@@chrissnyder2091Liberals? You make no sense. Liberals are the ones that are truly against it. You know Trump supports it right? He tried using it a few times
In PA a little old lady had her 180 year old house and 1 acre of land taken to make a parking lot for a courthouse that was surrounded by 5 acres of lush green lawn. The problem is that most branches of government are unchecked in their actions across the board.
@@JoJo-yu2vv They are lawful until they are not. The problem is you need groups like IJ to fight it for you because regular people can't afford to fight them.
@@JoJo-yu2vv Not to mention the old lady has no money for fancy lawyers or any lawyer at all, just like the rest of us. There is no justice for the average American citizen.
That is such a shame and so unnecessary. Shame on that local county. God they're all such sociopaths. There was a clear alternative that was less destructive if what you say is true, but that wasn't good enough. I guess it's like they say- a tiny bit of power goes to one's head and always corrupts.
How does fighting FOR corporate interests help the average American property "owner" ?? Isn't it interesting that a single corporate conflict garnered IJs attention while thousands of American citizens (NC and others) have -0- representation at all 🤔
@@minimouse7579 I think you are unaware of all that IJ does. Thousands of American citizens DO get represented by IJ. If you get their magazine or simply watch their videos you will see how much of a difference they make for people. Also if they win this, and get eminent remain reversed or limited it will benefit us all. I am a proud supporter of IJ!
@@gryphonennis1002 I could be but this case isn't beneficial for any average American, just the corportocracy we all suffer. As for financially supporting the IJ, I'll leave that to those who still have 'faith' in this 'just us' system.
@@minimouse7579 ...it's not about the case, it's about Supreme Court precedent, and trying to overturn one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history. A decision that declares that the government can use eminent domain to take your land away purely for its own monetary profit, or hand it over to another private owner. IJ is trying to change that precedent to STOP that from happening. That IS fighting for the common people.
How I wish I could give them a million dollars. I simply cannot, not even a million pennies. I'm hardly making it as it is. Those out there with money to spare should send it all to the Institute for Justice; forget charities with their highly paid top people. IJ gets things done, setting precedent along the way. It's the biggest bang for your donation buck you'll ever get.
After 27yrs operating my restaurant, I was a victim of eminent domain. A city land assembly that created condos, library/city hall rolled over me eighteen years ago this month. Speaking from my experience, you can't fight city hall. Their resources are large.
Both may be necessary in rare cases, assuming Authorities are acting in good faith. However, such power has been seriously abused by Govmnt Authorities. Civil Asset Forfeiture, in practice, is a license to steal from any Citizen, at the discretion of any police officer.
@@nonyadamnbusiness9887 Sure it is! Just outlaw taking peoples property against their wishes. The civil asset forfeiture laws can be repealed, and eminent domain can be outlawed. It’s really quite simple.
There is an entire small town (Doodletown?) in the Bear Mountain area that was seized and destroyed decades ago by NYS so they could build a ski area. A cruel joke, because that's not a snow area. Today, the foundations are still in the forest, which is reclaiming them. Nothing ever got built. A small town was wiped out.
Same thing in new London, Connecticut. It was a big pharma company that said they wanted to build a giant drug building and torn down everyone's homes and never built the building. Eminent domain was suppose to be for the general public's benefit and not private gain. This has been happening for a very long time. Here in Virginia we were fighting two unnecessary natural gas pipelines. This was definitely for private gain because the natural gas was slated for over seas and nothing to do with servicing the area. One pipeline did get shut down and the other is hanging by a thread. The destruction on private property has been horrendous. Our utility company invested a very little bit to help push the project through. It appears now that the utility lost money on the gamble and are gouging us for utilities to make up for their loss. The big guys always make the little guy pay for their blunders. I learned that during the Valdez oil spill in Alaska.
@@soaring1I lived in New London Connecticut when that went on it was Pfizer. Some years later I would move to Suwannee County Florida. That same gas line from Virginia came all the way down into Florida across Suwannee County and through and under Suwannee River on its way to Tampa to be shipped out of the country.
@soaring1 I don't know what it was called I just know that it took place about 5 years ago 6 years ago. Suwannee County Florida has the most pristine and largest underground aquifer in the country. That pipeline ran above ground until they reach the Suwannee River and then they went under and through the underground water caves. Which provides the water for everyone and farms.
@@c.d.meloney Sounds like the same pipeline to me. Same time frame and driving it though caves and under pristine water sources. I am so tired of this crap and hope DOGE stops the madness.
