Liberal SCOTUS Justices Screwed The Home Owners

[stopbush]

I hate to start another thread on this, but if you read the decision it was opposed by O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.

I think that's something that needs to be acknowledged if we're to have serious discussion (ie: the usual "Scalia sucks" meme doesn't apply here).

See here:

http://nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23wire-scotus.html?ei=5094&en=5036788eb4cc9d17&hp=&ex=1119585600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

[AX10]

1. I agree 100%

Personally, none of the 9 members of the USSC are worthy of their positions. I've been disappointed by many of their rulings.

[stopbush]

2. On this particualr ruling, I prefer to put the blame where it

belongs.

As often as we DUers complain that the RW uses the "they all do it" as justification for something totally outrageous, I think I'll avoid doing that in this instance. Unless there's something buried in the decision to change my mind, I think the RW nuts on the court got it right.

[blurp]

8. The liberals on the court were right to support this

The fact is social programs are under a lot of financial strain.

If taking land means collecting more in taxes to support these programs, then I'm all for it.

Sometimes individuals must make sacrifices for a the greater good of society.

[aeolian]

9. So long, private property, then.

If the gov't wants it, they can just take it.

Not even the feds, a friggin' COUNTY!

ok.

It was nice while it lasted

[blurp]

12. Private property is anti-democratic

I'm not saying private property is bad. Often it is a very good thing.

But remember all the people this helps indirectly. This private property is good for the few people that own it, but that doesn't generate much in taxes.

Taking this land means more tax money for the poor and there are many more of them.

[elehhhhna]

17. That's how Magabe justifies it, too.

[MadHound]

50. Then you should really be against this friend. Consider this scenario

You have a small twenty acre farm that you do organic truck farming on, located on the outskirts of a city. A developer wants this land in order to break it up into forty half acre lots with homes on them. He persuades the local county commission to seize the land under eminent domain, since these forty proposed homes will bring in more tax revenue than the lone small farm will. Yes, the county will reap more tax revenue, but at what cost? Most large developments are hell on the enviroment, and most of these developments will not be affordable for low income folks.

Sorry but this is just wrong. It elevates the rights of a paper and ink entity over those who are actual flesh and blood. Not a good idea at all.

[blurp]

54. So one farmer should stand in the way of people that need homes?

You have a small twenty acre farm that you do organic truck farming on, located on the outskirts of a city. A developer wants this land in order to break it up into forty half acre lots with homes on them. He persuades the local county commission to seize the land under eminent domain, since these forty proposed homes will bring in more tax revenue than the lone small farm will.

Fact is people need a place to live. The population of the US is growing rapidly. Where are they going to go?

You think 20 acres for one person is even fair?

Your example reminds me of the greedy landowners in South America that oppose government redistribution of land to the poor.

[aeolian]

64. so developers and bureaucrats should be able to push families out of

their homes?

[blurp]

69. THE PEOPLE should be able to push families out

Don't forget that these are democratically elected officials and that THE PEOPLE benefit from the increase in tax money.

We are the party of SOCIETY and DEMOCRACY, not individual property owners in the minority.

Why should one family be able to stand in the way of advancing society?

[aeolian]

72. You can't see how that could possibly go wrong?

My god, just abandon all pretense and join a hive!

[blurp]

75. Why do you think we have social programs?

Because we're part of a SOCIETY.

No one is an island.

And do you realize you're actually agreeing with 4 of the 5 conservative judges on the court, and disagreeing with all the liberal judges?

[aeolian]

80. CitiCorp wanting to build an office building is now a "social program?"

[blurp]

84. If it brings jobs and more tax money

Then sure. Why are jobs and MORE taxes for social programs a bad thing?

But this is really all besides the point.

We are the Democratic party and we support democracy.

When the duly elected officials in a government take land they are acting in the name of THE PEOPLE.

[Hugin]

95. "we support democracy"

Most of these actions are taken by "Administrators" who
*aren't* elected.

If you aren't up on current events... There's a question
about if the "duly elected officials" are really duly
elected.

[blurp]

103. But they answer to elected officials

Most of these actions are taken by "Administrators" who
*aren't* elected.

If you aren't up on current events... There's a question
about if the "duly elected officials" are really duly
elected.

I AM up on current events. I regularly attend city commission meetings.

There is never any decision about zoning or taking that isn't public ally debated and decided on by the elected commissioners.

[davepc]

112. Will you stop with this blather about Democracy

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. -Thomas Jefferson



This isn't about democracy, its about individual rights of people to own their own homes and places of business without having their property stolen out from under them by the government acting as proxy for corporate interests.

How about joining a political party thats more in line with your views, I suggest this one: http://www.cpusa.org/

[blurp]

119. Democracy is NOT BLATHER

Sheesh. You're posting on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND and then post a quote about democracy being mob rule?!?!?

[davepc]

124. In its purest form that what it is!

thats why we have REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT so that the MINORITY gets a fair say and has a voice in the process and isn't steamrolled by the will of the majority.

[stopbush]

137. Why not build cities populated entirely by corporate structures

with no living quarters? Just think, no schools to run, no variances to worry about, incredible tax revenues with no people-related services eating up the tax dollars...and an entirely sterile world. The employees of the buildings can pay for private buses to carry their sorry asses to work.

[Hugin]

139. Hey, not to mention the "elected officials" from that district...

wouldn't need to worry about being elected any more.

[TXlib]

181. I support democracy

You, apparently, support communism.

[blurp]

193. They aren't necessarily opposed

I don't support communism, but there is no conflict between communism and democracy

If the people want communism, they can vote for it. There is no contradiction.

To some extent they already have voted for some forms of communism.

The steel industry was nationalized at one point.

[TXlib]

200. Communism only works when everyone is emotionally vested in everybody else

Families are communes.

Tightly-knit communities may be communes, at least to a degree.

But to impose communism, to ask everybody to sacrifice for people they don't know, requires that everybody be a saint, or that much blood be spilled.

Most people I know are not saints.

[Walt Starr]

198. YOU'RE DAMNED STRAIGHT I REALIZE WHO I AM AGREEING WITH!

And man, are my eyes opening!

Claims of Stalinist Communism ingrained in some liberals seem not to be far off the mark to me any more

[MadHound]

89. Trouble with that concept friend is that it isn't THE PEOPLE

It is the corporations and developers, who will make an obscene amount of money off of this land, who are using these public officials, whom they pay off with campaign contributions, as tools to shore up the bottom line.

And quite frankly I wouldn't call putting up McMansions while wiping out low income housing advancing society.

Why should WalMart be able to push homeowners out of their houses? Do you really think that another big box store like WalMart is a good addition to a city? Especially if it comes at the expense of housing?

And please don't trot out the line about homeowners getting paid for "fair market value", it's a joke. In most counties and cities that I've seen, "fair market value" is always way below the price that the owner could have gotten if they had actually put their property up for sale. And quite frankly, money does not in any way compensate for the memories and sentimental value that an owner develops around a property, especially if that property has been in the family for awhile.

From the tone of your posts I'm to gather that you dislike the notion of people owning land. While I agree with you in theory, in reality such communal concepts have not, and will not work on a widespread scale. Communism works well on small scales, but applying it to a society as a whole almost always fails. The only societies that adapt well to communitarian land are nomadic ones, and I don't see any of us pulling stakes and becoming nomads anytime soon.

[blurp]

99. As an individaul, you don't like it, but we live in a democracy.

And quite frankly I wouldn't call putting up McMansions while wiping out low income housing advancing society.

It's not up to you. It's up to the people to decide.

Hint: democratic party = party of democracy.

And I gather from YOUR post that you oppose government interference in the economy.

[GreenArrow]

108. put the issue up for a vote then

I guarantee you, that by a VAST majority, the "people" would not vote for this sort of law.

[TexasUnderground]

111. Wrong, we live in a Constitutinal REPUBLIC

It's clear why you don't support the Constitution though...you are ignorant about it.

Here's hoping a land developer doesn't want your land. No, here's hoping a land developer DOES want your land, and the city offers you the usual 10-20% of fair market value and then sells it to them. Would serve you right.

[blurp]

122. This is also called "Democratic Underground"

It's clear why you don't support the Constitution though...you are ignorant about it.

There is plenty in the constitution that is anti-democratic but the more time goes on, the more democracy wins. It is a living document after all.

And besides, SCOTUS decides what is constitutional.

The 4 liberal judges on the court did the right thing to support this: they helped advance democracy further.

[TexasUnderground]

144. Funny how as, according to you "Democracy wins"

The people lose.

The majority of people are property owners. You think property, as reflected in this decision, only applies to land? You kid yourself.

Who do you think is more likely to be victimized by this decision? The poor grandmother with a $40,000 house, or the rich land speculator with a $20,000,000 development?

