Texas Landowners First to Challenge Trump's National Emergency Plan

[edpc]

No public use my azz!  Defending the borders is about as public a use as I can imagine.

Again, interest isn't use, even if it's for something you want. The founders were very careful to say these words, because they foresaw a potential government that paid for land (or not) and took possession for any reason they deemed necessary. Well, too bad. It says what it says.

Have times changed? Yes. Is there a method to change the language? Yes. Is it through Amendment? Yes. Is it by judicial activism? No. Those negative liberties can be a real bitch, huh?

[Bigun]

Again, interest isn't use, even if it's for something you want. The founders were very careful to say these words, because they foresaw a potential government that paid for land (or not) and took possession for any reason they deemed necessary. Well, too bad. It says what it says.

Have times changed? Yes. Is there a method to change the language? Yes. Is it through Amendment? Yes. Is it by judicial activism? No. Those negative liberties can be a real bitch, huh?

And I did not use the word interest.  I plainly said use.  And I stand by my statement.

[Elderberry]

Yes. It is Public Use.

https://realestate.findlaw.com/land-use-laws/eminent-domain-public-use-requirement.html

A public use is generally one which confers some benefit or advantage to the public. We typically think of freeways and other public-use infrastructure projects. However, the term doesn't necessarily imply -- and is not confined to -- direct "use" by the public.

[edpc]

Yes. It is Public Use.

https://realestate.findlaw.com/land-use-laws/eminent-domain-public-use-requirement.html

Thank you for that example. The first two cases cited were for a post office and railroad, which definitely would serve public use. The final case cited was Kelo, which I've already cited as the Souter perspective and terrible case law. It basically proves my point

[edpc]

And I did not use the word interest.  I plainly said use.  And I stand by my statement.

I know what you said. I said interest, because it would serve that, but not a use. The last time someone publicly used a wall in Texas, was 1982. I believe Mr Osborne got in a bit of trouble for that.

[Bigun]

 

Yes. It is Public Use.

https://realestate.findlaw.com/land-use-laws/eminent-domain-public-use-requirement.html

It's hard to imagine a more public use than further defining and strengthening our border with Mexico.

[Elderberry]

The Taking: How the federal government abused its power to seize property for a border fence

A decade ago, many border Texans got a raw deal when the federal government seized land for a barrier — while others pushed up the price. Will the government's rushed, haphazard process be repeated as it pushes for a border wall?

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/14/border-land-grab-government-abused-power-seize-property-fence/

The land agents started working the border between Texas and Mexico in the spring of 2007. Sometimes they were representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Other times they were officers from the U.S. Border Patrol, uniformed in green, guns tucked into side holsters. They visited tumbledown mobile homes and suburban houses with golf course views. They surveyed farms fecund with sugar cane, cotton and sorghum growing by the mud-brown Rio Grande. They delivered their blunt news to ranchers and farmers, sheet metal workers and university professors, auto mechanics and wealthy developers.

The federal government was going to build a fence to keep out drug smugglers and immigrants crossing into the United States illegally, they told property owners. The structure was going to cut straight across their land. The government would make a fair offer to buy property, the agents explained. That was the law. But if the owners didn’t want to sell, the next step was federal court. U.S. attorneys would file a lawsuit to seize it. One way or the other, the government would get the land. That, too, was the law.

The visits launched the most aggressive seizure of private land by the federal government in decades. In less than a year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security filed more than 360 eminent domain lawsuits against property owners, involving thousands of acres of land in the border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

Most of the seized land ran along the Rio Grande, which forms the border between Texas and Mexico. All told, the agency paid $18.2 million to accumulate a ribbon of land occupying almost half the length of the 120 miles of the Rio Grande Valley in southernmost Texas.

Years before President Donald Trump promised to build his wall, Homeland Security erected an 18-foot-high fence here in a botched land grab that serves as a warning for the future.