The fact that any judge has ever ruled that eminent domain can be used to take private property away from somebody and give it to a developer or to use it in any other way other than the public building or roadway is absurd. Talk about tyrannical
Kelo v New England - 7 Republican nominated Justices 2024 - 6 Republican nominated Justices. Literally making a case, where Stupidity is an Enemy of the United States,
@@starbase51shiptestingfacility who cares about the judges party? There are tyrants on both sides plus politics. In fact, most people that get into politics will eventually become tyrannical regardless of party. There's very few politicians anymore that truly do what they do for the good of everybody
I still can't believe how Kelo v. New London went down. Absolutely deplorable decision by the Supreme Court and I've been hoping that the Institute for Justice could get another crack at it to settle the score for the American people and our property rights.
@ Of course some (a few) public purposes really do help the community. Road widening, train stations, schools, hospitals. Even some (even fewer) development projects can use under-utilized land to help the whole community.
@@robertewalt7789 Just because a community benefits doesn't mean that I have to give up my property. If your property can be taken from you against your will just because the "community benefits" means you have not property rights. It's one thing for critical projects like a sewage treatment plant that can't be put just anywhere or a single property in the path of a large hiway project where all the other property was already purchased and it would be difficult to go around. A parking lot can literally be placed anywhere. Either find a different property or pay what it costs to get the property you NEED. It's the law of supply and demand. If you can demand supply of a scarce resourse, then the soul of the economy is critically broken.
@ I have suggested elsewhere that if the government takes your property through eminent domain, they need to pay substantially more than “market value,” maybe 150% or 200%.
I know what you mean, but not sure it is. Recent legislation seems to say that but fundamentally, I think it goes against the 4th Admendment of the US Constitution that protects our property rights. How did Bush, Cheney and Tony Blair get citizens to agree to go into Iraq militarily? Create a fake urgency. That's what the fake convenient Environmental talking points do. Elon Musk says there is no urgency with Environmental concerns from our industrial way of life, with all of the carbon. This fake urgency makes citizens compliant to the government stealing our property. I hope Elon & Vivek via DOGE make the government 10% of its current size and restore & BOLSTER 1ST and 4th Admendment rights and all others the current administration is trampling.
The revenue generated is irrelevant. If it's your property and you have a nice green lawn, who cares if someone else can make a billion dollars from the same property, it's not theirs.
@@frotobaggins7169 It's relevant when the local government claims that the parking lot was the best choice for the locality because it would generate more taxes.
@@patmcbride9853 Not really, every piece of property everywhere could be used differently by someone else to make more money for the government in taxes. Property doesn't exist to fund government or companies that could make more money. That line of logic leads straight to zero property rights with a hand full of companies owning EVERYTHING.
Where I live one hospital tried to keep another hospital from from being built. It didnt work. Then they kept a store from being built, because it would close the mom and pop stores. They then allowed two big box hardware stores to be built on the same property, and ran the other hardware stores out of business. Some had been there for decades.
@@thisdayage7997First on my mind for retribution now since NOBIDY can have trust in those we elected to SERVE THE PEOPLE! WE WILL TAKE THE LAW INTO OUR HANDS, AND MAKE THEM PAY!
There was a case during the past year in NY State where a historic railroad depot in Schuylerville, NY was demolished just to make way for expanding the parking lot of the nearby high school. What a waste of a historic building!!!
It’s scary but you truly do own nothing at all. I’m in Virginia and there’s a similar situation happening to a couple of older homes and homeowners, they want to abolish their homes for a street and a roundabout.
I can see a reasonable argument in favor of eminent domain - with compensation - for public use. Kelo, though, wasn't about public use. It was claimed that since the new private owner would pay more in taxes, it was of public benefit, which was enough. I disagree.
The governement valued our farm at $0 because "we hadn't ever paid taxes." No farm in America ever pays taxes, because the costs of running farms is so high, at the end of the year, everything gets reinvested into the equipment, seed, chemicals, etc. So then they valued it at $140,000, including all the buildings, which is some kind of sick joke. And most of that was spent on lawyers to get them to pay even that, and then on lawyers again to defend against a lawsuit from the farm workers who felt they should get a cut for some reason. They build a tiny airport in Forrest City outside of Memphis, so politicians could land their leer jets there rather than memphis. That land went from building up the economy to being a tax burden.
The fatal flaw of Kelo was the finding that private economic development is a public use. The USSC woefully confused "benefit" with "use." Under that reasoning, any taking for any reason can be justified if there is a tangential benefit to the public, actual or perceived. In Kelo, absolutely no one in the general public could use the private buildings. No one. Sometimes, the court seems to get in its own way by stretching definitions, but use is not vague. Can I use it? If I cannot, it isn't a public use. QED.
It happens all these ver the US. Sometimes it is done in communities where Community wants to seek revenge on an individual or merely are envious and jealous.
Sadly, they didn't win anything yet. Currently the case has only been presented to the Supreme Court -- that means now we have to wait on if they'll even agree to hear the case. For context: there's over 7,000 cases presented to SC and only about 100-150 are actually chosen to be heard each year.