[T Town Jake]

147. You don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about..

...why don't you quit while you're behind?

[TXlib]

180. It's funny how your vision of democracy resembles Soviet Russia

[MadHound]

128. LOL friend, you don't know a damn thing about me,

And apparently not a damn thing about real world politics either, judging from the naivete of your posts. A few pointers

First off, I'm not a member of the Democratic party. In fact, since it has become painfully apparent that we're living under the two party/same corporate master system of government, I have gone Green, and will not be supporting any candidate who takes corporate contributions. That rules out pretty much all of the state and national Democratic candidates, excepting Kucinich.

Secondly, if you think it is "the people" making the decisions about eminent domain issues, you are living in a fantasy world. Yes, "the people" vote officials into office, but the ones who really put those officials into place are those who contribute the money, ie developers, the rich, the corporations. And once said official gets into office, who do you think they pay attention to, the voters:rofl: No, of course not, they're paying attention to the wants and needs of those folks who lined their coffers.

It is apparent that you have done very little interacting with your local government, in fact it is glaringly obvious. I applaud your bright eyed faith in our electoral system, but you really need to find out how real world politics work. It isn't noble elected officials doing the will of the people friend. It is backroom deals, the Good Ol' Boy network, and scratching the backs of those who scratch yours.

Let me ask you a hypethetical question, let's make this personal. Say you own a house, which, on the real estate market you could sell it for say $60,000 dollars. WalMart want you and your neighbors land in order to erect a new store. The county says that the extra tax revenue from this WalMart is in the public good, and is going to acquire you and your neighbors land via eminent domain, in order to turn around and sell it to WalMart. The "fair market value" for your property, according to the city is set at $40,000. Would you fight this? Would you protest this? Or would you meekly accept the $20,000 loss and quietly leave the rest of the neighborhood in the tender care of WalMart? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

Oh, and you have no clue as to my economic leanings friend, but nice try. I'm probably more socialist in my sentiments than the vast majority of the population, but I do believe in private property rights. Communal land and housing only works well in small or nomadic groups. In Western society, it falls apart quickly, like wet tissue paper.

[Rex]

182. You keep saying it is up to the people to decide, but it is not.

That would be a direct democracy, what we have here is private corporations telling the Feds that they need someones land in order to build a new Wal-Mart or McDs. If the corporation can show it will be good for the community then away goes your house and livelihood. You keep acting like you don't see the inherit graft and corruption in the system and how it will destroy more individual rights in this country. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

[Sushi-Lover]

184. The rules of our democracy are layed out by the Constitution.

Unless it is radically amended, the people can't vote to take away protection of your or anyone elses rights. Its not a direct democracy. It is structured in such a way as to minimize to the best extent possible the ability of the majority to tyranize the minority.

[TXlib]

179. Either you're an outright communist

Or you're just trying to stir up trouble.

Either way, you're a pustulent scab of an assclown, and I've no use for you whatsoever.

[cprise]

107. They're not bureaucrats.

They're elected officials.

SCOTUS is right, and the city council is unfortunately excercising poor judgement. But that is the council's decision to make.

Meanwhile those homeowners get CASH for their property, and the city council may end up paying for this politically (they are democratically accountable).

You want to erase the potential for this abuse and make property absolute? Then join the Hertitege Foundation!!

[GoneOffShore]

83. Did you even read the post properly?

I think not. You are saying that urban sprawl should be encouraged and a local farmer should be put out of business. Hmmm. I guess you really don't care where your food comes from or about the impact on the environment of those houses, or the fact that the people in those houses now will most likely be commuting and burning gas. So you're actually saying that you're willing to give money to big corporations that build houses.
Look, if people need houses there's lots of housing stock in cities that isn't being used.
Get real - the government, in the name of the public good, can now take ANYONES property and give it to a developer. Is that what you really want?

[blurp]

86. Of course I read the post. Either you support democracy or not.

Get real - the government, in the name of the public good, can now take ANYONES property and give it to a developer. Is that what you really want?

I want democracy. If THE PEOPLE want a Walmart and the extra tax money that comes from that, why should a few individuals be allowed to stand in the way of the will of THE PEOPLE?

Hint: Democratic Party == Party of Democracy.

[VTMechEngr]

93. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness (property)

Democrats do NOT stand for taking people's homes away!

[blurp]

109. Democrats stand for democracy

Democrats do NOT stand for taking people's homes away!

Democrats are those that support democracy.

So maybe you don't like these takings, but a lot of people in communities do.

The voters have spoken.

And what about taking people's money away? Do you disagree with that, to?

And suppose someone loses their house because they lose a job and can't afford to pay property taxes on that house? The government will take their house.

This really is all about people doing their fair share to help the community and sometimes they need to make a sacrifice for society.

That's why we are a democracy.

[Hugin]

113. So, you support turning a 30% homeless rate into a 50% homeless rate.

That'll look real good...

As long as "the many" are homeless.

[ProgressiveFool]

171. Oh yeah, just wait

For the voters to speak - this is a giveaway to Republicans who are going to be trying to show the people that they are right in their Supreme Court nominations, and that liberals will betray them. This is the sort of stuff they can use to frame it, and then we end up with a reactionary court.

I cannot understand this decision - there must be something buried deep inside that explains it. Private property is American, whether Democrat, Republican, Green, and so it should be.

No government - federal, state or municipal - should be in the business of aiding corporations against the individual American.

[More Than A Feeling]

202. Tyranny of the Majority eh?

What if the people want a theocracy? What if the people vote to abolish the constitution? What if the people voted to execute you,or me, or anyone, for no reason? (to give the most extreme example)

Individual rights do not harm others or that do not fall under the purview of government should not be taken away by any vote.

[VTMechEngr]

88. OMG! What a horrible concept. A farmer needing land for crops

To grow food for us. What good is a housing development without food. But to answer your question, Yes its fair.

Fact is people need a place to live.

People need a livelihood as well.

[cprise]

133. Making special considerations for housing, agriculture...

...and certain types of industry because of the intangibles they bring in in the US considered protectionism.

If conservatives (and neo-liberals like Clinton) had not made socio-economic policy politically unworkable, then the effects of eminent domain that you are decrying would work in the opposite direction. Government would be reclaiming industrial blight for the purpose of constructing neighborhoods with lots of small shops having a minimum level of local ownership.

The New London city council are being shortsighted fools, and SCOTUS just protected their right to be that way.

[MadHound]

104. Considering that I own such a farm, yes, I think that it is entirely fair

I worked for it, I paid for it, and quite frankly I'm doing good with my land. Somebody has got to save some of the farmland out there for organics, otherwise we will all be eating frankenfoods. You like that concept? If not, then as the old saying goes(sorta) don't be dissin' the organic farmer while your mouth is full of heirloom vegatables.

This country was founded by and for small farmers. Yet here you are, applauding a decision that empowers corporate America. How fucked up is that?

As far as housing goes, yes, we need housing for everybody. But the developers that are pushing for these sorts of eminent domain seizures are not in the business of putting up low cost housing, they're in the business of building McMansions and other obscenely profitable developments. Do you truly agree with that agenda? If so, how do you even call yourself a liberal?

And please, don't lump me in with South American landowners. Those people are obscenely rich and well off, owning hundreds of thousands of acres. My place is twenty acres, enough to be self sufficient, both personally and monetarily(eventually). I'm not a landlord, nor rich, so don't put me in the same class, OK.

[cprise]

140. Its too bad we don't have fair or comprehensive planning policies.

The EU, Japan and other eminent domain regions outstrip us in this regard. They use this power more fairly, taking the long-term and intangibles into account as well. They are more likely to take steps to create and preserve places for small organic farmers.

But getting rid of eminent domain isn't the answer.

Everything else in the Constitution can be used against us by corporations in a similar way. Perhaps we need a return to robust social policy and to re-think the role of private corporations.

[MadHound]

149. I agree with you

I'm not against a limited use of eminent domain. It has its place. However this ruling is nothing but letting the corporations and developers run roughshod over the middle class. This isn't dealing with public good or public use, this is a sell out to corporate America.

And yes, we need to re-think the entire concept of corporations. They have obtained more rights and resources than flesh and blood citizens, and they need to be reigned in hard.

But that is going to be tough, since, after all, we're living with a two party/same corporate master system of government.

[Horse with no Name]

212. Soooo

speaking of farms.
How many people does the farm feed and how many people that will be living in the subdivision will need to be fed?
When all the farm land is gone--what happens then? Who will grow our fruits, vegetables, livestock? What will we eat?
What about the amount of natural resources that this one farm utilizes? Water for instance?
How much water will this farm consume as opposed to a 20 acre subdivision filled with lawns, swimming pools, etc?
Perhaps there is a good reason for not allowing ALL land to be consumed by corporate greed.

