Thanks to Susan Daniels for sending us the following articles.
AMERICA FIRST RE-IGNITED
By Diane L. Gruber / May 12, 2025
Americans: Years ago many states intentionally adopted policies and passed bills to decrease homeownership and push ever more Americans into homelessness. Much of this is done via zoning regs, fees collected when buying a house and making certain types of buildings illegal for habitation. [In Washington State it is illegal to move a 10-year-old & older manufactured home from one location to another, thus raising the cost of housing for low-income Americans.] Michael explains just one of the methods used: Alabama, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Wisconsin and others can steal your home INCLUDING ALL EQUITY if you owe a few dollars in past due taxes.
Government’s Redefinition of Ownership
The War on Due Process
By Michael Hermens / May 12, 2024
One of the great economic values in a free nation is the right to own property. This right is so important that it forms one of the most basic functions in an economy: the right to buy, sell, and transform one’s property. It is what makes entrepreneurship, business ownership and employment possible. If one does not have the right to own property, then they won’t be prudent in its care and will let the property go to waste. Take a look at owned homes versus leased apartments – which are generally in better condition?
Governments, however, in their quest to maximize tax collections have promulgated two sets of laws to that can assist in their collection of real estate:
- Property taxes – designed to target real estate for state and local tax collections, property taxes are a levy on the appraised value of homes, land
- Eminent Domain – the power of governments to seize property for public use (traditionally highways, parks, etc.) with the stipulation that the owner must be paid fair market value.
·
Property taxes in the United States have been around for quite a while. Initially, they were designed to fund national and state governments. In 1913, the federal government switched to income taxes, while local governments started to use property taxes to fund public schools, including community colleges.
All states have fines for property taxes for accounts in arrears, in similar fashion to income taxes. Beyond that, however, there are 11 American states that make it legal to not only foreclose on one’s property for past due accounts, but the tax authority can seize one’s entire home, sell it and keep all of the proceeds, even if the proceeds from a home sale exceed the property taxes owed. Thus, in these 11 states, if a home owner with no mortgage owes $75 in back property taxes, the state can sell their $180,000 home and keep all $180,000. Obviously, this is immoral and will probably become unconstitutional. The main concern is in the minds of the legislators who voted for this legislation and the governor who signed it into law. Why would 11 state legislatures demand significantly more than the state is entitled to, significantly exceeding the statutory tax?
As the governments grow, they recognized that putting the nation above individual has benefits, as long as it is done in limited ways. Thus, in the United States, the concept of Eminent Domain was established so that a family that owned a large ranch, for example, could not hold up construction of an economically important rail line that would run through the property. All 50 states and the federal government has Eminent Domain provisions. Most allow for taking of land for a public purpose and require just compensation.
The significant abuse of Eminent Domain cases have two problems – they defy the concept of a public purpose and what they consider just compensation is often less than normal market rates.
First, states often expand the definition of public use to include condemning a property on behalf of a private land developer, another private entity. The self-serving argument is that a private developer can increase the value of the property, thus increasing property taxes for the government.
Second, “just compensation” often does not mean market compensation. If a property owner has 2 or 3 bidders for land, the highest would be set as the market price. Once the government condemns the land, the bids are withdrawn or are never made in the first place, as it is fruitless to bid against the government. Therefore, the government offer is the pseudo market price. Interestingly, in 1897, Chicago had taken property from the Burlington and Quincy Railroad to extend a public road and paid a whopping $1 for the property.
Governments are increasingly using foreclosures on properties where taxes are in arrears, and Eminent Domain cases are relatively flat. In both cases, governments have moved away from the spirit of the law by redefining terms (e.g. public use) and simply extracting more property tax that is owed (property foreclosures). Legislatures know better, but the push for more tax money acts as an incentive to act outside the law. Forthrightly raising taxes will get pushback at the ballot box, therefore legislators attempt to raise taxes through underhanded techniques. Property owners who are subject to government abuse either must pay the tax or have their homes taken, or pay to fight the government in court – both are expensive propositions.
While states with low budget deficits or surpluses are not immune to abuse, the states with higher public spending are often the ones more likely abuse property. We have heard about people who want to have a “national conversation about race.” Isn’t it time to have a national conversation about the role of government?
Categories: Contributors, Real Estate Taxes, Uncategorized