City of Norfolk using eminent domain to take 78 year old company

Not only is the city of Norfolk trying to take this land from Central Radio and give it to Old Dominion University, but they are also ordering the business to take down a sign from the building that is protesting the move by the city. They say the sign is too large but according to Central Radio, there are plenty of other signs in Norfolk that are just as big and they just want people to know that the city is trying to take their business for the purpose of economic development.

This is tyranny:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

142 thoughts on “City of Norfolk using eminent domain to take 78 year old company

  1. We The People hereby proclaim that we have a better use for the Norfolk city buildings and will offer 2-cents for said properties, laying the groundwork for better use of the property.

  2. The city of Norfolk, like many other muncipalities – is run by a bunch of statist control-freak thugs who are out of control. They need to be replaced as soon as possible.

  3. This is scary. What if the local government doesn’t like what a local radio station is saying using their First Amendment entitlement, can the city use eminent domain then?

  4. I think if they have to relocate they should go out and see what the costs of the entire move and property is going to be and the city compensate them on that level. Moving costs money…PERIOD. Fair market value of property doesn’t mean that they can get a usable building for their business at the same cost as the purchase price of the old. Also…location, location, location. Any business that location is key to business and booting someone out of theirs, despite compensation, could spell the end of their business.

  5. I’ve just done some reading on this subject the other day in “Lies the Government Told You” by Judge Andrew Napolitano, where he talked about the transition from the Constitutional “public use” of eminent domain to the statist “public benefit.”

    He gave an example where a woman lost her home to a city giving the land to a private company for new development and used eminent domain saying the increased tax revenue for the city would be of “public benefit.”

    That’s absolute corruption and tyranny.

    I’ll play the Devil’s Advocate for eminent doman, and only for things of “public use” such as bridges and roads that are of immediate need.

    Could you imagine the cost increase if eminent domain didn’t exist? No one would EVER sell to the city knowing they held the public by the juevos.

    Without eminent domain, I know I personally wouldn’t sell at anything near market price if I knew the city needed the property. I would hold out for 3-5 times market price before I gave it up just because I knew they had no other choice. And I wouldn’t be the only person doing that, so every piece of property they need, each owner would just stonewall them into some ridiculous offer and increase the cost of just about every public project.

    Would you want your taxes raised because the city had to pay 3 times market value for each project they wanted to do?

    I’m all for individual rights, but do the taxpayers which fund public projects also have the right to not get fleeced each time they NEED a public project?

    In a world with eminent domain, there are people who do not wish to sell and move, but when they do, they should expect fair (I hate to even use this word as it’s so subjective) compensation.

    In a world without eminent domain, people who would otherwise accept market value for property would hold out knowing the city would have no choice but to pay through the nose, which means more taxes for the rest of the city.

    In conclusion, I think that there is a VERY LIMITED time and place where eminent domain may need to be applied, but government at all levels has extremely abused this use of force.

    1. To rebuttal myself:

      When the demand for a particular property increases, the price will increase as well.

      So when they give you “fair market price” they are excluding the new demand (themselves) from the equation and giving you the old market price.

      Let’s say I own a house worth $100,000, but no one is interested in buying it so REALLY it’s WORTH $0.

      Now let’s say something happens where now I have 50 people interested in buying this house, and now I may be able to raise the price up to $175,000 because of the new demand. Once the deal is made, only then can you determine that the house was WORTH $175,000.

      What I mean is, the ONLY “fair market value” is what someone sells it for, and if there is a pressing new demand for my property, the value just skyrocketed.

      So maybe 3 times the old value of the house really is “fair market price.” You’ll never know until you hear an offer worth accepting.

  6. …nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation…‘ – 5th amendment, US Constitution

    Herein lies the rub – ‘just’ compensation. What is just compensation. Let’s say I have an old pocket watch, which has been handed down from generation to generation in my family. Now, my neighbor sees this watch and likes it, thinking he can resell it for some kind of profit. He declares that he wants it and will pay me a ‘just compensation’ for it and decides what that ‘just compensation’ will be (80 year old item, less than a-one condition, say $5.00 tops).

    First of all, I do not want to give it up, as it has many family memories within it. Secondly, I find that $5.00 is nowhere near ‘just’ compensation for it. This is the problem with ‘just compensation’. What is just to him is not even close to being just for me. It’s hard for someone to justly compensate someone for the years of life and memory put into something dear to them. Luckily, he’s not a government body and can’t seize it.

    However, local governments, on the other hand, can and usually don’t pay just compensation for anything. To top it off, they usually condemn property, call it blighted, and take it for ‘pennies on the dollar’ of what it is really worth to the owner. What they get out of it is nowhere near what the previous owner put into it and lost when it was taken.

    Just compensation, my a$$.

    1. Down here in our neck of the woods, the county has been buying up property for conservation areas. Before that, it was the port authority trying and in some cases buying up the land. We pay taxes, and my husband’s family was the first family down here. The house we have is old, small and “drafty” as it was built originally for a weekend cabin. Someone coming down the road would look at our place and think, “what a dump”. But it’s OUR dump, and we happen to love it out here and wouldn’t change it for the world.
      There is no place we would be able to find which is like this place, nor with the family sweat and history. Our son is growing up at the end of a dirt road with no traffic, with undeveloped preserve land around. I don’t have to worry about things we’d have to worry about if we lived in town. He is being raised in the homeplace that his dad and grampa built.
      You can not place a monetary value on some things.

      1. That is exactly what the proponents of ’eminent domain’ fail to see. What was it that dear leader said one time? “The good of the collective outweighs the good of the individual”. Humbug, I say.

        There is nothing more important in this great nation than the right of the individual. If you take away all of our individual historys, you have nothing left with which to build a great nation. You only have a collection of serfs under the rule of tyranny.

  7. This is one of the reasons why Thomas Jefferson had issues with the constitution.

    ” Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

  8. Eminent Domain is the Sustainable Development crowd’s newest weapon to remove our private property rights. When they begin using the words like “blighted”, “blighted area”, you must know that these are the catch words for getting eminent domain exercised.

