Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kozmiq

Question to you geniuses about eminent domain

Recommended Posts

My Uncle owned a small parcel of land that abutted the Potomac River and Trump's Sterling Golf Course.                                                                                                                                                                           A few years ago it was taken in an eminent domain  private property expropriate.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       My Uncle didn't really care; not enough to argue it in Court .. but he didn't receive any compensation .. also he didn't receive any personal property bills either.                                                                                                      Now, he's been sent a bill for personal property on that tract for the past several years with penalties included.

Is this normal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it.  Once it's taken you no longer own it.  Either it's a mistake or it really wasn't taken via eminent domain.  He might want to look in to who actually owns it at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, kozmiq said:

My Uncle owned a small parcel of land that abutted the Potomac River and Trump's Sterling Golf Course.                                                                                                                                                                                    A few years ago it was taken in an eminent domain  private property expropriate.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       My Uncle didn't really care; not enough to argue it in Court .. but he didn't receive any compensation .. also he didn't receive any personal property bills either.                                                                                                      Now, he's been sent a bill for personal property on that tract for the past several years with penalties included.

Is this normal?

Did e e cummings type this? :dunno:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought in order for the state to enact eminent domain. The condition was some sort of monetary compensation. (Even if severely under value).

I agree with strike. If he said he never received anything for the property. Then later received a tax bill. Look into it. Because it was probably never legally seized.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of that sounds normal, not the least of which is, to my understanding, the power of eminent domain cannot be used for private gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

None of that sounds normal, not the least of which is, to my understanding, the power of eminent domain cannot be used for private gain.

According to Kelo v. New London they can use eminent domain for that.  According to the opinion written by the left wing of the court (Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer), as long as it further develops economic development in the community it can be permissible.  The left has very little respect for individual private property rights.  It would be overturned today if challenged.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

None of that sounds normal, not the least of which is, to my understanding, the power of eminent domain cannot be used for private gain.

The State can take any land that is not benefitting the public to its potential.  They can take land and sell it to a private developer.  They must compensate fair market value though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jonmx said:

According to Kelo v. New London they can use eminent domain for that.  According to the opinion written by the left wing of the court (Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer), as long as it further develops economic development in the community it can be permissible.  The left has very little respect for individual private property rights.  It would be overturned today if challenged.  

No that’s not accurate and you’ve simply encapsulated the law as it’s always been. Land can be taken for revitalization projects etc but not for private gain. Certainly there is a tension there as in many things with the law. That’s where fake lawyers do their work :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

No that’s not accurate and you’ve simply encapsulated the law as it’s always been. Land can be taken for revitalization projects etc but not for private gain. Certainly there is a tension there as in many things with the law. That’s where fake lawyers do their work :) 

Don't be naive. Developers are the ones that target projects for ED, not local jurisdictions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

No that’s not accurate and you’ve simply encapsulated the law as it’s always been. Land can be taken for revitalization projects etc but not for private gain. Certainly there is a tension there as in many things with the law. That’s where fake lawyers do their work :) 

Are you even vaguely familiar with the case he cited? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TimmySmith said:

Don't be naive. Developers are the ones that target projects for ED, not local jurisdictions. 

Not true.  ED is used when building highways and other things that benefit the public.  And those are valid uses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

Don't be naive. Developers are the ones that target projects for ED, not local jurisdictions. 

No sh1t Sally. But you gotta show it’s for public benefit and not private gain. Can the system be manipulated? Sure, unfortunately yes. And by rich powerful people especially. Shocking, I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure but the

                            answer

  could           be

he didn't pay before he               sold?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strike said:

Are you even vaguely familiar with the case he cited? 

Yup, studied it in my fake law school along with the Fifth Amendment :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

No sh1t Sally. But you gotta show it’s for public benefit and not private gain. 

Well duh. And easily done in 100% of cases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

No that’s not accurate and you’ve simply encapsulated the law as it’s always been. Land can be taken for revitalization projects etc but not for private gain. Certainly there is a tension there as in many things with the law. That’s where fake lawyers do their work :) 

Ok, so your opinion trumps what the Supreme Court ruled.  Not disagreeing that your opinion is what it should be, but that is not the current precedence.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jonmx said:

Ok, so your opinion trumps what the Supreme Court ruled.  Not disagreeing that your opinion is what it should be, but that is not the current precedence.  

