Labeling something as urban renewal allows the government to take ownership of private property

[Saltwater60]

Just posting this as an example because I had no idea that a few people on the city or town counsel saying this is an urban renewal project allows the government to take or change the ownership of the property.

Redevelopment of Boulevard Mall hits a speed bump

Amherst Supervisor Brian Kulpa tells WBEN the plan to breathe new life into the Boulevard Mall, considered prime commercial property in the town, has slowed due to some unforeseen problems. Kulpa explains issues with infrastructure and legacy leases.

www.audacy.com

My wife and I had a bit of an argument on this because she supports the government side of it and maybe I would to if sears and the other legacy lease people wanted out of the lease, but what if they don’t? What if they want to keep paying the lease to see what the future holds to lock in property? I could see many people buying and holding onto land for further development or investment property or projects. So what now the government can just come in and say it’s urban renewal and take your property of it benefits them? Not a fan here. I didn’t like it when Trump was talking about doing it for the wall building either.
I think it’s crazy the project is projected to be 5-10 years down the road anyway.

 

[spat]

Just posting this as an example because I had no idea that a few people on the city or town counsel saying this is an urban renewal project allows the government to take or change the ownership of the property.

Redevelopment of Boulevard Mall hits a speed bump

Amherst Supervisor Brian Kulpa tells WBEN the plan to breathe new life into the Boulevard Mall, considered prime commercial property in the town, has slowed due to some unforeseen problems. Kulpa explains issues with infrastructure and legacy leases.

www.audacy.com

My wife and I had a bit of an argument on this because she supports the government side of it and maybe I would to if sears and the other legacy lease people wanted out of the lease, but what if they don’t? What if they want to keep paying the lease to see what the future holds to lock in property? I could see many people buying and holding onto land for further development or investment property or projects. So what now the government can just come in and say it’s urban renewal and take your property of it benefits them? Not a fan here. I didn’t like it when Trump was talking about doing it for the wall building either.
I think it’s crazy the project is projected to be 5-10 years down the road anyway.

Nothing new here.

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[ManualF150]

I've been noticing even in my neck of the woods how much cities are doing that whole "eminent domain" crap.

Ok, some of it is probably a good thing due to the crap buildings, but it's still property owner's land.

I know I remember hearing about Utica's Wynn (sp?) Hospital eminent domain crap. I think it's a state funded hospital too if I recall, so Cuomo and hail Hochul has her hands in it.

 

[OwnTheRide]

I support the idea of eminent domain. If we need to build a highway, it needs to go somewhere, and it shouldn't have to curve around someone's house in the middle of a field.

But I do not support eminent domain as it has been exercised in modern times. Too many tales of eminent domain being used to seize people's houses to build some shitty strip mall. Justified because the projected economic benefit would be "for the public good." Bullshit.

In one of the worst stories like that, that was precisely what happened - people were forced out of their homes so a strip mall could be built. But it gets worse... the strip mall was never built. The developer dropped out and no one picked the project up. So people were kicked out of their homes, poorly compensated in return, and saw their homes destroyed... for nothing.

IMO, eminent domain should change its payout structure. Make it so any exercise of eminent domain pays out 3-10x the fair market value of the property. Make it like winning a small lottery.

 

[ManualF150]

Also makes me think about Indian reservations. The Oneida's kicked tons of people out of their homes, culled farms, to what, build a couple golf courses?

 

[Saltwater60]

I support the idea of eminent domain. If we need to build a highway, it needs to go somewhere, and it shouldn't have to curve around someone's house in the middle of a field.

But I do not support eminent domain as it has been exercised in modern times. Too many tales of eminent domain being used to seize people's houses to build some shitty strip mall. Justified because the projected economic benefit would be "for the public good." Bullshit.

In one of the worst stories like that, that was precisely what happened - people were forced out of their homes so a strip mall could be built. But it gets worse... the strip mall was never built. The developer dropped out and no one picked the project up. So people were kicked out of their homes, poorly compensated in return, and saw their homes destroyed... for nothing.

IMO, eminent domain should change its payout structure. Make it so any exercise of eminent domain pays out 3-10x the fair market value of the property. Make it like winning a small lottery.

Funny this article says we used eminent domain to take house to build this mall now we’re taking it back using eminent domain to bring back housing.
I personally don’t support eminent domain in any way shape or form. You want my house or my property offer me enough money to say yes and sign the contract or find another way. I get this could get tricky or expensive but the government flushes enough money down the drain for stupid things anyway some one might as well get rich off of it.
I’m a bit sensitive to this eminent domain crap anyway because I live 2 properties in from a main road in my town and I could see that road expanding or becoming a trucking route at some point and my property would be encroached on. Would my property be taken in this move no, but I want the buffer from the main road for my peace and quiet.