Didn't CA pass a law that put 78% of private property at risk of being taken in the name of economic development? NY also used KELO as a basis to further obliterate private property. In NY, developers can offer half market value. If the owner doesn't take it, then the state can condemn the property and reduce the value to 10 cents on the dollar.
I haven't heard about that 78% law. But California has been passing laws to force more housing units to be built, overriding local ordinances, zoning, housing density standards, etc. The recent ADU law, for example, allows landowners to legally build Accessory Dwelling Units, up to 4 per parcel, depending how big the parcel is. Traditionally, R1 zoning means single family housing. One lot, one house. But as cities get more crowded, people have converted garages into living quarters, since many Californians don't use their garages for parking anyway. (We use them like people in other regions would use attics and basements-- for storage, workshops, etc.) People would also build "granny" or "mother-in-law" units in the backyard, as a place where an aging relative could live cheaply and semi independently near their family. Most cities banned living in garages; some allowed the granny units. But the new state law overrides those local ordinances. I think the intent is that more homeowners will create spaces for other people to live. I think the worst part is that the rules requiring developers to build sufficient parking for their new housing units have been relaxed, particularly if said units are near "public transportation." Which means more people will be fighting over street parking. I'm not sure if our legislators are stupid, or if they are intentionally trying to increase the stress level on urban dwellers. You can't force people to stop using cars simply by taking away their parking spaces. The other crazy thing is that California's model environmental law, CEQA, seems to be getting short shrift in all this. How will the new development affect the water supply, sewers, the power grid, or air quality? Never mind, we must solve the housing crisis at all costs!
Eminent domain is unconstitutional and is abused. How can government force you to sell your property to another private person or company? I don't care what they want to use it for or who benefits. If the government can force you to sell your property, you don't own it, the government does and you just rent from them.
I don’t like the fair market value they give to a property they want to steal. It’s all about location, location, location except for eminent domain. Seems a property they want should be value higher than fair market value.
@@Dodogama Actually, it is. When attempting to acquire private land for public use the first step is for the government to negotiate the purchase price. If the owner doesn't accept the offer or doesn't want to sell at all then the matter ends up in court. The "fair market value" of the property is determined in a civil court trial, with both sides presenting evidence to support their positions.
@@Dodogama most properties taken by eminent domain aren’t for sale. They just give the value of similar properties in the area. But them needing someone’s property over your neighbors should make it more valuable. They need it and should pay a premium for it.
Please get Eminent Domain overturned in NY. I live in a small rural town in Upstate NY and we’re currently dealing with a green energy company trying to take our properties under the Rapid Act which would classify our lands as a “site of a major renewable energy facility”. They’re attempting to build some 30+ massive (700ft tall) wind turbines through contract adjoining power, but now may be able to just take the land they need through the Rapid Act. It’s essentially just eminent domain, but for “green energy”, much of which I know we wouldn’t see the benefit of, but NYC would. Please stop the corruption.
Utican here who has been watching all of this unfold for Bowers (and other property owners) the last 6+ years. Thank you for taking this case on. Hopefully the Supreme Court agrees to hear it.
There’s only certain instances where they can actually use eminent domain but they’ve twisted it to steal land and homes repeatedly for no reason. Theft is theft but they get away with it most of the time. They tried it one time in a city I used to live in years ago but failed miserably and wound up bein investigated. Never knew the outcome but I know their eminent domain attempt (theft of land) failed.
Since when do the judges (former lawyers) on the federal level care about the citizens' rights? All levels of government have eroded citizens' rights through the courts to the point we no longer have any rights.
Having someone's property demolished because you can't cope with the competition is the definition of "didn't earn it". What is it with certain people and land theft? 🤔
You dont even own your own property if you have to pay someone else to keep it. Thats called rent. And if you dont pay you will be evicted and they will "repo" their property. End property tax!
There's a court battle happening here in Texas where the city of San Antonio is thinking of using Eminent Domain to take over a guy's bar to use for a museum. They have offered him a lot of money but it keeps getting turned down so now the city wants to use Eminent Domain to take it over to extend the Alamo Museum. The irony in that...
@@AlexeiTetenov I hope you are being sarcastic. If you are driving drunk, you would be “inconvenienced” by the police pulling you over, driving you home. Or a zoning official stopping you from building an addition to your house.
Eminent Domain should rarely be used and ONLY when all other potential alternatives have been proven to be faulty...not just "more expensive", but actually faulty.
My city took a trailer park with old retired people using eminent domain using Federal Highway Funds. Now it's city property. I'll be suing in Federal Court for them stealing my property on Federal Waters under the Color Law. No local lawyers want to go down the rabbit hole with the city. They are above the law, don't you know?😂
Good job. However, you don't REALLY own property in the US. Just try not paying the tribute (tax) on it and then see how long it takes for them to seize it.
Eminent domain is just a logical extension of the state's belief that it owns "your" property. If you doubt that they own "your" property, just stop paying the rent, which they call "property tax." See how long it takes for them to evict you.
