What are your thoughts on eminent domain for public projects?

[Cant trust em]

Thinking about the pending high speed rail announcement tomorrow, what are your thoughts about the folks who will undoubtedly have to give up their property in the name of the greater good?

Some thoughts that are going through my head:

1. These projects represent the future. Think about the federal highway system and how that has impacted everything about our lives from the basics of how we get around to the movement of goods and services. It has gone a long way to unifying our huge country.

2. No matter how much people are compensated, moving from your home always sucks.

To what extent can we, or should we, balance these two things?

[ThomWV]

1. Sometimes its necessary, usually not. nt

[NightWatcher]

2. the way that I have seen it done in the past has been very unfair

family land was taken for pennies on the dollar of its worth and the project was delayed for 5-10 more years

if the government needs it, they should pay fair dollar PLUS a bonus for it being a forced sale

[FLAprogressive]

3. I don't imagine that our HS rail system will take much land.....isn't it going down the median of I4

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. N O

[liberal N proud]

5. What if they used existing railroad beds?

Or even beds that have been abandon. Many were granted adjacent land owners, but they could be reclaimed.

Generally, I don't think eminent domain is just, but you have to weigh the benefit to the people and the nation.

This would be a huge jobs builder and great for the environment at the same time.

[Alias Dictus Tyrant]

18. High-speed rail requires new land acquisitions

Old rail beds cannot be used for high-speed rail because the old beds were laid out under the assumption of low-speed rail. From an engineering standpoint, you need to cut a path across the land that is safe and suitable for high-speed rail, which operates under different constraints.

To give a simple example, it becomes seriously problematic to do a lot of cornering over short distances at that speed that would be safe and simple for low-speed rail. Imagine trying to run a Formula One race on suburban neighborhood streets.

[liberal N proud]

26. Restated - not the bed but rather the right of way

They could use the right of way. It would mean minimal amount of land grab.

[virgogal]

6. Public projects okay,private no.

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. Exactly. n/t

[Selatius]

7. Likely, you could build high speed rail on top of land used for interstates.

On many miles of interstate, the amount of land on both sides of the actual road is wide enough to support at least one or possibly two railroads. Using pre-existing infrastructure in this fashion would save a lot of headache as far as repeatedly using eminent domain laws to seize land.

[Edweird]

23. In urban areas the right of way is typically maxed out.

That's why traffic is a nightmare in a lot of places - there's no room for highway expansion.
Alternatives include insanely expensive projects like "The Big Dig" in Boston http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig.

[Cant trust em]

24. The spot above the big dig now looks beautiful.

I was there a few months ago and I was totally wowed by the whole experience. I'm sure that it sucked for Bostonians for that 20 years though.

[Edweird]

27. I have no doubt.

Mass has a lot of history.

However, the point is that kind of alternative isn't workable on a nationwide scale.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Eminent domain is appropriate for public projects for the public good.

High speed rail will be an enormous public good.

[Fire1]

22. Absolutely. n/t

[midnight]

9. I believe that decision should be left to the property owner and not the big guns.

[Skink]

10. The Trans Texas Corridor or Perry's naked land grab went down in flames.

I'll vote for Hutchinson in the republincan primary if it means wwithing parties to get rid of this dude.

[bemildred]

11. Pay them very well and kick them out. nt

[Warpy]

12. People are well compensated when their homes and businesses

are taken for public projects. Rail projects now are necessary infrastructure improvements that will pay off in the future. Yes, it's unfair that some people will feel singled out while everybody they know is safe. However, it's always worked this way and likely always will. Sometimes the greater good has to be considered.

However, eminent domain should never be invoked for commercial projects. That's just wrong.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. I watched more than half my neighborhood be confiscated for I-95

They put an interchange at the end of our street. My Dad often said he wished they took our house instead of sparing us only to live on a far busier street.

That said, it is usually necessary. The only real issue is corruption in who gets money. Lots of cronies got really rich buying up houses they secretly knew would be condemned.

[Fleshdancer]

14. I'm very uncomfortable with eminent domain in general, but...

I can be persuaded on a case by case basis. I would like to know that when it does occur, that it was the very last option available to continue the public project.

