Question 1 in Virginia

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by dime21, Nov 6, 2012.

  1. dime21 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    #1
    Here's the full question, as printed on the ballot:
    I remember when this Eminent Domain stuff was first enacted, and folks were outraged because large corporations were abusing the law to take land from private citizens for the purpose of building shopping malls, office buildings, and other private investment purposes, rather than for the "public good". The courts ruled that the increased tax revenue from these private investments constituted "public good".

    My two sample ballots from VA, Democrat and GOP, each have a stance on this issue. GOP ballot says to vote YES and Democrat ballot says to vote NO.

    Why do Democrats want to continue to allow large corporations to force people off their land, so that private investors can make a profit? Property rights are the very core foundation of this country - shouldn't we put a stop to eminent domain abuse by large corporations seeking private monetary gain?
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    I like the sound of it from the brief description you included.

    I agree with the general philosophy behind the initiative.

    There may be some details involved causing the Dems to not back it.

    I'd be curious to know what's behind their position.
     
  3. splitpea macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Among the starlings
  4. leenak macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #4
    I found this:
    http://scottsurovell.blogspot.com/2012/09/eminent-domain-amendment-well.html
    It sounds like that is already illegal, but they are trying to add it to the Virginia Constitution.

    The summary of why they think this is bad is this:
     
  5. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    There's often more to the story.

    Thanks for the clarification.
     
  6. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #6
    I'd leave it up to the residents of Virginia .

    Aren't republicans all for states rights ?
     
  7. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #7
    I dunno - after seeing the situation here in Aberdeen with Trump's golf course, I am not a big fan of eminent domain. The problem is that the lower a politician is on the ring of government (e.g., Salmond of the SNP) , the easier they are to bribe, and the greater the likelihood that eminent domain could be abused. In Aberdeen, Trump didn't like the looks of his neighbours' modest houses next to his nice shiny new golf resort (a ecological desert with 0 biodiversity compared to the coastline he destroyed). Thus, Trump discussed openly asking for compulsory purchase orders whereby the Scottish government would forcibly buy the houses that so upset Trump's delicate sensibilities. This enraged the locals, and my impression is that only their severe reaction prevented the compulsory purchases from moving forward.

    In the proposed plank, I would even worry leaving in anything about 'public nuisance', which is very subjective. Is modern art a 'public nuisance'?

    EDIT: FWIW, I am from VA.
     
  8. dime21 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    #8
    Here are the results FWIW. An overwhelming 'YES' to limit the reach of eminent domain in the VA constitution:

    Yes 2,427,185 75%
    No 820,771 25%
     
  9. leenak macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #9
    But the only thing it changes is that you might pay a lot more to act on emminent domain. I don't see how it is a win. The limits were already in place.
     
  10. AhmedFaisal, Nov 7, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2013
  11. leenak macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #11
    I can fully understand that. My family fought an emminent domain case a few years ago where a major freeway was to go through an established, but lower income neighborhood. They won the case and the city was able to modify their plans. I guess I mean really that it still seems to be a confusing thing to put into a state constitution when it is already in place. I guess I'm also confused as to why the republicans would support it because it doesn't seem to be their type of thing. but hey, what do I know.
     

Share This Page