  9. Norfolk should be ashamed for such an action. All governments are authoritative theifdoms and need regular smack-downs by The People. Cronyism on full display.

  10. Tyranny is the only name for this horrible exercise. E.D. needs to be gotten rid of except in extreme cases. I want it gotten rid of entirely, but that won’t pass.

  11. This is what Socialism looks like.

    I find it hard to believe that what is being reported is what is actually happening… there must be more to this situation. However, eminent domain is pure evil and if this is in fact exactly as it seems, then America has decayed farther than I thought. This would be VERY unConstitutional and wrong. I hope they fight this and win… sickening.

      1. Wow… nice follow up.

        This should alarm every American. Once the Government (local or national) decides it’s okay to seize your property (against your will) then they will decide they can do ANYTHING… like force you to buy their Health Insurance, make you drive eco-friendly cars that you don’t like, stop you from eating food that tastes good but may be bad for you, etc. This reeks of what is coming out of Washington with this current regime.

        This must end!

        1. What are they thinking/smoking in Norfolk?

          A city agency is seizing properties making them tax exempt with no plans to use them?

          Doesn’t Norfolk need all the property tax money it can get?

  12. If the University wants this property badly enough, I have a hunch they could come up with a monetary amount large enough that would convince the owner to sell it to them. Instead, they are using the police power of the state to force the owners to sell it to them at a price below market value. This power to cease property via eminent domain is routinely abused across the country. I love it when the abused parties push back like these folks.

    1. Right, just compensation is very often “just” to the usurping entity alone. One man’s ‘just’ is another man’s theft. Without even checking, here’s a hazarded guess. Norfolk has areas so much more “blighted” than this they’d make it look like paradise. Try one of those areas.

      So, this private citizen, in pursuit of his own happiness, has to pack up and move, at the whim of some city council, so that a university, with how many buildings already, can build one more? I don’t think so. Unless I’m missing something really big, doesn’t sound like an emergency, or anything that rises to similar occasion. I want every one of these cases to lose, and the practice itself to die whatever type death it needs to die, in order to be stopped dead in it’s tracks.

      Dear Mr. Central Radio:

      Please poke big brother in both eyes with a red hot poker. Then kick ’em in the groin, the crotch, the jewels, the gnads, and nuts. Not necessarily in that order. In other words, I want Norfolk, and every other city or state that tries this stuff, to lose, every single time.


      Just compensation, in the eyes of the owner, wouldn’t be fought like this, now would it? If the owner thought it just, he would oblige, right? Now take your “just” compensation, and “just” ram it!

      Dagnabbit, pissing me off, first thing in the morning. Where’s that bowlful of kittens?

      1. Goodp ost. “Just compensation” should be at least 3 times the market value of the property as assessed by independent realtors/assessors. And even then, unless there is life or limb at risk, the owner should have the option to saying “NO!” and staying put.

    1. “Wonder if soros has anything to do with the University getting this 78 year old business?”

      The university is not getting the station. It’s getting the land.

  13. This is nothing but political cronyism resulting in the theft of private property. It may be legal but it isn’t Just. In the Bible, the reign of King Ahab and Queen Jezabel came to a very bad end for a similar crime. The Norfolk city fathers would be wise to make sure their last will and testaments are in order.

    1. Yes, and unfortunately it is happening more than you know. Most people don’t have the will or the funds to fight it, and so there is a lot of this happening under the radar.

      We have two homes in our town that were threatened with eminent domain (the City legally condemned them) so they were forced to give in. There is even more to the story than this that would make smoke come out of your ears. It is a slap in the face not just to those who had their property confiscated but to the citizens at large.

      Love has grown cold toward our brother. The only thing that matters is selfish gain or the gain of their cronies.

  14. Maybe someone can explain this to me but there is but one reason a city wants to do this. And, that would be from the higher tax revenues that can come from another type of business. In other words, a business that can use this property to make more profits and thereby tax revenue for the city.

    But, if this this is true and this were real Capitalism, then the developer would understand this increase in land value and pay the owner accordingly. (EG. He would offer the current owner a handsome profit.)

    Evidently, in this case it is cheaper to buy off a bunch of corrupt politicians and short change the deal and screw the owners of the property.

    Simply amazing. “Welcome to Ameritopia…..What’s in your wallet…..”

    1. Yeah, the property owner doesn’t get paid but pennies on the dollar a lot of times. In this case there will be a hundred people lose their jobs if they don’t relocate. The station just as well move to another city while holding up the middle finger all the way.

      If those jobs are gone, ads for local business will be gone and there will be 100 salaries not paying taxes any more or buying products from local businesses. This probably has less to do with taxes than it does with big fat campaign donations or kickbacks to fatten the wallets of the politicians.

      1. The property owner gets paid pennies on the dollar… especially when the city condemns the property, like in this case, as a blighted property. Theft by a stroke of a pen. Simply evil.

        1. Just compensation has been universally interpreted by courts as the fair market value of the property – not “pennies on the dollar.”

          1. Fair market value of the property…what does that mean for a property owner who has run his business at the same location for over 50 years? Also, you think that condemning a man’s property doesn’t artificially lower the property value?

            In other words, for the right price the man may have been induced to sell it freely to the University without it being violently ripped from his hands. Obviously the University thought it was too costly to honorably purchase the property so they, instead, had their friends in government steal the property for so-called, “just compensation.”

            The rape and pillage of this man’s business would have made any Viking or Pirate (or Soviet Russian soldier) proud.

            1. “Also, you think that condemning a man’s property doesn’t artificially lower the property value?”

              What you are describing is called condemnation blight. And actually, it can work both ways. Sometimes the announcement of a public project causes prices to be bid up. However, in either case, gains and losses caused by the condemnation are to be excluded from the just compensation.

              “Rape and pillage”? Do you think that if you had a sound point, you wuldn’t have to argue like a lberal?

              1. I will not apologize for my passion in defending this man’s right to keep his property! Try defending yours! Why doesn’t the University just pay the man what he thinks it is worth instead of stealing it through cronyism?


                How is a this legalized theft in any way moral?

