[crazytaxidriver]

At work we were talking about the power company and other businesses who rely on peoples land to run their equipment. The subject was brought up that if you refuse to sell out then companies will find a way to condemn your land and use it anyway. I guess in this land of the free we don't actually own anything.

I was interested in some of your opinions on the subject. What would you do if you were forced to give up what you have worked for

[Stardust]

At work we were talking about the power company and other businesses who rely on peoples land to run their equipment. The subject was brought up that if you refuse to sell out then companies will find a way to condemn your land and use it anyway. I guess in this land of the free we don't actually own anything.

I was interested in some of your opinions on the subject. What would you do if you were forced to give up what you have worked for

No, nothing is Free. The Government has rights to all tangible land, and this would be the case of the Government making a decision of what is good for the masses versus an individual. I'm not sure of what specific case you are referring to, but we had a local farmer who did not want to sell his acreage. Due to the growth in our area, a sanitation station was needed. The farmer did not want to give up the property, but his hand was forced. It has benifitted literally thousands of homes with only one disgruntled individualy. You see it happen for schools sites all the time. All of us are affected everyday. We cut the grass next to the street, but we do not own that grass, that is the city, county or the state's property for purposes of the road.

[crazytaxidriver]

I wasn't talking about any particular case just in general. If the power comPany puts a pole and lines on your property and it's stays for a year then that property becomes theirs. And there is nothing u can say or do about it. It's the stuff like that that I was talking about. I mean if a road or something has to go in then pay the people what they want. I don't think it's right that they can be forced out of something that they have developed by their own hand

[LWC]

I think the law is called imminent (or eminent) domain (sorry for the spelling problem)

Since I have known that law the whole time, and that they have to give you fair market value, why not sell? It would be insane not to. Get money or lose it all? They are also required to give you so much time to find a new place to live, but I forgot how long it was. They also have to pay you so much for every building.

I have had friends that have known that a road was coming through, so they built 3 or 4 garages, had their property declared commercial and all kinds of stuff to get REALLY good money from the government. For every law they have, there is some loophole, to benefit the individual, if you can find it.

[Hoot Gibson]

I don't have a problem with the government condemning property for rights-of-way and compensating the owner at a fair market value. I have a big problem with the government condemning property and then selling it to commercial developers or corporations to increase the tax revenue from the property.

The Supreme Court affirmed the right of governments to condemn the property of individuals and then sell the property to corporations to create jobs and increase the tax base in the 2005 Kelo v. New London case. Chief Justice Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia dissented.

The unwillingness of liberal politicians and judges to respect personal property rights is one of the primary reasons that I am a conservative and refuse to vote for Democratic candidates for Congress or President. Supreme Court decisions like Kelo v. New London do not happen by accident. They happen because too many American voters are ignorant about the consequences of their votes.

[Old School]

I think the law is called imminent (or eminent) domain (sorry for the spelling problem)

Since I have known that law the whole time, and that they have to give you fair market value, why not sell? It would be insane not to. Get money or lose it all? They are also required to give you so much time to find a new place to live, but I forgot how long it was. They also have to pay you so much for every building.

I have had friends that have known that a road was coming through, so they built 3 or 4 garages, had their property declared commercial and all kinds of stuff to get REALLY good money from the government. For every law they have, there is some loophole, to benefit the individual, if you can find it.

My understanding of eminent domain is that the government will take what land is needed for the project they are working on. They may buy all of the property or just a portion depending on the size of the property and the size of the project.

The site below explains has some good info. on eminent domain.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_es...omain.html

[Hoot Gibson]

Here's an even worse case of how the government unjustly takes property. Suppose you own rights to a valuable block of coal reserves and the state decides to build a road on the surface above the coal.

To protect the road, the state decides that only 35% of the coal in the area beneath and adjacent to the road can be mined and also decrees that whoever mines the coal must fill the mined out area with material such as concrete to further ensure that the roof does not collapse and damage the road.

Because of the restriction placed on mining, it is no longer economically feasible to mine the coal. In other words, the state has taken away the value of your property without compensating you for the loss. Amazingly, the courts have ruled that this practice does not constitute depriving you of property, so you are not entitled to compensation.

State and federal regulations deprive individual of property rights everyday in ways that most people never think about. The most obvious cases involve condemning surface property but the less obvious taking of confiscation or sterilization of property rights usually receive little attention by the general public.

