Despite the fact that the project is essentially dead, the state is continuing to move forward with eminent domain.
26 thoughts on “California High-Speed Land Grab”
Comments are closed.
Despite the fact that the project is essentially dead, the state is continuing to move forward with eminent domain.
Comments are closed.
Eminent Domain has been in force since humans became agrarian societies.
Kelo was offensive because the city was seizing private property for a private corporation.
You can disagree about the High Speed Rail but it’s a public works project. Maybe the funding isn’t
straightened out yet, maybe it is, but, the State has a couple of billion in Federal Stimulus dollars for this
and they can use that for planning, acquisition, etc.
Essentially declaring easements, working out the future value of those, and starting to acquire those is what states do.
And if the HSR never goes forward people are getting paid for easements that will never get used.
So was slavery, serfdom, and the power of the crown. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
What California HSR should do is just give the $68 billion (later rising to $150 billion) to a railroad tycoon who knows how to build and run railroads. We’re a bit short on such men these days, so I’d go with Koch Industries, Haliburton (though they specialize in oil-field services, they do many things), Bechtel, or KBR. Seize the required land under imminent domain and just give it to the railroad company to use as they see fit. Since there’s no way they’ll ever turn a profit on passenger service (passenger trains having been largely abandoned as a mode of transport over a half-century ago), they can try to leverage their large land grants to pay down the cost of construction and maintenance, perhaps farming the most viable land using cheap immigrant labor.
You realize that’s exactly what the city of new london did in Kelo.
seize an entire neighborhood, give it to a big company and have them build an industrial park.
Are you doing comedy?
Comedy? Me?
One of the things you should ask yourself is what the difference is between California granting the land to Bechtel, Haliburton, or KBR versus painting the project with a happy public face and pretending all is well. The difference is that if the industrial firms built it, their powers would be limited, as would their claim to the California tax payers’ purses. What California is doing is pushing a 19th century technology project with 18th century utopian promises and 17th century government coercion and oversight, and the idiots out there think this is “the future.”
I’m surprised they’re not pushing for a series of canals to connect LA to SF so that the two cities could ship bulk commodities between them via water, which is still the cheapest shipping method. The canal system would of course have to be large to accommodate modern bulk carriers, but the project is certainly doable if you throw enough billions at it. Once completed, the water route could connect San Diego, Long Beach, San Francisco, and Oakland.
Why you want to grab private land for private corporations escapes me.
All this land is in private hands now. If you want bechtel or halliburton to build a
railroad, they can buy the land. The state is the only entity with eminent domain
power.
Why a bunch of self-proclaimed libertarians think the state exists to improve bechtels
profit margins escapes me. Bechtel wants to do this they can buy the land.
Maybe the funding isn’t straightened out yet, maybe it is, but, the State has a couple of billion in Federal Stimulus dollars for this and they can use that for planning, acquisition, etc.
A judge just ruled that they can’t.
Try actuaaly reading the ruling.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-blocks-sale-calif-high-speed-rail-bonds
Still, Kenny stopped short of blocking the project altogether, and rail authority officials characterized Monday’s rulings as a setback rather than a fatal blow.
and
The rail authority had argued that it has already updated its funding plan and that it intends to spend $3.2 billion in federal money before tapping the state bonds. It also argued that only the Legislature could intervene to stop the project.
or
http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/general/media/docs/tos-v-ca-high-speed-rail-authority-ruling2-112513.pdf
The Court has reviewed the evidence submitted by the parties and is not persuaded that approval
of the two contracts at issue, or the use of federal grant money thus far, necessarily amounts to the present
commitment of Proposition 1A bond funds for activities outside the scope of subdivision (g).
Significantly, the Authority demonstrated that the two contracts contain termination clauses. Thus, the
Authority is not necessarily committed to spending the full face amount of those contracts. Similarly,
plaintiffs did not demonstrate convincingly that federal grant money that has been spent so far and that
currently is projected to be spent necessarily exceeds the amount of funds available to the Authority from
funds other than Proposition 1A bond proceeds, and therefore inevitably must be matched with Proposition
1A bond proceeds. It is simply unclear at this time how the pattern of spending on the project will
develop.
