Friday, November 04, 2005
The Evil That Eminent Domain Does
Normally by this time on a Friday afternoon, I would already be getting ready to make the long drive across town to see the g-phrase (whose sentimental value to me extends far beyond the dollar value tied to all of her component parts), but this story required a response. This will obviously (and rightly) set off a storm of debate about eminent domain:
Revelli Tire ( search) has been a family-owned business in Oakland, Calif., for 56 years. But if action by the city council remains on course, the tire store will have to find a new home or go the way of the dinosaur.
In July, using the power of eminent domain, the Oakland City Council evicted John Revelli from his store and locked the doors. The council’s argument: One landowner should not impede the progress of a city on the move.
“I am being forced to give up and give away all I have worked for all these years,” Revelli told FOX News.
“It is a compelling story, but it is not correct because we offered far and away more than what the land value was,” said City of Oakland redevelopment director Dan Vanderpriem.
Revelli’s property is located in a block targeted for redevelopment. Not only the tire store but dozens of other parcels have been seized so a private developer can put in condominiums and apartments.
What struck me most--aside from the sense that this was just the sort of unfair and unreasonable maneuver that had to be expected following Kelo--was the assumption from one of the city council members that they had offered far more than the land was actually worth. Quite obviously that wasn’t true: they hadn’t offered more than it was worth to the owner.
What is the value of your belongings? Is it simply a dollar amount covering what it would take to replace the belonging or is it a set of values that might not be tied at all to an actual dollar amount. A while back, when my apartment building caught fire, my worry wasn’t for my computers or my television, but for a simple little bundle of photographs. The sentimental value of the items was far more important to me than the dollar value of the electronics or my hand-me-down furniture.
When my grandpa moved to Arkansas with my parents and they put up the old family farm for sale, I considered selling some of my things and seeing what it would take to buy the land. It was a rundown house and old farm buildings in dire need of work before the city came along and realized the hazard, and it was an old, overgrown yard and mucked up pond surrounded by stone work of dubious value. It was also on the southern side of Colorado Springs while I live on the north side of Denver. For that matter, the neighborhood isn’t precisely posh.
I didn’t want to save the land because it was a good investment or where I really wanted to live; I wanted to save it because most of my good childhood memories are connected to that place. It’s still hard to know that it’s gone.
A family-owned business for fifty-six years, and no one seems to be suggesting that it was a blighted property or otherwise a nuisance. Fifty-six years. Honestly, I can’t even imagine the emotional connection that the owner has to that property.
That he can be forced to sell to make way for condominiums is ridiculous. Making the case that the condos are vital for community interests or that they constitute, in some way, a public need strains credibility to the breaking point. Simple ownership of property has always been somewhat illusory; now the illusion is completely shattered.
(0)
Comments & Trackbacks
Z, where’s the link to the article?
I don’t like Kelo either, but Kelo didn’t cause this. This was happening before Kelo--remember the Ilios restaurant on Broadway that was condemned so that they could build high-priced condos as a part of the art museum expansion.
Yet if Kelo had failed this sort of action wouldn’t happen because it would the unconstitutional.
Steve, I’ve put the link up--Expression Engine is sensitive to correct HTML. So, I put a hef= and it ignores the whole line. one little “r” changes the world for the better.
Michael, I’d agree with that: it did go on before Kelo, but Kelo was like a green light legitimizing the practice. What I want to see happen now is localities throughout the nation making it illegal for their city councils to do things like this.
I like Kelo, so there!
You just made the baby Jesus cry, Patrick.
It’s sad.
I can’t wait for the day that some private developer petitions to rezone and apartmentalize the White House, or the Capitol. And wins. But hey - “It’s progress!”
Read in the Sac Bee that they are trying to do the same thing there to a big neighborhood of Victorian homes that have mostly been restored and have selling prices of close to a million dollars. They want to turn the land over to developers to build apartments and condos instead of the homes that are there now. You can’t call an area of million dollar homes blighted but that is the tack the city is taking.
