|
How To Get Your Credit Card Payments Under
Control
Debt Counseling
Debt Consolidation and Credit Repair
How To Get A Bad Credit Student Loan or
Student Loan Consolidation To Help Your College Education?
How Debt Consolidation Works
Debt Consolidation vs. Debt Negotiation
Get Out of Debt – How to Qualify for Debt
Consolidation Services
Get Your Life Back With a Good Debt
Consolidation Program
Debt Counseling Presents A Systematic
Method Of Clearing Debt Load
Debt Counseling for Debt Relief
|
The years-long court battle finally ended with
the supreme court ruling in June of 2005. It was decided by the high
court that governments have the authority to confiscate private
property, including businesses, for any "public purpose", even if
the "public purpose" is actually a private, for profit project.
Through this ruling the court has broadened the definition of
"public benefit" to include any project that can increase tax
revenues. This has caused an outcry in the real estate community,
over the definition of "Eminent Domain" and it's original intent and
purpose.
But what is "Eminent Domain"? and How is it
supposed to be used? Here is how my 10 year old real estate agents
licensing manual defines "Eminent Domain" (also known as "Police
Power"):
"The right of government to take ownership of
privately held real estate regardless of the owners wishes. Land for
schools, freeways, streets, parks, urban renewal, public housing,
and other social and public purposes is obtained this way.
Quasi-public organizations, such as utility companies or railroads
are also permitted to obtain land needed for power lines, pipes and
tracks..."
Note the reference in the above paragraph to
urban renewal and public housing. Prior to the 1950's, even this
purpose was not considered to be a "public benefit". Up until a
1950's supreme court ruling that allowed governments to take land
from so called "slum lords" in the inner cites for urban renewal
projects, only roads, parks, freeways, and other truly public uses
were considered eligible for the confiscation of private property
under the concept of Eminent Domain.
Now, we have another court making making the
police powers of the state even broader. But is there really an
issue here? Are we all going to lose our house or commercial
property because of this ruling?
I think the real problem here is the slow erosion
of our private property rights. Like water running through the grand
canyon or wind sweeping across monument valley, everything appears
to be normal and unchanging. But as with the erosion caused by rain
and wind, over a period of years our property rights are slowly
being eaten away, and replaced by a new mindset that says the
government knows best what to do with all property located within
its jurisdiction.
I don't expect anything sudden or dramatic to
happen, but make no mistake about it, the erosion of your right to
own property will continue. My biggest concern is that in another
generation people will begin to lose the concept of private property
ownership, and develop a mindset that the government knows best how
to control everything.
Communist countries already live under the
principal that the state knows best. In the old USSR, under
socialism, people were assigned a place to live and a job to work.
It was "efficient use of the states resources". Certainly communist
China would agree that taking property for the good of all is
efficient and makes planning and growth issues easier to deal with.
After all, in China, the state has determined that it is in the
"publics best interest" to allow each family only one or two
children. If you exceed that number, well, it's in the public
interest to exterminate those additional babies. So today in China,
your children can be confiscated too. But not to worry, it is all in
the publics best interest.
There is no power more dangerous to the concept
of individual rights and private property ownership than a
government in need of money. Add to that the growing belief that
people should give up individual rights for the good of society as a
whole. Heck, I can see how the city of Atlanta could find it useful
and in the public interest to confiscate all the private property in
the city and redistribute it so that all the homeless people can
have a place to live. We can end homelessness right now if all of us
investors who own inner city properties will just give them up so
that they can be used to help those who are down on their luck. That
would help us all right?
This probably won't happen next week, but give it
10 or 20 years. Once this kind of thinking takes hold and more local
governments get into dire financial need, individual property owners
will become the "bad guys" who are impeding progress and hindering
the public good. Today it is the 6 homeowners in New London,
Connecticut, tomorrow it might just be you or your children. Then,
it will make "perfect sense" to eliminate private property ownership
"for the public good".
Donna Robinson is a real estate investor, author,
and consultant located in Atlanta Georgia. You may read more of her
articles on her website at
http://www.realestateinvestorhelp.com/
or you may contact her by email at
drobinson@reihelp.com or
call 404 542-9903. |