My friend grandparent ‘s home was taken to build a dam . Dam cancelled . Never got the land back S A nd the knocked down house immediately . Now a park
Alexander Hamilton wanted the government to be able to take someone's property for any reason and Thomas Jefferson didn't think there was any reason good enough for the government to take your property. The Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment was the compromise they came up with. The Supreme Court in Kelo (hope I'm spelling that right) essentially made Alexander Hamilton's version law. If the government can take it, do you really ever own it? It's for this reason I think we shouldn't have property taxes. Property is paid for once.
Keep in mind that Kelo was a 5/4 decision and all are now gone except Clarence Thomas who dissented. The names of infamy: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Dissent: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.
The government will always need to take property for public use, but any project funded by even one private dollar should not qualify. The eminent domain law also needs to update the verbiage from "just compensation", to something that ensures the compensation is enough to buy a similar property in the same area plus moving costs and tax penalties.
I remember this case well. I had an Immigration Judge (IJ) argue Kilo applied to China's (CCP) taking my asylum client's property. The IJ argued that CCP's forceful government taking of my client's property was not persecution because our Supreme Court said such takings for government taxation was a good thing. I've never forgotten the absurdity of the decision.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
I would take a close look at the bank accounts of the public officials that rubber stamped that move.
Please, please, please. One of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever.
Mimms negatively affects far more individuals....
Even the liberals understand this
@@chrissnyder2091Liberals? You make no sense. Liberals are the ones that are truly against it. You know Trump supports it right? He tried using it a few times
Military conscription enslaves for the purpose of murder/self-sacrifice. Property can be re-acquired, life can't.
And here I thought conservatives loved big government overreach to benefit private business
In PA a little old lady had her 180 year old house and 1 acre of land taken to make a parking lot for a courthouse that was surrounded by 5 acres of lush green lawn. The problem is that most branches of government are unchecked in their actions across the board.
Due to the American People allowing these unlawful actions
@@JoJo-yu2vv They are lawful until they are not. The problem is you need groups like IJ to fight it for you because regular people can't afford to fight them.
@@JoJo-yu2vv Not to mention the old lady has no money for fancy lawyers or any lawyer at all, just like the rest of us. There is no justice for the average American citizen.
there should be hell to pay for that
That is such a shame and so unnecessary. Shame on that local county. God they're all such sociopaths.
There was a clear alternative that was less destructive if what you say is true, but that wasn't good enough.
I guess it's like they say- a tiny bit of power goes to one's head and always corrupts.
This eminent domain BS is such an abuse of power. I donate to the Institute for Justice because they fight to protect the common people.
Me Too !
How does fighting FOR corporate interests help the average American property "owner" ??
Isn't it interesting that a single corporate conflict garnered IJs attention while thousands of American citizens (NC and others) have -0- representation at all 🤔
@@minimouse7579 I think you are unaware of all that IJ does. Thousands of American citizens DO get represented by IJ. If you get their magazine or simply watch their videos you will see how much of a difference they make for people. Also if they win this, and get eminent remain reversed or limited it will benefit us all. I am a proud supporter of IJ!
@@gryphonennis1002 I could be but this case isn't beneficial for any average American, just the corportocracy we all suffer.
As for financially supporting the IJ, I'll leave that to those who still have 'faith' in this 'just us' system.
@@minimouse7579 ...it's not about the case, it's about Supreme Court precedent, and trying to overturn one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history. A decision that declares that the government can use eminent domain to take your land away purely for its own monetary profit, or hand it over to another private owner. IJ is trying to change that precedent to STOP that from happening.
That IS fighting for the common people.
IJ does the work that ACLU once set out to do. Support these folks
How I wish I could give them a million dollars. I simply cannot, not even a million pennies. I'm hardly making it as it is. Those out there with money to spare should send it all to the Institute for Justice; forget charities with their highly paid top people. IJ gets things done, setting precedent along the way. It's the biggest bang for your donation buck you'll ever get.
ACLU never did such work and was never created to do such work. They were founded to protect a PDF.
ACLU has done its own domain BS. El Paso tx taken to court by ACLU 20+ years ago for not requiring utility right of ways across private property.
@@virginiamoss7045 Support them by subscribing, commenting and hitting the "All" notification button and sharing their videos! Every little bit helps!
After 27yrs operating my restaurant, I was a victim of eminent domain. A city land assembly that created condos, library/city hall rolled over me eighteen years ago this month. Speaking from my experience, you can't fight city hall. Their resources are large.
End eminent domain and civil asset forfeiture
It's not that simple.
@@nonyadamnbusiness9887 YES - it is that simple.
Both may be necessary in rare cases, assuming Authorities are acting in good faith.
However, such power has been seriously abused by Govmnt Authorities.
Civil Asset Forfeiture, in practice, is a license to steal from any Citizen, at the discretion of any police officer.
