City Bullies Property Owners

[eunuch]

Good grief. The public taking of property for highway improvements is the oldest and most constitutional basis for emminent domain. For years citizens have complained about the condition of Wyatt Earp; these improvements solve those issues. I take it that most of the posters here do not care to see a better highway with safe sidewalks. I would love to find the $100,000 home that holds huge sentimental value along Wyatt Earp Blvd.

Mr. Finley is doing what this city commission (and past commissions) as well as KDOT have asked him to do. If they decide that Wyatt Earp needs no improvement, he would stop immediately.

My opinion is that many property owners in the current phase were paid way too much (in tax money) to have a better highway in front of their businesses.

[Made in the USA]

[Tee]

While I realize that the project may be needed, I just feel that the owners of the property need to be compensated FAR ABOVE assessed value. Like you said these are businesses- some of which may be shut down. They have an established presence and clientèle that are worth more to them than the assessed value of their property. What we fail to understand here is that assessed value includes no consideration for loss of business/income.

For example:

You take ten or twenty feet of the front of DQ and pay them the going rate for the square footage that was taken. However, the business now has little or no parking as a result, or has to shut down their drive-thru (DQ) so the impact to the business is very substantial. Do you think DQ could rebuild their building in a manner so as to re-establish their drive-thru for the compensation of a ten foot sliver off the front of the lot based upon the city's assessed value of the property?

I am just saying...the assessed value? com'n...we have to consider economical impact to the businesses for restructuring or relocation- it sure the hell wont be cover by the assessed value of a 10 x50 ft piece of land.

Eminant domain is a horrible thing. Let's not resort to taking their property until we have fairly compensated them for the whole impact on their business now and into the future. And even then, since we are forcibly taking their property, their needs to be a little extra for that. It's only right.


Let me tell you a little story. I used to have a detail business on the corner of 1st and Trail- in the NAPA building. The City needed to take a sliver off the South-East corner to make a merger right lane. To do so, they took our entire parking lot. Now the owner of that land (Jerry Phelps) got far above the assesed value for the property ($60,000). Still, we closed down our detail business and the other businesses(NAPA) have suffered for the past 20 years as a result of having no parking lot. Do you think that $60,000 (about 5 times the assesed value of the property in sq ft) would fairly compensate me for moving/re-establishing my business and for the impact of the other business in the area that now have no parking lot?

Additionally "It ought to hurt BIGTIME for any governement to resort to Eminent Domain to forcably take our property from us."

[Army_of_One]

No it wouldn't and I agree with you totally. Eminent Domain is a screw.

[Demon '84]

Originally Posted by Monster

Are these the freedoms that our boys overseas are getting killed for?

Actually, yes. The power of eminent domain is in the Constitution... Article V to be precise.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Part of the eminent domain process is establishing "just compensation" of the property owner. Sometimes it can be negotiated, sometimes a court must decide.

The term "eminent domain" has become a hot button for some people because of governmental abuse... acquiring property via eminent domain on behalf of private interests. The Wyatt Earp project certainly wouldn't fall into this category.

[Tee]

"Just compensation" is the part I am arguing from the get go. I am simply saying that just compensation for an established business is not simply "assessed value for the square footage of land being taken". There has to be more to it than that, if the property owners are challenging it.

[Mike B.]

It's my opinion that people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property. The governments' failure to plan and build for the future is not the property owners fault.

Tee, I agree with you. For a Gov't to pay assested value, in some cases, is not enough. How do you put a value on hard work (building up a business), inconvience (having to relocate), or even, sentimental (fond memories). In some cases eminent domain involves homes. I can't imagine all the memories that have been created by living in one home for a life time, (which many people do). Raising kids, family holidays and even in some cases having a loved one die in their home with the rest of the family gathered around the bedside. If you could assess value to some of those issues, all the gold in Fort Knox wouldn't even come close.

I do not favor the goverment stepping in and taking people property. It is wrong! But on the other side I also see that some property owners have taken advantage of the situation by holding out. (which is thier right to do so). And Gov't abuse. But in my book, eminent domain should not be used to force property owners to sell. If they don't want to sell, so be it. If they do settle, good for both parties.

Demon '84, Thanks for putting up Article V.

...just compensation." is the key. Coming to it is a whole other issue.

[Monster]

Originally Posted by Monster

Are these the freedoms that our boys overseas are getting killed for?

Originally Posted by Demon '84

Actually, yes. The power of eminent domain is in the Constitution... Article V to be precise.

Oh, ok, it's alright if a few more of them die then.

[Clueless]

Originally Posted by Bound

Finley is an over paid, butt sucking, sleaze ball who treats anyone under him like he is their god. (Just my opinion) And yes it is theft!

Bound - I (as one voice) expect a higher level of decorum on this DodgeBoard and not sink to the level that previous forums displayed. You have an opinion, but can't you express it with a little more class?

[lurker]

I don't know any of the parties involved, but how do you propose sugarcoating "an over paid, butt sucking, sleaze ball who treats anyone under him like he is their god" ...?