[zaga_fan]

I had a spat with a coal company and the power company because I told them over the phone they could use my land to put up a power pole and they agreed to give me a kickback on my power bill.
They ended up driving their trucks where I specifically told them not to and it caused a sewage line to bust.
They acted like they didn't want to pay to have it fixed and talked to my wife like a dog while she was home alone and 5 of em came in the house.

I took a chainsaw to the pole before they got the lines on it..
I got a check for the damages

[vundy33]

^^ Good man.

[Old School]

Here's an even worse case of how the government unjustly takes property. Suppose you own rights to a valuable block of coal reserves and the state decides to build a road on the surface above the coal.

To protect the road, the state decides that only 35% of the coal in the area beneath and adjacent to the road can be mined and also decrees that whoever mines the coal must fill the mined out area with material such as concrete to further ensure that the roof does not collapse and damage the road.

Because of the restriction placed on mining, it is no longer economically feasible to mine the coal. In other words, the state has taken away the value of your property without compensating you for the loss. Amazingly, the courts have ruled that this practice does not constitute depriving you of property, so you are not entitled to compensation.

State and federal regulations deprive individual of property rights everyday in ways that most people never think about. The most obvious cases involve condemning surface property but the less obvious taking of confiscation or sterilization of property rights usually receive little attention by the general public.

I have know of the government arguing with property/mineral owners over how much of the coal was mineable/merchantable, but that's the first I've ever heard of them requiring the mining voids to be filled with concrete.

I had a spat with a coal company and the power company because I told them over the phone they could use my land to put up a power pole and they agreed to give me a kickback on my power bill.
They ended up driving their trucks where I specifically told them not to and it caused a sewage line to bust.
They acted like they didn't want to pay to have it fixed and talked to my wife like a dog while she was home alone and 5 of em came in the house.

I took a chainsaw to the pole before they got the lines on it..
I got a check for the damages

I don't blame you at all, I would have done the same. :Thumbs:

[LWC]

I had a spat with a coal company and the power company because I told them over the phone they could use my land to put up a power pole and they agreed to give me a kickback on my power bill.
They ended up driving their trucks where I specifically told them not to and it caused a sewage line to bust.
They acted like they didn't want to pay to have it fixed and talked to my wife like a dog while she was home alone and 5 of em came in the house.

I took a chainsaw to the pole before they got the lines on it..
I got a check for the damages

Super lol.

[Hoot Gibson]

I have know of the government arguing with property/mineral owners over how much of the coal was mineable/merchantable, but that's the first I've ever heard of them requiring the mining voids to be filled with concrete.

I cannot recall the government specifically requiring the filling voids left by underground mining but used to be part of an acceptable, if economically unfeasible, part of "mitigation" plans that regulatory agencies would accept in lieu of restrictions on extraction rates. For example, when mining is done beneath natural gas pipelines, coal companies must limit coal extraction, and obtain approval of a mitigation plan by the owner of the pipeline. (Despite the fact that pipelines can and are constructed to withstand subsidence caused by coal mining and despite the fact that in most cases, coal companies reserved the right to subside when they sold gas rights that they once owned.)

My point is that the US Supreme Court has upheld the right of states to force coal companies to limit mining extraction rates while refusing to compensate them for their economic losses. Forcing a coal company to leave 50 percent of coal in place when they might otherwise recover 70 percent of the coal, is no different than taking 29 acres of land away from an owner who has a deed for 100 acres without compensating the owner for his loss.

When the extraction rate is unreasonably limited through regulations the loss to the owner of the coal is greater than the percentage of coal left because most of the cost of developing a mine is incurred regardless of the extraction rate. In other words, mining an incremental 20 percent of coal reserves is normally much more profitable than mining the first 50 percent.

A better analogy would be for the state to destroy a property owner's house and yard, tell him that he may continue to use the rest of the property, and refuse to pay him for the loss of his house and yard.

[Old School]

I cannot recall the government specifically requiring the filling voids left by underground mining but used to be part of an acceptable, if economically unfeasible, part of "mitigation" plans that regulatory agencies would accept in lieu of restrictions on extraction rates. For example, when mining is done beneath natural gas pipelines, coal companies must limit coal extraction, and obtain approval of a mitigation plan by the owner of the pipeline. (Despite the fact that pipelines can and are constructed to withstand subsidence caused by coal mining and despite the fact that in most cases, coal companies reserved the right to subside when they sold gas rights that they once owned.)