 

[repete]

Monroe Co. kicked a bunch of people out of a mobile home park near the airport because they needed the room for "future expansion", well 15 years later we're still waiting!

 

[TEOTWAWKI inc.]

Real simple.

Offer me enough (don't insult me either) to make me willing to move, or plan to use physical force.

 

[OwnTheRide]

I’m a bit sensitive to this eminent domain crap anyway

Oh, you don't want to get me started there.

I'm sitting on top of the Marcellus Shale play. NYC's dominance in NY has prevented me from extracting the natural gas under my land.

...but they had no problem forcing me to accept a natural gas pipeline across my property, to satisfy NYC's gas needs...

 

[Saltwater60]

Oh, you don't want to get me started there.

I'm sitting on top of the Marcellus Shale play. NYC's dominance in NY has prevented me from extracting the natural gas under my land.

...but they had no problem forcing me to accept a natural gas pipeline across my property, to satisfy NYC's gas needs...

I sure as hell hope you get paid for that gas line. That’s too bad about the shake on your land and not being able to do framing. I know a guy in PA that gets $3million in gas royalties per year and free gas for life!!

 

[Acer-m14]

Just posting this as an example because I had no idea that a few people on the city or town counsel saying this is an urban renewal project allows the government to take or change the ownership of the property.

Redevelopment of Boulevard Mall hits a speed bump

Amherst Supervisor Brian Kulpa tells WBEN the plan to breathe new life into the Boulevard Mall, considered prime commercial property in the town, has slowed due to some unforeseen problems. Kulpa explains issues with infrastructure and legacy leases.

www.audacy.com

My wife and I had a bit of an argument on this because she supports the government side of it and maybe I would to if sears and the other legacy lease people wanted out of the lease, but what if they don’t? What if they want to keep paying the lease to see what the future holds to lock in property? I could see many people buying and holding onto land for further development or investment property or projects. So what now the government can just come in and say it’s urban renewal and take your property of it benefits them? Not a fan here. I didn’t like it when Trump was talking about doing it for the wall building either.
I think it’s crazy the project is projected to be 5-10 years down the road anyway.

how about the owners of the Mall submit a business plan and go to the local bank and get a FUCKING LOAN ..

i will never go there so way do my taxes have to pay for it ..

 

[Acer-m14]

i can not wait for Green Cars and Green roads again ..

 

[spat]

I support the idea of eminent domain. If we need to build a highway, it needs to go somewhere, and it shouldn't have to curve around someone's house in the middle of a field.

But I do not support eminent domain as it has been exercised in modern times. Too many tales of eminent domain being used to seize people's houses to build some shitty strip mall. Justified because the projected economic benefit would be "for the public good." Bullshit.

In one of the worst stories like that, that was precisely what happened - people were forced out of their homes so a strip mall could be built. But it gets worse... the strip mall was never built. The developer dropped out and no one picked the project up. So people were kicked out of their homes, poorly compensated in return, and saw their homes destroyed... for nothing.

IMO, eminent domain should change its payout structure. Make it so any exercise of eminent domain pays out 3-10x the fair market value of the property. Make it like winning a small lottery.

Hey, I say offer enough money for the house or find another route for the highway.

If you need to pay $10M for a $100k house, then so be it.

The government owns enough land.

In principle it sounds necessary, but 90% of the powers the government claims are absolutely necessary for a modern society, aren’t.

They'll find a way around it.

 

[OwnTheRide]

Hey, I say offer enough money for the house or find another route for the highway.

The obvious issue here is that every property owner will demand $10M per square foot and building a single road across the state would cost more money than exists in the combined economies of the entire earth.

I think eminent domain is a necessary evil, but like all necessary evils, it must be properly constrained. By which I mean, a hell of a lot more constraint that it has today.

 

[dwa12479]

I support the idea of eminent domain. If we need to build a highway, it needs to go somewhere, and it shouldn't have to curve around someone's house in the middle of a field.

But I do not support eminent domain as it has been exercised in modern times. Too many tales of eminent domain being used to seize people's houses to build some shitty strip mall. Justified because the projected economic benefit would be "for the public good." Bullshit.

In one of the worst stories like that, that was precisely what happened - people were forced out of their homes so a strip mall could be built. But it gets worse... the strip mall was never built. The developer dropped out and no one picked the project up. So people were kicked out of their homes, poorly compensated in return, and saw their homes destroyed... for nothing.

IMO, eminent domain should change its payout structure. Make it so any exercise of eminent domain pays out 3-10x the fair market value of the property. Make it like winning a small lottery.

Very much agreed. If a project is THAT important, fair market value should be a starting point, and then calculated up from there on a very heavy markup. And nothing for projects that will be privately owned.

 

[Zerex]

Robert Moses was the first King of Eminent Domaine; quite a guy.

