Deepdale to be Condemned!!!????

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Lapper,

Extract yourself from North Hills and Deepdale for a second.

If a developer wanted to put up a combination residential, retail and commercial development, golf courses sure look appetizing, as do the revenues to the municipality.

Mark my words, golf courses will come within the cross hairs of development, vis a vis eminent domain, unless the laws are changed.

They are perfect for development due to their location, location, location.

[Voytek Wilczak]

Here, this is a case of private property being condemned for the "public good."

Steve

Wow - last time I checked this was the cornerstone of the Bolshevik Revolution and the Communism.

I cannot believe this is happening in this country.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Voytek

Perhaps I should have said "perceived public good." BUT, recreation facilities and municipal golf courses have been historically found to be for the "public good" and no different than building roads or schools. As long as there is "just compensation" it's legal.

Steve

[Jim Nugent]

Voytek

Perhaps I should have said "perceived public good." BUT, recreation facilities and municipal golf courses have been historically found to be for the "public good" and no different than building roads or schools. As long as there is "just compensation" it's legal.

Steve

Perceived or not, Voytek is right.  Government wants to take  someone's property by force.  Amazing how the public good so often ends up meaning multi-millions for a favored developer.  

And who determines "just compensation?"  The government.  If you disagree with their valuation, tough.    

Yes, you can try to fight in the courts.  You must place your resources against that of the government.  Fleas against elephants -- a twenty handicapper against Tiger.  And it's another branch of government that rules yea or nay.  The mafia never had it so good.  

I think Patrick is correct.  The door has been opened.  Unless eminent domain is somehow held in check, get ready for a tidal wave of more takings.  

[Steve Lapper]

Steve Lapper,

Extract yourself from North Hills and Deepdale for a second.

If a developer wanted to put up a combination residential, retail and commercial development, golf courses sure look appetizing, as do the revenues to the municipality.

Mark my words, golf courses will come within the cross hairs of development, vis a vis eminent domain, unless the laws are changed.

They are perfect for development due to their location, location, location.

Pat,

   That's precisely what I was alluding to in my final sentence. I agree with you (very rare ) that this will continue to occur all over the US. It will become especially prevalent in those areas that have courses on or nearby blighted, or semi-blighted urban centers. In fact, I would expect to see it happen inside the Garden State within the next decade.

    I don't see it being successful in North Hills just yet.


Others,

     Since the Kelo decision, many States have begun drafting distinctly tougher anti-eminent domain laws. I'm told to expect to see this kind of legislation in no less than 24 states by year's end. Yes, developers end up on the profitable side of the equation when local politicians are capable of seizing certain private properties, however, sometimes it is ultimately a more beneficient and altruistic move for the community as we all must remember that "change is the only constant" and many, many times, change is for the better. I'm NOT advocating the use of the condemnation process necessarily, but instead wondering if it isn't sometime a whole lot better to give many others the chance to a higher quality of life, instead of some insular old subset of that local population having their private playground? Just a thought?

 

[Jim Nugent]

Yes, developers end up on the profitable side of the equation when local politicians are capable of seizing certain private properties, however, sometimes it is ultimately a more beneficient and altruistic move for the community as we all must remember that "change is the only constant" and many, many times, change is for the better. I'm NOT advocating the use of the condemnation process necessarily, but instead wondering if it isn't sometime a whole lot better to give many others the chance to a higher quality of life, instead of some insular old subset of that local population having their private playground? Just a thought?
 

Steve, how altruistic would you feel if they were taking YOUR property?

[Steve Lapper]

Yes, developers end up on the profitable side of the equation when local politicians are capable of seizing certain private properties, however, sometimes it is ultimately a more beneficient and altruistic move for the community as we all must remember that "change is the only constant" and many, many times, change is for the better. I'm NOT advocating the use of the condemnation process necessarily, but instead wondering if it isn't sometime a whole lot better to give many others the chance to a higher quality of life, instead of some insular old subset of that local population having their private playground? Just a thought?
 

Steve, how altruistic would you feel if they were taking YOUR property?