The Court therefore concludes that the writ of mandate should not include any provision directing
the Authority to rescind its approval of the CalTrans or Tutor-Perini-Parsons contracts.
Page 4 Lines 6-16. Now I realize you aren’t a lawyer, but, as you have some very smart attorneys working for you, perhaps they can explain to you what those words mean.
“Kelo was offensive because the city was seizing private property for a private corporation.”
No, Kelo was offensive because the city was seizing private property to give to someone else who claimed they’d generate more tax revenue. And after all that battle, eventually walked away, leaving the place blighted after tearing down a bunch of houses.
Eminent domain should hardly ever be used and when it is people should be handsomely compensated.
“Eminent domain should hardly ever be used and when it is people should be handsomely compensated.”
I agree, figure out the fair price for property before the project got going then pay 30% above that
for “Pain in Ass” factor.
However that also means public works projects won’t be exactly cheap, but if gives the government
some incentive to line up options on the bulk of the land before the project is committed.
You can disagree about the High Speed Rail but it’s a public works project.
So what? It’s a project that isn’t likely to be built. I think it is grotesquely irresponsible to go ahead and commit irreversible actions without having the necessary financial support to complete the project. From what I’m seeing here, my guess is that the rail authority here will grab the land and proceed to do enough construction to damage its value. The idea here being to make HSR construction as irreversible as possible given the present funding. For example, if you spend $2 billion to buy land and then turn it into land worth a small fraction (due to construction damage and ecological/economic uncertainty of the changes made to the land and its zoning status), then that changes the economics of killing the HSR project, 5 to 10 years from now since the relative cost/benefit of ending the project is lessened by the low value of the land under construction.
And who’s benefiting from this? My suspicion is that we’ll have concrete husks blighting the Central Valley landscape from this project and that will be the sole extent of “benefit” to the California public. But I bet someone is profiting from this, either by manipulating land prices or construction contracts.
“California High-Speed Land Grab”
One of the enduring mottoes of government is:
“Grab all you can any time you can”.
You grab it if you can and you don’t need to have a real reason for the grab other than, you, i.e. the government ,wants it. So I see this land grab as taking property – very valuable property, under the guise of a high speed rail line simply because they have a means to take it.
How it will be used to translate into power, or money (which is power)? Well that all depends on what scheme occurs to the doyens of power in the future. Doesn’t matter how…what matters, at the moment, is the grab.
how is it a land grab if they “pay” for it.
It’s unconstitutional to just take property, they have to pay a fair price under the “Takings Clause”
of the US Constitution.
how is it a land grab if they “pay” for it.
Because the land was taken by force. Sure, paying for land you just grabbed is nicer than not paying for it. But it’s still a land grab.
Well, perhaps you should live somewhere, that doesn’t happen.
Like the moon.
Well, we’ll see how tough you talk when it’s your interests being shafted by eminent domain.
Depends how much they pay me.
My Great Grandparents lost their Land to the Bolsheviks.
My GrandParents lost their home to a civil war.
Me? I’ve got a utility easement at my place.
Did I ever get paid so the power company could run power through my neighborhood? Nope.
So you didn’t like the use of eminent domain when it didn’t benefit your ancestors? And did the utility easement come before or after you bought the house? Sounds to me like it came before. Which makes it not a use of eminent domain. And if it came after, then you weren’t compensated for a seizure of your property.
“how is it a land grab if they “pay” for it.”
Very simply because you, as the land owner, have no choice but to take the deal. You are
FORCED (there’s that word again)
to give up your property just because the government wants it.
You do not have the ability to say no. You cannot hold onto the land to get a better price some years down the road – like maybe that was a major part of your retirement plan. You will be fined and thrown in jail….
FORCED…..
…if you do not comply. At the very least you will be forcibly (there’s that word again) removed from your home and watch it be demolished if you don’t go willingly.
I call that a land grab.
