Up Front: AG Rob McKenna tries to rein in eminent domain powers

mrscott said on January 24, 2010 at 7:20 PM

This little weasel is doing nothing but posturing. He thinks he can buck the Supremes? On my dime? I don't think so! By Charles Lane Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, June 24, 2005 Justices Affirm Property Seizures 5-4 Ruling Backs Forced Sales for Private Development The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

ejmarquez2576609 said on January 25, 2010 at 12:03 AM

I am usually a liberal democrat, but I voted for Rob McKenna in the last election because of issues like this. He makes absolute sense to me. It's not fair to give rich developers the benefits of up zoning a property at the expense of the original property owner. If a city wishes to develop a property then change the zoning and allow developers to purchase the property at fair market value from the property owner.

hyptest said on January 25, 2010 at 12:13 AM

The supreme court case has no bearing on this. They ruled that local jurisdictions are ALLOWED to seize property. The proposed bill simply says that in washington state jurisdictions won't be allowed to exercise this constitutionally allowed freedom (and actually implicitly acknowledges that it would otherwise be allowed).

puyallupgirl said on January 25, 2010 at 1:00 AM

Go Rob McKenna! Thank you for standing up for the rights of the citizens! I'm sure that our founding fathers would be outraged if they knew what was going on with eminent domain (and many other subjects, for that matter) in our country today. The idea that the United States government could force a person from their home so they could receive more tax money repulses me! And we claim to live in a free country. Shame on our government! They no longer represent us and haven't for quite a while now. At least there are a few people in government still trying to do the right thing.

byteman007 said on January 25, 2010 at 1:00 AM

I fully agree with this and i challenge the Chairman to bring this initiative to vote or face the voters in the next election for being in the pocket of greedy developers. There is nothing wrong if developers want to develop a property however; they must pay a fair price that is calculated after the property is developed. Tim Eyeman we need you to go after these guys and being this bill to vote. Some cities are abusing these laws of eminent domain to steal prime properties from owners and build their fancy city halls and wasting tax payers money even more. They are getting into a "keeping up with the Jones'" syndrome to compete with other cities for a prettier city hall. This madness has to stop.

teufel said on January 25, 2010 at 1:05 AM

Right, all talk no action for now.

cmcd1 said on January 25, 2010 at 1:09 AM

Rob Mckenna is doing what the average, honest citizen would do if given the chance to place fairness into a corporate/judicial system that has become anything but fair to the average, honest citizen. The moron above, 'mr scott' who called McKenna a 'weasel' is clearly a apron-stringer have-nothing who thinks that everyone elses money and earnings should be open to theiving by those who have more, or less. Thanks Rob McKenna, for doing the right thing, against a growing tide of those who fail to act with fairness, or for that matter, ethics. CM

blmciver07025760 said on January 25, 2010 at 1:21 AM

My family is a prime example of why Rob McKenna is right on the money. Over a decade ago King County "purchased" the right of way from Burlington Northern for the abandoned railbed to use as a trail along E. Lake Sammamish Parkway. The problem was that my family homesteaded two miles along Lake Sammamish in 1884. When BN needed to put in a rail line to connect Issaquah and Redmond my ancestors were ones who gave the rail an easement to put in the railroad. The papers (of which we still have!) stated that if BN ever abandoned the railroad that the property would revert back to the original owners or heirs. Since 1884 we have had family members living on the original property and are still very much a part of the community. What happened? King County disregarded this paperwork as basically 'outdated' and gave BN more money than most of us can imagine to put in a community trail. This matter was taken to court, but so far no favorable ruling has been made.

summer5 said on January 25, 2010 at 4:22 AM

"This little weasel is doing nothing but posturing. He thinks he can buck the Supremes?" The Constitution bucks the Supremes!

bazwest said on January 25, 2010 at 9:12 AM

It sounds to me like Mrscott subscribes to the communist Marxist philosophy that citizens should not be permitted the right to own private property; that only the "state" should own or control all property for the greater good of all the people. China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea are all prime examples of the failure of this kind of thinking. These governments took all private property by force on behalf of the proletariat class and what resulted was a people more powerless than ever against the whims of government. The people of these countries have been amongst the most oppressed people our planet has ever witnessed. Government must not be allowed to trample on the rights of private citizens to acquire and maintain their property as they reasonably desire. I say Rob McKenna for Governor! Go man!

majormajor said on January 25, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Thank you Mr. McKenna..... Do not let all these idiots get to you. Eminent Domain should not be a given for local government nor corporate contractors. We the people should have a right to say what is in our backyard. In Tacoma a few years ago, Emerald Queen wanted some of their land back around the casino, they paid each homeowner a very hefty price for houses that should have been condemned 20 years ago so the people in them, mostly seniors, could move into a nicer home. That is how it should be done. Now up north, big time contractors are taking what they want and paying off the county and state to get what they want. Doesn't matter that water has to be piped in 30 miles from Everett. Now how fair is that to the farmers trying to make a living? Mr. McKenna, stay on top of it and don't back down.