[davepc]

90. tyranny of the majority is anti-democratic too

and thats what THE PEOPLE are in realtion to an individual.

The needs of the many are greater then the needs of the few or the one is all well and good untill you're the one who takes it in the ass for the better good of everybody else.

[blurp]

116. I can't believe what I'm hearing!

Tyranny is the MINORITY holding up the advancement of society by having complete control over essential property.

The needs of the many are greater then the needs of the few or the one is all well and good untill you're the one who takes it in the ass for the better good of everybody else.

Uh, you support paying taxes don't you, to support social programs?

Some people would argue that they're getting screwed by being forced to support others against their will.

They're also in the minority.

Best thing is to let democracy work. If you feel you're get screwed, too bad. That's democracy. Work harder next time before the election.

There is a reason it's called the Democratic party. Hint: Party of Democracy.

[GarySeven]

138. Party of Democracy?

Do you know what democracy is - or have you thought out the HORRIBLE consequences of what you believe it to mean?

Democracy - and the Democratic Party - means only one thing: equality. The "social programs" that you believe trumps any and all individual right are simply tools to advance equality in one area or another in which individuals are not held or treated as equal.

You are clinging desperately to the notion that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" but this isn't Star Trek; it's the real world, and the needs of the few are not less important than the needs of the many, or vice versa. Under the theory of democracy the rights of EVERYONE are exactly equal. If that sounds like a recipe for chaos in some situations, welcome to reality.

[blurp]

153. You don't even know the definition of "democracy"

Democracy - and the Democratic Party - means only one thing: equality.

A quick look in a dictionary would give the the definition of "democracy".

[GarySeven]

157. You are an absolute NUT

and not worthy of debate. You need serious, serious help.

[TexasUnderground]

146. the proper name for the tyranny of the majority is kleptocracy

EOM.

[stopbush]

134. Suddenly, the scene in Dr Zhivago where 200 people are

squeezed into living in Zhivago's once-family apt in Moscow springs to mind.

[davekriss]

176. Really?

"Taking this land means more tax money for the poor and there are many more of them."

Really? I thought it meant business as usual -- e.g., more tax money to buy munitions for imperial wars overseas, or more tax money to reduce the marginal tax rate on upper incomes. Where in the SCOTUS decision does it say the tax money will be used to help the poor?

Taking property for direct public use -- e.g., building a park, a water treatment plant needed by the entire community, or even a prison -- that's one thing. But taking property to place in private hands so that private individuals can make a profit, even though that profit may generate more taxes than before, is absolutely unacceptable. In my opinion it is another instance of socializing the costs (the burdens placed on the families that have to move) while privatizing the profits (the developers, the owners of the strip mall, the retail stores, etc.).

I do not support this decision.

[AX10]

186. "Private Property is anti-democratic" is the same concept that...

Mugabe, Stalin, Suharto...used.

:eyes:

The USSC was wrong!

[blurp]

194. Then you apparently agree with all the conservatives

"Property rights!" has been the cry of conservatives for a long time.

Agreeing with the conservatives might be a bad sign.

I'm not claiming you're a conservative, btw.

[eagler]

206. Private property guarantees democracy !

nt

[FreedomAngel82]

47. Ugh

My dad bought our land and house and the lot next door so they couldn't build a house in the future (wayyyy too close to us and the next house). So they could just take it away? Ugh!

[Hugin]

25. Tax the rich then.

This'll never bring in the money needed.

[blurp]

30. Property owners are the rich

The poor rarely have property.

Taking private property is a form of taxing the rich.

[Hugin]

33. Anyone who makes mortgage payments is *NOT* "rich"...

Tell it to Marx.

[converted_democrat]

61. thank you, you took the words out of my mouth.n/t

[GreenArrow]

36. this won't effect the Rich

the rich, in fact, will profit from it. This is geared at the middle class. And it is utterly wrong. It is legally sanctioned theft.

[blurp]

40. Relative to the poor, they are the rich.

the rich, in fact, will profit from it. This is geared at the middle class. And it is utterly wrong. It is legally sanctioned theft.

Wealth is relative.

I grew up very poor. To me, anyone with property was rich.

Besides, the city does pay "fair market value" to the land owner for this property.

But keep this in mind: property owners are hurt much less than the poor are helped by this.

Those at the bottom need to be helped.

[Hugin]

49. "the city does pay 'fair market value' to the land owner for property"

For the land *only*... Not for any existing structures on
the land.

And, oh, by the way, the ex-property owner is then taxed
on their "fair market value".

[converted_democrat]

79. I grew up poor too, but I worked very hard for my modest home.......

You think it's okay for the government to take it away? It's all I have. The rich keep getting tax cuts, and now they will take our land for their corporations.

[blurp]

92. And some don't even have a home.

You think it's okay for the government to take it away? It's all I have. The rich keep getting tax cuts, and now they will take our land for their corporations.

If it helps the greater good.

Look, something like 30% of the people don't even own a home.

In the grand scheme of things you're much better off than they are.

"The nees of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

[converted_democrat]

96. Your not making any sense....You have it all wrong.

It does not help the greater good. It helps the rich get richer. Corporations are given huge tax breaks. I'm not going to argue with you about this. You are clearly ignorant. You don't have a clue about what your talking about.

[Hugin]

100. Please explain how making the 30% homeless 50% homeless...

helps the many?

I don't see any way *MORE* people are going to be
*BETTER OFF* when these sorts of consolidations
put *MORE* property in the hands of *FEWER* people.

[converted_democrat]

102. It isn't for the greater good. It just helps the rich get richer.....

I'm not going to argue with ignorance. Tax breaks are given to corporations to move into an area. This helps no one but them. They pay little in taxes because of the tax breaks they are given.

[TexasUnderground]

148. From Each According to His Ability

to each according to his need is not a democratic principle. It's a communist one.

[blurp]

160. It is a DEMOCRATIC

If the majority support it.

The People can even elect a communist government if they want to in a Democracy.

[TexasUnderground]

166. So is lynching, racism if the "majority" so decrees

Thats why protection of the rights of minorities and the weak is so important and why this decision is such a travesty. It's the rich, not the poor that are going to benefit from this.

[Lilith Velkor]

183. To each according to his greed isn't communism

It's fascism of the worst sort.

But what's happening here is even worse; it is the seeds of corporate feudalism. Welcome to the Dark Ages v2.0....

[TexasUnderground]

114. Fair market value = 10-20% of REAL fair market value

Ask anyone who's been affected by eminent domain and they'll tell you this.

Can anyone please explain how, say building a sports stadium like Bush did in Texas, "helps the poor"?

Blurp you are giving carte blanch to the rich and powerful to take whatever they want by force from people who are less rich and less powerful.

I don't know about you, but I never seem to read about Walmart or Haliburton having land seized by ED. It always seems to be the small guy.

Someone who owns a $60,000 house is not a high roller. And the government offering $5,000 to $15,000 is not just compensation.

[Hugin]

44. Said so much better than I ever could...

Thanks GreenArrow.

[GreenArrow]

66. don't mention it

this is pissing me off greatly. !&%@ Sherriffs of Nottingham.

[MadHound]

132. So I'm RICH! That's a laugher friend!

Let's see here, I grew up lower middle class, the son of a teacher. My mother worked part time while I was growing up. Yeah, we scrimped and scraped. Nowhere close to rich.

Late teens, early twenties I was homeless, no riches there.

Worked long and hard through my mid twenties and early thirties in order to afford a small, thirty five thousand dollar house.

Worked long and hard through my mid thirties and early forties to fix that house up, save, and build equity in the house so that I could afford twenty acres on which to grow organic crops and an orchard. I'm going to be working hard for the next twenty years in order to build up the land and my crops because I'm going to be dependent on this income for my retirement:rofl:some retirement.

I went through hell in my life friend, probably waaay more than you did. I worked hard, scrimped and saved. I was able to purchase this land, and quite frankly I deserve it. And guess what, I'm not rich, even now. So take your pie in the sky Marxist theories and toss them. Go learn some lessons from the real world, not theory, and then come back and we'll talk. Your naivete is showing friend, and it isn't pretty.

[blurp]

155. Everone with wealth thinks they "deserve it". Nice try.

I went through hell in my life friend, probably waaay more than you did. I worked hard, scrimped and saved. I was able to purchase this land, and quite frankly I deserve it.

I suppose you think those without wealth "deserve it", too.

[Ron Mexico]

125. So you really believe

that the main motivation here is to help the poor?

Also, if you believe this sort of land theft is okay, then isn't a payment of one cent "fair" to you?

Middle-class people are being forced out of their homes, being paid nowhere near the value governments say the homes are worth when it comes time to assess property tax, they're taxed on the pittance that they're given and not reimbursed for time lost at work as they pack up and move, and this is okay with you?

