Your story is heartbreaking, and I truly feel for you. It's even more difficult to swallow, knowing that you are but one among hundreds of thousands who can't "go home again."

Where will you go from here, if Boston is no longer an option?

I remember an article a while back about cities/states taking property for the purpose of selling it to private businesses. Which is what it sounds like they're trying to do to you. This is NOT what eminent domain is supposed to be for. It's supposed to be for public works (like the road you mentioned).

In this article, some of these projects were stopped by the courts after people sued. Middle class neighborhoods were being declared 'blighted' so the cities could condemn them and sell to builders putting in office parks and whatnot.

I recommend Googling 'eminent domain and wrongful' or something like that to see if you can find these articles. Maybe you could get help fighting this.

Good luck. It does indeed seem more and more like the needs of the ordinary citizenry (the 'people' in 'govt of, by, and for the people') are being made subservient to the needs of large corporations.

Actually, the Supreme Court did affirm a decision in 2005 that eminent domain applies to economic development for the public good. Under this ruling, numerous houses in a longstanding neighborhood were demolished a few years ago in my area, to expand a shopping mall. Sad, but true.

Here is a link that might be useful: Link

I am ashamed & embarrassed to say that my state, Connecticut, is responsible for this new ABHORENT ABUSE OF eminent domain. Eminent domain is supposed to be for rare situations when privately owned property is required for the public good.

What is happening now is that municipalities are taking private land saying it's not currently being utilized to its "highest & best use" in order to take private land for the purpose of making a deal with developers to build commercial and/or high-rise luxury residential.

Why are they doing this, you ask? Because it creates a higher tax base for the municipality. New London, Connecticut was sued for trying this cheap trick. The State Supreme Court ruled that New London could not do it. They took it to the big guns in DC where the Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that it was OK for New London to throw elderly people out of homes they had owned for forty years, take their property, make a deal with a developer, & allow the developer to build what otherwise he could not in order to gain a few extra tax dollars.

I'm sorry this has happened to you. Believe me when I say that I did the only thing I could to try & stop it. I voted against anybody that had even the slightest thing to do with the passage of this absolutely horrible ruling. It flies in the face of what America is supposed to be. I believe in my heart that this ruling will not stand. Eventually, Americans will stand-up & be counted & this Supreme Court ruling will be overturned. That will not help those who have already lost their piece of the "American Dream" to greed.

Off my soapbox. But, not putting down my picket sign.

Tricia

In light of that horrible (IMO) Supreme Court decision, many states proposed legislation to disallow the "highest and best use" practice and return eminent domain to its intended public good/use. Has any state passed one of these laws?

We've had changes here.

Here is a link that might be useful: Change Comes to Colorado's Eminent Domain Law

I can't say I'm familiar w/ Eminent Domain but I am familiar w/ outrageous housing prices. I live on the PA/NJ border and it has gotten out of control here.

My main frustrtion is that they lend money to people who can't afford it (toxic loans) and I am expected to compete for a house w/ people who can't really afford it. To add insult to injury, my state (PA), is taking out $millions in bonds to lend/give to people who are facing forclosure. I'm trying to do the fiscally responsible thing by saving for a house but now the people who didn't save and jumped right in are being subsidized w/ my tax $. It is infuriating to say the least.

I'm leaning more and more toward renting in a better school district when my son starts school. I'd perfer to buy but not at these prices.

In November 2006 Oregon voters passed Measure 39, which prohibits the government from condemning private property on behalf of another private party.

Here is a link that might be useful: Measure 39

Yes, ND just passed such a law where the government could not just take the property for any reason.

I'm a Southern Californian native and I understand exactly what you feel. I make 50K per year and for some reason that's not enough to own a home here. I would either have to live in outrageous debt or rent out rooms to people so I could afford a mortgage.

Neither one of those is an option. I'm making monthly payments on my truck, which I need in order to get to work. I pay insurance. I pay utilities. I pay a phone bill. I pay high gas prices. I pay almost 1300.00 per month in rent for a one bedroom apartment near the train tracks where I feel/hear a train every 20 minutes. By the time all my expenses are paid at the end of the month, I sometimes have enough extra money to treat myself to McDonalds.

What kind of life is this? Will things get better? No. I doubt it. Cost of living will continue to rise. Gas prices will never go down below 3 dollars a gallon again. Will the wages go up? Probably not.

What's really sad is that if I were making minimum wage I could get all kinds of assistance. I could get foodstamps. I could get a reduced utility bill. I could get free medical care. I could get section 8 housing and pay only a fraction of what I'm paying on rent.

Even though I've lived here my whole life I have to face the sad facts that I would be better off living elsewhere, probably out of state.

