Daily Kos :: Comments BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules Against Property Rights Absolutists

Mall*Wart may benefit from the ruling (3.00 / 3)

Still, I'd have bet on it going the other way, given the way the Court has been ruling on takings in recent years. And while I hate the very idea of doing anything to improve Mall*Wart's position, I hate the idea of the conservatives' position on takings getting enshrined in our law any more than it already is.
The state must have the ability to take land for public goods (though I would be more inclined to say that such takings could only be used for construction of roads, parks, hospitals, and other public facilities, and not just for "economic development"). If they can afford to, let them buy the property outright. But if the owners won't sell, then they must be subject to eminent domain, always assuming they are given fair compensation for the property they lose.
But I won't go with the "conservatives," who want to define as a "taking" anything that diminishes or impacts the property value. They want to claim that landowners have the right to be compensated when the government tells them they cannot develop a particular piece of property in a certain way because of environmental restrictions, for example. That's just bogus. So it's nice to see the Supremes backing off from that position just a bit.

Michael
Musing's musings

by musing85 on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:00:56 AM PDT

[ Parent ]
- Where is the line? (4.00 / 22)
  
  The really frightening thing about this ruling is that it allows the notion of "public good" to be redefined to the point where it's no longer about roads, parks, and hospitals, but about whatever ill-defined "benefit" a private developer promises to bring.
  So if my house is less a "public good" than a new mall (and there are local politicians lining up to tell me this is so), my house is sacrificed. For private profit.
  How can any community feel secure in this atmosphere?
  
  What are they smoking? Find out at alien & sedition
  
  by BrooklynRaider on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:07:16 AM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - Don't it always seeem to go (4.00 / 10)
    
    that we don't know what we've got 'til it's gone? They'll pave paradise to put up a [insert business complex here].
    
    Visit RemoveRepublicans.com and follow every 2006 Senate race.
    
    by AnthonySF on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:38:05 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
  - Precedent (4.00 / 2)
    
    I'm not a lawyer, but I would worry about whether this could be used as a precedent for other, less noble, cases.
    
    "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson
    
    by joanneleon on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:08:10 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - this particular use (none / 1)
      
      isn't all that noble itself.
      
      by ThirstyGator on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:59:43 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
    - We've just got to put up the Wal*Mart (4.00 / 2)
      
      where you house is now. The city council feels it would be great for the community, especially in light of their generous campaign donations last year.
      I'm so sorry the house has been in your family for generations, here have this. A coupon for $5 off your next visit to Diary Queen-- they'll even have one in the new Wal*mart, so it's doubly convenient.
      
      by WAmod on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:14:49 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - 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 ]
  - The original 1984 case in Hawaii (4.00 / 4)
    
    FYI
    In Hawaii HA v. Midkiff, SCOTUS decided that it was OK for the housing authority to take property from the huge royal estates and sell them to the residents of that land.
    Something like 90% of the land was owned by a very few landholders who leased the land to people to build houses on. This made life difficult for the peasents in many ways. Providing decent housing for Hawaiians made it essential that the government be able to take private property for sale to other private parties.
    As much as I hate this decision, I don't know how they could have structured this decision to prevent the New London-type abuses and still allow for legitimate public interest actions.
    
    DLC=RNC-30years
    
    by hardleft on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:47:29 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - speaking from hawaii (4.00 / 5)
      
      Not an expert on this matter, but here is another view. The 'royal estates' maintained leashold ownership over the property and used it for perpetual charitable funding, like schooling of native Hawaiians.
      When the property was split up and its sale was forced, it was snapped up by rich outsiders who then REALLY removed it from the grasp of the locals. You should see some of the huge houses (eg, chair of Sony Corp) built where formerly middle class people lived.
      The problem here is outsiders buying up land and pricing locals right out of market. I don't think that this forced property sale was for the benefit of the poor. I really don't.
      
      by tritium on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:28:34 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - Racism! (none / 0)
        
        The royally-funded schooling for native Hawai`ians really is rather rediculous, though. Hawai`i is a very racially diverse state that was given its jump into a functioning economy by the large number of Chinese, Japanese, and Portuguese immigrants who came to the island, and they're decendants are still largely economically disadvantaged. However, they cannot attend Kamehameha. Boo. The money would be better spent on a school for the gifted children of the economically disadvantaged.
        
        homo homimi lupus
        
        by correon on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:33:26 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
  - But what if (none / 1)
    
    What if your dying 1970's shopping center (that's too small to house a megalo-mart) is less of a public good than building a traditional main street, with mixed uses and a broad range of housing to serve different needs??
    What about communities that are fighting AGAINST the big money corporations, are actually taking a positive lead in making a better, healthier, more just place to live?
    Eliminate eminent domain, and you're taking a very important tool out of their hands. Cuz that's what it is, a tool. It can be used for good or for bad. How it gets used is up to the community. And a few voices at a town council meeting have a lot more punch than in a Senator's office.
    
    It's as if we had gone to war with starfish, and decided the way to win was slice off their arms and toss them back into the ocean. - Devilstower
    
    by Austin in PA on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:22:19 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - This is not about eliminating (4.00 / 6)
      
      eminent domain. This is about preventing one private entity from taking property from another private entity against their will through eminent domain. This is not about public use, or even government regulation/zoning of private property. This is about preventing government-mediated land grabs in order to benefit large developers and wealthy corporations.
      And while a few voices have more impact at a town hall meeting than a Senator's office, a few dollars still weighs more. Local governments are for sale--they just sell for less than national ones.
      
      "Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." George Bernard Shaw
      
      by Shygetz on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:03:53 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - Amen (3.33 / 6)
        
        "Local governments are for sale..."
        My home has been in my family for nearly 60 years. I have owned it for the last 10, having purchased it from my great-grandmother's estate when she died.
        The notion that a politically connected, big bucks donating developer can snatch my home to build another "effing" Starbucks sickens me.
        
        by Trudger on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:10:01 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Abuse of ratings (2.50 / 2)
        
        You rated a comment above of mine a "1", which is clearly an abuse of the ratings, since I made a productive contribution that you don't happen to agree with. The rating system is not to show agreement or disagreement.
        I have returned the favor so you can feel injustice yourself.
        
        The Democratic Party: We the People (7801)
        
        by JimPortlandOR on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:21:35 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        you might be right on the "troll" rating (none / 1)
        
        That would indeed be an abuse...but anything else is fair game.
        So, one guy's opinion is that your comment was unproductive. live with it.
        
        by My Philosophy on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:30:02 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Do you... (none / 1)
        
        really think you have the power to make me "feel injustice"?
        Whatever.
        
        by Trudger on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:04:31 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        My old football coach (none / 0)
        
        had that power.
        
