Eminent Domain and Area 51

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:03 pm

It’s tough to lose a house. It’s even tougher to lose an alien house.

That’s exactly what happened to the Sheahan family, who for more than a century owned a mining property that overlooked Area 51. When the family refused to accept a $5.2 million government buyout of the property, the U.S. Air Force condemned the mine and repossessed it by order of a federal judge.

Now the Sheahans, who did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Beast, have to figure out what to do with all the stuff that has accumulated in a property they’ve owned since Ulysses Grant was president. That includes, but is not limited to, human remains belonging to generations of Sheahans buried in an alien wasteland.

The mine is surrounded by a government buffer zone that is constantly guarded to keep curious visitors from gaining access to or seeing the secret test base (think Independence Day) known as Groom Lake, or Area 51.
...
The family is seeking a jury trial, but the issues of said legal battle would only pertain to compensation for the land from the Air Force and distribution of equipment left on the site.
...
The Air Force values the land at $1.5 million despite offering the Sheahan family more than $5 million for the property. But the owners have always been adamant about holding on to the property until they were left with no choice.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:29 pm

5.2 million for my land?

SOLD!!!

Dumb asses for not taking the deal.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:39 pm

JSHAW wrote:5.2 million for my land?

SOLD!!!

Dumb asses for not taking the deal.

Not if it's worth $5.3M or $7.5M or $9M or whatever. The $1.5M valuation by the AF is probably bullshit. Condemnation and repossession is dirty pool. Like villains straight of some 80's summer comedy or kid's movie.

Of course they probably could have tried to deal with the AF rather than flat out refusing.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:52 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:Not if it's worth $5.3M or $7.5M or $9M or whatever. The $1.5M valuation by the AF is probably bullshit. Condemnation and repossession is dirty pool. Like villains straight of some 80's summer comedy or kid's movie.

Of course they probably could have tried to deal with the AF rather than flat out refusing.

I said it before but my old man was forced to find a guy guilty of neglect laws to get him kicked off his property so developers could take the property from him when he wouldn't sell. The same community has denied several friends' families from building single family dwellings on natural wet land only to let developers buy they land, drain it, and do cluster developing.

It's all puppies.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:14 pm

JSHAW wrote:5.2 million for my land?

SOLD!!!

Dumb asses for not taking the deal.

Unless you're they're happy with their lifestyle and don't feel like selling the family cemetery.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:33 pm

The mine.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:51 am

Having read the article, they were offered the 5.2 million, they refused.

Their land got reposessed.

They have zero dollars for their land now.

Yes, they stuck to their principled guns. And by doing so they got...zero dollars
from the govt. AND lost their land.

Fighting the govt. in court. Well...good luck with that.

Dumb asses.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:07 am

No one should have to give up their land if they dont want to.They owned the land a century and a half, paid their taxes, were good citizens and yet the government who is supposed to by by the people for the people took it without good cause. Shows how far this country has fallen. If WW2 vets could see the country now they'd roll over in their graves. It would not be recognizable to them. Theres foreign countries with more freedom. Land of the free is no longer true. How free are you when you cant decide what goes in your own body(weed laws) In one state you can buy it like beer. 1 mile over there are people in prison for it .

This is not right no matter how much they were offered. It stinks of the old days of the railroad robber barons.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:17 am

Daehawk wrote:No one should have to give up their land if they dont want to.They owned the land a century and a half, paid their taxes, were good citizens and yet the government who is supposed to by by the people for the people took it without good cause. Shows how far this country has fallen. If WW2 vets could see the country now they'd roll over in their graves. It would not be recognizable to them. Theres foreign countries with more freedom. Land of the free is no longer true. How free are you when you cant decide what goes in your own body(weed laws) In one state you can buy it like beer. 1 mile over there are people in prison for it .

This is not right no matter how much they were offered. It stinks of the old days of the railroad robber barons.

To be clear, eminent domain is an old, recognized power dating literally to the dawn of the country - the Fifth Amendment states that ‘nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.’ So the federal government using eminent domain to compel an owner to sell just can't be used without more as a hallmark of the decline of the country from the good ol' days.

