Hey! A Possible WIN From The Scotus Property Rights Decision

[stopbush]

Here it is: all of the states with beachfront property seize the private homes (think SoCal, the Gulf Coast, FL and NJ) and turn the entire USA coastine into publicly accessible beaches!!

Will we really shed a tear if David Geffen has to move?

[BlueEyedSon]

1. My prediction: no RICH PERSON will ever be affected.

[patcox2]

2. The states have always had the right to do that if they want. Nothing new.

Its called eminent domain.

By the way, nothing in the new case says the government doesn't have to pay the landowner full market value.

Its not a siezure, its a forced sale. There is a difference.

[dodger501]

4. Eminent domain is for 'public use'

Not private development.
I do not understand this at all.
It's all upside down, the left-leaners voting to benefit wealthy developers, the wing-nuts voting for individual property rights.

I am corn-fused!!!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

5. strange...you don't get it in the other thread either

public vs. private...

And if you had ever been forced out of a property by eminent domain, you might have a second thought about your 'full market value' phrase.

theProdigal

[ComerPerro]

6. He's not advocating it. Just saying that nothing really changed

And I agree.

The goverment has had this power before. They have always been able to do it, no matter how corrupt their intentions.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. govt has not endorsed taking private property and giving

it to other private concerns, before...not like this. This will embolden the locals to go nuts...you think school boards were bad...wait til your county commission wants your house for a WalMart.

SubjectProdigal

[patcox2]

10. I so "get it" you have no idea.

the first such case I worked on was in 1989. I worked on a landmark case in my state over whether ED can be used to obtain property for a private developer. As I noted in the other thread where I "didn't get it," in ED cases, the argument is almost always whether the "public good" is sufficient.

For 30 years, the majority of states have had redevelopment statutes that allow local government to ED private property and turn it over to private developers.

Now do you know why this case is different from those cases?

I do. In those cases, the "public good" (notice its not public project, its public benefit, big difference) was considered met because most redevlopment laws apply only to areas declared "blighted."

Thats the only difference. This area had not been declared blighted under a redevelopment statute.

This case will not change any state ED laws. If your state allows ED to be used to obtain land for private development even in the absence of a redevelopment project, it will remain legal. If your state ED law does not permit it, it will remain illegal.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

13. you may get some of it

but you seem to gloss over the most important part...blight. They can now take (without fear of judicial challenge) property in ANY FUCKING condition or under ANY FUCKING use they want if it will provide a larger tax footprint. This has never happened before...and if ED was abused before, just wait til the corps start dumping money on the local city council out of desire for the property on which you reside...

theProdigal

[patcox2]

14. Read the decision, "blight" vs. "distressed," there was an EDP.

Here is the court's synopsis. Note that a redevlopment plan had been adopted, requiring a determination that the area was "distressed." There is even less new about this case than I had thought. Its just a run of the mill redevlopment case.

(a) Though the city could not take petitioners' land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals," ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ... public." Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158-164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power. Berman, 348 U. S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986. Pp. 6-13.

(b) The city's determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the plan's comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court's review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment. P. 13.

(c) Petitioners' proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U. S., at 24. Also rejected is petitioners' argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a "reasonable certainty" that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the Court's precedent. E.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 242. The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case, where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested parties' legal rights to be established before new construction can commence. The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Berman, 348 U. S., at 26. Pp. 13-20.

268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed.

[MadHound]

7. No, it is an entirely new concept friend,

A vast expansion of corporate rights over human rights.

Eminent domain used to be used for expanding highways, or wiping away blighted neighborhoods for low cost housing.

With this interpretation, public good has been defined as paying more in property taxes. Thus, any corporation can now have private property seized under eminent domain turned over to them so that they can set up business, make obscene profits, yet it is all for the public good because they pay more in taxes. It completely strips the ordinary citzen of their property rights, and promotes corporate good over all.

Oh, by th by, the city doesn't pay "full" market value, it pays "fair" market value, which is a term wide open for interpretation, usually at the expense of the property owner.

[patcox2]

8. No, sorry, I know whereof I speak.

You might wish that the SC had abolished the practice, but the practice is of longstanding.

The majority of redevlopment schemes, for which ED has long long been approved, involve private development.

GW used ED to buy the land his stadium was located on.

Again, its a matter of state law. My state's ED law permits ED of property in a redevelopment zone and turning that property over to private developer.

But it does not permit what happened in this case.

I know, because I represented a private developer who tried to use our ED law to force an owner to sell. It was a famous case.

But the outcome in my case was different, because our law was different. Your law may be different too.

Bitch to your legislature if your state allows this.

The sky is not falling.

[MadHound]

12. GW's stadium was termed a public development,

Even though it was done by a private developer.

And yes, I agree, laws are going to vary from state to state on this one, even county to county. But guess what, I'm betting that developer you represented will have a much easier time now. After all, such developments bring in more tax revenue, hence increasing the "public good"

Yes, this is a serious problem right now, and the sky will be falling, as you put it. Hopefully you will wake up before it falls on you.

[GiovanniC]

11. I Know of a Place, a Kidney Dialysis Center

They had just built a new building and moved all their equipment into it. It was quite a nice facility, performing a valuable service.

Less than a year later, the town decided that they needed a parking garage there to give more space to a large energy firm. So they used eminent domain to force the kidney dialysis center to leave. The dialysis center fought but it was no use, and they were forced to sell for what was considered by whoever decides these things (not the dialysis center, though) to be "full market value".

Full market value, incidentally, did not cover the massive expenses associated with the loss of business while the dialysis center moved, the costs for moving all the equipment to a new building, or the horrific amounts of time, money, and convenience lost to the patients of the center.

In all but the most vitally necessary cases, eminent domain should be avoided -- even for public use. And it should never be exercised for private use.

[Another Bill C.]

3. Great idea!

We have lots of valuable lakeshore property here in Minnesota that could be seized and "developed."
We're facing a state shutdown because of budget problems. I think I'll suggest that to our politicians.

[spanone]

15. Geffen deserves the same rights as you and I.

There is no silver lining in this decision.

[stopbush]

16. Yes...and he should have lived up to original terms of

his seaside mansion remodeling deal with Malibu (he agreed in 1983 to build a pathway across his property in exchange for permission to remodel his seafront mansion), something he fought and delayed for 22 YEARS until it finally happened this summer.

He was granted extraordinary rights and failed to meet the part of the agreement that applied to "you and I."