Go Back   DealershipForum.com > Dealer Talk > General Discussions

Notices

General Discussions Car People talking about something other than the Car Business – Is there life outside of the Dealership?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-12-2016, 09:31 PM   #1
johnpico
Supporting Sponsor
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 42
Default Trump had a legal duty to go after the widow’s home

Trump was the president of a corporation and, as such, he had a legal duty to the corporation and its shareholders to do what was best for the corporation, so long as it was legal.

It was not Trump’s job to decide the merits of the request. Whether or not a request should be granted is left to a City Council, a Redevelopment Agency, a court, or all of the above.

Obtaining the parking lot was in the best interests of the corporation and the law supported his application to acquire it through eminent domain proceedings.

If the request were granted, the widow would have been compensated, at a minimum, the fair market value of her house and, as Trump said, probably more if she had good representation.

The city and its citizens, on the other hand, would have more income and be able to provide more free services, all without raising taxes. Finally, the shareholders of the corporation would benefit by obtaining the parking it needed for its operation.

Car dealers have used eminent domain to acquire land to expand their stores, move their stores and to construct auto malls. The City of Covina, among others, created an auto mall, used the process of eminent domain to create an auto mall.

If dealers want to know more about the process, they should read the short article titled: Understanding Private Eminent Domain at
http://ezinearticles.com/?Understand...ain&id=9319445
johnpico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2016, 09:43 AM   #2
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default

Thanks for starting the thread - the whole issue of using eminent domain to benefit a private business is definitely controversial.

I haven't followed the election campaigning closely enough to even be aware of the controversy regarding Trump until you mentioned it here. I do agree with your point, however, that any CEO would have an obligation to pursue any legal strategy that would have a positive impact on the company's financial performance.

Concerning my personal viewpoint, while I'm certainly a dealer advocate I'm more likely to side with the property owner.

There was a case in Bremerton, WA about 10 years ago where the local Ford Dealer wanted to move next to the freeway but one of the parcels of property he needed was owned by an individual who didn't want to sell. The Dealer went to the City Council who exercised the right of eminent domain and the Dealer was able to complete his project.

I didn't support the idea of using government powers for private gain back then and I still wouldn't today. I can see the other side of the argument but I don't think a property owner should be forced to sell his/her property to accommodate private interests.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2016, 12:18 PM   #3
57years
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 554
Default

But the argument is the property owner is forced to sell to accommodate the public interest in fostering the highest and best use of the property for the purpose of "INCREASED TAX GENERATION", WHICH IS FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC GOOD.

In the local area, there was a subdivision which overlooked downtown. The city fostered an eminent domain case against all the landowners in the subdivision. To the State Supreme Court it did go...Today there sits a high-rise on the site.
57years is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2016, 01:31 PM   #4
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 57years View Post
But the argument is the property owner is forced to sell to accommodate the public interest in fostering the highest and best use of the property for the purpose of "INCREASED TAX GENERATION", WHICH IS FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC GOOD.

In the local area, there was a subdivision which overlooked downtown. The city fostered an eminent domain case against all the landowners in the subdivision. To the State Supreme Court it did go...Today there sits a high-rise on the site.
Interestingly, the recent passing of Supreme Court Justice Scalia has put the whole issue of eminent domain for "economic redevelopment" back in the spotlight. Here's an article from the Washington Post - click here

Scalia is credited with limiting the scope of eminent domain and even argued that it shouldn't be used in cases where the beneficiary is a private enterprise - regardless of the potential economic benefit to the community.

Scalia was appointed during the Reagan years and was known to be one of the most conservative of the Supreme Court Justices. Given that his death was a surprise and there's no autopsy planned I'm guessing there will be conspiracy theories for years to come...
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2016, 01:40 AM   #5
johnpico
Supporting Sponsor
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 42
Default

Eminent Domain raises several philosophical questions. First, and the question I addressed, is that if the procedure exists, does the CEO have an obligation to use it regardless of his/her personal beliefs?

I say "Yes," just as the Governor of a state has a duty to enforce the death penalty regardless of his/her personal beliefs.

Consequently, no one should condemn Trump because he used it. Even Jack Kennedy said he was president to enforce the laws of the people, even if those laws went against his faith.

Next, is your issue. Is eminent domain, in and of itself, right or wrong?

Personally, I do not see the difference between "public" or "private." If my private construction company is building a road to benefit the public, why is it O.K. to take the widow's house for that purpose, but not O.K. to take it to benefit the public by collecting millions for the city/county/state general fund and thus lower taxes for the entire community?

Either it is wrong to take the widow's house, or it is O.K.

What is the difference if we take it to make a million dollars and have a private construction company build a road, but it is not O.K. to take it and have a hotel/casino make a million dollars? Either way, the house is gone.

Those are some deep philosophical questions that I believe need to be answered on a case by case basis, which cannot be done if we outlaw the so called "private" eminent domain.

