Land Seized for Animal Shelter May Be Sold to Developer-Donor

[Roger1]

A year after Los Angeles seized three acres from a private company to construct a public building, a city councilman wants to sell the land to another private firm for a commercial development.

Both companies are furniture manufacturers. But executives with the company that would buy the land have political connections and have made $17,600 in campaign contributions to key city leaders.

Critics of the proposal say it's wrong for the city to use its power of eminent domain to take property from one business for a public purpose and then sell it to another business.


Bonus-It involves eminent domain
Double Bonus-It involves wasting taxpayer money
Triple Bonus-It involves Campaign contributions

http://ktla.trb.com/news/la-me-deal14jan14,0,4383540.story?coll=ktla-news-1

[Thomas Veil]

Of course it's wrong. Unfortunately it's also technically legal (though the campaign donation part should definitely be looked into).

I thought that following the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain, state legislatures were going to be in a big hurry to reform their state laws to protect private property owners. Apparently not.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Of course it's wrong. Unfortunately it's also technically legal (though the campaign donation part should definitely be looked into).

I thought that following the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain, state legislatures were going to be in a big hurry to reform their state laws to protect private property owners. Apparently not.
All of govt supports each other and the people are the enemy or rather a commodity to be used ,manipulated, whatever for the purpose of those in govt at the moment. We the People are getting hammered with no representation,no appeal and little say in anything Big Brother decides. The Supreme Court view on Govt "Stealing "the peoples land for such things should be an alert to the type of govt thats coming our way. Local,State and Federal level we have control freaks that through the years have removed our forfathers safety nets that were put in place to protect the little guy. Alito's going to the supreme court really bothers me because his history shows a siding on big govt,big business almost every time. The people will be left hanging out to dry by the very ones we put in power.

[mactastic]

Mayor Quimby : "Demand? Who are you to demand anything? I run this town. You're just a bunch of low-income nobodies!"
Advisor (whispered) : "Uh, election in November. Election in November..."
Mayor Quimby: "What?? Again?? This stupid country."

;)

[Roger1]

What really bugs me about this is they are thinking of putting a furniture factory in there, after they booted a furniture factory out of there. I see a definate conflict of interest, regarding the elected officials.

[IJ Reilly]

It's not clear to me that this is in fact a legal exercise of eminent domain under California law. It might not be. At a minimum, the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes has to conform with an adopted redevelopment plan. Given that the city condemned this property for one purpose (public) but now plans to use it for another (private) raises a conformance question. Also, if I understand the Constitutional law correctly, governments can't take land for the sole purpose of benefitting one party. It has to serve a public purpose (not necessarily a public land use, which is a different issue).

Also, I would not take the machinations of one member of the huge LA City Council as automatically representing the intentions of the city.

[solvs]

Yeah, this is definitely beyond the scope of eminent domain. I'd say I can't belive they thought they'd get away with it, but since I've been paying attention I totally believe it. I'm hoping for criminal charges, but at the very least they better loose their jobs.

[Roger1]

Also, I would not take the machinations of one member of the huge LA City Council as automatically representing the intentions of the city.

You're right. I stand corrected.

[IJ Reilly]

Yeah, this is definitely beyond the scope of eminent domain. I'd say I can't belive they thought they'd get away with it, but since I've been paying attention I totally believe it. I'm hoping for criminal charges, but at the very least they better loose their jobs.

Apparently the city acquired the land in good faith for the original use, but that project has fallen through, or might.

[solvs]

Apparently the city acquired the land in good faith for the original use, but that project has fallen through, or might.
That's just what they want you to think. ;)

Seriously though, I wonder if there's precedent for that. A quick Google search shows me that there are quite a few claims of abuse of the system. You'd think if they were going to go through with forcing someone to give up their property, they'd be pretty sure their reason for doing so is still going to happen. And if it falls through, there should be a way to deal with the property that's left that doesn't reward campaign contributors. Too much room for abuse. As we've seen.

[CanadaRAM]

Is it too obvious, or shouldn't the original owner have first option to buy back the property at the original expropriation price if the city no longer needs it?

[skunk]

Is it too obvious, or shouldn't the original owner have first option to buy back the property at the original expropriation price if the city no longer needs it?Now, there's a sensible idea.

[Roger1]

Sensible? When it comes to American politics?? :p

[IJ Reilly]

Sensible? When it comes to American politics?? :p

Nothing like a broad, sweeping generalization to brighten up one's day.

[Roger1]

Nothing like a broad, sweeping generalization to brighten up one's day.

I just did this about 3 posts ago, didn't I? :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Nothing like a broad, sweeping generalization to brighten up one's day.
I do believe he was (at least partially) joking...

[mkrishnan]

I do believe he was (at least partially) joking...

Yes, I'm pretty sure. Because otherwise, I've got the pot on the other line, holding, and he'd really like to get back to his conversation with the kettle. ;)

[solvs]

Nothing like a broad, sweeping generalization to brighten up one's day.
Have you met our politicians!?!

[Roger1]

Yeah, my post was meant to be humorous/sarcastic. Guess I should have used a few more smilies.

Here: :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

:D

[Roger1]

Have you met our politicians!?!


I read this post, and it made me think of that politician in New Orleans at the Superdome, who asked the kids if they thought it was fun, like camping.

[solvs]

I read this post, and it made me think of that politician in New Orleans at the Superdome, who asked the kids if they thought it was fun, like camping.
Or Barbara Bush thinking they're better off. Not a politician, but married to one, that same mentality. For all of Hillary's faults, I didn't see her doing stuff like that. But you see it in far too many of them.

Weren't we trying to get away from an aristocratic society?