Quote :

"Daren Bakst, John Locke Foundation, 3/5/09 11AM: House Minority Leader, Rep. Paul Stam [Rep] just introduced a bill that would expand the abusive practice of quick takes. Quick takes refer to a practice whereby once the government decides it wants to seize private property, it takes immediate title and possession of the property. If you are a homeowner, you could wake up one day and find that the state owns your house. This practice should be abolished. Under current law, local governments in certain circumstances have quick take authority however property owners can challenge the taking in court by seeking an injunction (assuming they have the knowledge, time, and money), and title doesn't go to the government until a court renders final judgment. The Department of Transportation though has much stronger quick take authority. It can get immediate title and possession regardless of any challenge by property owners. Rep. Stam's bill, instead of getting rid of this abuse, would expand it so that the town of Fuquay-Varina could use the same quick take authority that the Department of Transportation has--so much for property rights."

So instead of just the state Dept of Transportation being able to Quick-Take your property, republican Paul Stam wants any Town Manager to be able Quick-Take your property.

Here's the proposed bill:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=H384

3/5/2009 11:23:04 AM

3/5/2009 11:32:17 AM

very strange for Stam. IIRC, his policies in the past are mostly pro-small government.

[Edited on March 5, 2009 at 11:41 AM. Reason : blah]

3/5/2009 11:40:22 AM

3/5/2009 11:41:22 AM

Quote :

"So instead of just the state Dept of Transportation being able to Quick-Take your property, republican Paul Stam wants any Town Manager to be able Quick-Take your property."

Well, he wants Fuquay Varina only to be able to take it, but I can imagine if it passes then any town that needed it could apply for the amendment also.

I can imagine this is related to the Southern Wake freeway, but I suppose it could be something else.

3/5/2009 11:45:22 AM

Quote :

"very strange for Stam."

I know.
I've sent him a email requesting more information. I'll post his reply if/when I get one.

3/5/2009 11:46:01 AM

It's Fuquay-Varina and he is Republican. He's probably just trying to get rid of the immigrants.

3/5/2009 11:46:33 AM

Eminent Domain is equally popular in both parties. Moah government powah.

3/5/2009 11:50:01 AM

I think if the gov't wants to use emient domain to do shit to my property than they should fucking chip in.

3/5/2009 1:27:46 PM

Willy Nilly is entirely in favor of this practice, if and when it involves endangered species habitat.

3/5/2009 1:58:57 PM

^
Why would eminent domain be necessary? As I said earlier, the land could remain privately owned. If the owner doesn't want the additional responsibility that comes with preserving an endangered habitat, then they can sell the land to someone who does. Or, they can donate it to become a public park. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a case of eminent domain that I support.

3/5/2009 2:42:47 PM

Not cool.

3/5/2009 2:44:49 PM

Quote :

"then they can sell the land to someone who does."

Funny you should mention this. But this is exactly the tactic groups like the Nature Conservancy use to get land out of private hands and into the gov't on the cheap.

First they convince the gov't that your land is a wetlands or has endangered species..whatever. Then the feds slap harsh restrictions on the land. You can't sell it, because who would want to buy land that they can't develop? Well..then along comes the Nature Conservancy who offers you a low-ball amount which you basically have to accept.

Once the group "buys" your land, it donates it to the federal gov't to protect. Pretty effective racket.

3/5/2009 6:55:16 PM

Can you provide an example of when this has happened? Would like to see some stories about it and what folks have had to say and what arguments for and against were.

3/5/2009 6:58:06 PM

Utah cattle rancher and Korean War vet Brandt Child purchased 500 acres of land in Utah in 1990. He intended to raise cattle and operate a campground for recreational vehicles.

His land was soon after declared a wetland and a habitat for the endangered Kanab snail.

His land was basically frozen in place by government regulation and Child was unable to do anything with it...

Quote :

"Meanwhile, an appraisal was made of Child's property by The Nature Conservancy, a Washington DC environmental group that often acts as a middleman for the Fish & Wildlife Service, buying properties the agency covets, then later reselling them to FWS at a profit when the agency recieves apprpriations from Congress. "You understand, Mr. Child, that with both a wetlands and an endangered species you can't sell this property to anybody else because it has no value," Child says the Conservancy apprasier warned him, "So we're doing you a favor by taking it off your hands." -- 'Mugged by the State' by Randall Fitzgerald"

3/5/2009 8:23:19 PM

Id hate to get eminent domain brought down on me over some bullshit, but is 1994 the most recent example you could come up with? I have a hard time getting my libertarian spirits worked up when it seems that government officials aren't abusing the laws if you can't find anything more relevant than 15 years ago.

3/5/2009 8:31:22 PM

^
We're not talking about eminent domain, but rather the voluntary sale of private property to private charities, that in turn voluntarily donates the land to the government....

Quote :

"Funny you should mention this. But this is exactly the tactic groups like the Nature Conservancy use to get land out of private hands and into the gov't on the cheap. First they convince the gov't that your land is a wetlands or has endangered species..whatever. Then the feds slap harsh restrictions on the land. You can't sell it, because who would want to buy land that they can't develop? Well..then along comes the Nature Conservancy who offers you a low-ball amount which you basically have to accept. Once the group "buys" your land, it donates it to the federal gov't to protect. Pretty effective racket ecological justice watchdog."

Very good point. I'm glad my donation is working.

Quote :

"Utah cattle rancher and Korean War vet Brandt Child purchased 500 acres of land in Utah in 1990. He intended to raise cattle and operate a campground for recreational vehicles"

Ahhhh... He's a war vet? Well then, that changes everything.