The fact that a road is owned by the government and a casino is owned by a public company does not change the fact that in the first case, the widow's house is gone to make it convenient for the public to drive somewhere, while in the second case the house remains and the public cannot take it to lower taxes because the business is owned by a non-governmental entity.

I do not think the widow would feel better if they took her house for a road, or a pipeline, or a school, than if they took it for a car dealership.

At least the dealer could spiff her a demo, which is more than the government would do.

Last edited by johnpico; 02-16-2016 at 01:47 AM. Reason: grammar
johnpico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2016, 06:36 AM   #6
57years
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 554
Default

I find it interesting this thread has not sparked more input.

Interestingly, I find Scilia's argument to not use eminent domain for the benefit of private enterprise as not being a "conservative" viewpoint, but one of being "liberal". The constitution has no such limits under the taking clause, any such limit becomes one read into the "penumbra" of the constitutional words. The type of language used to justify every liberal expansion of word meaning since Chief Justice Warren's Court.

Interestingly, this is the same "reading" that is expanding protected speech to cover the right to pornography, and gun control as not applying to individuals right to bear arms.

We live in a society that any specific words can now have multiple meanings.
57years is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2016, 08:31 AM   #7
steve_biegler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnpico View Post
I do not think the widow would feel better if they took her house for a road, or a pipeline, or a school, than if they took it for a car dealership.

At least the dealer could spiff her a demo, which is more than the government would do.
OK I have bit my lip on this until now. Here goes!
John if you insert "Dealer" for widow, insert "Franchise" for house, insert "No compensation" for road, pipeline, and school and put competitive in front of car dealership.

Oh what the hell I'll do it for you.

I do not think the dealer would feel better when they took her franchise for no compensation for a competitive car dealership.

At least the competitive dealer would have paid for blue sky, parts, tools and cars, which is more than the government did.

I think taking personal property for anything other than public right of way is wrong. If you throw in "increasing taxes" as being OK to cause taking property then NOTHING is safe.

I'm sorry but the bloodbath of '09 is still very important to me and always will so when I see things taken so a big company/government can do whatever the hell they want I see a big problem. Granted this instance the "widow" probably received compensation for her home and if money was the only driver for her I'm sure she could have gotten multiples more than the market value. My problem is it was for a company not public access.

Our opinions won't change the law, so I guess any of our rants don't make much difference.

Last edited by steve_biegler; 02-16-2016 at 08:49 AM.
steve_biegler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2016, 10:48 AM   #8
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 57years View Post
Interestingly, I find Scilia's argument to not use eminent domain for the benefit of private enterprise as not being a "conservative" viewpoint, but one of being "liberal". The constitution has no such limits under the taking clause, any such limit becomes one read into the "penumbra" of the constitutional words. The type of language used to justify every liberal expansion of word meaning since Chief Justice Warren's Court.
I see Scalia's viewpoint as being conservative because it constrains the power and control of government. The article that I linked above indicated that the rights of property owners grew during Scalia's time on the court and the court's opinions resulted in limiting the government's ability to institute new restrictions dictating what a land owner could do with their property.

I do see your point about how the Supreme Court has altered the intent of the Constitution by over-analyzing the definition of certain words. In my opinion those efforts are reflective of the liberal side of the court.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2016, 10:54 AM   #9
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_biegler View Post
OK I have bit my lip on this until now. Here goes!
John if you insert "Dealer" for widow, insert "Franchise" for house, insert "No compensation" for road, pipeline, and school and put competitive in front of car dealership.

Oh what the hell I'll do it for you.

I do not think the dealer would feel better when they took her franchise for no compensation for a competitive car dealership.

At least the competitive dealer would have paid for blue sky, parts, tools and cars, which is more than the government did.

I think taking personal property for anything other than public right of way is wrong. If you throw in "increasing taxes" as being OK to cause taking property then NOTHING is safe.

I'm sorry but the bloodbath of '09 is still very important to me and always will so when I see things taken so a big company/government can do whatever the hell they want I see a big problem. Granted this instance the "widow" probably received compensation for her home and if money was the only driver for her I'm sure she could have gotten multiples more than the market value. My problem is it was for a company not public access.

Our opinions won't change the law, so I guess any of our rants don't make much difference.
Steve, I follow your point and we're in 100% agreement.

In fairness to John, however, the impression that I got when I read his post and the linked article was he wasn't advocating whether eminent domain for the benefit of private business was right or wrong, merely that the process existed and a business person should acknowledge that it is a tool that's available.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2016, 11:20 AM   #10
57years
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 554
Default

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...elocartoon.jpg
57years is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2016, 07:36 AM   #11
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default Increasing Property Taxes to accomplish the same result

This may be a bit off topic but I remember when I was living in Western Washington there was frustration among some home owners that the local government was using increases in property taxes to drive people off of their land.

