Buyer Beware

[Mark Healey]

(my state)

Which one would that be?

[protege]

Usually. Malls are a gray area. I'ld be more positive towards them*, except that we have too damn much retail in this nation already, and shoving people out of the way just to build yet another mall doesn't usually seem worth it.

Around here, we have too many damn malls. I'm all for creating jobs. However, what's been happening here, is they'll build a shopping center on one side of the road...and then later another one across the street, or further down the street. What eventually happens, is businesses will usually move from one to the other, in effect, simply *transferring* the jobs around, rather than creating new ones.

[DesignFox]

What sometimes happens, too- If say, Mall A has a set number of stores that Mall B doesn't have- and the company adds the same stores into Mall B at a later date- the traffic that was exclusive to Mall A shifts to Mall B, and the employees of Mall A suffer. Less customers means less payroll to go around...so yes, some new jobs are created- but some other working individuals get less hours and need to find other jobs...shifting people around even more...and sometimes screwing managers out of their yearly bonuses because there is just no way in hell they can make up the sales they are losing out to Mall B.

[Knifeman]

It's the law of Emminent Domain, which just last year was upheld by the Supreme Court. The concept of Emminent Domain is written in some of the founding documents of the country. .

Yes, and in the founding documents of the country, it's ILLEGAL.

Third and Fourth Ammendment protects SPECIFICALLY personal property rights.

[trunks2k]

Yes, and in the founding documents of the country, it's ILLEGAL.

Third and Fourth Ammendment protects SPECIFICALLY personal property rights.

The third and fourth amendments are about quartering of troops during peace time (can during time of war with enacted laws) and unreasonable search and seisure respectively. These do NOT in any way protect against the government taking property for eminent domain.

The fifth amendment, which states that a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process allows for eminent domain, provided there is due process. What is and isn't due process is up for debate.

The recent SCOTUS ruling on eminent domain may be annoying, but in a strictly legal sense, it was the right thing. The US constitution does not specifically define what is and isn't appropriate for eminent domain to be used because what is and isn't considered public use is not strictly defined. So, the court ruled that states have the right to define what is considered public use.

[SongsOfDragons]

We're going to take your Victorian era home to build this row of (far more profitable) four-storey townhomes. Don't worry, we'll stick some gingerbreading on the vergeboard, there, doesn't that look Victorian? Right out of the eighteen-seventies.

We're going to take this beautiful, pre-Victorian market house located in the heart of Winchester, delist it from Listed Buildings, knock it down and build a multi-storey car park on it, in the middle of a pedestrianised zone and forgetting that the market inside has been going for generations in the same families.

Bastards.

[skeptic53]

There is a true civic need for emininent domain, for things like schools, sewage treatment facilities, etc.

Then there is the reality of corruption, cronyism and who gets rich off the "fair market value" paid to those who lose their property for a sports stadium, mall, industrial park or what have you. "Jobs" are created that have no pension, sometimes no benefits, in the case of malls often pay minimum wage.

Any of you folks old enough to remember the movie "Chinatown"? If not, go rent it. Great movie, stars Jack Nicholson. Part of the plot has to do with skullduggery involving bringing water to Los Angeles in the first half of the 20th century.