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

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Roger1, Jan 15, 2006.

  1. Roger1 macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #1
    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
     
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #2
    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.
     
  3. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #3
    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.
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    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."

    ;)
     
  5. Roger1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #5
    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.
     
  6. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #6
    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.
     
  7. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #7
    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.
     
  8. Roger1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #8
    You're right. I stand corrected.
     
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    Apparently the city acquired the land in good faith for the original use, but that project has fallen through, or might.
     
  10. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #10
    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.
     
  11. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #11
    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?
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    Now, there's a sensible idea.
     
  13. Roger1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #13
    Sensible? When it comes to American politics?? :p
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    Nothing like a broad, sweeping generalization to brighten up one's day.
     
  15. Roger1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #15
    I just did this about 3 posts ago, didn't I? :rolleyes:
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    I do believe he was (at least partially) joking...
     
  17. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #17
    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. ;)
     
  18. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #18
    Have you met our politicians!?!
     
  19. Roger1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #19
    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
     
  20. Roger1 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #20

    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.
     
  21. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #21
    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?
     

Share This Page