        What are they smoking? Find out at alien & sedition
        
        by BrooklynRaider on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:09:04 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
      - I have a better suggestion (none / 1)
        
        Rather than questioning the strong and long-lasting sovereign power of eminent domain, why not focus on the equally strong (but not as long-lasting, so far) power of voting? It's a lease, not a sale, so vote the jerks out and let the city exercise the termination provisions of the lease.
        This, to me, is as much a decision about recognizing the massive power that the state has as compared to private actors and, more subtly, recognizing that what you vote for is what you get when it comes to your elected officials.
        
        "Don't falme me pleas."
        
        by socratic on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:16:26 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        "What you vote for is what you get" (4.00 / 3)
        
        I'm an activist and I try not to be too cynical - power to change and all - but in NYC, what you vote for is very often nothing to do with what you get.
        But I take your point. This is the other side of the coin. The rub here, though, is that the long-lasting and sovereign power of eminent domain isn't traditionally meant to clear the way for another Chuck-E-Cheez.
        
        What are they smoking? Find out at alien & sedition
        
        by BrooklynRaider on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:37:58 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        That's true (none / 1)
        
        ...and the city fathers (et al) should pay the price at the polls at the next election. The point of elections is to hold elected officials accountable for bad practices.
        Look, even assuming that government power should be presumed to be undesirable (and to make an analogy in that context), to me calling for the elimination of eminent domain is like deciding that the way to neutralize North Korea's bad acts was to eliminate its air force. That would leave North Korea capable of doing "bad things" (tm) while not fixing the underlying problem that was making us mad in the first place.
        Or, to use a less direct example, it's like treating colon cancer by removing everyone's colon. Eminent domain is an integral part of sovereign power, almost by definition. The issue is to make sure that power is used well, not to lash out and try to change the integral powers of our nation.
        No mistake, though, I'm not happy with this decision, but it seems to be legally sound. The dissent was justifiably angry, but I didn't see much legal basis for what they were saying, which was essentially that "economic development is not public use because economic development is not public use."
        
        "Don't falme me pleas."
        
        by socratic on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:50:09 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Yeah, BUT (none / 1)
        
        what if my republican mayor steals...I mean uses eminent domain to acquire all the hardcore democratic houses in this village (we live in the same neighborhood together by and large) and build a crack house there. Those of us who could potentially hold the swing vote against him have just lost our residence here, and are NO LONGER ELIGIBLE to vote locally. If you think it won't, or couldn't happen, then you just haven't paid attention to history.
        
        --------
        Please don't bite the heads off the chocolate Elvises.
        
        by PBJ Diddy on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:59:15 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
  - The line... (4.00 / 2)
    
    ... without reading the decision, is where local government deems fit to draw it as being a "public purpose." I assume that the government has to make a determination as to the "public purpose" being served and that the determination has to be supported by some amount of evidence.
    And of course, our check on any abuse is at the ballot box. It sure raises the stakes for local and statewide elections, huh?
    I wonder how this might shake down. I live in a poor suburb of Detroit. Our city has given tax abatements to several corporations in exchange for them relocating facilities there or for continuing to operate there. And naturally, the city is starved for revenue. I'm wondering to what, if any, extent the language of this decision will give local governments more negotiating clout in trying to attract businesses.
    
    "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse
    
    by gsbadj on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:08:27 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
  - I own a modest home (4.00 / 10)
    
    in a modest neighborhood in an otherwise posh resort. The city illegally permitted the people who owned the last undeveloped lot in the neighborhood to build a giant trophy home that violates the setback requirement to the point that the homeowners drive across my property to get to their house. Our taxes have doubled in three years, and our house is now considered a tear-down. The state attorney is a friend of the mayor and refused to prosecute, even after the sheriff found that the city planning department had committed five felonies in the case (most during the cover-up). We've learned that this has been going on throughout the area, as a way to increase the tax base. We have had to file a civil suit, and are $30,000 and two years into the suit, which the city stonewalls, to drive up our legal fees, trying to make us give up.
    This SCOTUS decision makes a joke of the law. It is now the 'law of the jungle'. He who has the money and the connections wins. And with a greedy Republican-controlled government they can take away your home.
    
    Official Culture
    
    by Halcyon on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:52:03 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - wrong. (2.50 / 2)
      
      stevens made it explicitly clear in the affirmation that the court is NOT overruling local use statutes like the ones that protected your neighborhood. all the court said was that they didn't have the power to change the baseline. that's a GOOD thing for you.
      your problems are the result of a corrupt local government, which wouldn't have been changed by this ruling either way. it's the wielders of that power you should be concentrating on, not the power itself.
      
      by spiderspider on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:50:31 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - Right (4.00 / 4)
        
        And while we're somehow "voting" in this wonderful system controlled by big money and tabulated with fraudulent voting machines, how many people are going to be pushed out of their homes?
        You know, they told the Indians this too. They said, "You must make agreements, sign treaties, with the white man. Work within their system. Then you'll be protected."
        So they did. And it was all a lie.
        So you'll excuse me if I don't rush off to vote for Candidate X who promises they won't get in bed with the developers.
        The Supreme Court has failed us. And I do think this will be a watershed moment in the American political discourse. Moderate Republicans who distrust government, and moderate Democrats who distrust corporations, will finally realize they are fighting toward the same center. This ruling unites the way that government and corporations are in bed together, in a way almost nothing else has. It illuminates it on a local, not national level, and that is the level that matters.
        
        by NYCO on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:59:15 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        again, (2.50 / 2)
        
        your complaint has absolutely nothing to do with the power itself. that power can be used for significant good as well (e.g., getting rid of Wal-Marts because they're against the public good and wreck local economies).
        your complain is solely with the government exercising that power, which yes, is sometimes corrupt. all the supreme court did is lift the protection of "eminent domain" that corporations can use to prevent local communities from take back land that's being ruined.
        you are chasing a red herring. problem with a government power is not the same thing as a problem with a government.
        
        by spiderspider on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:37:47 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Well said... (none / 1)
        
        Two corollarys thereto:
        
        Just because we don't like the people currently in power in the government doesn't mean the government can never do good things.
        