Why not confiscate everything from everyone, sell it, divide the money up and call it a day? Why just stop at homes when some people have Palm Pilots, iPods, DVD players, etc, and others don't?

Holy shit, I've voted straight-ticket Democrat all my adult life and this is still incomprehensible to me. I really didn't think I would find anyone who could support this. Maybe freepers who love big corporations, but not here.

Wow.

[GarySeven]

126. You must be absolutely CRAZY

To put a social program above the property right of an individual is not only contrary to every principle of this country - and of liberalism - but also morally indefensible.

Attitudes like yours is why the "communist" tag sticks when the thugs use it against us.

If you think you are a liberal, then you are just plain wrong and need to consider where your priorities are.

[eridani]

203. Eminent domain should be reserved for PUBLIC uses of property--

--not turning one person's private property over to another private party! Talk about poisoning the well!

[4_Legs_Good]

3. This is going to hurt us politically

I don't like politics in the court, but I don't know that there's any way around this. We made some strides, I think, against the "activist court" argument with the whole Schiavo deal, but this is going to be portrayed as a HUGE danger of having "liberal" justices on the court.

I'm not gonna be happy with the backlash from this one.

david

[ProdigalJunkMail]

5. most of the people who post here will not be happy either

the five of the majority opinion on this just made a huge mistake. Not only from a purely 'right' sense, but from a political one as well. The republicans needed real fodder for the political debate...this just gave them a political nuclear weapon.

theProdigal

[blurp]

10. I'm happy. Taking this land means more collected in taxes. That's good.

Remember the reason why this land is taken: because cities can collect more more in taxes.

Sometimes individuals need to step aside for the greater good. That's how democracy works.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

13. no---that is how communism works

they are displacing a family who has been in their home for 50 years...first night as a married couple...raising children...seeing them move on...birthdays...anniversaries...joys and sorrows...

Does the human condition of THESE people mean nothing to you? I guess as long as it is fucking someone you don't know it is ok.

SubjectProdigal

[blurp]

18. Nope. It's about democracy and the greater good.

I just don't understand you.

Think about all the people that will be helped if this land is taken.

With all our social programs under such financial strain, how can you not support taking land if it will help more people?

I thought we were about helping society. This is just one family you're talking about.

Think about all the poor that will be helped. This family needs to get out of the way and let democracy work.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

21. wait until they fuck over someone you love

taking away private property to give it to a corporation ... wow ... sounds like helping society to me. Your understanding of democracy is a touch flawed, subject blurp.

SubjectProdigal

[blurp]

34. But the corp pays more in taxes to the city

That's the point.

So giving the land to a corp that will PAY MORE IN TAXES is helping society.

And it's YOUR understanding of democracy that is flawed. It's very simply: the majority rules. If individuals stand in the way of helping society, they need to be moved.

If anything, a single property owner with so much power over a piece of land is not democratic. We all should have a decision over that land.

These city governments are democratically elected. If they think taking the land of a few individuals helps society as a whole, then what is wrong with that.

Let democracy work.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

42. we are a country of laws

not a country of mob rule and until today i would have thought that the people in the houses of power that make up our government believed that to some extent...not true now.

You are a communist. A representative democracy can only flourish when there are laws to protect people against the tyranny of the mob.

Goodnight. You and I will never agree on this as you have no love of individual's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

SubjectProdigal

[cprise]

127. Please don't alert this post...

It's very instructive: "You are a communist."

Since when are citizens, who are overwhelmingly considered to be educated and NOT dumb 18th-century serfs, and acting within a slow, democratic system "the mob"? Especially when a small number of people are affected.

It is just as easy to say you are an absolutist and against the Constitution. This kind of Reagan-Democrat, knee-jerk reaction to property issues is what sets the political stage for things like the massacre of tens of thousands of people in Central America.

[T Town Jake]

150. It is "very instructive"...and quite right, at that.

n/t

[Sushi-Lover]

163. Wait .. what??

Opposing seizure of people's homes by city government for the purpose of building offices = the massacre of tens of thousands of people in Central America ?

[cprise]

167. That's not what I was getting at.

The sentiment that property rights are absolute contributes to political support of terrorist policies like those of the Reagan administration in Central America.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

208. i don't believe property rights are absolute

i acknowledge that ED can be used effectively to provide services to the community such as schools and roads and the like. I do however have a problem with seizing someone's land at 'fair value' just to hand it over to a corporation that will make for the city's coffers a fatter calf...not to mention a tidy profit for themselves. Talk about getting rich off the backs of those less fortunate...geez...this may be the ultimate expression of that.

SubjectProdigal

[GreenArrow]

43. selfish bastards

"I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves".

--John Wayne

[blurp]

59. But he was right

"I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves".

--John Wayne

But he was right to some extent.

Who should have the land? A neolithic people with a lot of space to themselves or poor European peasants, like the Irish, that were starving to death?

[wuushew]

63. Be very careful with that statement

it could be viewed as racist from both viewpoints.

[blurp]

70. Not at all racist

"it could be viewed as racist from both viewpoints."

It's simply the poor native americans versus starving europeans.

Of course, RICH europeans taking land, well, that's another story.

They already had enough.

[wuushew]

78. Why was invading Amerika the only option for the Irish?

the population having so little arable land unwisely choice to grow potatoes. The potato is an incredibly efficient plant which had prevented starvation in much of Germany and the low countries. There is no wisdom relying on a single food source for all your nutrition. The Irish should have voluntary reduced their birthrate to a level which was supportable by traditional cereal grains. Or perhaps more attractive had a violent uprising which forcibly redistributed the English landowner estates.

And it is incorrect to label all native cultures neo-lithic, many had use and knowledge of iron and copper tools through mutual trading with the English and French. Is a primitive culture less important than a more advanced one? i don't want to make that call. At least many Indian tribes lived in harmony with nature and did not imitate the Western way of constant expansion and rape of natural resources.

[AX10]

188. John Wayne is burning in HELL with Adolf.

Second, Wayne was the quinticential right wing racist chickenhawk scumbag.

[GreenArrow]

67. he was right to absolutely no extent

The biggest bully should get the whole cake.

[blurp]

73. If you're poor and hungry, you'll fight

"The biggest bully should get the whole cake."

It has nothing to do with bullying and everything to do with not starving to death.

Just consider all the Irish that came to America. They did it simply to survive.

[MadHound]

135. Geez, you don't even know history do you!

The Native Americans weren't small isolated neolithic populations, who actually owned the land. Owning the land was a concept completely alien to them, which is one reason they got so burned by the treaties. Nor were they a small group. Before the white man landed here, estimates of Native American population range upwards of 100 million. And these weren't primitive hunter-gatherers. These people were technically proficient, raising monuments and cities that equaled and exceeded those of European construct at the same time.

As far as the Irish peasants go, they weren't suffering and starving due to a lack of land or food. They were suffering under the iron yoke of the English, and had done so for hundreds of years.

I would suggest that you do two things friend. First, go learn history, for it is obvious that you are lacking in that subject. Second, go out and get involved in real world politics. For again, it is obvious that your experience is entirely theoretical. Go out and get your hands dirty. Then come back and talk, and let us see if your opinions have changed.

[blurp]

151. You're the one that is ignorant of history

Nor were they a small group. Before the white man landed here, estimates of Native American population range upwards of 100 million.

This is actually the high end of estimates for all the Western Hemisphere and not North America. The lower end of the range is about 8 million.

The most recent estimates are around 40 million -- for the entire western hemishere. And most of those were in what is now S Mexico and South America.

And these weren't primitive hunter-gatherers. These people were technically proficient, raising monuments and cities that equaled and exceeded those of European construct at the same time.

Not really. They lacked even the wheel in the Americas. And in North America, they lacked even a written language.

And just were are all these monuments and cities that supportted 100 million people? There just aren't enough.

Anyone studying anything about the history of the Native American would know at least these things.

[MadHound]

172. Funny guy, tell you what, can I go show these comments of yours

To one of the top Native American archeologists just down the hall? He really needs a good laugh today, and such ignorance would do wonders for his mood. I could sit here and quote you chapter and verse where you are wrong, but that would take entirely too long, too much bandwidth, and besides, education is best when it isn't spoon fed, so I would suggest you go out and find it on your own.

Give it a rest friend, you have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about regarding history, economics, real world politics, sociology, or America's political history and tradition. Instead, you are coming across as a bitter, naive crank who wants the world handed to him on a silver platter. You have no real answers for the questions posed to you, especially if they are hypotheticals involving you. Instead, you keep repeating your disproven points and tired rhetoric. Give it break, and come back when you actually know whereof you speak.

[blurp]

177. Please avail yourself of his services. Don't just sit in your office.

can I go show these comments of yours oo one of the top Native American archeologists just down the hall? He really needs a good laugh today, and such ignorance would do wonders for his mood.

