Daily Kos

View Story | 652 comments

  •  So vote them out! (none / 0)

    If they adopted a 20% county income tax, they'd be
    voted out.  If they put $15 toll booths on residential streets, they'd be voted out.  If they take handouts from big box retailers that will destroy local commerce, vote them out!

    Look at the potential benefits of the ruling.  The worst-case scenario is already clear, because that's Kelo.  It's probably why lawyers pushed Kelo to the Supreme Court.  But a ruling the other way forecloses any beneficial control local government might have over the distribution of the property it governs.  In a very
    real way, that could give sovereign power to any big corporation that manages to buy up enough property to move into a town.

    Local government should be our most direct form of democracy.  Each councilman has a small voting pool.  get 500 voters to understand the situation, and you can start kicking out those council members when they pander to big corporations and screw the people.  But if Kelo had gone the other way, then even if 99% of the voters voted in a local referendum to get rid of Wal-Mart and replace it with a planned small-office downtown, they couldn't do it.  "Private" property would reign supreme, even though it does no good to anyone but the corporate franchiser.  Kelo gives the people some say about the places they live, nuisances that affect property values, and the power to change them for better or worse, as they see fit.  An anti-Kelo would take away that power and severely impede any democratic efforts to repair bad areas.

    by OverKral on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 09:08:14 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Suuuuresuffer any (none / 0)

      because it's just that easy.  Look at the national level-- do you think credit card companies (just to pick on an obvious culprit) would suffer any consequences if ever current incumbent was voted out of office?  No, they'd just make sure they also donated heavily to the challenger.  

      Once businesses and politicians figure out how much money they can make by seizing private property it's likely that you'll have to play ball if you even want to run a competitive race.  Just like the national level now, we'd be voting for or against specific special interests (ie. I'd rather have Ford take over my house than WalMart), but not many will have the luxury of voting against them all.

      by WAmod on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 09:15:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This isn't a national issue. (none / 0)

        It's local.  Local politics are still within the reach of locals.  If you're in a council seat with 2000 registered voters, (1) Wal-Mart isn't going to give you a million bucks, and (2) if 1500 of those people are outraged that the neighborhood park, baseball field and senior center, and their friends' neighborhood, are going to be bulldozed on your say-so, the million won't do you much good.

        It's pathetic (by which I mean "Arousing or capable of arousing sympathetic sadness and compassion") that many have given up on government so much that they even think our city council members have to be corporate whores.  Government ought to be good for the people, and when it's not, thank God we live in a democracy where we can vote the charlatans out.  Under Kelo, all the money in the world can't save Wal-Mart if the duly elected government wants to kick them out.  

        by OverKral on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 09:39:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They're not stupid (none / 0)

          It should still be offensive to people that governments can use this law to kick out WalMart off of property it bought fairly by conjuring up any ill-defined "benefit" it can.

          You're echoing the same kind of arguments I hear from the right-wing about expanded executive power-- trust the government, it needs this extra power and if it's bad people will be informed enough to vote him out.

          What if a majority of people don't give a crap about the seizure?  What if instead of the senior center, it's some grumpy old man's house that no one in the neighborhood really likes anyway.  Maybe the grumpy old man built the house with his own two hands and vowed he'd spent his last days there.  Is it still right for the government to have the power to bulldoze him out and them tell him what the house was worth?  For something that could be considered a "public good" only in the most broad and diluted sense possible?

          by WAmod on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 10:15:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I say again (none / 0)

            If you don't think your city government is working for the public good, whether it's the grumpy old man or Wal-Mart getting kicked out, then local politics is the way to go.

            Kelo is a GREAT test case.  It's wonderful for framing the issue to make it seem that all government could ever want to do is sell out to big corporations and screw the little guy.  But New London is an old-growth style town with lots of little old landholders that is just about to lose a major source of jobs and business in its submarine base.  At some point, trying to get some jobs into town is more important than letting the old man die in his own home.  The town has responsibility for all its residents, and sometimes it has to engage in triage.

            The notion of one old-timer heroically standing his ground and preventing everybody else from realizing a benefit plays pretty well.  it really tugs on the heartstrings, and everybody wants to root for Braveheart.  But when the greater good means knocking down the old homestead, paying him off and bringing in 500 jobs and new industry, then Old Two Hands has a choice:  he can either tell his story to other locals and try to convince them that it's better he stay there than that they have a new business in town, or he can take his compensation and go.  He knew he was subject to eminent domain when he bought land in the United States.  He shouldn't be the one setting local development policy, if his policy is bad for everybody else.

            by OverKral on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 10:27:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The problem is (none / 0)

              without resorting to admittedly cheap shot emotional appeal, is that "public use" is defined so broadly in this decision that there's virtually no piece of private property that wouldn't meet the standard.  

              I think the intent of the 5th amendment is to protect our private property from government intrusion, except in very narrowly defined cases. Yesterday's decision is the last event in a slow erosion of this narrow sense.  Now that potential property taxes are enough of a public good to seize property, the declaration of emminent domain is no longer constrained by law, but simply left at the whim of local officials.