The entire Interstate Highway System was build on ED acquisitions.
State Colleges and Universities, State Parks, the Canal System, Police Stations, Public Schools, Military Bases, etc.
Horse has left the barn..................

 

[Saltwater60]

The obvious issue here is that every property owner will demand $10M per square foot and building a single road across the state would cost more money than exists in the combined economies of the entire earth.

I think eminent domain is a necessary evil, but like all necessary evils, it must be properly constrained. By which I mean, a hell of a lot more constraint that it has today.

Not necessarily. $10 million per square foot is a ridiculous sum of money and many will never see that in their lifetime and would settle for way less. There are in many cases other routes that can be taken. Maybe in a few situations there are not other routes but most cases yes. I would take $40-$50,000 over fair market value for my house, but that’s what it’s worth to me for the hassle of being forced out of my house. I would want to replace what I have and get some more land. I think that’s fair for being forced out. Kind of like how an action can go over the value of the item if some one wants it bad enough.
Most eminent domain cases people don’t get fair market value even. What’s fair market value and who determines that? The government or the people they hire? You should see what the bank assessor assessed my house at because it’s a joke. They assessed it when the market was high and the bank needed protection if the market fell.

 

[Acer-m14]

maybe would should stop building and taking peoples property

and fix what has already been built ..

ohhh lets make a new road to save people a 10 min drive time on current roads .. and take there land for it ..

 

[Acer-m14]

another thought i have with this ED ..

ok so its for the public good .. but i end up getting peanuts for my land .. and they make booo kooo $$$$$ profit at the start ...

what happens then if the ED plan Fails .. in 5 or 10 .. 20 yrs and they go bankrupt ..

i was planning to use that land for 60 to 80 yrs ..

 

[Acer-m14]

State Parks, the Canal System, Police Stations, Public Schools, Military Bases,

and taxpayer fund them now .. so owned then by we the people not them ..

 

[GOPerfect]

Years ago they told us they were going to do this....

AGENDA21!

 

[spat]

The obvious issue here is that every property owner will demand $10M per square foot and building a single road across the state would cost more money than exists in the combined economies of the entire earth.

I think eminent domain is a necessary evil, but like all necessary evils, it must be properly constrained. By which I mean, a hell of a lot more constraint that it has today.

No, that is not what it would mean.

That means the different property owners would compete.

Demand $10M for your lot, your neighbor will sell for $1M instead and they'll just use a different route.

A well crafted bidding process would work to everyone's benefit.

 

[Cavalry]

I am completely against eminent domain being used for government/private business deals. There was a big stink here a few years ago, elderly veteran in a nursing home happened to own a couple hundred acres of farmland the county wanted to build a housing development/park. They offered him shit for it, he declined, they started with ED proceedings and luckily the public came to the rescue, squashing it.

Eminent domain should be used sparingly, for actual acquisitions for the public good, or emergencies. The owner should be over compensated for their loss, 2 or 3 times assessed value would be fair in my book.

 

[spat]

I am completely against eminent domain being used for government/private business deals. There was a big stink here a few years ago, elderly veteran in a nursing home happened to own a couple hundred acres of farmland the county wanted to build a housing development/park. They offered him shit for it, he declined, they started with ED proceedings and luckily the public came to the rescue, squashing it.

Eminent domain should be used sparingly, for actual acquisitions for the public good, or emergencies. The owner should be over compensated for their loss, 2 or 3 times assessed value would be fair in my book.

Maybe you should be able to sue for 10 years and claim their "fair market value" was incorrect if the value of the land increases.


"You only gave me $100k for my lot, but now that it's got a mini-mall on it it would sell for $10M. You still owe me the difference "

 

[Saltwater60]

Maybe you should be able to sue for 10 years and claim their "fair market value" was incorrect if the value of the land increases.


"You only gave me $100k for my lot, but now that it's got a mini-mall on it it would sell for $10M. You still owe me the difference "

That’s not fair for the government or the developer though. If it was truly worth 100K it should be fair market value plus a percentage as an incentive, say 35% or something. In this case the developer took all the and improved the property.
My issue with this stupid situation was we saw this coming for years and years and the government just let all the businesses fail. Ok not really their responsibility to save them. Now it costs these companies too much to brake their lease and it’s the government and this developer that want them to break the lease not the company. So who should be responsible for paying out the lease then? IMO it’s not the business because they are holding up their end of the bargain. Also remember as stated in the article this project is 5-10 year completion date out. That’s ridiculous honestly and a lot could change in those years. Maybe there won’t be demand for housing in that area. They have been building a parents like this with retail space on the bottom like crazy just a few miles away close to UB. In the end their property maybe taken, all this money be spent, and there maybe no demand for this. The birth rate is decreasing and the boomers are dying off so housing demand will drop because it has to.