        Not liking how a power is being exercised by the government in a particular case is a separate issue from the question of whether the government should have the power to do that thing or things like it.
        
        by profmatt on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:50:48 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        yeah - huh (4.00 / 2)
        
        Fuck that fuckin' noise. If you've followed this trend, in NYC, in CT, and across the country, you'd realize that this is not being used to get rid of Wal-Marts, it is to get rid of the Joneses on behalf of the Wal-Marts.
        We have the ultimate in avoiding eminent domain - it's called buy the fuckin' place. Under eminent domain, it's not only takings, it's the price to be taken. Guess who you get to go see about that? The government. So the government exercises the power to take your private land for another's private use and sits in judgement of your civil trial to get anything close to market rate.
        Who do you think can buy the most "negotiating" power? You or Wal-Mart?
        Consider your family home or family farm. Big developer wants a chunk of it. Big developer wants to pay you pennies, but that's beside the point, because you like your family homestead and don't want to sell anyway. Big developer figures the land's going to appreciate because he's working to have an beltway exit right by your little old house. He goes to the government, gets your property for pennies (it hasn't appreciated yet) and turns around and sells it for the big bucks. Sound fair to you?
        
        by debraz on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:34:49 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        what trend? (none / 1)
        
        this ruling was today. the precendent it sets is that local governments can override private property rights. that means the private property rights of corporations and of individuals. all the "negotiating power" in the world won't make a difference for Wal-Mart if the entire community decides to get rid of it. as you aptly point out, that's not the case now.
        at any rate, the post wasn't addressing that part of the issue -- i was pointing out that the issue isn't with the power the court delegated, it's with how that power's exercised. that's an important distinction to make.
        
        by spiderspider on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:38:25 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        oh, yeah, (none / 1)
        
        and incidentally, "buy the fuckin' place," is precisely the wrong argument for you to be making, methinks. if walmart comes in, you're never -- NEVER -- going to be able to get enough money to buy that place back. and their private property right means that's your only option. this case changes that.
        and if you think that owning your house is a sure-fire way to stop wal-mart from coming in and building a store there, you're deluding yourself. i have a few thousand displaced families at the door who'd like to have a word with you.
        
        by spiderspider on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:40:48 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Trend (4.00 / 3)
        
        Other cases of takings have been successfully defeated. If you think local government is going to override the property rights of Wal-Mart, you're hepped up on goof balls. You can count on one hand, maybe one finger, the number of Wal-Marts that have been blocked by community opposition and you'll need a calculator to count the number that have been built despite community opposition. Now try actual taking one.
        Who's doin' the takin' baby? Da government. So you could actually be paying Wal-Mart to take your home. Nice, huh? You're arguing opposing points. If the government helps Wal-Mart take my home, I'll never enough money to buy it back. No shit. That's the point. Why should I have to buy back my property that the government helped Wal-Mart take? Why should I be forced out of my home so Wal-Mart can have my property cheap?
        If Wal-Mart wants my property, let them buy it on the open market. If they don't want to buy my place, let them find other property on the open market. I think those displaced families will want a word with you. Go ahead and tell 'em its for their own good and if they organize, maybe they'll take their homes back with the government's help. HA!
        
        by debraz on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:02:34 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        the trend's irrelevant... (none / 0)
        
        because it's a different ballgame now.
        If you think local government is going to override the property rights of Wal-Mart, you're hepped up on goof balls.
        the reason walmart can afford to invest so much money in these cases now is because it's a one-time investment, which is nothing to them -- just an initial investment cost. once they've secured those private property rights, it's practically impossible to take them back. this ruling at least opens the door to take that land back in the future.
        If the government helps Wal-Mart take my home, I'll never enough money to buy it back.
        you're conflating my arguments. what i said was that if walmart's already in your neighborhood (prior to today), i've got no recourse, because i can never outspend them, because they can always out-bid me (their property, they set the price, and i can't get their place condemned). that's not the case if the standard to buy is FMV.
        the other thing i said is that if wal-mart isn't in your neighborhood, then the only way you'll keep them out is the local zoning laws -- and that battle's not going to be changed by by this ruling. you'll have to fight it anyway, 'cause they don't have to buy it on the open market now, as all those families will readily tell you.
        here's another way of putting it. your argument answers itself. if the local government is corrupt like you assume (which it would have to be in either case for walmart to just stomp in and grab that land), you're screwed with or without this ruling. if not, you need this ruling to have any hope of recouping lost ground against walmart, no matter how slim a chance that is. reason being that the private-property battle is devastatingly weighted in walmart's favor. now, granted, the local-government battle may be as well, but you'll never win the argument that it's worse.
        corollary argument is that you always have the potential to change the local government, but that's irrelevant without the ruling because w/o it, there's no way to get rid of walmart anyway.
        
        by spiderspider on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 04:52:24 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        makes zero sense (none / 1)
        
        the reason walmart can afford to invest so much money in these cases now is because it's a one-time investment, which is nothing to them -- just an initial investment cost. once they've secured those private property rights, it's practically impossible to take them back. this ruling at least opens the door to take that land back in the future.
        Opening up a possibility against all probability. What a trade. Wooo-weee! You lost your home and the investment potential of your home, but look on the bright side. You'll always have the ruling - they can't take that away from ya!
        Corrupt? What is corrupt about pro-business gov't? I got news for ya bucko. That ain't gonna change.
        
        by debraz on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:27:36 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        for the love of god, (none / 0)
        
        listen to what i'm saying to you.
        it's possible that you're just choosing not to answer, but what i said was that if you'd already lost your homeas in, prior to this ruling at least you could get that land back in the future. without it, you can't, ever. maybe a better example would be: if you live next to a walmart, your local economy's toast, but at least post this ruling you have some small amount of recourse. without it, you have squat. does that make sense?
        Corrupt? What is corrupt about pro-business gov't? I got news for ya bucko. That ain't gonna change.
        stop being obtuse.
        two worlds: world 1, everything sucks, walmart owns the local government. they'll take your house regardless of this ruling. not my world, not always the world, but if that's yours, so be it. world 2, the local government is not corrupt, or you're able to organize people to get a good zoning board in for just one term. with ruling, you have the opportunity to exercise eminent domain to get rid of walmart. without it, you got jack. that's all i'm saying.
        the decision creates reversibility in the face of walmart's private property rights. in the world where walmart can override your property rights, this decision doesn't change that. it's real simple.
        
        by spiderspider on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:40:41 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        stop going circular (none / 1)
        
        You like the fact that the government, will now intervene on Wal-Mart's behalf using your tax dollars to take your house because... at least now you can hope that you might get your house back... even though that's economical impossible and never going to happen. You got jack.
        You like it because you and your neighbors can have the illusion that they could get rid of Wal-Mart even though you and your neigbhors cannot even prevent Wal-Mart from coming to your town now let alone get rid of one. You got jack.
        I got some Enron stock for ya, I can make you a sweet, sweet deal. ; )
        
        by debraz on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:59:41 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Ok SpiderSpider (none / 0)
        
        you do not like the fact that I believe this is a boon for big corporations and the shaft for the poor, the weak and the disadvantaged.
        That's fine. We can have different opinions about different topics and still work for an overall progressive agenda.
        But, I have not run through your posts and troll rated them just because I think you are dead wrong. You are practicing ratings abuse by troll rating my posts. Please explain that to me or stop doing it.
        I honestly think you are living in a dream world if you think the powers of Eminent Domain will ever in our lifetime be used to get rid of Walmart. It's too laugh! WalMart has successfully been fought off by strongly organized majorities of citizens in a handfull of cases. And, WalMart has won literally hundreds of cases, even when locally enforced zoning was against them, when citizen's groups were against them, when homeowners' and neighborhood associations were against them. In cases where city councils were against them, WalMart has funded opponents to change the city councils. Do you think a few poor people are going to outbid WalMart funding campaigns? I think you live in a DREAM WORLD ~ which would be a wonderful world indeed, if it were true or remotely possible.
        But I haven't Troll Rated any of your comments even though I find them - from my own long years of experience - to be far from reality. So, again, explain to me why you are downrating my interpretations of this ruling????
        Thanks.
        