                A business has been at that location for 50 years and the the government forces it out for a STUDENT CENTER at some university?????!!!! JUSTIFY THAT!

                What is your SOUND point? And who sounds like a liberal, you sound like a pro-government thief who wants the government to decide how and where people should live and work… are you on my Homeowners Association board? Thought so.

                1. There is nothing wrong with passion, but then there is nothing wrong with using reason, either. Condemnatioon is a legitimate government power and was so recoginzed by the founders. Surely, there is no shortage of condemnation abuse. In a way, it’s like guns. An idiot with a gun doesn’t prove guns are bad, any more than an idiot with the power of condenmation proves condemnation is bad The state should not leave thousands of homes subject to flooding, because one guy wants to stand in the way of digging a canal on the excuse that he has been there for 50 years.

                  Without condemnation, the cities, the railroads, the airports, schools, the highways, the infastructure for energy and communication that we have would not exist. You might long for an alloidal form of land ownership, right up until you find that every time you broadcast EMF waves, you would be tresspassing on someone’s property.

                2. Believe it or not, I agree with everything you just said. But we’re not talking about EMF waves, are we. We are talking about one business with it’s property and one university and it’s desire to expand it’s campus without having to pay the owner what the owner deems fair.

                  Wouldn’t you agree that this case is an abuse of power?

                3. “How is a this legalized theft in any way moral?”

                  Bingo. Truth is not determined by majority vote and morality is not determined by “wise” men who write law – no matter how much we might agree with 95% of everything else they’ve written.

            2. Always remember. In Government-land: “Fairness” is always defined by Government….

              I can’t explain it. but it’s pretty clear that with these clowns: Imposing one person’s opinion of fairness over another, using all the power of Government as the process, all of it determined by the price of a contribution …. is the only way to go about being fair…

              Once again: “Welcome to Ameritopia … What’s in your wallet? ……”

              1. In this case of condemnation, fairness was not defined by the government. It was defined by the courts, and to my knowledge, everywhere in the US you have to be made whole for what you have up.

                You can’t chalk this up to Ameritopia, because it has been going on since before the Liberty Bell cracked.

                1. This one truly makes me chuckle:

                  “In this case of condemnation, fairness was not defined by the government. It was defined by the courts, … ”

                  I won’t even go into the fact, that it was the politicians who started this and placed the matter into the court system. (again, who had standing?)

                  I will simply ask you what planet you are on where the courts aren’t part of government?

                2. Planet? In a three-branch republic, the court is not part of the “government” (ie executive branch). Probably half of condemnation case law derived from courts putting a check on the “government,” trying to grab property for less than it is worth with short-sighted valuations. The other half comes from the courts reigning in the shenanigans of property owners with creative valuations.

                3. Trust me. In a 3 branch Republic – all the branches are part of Government.

                  But, since we seem to be having trouble with this simple fact, how about we demonstrate another issue: Feel free to tell us who brought this case to the courts in the first place.

                  1. The University
                  2. The man on the moon
                  3. A bunch of paid off politicians and their two bit bureaucrats.

                  If you picked number 3 you are now the winner.

        2. My family comes from a Communist country and this kind of activity is prevalent under Communism. I am so sad to see this happening in precious, America.

          We must fight back before it is too late.

          1. Thanks for sharing that 12grace. I couldn’t agree more. One thing I’ve learned in my short lifetime is that as a society cares more about “legalese” and less about morality (how quaint) the more tyrannical it’s government can be.

            Communists and Nazis both cared very much about doing “legal” things, but not so much moral things.

            One of a million reason I can’t stand liars… err… lawyers.

            I won’t stop fighting if you don’t. 🙂

            1. ML, it seems you, me and many other patriots will defend, America to the end, if necessary.

              I love America and with G-d’s help and guidance, I will never step aside and let barbaric Communist and their evil, leftist minions destroy, America.

              Most of the American people have no idea of what it is like to live under a dictatorship and I pray that they will never have that knowledge first-hand.

              You are so right about Nazi’s and Communist, they easily become like robotic “killing machines” if given orders. They dehumanize their victims. We must save America from this fate.

  15. Politicians have completely abused the purpose of eminent domain. It has a good purpose if used properly, but it’s increasingly being used by politicians to steal property to help a wealthy donor or another business that wants the land. When they force someone out of a home to build a yacht club it’s getting beyond their right to do it.

    1. It can never be used for a “good purpose”, since it begins by violating individual rights.

      If I stole your money and then used it to feed 1000 children, the fact that it feeds 1000 children does not make it morally good, since theft is a violation of individual rights, and those rights are sacrosanct.

      When individual rights are violated, nothing that this violation achieves can be considered “good”.

      To allow a criminal to steal even one penny of my wealth is to surrender my right to it all.

      On principle, one should be against eminent domain. It is a tool of statists, it is a violation of individual rights, end of.

      1. I can’t agree with “never”. There are instances where it is very important to remove a house to do a project that is vital to the city, county or state. A yacht club isn’t one, but if they are in need to modernize and build a new sewage plant, for example, it has to be done.

        Lol, this isn’t about “feel good” laws and taking from one to give to another. If there are run-down parts of town the city has a duty to revitalize the city. It hurts the city in revenues to be run down everywhere. An ugly city has no attraction to businesses, tourists, or people looking for somewhere to live.

        But, in most cases cities abuse it and take property for stupid bullcrap that’s not important to the city. Maybe important for the politicians, but not the city.

        1. If you can’t agree with “never”, then you don’t agree that man is endowed by his creator with certain unalienable individual rights. You put things which you believe are “very important/vital to a city, county or state” (the collective) above the unalienable rights of the individual.

          Individual rights are such that even if 99.99% of people wanted to violate them, they CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT DO SO.

          No compromise is allowed. No middle ground.

          We either have individual rights or we don’t. If you believe we don’t, because you think some collective/group comes first, then you are just an collectivist enabler of statism.

          Individual rights TRUMP the needs, the desires and the whims of ANY collective/group.

          That’s how individual rights work; that’s the only way they can work.