holykow said on January 25, 2010 at 10:52 AM

MrScott needs to be put in the position where he has a perfectly reasonable good condition home and because the government can make more money by putting up a WalMart there. They can force him to take pennies on the dollar for what his family home and land is worth and he as to move so that we can all get more crap from China and extra big bags of Doritos while he is screwed out of everything he holds dear. Eminent Domain usage for business purposes is legalized robbery and should be outlawed. For municipal improvement, perhaps a better case can be made for the greater good and local circumstances, but to make a quick buck is deplorable. HK

blackdiamond said on January 25, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Thank you Mr. McKenna. I agree with a previous poster that you should be our governor. Eminent Domain has been abused in recent years to the point that we have no say over our own land that we paid for, paid taxes on, and would like to hand down to our children. Likewise, the City of Black Diamond uses the sensitive areas ordinance similarly to “condemn” citizen’s properties. I for one lost 90% of my property, however, I can still pay taxes on it to them but can not build on anything more than a postage stamp, which has to include the driveway. I would like to see more people become outraged over the way local governments treat the taxpayers. I also believe when it comes to property tax levies, there should be a way for only people who are land owners to vote on it. Put it on the ballot and you’ll have a lot of support.

emptynestr said on January 25, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Good idea. I am with Rob McKenna on this one.

scottyes said on January 25, 2010 at 1:43 PM

I'm not you guys have a good day. And stop putting up stories. And using wrong person's name. Thanks. Scott

scottyes said on January 25, 2010 at 1:50 PM

Have to say your case has already been decided. (Get the correct person on the name too next time.) Now go to the ballot in two years. S blmciver07025760 said on January 25, 2010 at 12:21 AM My family is a prime example of why Rob McKenna is right on the money. Over a decade ago King County "purchased" the right of way from Burlington Northern for the abandoned railbed to use as a trail along E. Lake Sammamish Parkway. The problem was that my family homesteaded two miles along Lake Sammamish in 1884. When BN needed to put in a rail line to connect Issaquah and Redmond my ancestors were ones who gave the rail an easement to put in the railroad. The papers (of which we still have!) stated that if BN ever abandoned the railroad that the property would revert back to the original owners or heirs. Since 1884 we have had family members living on the original property and are still very much a part of the community. What happened? King County disregarded this paperwork as basica

ducati1 said on January 25, 2010 at 5:30 PM

Is that Mrs Cott or Mr Scott that made that uneducated statement? Anyway I'm behind Rob McKenna all the way. I was very surprised by the Supreme Court ruling on emminent domain. Sounds like they were paid off on that one. The best justices money can buy.

scottyes said on January 25, 2010 at 6:26 PM

Bozo (taken the liberty)(the way we speak where we're from) Alicia Keys anyone who plays and sings has talent, don't characterize the Supremes that way trying to confuse people -- I know republicans that aren't like ya folks. Stay where your at. Carry On. Just have to get after ya.

mrscott said on January 25, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Ok, folks--read it again (if you have the ability). My comment says nothing of my own attitude toward the Supreme Court ruling affirming the right of local jurisdictions to take your property and give it to a developer. If you want my reaction, I think that the ruling was outrageous. The last thing I would want to happen is to have the local mucky-mucks displace a homeowner just so Joe Builder can put up an office park. To Seattle's credit, Edith Macefield was able to stand her ground. So: hyptest--what makes you think Rob McKenna can convince the Supreme Court to reverse its decision and ban local jurisdictions from making the seizures it authorized in 2005? And how do you reach your tortured conclusion that its decision does not apply here? Cmcd1--what is an apron-stringer? See above; I didn't say anything in my first comment about whether McKenna is wrong. He is playing for publicity, wasting my tax dollars because ultimately his case will be tossed. Wish it weren't so.

hyptest said on January 25, 2010 at 9:12 PM

The supreme court says that it is ok to have a law that local juristictions are allowed to seize property. It does NOT say that it is required that such a law exists. Note similarly it is LEGAL for a state to have an income tax. It is not REQUIRED that a state to choose to do so. The state bans local juristictions from doing many things that are perfectly legal as far as the us constitution is concerned.

scottyes said on January 25, 2010 at 11:31 PM

McKenna isn't the best lawyer, and he certainly not as smart as Chris Gregorie. (Perhaps some of you will try to work for him and get your dime. Whatever works.) Sorry have to stay Blue and not ask for legal permission on Sunday. Thanks. (Not alot of ability so you --other folks carry on. ) Scott

nick6869 said on January 31, 2010 at 2:03 PM

To mrscott: The supreme court ruled that existing law said that property taking is legal. The ruling does not say that the law cannot be changed. This in NOT a constitutional issue.

scottyes said on February 2, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Good luck from what I heard I-5 went up in the 50s? And, it was voted on. Good Luck, tho' -- sure you're {text} is gonna need it. S

oldguy said on February 6, 2010 at 6:52 PM

HOORAY for Rob McKenna, and just when we thought no one cares for we-the-people. Eminent domain should be limited to "necessities" and require a public vote of the entire entity (city, county, state, etc.) requesting it. Tax revenue should be a prohibited purpose. Property confiscated under eminent domain and not used in timely order for the stated purpose for which it was taken should be returned to the "victim former owner" at no cost to the “victim” for the "victim's" inconvenience and trouble. If courts deny this, then shame on them...sadly, they may have no shame. The idea that justice is blind is so far gone that we hardly remember it. Corporate interests took the blindfold off of the “lady justice” our founding fathers envisioned long ago. Chief Justice Roberts clearly lied through his teeth during his confirmation hearings. How does it make you feel that the nation’s Chief Justice stoops so low?