@@nonyadamnbusiness9887
Sure it is! Just outlaw taking peoples property against their wishes. The civil asset forfeiture laws can be repealed, and eminent domain can be outlawed. It’s really quite simple.
Civil forfeiture clearly violates the constitution.
There is an entire small town (Doodletown?) in the Bear Mountain area that was seized and destroyed decades ago by NYS so they could build a ski area. A cruel joke, because that's not a snow area. Today, the foundations are still in the forest, which is reclaiming them. Nothing ever got built. A small town was wiped out.
Same thing in new London, Connecticut. It was a big pharma company that said they wanted to build a giant drug building and torn down everyone's homes and never built the building. Eminent domain was suppose to be for the general public's benefit and not private gain. This has been happening for a very long time. Here in Virginia we were fighting two unnecessary natural gas pipelines. This was definitely for private gain because the natural gas was slated for over seas and nothing to do with servicing the area. One pipeline did get shut down and the other is hanging by a thread. The destruction on private property has been horrendous. Our utility company invested a very little bit to help push the project through. It appears now that the utility lost money on the gamble and are gouging us for utilities to make up for their loss. The big guys always make the little guy pay for their blunders. I learned that during the Valdez oil spill in Alaska.
@@soaring1I lived in New London Connecticut when that went on it was Pfizer. Some years later I would move to Suwannee County Florida.
That same gas line from Virginia came all the way down into Florida across Suwannee County and through and under Suwannee River on its way to Tampa to be shipped out of the country.
@@c.d.meloney Was it called the Mountain Valley Pipeline? And what years did this take place? Thanks
@soaring1 I don't know what it was called I just know that it took place about 5 years ago 6 years ago.
Suwannee County Florida has the most pristine and largest underground aquifer in the country.
That pipeline ran above ground until they reach the Suwannee River and then they went under and through the underground water caves.
Which provides the water for everyone and farms.
@@c.d.meloney Sounds like the same pipeline to me. Same time frame and driving it though caves and under pristine water sources. I am so tired of this crap and hope DOGE stops the madness.
The fact that any judge has ever ruled that eminent domain can be used to take private property away from somebody and give it to a developer or to use it in any other way other than the public building or roadway is absurd.
Talk about tyrannical
The American Revolution was entirely about not taking from the property owner without representation.
Getting rid of the idea of personal property is one of the cornerstones of Marxist thinking.
Kelo v New England - 7 Republican nominated Justices
2024 - 6 Republican nominated Justices.
Literally making a case, where Stupidity is an Enemy of the United States,
@@starbase51shiptestingfacility who cares about the judges party? There are tyrants on both sides plus politics. In fact, most people that get into politics will eventually become tyrannical regardless of party.
There's very few politicians anymore that truly do what they do for the good of everybody
@@starbase51shiptestingfacility- Perhaps, but Souter was a special flavor of tyrannical traitor.
Ridiculous. This never should have been allowed.
New York abuses this by far more than any other state. Taking private property and handing it over to another private entity is just plain wrong.
Research the money trail. someone is getting rich. Not just the developers, but some politicians and probably a judge or 2
Also a crime under RICO I believe.
I still can't believe how Kelo v. New London went down. Absolutely deplorable decision by the Supreme Court and I've been hoping that the Institute for Justice could get another crack at it to settle the score for the American people and our property rights.
Keep working on this! We the people want justice!
JUSTICE ONLY COMES FROM A GUN BARREL.
THE LAW, MEANS NOTHING!
Eminent domain happens more often than it should.
Eminent domain has a role, but the government needs to pay substantially more than assessed value or even market value for the properties.
Eminent domain should almost NEVER happen and it should never ever happen to benefit any private or public company.
@ Of course some (a few) public purposes really do help the community. Road widening, train stations, schools, hospitals. Even some (even fewer) development projects can use under-utilized land to help the whole community.
@@robertewalt7789 Just because a community benefits doesn't mean that I have to give up my property. If your property can be taken from you against your will just because the "community benefits" means you have not property rights. It's one thing for critical projects like a sewage treatment plant that can't be put just anywhere or a single property in the path of a large hiway project where all the other property was already purchased and it would be difficult to go around. A parking lot can literally be placed anywhere. Either find a different property or pay what it costs to get the property you NEED. It's the law of supply and demand. If you can demand supply of a scarce resourse, then the soul of the economy is critically broken.
@ I have suggested elsewhere that if the government takes your property through eminent domain, they need to pay substantially more than “market value,” maybe 150% or 200%.
Eminent Domain is theft.
Yes, but its legal theft.
I know what you mean, but not sure it is. Recent legislation seems to say that but fundamentally, I think it goes against the 4th Admendment of the US Constitution that protects our property rights.