Please do. I'm serious.

There is nothing better than to discover that what you "know" is wrong.

You suggested 100 million in N America. Ask him if that is reasonable.

Ask him about the literacy rate of Natives of N America. He'll laugh since they had no written language.

And Ask further about the wheel. Maybe you'll get into a discussion about how successful they were at moving stones without knowledge of the wheel.

[0rganism]

77. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't

You'd better look long & hard at how that corporation can tax-shelter its income before you make that claim. How much is the corporate minimum tax in Connecticut?

It's much harder for Mr. Sixpack to hide from a property tax than for a monolithic corporate bureacracy to claim a net loss.

[AX10]

189. Really? Come over to Fairfield Connecticut, GE hasn't....

paid their property taxes for the past SIX years! Give me a break, corporations are greedy SOB's and need to be reigned in.

[fujiyama]

31. This ISN'T about the greater good

Iminent Domain cases in the past already said the government could take land for schools and highways (ie. the "public good").

Now, the same thing can be done for the wealthy and powerful - mainly corporations and influencial land developers.

This basically says the government could confiscate land for whatever reason.

[blurp]

37. Yes it is.

Now, the same thing can be done for the wealthy and powerful - mainly corporations and influencial land developers.

This basically says the government could confiscate land for whatever reason.

And the reason is more tax money for more social programs.

Really, I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

City governments are democratically elected. LET DEMOCRACY WORK.

Sheesh. I never thought I'd see the day that so many democrats would get hung up on private property rights. They're anti-democratic.

I'm not saying they're bad. I actually think they're often a good thing. But come one. Cities need to provide services for those in need. Their need is greater than the need of anyone that can afford private property.

[converted_democrat]

120. Money for more social programs----Right........

I guess that could be true if you call war a social program. Unless that's what your talking about your about as far off as you can get.

[0rganism]

82. The words you're looking for are PUBLIC USE

What use will the public have of this private property once it is redistributed to wealthier developers?

"Public good" is the cop-out that enabled this taking in the first place.

[blurp]

129. But collecting more in taxes is a form of PUBLIC USE

The public uses businesses and corporations to fund many of it's programs.

If they take the land and give it to a corp that will pay more in taxes used by the public, then that is a form of public use.

[0rganism]

136. YOU DON'T KNOW that more taxes will be the result,

nor is it pre-established that those taxes will be used at all.

I know this is the gospel you're trying to preach right now, but you'll have to find a way to present it that doesn't beg the question.

Try again.

[GoneOffShore]

91. It's been developed for high end condos

And you think this is a good thing.
As a poster said above, let's actually stop taking things from the middle and working class and giving them to the rich, which is what is happening in this instance.
You've been painted into a corner, bucko and your hive mind is showing.

[GarySeven]

131. Liberalism means helping the INDIVIDUAL

You don't have the slightest idea as to what liberalism is or means. It means empowering the individual so that every person, regardless of class, has access to both political and economic power. The social programs that you worship are a tool to that end, but they DO NOT take the place of the overall goal of supporting individual freedom.

By saying a social program is more important than an individual right, you are turning everything this country is about on its head. The first step to secure equality is to ensure that the majority, i.e. "the greater good", does NOT have the right to tyrannize a minority, even if it is a single property owner.

I am ASTOUNDED that you don't get that, or that there would be even ONE person on this board who thinks as you do.

[cprise]

161. Yeah well liberalism isn't enough.

Liberalism isn't on the lips of activists at the World Social Forum or of the most successful economic reformers in the developing world today. And with good reason.

Social welfare should not be about capriciously-applied aid to small numbers of showcase individuals. THAT is where liberalism becomes little more than a PR campaign for capitalists. An effective movement must live by accurate statistics, and foster an awareness that both individual- AND social-responsibility must be held in balance.

[smartvoter]

15. Is this sarcasm? It must be... nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. let's hope so...

if not, what a cold-hearted...well, you fill in the adjective of your choice...

SubjectProdigal

[blurp]

23. Not sarcasm and not cold-hearted

If anything, it's cold-hearted NOT to support this taking.

There are many people that aren't lucky enough to even have a home. Think about all the homes people could have if that extra tax money collect is used to help them buy homes?

You have to look at this in a balanced way.

Is one family more important than many families?

And we're taking about people with property. They're much better off than all the poor without property. Why all the sympathy?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

29. luck? lucky to own a home?

what about the working class people who busted their ass to buy that home? what about them...yes, you are a cold-hearted individual. My guess is that you own nothing...nor have the threat of having it taken from you.

And to answer your question...when you choose not to support ONE family, in this world you support none. There are no property rights any longer...unless you are a corporation.

SubjectProdigal

[blurp]

45. Yes, lucky. And lucky to own a business, too. Those are taken as well.

Don't forget that business property is taken as well.

Those small businesses are corporations as well.

The fact is big corporations, as terrible as they are, pay more in taxes than Mom and Pop Inc.

We can collect much more tax money by moving out Mom and Pop, Inc. That means more poor are helped.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

48. this will need to be deleted

and if the Mods need to send me a reprimand, please do.

If you really believe that and are not just trying to make me laugh, then you, subject, are a twisted fuck.

SubjectProdigal

OnEdit : Just who do you think those lovely corporations pass those taxes on to??? hmmmm

[blurp]

56. Don't give me the "all taxes are pass on" crud

OnEdit : Just who do you think those lovely corporations pass those taxes on to??? hmmmm

That arguement could be used to oppose all taxes.

That's why it's a silly arguement.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

yeah...corporations just absorb that

that's silly and delusional...

SubjectProdigal

[Lexingtonian]

52. well, no

The distinction being made here is between property rights and emotional attachment to a particular piece of property.

There is a point where a particular piece of land or a house becomes a fetish, an idolatry, an attachment to a mere material thing that doesn't amount to worthy, that is a diminishment of the dignity of the people who must obey its demands.

The truth of property is stewardship. We don't actually possess the specific material thing, even though we like to imagine that we do. We hold the rights to use the material in specific and limited ways.

Stewardship is negotiated and negotiable. There is a public right that has to be greater than the private right(s). Otherwise I would be able to legally build a nuclear power plant or make a toxic waste dump site on my land, or run a crack house, or lay landmines.

The relatively rich and the relatively poor people accept the stewardship idea. It's people in the middle who assign spiritual significance to the material acquisition/possession involved. Who think that ownership is safety, makes up for the things that are harder to get and less palpable.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

55. a little esoteric for this discussion

these people might love their homes...and whether or not we think it is significant for them to attach such emotion to something is irrelevant. To THEM it is a place that means something. And unless we respect that (and the basic right to ownership that was one of the foundations of this country) then there is no point is arguing such lofty things.

SubjectProdigal

[Lexingtonian]

62. absolutely wrong

We should respect their dignity as human beings and be as charitable about their attachments as possible. For both sides.

But no, the present owner never had the absolute ownership rights that you somehow place beyond question. That is a dogma you and many people cling to, but it is neither true nor is it found in the laws.

[GreenArrow]

74. the king owns his castle, the lord his manor

and the peasants exist outside them at the pleasure of their masters.

This is law created for by and for lords.

[Lexingtonian]

98. hardly

The settler "peasants" of New England harassed the hell out of the friendly Indian tribes and incrementally stole their land by bullying- simply squatting on it, breaking down Indian fences against their cattle, damming streams to dry up swamps, demanding ridiculous compensation for any minor damage, disputing deeds and treaties, intentionally shooting the forests empty of deer, burning Indian corn fields. Ultimately the Indians retroactively signed away land for pennies because the alternative was gunfights and getting nothing for land they had in practice given up.

Common people also inflict their variety of eminent domain laws, or lack thereof. Where I live people used to dump cars and trash and trees from their property onto public land. They still use the public roads and highways as private parking lots whenever they feel like it. There's still poaching going on. State park signs get 'lost' and entrances are disguised. As it is, in a lot of towns and neighborhoods you can't even buy in if you're 'the wrong' kind of person- usually it's made clear enough your kind will only get harassed and vandalized.

[GreenArrow]

123. this law has the potential of creating a whole lot more

"common people" and it'll be interesting to see how and on whom they choose to inflict their own set of emminent domain laws, as you put it.

The rich colonials set poor whites against the Indians and later blacks and other minorities to protect their own interests and lifestyles.

[blurp]

76. That's why it's called real estate

But no, the present owner never had the absolute ownership rights that you somehow place beyond question. That is a dogma you and many people cling to, but it is neither true nor is it found in the laws.

Isn't that why it's called "real estate"?

There might be one exception, though: land patents. They seem to be the only form of real private property.

[converted_democrat]

68. Dude, you have this all wrong........

This is not about one family for the good of many families. This is the good of many families for the good of corporate interest pure and simple.