As is always the case with property and real estate, it's all about location. If I owned an old, worn-down property that was PROPERLY SITUATED to transform into something I felt was important for the community (and not just myself), I would engage in negotiations to sell that property to either the town or a private developer. Rather than fall into the hysterics of emotions, I'd carefully examine the surrounding area and demand/negotiate a relocation to a nearby site. That happens all the time and is certainly possible.

I don't advocate the indiscriminate use of condemnation and I generally am averse to it's use for high-end market residential or retail as neither use, IMHO, justifies it's exercise. However, there are plenty of good and constructive reasons that do demand a careful examination and necessitate change.

Remember, so many places like Lincoln Center, The present Times Square, The Baltimore Harbor, and so many of this country's greatest museums and other cultural centers have evolved with the help of some INTELLIGENT use of eminent domain! Are more/most of us better off for such events?  

[Dan_Callahan]

Perhaps the best response I've seen to the eminent domain case can be found at http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Probably nothing will come of it, but it would be great to see a Supreme Court ruling that had a subsequent adverse impact on one of the justices. For those who don't know, a group is trying to build a hotel on top of Justice David Souter's home in New Hampshire—using eminent domain to acquire the property.

[jeffwarne]

I first saw this thread yesterday and thought it was a joke.
Or certainly something that had absolutely no legs.

I went to a dinner last night and bumped into one of my members. It turns out he's the attorney representing Deepdale. It's not a joke and it's not a simple case.
Obviously he couldn't disclose confidential details, but as was suggested earlier on this thread, the money to acquire the property is the biggest stumbling block the town would run into.

What aggravates/worries me is that that would be the reason that the attempt would fail. As opposed to what is right or wrong.
As in what about property rights in America?
I know eminent domain exists, but who gets to decide this greater good crap. Stalin,Marx? let's just divvy up everything and follow the great lead of Communism for the common good.


 What happens when a better heeled municipality decides to rob a more affordable financially struggling club of its' property
under the guise of the greater good?

[Steve Lapper]

I first saw this thread yesterday and thought it was a joke.
Or certainly something that had absolutely no legs.

I went to a dinner last night and bumped into one of my members. It turns out he's the attorney representing Deepdale. It's not a joke and it's not a simple case.
Obviously he couldn't disclose confidential details, but as was suggested earlier on this thread, the money to acquire the property is the biggest stumbling block the town would run into.

What aggravates/worries me is that that would be the reason that the attempt would fail. As opposed to what is right or wrong.
As in what about property rights in America?
I know eminent domain exists, but who gets to decide this greater good crap. Stalin,Marx? let's just divvy up everything and follow the great lead of Communism for the common good.


 What happens when a better heeled municipality decides to rob a more affordable financially struggling club of its' property
under the guise of the greater good?

Jeff,

   I wanted to try to take a stab at your last question. Please eliminate the hysterics (communism, blah..., blah...) There is no inherent right in this country to absolute protection of an individual's property. Instead we have a system that must always attempt to balance the inherent selfishness of capitalism with the real and certain need for the betterment of the larger whole.

   What the crux of a response to your question rests on is:

  What "better' use is proposed for the land? Like I said before, if a worn down and tired old town just wants a new infusion of retail or residential, that seems to me to be insufficient reason for the land grab. If they propose an entirely beneficial facilty (i.e. cultural center, transportation hub, library, etc...) perhaps then the condemnation might have some merit. We need to understand that some change is necessary and large tracts of land that prove to be financially unjustifiable do have better uses and so long as it the compensation is market rate and end use legimate and worthy, then sound reasoning should prevail over selfish defenses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Lapper,

Today's better use, is tomorrow's siezure through eminent domain.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Interesting article with the standard reference to Robert Moses:

http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/trends/columns/cityside/n_10215/

[Steve Lapper]

Steve Lapper,

Today's better use, is tomorrow's siezure through eminent domain.

Patrick Mucci,

Don't take me out of context (you like it as much as I do). I just don't think "some" applications of the law are as onerous or evil as the masses project.

