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

["Shea Tisdale" <shea AT sheatisdale.com>]

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