Quote :

"His land was soon after declared a wetland and a habitat for the endangered Kanab snail. His land was basically frozen in place by government regulation and Child was unable to do anything with it..."

Bullshit. He's got a wetland, and he can watch wildlife on it whenever he wants. I'd love to own a wetland. Oh wait, you meant that he wanted some land for cattle and campers so he could make money, but now he can't. Boo fucking hoo. Buyer beware my friend.

Is is disgusting to suggest that he or anyone has a right to harm everyone on Earth by harming (to perhaps complete extinction,) an endangered species simply because he wants to turn a buck.

[Edited on March 5, 2009 at 8:46 PM. Reason : ]

3/5/2009 8:42:29 PM

If there were only two Kanab snails left in the world, I would gladly kill them both just to spite Willy Nilly. Conserving species is all well and good, but protecting what's practically an extinct species anyway by stealing people's land is just too much.

3/5/2009 9:40:33 PM

Quote :

"is 1994 the most recent example you could come up with? "

Granted it was a while ago, but that's the one that sticks in my mind from the book. There is a libertarian law group that specializes in fighting ED abuse on behalf of regular citizens. You should check out the site- You'll probably find more current cases.

Institute for Justice: http://www.ij.org/

Quote :

"Oh wait, you meant that he wanted some land for cattle and campers so he could make money, but now he can't. Boo fucking hoo. Buyer beware my friend. "

This is an excellent example of the mind-set you will get from today's rabid environmentals. They want you to believe that they care for the land, but the true goal is to eliminate capitalism. Making money is bad- Using land to make money is really bad.

As communism has fallen out of favor, the socialist left has hijacked the environmental movement and married it with marxist dogma. Watch their comments- and see how many of them are tinged with that loathing of capitalism.

The environmentalist groups of old understood that our country became great because we took the wilderness and developed it into cities, dams, roads, factories...all of the things that pulled our civilization out of the muck of the primitive.

They were stewards of the land, not destroyers of other people's livelihoods. Grabbing as much land for the government and making it off-limits to private ownership was not their goal.

3/5/2009 11:04:14 PM

Quote :

"Id hate to get eminent domain brought down on me over some bullshit, but is 1994 the most recent example you could come up with? I have a hard time getting my libertarian spirits worked up when it seems that government officials aren't abusing the laws if you can't find anything more relevant than 15 years ago."

Eminent domain is abused all the time. Probably the largest most recent case with Kelo V. New London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London)

Quote :

" I'd love to own a wetland. Oh wait, you meant that he wanted some land for cattle and campers so he could make money, but now he can't. Boo fucking hoo. Buyer beware my friend. "

Question: If you (and so many other people you claim) would "love to own a wetland" why is it that the conservation groups have to get the government to step in and effectively artificially destroy the value of the land before they will step in and offer to buy? I'm sure if the conservation groups had offered Mr. Child at least as much, if not more than he paid for the land in the first place, they could have saved the snail and Mr. Child could still have had his cattle ranch.

Quote :

"Is is disgusting to suggest that he or anyone has a right to harm everyone on Earth by harming (to perhaps complete extinction,) an endangered species simply because he wants to turn a buck."

I would love for you to show any actual damages that would be caused to you or me by the death of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanab_ambersnail

Incidentally, does your desire to save species from extinction include all of the species of viruses and bacteria that we purposefully try to eradicate on a daily basis, in the pursuit of a buck no less?

3/5/2009 11:26:56 PM

Quote :

"" I'd love to own a wetland. Oh wait, you meant that he wanted some land for cattle and campers so he could make money, but now he can't. Boo fucking hoo. Buyer beware my friend. ""

jesus. our society is SO fucked.

3/6/2009 7:37:13 AM

Quote :

"I would love for you to show any actual damages that would be caused to you or me by the death of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanab_ambersnail "

Good point?

3/6/2009 8:01:45 AM

Quote :

"minent domain is abused all the time. Probably the largest most recent case with Kelo V. New London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London)"

This is the case I remember. I read that whole wikipedia. It still seems to me that emminent domain gets severely abused once every 20-30 years. I know not every case goes to the supreme court, but in 2005, the justices referred to cases in 1984 and 1954. It's also noted in that wikipedia that there was a pretty severe backlash to the decision with a jump from 8 -> 42 with some type of legislation in response to Kelo with 21 of those states having strict legislation.

So, what are you getting all worked up about?

In the actual Kelo case, if those fucking crooks would have just ponied up more money to compensate those sitting on the land they wanted, that wikipedia entry may not exist. I don't know all the details, but it looks like they offered 100k per home in what I imagine is a fairly distressed district. That might be fair value to possibly a little above value for those homes. The developer should have doubled that, gotten contracts for however many would have accepted, then offered more for (in secret) for the holdouts who felt like they were owed a million for their place. Who knows, maybe all of them wanted 1 million a piece. I know you libs think they should be allowed to ask whatever they want, and stay if they don't get it, but I tend to take a more diplomatic take on it, if they are more than well compensated for their shithole of a house, they should have the funds deposited in their account and booted out on the street to make way for progress.

3/6/2009 10:39:52 AM

Quote :

"If there were only two Kanab snails left in the world, I would gladly kill them both just to spite Willy Nilly."

So...
What you're saying is that not only do you disagree with me and millions of others, but you're also a jerk? Ok.

Quote :

"Conserving species is all well and good, but protecting what's practically an extinct species anyway by stealing people's land is just too much."

It's NOT STEALING IF THEY VOLUNTARILY SELL IT.

Quote :

"is 1994 the most recent example you could come up with?"

