Anyone familiar with Eminent Domain laws? They want my neighborhood!

[pepperpete1]

Just compensation

Sorry Counselor, who establishes "justly compensated"? Tyranny is tyranny in my book! TP would understand. BTW, thanks for the info.

Just compensation is usually what the going market rate is at the time of the proffered price.

 

[Kludge]

I didn't say you shouldn't own anything...what I meant is that you shouldn't make it so easy for the county thieves to steal your stuff.

I took it a step further based on your response

 

[Truth Warrior]

Just compensation is usually what the going market rate is at the time of the proffered price.

And if you don't choose to accept it, as the owner, for any possible variety of rational or even irrational reasons? Then what?

 

[Elwar]

Dig a hole on your property.

About 2 miles deep...then widen it.

Or perhaps if you don't mind them coming after you later for cleanup...dump some nuclear waste in your back yard.

 

[Razmear]

I would actually like to see a digital photo of your yard/lawn posted just to see what your local government is griping about.

Here ya go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yzVheDupiU

I took this vid last weekend burning some dead trees that I cleared from the backyard. The pan shot shows the front corner near the fence which I admit needs to be trimmed back, and the back hill which is a major PITA to clear cuz of all the sapling stumps left after I took a chainsaw to all of em a few weeks back.
Oh, that Bronco is also a violation, but they haven't cited me for that yet.

Now my main point is that the government has no right to tell me how long my weeds are, when to clean up my yard, or what I can store on my property, so long as it won't affect my neighbors property, such as toxic waste.
If a neighbor doesn't like my yard, and none have complained, then they could have some civil recourse, but it's none of the governments business.

The short reason of why the county is doing this is because I live in a trailer park which they want to shut down so they can 're-purpose' the land. Everyone is getting these letters for some BS reason.

eb

 

[Thomas Paine]

And if you don't choose to accept it, as the owner, for any possible variety of rational or even irrational reasons? Then what?

The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in a past U.S. Supreme Court decision that government has always had the right to take a person's property for public use and for just compensation to that person. This is embodied in the Fifth Amendment. I agree with Rehnquist and the Fifth Amendment. By social contract or otherwise, we have all agreed to live together as a common people or a country. If my government, by its representatives elected by the people, have determined that my property is needed for the public good, then the government does have the right and shall take my property so long as I am reasonably compensated.

The litigation issues arise over what is public use and what is reasonable compensation. In Kelo v New London, one of the plaintiff's wanted to keep her home that she had been born in, married in, gave birth to her children in, and where her spouse died. There were a lot of memories in that home. How do you determine what is reasonable compensation for taking a home that contains those memories vis-a-vis a next door home that was maybe only owned for a couple of years and contains no emotional attachments? There is no easy answer.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Here ya go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yzVheDupiU

I took this vid last weekend burning some dead trees that I cleared from the backyard. The pan shot shows the front corner near the fence which I admit needs to be trimmed back, and the back hill which is a major PITA to clear cuz of all the sapling stumps left after I took a chainsaw to all of em a few weeks back.
Oh, that Bronco is also a violation, but they haven't cited me for that yet.

Now my main point is that the government has no right to tell me how long my weeds are, when to clean up my yard, or what I can store on my property, so long as it won't affect my neighbors property, such as toxic waste.
If a neighbor doesn't like my yard, and none have complained, then they could have some civil recourse, but it's none of the governments business.

The short reason of why the county is doing this is because I live in a trailer park which they want to shut down so they can 're-purpose' the land. Everyone is getting these letters for some BS reason.

eb

Interesting how additional facts can change the tenor of a particular case. Toxic waste is a valid but extreme example. If a person's property is kept in a way that has a negative effect on a neighbor's property value, then the neighbor can probably bring a nuisance suit against the property owner (if such a suit is worth it). However, to prevent nuisance suits, a local government generally adopts ordinances that mandate how a person can or cannot maintain his or property.

I appreciate the video. It does look like there is some underbrush that can be trimmed back. However, what I would do, is contact your local government and have a representative come to your property and tell you what exactly needs to be done. Take notes for your own file and date your notes in case they are needed for litigation afterward. Then ask the official to send you a letter in writing for your file. If the official is just telling you to trim back some weeds, then I really don't see what the problem is -- the issue is not worth litigating over.