It's just depressiing knowing that although you were born and raised here, you can't continue to live here anymore.

AZ passed something similar in the last election.

xminion---you don't live in IN do you? I recall a situation with an area about an hour from me wanting to build a public water park or some such thing.

I'm a homeowner in texas. I recently almost landed a job in the city that is my birthplace, Seattle, but it fell apart near the closing of the deal because it became apparent that the job would not pay enough for me to be able to afford a house anywhere within an hour and half commute (each way) to the job in downtown Seattle. I don't have much equity in my texas house, and apparently this company wants to hire either renters or people that already have a lot of home equity.

I really tried to make the numbers work - go from being a two car family to a one car family, basically stop saving for retirement, stretch all debt payments out over a longer term, but I simply could not afford to live there for what they were willing to pay me.

My parents retired in a little town on the olympic peninsula, and it would have been great to live near family again instead of halfway across the country. I question if they will still be around by the time I can afford to move there.

Eminent domain sounded like it was possibly going to do some good in my town. There's a street we refer to "Clampet Blvd" a really nice side street pretty close to a school. There's a few houses, not Mcmansions but nicely kept ranchers, the houses are sitting nicely on a pretty large piece of property.

Go down the road a bit, there are shacks, maybe 2 or 3 houses where the roofs started caving in years ago. They covered them with blue tarps. You drive down the road and shake your head. You see a bunch of adults sitting in the front yard at a picnic table drinking. One person works for the NJ Turnpike, where it is said, they make a decent buck.

We started going to meetings, hoping these houses would get ticketed but stopped holding our breath. We were told it would cost the town too much to go after these people to get their houses up to code.

Isn't this what eminent domain is for?

I just did a google about eminent domain in NJ. Things I read made me sick. I don't agree with how it is being used in 55 towns, because from what I'm reading the houses / properties they seize weren't run down. Stories I read said that they never received notice; and that according to law it should be hand delivered but wasn't. It's a shame.

I subsequently met my husband, who is from the Midwest. His parents were getting on in years and he wanted to move back. We went to the Midwest, and within a few years, purchased a house. Now, 4 years later the city wants our neighborhood to put in a multi-million dollar theme park.

I want to go home (boston). My husband says "we'd have to be millionaires." Not quite but the housing costs remain out of our reach.

IMO, not what it should be used for. It would have to be a large piece of land for that. What will they be taking out? I highly doubt they are run down places.

Going home for many is getting harder without whole families relocating. My neighbor sold in January and met up with the wife's parents in Tennessee. From what they said they could buy a large house cheap; come to find out they are living in double wides.

roselvr,

You are confusing 'eminent domain' & 'condemnation' laws.

Eminent domain is NOT used for rundown properties. If a property experiences enough deferred maintenance that it is deemed unsafe and/or uninhabitable by the local governing agency it can be condemned making it unlawful for people to live in it. An owner will be sent notice to repair or the town will do it & bill the owner. Often, local agencies are reluctant to condemn properties. It's used more in the west than in the east.

Eminent domain is when a government (city, state, or federal) actually takes title to a property. The government establishes a "value" for the property they are taking & pays the owner. Eminent domain is SUPPOSED to be used for such things as highway expansion, a new utility installation, etc. In general, stuff that benefits all/most people in the given area. Now, however, in some places eminent domain is being used to take people's properties that are not generating significant tax revenue & replacing them with a "highest & best" use development. In these circumstances, highest & best use is defined as that which produces the most tax revenue.

If you look at even a residential appraisal, you'll see a section addressing whether the property as it is currently being used is "highest & best" use. Normally, that box is always checked "Yes".

Tricia

Oops,

Should have also said that if you have a residential property sitting on a street that has changed zoning to commercial or multi-family and it's a lone holdout...then the residential appraisal will note that the property's "highest & best use" would be not be single-family residential. This is where the waters got murky in the New London case.

Tricia

I understand the frustration about not being able to afford to live in a place that you like and that you grew up in. It's simple supply and demand; people (increasingly, over the last 30 or 40 years) like to live in Boston, NYC, LA, and therefore the cost of living there is very high. I think there's a bit of backlash in that people are becoming more attracted to less-dense, less-"sophisticated" places where you can get a fantastic house for $400K and a nice starter house for $250K. I've experienced both, and especially if you have young kids, the cheaper cost of living wins hands-down for me.

Your plight also highlights the realities of the employment market. That $50K salary in So. CA is puny. But that salary provides a nice standard of living in the middle of the US. Yes, they pay somewhat more for the same work in an expensive city, but not enough to make up for the high cost of living. There are places that offer balance, i.e. near a sophisticated city with lots of ammenities, but far enough that the cost of living isn't sky-high.