Quote :

"Granted it was a while ago, but that's the one that sticks in my mind from the book. There is a libertarian law group that specializes in fighting ED abuse"

EarthDogg and Fail Boat: Are you two talking about eminent domain, or this case where the guy VOLUTARILY sold his land? Please be clear. They are not the same thing.

Quote :

"This is an excellent example of the mind-set you will get from today's rabid environmentals. They want you to believe that they care for the land, but the true goal is to eliminate capitalism."

Why wouldn't they care for land? That's fucking dumb. I'm not them, but if someone is truly an environmentalist, and not just calling themselves that, then they certainly care about the land. If you're saying that there are some "wolves in sheep's clothing", or in other words, closet socialists/communists that really don't give a shit about the environment but say that they do in order to advance an anti-capitalist agenda, then sure. They exist, and I fucking hate them the most. They'd never support the "evolved libertarianism" I've talked about, so, if you think about it, by supporting this evolution of libertarianism as a means to protect the environment, you get the added benefit of avoiding the unwanted support of closet socialists/communists. Win.

Quote :

"As communism has fallen out of favor, the socialist left has hijacked the environmental movement"

Isn't then, my point about a more environmental-justice based evolution of libertarianism valid? They'd never attempt to hijack that -- libertarianism is nearly the complete opposite of what they want.

Quote :

"The environmentalist groups of old understood that our country became great because we took the wilderness and developed it into cities, dams, roads, factories...all of the things that pulled our civilization out of the muck of the primitive."

And then they over-reached, began unsustainably developing, and thus ceased to be real environmentalist groups.

Quote :

"They were stewards of the land, not destroyers of other people's livelihoods."

Because we hadn't reached the limit yet. Now, there are so many people, that we've run out of space. The "groups of old" enjoyed a brief one-time-only run on available land space -- but that couldn't go on forever. The problem is, many thought it could -- many still think it can -- but they're wrong. We're now stepping on each other's feet and we have to make some tough realizations about our so-called "destiny".

Quote :

"Grabbing as much land for the government and making it off-limits to private ownership was not their goal."

Because it didn't need to be. They had plenty. Now they don't. And that still doesn't need to be the goal of environmentalists either. They only do it because land owners aren't responsible. If they were, all the land could remain privately owned. The irresponsibility of land owners is the only thing at fault here.

Quote :

"why is it that the conservation groups have to get the government to step in and effectively artificially destroy the value of the land"

It's not artificial. It's the real value.

Quote :

"and Mr. Child could still have had his cattle ranch"

Who cares about him? I don't. I'm not him. I'm competing with him -- we all are. The environmentalists care about protecting nature, not him. And why would they pay more than the land is really worth? If he thought it was worth X, based on the incorrect assumption that the land could easily be used responsibly for his business, but then upon learning the truth, which is the that the land can't be easily used responsibly for his business, he should also have learned the truth about the real value of the land. Oops. He made a bad business decision. That's his fault. No one, including environmental groups, owe him anything. However, it seems to be fair to suggest that at least some compensation would be appropriate.

Quote :

"I would love for you to show any actual damages that would be caused to you or me by the death of this [snail]"

First of all, we're talking about it's possible extinction, not simply a few deaths -- and human-caused extinction is wrong. Everyone alive today, and especially future generations, are damaged. As I said before:

Quote :

"You go ahead with your "It's perfectly ok to kill endangered animals" political position. Good luck with that"

Quote :

"Incidentally, does your desire to save species from extinction include all of the species of viruses and bacteria that we purposefully try to eradicate on a daily basis, in the pursuit of a buck no less?"

Depends. Viruses may not even be alive, so I'm fairly certain we need not protect them much or at all. Bacteria? Of fucking course they're important! And our purposeful attempts to eradicate them tends to cause more problems than it solves. (germ-resistance) Does that mean anti-bacterial soap is wrong? No. We have a right to defend ourselves. Does that mean we should eradicate the species? Hell no. Some bacteria are good, some are bad, but they are all living things that play an important role in all of life. (I just posted about this in another thread, where I commented on how while "lesser" life still deserves protection, all life is by no means equal. Bacteria are very near the bottom, while humans are at the top.)

Quote :

"jesus. our society is SO fucked."

Why are you saying that in response to what I said?

[Edited on March 6, 2009 at 11:04 AM. Reason : ]

3/6/2009 11:00:35 AM

WillyNilly is the new king of quotebombing. I'd like to actually know what you think about topics, but I'd rather read a solid wall of text with no paragraph breaks than the shit you have been posting recently.

3/6/2009 11:14:10 AM

Quote :

"It's NOT STEALING IF THEY VOLUNTARILY SELL IT."

I'm sorry, but you can't call it "voluntarily selling" something when you use the government to make it so that
1) what you have is now costing you money when it wasn't before
and
2) no one else wants what you have, so you sell it at a loss to stop the bleeding

that's not "voluntary." That's compulsory

Quote :

"Who cares about him? I don't. I'm not him. I'm competing with him -- we all are. The environmentalists care about protecting nature, not him. And why would they pay more than the land is really worth? If he thought it was worth X, based on the incorrect assumption that the land could easily be used responsibly for his business, but then upon learning the truth, which is the that the land can't be easily used responsibly for his business, he should also have learned the truth about the real value of the land. Oops. He made a bad business decision."

How the fuck is that a "bad business decision?" A bad decision is going out and selling a mortgage to someone who has no income. Buying land with a profitable, well researched business plan and having the rug pulled out from underneath you by a panty-twisting liberal who found some random-ass snail chilling there later on is NOT a bad decision. It's just bad luck.

Besides, how exactly can you always quantify where something's habitat is. To deem that "well, it's there right now" is absolutely a bad way to do it. And that's what that law says, frankly. "Hey, if you see animal x, you are in its 'habitat.'