An investigation by ProPublica and The Texas Tribune shows that Homeland Security cut unfair real estate deals, secretly waived legal safeguards for property owners, and ultimately abused the government’s extraordinary power to take land from private citizens.

The major findings:

    Homeland Security circumvented laws designed to help landowners receive fair compensation. The agency did not conduct formal appraisals of targeted parcels. Instead, it issued low-ball offers based on substandard estimates of property values.

    Larger, wealthier property owners who could afford lawyers negotiated deals that, on average, tripled the opening bids from Homeland Security. Smaller and poorer landholders took whatever the government offered — or wrung out small increases in settlements. The government conceded publicly that landowners without lawyers might wind up shortchanged, but did little to protect their interests.

    The Justice Department bungled hundreds of condemnation cases. The agency took property without knowing the identity of the actual owners. It condemned land without researching facts as basic as property lines. Landholders spent tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves from the government’s mistakes.

    The government had to redo settlements with landowners after it realized it had failed to account for the valuable water rights associated with the properties, an oversight that added months to the compensation process.

    On occasion, Homeland Security paid people for property they did not actually own. The agency did not attempt to recover the misdirected taxpayer funds, instead paying for land a second time once it determined the correct owners.

    Nearly a decade later, scores of landowners remain tangled in lawsuits. The government has already taken their land and built the border fence. But it has not resolved claims for its value.

The errors and disparities played out family by family, block by block, county by county, up and down the length of the border fence.

The Loop family spent more than $100,000 to defend their farmland from repeated government mistakes about the size, shape and value of their property. The government built a fence across Robert De Los Santos’ family land but almost a decade later has yet to reach a settlement for it. Ranch hand Roberto Pedraza was accidentally paid $20,500 for land he did not even own.

Retired teacher Juan Cavazos was offered $21,500 for a two-acre slice of his land. He settled for that, figuring he couldn’t afford to hire a lawyer.

Rollins M. Koppel, a local attorney and banker, did not make the same mistake. A high-priced Texas law firm negotiated his offer from $233,000 to almost $5 million — the highest settlement in the Rio Grande Valley.

More at link above.

[Fishrrman]

I have no problems with the feds "taking" what land is needed from private landowners in order to build, patrol, and maintain the border wall (along with the establishment of a few permanent military bases there, as well).

If some private landowners try to block this... RUN 'EM OVER with eminent domain.
(and yes, I really mean that).

Just make sure they are "more than adequately" compensated for the loss of their border land.

And if any of you don't like it... too bad!

[DCPatriot]

I have no problems with the feds "taking" what land is needed from private landowners in order to build, patrol, and maintain the border wall (along with the establishment of a few permanent military bases there, as well).

If some private landowners try to block this... RUN 'EM OVER with eminent domain.
(and yes, I really mean that).

Just make sure they are "more than adequately" compensated for the loss of their border land.

And if any of you don't like it... too bad!

Exactly, @Fishrrman ... this is no different than upper middle class property owners did when the concrete sound barrier walls were installed along the Capital Beltway in Kensington, Bethesda and Potomac Maryland years ago.

LOL!  I recall listing a beautiful home backing to the Beltway.   During open houses, I would tell prospects who ventured into the back yard....."If you close your eyes, it sounds like the ocean!"   

Only thing I disagree with you is your said "more than" adequately compensated.

[Emjay]

I have no problems with the feds "taking" what land is needed from private landowners in order to build, patrol, and maintain the border wall (along with the establishment of a few permanent military bases there, as well).

If some private landowners try to block this... RUN 'EM OVER with eminent domain.
(and yes, I really mean that).

Just make sure they are "more than adequately" compensated for the loss of their border land.

And if any of you don't like it... too bad!

Yes @Fishrrman   This whole discussion is a sham by some posters.  We have a few posters here who are suddenly all het up over the government's ability to use the eminent domain clause.

This is after this clause has been used hundreds of times at least in the past with none of these outraged citizens even noticing.