        by YucatanMan on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:07:54 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        actually, (none / 0)
        
        you're wrong. i rated one of your comments a '4' even though i absolutely disagreed with it, because i thought it was a useful contribution to the discussion.
        your "1" was because it's a two line post, it contains nothing substantive, just rhetoric and chest-beating, and i think that's "Unproductive." (note: different from "Troll.") it's my personal opinion, with which you're welcome to disagree, that you were trying to score rhetorical karma points without adding anything to the discussion. furthermore, you got a bunch of "4"s for that comment, for some reason, so i don't see what you're complaining about...
        i thought the same thing about this comment, but since it was longer and you quoted O'Connor you only got a "2." you still blatantly lied about the content of the decision, which again, in my opinion, drags down the discussion because it changes the goalposts -- or, poisons the well, if you will. again, you got a bunch of "4"s from others here as well.
        my "Ratings" tab doesn't show any others, but regardless, i don't rate people low just because i disagree with them. there were a whole bunch of people on this thread who got "4"s even though i thought they were absolutely dead wrong, because they argued their points well, without distorting the issues, and without one-line troll posts. if you disagree with my ratings of your posts, that's fine, and you're certainly welcome to put mine under a the glass yourself, but i don't rate on content, only on substance. period.
        
        by spiderspider on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 10:13:52 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        we may be seeing this... (none / 0)
        
        from different perspectives, but to say I lied, well, everyone can judge my posts for themselves. Apparently, you are in the distinct minority.
        I haven't attacked you personally and yet you call me a liar. I have been discussing the merits of this case and its implications for 'regular folk.' Not liking those implications is OK. Saying they are lies is another thing entirely.
        
        by YucatanMan on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 10:30:20 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        you're right, (none / 0)
        
        i apologize for saying "lied," that's too harsh and implies too much intentionality.
        
        but to make the claim that the supreme court's decision allows the government to throw you out of your home to build a lemonade stand is ludicrous, and at the very least it's a gross misrepresentation of the decision, willful or not. additionally, it falls into the category of rhetorical chest-beating that i mentioned earlier. if it was willful, then i think that rating is more than justified. if not, then it demonstrates that you were talking out of your ass without understanding the decision, which i think also poisons the discussion. in either case, i consider your gross exaggeration of the problem at hand in order to gain cheap rhetorical jabs to be "Marginal," because it drags down the discussion, and you really don't have any more right to second-guess that judgment of mine, which is heartfelt, than i do to second-guess your motives about making them, which i just apologized for.
        
        i'm not sure what your purposes here are given that you just completely ignored the substance of my reply. you didn't even acknowledge that (1) i rated you high elsewhere, prior to your complaining post, which proves that i didn't have it in for you or your argument (2) i rated highly other people whom i also disagreed with on this thread, and (3) the post you're now complaining about i didn't even rate as low as i could have. i'm assuming you agree with the rest and thus that i wasn't trolling you, in which case, let's just move on.
        
        by spiderspider on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 03:41:37 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Yes, let's move on - there are bigger fish to fry! (none / 1)
        
        I'm sorry I used the term 'troll rating' which applies to the big fat 0, not the ratings you gave. Being new, I used the wrong terminology, but I really did wonder what it was you didn't like - since no one else said anything or downrated. You've told me. Thanks.
        
        Ok, on the lemonade thing. I've just done a search to prove it to you, but I cannot find an online reference, so if you like you can take my word and if not, chalk it up to minor hyperbole:
        
        There was a case in one of Dallas' suburbs where a small lemonade stand (snow cones, cokes, cold soft drinks of various types) was being harrassed by the city. When all the facts came out, turned out a relative of a high city official wanted that piece of ground (nice location) for a nicer restaurant. So, the lemonade stand was being chased off for "increased economic benefit." And what the city was doing was crooked. After the publicity, they laid off.
        
        Take your home for a lemonade stand. Take your lemonade stand for a nice restaurant. It is sad how many crooked city officials there are.
        
        by YucatanMan on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 07:59:25 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        we may be seeing this... (none / 0)
        
        from different perspectives, but to say I lied, well, everyone can judge my posts for themselves. Apparently, you are in the distinct minority.
        
        I haven't attacked you personally and yet you call me a liar. I have been discussing the merits of this case and its implications for 'regular folk.' Not liking those implications is OK. Saying they are lies is another thing entirely.
        
        by YucatanMan on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 10:32:15 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        fantastic comment (none / 0)
        
        Rare gems like this make Kos a great site for all of us.
        
        by open troller on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 06:25:22 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
    - They're driving across your property? (none / 0)
      
      What's stopping you from building a nice decorative wall around 2 feet high around the border of your property?
      Other than maybe you don't feel like it, I mean.
      It would sure get the neighbors to stop trespassing with their cars.
      
      The insinuation that the feces of John McCain, a former prisoner of war, would stink, is outrageous!
      
      by AdmiralNaismith on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:58:48 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - If I did that I wouldn't be able to (none / 1)
        
        drive up to my house either! You'd have to see it to believe it. We've been trying to get the judge to go see, but no luck so far.
        Just for those who aren't lawyers: the fact that they drive over our property is itself a 'taking.' In fact, they can't get their boat out of their garage without trespassing. It was clearly a totally intentional act, to get us to sell-out to the developers. And what would we get for our 'tear-down'? Yeah, we could 'develop' our own property. NOT. Now that the McMansion is next door our lot couldn't hold another big house too. I told you this WAS a modest neighborhood.Only someone with big bucks can come in here now and buy us and our neighbors out and build more Mcmansions by redivying the lots.
        Just to add a note of humor for y'all: Two days before our March hearing we found out (we made the call) that our lawyer's firm had gone out of business, thus losing his malpractice insurance (we had the juniorest partner). We had to threaten the senior partners with malpractice to get them to call the judge to reschedule and give us time to find a new lawyer. It's not easy finding a lawyer to represent you when you're fighting city hall. I 'm not even looking forward to 'winning' this suit, because I'm sure they'll appeal. But we did find a non-profit group that says they'll follow through at the appeal level.
        Our only hope of kicking these guys out of office is for the city's insurance company to do it or refuse to renew the insurance, since they'll be the ones paying.
        
        Official Culture
        
        by Halcyon on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:26:25 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        did the city (none / 0)
        
        just issue building permit for the house or did they grant a variance, through public hearing, that allowed the house to be built?
        