3/6/2009 11:22:21 AM

Quote :

"you use the government to make it .... having the rug pulled out from underneath you"

Well, since you're not making the distinction I am, it follows that we'd view this differently.

Quote :

"It's just bad luck."

If one spends a reasonable amount of money to determine whether a plot of land for sale has this endangered species issue or not... in other words, a "well researched business plan," and they determine that it's ok and buy it-- but it's not ok and they lose money, then yes, I suppose that's bad luck, and it would seem to be appropriate that people in that situation receive at least some compensation.

Quote :

"Besides, how exactly can you always quantify where something's habitat is. To deem that "well, it's there right now" is absolutely a bad way to do it. And that's what that law says, frankly."

Very good question -- one I'm sure that biologists and/or lawyers would love to answer. I could speculate... but I'm not an expert on any particular habitat, species, etc.

3/6/2009 4:20:32 PM

Willy Nilly, what in the hell is wrong with you? Is your judgement really this poor?

In this example, if you want to save the endangered snail, good on you...but the fair way to do it if you're going to commandeer the man's land is to pay him fair market value WITHOUT effectively condemming the land and making it useless.

In fact, if you REALLY want to make it fair, all of the people who give a shit about the endangered snail should ante up and collectively buy the land at full, fair market price. Of course, I'm not sure that this is a good idea, because when it comes down to actually having to personally bear any burden, I don't think that many people really care, and I don't think that survival and extinction of species is something that should effectively be decided by market forces. Of course, such government intervention technically might require a Constitutional Amendment, as I can't think of any enumerated power that would grant the power to do this, other than arguably the General Welfare clause (of course, in reality, the U.S. Constitution is a thing of the past--we just kind of wing it and do whatever Congress and the President want).


...but at any rate, people should be compensated justly, not have their property hijacked.

Quote :

"I'm not sure I've ever heard of a case of eminent domain that I support. "

Quote :

"We're not talking about eminent domain, but rather the voluntary sale of private property to private charities, that in turn voluntarily donates the land to the government...."

Kind of like how I could get you to "voluntarily" admit to being a transvestite child molester if I had you strapped down to a waterboard and wrapped up in wet towels hooked up to car batteries.

For all practical purposes, it's still 100% eminant domain.

3/6/2009 5:55:14 PM

Quote :

"WillyNilly is the new king of quotebombing. I'd like to actually know what you think about topics, but I'd rather read a solid wall of text with no paragraph breaks than the shit you have been posting recently. "

fucking seriously

3/6/2009 5:55:14 PM

Quote :

"Willy Nilly, what in the hell is wrong with you? Is your judgement really this poor?"

No, we simply disagree about the "big picture" of human society and politics -- you're not making the distinction I am, so we're not going to view the same way.

Quote :

"In this example, if you want to save the endangered snail, good on you...but the fair way to do it if you're going to commandeer the man's land is to pay him fair market value WITHOUT effectively condemming the land and making it useless."

Fair? No.... Justice first, then "fairness", whatever that is. (Sounds like a "liberal" word...)
Obviously, since you're not making the distinction I am, you're not going to see it as being just, but it is. If he wiped out that species of snail, or unreasonabley harmed it's population, then he's harming everyone, and the government stepping in is not an act of authoritarianism -- it's simply justice. To serve and protect. Again, since you're not making the distinction I am, you're not going to see it this way.

Quote :

"...but at any rate, people should be compensated justly,"

I've repeatedly said that in situations of true bad luck, (where no reasonable claim can be made that the land buyer neglected to reasonably make an effort to determine the true value of the land before buying it,) it seems fair that the land owners should be compensated at least some, but not anywhere close to 100%. They made a bad buy -- since when is it society's responsibility to bail out bad buys? Unless you're the type that welcomes this massive private-sector bail-out we're currently facing, or the type that loves corporate welfare, then you should agree that, for the most part, there's absolutely nothing wrong with people that make bad business decisions losing their money.

Quote :

"not have their property hijacked"

Their property is not being hijacked. I don't even really see the point in arguing this, because you're clearly ignoring reality.

Quote :

"Kind of like how I could get you to "voluntarily" admit to being a transvestite child molester if I had you strapped down to a waterboard and wrapped up in wet towels hooked up to car batteries."

No, not at all like that. That is violent torture. Protecting everyone's property, aka "the environment" is justice being served. Furthermore, their land is NOT being taken by force. There is no initiation of force, but even if there was, it would be force used to uphold justice, just like force police use.

Quote :

"For all practical purposes, it's still 100% eminant domain."

No. No, it is not. At all. You are ignoring reality in order to make a political point, and you know it.
The "ends" may be very similar, perhaps even nearly equal, but the means are clearly different. Just because you oppose the ends, doesn't mean you get to equate clearly different means.
IT IS NOT EMINENT DOMAIN. PERIOD.

Quote :

"but I'd rather read a solid wall of text with no paragraph breaks than the shit you have been posting recently."

Quoting makes sense. Get over it.

[Edited on March 7, 2009 at 8:47 AM. Reason : ]

3/7/2009 8:42:10 AM

Quote :

"It's not artificial. It's the real value."

No it's not. If it were the real value of the land, then you or any other person concerned with saving snails would be able to go up to the land owner, offer him the money and you would now be the proud owner of your wetlands and he would have true market compensation for his land. But you can't do that, because 10% of market value isn't what the land is worth. So you get the government to step in and declare that because this land has a snail on it that no one can do anything with the land except leave it undisturbed so the snail can live in peace. It's an artificial change in the price of the land because the land is valued by the owner at X amount, and is suitable for a number of purposes ranging from business building to snail watching. But due to government law (an artificial construct) forbidding the use of any other purpose except snail watching, the value suddenly plummets and the conservation groups effectively become a monopoly of buyers by force of government.

