• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eminent Domain From an Altered Perspective and Is It a Good Idea or Not?

Eminent Domain: Is It a Good Idea or Not/


  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
"For communities across the land -- North Las Vegas, San Bernardino County, Calif., Chicago -- where too many are stuck with house payments beyond what they can afford, this was the nuclear option. While those cities backed away, Richmond hit the
button.
The mechanism? Eminent domain, the power of the government to seize private property for public use, which has not typically been used to help poor neighborhoods. After five years of the federal government gently nudging banks to forgive homeowners debt they took on in better days, cities have found a legal weapon the financial industry truly fears.
The stability of those housing markets, and the banks that profit from it, could depend on the fallout.
The strategy's complexity has left stakeholders to lean on dogfight rhetoric: From the community activists, "Save homes, stop foreclosures." And the Realtors, "Stop investor greed." And the lawyers for the investors, "Prevent this unconstitutional
investment scheme." "
Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

Is this fair?

Is this different than eminent domain used against homewoners?

If bankers had not been bailed out, would home prices be much lower?

Are we trying to protect bankers again?
 
Last edited:
As the Kelo decision demonstrated, eminent domain (ED) has been taken well beyond anything reasonable. I can accept ED if it's for something such as a public road. I cannot accept ED for something such as private development. This carries the absurdities even further.
 
Eminent Domain is bad, always has been bad, and always will be bad. Period.
 
I voted good idea because if the Gov't had not bailed out the banks, the real estate values would have dropped significantly lower. Many more mortgages would have been even more underwater and there would have been more foreclosures and, as distressing as that might have been, the banks would have been the largest losers. We bailed them out. The banks mortgage tranches were faulty and the banks deserved fair deserts. That didn't happen because the gov't used taxpayer funds to mitigate those losses. I am for the homeowner because this is a "bogus" valuation of his asset to sustain minimum Reserve requirements by the banks.
 
I am on the side of restricting eminent domain to its narrowest practice and definition.
 
No, never, absolutely not and under no circumstances. Property owners are the property owners, not the government. Also, the price you get for eminent domain is way lower than what you value the home for, otherwise you would have yourself sold it at market value long ago. Property owners get screwed twice under the deal.
 
No, never, absolutely not and under no circumstances. Property owners are the property owners, not the government. Also, the price you get for eminent domain is way lower than what you value the home for, otherwise you would have yourself sold it at market value long ago. Property owners get screwed twice under the deal.

No. The foreclosing agency in this matter would negotiate back to homeowners at it's actual value after eminent domain and that would reduce their mortgage burden. Also reflecting fair market value. That is the way I read it.
 
No. The foreclosing agency in this matter would negotiate back to homeowners at it's actual value after eminent domain and that would reduce their mortgage burden. Also reflecting fair market value. That is the way I read it.

You're missing the point I made about subjective value. If the homeowners could have sold it for a price they liked they would have. The homeowners value the home more than its market value, or else they would sell it.
 
I voted good idea because if the Gov't had not bailed out the banks, the real estate values would have dropped significantly lower. Many more mortgages would have been even more underwater and there would have been more foreclosures and, as distressing as that might have been, the banks would have been the largest losers. We bailed them out. The banks mortgage tranches were faulty and the banks deserved fair deserts. That didn't happen because the gov't used taxpayer funds to mitigate those losses. I am for the homeowner because this is a "bogus" valuation of his asset to sustain minimum Reserve requirements by the banks.

It sounds all noble and fair and "stick it to the big bad evil banks" in a 'tit-for-tat' kind of way, but it's really not. The way ED has expanded from its original intent and purpose is bad enough, but this type of "creativity" essentially throws everything that we claim to hold important out the window.
 
i can support eminent domain for roads and infrastructure, though i think the appraiser should be chosen by the property owner, and the government should have to pay slightly more than market value. i also support government involvement in blighted areas which have been largely abandoned or ignored by owners; with ownership comes responsibility. however, kicking people out of their homes because a developer says he or she can generate more tax revenue is something that i cannot support. Kelo was a terrible decision.
 
Is this fair?

Is this different than eminent domain used against homewoners?

If bankers had not been bailed out, would home prices be much lower?

Are we trying to protect bankers again?

It looks like a victory for the little guy on its face, but if local governments can use Eminent Domain to shaft lenders out of hundreds of thousands of dollars because of market forces not within their control, why would any lender ever enter into a mortgage again? For that matter, I think the widespread use of this tactic would shift from a refusal to loan in the area where the tactic is used to the invention of some new financial mechanism to replace the mortgage that local governments can't supercede. Such a mechanism would be designed solely to protect lenders and investors, and would be an effective replacement because mortgages would cease to hold any interest for lenders.

It would essentially become a situation where homeowners who already have what they want get theirs, and everybody else who comes after them looking to own a home gets screwed.

This is on top of the fact that I think that "underwater" borrowers aren't in a crisis situation simply because they are "under water" -- if you budgeted for what you borrowed, you should still be able to pay, and the fact that the value of your home bottomed out shouldn't change that. The fact that your idea of your home as an investment isn't working out doesn't mean you deserve rescue.

This is on top of the fact that I have a huge problem with Eminent Domain to begin with.
 