The article in the OP doesn't give the government's stated reason for using eminent domain here - I assume that it's to expand the air force base?

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:24 am

Yep this is just big government using bully tactics and dirty tricks to remove a family from a property they have owned for generations. I cant fault the people for making a stand. As far as saying they get nothing for their property, thats very doubtful. The lawsuit will play out and the government will end up settling to make it go away. I doubt that the family will retain their land but they will be compensated and it will probably be more than the 1.5 million they value the land at and possibly more that the 5.2 million offer.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:27 am

rshetts2 wrote:Yep this is just big government using bully tactics and dirty tricks to remove a family from a property they have owned for generations. I cant fault the people for making a stand. As far as saying they get nothing for their property, thats very doubtful. The lawsuit will play out and the government will end up settling to make it go away. I doubt that the family will retain their land but they will be compensated and it will probably be more than the 1.5 million they value the land at and possibly more that the 5.2 million offer.

If by "dirty tricks" you mean "an old and well-established legal process", then yes. But yes, they definitely won't get nothing - in court the $1.5 million that the Air Force values the land at seems like the minimum that the government would wind up paying.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:27 am

The site is restricted access because of its proximity to the base.

CNN

The Air Force wants the land because, after decades of escorting family members into the highly restricted space, it can no longer ensure the family's safety during the "near-24/7 operation" at the base, officially known as "The Nevada Test and Training Range."

"We've tried to do everything we can, include canceling missions when they come out," said Col. Thomas Dempsey, commander of the facility. "And that's a tremendous expense to taxpayers."

That's ironic, say the Sheahans, who claim the most danger they've faced was from the military itself, intimidating the family since the Air Force began taking over land here in the 1940s...

"I didn't create this mess, they did," Sheahan said. "They surrounded us. We're tired of running, tired of hiding."

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:33 am

Isgrimnur wrote:The site is restricted access because of its proximity to the base.

CNN

The Air Force wants the land because, after decades of escorting family members into the highly restricted space, it can no longer ensure the family's safety during the "near-24/7 operation" at the base, officially known as "The Nevada Test and Training Range."

"We've tried to do everything we can, include canceling missions when they come out," said Col. Thomas Dempsey, commander of the facility. "And that's a tremendous expense to taxpayers."

That's ironic, say the Sheahans, who claim the most danger they've faced was from the military itself, intimidating the family since the Air Force began taking over land here in the 1940s...

"I didn't create this mess, they did," Sheahan said. "They surrounded us. We're tired of running, tired of hiding."

I like how Sheahan seems to think he's disagreeing with the Air Force's rationale for using eminent domain here.

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:38 am

El Guapo wrote:
rshetts2 wrote:Yep this is just big government using bully tactics and dirty tricks to remove a family from a property they have owned for generations. I cant fault the people for making a stand. As far as saying they get nothing for their property, thats very doubtful. The lawsuit will play out and the government will end up settling to make it go away. I doubt that the family will retain their land but they will be compensated and it will probably be more than the 1.5 million they value the land at and possibly more that the 5.2 million offer.
If by "dirty tricks" you mean then yes. But yes, they definitely won't get nothing - in court the $1.5 million that the Air Force values the land at seems like the minimum that the government would wind up paying.

No by dirty tricks I mean the act of condemning the mine, not because it posed a risk but because it gave them legal standing to grab the land. Call it "an old and well-established legal process", if you like but it sure seems dirty to me. Just because its legal, it doesn't make it moral.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:49 am

rshetts2 wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
rshetts2 wrote:Yep this is just big government using bully tactics and dirty tricks to remove a family from a property they have owned for generations. I cant fault the people for making a stand. As far as saying they get nothing for their property, thats very doubtful. The lawsuit will play out and the government will end up settling to make it go away. I doubt that the family will retain their land but they will be compensated and it will probably be more than the 1.5 million they value the land at and possibly more that the 5.2 million offer.
If by "dirty tricks" you mean then yes. But yes, they definitely won't get nothing - in court the $1.5 million that the Air Force values the land at seems like the minimum that the government would wind up paying.
No by dirty tricks I mean the act of condemning the mine, not because it posed a risk but because it gave them legal standing to grab the land. Call it "an old and well-established legal process", if you like but it sure seems dirty to me. Just because its legal, it doesn't make it moral.

