There's been a lot of conservative diaries on KOS today attacking today's
LIBERAL Supreme Court decision about takings. I understand the concern--some private property owners won't be happy about this decision. But given the fact that this issue a big cause celebre for the far right in America, let's at least start with the part of the decision we AGREE with as liberals, before we get to the moaning and gnashing of teeth.*
First off, governments have been allowed to take private property through eminent domain since before the United States was the United States. It has been used throughout our history too for the public good. Otherwise, we wouldn't have things like railroads, highways and roads. And without a transportation infrastructure, we would be moving goods around by horse carts, there would be no internets, Bill Gates would be a geek with no money, and none of us would have jobs.
more follows:
- For more than 50 years, eminent domain has been interpreted to allow takings for private developments that will contribute to urban renewal. Now you migh rather see public development of urban areas, but local governments are forced to do the best they can for residents, and often with too little money.
- As liberals, we support the rights of local governments to pursue the public good so that all citizens can prosper. This decision was consistent with that principle.
- This decision says local governments know better than federal judges what benefits their local communities. So who would disagree?
- Here's the relevant quotes from the decision:
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_10;_ylt=AnrL1CTq51hXUesSp
aWgkF5uCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
* DISCLAIMERS: First, I am not a lawyer.
Second, this is not a repeat diary. Oher diaries are saying this decision is an attack on our values as Democrats. I take the opposite view.