What your government can do for you...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
BrianFromWA

BrianFromWA

Editor in Chief
Staff member
Editor in Chief
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
26,096
Likes
9,073
Points
113
So to get this straight...

Seattle decides to take down the viaduct and build a big-ass tunnel. As part of the construction, they'll temporarily lose some parking spots (which, according to my basic understanding of economics, would make existing parking spaces more valuable). Enter 103-y/o Myrtle Woldson, who owns some waterfront property that she's actually using for parking stalls already. City wanted to buy it from her, and she said no. They then said that if she doesn't sell, they'll pass a law condemning and then seizing her property. She has started to negotiate.
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/10/15/seattle-still-playing-hardball-with.html
Seattle officials want to use Myrtle Woldson’s property at 1101 Western Ave. to help make up for the loss of 500 stalls of short-term, on-street parking. Those stalls will go away when construction of the new seawall and waterfront promenade swings into high gear. Officials fear the loss of such a large number of relatively affordable public parking spots will hurt waterfront businesses.
Nineteen years ago, (103-year-old) Woldson bought the Seattle property for $2.75 million, according to public records. It is one of the last redevelopment sites on the waterfront, and city officials have said they ultimately would like to see housing, retail and parking developed on the site.
But now Seattle council members want the property just for parking, and are considering a bill that would authorize city staff members to force Woldson to sell.
Even after learning that Woldson is willing to talk to the city, the council on Monday gave preliminary approval to a plan to possibly condemn the property. The council’s final vote on the bill is scheduled for Oct. 21.
Councilmember Jean Godden, chair of the council’s waterfront committee, added she was “very, very pleased to hear the negotiations have at least begun.”
But the city isn’t backing down from its condemnation threat.
Click to expand...
 
I was going to say that I have no words... but I do.

I own this land but the city, state or government can decide they need it more and just take it without payment? Not that this is anything new but it seems to be sliding down the slippery slope even faster lately.

This world we live in now is ridiculous.
 
KeepOnRollin said:
I was going to say that I have no words... but I do.

I own this land but the city, state or government can decide they need it more and just take it without payment? Not that this is anything new but it seems to be sliding down the slippery slope even faster lately.

This world we live in now is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Not without payment. Without choice, but with payment.

barfo
 
Well if we don't have choice in a democratic republic what do we actually have?
 
barfo said:
Not without payment. Without choice, but with payment.

barfo
Click to expand...

I didn't read the whole story yet but from the quotes above they make it sound like sell it to us or we will confiscate it. So you could sell it with payment or they could take it without payment. So they are forcing your hand. And I am sure there has been a instance somewhere at sometime in the past where the government was able to take something without payment.
 
barfo said:
Not without payment. Without choice, but with payment.

barfo
Click to expand...

If they condemn, they seize it and she gets no payment. That could potentially be why she's negotiating.
 
Nikolokolus said:
So take the blue pill is what you're saying?
Click to expand...

I think people are happy as long as the tv works, the internet is on, and there's food in the supermarkets. People are oblivious to what's going on around them. They get up, they go to work, they go home, and they watch TV or play video games or look at funny shit on the web. People don't want to know how bad it is. They don't want to think about how large the government has become.

The perfect example is the Edward Snowden thing. People were outraged.... for a couple weeks. What's come of it? Virtually nothing. Here we have proof that the NSA is breaking the law, violating the constitution, and illegally spying on its own citizens. What did people do? Post angry message on the internet and put on a couple demonstrations. That was it. The government is doing something that nobody wants them to do, but does that matter? Nope.
 
BrianFromWA said:
If they condemn, they seize it and she gets no payment. That could potentially be why she's negotiating.
Click to expand...

That is not correct. They can force her to sell it. They cannot take it for nothing.

barfo
 
barfo said:
That is not correct. They can force her to sell it. They cannot take it for nothing.

barfo
Click to expand...

That's what they're doing though, so they can and they will!

kid-sticking-out-his-tongue.jpg
 
barfo said:
No, that is not what they are doing.

barfo
Click to expand...

"But now Seattle council members want the property just for parking, and are considering a bill that would authorize city staff members to force Woldson to sell.
Even after learning that Woldson is willing to talk to the city, the council on Monday gave preliminary approval to a plan to possibly condemn the property. The council’s final vote on the bill is scheduled for Oct. 21."

So what are they doing?
 
