It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


California city set to abuse eminent domain laws.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:04 PM
The city of rancho cordova outside sacramento is taking action to take over a mans property that has been in his family for 40 years. The owner sam fong has been in negotiations to build a community college for around 8 million dollars. Now the city of Rancho cordova wants to seize the land under the laws of eminent domain. in return they want to pay him 4 millions dollars and then sell the property to the same developer that mr.fong has been in negotations with, to build the same college. This is ludicrous and unconstitutional. sorry for my lack of posting skills. here is a link to the story. i hope it posts right.

posted on Aug, 14 2010 @ 08:46 AM
Firstly: Property values have fallen massively in the last 3 years, and the only type that has fallen even more than commercial property, is undeveloped commercial property (Since most these buyers generally require massive, bank lending!).

Second: I lack sympathy with the owner, since the land he’s owned for 40 years hasn’t been used in decades. People who hold derelict property, in the knowledge that (in exchange for doing nothing) it’s value can only go up, often become seriously guilty, of holding the economic development of an area backwards.
Nobody likes to build a new anything, next to a derelict anything. That, and the development that does happen, is often diverted to the wrong place (i.e. away from the town-city centre). This cements the need for extra road-widening, and even quarter of a mile can add millions of (otherwise completely unnecessary) annual road miles (for the States traffic).

Third: The article says

Los Rios may be able to buy the property in question for the current market value – about $4 million –

If it’s worth 4 million, and that’s what State wants to pay, then there is nothing unconstitutional about it!!!
They may well have offered him up to 8 million for it (in a deal that never happened) 3 years ago. But if I offer to buy your house, for twice its worth, it doesn’t make it worth twice as much, but only twice as valuable (for as long as my offer lasts). No more of my offer = no more of twice the price.

The owner is simply guilty of trying & failing to extract as much value for his property as possible. I bet if he had been willing to sell for 1-2 million less, 3 years ago (say out of a genuine desire to advance public, education needs) that not only would his land be already serving the area (and providing employment) but he’d be richer.

So he makes the wrong business decision, yet seems to believe that because the city is buying from him, the city should also subsidise his (entirely theoretical) businesses losses. I Think He’s The Who’s Being Outrageous!!!
I just hope the City can get it for less than 4 million (when they recover they’re legal costs) and I hope (by chance) its value will continue to plummet, so that they have more money to spend on turning this disused area, into well-equipped places, of peoples education.

new topics

log in