That’s the thing about Kelo, dick. Now governments don’t have to pretend that the property they’re condemning is blighted, they just have to show that tax revenue will increase under the new property owners.
Knowing Oakland’s history (remember, eBonics started there, too), maybe Utah isn’t so bad…
Oakland: There is no there there.
Sadly, the way the economy is going, Oakland may be sitting on a lot of empty condos when the housing bubble cools (notice I didn’t say bursts).
I’m sorry to be the asshole city planner (but I am a city planner and an asshole), but someone’s sentimental attachment to something does not play into an appraisal of a property. My parents love their home because it represents our family’s finally making it out of a bad neighborhood into a safer and more attractive city. However, when they had it appraised ($400,000 more than they paid for it in ’84, thank you very much.) the appraiser did not consider the emotional attachment my family has to the house.
My family owns a business and property and I can understand how a business owner would feel if they were being pushed out to make way for a different sort of development. In fact, they are in an unincorporated county island that the adjacent city is vigorously trying to annex and rezone. Nevertheless, housing, in a state that is trying to squeeze in millions upon millions of more residents in metro areas that are already built out seems to me to be a legitimate state interest. Just look at downtown Los Angeles as it begins to Manhattanize itself with an unbelievable number of proposed high-rise residential towers. That’s downtown Los Angeles. The non-center, center of the City. The regions where the most employment and educational opportunities exist are built out and cities, even the little suburb I work, are trying (and being forced by state law) to find places to site more housing and each city is required to provide their “fair share” of regional housing needs. (They’re called RHNA numbers. Regional Housing Needs Assessment.) Each city in California is required to develop a General Plan. There are seven required elements in the general plan. One of those is a Housing Element which must be updated every five years. The housing element contains each city’s plan to provide housing based on the RHNA numbers. The housing element (and the entire general plan) is legally binding and must be consistent with the city’s zoning or the city could face legal action.
By 2025, California is expected to have 15 percent of the Nation’s population. The early projections from the 1990’s that from 1995 to 2025 California would add 17.7 million people (equivalent to nearly the current population of New York State) appear to be correct if not underestimated. I’d rather see the loss of a tire store in Oakland than more prime farmland in the Central Valley or further encroachment into wildlife habitats in the foothills and in the deserts. Also, if a city has an opportunity to improve itself, to grow and mature and fill in and become an attractive, safe and prosperous place for its current and future residents, sometimes emminent domain is necessary.
So, yes, I can see how the need for housing (and ultimately the economic and residential regeneration of a city) is a legitimate state (or city) interest that is sufficient enough reason to make use of the emminent domain powers.
Oakland: There is no there there.
Actually, Oakland is experiencing somewhat of a building boom. In fact, the mayor has been rather successful in achieving his goal of 10,000 new residents in the downtown area. The BART train that runs under the Bay from San Francisco to Oakland deposits you in an area that at first glance is pretty run down. However, if you take a look around you will notice a lot of new residential and commercial development taking place.
I await with eager anticipation the negative response to my comments.
Of course the appraiser doesn’t take your parents’ “sentimental attachment” into account. That’s your family’s job. Your parents got the house appraised, but they’re not required to sell for that amount. They could see that number and decide to list it for thousands more, or thousands less, or not at all.
The important thing here is the appraiser doesn’t have the power to force them to sell for that number. The government does, and that’s wrong, no matter how much we “need” that high rise apartment building. If the developers really want to build they’ll pay people what their houses are worth to them, just like anyone else trying to buy any good does.
Kelo-style eminent domain takings are simply a way for developers to get property for less money than it’s worth.
As far as Oakland having no there there, that was me trying to be clever with a Gertrude Stein quote. It didn’t have anything to do with property values or housing markets.
Short and sweet version: While “someone’s sentimental attachment to something does not play into an appraisal of a property,” it certainly does play into the value of that property.