 

[spat]

That’s not fair for the government or the developer though. If it was truly worth 100K it should be fair market value plus a percentage as an incentive, say 35% or something. In this case the developer took all the and improved the property.
My issue with this stupid situation was we saw this coming for years and years and the government just let all the businesses fail. Ok not really their responsibility to save them. Now it costs these companies too much to brake their lease and it’s the government and this developer that want them to break the lease not the company. So who should be responsible for paying out the lease then? IMO it’s not the business because they are holding up their end of the bargain. Also remember as stated in the article this project is 5-10 year completion date out. That’s ridiculous honestly and a lot could change in those years. Maybe there won’t be demand for housing in that area. They have been building a parents like this with retail space on the bottom like crazy just a few miles away close to UB. In the end their property maybe taken, all this money be spent, and there maybe no demand for this. The birth rate is decreasing and the boomers are dying off so housing demand will drop because it has to.

Why should it be fair to the government ? If they're going to use the extraordinary power of taking property the owner is not willing to sell, I DGAF if they get a fair deal in the process. They're the ones that forced the deal against the original owners wishes.

If they don't think it's going to be fair to them in the end, they shouldn't have forced it to begin with. To me it feels like the burgler suing for getting hurt while breaking in.

The developer is not involved. They paid the government whatever the government agreed on. They are not the ones who owe the original owner for appropriating their property against their will. If the developer bought it for $200k and sold it for $10M after some improvements, good for them.

 

[Saltwater60]

Why should it be fair to the government ? If they're going to use the extraordinary power of taking property the owner is not willing to sell, I DGAF if they get a fair deal in the process. They're the ones that forced the deal against the original owners wishes.

If they don't think it's going to be fair to them in the end, they shouldn't have forced it to begin with. To me it feels like the burgler suing for getting hurt while breaking in.

The developer is not involved. They paid the government whatever the government agreed on. They are not the ones who owe the original owner for appropriating their property against their will. If the developer bought it for $200k and sold it for $10M after some improvements, good for them.

As stated in past posts I don’t support forced transfer of ownership.

 

[OwnTheRide]

Not necessarily. $10 million per square foot is a ridiculous sum of money and many will never see that in their lifetime and would settle for way less. There are in many cases other routes that can be taken. Maybe in a few situations there are not other routes but most cases yes. I would take $40-$50,000 over fair market value for my house, but that’s what it’s worth to me for the hassle of being forced out of my house. I would want to replace what I have and get some more land. I think that’s fair for being forced out. Kind of like how an action can go over the value of the item if some one wants it bad enough.
Most eminent domain cases people don’t get fair market value even. What’s fair market value and who determines that? The government or the people they hire? You should see what the bank assessor assessed my house at because it’s a joke. They assessed it when the market was high and the bank needed protection if the market fell.

You're right in that most people would take an offer rather than try to hold out. But that's kind of the point... without eminent domain, there will always be someone holding out, and not necessarily for the money.

Take me, for example. They won't let me extract gas from my own property, but they are more than willing to force me to allow a natural gas pipeline to cross my property. You'd better believe I'd have stopped that pipeline dead in its tracks until they agreed to let me inject my own gas into it, if I could have.

Heck, I saw people who wanted to turn down gas deals where the first rental payment would have been 3x the purchase price of their home. The reality is that to many, their homes are worth more than money.

Regarding current uses of eminent domain, I suspect we see eye-to-eye in that people tend to get ripped off. "Fair market value" is a very subjective assessment, and when the purchaser (the state) is in charge of establishing fair market value, the value is often anything but fair. That's why I support a hefty multiplier of fair market value... say, 4x... to try and ensure that those forced to sell via eminent domain are at least fairly compensated.

 

[Saltwater60]

You're right in that most people would take an offer rather than try to hold out. But that's kind of the point... without eminent domain, there will always be someone holding out, and not necessarily for the money.

Take me, for example. They won't let me extract gas from my own property, but they are more than willing to force me to allow a natural gas pipeline to cross my property. You'd better believe I'd have stopped that pipeline dead in its tracks until they agreed to let me inject my own gas into it, if I could have.

Heck, I saw people who wanted to turn down gas deals where the first rental payment would have been 3x the purchase price of their home. The reality is that to many, their homes are worth more than money.

Regarding current uses of eminent domain, I suspect we see eye-to-eye in that people tend to get ripped off. "Fair market value" is a very subjective assessment, and when the purchaser (the state) is in charge of establishing fair market value, the value is often anything but fair. That's why I support a hefty multiplier of fair market value... say, 4x... to try and ensure that those forced to sell via eminent domain are at least fairly compensated.

I truly am sorry this happened to you. I hope it is in a point of your property that is out of sight from your daily life and not a constant reminder.
I see we agree on the “fair market” value and it only being fair to the government. All I know is they get enough of my money already through my taxes. It’s absurd how much is removed from our paychecks. I’m glad my wife is starting to realize this.