Things I didn't address
Dec. 21st, 2006 04:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumAmong the hoopla of the recent election, where the one thing I wanted to fail, at the local level, passed; and SLO is going to lose a lot of nice open space, to box-stores, and a housing development; in a reversal of the "tragedy of the commons." The developer was denied by the city council, appealed to the voters in a city measure, and got stomped, so he spent the money [a couple of mill] to get it on the county ballot. The county being much larger, and folks in Paso, and Santa Maria, to say nothing of the small towns, a hundred miles away, it passed. So most of the Laguna will be lost to the public, locked away behind gates, and buried in concrete.
Which relates to something I feared would pass, and didn't. Prop. 93 was an attempt to dismantle all zoning regulation, by requiring the gov't in question to recompense the owner for "loss" by the land being re-zoned in any way which restricted building.
An example of how it was to work is a lawsuit in Sacaramento county. Guy bought 400 acres of steep hillside in the late '70s. He's since sold about 100 acres of it, and made a pretty penny, but things like the Oakland fire caused the county to change the density, from four lots per acre, to 1. So he want the county to pay him for the loss of something like 600 houses, at an estimated 2 million dollars per house, because he has 200 acres, and is now limited to 200 houses, instead of 800.
The proximate cause for this is, of course, Kelo v. New London where the Supreme Court decided that a gov't can use eminent domain to transfer a piece of private property from one private person, to another; for the second persons private gain, if it can be argued the new use of the land will benefit the community in some way (which seems to mean the new property is expected to generate more taxes).
Now, I find this reprehensible. Eminent domain, for the purpose of taking something for the immediate public benefit (say a hospital, school or road) is troublesome enough, but if I don't want to sell my property to Home Depot, or Pfizer, or whomever, so they can make a private profit, that's my right, and ought to stay mine.
What I find worse is this.
In a nutshell, the 2nd Circuit, applying Kelo, has decided a developer can extort from a property owner, by threatening to have Kelo invoked, and that such an extortion is legal.
With the blessing of officials from the Village of Port Chester, the Village’s chosen developer approached Didden and his partner with an offer they couldn’t refuse. Because Didden planned to build a CVS on his property—land the developer coveted for a Walgreens—the developer demanded $800,000 from Didden to make him “go away” or ordered Didden to give him an unearned 50 percent stake in the CVS development. If Didden refused, the developer would have the Village of Port Chester condemn the land for his private use. Didden rejected the bold-faced extortion. The very next day the Village of Port Chester condemned Didden’s property through eminent domain so it could hand it over to the developer who made the threat.
Sweet, no?
Which relates to something I feared would pass, and didn't. Prop. 93 was an attempt to dismantle all zoning regulation, by requiring the gov't in question to recompense the owner for "loss" by the land being re-zoned in any way which restricted building.
An example of how it was to work is a lawsuit in Sacaramento county. Guy bought 400 acres of steep hillside in the late '70s. He's since sold about 100 acres of it, and made a pretty penny, but things like the Oakland fire caused the county to change the density, from four lots per acre, to 1. So he want the county to pay him for the loss of something like 600 houses, at an estimated 2 million dollars per house, because he has 200 acres, and is now limited to 200 houses, instead of 800.
The proximate cause for this is, of course, Kelo v. New London where the Supreme Court decided that a gov't can use eminent domain to transfer a piece of private property from one private person, to another; for the second persons private gain, if it can be argued the new use of the land will benefit the community in some way (which seems to mean the new property is expected to generate more taxes).
Now, I find this reprehensible. Eminent domain, for the purpose of taking something for the immediate public benefit (say a hospital, school or road) is troublesome enough, but if I don't want to sell my property to Home Depot, or Pfizer, or whomever, so they can make a private profit, that's my right, and ought to stay mine.
What I find worse is this.
In a nutshell, the 2nd Circuit, applying Kelo, has decided a developer can extort from a property owner, by threatening to have Kelo invoked, and that such an extortion is legal.
With the blessing of officials from the Village of Port Chester, the Village’s chosen developer approached Didden and his partner with an offer they couldn’t refuse. Because Didden planned to build a CVS on his property—land the developer coveted for a Walgreens—the developer demanded $800,000 from Didden to make him “go away” or ordered Didden to give him an unearned 50 percent stake in the CVS development. If Didden refused, the developer would have the Village of Port Chester condemn the land for his private use. Didden rejected the bold-faced extortion. The very next day the Village of Port Chester condemned Didden’s property through eminent domain so it could hand it over to the developer who made the threat.
Sweet, no?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-22 01:35 am (UTC)Awful.
You might find this of interest
Date: 2006-12-22 02:20 am (UTC)Dharavi's slumdwellers weren't about to give up their prime real estate without fighting for something good in return. They opposed Shaan Mehta's redevelopment plan, and pressured the government not to approve it. So Mehta had to start working with slumdwellers to see what they needed. Nine years and hundreds of meetings later, the government approved a radically reshaped plan this year.
Here's the link:
http://www.theworld.org/?q=node/6780
no subject
Date: 2006-12-22 04:38 pm (UTC)Perhaps the kicker is that I have heard rumors (maybe more than that?) that Pfizer may just up sticks and leave the Groton area.
Remember, kiddies: when you invoke eminient domain for the "good" of the community via private industry, there's nuthin' in the world that says that private industry will actually stick around to return the favor.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-22 11:18 pm (UTC)Frankly, I'm staggered.