          1. Of course man is endowed with rights and among them is just compensation for eminent domain.

            1. No it’s not. That “compensation” is merely a privilege that government has granted in exchange for the violation of an individual right. If you are willing to permit such an exchange, then you are an enabler of statism, because it is precisely that kind of exchange which has devalued authentic individual rights and substituted government fiat privileges in their place, much like how one substitutes paper money for gold money.

              What part of “unalienable individual rights” don’t you understand?

              1. No, just compensation is not a privelege. It’s a right. It’s in the Fifth Amendment.

                As to unalienable, I understand every part of it. Obviously, the founders had the same understanding that I did, which is why just compensation is in the Constitution.

                1. No, it IS a bloody privilege, because politicians had to make an amendment to grant it, whereas individual rights belong to the individual by default, constitution or no constitution.

                  That particular amendment is just one of many compromises which were made in the founding of the United States, not only to establish it, but also to hold it together. Unfortunately, these compromises have been the avenues down which statists have slowly expanded tyranny and limited liberty, and they are the primary reason for why we find ourselves in such perilous times as we do now.

                  The constitution is broken, and so you just sit there exploiting its flaws, just like statists are doing on a daily basis.

                  I advocate a constitution that has no flaws, meaning that it has nothing which is incompatible with individual rights.

                  The two polar opposites are: 1) (Tyranny) The government can seize property and give nothing, or 2) (Liberty) The government cannot seize any property.

                  The sickening compromise which you and others have accepted in place of individual rights is the idea that the government can seize property, so long as they give “just compensation”.

                  I don’t accept a compromise between liberty and tyranny, like you do. I say, give me liberty, or give me death – And I mean it.

                2. “No, it IS a bloody privilege, because politicians had to make an amendment to grant it, whereas individual rights belong to the individual by default, constitution or no constitution.”

                  I am sure this is historically wrong. The right to just compensation was recognized in common law since before the Constitution was adopted, and the Constitution explicitly recognizes common law. The Anti-Federalists wanted the Bill of Rights added, while Madison felt is was unecessary and redundant. Three things. The 5th didn’t create the right as you suggest. It is just simpler to refer to it to answer such questions. Madison certainly underestimated the rapaciousness of today’s statists, or he would have been pushing for a more expanded Bill of Rights rather than think it is not necessary.

                  In any case, neither our Constitution nor any social charter for a civil society worthy of the name can be a suicide pact. That would “violate natural law.” It would be clearly insane to allow a single hermit or pathological malcontent to stand in the way of an oil pipeline that will deliver millions of barrels of oil to tens of millions of citizens. The idea that a compensated person is being subjected to tyranny is not conservatism or constitutionalism. It’s anarchy. The power of condemnation is a necessary ingredient of ordered liberty.

                3. My first gripe with your reply is: I made the point that “just compensation” is a privilege because it had to be granted by politicians in an amendment. You came back saying it was in common law before the constitution. Ok fair point, but I would argue that my argument is still valid because it would have had to have been granted in common law too, since “just compensation” is not something which belongs to the individual by default.

                  It is simply indisputable that “just compensation” is a compromise between liberty and tyranny. It’s a compromise, a half-way, a middle-ground between Man having absolute property rights, and Man having no property rights (where the state simply seizes the land).

                  If the natural state of Man is liberty (as I think the founders themselves believed), then this aforementioned compromise is an unnatural state, or in other words “man-made”, rather than endowed by our creator (Reality/Nature or God), which means that it does not belong to the individual by default, but is granted by government, meaning that it is a privilege rather than an individual right.

                  My second gripe with your reply is: Your first claim is that the true recognition and protection of individual rights is a “suicide pact” that would “violate natural law” because an individual would be able to stand against the collective and perhaps prevent “oil pipelines”. Your second claim is that the true recognition and protection of individual rights is “anarchy” and “irrational”.

                  The first claim is absurd since you equate people being prevented or hindered from building “oil pipelines” with “suicide”. Yes, there would be situations where building projects cannot occur because someone refuses to sell their land, but what you have to understand is that individual rights being “intact” is absolutely priceless, and therefore outweighs any material/value benefit which one may derive from said project. This does not mean that every building project will be stopped by people refusing to sell their land. I would argue that some to most building projects will happen, either because the developer has voluntarily paid people for their land, or voluntarily paid them to construct across their land but leave most of the land intact. basically, the falsehood which you are arguing for, is the claim that “nobody will be able to build anything”. Don’t you see how utterly WEAK that argument is? It’s an utterly malevolent, fantastical and cynical way to look at a free society, and it’s probably brought about by your hazy belief that the only way to achieve anything is with the point of a gun (ie. government force). That is how statists view the world, except that they’re consistent believers in it. No, you’re probably not a statist, but I would argue that you are simply an inconsistent believer in what they believe. It’s all the same to me, however.

                4. Continued from above.

                  To deal with your claim that the true recognition and protection of individual rights is “anarchy”, I would simply ask: How do you think those individual rights get protected in the first place?

                  It may be argued, and I so often do, that individual rights can be protected only when there is objective rule of law. The government has three instruments by which it does this: A military (to protect against foreign aggressors), A police force (to protect against domestic aggressors), and a court system (to settle disputes).

                  That isn’t anarchy.

                  Under anarchy there is NO recognition and protection of individual rights. Anarchy is not something that I want, so I reject your notion that I am advocating it.

                5. You raise some good points and will be try to be more careful.

                  Yes, cutting yourself off from energy is a form of suicide. Stop eating and see what happens. As oil wells, for example, dry up, new ones are needed and so are new pipelines. Otherwise, people will die. I used that example because pipelines may be the most common cause of condemnation actions.

                  Your idea of “absolute” land ownership or “alloidal” system is something that doesn’t exist anywhere. So just “just compensation,” is not a “compromise” between extremes, because one of the two extremes doesn’t exist.

                  Under the absolute theory, the land in question would have to revert to the heirs of some Indian Tribe from whom it was originally (as far as we know) “condemned” for England’s public purpose of colonization. Of course, the Injuns had no land registry. Anarchy didn’t work for them.

