H 32°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°
The University of Wisconsin System has decided to exercise eminent domain in order to seize the Brothers Bar & Grill at the corner of University and Lake in order to complete the acquisition of land necessary for a planned performance hall for the School of Music. An agreement had been reached for the sale of the property last year for $2.1 million plus moving costs, but after the agreement was all but done, the UW System reversed course and opted to exercise eminent domain to condemn the property and pay the appraised market value of $1.25 million.
As part of the state government, the UW System has been legally granted the ability to use eminent domain to acquire property, though it uses that right very rarely. In this case, the System has defended the use as saving taxpayers a significant amount of money. You know, the taxpayers besides the Fortney family, owners of the Brothers Bar and Grill.
Eminent domain should not be used for this purpose, it is a legal concept that only has legitimacy when attached to needs as opposed to wants. It is perfectly understandable that the UW System did not want to overpay for the property, indeed it is exactly the motivation that should drive our civil servants. But it was not unfair for the Fortneys to negotiate for what they did. The level at which they are willing to sell their private property is not required to be comparable to fair market value. If the fair market value of someone’s private property is less than they are willing to sell it for, it is their perfectly appropriate choice to choose not to sell it at all. That is the very definition of private property. It isn’t their concern if that decision disturbs a third party’s plans for property it does not own.
The exercise of eminent domain is a distasteful act that becomes the lesser of two evils in a single case: when it is unavoidable that a public project for the greater good has to use somebody’s property (new freeways in crowded areas, extensions of airport runways). The legitimacy of even this hinges on the definition of “greater good,” a case which the UW System is hard pressed to make in this particular instance. The legal standing may be such that the UW System is on firm ground, but that does not mean that ethically this seizure is anything more than theft perpetrated in the name of the public.
IP hash: f151ec33
Right on!
And notice that “greater good” cannot be rationally defined. Any concept of “good” presupposes an answer to the question: good for who? “Good” always refers to what is good for someone. I.e., there is nothing greater than that which is good for someone.
So even in the case of freeways and airports there is no “greater good” than what is good for the individuals involved. So the question is: what IS good for individuals?
Some people want a freeway and some want a farm or house or whatever. How should this be decided in a way that is consistent with what is good for individuals?
Is trade and persuasion good for individuals or is force the way to deal with one another? Is it good for individuals to pursue their interests and respect the rights of others to do the same, or should they sacrifice their interests to the desires of others?
These are the relevant questions, not some empty appeal to a “greater good.”
IP hash: a5d12113
Brothers is a dank hole for women with no self-esteem and men with napoleon complexes.
I’m normally not a fan of eminent domain, but who cares if they wipe out a dingy little bar that only attracts rubish to University Avenue? If Brothers contributed something unique and valuable to Madison, I might protest, however as it is, I and most residents would be happy to see it gone.
Madison NEEDS more venues for the development of our culture before we turn into a backwards town with nothing but Brothers and some mis-managed biochemical facilities.
And yes, I’m exaggerating and extremely prejudiced, but Brothers can go find some other dump in which to lay.
IP hash: f151ec33
“I�m normally not a fan of eminent domain, but who cares if they wipe out a dingy little bar?”
Anyone who cares about rights, that’s who.
And it certainly sounds like you’re a fan of eminent domain. This is exactly what eminent domain does; it wipes out people’s property because other people, like you, don’t happen to like it and apparently have no concept of other people’s rights.
IP hash: 868c2589
Private property owners facing a threat of eminent domain quickly learn that they are not standing on a level playing field legally, economically or ethically.
So a university, a center of intellect, principles, and social justice, cannot figure out how to acquire the property it needs without “taking” it under the aegis of eminent domain?
Our own two-year fight to protect our property rights against eminent domain led to the development of a website which focuses specifically on property rights that come under pressure from energy and utility companies.
Among other “learnings,” we learned that there is a lot of play in the “just” of “just compensation.” We also learned that the power of eminent domain brings with it a sense of entitlement. At that point, the property owners become merely an obstacle to be swept aside — when, in fact, they possess the key asset coveted by government and (in this case) the university.
Our fight led to the development of a website which focuses specifically on property rights that come under pressure from energy and utility companies.
We are now helping and responding to inquiries from property owners in states across the country.
Want to hear from property owners who have dealt with eminent domain? We are happy to share what we’ve learned. For info, go to our website: http://spectraenergywatch.com/blog/