That would be a dirty trick, but that's not what the Air Force is doing. They're using Eminent Domain, not condemning the mine (which hasn't operated in decades) as a safety risk. That's why they have to pay compensation to the family.

And yes, that doesn't automatically make it moral, but this is a pretty traditional use of the eminent domain power. Absent some showing that the government is lowballing the family or has some ulterior motive here (which I haven't yet seen), it's hard to see this as much of an outrage.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:54 am

Condemnation is eminent domain.

The legal process of eminent domain is called condemnation, and it varies by state -- but the basic steps are similar. Once the local government decides that it needs a parcel of land or a building, it contacts the owner to negotiate a selling price.

Just because most people think about decrepit buildings, it's not the same. The condemnation is the government taking ownership, not about determining it unsuitable for use or habitation. A building can be in good standing in every way and still be condemned.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:57 am

Isgrimnur wrote:Condemnation is eminent domain.

The legal process of eminent domain is called condemnation, and it varies by state -- but the basic steps are similar. Once the local government decides that it needs a parcel of land or a building, it contacts the owner to negotiate a selling price.
Just because most people think about decrepit buildings, it's not the same. The condemnation is the government taking ownership, not about determining it unsuitable for use or habitation. A building can be in good standing in every way and still be condemned.

Ah, ok. Point being that it's not like the government is drumming up OSHA rule violations and using those as a pretext to seize property; rather they're invoking eminent domain powers.

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:58 am

I guess I misunderstood the article then because this is a direct quote

When the family refused to accept a $5.2 million government buyout of the property, the U.S. Air Force condemned the mine and repossessed it by order of a federal judge.

Anyway, I understand the concept of eminent domain and I am not raging against the machine here, although I do think what the government is doing here is wrong. I dont even necessarily agree with the family turning down with the $5.2 million offer, it seems like a very fair offer. I am just saying I understand why the family chose to make a stand.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:02 am

rshetts2 wrote:I guess I misunderstood the article then because this is a direct quote
When the family refused to accept a $5.2 million government buyout of the property, the U.S. Air Force condemned the mine and repossessed it by order of a federal judge.
Anyway, I understand the concept of eminent domain and I am not raging against the machine here, although I do think what the government is doing here is wrong. I dont even necessarily agree with the family turning down with the $5.2 million offer, it seems like a very fair offer. I am just saying I understand why the family chose to make a stand.

Isgrimnur has clarified that "condemning" as applicable here refers to the process by which the government takes land via eminent domain (then having to pay compensation). I was reading that sentence the way you did too, I just thought that the Daily Beast was misusing the term.

I get why the family is making a stand too - it's been their land for awhile, and they don't want to leave. But the Air Force's position seems reasonable on its face, so I don't any reason (absent more details coming out) for viewing what the government is doing here as wrong.

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:33 am

Yep we are pretty much in agreement here. Except let me fix one thing for you...

I don't any reason (absent more details coming out) for viewing what the government is doing here as wrong illegal.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:37 am

rshetts2 wrote:Yep we are pretty much in agreement here. Except let me fix one thing for you...

I don't any reason (absent more details coming out) for viewing what the government is doing here as wrong illegal.

Right, there's no dispute that what they're doing is illegal. I am going farther and saying that I don't see much reason for regarding it as morally wrong either (so long as the compensation that the government is offering is reasonably just, and factors in the disruption to the family).

