling the government an advisory/secondary role in politics. It's a very dangerous road to go down. |
Scottr Member Username: Scottr
Post Number: 81 Registered: 07-2006
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 9:08 pm: | |
Lmichigan, you are indeed correct that the state supreme court did rule against it, but the US supreme court went the other direction, but also said states were free to be more restrictive. it didn't work against the state ruling, but this proposal just tries to cement it into the constitution. (see charlottepauls' link) I'm with you - The state constitution should be a basic framework, not something that lays out every law in the book. Leave the everyday laws to our legislature - that's what they are there for. If they won't pass it as a law, there's probably a good reason why! this, along with proposals 1, 3 and 5, really should be defeated regardless of their merits as a law - it's simply bad policy to put everything into the constitution. and too often, ballot initiatives are merely trying to take advantage of the ignorance of the average voter. |
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 64 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Sunday, November 05, 2006 - 10:22 pm: | |
The government has a financial incentive to approve the use of eminent domain for private development (big development projects tend to generate more tax revenue than neighbourhoods and small businesses), and as such cannot be trusted to uphold the rights of the property owner where necessary. |
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell
Post Number: 3236 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 12:06 am: | |
There will always be a needs for eminent domain, but I think the law should be more restrictive than proposed. It should be heavily slanted toward rewarding the property owners, more like 250% of fair market value for long time, say five years or more, property owners. Shorter times should be rewarded less to fend off speculators. Renters should be likewise provided generous relocation grants. Fair market value should be determined by a non- or bi-paritisan panel. The spirit of the law should be, "You can take over the property, but you will have to pay through the nose if you plan on inconveniencing others." |
Rhymeswithrawk Member Username: Rhymeswithrawk
Post Number: 134 Registered: 11-2005
| Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 4:45 am: | |
Thing that gets me is how eminent domain has gotten out of hand. For starters, one of the men whom the founding fathers looked up to most was John Locke. Locke's main principal: The primary purpose of government is to protect private property. How all these "conservatives" can be so in favor of it baffles me. Here's an example from my previous place of residence, Columbus, Ohio: Old factory gets torn down. Said factory was huge and about a half mile from I-71, a major freeway that runs from Cleveland, through Columbus, and into Cincinnati. Neighborhood around said old factory site is like much of Detroit: poor, black and decaying. Developer gets the city to agree to use eminent domain to take dozens and dozens of houses - and an old school that had become an artist co-op - and level them so he can build a mall on the factory site and upscale housing on the other side of Cleveland Avenue, where the poor live. This, the city has reasoned, is in the best interest of the city, therefore, eminent domain is OK. This is, of course, far from OK. We're not talking about reimbursing farmers for a four-lane freeway through their cornfield here. And for scary schitt like that, I will vote to ensure eminent domain is kept in check. |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 21 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 1:51 pm: | |
How could the City of Detroit ever have laid out the street grid it currently has downtown after the fire of 1805 without eminent domain? |
Bearinabox Member Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 66 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 2:27 pm: | |
Charlottepaul: Road construction is a public use. Prop. 4 only affects eminent domain projects where the benefactor is another private entity- like Rhymeswithrawk's example of a private developer using eminent domain to build a mall. There is a huge difference between the government taking land for a public project which benefits everyone and the government taking land for some private development that only enriches the pocketbook of the developer at the expense of the original property owners. |
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 321 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 2:40 pm: | |
We need to vote "yes" on Prop. 4. It is not overkill. It's true that the MI Supreme Court has now ruled that in the vast majority of cases a municipality may not in effect turn over the eminent domain process to private interests. What proponents are concerned about is that another Su. Ct. may overturn the current decision a la the way our current Su. Ct. overturned the Poletown case. The 125% provision is in there to prevent municipalities, primarily the City of Detroit, the biggest abuser, historically, from screwing homeowners. (Archer was the biggest proponent of screwing the little guy, primarily on what I recall was the Victoria Park project, in which his son had an interest. The City operates by ceasing most services to an area it wants to acquire so the area runs down and the City can pick up property more cheaply.) The City has alway tried to screw the property owners, but fortunately, it's bit them in the butt occasionally. Case in point is the warehouse acquisition (for the Chrysler Jefferson plant) from some alleged mafia guys where they ended up paying the property owners $50,000,000 more than the City's last offer. Al Ackerman, (great lawyer) made a $15,000,000 fee on the deal, paid by the City of course. Keep in mind that usually it's the little guy, the working poor, who get screwed by the cities. I can take care of myself, and I've done it, but most people can't. For more info, go to the website of the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm, and the primary opponent of abusive condemnation; http://www.ij.org/ |
Jams Member Username: Jams
Post Number: 4130 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 2:44 pm: | |
quote:How could the City of Detroit ever have laid out the street grid it currently has downtown after the fire of 1805 without eminent domain?
Definitely not an altruistic exercise. |
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 323 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 3:08 pm: | |
Eminent domain is a useful, necessary tool for acquiring property for clearly public purposes (roads, police stations etc) where it can be shown there's no alternative properties available for that purpose. It's only where municipalities abuse the privilege, by taking your property and giving it to another for that person's private use, that is being prevented by Prop 4. For example, Gistok, Prop 4 would forbid Wayne County from taking land you've owned and lived on or made a living from for years, and selling it to an Illitch or a Ford for far less than they would have to pay you if you WANTED to sell. It is inconceivable to me that rational people (which doesn't include municipal leaders and private developers who benefit from eminent domain abuse), especially rational property owners, would be opposed to Prop. 4. My guess is that those above opposed to it don't own any real estate. Am I wrong? |
Swingline Member Username: Swingline
Post Number: 620 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 4:58 pm: | |
Yes you are, 3rdworld. Land speculators have damaged this city far more than abuses of eminent domain. Over-restriction of this tool will allow speculators to thwart urban redevelopment projects indefinitely. Vote NO on proposal 4. |
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 328 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Monday, November 06, 2006 - 5:59 pm: | |
Show me where "land speculators," whatever they are, have damaged the City. Examples, please. |
|