Natebishop3 said:
"But now Seattle council members want the property just for parking, and are considering a bill that would authorize city staff members to force Woldson to sell.
Even after learning that Woldson is willing to talk to the city, the council on Monday gave preliminary approval to a plan to possibly condemn the property. The council’s final vote on the bill is scheduled for Oct. 21."

So what are they doing?
Click to expand...

They are forcing her to sell. Not to give it up for free.

barfo
 
It looks like Seattle is a place where the courts have ruled for "just compensation". That's not always the case, but it is here.
City of SeaTac v. Cassan, 93 Wn. App. 357 (1998)
Just compensation is the difference between the fair market value of the entire property and the fair market value of the remainder. It includes the value of the property taken and the damages, if any, caused to the remainder by reason of the taking, offset by the amount of special benefits, if any, accruing to the remainder of the property as a result of the project that necessitated the condemnation action.
Click to expand...
 
What's the quickest way to contaminate the land?

Scorched earth strategy!
 
I think there are certainly cases where you should be forced to sell your land (provided you get a fair price) to the government (local, city, state, or beyond) but this is just not one of them. Where do they draw the line? They don't from what I can tell but there should be something set in stone that does.
 
That's funny, Woldson doesn't sound very much like a Native American name...
 
Come on guys, forcing people off their land under the guise of "improvement" is an American tradition. Why do you hate America?
 
hoojacks said:
Come on guys, forcing people off their land under the guise of "improvement" is an American tradition. Why do you hate America?
Click to expand...

Personally, I blame the hipsters! :MARIS61:

Most people (especially at S2) like to blame Obama, though.
 
Barfo's right about this. The land owner will receive compensation. But, it won't likely be what the owner thinks the property is worth.

I've been gone for WA for 20 years, but here is how it used to work, and probably still does.

The City Council would decide to condemn.

The first step is for the City to go to court for a Use and Necessity Hearing. In this hearing they will present their case that the public needs the land more than the private owner does. This used to talk 6-9 months to get on the docket. The judge will usually rule in favor of the governing agency. (Big shock, right?)

The final step is for the City and the owner to go to court for the Compensation Trial. In this hearing, the judge sets the price that the owner will receive as 'just compensation'. (Which is nearly always less than what the owner believes to be fair.) It often takes 9-12 months to get on the docket for the compensation hearing.

Total time is on the order of 18+ months to gain use of the property if the full legal process is followed. That is why the City will proceed with the condemnation. If they were to wait to go through prolonged negotiations with the owner, then the negotiations fall apart, that is all time taken off the schedule to get the work done, since they would then have to start the whole process, perhaps many months later.

They will continue negotiations with the owner while the condemnation moves along, hoping to come to agreement with the owner, so they don't have to use up the time to go through the full process.

If the owner holds out and says, 'Stay the hell off my property until I'm been paid", the City will have to do that. The rub, for the owner, is that attorney fees for the hearings are granted only if the judge says so. A common tactic for the agency is to request that the owner gives the agency 'Immediate Use and Possession' of the property. If the owner accepts, he/she is acknowledging that the agency is going to get the property, and will allow the work to proceed while waiting for the compensation trial to set the price the owner will get for the property. The carrot is that the agency will guarantee attorney fees for the owner if they grant the Immediate Use and Possession.

The whole time, negotiations between the agency and owner continues, hoping to avoid the cost and delays from having to go through the whole legal process.

Go Blazers
 
So, you're saying the government can bend me over, rape me, and then leave pennies on the dollar on my night stand as if I'm a dollar whore?
 
Two points.

SCOTUS ruled that the state must pay actual fair value for property.

Blame it on those obstructionist republicans.
 
Have you guys never heard of eminent domain?
Not only can the government take your land, they can take your gold.
This is all done lawfully. Not saying it's right, just that it's legal.
 
blue9 said:
Have you guys never heard of eminent domain?
Not only can the government take your land, they can take your gold.
This is all done lawfully. Not saying it's right, just that it's legal.
Click to expand...

And good luck getting that changed.
 
What govt can do for you!

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx

Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage, frustrating some consumers who want to keep what they have and forcing others to buy more costly policies.


The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1. Most are ending policies sold after the law passed in March 2010. At least a few are cancelling plans sold to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost -- especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify. The law requires policies sold in the individual market to cover 10 “essential” benefits, such as prescription drugs, mental health treatment and maternity care. In addition, insurers cannot reject people with medical problems or charge them higher prices. The policies must also cap consumers’ annual expenses at levels lower than many plans sold before the new rules.

But the cancellation notices, which began arriving in August, have shocked many consumers in light of President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their plans if they liked them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top