Feb. 25, 2005 - 20:13 MST

THE WONDERING JEW

Fair Market Value ?

In part quotes are from an editorial in the Rocky Mountain News today. It is about the New London, Connecticut proceedings argued in the Supreme Court Tuesday.

High court should limit eminent domain

"The attorney for New London, Connecticutt, who argued the city's eminent domain case before the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, has said, "I don't think there's a more important case on their docket this year." Neither do we; what's at stake is whether the concept of private property has any remaining constitutional meaning at all."

"Unfortunately, New London is arguing that it doesn't. The city claims the authority to take people's homes to develop a new office park, adjacent to a Pfizer research facility, along with related projects such as a hotel, a riverwalk, and office space. New London's city council hopes the complex will generate new jobs and produce higher tax revenues it can use to provide public services."

The constitutional question is not whether government can wield eminent domain to take private property for public use. Of course it can, and the U.S. Constitution explicitly provides for it in the Fifth Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

"But "public use" was once limited to roads, for example, or land for government buildings. Or, by reasonable extension, other kinds of infrastucture that need contiguous property even if they happen to be operated by private entities -- railroads , for example, or pipelines."

"However, the scope of condemnation has been stealthily and steadily expanding to allow the taking of private property for the benefit of other private parties, on the grounds that there will be some incidental public benefit. Urban renewal, for instance; courts have upheld condemnation for the purpoises of reclaiming blighted ares. Or pure economic development, as in the case of New London."

"But under that last rubric, no property is safe. The city of Arvada tried to condemn part of a privately owned lake -- an amenity, not a blight -- to accomodate a Wal-Mart, arguing that the lake brought in little or no sales tax while the Wal-Mart could generate millions of dollars annually. The State Supreme Court ruled unanimously last year that the city could not act without a hearing on whether the area was blighted. The state legislature passed a measure that put broad limits on a city's right to condemn land for urban renewal or open space.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Two other things in our area where eminent domain was the battle cry, one is in an area in or near Valverde (in southwestern Denver) where Wal-Mart wanted the city to use eminent domain to oust businesses in a shopping mall so that they could build one of their big stores there. Claiming that the area was blighted. True it wasn't a mall with expensive upscale stores and things like that but the businesses were in operation.

And then the U.S. government gave up its facilities at Fitzsimons Army Hospital and the land given to Colorado University's University Hospital with provisions that other entities in the medical and research field would also be given room there. Buildings and facilities are going up right and left on that expansive property. Veteran's Hospital was going to move there but there is an area of bad feelings and misunderstanding. Any how, the powers that be who are developing the area have been trying to oust businesses along Colfax Street and Peoria Street in order to put in upscale, fancy dancy, expensive shops and businesses. They were waving the eminent domain flag for a time but things seem to have cooled.

All this flopping around, yet there is something that has been discussed for ages, fought over, sued over and still there is no sensible solution as of yet. FAIR MARKET VALUE is the hang-up it appears.

So there are businesses in operation, making a living for their owners, owners of the property too. When the Evil Empire of whatever city gets the greedy urge, they want to use eminent domain and push out those businesses. And apparently they base their "fair market value" on what the property would get if sold right then to another private person who intended to run a business there.

But the city's dreams of the increased sales taxes and other taxes to be received from the BIG new owners would increase the value of the property immensely.

Now why can't all those damn accountants and engineers come up with a fair market value that the new property sell for ? ? ? ? ? If the prospects are so good that they want to move folks out, why can't they come up with the cash to satisfy a small property holder ? If the property is going to bring so very much profit and taxes isn't it worth paying a higher price for ? I think so !

If a man has a property and doesn't want to move, he demands a fair market value and as far as I have read none of them ever got close to such a thing in all the eminent domain cases I have read about. There may be some, I don't know. "Just compensation," is that just a phrase ? So, in actual reality, what is Fair Market Value ? . . . . . . . . . . .

Blog