I don't see anything in Hinderaker's discussion that changes my mind on the topic. He discusses multiple use of these types of properties, which I view as a non-issue, especially considering much of the property in the related development was already under public use. In fact I believe that the public use of that property is further restrained by the development.
His blight argument is still not an argument. The properties weren't blighted and the supremes stated such. The argument that eminent domain would have lost the ability to take such properties for public use when properties are blighted, due to this case just doesn't follow. In fact I would say that it wouldn't have been limited at all if the case had actually been trying to sieze blighted properties and wasn't a glaringly obvious attempt by the local government to steal someone's property by naming it blighted. It also wasn't a major argument in the case.
It still comes down to handing property from one private owner to another who can pay more taxes. The idea that there would be greater public benefit from this is arguable. More jobs isn't a certainty. Would those jobs be high enough paying to raise enough funds to replace the service costs that those workers would use? If there is such a worry about the raising of tax funds, maybe a bit more responsible use of tax funds would be better served rather than paying huge money for lawsuits to seize peoples property. But then I'm certain the city didn't pay for the lawyers, probably the development company did.
I still see this as a very poor decision and Hinderaker's arguments are weak at best.
His blight argument is still not an argument. The properties weren't blighted and the supremes stated such. The argument that eminent domain would have lost the ability to take such properties for public use when properties are blighted, due to this case just doesn't follow. In fact I would say that it wouldn't have been limited at all if the case had actually been trying to sieze blighted properties and wasn't a glaringly obvious attempt by the local government to steal someone's property by naming it blighted. It also wasn't a major argument in the case.
It still comes down to handing property from one private owner to another who can pay more taxes. The idea that there would be greater public benefit from this is arguable. More jobs isn't a certainty. Would those jobs be high enough paying to raise enough funds to replace the service costs that those workers would use? If there is such a worry about the raising of tax funds, maybe a bit more responsible use of tax funds would be better served rather than paying huge money for lawsuits to seize peoples property. But then I'm certain the city didn't pay for the lawyers, probably the development company did.
I still see this as a very poor decision and Hinderaker's arguments are weak at best.
No comments:
Post a Comment