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:35 pm

Some of you seem to be saying you think its morally ok to take anything as long as some compensation is giving even if the owner doesn't want to part with an item. In this case the land. Its like you're saying its fine to take a lollipop from a baby as long as you give them a quarter or maybe an old shoe. Something they dont want instead of their item. Hey I went to Walmart yesterday. I really liked the store. I think Ill take it. I offered them some old tennis shoes and my car. They didn't want it but I did it anyways.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:40 pm

Daehawk wrote:Some of you seem to be saying you think its morally ok to take anything as long as some compensation is giving even if the owner doesn't want to part with an item. In this case the land. Its like you're saying its fine to take a lollipop from a baby as long as you give them a quarter or maybe an old shoe. Something they dont want instead of their item. Hey I went to Walmart yesterday. I really liked the store. I think Ill take it. I offered them some old tennis shoes and my car. They didn't want it but I did it anyways.

It is an entirely different situation when its a democratically elected government exercising eminent domain in connection with a public good project (here, a military base used to maintain the national security of the country). It wouldn't be ok for me to take something without the consent of the owner, even if I left money (absent some exigent circumstances).

Which is not to say that it is always ok for the federal government to use its eminent domain powers in all circumstances (particularly when the project's connection to a public interest or good is not so clear). However, your position would seem to amount to the position that the government compelling a sale via eminent domain over the consent of the property owner is always (or almost always) wrong, which I do not think is supportable.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:31 pm

But that is saying they have reason to take said mine. The air force said they had to escort them each time they wanted to go there. The family said they called them as a courtesy and wasn't required to. I just dont believe the government in anything these days.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:38 pm

Daehawk wrote:But that is saying they have reason to take said mine. The air force said they had to escort them each time they wanted to go there. The family said they called them as a courtesy and wasn't required to. I just dont believe the government in anything these days.

I don't understand these two sentences. The first is a reason why the government has a reason to take the mine - the cost of regularly escorting them (and escorting them becoming progressively less feasible). I'm not sure what the second sentence is about.

In any event, it's *possible* that the government is lying or withholding key information or whatnot, but there doesn't seem anything in particular to indicate that they are doing so here.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:49 pm

In this case, with Area 51, there are very few places IN the USA that have the type of security
that is in place here.

This place, has black projects that have been started and finished, and ones right now that
are taking place, above AND below the surface of the base.

These black projects have funding that are so far off the books we will never know the exact
dollar amounts being used for them.

It would not suprise me in the least if this latest land grab is being done to secure use of this exact
land, above AND below the surface for MORE black projects in the future.

In order to do this, the govt. cannot have the family as owners of the land. They have to be gone, they
have to be bought off and gone for good.

In any other case where the land was not on, next door and anywhere near a top secret facility then
I would say the govt. needs to piss off. In the case of Area 51, total different story.

I'm one of those people that believe the stories of Bob Lazar, Alien spacecraft being back-engineered,
underground bases and Extraterrestrials being kept there underground.

I see no reason that the salt-of-the-earth family needs to retain ownership of the land. Ok, it's been in your family for decades, big deal. Let the govt. put up a historic marker stating whatever you want about your family, the mine, etc. And then move on with your life. Buy a REALLY nice house somewhere else and just live your life in as comfortable manner as you can do with 5+million
dollars Uncle Sam will pony up to you.

What good is the land doing for the family now? How is the family generating any dollar amount
from the land, right now, as we speak?

Now, maybe the family wants MORE than 5 mil. Maybe they think it's worth MORE than 5 mil?

If they're holding out for a bigger payday they better have some really great documentation
stating for the record why they feel the land is worth more than the 5+ million the govt. has
offered them.

Anyhoo....the truth is out there scully.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:58 pm

So this thread is not about eminem domain, then?

The title is confusing.

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:12 pm

GreenGoo wrote:So this thread is not about eminem domain, then?

The title is confusing.

You missed the part where Area 51 is located somewhere on 8 Mile?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:00 pm

That makes more sense.

To clarify, I keep reading this thread as eminem domain and it's bothering me (which is not on anyone else of course).

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:11 pm

GreenGoo wrote:That makes more sense.

To clarify, I keep reading this thread as eminem domain and it's bothering me (which is not on anyone else of course).

The Canadian equivalent to eminent domain is expropriation. A famous example was the creation of Kouchibouguac National Park.

