New at Reason

Timothy|2.15.06 @ 10:15AM|#

I am of the opinion, frankly, that takings should not be a power the government has at all. Why on earth should the government be able to force me to sell them my property? I don't care if they want to put in a road or a courthouse, put it somewhere else if I won't sell to you.

Cue joe defending whatever use of eminent domain city planners can dream up in 5...4...3...

|2.15.06 @ 10:25AM|#

Cue joe defending whatever use of eminent domain city planners can dream up in 5...4...3...

Huh?

|2.15.06 @ 10:48AM|#

city planners don't authorize the use of eminent domain. elected representatives do - many times against the advice of planners and other advisory commissions.

jimmy|2.15.06 @ 10:55AM|#

eminent domain, done legally, is a valid govt power recognized by the fifth amendment to the constitution. do libertarians really believe in constitutional govt, or are they more interested in playing infantile anarchist games? it's obvious at the very least that they already want to emasculate the govt's power to militarily defend the nation. let's get rid of cops, courts and currency while we're at it.

R C Dean|2.15.06 @ 11:07AM|#

eminent domain, done legally, is a valid govt power recognized by the fifth amendment to the constitution.

Many libertarians have no problem with eminent domain as originally envisioned by the Founders. The problem is that it is no longer used that way.

do libertarians really believe in constitutional govt, or are they more interested in playing infantile anarchist games?

It depends on the libertarian.

|2.15.06 @ 11:08AM|#

Are there any governments anywhere that operate like Timothy is suggesting? What do their cities and public services look like? It's not a bad idea, but I'd like to see how it's worked out in the past.

|2.15.06 @ 11:14AM|#

Matt - joe is a city planner, and I believe that he once argued that if, as it says in Jacob's article, "...if they have a plan and follow certain procedures..." they can take your property.

My apologies if I'm mis-remembering that...

Dan T.|2.15.06 @ 11:49AM|#

I think the primary benefit of using ED is that otherwise, it would be nearly impossible to purchase multiple small tracts of land for a larger project (public or private). If you need to buy 10 pieces of land to build a road, for example, each one that you purchase means that the remaining owners can charge more. I forget the economic term for this - anybody?

|2.15.06 @ 12:12PM|#

Dan there is no reason why small landowners couldn't group together to make a deal with someone who wants to buy them all out without ED. People could voluntarily sign on to a plan to hire a negotiator to get the best price for the group.

|2.15.06 @ 12:13PM|#

Dan T --

I think you're thinking of the holdout problem.

|2.15.06 @ 12:15PM|#

The problem that I have with ED as a "negotiating tool" is that it distorts the concept of negotiation between polically connected developer, and individual property owner into "Take my offer or else I'll use my connections with the city to seize your property and you'll get less." It's also a short trip to "Why bother wasting time and money on negotiations? Let's just have the properties we want seized."

|2.15.06 @ 12:22PM|#

Timothy,

"I don't care if they want to put in a road or a courthouse, put it somewhere else if I won't sell to you."

In libertopia, sure. But in the United States, which is a Constitutional Republic, the constitution allows for collective takings for the "public". It's easy for you to say "if they want to put their road through my property, they can go to hell"...but even by mainstream libertarian standards, that's what they call "property rights extremism". Principles are great and all---but when your principles clash with pragmatic reality, then what? Abstract principles mean nothing if they don't actually do any good. And if the government has to snake a road underneath a mountain and in between this property and that one, just because of one holdout, then it's highly inefficient. A waste. This is why most rational libertarians concede that allowing a single property owner to thwart an obvious common good like a major transportation corridor, is not a good idea.

Principled idealists like yourself, who disregard reality in liu of abstract utopian ideals, scare me sometimes. And I'm a pretty goddamned staunch libertarian! I don't like the idea of the government taking anyone's land, nor do I like the idea of government taking 30% of my earnings every year...but sometimes, there are things that we must allow the government to do in order for this republic to function. The problem is, it's been taken way too far, and the government is allowed way too much.

Larry A|2.15.06 @ 12:35PM|#

If you need to buy 10 pieces of land to build a road, for example, each one that you purchase means that the remaining owners can charge more. I forget the economic term for this - anybody?

