Eminent Domain & Proposition 90

[brainfart]

Here in California we are going to vote on Proposition 90, a reaction
to last year's Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of local
communities to seize private property via eminent domain and giving it
to private property developers.

So states are now passing laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting
such use of eminent domain, narrowing it to what we thought was the
original intent of taking private land for public works projects like
roads, railroads, dams, etc. Proposition 90 is disguised as such, but
it includes a clause that would require the government to compensate a
private landowner if it regulates the land in any way that negatively
affects the property value.

So it seems like if this passes I could buy a vacant lot in some city,
claim I plan to build some multi-billion dollar factory there, and when
the city responds by saying the property is zoned for family houses or
small businesses, I can sue them for the "lost" value of my land which
I estimate to be in the tens of billions of dollars. According to Prop
90, it's not the current market value of my property that I must be
compensated for, it's what I estimate the property could be worth if I
was allowed to do anything I want with it. If I think my half-acre
parcel in a suburban neighborhood might generate millions of dollars if
I were allowed to stripmine it for copper ore, then the city must pay
me millions of dollars for it even though the neighboring properties
are only selling for a few hundred thousand dollars.

[Bill Z.]

Post by brainfart
So it seems like if this passes I could buy a vacant lot in some city,
claim I plan to build some multi-billion dollar factory there, and when
the city responds by saying the property is zoned for family houses or
small businesses, I can sue them for the "lost" value of my land which
I estimate to be in the tens of billions of dollars.

That would never happen. The real issue is that there might be a
financial impact to the city for zoning-code *changes* that negatively
impact some property values. If you simply buy some property, and
don't bother to check what your property is zoned for, you are just
out of luck.

Of course, it is not unusual for initiatives to have unintended
consequences due to there being no reviews and public hearings
as is typical with legislation. With the effort to gather
signatures and fund an advertising campaign, the sponsors will
typically try to paper over the problems---they don't want to
go back to the drawing board and try again next year.

[nativetexan_1]

Post by brainfart
Here in California we are going to vote on Proposition 90, a reaction
to last year's Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of local
communities to seize private property via eminent domain and giving it
to private property developers.
So states are now passing laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting
such use of eminent domain, narrowing it to what we thought was the
original intent of taking private land for public works projects like
roads, railroads, dams, etc. Proposition 90 is disguised as such, but
it includes a clause that would require the government to compensate a
private landowner if it regulates the land in any way that negatively
affects the property value.
So it seems like if this passes I could buy a vacant lot in some city,
claim I plan to build some multi-billion dollar factory there, and when
the city responds by saying the property is zoned for family houses or
small businesses, I can sue them for the "lost" value of my land which
I estimate to be in the tens of billions of dollars. According to Prop
90, it's not the current market value of my property that I must be
compensated for, it's what I estimate the property could be worth if I
was allowed to do anything I want with it. If I think my half-acre
parcel in a suburban neighborhood might generate millions of dollars if
I were allowed to stripmine it for copper ore, then the city must pay
me millions of dollars for it even though the neighboring properties
are only selling for a few hundred thousand dollars.

I'm afraid the courts will hold you to the zoning (or current use) at the
time of purchase unless you have agreed to different zoning. If zoning is
changed without your agreement, the old zoning is usually "grandfathered"
until you dispose of the property.

The real problem is the federal government. Let's say your city wants to
condemn your house and give it to a developer but state law says no. So,
all he does is go to the federal government (over whom your state laws have
no effect) and gets the property through federal condemnation. No, I'm
sorry, the real problem is Supreme Court justices with their heads up their
collective ass.

[Branson Hunter]

Post by brainfart
Here in California we are going to vote on Proposition 90, a reaction
to last year's Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of local
communities to seize private property via eminent domain and giving it
to private property developers.
So states are now passing laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting
such use of eminent domain, narrowing it to what we thought was the
original intent of taking private land for public works projects like
roads, railroads, dams, etc. Proposition 90 is disguised as such, but
it includes a clause that would require the government to compensate a
private landowner if it regulates the land in any way that negatively
affects the property value.
So it seems like if this passes I could buy a vacant lot in some city,
claim I plan to build some multi-billion dollar factory there, and when
the city responds by saying the property is zoned for family houses or
small businesses, I can sue them for the "lost" value of my land which
I estimate to be in the tens of billions of dollars. According to Prop
90, it's not the current market value of my property that I must be
compensated for, it's what I estimate the property could be worth if I
was allowed to do anything I want with it. If I think my half-acre
parcel in a suburban neighborhood might generate millions of dollars if
I were allowed to stripmine it for copper ore, then the city must pay
me millions of dollars for it even though the neighboring properties
are only selling for a few hundred thousand dollars.

