$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', '
')
Its just codifying what they'd do anyway. It just gets everyone past the prosecute 'em nonsense, and right to the real issue, which is providing just compensation. Just like any imminent domain exercise, the government is largely entitled to take what they want, and they get to write a check for fair market value. You only get controversy when some stick in the mud wants to juice double value out of his property in order to walk away with free money.
This doesn't imply that I'm not happy to live in Texas where there are significant and increasing hindrances against immenent domain seizures; I just don't think your florida example is a particularly big deal.
PeakOil is You
THE Asset Confiscation Thread (merged)
Re: Asset Seizures after peak oil
by Bug » Wed 13 Sep 2006, 14:15:13
Getting on the topic of eminent domain (this is only one part of a HUGE issue the falls under the context of asset seizures) what actually happens when eminent domain seizures occur is most likely along these lines:
Rather than approaching a landowner or homeowner directly and negotiating a fair price that both parties can agree on (which is the fair market price, not what the city says it is), a developer approaches his politician friends on the city council and makes a deal with them, he says to them: "Seize this guy's property under eminent domain, and pay him a fraction of what it would be worth if I had to negotiate the price with him directly. Then sell it to me, for a nice tidy a profit. We both win. I pay less than what I would if I had to negotiate with the property owner, and you make yourself some money."
As for my being paranoid, I can tell you that I felt relief when you said that, I actually hoped it was true. But then I started thinking about whether institutions had a conscience, and then I was quickly brought back. I will consider your suggestions and think them through though.
-
Bug - Wood
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed 13 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
Re: Asset Seizures after peak oil
by rwwff » Wed 13 Sep 2006, 14:26:42
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bug', 'R')ather than approaching a landowner or homeowner directly and negotiating a fair price that both parties can agree on (which is the fair market price, not what the city says it is)
Problem here, is that your homeowner holdout is looking for more than his property is worth. He thinks he should get compensated as if the development had already occurred; not at the price things were selling for before the announced improvement.
Texas may also be a bit unique in that recent laws passed at the state level have encouraged counties to bring their assessed values up in line with actual market rates; gradually of course... It makes it very hard for a city to then come in and say they'll pay you $100,000 for a property that they've been assessing at $200,000. Now a holdout might try and say, "well, my property would be worth $400,000 after the improvement, so thats what I want." but that is not what they are entitled to.
If you are worried about the eminent domain seizure, then pick somewhere rural that isn't going to be developed. No one is going to seize 40 acres in the middle of nowhere for development. Risk wise, I think single family homes inside the city core could be most susceptible to the sort of siezure you are talking about; but they'll get enough cash from the deal to buy a similar house in a similar situation, somewhere else. They won't like it, but they are going to be rendered homeless and destitute by the action of the developer or city.
abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
-
rwwff - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: East Texas
Re: Asset Seizures after peak oil
by Jack » Wed 13 Sep 2006, 15:51:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rwwff', 't')he government is largely entitled to take what they want, and they get to write a check for fair market value.
Aye, there's the rub. Notice in the article that they can seize private property, with the specific examples of trucks and generators. Buildings are mentioned. Thus, one can infer that one could have a well-stocked home, with fueled generator, water, and supplies. The government would then seize the property, transform in into a shelter, and evict the (former) homeowner. Alternatively, they could offer the homeowner 10 sq. ft of floorspace, to be shared with the other new inhabitants. Beds would, of course, be reserved for the disabled or other prefered individuals.
Fair market value is, generally, the price a willing seller and buyer agree upon. A transaction compelled by the buyer - who then decides on compensation! - is the antithesis of a free market, and arguably different from a fair market.
I think one must ask, too, how long the emergency might last. When would one be compensated. And what would the actual value of the compensation be. Say what you will, rwwff, but I am by no means certain that one can be as sanguine as you seem to advocate.
![[smilie=new_popcornsmiley.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/new_popcornsmiley.gif "new_popcornsmiley")
- Jack
- Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 4929
- Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Re: Asset Seizures after peak oil
by rwwff » Wed 13 Sep 2006, 16:03:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'I') think one must ask, too, how long the emergency might last. When would one be compensated. And what would the actual value of the compensation be. Say what you will, rwwff, but I am by no means certain that one can be as sanguine as you seem to advocate.
I will give it some more casual thought, but I don't really see this as a problem. Half the houses on my street have portable generators, almost all have trucks, my generator and truck are smaller and less useful to the powers than the others are.
In addition, even if it is a problem, its a problem without a solution. I have absolutely no interest in forcefully resisting lawfully appointed represenatives of Texas or the US federal government; if they need something, I'm not about to say no. {I'd appreciate a receipt, mind you.} I'll file a claim in court or to whoever is writing checks later after I've gotten my family out of harm's way.
If the government is no longer writing checks for stuff they take; then my inconvenience at the loss of some piece of property is likely to be way down near the bottom of my list of problems.
abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
-
rwwff - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: East Texas
