Previous Next
Do you think that the Kansas government should have the power of eminent domain (taking property for economic development)?
Asked at Westridge Shopping Center on October 4, 2004
“If they pay you enough money for your property, then they should be able to do whatever they want.”
“Absolutely not. I think that people should have power over their own property. I think that the government should compromise.”
“Absolutely not. I don’t think that it’s fair. Maybe for roadways, but not just to benefit business.”
“No. I do feel that it is OK for road improvement, but to take it for economic development should not be the right of the state. The people should be allowed to vote on that.”
- On the street: How did you spend your Memorial Day? May 28, 2012 · 26 comments
- National group seeks repeal of 'Stand Your Ground' law in Kansas May 27, 2012 · 146 comments
- U.S. military sees new appreciation May 28, 2012 · 26 comments
- Parents have electronic tether to campus May 28, 2012 · 14 comments
- Sound Off: How much does the city’s transit system collect in fares compared with how much it costs May 27, 2012 · 129 comments
- Remove politics, and redistricting map falls in line May 27, 2012 · 37 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012 · 252 comments
- Tax gamble May 26, 2012 · 81 comments
- Blog: Same Sex "Marriage" Is Biologically Impossible May 16, 2012 · 121 comments
- God, marriage May 25, 2012 · 193 comments
- Thread of pain ran through Jackson’s career June 28, 2009
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012
- Friends mourn Lynn Bretz, former voice of KU May 28, 2012
- Kansas football scouring country May 29, 2012
- KU’s Elijah Johnson cautious at camp May 29, 2012
- Hilltop executive director Pat Pisani stepping down May 28, 2012
- City, county mull upgrade to emergency radio system May 28, 2012
- Book helps family heal after tragedy May 28, 2012
- Famed author takes on Kansas October 7, 2005
- Retreat offered for writers May 28, 2012
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
tenstring (anonymous) says…
Eminent domain was created for the purpose of building infrastructure. To use it for clearing people out for corporate development is called "fascism." Look it up.
Savage (anonymous) says…
Eminent domain should be only used for public utilities, parks, etc and not shopping malls or new apt complexes that benefit private companies and developers.
Why do you think the city will appraise a house at 1/3 its real value? So for instance, the guy on connecticut who wants 175k for his 3 bedroom home (rental), he will only get probably 50k from the city. Thats not fair. Its not fair when the city can declare the value in eminent domain situations. There should be independent appraisers not affiliated with either buyer or seller conducting the appraisal and offering a quote for fair market value.
The people of the state of kansas would vote that one into law real quick im sure. but unfortunately an issue like that would probably never make it to the ballot. hmm.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Not no but hell no. Some folks do not want to move and love their environment for which they may have spent 2,3 or 4 decades developing. If eminent domain must be exercised I say find another space for the project, forget it or pay the owner THEIR asking price. After all the government
is asking someone to vacate against THEIR wishes. Home is where the heart is...
optimist (anonymous) says…
This is just another example of wealth distribution. The government takes from one citizen for the benefit of another. I equate it to legalized extortion. I don't believe this is a Republican or Democrat issue. This is more an example of corrupt government than corporate greed. Corporations do what they do. The government's job was to take measure of the situation and balance the rights of all involved. I believe, especially in the case of the speedway the government let greed get in the way of their duly sworn duties.
I was completely disgusted by the actions of the Unified Government when it seized the private property of one citizen for the express purpose of transferring the ownership to another private citizen or corporation. Even if the residence were paid fair market value for their homes, the eminent domain process served to circumvent the free market. The potential value of the property was much higher than the value of the property the year before the plan became public. Had the government or the company building the speedway offered the property owners a price that reflected the true value of the property to the success of the project I don't believe there would have been a need to condemn the properties.
Hopefully the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to do what is right. The Constitution is clear on this issue. Common sense tells me that any time eminent domain occurs the property should remain in the ownership of the government. That to me is the first test of whether or not it is appropriate. If the property is transferred to private ownership then clearly the government has used eminent domain to victimize one citizen for the benefit of another. The government at any level should get out of the business of wealth redistribution.
Keep in mind; even if the Supreme Court fails to act we can all stop these things from happening by opposing any local or state candidate who abuses the right of eminent domain. If we do that we make such actions political suicide. With that much pressure from the community it is unlikely any candidate would vote in favor of it let alone get a majority.
Carmenilla (anonymous) says…
Wasn't Lex Luthor supposed to be a genius? Maybe the poster above should call himself "Idiotic Homophobe"!!!
BrainCase (anonymous) says…
After carefully reading the above comments, I have determined that Lawrence may have reached our Village Idiot quota. If you can't stay on topic, get away from the Internet.
Government has a right to acquire land if it is in the best interests of the public. For roads yes, but to benefit a non-governing entity? No.
Ben_Over (anonymous) says…
As a gay man, I deplore the above offensive posts!
However, I admit that I more than a little curious to know what Jimmy looks like!
What? Is that a crime or something?
Oh, whatever!
Clean up your act, Lex!
jonas (anonymous) says…
Lex: Didn't you learn, the bad guys always lose.
So now you're posts are gone, and I just have to say. . .
PBTHHH!!!!!!!
tightpants_with_a_big_bulge (anonymous) says…
Hey! What happened to that hot-sounding post that was here earlier? The one about Texas Longhorn gays? :(
Jonas, are you anti-gay or something?
Was it you that was responsible for having that post taken down?
You party-pooper, you!!!
Redneckgal (anonymous) says…
No Never No Way In Hell should the goverment ever be allowed to take personal property for large companies. No Way. Don't you find it very scary that we should even have to try to decide if this is right or wrong?
jonas (anonymous) says…
T.W.I.B.B.: Nope. I don't ever complain to admins. If I don't like something I ignore it. Besides, the comments were too stupid and childish to be truly offensive. I can laugh, however, when it happens anyway.
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
why, isn't this what happened to the property owner who used to own land in front of Kohl's years ago? the city took that guy's property so wal-mart could have a frontage road.