Eminent Domain
The people of the State of Michigan are being given the opportunity to limit eminent domain in this state. Amongst the limitations would be forbidding the forced sell of property to private developers, requiring the state pay to 125% of the fair market value for the property and clearly define blight, moving the burden of proof from the property owner to the state. The whole idea is to keep Michigan from repeating the Kelo vs. City of New London debacle.
The Detroit News offered opposing editorials by guest writers. The one wanting the proposal to pass is a member of the Protect Our Property Rights Coalition while the opponent is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University. I am not in the least suprised that the one who believes that the State should have final power over a person's property is a professor who deals with theories rather than a real-world person who deals with reality. It is disheartening to hear that there are people who believe that their well-being depends on the state having power over others.
The State of Michigan does not need to control everything for the state to prosper. It needs to step back and let those who can do do it, and those who can't need to learn to do. The state cannot and should not even try to guarantee anyone's well-being. Government control never leads to prosperity.
The Detroit News offered opposing editorials by guest writers. The one wanting the proposal to pass is a member of the Protect Our Property Rights Coalition while the opponent is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University. I am not in the least suprised that the one who believes that the State should have final power over a person's property is a professor who deals with theories rather than a real-world person who deals with reality. It is disheartening to hear that there are people who believe that their well-being depends on the state having power over others.
The State of Michigan does not need to control everything for the state to prosper. It needs to step back and let those who can do do it, and those who can't need to learn to do. The state cannot and should not even try to guarantee anyone's well-being. Government control never leads to prosperity.
posted by shoprat at 9:17 PM
7 Comments:
Government having power over the people is the exact agenda of the Democrats, their theory being that we are too stupid to take care of ourselves. We need Mommy and Daddy government to watch over us and make sure that we don't mess up.
Phooey! The American people aren't anywhere near as stupid as the so-called elites believe us to be.
This is an important issue. I hope it passes.
The real sad part of this situation, is that something like this needs to be passed at all.
Eminent domain is a power that the people have granted to their government. Promblem is, politicians have taken that power made it a "government right" to take land on a whim.
I hope this passes in MI. Perhaps it will force the government to think twice before taking anybodys land.
I didn't see a link for it on your page Shoprat, but go to this website: Eminent Domain Institute. It's full of information about the governments abuse of this power. It hasn't been updated in a while, but it's still good reading.
The state should be subject to as many hearings on taking private property as the public is subjected to by liberals: IE: If an Indian skull is found on your property, count on years going past before you're allowed to dig, put in a house, etc.
Likewise you'll be bottled up in hearings, studies, EPA impacts, etc. if the lowly snail darter is found nesting in a tin can on your land.
It should take long and exhaustive and proven studies before the Govt. can just appropriate your property.
The main problem we have, though, is a surplus of lawyers causing trouble for everyone.
Even imposing a 125% price tag on a property can be a complete can be a rip-off of its owner.
Gubmint assessed values on homes are one thing, the real value is not a finite figure, it is based on demand per city and neighborhood, and by the general demand for properties. Read that as the marketplace.
The city might value a property at, say, $250,000.00, but there might be potential bidders in search of real estate who might be ready to pay, without a qualm, $500,000.00 or more for the property.
The owner might also have poured major money into improvements, as I have into my house.
If the government sees fit to yank your home out from under you, they should be a lot more realistic than offering such a small fixed percentage.
All
I too hope this passes and will definitely be voting yes of it. It is not perfect, but it is better than no controls at all.
I can't say anything that hasn't already been said...Interesting post.
Post a Comment
<< Home