This outrage is as fake as anything you will see from the democrats and it does, in fact, give aid and comfort to the democrats.

I am ashamed of some of the people here.

[Emjay]

The Taking: How the federal government abused its power to seize property for a border fence

A decade ago, many border Texans got a raw deal when the federal government seized land for a barrier — while others pushed up the price. Will the government's rushed, haphazard process be repeated as it pushes for a border wall?

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/14/border-land-grab-government-abused-power-seize-property-fence/
More at link above.

@Elderberry   Congratulations on managing to dig up one case where you can cite a land grab.

You only did this because you hate Trump and, apparently, you don't want a wall.

This is not relevant in the entire scheme of things, but why don't you go ahead and see if you can find another obscure case to cite.  Nancy Pelosi will thank you and Mexico will thank you.

[Hoodat]

Building a wall is no different than building a military barracks.  Both qualify as public use under Amendment V.

[Chosen Daughter]

Oh, my goodness.  Liberals use imminent Domain to steal private land

Sell or we’ll use eminent domain, Seattle mayor tells owners of beach lot



Originally published August 13, 2015 at 7:33 pm  |  Updated August 14, 2015 at 8:26 am

Mayor Ed Murray said the city will offer $400,000 for lake access at the end of Northeast 130th Street, or try to take it through eminent domain.

By  Erik Lacitis ? 
Seattle Times staff reporter
 
The long battle is continuing over a 60-foot-wide beach lot where Northeast 130th Street dead-ends into the Lake Washington shoreline.

The latest salvo came Thursday from Seattle Mayor Ed Murray.


He has ordered that the city cut a deal with the two owners adjoining the lot on each side. Then it can revert to public use as lake access.
 

The opening offer will be $400,000, says a spokesman for the mayor.

The owners will have 30 days “to agree with the terms, counter-offer, or decline,” says the mayor’s announcement.

And if those negotiations fail, Murray plans to ask the City Council for an ordinance to wield that special hammer reserved for government agencies — eminent domain.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/sell-or-we-use-eminent-domain-mayor-tells-owners-of-beach-lot/



?  ?  ?


SEATTLE -- Al Carson says it's the people that keep him on the job at the age of 81.

It's the progress, though, that may just stop him.

Carson has been a salesman at Northgate's SAS Shoes for about 15 years, he said. In the past couple, he's seen construction crews digging holes and removing dirt near his office along 1st Ave NE, making way for a light rail station.

Soon, however, those crews will be where his office is.

Sound Transit, which operates Seattle's light rail system, recently sent certified letters to 12 business owners in the 9500 block of 1st Ave. NE, informing them of plans to purchase the property through eminent domain. The agency needs the land to build large columns to support elevated trains that will eventually come through there, said Sound Transit spokesman Bruce Gray.

"It's a tough situation, especially when you've got these small, independently-owned businesses," Gray said, "but when you're building out a system that's going to carry millions of people a year, it's inevitable there's going to be impacts like this."

https://komonews.com/news/local/sound-transit-to-use-eminent-domain-to-move-seattle-stores

https://www.foxnews.com/story/is-seattle-making-a-profit-off-land-seized-under-eminent-domain

Yong-na Mar

With her late husband, George, Yong-na Mar purchased a residential rental property at 5th Avenue Northeast in the Northgate neighborhood of Seattle, one also currently being acquired by Sound Transit. Mar is an immigrant and does not speak English proficiently enough to navigate through this process, so she heavily relies on her brother-in-law, Gary Low.

“Nobody is challenging the right of eminent domain,” said Low. “The issue is that Sound Transit is not offering market value and refuses to budge.”

Low said that in July 2017, Sound Transit offered $460,000 for the property based on an appraised value of the property at the same amount. Low soon sought out a separate appraisal which valued the property at $598,600. Low said that Sound Transit’s appraiser never gained entry into the property and only did a street appraisal.

http://nwasianweekly.com/2018/08/property-rights-battle-owner-this-should-not-happen-in-america/


Seattle Seizes Private Parking Lot to Build New Parking Lot

Zenon Evans|Oct. 24, 2013 6:25 pm

Citing the need for more public parking, the City Council of Seattle made a unanimous decision this week to force a 103-year-old woman to sell a plot of land that is already a parking lot.


