Skip to main content

View Diary: Can a Small California City Take on Wall Street - And Survive? (298 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it's still a property right, although not real (0+ / 0-)

    property, but there is no restriction on the "takings" clause confining it to "real" property and the right of Eminent Domain is not limited to real property.

    •  Marblex - I am curious (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk

      Do you have some other examples of when Eminent Domain was used to take property, that was not physically tied to real property?

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 12:03:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Does Crater v. Lucent count? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, Phoenix Woman

        Wired.com: Secrecy Power Sinks Patent Case

        In a little-noticed opinion this month, a federal appeals court ruled against the Crater Coupler patent holders and upheld a sweeping interpretation of the controversial "state secrets privilege" -- an executive power handed down from the English throne under common law that lets the government effectively kill civil lawsuits deemed a threat to national security, even if the state is not a party to the suit.

        The ruling is notable as a rare appellate interpretation of the state secrets privilege as it applies to patent holders. As such, it is a potentially worrying development for inventors -- particularly those developing weapons, surveillance and anti-terror technologies for government contractors -- who may find infringement claims dismissed without a hearing under the auspices of national security. It also offers a fascinating, if limited, view into the machinery of official secrecy at a time when the privilege is being exercised as never before.

        -7.75 -4.67

        "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

        There are no Christians in foxholes.

        by Odysseus on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 02:50:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  not the same thing at all. n/t (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sparhawk, jpmassar, VClib
          •  Do the big banks really want to go to court? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jpmassar

            Do the big banks really want to have lawyers from the City of Richmond (or Vallejo, or El Monte, or San Francisco) documenting, in open court, their actions when it comes to their marketing of loans and loan products in minority communities?

            And not just their deliberately dodgy dealings, either.  What about their horrible recordkeeping?  Their delay-and-deny, “oops we lost your file” schtick when confronted by homeowners wanting to refinance their loans?  

            Do they really want all of that to be recorded under oath in a court of law?

            Because if they do, it's going to be the best free advertising the small banks and the credit unions ever had dropped into their laps.

            Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

            by Phoenix Woman on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 06:17:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They will go to court over the issue of (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              whether a government can seize a mortgage in the eminent domain process.  

              That's a pure question of law.  No discovery is necessary.  Either eminent domain, under California, is limited to real property (like other states) in which case the city cannot use it to take mortgages, or it's not.  

              The only alternative to that is if the city offers them enough on each mortgage that they don't think they'll take much of a loss.  If they take the offer before the city files suit, it doesn't end up in court.  If they don't take the city's offer to buy the mortgage, then it has to end up in court.  Eminent domain is a court proceeding.

              •  I don't think it's quite as cut and dried as (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jpmassar

                you suggest.

                You don't get to reach the constitutional issue until you have all the right parties.  I think there may be some question about that as I have outlined in other posts on this subject.

              •  So now that it's been established... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jpmassar

                ...that the City of Richmond knows who owns the 624 loans (and has made offers to the loan holders), the new argument against it is that mortgages aren't real property?

                Visit http://theuptake.org/ for Minnesota news as it happens.

                by Phoenix Woman on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 08:09:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  PW - I think they will be eager to go to court (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jpmassar

              on this issue. The City is taking a very novel approach to ED. I am sure it will be litigated.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 06:51:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Od - I missed the relevance (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Sun Sep 15, 2013 at 06:49:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's not a matter of the 5th Amendment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar, VClib

      I agree that the 5th Amendment is not specifically limited to real property.

      It's a matter of state law, which provides the right of eminent domain in specific situations.  Most state laws specifically limit it to real property.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site