Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

rocks66ss t1_j9o8hpe wrote

Reply to comment by DaltonTanner1994 in Hotel of Terror condemned? City begins process to take property through eminent domain by MmasterO1

You'd probably think differently if it were your business, and your building that the city in effect was stealing from you.

−2

DaltonTanner1994 t1_j9oadgw wrote

They’re giving market value, he has another building just down the road. You use the building once a year, you can use a park year round. The buildings and offices that will develop around the park will be used far more frequently, it’s more tax money. It’s simple economics.

18

rocks66ss t1_j9oak5o wrote

I know the man and did business with him who owns the haunted houses in the West bottoms in Kansas City, he uses those buildings once a year! But that's his livelihood, that's his job that's what he makes all of his money from. I get where you're coming from but it's not right that they come in and force you to sell your building and your business for what they deem is fair market value.

19

VaderTower t1_ja4md2m wrote

The city doesn't deem the value. A third party appraiser does.

In my opinion that building, in that condition, in that location, as it is, is worth maybe $200k tops. I don't know what the appraiser valued it at but the building isn't worth much at all.

1

rocks66ss t1_ja4phg6 wrote

Yes I know it's all for the greater good but I personally think it's wrong to ultimately push a man out of his business and force him to sell his property.

1

VaderTower t1_ja4z9ci wrote

Valid point, ultimately we live on a line between individual freedoms and societal benefit.

One is not good for the other. On one hand, I pay taxes on my property and everything I buy, that's a negative to my individual freedom of owning my land myself. However society wins because I won't voluntarily pay my fair share for the roads otherwise.

In this case, it's a shot at this guy's individual freedom, but because the city has deemed this as a high enough societal benefit that it outweighs the individual freedoms this man has to this land.

We absolutely disagree, and that's okay. This is the dialogue that is absolutely necessary so that the government doesn't steamroll everyone into submission. In this case I think it's justified, but I wouldn't say it is in every case.

1

rocks66ss t1_ja7fm3w wrote

This is where we are conflicted as individuals. I feel the tone of your comment as someone who is quite a bit younger than me, and has a sense of duty towards society.

As someone who is on the short side of 70, I don't have any feelings of any sacrifice on a personal level for society in any way shape or form.

My wife and I have worked very hard for what we have. There were times in our life when we hit some rough spots and asked for a little help to get us by. We were basically given the middle finger because we made just enough to pay our bills but not enough to buy groceries .

We managed to Make it dispite no help from anyone, unless we were willing to completely get rid of everything we owned or had, and start over completely from scratch on the government level. But we were the ones who gave the government the middle finger and managed to get through those hard times, and survive to make it to retirement age and be able to live comfortably completely and entirely on our own.

We have property and a home outside of Springfield that we own, and oh nothing on. We're in a very good situation, better than most. The only thing we owe is property tax this is a bit of background for better understanding of my position.

Where we live the chance of imminent domain is probably zero to none, but if I were forced to sell, I could see myself pushed to violence.

Ah I digress, my point is I have worked my entire life for me and no one else and when needed a little help, we were givin non. There were a couple of other times society/city/local government tried to Hammer us but we survived.

I have no feelings or allegiance to society, or anyone else but me. Thank you for the conversation,

1

417spacewizard t1_j9ootew wrote

It's not stealing. Eminent domain is a tool that is covered in the US Constitution.

−3

Golden3ye t1_j9q716r wrote

Constitutional stealing?

5

417spacewizard t1_j9qar8p wrote

If you are pro2nd you should be pro 5th you don't get to pick which constitutional amendments exist

4

TheThumpaDumpa t1_j9sb8mt wrote

No you don’t get to pick which exist but you can choose which you disagree with. Your argument sucks. I like the guns. The guns are great. But I don’t like the government dicking people and stealing their property. I’m not saying anyone is getting dicked on this particular deal, but people get fucked by eminent domain all the time.

1

417spacewizard t1_j9tbncm wrote

And countless people get killed by guns all the time. Seems a little backassward to protect the capital by railing against eminent domain and not care about peoples physical safety by being progun. I'll take the safety of countless people over 1 persons right to keep a shitty building

4

ghenghis_could t1_j9ojdc3 wrote

The employees harassed my daughter right in front of us and tried to fight us. Then they backed the employees up when reported. Fuck them

−5