        Blogging locally, acting globally 4&20 blackbirds
        
        by jhwygirl on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:18:42 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        They granted the permit first (none / 0)
        
        When we noticed the foundation was in violation we filed for and got a variance hearing, but (and this is extremely complicated) the city started covering up immediately. At the hearing they refused to let us give our presentation and they did a sort of 'bait and switch'. There was also a setback violation involving their swimming pool and a roadway on the other side of their lot. So the city ignored our original complaint about the setback violation with respect to our property (that's why they wouldn't let us speak) and railroaded through the variance for the swimming pool. The city code clearly states that no setback variance may be given if there are TWO roadways fronting the lot. The roadway that provides access to our two lots straddles our property line. I can't put up a fence or wall on the property line, or I'd be denying the neighbor his rightful use of the entire roadway. As it is we've put stakes along the edge of the roadway that lies within our property near our house to prevent them and the UPS truck from backing up to our front steps to turn around, thus ceding part of our property to them.
        The city knows they don't stand a chance before an honest judge and jury. They have zero paperwork to back up their lies. Fortunately for us we've got tons of proof of our case, and we've found two precedents that resulted in the removal of the offending structures!!
        One of the precedents spoke to the question of whether it was fair to remove the offending structure if its value was greater than that of the poor shmoe whose property was infringed. Fortunately for us the judge in that case ruled that the house be torn down anyway. What do we need government for if not to protect those of us who have no power, money or influence?
        
        Official Culture
        
        by Halcyon on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 03:41:22 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
  - Who deserves more than fair market valiue? (3.00 / 3)
    
    The Constitution allows 'takings' of property for public use, and compensation at the fair value of the property. That hasn't changed.
    Why does anyone deserve more than the fair market value for their property?
    The cities need a way to engage in renovation of areas that are high in crime, do not create jobs, and are a drain on city resources. That is the heart of 'condemnation' allowed in the Constitution.
    The question in the current case is whether a city can condemn land and then resell it to a developer to upgrade the area with new investment. This new investment creates increases in the tax base of the city, creates new jobs, and makes the living environment better.
    There really is no alternative to allowing developers to do this renovation. Cities do not have the resources to create a planned community, and cities should not be in the construction and property managment business.
    This ruling affirms the liberal view that upgrading of cities is a proper concern of government, and achieves that upgrading in the only practical way possible.
    Without this right to condemn property, cities would continue to degrade and force people out into suburban and rural areas - making energy costs of commuting greater and creating more urban sprawl.
    This is a liberal position, and no one has a right to more than the fair market value of their property when the city community needs upgrading and investment.
    
    The Democratic Party: We the People (7801)
    
    by JimPortlandOR on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:01:06 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - Who decides who gets to participate. (4.00 / 2)
      
      If I decide to build a noble venture of some sort I make all sorts of decisions about wher it shoudl be sited.
      Now, I can pay off government officials, have my buddies buy all the houses around the development before I propose it, then have the city condemn your house for my private use when I announce the plans.
      My buddies now own property in an up and coming area and can sell for much more than they invested - I get a bunch of land cheap and you get te depressed market value pre-noble venture construction for your house.
      Why don't you get to participate in the profits being made on top of your land? Why do my buddies get to profit and not someone who's tried to make a home in a tough neighborhood?
      It stinks to high heaven and if this is a liberal position, I guess I just went conservative.
      
      "When the President does it, it's not illegal" - Richard Nixon, 1974; US Congress, 2008
      
      by nightsweat on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:07:15 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - The city must set the conditions (4.00 / 2)
        
        These actions are usually done by a local redevelopment agency. The agency, through elected officials and the public, can insist that the public good is maintained by tight restrictions on the developer, including provision for low or moderate income dwellers.
        Portland OR has a very good program that over the years has increases the livability of the central city, increased the tax base, reduced crime and protected the environment by discouraging urban sprawl though higher density housing within the city. The redevelopment process provides for extensive public input, and has very tight restrictions on the developer to meet the common good of the people.
        
        The Democratic Party: We the People (7801)
        
        by JimPortlandOR on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:15:54 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        You assume the locals are honest? (4.00 / 5)
        
        This may look great in Oregon but I have to tell you in NJ this is going to be a fucking nightmare. They're already planning on tearing down family owned businesses that have been profitable for the last 80 years b/c an apartment building on the lot would generate more property tax revenue. A 11% increase in property tax on one lot is not what the framers meant by the public good.
        This is going to be used for years on end by the mob, corrupt politicians, and anyone else who can buy or curry favor with the local mayor and town council to rip apart people's lives in order to make a quick buck.
        The issue isn't having the right to sell for higher than market value. The issue is having the right to not sell at all if you don't want to. You OWN your land, it's not on indefinite no rent lease from the local government.
        This thing is a fucking Hobbesian nightmare.
        
        "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." - Thomas Pynchon
        
        by Windowdog on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:23:59 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        gotta agree in NJ (4.00 / 2)
        
        I too see this as a nightmare, and I still don't understand how I slipped into such a Bizarro World that I'm agreeing with Scalia & Thomas.
        A policy which works only when local government is incorrupt is an unworkable policy. Eminent domain for public use is dicey enough, for public benefit (=higher tax revenues) is a paved road to corruption. At least here in NJ, where we know what corruption looks like.
        I still haven't been able to figure out why the "liberal" wing of the Court bought this line.
        
        If I can't dance, it's not my revolution. -- Emma Goldman.
        
        by DoctorScience on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:57:12 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        Public officials (none / 1)
        
        can and will be bought, no questions. Developers are some of the biggest donors to campaigns, and now they will donate even more.
        This is a call for public financing of campaigns if ever there was one.
        I have seen 'redevlopment" in action, and many times those who have the most bucks are the ones who get what they want, communities are told many things, almost none of which happen.
        We now will have a way for elected officials to directly reward donors to their campaigns by the taking of land of those who are not powerful or rich enough to have much influence.
        
        AfterHoursStamper.blogspot.com
        
        by SanJoseLady on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:28:18 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
    - What if you don't want to sell... (4.00 / 3)
      
      It is not just about getting greater profit from your land it should also be about whether or not you choose to sell your home.
      Using eminent domain to clear truly abandoned and blighted lots is one thing using it to hand over property to private developers is another.
      Ideally liberal government should act a buffer between powerful interests and individuals not brokers for those interests. This is a bad decision for a number of reasons but politically we should be against the seizure of personal property with NO evidence of blight.
      
      by Brenna on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:17:03 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - Make sure local government acts properly (4.00 / 2)
        
        You seem to agree that some redevelopment is appropriate, but other are not. I agree. The city should choose wisely, with substantial public input, and with restrictions on the ultimate development - such a provision for low and moderate income residences/apts.
        This decision just allows cities to do this upgrading using private developers. This is the only practical way of remaking an entire area since cities should not be in the construction and property management business. The developers should be controlled by local laws and regulations, not the US Constitution, which has allowed public condemnation since the beginning.
        
