The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people?s homes and businesses ? even against their will ? for
private economic development.
Six years ago when we acquired our house in Baja, many of our friends here in the U.S. questioned our sanity, with questions about the security of
investing so much money in property where the renters'/owners' rights were nebulous.
Well, guess what folks!
I heard that on the radio this AM
Hook - 6-23-2005 at 10:45 AM
and was shocked!
I can see them ruling that if private property is blocking needed infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc.) that it can be forced to be sold.
But for private development? This is a landmark ruling, IMO. What's to prevent any wealthy corporation or landowner from plying a city council with
campaign funds in exchange for evicting someone in a desireable economic location.
Instead of these ridiculous amendments like banning gay marriages or flag burning, I'd like to see someone propose an amendment to prevent this. I'm
not a proponent of gay marriages or flag desecration but it is not important enough to warrant an amendment.
Amerika, indeed........our Bill of Rights is being shredded at the behest of corporations.
Hook
jrbaja - 6-23-2005 at 10:48 AM
america is spelled with a "c"Dave - 6-23-2005 at 11:02 AM
Bufeo, while I strongly disagree with the decision, to now put Mexican property rights on a par (or better) with the U.S., is absurd.
U.S. laws of eminent domain require that the owner be fairly compensated for property seized. Try getting that in Mexico. Or, try to evict someone who
has squatter's rights.
Mexico has miles to go before it's citizens are vested with true property rights.Debra - 6-23-2005 at 11:22 AM
Not always Dave,
A few years ago in Bremerton a lady owned a huge chunk of land next to where they had just built a new free-way between Bremerton and
Silverdale....she didn't want to sell, well, the county ceased her land under "eminent domain" law....they had offered her a "fair" price
afterall,.....she fought and lost.....Her land was then sold to a huge car dealership by the county (or was it the city, I forget) for several
millions more than she was paid!bufeo - 6-23-2005 at 11:28 AM
Dave,
I didn't mean to imply that property rights in Mexico are on a par with those in the U.S., or vice versa.
Having been involved as a property owner and eminent domain I can say the term "fairly compensated" was fair only for the government (in our case the
state). Ours was a complicated case but we didn't win in the long run, and our compensation was a far cry from what we deemed to be fair.
My original post above was in reference to the fact that many of our friends thought us to be crazy to invest anything in Mexico and that
real estate in the U.S. is always a secure investment.
I'm adding a P.S after reading Debra's comment.
Our compensation was based on a 20-yr average appreciation which included a period of about 3 years when real estate values in the area had gone down
and the fact that a "boom" was taking place was discounted completely. Well, this may have been "fair", but it certainly precluded any investment
strategy. As it turned out, the land we owned was then sold to the city within a year for nearly twice the compensation we were awarded. The land
was used for enlargement of the airport. We sued but the case was disallowed owing to the fact that we had not filed our complaint (unrelated to
statute of limitations) within the prescribed time. This whole case was even more complicated by the fact that two major oil companies were also
involved before and after.
At the same time the movie Chinatown was making the rounds of the theatres, so we just chalked up the mess to experience and moved on.
BTW I still consider real estate to be a sound part of anyone's investment portfolio.
[Edited on 6-23-2005 by bufeo]Dave - 6-23-2005 at 11:54 AM
NO ONE gets a fair price when they are FORCED to sell.Me No - 6-23-2005 at 01:23 PM
In vegas a couple of years ago they moved and entire neighborhood that was near the airport(200 homes I believe). The idea was that the land was to
be used for airport expansion. Just a few months ago the city counsel OK'ed that the land be used for a new Wal Mart Super Center. WTF?
Does anyone remember
jrbaja - 6-23-2005 at 02:02 PM
N-zi Germany and China/North Korea? Welcome to mr. bush's neighborhood!Arthur - 6-23-2005 at 02:15 PM
And just wait until he (I mean, his advisors) gets to appoint another corporate-friendly supreme court judge.
Sometimes I wonder ????
Skeet/Loreto - 6-23-2005 at 02:17 PM
Could some of this stuff be Payback for all the Problems with endangered Species Stuff, Loggers being put out of work, Strange animals controlling a
Freeway?
The opposite of the previous Land Grabing is theprevention of the orderly progress of development.
I am not voicing an Opinion just speculating.
Debra, maybe the Car Dealerships owner was an former Salmon fisherman that cannot catch the fish as he has in the Past but give 50% to the
Indians.?{Vengefull}
After living near that area it is hard to belive that anyRepublican could have that much influence over that Area..
Skeet/Loreto
You ain't seen nuthin yet
jrbaja - 6-23-2005 at 02:37 PM
Amigo! "After living near that area it is hard to belive that anyRepublican could have that much influence over that Area.."
This is just the beginning.
But, you know where to find humanity, I suggest you do so before you aren't allowed to.
[Edited on 6/23/2005 by jrbaja]Me No - 6-23-2005 at 02:56 PM
JR, Bush had nothing to do with what happened here in Vegas. It was the Dems that run the county commission, that always have their hands out, that
caused this debacle. Not to worry, we taxpayers now get to foot the bill for an investigation into what happened.
I guess it may be time to move to punta estero.
I have a feeling
jrbaja - 6-23-2005 at 03:02 PM
that you are missed there anyway! Hurry!!turtleandtoad - 6-23-2005 at 05:48 PM
Debra,
I remember that!
It was condemed under the "Eminent Domain" law for the new sewage treatment plant. Then they "discovered" that they didn't need it after all and sold
it to the car dealer for a 130% profit.
The women that owned it originally tried to get it back in court but lost. The court said that she would have to bid on it like everyone else.
The same thing happened to my parents in Orange County, California in 1965. Only it was for a freeway interchange that has never been built. The State
has been collecting rent on the 20+ homes they condemed ever since.Dave - 6-23-2005 at 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Arthur
And just wait until he (I mean, his advisors) gets to appoint another corporate-friendly supreme court judge.
Why don't you investigate who sided with whom. The conservative side of the court did not agree with the majority.
This was a liberal decision.postman - 6-24-2005 at 09:53 AM
I'm glad Dave corrected Arthur and jrbaha. We have no hope without property rights!yankeeirishman - 7-17-2005 at 07:17 PM
"Eminent Domain". Yes...they built a very nice park on my lot, some years ago! No kidding rpleger - 7-19-2005 at 02:15 PM
Chavez Ravine, Los Angles Dodgers, this has been going on for a long time, but they were just Mexicians.