Quote :

" And why would they pay more than the land is really worth? If he thought it was worth X, based on the incorrect assumption that the land could easily be used responsibly for his business, but then upon learning the truth, which is the that the land can't be easily used responsibly for his business, he should also have learned the truth about the real value of the land. Oops. He made a bad business decision. That's his fault. No one, including environmental groups, owe him anything. "

The value of the land is precisely the value that the owner is willing to sell at and a buyer is willing to buy. In a non artificial environment, the pool of buyers would be determined by the features of the land and whether a buyer can physically use the land for the purpose he intends. By having the government step in and declare that land which is useable for many different things is only useable for one thing by virtue of the existence of a snail, you artificially limit the pool of buyers and lower the price. If the value of the property were truly what the conservationist groups offered, there would be no reason for the government to step in an declare the property usable for any other purpose.

Quote :

"First of all, we're talking about it's possible extinction, not simply a few deaths -- and human-caused extinction is wrong. Everyone alive today, and especially future generations, are damaged. As I said before:"

You're dodging the question. List the actual measurable damages to you and me by the extinction of the snail. Remember that your claim is that the extinction of any species actionably harms everyone.

Quote :

" all life is by no means equal. Bacteria are very near the bottom, while humans are at the top."

Yet somehow the snail > humans

Quote :

"If he wiped out that species of snail, or unreasonabley harmed it's population, then he's harming everyone, and the government stepping in is not an act of authoritarianism -- it's simply justice. "

By you breeding, you would be harming everyone by lowering the intelligence of the human race, yet somehow I don't think you would find it justice if the government forbid you and everyone with your IQ or lower from breeding.

Quote :

"They made a bad buy -- since when is it society's responsibility to bail out bad buys?"

They didn't make a bad buy, the government artificially changed the value of the land.

3/7/2009 11:32:12 AM

Willy Nilly:

Quote :

"It's not artificial. It's the real value."

In other words, I'm saying that the lowered price that the land buyer must now settle for, having paid more for land, is not the artificial value -- it, the lowered price, is the real value.

1337 b4k4:

Quote :

"No it's not."

Here, you disagree, saying that the lowered price is not the real value.
I maintain that it, the lowered price, is the real value. (You're not making the same distinction I am, so it follows that we'd see this differently.)

Quote :

"If it [the lowered price] were the real value of the land, then you or any other person concerned with saving snails would be able to go up to the land owner, offer him the money and you would now be the proud owner of your wetlands"

It is the real value, and people concerned with saving snails are able and do go up to the land owner and buy the land -- at the lowered, real, price. The overly high price he paid for the land was the wrong price.

Quote :

"and he would have true market compensation for his land."

No he wouldn't. You were talking about the lower price, remember? The reason people concerned with saving snails don't buy it at that high price, the one you're saying is the real price, is because that isn't the real price. If the original land seller knew about the snails, but didn't say anything, and knowingly sold the land at the (original) high price, then there may be a case for fraud, but the fact remains that that high price was never the real price.

Quote :

"But you can't do that, because 10% of market value isn't what the land is worth."

Again, yes they can -- you were talking about the lower price to begin with. You must have misspoke. 10% of the false "market value" is what the land is worth, and they can and do buy it for that.

Quote :

"So you get the government to step in and declare that because this land has a snail on it that no one can do anything with the land except leave it undisturbed so the snail can live in peace."

The endangered snail, and its habitat are everyone's property. (Again, you're not making this distinction, so it follows that we'd see things differently.) The government is merely upholding justice by defending everyone's property rights to that snail and its habitat. The environmental groups merely identified the issue. The guy could've made an effort to research the land first... you know... like everyone should do when they buy expensive things? He could've learned about the snails, and then realized the high price for the land wasn't right -- it wasn't the real price. Then, he'd pass on buying the land, knowing that it's only worth a fraction of the asking price..,

Quote :

"It's an artificial change in the price of the land because the land is valued by the owner at X amount,"

But that's the wrong price. It was never the real price.

Quote :

"and is suitable for a number of purposes ranging from business building to snail watching."

Well, knowing about the endangered snails, the land would then not be suitable for certain things, like cattle and campers.

Quote :

"But due to government law (an artificial construct) forbidding the use of any other purpose except snail watching, the value suddenly plummets and the conservation groups effectively become a monopoly of buyers by force of government."

Wrong. The law, while perhaps not justified in the same way, is ok. It protects everyone's property -- the endangered snail and its habitat. The incorrect high asking price plummets to the real price, and conservation groups are simply there to catch the fall. Sure that bit is little like ambulance-chasing, but it's not wrong -- the guy voluntarily sells the land to them. Besides, like I said, he should've been able to avoid the bad buy in the first place.

Quote :

"The value of the land is precisely the value that the owner is willing to sell at and a buyer is willing to buy"

Not necessarily. If I'm willing to sell a five dollar bill to my friend for ten bucks, and he's willing to buy it, that doesn't change the value of the five dollar bill -- my friend is just dumb, and got ripped off, that's all.

Quote :

"In a non artificial environment, the pool of buyers would be determined by the features of the land and whether a buyer can physically use the land for the purpose he intends. By having the government step in and declare that land which is useable for many different things is only useable for one thing by virtue of the existence of a snail, you artificially limit the pool of buyers and lower the price."

When the government "steps in", it is rightfully revealing that the price that the pool of buyers in their non artificial environment determined was wrong -- the price was incorrect. The pool of buyers, themselves, in their non artificial environment, failed to realize that there was an endangered snail on the land, thereby rightfully limiting what the land could be used for. They had the price wrong from the beginning.