My point is that the US Supreme Court has upheld the right of states to force coal companies to limit mining extraction rates while refusing to compensate them for their economic losses. Forcing a coal company to leave 50 percent of coal in place when they might otherwise recover 70 percent of the coal, is no different than taking 29 acres of land away from an owner who has a deed for 100 acres without compensating the owner for his loss.

When the extraction rate is unreasonably limited through regulations the loss to the owner of the coal is greater than the percentage of coal left because most of the cost of developing a mine is incurred regardless of the extraction rate. In other words, mining an incremental 20 percent of coal reserves is normally much more profitable than mining the first 50 percent.

A better analogy would be for the state to destroy a property owner's house and yard, tell him that he may continue to use the rest of the property, and refuse to pay him for the loss of his house and yard.

I misread your post Hoot, I thought you were implying that filling of mine voids were already taking place. I've known of coal companies reducing the number and width of the entries, whenever mining under road right-of-ways.

[Hoot Gibson]

I misread your post Hoot, I thought you were implying that filling of mine voids were already taking place. I've known of coal companies reducing the number and width of the entries, whenever mining under road right-of-ways.

No, you didn't misread it. I worded my post poorly and did imply what you thought I implied. :biggrin:

[nky]

My understanding of eminent domain is that the government will take what land is needed for the project they are working on. They may buy all of the property or just a portion depending on the size of the property and the size of the project.

Based on the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

just compensation is fair market value

[Old School]

Based on the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

just compensation is fair market value

You are right, in post number 6 I used the word "take" when describing eminent domain, that was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said "purchase" instead.

The point I was trying to make was, if a person owned ten acres, and the government or utility needed only two acres for their project, they would only purchase the two acres and not the entire ten acres.

[RunItUpTheGut]

This happens anytime a new highway wants to come threw or one wants to go from a 2 lane to 4 lane. Imagine how many people had to sell out when the interstates started getting constructed. From the way ive always heard it the government will offer you an amount thats non negotiable. Either take it or get your land taken and get nothing.
I would set explosives up around the perimeter and wait for it to get done and make them do it all over again haha jk

[vundy33]

inb4FBIatRunitupthegut'shouse

[nky]

This happens anytime a new highway wants to come threw or one wants to go from a 2 lane to 4 lane. Imagine how many people had to sell out when the interstates started getting constructed. From the way ive always heard it the government will offer you an amount thats non negotiable. Either take it or get your land taken and get nothing.
I would set explosives up around the perimeter and wait for it to get done and make them do it all over again haha jk

you could take it to litigation. Their have been cases where people have sued because the first offer was low and won. You must PROVE the fair market value

[Ballers]

I had a spat with a coal company and the power company because I told them over the phone they could use my land to put up a power pole and they agreed to give me a kickback on my power bill.
They ended up driving their trucks where I specifically told them not to and it caused a sewage line to bust.
They acted like they didn't want to pay to have it fixed and talked to my wife like a dog while she was home alone and 5 of em came in the house.

I took a chainsaw to the pole before they got the lines on it..
I got a check for the damages

Now Zaga.. I've never known of you to be a liar..
But did this really happen?

[charlie22]

I don't have a problem with the government condemning property for rights-of-way and compensating the owner at a fair market value. I have a big problem with the government condemning property and then selling it to commercial developers or corporations to increase the tax revenue from the property.

The Supreme Court affirmed the right of governments to condemn the property of individuals and then sell the property to corporations to create jobs and increase the tax base in the 2005 Kelo v. New London case. Chief Justice Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia dissented.

The unwillingness of liberal politicians and judges to respect personal property rights is one of the primary reasons that I am a conservative and refuse to vote for Democratic candidates for Congress or President. Supreme Court decisions like Kelo v. New London do not happen by accident. They happen because too many American voters are ignorant about the consequences of their votes.

Ky adopted a law I believe in response to the Kelo decision that prevents the state and local govt from using eminent domain powers on any thing that is not an exclusively public use. I believe the law would prevent the condemnation of property by state or local govt that is to be resold for commercial development.

For what it's worth, I totally agree with you about the Kelo decision being wrong and the need to elect conservative U.S. Senators that can block liberal judges being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.