Jackson Jambalaya

Looks like it would prevent the private prison trend from moving into Mississippi.

For it.

Everyone needs to vote for it. I think it will give more protection for the private property owner and less power to the Gov/Construction/Money People. We need more laws that will protect the individual rights of the average citizen in this country rather than government and money interests.

Everyone wants to vilify the big bad developer until he brings a thousand jobs to the state. Even it it's just a hundred, that's a hundred people who are working now in a down economy who weren't working before. How are you going to feel about your eminent domain law if the reason those jobs went elsewhere is because of a lone holdout landowner who demanded 20 times what everyone else happily accepted for his property? I'm with Haley on this one. Bill Billingsley

I just think it's wrong to force someone to sell their home and/or land. If they want to willingly, that's fine, but some people I know have been forced to give up land that's been in the family for over a hundred years. It's really sad to see a part of your life taken away.

"I just think it's wrong to force someone to sell their home and/or land."

So you're against eminent domain, period?

Bill, no problem with the "big bad developer," but he just doesn't need to stack the deck by getting a political crony to condemn the land, get it cheaper than the free market, and turn it over to the developer. If big bad developer wants the land, pay the asking price. Or find another plot of land.

This isn't about preventing development. It's about making developers play fair.

The crux of current eminent domain policy is that government can efficiently decide what privately held concern can best develop property. It's OK to force me to sale my property to another person if a beauracrat believes that person will better benefit "the community" with their ideas.

This is a long way from eminent domain being used to put together parcels for public works projects

Government has no right, mechanism,or ability to make these kinds of decisions.Please support this amendment and perhaps we can slow down big brother just a bit.

Let's not trade our property rights for the promise that government knows best and will tend to our economic needs

"""I just think it's wrong to force someone to sell their home and/or land.""

"So you're against eminent domain, period?"

I should expand my comment, and say that I'm ok with (2), but I still have problems with (1), as it's still open to governmental abuse, such as diverting a road through someone's property just for the sake of moving a road, which could be constructed somewhere else, OR land taken away to build some "drainage" ditch, which would then be near the remaining property of the owner, devaluing that property.

I do not understand why anyone would think it is fair to MAKE me sell MY land at a price not determined by me for someone else to profit. Having been through this process, the company certainly had enough $$$ to generate a great deal of paperwork from an attorney. Perhaps if they had incorporated that $$ into the purchase price rather than trying to intimidate with their use of emminent domain everyone (except possibly the attorneys) would have been happier. BTW, the property WAS NOT for sale and was part of an inheritance left to me by my father. I will vote yes on this amendment!

I'm still undecided, but I haven't seen any convincing arguments "pro" yet.

"Developing business" is usually a last-resort excuse for picking the taxpayers' pocket -- e.g., stadium deals.

One mark of a civilized person is that there are some things he won't do, even if good results would supposedly follow. Stealing folks' land may well be one of those things you just don't do.

I don't want to see anyone lose their family land, nor do I support the government paying less than fair market value for property that's needed for any project, private or public. The narrow scope of my concern is described in my comment above. What about the rights of the other landowners who are perfectly willing to sell their land for triple its market value? They're screwed by the guy holding out for 20 times market value, and the entire community misses out on the positive aspects of a new business. This initiative isn't as much about "taking" of land for private developers as it is simply trying to make sure the price paid is fair for everyone involved and the community can be protected. Bill Billingsley

"Looks like it would prevent the private prison trend from moving into Mississippi."

Are you serious? Private prisons have operated in Mississippi for decades. They do a much more efficient and cost effective job that DOC. This isn't a DOC slam. Even THEY admit that.

Whatever Leland "One Dollar A Year" Speed advocates, I'll go with the alternative.

As I see it, the problem is in who determines fair market value. In the open market it is determined by what someone is willing to pay. If the two parties do not come to an agreement, there is no deal...the end. Emminent domain forces the landowner to take what someone else determines is fair. It is hard to see someone take YOUR propery for THEIR profit with the government's stamp of approval and help. In my case, it was not Nissan or some other huge job creator, it was a pipeline. It rendered several acres unusable as we would have no access to our property, but the company did not want to compensate us for that acreage. Seems fair, huh?
Bill, in my opinion, your point is correct. The biggest problem is in determining fair market value. I know there are those that do want to hold out for huge, huge sums. But also there are small landowners that just want a fair shake and not to be threatened or bullied in the process.

This is why we don't need to "fix it". We are finally there. It currently ain't broke.

Mississippi is ranked number 9 in the country in the "2011 Top States for Doing Business"

http://www.areadevelopment.com/siteSelection/Fall2011/top-business-states-consultants-survey-292876.shtml

3:48; that may be true in cash deals between parties; however, in 90% of purchase situations, a third party is involved in setting the value and determining the maximum amount that will be paid, i.e. land and property appraisals. Your suggestion that it's two old hayseeds in overalls chewing on stems of Johnson Grass, each lookin deeply into the eye of the other, then agreeing with a handshake...is pure fiction.

Shadowfax,
Even in those situations, the landowner can walk away and say no thank you if he/she does not agree with appraisal/offer. In the case of emminent domain, the landowner is not allowed to walk away. In my experience, when a deal was not reached in a timely manner the threat of litigation was used. Litigation can be costly and guess whose pockets are deeper. Therefore, the landowner has very little, if any, choice...and the property was probably not even for sale.

Circle Jerk in comments at the Bugle....

The biggest problem is in determining fair market value.

In my finest hipster fashion, "'nuff said."

Actually, that statement was wrong. The biggest problem is that the landowner has no choice. They ARE MADE to sale their property.

The taking of private property through eminent domain and giving it to other private property owners for profitable ventures must have our founding fathers rolling in their graves. It’s really incredible we are even having this discussion.

Haley and Speed like it because they are powerful enough to keep from being abused when it comes to their property and will use this law to profit themselves or help their rich friends. This proves it doesn’t matter which party is in power because they all are greedy as hell and don’t mind “big government” when it helps them and/or their rich friends.

they dont TAKE IT FROM THEM, there are choices, there is due process and mississippi land owners have been (somewhat) successful in defending there land in court. Case and point Nissan. there was only a handful of acres that fell under eminent domain. And families were paid fair (very fair) market value.

The choices are...take the offer (I think there may be three chances) or be buried in paperwork and attorneys fees as you fight it out in court which is very costly. Not everyone has enough time or money to fight a large corporation or the state in court. Remember, this is a company and they are trying to control costs and make as much money as possible. So, the choice pretty much is to sell my land or sell my land. What kind of choice is that?
I know there are instances where an agreement is reached and everyone is happy. But, that is not always the case.

Not one acre of property was taken via eminent domain for the Nissan plant!

9:46 - FALSE

2:52 - you making this up, or can you actually sit one person whose lasnd was taken by eminent domain for the Nissan plant? IIRC the one notorious case with Nissan involved a landowner who refused to sell so Nissan built around his land.

Bill, as far as I'm concerned that one landowner matters.
It's one thing to force someone to abandon their home for public works like a reservoir or highway when the project can't be done any other way and quite another when it is for the profit of others.

A corporation and their employees should not get to PROFIT by taking away an individual's home or land. Individual freedom is more important than money...or it use to be.

And, IF the landowner's land is THAT important and therefore THAT valuable to others, he SHOULD profit. He should profit from his investment in the land.

I can't believe conservatives are making an argument FOR developers and government rights over the individual.

Actually, The Supreme Court decision allowing emminent domain to be use to promote " economic development" did BREAK IT.

I guess none of the blogging attorneys go to Inns of Courts . They had a very good program on this proposition.