Quote :

"You're dodging the question. List the actual measurable damages to you and me by the extinction of the snail. Remember that your claim is that the extinction of any species actionably harms everyone."

The damage is harming everyone's property -- namely, the endangered snail and its habitat. (Again, you're not making the same distinction I am, so it follows that we'd see this differently.) And again, I'd like to repeat this: "You go ahead with your 'It's perfectly ok to kill endangered animals to extinction' political position. Good luck with that."

Quote :

"Yet somehow the snail > humans"

No. humans > snails
Because I'm viewing the species of snail as belonging to everyone -- as being everyone's property, this is more like it:
everyone's property (the species of snail) > one particular human's camping and cattle business

Quote :

"By you breeding, you would be harming everyone by lowering the intelligence of the human race, yet somehow I don't think you would find it justice if the government forbid you and everyone with your IQ or lower from breeding."

[Edited on March 7, 2009 at 1:21 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2009 1:01:02 PM

Quote :

"Obviously, since you're not making the distinction I am, you're not going to see it as being just, but it is. If he wiped out that species of snail, or unreasonabley harmed it's population, then he's harming everyone, and the government stepping in is not an act of authoritarianism -- it's simply justice. To serve and protect. Again, since you're not making the distinction I am, you're not going to see it this way. "

No, I'm making the exact same distinction as you are--it's bad to drive a species to extinction. The loss of this particular snail, for example, may or may not hurt anything (other than not having that species just for the sake of having it), but it's not a road that we should be going down, particularly in light of our lack of foresight on stuff like this.

What I'm saying is that making a bad buy based on other factors would be one thing--then it wouldn't be the government's job to buy his property for full price. In this case, though, if you're going to have it be the government's job to protect the snail, and it's the government who takes an action to make the land worthless, it's only right that the government pays the man full price for his land.

I mean, you're viewing it as common property that is being collectively purchased. For the most part, I don't have a problem with that. However, what part of that entails artificially driving the price down to near zero? That's crooked.

3/7/2009 2:15:25 PM

Quote :

"I think if the gov't wants to use emient domain to do shit to my property than they should fucking chip in. "

do you not understand how eminent domain works? you get paid for your land and displaced business in the event that it is taken. you might not get paid the ridiculous sums of money you thought your property was worth, but it does get appraised.

if you want to see any of this stimulus money actually make it into this state for the major road, rail, and energy projects to take place, our state goverment is going to have get lenient with the eminent domain and condemnations laws we currently have.

3/7/2009 5:02:51 PM

The thing described in the original post is horse shit, and I can't stand it. Eminent domain, in principle, is a necessary thing. But shit like this trying to expand it is all about expediency and power plays. Fuck that.

Quote :

"They want you to believe that they care for the land, but the true goal is to eliminate capitalism."

This is preposterous. A person can be ignorant of unintended consequences, plain and simple. Granted, I'm sure there are plenty of environmentalists who are also pinkos or commies or what have you, but there's nothing about environmentalism, even in some of its more radical expressions, that demands the death of capitalism.

You want less government involvement in the economy. There are those who say that less government involvement would lead to economic catastrophes and enormous corporate influence in our lives. That doesn't mean they think that you support poverty and corporate slavery.

Quote :

"I would love for you to show any actual damages that would be caused to you or me by the death of this"

Of course, this leads to some interesting questions about where we draw the line between which species are expendable and which are indispensable. Maybe the snail isn't exactly crucial to the food chain. Of course, neither is the chimpanzee. Hardly anything eats chimps. Certainly nothing that we eat does. And chimps eat a lot of plants in the rain forest. We want to save the rain forest. Fuck the chimps.

Quote :

"Yet somehow the snail > humans "

No. The snail ranks lower, but the damage inflicted on the snail is much more severe. In a contest between death and financial misfortune, death is worse. You wouldn't nuke China to spare everybody in America a paper cut.

---

It amuses me immensely that my new nemesis Willy Nilly is:

1) Taking this particular stance on the issue, and
2) Taking my crown as the "king of quotebombing"

Enjoy my friend.

3/8/2009 6:22:07 AM

proclaiming someone's land as protected wetlands is not eminent domain.

And I'm glad government has the right to it.

3/8/2009 4:52:01 PM

Quote :

"This is preposterous. A person can be ignorant of unintended consequences, plain and simple. Granted, I'm sure there are plenty of environmentalists who are also pinkos or commies or what have you, but there's nothing about environmentalism, even in some of its more radical expressions, that demands the death of capitalism."

IMO, regulated capitalism is the most compatible with environmentalism. It's quite simple really; price in the economic externalities. No, no one knows exactly what to price those things at, but we have some good idea (a little arbitrariness won't be the death of us), and one thing that people are good at is accounting.

We need some form of carbon-tax, resource tax, or oil price floors. People know this. The fact that our leaders are too stupid or self serving to propose them is a failure of democracy, not capitalism. Alas, it's also presumptuous to say that anything is a failure of democracy, because that basically says that it is a failure of all of us.

3/8/2009 5:15:05 PM

^ have you seen who's around us and who we've elected to represent us? Of course it's a failure of "us", collectively.

^^ (I'm not sure that there is a legal "right" to do it--it would be questionable at best, at least at the federal level, but I agree that it can be a good idea). Regardless, I don't think that many people have too much of an issue with the guy's land being declared a protected wetland--what people rightfully have a problem with is him not being fairly compensated.

3/8/2009 5:21:19 PM

They didn't take his land, so there is no need for compensation.

