Eminent Domain and the Greyhound Bus Terminal

[Sonfire]

I think it's also fair to add that capitalism and democracy are not synonymous, nor are dictatorship and communism...  Capitalism is not written into our constitution in the ways most people assume it is.

[KC-wildcat]

How in the world is saying "I will kill your $500 million project if you don't buy my property at a price that is ten times its value" not extortion?

If a government official told a developer that "I will not issue the permit your project needs to proceed unless you buy my house for an inflated price" it sure the heck would be extortion.

How is what Barber doing any different in concept?

It's simply not extortion.  The legal definition of extortion is "[t]he use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent."  USC 18.  

Legally, he is free to ask whatever selling price he wants.  It's just that simple.    

[LenexatoKCMO]

No. it isn't intellectually dishonest horseshit. Further, I really resent being called intellectually dishonest and that my knowledge of the area is horseshit.  Again, as stated above, I've read the opinion and based my stance upon what I've read.  I didn't turn on NPR or FOX, or whomever and fall in step with some anti-ED folks.  I would advise you to read the opinion as well.  Maybe you already have.  Who knows.  

You are right - if you truly believe that the taking in Kelo was groundbreaking, you aren't being intellectually dishonest just misinformed.  Kansas was indeed one of the forrunners of takings for "private use" long before Kelo.  Ask the folks whose homes used to sit underneath Baron BMW if they think New London was the first development with a taking for economic development purposes.  And yes, I have read the opinion. 

Since, you brought up precedent, I guess I have to respond with some precedent.  Sorry about the length

The only time I mentioned precedent was in a scentence where I said I had no interest in arguing it, but way to show off those citation skills. 

I would say more but alas I am overdue at the airport.

[KC-wildcat]

The only time I mentioned precedent was in a scentence where I said I had no interest in arguing it, but way to show off those citation skills. 

"[P]oint is that the court only affirmed a practice that had been operating for several decades." 

Okay, while you don't use the word precedent, it is pretty clear that you believe the Court has been affirming these types of cases for a number of years.  Well, they haven't.  Sorry.

I am only speaking from a legal standpoint.  I am referring to cases that have been brought before the Supreme Court.  I can't speculate as to how common the practice is in other situations.  I don't know the people whose homes were taken for BMW.  Like I said, I only talking about Kelo and its deviation from other Supreme Court precedent. 

Obviously, this is a pretty emotional topic for you.  I understand that.  But, the only reason I cited the cases was because you were questioning my intellectual honesty.  I guess I've never considered citation as "showing off."  I've always considered it a method for supporting an argument. 

 

[knucklehead]

This isn't extortion.  This is the same as a kid putting up a lemonade stand and asking $25 a glass.

Extortion would be the opposite--taking the guy's land through intimidation at an "unfair" price.

Your hypothetical is not comparable to the Barber situation, but I can think of a comparable one. 

Lets say the kid has a gallon of gas that was purchased for his dad's lawnmower. You run out of gas 10 miles from town without a cell phone and the nearest other house is 5 miles away. You have to get to town within 30 minutes to make a deal that will make you a profit of $100,000 and the kid is aware of this. So the kid charges you $25,000 for the gallon of gas.

Now that is fairly comparable to Barber wanting to charge $17 million for his property.

You can argue that what the kid is doing is price gouging rather than extortion, but you can't say it isn't price gouging. I don't understand why you are in favor of allowing price gouging. Espescially when its the tax payer that is getting gouged (because paying Barber his inflated price means the project requires higher tax breaks to work).

[KC-wildcat]

Your hypothetical is not comparable to the Barber situation, but I can think of a comparable one. 

Lets say the kid has a gallon of gas that was purchased for his dad's lawnmower. You run out of gas 10 miles from town without a cell phone and the nearest other house is 5 miles away. You have to get to town within 30 minutes to make a deal that will make you a profit of $100,000 and the kid is aware of this. So the kid charges you $25,000 for the gallon of gas.

Now that is fairly comparable to Barber wanting to charge $17 million for his property.

You can argue that what the kid is doing is price gouging rather than extortion, but you can't say it isn't price gouging. I don't understand why you are in favor of allowing price gouging. Espescially when its the tax payer that is getting gouged (because paying Barber his inflated price means the project requires higher tax breaks to work).

While we may not like it when a particular set of sellers charge what we think is a high price for a product we want, requiring government approval of a fair price for any particular transaction opens up a Pandora’s box of complications. Price controls lead to wasted resources and even greater unfairness than the market.

Because of this logic, price controls are only implemented in regulated industries such as the oil industry.  Price controls are not - nor have they ever been - implemented in the real estate industry.  While you may not like it, the price by which a private owner chooses to sell his property is his choice and his alone.  The same would be true if Barber simply stated that his property was not for sale.  The government may not compel this sale unless they are legally entitled to use eminent domain.   

