Deepdale to be Condemned!!!????

[jeffwarne]

As I said this is not a simple case and I know few of the facts,
but to answer your question,if the owners of the property (or if multiple owners,the majority) wanted to sell and the lease had expired, I would have no problem with whatever the town or new owner wanted to do with the property.
From what I understand though that is not the case.
It doesn't matter to me if it's agolf course or a farm or where the members have to play.

[Jim Nugent]

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.

Steve -- the issue is a lot simpler than you put it, IMO.  Should anyone have the right to take by force another person's property?  I say no.  You say yes.

If I point a gun at you and demand you give me your house, I am obviously stealing.  If I point a gun at you and demand you give me your house at a price I set, I am stealing.  I'm not a lawyer, but perhaps the legal term for this is "extortion."    

If one hundred people march along with me, with their guns, we are stealing.  How is eminent domain any different from that?  

A very small group of people decides what is "better use" for someone else's property.  They have the power of the state to back them up.  i.e., the power of guns.  To fight them, the property owner must then work his way through the legal system.  If he does not have deep pockets, forget it.  Even if he is rich as Midas, the state decides the case.

You object to Voytek's comparisons to communism.  But the central theme of communism is that no one has the right to property.  I would say the shoe fits perfectly here.        

[Steve Lapper]

Jim,

   Let's use youir simple logic for a few examples:

1) Let's say 50,000 people move into a town (we'll call it Green Valley and it sits between two sets of mountains or hills) over a decade. Traffic increases dramatically, air pollution sits in an inversion over Green Valley and 500 people start coming down with respiratory illnesses. State & Town planners recognize that the only remedy is to build another ingress/egress route and decide to create a tunnel and highway at the other, previously-unused end of town to relieve the situation. A long-time landowner (with a 9 hole executive golf course   , sits immediately in the way of this new route) doesn't want to sell. If eminent domain is exercised, is that theft? Should his selfish goals impede the opportunity to remedy the local population's problem? Is that Communistic to try?

2) A growing Florida metro-area sees it's growth outpacing it's amenities (cultural, educational, etc...) It decides to seek a 5 acre plot in it's downtown area to build a Aquarium, Science Center & Library, an Art Museum (and homage to GCA), along with an educationally-driven facility center to teach from. It must also build a 200 space parking garage as well.
   All the downtown land is privately owned and all but three run-down stores on the block in the center of the land agree to sell, The three shops are a Pornography Theatre, a Liquor Store, and Pawn Shop (typical Fla. block ). Should these three shops (presume they own, rather than lease) be able to stop this project? Can they impose their morals on the larger area? Should they have the chance to rob the community of this asset?  Who is stealing from whom? Is the community (who all voted for GWB in 2004 ) all communists?

In both cases who is the "very small group of people" who are deciding "better use?" Who is "extorting" who? You see the issues here are much larger than the overly simplistic theft v. ownership problem you continue to misframe.

These examples allude to my previous arguments for infrequent but permissable use of eminent domain. You, like many others in this country, are kneejerkingly reacting to a perception of pure theft and to an protection (not guaranted w/in our Constitiution)to the absolute irrevocable right to property. We live in a country where our individual rights are among (or are) the best protected on our planet. However, sometimes (and it must be judged justifiable by our own majortiyt-supported system of governance) the greater good of the masses must be able to supercede the narrow interests of the few.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Mr. Lapper

What is the thinking behind not letting people develop their property for uses that it is currently zoned for?  Should Mr. Bakst have to negotiate to build his 200 houses if properly zoned?  Or his golf course and 50 houses?  

Perhaps the system would work better, and be more honest, if the government decided what parcels should be confiscated from private owners BEFORE having negotiations with the private developers who have targeted the private property.  

It is a little scarey to me that a well connected developer $$$$$ can approach five people on a town board and steal my property.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,

   Let's use youir simple logic for a few examples:

1) Let's say 50,000 people move into a town (we'll call it Green Valley and it sits between two sets of mountains or hills) over a decade. Traffic increases dramatically, air pollution sits in an inversion over Green Valley and 500 people start coming down with respiratory illnesses. State & Town planners recognize that the only remedy is to build another ingress/egress route and decide to create a tunnel and highway at the other, previously-unused end of town to relieve the situation. A long-time landowner (with a 9 hole executive golf course   , sits immediately in the way of this new route) doesn't want to sell. If eminent domain is exercised, is that theft? Should his selfish goals impede the opportunity to remedy the local population's problem? Is that Communistic to try?

2) A growing Florida metro-area sees it's growth outpacing it's amenities (cultural, educational, etc...) It decides to seek a 5 acre plot in it's downtown area to build a Aquarium, Science Center & Library, an Art Museum (and homage to GCA), along with an educationally-driven facility center to teach from. It must also build a 200 space parking garage as well.
   All the downtown land is privately owned and all but three run-down stores on the block in the center of the land agree to sell, The three shops are a Pornography Theatre, a Liquor Store, and Pawn Shop (typical Fla. block ). Should these three shops (presume they own, rather than lease) be able to stop this project? Can they impose their morals on the larger area? Should they have the chance to rob the community of this asset?  Who is stealing from whom? Is the community (who all voted for GWB in 2004 ) all communists?

In both cases who is the "very small group of people" who are deciding "better use?" Who is "extorting" who? You see the issues here are much larger than the overly simplistic theft v. ownership problem you continue to misframe.

