Eminent Domain Stuff
New London Update (2/24/06)
Bad NLDC!
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)
Sunday, June 26, 2005
An Idea From Wizbang
Jay Tea over at Wizbang has a plan to curb the rampent use of the Supreme Court's eminent domain ruling. I strongly disagree, but hear him out:
Why?
Because it's still wrong for the government to take my land.
Any questions?
|
My formula for calculating the costs of the seizure to the recipient has confused at least one person, so here's an example: Suppose the town of Bugtussle, West Virginia takes David Anderson's luxurious manse for a new Yoyodyne manufacturing plant. David's manse was last revaluated for $250,000, so the town pays that to him and a 20% "nuisance fee" of $50,000 for his land. David, fed up with Bugtussle politics, goes back to Costa Rica. (David doesn't mind that too much, if you've seen the pictures of Costa Rican women he posts on a regular basis.) Therefore, they have paid a total of $300,000 for David's land.Sounds better than the current situation where your local government can just take the land and pay you, if you're lucky, 40% of its value (post condemnation, of course). I, however, strongly disagree with any such plan.
Now comes the time to transfer the land to Yoyodyne. Under the law, they must sell it to Yoyodyne for what they paid David for it, give or take five percent. One selectman wants to reward Yoyodyne for promising his worthless nephew a job, so he pushes for a 5% cut, or $285,000. Another used to go fishing with David, and will miss him, so he's steamed at Yoyodyne. He wants to tack on that 5%, and charge them $315,000. The entire board fights for a while, and settles on charging Yoyodyne exactly what the town paid -- $300,000 -- no more and no less, and the town eats the costs it incurred in taking David's land (lawyers, transfer fees, surveyors, and the like).
Why?
Because it's still wrong for the government to take my land.
Any questions?
|
