Supreme Court overstepping their boundaries

Prudence · 08-19-2005, 08:05 AM

What the hell do they put in the water in that city? So, we're going to charge you rent, and at the current market rate, but we're going to take your land in exchange for the price it was 5 years ago. (And you just know that if land values had dropped significantly in 5 years, they'd be fighting to pay the contemporary value.)

And the sad thing is the city would probably win. That's how the city's laws were written. Unless the homeowners' attorney does have documentation that the city did agree to forgo rents.

Still, at some point you'd think they'd have some humanity! Just because you win your case doesn't mean you have to rub salt in the wounds. I could understand pursuing either rent or the 2000 property values. I might not like it, but to do otherwise could allow homeowners to derail projects by dragging out legislation until property values increase to a point where the porject is no longer feasible. But both? Egads! Take the high road already!

Of course, this could all have been prevented if the SC hadn't made such a bonehead ruling.

Alex · 08-19-2005, 02:18 PM

I would assume that there is existing legal precedent for what happens when an eminent domain confiscation happens.

The city confiscated the land five years ago and these people continued living there while contesting it. Based on other comments I've seen it appears that the owners were not paying property taxes over the last five years.

As wrong as I think the SCOTUS decision in Kelo was, this rent claim doesn't seem unreasonable. The city was deprived of income for five years while the tenants (wrongly, officially; rightly, in my opinion) contested the action. If I were the city and wanted to handle it as nicely as possible I'd offer them the option to either pay 5 years of property taxes or 5 years of market rent, whichever is cheaper.

The other issues is that the developer wants to pay compensation at 2000 rather than 2005 rates. And again I can see both sides (and you know that if the market had dropped, the homeowners would have wanted 2000 rather than 2005 rates). It seems to me that in cases of contested eminent domain, the compensation money should be put into escrow at the time of contestation and then the money goes to the appropriate recipient at the conclusion of the battle.

It really sucks, and it derives from what I think was a horrible decision by the Supreme Court, but based on that decision I have to side with the city and developer on the two new issues.

08-19-2005, 08:05 AM	#1
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	What the hell do they put in the water in that city? So, we're going to charge you rent, and at the current market rate, but we're going to take your land in exchange for the price it was 5 years ago. (And you just know that if land values had dropped significantly in 5 years, they'd be fighting to pay the contemporary value.) And the sad thing is the city would probably win. That's how the city's laws were written. Unless the homeowners' attorney does have documentation that the city did agree to forgo rents. Still, at some point you'd think they'd have some humanity! Just because you win your case doesn't mean you have to rub salt in the wounds. I could understand pursuing either rent or the 2000 property values. I might not like it, but to do otherwise could allow homeowners to derail projects by dragging out legislation until property values increase to a point where the porject is no longer feasible. But both? Egads! Take the high road already! Of course, this could all have been prevented if the SC hadn't made such a bonehead ruling. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 02:18 PM	#2
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I would assume that there is existing legal precedent for what happens when an eminent domain confiscation happens. The city confiscated the land five years ago and these people continued living there while contesting it. Based on other comments I've seen it appears that the owners were not paying property taxes over the last five years. As wrong as I think the SCOTUS decision in Kelo was, this rent claim doesn't seem unreasonable. The city was deprived of income for five years while the tenants (wrongly, officially; rightly, in my opinion) contested the action. If I were the city and wanted to handle it as nicely as possible I'd offer them the option to either pay 5 years of property taxes or 5 years of market rent, whichever is cheaper. The other issues is that the developer wants to pay compensation at 2000 rather than 2005 rates. And again I can see both sides (and you know that if the market had dropped, the homeowners would have wanted 2000 rather than 2005 rates). It seems to me that in cases of contested eminent domain, the compensation money should be put into escrow at the time of contestation and then the money goes to the appropriate recipient at the conclusion of the battle. It really sucks, and it derives from what I think was a horrible decision by the Supreme Court, but based on that decision I have to side with the city and developer on the two new issues.
	Submit to Quotes