美国政府可以强行征地/买地 using 'Eminent domain' for public good

美国政府可以强行征地/买地 using 'Eminent domain' for public good.
当地政府可以向私人强行征地/买地， 如果为了修建公路, school, park, water supply tower et al. 






LETTER TO THE OBSERVER - Eminent domain guidelines

Posted: Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:00 am

LETTER TO THE OBSERVER - Eminent domain guidelines 0 comments

Editor:

 

While Rio Rancho city planners consider the Loma Colorado andCabezon redevelopment projects a success, the fact remains that theprocess was unfair to vacant land investors that were forced tosurrender their investments before they had ripened.

I was a vocal part of a large group that resisted attempts by thecity to do the same thing in Unit 10, and ultimately led to alegislative victory that put some much needed constraints on theMetropolitan Redevelopment Act in 2007.

Mayor Tom Swisstack is once again looking to employ the MRA to dosome land acquisition.

I applaud the mayor for attempting to offer some kind of investorparticipation in any future MRAs.

But, the fact of the matter is that using Eminent Domain powers for"the public good" because the final project will bring in moreproperty tax revenue, is a weak argument for usurping one's rightto own property.

"Antiquated Platting" and "Diverse Ownership" are also flimsyreasons for allowing the government to interfere with the freemarket.

If the City wants to amass a large chunk of private land and masterplan it or convey it to a private entity for economic development,there are certain conditions where this would be palatable to aproperty owner, but it would be under certain very strictconditions:

First, no law should allow any entity to bypass the freemarket.

As such, any area targeted for economic redevelopment should firstbe at least 70 percent owned by said entity.

In the world of investing, an investor buys stock in a company hethinks will grow, just as a land investor does with a landinvestment.

If a larger company takes over the smaller one, they make a tenderoffer which is typically 30-50 percent greater than the marketprice of the stock on the day the takeover is announced. Why shouldthe city be able to take land over with no premium paid?

Therefore, if land must be taken, a premium should be paid to theinvestor that is being forced to surrender his investment before itripens.

It should be on a sliding scale that is up to a 250 percent premiumfor a sub $5,000 acre, but is only a 25 percent premium if the acrehas a fair market value of $100,000 or greater.

Second, the investor should be free to choose how he iscompensated: All cash, a land swap, or the mayor's proposed equityparticipation, or any combination of the three.

Third, the targeted area needs to be limited in scope. No more than100 acres per year in a rolling 10-year period.

Any larger and there is a danger that a glut of property couldartificially lower fair market value, which could lead to furtherforced selling of cheap land way before it has ripened, to thedetriment of the investor.

Matthew Carle

Rio Rancho