        The Democratic Party: We the People (7801)
        
        by JimPortlandOR on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:27:42 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
    - Private Property (4.00 / 4)
      
      Because it is Private. I have the right not to choose to sell my home to anybody for any purpose. There are several other cases in question right now pertinent to this ruling that are egregious pirating of private property for commercial gain. There are whole neighborhoods which have been privately held and cherished for generations that are threatened by this ruling so some fatcat developer can put up a commercial for profit enterprise. And make no mistake about it, these are not all so called 'blighted'communities. I live in a town where a Republican County Commissioner refers to African Americans and Democrats as "swimming in the moral sewer" and thereby undeserving of rights we take for granted. What would stop anyone from abusing this ruling to move unwanted ethnics or Democrats from a district in order to stack it with wealthy Republicans? This ruling is not one for the good guys. It is piracy on the high seas.
      
      Support citizen journalism. Please donate to ePluribus Media.
      
      by DEFuning on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:43:31 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
    - I guess (none / 0)
      
      I'm not a liberal anymore.
      Taking for all public benefit and use Great.
      Taking to give it to a devils spawn realtor is sickening.
      
      by Jim Beard on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:44:08 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
    - Wrong answer, bucko (4.00 / 2)
      
      It's not "fair market value" that is used to determine what the state (or city) should pay when taking your property. It's the TAX ASSESED VALUE. That is almost always considerably less.
      Here in Silicon Valley there is a HUGE difference between what a private person would pay to buy my house and the pittance that the city would offer.
      It's robbery, plain and simple. It benefits the developer, the local officals, and screws the owner.
      
      by ricster69 on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:54:57 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - let me say, first (none / 0)
        
        that I'm thinking that this decision was wrong....but in all honesty, I do want to think and read and discuss it further.
        That being said, you are wrong. Fair market value is determined by utilizing at least two different appraisals (one would be the 'takers' appraiser's report and the other being the owner of said property). Appraisers that are state certified.
        That's all. Not wanting to pick a fight....
        
        Blogging locally, acting globally 4&20 blackbirds
        
        by jhwygirl on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:24:21 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
  - private good becomes public good? (4.00 / 6)
    
    I agree. Taking people's property for a mall or some other private venture is wrong. I am a true blue liberal, but I would never support throwing people out of perfectly good homes for Donald Trump-like developers. The "60 Minutes" piece on this last season was excellent and illustrated how easily this is abused. My sugestion to these people being thrown off their land: Plant endangered trees on their property. At least it will slow down the developers and city officials.
    P.S. I live in Memphis,Tennessee and Harold Ford Jr. is an amoral bum underserving of a decent democrat's vote!
    
    by frankb13 on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:09:22 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - lol (none / 0)
      
      My sister suggested shipping in some spotted owls (we grew up in Washington State).
      I can at least dig thru the cracks in the pavement looking for rare earthworms or some such creature...
      
      What are they smoking? Find out at alien & sedition
      
      by BrooklynRaider on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:34:54 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - The neighbor who built the McMansion (none / 1)
        
        took down a tree with an active Red-Shouldered Hawk nest, with chicks. A clear violation. We told the city there were chicks in the nest. They didn't care.
        
        Official Culture
        
        by Halcyon on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:31:13 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        State Game and Fish or (none / 0)
        
        US Fish and Wildlife may (should) have...they're the one's who regulate that, not City Officials.
        
        Blogging locally, acting globally 4&20 blackbirds
        
        by jhwygirl on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 05:31:38 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        The city knew very well, as there is (none / 0)
        
        a national wildlife refuge in this city, and the tree with the hawk nest was a stone's throw from the refuge. It's part of the reason this has become a ritzy area. You can probably figure out where, from this clue. The city and USFWS coordinate daily.
        This gets into another area of the corruption: the city got federal $ to restore habitat in a waste area contiguous with the refuge, and then proceeded to use a dirt road frontage within the new 'wildlife habitat' as an industrial staging area for various city construction projects, the kind mentioned in Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, heh, heh. A diesel fuel tank was installed, which, of course, leaked. No way the USFWS didn't see the bulldozers, pavers, sewer pipes, diesel tank in plain view.
        
        Official Culture
        
        by Halcyon on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 03:20:15 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        I guess what I was trying to say (none / 0)
        
        was that violations related to endangered or protected species should have been directed at the agency that administers the act.
        The city - well, hell, had I gotten the complaint I would have told you to call them. Probably would have put a call in myself...probably would have contacted some conservation people/agencies/activists in town, too (and gotten myself in some heat). Their lack of providing information is poor. Period.
        In my past life, a whole community became aware of a golf course along a not-yet-designated scenic river. Bald Eagles mate and breed along this river, and use the very land the soon-to-be golf course was on for several nesting grounds. The city/town/county (whatever) tried to get people interested enough to get active in dealing with the environmental issues, but unfortunately, it was only few who got involved from the get-go, and wasn't until bulldozers were parked outside and final approvals were on the table that everyone else started to raise hell. (I remember going and pleading with whitewater and fishing guide reps for some help!)...
        Eagle take permits were issued (USFWS), bulldozers were driven over river beds, etc....and pairs of eagles failed to mate for the last four years. While there are still mating pairs down there - eagles mate for life, did you know that? - not as many have been successful as would have been.
        For all who read this - when you know about it, shout it to everyone. Place signs, write letters, call lots. Every day, all the time. When it comes to goverment, the best chance you have is to shout loud and often.
        
        Blogging locally, acting globally 4&20 blackbirds
        
        by jhwygirl on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 05:22:18 AM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
  - This is a horrible horrible decision (4.00 / 8)
    
    and every U.S. citizen ought to be outraged.
    It is true that there may be circumstances in which Eminent Domain is required. The building of an interstate for example, where the public need is clear and absolute and alternative routes are limited.
    But there ought to be extraordinarily high standards for taking away the private property of a citizen against his or her will - compensation be damned.
    In this case it wasn't for a school or park or road and it wasn't b/c the neighborhood was blighted. It was because a developer was willing to put up a building that would generate more tax revenue.
    On the other hand it is great for people with lots of assets like me. When the coming oil crunch comes and it suddenly becomes desirable to move from the burbs to the cities - we can get the local city counsel (those of us flush enough to generously contribute to campaigns that is!) to condemn those perfectly nice little modest houses sitting on oh so sweet real estate just by promising to erect a McMansion or luxe condos - something with a higher tax base - and get the property for fair value - which will be a steal. And don't we know it.
    If you think this is a good decision for the little guy, or that governments, run largely at the behest of campaign contributers, can and will use this much power wisely - you haven't been paying attention.
    
    ...he thought liberals were soft on terror. He had a rude awakening...Rev. Chris Buice, Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church
    
    by trillian on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:11:24 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - Need to trust the government? (none / 0)
      
      Although corruption is always a risk, its impact seems to go far beyond Kelo.
      
      If we trust elected officials with tax dollars, why shouldn't they be trusted with decisions of the type that the Kelo ruling addresses? If we don't trust elected officials, why are we willing to give them tax dollars to spend on the public's behalf?
      
