Been a week…….
- Thread starter Mike Zierath
- Start date
Are you against Eminent Domain under any circumstances? What about the other examples you were provided - do you now see how foolish your question was?
Again, have you heard 1 single Republican say anything? It’s not that hard. It’s just not.
Yes, several have already and they’re discussing bipartisan legislation currently. I know you want to make yourself the victim here, but it won’t work.
For trying to land in both sides of the fence.
Well, it’s when you try to reduce everything to a binary choice that we really get in trouble, so…
Im not trying to make it a binary choice, but you wont even give your opinion on something thats is relatively agreed on by most.
Let me ask a different but related question: In your view, when do you see eminent domain as "necessary"?
I love it. Asks questions and wants answers but refuses to answer the same questions. Classic.
I have given my opinion, you just want me to say something specific. As a general rule I don’t love that the government can seize private land, but I accept that sometimes it’s necessary.
I’m not nearly familiar enough with examples of it in practice be more firm than that, I genuinely believe it’s a case by case basis.
Of course I want you to say specifics - thats the entire point. Can you provide one example that, in your opinion, its use was justified at least?
It’s like you’re not reading my posts…I’m not familiar enough with its use in real world to have a firm opinion on it. In general I think it’s particularly dumb to have firm opinions that I know very little about.
how about we return to the gun conversation?
So my comment about lacking conviction was 100% factual. Also, why did you insert yourself into the conversation if you don't have a position? Seems you're just looking for a superficial argument.
Good lord!
here’s one. And it goes two ways:
we owned a home North of Janesville, South of Waverly. It was just off hwy218. The Hwy was 300’ from the front of the house. The DOT wanted to potentially reroute the Hwy to within 60’ of my front door. I wasn’t happy! We argued. They started to talk eminent domain, I told them to kiss my ass. That was 15 years ago. We sold in 2013. They STILL HAVEN’T done anything, but that is one example where I would have gone down swinging, and probably lost. But I would have fought it to the end.
my Grandparents owned 2 restaurants in Waterloo. Again, DOT wanted the land for Highway widening projects. In this case, there wasn’t much argument, as I think my grandparents knew they were gonna do what they were gonna do and there was no saving one for sure, and didn’t want to fight for the 2nd. The DOT bought them out and they retired. The construction took one, the other could have stayed as the highway didn’t really bother the property at all….but hey.
so, it’s like @sober_teacher said, it is dependent on the situation. I will add, that depending on how invested you are in the decisions outcome, makes a difference as well.
I personally think it’s a crappy situation for the gov’t and the land owner! But they are gonna do what they are gonna do for “the betterment of the majority”!
Mike
Thanks for providing actual examples.
So in any of those cases, despite your/your family's disagreement, anger, and/or relegation, did you find a single one "necessary"?
Also, for my own curiosity - was the compensation fair market value for that point in time as if you were selling to any buyer, or is there added value for future losses on investment?
Uuummm, well, necessary is in the eyes of the people who want to make the change. In my Grandparents situation, I do feel the changes were necessary to address the increased traffic on hwy’s 218 and 63 in the Cedar Valley.
in my case, I asked questions and received answers that were inadequate. They wanted to move the Hwy due to the number of accidents and wanted to blame the way it was constructed, ie…curve too tight and limit access points. I had lived there awhile and had never seen a vehicular accident at all. I had heard of ONE! When I started asking where these accidents were, and realized that 99% of them were single vehicle accidents and recognized the area, I asked them one question: Do you know what caused the accident. They didn’t. I offered them the answer, they were all directly related to deer crossing from the set aside and farm land to get to the water source, the river. Once they began to investigate, they found that a high % of them were in fact animal related (one dog), and deer were the problem. They wanted to continue to blather about limiting access points on a road that reAlly didn’t have the problem they thought it had. ( unlike the southern areas of 218 between Janesville and Cedar Falls) which did have a number of vehicle to vehicle (fatality) accidents due to access points. They changed the entire southern section, nothing has been done with the northern area at this time.
I can’t speak to compensation as I’m unaware of what grandparents received and we never got down to brass tax on what they thought I may or may not get. I can tell you this much, the initial amount was extremely low. $300k range, which was already 100k less than what I had built it for just 4 years earlier. They told me it was negotiable. I sold three years later for north of 500k. My guess is they go in low on ever property they try and take, from my experience. As they should. Why spend more then they need to?
So I don’t get to say anything if I don’t have a firm position per your definition?
i fail to see how repeatedly saying I’m not a huge fan of it, but it can depend on the circumstances doesn’t qualify as having a position. There are few things in the world that clearly either one thing or another.
Thanks for all of that. Interesting experiences. Sounds fairly typical from what ive heard in (very limited amount) of claims.
Being someone who leans to the absolutism end of spectrum regarding the constitution, I respect eminent domain claims, but i really bristle at the "just compensation" requirement - seems that requirement too often takes a backseat. If you take my land, i want fair market value as well market adjustment payments in perpetuity (or equal value land elsewhere).
Its a free country, you can do what you like. However, its more than fair for me to question your motives when you unsolicitedly insert yourself. If you dont like the probing, dont respond, its pretty simple.
If people didn’t insert themselves into message board threads, all topics would die after the first post.
exactly what topics do I get to discuss on here then?
It’s a message board.
sober told you he didn’t have any specifics….so I inserted myself into the conversation to give you some examples that you asked about.
no reason to continue the harassment type post toward someone that fairly responded to your post to begin with
Z
I actually have. Don’t recall who, but they did say there would be further conversations.
does that mean something g will be done? Nope! But, I can hope!
And many do.
Like I said, you can participate in any discussion you want. Just as im equally able to probe. If you dont like me responding, just ignore the replies. I do it all the time if i deem the respondent not worth my time (as evident with a different poster in this very thread haha)
Lol - you ignore the very questions you ask because you're cowardly.
It's fun watching other posters kick you ass as well.
Ignoring me doesn’t answer that question.
I just wanna know if you are sensible, or if you are like the gun toting truck driver, that hadn’t bathed in a week, that I ran into the other night that said the constitution means he didn’t need to have a license plate on his personal vehicle. Or a drivers license. Or stop for the cops. Or didn’t have to pay taxes if he chose not to. All because the constitution, which in his opinion, was absolute and above any other rules or laws that had been imposed.
had I been the complete fool he was, I might have had to bury his dumb ass somewhere in the middle of nowhere just to do the world a favor, but I’m not a fool, so he is still walking the earth and driving that POS truck of his up and down our nations highways.
im not ignoring you - just didnt see your reply.
Maybe absolutionist isnt the correct term if thats the definition we're working under. Perhaps "literalist" is more apt? Or maybe thats why I qualified it with "lean towards" as opposed to fully committing. I mean, it is the "supreme law of the land", but I dont understand what logic is being used to not pay taxes - its pretty explicit taxation is constitutional.
(Side note: thats a very aggressive thought for someone whom isnt harming you)
Last edited:
This type of thing you are describing here, qualifying your “absolutism” or “literalism” with, now, “lean towards” would be described by your a-few-posts-prior self as “lacking conviction.”