3/8/2009 5:28:05 PM

^
The gov't destroyed the land's value with regulations, then its pals at the Nature Conservancy rolled in and bought it for a song and then turned around and sold it to the gov't. Both working together to grab people's property without having to pay the true value of it if it hadn't been attacked with regulations.

3/8/2009 8:15:40 PM

you are lollerific

3/8/2009 11:27:39 PM

^^^ come on, dude. they destroyed the value of his property via legal channels. no, it's not eminant domain in the strictest sense, but it's effectively about the same outcome. While the government's action may be a necessary evil, this guy deserves to be fairly compensated by the government for effectively commandeering his land.

I see the grey areas in most stuff, but not this one. I really don't understand how you can view this issue any other way.

3/9/2009 7:12:26 AM

Quote :

"The gov't destroyed the land's value with regulations, then its pals at the Nature Conservancy rolled in and bought it for a song and then turned around and sold it to the gov't."

Note: The following analogy may not be apt for all aspects of this situation, and is only addressing the repeated incorrect assertion that it should be viewed as: "destroyed the land's value with regulations", "destroyed the value of his property via legal channels", "artificially driving the price down to near zero", etc.

Let's say a guy is thinking about buying a car for $5000. Upon briefly examining the car, and agreeing that the sale price of $5000, the "market price", is correct, he buys it. Then, right before he turns it into a cab for his taxi business plan, an automobile safety watchdog group finds and reports the car as dangerous, so the government comes in with its "regulations" and says, "Um... Actually, this car is not street-legal." (And to fix the car to make it street-legal, it would cost as much or more than he paid for it in the first place.) Is the government destroying the car's value with regulations? No. It's pointing out the truth. And it was the truth all along. Namely, that this "market price" was incorrect -- it was not the correct price. The truth is, he made a bad buy. He should've made more than a brief examination of the car before buying it. (responsibility) Now, if the original seller knew it wasn't street-legal, and when selling it, said, "This car is street legal.", then sure, there's a case for fraud -- but that's a separate issue. The guy here made a bad buy, and the car's lowered price is not artificial -- the government did not "destroy" the value of the car, because the truth is that the car was never really worth $5000. In the very same way, the guy who bought the land for a camper and cattle business plan should've made more than a brief examination of the land before buying it. (responsibility) That guy made a bad buy, and the land's lowered price is not artificial -- the government did not "destroy" the value of the land, because the truth is that the land was never really worth whatever he paid for it.

Again, the government didn't "destroy the land's value with regulations". It merely upheld justice. That higher price WAS NEVER THE CORRECT PRICE.

Quote :

"Both working together to grab people's property without having to pay the true value of it if it hadn't been attacked with regulations"

It wasn't the true value. And they're not "grabbing people's property". The property is being voluntarily sold -- it does not have to be sold -- no one's putting a gun to his head. The owner makes the sole voluntary decision to sell it, without any initiation of force used against him. Therefore, in absolutely no way, is the property being taken, grabbed, stolen, and certainly not taken through eminent domain!

I mean, this could be a thread about actual eminent domain, which most of us seem to oppose, but instead, some of you want to ignore reality and call something "eminent domain" that clearly isn't. What a waste of effort on your parts.

Quote :

"no, it's not eminant domain in the strictest sense,"

OK, you're getting closer. Keep trying. You've admitted that it's not eminent domain "in the strictest sense". Of course, the reality is that it's not eminent domain at all... but one step at a time may be what you need. I understand... It can be difficult to admit when you've made a mistake.

Quote :

"but it's effectively about the same outcome"

Exactly. "about the same". Think about that. "about the same". Is that the same? No. It's about the same. Just because you view it as being effectively this, or practically that, DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACTS, THE TRUTH, OR THE REALITY. Like I said before:

Quote :

"You are ignoring reality in order to make a political point, and you know it. The "ends" may be very similar, perhaps even nearly equal, but the means are clearly different. Just because you oppose the ends, doesn't mean you get to equate clearly different means. IT IS NOT EMINENT DOMAIN. PERIOD."

Quote :

"While the government's action may be a necessary evil"

There was nothing evil, wrong, or unjust about their actions.

Quote :

"this guy deserves to be fairly compensated by the government"

He really doesn't deserve anything, but it might be nice, and society may deem it, but in general, no one should be entitled to compensation for their own bad business decisions. I mean, he could declare bankruptcy, right? Isn't that our usual way of helping out businesses that fail?

Quote :

"for effectively commandeering his land"

They didn't commandeer his land, but apparently nothing anyone says can move you from your "effective something = actual something" position, which is not only bullshit, but is especially bullshit for legal distinctions -- everyone knows that small subtle legal distinctions are HUGE -- read some supreme court opinions if you don't believe me.

Quote :

"I see the grey areas in most stuff, but not this one. I really don't understand how you can view this issue any other way."

Come on theDuke866... You KNOW, and have said that this is not exactly eminent domain, but still, you want to call something by the wrong name, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE WRONG CONCEPT, for what? So you can oppose it? Why not just oppose the law protecting the snails?... if you oppose that. Why even involve the completely separate issue of eminent domain? What advantage do you, or does your political position gain from making this incorrect metaphorical distinction? Why dude? Just stop it. Repeat after me: "This situation that I oppose, while having a very similar outcome to situations resulting from instances of eminent domain, is in fact not eminent domain. I can oppose the situation, but not because it's eminent domain, because it isn't eminent domain." Try it. Say it.