[blurp]

81. But big corps pay more in taxes. That's a fact.

This is not about one family for the good of many families. This is the good of many families for the good of corporate interest pure and simple.

Big corps pay more in taxes. That's a fact pure and simple.

And considering these are governments representing THE PEOPLE, I don't see how you can defend these individuals.

Democracy isn't about a few individuals standing in the way of the majority.

[converted_democrat]

94. No they don't........

Corporations are given huge tax breaks in order to "spur" economic growth. They don't pay that much in taxes. Look at Walmart. Look at Exxon. They are given huge tax cuts. Huge.

[smartvoter]

201. No they don't. Not proportionately. This is just silly.

If you really think that letting a business bulldoze homes in an area that has become a hotbed of activity is going to help the poor, your head is on backwards...

[GreenArrow]

53. I'm thinking it must be

Mark Twain wouldn't support such rubbish.

[noiretextatique]

58. unfortunately not

the person has an unnatural faith in the largesse of multi-national corporations.

[blurp]

60. Fact is big corps make lots of money, therefore can pay more in taxes

the person has an unnatural faith in the largesse of multi-national corporations.

Are you seriously saying that big corporations DON'T make a lot of money?

I think they do. And that means they can pay much more in taxes than Mom and Pop Inc.

[converted_democrat]

85. they make lots of money, but they pay little in taxes.........

Corporations are given huge tax breaks to move into a community. Huge tax breaks.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

110. Agreed

Anecdotal evidence here: about 12 years ago a warehouse that existed in the town I lived in wanted to expand: essentially they would be doubling the land they occupied. They, of course, petitioned the City Council for a waiver for the property taxes for 20 years becuase "they would bring in over 450 new jobs to the city".

Well, they got their waiver. The warehouse expanded. And they hired less than 200 people.

A year later, the same company transferred 400 jobs from a different part of the company 60 miles down the Highway. Less than six years later they cut their workforce at the warehouse in half.
So what happened here: City gives waiver for property taxes (costing the city over $25 million) on the promise of 450 new jobs. Company only hires 200 people, then moves 400 jobs down the road. Now there's this huge warehouse sitting practically empty that the city had to re-pave roads nearby to handle all the higher traffic, thus increasing property taxes in the area to cover the construction, and the company, which filed for bankruptcy protetion (same kind of protection you and I can't get anymore) is still not paying any kind of property taxes on that warehouse.

You can vote the people out of office all you want, but the fact remains that the city is out $25 million (and suffering greatly) becuase the company strong-armed the waiver through.

I'd bet I'm not the only one who has a story like this. Most companies get huge breaks to fire up businesses, and more than a few of them go under within 10 yeras.

[noiretextatique]

162. enron certainly was a big corporation

it 'made money a lot of money' by what we accountants call lying.
in california, businesses do pay taxes on personal property, and fees for business licenses. some larger cities also access taxes on a % of gross receipts or payroll. if enron had any facilities in california, it would have been liable for these taxes.
as the other responder mentioned, sometimes providing tax breaks to companies is not in a city's long-term best interest, because the city actually loses money on the deal, $25 million per the poster's example. that is the concern about this new law.
there are advantages to Mom and Pop businesses...they tend not to require tax breaks to start a business in a city.

[salin]

32. except of course... that often such projects get huge tax breaks

as an incentive to locate their businesses. Some studies, I believe, demonstrate while such tax cuts/breaks/incentives are given the economic boost is often minimal - and in some cases each job costs tens of thousands of dollars due to the tax breaks/incentives.

I would contend that often these types of projects in the end do not generate a surplus in the tax column. Meanwhile folks are robbed of their property.

[wuushew]

46. You are absolutely correct that incentives are expensive

My local town built a large business park several years ago and despite being located on a major intersection of state highways and and an interstate the several acres of lots sits abandoned save one business. It is an excellent site but when every surrounding community does the same damn thing no one can argue that average tax payer is winning. Those sewer, road and utility hookups cost mucho mucho dollars.

[GreenArrow]

39. no it's how fascism works

they aren't taking the properties for the common good, they will take them to enrich individuals and corporations, and you can bet those gouging fuckers know every tax loophole there is. Democracy has nothing to do with it; MONEY love has everything to do with it.

This ruling has one effect, and probably, one intent: to weigh down and tighten the yoke already worn by the middle class.

[blurp]

51. They take the property to get more in tax money

they aren't taking the properties for the common good, they will take them to enrich individuals and corporations,

It's very simple:

These corporations can provide much more tax money than Mom and Pop Inc.

Think about all the social programs that need more money.

And this is about democracy. The people want more tax money for public services. Merchants and property owners stand in the way and are a minority.

Why should this small minority have so much power?

[converted_democrat]

87. Corporations are given huge tax breaks to move into a community.

Huge.

[GreenArrow]

97. any extra tax money isn't going to social programs

forget it. This has nothing to do with democracy. It's plutocracy.

[dean_dem]

This had nothing to do with social programs

Did you bother reading the original case or are you just making this stuff up?

The New London officials wanted to raize a working-class neighborhood with residents who had been there for decades in order to build a waterfront resort and golf course. This was a case of the rich and powerful using the local government to get what they want. And this time the SC set a dangerous precedent by saying that it was okay for the government to take property away from those poor people you seem oh-so-concerned about and redistribute it to the wealthy and better connected.

Frankly I could give a shit if liberals supported it or even if Mother Theresa said it was a good ruling. I don't care who it is, they made a mistake with this ruling.

[Indy Lurker]

191. I agree completely

So Bob loses his 75k a year gig as mayor of New London, and becomes a 6 figure a year property manager or "consultant" for "Resorts and Golf courses-R-US".

Oh, look democracy has worked, Bob was voted out of office, and will never be Mayor of New London again.

[dean_dem]

141. delete: my send button's a little trigger-happy

[davepc]

101. Karl? That you? I've got Engels on the phone. Lenin says hi!

[pgh_dem]

175. You're talking to the wrong Karl, if you read closely.

Wonder if Blurp is the sound one of those microwaved pizzas make when they hit the floor.

This argument is totally disingenuous, and is crafted specifically to ridicule the idea of the legality of taxation in any sense.

[blurp]

195. I suppose you're calling me a freeper then

Whatever.

The fact is ALL the liberal judges on the court agree with this decision.

The fact that you seem to agree with the conservatives should be a red flag.

I just don't understand all the posters here that think this ruling was a bad one.

[Bake]

197. Jesus Christ, you are sooooo naive!

You've already told us that you are oppoed to private property in principle.

Next, you told us that you grew up extremely poor, and that anyone (in your view) who owns a home is wealthy.

You CONCLUDE that the greater tax revenues will benefit the poor, ergo, this is a good thing. In a PERFECT world, that might be so. But this is far from a perfect world. And by the time your "democracy" votes out the City Council that took the family home and gave it to a strip mall developer, the damage is already done.

You are so naive it is unbelievable. History shows us that the poor will NOT benefit; the developers, the corporations WILL benefit, OBSCENELY! By the way, history also showed decisively that Marxism, which is what you advocate, failed on a catastrophic scale. The reasons why it failed would fill volumes.

Bake

[salin]

27. but it also cleaves a wedge among republicans

corporatists and financiers.... vs... libertarians on this issue in particular...

and... corporatists and financiers (wanting judges like this) ... vs... religious right (nuclear threats on nominations) - who support nominees likely to vote against the corporatists and financiers on such issues.

There are real tensions between these factions within the party already. This could be a bit of an accelerant on their side, as well.

[ComerPerro]

11. That's why I just can't understand why the supposed "liberal" judges

voted that way.

I am thinking there is something about the case I am missing that would case them to vote how they did.

Otherwise, why would they do something that will be such an obvious setup for dismantling the court system entirely.

[blurp]

14. More public services provided with more tax money

I am thinking there is something about the case I am missing that would case them to vote how they did.

More tax money can be collected from Walmart than from Mom and Pop Inc.

Society can be helped more with more tax money.

[wuushew]

22. The trend in business taxation has been a downward race to the bottom

why do think property taxes are so high for home owners? Also Wal-mart has been known to wrangle sweet concessions out of local governments. I can honestly see this being a lose-lose situation for everybody but the business owner.

[blurp]

28. More business mean more tax money to collect

why do think property taxes are so high for home owners? Also Wal-mart has been known to wrangle sweet concessions out of local governments.

Local governments do this because they can collect more money from a running business than from an empty building.

These concessions come because these particular towns have no other choice. No concession means no business at all.

[ComerPerro]

35. Yeah, I suppose that would be one rationale. But good luck collecting

from Wal-Mart

[4_Legs_Good]

38. I think they were being strict constitutionalists and defining the term

"public interest". Is increasing tax revenue in the public interest? I believe they were saying it is, and thus the state has the constitutional right to do it. Whether they have the ethical right or not is another question.

