Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Eminent Domain in NC

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ilan Volow <listboy AT clarux.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Eminent Domain in NC
  • Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:39:23 -0400

One thing I'm wondering about is if the eminent domain ruling is going to change the prices people will be paid to move out of their homes. Keep in mind that I know close to nothing about real-estate at all.

Can a developer desperate to buy up someone's property who previously might have to pay 2 or 3 times the original value of the property (or whatever the seller asked) now be able to declare "imminent domain" and pay a questionably small amount for an incredibly valuable piece of real estate?



On Jun 26, 2005, at 2:54 PM, Shea Tisdale wrote:

The point in the CT case is that Eminent Domain is being used to kick people
off their property so that private development can occur that will bring the
city more tax dollars than are currently generated by what is there now.

That IMHO is outside the scope anything intended by the framers.

- Shea Tisdale
Everytime a cell phone rings an angels wings burst into flames.

-----Original Message-----
From: internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:internetworkers-
bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Roger Austin
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 1:25 PM
To: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
Subject: [internetworkers] Eminent Domain in NC

IANAL.

Phillip Rhodes wrote:


What I've been told is that NC law allows 9 situations in which
local governments can invoke eminent domain, and that promoting
private development is not one of them.


http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/pdf/ bychapter/chap
ter_40a.pdf
gives the text below. There is much more to this probably.

(1) Opening, widening, extending, or improving roads, streets, alleys,
and sidewalks. The authority contained in this subsection is in addition
to the authority to acquire rights-of-way for streets, sidewalks and
highways under Article 9 of Chapter 136. The provisions of this
subdivision (1) shall not apply to counties.
(2) Establishing, extending, enlarging, or improving any of the public
enterprises listed in G.S. 160A-311 for cities, or G.S. 153A-274 for
counties.
(3) Establishing, enlarging, or improving parks, playgrounds, and other
recreational facilities.
(4) Establishing, extending, enlarging, or improving storm sewer and
drainage systems and works, or sewer and septic tank lines and systems.
(5) Establishing, enlarging, or improving hospital facilities,
cemeteries, or library facilities.
(6) Constructing, enlarging, or improving city halls, fire stations,
office buildings, courthouse jails and other buildings for use by any
department, board, commission or agency.
(7) Establishing drainage programs and programs to prevent obstructions
to the natural flow of streams, creeks and natural water channels or
improving drainage facilities. The authority contained in this
subdivision is in addition to any authority contained in Chapter 156.
(8) Acquiring designated historic properties, designated as such before
October 1, 1989, or acquiring a designated landmark designated as
4 such on or after October 1, 1989, for which an application has been
made for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition, in pursuance
of the purposes of G.S. 160A-399.3, Chapter 160A, Article 19, Part
3B, effective until October 1, 1989, or G.S. 160A-400.14, whichever is
appropriate.
(9) Opening, widening, extending, or improving public wharves.


Anyway, I personally feel that 9 situations to allow use of
eminent domain is 9 too many.


I can't get to upset about this issue. It really isn't all that
complicated. If the city can tell you how high your grass has to
be mowed, there are a lot more important issues than eminent
domain which is rarely used.
Property is transient. We have a legal paper that says we have
certain rights on it, but we don't have absolute rights as I
perceive your desiring. Would you do away with all government
controls over property? Zoning, inspection, planning, utilities?
Would you want your neighbor to decide to raise pigs outside
your bedroom window?


I don't know about you guys n' gals, but I'll take any step towards
protecting fundamental rights that I can get. :-)


I am all for fundamental rights. I don't know anyone who isn't
for them. However, your rights stop where mine start and it is
very difficult to figure out that line. Elected officials have
to make those types of decisions.

Eminent domain is necessary for a number of public purposes. A
couple of hard asses should not be able to hold a large public
project hostage just because they want to retain their old house
or extort an extreme price after all the neighbors have sold.

It is easily fixed also by electing people who think that it is
a bad idea to take people's property without a very good reason.
I would like to hear what the average voter in New London thinks
about this issue rather than just those who were affected.
--
Visit http://www.misshunt.com/ for fun and creative items including
the famous Clean/Dirty dishwasher magnet, now available in velcro.

---
Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
To unsubscribe visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers


---
Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site! http:// www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
To unsubscribe visit http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ internetworkers







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page