The Puget Sound Business Journal  argues that the situation seems like a boondoggle. There is contradictory information that officials have not clarified about whether the city intends to turn Myrtle Woldson's 134-stall parking lot into a multi-level garage or if they simply want seize the lot and operate it themselves:

https://reason.com/blog/2013/10/24/seattle-seizes-parking-lot-to-build-new

How low is that?  Taking a 103 year old woman's parking lot to build more parking so that they can make the money?

We are talking about securing our nations borders.  If the courts find in favor for these Texas land owners it would seem that they must do away with Eminent Domain altogether.  It would be saying there is no reason good enough to acquire private property.  Democrats using this argument to oppose the border wall?  What hypocrites.

[Emjay]

[quote author=Chosen Daughter

We are talking about securing our nations borders.  If the courts find in favor for these Texas land owners it would seem that they must do away with Eminent Domain altogether.  It would be saying there is no reason good enough to acquire private property.  Democrats using this argument to oppose the border wall?  What hypocrites.
[/quote]

The courts will not find in favor of the Texas land owners.  I wouldn't worry about it.

[edpc]

Yes @Fishrrman   This whole discussion is a sham by some posters.  We have a few posters here who are suddenly all het up over the government's ability to use the eminent domain clause.

This is after this clause has been used hundreds of times at least in the past with none of these outraged citizens even noticing.

This outrage is as fake as anything you will see from the democrats and it does, in fact, give aid and comfort to the democrats.

I am ashamed of some of the people here.

Well, there’s always your self-imposed exile, from a few seasons back. Why don’t you take it out of the closet and see if it still fits?

[Chosen Daughter]

What about New York Chuck?

Eminent domain abuse has reared its ugly head in East Harlem. As Ginger Adams Otis reports in the New York Daily News, city officials plan to seize a family-owned dry cleaning business and then hand the forcibly vacated land to a wealthy private developer.
 
Damon Bae, whose parents opened the Fancy Cleaners business after immigrating to the United States from Korea in 1981, told the Daily News that "the city has offered my family about 30 cents on the dollar on the market value for what our three lots are worth—that's not enough to buy anything comparable in East Harlem today....The city's working so hard to meet the developer's timeline; meanwhile, we're trying to stay in business."

According to city officials, Bae's property is "blighted," the condition of severe disrepair required to trigger a taking under state eminent domain law. Yet as Bae told the Daily News, "the only 'blight' was in the [city-owned] vacant lots the city allowed to sit empty" nearby. In other words, the local government created the very conditions that it is now using as a pretext for seizing the Bae family's property.

Unfortunately for the Baes and others like them, the U.S. Supreme Court turned a blind eye to this sort of abuse in the 2005 case of Kelo v. City of New London. On the state level, New York's highest court—the Court of Appeals—ruled 6-1 in 2009 to let the state seize property on behalf of the real estate tycoon Bruce Ratner and his Atlantic Yards/Barclay's Center basketball stadium project in Brooklyn.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/11/new-york-city-unleashes-eminent-domain-a

[Chosen Daughter]

Oh, oh.  Precedence  from Sandra Day O”cconor.  I hope that the Democrats aren’t thinking this is a great argument.

Eminent domain means your home can be their castle
 
By Debra J. Saunders
 Published  6:00 pm PDT, Friday, August 19, 2016   

As mayor of Oakland in the 2000s, Jerry Brown supported redevelopment. Then he returned to the governor’s office in 2011 and inherited a $25 billion budget shortfall. Feeling the squeeze, Brown saw an opportunity to make $1.7 billion by eliminating redevelopment agencies and shifted. He liked redevelopment as mayor, he explained to the League of California Cities, but also: “I didn’t quite understand it. It seemed kind of magical. It was the money that you could spend on stuff that they wouldn’t otherwise let you spend.”
 