Highway robbery?

rox_publius|2.15.06 @ 12:53PM|#

wouldn't it be great if the public discussion we were having actually centered around whether eminent domain was legitimate practice for the building of a road rather than for private gain?

that's my damn utopia.

|2.15.06 @ 12:57PM|#

there are things that we must allow the government to do in order for this republic to function. The problem is, it's been taken way too far, and the government is allowed way too much.

Amen.

|2.15.06 @ 1:04PM|#

wouldn't it be great if the public discussion we were having actually centered around whether eminent domain was legitimate practice for the building of a road rather than for private gain?

Considering the influence of the road building and engineering consultants lobbies it is sometimes hard to separate the two.

|2.15.06 @ 1:15PM|#

Apparently when city officials look at these homes they want to take they see "blight". I see people living within their means.

Maybe it's about time that these city officials learned to do the same. I get the impression that the "tax base" problems many cities are having do not have all that much to do with providing basic municipal services.

|2.15.06 @ 1:50PM|#

Timothy,

What would property transfer without the involvement of government look like? Seriously. Your property rights are not an absolute cone of control from the center of the earth to the infinity beyond: I dare you to block satellites or airplanes from passing overhead. The rights that your title grant you (and that you will sell to the next owner) are codified by the government, and in the event of conflict over your property rights, with either trespassers or tenants, you will probably need to use government to arbitrate.

The way I see it, the 5th Amendment grants the government the pre-existing call option on all land within the US. By itself, I find this is fair. It's a check on government simply rewriting everyone's title whenever it feels like it. The case-by-case definitions of "just compensation" and "public use" are the key areas for discussion and concern, for me.

I was fascinated with my deed when I bought my condominum where I had to inital acknowlegement of a 1950's PA law that I would have no claim to damages in the event that my dwelling was damaged by underground coal mining (and also that I would have no rights to that coal). Even though I live nowhere near coal land, it was fascinating nevertheless. My parent's deed explicitly prohibits the tanning of hides on their property.

|2.15.06 @ 3:00PM|#

First, Sullum's column:

"'Just having the tool available makes it possible to negotiate with landowners." Sure it does�in the same way just having a gun available makes it possible for a bank robber to negotiate with a teller'

Except that bank robbers aren't required to give banks an amount of money equal to that they take out, this analogy is right on the money.

"By agreeing that any private use expected to increase tax revenue and create jobs counts as a public use..." This was not the holding of the court. Afraid of the real facts, Jacob?

"Yet the Institute for Justice, which represented the property owners in Kelo, found 10,000 cases in which condemnation was used or threatened for the benefit of private developers during a five-year period." If every taking that involves private-sector development can be described as being "for the benefit of private developers," then I trust the author will have no problem with describing all tax cuts that accrue to upper income earners as being "for the benefit of the rich." Not.

Ah, I Sullum admits as such: "Speaking of phony safeguards, Peterson is willing to go along with "legislation that prohibits the use of eminent domain solely to provide for private gain" (emphasis added). Such condemnations are illegal even under Kelo." Ah. I guess we should X out the paragraphs that appear immediately befor this.

|2.15.06 @ 3:03PM|#

We all remember that the New Londong plan was being done "for the benefit of friends of the City Council," who were going to make a fortune, right? After all, we were told that several hundred thousand times by various Reasonoids and the hallowed Institute for Justice.

Except that the city is now going forward with the plan, even as the developers are dropping out, concerned that it might not be such a goldmine after all. You'd almost think that there was something else motivating the project, that the professional libertarians spinning the story either didn't understand, or decided their readers really didn't need to know about.

|2.15.06 @ 3:12PM|#

That said, even given the dishonest scumbaggery surrounding the criticisms, there is a problem with politicians being given too much leeway in the use of eminent domain. The standard set by the court - not the phoney "taxes are a public good" strawman set up by the Reason writers and their allies, but the actual standard, conformance with a public plan endorsed by the relevant representative body - is too weak, because it doesn't involve standards for the plans themselves.

Was there adequate public involvement? Are the purported benefits actually likely to come to pass? Are the proposed actions the best way to achieve the public goals articulated in the plan? Could other action steps minimize the negative outcomes of the plan? As of now, the arm of government seeking to use Eminent Domain is the same arm charged with ensuring that these questions are adequately answered. No checks and balances

On a side note, these questions are not addressed in public facility takings either (roads, schools, bridges, manmade ponds that provide hydro power for grist mills - you know, old fashioned eminent domain projects). Not that this point has ever been made by Reason of the IJ.

|2.15.06 @ 3:14PM|#

Hi, Timothy. Just saw your post.