      The homeowners are receiving "fair market value" for their homes (I'm also assuming they are also being compensated for reasonable relocation expenses - although I don't know this to be true) so they are not suffering a financial loss. Sure, it is disruptive - but people move all the time for lots of reasons so why is this such a big deal? If it will increase the tax base for the municipality, isn't it a Good Thing (tm) for the public that there will be more money for social programs, education, and the like?
      
      As to various assertions that this will impact the poor disproportionately, I doubt this -- aren't poor people more likely to rent than own (in which case, Kelo implies that the taxpayer doesn't have to entice the landlord to sell by offering her over market value - which seems good because it reduces the diversion of public funds to fat cat landlords)?
      
      Certainly if I were the one being dislocated, I would be unhappy - but there are lots of things that make me unhappy about most levels of governemnt so "individual unhappiness" does not seem to be a consideration when the "public good" is at stake.
      
      by WillR on Fri Jun 24, 2005 at 11:05:56 AM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
  - why does this remind me so much (3.33 / 3)
    
    of what is going on in Zimbabwe? The government there is bulldozing houses where it wants to. And all the news reports about it here react with horror. Zimbabwe, meet New London.
    
    by peregrina on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:41:28 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
  - Jobs are a public good, right? Oh boy... (3.00 / 2)
    
    I can't believe the progressive leaning judges voted for this. As Napoleon Dynamite would say, "Idiots!!"
    
    Jamie Whitaker Obama for President, 2008
    
    by zennedjim on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:15:56 PM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - progressive leaning judges? (none / 0)
      
      what the hell are you talking about?
      SCOTUS is 78% republican.
      
      l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!
      
      by zeke L on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:22:36 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
- irrelevant (3.92 / 27)
  
  "They want to claim that landowners have the right to be compensated when the government tells them they cannot develop a particular piece of property in a certain way because of environmental restrictions, for example."
  This is irrelevant to the case at hand. The case at hand is about whether a local government can favor one private interest over another.
  This ruling means that a local government can force you off your land if they like the idea of some other private interesting using the land better. For example (and precisely relevant in this case), if you have a small house on your lot, and are thus assessed at 100K, paying say 6K taxes, your local government can now insist that you sell your land to somebody who wants to raze your house and build a 1M McMansion, because 60K in taxes would please it better.
  This is the entirety of the matter. These small houses are being seized, and their owners dispossessed, because they aren't rich enough. Another word for low revenue land is affordable housing. The town wants richer people to live on the land and pay more taxes. That's what's best for the town. The people who live there now can just piss off, because they're second-class citizens, low-revenue types.
  Take a look at your house today. Could somebody build a bigger house on that lot? Could somebody build an office tower or a supermarket or a private club for millionaires on that lot? If so, don't get too attached.
  This ruling is utter bullshit, and I have never been so ashamed of the Supreme Court. These reprobates are giving the Constitution the finger. This ruling screams "Fuck equal opportunity! Fuck equal rights! Fuck the poor! To the victor belong the spoils!" I'm sorry, but this is just goddamn unAmerican. This is a radical reinterpretation of the Constitution and law, and it will affect your town soon.
  
  by Gareth on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:42:16 AM PDT
  
  [ Parent ]
  - Exactly! (3.88 / 18)
    
    The big message here is Fuck the Poor.
    As an editorial friend wrote this morning, "If the city council decides it would rather have a lemonade stand on your property, because the tax revenue from a business is higher than on a residence, this ruling lets them throw you out of your own home!"
    It is an outrage. It is not a victory for benign city government. It IS a victory for moneyed corporate interests who want your home. And now, government can force the turn-over of private property to another private owner. That's BULLSHIT.
    Sandra Day O'Conner got this one ABSOLUTELY RIGHT: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,'' O'Connor wrote. ''The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
    Who would have thought the day would ever arrive when I'd believe Reinquist, Thomas and Scalia did the right thing....? (hell freezes over, film at 11)
    
    by YucatanMan on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:01:52 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - Who would have thought (none / 0)
      
      It'd be the second time in as many weeks?
      
      by Gareth on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:44:39 AM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
    - Hell froze here, too (none / 1)
      
      I don't get how the "liberal" wing of SCOTUS made this decision. It doesn't make any sense to my brain or my gut.
      
      If I can't dance, it's not my revolution. -- Emma Goldman.
      
      by DoctorScience on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 12:24:41 PM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - it fits with the government-economic-control wing (none / 0)
        
        This fits with the more "Left" side of liberal thinking that holds that a democratically elected government ought to have nearly complete control over economic matters so as to best do what's in the "public interest". In that sense it's opposed to the conservative view that property rights and private ownership should be inalienable and paramount.
        
        "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus
        
        by Delirium on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:02:16 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
      - It is not a "liberal" decision (3.33 / 3)
        
        It is a leftist collectivist decision. Liberalism believes in private property and individual rights. Leftist collectivists do not. That is the divide here and in the Democratic Party in general.
        
        by friendofliberty on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 01:43:13 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        but leftist collectivism (none / 0)
        
        you will agree, is not usually at the behest of private corporate power. This is not a collectivist notion like building a highway or a public health center. This is a giveaway to Pfizer.
        And none of these justices in the majority, by the way, could ever in a million years be called "leftist collectivists" (say that five times quickly, without spitting).
        I think they had some idea that this was a matter of local politics rather than consitutional law, but I need to read the decision.
        
        "While there is a lower class, I am in it. While there is a criminal element, I am of it. While there is a soul in prison, I am not free." - Eugene Debs
        
        by matthewc on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:31:16 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        but I'm a collectivist (none / 1)
        
        I'm a collectivist leftist (see sig) who takes a very dim view of unassailable private ownership of real estate. This decision goes completely against my collectivist gut, because it gives private property over for other private use. Public use (road, school, park, etc.) is another ball of wax altogether, to me.
        
        If I can't dance, it's not my revolution. -- Emma Goldman.
        
        by DoctorScience on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:05:06 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        But the decision says it is public use (none / 1)
        
        That is what is so wrong about it. The constitution is clear that eminent domain is permissible for public use. This decision allows the taking by broadly defining public use to include raising tax revenues. I disagree with that and you sound like you do too. The justices and writer of this diary believe in giving the government more power over private property if there is any plausible public benefit. This is a leftist collectivist argument. I think public use should be more strictly defined as this ruling is a recipe for corruption and injustice against the non-politically powerful.
        
        by friendofliberty on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 03:36:58 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
        
        taxes are not public use! (none / 1)
        
        So I guess we agree on that point. I just reject the idea that taxes=use is a "leftist collectivist" equation, because (as a collectivist leftist) I'm naturally suspicious of making money the universal yardstick of benefit. It may be Stalinist, but it's not really leftist.
        You will not be surprised to hear that I was raised by a self-proclaimed socialist who hated the Communist Party.
        
