De Blasio pitches plan to seize private property of problem landlords, opponents cry ‘communism’

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de-blasio-pitches-plan-to-seize-private-property-of-problem-landlords-opponents-cry-communism

[Dashinka 23,199]

When is walks like a duck...

[TBoneTX 43,018]

"[...] we will seize their buildings [...]"

Oh, you will, Comrade?

[refugee 169]

For years there were scams going in in NYC where the owners would not pay taxes or fines and let the properties run down. The County would seize the land and sell it for back taxes, the same group if owners would buy the property under a different company. They would repeat this BS  for years. It made for some helish living conditions.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

3 hours ago, refugee said:

For years there were scams going in in NYC where the owners would not pay taxes or fines and let the properties run down. The County would seize the land and sell it for back taxes, the same group if owners would buy the property under a different company. They would repeat this BS  for years. It made for some helish living conditions.

except it has nothing to do with taxes. Not paying your taxes will get your property auctioned on the courthouse square in most places.

 

This is basically saying they will decide how it should be run and give it to another organization. Straight up commies 

[jg121783 3,907]

This is something that belongs in the courts. Not under the dictatorial rule of a commie mayor.

[refugee 169]

18 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

except it has nothing to do with taxes. Not paying your taxes will get your property auctioned on the courthouse square in most places.

 

This is basically saying they will decide how it should be run and give it to another organization. Straight up commies 

When you have a building that gets like this, you risk  losing it. 

 

 

[Dashinka 23,199]

2 hours ago, refugee said:

When you have a building that gets like this, you risk  losing it. 

 

 

I am fine with governments seizing buildings for not paying taxes, but to take them over and run them with a government entity is just wrong.  

2 hours ago, refugee said:

When you have a building that gets like this, you risk  losing it. 

 

 

I am fine with governments seizing buildings for not paying taxes, but to take them over and run them with a government entity is just wrong.  

[refugee 169]

4 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I am fine with governments seizing buildings for not paying taxes, but to take them over and run them with a government entity is just wrong.  

I am fine with governments seizing buildings for not paying taxes, but to take them over and run them with a government entity is just wrong.  

It never bothered Trump as a developer to use Eminent Domain

 

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

26 minutes ago, refugee said:

It never bothered Trump as a developer to use Eminent Domain

 

Yes, I learned about that from renowned leftists David Boaz and Eugene Volokh some years ago. A simple aide-memoire: Eminent domain for wall good, for NYC buildings bad.

 

Since I am thinking about eminent domain more now than I care to, as bar prep drags on: the Constitutional threshold for eminent domain is really, shockingly low.  Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, the government may take private property for public use only if just compensation is paid. Just compensation is fair market value. A public use is a use that is in the general interest of the public, and not just for a government purpose. Acquisition may occur over the owner’s protest as long as just compensation is paid. It isn't hard to make an argument that rehabilitation of blighted or neglected buildings is in the public interest. Arguments on even more spurious grounds (Kelo v. New London is the most obvious and famous case) have succeeded. The landlords here will be paid market value for these buildings, so it's not like they will be left with nothing. Also, this program has been around since 1996, so not sure what the deal is now except that Di Blasio is a bogeyman for some -- don't say his name three times at midnight in the dark into a mirror or Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton will appear with AOC in their wake!

 

With all that being said, I think eminent domain sucks. It's rarely justified and the burden for the government to prove a public use is way, WAY too low. I'm a capitalist; it's the least worst way to run an economy. I think that unless your building or land causes a real blight on the community and you refuse to do anything about it after ample opportunity to remediate, the government has no business taking your property away, just compensation or no. Levy fines, yes. Provide access to loans or tax abatement to fix up homes, yes. Some carrots, some sticks. But confiscation is some greedy **** I cannot get behind. 

 

Peace be with you all, back to studying. 💖

[refugee 169]

28 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Yes, I learned about that from renowned leftists David Boaz and Eugene Volokh some years ago. A simple aide-memoire: Eminent domain for wall good, for NYC buildings bad.

 

Since I am thinking about eminent domain more now than I care to, as bar prep drags on: the Constitutional threshold for eminent domain is really, shockingly low.  Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, the government may take private property for public use only if just compensation is paid. Just compensation is fair market value. A public use is a use that is in the general interest of the public, and not just for a government purpose. Acquisition may occur over the owner’s protest as long as just compensation is paid. It isn't hard to make an argument that rehabilitation of blighted or neglected buildings is in the public interest. Arguments on even more spurious grounds (Kelo v. New London is the most obvious and famous case) have succeeded. The landlords here will be paid market value for these buildings, so it's not like they will be left with nothing. Also, this program has been around since 1996, so not sure what the deal is now except that Di Blasio is a bogeyman for some -- don't say his name three times at midnight in the dark into a mirror or Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton will appear with AOC in their wake!