Ha ha.

Quick, multiple choice question: throughout the debates surrounded the Kelo case, joe

A) defended

B) critisized

the actions of the City of New London.

Since you know my positions so well, this ought to be no problem for you.

|2.15.06 @ 3:28PM|#

Shouldn't we call them "shitty planners?" :)

|2.15.06 @ 3:33PM|#

joe - yes, you did criticise the New London folks...but I thought the main gist of your argument was that it wasn't a good plan or something along those lines.

Because you certainly don't have a problem with the government taking private property on it's face.

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

|2.15.06 @ 3:37PM|#

Lowdog,

Better watch out; joe has gone into multiple-post mode.

|2.15.06 @ 4:02PM|#

"Except that bank robbers aren't required to give banks an amount of money equal to that they take out, this analogy is right on the money."

The problem here is that there is no way to establish what is "equal" to what is taken. By definition, money has no value except as a means of exchange. Thus, one hundred dollars is one hundred dollars no matter who owns it. Property and material goods, however, have value directly coterminus with the subjective desires of the owner. Thus, Sullum's analogy holds since ED necessarily puts the definition of value on the state (or private developer). In other words, I could think my family farm worth 100 million dollars (which I do), and since it is mine (or will be), that's how much it is worth. If nobody chooses to buy, well that's just the market. So my question for Joe is how exactly does the state determine the dollar equivalency of a piece of property without taking in the subjective valuations of the owner?

"You'd almost think that there was something else motivating the project, that the professional libertarians spinning the story either didn't understand, or decided their readers really didn't need to know about."

Like what? Checks and balances are all fine and good when dealing with public matters-- i.e. the functioning of the government-- but why does it need come to play at all in private matters? I don't want you or anyone else balancing my actions on my property.

I don't suppose I'm opposed to ED in principle-- or at least I acknowledge the Constitution's prior claim-- but it seems immediately suspect to me that the owner of a certain property should have no say in its value or the justification of it being seized (i.e. why is it only the government gets a say in whether or not something's "blighted"?).

|2.15.06 @ 4:10PM|#

eric, if you accept that eminent domain is necessary in some cases, then you are signing on for some sort of process by which the value of the property to be taken is determined. If you have a better system that hiring independent appraisers to determine its free market value (which is how the value is determined, not "by the state" - the state is often unhappy with the valuation), we're all ears.

As far as "Property and material goods, however, have value directly coterminus with the subjective desires of the owner," I have to question whether you'd like this principle to be applied when assessing property taxes. Susie Kelo, she says, wouldn't sell her property for a million dollars. Is that what we should tax her on?

To me, noting that there really is no objective value to a property until it is sold on the open market is similar to stating that nothing is really solid, because most of the volume of an atom is empty space - true in a technical sense, but wholly irrelevant for getting along in the world we live in. Yes, maybe the red you see is different from the red I see, but you'd still better step on the damn brake when that light goes on!

|2.15.06 @ 4:53PM|#

"To me, noting that there really is no objective value to a property until it is sold on the open market is similar to stating that nothing is really solid, because most of the volume of an atom is empty space - true in a technical sense, but wholly irrelevant for getting along in the world we live in. Yes, maybe the red you see is different from the red I see, but you'd still better step on the damn brake when that light goes on!"

An interesting point, but it still doesn't change the fact that the power of definition is unequally weighed on the side of the entity taking the property. Let's leave aside for a moment the question of how trustworthy an independent appraiser, in the pay of those who want to take the property, are. Let's also leave aside the potential economic consequences on such an appraisal that come out of characterizing a property as "blight". Both of these are questions I find relevant, but let's not even deal with those. The problem of what constitutes "blight" or "necessity" is the real issue here. ED may be necessary in some cases, but there may be a number of different definitions of "necessary." For a city government, it may just mean that it is more cost efficient, but for someone else (let's take Kelo), necessity may mean nothing less than a real threat to, oh I don't know, continued life on the planet earth. Both of these perspectives are extreme, of course, and hopefully most people would be more rational. The point, however, is that only allowing one agent in the transaction to have the power of defining these terms is wrong and even totalitarian. Yes, we both have to stop at red lights, whatever red may mean. But when it comes to my property, which I may or may not value more highly than you do, it is for damn sure that my perspective should be taken into account.