How did Bush, Cheney and Tony Blair get citizens to agree to go into Iraq militarily? Create a fake urgency. That's what the fake convenient Environmental talking points do. Elon Musk says there is no urgency with Environmental concerns from our industrial way of life, with all of the carbon. This fake urgency makes citizens compliant to the government stealing our property.
I hope Elon & Vivek via DOGE make the government 10% of its current size and restore & BOLSTER 1ST and 4th Admendment rights and all others the current administration is trampling.
It is Democracy. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
Shut down the loophole@@Donkeyearsa
@@1wheeldrive751 I have never herd of vegan wolf's before now.
No way does a parking lot generate the same tax revenue as doctors' offices.
You would be surprised... and wrong... much of the time.
@@I_Am_Your_Problem you would be wrong, kiddo!
The revenue generated is irrelevant. If it's your property and you have a nice green lawn, who cares if someone else can make a billion dollars from the same property, it's not theirs.
@@frotobaggins7169 It's relevant when the local government claims that the parking lot was the best choice for the locality because it would generate more taxes.
@@patmcbride9853 Not really, every piece of property everywhere could be used differently by someone else to make more money for the government in taxes. Property doesn't exist to fund government or companies that could make more money. That line of logic leads straight to zero property rights with a hand full of companies owning EVERYTHING.
Now for civil forfeiture...
THIS
Where I live one hospital tried to keep another hospital from from being built. It didnt work.
Then they kept a store from being built, because it would close the mom and pop stores.
They then allowed two big box hardware stores to be built on the same property, and ran the other hardware stores out of business. Some had been there for decades.
The judiciary can be very abusive.
CAN be? It is often the tip of the spear.
This was truly some of the best legal work in the realm of the rights of ordinary citizens. Ever.
Eminent domain, civil forfeiture and qualified immunity should all be done away with.
I hope the SCOTUS overturns Kelo. That was such an overreach of government power.
Thank you all for the justice you provide in this country.! 🙏🏻✌🏻
“Total government overreach!”
It's worse than that, more like total government tyranny.
The fourth amendment should protect us in our home and our property
don’t forget the second amendment
@@thisdayage7997start with the 4th, end with the 2nd
5th
@@thisdayage7997First on my mind for retribution now since NOBIDY can have trust in those we elected to SERVE THE PEOPLE!
WE WILL TAKE THE LAW INTO OUR HANDS, AND MAKE THEM PAY!
@thisdayage7997 You a tough guy? Seem flaccid from here.
There was a case during the past year in NY State where a historic railroad depot in Schuylerville, NY was demolished just to make way for expanding the parking lot of the nearby high school. What a waste of a historic building!!!
A parking lot creating more job opportunities than a medical facility is hilarious.
@@IndigoMystik It isn't doing that either.
@@IndigoMystik Kickbacks, not tax revenue.
It’s scary but you truly do own nothing at all. I’m in Virginia and there’s a similar situation happening to a couple of older homes and homeowners, they want to abolish their homes for a street and a roundabout.
I can see a reasonable argument in favor of eminent domain - with compensation - for public use. Kelo, though, wasn't about public use. It was claimed that since the new private owner would pay more in taxes, it was of public benefit, which was enough. I disagree.
There's something you can do the question is worth
Demolish, not abolish.
Demolish, not abolish.
Thank you IJ for protecting us from our government.
Just compensation is the key. Fair market value is not just compensation
The governement valued our farm at $0 because "we hadn't ever paid taxes."
No farm in America ever pays taxes, because the costs of running farms is so high, at the end of the year, everything gets reinvested into the equipment, seed, chemicals, etc.
So then they valued it at $140,000, including all the buildings, which is some kind of sick joke. And most of that was spent on lawyers to get them to pay even that, and then on lawyers again to defend against a lawsuit from the farm workers who felt they should get a cut for some reason.
They build a tiny airport in Forrest City outside of Memphis, so politicians could land their leer jets there rather than memphis. That land went from building up the economy to being a tax burden.
The fatal flaw of Kelo was the finding that private economic development is a public use. The USSC woefully confused "benefit" with "use." Under that reasoning, any taking for any reason can be justified if there is a tangential benefit to the public, actual or perceived. In Kelo, absolutely no one in the general public could use the private buildings. No one. Sometimes, the court seems to get in its own way by stretching definitions, but use is not vague. Can I use it? If I cannot, it isn't a public use. QED.
Yes yes yes, it is so sad we have Supreme Court Justices who can't even understand words in the English language.
Just the fact a judge approved it in the first place. Goes to show how staggeringly corrupt and hopeless we are as a species.
Thank you so much for your important work.
I sure hope you all have success! This and civil asset forfeiture are both so wrong from a constitutional perspective.
Y'all doing amazing work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Justice David Souter should have had his property declared Eminent Domain and taken from him.
Yes 100%.
Institute for Justice does incredible work. The attorneys at IJ fight as if the cause was a crusade. Simply amazing people.