It is all about compromise. You can afford to live in Boston Metro. You may not have a new house, it may not be as large as a house in the Mid West. You may have a longer commute.

Things are more expensive, but salaries are higher. Are the salaries high eneough to justify the cost of living? They must be for some people.

It is very difficult to compare one place to another. There are intangibles that make one place for desirable for some people. Others give no value to those intangibles.

If you really want to move back you can. Maybe you can't afford Newton, Wellesley, Weston. But with compromise there are towns near Boston you can afford. I grew up in what was considered the sticks, and in actuality it was only 35 miles from the lower deck (now the Zakim Bridge).

Tricia, thanks for explaining. If I had more time in my life I'd love to apply for zoning officer here, but I'd have to learn all of this stuff.

As for "Clampet Blvd." I'd love to see the town pay the owners what it's worth, I'm sure they can find something to use the acre or so there. If they bought out these few disgusting homes they could change the curve of the street so that it's not as dangerous. Hmm, now there's an idea... lol

Unfortunately, my town just doesn't want to deal with it. I was hoping that one local guy would win the mayor election but lost. I think he'd deal with it. Maybe next election.

It is all about compromise. You can afford to live in Boston Metro. You may not have a new house, it may not be as large as a house in the Mid West. You may have a longer commute.

The problem is a lot of people don't want to commute. My husband & son both commute anywhere from an hour to 2 hours.

Finding the town that one can afford and handle the commute takes research. I wouldn't be down here had it not been for my Ex knowing someone that already relocated down here. Funny thing is, is that somehow people I went to school with also live here so word is getting out. Prices have gone up a lot since I moved down 14 years ago.

"The problem is a lot of people don't want to commute."

That means you are not willing to compromise on the commute, which means you need to compromise on something else (size of house, quality of schools, etc.).

Remember, commutes change. I've worked in Boston for over 10 years. One of the guys in my company used to work in Boston. He still works for our company, but they moved his job about an hour west of Boston, and then out of state (but still near Mass). Jobs move, companies move, etc. A commute is not a fixed thing.

The fact is, that there's less and less housing in places like Boston and NYC for the 'little people.' NYC cops' starting salary is only something like $25k. It's a scandal that's making a lot of noise in the papers, because it means that no one is applying for those jobs. Even w/ a salary of $50k--say, a teacher w/ a few years' experience--where can you afford to live? Nowhere in Manhattan, that's for sure. Nor the close-in neighborhoods in Bklyn or Queens. Even the ghettos are questionable.

As far as commuting, w/ global warming and the depletion of oil, we should be looking at ways for people to have shorter commutes, not longer. If the office cleaner working in Manhattan has to live a 30-minute drive from the subway, or the teacher has to drive in from NJ or Long Island, then that's just contributing to the problem of overuse of natural resources.

This whole 'highest and best' idea is just wrong, wrong. Housing, even if it's for poor people, is a necessary use of property. Not everything can be luxury. Not everything can be a shopping mall. What happens when no one can afford to shop there? Where are the tax revenues then? It's so short-sighted. In this article that I mentioned above, houses were defined as 'blighted' if they didn't have 2 bathrooms and central AC. Even the city atty who was bringing the eminent domain actions was forced to admit that her own house was blighted under this definition.

The Yankees are building a new stadium. They're destroying a city park that was used by thousands of people, and for which there's no alternative. (I'm convinced this is why the Curse of the Bambino has transferred.) Is this a highest and best use? From whose perspective?

Here's a story about a town that's kicking out a bunch of middle class people from their beach homes, so they can put in casinos (oh boy! more casinos!) or something. So unless you're rich enuf to pay high taxes in the Hamptons, I guess you don't deserve a beach cottage.

Here is a link that might be useful: A Middle-Class 'Hamptons' Is Vacated on Towns Orders

In a lot of places police are required tolive in the town they work in. For example, I used to have a friend that was a Detroit cop. There were some nice neighborhoods in Detroit where the cops tended to live, and those neighborhoods typically stay nicer and more desirable. That was in the 80s, not sure the situation now but I know some other cops in smaller cities living under the same rules. Its a pretty common rule in Michigan at any rate.
Guess that couldn't apply to NYC. If someone tried to push that legislation through I wonder what would happen?
I've heard Fireman in NYC are in the same boat.

Here's a story about a town that's kicking out a bunch of middle class people from their beach homes, so they can put in casinos (oh boy! more casinos!) or something. So unless you're rich enuf to pay high taxes in the Hamptons, I guess you don't deserve a beach cottage.

I seem to be missing your point. The people leased the property from the city and then sued the city to replace a bridge. For 45 houses, that are vacation houses???? Just how freaking much is a bridge going to cost the city for 45 houses? Did the homeowners agree to help pay for the bridge?