I think it's an unfortunate ruling, but not necessarily incorrect. I always applaud the justices for not acting based on politics, but it always sucks when their actions have negative political ramifications for us.

This may be a situation where a constitutional amendment is in order: to narrow the scope of what it means to be "in the public interest". Define it as necessarily for the improvement of public infrastructure, acquisition of land vital to the national park system, acquisition of land vital to the survival of endangered species, acquisition of land vital to the well being of the community infrastructure.

But exclude "to enhance tax revenues".

Anyway, it may be that it's the constitution that is flawed here, not the ruling by the court.

david

[ComerPerro]

41. Thanks for an actual answer and not just hot rhetoric

[Lexingtonian]

57. I agree halfway

I think the liberal justices ruled correctly that New London had made the case for public interest exceeding private interests by a sufficient degree.

But I don't believe that any abstract, one time for all time, determination can be made of what the public interest is (or ought to be) or when it exceeds private ones. That is always a matter of situation, not amenable to a priori categorizations and abstractions.

The flaw is in cultural views in the American West, where private developers have always wanted to take federal and state and Indian lands for ranching, housing, and mining/drilling. Every strengthening of public interest laws involving land runs against their interests and covetousness/greed and ideological view that medieval European conceptions of land (as a material, individual, possession) needs to wipe out the aboriginal conception of land (as a spiritual and collectively owned resource).

[davepc]

115. Because "liberal" judges advocate an open interpretation of the Constituti

to support the needs of the government. Thats how we got things like the New Deal, War on Poverty, War on Drugs, Social Security, desegregation, and a whole host of other things.

They're keeping in line with precedent.

Dosen't make it right in *THIS* case.

[sui generis]

4. it's feeble minded - proof that there needs to be judicial term limits

Replacing a home that's often

1. Paid off
2. Of a certain size / accessibility / tax distinction / etc.
3. Within a certain driving distance / commute

with "market value" for the actual property in question is absurd.

Scenario - regressive taxation:

A city decides your neighborhood will provide a great commercial tax base. They pay you your land + improvement value. You have to move, acquire new debt, pay higher property taxes, and higher transportation costs to live in a house of equal dimension in a "new" neighborhood elsewhere. You end up paying a "tax" in new and higher living costs to support the city that other people don't have to pay.

Scenario two - we don't want your kind living here:

You buy a nice house in a bedroom community. You piss off the mayor. He forms a corporate interest to speculate in seven elevens, rezones your neighborhood, seizes your house and kicks you out of town.

Nothing in the law says he actually has to build anything after he seizes it, just that he can.

[woo me with science]

6. spot on post. thank you. nt

[SeekerofTruth]

7. I feel sick, i agreed with Scalia.

Does this mean we have to work with the Repukes to make a new law or ammendment?

[Mitt Chovick]

19. I have agreed with Thomas twice this month!

Between this and the med marijuana case.

Without our property rights, we have no rights. We are merely all slaves to the state.

[redqueen]

20. So there are only four conservative justices on the SC?

Let's stay within reality. There aren't ANY liberal justices on the SC. There are some that are to the left of the most conservative members, but NONE are liberal.

[Eastside Blue]

24. I'm not sure which is worse ...

The content of this ruling, which set of judges voted for it or just the timing of this ruling. You know the way it will be spun in the media (and it won't need to be spun very much) will be the reason why * has to appoint a right-wing judge to the SCOTUS. And, as a bonus, this combined with Rove's remarks pretty much slides any conversations about the DSM off the radar.

[fujiyama]

26. It's strange

but this is the second ruling by which the majority was written by the "liberal" justices I have completely disagreed with. The other was the medical marijuana case.

It feels strange to be on the same side as Clarence Thomas.

[bunkerbuster1]

130. Exact same reaction when I read the story this morning

My god, I'm with Scaly and Clarence!

It's gonna happen sometimes I guess.

[Hugin]

142. You may be with them... But, for entirely different reasons.

That does happen.

[tandem5]

65. maybe they draw straws on who will be liberal and who will be...

conservative for each case.

[earth mom]

71. Only RETHUGS would support this ruling!

I CAN NOT believe some of the replies on this thread! Has DU been invaded?! :banghead:

[davepc]

106. Only corporatist support it

rank and file Republicans get fucked for the greater good of the municipality just as much as rank and file Democrats.

The 62,040,606 that voted for Bush are all multimillionaires?

[TexasUnderground]

117. Correctomundo

Say goodbye to the Republic, say hello to the bureaucratic corporatist entity we've become with judges that rubber stamp any decision that greedy corporations and in-cahoots governments decide to make.

[cprise]

145. No, this mad grab for tax base is a result of G.O.P. tax policies

State and local governments have to make up the difference with the reduced Federal tax revenues.

[blurp]

192. States are free to increase their own income taxes

State and local governments have to make up the difference with the reduced Federal tax revenues.

And the federal taxes come from the states.

There is very little difference between the states sending the money to the federal government which gives it back to them, and the states simply collecting and spending the money themselves.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hugin]

118. There is no representation of middle America anywhere in our Government.

I've said this for some time.

[tandem5]

154. The issue of property rights is only one dimension.

This is a ruling in favor of...

1. State and local government having more discretion than the federal jurisdiction.

2. Eminent domain now extends beyond public infrastructure and allows the the seizing of property for private development.

3. And, ironically, as O'Connor points out, "the beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

I've consulted my political spectrum map and these points clearly fall outside of democratic goals and ideals.

[Sushi-Lover]

158. Simple .. a proper liberal

distrusts the motivations of those in government and wants the possibility of abuse of power to be curtailed. A modern day liberal (sorry to speak for others), for the most part, believes in a balance of individual liberty and the needs of the community as a whole. That does not mean government can justify trampling the rights of individuals by claiming its actions are for the common good. Liberals want government to do things that are in the best interests of as many people as possible, but they don't believe that government always does this or that it should be done at any cost (especially the cost of civil liberties).

[FizzFuzz]

121. :( this is scarily fascistic.

I was just talking yesterday to a young woman whose family's farm is being taken from them by the local (Republican) group of politicos and their developer buddies. they've fought and fought but not a damn thing they can do.

I nearly barfed when I heard it on the news this morning. Especially hearing from her how the whole thing is a greed and in-group power play; has absolutely nothing to do with the good of the community. Their farm was historic and about the last in the area.

:(

:cry:

[LawDem]

143. The point is holding the line on so-called property rights

With respect, I think a lot of people are missing the point here. When the Supreme Court makes a decision what happens to the particular litigants before the court is almost beside the point: The real issue is what law is being made.

Whatever you may think of cities taking private land for private economic development (and I for one think it’s a much abused process), there are bigger issues at play here. The far right is actively pushing an extreme “property rights” position, which, if adopted, would wipe away many environmental protections, zoning provisions, noise abatement ordinances and much more.

People need to realize that we are only the drop of a feather away from the day when the federal courts will construe the constitution in such a way as to prevent, or at least severely impede, almost all governmental action designed to promote the public good (as opposed to the corporate good). Whatever one thinks of the merits of this particular issue, every bump in the road of the growing “property rights” movement is a good thing.

[cprise]

152. TOTALLY Agree. SCOTUS made a hard but correct decision.

However, voters in New London should make their officials pay for their pro-corporate inclinations.

[GarySeven]

156. What you say is absolutely true, BUT

this is political brinksmanship for selfish and short-term interests. This ruling may indeed, as you say, thwart the conservative agenda on property rights but the proper and most effective means of thwarting that agenda is NOT through the courts, but through effective voter action.

This ruling, for whatever strategic constitutional aim it may have had, has the immediate effect of eroding the rights and political power of low and middle class property owners. The justices have indeed asserted their power over the conservative hegemony, but they have acted in the worse tradition of judicial activism. These justices have stepped in, in effect saying only they can save democracy; but in doing so they have shortcircuited the political process in almost exactly the way the conservatives would have wished.

The majority justices have upheld their own power, but in such a way that they have muted the far more powerful force of individual property owners.

[davepc]

159. There can be a fair balance between private property and societal good

and this ruling does nothing to help strike that balance.

Instead it pushes the pendulum in the direction of socialistic ideas of property and ownership.

That is not a 'bump in the road' for the property rights movement, but a call to arms.

[eridani]

205. Socialism, my ass!

It's fascism, which Mussolini defined as the merger of corporations with government. This decision makes it OK for governments to take land to enrich private parties. Eminent domain, until today, used to be socialist, that is, taking property (with compensation) for PUBLIC uses like roads, airports, schools, or parks.

Granted, the conservatives on the court don't like taking land for public use either, but what they were ruling on was taking land for PRIVATE use.