The (especially expanded) powers of eminent domain, along with such things as the search and seizure powers in the drug war, are so hilariously against the spirit of the constitution I'm dumbfounded they're allowed to exist.
 
If the elected people decide to use e.d. This way fine. I just think any one that any lender that is asked to give a mortgage to any resident of Richmond should be allowed to charge 18.9% interest for the risk they are about to incur or just say no to the lending. Again I support the freedom of people to use govt as they want, but business should be free to respond how they want. I wonder what Richmonds property values will be when no one is willing to lend there unless the home has 33% equity or more?


Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
"For communities across the land -- North Las Vegas, San Bernardino County, Calif., Chicago -- where too many are stuck with house payments beyond what they can afford, this was the nuclear option. While those cities backed away, Richmond hit the
button.
The mechanism? Eminent domain, the power of the government to seize private property for public use, which has not typically been used to help poor neighborhoods. After five years of the federal government gently nudging banks to forgive homeowners debt they took on in better days, cities have found a legal weapon the financial industry truly fears.
The stability of those housing markets, and the banks that profit from it, could depend on the fallout.
The strategy's complexity has left stakeholders to lean on dogfight rhetoric: From the community activists, "Save homes, stop foreclosures." And the Realtors, "Stop investor greed." And the lawyers for the investors, "Prevent this unconstitutional
investment scheme." "
Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

Is this fair?

Is this different than eminent domain used against homewoners?

If bankers had not been bailed out, would home prices be much lower?

Are we trying to protect bankers again?
 
My justification is that the Government caused mortgages to be falsely valued by bailing out crooked bankers to prevent a greater catastrophe. The Government was trying to prevent deflation and to a certain extent, they did. Their financial largesse has saved the banks asset portfolios and instead of causing bank freeze by increased Reserve requirements by reduced asset base, it has allowed the continuation of huge salaries and bonuses. Manipulation should be against the law, but apparently it is not, ergo Eminent Domain becomes a viable weapon of manipulation in the hands of those that are usually bent over with no KY.
 
Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
"For communities across the land -- North Las Vegas, San Bernardino County, Calif., Chicago -- where too many are stuck with house payments beyond what they can afford, this was the nuclear option. While those cities backed away, Richmond hit the
button.
The mechanism? Eminent domain, the power of the government to seize private property for public use, which has not typically been used to help poor neighborhoods. After five years of the federal government gently nudging banks to forgive homeowners debt they took on in better days, cities have found a legal weapon the financial industry truly fears.
The stability of those housing markets, and the banks that profit from it, could depend on the fallout.
The strategy's complexity has left stakeholders to lean on dogfight rhetoric: From the community activists, "Save homes, stop foreclosures." And the Realtors, "Stop investor greed." And the lawyers for the investors, "Prevent this unconstitutional
investment scheme." "
Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

Is this fair?

Is this different than eminent domain used against homewoners?

If bankers had not been bailed out, would home prices be much lower?

Are we trying to protect bankers again?

I really do not quite know, what the consequences would be. With a recession on the horizon I do not think I like the experimental character of a measure that seems so potentially consequential. The risks involved could destabilize the economy even more.
 
What an incredible way to steal from the pension funds of others. Anybody that knows Richmond knows that this is nothing more than another minority wealth redistribution scheme.
 
Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night
"For communities across the land -- North Las Vegas, San Bernardino County, Calif., Chicago -- where too many are stuck with house payments beyond what they can afford, this was the nuclear option. While those cities backed away, Richmond hit the
button.
The mechanism? Eminent domain, the power of the government to seize private property for public use, which has not typically been used to help poor neighborhoods. After five years of the federal government gently nudging banks to forgive homeowners debt they took on in better days, cities have found a legal weapon the financial industry truly fears.
The stability of those housing markets, and the banks that profit from it, could depend on the fallout.
The strategy's complexity has left stakeholders to lean on dogfight rhetoric: From the community activists, "Save homes, stop foreclosures." And the Realtors, "Stop investor greed." And the lawyers for the investors, "Prevent this unconstitutional
investment scheme." "
Richmond’s rules: Why one California town is keeping Wall Street up at night

Is this fair?

Is this different than eminent domain used against homewoners?

If bankers had not been bailed out, would home prices be much lower?

Are we trying to protect bankers again?

That is crazy. I knew a lot of California was on the socialist bandwagon. Just one more example of how the socialist are trying to twist laws.
 
That is crazy. I knew a lot of California was on the socialist bandwagon. Just one more example of how the socialist are trying to twist laws.

Is it socializing of profits instead of the current mantra of privatizing profit and socializing of liabilities? I use Nuke Plants and "Too Big To Fail Banks" as the prime examples of socialized liabilities and privatized profits.
 
Is it socializing of profits instead of the current mantra of privatizing profit and socializing of liabilities? I use Nuke Plants and "Too Big To Fail Banks" as the prime examples of socialized liabilities and privatized profits.

It is taking property for public distribution, not use. It is just one more step of relieving people of having to live with the consequences of their own choices. No one held a gun to their heads and made them sign the mortgage agreements.

I'm also against the government owning power-plants and was against the bailouts.
 
Back
Top Bottom