Appropriate use of eminent domain?

[Boris]

linky

Cliff notes - Walmart wants to build a store in Hercules, a quaint, if somewhat fake, town on the San Francisco bay. Hercules wants to be a Tiburon or a Sausolito, cool upscale Marin towns. The problem is that Hercules is surrounded by Ghetto as ghetto gets communities. The other problem is that its filled with yuppies and none of the funky artist culture that would make it a cool city. Anyways, Walmart wants to build a store and the residents are pissed about it. Walmart teamed up with a developer who owned the land and made a proposal to the city. The city rejected. Then Walmart bought the land and is moving forward with plans to build the store. Walmart rejected an offer from the city to buy the land. Now the city is considering using eminent domain to force Walmart to sell.

IMO, this is a tough case. On the one hand this clearly seems like an inappropriate use of eminent domain. On the other hand, a community should have a say in what kind of environment they want to promote. WalMart also was fully aware of the community and gov't opposition when they bought the land. So it's not like they were blind sided by the gov't after making a big land purchase.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, a community should have a say in what kind of environment they want to promote.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it does so by catering to the individual local demands. A place that is filled with bohemian artsy-farts will prosper with coffee houses and art galleries because of supply and demand. Doesn't take central planning to create that vibe.

Wal-Mart isn't stupid. It wouldn't build on a location if it hadn't done the demographics.

[benfranklin]

Sounds to me like another case of governmental do-gooders trying to impose their version of quality of life on the great unwashed who are too stupid to know what's good for them.

It never occurs to such people that a Wal-Mart might improve the quality of life of many of the citizens: more jobs, cheaper food and clothing, savings in time and gas while shopping, etc.

Let the people vote with their dollars. The job of local government is to provide safety and social infrastructure and a business environment condusive to economic growth. Eminent domain should be limited to things like schools, roads, etc. The only time they should get into development is if a property or an area is truly blighted or abandoned.

[FlFishOn]

"On the one hand this clearly seems like an inappropriate use of eminent domain. On the other hand..."

... it's California so just forget about these silly ideas of common sense and equal treatment under the law. The Libs have an agenda and constitutional issues will not be allowed to intrude on effecting the 'correct' result.

[HDPM]

"On the other hand, a community should have a say in what kind of environment they want to promote."


I am opposed to the use of eminent domain in this spot, no surprise. However, I really don't think the community should have a say in some environment or aesthetic or whatever. The artsy types could have paid more than walmart for the land and then left it undeveloped. They didn't. Nobody but the owner has any right whatsoever to dictate what goes on land, with the exception of some things that have a huge impact in certain zones, i.e. nuclear waste dumps or hog farms. The idea that the community has some right to say how many stores it 'needs" or "wants" or that it "needs" only certain types of things drives me nuts. Yes, I did serve on a local planning and zoning board and was hated since I thought it was improper to spend other people's money or steal their property to foster some view of what is nice or not. But most people who serve on such things think that the community has some right to dictate whether somebody puts grass or gravel in for landscaping or has a sign. Needless to say I think it is up to the property owner. Yes, that means some property is ugly, but it isn't anybody else's business. I was off the board before our walmart dispute hit, but of course I would have argued for their right to build a store on whatever property they owned. The bad citizens of hercules need to get lives. I hope they at least vote to decline any tax dollars from walmart since they are against business and wouldn't want to take tainted money like that. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I really don't think the community should have a say in some environment or aesthetic or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

HDPM - What if I invested millions of dollars building an upscale condo complex. I'm nearing completion on the construction and am in the process of selling units to buyers who don't want to live near big ugly box stores and strip malls and parking lots. They also don't want to live near a place where the white trash and great unwashed will be congregating and working. Now as I'm making my pretty, high gloss brochures espousing the wonderful seaside views and nearby parks and beachfront trails, what if WalMart decides to build a mega store RIGHT NEXT DOOR!! The Walmart store will decrease the value of my development by over 50% and might force me to the land of BUSTO! Should Walmart be forced to buy me out or otherwise compensate me? This is the tough thing about property rights, the question of how to deal with these externalities. Especially the negative externalities. To dismiss complaining land owners as just a bunch of whiners is, IMO, short sighted and perhaps just as an aggregious affront to property rights as the anti-WalMart crusaders' vendetta.

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I really don't think the community should have a say in some environment or aesthetic or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

HDPM - What if I invested millions of dollars building an upscale condo complex. I'm nearing completion on the construction and am in the process of selling units to buyers who don't want to live near big ugly box stores and strip malls and parking lots. They also don't want to live near a place where the white trash and great unwashed will be congregating and working. Now as I'm making my pretty, high gloss brochures espousing the wonderful seaside views and nearby parks and beachfront trails, what if WalMart decides to build a mega store RIGHT NEXT DOOR!! The Walmart store will decrease the value of my development by over 50% and might force me to the land of BUSTO! Should Walmart be forced to buy me out or otherwise compensate me? This is the tough thing about property rights, the question of how to deal with these externalities. Especially the negative externalities. To dismiss complaining land owners as just a bunch of whiners is, IMO, short sighted and perhaps just as an aggregious affront to property rights as the anti-WalMart crusaders' vendetta.

[/ QUOTE ]


Should have bought wal mart's land too.

That is slightly too simple. I do think that there needs to be a reasonable nuisance doctrine. But very unlikely that wal mart would ever rise to the level of a nuisance for a development given reasonable definitions, etc...tho, but I can see how a huge new thing could ruin another's property. There needs to be a mechanism to allow a property owner to sue. IMO the trend in the country is to make nuisance less available but bad government more available. I would like less planning and zoning, but an easier private remedy. Way too often whining commies (the technical term is CAVEpeople-citizens against virtually everything who show up at public meetings and such along with their cousins the NIMBYs) run to planning and zoning to shut down a day care because they know no law would allow them to sue and it isn't worth paying a lawyer. So instead they go to planning and zoning to prevent something that isn't worth a lawsuit. It becomes ridiculous. The end result is a huge loss in freedom and property rights.

Also, there is a big difference for providing relief for one homeowner right next to wal mart or something, and keeping a whole development out because of whiners across town who would rather see a boutique than walmart, thinking they somehow have a say.

[hmkpoker]

Aren't Wal-Mart's sales going to be impeded by building in the middle of an upscale condo community, where the people would rather buy things of good quality?

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't Wal-Mart's sales going to be impeded by building in the middle of an upscale condo community, where the people would rather buy things of good quality?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is a bottle of Tide any different if you buy it at Walmart or at Hoity-Toity Upscale Mart for $2 more?

There are some things I would never buy at Walmart. Other things, of course you buy them there, they're exactly the same thing for less. Unless you somehow think that being seen at Walmart makes you a lesser person.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aren't Wal-Mart's sales going to be impeded by building in the middle of an upscale condo community, where the people would rather buy things of good quality?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is a bottle of Tide any different if you buy it at Walmart or at Hoity-Toity Upscale Mart for $2 more?

There are some things I would never buy at Walmart. Other things, of course you buy them there, they're exactly the same thing for less. Unless you somehow think that being seen at Walmart makes you a lesser person.

[/ QUOTE ]

Change your location to "awaiting my MadDog 25" you lowlife.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]