Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  You Misunderstand (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The SCOTUS has permitted eminent domain of intangible property, choses of action, you name it, for more than 150 years.  So it clearly does not violate the Fifth Amendment.  An individual state can limit it, but if it doesn't it's perfectly legal.  California's law merely relies upon federal law, and says that since there are no real property/intangible property distinctions in federal law, there are none in California law either.

    •  I know that the U.S. constitution (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar, VClib

      places no limits.  I think most state laws do, however, and that's where I think California is unusual.    I think that most states either (1) limit eminent domain to real property; or (2) allow eminent domain to be used for intangible rights that are related to that real property.

      I don't think that many states go as far as California, allowing intangible rights to be seized on their own, even if they don't accompany any real property, or even tangible property.  It seems to me that raises a whole host of issues with respect to which tangible rights can be seized by a city -- when are intangible rights "located" in that city so that they can be seized in a city?  I can see that being a very sticky issue.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site