However, you raise an additional issue concerning re-zoning. Without any additional information, your area was previously residential and is not being rezoned to commercial for future development. A local government can rezone property so long as there is public notice (in the local newspaper usually) of public meetings regarding such rezoning. Nevertheless, with low income housing/trailer parks, I believe there is a Supreme Court decision that a local government has to provide in its zoning plans an area for low income housing/trailer parks, etc. so that folks with lower incomes have a place to live. I guess I am curious as to whether your local government has completely eliminated any zoning for low income residential or has moved it to someplace else in its jurisdiction. If they have eliminated low income residential, then there may be grounds for a lawsuit.

As a former local government official myself (while I was in law school), I cannot stress enough how important it is for everyone to closely monitor and be involved in their local government. I'll wager that 90% of the posters on this forum have not been to a local village council or local township board meeting for a few years before this election year. Local governments are extremely powerful (as evident in Kelo v New London) because unlike state and federal government, there really is no check and balance system at the local level. My point is to look up your local government website and find out when public meetings are and attend them. Such meetings generally occur once a month and last no more than hour but you will stay abreast as to what is going on in your local government and more importantly, how they are spending your money.

 

[Truth Warrior]

The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in a past U.S. Supreme Court decision that government has always had the right to take a person's property for public use and for just compensation to that person. This is embodied in the Fifth Amendment. I agree with Rehnquist and the Fifth Amendment. By social contract or otherwise, we have all agreed to live together as a common people or a country. If my government, by its representatives elected by the people, have determined that my property is needed for the public good, then the government does have the right and shall take my property so long as I am reasonably compensated.

The litigation issues arise over what is public use and what is reasonable compensation. In Kelo v New London, one of the plaintiff's wanted to keep her home that she had been born in, married in, gave birth to her children in, and where her spouse died. There were a lot of memories in that home. How do you determine what is reasonable compensation for taking a home that contains those memories vis-a-vis a next door home that was maybe only owned for a couple of years and contains no emotional attachments? There is no easy answer.

Governments have NO rights! People do, as individuals. Governments have POWER ( force, coercion, violence )!

 

[pepperpete1]

Mobile home communities

As a former local government official myself (while I was in law school), I cannot stress enough how important it is for everyone to closely monitor and be involved in their local government. I'll wager that 90% of the posters on this forum have not been to a local village council or local township board meeting for a few years before this election year. Local governments are extremely powerful (as evident in Kelo v New London) because unlike state and federal government, there really is no check and balance system at the local level. My point is to look up your local government website and find out when public meetings are and attend them. Such meetings generally occur once a month and last no more than hour but you will stay abreast as to what is going on in your local government and more importantly, how they are spending your money.

I agree with the above quote.

I have sold manufactured houses for the past 10 years, both in communities and on private land.

A mobile home community is privately owned property. The owners are responsible for the property taxes, which I am sure they pass on to their tenants in lot rent.

To live in a mobile home community the tenants are all supposed to be registered as residents and have signed a lease and agreed to a set of rules that are applied to all tenants. They, the owners, not the county, have the right to mow lawns, remove cars,(or evict the tenants), or any of the other rules that have been broken and then charge a reasonable price for doing so. If they were to charge an exhorbitant rate then the landlord and tenant laws should take effect, as the landlord's recourse should have been spelled out in the lease.

Oops, the above is based on the fact that Razmear is actually renting the property and has not placed a mobile home in a manufactured housing sub-division, which should have it's own association rules.

 

[Thomas Paine]

I agree with the above quote.

I have sold manufactured houses for the past 10 years, both in communities and on private land.

A mobile home community is privately owned property. The owners are responsible for the property taxes, which I am sure they pass on to their tenants in lot rent.

To live in a mobile home community the tenants are all supposed to be registered as residents and have signed a lease and agreed to a set of rules that are applied to all tenants. They, the owners, not the county, have the right to mow lawns, remove cars,(or evict the tenants), or any of the other rules that have been broken and then charge a reasonable price for doing so. If they were to charge an exhorbitant rate then the landlord and tenant laws should take effect, as the landlord's recourse should have been spelled out in the lease.

Oops, the above is based on the fact that Razmear is actually renting the property and has not placed a mobile home in a manufactured housing sub-division, which should have it's own association rules.

It all depends on what additional facts the OP provides regarding his status as a property owner. As for association rules, those rules are in addition to local ordinances. At the end of the day, local ordinances will trump association rules.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Governments have NO rights! People do, as individuals. Governments have POWER ( force, coercion, violence )!

