Home Page
10.26.2005 (previous | next)
Kelo in DC?

The Washington Post had an article yesterday titled, "D.C. Seizes 16 Owners' Property for Stadium."

One thing that struck me about the article was that it illustrated many of points Jim made in his testimony at a U.S. House hearing on "Protecting Property Rights after Kelo." Not only are questions being raised about taking the property away for a private project, property owners are also taking issue with what DC considers fair compensation for their businesses.

Some activists have argued that the stadium is a private project for Major League Baseball, but District leaders say the $535 million project will create significant tax revenue. Developers have snatched up land just outside the stadium plot in anticipation of a waterfront revival, and the city is planning to create a "ballpark district" featuring restaurants and retail.

If the court does not block the city's action, property owners can continue to negotiate with the city, but in lieu of an agreement, a jury would ultimately decide the sale prices. But that could happen months, even years, after the owners are forced to leave, land-use lawyers said.

The city's offers for the land are about 2 1/2 times as high as the amounts that it had assessed the properties to be worth for tax purposes last year. But some owners said they want more money because owners of property just outside the stadium land have received higher offers from developers.

As one who has been attempting to buy their first house (or, more realistically, a very tiny condo) in the DC area, I can certainly understand the property owner's issue with the amount they are being offered for compensation. Not only are real estate prices through the roof so the assessments done a year ago are probably not accurate, but why wouldn't they want fair-market value for their property?

Now, I know D.C. fought long and hard to buy the Expos and bring them to Washington and I know they must make good on their word to build a new stadium. Therefore, I definitely don't see this growing into a huge issue. It's just a little crazy that last week, I was sitting in a hearing where various representatives were waxing poetic about the right to property and here is a very similar situation happening, literally, in their own back yard.

posted by Amy Smorodin @ 9:09 AM | Physical Property

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)









 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page