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

[Roger Austin <raustin3 AT nc.rr.com>]

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/chapter_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.