Let me put this another way. The U.S. Constitution is a contract between the governed and its elected leaders. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution grants or recognizes certain powers to its elected leaders. One of those powers is the power for government to take a person's property for just compensation. Such a power is implied when the Fifth Amendment states that government shall not take a person's property for public use without just compensation; or, after removing the double negatives from the foregoing clause, the Fifth Amendment provides that government may take a person's property for public use for just compensation.

The Founding Fathers crafted the foregoing contract or U.S. Constitution, which was accepted by the people of the United States via ratification. Now, if you want to modify the contract, or amend it, you can do so but you have to do so through the amendment process, which ultimately requires ratification by the we the people of the United States.

Personally, I think empowering government to take private property for public use for just compensation is wise. Under British rule, the crown would often seize private property without any compensation. Also, do you really want some person who owns property that is needed to defend this nation to deny the rest of us people the benefit of that property? I don't think that's fair but I also don't think its fair to deprive that person of such property without just compensation if the rest of us will benefit.

Now, the problem today, is that government has expanded the notion of what is "public use." Several states are passing eminent domain laws that narrow the scope of "public use" which is a good thing. Also, if you don't want your local government abusing eminent domain laws, then I suggest you run for your local city council or township board on the issue that you will jealously guard a person's property rights against abusive eminent domain.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Let me put this another way. The U.S. Constitution is a contract between the governed and its elected leaders. Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution grants or recognizes certain powers to its elected leaders. One of those powers is the power for government to take a person's property for just compensation. Such a power is implied when the Fifth Amendment states that government shall not take a person's property for public use without just compensation; or, after removing the double negatives from the foregoing clause, the Fifth Amendment provides that government may take a person's property for public use for just compensation.

The Founding Fathers crafted the foregoing contract or U.S. Constitution, which was accepted by the people of the United States via ratification. Now, if you want to modify the contract, or amend it, you can do so but you have to do so through the amendment process, which ultimately requires ratification by the we the people of the United States.

Personally, I think empowering government to take private property for public use for just compensation is wise. Under British rule, the crown would often seize private property without any compensation. Also, do you really want some person who owns property that is needed to defend this nation to deny the rest of us people the benefit of that property? I don't think that's fair but I also don't think its fair to deprive that person of such property without just compensation if the rest of us will benefit.

Now, the problem today, is that government has expanded the notion of what is "public use." Several states are passing eminent domain laws that narrow the scope of "public use" which is a good thing. Also, if you don't want your local government abusing eminent domain laws, then I suggest you run for your local city council or township board on the issue that you will jealously guard a person's property rights against abusive eminent domain.

Let me put this another way.

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

Was Tom Paine a Federalist?

Do you happen to have a handy link to that contract? I never got nor signed one.

Thanks Counselor.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Let me put this another way.

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

Was Tom Paine a Federalist?

Do you happen to have a handy link to that contract? I never got nor signed one.

Thanks Counselor.

You can google the U.S. Constitution if you don't have a copy of it at home. By the way, you don't have to sign a contract to make it enforceable. When you go to a barber shop or hair salon for a haircut, you likely wait until a barber or hair dresser is available and then you sit in the chair and your hair gets cut. Afterward, the barber/hair dresser expects to be paid for his/her services. However, you never signed a contract with the barber/hairdresser. Are you going to tell the barber/hairdresser that there is no contract? Of course not, because you can have a contract by conduct.

Similarly, the Founding Fathers drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution. However, the remaining people of the United States in 1789 did not sign the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the several states held constitutional conventions and the people ratified the U.S. Constitution by their vote, or conduct.

Likewise, you never signed the U.S. Constitution. However, you conduct your life as if you ratified the U.S. Constitution because I bet you vote in various federal elections, you claim protection under the Bill of Rights, you claim rights as a U.S. citizen, etc. Therefore, you have agreed to the terms of the U.S. Constitution by conduct. One of those terms happens to be the granting of power to government to take a person's private property for public use with just compensation. Also, you can't cherry pick particular terms because contract law does not work that way. Nevertheless, you and the rest of the people of the United States may decide to modify the U.S. Constitution by making it so that government cannot take a person's private property away for any reason via the amendment process. The choice is up to you but until the U.S. Constitution is amended accordingly, then government has the power to take a person's private property for public use with just compensation.