                  The “highest” form of land ownership in the US is called “fee simple.” However, fee simple “ownership” cannot displace the sovereignty of the state or the central government – or by my definition – you have crossed the line into anarchy. The land is the territory of the United States and the state of Virginia, before it is someone’s private property, but the soveriegnty doesn’t disappear, and the land can only becomes someone’s fee simple private property pursuant to the laws of the US and Virginia. And those laws often expressly reserve the power of condemnation.

                  As far as I know, just compensation is what free people have. People under tyranny have no option of fee simple title.

            2. Exactly. My bitch is that in many cases they aren’t given “just” compensation. That’s wrong.

            3. Cal-phuckhead. Have you noticed on this blog as well as on all the other blogs I’m sure that you comment to in your mommies basement, that you are a minority in your opinions, and you will be the first to keep your comments to yourself went the SHTF due to all of this increasing tyranny. Because you will be sought after not for your tyrannical beliefs you think to be sound, or socialist views ynwish to impose on us, but for your head on a pike. Mark my words. The silent majority will not tolerate this much longer. And you will be on that list of treasonous actors to be snuffed because where you live I am sure that you have preached your socialist views out load because this piece of sh!+ usurped president has embolden you to be that way. You think that your views which many have died for to give you the opportunity to express, are true. They are not true or righteous. They are just views. Yours. And a few others. And when the few who happen to get a hold of a little power try to impress and force the majority to follow those skewed views, it is tyranny. And unfortunately for you, the majority of you liberal pussies are unarmed, untrained, and cowards. See you on the field!

          2. Ok, so how do you think highways are straight? If there was no right for eminent domain, the highways would be like dropping a noodle on your plate. Getting from point A to point B ten miles away would be a 75 mile drive with a mess of S-curves and backtracks to go around things. In many cases the highway couldn’t be built at all because people refuse to sell and the path is completely blocked. My stipulation is that if they do it they should have to compensate the property owners handsomely and stop short-changing them.

            It’s in the Constitution, so when you say to me “you don’t agree that man is endowed by his creator with certain unalienable individual rights” you are including our founders who very much had those ideals. I guess our founders were a bunch of land stealing satan worshipping fools, right?

            I’m with you in most cases. Too often they condemn someone’s property when it’s in great condition in order to put in a condo. It is massively abused.

            1. I say that government has no right to build roads in the first place. Government’s only job is to protect individual rights. For government to build roads it necessarily means it has to violate individual rights. It’s up to individuals, acting privately in the marketplace, to come up with their own solutions to problems; the free market is a very powerful tool when it’s left free from government. If that means we have to have some bendy roads, THEN SO BE IT!! Having the full, uncompromised, unviolated, absolute protection of individual rights outweighs ANY material benefit you can name, whether it be straight roads or whatever. I would be willing to give up great personal values (to me) in exchange for that absolute protection of individual rights, because if I had that, then I would massively profit from that exchange. Having the absolute protection of individual rights is so incredibly valuable, because I’d be FREE. Have you forgotten, or have you never known what that word truly feels like?

              As for “it’s in the constitution” comment, I direct you to my reply to CalCoolidge below where I start by saying “No, it IS a bloody privilege”.

              1. Even in your case if government was not allowed to build roads and it was left to private business or the free markets, someone would have to build the roads. Eminent domain has to be used now because people cannot be bought. How do you think that leaving it up to private business will make it any easier? It wouldn’t, and they would have a complete inability to get anything done and roads just wouldn’t be built. Modernization just wouldn’t happen.

                1. I utterly reject your metaphysical premise that Man, by his nature, is helpless and doomed, that he is not capable of success, happiness and achievement, that emergencies, disasters and catastrophies are the rule and not the exception in life.

                  It’s easy to surrender to tyranny by articulating that metaphysical premise of yours, when you state such things as “modernization wouldn’t happen” or “roads just wouldn’t be built” or “people cannot be bought” (well, paid for their property).

                  When you have a lack of imagination and/or lack of trust in the efficacy and virtues of the individual to ever succeed at anything he puts his mind to, then you will come out with malevolent predictions about how nobody will ever succeed, nobody will ever achieve anything, nobody will ever do this, or how we’re all dooooomed, etc.

                  How have you come to a point where you think such tyrannical thoughts (that’s what they are) as how without government, nothing would ever get done, nobody would ever succeed, nobody would ever achieve anything, etc??

                  You know what I think? I think we’d do absolutely amazingly if government stuck to its fundamental role as the protector of individual rights, and nothing more. I think we’d become so bloody technologically advanced, prosperous, powerful and free, that America would resemble The Jetsons (or better), where a Man goes to work 3 days a week, 5 hours a day, but yet has an amazing and unheard of standard of living, where his wife doesn’t need to go to work, and he can have multiple children without being in poverty.

                2. “metaphysical premise that Man, by his nature, is helpless and doomed”

                  What are you talking about? I was merely stating that private business would not have the power to do anything about one little man that refuses to sell his $10,000 trash heap house. Think of it this way…..when the government tells a business they have to shut down because a rare bird built a nest on the premises. One stupid bird putting the hammer to a multi-million dollar operation. That’s the point I’m making about private business getting something built that would require the cooperation of private property owners….and there’s one insignificant man standing in the way.

                3. Quote: “and there’s one insignificant man standing in the way

                  Look what utter contempt you have for the individual. This is precisely the kind of attitude that statists have. One man standing up against the collective? – “Smack him aside! We must have progress!”

                  Even if there is one man standing in the way of some building project, that one man’s individual rights TRUMP all the benefits that people may derive from said project. That man’s individual rights are far more important than building a dozen highways; they’re more important than building a skyscraper; they’re more important than ANYTHING you can name.

                  When you lose your individual rights even an inch, it establishes the precedent that others may violate them, and then it’s only a matter of time until statists violate the rest.

                  You’re enabling statism. Why don’t you understand this?

                  The metaphysical premise I described is precisely what motivates your lack of trust in the efficacy and virtues of the individual, and which consequently drives you to treat the individual with such contempt. Don’t try to deny it. It’s clear to me that you sympathize with statism.

