Talk:Property Rights
From Pete Ashdown Campaign Collaboration Wiki
Right of Eminent Domain is rediculous! I know people who lost lots of their land because the local government, not in utah, wanted to build some nice new park right through their area. The land was valued fairly high by an appraiser but the govt wanted to undercut him by offering him less than 25% of the value of the land. When he refused to sell and negotiations did no follow the way of the locals he lost his land to eminent domain. I think it should be absolutely removed from the books and not allowed if the person will not sell, move it elsewhere. "Sorry boys, move along!"--Projektdotnet 14:03, 2 May 2006 (MDT)
[edit] Fair Market Value
It's kind of hard to be against eminent domain when the taking of private property for public use is provided for in the Constitution, at least implicitly. It would hardly make sense to prohibit taking without fair compensation if the real intent was to allow no government taking at all. As has been acknowledged elsewhere on this site, the Constitution explicitly charges government with the right and responsibility to provide for the general welfare. To find something wrong with the concept of eminent domain, then, would appear to be a conclusion that the Constitution needs to be changed. Is that what is being advocated? Is there some place to find a list of all of the provisions of the Constitution that the Ashdown campaign is in favor of changing?
That having been said, we all cringe when we hear stories of people getting screwed in a "taking" incident. Specifically, this would appear to be a legitimate concern when forced to accept an unfairly low level of compensation, rather than just having a private preference overridden by a legitimate public purpose.
One safeguard that deserves consideration is making the takings decision subject to a greater degree of public participation. This is so, however, only because we should, because we now reasonably can, provide for a much stronger public voice and vote in all government decision making (as the campaign has also advocated elsewhere).
Finally, use of federal money in takings can and should be conditioned on there being procedures available for truly timely and effective review of the valuation determination. It clearly is not fair for government to be able to say "take this offer, or we'll just condemn you out, pay you what we feel like, and fight you tooth and nail for years to keep you from finding out what a fair price really is".