Here’s my first point of disagreement: sentimental value may play no part in the state’s appraisal of a property, but it plays a part in setting the price that I would accept. That is, you may value something that I own at $10, I may value it at $100, and given that set of circumstances, you won’t be buying that item from me because we don’t agree on the thing’s value--and I own it.
The man has owned the property and the business for 56 years--what is unconscionable to me is that he is not being given the opportunity to decide for himself whether to sell or not sell, which means that there is no such thing as property ownership. If a government can take property for whatever reason at whatever time it deems proper, while also relying on itself to set the “fair” value of that property, then we don’t own property at all. We simply lease it from the government at their convenience and can see it taken away at their convenience.
Right. And one person who thinks their sentiment is worth more than the property could ever be sold for can sit and hold up an entire development, the redevelopment of an entire city even, just because. Sounds like the asshole old man who refused to sell his home to the state so the 101 Freeway in the Valley could be widened. It meant so much to him. His 1950s’ tract home built up against a freeway. He wins and thousands of commuters suffer. Sounds like the idiots in suburban San Dimas who will likely be successful in preventing the construction of a station for the proposed light rail extension into the eastern suburbs. It also sounds like the dumpy little office supply store owner in rundown downtown Ontario, California who is holding up a long awaited and needed redevelopment project in the old core of the city. Or the “women’s center” in downtown LA holding up new residential development. I swear NIMBYism even on skid row!
I value private property rights and our city council has voted to remove imminent domain authority from our Redevelopment Agency (and trust me, there are some parts of town we’d like to scrape and start over with). However, I think that there is a point at which the good of the entire community has to be considered. When we reach that point it sometimes become necessary to use eminent domain powers.
Also consider California’s property tax laws. Prop 13 resulted in the fiscalization of land use. That is, cities are no longer able to tax property at higher rates and local municipalities are forced to rely on sales tax revenue to fund basic services. Cities fight each other for big box retailers and car dealerships and the retailers take advantage of it. The citizens of the state are understandably very protective of Prop 13. But they can’t have it both ways. Something has to give. Sometimes that something is a tire business. Sometimes it’s a house. By the way, because of Prop 13, the property taxes that will result from the new residential construction in Oakland will be great for a while, but eventually it will be like my grandmother’s house which is still appraised at about $60,000 for taxation purposes, but is likely worth nearly $600,000. The construction of new residential units will be a drain on city resources, but it could result in new revenue generating commercial development in the neighborhood. That’s development that the city will not have to subsidize because the market demand will be great enough to push the businesses to locate there. The new residential development will act as an impetus for greater economic prosperity in the neighborhood and in the city as a whole
You might not understand the pressures cities in California are under when it comes to funding frivolous things like fire and police departments, road construction, water treatment, and parks. You also have no idea what pressure planning departments are under to assure that each city absorbs its fair share of housing needs even when they are built out. Planning departments have to weigh the competing needs of residents and business owners. They also have to pursue economic development, preserve affordable housing options, and fight residents when new higher density housing is proposed (I’m not talking about high rises here). There is also pressure from residents who demand higher end goods and services, “pretty shopping centers,” neatly landscaped parkways, well paved roads, nicer housing options, free ambulance rides (which our city provides. Blame the old people who vote). All of these things cost money. The only way to have enough money to pay for all of this is through retail sales tax. Property taxes based on 1960’s valuations are not going to cut it. Like I said, sometimes something has to give. Look, I have mixed feelings about all of this, but sometimes reality sucks.
Z: Fair market value is not set by a city government. It is set by a real estate consultant. Further, money paid to businesses and residents who are moved often also includes relocation costs. Also, if there were no such thing as property ownership, the government would not have to poay for it. They’d just take it.
“I value private property rights.”
Sure you do, as long as the owner isn’t an “asshole,” an “idiot,” or “dumpy.”
“I think that there is a point at which the good of the entire community has to be considered.”
In the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
Property rights do not trump every other consideration.
Don’t pull the communist b.s.