Well, you’re wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

No that’s not accurate and you’ve simply encapsulated the law as it’s always been. Land can be taken for revitalization projects etc but not for private gain. Certainly there is a tension there as in many things with the law. That’s where fake lawyers do their work :) 

I agree with you but your response seems contradictory.  If a corporation is doing the revitalization they will have "private gain" but the project must be in the best interests of the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2020 at 5:53 PM, kozmiq said:

My Uncle owned a small parcel of land that abutted the Potomac River and Trump's Sterling Golf Course.  A few years ago it was taken in an eminent domain  private property expropriate.  My Uncle didn't really care; not enough to argue it in Court .. but he didn't receive any compensation .. also he didn't receive any personal property bills either.  Now, he's been sent a bill for personal property on that tract for the past several years with penalties included.

Is this normal?

Possibilities...

  1. The property was illegally taken.
  2. If it was legally taken, the bill is not his responsibility and most likely a mistake.  He should go to town hall to verify this.  Also, the government, through the private entity, would have had to pay your uncle market value for that property.  If that didn't happen, your uncle has a nice little law suit on his hands.
  3. The property was never actually taken and he only thought it was, and he owes back taxes because he never paid them... if they never sent him a bill, he can probably have the penalties waived and a payment plan to repay owed taxes.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Bert said:

I agree with you but your response seems contradictory.  If a corporation is doing the revitalization they will have "private gain" but the project must be in the best interests of the public.

Right. Like I said, there’s a tension. The idea is the project is for the public good. But since the government doesn’t build shopping malls and loft apartments itself, private industry will gain. But the purpose (from the government’s perspective) cannot be private gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Right. Like I said, there’s a tension. The idea is the project is for the public good. But since the government doesn’t build shopping malls and loft apartments itself, private industry will gain. But the purpose (from the government’s perspective) cannot be private gain.

It can't be the sole stated purpose, but yes it can be the result if it also serves as economic benefit to the community.  

As stated in the Supreme Court ruling:

"Quite simply, the government’s pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties."

of course your rebuttal will be the ever so deep "you're wrong".  The fact is if a community decides having a shopping mall is needed for public benefit, they could use eminent domain to transfer proper from one private party to another for that purpose as the law currently is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jonmx said:

It can't be the sole stated purpose, but yes it can be the result if it also serves as economic benefit to the community.  

As stated in the Supreme Court ruling:

"Quite simply, the government’s pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties."

of course your rebuttal will be the ever so deep "you're wrong".  The facr is if a community decides having a shopping mall is needed for public benefit, they could use eminent domain to transfer proper from one private party to another for that purpose as the law currently is.  

That’s exactly what I said :doh:

You don’t understand the nuance. Which is basically par for the course here on all matters and especially with regard to law and politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s exactly what I said :doh:

You don’t understand the nuance. Which is basically par for the course here on all matters and especially with regard to law and politics.

You are creating a nuance where there wasn't one for the sake of arguement.  Nothing i was was wrong unless you assume stiff which was not said.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell happened to that post?  Different font sizes.... weird indentions?  

To hell with your Uncle, answer the damn question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, what you all missed was it was expropriated in an eminent domain  fashion by the Trump National Golf Course of Washington, DC in Sterling, Virginia.  Done so for the safety of the President of the the United States of America and additional Lawmakers.  At the time, it was addended by Donald J. Trump, POTUS.  Currently, the possession was deemed not legal due to Trump not owning the facility but the Bank that he owed the money to owns it .. and he has not paid the loan off; not even one penny.  In fact he owes several million dollars on the original note.

My Uncle doesn't care one way or another, he's too old, but his son (my Cousin) does.  But if he were to take it to Court and subsequently to the SCOTUS,  how do you think they'd rule.  Besides he wasn't going to utilize that tract nor does he care about the pp tax although no penalty was assessed.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kozmiq said:

Okay, what you all missed was it was expropriated in an eminent domain  fashion by the Trump National Golf Course of Washington, DC in Sterling, Virginia.  Done so for the safety of the President of the the United States of America and additional Lawmakers.  At the time, it was addended by Donald J. Trump, POTUS.  Currently, the possession was deemed not legal due to Trump not owning the facility but the Bank that he owed the money to owns it .. and he has not paid the loan off; not even one penny.  In fact he owes several million dollars on the original note.

My Uncle doesn't care one way or another, he's too old, but his son (my Cousin) does.  But if he were to take it to Court and subsequently to the SCOTUS,  how do you think they'd rule.  Besides he wasn't going to utilize that tract nor does he care about the pp tax although no penalty was assessed.     

So in other words this a BS political thread.  Should have guessed with the cut and paste fail in the original post.  Sounds like your worthless cousin is trying get paid because his dad was an idiot and told him a story.  There had to be compensation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×