In Sacramento, fiscal restraint can only last so long. The urge to “spend on stuff” is back. Last year, the Legislature passed a measure with bipartisan support to restore redevelopment. The governor signed the bill, which took effect this year. Already the Legislature is working to expand rules to allow local officials to green-light pet projects more likely to enrich powerful interests than benefit the communities the policy is supposed to serve.

   
Small businesses, beware. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “economic development” constituted “public use” in its infamous Kelo decision, which allowed governments to seize private property for private development. (The state or local government derives its power to take private property for public use in return for just compensation from the right of eminent domain.) The Kelo ruling emboldened cities like Oakland to seize private property at bargain prices to accommodate tony private development. The targeted property didn’t even have to be blighted — the traditional rationale for urban renewal projects. It just had to be in the way.
 
In her blistering dissent of Kelo, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor warned, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.” Oakland proved O’Connor right by seizing two properties — Revelli Tires and Autohouse — to make way for private development. “There is a greater good here,” Brown told me at the time, even as he admitted the businesses were not blighted.

https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Eminent-domain-means-your-home-can-be-their-castle-9173840.php

[montanajoe]

Justice Department needs lawyers to fight expected flood of border wall lawsuits

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Justice-Department-needs-lawyers-to-fight-13082265.php

Well if its going to employ more lawyers cant be all bad....

[Hoodat]

Yes @Fishrrman   This whole discussion is a sham by some posters.  We have a few posters here who are suddenly all het up over the government's ability to use the eminent domain clause.

This is after this clause has been used hundreds of times at least in the past with none of these outraged citizens even noticing.

This outrage is as fake as anything you will see from the democrats and it does, in fact, give aid and comfort to the democrats.

I am ashamed of some of the people here.

Several posters here (including myself and @edpc ) are extremely wary of a Kelo repeat, and rightly so.  Although I do not agree that building the wall constitutes such a repeat, I will gladly condemn any support for Kelo, especially when it comes from Trump and groupthink supporters like @Emjay .  The same governmental power that allows for the taking of property for public use (with just compensation) should never be used to seize private property from one citizen and handed over to another to build a casino parking lot.

[edpc]

Several posters here (including myself and @edpc ) are extremely wary of a Kelo repeat, and rightly so.  Although I do not agree that building the wall constitutes such a repeat, I will gladly condemn any support for Kelo, especially when it comes from Trump and groupthink supporters like @Emjay .  The same governmental power that allows for the taking of property for public use (with just compensation) should never be used to seize private property from one citizen and handed over to another to build a casino parking lot.

Kelo set a terrible precedent for the seizure of property contrary to original intent. The kicker in that case is the fact the developer won, got the land, but couldn’t secure the financing for the project. It wasn’t built and the revenue providing the basis for the public benefit argument was never realized.

Anyone who thinks landowners will be ‘run over’ by the government’s authority don’t seem to realize, as of last year, court battles are still being fought over cases brought in the Bush 43 era. Handing such sweeping power to the government only insures a less safe and free future, when political climates shift.

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/21/feds-moving-forward-land-seizures-border-wall/

If anyone thinks the democrats are just going to do whatever they want, regardless, then be consistent. Shred the constitution, renounce your belief in limited government, and declare Trump dictator, to head off their dictatorship. Ben Shapiro covered this the the problems with vast eminent domain powers in this broadcast between the 23:30 - 28:50 minute mark.

[Bigun]

The President’s Emergency Declaration Is the Congressional Check on Presidential Power

https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/02/18/the-presidents-emergency-declaration-is-the-congressional-check-on-presidential-power/?fbclid=IwAR1RMYjmGtGiAR7tkNyvs_ek4j6rMJEaTinnpb3Wa2BwpVvviEqgyOcUwIw