It's one time I agree with a city.

As far as commuting. As our population continues to grow and certain cities become more desirable, how do you expect cities to have room to house everyone? Someone is going to HAVE to make a commute. The people with the most money win their choice of where to live. Might not be fair, but I wouldn't want it any other way and I'm not ready for the Socialist States of America.

My heart goes out to those fellow CT's, especially the long-timers. I understand how important summer camps are in New England to families. It's where you go in summer. Many have never been anywhere else on vacation. It's tradition passed down through generations. I share my penninsula with about a dozen other homes & 3 marinas plus one factory. Several of my neighbors have been on this penninsula their entire lives...born here & inherited from their parents. Sometimes, there's talk of building luxury highrise condos & you'd have to be a condo owner to get a boat slip. Then, the talk dies down. A few months later, it's back. I dunno. Sad for those people, anyway.

/T

There was a similar situation in SoCal, with long-time renters of shacks that were right on the beach, which was first private then state property. They were finally forced to leave a couple of years ago and the cottages have been restored and are now rented out to vacationers only, not long-term leaseholders, as part of a state park.

And another stretch of beach in SoCal used to have mobile homes on it and a big ugly fence that blocked anyone from seeing the ocean. It's been redeveloped into a resort/spa.

Anyone who is renting faces those kinds of actions. I have a friend whose mother was forced out of her house on a Mexican beach - a nice house she'd had built and had a long lease on, but foreigners aren't allowed to own property there and one day the govt just came in and gave everyone two days to leave.

I think most long-time New Englanders own their camps and land, at least in Maine that's how it is. The summer people just rent.

For generations children always had the opportunity to live better than their parents did. This is no longer true. Children today will have to work much harder and be more highly educated then their parents to maintain the same standard of living.

Three families in Cincinnati who were forced to sell their homes so a new shopping center could be built. They sued and WON. Of course, the rest of the neighborhood was already bulldozed and only those three vacant nearly gutted homes remained. I think they are still there. I'll have to drive by later.

I used to live in Chicago and Seattle. In neither could I afford a detached house and have a decent commute to work. (3 hours in a car is not my idea of a life.) I moved to Cincy and have a nice house and a 15 minute communte. I don't make a lot of money either. Single female here. And Cincinnati is NOT the armpit of America, as some people say. ;)

I really liked Seattle and Chicago, but I like my life here just fine.

"As a single female, the choices at the time was to #1 Make alot more money overnight"

You made some bad choices a long time ago and have to live with the consequences.
Remember those, consequences?
The results of your actions?

I spent 8 years in post secondary education.
It was pretty rough for a while.
I do not worry about money any more.

What did you do?

And with all the lending programs from the .gov money for education is not really an issue if you are willing to work.

I live in suburban Boston. Prices are definately coming down...not sure what your goal is but it's much better than it was a year or two ago.

Anyone who is renting faces those kinds of actions. I have a friend whose mother was forced out of her house on a Mexican beach - a nice house she'd had built and had a long lease on, but foreigners aren't allowed to own property there and one day the govt just came in and gave everyone two days to leave.
If you are referring to Punta Banda, I'm sure your friend's mother knew the property was in litigation for years, possibly at the time of her purchase. Why a person would build a house land they don't own and know is in litigation puzzles me?
The squatters had plenty of time to leave (not two days), but they kept hoping they would not be forced to leave land they had no right to be on. You are correct to say foreigners cannot lease (or own in the protected zone), they can hold legal safe title in a trust, but in Punta Banda, they did not purchase property from the legal owners. Just as in the USA, property laws exist, their courts also remedy property disputes.
It is tiresome to keep seeing people state the Mexican government can seize your "owned property" on a whim and you have no rights, it just isn't true.
Minet, I know you didn't state such a thing, but I just want to set the record straight right here for anyone that thinks there are not safe property laws in Mexico. And no, I am not Mexican.

If you are referring to Punta Banda, I'm sure your friend's mother knew the property was in litigation for years, possibly at the time of her purchase.

I don't remember where it was. It was 9 or 10 years ago I think. So I've probably misstated the actual events to some degree. I remember her mother thought that was where she'd live out her life, and was quite bitter when it all fell apart. Perhaps she had entered into the agreement naively, I don't really know.

I remember a colleague in Texas who had a leased house in Monterey, Mexico, that he lent to me and a friend for a week. That was an adventure! Really opened my eyes to average living conditions in another area. We never did figure out how to get hot water in the shower. The city itself, though, was spectacular - a wonderful place to visit. The architecture, the history, the natural surroundings - very memorable.