[Shell Beau]

15. This is so iffy for me.

I can see the greater good of the whole community mattering, but I have seen families have to give up property that has been in their family since before court records were ever kept of it. It just sucks for those who have to give what they so badly want to keep. Something that has more value than money can ever pay. OTOH, we need highways, etc. I am just iffy about it. It is good and bad.

[gleaner]

16. I think it depends on the project ...

If it is something that is really for the greater good, that will actually benefit regular people, like mass transit I agree with it. We don't have much public transit in LA and it is beginning to cripple the city. Traffic jams, impossible commutes. Metrolink is good but they charge so much that most people cannot use them as a matter of course. Mass transit could use alternate fuel, and dependable mass transit could cut individual vehicle usage. In a city like LA which has an area of over 400 square miles, if you don't have a car right now you basically stay home. There are few alternatives.

On the abusive side of eminent domain, back in the 60s they wanted to expand a local airport to allow for take off and landing of corporate and personal jets. Noise pollution from the airports in place was becoming a major issue with many protests and court cases to try to force the city to regulate it. While the issue was ostensibly frozen until the court decisions came down, the city took the land it wanted for the enlargement of the airport displacing many people from their homes. They were not that well compensated either. The city proceeded to ready the property for commercial use as fast as they could despite admonishments from the court. But they never got to enlarge the airport. The court ruled against them, a higher court upheld it. The land was sitting there empty all that time. The city owned it, and the former residents were trying to get at least the actual value of their homes. In the end when everything was settled the former residents took a major hit and the city wound up selling off the land. Someone eventually bought it and built a golf course there. The whole thing was unnecessary and abusive in the extreme.

[begin_within]

17. It's too often abused, and often abused in a discriminatory manner

I have seen it abused, forcing homeowners and small businesses out so that big businesses could move onto the same land. Case in point, the people living and working in the area that is now Petco Park in San Diego. The area was labeled "blight" although there were some thriving businesses there. Now the area benefits one large business, the San Diego Padres. The people that were forced to move were forced to take below-market valuations for their properties by the Centre City Developent Corporation.
I have not seen it personally, but have read histories of whole neighborhoods being forced out or split in 2 by Federal highway projects such as the Interstate Highway system. For the most part poorer and/or ethnic neighborhoods were chosen for the paths of highways in major cities, such as the Little Italy neighborhood of San Diego, for one example. Wealthy and politically connected neighborhoods such as South Pasadena have resisted for decades being displaced by the highway system. There are many stories about eminent domain forcing people out of their neighborhoods in favor of projects that supposedly benefit the public but in reality mainly benefit business.

[jtuck004]

19. It really depends on the scope

If it were a federal project that would create a reservoir for 20 million people, highway, or to electrify a huge area to improve living conditions, perhaps.

For a state\county\local institution like a university or government offices or a place to park county equipment - probably not.

For a public\private consortium which would take your land for private corporate development - no just no, but hell no.

Private property is something too many people died for, and we treat it as if the King (no, not that one) is the only one entitled.

That said, for all our gnashing of teeth over this, we didn't treat Natives in this country, especially those who had farms and crops established, with any respect at all. We took their land, denied them standing in court, killed them when they resisted. And when Jews from other countries needed a place to live, we helped kick the Palestinians out of their homelands. And we wonder why they still resent us.

That old saw about what goes around comes around comes to mind.

[spanone]

20. i have a friend who has to move his business....it's in the courts right now

i do not think it's in any way fair or legal

[Fire1]

21. You're not going to "balance" it. Money talks bullshit walks. n/t

[Not Me]

25. In the case of this rail project I am all for it, AND I may be in the path

Either I am in the path, or I will have a new rail opportunity within walking distance from my home in Orlando.
I live near the airport and where I think the corridor is going to be placed for the line running from MCO to the Disney area.

Either way, I welcome mass transit in Florida.

[Jamastiene]

29. I don't really like it.

I'm sure it is for the greater good, but I love my little hovel and wouldn't want to move after finally finding a "home."

It's not like I would have a choice though. They take it whether you want to give it up or not.