 

[Truth Warrior]

You can google the U.S. Constitution if you don't have a copy of it at home. By the way, you don't have to sign a contract to make it enforceable. When you go to a barber shop or hair salon for a haircut, you likely wait until a barber or hair dresser is available and then you sit in the chair and your hair gets cut. Afterward, the barber/hair dresser expects to be paid for his/her services. However, you never signed a contract with the barber/hairdresser. Are you going to tell the barber/hairdresser that there is no contract? Of course not, because you can have a contract by conduct.

Similarly, the Founding Fathers drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution. However, the remaining people of the United States in 1789 did not sign the U.S. Constitution. Instead, the several states held constitutional conventions and the people ratified the U.S. Constitution by their vote, or conduct.

Likewise, you never signed the U.S. Constitution. However, you conduct your life as if you ratified the U.S. Constitution because I bet you vote in various federal elections, you claim protection under the Bill of Rights, you claim rights as a U.S. citizen, etc. Therefore, you have agreed to the terms of the U.S. Constitution by conduct. One of those terms happens to be the granting of power to government to take a person's private property for public use with just compensation. Also, you can't cherry pick particular terms because contract law does not work that way. Nevertheless, you and the rest of the people of the United States may decide to modify the U.S. Constitution by making it so that government cannot take a person's private property away for any reason via the amendment process. The choice is up to you but until the U.S. Constitution is amended accordingly, then government has the power to take a person's private property for public use with just compensation.

I figured that you wouldn't even bother to read the article.

Your barbershop analogy is bogus. Nice try however!

Here's another one for you to ignore, Counselor. I think that you may just be on the wrong forum.

NO TREASON.
The Constitution of no Authority
By Lysander Spooner
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6

"The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment." - Ron Paul

 

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Dispose of all your social contracts (SS#, DL, etc) and gain defacto sovereign/diplomat status, and you may fall not under the jurisdiction of your local courts.
Prove through conduct you aren't liable.

 

[Thomas Paine]

I figured that you wouldn't even bother to read the article.

Your barbershop analogy is bogus. Nice try however!

Please advise us how your next trip to the barber shop/hair salon goes when you refuse to pay for your haircut because the barber/hairdresser didn't sign a written contract with you to cut your hair for a set price.

 

[Thomas Paine]

Dispose of all your social contracts (SS#, DL, etc) and gain defacto sovereign/diplomat status, and you may fall not under the jurisdiction of your local courts.
Prove through conduct you aren't liable.

You have to go further than that by not paying taxes, not driving on public roads, disclaiming protection under the Bill of Rights and the rest of the U.S. Constitution, etc.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Please advise us how your next trip to the barber shop/hair salon goes when you refuse to pay for your haircut because the barber/hairdresser didn't sign a written contract with you to cut your hair for a set price.

I'm a libertarian, pro-market place guy, NOT a statist guy. No problemo!

BTW, my wife cuts my hair. ( Irrelevant aside )

The barber is not trying to run my life, steal my property, tax me, demand my obedience under threats of punishments nor get me killed, etc., etc., etc.

As I said before, it's a bogus argument! Take the hint!

 

[angelatc]

I'm an attorney familiar with eminent domain laws (it does vary from state to state and I am only licensed in Michigan so don't rely on what I am posting as legal advice). If the local government says they are going to seize the property via eminent domain, then they can do so without assessing fines or liens on one's property for overgrown grass/weeds.

<snip>

In this OP's particular case, I suspect the notice regarding tall weeds/grass is unrelated to the local government's intent to seize private property. All the OP has to do is simply cut his grass/lawn to avoid the fine or lien. Regardless, the local government can still take steps to invoke eminent domain laws to seize the OP's property regardless of weeds/grass.

But couldn't they be setting themselves up to use the citations as evidence of "blight?"

 

[Kade]

Please check this post in General Politics:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=141410

I posted it initially to gripe about the IPMC being used to tell me how long I can cut my grass, but now it seems that Anderson County is targeting my entire neighborhood in an effort to use the IPMC (International Property Maintenance Code) to assess liens on everyones property so that a company can buy up our property to build a plant here without having to use Eminent Domain laws.

Please concentrate replies and info in that thread cuz this isn't really a 'grassroots issue' even tho the bastards seem to want to take my house away.

eb

This is not an eminent domain issue.. I need more details to help you, perhaps a better understand of their reasoning for the lien. If there is a serious threat to your property, the ACLU can and most probably will get involved.