And by "famous" I mean that I know about it because I lived in Kouchibouguac as a wee toddler.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Oct 27, 2015 11:11 pm

I think the Canadian equivalent would be something like Bieber Domain.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 12:00 am

Daehawk wrote:Some of you seem to be saying you think its morally ok to take anything as long as some compensation is giving even if the owner doesn't want to part with an item. In this case the land. Its like you're saying its fine to take a lollipop from a baby as long as you give them a quarter or maybe an old shoe. Something they dont want instead of their item. Hey I went to Walmart yesterday. I really liked the store. I think Ill take it. I offered them some old tennis shoes and my car. They didn't want it but I did it anyways.

I assume you use electricity right? Well I can guarantee you that your power comes over high tension lines that the power company used eminent domain to allow them to put those lines there. People don't usually volunteer their land for those things - my family knows from experience. We had power lines strung across our property without any real say about it. I guess your stand makes sense if you are willing to give up power, roads, airports, etc. Are you?

And FYI, they pay fair market value, not old tennis shoes.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:59 am

I think a big reason that many people have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the exercise of eminent domain (or its equivalent around the world) is due to the fact that it has too often been used to benefit private parties (i.e. real estate developers) rather than for truly public benefit. On the face of it, this particular case seems like a fairly straight forward example of the intended function of eminent domain. The only thing that surprises me about it is that it has taken over half a century to get to this point.

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:20 am

Grifman wrote:
Daehawk wrote:Some of you seem to be saying you think its morally ok to take anything as long as some compensation is giving even if the owner doesn't want to part with an item. In this case the land. Its like you're saying its fine to take a lollipop from a baby as long as you give them a quarter or maybe an old shoe. Something they dont want instead of their item. Hey I went to Walmart yesterday. I really liked the store. I think Ill take it. I offered them some old tennis shoes and my car. They didn't want it but I did it anyways.
I assume you use electricity right? Well I can guarantee you that your power comes over high tension lines that the power company used eminent domain to allow them to put those lines there. People don't usually volunteer their land for those things - my family knows from experience. We had power lines strung across our property without any real say about it. I guess your stand makes sense if you are willing to give up power, roads, airports, etc. Are you?

And FYI, they pay fair market value, not old tennis shoes.

And FYI theres a huge difference between using eminent domain to provide access to electricity or roads and using it to seize all of the property from a family who's lived on that land for generations. One is about providing basic needs infrastructure and understandable, even though it can suck for the land owners. The other is a land grab of all the property for "security" reasons. Your analogy is disingenuous at best.
That being said, there's a lot we probably do not know and maybe the government has fantastic reasons for acting as they are in this case but based on the information provided, its seems a bit too Big Brotherish to me.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:43 am

Their mine is north of the airport designator inside that yellow box. I'm pretty sure the government isn't going to let them set up Lesotho inside their military test range.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:07 am

rshetts2 wrote:
Grifman wrote:
Daehawk wrote:Some of you seem to be saying you think its morally ok to take anything as long as some compensation is giving even if the owner doesn't want to part with an item. In this case the land. Its like you're saying its fine to take a lollipop from a baby as long as you give them a quarter or maybe an old shoe. Something they dont want instead of their item. Hey I went to Walmart yesterday. I really liked the store. I think Ill take it. I offered them some old tennis shoes and my car. They didn't want it but I did it anyways.
I assume you use electricity right? Well I can guarantee you that your power comes over high tension lines that the power company used eminent domain to allow them to put those lines there. People don't usually volunteer their land for those things - my family knows from experience. We had power lines strung across our property without any real say about it. I guess your stand makes sense if you are willing to give up power, roads, airports, etc. Are you?

And FYI, they pay fair market value, not old tennis shoes.
And FYI theres a huge difference between using eminent domain to provide access to electricity or roads and using it to seize all of the property from a family who's lived on that land for generations. One is about providing basic needs infrastructure and understandable, even though it can suck for the land owners. The other is a land grab of all the property for "security" reasons. Your analogy is disingenuous at best.
That being said, there's a lot we probably do not know and maybe the government has fantastic reasons for acting as they are in this case but based on the information provided, its seems a bit too Big Brotherish to me.