              There is no piece of land that would not bring in more tax money if it were converted a luxury condo building or a WalMart.  It's dishonest to say that communities can now use emminent domain to kick WalMart out of their neighborhoods.  In fact, big businesses are now virtually the only exemption from government seizure, since they are the most efficient use of the land from a property tax angle.

              This is a major blow to the little guy, I'm disgusted that any Democrat would support it and I'm disappointed in the justices that ruled in the majority.

              by WAmod on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 12:12:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hey, (none / 0)

                I'm upset that most Democrats don't seem to understand it yet.  But at least the Court did.

                So Kelo was about getting rid of low-value housing for increased tax revenue and jobs.  It's a local decision as to whether that's good policy, and a local election will resolve the issue.

                Maybe somewhere else it's a pig farm that's killing a midwestern town's ability to grow, and then the town can decide that one too.

                Maybe some other town fell victim to Wal-Mart destroying the downtown, and they want to get rid of it or revoke its tax giveaways.

                Or maybe the only thing keeping a hospital from moving in is one old dude in a shack he built with his own two hands, in a town that desperately needs better health services.

                No, Kelo was right.  We're not an absolute property rights regime, and we never have been.  If we were to become so, then the huge corporations would win a significant battle.  But it's easy to sell the "property rights, property rights, all hail property rights" argument to even very intelligent people.  It's the same reason people don't like the estate tax:  Hey, I might be a millionaire someday!  Than taxes would suck!  Sometimes letting an owner have permanent inviolable say over what happens to its property does much more harm than good, and it's within the government's ambit to convert his property to a beneficial public use.

                by OverKral on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 12:49:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Private entities... (none / 0)

                  Already have a means to aquire land-- buying it on the market.

                  I don't see why "more property taxes" are enough reason to force government intervention in a situation that easily lends itself to govt-corporate collusion, and for which there is a feasible means already there (for corporations to aquire land on the open marke)t.  If someone doesn't want to sell, tough for the corporation.  They can find many other places that will.

                  If the city has a duty to get the most tax revenue possible as a "public good", then all of our houses should be razed in favor of high rise apartments.  But once we're out on the street, we can always mosey over to the voting booth and vote the guy out.  Small consolation if you ask me.

                  by WAmod on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 02:17:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Argh (none / 0)

                    No, no, no, no, no.

                    The point is that Kelo gives governments a way to divest property from current uses that are harming a community or preventing it from improving.  Of course they can find other willing sellers.  But then they have to behave and contribute, or governments can kick them out under Kelo and replace them with somebody better.

                    And the city doesn't have a "duty" to maximize tax revenue from every square foot.  That's silly.  But if it needs tax revenue badly, it better find a way to get some.  If the economy is sinking into depression and there aren't enough schools, then sometimes you have to flatten a few houses to get some jobs and taxes in the door.  The only "duty" is to serve the will of the public and do well by them.

                    Some things are more important to an enduring democracy than your right to keep all your property in the same place.  Local government's right to restructure needy communities is one of them.  If your house gets in the way and the restructuring helps everybody else, then you can vote all you want, but careful the door doesn't you on the ass on your way out.  I think you shoudl be comensated enough to go buy a similar house in a similar area, but the standard of just compensation is irrelevant to the holding of Kelo.

                    Sucks to be Kelo.  Might suck more to be New London without a Pfizer plant.  Might not.  We'll see.  Good thing it's up to the voters of New London.  

                    by OverKral on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 02:34:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  A public use is a private use is a public one (none / 0)

                      This is not a school being put up, these are luxury condos.  Privately, not publicly owned.  And the existing houses are not dilapidated or drug dens.  They are not "harming the community" as a whole in any way.  The only reason they are "preventing it from improving" is because their house happens to sit where a private business decided they wanted to build.  

                      And make no mistake Pfizer dictated the terms here-- not the local government who greedily capitulated, nor the people who were already on the land and wanted to stay.  Despite the SC's recent trend, it seems an obvious stretch to call this "public use" as intended in the 5th Amendment.  The only public benefits are tangential to hooking Pfizer up with cheap land and boosting their profits.

                      And finally it's not up to the voters of New London-- it's up to the local officials who are simply trusted not to engage in any kind of cronyism.  Even if the people discover their malfeasance (for which they now have a viable legal excuse), any changes they make come election time will be too late and again a small consolation to those not on the Pfizer board.

                      by WAmod on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 03:47:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  They're not "simply trusted" (none / 0)

                        They're elected.  Pfizer may have offered terms, but New London accepted them.  And those weren't the public benefits New London cited when they made the grant.  

                        I have no problem whatsoever with the "public use" being a sale to a company that the government thinks will benefit the public or address a public need.

                        An excuse?  Hardly.  They're just as answerable today as they were a week ago.

                        Yeah, sucks to be the Kelos.  Totally sucks.  Too bad their sacrifice is a result of our political compact.

                        Unfortunately, the Constitution provides just compensation for takings, not protection from suckitude.

                        by OverKral on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 04:03:20 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

View Story | 652 comments