Hey, you went off on a tangent first. Using eminent domain for legitimate state purposes (highways, public transportation, redeveloping actually blighted areas) is not the same as taking property from one private landowner and giving it to another.
...so, if there were no such thing as property ownership, the government would not have to pay for it. They’d just take it.
Nope. If there were such a thing as ownership, the holder of the property couldn’t be forced to sell his property to another private concern. He no longer controls the disposition of the sale--that is, he doesn’t have the right to say “no.” That’s not ownership, it’s just that he paid for the use of the property for as long as the government was willing to let him have it; now that they want another developer to have it, they are forcing him to sell his claim.
If I could force you to sell your car to another person (not even a person of your choosing) at a price below what you consider acceptable, would you consider yourself to have ever actually owned that vehicle? I wouldn’t.
Here’s a quick definition of ownership: 1. the relation of an owner to the thing possessed; possession with the right to transfer possession to others 2: the act of having and controlling property
That this man is deprived of the right of transfer (he can’t choose no) means that by the first definition, he certainly doesn’t own the property, nor is he allowed to choose who is the recipient of the property.
For what it’s worth, I agree with Matt: Using eminent domain for legitimate state purposes (highways, public transportation, redeveloping actually blighted areas) is not the same as taking property from one private landowner and giving it to another.
is not the same as taking property from one private landowner and giving it to another.
It’s not as simple as that. New development is an impetus for greater economic growth due to spillover effects. Very often, the market will take care of things. Certain neighborhoods take us by surprise when they suddenly gentrify. However, there are some areas that need to be redeveloped using redevelopment agencies, leveraging of city funds for private development, etc.
Why would you support the use of eminent domain to redevelop “blighted” areas and not other areas? Is it because you can see a legitimate state interest in doing that? Why? A “blighted” area is redeveloped for the same reason that non “blighted” areas are redeveloped. It seems that in order to be consistent you would have to hold that the eminent domain powers should only be used for public infrastructure.
Where’s the tangent?
I’ll check back later. I have a city to plan and private property to steal.
It’s a big step from “we need eminent domain to get rid of this terrible neighborhood that breeds crime and is sucking the life out of our city” to “we need eminent domain because these perfectly nice houses aren’t bringing in as much tax revenue as a high rise condo would.” That’s your tangent.
If a private owner wants a piece of property they need to buy it from the current owner at an agreed upon price. If a price can’t be agreed upon… well, that sucks. Sorry.
That’s your tangent.
How are property tax law, housing needs and housing law tangential to a discussion about eminent domain used to purchase property for residential development?
You argued that the case of some “asshole” blocking a new highway had similarities to the case under discussion. That’s a completely different use of eminent domain law (a use we all agree is kosher).
Can I get you fellas something to drink?
No?
O.K. (backing away slowly...)
:D
You argued that the case of some “asshole” blocking a new highway had similarities to the case under discussion. That’s a completely different use of eminent domain law..
Yes, a very different use!
(a use we all agree is kosher).
Well, maybe folks who have responded to this thread so far agree with this. But, no, we do not all agree that it is kosher.
I’m working on a post re Z’s original post and some of the comments and hope to expand on this comment but it may be another day or so before time permits me to finish it....
You argued that the case of some “asshole” blocking a new highway had similarities to the case under discussion.
Actually, Matt, I was trying to relate the “asshole’s” resistence to the purchase of his property by the state to the idea that the owner’s sentimental attachment can be considered when appraising a property. Other than that, I would agree that the two are not related.
And one person who thinks their sentiment is worth more than the property could ever be sold for can sit and hold up an entire development, the redevelopment of an entire city even, just because. Sounds like the asshole old man who refused to sell his home to the state so the 101 Freeway in the Valley could be widened. It meant so much to him. His 1950s’ tract home built up against a freeway.
The comparison is they that are both unreasonable.
Steve, be sure to email me when you have it up--sometimes the trackbacks don’t work well and I don’t want to miss the post.