Citing them using the land "for generations" is a red herring here - I am sure that eminent domain has been used to compel the sale of land for electricity or roads from people who held that property for generations.

Second, the air force pretty clearly has a valid security-related function, so I'm not sure why the scare quotes around "security." If the air force base isn't actually doing anything security-related, it should probably be closed so that we can save the money.

Maybe this is just a matter of one's biases here. I don't see anything especially suspicious here so I'm not inclined to regard this with suspicion, whereas you seem more inclined to assume that the government is acting with an ulterior purpose absent clear evidence that they are acting otherwise.

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:18 am

Maybe this is just a matter of one's biases here. I don't see anything especially suspicious here so I'm not inclined to regard this with suspicion, whereas you seem more inclined to assume that the government is acting with an ulterior purpose absent clear evidence that they are acting otherwise.

We are discussing our opinions so, yes, it most definitely is based on our personal biases.
I may be way off base but if these people have been there this long and it hasnt been a problem for our nation's security why is it now? It just feels like the government is doing this because they can, not necessarily because its needed. Governments do that from time to time. Now if you please, I need a few minutes to make a new tin foil hat, my current one has been compromised.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:33 am

rshetts2 wrote:
Maybe this is just a matter of one's biases here. I don't see anything especially suspicious here so I'm not inclined to regard this with suspicion, whereas you seem more inclined to assume that the government is acting with an ulterior purpose absent clear evidence that they are acting otherwise.
We are discussing our opinions so, yes, it most definitely is based on our personal biases.
I may be way off base but if these people have been there this long and it hasnt been a problem for our nation's security why is it now? It just feels like the government is doing this because they can, not necessarily because its needed. Governments do that from time to time. Now if you please, I need a few minutes to make a new tin foil hat, my current one has been compromised.

It depends in part on how you define it "not being a problem":

"They're the .50-caliber rounds we found all over the place, all over the property," Sheahan said. The family believes the bullets were fired from aircraft overhead back in the 1940s to intimidate the family to leave. But the Sheahans stayed, operating a mine processing mill until nuclear testing began on the range, driving them out of business, they say.

The mill was destroyed in 1954 -- firebombed, the family says -- likely by an aircraft engine that fell from the sky. They cite a fire inspector's letter that "a foreign object or device may have been instrumental."

Of course, the family views this as intentional intimidation by the Air Force, though that kind of thing is kind of what I would expect as the natural consequence of living right next to an Air Force base that's testing plane-based weapons.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:41 am

rshetts2 wrote:And FYI theres a huge difference between using eminent domain to provide access to electricity or roads and using it to seize all of the property from a family who's lived on that land for generations. One is about providing basic needs infrastructure and understandable, even though it can suck for the land owners. The other is a land grab of all the property for "security" reasons. Your analogy is disingenuous at best.

Please read what I said. I never made any analogy. I was responding to Daehawk who was saying that it was never acceptable/right to claim property under eminent domain. I was giving him an example where it would be acceptable - assuming he wants electricity. I never mentioned this case.

rshetts2 · Post by **rshetts2** » Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:58 am

Grifman wrote:
rshetts2 wrote:And FYI theres a huge difference between using eminent domain to provide access to electricity or roads and using it to seize all of the property from a family who's lived on that land for generations. One is about providing basic needs infrastructure and understandable, even though it can suck for the land owners. The other is a land grab of all the property for "security" reasons. Your analogy is disingenuous at best.
Please read what I said. I never made any analogy. I was responding to Daehawk who was saying that it was never acceptable/right to claim property under eminent domain. I was giving him an example where it would be acceptable - assuming he wants electricity. I never mentioned this case.

I guess your stand makes sense if you are willing to give up power, roads, airports, etc. Are you?

This statement ties it all together, so maybe you can see my confusion on your intent here. As far as the word analogy, yeah perhaps "comparison" would have been a better choice but its clear you got my point so we are just splitting hairs here.