SCOTUS decision vs. citizens rights

[Horse with no Name]

I don't see this going well at all.
I see it being used to target and immobilize certain groups.
Gay people in your neighborhood?
No problem.
The city annexes their house to make a park.
Black people in your neighborhood?
More of the same.
Democrats in your neighborhood?
We need a new WalMart.

Churches that aren't of their liking (UU) can be razed and fundy wonderland can be built.

I can't justify anyone ever buying another home in this country.
It doesn't make sense when you can spend your entire life working to pay off a home--only to have a speculator kick you out and then you have to start all over.

"Home of the free, land of the brave"....just became Homeless of the owned, land of the corporation".

[Hugin]

Yup... I thought the Bankruptcy Bill was bad.

They just trumped it.

[AX10]

1. This entire USSC is unworthy of the positions they hold.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

2. we need to have the USSC building condemned for the good

of our people. we should raize it and put something of benefit to the people of the US in place. That is where the first application of this hideous ruling should be carried out.

theProdigal

[ewagner]

3. I'm not as upset

about this as most others are. I think there's an underlying assumption in the decision that says that local government CAN do things for the "public good" but local government is STILL DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE TO THE ELECTORATE,who will, (theoretically at least) hold them accountable for their actions.

Further, there is the assumption that the "public good/public purpose" can be argued in court and presumptively overturned or render the action illegal.

Then, of course, there is always the court of public opinion, which, on the local level, is very, very effective.

I don't think the ruling is as bad as it appears to be.

[Igel]

5. I find that the expansion of eminent domain is a sidestep

around a fairly basic safeguard of minority rights.

Eminent domain defined as the taking of property, with compensation, for the common good is fine. The "common good" originally was limited in meaning. Transportation and the like; publicly owned buildings. I'll even go with extending that to public services that otherwise would be impossible, such as electrical lines and gas pipelines.

Removing "urban blight" was originally for the common good, and was much debated in the '70s (I was a teenager, took one look at it, and thought, "Crap ... this is going to go badly.") They should have defined it; but the politics of the day didn't allow it. The common good was usually understood to mean not having white people see blighted ghettoes, and not forcing poor blacks to live in blighted ghettoes, if I may be blunt.

Having "increased tax base" be defined as the common good is a bad slip down the slope.

The majority can quite easily say that they don't like something and support having a law or regulation passed to stop it. That's democracy in its rawest, and most hideous, form: majoritarianism. In fact, the majority can hold those in power accountable for *not* abusing a minority. Consider civil rights in the south, and the shift from dem to repub. SCOTUS, to my thinking, has removed one of the safeguards protecting a minority--those who don't use their property the way the majority wants, even if no laws are broken--from the predations of the majority.

[ewagner]

6. Thanks for the thoughtful reply

I understand your point and, to some extent, I share your concern. However I can't be a hypocrit about this issue because as a former local elected official, I've used eminent domain to "increase the taxbase" , or, more precisely, to protect a number of businesses that employed a significant percentage of our City's population.

Having said that, I must add that every local public official knows that eminent domain is fraught with danger and would rather "french kiss a rattlesnake" than use it. The outcome is usually bad for the local councilmen, Mayor, administrator and planners....

Further, I don't think the ruling said that the "common good" justification couldn't be argued in court. I think it still can be successfully challenged.

[Igel]

9. I'm impressed.

I have a better idea where you'r coming from, and didn't get that from your post. I suspect I'd do the same thing.

I rather hope it turns out bad for the New London city council; I suspect it won't.

Ciao.

[cprise]

4. This is reactionary thinking.

Any Constitutional power can be abused.

But this is a decision that New London is making, not the corporations. They will have to deal with the consequences of abusing their power.

Would you rather have towns build public parking complexes and parks instead, to displace people they don't like?

[AlCzervik]

7. but---this ruling will be used as as case law for the next one

[Jersey Devil]

8. There is absolutely nothing new about this decision

Cities have been doing this for many years under the guise of "urban development", "renewal" or "improvement districts". In nearby Teaneck, for instance, over 20 years ago 100+ homes were seized by the town for "urban renewal" (though Teaneck is a well to do suburb) and the result was a condominium development and a hotel at the junction of Route 95 and Route 80. The "public use"? No one really knows, expect perhaps for the fact that visiting football teams sometimes stay there when they visit Giants Stadium.

World Trade Center - eminent domain

The Ball Park at Arlington - eminent domain

Madison Square Garden - eminent domain.

There are a million of em.