Were a crusade, not was a crusade. Don't they teach the subjunctive mood in your state?
It happens all these ver the US. Sometimes it is done in communities where Community wants to seek revenge on an individual or merely are envious and jealous.
Legal theft????
I'm am so glad you guys won . This was so blatantly corrupt And, also, Thankyou IJ !!!
Sadly, they didn't win anything yet. Currently the case has only been presented to the Supreme Court -- that means now we have to wait on if they'll even agree to hear the case.
For context: there's over 7,000 cases presented to SC and only about 100-150 are actually chosen to be heard each year.
Didn't CA pass a law that put 78% of private property at risk of being taken in the name of economic development?
NY also used KELO as a basis to further obliterate private property.
In NY, developers can offer half market value. If the owner doesn't take it, then the state can condemn the property and reduce the value to 10 cents on the dollar.
I haven't heard about that 78% law. But California has been passing laws to force more housing units to be built, overriding local ordinances, zoning, housing density standards, etc. The recent ADU law, for example, allows landowners to legally build Accessory Dwelling Units, up to 4 per parcel, depending how big the parcel is.
Traditionally, R1 zoning means single family housing. One lot, one house. But as cities get more crowded, people have converted garages into living quarters, since many Californians don't use their garages for parking anyway. (We use them like people in other regions would use attics and basements-- for storage, workshops, etc.) People would also build "granny" or "mother-in-law" units in the backyard, as a place where an aging relative could live cheaply and semi independently near their family. Most cities banned living in garages; some allowed the granny units. But the new state law overrides those local ordinances. I think the intent is that more homeowners will create spaces for other people to live.
I think the worst part is that the rules requiring developers to build sufficient parking for their new housing units have been relaxed, particularly if said units are near "public transportation." Which means more people will be fighting over street parking. I'm not sure if our legislators are stupid, or if they are intentionally trying to increase the stress level on urban dwellers. You can't force people to stop using cars simply by taking away their parking spaces.
The other crazy thing is that California's model environmental law, CEQA, seems to be getting short shrift in all this. How will the new development affect the water supply, sewers, the power grid, or air quality? Never mind, we must solve the housing crisis at all costs!
Eminent domain is unconstitutional and is abused. How can government force you to sell your property to another private person or company? I don't care what they want to use it for or who benefits. If the government can force you to sell your property, you don't own it, the government does and you just rent from them.
I don’t like the fair market value they give to a property they want to steal. It’s all about location, location, location except for eminent domain. Seems a property they want should be value higher than fair market value.
"Fair market value" is irrelevant when the property in question isn't for sale.
@@Dodogama Actually, it is. When attempting to acquire private land for public use the first step is for the government to negotiate the purchase price. If the owner doesn't accept the offer or doesn't want to sell at all then the matter ends up in court. The "fair market value" of the property is determined in a civil court trial, with both sides presenting evidence to support their positions.
@@Dodogama most properties taken by eminent domain aren’t for sale. They just give the value of similar properties in the area. But them needing someone’s property over your neighbors should make it more valuable. They need it and should pay a premium for it.
@@Blazer6571 Neighbor's, not neighbors.
Wait, you are telling me that a huge for-profit company will stifle competition at all costs? No way.
Please get Eminent Domain overturned in NY.
I live in a small rural town in Upstate NY and we’re currently dealing with a green energy company trying to take our properties under the Rapid Act which would classify our lands as a “site of a major renewable energy facility”.
They’re attempting to build some 30+ massive (700ft tall) wind turbines through contract adjoining power, but now may be able to just take the land they need through the Rapid Act.
It’s essentially just eminent domain, but for “green energy”, much of which I know we wouldn’t see the benefit of, but NYC would.
Please stop the corruption.
my local township is trying to use eminent domain to put a road through my land. the abuse is everywhere and strong.
Look at Maui. The givernment passed laws to be able to take the land in case of a wildfire. People lost their homes and the right to go back.
Utican here who has been watching all of this unfold for Bowers (and other property owners) the last 6+ years. Thank you for taking this case on. Hopefully the Supreme Court agrees to hear it.
There’s only certain instances where they can actually use eminent domain but they’ve twisted it to steal land and homes repeatedly for no reason. Theft is theft but they get away with it most of the time. They tried it one time in a city I used to live in years ago but failed miserably and wound up bein investigated. Never knew the outcome but I know their eminent domain attempt (theft of land) failed.
Take a look at what happened in Evansville Indiana, The land was taken for a car dealership
3:19 NO. The taking of private property and giving to any developer is wrong. IFIFY
My father's boyhood home was razed for parking for the Supreme Court. Really.
A parking lot? Seriously?
As a resident of Arkansas, it's sad to see Arkansas siding with New York in not protecting property from eminent domain.
I contacted Gov Sanders about it. No reply!!!!! So much for a Republican governor!!!!
