ohhhhh, I get it now...this explains....

NorthBeachPerso

NorthBeachPerso

Honorary SMIB
I never realized that Eminent Domain was illegal. The original owners received the at the time market value of the property. Now they're getting millions in "reparations".
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
GregV814 said:
Breezy Point Murlin

Like California, Like Maryland!!
www.cbsnews.com

California moves to return seized beach to Black couple's descendants

California lawmakers voted unanimously to give the prime beachfront property to descendants of the Black couple. They were stripped of their resort for Blacks amid racist harassment a century ago.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

That's why all the cars with out of State registration crowds and ultimately pollutes Breezy Point!!!
Click to expand...

So the property was taken through "emminent domain" but then not used for the purposes identified, or used at all.

Seems straight forward, the property should go back. That said, they should also pay back what the government paid them for that property with all due interest.

I'm sure they will still come out well ahead.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Clem72 said:
Seems straight forward, the property should go back. That said, they should also pay back what the government paid them for that property with all due interest.
Click to expand...

I think the property should go back and the heirs should be free and clear.

**** you, California.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
NorthBeachPerso said:
I never realized that Eminent Domain was illegal. The original owners received the at the time market value of the property. Now they're getting millions in "reparations".
Click to expand...
It's not, but I THINK that the justification has to be more than "heck, we just want it". Years ago, there was this town in Connecticut where they seized waterfront property - because they could get higher taxes from the commercial development that would replace it.

To my knowledge, eminent domain requires a reason that justifies a benefit for all, like a wider road or highway.
 
LightRoasted

LightRoasted

If I may ...
For your consideration ...

Is it too hard to actually to put in citations when they make inflammatory statements like this? I call BS puffery and propaganda on this. Never heard of the KKK operating in California, since it is not a southern state.

"But the Ku Klux Klan tried to burn it down, and white neighbors harassed the couple and their customers. Bogus "10 minutes only" parking signs were posted and beachgoers often returned to find the air had been let out of their tires, according to a legislative analysis."
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
NorthBeachPerso said:
I never realized that Eminent Domain was illegal. The original owners received the at the time market value of the property. Now they're getting millions in "reparations".
Click to expand...

The process isn't illegal. The way it was used may have been improper.
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
LightRoasted said:
For your consideration ...

Is it too hard to actually to put in citations when they make inflammatory statements like this? I call BS puffery and propaganda on this. Never heard of the KKK operating in California, since it is not a southern state.

"But the Ku Klux Klan tried to burn it down, and white neighbors harassed the couple and their customers. Bogus "10 minutes only" parking signs were posted and beachgoers often returned to find the air had been let out of their tires, according to a legislative analysis."
Click to expand...

Take you two seconds to google it:

Ku Klux Klan raid (Inglewood, California) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Inglewood is awefully darn close to the beach in question.
 
NorthBeachPerso

NorthBeachPerso

Honorary SMIB
SamSpade said:
It's not, but I THINK that the justification has to be more than "heck, we just want it". Years ago, there was this town in Connecticut where they seized waterfront property - because they could get higher taxes from the commercial development that would replace it.

To my knowledge, eminent domain requires a reason that justifies a benefit for all, like a wider road or highway.
Click to expand...
Yeah. That turned ED on its head. Historically, and traditionally, Eminent Domain was used (and it's included in the 5th Amendment) to obtain private property for public use (roads, schools, parks, etc.). Kelo v City of New London added an allowance to use it to condemn property that then would be sold to a developer.

A lot of states subsequently passed laws that specifically disallowed doing that. Strangely enough the Legislature here in the Cradle of Freedom known as Maryland never got around to passing that law. In fact, it died in Committee for a couple years then quietly went away.

I was at the Maryland Municipal League summer conference right after the Kelo decision was released. You had local government officials orgasming all over the place when they talked about it.
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Clem72 said:
Seems straight forward, the property should go back. That said, they should also pay back what the government paid them for that property with all due interest.
Click to expand...
What they were paid seems sufficient for when the original owners could not use it, consider it rent.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
LightRoasted said:
Is it too hard to actually to put in citations when they make inflammatory statements like this? I call BS puffery and propaganda on this. Never heard of the KKK operating in California, since it is not a southern state.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it's everywhere. I knew one in Pennsylvania who was a member; even Senator Byrd was from West Virginia. I KNOW there were big KKK events that happened in New York State.
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
Ken King said:
What they were paid seems sufficient for when the original owners could not use it, consider it rent.
Click to expand...
I guess, as long as thats part of the court order. Usually the government likes to have things "square" (so they often charge interest on money they accidentally sent people) to make sure there is no outstanding claim.

Otherwise in some far flung future (maybe if everyone becomes super racist again in 100 years) the government can't use the funds as an excuse to take the land back or do something else. Not saying it would ever happen, but as a CYA measure.
 
Ken King

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Clem72 said:
I guess, as long as thats part of the court order. Usually the government likes to have things "square" (so they often charge interest on money they accidentally sent people) to make sure there is no outstanding claim.

Otherwise in some far flung future (maybe if everyone becomes super racist again in 100 years) the government can't use the funds as an excuse to take the land back or do something else. Not saying it would ever happen, but as a CYA measure.
Click to expand...
Let's see. The couple asked $70K, they got $14.5K, today it is estimated to be worth $20M. A couple month's property tax on that and the money has been returned.
 
Tech

Tech

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
It's not, but I THINK that the justification has to be more than "heck, we just want it". Years ago, there was this town in Connecticut where they seized waterfront property - because they could get higher taxes from the commercial development that would replace it.

To my knowledge, eminent domain requires a reason that justifies a benefit for all, like a wider road or highway.
Click to expand...
Happen to my cousin. He had a home and small farm just south of Boulder, CO. County took it and put in a shopping center, the large brush fire they had last year that destroyed dozens homes started near that shopping center.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top