Another Side of Eminent Domain

[Survey]

Please make the case as to how eliminating all land-use restrictions could somehow benefit society as a whole.

It would benefit property owners, who currently aren't being given the full rights they deserve to control development that occurs on their property. This is America, and in America we should preserve the freedoms of our citizens. By allowing governmental intervention to go forth through eminent domain, you're restricting the freedoms of landowners to develop their properties as they see fit. Government needs to stay out of people's personal lives, and simply enforce laws.

[Martin]

i don't believe that you've really argued how this will benefit society. up through the 20th century, i think that it would be safe to argue that laws were quite laissez faire when it came to who built what and where. as the structures that house industry and business grew in size and number, i'd say that the freedoms of individual landowners were more restricted. without regulation, there was nothing in place to stop a corporation from building a hog farm next door to a neighborhood. it's in response to issues similar to this that we have the laws in place that we do. these laws exist to protect freedom rather than restrict it. -M

[The Old Downtown Guy]

Survey, you are simply espousing a simplistic point of view that has no purchase in reality. Ever since there was private ownership of property there have been restrictions on the use to which that property can be put and what types of structures can be built thereon.

Initially there was only one authority, one land owner, only the power of eminent domain; everything belonged to the king(s). That power became institutionalized and restricted as more sophisticated land use practices and ownerships became the norm. You don't need to think too long and deeply to see that if your "every man for himself" approach were actually practiced, there would be large cities full of slums and factories and adjacent fortified enclaves of the very rich. There would be no Oklahoma City as we know it today without zoning, eminent domain authority, land use regulations and statutes, such as the OKC Historic Preservation Ordinance, that spell out even more precisely what can and what cannot take place on private properties in particular neighborhoods. There would be no Charleston; no Savannah, no Times Square, no Heritage Hills, no Edmond, no Oklahoma State Capitol Complex, no University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, no turnpike from OKC to Tulsa, very few roads and highways at all, etc. etc. etc.

How many times would Chicago and San Francisco have burned down without building codes . . . do you want to throw building codes in there as well . . . same deal, government telling someone how to build something on their property, imposing restrictions on individuals.

All of these freedom trampling laws, as you perceive them, simply add sanity to an otherwise frantic out of control landscape, which we all, individually and collectively, call our home.

[Survey]

I don't think laws necessarily have to benefit society. For example, giving someone the 1st amendment right to protest abortion clinics doesn't benefit society. OSU being able to take people's property to build housing for student athletes doesn't benefit society. Restricting speed in school zones doesn't benefit the majority in society. There are many laws on the books that don't benefit society, so I don't believe you're requirement to prove my point with evidence of how this weould benefit society is just.

I just think it should be an individual property owners right to build whatever he wants on his property. Restricting him from doing so, is restricting a freedom, IMHO.

[Survey]

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not against city ordinances that restrict certain types of development in a certain area. I'm not against building codes that protect the safety of a structure. But, I am against, dictating what can be built in a given zoned piece of land. If a piece of land is zoned commercial-retail, and Wal-Mart buys it, and they abide by safe building practices, I feel they should be able to build their building. I feel it's their right.

With proper zoning, you wouldn't have the problems mentioned above.

Take residential for instance. If a man wants to build a 10 story home on a piece of property in his neighborhood, I think he should have that right, as long as it's used for residential purposes.

If a piece of property is zoned for a farm, the owner should be able to put any type of farm he wants to on the land.

It's HIS land. Not the government's.

But, in this California community, the city of Hercules forgot to remember that, and they confiscated the land giving Wal-Mart whatever they felt they were worthy in payment (market value I suppose).

[The Old Downtown Guy]

I don't think laws necessarily have to benefit society. For example, giving someone the 1st amendment right to protest abortion clinics doesn't benefit society. OSU being able to take people's property to build housing for student athletes doesn't benefit society. Restricting speed in school zones doesn't benefit the majority in society. There are many laws on the books that don't benefit society, so I don't believe you're requirement to prove my point with evidence of how this weould benefit society is just.

I just think it should be an individual property owners right to build whatever he wants on his property. Restricting him from doing so, is restricting a freedom, IMHO.

Oops, sorry. I thought this was a rational discussion. My error. This train of thought seems to have plunged over a cliff. I'll check back later to see if there were any survivors.

[Survey]

This is a rational discussion. You failed to read post 30.

And last time I checked, I'm entitled to my first ammendment right to express my opinion, unless you're trying to take that from me as well.

I already can't build what I want to on my property.

[floater]

Different places have different controls. Oklahoma City, for the most part, sits on the Houston half of the scale. But its most unique and historic areas are subject to preservation codes. People who live there choose to live with the character of those homes. Those who don't want to can live elsewhere in the city.

Same with Hercules. Communities are usually a reflection of the people who live there (sometimes it's vice versa). The town wants to maintain the character it has and its citizens are supportive of such actions. I applaud Hercules for standing up for who they are.

And superficially, does anybody think a standard Wal-Mart near a waterfront is a good idea?

[writerranger]

Different places have different controls. Oklahoma City, for the most part, sits on the Houston half of the scale. But its most unique and historic areas are subject to preservation codes. People who live there choose to live with the character of those homes. Those who don't want to can live elsewhere in the city.

Same with Hercules. Communities are usually a reflection of the people who live there (sometimes it's vice versa). The town wants to maintain the character it has and its citizens are supportive of such actions. I applaud Hercules for standing up for who they are.

And superficially, does anybody think a standard Wal-Mart near a waterfront is a good idea?

Well said. And no, I sure don't think a standard Wal-Mart near a waterfront is a good idea. I, too, applaud the people of Hurcules.

----

[The Old Downtown Guy]

This is a rational discussion. You failed to read post 30.

And last time I checked, I'm entitled to my first ammendment right to express my opinion, unless you're trying to take that from me as well.

I already can't build what I want to on my property.

Sorry to take so long to respond to your post Survey, it required quite a bit of effort to completely remove my foot from my mouth as it was buried in there really deep.

I read your post at the #30 spot on this thread and see that for the most part you agree with common zoning and building code practices around the country. Glad to see that. No point trying to fight city hall too much in these well decided issues.

Take residential for instance. If a man wants to build a 10 story home on a piece of property in his neighborhood, I think he should have that right, as long as it's used for residential purposes.

On the notion that you should be able to build a ten story house in a residential neighborhood doesn't take into consideration many other factors that go toward determining what specifically can be built and where. There may be other building restrictions; your neighbor might object to having your mega-mc mansion next to his bungalow etc. etc. Same way with farms. Big commercial pig farm next to an organic vegetable farm doesn't seem fair to all parties involved and perhaps wouldn't fly. The devil is in the details with zoning and building codes and land use just like everything else.

I wasn't taking any sort of whack at your right to say anything you want, I was just making a smart assed remark. I do that from time to time. Some times with better effect than at other times