County takes land to preserve open space

[buffalobo]

Anybody seen this story yet? Summit county using eminent domain to take land to preserve open space.



Lobbed from my electronic ball and chain

[SuperiorDG]

Yea http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/18/county-seeks-colo-couple-land-through-eminent-domain-to-preserve-open-space/

[buffalobo]

Thanks DG. Phone started acting up while trying to insert link.

Lobbed from my electronic ball and chain

[roberth]

One of the hallmarks of communism is the distinct lack of property rights.

Just one more thing that liberals (rinos included) do not understand about big government.

[Ronin13]

I never understood how eminent domain could hold up with the SCOTUS. It sounds like deprivation of property without due process (in the sense that the owner didn't commit a crime). "We want to build something, but don't have any land, so we're going to take yours." Makes little sense. I understand in some projects, like when my family's building for our business was bought by the state to build the new bridge in Downtown Evergreen, but most of the instances sound suspect... Like using eminent domain to force folks out of their homes to build a park, or in this case, make up some BS that their ATV is threatening the national forest... huh?

[Eric P]

Some enviros dont know vehicle emmisions are fresh air to plant life... so the atv is actually helping the forrest.

Eminent domain just

[newracer]

Some enviros dont know vehicle emmisions are fresh air to plant life... so the atv is actually helping the forrest.

Eminent domain just

What?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[speedysst]

[facepalm]
Some enviros dont know vehicle emmisions are fresh air to plant life... so the atv is actually helping the forrest.

Eminent domain just

[Rabid]

A lot of this, i think, is backlash from a land broker named Tom Chapman. He buys partials of land surrounded by national parks, wilderness areas, BLM, etc etc and makes plans to develop the land in some grandiose way. He then brings these plans to the state and says either you buy this land from me now or i will build it and bring you to court to get water, sewage, power and roads to my property. I personally hate him because all he does is cost tax payers money.
That said to use eminent domain to take property from anyone is just wrong whether it be a couple with a summer home or Tom Chapman. If this is such a problem for summit county they should have bought the land when it came up for sale.

[Zundfolge]

Didn't we kill a bunch of Brits over a measly 2% tax on tea?

[h2so4]

Didn't we kill a bunch of Brits over a measly 2% tax on tea?
awesome. yes.

[Gman]

Didn't we kill a bunch of Brits over a measly 2% tax on tea?
Indeed.

[Teufelhund]

I never understood how eminent domain could hold up with the SCOTUS. It sounds like deprivation of property without due process (in the sense that the owner didn't commit a crime). "We want to build something, but don't have any land, so we're going to take yours." Makes little sense. I understand in some projects, like when my family's building for our business was bought by the state to build the new bridge in Downtown Evergreen, but most of the instances sound suspect... Like using eminent domain to force folks out of their homes to build a park, or in this case, make up some BS that their ATV is threatening the national forest... huh?

The Fifth Amendment pretty well explicitly authorizes it, literally through a lack of limitation in the text: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This has always been read as the Fed (or State, as added by the Fourteenth Amendment) may take your private property for public use, as long as they pay you fair market value for it. The scope of eminent domain was further expanded (unjustly, imo) in the Kelo v. City of New London ruling, in which private land was taken and given to a private developer under an overly-broad interpretation of "public use" as that which may promote job creation and economic boon.

All rights are derived from property. A government at any level having the power to forcibly take private property for any reason teeters on the edge of a tenet of socialism (that which seeks to eliminate private property altogether). I do not understand what the framers of the Fifth Amendment (ratified in 1791) were thinking when they gave this king-like power to a government that is supposed to be explicitly limited so that it may not infringe upon the rights of the people. The last three words of the Fifth Amendment are a very rare instance of text in that document which I think should be amended to better protect the people from their government.

[hollohas]

The Fifth Amendment pretty well explicitly authorizes it, literally through a lack of limitation in the text: "...[COLOR=#000000][FONT=sans-serif]nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This has always been read as the Fed (or State, as added by the Fourteenth Amendment) may take your private property for public use, as long as they pay you fair market value for it.

