Yeah, but if I can use Eminent Domain to seize the Cassafruita girl, I gotta consider it to be at least a wash, overall.

I’m engulfed by this happy, happy thought right now. Cassafruitra girl. Mmmm…

I feel that I have become, strangely, a traitor to my righteous indignation…

Clarence Thoams: Derided and misrepresented. Underestimated.

All the planners in my department were not happy with this decision. The first response was sort of jokingly asking each other which neighborhood we were going to target first. (My choice was EVERY mobile home park.) Of course we were kidding and we are concerned that less scrupulous developers, planners and city councils will abuse this. (For the record: I support emminent domain proceedings in some instances.)

I think we all support emminent domain in some instances. Well, at least one instance: roads. It’s better than the alternative. That road is gonna get built, and at least with emminent domain you get paid for it. The government could just seize the land and toss you in prison if you protest.

But emminent domain for ballparks, malls, and private office buildings? Ridiculous.

"Clarence Thoams: Derided and misrepresented. Underestimated.”

And misspelled. Heh.

Damn! I was so worried about the other words that I missed the obvious one.

I think that in certain instances eminent doman for things like ballparks, malls, and private office buildings would be appropriate.

Hey, and we all misspelled eminent.

As for your second point, you are so wrong. The contortions the Supremes had put themselves through to justify private use of land as a public good put the lie to that real quick like. First growing my own pot is interstate commerce, now a mall is public use of land. Next they’re going to tell us that free expression doesn’t include blogging during a political campaign.

Oh, wait…

Prop. 13, here in California capped property taxes at 1% of the properties’ assessed value, down from the original 2 or 3%.

Since the state budget was financed mainly by property taxes, the result was a loss of 200 billion dollars in property taxes over the next decades.

California cities now rely on sales tax to fund basic services. If a new freeway goes in and the properties along the freeway are mostly residential and the traffic that once flowed through a surface street that was the city’s main commerical corridor is now bypassing that street, how is a city to be sure that basic services can be provided for? Think about it. Street trees, parks, roads, police, fire, all rely on sales taxes. I think the case can be made that a mall can be considered a “public use” in that the revenues produced are used by the city for public needs.

So the state shifts their funding from property to sales tax and therefore my property is no longer really mine?

Even if you could convince me that a mall can be a public use of land (which you can’t) the opportunity for abuse under these eminent domain rules is ridiculous.

Mall developer: I’ll give you 100 grand for your house.

Me: I want 120.

Mall developer: Tough shit. I’ll get the city to steal it and sell it to me for 90 if you don’t take my offer.

Me: 100 grand it is!

By the way, that’s not Steve’s response. It’s Will’s.

Damn. That’s the second time I’ve done that.

Thanks.

Patrick, I think you can try to make that case that a mall has “public use”, but it looks kind of silly if you look at the big picture.  The fact that California now has to rely more on sales taxes as opposed to property taxes is not the homeowners’ fucking problem.  Difficulties the state has with revenues does not trump fundamental human rights.

(Please don’t take my cussing as antagonism.  I’m not at all angry with you, it’s just this subject makes my goddamn blood fucking boil.)

I’m speaking of local government revenues, not state revenues.

The situation is that cities are sales tax dependent. That is why the only cities in California that do not fight for big box stores and new retail development are the small, wealthy towns who vote to assess themselves with a special tax each year. Cities like San Marino and Sierra Madre come to mind. People can’t have it both ways. They created a mess (the fiscalization of land use) when they voted to pass Prop 13) and no one has come up with a better idea than sales taxes. The big redevelopment agencies are often acting in response to a need to generate revenues as well as to maintain the jobs to housing balance that local government organizations require of them. It’s not as if cities are deciding they want to be rolling in the dough so they’re going to clear a neighborhood and build a car dealership.

City or state, it still stinks.  It’s one thing to deal with sales taxes, but using eminent domain to help out with sales taxes is worse than asinine.