These examples allude to my previous arguments for infrequent but permissable use of eminent domain. You, like many others in this country, are kneejerkingly reacting to a perception of pure theft and to an protection (not guaranted w/in our Constitiution)to the absolute irrevocable right to property. We live in a country where our individual rights are among (or are) the best protected on our planet. However, sometimes (and it must be judged justifiable by our own majortiyt-supported system of governance) the greater good of the masses must be able to supercede the narrow interests of the few.

Steve -- in your first example, if the golf course owner doesn't want to sell, then a) you are not offering a high enough price, or b) you should find another route for your new road.  That is always possible, and then gives others the chance to make their contribution to the public good.

I point out that anyone who chooses to live in a town ringed by hills should not be shocked by air pollution or respiratory illnesses.  Just as anyone who smokes should not be shocked if they get lung cancer.  

In your second example, of course the liquor stores and porn places have the right to keep their property.  They are not robbing the community of anything.  The fact that they are ongoing businesses proves the community DOES value them.  They are imposing their morals on the community?  Now we have taken double speak to new heights, IMO.      

BTW, the use of examples proves little.  There are counters to everything -- nothing in this world is perfect.  Communism developed great athletes and ballet dancers.  Does that prove we should embrace communism?  No, at least not for me.  The system as a whole was a tragic, genocidal failure.  

Every freedom we enjoy (or used to enjoy) comes at a price.  When we start sacrificing those freedoms -- for security, or what some claim is the "greater good" -- I believe it is only a matter of time before those freedoms vanish, and we have neither greater good nor security.  

[HamiltonBHearst]

I might add that the village of Port Chester had a novel idea about "public good".  Here, a local landowner had a signed contract for Walgreen to develop a store on his lot.  The lot being across the street from the previously confiscated Costco.

The village determined the "public good" would better be served if they condemned the man's lot and then leased it to CVS.

[Mike_Sweeney]

I think Steve is trying to show that there can be a good and bad side both ways. Here is an example of a landowner that built a 42,000 square foot home in Sagaponack, which is the last area of The Hamptons where farms can be found "South of the Highway" i.e. near the beach.

It simply does not fit the area, and the Town Board completely dropped the ball by letting him build this. What happens when he dies and it goes into his estate? You have a 42,000 foot mess on the beach.

http://www.gladwell.com/1999/1999_01_25_t_rennert.htm

Because of this, Sagaponeck is trying to break away from Southampton:

http://www.sagassoc.com/

[jeffwarne]

Steve,

This conversation belongs on another forum (except with its' specific references to deepdale) so this is my last comment.

Steve it's clear to me you know way more about this than I,and that you have some practical experience in the matter.
And I know these cases are never simple.

But my lack of experience allows me to cling to principles of a contract of ownership meaning just that.
In all of your examples I see a solution.
Offer a much higher price to the owner.
If that doesn't work try an alternate route.

You're basically saying if I buy a liquor store I'm not entitled to the same rights as another property owner.

 A pawn shp is imposing its' morals on a community?
Look I've never been to a pawn shop but its' existence is no more imposing its' morals on me than a Catholic Church is.(and I attend Catholic Church)

What happens if a small group decides gambling casinos is a better use than churches and sells this idea to the town on revenue issues?
Eminent domain exists, I'm just saying it sucks if the owner is forced out-hiding under the guise of the greater good is generally a judgement call.
What's the point of owning anything if another group can take it away from you based on their morals/greater good.

Still Communism to me regardless of who the users voted for

[HamiltonBHearst]

Mr. Sweeney

I think we have a little difference of opinion here but didn't the town drop the ball by not having proper zoning in place rather than (i assume) letting him build a legal structure on his own land.  

Funny, now we can all worry about farm land in the hamptons?  Is that why people have moved out here?

Should the last farmer left receive the lowest price because it has to be a farm?

With all the liberal environmentalists in the Hamptons how did it become what it has become?  And like Deepdale it would be a real "public good" if the local villages eminent domained the "discriminatory" clubs out of existence.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Hammy,

Feel free to call me Mike, this is a discussion group, not a court of law.   If I remember correctly, and I could be off, the zoning was in place and Rennert filed an appeal and lost. He then threatened or actually did file a lawsuit against the individuals on the Town Board, who cannot afford that kind of fight, so they caved.

Probably not the Poster Child for your issue!

[jeffwarne]

Mike,
It's actually MUCH bigger than that.
It's located on 63 acres.
What would you say if he instead chose to subdivide into 63 one acre homes-of 5000 square feet each
or 12  5 acre homes of 10-30000 square feet each?
which is quite common in the area-witnes the transformation around Atlantic.

I know many of the people who led the charge against that house -Their houses are 20-30000 square feet on MUCH tinier plots of land. The principal complainer has a golf course on his grounds which as a private property is chemically unregulated despite its virtual adjacence to multiple wetlands.
It sucks when you no longer have the biggest house on the block.
 Why is it OK for the Vanderbilt mansions,and other large estates, but not for the modern industrialists?
Still rather see that than 63 McMansions,like the rest of The Hamptons

[Mike_Sweeney]

Jeff,

I started out as a Jersey Shore kid which is overbuilt, then The Hamptons which is overbuilt and now Cape Cod/The Vineyard, which is hanging in there. Problem is the water is getting colder on each of these moves!! What next Maine!!

[SPDB]

Mike - The townspeople may get their wish yet. The PBGC is going after the corporate parent of WCI Steel, Renco Group for underfunding WCI's pension plan. Among the assets owned by Renco is Fair Field, the (latest) monstronsity on the east end.

[rgkeller]

The property in question in North Hills is more likely to house a golf course fifty years from now if the town is the owner than if the Allen dominated partnership is.

The Allens intended and intend to cash out from their investment in the property.