                4. Lol, I don’t have contempt for the “individual”. I am not statist, either. Wash your mouth out with soap.

                  So tell me….if you have property and an enemy of yours buys up every last piece of land surrounding it and refuses to build a road or let you trespass for any reason, what do you do? You try to leave and he shoots you dead.

                  Point is, having land does not entitle you to be king over every other activity that may require the use of your land….such as the guy in the previous example not letting you out of your entrapment.

                5. Again, your metaphysical premise rears its ugly head. This time, a man is “trapped” by someone who “bought up all the land around him”, and he “threatens to shoot him dead” for trespassing.

                  Do you see why I accused you of accepting a premise that Man, by his nature, is helpless and doomed …. that emergencies, disasters and catastrophies are the rule and not the exception in life?

                  This is what you believe!

                  You sit there happy to lead us all into tyranny, happy to surrender the principle of individual rights to the statists, just because you came up with some fantastical lifeboat situation that any rational minded individual would know is the most exceptional of exceptions, and that reality, the norm, is nothing like that.

                  It’s not even an example that makes any sense in the context of individual rights, since the use of force by an individual is only permissible in self-defence. They can call the police if there’s objectively demonstrable destruction of property, and/or they can sue the individual – But any court would just recognize that the “trapped” individual’s only means of survival is to cross over said land, and therefore no claim (other than destruction of property) could be valid. Even if this example happened, it would have to be someone who is utterly malicious in their intent to cause harm to the “trapped” individual, and so said individual would likely have a claim against them.

                  I’m certainly not about to surrender my liberty and the principle of individual rights, just because of some fantastical lifeboat scenario. Reality and life in general is NOT a lifeboat scenario, and our social system should not be treated as such.

                6. Damn your hard as nails. It’s not actually an exteme situation. I just made it that way to make a point. All it would take is for you to have property next to a river and the property owner on one side be an ass….and it doesn’t have to be spiteful. He could have plans for his property that require the use of his land that interfere with you getting to and fro. Point is, with millions of properties it would be naive to think there would be no disputes. Your argument that you can sue goes against your argument that it is your land and there is never a case for anyone to tell you what to do with it.

                  We won’t agree, so I will give you the last word if you wish it.

                7. If there are any disputes then there are two options: 1. Settle it amicably between men, or 2. Settle it in court.

                  Rivers (just like land and airspace) are one of these areas of property rights which need to be objectively defined so that people know who owns what, and so people know what they can and cannot do on their property (eg. if their actions violate the individual rights of others).

                  The fundamental principle here is: So long as only you and/or only your land/river/airspace is harmed by your actions, then you are free to do the actions. But if your actions objectively harm others and/or objectively harm others’ land/river/airspace, then you are violating their individual rights, and you can be arrested/imprisoned/sued.

                  A free society isn’t free from disputes. The main point which I want you to take away is that the benefits of having individual rights properly protected outweighs any negatives that disputes between individuals may bring.

                  I trust in the spontaneous order of the free market, and so should you.

                8. I understand your premise, but when I travel state to state I sure don’t want it to take 50 hours to drive 600 miles because of no interstate highways. It would be like driving country backroads….at best. Go-through roads built by individual property owners would be shabbily maintained in many cases, not good for traffic, maybe dangerous, and unreliable. In most cases I would agree with you that emminent domain is being abused, but not in all.

                  Sorry, I was going to let the debate die out. I lied, lol. 🙂

                9. ”So long as only you and/or only your land/river/airspace is harmed by your actions, then you are free to do the actions”

                  Like everything else, that would depend on how you define “harm.” I take it you do not see “harm,” for example to the people of NY and NJ if one person can stop the two states from being connected by a bridge.

                10. “Harm” is toward property, whether it be your (physical) body or the (physical) values you have created in reality.

                  You may notice that I do not include “mental” harm in this. The reason for that is because there is no objective way to know whether said harm has been done to an individual, nor by whom (we currently lack the technology for this). An objective rule of law requires objective evidence of harm done. You can see cuts on the body, you can see fingerprints on a knife, you can see the destruction of property – But you can’t see the mental variant. A lot of the cases of ‘mental harm’ are largely guesswork by psychologists and such.

                  So in regards to your example of someone not allowing access via a bridge, there is no physical harm to anyone’s body, nor is there any physical harm to anyone’s property. No harm has been done, and such people are still free to go build their own bridge(s) if they really want to cross a river. There is an ‘inconvenience’, but there is a difference from being inconvenienced and being physically harmed. To equate the two is to invite tyranny in the form of arbitrary/subjective crimes against causing “inconveniences”, which is antithetical to an objective rule of law.

            1. I’ll agree to disagree with you.

              It’s against his will – like a robbery. So what if the robber hands him some money back…

              1. I am not trying to change your mind, but you don’t have the facts right. This would be like a robber handing everything back.

                Good thing you weren’t around in the early days of the colonies and the US. Land was so plentiful that if it was vacant when condemned, there was no compensation.

                1. I support the U.S. Constitution. This violates it. What more is there to say?

                  I’m done with this thread. Respond if you wish but this is over for me.

                2. There is one more thing to say. You would need to say how aquiring land for public use violates the Constitution, when the Constitution itself says what must happen when land is aquired for public purpose.

                  Since you cannot possibly state that, you have no choice but to declare it over.

                3. I do declare it over. Don’t respond to me anymore… you make no sense and your logic and facts are faulty.

                4. Okay you dumbass! Please post your address, and allow people nefarious or otherwise to come to your property and then offer what they think the market value is for your shit. You believe in the collective and not the individual. Your insignificance and inability to think for yourself as an individual instead of a drone simply repeating Marxist talking points proves that your life is worthless. Please. Find a bridge or tall building and jump off of it. You and your ideology is a flaw. Yes. You are a flaw. In your case, I think retroactive abortion is a good idea!

                5. Sorry, from your infantile response, I can see these issues are way over your head.

                  I would point out why you are misstating the terms of condemnation law, but I’d have a better chance of getting through explaining to a cat.

