Eminent domain abuse is much more than just multinationals. Far more people have lost their homes to politically desirable highways and reservoirs than to Evil Foreign Actors. Most of the time, even, it seems like a good trade in hindsight.

I don't know anything about this particular situation. But personally, as long as there's a reasonably justified need (a new factory seems like it would qualify) and the evicted are appropriately compensated ("fair" can be hard to quantify, of course), I don't see that this is something we need to be outraged about.

Why would a factory qualify as a reasonably justified need? Unless it produces weapons in wartime, it’s a private entity engaging in private business and the government’s role ought to be limited to making sure everyone plays by the rules. If the factory needs a bunch of land, it should have to buy that land just like you or I would. If it’s not practical for some reason, then the factory should be built elsewhere, or not be built at all.

ESID, but some rural areas really, really need the jobs that would be created a lot more than the sentiments of a handful of people who don't want to move. In such cases it's in the community's best interest to displace holdouts in order to grow the local economy.

If it's a rural area, surely they can build the factor in a place where they don't have to destroy people's homes, no? Even if the state/county has to build new roads, power lines, water mains, etc. to support a new locale, seems like that would be better than taking people's land away.

I'm sympathetic to the idea of using eminent domain to take land for public projects, but for a private company? Nope. That's simply insane.

Impeding, or just not encouraging, job growth in rural communities devastates them far more than rare eminent domain issues. Building all new infrastructure can quickly turn an endeavor unprofitable, resulting in it not being done at all.

There is a balance, but I favor the use of eminent domain to expand economic opportunities to rural areas, as long as the buyouts are above market rate. Those that are affected are often the wealthier and older homeowners, not the struggling young families that most need help.

This is all very easy when it's "them". An HN user looks from afar and decide what's better for those rural folk. Those undeveloped types. The basket.

The reality: the government is attempting to take these peoples' property, ultimately under threat of force, in order to transfer it to a for-profit corporation in violation of state law. It does not meet the legal requirements for blight or for eminent domain under Wisconsin law. It is illegal.

Watch someone try to illegally bulldoze your own home you paid for and built, making you incur substantial moving expenses and disruption, destroying a place where you've built memories – all in exchange for a bunch of Foxconn temp agency jobs – and then tell me how you feel.

I grew up in a rural area, and I’ve seen first hand the destruction that lack of economic opportunities does to the next generation.

I’m not looking from afar - my sentiment is shared by many, if not most, in those communities.

Then find a way to do it that's legal. The scheme described in the article is illegal, and illegal activity is the most short-sighted way possible to economic growth. The area is prima facie not blighted as described by Wisconsin statute, and is therefore prohibited from being subjected to eminent domain for purposes of transfer to a private corporation.

That must be why Foxconn factories have -extensive- barbed wire on top of their buildings to prevent employee suicides.

Second, can we please agree this is NOT eminent domain. This is about government corruption to lower the cost of the eminent domain action to follow. Eminent domain would be that the government buys the house at market price, so that the people can buy a reasonably similar house somewhere else. That would, of course, satisfy all your objections.

The government is working to destroy these houses without compensation, so they can save something like perhaps $5 million (maybe not even that) while throwing these people into the street.

People are not opposed to this because their opinion is that these homeowners should be allowed to block economic development of a large area. People are opposed to this because they do not believe throwing these people into the street to save the government and the biggest corporation on the planet a small amount of money is acceptable. The government should be forced to pay as normal under eminent domain rules, and it should extract that money from the company wishing to settle there.

It strikes me as more than a little Orwellian to describe basic respect for property rights as "impeding job growth." What next, failing to plead guilty in court is impeding justice?

Foxconn is not an "economic opportunity", it's a grey faceless corporate leech, which will suck the life out of the community.

If you consider $14/hr for factory work acceptable. I certainly don't, especially not when you consider Foxconn's history of working conditions.

I call it desperate people getting exploited.

Who will be held accountable if the predicted return on investment is not seen?

The whole point of property rights is that it only matters who owns the property, not who needs it.

Property isn't worth much when it's not reachable by roads.

Those jobs are $14/hr, according to the article. Exploitation, in other words.

That is a very inexpensive area. Racine isn’t San Francisco. You can buy a house for $100,000 there.

That doesn't change the fact that it's shit pay for factory work. Foxconn are exploiting desperate people.

Tax money funds the municipality's services for the residents, building a factory creates jobs and tax money, which flow back to the community.

In theory, anyway.

All factories have been purposed to create weapons in war times. I wonder if this impacts undesirable voter districts for the current party?

I agree on factories, but there are other cases, like rail lines or highways vs farms where it's not so black and white.

Totally agreed. I’m not dogmatically agains eminent domain, I just think it’s crazy to use it for private projects.

Doesn’t sound familiar what are you talking about?

Well, for an easy start you might look into our military bases in foreign nations.

From there you can look for US based corporations that have mines, factories, etc, in foreign nations.

Every government that ever existed more than transiently did this sort of thing. It's done every time the government wants to put in a road, a palace, a port, a fortification, a school, a prison, a military base, a nationalized industry, etc.

It's easier for communist countries, though, because the government already confiscated everything.

Is filling Foxconn's temp worker quota a US government project now?

it's easiest for US puppet states, more than communist ones.

Only in this case it’s mostly due to a republican controlled government.

isn't it usually from republican controlled governments?

Creating jobs. How terrible. The alternative is no factory, no jobs.

And all that needs to happen is to take a few people, through corruption (that's what government fraud is called) declare the result of 20 years of saving (those houses) worthless and then throw them into the street.

Do you really think that people will benefit under a government/company combination that finds these actions acceptable ?

Because ... they won't. No way.

Those people get more than fair market value for the houses. They aren’t getting thrown in the street. Check the facts.

No, they objectively aren’t. That’s the entire reason they are categorizing the houses are blighted:

>on their properties. Many brought pictures. “We spent our life savings on this thing, and now we gotta move,” said Alfredo Ortiz, an 18-year resident. “It’s an insult,” he added, reflecting the general mood of the testimonies. It was extremely personal for these residents; having your carefully maintained residence, or in at least one case, recently built dream home, designated as blighted.

It’s weird though because republicans are normally the defenders of propert rights, but I guess they always do default to favoring the rich over the poor so this is still consistent. Just compare the quality of life and wages from Wisconsin (republican stronghold) to Minnesota (democrat controlled) and it’s obvious which is better run...

What have Republicans done to defend property rights? Are you talking about gun rights?

Republicans defend/favor property rights whereas democrats defend/favor civil rights.

I know the meme I just can’t think of any examples.