3/9/2009 9:58:05 AM

Quote :

"Let's say a guy is thinking about buying a car for $5000. Upon briefly examining the car, and agreeing that the sale price of $5000, the "market price", is correct, he buys it. Then, right before he turns it into a cab for his taxi business plan, an automobile safety watchdog group finds and reports the car as dangerous, so the government comes in with its "regulations" and says, "Um... Actually, this car is not street-legal." (And to fix the car to make it street-legal, it would cost as much or more than he paid for it in the first place.) Is the government destroying the car's value with regulations? No. It's pointing out the truth. And it was the truth all along."

This is an absurd comparison. It's only the truth all along if there actually is something wrong with the car. A more apt comparison is that a guy buys a car from a dealership and has it thoroughly checked out and it passes fine. Then a competitor comes along and sees the car and gets buddy-buddy with someone in the gov't to declare the car unsafe.

In your analogy, the original guy would have recourse, because if the car was actually unsafe, then he should be able to sue the person who sold it to him to recoup his losses. Either way, your analogy is terrible and doesn't even begin to compare with what has been set forth already. Nice try, though


And, again, you can continue to call it "voluntarily sold," but that grossly misses what really happened here. Someone collaborated with the gov't to grossly devalue the price of the land, and then offered to buy the land after doing so. That is not even close to "voluntarily selling" the land. Stop being intellectually dishonest

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 8:04 PM. Reason : ]

3/9/2009 8:02:10 PM

Quote :

"Why not just oppose the law protecting the snails?... if you oppose that. Why even involve the completely separate issue of eminent domain? What advantage do you, or does your political position gain from making this incorrect metaphorical distinction? Why dude? Just stop it. Repeat after me: "This situation that I oppose, while having a very similar outcome to situations resulting from instances of eminent domain, is in fact not eminent domain. I can oppose the situation, but not because it's eminent domain, because it isn't eminent domain." Try it. Say it."

I don't oppose the law protecting snails (other than its questionable Constitutionality...but I'm fine with it in practical terms). I am generally more pro-environmental causes than against, although I'm certainly fairly moderate there.

At any rate, you said it yourself: I oppose the situation, and label it as "practically" or "effectively" eminant domain because it has "a very similar outcome to situations resulting from instances of eminent domain", but I allowed that same caveat because it "is in fact not eminent domain". You're as bad as Woodfoot in that speeding thread--you're staring my argument square in the face and still not seeing it, and trying to refute my point by essentially restating it.

I understand that fine points count in the courtroom. I'm saying that I disapprove of what happened for the same reason that I oppose abuses of eminant domain--I mean, you said it yourself...there was a "very similar outcome". Hell, this is worse than most cases of eminant domain--at least then they usually compensate you at least somewhat fairly when they're sticking it to you.

[Edited on March 9, 2009 at 8:41 PM. Reason : asfd]

3/9/2009 8:40:29 PM

eminent.

3/9/2009 8:45:17 PM

whoops. noted.

3/9/2009 8:48:36 PM

Quote :

"Let's say a guy is thinking about buying a car for $5000. Upon briefly examining the car, and agreeing that the sale price of $5000, the "market price", is correct, he buys it. Then, right before he turns it into a cab for his taxi business plan, an automobile safety watchdog group finds and reports the car as dangerous, so the government comes in with its "regulations" and says, "Um... Actually, this car is not street-legal." (And to fix the car to make it street-legal, it would cost as much or more than he paid for it in the first place.) Is the government destroying the car's value with regulations? No. It's pointing out the truth. And it was the truth all along. Namely, that this "market price" was incorrect -- it was not the correct price. The truth is, he made a bad buy. He should've made more than a brief examination of the car before buying it. (responsibility) Now, if the original seller knew it wasn't street-legal, and when selling it, said, "This car is street legal.", then sure, there's a case for fraud -- but that's a separate issue. The guy here made a bad buy, and the car's lowered price is not artificial -- the government did not "destroy" the value of the car, because the truth is that the car was never really worth $5000. In the very same way, the guy who bought the land for a camper and cattle business plan should've made more than a brief examination of the land before buying it. (responsibility) That guy made a bad buy, and the land's lowered price is not artificial -- the government did not "destroy" the value of the land, because the truth is that the land was never really worth whatever he paid for it."

The difference is, unlike the car owner, there's no way for a land owner to prevent his land from becoming "endangered habitat" or fixing it after the fact. They could tomorrow declare the grey squirrel an endangered species, and everyone who has a squirrel on or anywhere near their property will suddenly be unable to build or alter their property. Further, they can't do anything to remove the animal as that also violates the law. Their only options are to hold the property, which they can no longer do anything with (not even build a gazebo under which to watch the squirrels) or sell it, but the only people its worth anything to anymore are the environmental groups or the government. So essentially the value AND rights you have in a property can disappear overnight due to an artificial construct, and only the government has this power, and oddly enough when they use this power, the private environmental groups are the only ones who profit.

3/9/2009 9:36:02 PM

These events simply happen to infrequently to be concerned about this. Waste of time and effort.

3/9/2009 9:59:28 PM

http://abc11.com/1162469/

Quote :

"But, this past week Lassiter learned he's going to lose not only that farm, but all the farmland surrounding it, including his grandfather's old home. It all started with a phone call from his Dad last Thursday. "My dad said, 'Someone's here from the railroad, you need to come to the house now. I walked in said, 'Hello my name is Trent Lassiter, nice to meet you.' [The stranger] said, 'I'm Cameron Wilson from CSX,' and before he hardly sat down the next words out of his mouth were 'I am here to buy your family farm and your business.'" "

So the government negotiated a deal with CSX to build a new terminal, and this deal involved eminent domain to seize land already used for an established business.

In general, this seems like an abuse, but there's not much details on the project anywhere that I could find.

1/17/2016 6:41:55 PM