tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post112066817759448351..comments2024-01-28T00:20:40.933-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: Towards a Kelo Amendment to the U.S. ConstitutionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1120796497097354072005-07-07T21:21:00.000-07:002005-07-07T21:21:00.000-07:00Nice work, Anon.! I especially like the second se...Nice work, Anon.! I especially like the second sentence. Regarding the first: What about private property taken for wilderness preserve?Tom W. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02790351458154066358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1120747739728334482005-07-07T07:48:00.000-07:002005-07-07T07:48:00.000-07:00Here's a crack at it:Private property may not be t...Here's a crack at it:<BR/><BR/>Private property may not be taken, except to construct public buildings or infrastructure, and must be compensated at double the highest appraised value in the 5 years prior to the taking. <BR/><BR/>Taken property must be first offered to the original owner, at half the original price, before it can be sold to any other private party, unless 20 years have passed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1120700049608958912005-07-06T18:34:00.000-07:002005-07-06T18:34:00.000-07:00Glen: I was thinking of 20 years, but I read you ...Glen: I was thinking of 20 years, but I read you on that suggestion. At the least, that approach offers a bright-line rule that allows for eventual privatization while largely obviating the public choice problems. Still, though, I think we need to deal with the problem of leasehold estates. What if the city takes my land and gives Hilton a 99-year lease? The city holds title and the public gets access (albeit at a price). But the public choice problem still looms.Tom W. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02790351458154066358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1120699817336838742005-07-06T18:30:00.000-07:002005-07-06T18:30:00.000-07:00Gil: Since you insist, and for good reason, to pr...Gil: Since you insist, and for good reason, to press for a fix of the "just compensation" problem, check out Don Boudreaux's solution, at: http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/06/kelo_and_just_c.html.Tom W. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02790351458154066358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1120698429687683152005-07-06T18:07:00.000-07:002005-07-06T18:07:00.000-07:00Maybe this makes me "wet" libertarian, but I think...Maybe this makes me "wet" libertarian, but I think hold-outs can be a real problem, so I wouldn't favor eliminating eminent domain entirely. Sometimes there are ways to get around a hold-out problem, but not always. If we required voluntary sale in every case, we'd likely end up with circuitous highways built in bizarre (or at least suboptimal) locations.<BR/><BR/>But eminent domain does need to be constitutionally limited, and I think a bright-line rule is best. I'd probably start with a rule like Will's, and then add some clarifications and qualifications -- such as requiring that any property taken must remain in a public use for >10 years before any sale or transfer to a non-public use. <BR/><BR/>I'd also be tempted, as long as we were amending the Constitution to better secure property rights, to make it clear that partial takings are still takings. But that raises the whole issue of whether a regulatory taking (say, a restriction on the use of my land to protect an endangered bird) constitutes "public use." If not, then another exception might be required.Glen Whitmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01425907466575991113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1120694861660192772005-07-06T17:07:00.000-07:002005-07-06T17:07:00.000-07:00Tom, I know. But, you see, that's why the whole c...Tom, <BR/><BR/>I know. <BR/><BR/>But, you see, that's why the whole concept of takings is so offensive to me.<BR/><BR/>Takings with "just compensation" is incoherent. If the compensation is, indeed, just then the property can be purchased.<BR/><BR/>Slapping on a false label of "just compensation" which really means whatever the government declares is a fair-market price doesn't make it just. It's an arbitrary tax on victims who are unlucky enough to own property that the State (and cronies) wish to take.<BR/><BR/>If the real cost of the property had to be borne by all and publicly justified, then perhaps even the genuine "public use" projects wouldn't be so attractive anymore.<BR/><BR/>I think they should only use actual, voluntary, purchases to acquire property. Perhaps there could be an exception for "holdouts" with some objective test, but I really doubt that this would be necessary. There are ways around most holdout situations without resorting to stealing.<BR/><BR/>I apologize for distracting from the exercise you proposed. I agree that limiting takings to "public use" projects is a step in the right direction. But I can't help feeling depressed about the entire concept having so much legitimacy, and worry that working on refinements might be adding some.Gilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16905127825110313631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1120688401097710172005-07-06T15:20:00.000-07:002005-07-06T15:20:00.000-07:00Gil: Whew. That's a tough one. If we could figu...Gil: Whew. That's a tough one. If we could figure out market prices without using market mechanisms, socialism might work! <BR/><BR/>Will: That's a good start, but I'd want to add lawerly qualifiers. For instance, what if *some* of the property taken for redevelopment becomes public streets? Or what if the public has a legal right to use property taken and transferred to private properties, albeit only subject to restrictions. A hotel, for instance, might qualify on those grounds. But I would want to disallow that sort of taking.Tom W. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02790351458154066358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1120673159730729392005-07-06T11:05:00.000-07:002005-07-06T11:05:00.000-07:00D'oh. "idiosyncratic"D'oh. "idiosyncratic"Gilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16905127825110313631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1120672898651704302005-07-06T11:01:00.000-07:002005-07-06T11:01:00.000-07:00Good Luck.While you're at it, you might try to cla...Good Luck.<BR/><BR/>While you're at it, you might try to clarify "just compensation", which I think should include consideration for the ideosyncratic value a citizen places on his home and the costs associated with an unwanted move.Gilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16905127825110313631noreply@blogger.com