  16. Iminent domain might be in the Constitution, but in cases which local governments try and use it, would have the founders rolling in their graves! In this economic nightmare liberals have brought, to try and seize a productive business to “give” it to a university which most likely has it’s own funds, putting people out of work- there is NO sense in that at all! It’s a disgrace and a blatant case of abuse of power.
    As for the sign, if the city were trying to take my property and made a stink about my 1st Amendment right to speak out against it, I’d put a bigger sign next to it saying “BITE ME!”

  17. This is a replay of what happened in New York City. Columbia University wanted someone’s property, so it got it. The government just rolled over to help Columbia take someone’s private property. Michael Bloomberg thinks eminent domain is just great.

    This isn’t for building an essential road or bridge. This is a taking (yes, some low, nominal value is paid to the rightful owners) of private property by the powerful and politically connected over the weak and less politically connected. The constitution supposedly prevents this. We have rights to our life, liberty and property, or at least we used to.

    The Supreme Court’s eminent domain decision in Kelo v. City of New London resulted in a useless taking of property for something that was never even built. It’s time to reverse that.

    Denying this company its right to free speech is an additional slap in the face by an out-of-control government.

    1. O Danny-boy… to steal someone’s private property and hand it over to another private citizen to develop it is…. wait for it… TYRANNY!

      Eminent domain is authorized for “Public use” for roads, etc… NOT for a DAMN, useless University!

      Are you saying what the Norfolk “city fathers” are doing is legal and constitutional?

      I’m sick of pure theft hiding behind the thin veil of legality.

      This man’s business and all the jobs he provides others is being violently snatched from them for NO reason!

      Anyone who supports this is nothing but an elitist asshole.

        1. …and your point Danny-boy? Are you trying to justify the government’s action where with the stroke of a pen, they condemn a man’s private property as “blighted” and steal his livelihood and business for the good of itself?

          Double elite a-holes.

          There is a great story in the Old Testament about a great King who used “eminent domain” and stole a man’s wife then he sent her husband to war and to death to cover up his theft.

          On principle, answer me how is this story different?

        2. Hopefully this business owner will make a “public” spectacle of himself until the city and University starts back-peddling like unicycle riding circus clowns.

        3. The government has taken over major chunks of the mortgage, health insurance, health provider and the student loan industries – and it is growing!

          Should those agencies be able to take private property too? Great way to eliminate competition and punish one’s political enemies. Hello Venezuela.

          The goal is to cut off the parasite – not make excuses for it.

        4. So knock down all the buildings on campus and call it a public road then we will talk about eminent domain.

    2. OK. You win. This is exactly what the founders had in mind. It can’t be overreach because it’s in the Constitution.

      Man, how can I be so stupid. Why do I even blog these things? After all IT’S IN THE CONSTITUTION!

      I’m going to recommend, if you ever move back to America, that when you do they take your land and use it as a public toilet facility. After all, it’s in the Constitution so I’m sure you’ll be fine with it.

      1. Sorry, I don’t see the “tyranny” either. The building is not “taken,” but bought at market value, so the station can buy another equal building nearby. Also, while I haven’t looked up Virginia law, many condemning authorities must also pay relocation expenses.

        1. Authorities may have to pay for relocation etc BUT…a business that has been in a location for 50 years has an established point of reference for clientele and that is an unseen benefit that cannot be calculated. The availability of other locations that are nearby and of equal value may be in question as well. There are a plethora of other reasons that make this move a business destroyer in hidden costs. On the other hand, in a day when universities are increasing their tuitions by over 500% in the last ten years and delivering less than stellar results in their graduates, we must question the use of eminent domain to take the location of this prospering business and give it to a public university without questioning the real need of a university for it. Tyranny exists, in this case, when the city’s public officials extended their use of “public” to include a university that is not an essential public service. In fact, this extension of the classification of public is being done all over the country and used to plunder private citizens’ rights.

          1. The value of an established clientelle can be calculated, and I have been doing it for 20 years. (-: And as to “hidden” costs, they’re not hidden from me. I just never heard of a court recognizing goodwill as being subject to just compensation. And to this specific property, a radio statiion sure doesn’t sound like a business that depends on a specific location.

            Regardless of how you feel about school tuition, or whether colleges are doing a good job, or the use of hype rhetoric like “plunder,” it doesn’t obviate the facts that schools are a public use of land, and this property owner is to be made whole via just compensation.

            1. First of all you liberal douche it isn’t a radio station. It is a radio service company that services equipment to which their customers go to to have their equipment worked on, or to purchase equipment. Second, just because you can calculate the cost of a move as well as any other related costs, it’s not up to you or some bureacratic phuck who thinks he knows best for this company. This is TYRANNY! Plain and simple. No excuse can be offered to play it down, no amount of money can be offered if the rightful owner does not want to sell or relocate. If this sh!+ keeps going on, don’t act surprised when the people who are about tired of this tyranny rise up and exercise their second amendment rights which is a right specifically for this exact type of tyrannical behavior. That’s right. The 2nd amendment is not for hunting, protecting your family from bad guys, or for target shooting. It is specifically for overthrowing a tyrannical government which this one has become. END OF STORY.
              Not to mention this is a Veteran small owned business! So you and these phucks can go Phuck yourselves!
              I am a veteran and active police officer! I swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution from threats both foreign and DOMESTIC! And I as well as others FULLY intend on doing so when the time comes!

        2. Who cares if the building will be purchased at market value. The owner(s) DON”T choose to sell it or relocate. They own it………private property rights.

          1. My point was not to get you to “care,” but to challenge the factually inaccurate statements that land is being “taken” from someone.


              THEN THAT SIR IS >>>>> T H E F T <<<<<

              What about that do you not understand?

        3. That is so stupid that you should change your handle. Forcing someone to move, despite money, is still tyranny. How about we take your ancestral 78 year old home? We will pay you for it but you have to move and leave your history.

          1. Boo hoo. If one person’s emotions had supremacy, there would be very few roads.

            The founding fathers certainly recognized that the legitimate powers of government include the aquisition of land.

            1. “The founding fathers certainly recognized that the legitimate powers of government include the aquisition of land.”

              They were morally in the wrong.

