Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scaeagles
And Alex, I know that eminent domain has always existed. I simply doubt it was ever intended to allow private property to be confiscated for uses such as a ballpark. Perhaps the property should be condemned, I don't know. I will admit to being hyper sensitive to eminent domain issues, but rightly so because of a recent ruling.
|
If use for publicly owned ballparks bothers you, then you'll really want to keep an eye on Oakland. The new owner of the Oakland Athletics is dedicated to keeping the team in Oakland (there have been years of talk of moving elsewhere in Alameda County or even the Bay Area). He is even willing to forego public financing of the stadium and pay for it himself (as was done in San Francisco for SBC Park) but he wants the cities help in acquiring the necessary land (in a thoroughly blighted part of Oakland). If negotiations fail I expect to see an attempt at an eminent domain seizure for the purposes of building a <i>privately</i> owned stadium (though surrounded by other city-sponsored redevelopment).
Condemnation wouldn't directly result in a transfer of ownership in the property (though it might make the owners more eager to sell). It is a tough issue. I'm pretty strong on private property rights, but there are social responsibilities and unfortunately minor "failures" of the market and regulatory systems will produce pockets that can't easily be reclaimed through standard development.