[Tom_Doak]

Perhaps this will provide some impetus for "historic preservation" status for golf courses; as in the town couldn't take over an historic site.

[Sandman]

There are many courses on Long Island that you could throw into that group:  North Hills, North Shore, Engineers, Cold Spring Harbor.  Deepdale is news to me but as mentioned before, it is a laugher.  But one major concern is the decline in memberships at these clubs and the tremendous revenue potential in building McMansions on these sites...........on a side note:  just what Long Island needs, more homes (people, traffic, congestion)  

[Bill_McBride]

Many states are moving rapidly to pass laws protecting private property from eminent domain strictly to enhance a jurisdiction's tax base -- all stemming from the Kelo ruling.

[jeffwarne]

Steve I think I've got it now.
If it's my house it's eminent domain,but if it's your house it's unreasonable seizure.

look we're not talking about a blighted property here, we're talking about a maintained,beautiful,tax paying entity that shouldn't have to spend time and money defending itself against something that should only happen in a socialistic country.
Obviously,I don't know all the facts, I'm just arguing the principle here.
 I can tell you that if it were my house that they were coming for I'd be laying down in front of the bulldozers with Geraldo by my side. Unless of course it was something useful like a "cultural center" (so I could get a more kindler,gentler glimpse of the culture of socialism)

[Steve Lapper]

Steve I think I've got it now.
If it's my house it's eminent domain,but if it's your house it's unreasonable seizure.

look we're not talking about a blighted property here, we're talking about a maintained,beautiful,tax paying entity that shouldn't have to spend time and money defending itself against something that should only happen in a socialistic country.
Obviously,I don't know all the facts, I'm just arguing the principle here.
 I can tell you that if it were my house that they were coming for I'd be laying down in front of the bulldozers with Geraldo by my side. Unless of course it was something useful like a "cultural center" (so I could get a more kindler,gentler glimpse of the culture of socialism)

Jeff,

     You obviously didn't bother to read my posts clearly. I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY INDISCRIMINATE CONDEMNATION OF PEOPLES HOMES OR PRIVATE GOLF COURSES. I also oppose the particular efforts of the North Hills Township. I'm sure if your house, OR MY HOUSE is the last house standing in front of something that clearly and legitmately represents the larger public good (and removes some blighted, dangerous, or otherwise run-down section of township), then I'd say the real issue is price and acceptable relocation. That's all I would ever support. I would not support any capricious condemnation or one solely disguised to enhance the profitability of a private business. Do you understand the difference yet?

Those that know me here know me as one of the site's most fervent capitalists, however, unlike many here I don't shy away from taking the socially-liberal view that the world needs some measures of planned change and re-invigoration. I firmly believe that change is inevitable and well-managed change is usually far fairer than just plain reaction.

For example, I believe we should have a larger gasoline tax to help lessen our reliance on the Middle East and stops the indirect supporting of terrorism. The market, and all of it's adherent capitalists will never favor such a tax. I am repulsed by SUV's and their inherent waste yet I live in a McMansion (albeit with lower thermostat settings than most).

Our world is filled with such dichotmies and subtle differences. As a long term investor and real estate developer, I do support the use of eminent domain for a very few and limited projects of the greater good. Some golf courses that do not financially succeed and do not serve the greater community good might well qualify for such an examination. Deepdale does not meet those conditions and North Hills townspeople are not legitmate in their desires or applications and thus don't have any standing, IMHO.

[Steve Lapper]

Perhaps this will provide some impetus for "historic preservation" status for golf courses; as in the town couldn't take over an historic site.

Tom,

  Actually Tom, they could. So long as some measures are taken to preserve some parts, a state-declared (not Federal) to preserve some of the "historic" features, it might fly. More importantly, it is getting harder and harder to get property into any protective historic designation. Maybe if the major GCA "Toms" (i.e. Paul, MacWood, Naccarato and you, etc...) became the designators?? I could live with that!!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

It would appear that the clubhouse at Oakmont is safe.

The golf course is another matter, although, you've taken a novel approach.