 

With all that being said, I think eminent domain sucks. It's rarely justified and the burden for the government to prove a public use is way, WAY too low. I'm a capitalist; it's the least worst way to run an economy. I think that unless your building or land causes a real blight on the community and you refuse to do anything about it after ample opportunity to remediate, the government has no business taking your property away, just compensation or no. Levy fines, yes. Provide access to loans or tax abatement to fix up homes, yes. Some carrots, some sticks. But confiscation is some greedy **** I cannot get behind. 

 

Peace be with you all, back to studying. 💖

You gotta love a law student who invokes arguments on spurious grounds into the discussion!

[yuna628 9,527]

53 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Yes, I learned about that from renowned leftists David Boaz and Eugene Volokh some years ago. A simple aide-memoire: Eminent domain for wall good, for NYC buildings bad.

 

Since I am thinking about eminent domain more now than I care to, as bar prep drags on: the Constitutional threshold for eminent domain is really, shockingly low.  Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, the government may take private property for public use only if just compensation is paid. Just compensation is fair market value. A public use is a use that is in the general interest of the public, and not just for a government purpose. Acquisition may occur over the owner’s protest as long as just compensation is paid. It isn't hard to make an argument that rehabilitation of blighted or neglected buildings is in the public interest. Arguments on even more spurious grounds (Kelo v. New London is the most obvious and famous case) have succeeded. The landlords here will be paid market value for these buildings, so it's not like they will be left with nothing. Also, this program has been around since 1996, so not sure what the deal is now except that Di Blasio is a bogeyman for some -- don't say his name three times at midnight in the dark into a mirror or Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton will appear with AOC in their wake!

 

With all that being said, I think eminent domain sucks. It's rarely justified and the burden for the government to prove a public use is way, WAY too low. I'm a capitalist; it's the least worst way to run an economy. I think that unless your building or land causes a real blight on the community and you refuse to do anything about it after ample opportunity to remediate, the government has no business taking your property away, just compensation or no. Levy fines, yes. Provide access to loans or tax abatement to fix up homes, yes. Some carrots, some sticks. But confiscation is some greedy **** I cannot get behind. 

 

Peace be with you all, back to studying. 💖

Maven, thank you for posting this. Totally agree with everything here.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

14 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Yes, I learned about that from renowned leftists David Boaz and Eugene Volokh some years ago. A simple aide-memoire: Eminent domain for wall good, for NYC buildings bad.

 

Since I am thinking about eminent domain more now than I care to, as bar prep drags on: the Constitutional threshold for eminent domain is really, shockingly low.  Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, the government may take private property for public use only if just compensation is paid. Just compensation is fair market value. A public use is a use that is in the general interest of the public, and not just for a government purpose. Acquisition may occur over the owner’s protest as long as just compensation is paid. It isn't hard to make an argument that rehabilitation of blighted or neglected buildings is in the public interest. Arguments on even more spurious grounds (Kelo v. New London is the most obvious and famous case) have succeeded. The landlords here will be paid market value for these buildings, so it's not like they will be left with nothing. Also, this program has been around since 1996, so not sure what the deal is now except that Di Blasio is a bogeyman for some -- don't say his name three times at midnight in the dark into a mirror or Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton will appear with AOC in their wake!

 

With all that being said, I think eminent domain sucks. It's rarely justified and the burden for the government to prove a public use is way, WAY too low. I'm a capitalist; it's the least worst way to run an economy. I think that unless your building or land causes a real blight on the community and you refuse to do anything about it after ample opportunity to remediate, the government has no business taking your property away, just compensation or no. Levy fines, yes. Provide access to loans or tax abatement to fix up homes, yes. Some carrots, some sticks. But confiscation is some greedy **** I cannot get behind. 

 

Peace be with you all, back to studying. 💖

Agree. Here in Ga they have something called Highest and Best use. In other words if your family home of 70 years is sitting on prime beach development land that would generate much more revenue, than can take it. So wrong. Now I am not a lawyer and I may be  a little off  it a bit but that is the crux of it