As for property taxes, from a logical perspective, they are based on worthless fictions too because-- as you put it-- there is no objective value until sold on the market. Therefore, my subjective value has no bearing on the matter. But neither, therefore, should the subjective value of a trained professional. Property taxes themselves are based on a chimera and are as unwarranted as income taxes and inheritance taxes (but for obviously different reasons).

|2.15.06 @ 4:56PM|#

"To me, noting that there really is no objective value to a property until it is sold on the open market is similar to stating that nothing is really solid, because most of the volume of an atom is empty space - true in a technical sense, but wholly irrelevant for getting along in the world we live in. Yes, maybe the red you see is different from the red I see, but you'd still better step on the damn brake when that light goes on!"

An interesting point, but it still doesn't change the fact that the power of definition is unequally weighed on the side of the entity taking the property. Let's leave aside for a moment the question of how trustworthy an independent appraiser, in the pay of those who want to take the property, are. Let's also leave aside the potential economic consequences on such an appraisal that come out of characterizing a property as "blight". Both of these are questions I find relevant, but let's not even deal with those. The problem of what constitutes "blight" or "necessity" is the real issue here. ED may be necessary in some cases, but there may be a number of different definitions of "necessary." For a city government, it may just mean that it is more cost efficient, but for someone else (let's take Kelo), necessity may mean nothing less than a real threat to, oh I don't know, continued life on the planet earth. Both of these perspectives are extreme, of course, and hopefully most people would be more rational. The point, however, is that only allowing one agent in the transaction to have the power of defining these terms is wrong and even totalitarian. Yes, we both have to stop at red lights, whatever red may mean. But when it comes to my property, which I may or may not value more highly than you do, it is for damn sure that my perspective should be taken into account.

As for property taxes, from a logical perspective, they are based on worthless fictions too because-- as you put it-- there is no objective value until sold on the market. Therefore, my subjective value has no bearing on the matter. But neither, therefore, should the subjective value of a trained professional. Property taxes themselves are based on a chimera and are as unwarranted as income taxes and inheritance taxes (but for obviously different reasons).

|2.15.06 @ 5:25PM|#

eric mattingly,

Since joe feels that it is appropriate to slam Ron Bailey for a trip that he made at the behest of a government, it should be noted here that joe has a vested interest in E.D. He's a "shitty planner" and E.D. in part keeps him and other "shitty planners" employed.

|2.15.06 @ 8:31PM|#

Joe,
I work for a public employer. My public employer insists that my use of their computer during working hours must be business related. I can't post to Hit and Run.
As a city planner, you work for a public employer. How do you get away with spending hours of taxpayer paid time posting to Hit and Run? Is your IT department asleep at the switch..or what?

|2.15.06 @ 9:47PM|#

quote from joe;
"Except that the city is now going forward with the plan, even as the developers are dropping out, concerned that it might not be such a goldmine after all."

Except that now they have an area of (self made) blight that they have to do something with. And they have to go ahead or look like ********(too late).

|2.16.06 @ 10:59AM|#

Eric,

The taking authority does not have the power to name its price. They are bound to pay what independent appraisers deem the property to be worth. Settling on this price often ends up in court, as the property owner brings in his own appraisers, and the outcome is not always favorable to the taking authority.

In addition, the value established by the appraisers is not subjective, but objective, meaning determined by applying real world data and using a formula that reflects real world conditions. This is not to say that their work is always perfect, as the disparity in appraisals demonstrates. It's an estimate, and estimates can be off. But it is not subjective, as the individual, emotion-based valuation of holdout property owners is.

The government clearly has more power than the property owner in determining whether a property will be sold, but on the question of the price to be paid, the government is often at a disadvantage, compared to the property owner.

Also, for what it's worth, I've never been involved in a project that required takings in my entire career. I've mostly overseen projects done on public land (streets, parks, buildings), administered regulations, and worked with the public to devise broad plans. People who primarily learn about the field of planning from those with a political ax to grind often assume that its practice consists mostly of those activities that they object to.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements