Eminent Domain

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:00 pm

Where i live in the city is planning to use eminent domain to expand a park by 17 acres, should the government be allowed to seize privately owned land if the owner is unwilling to sell.

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:32 pm

Property is property, and with how our supposed republic works, as long as nothing illegal is going on with said property, the government not only shouldn't interfere but in many cases, they can't interfere. So no, in my opinion, the government should not interfere with ones owned property.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:54 pm

With eminent domain, usually the devil is in the details. The cases are really fact-specific. We all agree that it is bad if the government just starts taking private land, but theoretically the government has rights over the land and allows you to live on it (that is old school law). Are there any details about this particular instance that you can post? It will make any discussion more cohesive.

Edit: Light reading:

Eminent Domain, generally: Eminent domain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The trilogy of relevant US cases:
Berman v. Parker
Hawaii Housing Authority
Kelo (yes, the infamous Kelo)

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Tue May 01, 2007 2:02 am

Years ago, the Republicans in the Texas state legislature passed legislation that was invoked to condemn an entire subdivision in tje city of Hurst to expand a shopping mall. To his credit, one of the sponsors of the legislation said that he messed up and he never intended for that kind of thing to happen. But that's what happens when they write bad laws.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Tue May 01, 2007 7:43 am

VonDondu wrote:But that's what happens when they write bad laws.

You know VonDu, eminent domain isn't always bad law. The problem, as I see it, is that someone is usually screwed on one side of the transaction or the other. Either the state loses out on a tremendous growth opportunity and has to leave an entire neighborhood completely underutilized, or a group of private homeowners has their property taken away with very poor compensation. Eminent domain usually doesn't shake out in any other way.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Tue May 01, 2007 8:40 am

I'm personally against eminent domain law, primarily because of the numerous cases of abuse that arise from the employment of it. There's far too much room for back-room dealings, which occur with a depressing frequency. Usually, commerical interest wins over private homeowners.

There needs to be much more transparency and public oversight of matters falling into this area of government function. Granted, there are some cases where the actions taken via this law served the public interest, particularly in cases having to do with improvement of infrastructure. Quite often, however, the case of Hurst, Texas - brought up by Von - is how eminent domain actually happens.

TEMPLAR67 · Post by **TEMPLAR67** » Tue May 01, 2007 2:27 pm

I cant find the article online so ive just typed it below

CITY COULD SEIZE LAND
Bob Jones park could grow by 17.7 acres if southlake has its way. But aquiring the acreage has proven difficult.Attempts by city officials to purchase the property have been met with no response by Marylyn Milse and Carl Fretwell, the two individuals owning the land.On March 2, the city mailed Miles and Fretwell purchase offers at what officials concidered above the propertys' appraised values. Neither Miles nor Fretwell responded, causing the city to concider its options.Among those is condemnation. "We are still open to comming to some sort of agreement with both parties, and then the next step if we need to, would be the condemantion process," said city spokeswoman Pillar Schank.Condemnation, a step in eminent domain, involves seizing property. Such measures have drawn opposition nation wide. The subject hit home when neighbors fought back for their homes when Northeast Mall expanded in Hurst. Similar struggles emerged in Arlington, where the planned Dallas Cowboys stadium pitted neighbors against devlopers.But Southlake hopes to avoid any standoff."Were just looking at our options right now" said Schank, who declined further comment on the matter.
About 2.5 million dollars in park devlopment funds has been approved to aquire the property, compromising 11.2 acres owned br Miles and 6.5 owned by Fretwell.At the last council meeting officials authorized the city attorney to begin condemnation proceedings but hope that does not become necessary. "We are still in the preliminary stages of this," said Schank.
Calls to Fretwell and Milse whoes property records indicate they live in Fort Worth and DeSoto, respectively, were not returned.According tho the Tarrant County Apprasial District, Fretwell ownes three properties for a total of 6.5 acres, in Southlake, all of which are on Bob Jones Road. The properties appraised for $30,013, $64,382, and $190,749.Miles has two properties in Southlake. An 11.2 acre site on Mud Hen Road, adjacent to one of Fretwells properties, appraised for 63,728 and an 11.25 acre site under the name Miles, Marylyn & Etal appraised for 56,254.Fretwells ownership dates back to 1988. Miles' Mud Hen Road property also dates back to 1988 and her other property to 1994.

I am completely against this, I have been to Bob Jones park and it is huge. Southlake does not need anymore baseball or soccer fields, we have plenty of them. What you have here in my opinon is the result of a greedy city council and nothing more.