I think it's always wrong but where the gov REALLY screws people is with the last part of the above text...fair market value. What is that? It's certainly more for a residential property in the mountains than "open space". So what happens is the gov will re-zone the property to make it "open space" and then they only pay the value of that kind of land instead of the previously higher value of a private residential property.

This whole situation is messed up. These folks sound like they have plenty of money. If I were them, I'd buy some bad ass lawyers and give the county hell.

If they loose this case it's going to open a lot of potential other cases. There are plenty 'a private cabins on old deeds in these hills...I'm sure someone thinks all those plots are better used for the collective open space too.

Not long ago there was another case in Seattle in which the city took a parking lot from the old lady who owned it in the name of "public good"...and turned it into a....parking lot.

[BREATHER]

This is why asshats in the guberment really wants no one to own weapons. They know that hard working American citizens will eventually get real tired of tyranny....

[ZERO THEORY]

This is why asshats in the guberment really wants no one to own weapons. They know that hard working American citizens will eventually get real tired of tyranny....

http://littlestorieseverywhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/waiting-for-a-standard.jpeg

[Ronin13]

The Fifth Amendment pretty well explicitly authorizes it, literally through a lack of limitation in the text: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Problem is that there is no definition for "just compensation." Like hollohas says:

I think it's always wrong but where the gov REALLY screws people is with the last part of the above text...fair market value. What is that? It's certainly more for a residential property in the mountains than "open space". So what happens is the gov will re-zone the property to make it "open space" and then they only pay the value of that kind of land instead of the previously higher value of a private residential property.
I'd say no, you have three independent appraisers come and figure what the land, structures, etc are worth, and that's what the government pays... fair market value is not "just compensation."

[Eric P]

What?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Should have said eminent domain just boils my blood. There really is no reason for this anymore. Roads are about the only reason I could see. If gov needs to build a school, find a vacant warehouse and purchase it. Or tear down an old school and build a multi level school. Gov needs a new office building, no need to build one, rent some space in an existing building or purchase a building using normal real estate procedures, even if it is out of the gov's jurisdiction.

Gov should never be able to do this for a park or open space. What percentage of this state is gov owned? Plenty of existing open space already. Parks are non-essential. Gov should never be able to steal land to give it to another private party. Purchaser should find a price the seller will agree too, even if it 100x "fair market value". In this instance, fair market value is whatever the owner is willing to sell it for, not what some appraiser says its worth. You can't put a price on sentimental value. If the non-sale kills job creating or potential taxes, so be it. That is capitalism at its purest.

Adverse possession is just as bad. Nothing more than stealing another's property.

[mcjhr]

Sniper

If the non-sale kills job creating or potential taxes, so be it. That is capitalism at its purest.

Snip

This is what gets me every time. It's how the liberals bend things to get what they want. Makes me want to spit.

[newracer]

Some enviros dont know vehicle emmisions are fresh air to plant life... so the atv is actually helping the forrest.

Eminent domain just


Should have said eminent domain just boils my blood. There really is no reason for this anymore. Roads are about the only reason I could see. If gov needs to build a school, find a vacant warehouse and purchase it. Or tear down an old school and build a multi level school. Gov needs a new office building, no need to build one, rent some space in an existing building or purchase a building using normal real estate procedures, even if it is out of the gov's jurisdiction.

Gov should never be able to do this for a park or open space. What percentage of this state is gov owned? Plenty of existing open space already. Parks are non-essential. Gov should never be able to steal land to give it to another private party. Purchaser should find a price the seller will agree too, even if it 100x "fair market value". In this instance, fair market value is whatever the owner is willing to sell it for, not what some appraiser says its worth. You can't put a price on sentimental value. If the non-sale kills job creating or potential taxes, so be it. That is capitalism at its purest.

Adverse possession is just as bad. Nothing more than stealing another's property.

The part is bold is what I was questioning. You do realize CO2 is a lot different than CO right?

[Eric P]

The largest part of most combustion gas is nitrogen (N2), water vapor (H2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2). A relatively small part of combustion gas is undesirable noxious or toxic substances, such as carbon monoxide (CO) from incomplete combustion, nitrogen oxides (NOx) from excessive combustion temperatures, ozone (O3), and particulate matter (mostly soot). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas

Nitrogen, water and CO2 = plant food. So what don't you understand?