Business Wants Right to Value of Its Property

[Kirk Freeman]

Much is made on INGO that property owners have no right to the value of their property. But what about a case like this wherein the government is taking a property? Do property owners have a right to the value of the property?

What say INGO? How should the judge rule?

Is property simply an illusion wherein no one has the right to its value, OR is the value of your property one of the sticks in your bundle?

History:

Ball State To Make Eminent Domain Claim On Land Held By Muncie Business | StateImpact Indiana

The Latest:

http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20130301/NEWS01/303010010/Hiatt-Printing?nclick_check=1

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/21450642/muncie-family-fighting-ball-state-over-property

 

[patience0830]

Kirk, please reread the sentence before "History" and tell me again what that is s' posed to say. Something is wrong with that and I can't put my finger on it to get the whole gist.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Missing word, added "one of the sticks".

Stupid phone.

 

[singlestacksig]

i do not think the university running a hotel is in the public good, even if they do not sell it to a 3rd party..
running a hotel is a commercial thing and should be left to free market..

 

[patience0830]

Missing word, added "one of the sticks".

Stupid phone.

Yes, they are. That is why we must be so smart. . . And careful.

I can whine about AR15 price gouging with the best of them, but value is whatever the market will bear. As for government taking in an imminent domain case, I believe that they should have to provide market value of the property and refund all property taxes paid by the last two owners and fund any moving costs incurred in order to even broach the subject of taking a mans land.
With a possible inclusion of lost profits for a business during the move.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I can whine about AR15 price gouging with the best of them, but value is whatever the market will bear.

We are told all the time on INGO that no one has the right to the fair market value of his property against his neighbor.

In a takings context, does this change in INGOlaw? If so, why does it change?

 

[rambone]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
​

 

[easy]

Finding based on the 5th against the gov't. In Ca of all places. Private property does have value.

Government Must Compensate for Water-Use Restrictions

 

[jbombelli]

You seriously don't see the difference between being recompensed when your property is physically taken from you, and guaranteeing a positive return on your investment against market forces?

Really?

Seriously?

 

[Tsigos]

Not sure I understand what the OP is asking. Is there some evidence that the property owner is not being offered fair market value for the taking?

 

[jbombelli]

Not sure I understand what the OP is asking. Is there some evidence that the property owner is not being offered fair market value for the taking?

No. The context behind the post is this: he's passive-aggressively poking at people who think he doesn't have the right to force them to mow their lawns in an effort to protect the value of his real estate investment. He thinks he has a RIGHT to a positive return on his investment over and above his neighbors' rights to enjoy their property as they see fit, including not mowing their lawns if they like their property au naturel.

 

[MikeDVB]

Here is a different question - why do they even have the option to take his property?

 

[hornadylnl]

Here is a different question - why do they even have the option to take his property?

Peyton had to have a hizouse to play in.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Not sure I understand what the OP is asking. Is there some evidence that the property owner is not being offered fair market value for the taking?

jbombelli has it. Thanks for framing the context.

It has been argued on INGO that no one has a right to the value of their property. I am asking if a taking case changes this sentiment any?

 

[KLB]

The two are no where near the same. If your property is forcefully taken from you by the government, you should be compensated for the theft. IMO, above "fair market". The .govs in this country seem to be more and more liberal with their use of eminent domain all the time.

 

[cosermann]

"Thou shalt not steal," has no meaning apart from ownership and an owner having a right to the value of his property.

 

[steveh_131]

This thread fails. Hard.

You're giving Grunt a run for his money.

 

[jbombelli]

jbombelli has it. Thanks for framing the context.

It has been argued on INGO that no one has a right to the value of their property. I am asking if a taking case changes this sentiment any?

You are attempting to equate the taking of actual, physical property, and being compensated at fair market value for the loss of the physical property, with protecting the value from the impact of negative market forces (like bad neighbors).

The business owner is entitled to "fair market value", when his property is taken via eminent domain, but not to dictate what that "fair market value" is, or to protect that fair market value from decline due to bad neighbors or other market forces.

 

[sgtonory]

Here is a different question - why do they even have the option to take his property?

Until this is answered i say he should ask what ever he wants for his property. Trying to take someones property by force is wrong and is a crime known as theft.

 

[rambone]

Ball State wants to boost their own land value by controlling their neighbor's land.

Are you representing Ball State in this case, Kirk?