JerrWarne,

The problem transcends your/our perception of the value of the property.   If a developer can conceive of a "better use" for the municipality, and the municipality agrees, then the property in question is in peril.

One has to view eminent domain in the context of where urban America can revitalize itself.  The apparent answer is in obsolete properties that could be better used for the public good.  An abandoned factory might be too easy of an example.

Unfortunately, with substantive amounts of money involved, the concept will be expanded to questionable seizures.

And, do todays redevelopments fall victim to future seizures through eminent domain.

While individuals have always suffered for the good of society, intent on behalf of, and trust in elected/appointed officials become paramount when the power of seizure is tied to financial gain.

It's certainly a potentially good principle, that unfortunately, can go wrong more than it can go right.

[SPDB]

TomD -
Even if Historic Preservation status were applicable to golf courses, does anybody really believe that Deepdale as currently constituted is deserving of such a designation?

Shivas - do you really believe what you wrote?

The public reaction to Kelo, and the extent to which its practical impact has been (mis)understood has been pretty amusing to observe.

[George Pazin]

The public reaction to Kelo, and the extent to which its practical impact has been (mis)understood has been pretty amusing to observe.

As opposed to the reaction within the intellectual community, which has been rather pitiful.

 

[SPDB]

George:

Which is what? Also, what is the "intellectual community"?

[Voytek Wilczak]

I first saw this thread yesterday and thought it was a joke.
Or certainly something that had absolutely no legs.

I went to a dinner last night and bumped into one of my members. It turns out he's the attorney representing Deepdale. It's not a joke and it's not a simple case.
Obviously he couldn't disclose confidential details, but as was suggested earlier on this thread, the money to acquire the property is the biggest stumbling block the town would run into.

What aggravates/worries me is that that would be the reason that the attempt would fail. As opposed to what is right or wrong.
As in what about property rights in America?
I know eminent domain exists, but who gets to decide this greater good crap. Stalin,Marx? let's just divvy up everything and follow the great lead of Communism for the common good.


 What happens when a better heeled municipality decides to rob a more affordable financially struggling club of its' property
under the guise of the greater good?

..snip...
Please eliminate the hysterics (communism, blah..., blah...) ...snip...

Why?

It gets the point across.

It's a slippery slope, maybe not all the way to Communism, but too darn close for my comfort.

It just takes one activist pinko mayor or some other crooked municipal elected official with grandiose, nebulous ideas of "greater good" to take private property (or at least ruin the affected private property owner by litigation).

I don't see any checks or balances here. There may be some in the future, as states seem to be rushing to pass laws which would prevent the eminent domain abuse.

Where I live, Jersey City recently moved to condemn a tavern (google "Golden Cicada" if you are so inclined - a modest establishment, but definitely not a blighted property), because the private Catholic school's football field abutting it was 99 yards long and they needed the extra yard.

I kid you not.

They (the City) invoked the "greater good", too, claiming recreation benefits.

ONE YARD!!!!

They seem to have since backed out after a massive public outcry in favor of the immigrant tavern owner and in face of an ACLU lawsuit, but you get the picture.

Someone in this thread (no doubt a hysterical individual) said he would lay down in front of bulldozers in defense of his property about to be taken for flimsy reasons.

Heck,  I am going to be even more hysterical and will say that if my property were to be taken by eminent domain for equally ridiculous (fraudulent) reasons, if all else failed, the takers would have to say hello to my shotgun.

BTW - in case you are wondering about the fairness of the eminent domain process, the City offered a RIDICULOUSLY low price to the tavern owner.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Hypothetical question to all you objectors of eminent domain:

Assume North Hills wants to buy the property to keep it "open space" and prevent the owners from selling it for development. Remember, this is not a member owned club. Perhaps the members would have to be bought out as well,either by owners or the village. Assume further that North Hills wants to keep the property as a village golf course and operate it as such as many other villages do in Long Island and Connecticut. Assume further that the owners of the property agree to sell to the village.

Is this scenario ok with you? Do you really care if the members have to play elsewhere? Would your opinions change if this property were farmland?