Besides which you are not paid top dollar – you could be losing money on the very transaction, as opposed to selling it yourself.
Tha’ts nice. Eloquent explanation.
Can you tell me anywhere that doesn’t happen?
How is that relevant?
Can you tell me anywhere that doesn’t happen?
When I buy stuff, I’m not forcing anyone to give it to me. So it doesn’t happen to me.
” Can you tell me anywhere that doesn’t happen?’
Ok so first off you try to deny it’s a land grab.
When that stupid notion is demolished, you fall back on the “lay back and enjoy it – it’s going to happen anyway” ploy.
Murder happens everywhere – by your “logic” that’s life. Rape? Lay back and enjoy it. Burglary? Happens everywhere – why concern yourself with it.
This last “position” of yours is so egregiously stupid and bereft of any fundamental underpinning of decent society that I can only assume you are Baghdad Jim in disguise, or you’re trying to beat his high score on the Dolt-O-Meter, or you just like yanking chains.
In any case, the point here is that governments are, by their very nature, tyrannical, and their tyranny will push the envelope at every point, and unless there is push-back you’ll be sitting in the middle of rubble, starving, diseased, naked and wondering how all this came about.
And the government fat cat politicians and bureaucrats will be laughing at the willing tool that you so clearly are…as they are now.
Nice Rant. (Rape, Force, Slavery, Murder).
Pity you never read something called the Constitution, it specifically
created something called “Takings”. Worked out a process to compensate people too.
Now what’s amusing is you have some utopian ideal that there is never any
Government, Force, Violence, Unhappiness, in the world.
You guys amuse me, really.
Once again, you brush off legitimate concerns when they work in your favor. Eminent domain is easy to abuse even when compensation is involved.
Need to move some inconvenient voters or ethnic groups out of an area? Selectively target their properties for eminent domain seizure. Need to hit up a large business or property for some bribes? Threaten to claim critical parts of their property for eminent domain.
As Gregg notes, there’s an alternative to abuses of power – fight it.
“Pity you never read something called the Constitution, it specifically
created something called “Takings”. ”
Fool. Your strawman is pathetic. Firstly, the Constitution (of which you seem to know very little) is irrelevant when a STATE is taking property for a STATE project.
Secondly, no one has claimed that there aren’t circumstances where the Government needs to take property by eminent domain. An example of a reasonable taking would be grabbing someone’s property to build a defense against an ongoing land based invasion. Happened all the time in the War of 1812 and the Civil War.
The issue – of which you seem utterly unaware – is under what circumstances governmental property grabbing is justifiable and how much is “just compensation”, and, more specifically, whether the taking for a *state* high speed rail project that is practically DOA is justifiable.
You really do earn Rand’s nickname for yourself. Please respond and continue to dig yourself deeper. It’s amusing.
Gregg.
So you are a constitutional expert?
at least when you say this ” Firstly, the Constitution (of which you seem to know very little) is irrelevant when a STATE is taking property for a STATE project.”
It implies to me that you are making an argument about what the constitution means
and when it’s limited.
“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”
Well at least since 1897, ” The just compensation provision of the Fifth Amendment did not originally apply directly to the states, but since Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad Co. v. Chicago (1897), federal courts have held that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the effects of that provision to the states. ” The Supreme Court has
ruled that the 5th Amendment applies to the states. Now I know somewhere in that little head of yours,
you believe that if Madison didn’t say it explicitly, it doesn’t mean anything today, but, I like to live
in Reality, while you can go make your own reality.
I’d suggest you actually read the constitution and read a bit about American history before you start
spouting.
Then for your second point, where you say
“Secondly, no one has claimed that there aren’t circumstances where the Government needs to take property by eminent domain.”
Well, lets just look at what you said up thread.
““how is it a land grab if they “pay” for it.”
:Very simply because you, as the land owner, have no choice but to take the deal. You are
:FORCED (there’s that word again)
:to give up your property just because the government wants it.”
Either Something exists within justifiable context or it can never be allowed because
“Force” is involved. Your call.