            2. It has nothing to do with emotion and everything to do with logic. Not every single thing can be compensated for.

              Yes the FF”s did recognize that but also recognized first and foremost the rights of the individual.

              Saying we would have fewer roads etc doesn’t mean the same as maybe we SHOULD have fewer roads etc. The jury is still out whether in the grand scheme of things all of that has been good. Yes we industrialized and that made room for more education and more advancement but the flip side is over large cities gave birth to entitlements, too many regulations and laws, and don’t forget pollution.

              1. Don’f forget the pollution caused by economic acitivity? You in the Green Party?

                Laurel, everthing in the way of property rights can be compensated for. I know this, because I have been doing valuation work for 20 years, including for condemnation. Courts, however, and I tend to agree with them, have found that some losses, like going concern value and goodwill should not be compensated for, because they do not attach to the land that is being taken. I have personally helped defend more property owners from condemnation abuse than you can shake stick at.

          1. What is ironic or maybe just poetic is that 5th amendment you are touting and the Kelo vs. London decision did not bring about any progress in London or the arena of eminent domain.

            Amendments can be be amended. FF’s knew they would need to be and that is why they left us a process to do so.

            1. First, I am not “touting” the amendment, just answering the question of where one finds it in the Constitution.

              Second, Kelo was a bad ruling, one of the worst in growing trend. Stevens was completely candid when he said the court was following a chain of rulings that eroded away the meaning of the words “public use.”

              All that said, I am wondering what will be the big difference down the road to people listening to the radio station when it broadcasts from another site a mile or two away. It will hardly be the first time a radio station moved to another part of town.

      2. There are a number of elements missing from this that make it hard to make a decent judgment.

        Look, nobody likes seeing people deprived of their property. Someone else here mentioned Columbia – that stuff was going on while I was still a grad student there and I was – and continue to be – none to thrilled with it; partially because Columbia is a private university and, thus, has no business with eminent domain.

        The university in question here, though, is public, which makes it well within reason to use eminent domain laws for its benefit provided that it will offer significant public benefit.

        1) What are the people being paid for this land vs. its market value. (How just is the compensation?)

        2) What are the projected benefits to the community that are to be derived from expanding the university? (This is perhaps the most important aspect; a university can employ a lot of people and also bring major business to the town, not to mention all the people that are going to be needed to build it all).

        If the city wanted to take my apartment to build a public toilet facility and they paid me enough money, I’d still be pissed off and I’d probably put up a damn good fight, since a toilet doesn’t necessarily need to be located where my apt is.

        If they want to build a public university, I would be less pissed.

        I do think that the lawsuit about the sign is ridiculous.

        1. 1. sometimes money value can not replace personal property. A business which has been around for over half a century is established. It has more than just the building owner to think about. To take it to give to a university, whether public or private, when that university has other ways of aquiring funds and property is wrong.
          2. Projected benefits? Putting more people out of work in a crappy economy vs. more space for more public (most likely union) employees for schooling, which can be paid for from other funds.

          The first case of imenent domain that I heard about when I moved down to Florida was a man named Jesse. He owned acres worth millions on the northern part of the everglades and had lived there for over 40 years. The state wanted his property to flood it out, for environmental reasons. Sure, they gave him a few million dollars, but at that time the economy was booming and land prices were sky high. He fought and fought and lost. They paid him his money, but there is no way he could ever find the same kind of property he once thought was his own.

          Call me stupid, but in a country where one can buy a plot of land, pay the taxes and build a home, they ought to be able to stay there until they choose to move. Same goes with someone’s livelyhood which is this business.

          1. In China when you buy a piece of property it’s understood that it is for fifty years only. You cannot own it indefinitely. Did you know that?

            1. In Great Britain it is 99 years and they are communist. Might as well be though since socialism is communism at a slower pace.

        2. SCOTUS has already ruled that when public/government acts in the manner of a private business the net effect is the same.

      1. “Eminent domain has a valid purpose, but this is not it.”

        No. There is no valid purpose. The utilization of eminent domain is tyranny of the majority – period. That the purpose is “valid” to the majority does not make it so in any moral sense.

        1. Ok, so tell me…how do we build an interstate highway? How do we build the Keystone pipeline? Without eminent domain modern society wouldn’t be so modern.

          1. “Without eminent domain modern society wouldn’t be so modern.”

            …and with private property subordinate to efficiency, society isn’t so moral. Modernity, like other benefits of humanity, ought not be promoted at the expense of the one value that is the wellspring for all others.

              1. I made a related remark which tacitly agreed with your statement which I quoted. People just need to be aware of the tradeoff. Yes, there would have likely been less direct highways in order to better preserve liberty. The ends never justify the means. This case is no different.

                1. It’s not that I disagree with your premise. I just don’t think it would work. Good luck telling the taxpayers that the $1 billion highway (with bridges) is now going to cost $35 billion because you had to take the long route and add 15 bridges. You won’t get any votes and you’ll probably be recalled. Nice knowing you, has been politician….lol.


    3. nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ~ 5th Amendment

      Since this is a matter involving a State institution (Old Dominion University), Virginia State law comes into play.
      Regarding seizing property by condemnation;

      However, such acquisition by condemnation shall only be commenced if the terms of purchase cannot be agreed upon or the owner (a) is unknown, (b) cannot with reasonable diligence be found within the Commonwealth or (c) cannot negotiate an agreement or convey legal title to the property because the owner is a person under a disability[i].

      Looks to me like the City of Norfolk has overplayed its hand here, and by pushing the issue when they are in the wrong, and by further trying to squelch the owner’s right of free speech are engaging in actions that certainly fit the description of tyrannical.

    4. Danny…………….you are wrong…………the Declaration of Independence states that We the People are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights (includes private property rights) and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Eminent Domain is being abused by city governments left and right now, all in the name of Sustainable Development and all in the name of fattening their pocket books (more revenue). This is out and out theft by taking, which is not constitutional.

    5. “Yup, eminent domain is tyranny… so tyrannical that it’s actually in the Constitution.”


      Capital punishment is in the constitution as well.

      Exactly, what is your point?


Comments are closed.