[Pithlet]

165. I'm a homeowner, and I agree

While initially shocked and outraged at this decision, I've thought about this some more. I still have big concerns that major corporations will use and abuse this as a way grab revenue for themselves, and that corrupt elected officials will not consider the needs of the greater good. Certainly, this ruling will mean that such abuses will happen. But, the property rights crowd scare the hell out of me. I think many of their goals would be far worse for society. I've always supported eminent domain for things like schools, hospitals, parks, etc. If a community decides for itself that they need a property to make life better for all, then they should be able to decide that for themselves. And we, as members of those communities, have to make damn sure they're acting in our interests, and not those of the corporations. I think that a ruling that flat out forbids this would have been the wrong one.

And I realize this will probably be one of the most unpopular opinions I've ever posted here. :hide:

[davepc]

170. Nobody wants to abolish eliminate domain

at least nobody I've seen here, and I doubt even most Republicans.

The issue is where you draw the line as to when, where, and why eliminate domain can be justified and used.

We're not talking about building roads or a courthouse. We're talking about building shopping malls on lands siezed from legitimate property owners.

[Sushi-Lover]

173. Actually, I don't want to scare anyone,

but I'm not a big fan of eminent domain. I understand the why of it, but I think it should be very very very difficult to do and rarely used. I can't get around the wrong of kicking someone out of their home. There are a lot of reasons why I think it is wrong, but the main one for me is that people, especially old people, have sentimental attachment to their homes. Something that no amount of monetary compensation can make up for.

[Pithlet]

185. It's definitely not something that should be done on a whim

I love my house. I would hate to be forced to sell it and move from it. I certainly would't want that to happen if it did nothing but pad the pockets of the rich. It's why it's important to be politically active and hold our elected officials accountable. I'd rather that then be rid of ED completely at the expense of communities who would benefit. I just don't believe that property ownership should be at the expense of everyone else. What good is owning property if the community you live in tanks?

[Pithlet]

174. I understand that

I do think that lines should be drawn. There should be limits, absolutely. But, I don't think that those limits can be concrete for all communities. I think that line is better left decided by those communities, and not a blanket judgment by the federal government that gives property owners absolute rights. It is something that should be decided on a case by case basis. And, while I'm certainly not corporatist, I also don't think that corporations can NEVER be a solution to improving the greater community good. Believe me, growing up in Flint in the 80's I'm well aware of corporate abuses, and what they can do to a community. I certainly don't support an unfettered land grab by greedy corporations. We have to hold our elected officials accountable. I do think the SCOTUS was correct in leaving that to us. Otherwise, communities *could* suffer when an opportunity to improve the community arises, and it is automatically barred because a corporation was the solution.

[AX10]

187. In this case, Pfizer wants to built a new corporate complex...

and condos for their executives. The USSC said that corporations are free to abuse their power to steal our land and homes.

[Pithlet]

199. That is wrong

Absolutely wrong. Obviously an abuse of power. I'm just not sure if we should restrict ED to the point where we risk losing it all together or making it so weak to prevent that kind of abuse. I think the answer is to make those local officials answer to their actions. I have a problem with entrenching property rights at the expense of everyone else. That is the angle I'm coming from. I just recently changed my mind on this issue, so my mind is still very much open, which is why I'm keen on engaging in this discussion.

[TexasUnderground]

168. with respect

"People need to realize that we are only the drop of a feather away from the day when the federal courts will construe the constitution in such a way as to prevent, or at least severely impede, almost all governmental action designed to promote the public good (as opposed to the corporate good). Whatever one thinks of the merits of this particular issue, every bump in the road of the growing “property rights” movement is a good thing."

This decision doesn't do much to help the public good, but I guarantee you it will be exploited to support the corporate good. The small property owner isn't who stands to benefit from this. When they decide to seize land and raze a poor neighborhood, it's going to be the poor home owners and the renters that suffer, not the corporation that builds the shiny new tax-subsidized sports stadium.

[NorthernSpy]

178. that "bump in the road" to property rights...

... is us, if we miss the boat on this. If we can't get over our naivete about the sacred "public sector" long enough to defend some working class people from getting royally screwed over for some bigshot's idea of progress, then we will be toast -- and deservedly so.

The city of New London is taking working class people's homes in order to better suck up to Pfizer, the biggest goddamn drug company in the world. I know whose side I'm on, and I don't much care whether a bunch of property rights fanatics are there with me. Any port in a storm, when home is at stake.

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sushi-Lover]

169. This part of what you said is BS

"It depends on what you consider to be Democratic ideals and goals. Frankly, I think many Democrats are confused because their politics are primarily focused on who they intensely dislike, less on who they support, and little of what ideals they may or may not hold."

You are plain wrong and this impression is a product of not having in depth conversations with Democrats. Why would anyone intensely dislike a politician without a cause based on issues and ideals?

In relation to the common good and civil liberties, this is the response I expect from a libertarian (your view is to always side with the individual, I assume). However, its certainly not a false choice to the person who's house is being taken to build a new highway or conversely to a community with a porno shop right next to the local elementary school.

[Cell Whitman]

190. How's this tied to the "takings clause" debate in general?

Is this part of the "takings clause" debate?

Is it tied to it in anyway?

Takings clause example: Some want to say that if a city has an environmental law stating that all property next to the towns water supply cannot be strip mined...the repugs wanna say that the city has "taken" your land and therefore the city must pay you for it. You could still use the property for a hotel or whatever just not strip mining in this example. This would end environmental law. Cities could not afford this.

Please check out this article which will explain my concern though I haven't read much about this case yet. I wonder if this is the real thing the majority on the court were seeing in the case down the road....

____

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gelpi/papers/ptreanr.htm

The champions of the property rights movement claim that they are fighting to restore the original understanding of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They invoke James Madison and other founding fathers as support for proposed statutes that require the federal government to pay property owners when it prevents them from harming the environment or jeopardizing the survival of endangered species. Wetlands regulation, it is often said, "takes" property by diminishing its value, and the founders adopted the Takings Clause to ensure that, when government regulations diminished the value of property, the owner would receive compensation. Increasing numbers of lawsuits are being filed on the same theory. Established Supreme Court standards for resolving takings claims, litigants contend, are at odds with the founders' belief that property ownership was a natural right that the government could never limit. These suits urge courts to return to the founders' vision, and claim that, once that vision is revived, the judiciary will routinely invalidate local land use and environmental protection standards.

Widely shared and forcefully repeated, this conception of the original understanding has come to play a central role in the debate about the Takings Clause. But it is demonstrably and dramatically wrong. The original understanding of the Takings Clause was, very simply, that the federal government had to compensate the property owner when it physically took property --such as when it took land to build a fort. The clause did not require compensation for regulations under any circumstances. Property rights advocates ignore the plain language of the clause, the evidence about what the founders and other Americans in the early republic thought the clause actually meant, and the founders' views about property and democratic government. Claiming to rely on history, property rights advocates embrace, instead, a myth.

more.....

[blurp]

196. Easy to see the logic of it

It's very simple really:

Start with property that someone owns completely.

Now begin making a list of what that person cannot do with the property.

How long does the list have to be before the person no longer owns the property? Suppose the government said "it's yours, you just can't do anything with it". Does the person still own it?

Just having a piece of paper telling you you own it is no substitute for deciding what should be done with it. That's the whole idea of property. If you own it you control it. Losing control means losing a bit of ownership.

That said, this case is totally different since the people that get their land taken ARE PAID FOR IT. That's why this was a good decision.

It's also true that a in a city, everyone agrees that a little bit of their property is owned by everyone else. You just don't move to a city and expect to be able to do whatever you want. To some extent all property is COMMONLY OWNED BY THE CITIZENS. They exercise control over their commonly owned property though their elected officials.

So while property rights advocates might have a good arguement in general about takings, it just doesn't apply here.

Besides, even if regulations in effect take property, the only thing the takings clause people could do is ask for compensation. The changes would still be made.

[eridani]

204. There is nothing wrong with eminent domain--

--as long as it is used for PUBLIC purposes like roads, airports and parks, and as long as there is fair compensation. Taking private property to give to some rich asshole to own privately is an abomination!

[Ferretherder]

207. Uh, have NONE of you guys figured out...

...that 'blurp', here, is a plant from 'wherever', sent to see if he can get any DU'ers to trip over his little 'circular logic' rocks that he has so 'wittily' lain in the path of this 'debate'?

Please ignore this idiot.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

209. no doubt...but he is fun n/t

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

210. It's like a time machine back to 8th grade govenrment class

where these types of fatuous, naive and inane discussions go on every day of the week.

[Sushi-Lover]

211. Agreed.

The argument seems to be more 'look whats down at the bottom of the slope I think you are slipping on'. Of course, none of us are actually on that slope so I guess hes out there all by himself.