I was renting a house on Mason Lake, about an hour out of Seattle, and over the years the type of home that was on the lake kept moving upscale. In the 40s and 50s I'm told that the vast majority of the homes on the lake were nothing but modest summer cottages but in the 80s and 90s more people started to tear down the old cottages and replace them with expensive homes.

The county, not surprisingly, loved the increased property taxes that the new homes warranted and started to raise the property taxes of all the homes on the lake. I was told that people who had a modest summer cabin that had been in the family for decades were compelled to sell the property because it no longer made sense to pay a big property tax bill on a cabin they'd only be using in the summer months.

Maybe I'm a skeptic but I'm betting the practice of using increased property taxes to compel people to sell their property for a higher use is common throughout the U.S.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2016, 08:41 AM   #12
steve_biegler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XDCX View Post
Steve, I follow your point and we're in 100% agreement.

In fairness to John, however, the impression that I got when I read his post and the linked article was he wasn't advocating whether eminent domain for the benefit of private business was right or wrong, merely that the process existed and a business person should acknowledge that it is a tool that's available.
Oh I think I understand what he meant and I guess I came off as combative, I did not mean to. Sorry. I think the idea of using any means necessary just rubs me the wrong way. I still believe that individual business shouldn't be able to invoke eminent domain. When the government uses it the property owner is compensated for value. Unless there is a BS bankruptcy involved. Sorry I couldn't help but throw that in.
steve_biegler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2016, 08:49 AM   #13
steve_biegler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,497
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XDCX View Post
This may be a bit off topic but I remember when I was living in Western Washington there was frustration among some home owners that the local government was using increases in property taxes to drive people off of their land.

I was renting a house on Mason Lake, about an hour out of Seattle, and over the years the type of home that was on the lake kept moving upscale. In the 40s and 50s I'm told that the vast majority of the homes on the lake were nothing but modest summer cottages but in the 80s and 90s more people started to tear down the old cottages and replace them with expensive homes.

The county, not surprisingly, loved the increased property taxes that the new homes warranted and started to raise the property taxes of all the homes on the lake. I was told that people who had a modest summer cabin that had been in the family for decades were compelled to sell the property because it no longer made sense to pay a big property tax bill on a cabin they'd only be using in the summer months.

Maybe I'm a skeptic but I'm betting the practice of using increased property taxes to compel people to sell their property for a higher use is common throughout the U.S.
I see what you mean and I'm sure this happens in many places. That being said the values of the smaller cabins (really the land they sit on) has increased in value so the owners will realize a substantial gain when the sale occurs. Personally I think the taxes should stay relatively flat as long as the property is kept in the family and there is not a change in the structure causing the value to greatly increase.
steve_biegler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2016, 11:15 AM   #14
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_biegler View Post
Oh I think I understand what he meant and I guess I came off as combative, I did not mean to. Sorry. I think the idea of using any means necessary just rubs me the wrong way. I still believe that individual business shouldn't be able to invoke eminent domain. When the government uses it the property owner is compensated for value. Unless there is a BS bankruptcy involved. Sorry I couldn't help but throw that in.
No need to apologize. I didn't think you came across the wrong way, I just didn't want to see John get defensive since he seemed pretty careful in his article to indicate that he wasn't advocating either position regarding eminent domain.

Concerning the fair value issue, I think that's another reason why I'm highly skeptical of eminent domain.

About 10 - 15 years ago the Seattle voters approved building a monorail system to address traffic problems - the voters were painted a Disneyland like scenario but that vision didn't last long. The project soon ran into delays and cost overruns and ended up dying when voters would not approve additional funding. The city had bought several pieces of property via eminent domain and then proceeded to sell them at a profit once the project was dropped.

It was argued that the property should go back to the original owners but the city officials indicated the laws on the books precluded that option.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2016, 11:19 AM   #15
XDCX
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,869
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_biegler View Post
Personally I think the taxes should stay relatively flat as long as the property is kept in the family and there is not a change in the structure causing the value to greatly increase.
I totally agree.

I believe California has some type of law like this in place that limits property tax increases until a home is sold. The mindset was to protect retirees on a fixed income from getting forced out of their homes because they were no longer able to pay the taxes.

While I don't often think of California as a state to benchmark when it comes to legislation, the above example would be an exception.
XDCX is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The passing of Dick Poe results in legal battle for control of his estate XDCX Automotive Discussions 1 11-24-2015 09:05 AM
May 5th, next step for the legal fight? steve_biegler Automotive Discussions 1 05-06-2015 05:07 AM
Home based dealer zastava Automotive Discussions 1 09-16-2013 01:40 PM
Would this Car Advertisement be legal in your State? XDCX Automotive Discussions 6 02-21-2012 12:55 PM
File under LEGAL steve_biegler Automotive Discussions 3 02-19-2011 12:28 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright DealershipForum.com - 2008 - 2016