Gyroscopic Investing

SURF CITY, N.J. — Anchor Produce Market sells homemade mozzarella, its own fresh salsa and what many regulars swear is the best sweet corn on Long Beach Island.

But, a sign on the counter declares, it will not sell anything to the owners of 63 Long Beach Boulevard, 7 Coast Avenue, 12 Sea View Drive South or 34 other nearby oceanfront properties.

Those owners have refused to grant easements to allow the federal government to build a massive dune along a 35-mile stretch of the Jersey Shore. Without the protective ridge of sand, engineers predict it is only a matter of time before homes, neighborhoods, even entire communities are wiped out by rising seas — a reality brought into stark relief by the devastation from Hurricane Sandy.

So until they sign the easements, holdouts should buy their groceries elsewhere.

Read the rest here...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/nyreg ... GBGrnLkBOw&

Why don't they just offer to pay the owners for the easements? If they flash a few hundred grand at the holdouts, I bet you most will sign. But it's typical that the government would ask people to give up something with no direct compensation in return. Is it any wonder that some will find their individual interest greater than that of the community? Just appeal to that interest with cold hard cash!

I had considered that too. But I think there are problems with it. First it would likely provoke the ire if not actual lawsuits from people who signed without monetary compensation. And secondly some people just won't sign. Period.

I really loathe eminent domain because it has such a long history of abuse. But this may just be one of those cases where you gotta do what you gotta do. If we had waited on 100% acquiescence from property owners there wouldn't be a single interstate highway in the country. The more I think about it, the more it seems these people are just being unreasonable.

I also wonder how many of them took public money to repair damage from Sandy? As someone who is going to be expected to help foot the bill for damage following the next big storm this rather irks me.

It can't hurt to try, though. And they could certainly go back and compensate the people who signed without asking for anything before. It's not like the federal government can run out of money or is in any great danger of pushing up inflation too high right now.

I'm sure you're right that there are going to be a few holdouts who will simply not sign, not even for a million dollars or more. I would propose in this case that the levee should be built around them on the property of other people who have already agreed and see if that changes their mind.

Another idea is that they should have to sign a waiver agreeing not to accept any public money for damages.

Anything to avoid eminent domain. As much as I can see a n appropriately narrow use for true public purposes, its history has shown that most of the time it ends up being used by the strong to bully the weak.

I hate eminent domain. However, isn't taking land to build a dike and prevent future floods textbook proper use though?  This isn't a shopping mall or even something where there is too much leeway regarding placement of the dike unless you want to increase the total land seized.

I think landowners should be compensated at above market value and it should only be used for absolutely critical projects and where voluntary land sales where proven insufficient or unworkable. Sounds like this may fit the bill.

RuralEngineer wrote: I hate eminent domain. However, isn't taking land to build a dike and prevent future floods textbook proper use though?  This isn't a shopping mall or even something where there is too much leeway regarding placement of the dike unless you want to increase the total land seized.

I think landowners should be compensated at above market value and it should only be used for absolutely critical projects and where voluntary land sales where proven insufficient or unworkable. Sounds like this may fit the bill.

I don't disagree. But powers like eminent domain have a way of being justified using reasonable examples such as this one but then broadened to far beyond what anyone except the direct beneficiaries would deem reasonable (see Kelo vs. New London). You could make similar arguments in criminal justice: we just need to torture this one guy, his buddy put a bomb in one of the local schools, the kidnapped little boy is running out of oxygen, it's obvious he's guilty and the forensics lab was blown up, etc. These are difficult decisions, to be sure. But sometimes it's appropriate for a right to be avoided in order to prevent an even greater wrong.

Do these people even have rights to the property in question, or are they just upset that they'll lose "their" view?  It sounds like the latter... and I don't mean to be too flippant about their situation.

This is just one of those areas that pretty accurately illustrates the needs of the many vs individual rights.  Part of me thinks they should be compensated.  Part of me thinks they have no "right" to a view.

As I understand the situation they do in fact hold legal title to the land. The proposed easement would not alter that. It just gives the government the right to build a sand dune levy which the Army would be responsible for maintaining. But I am leaning towards Moda's view of this. A basic tenet of libertarianism is that your rights end when they threaten someone else's.

Those levies are not being built to annoy people. This is to save property and lives in the event of a hurricane or other severe Atlantic storm. And they need to consider that their own property will benefit from this protection. It might even reduce their insurance premiums. One other thing that should be pointed out to these people is that if they force the community to invoke eminent domain that while they will get a check, they will also lose ownership and control over the sand dune. I think the government should ask one more time, very nicely, and appeal to civic and communal sense of duty. But if they still say no then do what needs to be done. The article says this has been dragging on for over a decade. It's time to get this done, before the next big one rolls in.

Just for the record, if it were me, I'd gladly permit the easement and let them build the levee.

Pointedstick wrote: Just for the record, if it were me, I'd gladly permit the easement and let them build the levee.

I'd be very surprised if most PPers would make a big deal out of it. But you do get props for spelling it correctly, which I keep muffing.

i wouldn't mind if a payment covered the cost of doing it myself, or the army core of engineering raised my house up high enough to see over the levee and restored the view. 
i imagine those people payed a premium for ocean view property, i bet sand dune view property is much lower value..
storm safe property is higher value using a different measurement of value ....  perhaps having a home that wont be awash makes it a wash?

Ad Orientum wrote:As I understand the situation they do in fact hold legal title to the land. The proposed easement would not alter that. It just gives the government the right to build a sand dune levy which the Army would be responsible for maintaining. But I am leaning towards Moda's view of this. A basic tenet of libertarianism is that your rights end when they threaten someone else's.

I note the use of the phrasing "give...the easement".  This seems like a simple fifth amendment issue.  If the Army Corps of Engineers wants an easement they should pay fair market value for that easement. 

In fact, what is proposed is not like a sewer or utility easement which are either inconspicuous or directly benefit the property owner (roads, utilities, etc.), or both.

What if the berm/levee was 50' tall?  100' tall?  Made of concrete rubble?  Cinder blocks?  Railroad ties?  Old telephone poles?

Easements that are granted by one party to another are generally mutually beneficial.  That is, both parties perceive a benefit.  Clearly that is not the case for all parties here.  If the holdouts do not want to grant this easement, but neighbors do, the neighbors (or the municipality) can pay for the easement or acquire the property and grant the easement.

That seems more like the "libertarian" way.

In Ron Paul's own logic, if the lack of a wall causes water to flow from Peter's yard to Paul's and do damage, Paul can sue Peter and it'll all be alright.

Or would it?

Kind of difficult to tell when one person's property harms another's.  Or maybe it's just a sign that real property is naturally unownable in the first place, and this is all a game of soft-confiscation to begin with.

I mean we are really arguing over who owns a beach here.

moda0306 wrote:I mean we are really arguing over who owns a beach here.

"I mean we are really arguing over who owns a [insert your property of choice] here."

Property is property.  I have no problem with willing-buyer willing-seller relationships, but to compel someone to forfeit property rights without compensation is wrong.  Why, it is downright unconstitutional