Richfield, MN wiped out blocks of small businesses to give the prime space to Best Buy. It was horrendous.
Since when do the judges (former lawyers) on the federal level care about the citizens' rights? All levels of government have eroded citizens' rights through the courts to the point we no longer have any rights.
That is what they did with my Father-in-law's pasture land in Florida
Thank you.
Does the city tax the parking lot as much as a nearby building?
Having someone's property demolished because you can't cope with the competition is the definition of "didn't earn it". What is it with certain people and land theft? 🤔
also = property tax is a crime!
You dont even own your own property if you have to pay someone else to keep it. Thats called rent. And if you dont pay you will be evicted and they will "repo" their property.
End property tax!
When someone asks, "What do heroes look like;" well, here's an answer.
I wanna live in a world where we don't require the services of non profits just to get "justice".
There's a court battle happening here in Texas where the city of San Antonio is thinking of using Eminent Domain to take over a guy's bar to use for a museum.
They have offered him a lot of money but it keeps getting turned down so now the city wants to use Eminent Domain to take it over to extend the Alamo Museum. The irony in that...
Kelo is maybe the worst SCOTUS decision of the last 40 years, the Wickard v Filburn of our day.
What if it affects government officials houses ?!
I want a law created that allows you to arrest a government employee if they inconvenience you.
@@AlexeiTetenov I hope you are being sarcastic. If you are driving drunk, you would be “inconvenienced” by the police pulling you over, driving you home. Or a zoning official stopping you from building an addition to your house.
Eminent Domain should rarely be used and ONLY when all other potential alternatives have been proven to be faulty...not just "more expensive", but actually faulty.
Eminent Domain vs 2A if they dont calm tf down, calling it now
SCOTUS has a lot of repenting to do. They should be charging and suing their own institution.
My city took a trailer park with old retired people using eminent domain using Federal Highway Funds. Now it's city property. I'll be suing in Federal Court for them stealing my property on Federal Waters under the Color Law. No local lawyers want to go down the rabbit hole with the city. They are above the law, don't you know?😂
Next get rid of Certificate of Need.
Eminent domain needs revoked just like blanket immunity for bad cops.
Good job. However, you don't REALLY own property in the US. Just try not paying the tribute (tax) on it and then see how long it takes for them to seize it.
You Folks are Awesome 👍 🖖🥰
Criminal activity by government.
You never own nothing in America don’t pay your property tax on your home see how fast they take your house
Thanks IJ for keeping your promise!
I just started a monthly donation to IJ because of their work.
So, did the original owner even get fair market value, or did the government screw him/her as well?
Think about that.
that's funny to protect property owners. if it's your property you wouldn't be paying taxes on that property every year does someone else
Eminent domain is just a logical extension of the state's belief that it owns "your" property.
If you doubt that they own "your" property, just stop paying the rent, which they call "property tax." See how long it takes for them to evict you.
Thank you IJ.
Cheers. Thanks for posting fam!
Should have given the history of how it happened (original case), then several examples.
My friend grandparent ‘s home was taken to build a dam . Dam cancelled . Never got the land back
S A nd the knocked down house immediately .
Now a park
This will be the first year I’ve ever donated financially to a nonprofit. I’m pretty happy that I get to donate to these efforts.
Alexander Hamilton wanted the government to be able to take someone's property for any reason and Thomas Jefferson didn't think there was any reason good enough for the government to take your property. The Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment was the compromise they came up with. The Supreme Court in Kelo (hope I'm spelling that right) essentially made Alexander Hamilton's version law. If the government can take it, do you really ever own it? It's for this reason I think we shouldn't have property taxes. Property is paid for once.
It sounds like corruption if I ever heard it
Keep Pressing!
Thank you IJ!!!
Thank you ❤
Keep in mind that Kelo was a 5/4 decision and all are now gone except Clarence Thomas who dissented. The names of infamy: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Dissent: O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.
I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IJ!!!! You guys are a National Treasure!!!!
What about that family that stand to lose some property to a railroad? That railroad is claiming "eminent domain"....
The government will always need to take property for public use, but any project funded by even one private dollar should not qualify. The eminent domain law also needs to update the verbiage from "just compensation", to something that ensures the compensation is enough to buy a similar property in the same area plus moving costs and tax penalties.
nobody owns land in america
WE ALLOWED THE THEFT...
IT IS TIME TO WAKE UP AND TARGET OUR TRUE ENEMY!
Was hoping to hear which court was going to hear the case
I remember this case well. I had an Immigration Judge (IJ) argue Kilo applied to China's (CCP) taking my asylum client's property. The IJ argued that CCP's forceful government taking of my client's property was not persecution because our Supreme Court said such takings for government taxation was a good thing. I've never forgotten the absurdity of the decision.
Keep doing the Good Work IJ.
As soon as I can afford to donate, i will.