[knucklehead]

I agree that the government cannot compel the sale unless it is legally entitled to utilize emmient domain.

My position is that allowing the use of emmient domain in this case is sound public policy. If the laws do not allow the use of emmient domain in this case, I would vote to change the laws to allow it.

I don't like price gouging, especially when the victem is the taxpayer.

[DaveKCMO]

I agree that the government cannot compel the sale unless it is legally entitled to utilize emmient domain.

My position is that allowing the use of emmient domain in this case is sound public policy. If the laws do not allow the use of emmient domain in this case, I would vote to change the laws to allow it.

I don't like price gouging, especially when the victem is the taxpayer.

here, here! i think most reasonable people who look at that property, what is planned to replace it, and are told the difference between the asking price and the assessed price, would wholeheartedly agree.

[KC-wildcat]

here, here! i think most reasonable people who look at that property, what is planned to replace it, and are told the difference between the asking price and the assessed price, would wholeheartedly agree.

I do think the sale for a reasonable asking price would be the best possible thing for Kansas City.

I do not think it is sound public policy to compel real estate sales when the asking price is too high.

I do not think it would be constitutional to change the law so that government can take property from a property owner for a price that the city unilaterally sets.  This never happens.   

[DaveKCMO]

I do not think it is sound public policy to compel real estate sales when the asking price is too high.

i think a major factor here is also that the property is unquestionably blighted. if it were an occupied business or single-family home i have to think most people would feel differently (myself included).

[KC-wildcat]

i think a major factor here is also that the property is unquestionably blighted. if it were an occupied business or single-family home i have to think most people would feel differently (myself included).

I haven't seen the property.  But, if it is in fact blighted, then I see no problem with the use of eminent domain. 

[Highlander]

i think a major factor here is also that the property is unquestionably blighted. if it were an occupied business or single-family home i have to think most people would feel differently (myself included).

The place is a pit.  If it was not surrounded almost entirely by government offices, I wonder if a case could be made for a lawsuit claiming the state of the property detracts from the property values of neighboring business.  It's one thing to buy a property for future investment, I do not believe, however, that one should be allowed to let that property fester in a crucial part of the city. 

[KCTigerFan]

While not a lawyer or building inspector, I would venture a guess that the Terminal is indeed blighted.  Next time you are by the place take a walkpast it.  You can actually smell the mold and mildew coming out of it.  There is trash and debris strewn about the property.  Regardless of the legal issues associated with the sale of the property the owner has done nothing to support DT. 

[KC-wildcat]

While not a lawyer or building inspector, I would venture a guess that the Terminal is indeed blighted.  Next time you are by the place take a walkpast it.  You can actually smell the mold and mildew coming out of it.  There is trash and debris strewn about the property.  Regardless of the legal issues associated with the sale of the property the owner has done nothing to support DT. 

If I'm ever at the Federal Courthouse, I'll take a look.  Until then, if anyone is nearby, take a picture and post it. 

[tat2kc]

If its anything like the old Jones store building, its got to be pretty nasty inside.

[DaveKCMO]

pics from today. it's looked exactly like this for at least a decade, if not more.

[Highlander]

pics from today. it's looked exactly like this for at least a decade, if not more.

I remember being in this place in its "heyday" as a bus station.  It was a depressing place at best back then.  Apart from the barely acceptable front side, the architechture is hideous.  The only time in its history it was an interesting place was during its short stint as the KC manifestation of Denver's Gart Brothers Sporting Goods (at least I think it was Gart Brothers who were there). 

[KCFutbol]

While not a lawyer or building inspector, I would venture a guess that the Terminal is indeed blighted.  Next time you are by the place take a walkpast it.  You can actually smell the mold and mildew coming out of it.  There is trash and debris strewn about the property.  Regardless of the legal issues associated with the sale of the property the owner has done nothing to support DT. 

When I went through it in 2001 in order to prepare the KMBC proposal it was pretty bad. As you said there is a moisture problem as well as vagrants getting in an causing damage. The garage, IMO, is beyond repair. We proposed demolishing it and building a new garage.

[Thaine]

Some clarification.  Barber bought the structure in order to build a fee-based privately held jail.  His connection at the state didn't get re-elected so that deal fell through.

His property actually appraised at 2.3 million.  The City's condemning because it doesn't want to pay any more than that, especially given the environmental concerns, as there used to be a gas station in the middle of the structure and for all anybody knows the tanks are still in the ground.

[DaveKCMO]

His property actually appraised at 2.3 million.  The City's condemning because it doesn't want to pay any more than that, especially given the environmental concerns, as there used to be a gas station in the middle of the structure and for all anybody knows the tanks are still in the ground.

so that means the city should pay him $2.76m, not $17m.