On Property Rights - Part 2
Returning briefly to our primary mission - spreading the word that governments are unproductive and in many respects quite dangerous enterprises, we are pleased to present to you the following report ...
******************
Apparently paying your property taxes isn't even enough to keep your local or state government from taking away your property. Since there are lots of situations where a third party may be able to use property you thought was yours for something that will generate more property tax dollars than your use.
Of course there is the Kelo v. New London case (where Connecticut authorities used eminent domain power to take property from Private Party A and given to Private Party B). The next instance I've heard about is this one in Daytona Beach, Florida. The article in that link is from mid-July 2005; it was written before the court decided on August 20, 2005 that the taking was permissible. So some guy that owned an Oyster Bar and some people that owned a go-cart track (apparently) have to sell their property to the city so that the city can sell the property to some other private party who wants to build a residential development on it. The city's decision being based, apparently, on the idea that the residential development will generate more tax dollars for the city. And probably also on the idea that the unwanted use was a bit of an eyesore or otherwise didn't reflect the contemplated grandeur of the municipality's future.
You can read a short summary noting the decision here.
This ominous trend continues.
P.S.
There's one thing that's important to keep in mind here. From a point of view that favors local government and state court decisions on matters of local issues and state laws, there is definitely a reason to be happy that Supreme Court didn't overrule the Connecticut state courts in the Kelo case, even if you are wildly upset that the government took property from Private Party A to sell it to Private Party B. Here is a good explanation for why this is the case.
So long as Americans are free to move from one place to another, it's appropriate for states to have different standards about this sort of thing. If people decide not to move to Connecticut (or decide to leave Connecticut) or decide to ask their local or state government to take some action to alleviate the nasty, nasty aftertaste of the Kelo situation, freedom wins.
P.S.S.
Speculation in real estate continues apace, in regards to both the purchasing and selling of real estate and as to whether we are in the midst of a real estate bubble. And one interesting possible outcome to the offensive eminent domain thievery outlined above is that the "higher and better use" that the victors intend to employ may turn into vacant residential buildings, financing losses, and plummeting local tax rolls. Time will tell.
posted by garrett @ 9:06 PM
5 Comments:
Poor taste playing the Koresh card. The logical full extension of your argument is ominous.
So you had no freedom, stop you're complaining. Here's some money. Take it, go away, and leave "those of us who have a better idea about what to do here" alone.
Thanks for your comment, Josef.
Hey Peppin!
I see you got Charlie Crawford down there!
Well, this exchange has gotten alarming. The difference between a transaction resulting from a governmental condemnation proceeding and a voluntary exchange between two private parties is an extremely bright line (and a critically important one as well).
But "The Game", who I happen to know to be an extremely bright person, appears to have completely overlooked this truth.
I am confident the original developer of the Treasured Duck Haven had to pay a pretty penny to somebody for the land on which my current home rests. The original developer of the subdivision containing my home had to negotiate with the private party that owned this property before, working with that person until the arrangements between them were satisfactory enough for them to voluntarily enter into the transaction.
Notice the stark contrast between this and the victim of the condemnation proceeding. Sure the victim of the condemnation proceeding gets paid. But he does not voluntarily enter into the transaction. The government, with its guns, FORCES him to enter into the transaction. His freedom is violated. In an unacceptable way (I think).
This is far too important a distinction to overlook. On one side (two private parties negotiate a transaction that is acceptable to both) lies freedom and a bright future. On the other side (the government telling private persons who they will sell to and at what price) lies tyranny.
The relative wealth many Americans have enjoyed for multiple generations is the product of freedom. But tyranny, like all evil, is forever lurking in the hearts of men, always looking for an opportunity to surface. Corrupting our souls. Stealing our future. As regards his comments here, my friend "The Game" has either been corrupted or has failed to detect the corruption and tyranny blinding him to the truth.
As for me, I prefer freedom to tyranny. Even if (especially if) that means some curmudgeon who owns a dilapidated oyster bar can thumb his nose at the developers and government goons who want him to sell just because they want to build a prettier building.
I'm all in favor of the attempt to stick it to Souter.
Justice Souter
The court is out of line here, and the rest of the country knows it. If there is a significantly nigher economic use to the oyster bar, he'll sell out. Until then, leave him alone.
Just me Triple H!
Post a Comment
<< Home