Yep.
I predict Prop. 90 will pass.


Branson

[Leif Erikson]

Post by brainfart
Here in California we are going to vote on Proposition 90, a reaction
to last year's Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of local
communities to seize private property via eminent domain and giving it
to private property developers.
So states are now passing laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting
such use of eminent domain, narrowing it to what we thought was the
original intent of taking private land for public works projects like
roads, railroads, dams, etc. Proposition 90 is disguised as such, but
it includes a clause that would require the government to compensate a
private landowner if it regulates the land in any way that negatively
affects the property value.
So it seems like if this passes I could buy a vacant lot in some city,
claim I plan to build some multi-billion dollar factory there, and when
the city responds by saying the property is zoned for family houses or
small businesses, I can sue them for the "lost" value of my land which
I estimate to be in the tens of billions of dollars. According to Prop
90, it's not the current market value of my property that I must be
compensated for, it's what I estimate the property could be worth if I
was allowed to do anything I want with it.

Wrong. It's based on fair market value, not what you
subjectively think the land would be worth if you could
do whatever you like on it. You would never receive
the necessary permits to build a factory on residential
land, even in Houston, and the fair market value of the
land would be based on the expected permitted uses of
the land.

Post by brainfart
If I think my half-acre
parcel in a suburban neighborhood might generate millions of dollars if
I were allowed to stripmine it for copper ore, then the city must pay
me millions of dollars for it even though the neighboring properties
are only selling for a few hundred thousand dollars.

Wrong.

[Jeff Strickland]

Post by brainfart
Here in California we are going to vote on Proposition 90, a reaction
to last year's Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of local
communities to seize private property via eminent domain and giving it
to private property developers.
So states are now passing laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting
such use of eminent domain, narrowing it to what we thought was the
original intent of taking private land for public works projects like
roads, railroads, dams, etc. Proposition 90 is disguised as such, but
it includes a clause that would require the government to compensate a
private landowner if it regulates the land in any way that negatively
affects the property value.
So it seems like if this passes I could buy a vacant lot in some city,
claim I plan to build some multi-billion dollar factory there, and when
the city responds by saying the property is zoned for family houses or
small businesses, I can sue them for the "lost" value of my land which
I estimate to be in the tens of billions of dollars. According to Prop
90, it's not the current market value of my property that I must be
compensated for, it's what I estimate the property could be worth if I
was allowed to do anything I want with it. If I think my half-acre
parcel in a suburban neighborhood might generate millions of dollars if
I were allowed to stripmine it for copper ore, then the city must pay
me millions of dollars for it even though the neighboring properties
are only selling for a few hundred thousand dollars.

Your view of Prop 90 is flawed.

You would have to buy a parcel that is zoned for the use you plan to put it
to -- strip mining or condo complex, etc. -- then experience the city
REZONING it away from the zoning that would allow your project.

If your plan is to strip mine in the middle of a residential neighborhood,
and the city says that is not a suitable use of your land, then you are
shit-out-of-luck. If the zoning pre-exists your acquistion of the land, then
you you can't sue anybody.

You can be sure that no city in the state is about to give up its police
power to regulate land use.

[r***@netscape.net]

Post by Jeff Strickland
Your view of Prop 90 is flawed.
You would have to buy a parcel that is zoned for the use you plan to put it
to -- strip mining or condo complex, etc. -- then experience the city
REZONING it away from the zoning that would allow your project.
If your plan is to strip mine in the middle of a residential neighborhood,
and the city says that is not a suitable use of your land, then you are
shit-out-of-luck. If the zoning pre-exists your acquistion of the land, then
you you can't sue anybody.

This should also work in reverse. If they re-zone your land so that it
increases in value, there should be a tax (say 50%) based on the
increase in market value.

However, how are they really going to be able to determine real market
value.