Basically, Patrick, I agree that blocking the highway is unreasonable. I disagree with you about the condo complex; Blocking that is perfectly reasonable. So I think that using the first to argue the second is a strawman.
Regardless of that, I don’t we’re never going to see eye to eye on this. I think forced transfer of property from one party to another is wrong and undermines property rights. You think that sometimes it’s justified for the greater good, and that it doesn’t undermine property rights. If that’s not an accurate respresentation of your views, please tell me to go to hell.
Steve - I knew I’d get in trouble for using the word “we.” By “we” I really meant Z and myself, I do know that there are very good arguments against any usage of eminent domain at all. I just don’t think this country is ever going to tilt that far in the Libertarian direction.
Steve - I knew I’d get in trouble for using the word “we.”
I was actually wondering if that would be enough to get Walter to emerge from his quiet fortress of non-blogging solitude to tell Matt how wrong he was about that, too.
Heh… I had exactly that same thought.
Peanuts? Pretzels? Cookies?
No?
Alrighty then.
Let’s be clear: are we talking little, crispy pretzels or the big, soft, warm kind?
‘Cause if we’re talking about the big, soft, warm kind, I’m game.
Big, soft, warm...with beer.
I figure if you guys are all chewing and swallowing and have a nice little buzz, then maybe you’ll all get along?
No?
Eat, drink, and talk politics anyway. :D
Hell, I thought we were all getting along. Patrick and I disagree, but he’s been very civil, and other than my comparing him to Karl Marx (a flippant remark that I apologize for) I think I’ve reciprocated.
I’ll agree to the pretzels and beer, but only if they’ve been seized at market value from someone making less use of them.
Yes, one thing I have always appreciated about Patrick is his civility and sense of decorum.
I bought them for less than their sentimental value from some college students. Is that appropriate?
Matt: elucidate “there is no there there.”
Basically, Patrick, I agree that blocking the highway is unreasonable. I disagree with you about the condo complex; Blocking that is perfectly reasonable
Blocking the condos is not necessarily unreasonable. However, including sentiment in valuation of property is.
Well, maybe folks who have responded to this thread so far agree with this. [eminent domain used for highway construction] But, no, we do not all agree that it is kosher.
Now THAT is unreasonable. Also, something the Founding Fathers would disagree with. In fact, they planned for such things.
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
You think that sometimes it’s justified for the greater good, and that it doesn’t undermine property rights.
I suppose that’s a fair assessment of my position.
Patrick, I recently learned in my Advanced Grammar class that the term “Founding Fathers” is sexist language and should be altered to “Founders.”
Thought you would, umm, enjoy that.
"However, including sentiment in valuation of property is.”
But we include “sentiment” in the valuation of property all the time. Your parents learned their house had increased in value by almost a half a million dollars. Yet they probably didn’t sell, and for a variety of reasons that aren’t included in the appraisal. They like the neighborhood, it’s the house where their kids grew up, moving is a pain in the ass. For whatever reason they value their home more than the appraised amount and as the property owners that’s their right.
Now that we’ve finally quoted the Constitution, how do you justify property transfer from one private owner to another as “public use?” If increasing tax revenues is enough then we, as citizens, have no recourse against any government use of our property. Everything could be justified as causing an increase in revenue.
I don’t think the Founding Peoples of Male Gender and European Origin had that in mind.
Rae - Gertrude Stein wrote that of Oakland in Everybody’s Autobiography:
Basically, she returned to Oakland as an adult and couldn’t find her childhood home (either she just couldn’t find it, or it was gone, I’m not sure). People have used the line to mean many things, mostly having to do with the cultural emptiness of average American cities.
Now that I actually think on it, perhaps her house was razed to make way for a road or new housing development, so it is applicable to the current discussion. How, I don’t know. I leave it to a humanities major to suss out what I actually meant.
I don’t think the Founding Peoples of Male Gender and European Origin had that in mind.
Heh.