1. FMV doesn't include noneconomic damages, pain, suffering, inconvenience. For better or worse the compensation is treated from a legal pov as a contractlike matter, where all that you get for damages is economic loss, than asa tortlike matter,w here noneconomic damages are permitted. That might be changed by legislation.
2. FMV is generally the FMV at the time of the filing of the petition for the taking, and if contested that can be less than the FMV when the case is decided after some years, or even after the property is valued, which takes time. Again, that could be changed by legislation to give the property owner appreciation (if any), although I believe one is normally entitled to post-judgment interest.
3. FMV isn't effective replacement cost. As Yoshie notes, I may not be able to replace my taken property with anything equivalent even if I get FMV + interest or appreciation. It's hard to know what to do about that because what's "equivalent" is hard to measure.
I guess I think it's sort of odd to see leftists rising in defense of private propertyt rights here. I think the right wing reaction, typified by a letter in today's Chicago Trib that calls the S.Ct decision decision "socialistic," is more accurate.
The power of eminent domain is supported by the principle that private property rights are not absolute or natural, that all property rights are ultimately conditional grants from the sovereign (in the old days, the King, today the people) permitted on the notion that these rights will be used in ways that are beneficial to the public. In that sense this old common law principle and the power derived from it is socialistic, and we should defend it.\
jks
--- Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote:
> >[lbo-talk] When is private property NOT?
> >Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
> >Mon Jun 27 21:25:50 PDT 2005
> <snip>
> >On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Nathan Newman wrote:
> >
> >>Any time eminent domain is used, people are
> required to receive the
> >>market value of the property
> >
> >I think that's part of the problem. Fair market
> value doesn't
> >compensate people for their pain and suffering --
> the cost of being
> >forced to uproot their lives -- which is a big
> deal.
>
> Hasn't eminent domain, as its meaning has expanded
> to incorporate the
> expropriation of private properties for the purpose
> of private
> accumulation, become a way of giving corporations
> and private
> developers properties _below_ market prices?
>
> Here is the city of New London's offer for the
> fifteen properties at
> stake in Kelo v. New London: "The redevelopment
> authority has set
> aside $1.6 million to compensate property owners.
> Scott G. Bullock of
> the Institute for Justice, who has argued the case
> in three courts,
> said the city had offered most of them 'something in
> the low
> 100,000's,' although that was based on appraisals
> made five years
> ago. The city took possession of the Fort Trumbull
> houses four years
> ago and has since been collecting rent" (Avi Salzman
> and Laura
> Mansnerus, "For Homeowners, Frustration and Anger at
> Court Ruling,"
> <a
>
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/national/24newlondon.html">24
>
> Jun. 2005</a>).
>
> If a private developer had to bid for Susette Kelo
> and others' homes,
> without the backing of the local and state
> governments and now the
> Supreme Court, they would have to make better
> offers. The average
> home price in New London is said to be "$179,355 "
> ("New London
> Connecticut Real Estate,"
>
<http://www.homegain.com/local_real_estate/CT/new_london.html>).
>
> Relocate America says that "the average two bedroom
> home will cost
> anywhere from $130,000 to $150,000 and a larger home
> with three or
> four bedrooms may cost upwards of $350,000" in New
> London ("New
> London, Connecticut,"
>
<http://www.relocateamerica.com/states/CT/cities/new_london.htm>).
>
> In short, eminent domain as it is employed now, like
> tax abatements
> and other incentives, is just another giveaway to
> corporate America.
>
> >[lbo-talk] When is private property NOT?
> >Nathan Newman nathanne at nathannewman.org
> >Tue Jun 28 07:12:16 PDT 2005
> <snip>
> >If you grab land for a publicly-owned football
> stadium that profits
> >a private team, why should that have more legal
> sanction that land
> >handed over to a private developer who signs a
> contract to create
> >500 living wage jobs and build 300 affordable
> housing units?
>
> <blockquote>The Michigan Supreme Court has overruled
> one of the worst
> judicial decisions of modern times. In County of
> Wayne v. Hathcock,
> the court reversed the infamous 1981 Poletown
> decision that allowed
> Detroit to use the power of eminent domain to take
> and bulldoze an
> entire neighborhood so General Motors could build a
> new factory. As a
> result of Poletown, more than 4,200 people lost
> their homes, 600
> businesses and 16 churches were destroyed, and a
> historic community -
> known as Poletown after its large Polish-American
> population - was
> wiped out.
>
> . . . . .
>
> Ironically, condemnations that transfer property to
> private
> businesses usually don't even provide the economic
> benefits their
> advocates promise. General Motors and Detroit Mayor
> Coleman Young
> promised that the new factory would create more than
> 6,000 jobs. In
> reality, the plant employed less than half that many
> workers;
> possibly, more jobs were lost from the destruction
> of Poletown than
> were created by the factory.
>
> This result is typical. The political power of the
> interests that
> benefit from a taking is a much stronger influence
> on government
> decision-making than the economic benefits they
> might create.
>
> (Ilya Somin, "Poletown Decision Did Not Create
> Desired Benefits; New
> Ruling Protects Weak from Government Abuses,"
> <em>The Detroit
> News</em>,
>
<http://www.uwec.edu/geography/Ivogeler/w270/Poletown-court2004.htm>,
>
> 8 Aug. 2004)</blockquote>
>
> Eminent domain as it is put to use now, in addition
> to being a
> corporate giveaway, is a scheme for job destruction
> than job
> creation. That's what Kelo justifies: "Also
> rejected is petitioners'
> argument that for takings of this kind the Court
> should require a
> "reasonable certainty" that the expected public
> benefits will
> actually accrue," in the words of Justice John Paul
> Stevens
>
(<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108&friend=nytimes>).
>
> >[lbo-talk] petit-bourgeois left on Kelo
> >Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
> >Tue Jun 28 07:40:22 PDT 2005
> <snip>
> >GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES
> >http://www.gp.org
> >
> >For Immediate Release:
> >Tuesday, June 28, 2005
> >
> >Contacts:
> >Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624,
> mclarty at greens.org
> >Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576,
> nallen at acadia.net
> >
> >GREENS CALL SUPREME COURT'S DECISION ON EMINENT
> DOMAIN 'LEGALIZATION OF THEFT'
> <snip>
> >"The decision proves that liberals may be as likely
> as conservatives
> >to side with wealthy and corporate interests, and
> sometimes even
> >more likely," said Greg Gerritt, secretary of the
> Green Party of the
> >United States. "We now have reason to fear
> judicial appointments
> >made by Democrats as much as the hard-right
> appointments of
> >President Bush. We clearly need a new spectrum to
> describe politics
> >-- dedication to corporate power versus dedication
> to the rights of
> >people and the health of the environment. Let
> there be no doubt
> >where Greens stand."
>
> Kelo gives eminent domain a bad name and makes
> people even less
> inclined to support the Democratic Party than
> before. That being the
> case, it is odd for Nathan to applaud it.
> Interestingly, so does
> Armand, one of the principal bloggers at DailyKos :
> "Kelo Was
> Correctly Decided,"
>
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/25/201045/439>,
> 25 Jun. 2005.
> But rank-and-file Democrats who participate in
> DailyKos are oppoed to
> Kelo:
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com