        If I can't dance, it's not my revolution. -- Emma Goldman.
        
        by DoctorScience on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 06:15:40 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
      - I can't get over how surprised you all are (none / 1)
        
        This is a logical extension of "liberal" thought.
        It is not an aberration.
        This is what conservatives have been trying to warn you about for decades.
        
        by Bostonian1 on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 08:17:07 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
  - it's not really irrelevant (4.00 / 5)
    
    because it's tied to the basic issue of when gov't should have the power of eminent domain. True, this case did not implicate regulatory takings. What the property rights absolutists (hereinafter "PRA") hoped to do with this case was bait the SCOTUS into defining public good.
    The PRA jumped in on this case, with a sympathetic group of homeowners, because they saw an opportunity to cast doubt on gov't takings power generally. The PRA's goal is, of course, to drastically curtail gov't regulatory power, not just to stop outright transfer of ownership takings. Their next step after Kelo, had the dissenters won, would be to revisit the balancing test for whether gov't regulation amounts to a taking. In the next case about regulatory taking, the PRA would point to the public good test established by the SCOTUS... whatever it might be... and argue that the regulatory purpose was not good enough to satisfy that test. So much for gov't regulatory power; every regulatory law that industry doesn't like (and isn't that all of them?) would be tied up in Kelo challenges.
    
    This ruling means that a local government can force you off your land if they like the idea of some other private interest... using the land better.
    True, and you are right that this is potentially a means for gov't to overreach. Gov't power is subject to abuse, no question. But the remedy for that potential evil is for voters to take control of their local government. If freepers run your town, they can abuse that power; if not, not. We can't constantly look to the courts to make the value judgments on what is a public good because the courts are slow and legal action is expensive. It works best as a threat against developers, not a first option. That's why the courts have (wisely IMO) ruled that local government is better suited to decide what is a public good and what is not.
    
    Bleeding Green Nation - An Unofficial Philadelphia Eagles Blog
    
    by Dire Radiant on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 10:20:23 AM PDT
    
    [ Parent ]
    - Not a worthwhile sacrifice (3.80 / 5)
      
      So what you're saying, basically, is that the rights of the poor and middle class to their own homes are a reasonable sacrifice to short-circuit the rather dubious legal strategy of an anti-regulatory group?
      
      But the remedy for that potential evil is for voters to take control of their local government. If freepers run your town, they can abuse that power; if not, not.
      The town I live in is 75% Republican. Most of them would probably qualify as Freepers if they were smart enough to use computers. Would you like to explain to me how exactly the 25% liberal population is going to "take over" the city government?
      If partisan politics come into this, as inevitably it will, eminent domain actions for the benefit of private profit will be concentrated on homes and businesses owned by the poor, by minorities, by Democrats, just as voting machine shortages and irregularities are. It is highly unlikely even in the bluest of blue cities that neighborhoods full of McMansions are going to be razed to build homeless shelters and low-income housing.
      While I understand your argument, I think the outcome will not be what you expect. If Wal-Mart can't raze a sensitive habitat or an Indian burial ground because of regulations, they will set their sights on a poor neighborhood. It's not the property rights extremists who have taken a body blow here, it's you and me and everyone else with less than a seven-digit income.
      
      Support Our Troops: Send the Commander-in-Chief to the Front!
      
      by eodell on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 11:04:01 AM PDT
      
      [ Parent ]
      - Town (none / 1)
        
        The town I live in is 75% Republican.
        You wouldn't happen to live in Lubbock Texas would you?
        Lubbock is a 75% conservative town, has a republican mayor and he used the city council for eminent domain to clear out about 30 blocks close to Texas Tech.
        BTW, among other things, a new Wal-Mart will be locating there.
        
        by Jim Beard on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 02:57:50 PM PDT
        
        [ Parent ]
      - Ummmm..... (none / 0)
        
        The town I live in is 75% Republican. Most of them would probably qualify as Freepers if they were smart enough to use computers. Would you like to explain to me how exactly the 25% liberal population is going to "take over" the city government?
        This is definitely a vaild fear. Ho

Daily Kos Help

Mall*Wart may benefit from the ruling (3.00 / 3)

Where is the line? (4.00 / 22)

Don't it always seeem to go (4.00 / 10)

Precedent (4.00 / 2)

this particular use (none / 1)

We've just got to put up the Wal*Mart (4.00 / 2)

So vote them out! (none / 0)

Suuuuresuffer any (none / 0)

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

They're not stupid (none / 0)

I say again (none / 0)

The problem is (none / 0)

Hey, (none / 0)

Private entities... (none / 0)

Argh (none / 0)

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

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

The original 1984 case in Hawaii (4.00 / 4)

speaking from hawaii (4.00 / 5)

Racism! (none / 0)

But what if (none / 1)

This is not about eliminating (4.00 / 6)

Amen (3.33 / 6)

Abuse of ratings (2.50 / 2)

you might be right on the "troll" rating (none / 1)

Do you... (none / 1)

My old football coach (none / 0)

I have a better suggestion (none / 1)

"What you vote for is what you get" (4.00 / 3)

That's true (none / 1)

Yeah, BUT (none / 1)

The line... (4.00 / 2)

I own a modest home (4.00 / 10)

wrong. (2.50 / 2)

Right (4.00 / 4)

again, (2.50 / 2)

Well said... (none / 1)

yeah - huh (4.00 / 2)

what trend? (none / 1)

oh, yeah, (none / 1)

Trend (4.00 / 3)

the trend's irrelevant... (none / 0)

makes zero sense (none / 1)

for the love of god, (none / 0)

stop going circular (none / 1)

Ok SpiderSpider (none / 0)

actually, (none / 0)

we may be seeing this... (none / 0)

you're right, (none / 0)

Yes, let's move on - there are bigger fish to fry! (none / 1)

we may be seeing this... (none / 0)

fantastic comment (none / 0)

They're driving across your property? (none / 0)

If I did that I wouldn't be able to (none / 1)

did the city (none / 0)

They granted the permit first (none / 0)

Who deserves more than fair market valiue? (3.00 / 3)

Who decides who gets to participate. (4.00 / 2)

The city must set the conditions (4.00 / 2)

You assume the locals are honest? (4.00 / 5)

gotta agree in NJ (4.00 / 2)

Public officials (none / 1)

What if you don't want to sell... (4.00 / 3)

Make sure local government acts properly (4.00 / 2)

Private Property (4.00 / 4)

I guess (none / 0)

Wrong answer, bucko (4.00 / 2)

let me say, first (none / 0)

private good becomes public good? (4.00 / 6)

lol (none / 0)

The neighbor who built the McMansion (none / 1)

State Game and Fish or (none / 0)

The city knew very well, as there is (none / 0)

I guess what I was trying to say (none / 0)

This is a horrible horrible decision (4.00 / 8)

Need to trust the government? (none / 0)

why does this remind me so much (3.33 / 3)

Jobs are a public good, right? Oh boy... (3.00 / 2)

progressive leaning judges? (none / 0)