Should local governments/people be allowed to seize control of private utilities?

[DCal430]

Every so often a local government/the people will attempt to use eminent domain to seize control of a local utility companies,often these take years of court battles, and battle at the ballot boxes, with private companies using the peoples money against them to win.

A few years ago a local city/people here tried to take control of the utility company, but the utility company used the peoples money against them, and tricked the people into voting no on issuing bonds and using eminent domain to seize the local assets.

Do you think it should be easier or more difficult for the people to use eminent domain to seize control over local utilities, and provide sensible power, water, sewer, gas and what not to themselves?

 

[monovillage]

Maybe i can say: "sorry honey, you're looking blighted, but with a new hairdo, clothes, make-up and a face lift, you'd be a really money maker". I'm going to seize your assets and make a profit off you.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

The simple truth is the government already owns a great deal of the water and power companies. That is total control in the rawest form. How long would people last if they just turned them off?

The people should always own the utilities.

 

[Anarchist420]

As long as it's not at the federal level.

 

[Icepick]

Every so often a local government/the people will attempt to use eminent domain to seize control of a local utility companies,often these take years of court battles, and battle at the ballot boxes, with private companies using the peoples money against them to win.

A few years ago a local city/people here tried to take control of the utility company, but the utility company used the peoples money against them, and tricked the people into voting no on issuing bonds and using eminent domain to seize the local assets.

Do you think it should be easier or more difficult for the people to use eminent domain to seize control over local utilities, and provide sensible power, water, sewer, gas and what not to themselves?

Of course it should be much easier for local governments to seize control of utility companies. These services (water, electricity distribution) should be run by the government to ensure stability, reliability and efficiency. These resources should be made available to everyone and that is much less likely to happen in an economic system that promotes individual profits above all else.

 

[superccs]

Yeah trust in speculators Enrons and other forms of private ownership to put your utility access as a primary concern. Lol

They just make money off screwing you over.

Government run businesses in the service or utility industry are almost always more effectively run.

2 reasons: no share holders to answer to regarding quarterly profits, and hard money funding.

 

[Texashiker]

Should local governments/people be allowed to seize control of private utilities?

Yes, basic essentials should not be left to for profit companies.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, basic essentials should not be left to for profit companies.

Yes the government should be able to deem your business essential and steal it from you forpennieson the dollar.

 

[DCal430]

Yes the government should be able to deem your business essential and steal it from you forpennieson the dollar.

Eminent domain requires the government to pay a fare share.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Eminent domain requires the government to pay a fare share.

What it requires is that government pays what it decides as fair. They do not have to pay the market value of something. I know of a family who did not want to sell land that they had in the family. They had it seized and were paid 250k for 400+ acres which a developer then bought for 20 times that and considering the area that was a bargain.

 

[DCal430]

What it requires is that government pays what it decides as fair. They do not have to pay the market value of something. I know of a family who did not want to sell land that they had in the family. They had it seized and were paid 250k for 400+ acres which a developer then bought for 20 times that and considering the area that was a bargain.

Perhaps using ED on people isn't always right, but nothing wrong with using it against a corporation. Taking property form corporations isn't wrong, because you aren't taking it from any person.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Perhaps using ED on people isn't always right, but nothing wrong with using it against a corporation. Taking property form corporations isn't wrong, because you aren't taking it from any person.

Can you explain how that works to people who have invested their money through their effort how nothing is being taken from them? Will the government fully compensate?

 

[DCal430]

The government will give them fair compensation, true it isn't what the corporation thinks is fair though, but still fair.

A few years ago I mention a local city and county wanted to take possession of PG&E assets in the area, the county and city thought the assets and land were worth around 100 million, PG&E screamed foul called the thing a hostile take over and said it was worth like 350 million. PG&E tricked the people in voting against the take over, so in the end it still won.

So 350 to 100 million difference, but the government is usually more accurate.

 

[Texashiker]

Yes the government should be able to deem your business essential and steal it from you forpennieson the dollar.

And? Haven't several presidents socialized various steel mills?

What is to stop a private organization from charging so much that the people can not afford basic essentials? I have used private utilities, and they suck.

 

[silverpig]

Yes, basic essentials should not be left to for profit companies.

Do you consider healthcare to be a basic essential?

 

[Texashiker]

Do you consider healthcare to be a basic essential?

Yes I do.

But the government probably disagrees with me.

There is a point where freefall capitalism does not work. Certain essential items should not be left to only the rich.

 

[DCal430]

Do you consider healthcare to be a basic essential?

yes it is

 

[blankslate]

Government should be a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"

Unfortunately people for whatever reason know less about the government than they have in previous generations and probably trust it less. We as a whole are no longer informed enough as a people to ensure government runs the way it should.

 

[Murloc]

controlling at least water/sewage infrastructure and services is in the best interest of the people and the government should be able to correct the mistakes of the past if any have been made by privatizing what shouldn't be privatized.
It sure sucks for the owners if the compensation they get isn't 100% equal but sometimes the interests of many have to take over, I mean most big roads get built by using ED on at least some farmers' property AFAIK.

 

[Leymenaide]

Yes I do.

But the government probably disagrees with me.

There is a point where freefall capitalism does not work. Certain essential items should not be left to only the rich.

Did not know they made your type down there. Welcome

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Government should be a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"

Unfortunately people for whatever reason know less about the government than they have in previous generations and probably trust it less. We as a whole are no longer informed enough as a people to ensure government runs the way it should.

That is because the same people who own our media own some of the most powerful lobbying firms in the country. Conflict of interest much?

 

[blankslate]

That is because the same people who own our media own some of the most powerful lobbying firms in the country. Conflict of interest much?

I don't disagree. President Clinton didn't help when he loosened regulations that allowed companies to own many radio stations in various markets either.

There were other things of course. Including the way teachers demonized by some when their curriculum didn't match up with the beliefs of the students parents.

An exhaustive list would take time to make.

 

[Fern]

I'm OK with the local govt owning/operating local water/sewer.

I don't support the govt taking control of a privately owned one unless there are some very special circumstances.

Owning big power companies? Heck no. But since they're more-or-less granted a monopoly the govt should regulate them.

I'm not familiar with the govt owning power companies, down here we have huge ones that operate throughout several states. So, I don't see how a local or even state govt could own them.

Fern

 

[DCal430]

I'm OK with the local govt owning/operating local water/sewer.

I don't support the govt taking control of a privately owned one unless there are some very special circumstances.

Owning big power companies? Heck no. But since they're more-or-less granted a monopoly the govt should regulate them.

I'm not familiar with the govt owning power companies, down here we have huge ones that operate throughout several states. So, I don't see how a local or even state govt could own them.

Fern

They would only provide power area they serve. SMUD is a special purpose district and provides power to all people in Sacramento County. LA Water and Power is run and owned by the City of Los Angeles and provides power to all people in the city limits.

 

[BoberFett]

DCal430

Please send me pictures of everything in your home. I want to see what's available to seize.

For the good of the community, of course.