The SC Eminent Domain Case gives the lie to natural property rights

[BurtWorm]

doesn't it? After all, if it's constitutional for the state to swipe your property and give it to someone else, you didn't really have that right, did you?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. They didn't swipe it. They have to pay for it.

JEEEZ..you guys are acting as though the property owners won't be paid for their property..nothing could be farther from the truth!

[atreides1]

2. But

They only get paid fair market value, maybe. Now this isn't a problem when the government is putting in a new road or highway, or even some office building for government workers.

The problem is when they take your house or business and hand it over to a private developer, that's when the property should be appraised at a higher price.

But now it's up to the people of that and other cities to use the political process to remove the lawmamkers that have their hands out.

[Dr.Phool]

3. But the question is.

Will they be paid a fair market value for it, and who determines that.

They just had a case in Lakewood, Ohio, about 3 miles from where I used to live. People have homes. Very nice homes, overlooking the Rocky River Reservation, and Cleveland Metroparks. It's a view to die for. Especially in the fall, when the leaves are turning.

The Mayor of Lakewood decided to condemn all these beautiful homes and raze them for a high-priced condo developement. It would increase the city's tax base. Some of these people had lived there for 50 years, and it was still a spotless, beautiful neighborhood.

Now, who has the rights? The homeowners or the developers?

[Dover]

4. And even for those who might like to sell their properties to a developer

this seems to undermine the owner's ability to hold out for their price. Sounds like the developer can simply claim the property for "public use" and pay only the market value that might be far less than an owner could get in a competitive market.

I just see all these cases being hung up in court. And I can see all the developers lining up their stooges to sit on city and state boards that will make these decisions...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Answer to BOTH posts above

Stevens and the majority reiterated that property cannot be taken SOLELY to enrich private interests so that point is moot

[AllenWhite]

6. SCOTUS Outrage

Perhaps the majority claims that "property cannot be taken SOLELY to enrich private interests" but that's pretty much meaningless. It's always easy to come up with some other excuse, the easiest one being that it will increase tax revenue.

I've seen a lot of awful SC decisions over the years but this one is the worst, today the supremes basically repealed the 5th Amendment, and one of our most basic civil rights.

Al White

[flvegan]

7. Welcome to DU, AllenWhite!

Excellent point.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. That's completely hyperbolic Allen

And the court did not repeal the 5th amendment...the landowners are still entitled to fair compensation for their property

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. Sandra Day O'Connor would not agree that was hyperbolic

In her disagreement she said that the decision "effectively removed" public use as a definition.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. and she is wrong..I didn't agree with her in Bush V Gore and I don't agree

with her now.

[MadHound]

22. I've worked on a lot of local issues concerning ED

And the "fair market value" that a city decides to pay is most often ten to twenty percent lower than what the owner could get on the real market. Sometimes lower.

[newyawker99]

21. Hi Allen White!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Walt Starr]

27. So how does the court test that?

That is the single biggest failure within this bad ruling.

The court has no test to determine if real property is transferred from A to B solely for B's benefit, thus it WILL happen under the cloud of "public good".

What the Supreme Court has decided because of the lack of a test is that the people with the most money have the real property rights.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. The case you are talking about is the famous one on 60 minutes

where the city tried to introduce "blight" as the reason they were condeming the beautiful houses you are talking about. The definition they used for "blight" was that these homes did not have an attached garage or central airconditioning. I remember in the interview with the (then) mayor of Lakewood, that her personal home also fit the definition they had laid out for blight, as would a large percentage of the homes in the city. That was a great moment on 60 minutes.

That woman is now the former mayor of Lakewood as I understand it. But this is a very solid case in point that argues against the almost child-like naivetee of the decision that relys on the sound judgment of the local communities. They often do NOT display sound judgment. Our government at all levels now seems to be in the terminology of Greg Palast "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy".

(Sorry! I was replying to Dr. Phool, post # 3)

[BurtWorm]

12. But will they be able to refuse?

If the state (or city) wants the property, does the owner have a right to refuse to give it up? Isn't the point of this decision that they do not have that choice?

Buy the way, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing that the court revealed the artificiality of property rights with this decision.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. The owner has never had that right

The city has ALWAYS been able to use eminent domain for roads, freeways, civic redevelopment etc.

[BurtWorm]

14. Of course.

The point is, ownership is totally dependent on the legitimacy of property by government. Without government, no property. I don't see how libertarians can get around that. That was the entire point of my original post, and that is the bottom line of a decision like this. The right ought to be far more disturbed by this decision than the left.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. Damn..I was so dizzied by everything else today about this

I missed it :D

[BurtWorm]

17. It was kind of subtle, I'll admit.

;)

[Hugin]

16. If this is such a hot deal for the property owners... Why'd they sue?

There's no way it's an equal cost to buying the property
outright. The corps are getting a *deal* or they wouldn't
fool with it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. They are entitled to just compensation and always have been.

Nowhere does this decision contradict ANY of that:


"Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory."

The ruling's effect in California is likely to be blunted by protective state laws, although attorneys and redevelopment officials disagreed about that Thursday.

Under California law, a redevelopment agency may condemn property only in a "blighted area." At least eight other states -- Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington -- have put similar restrictions on city redevelopment agencies.

The high court noted Thursday that other states could pass similar laws to restrict such seizures.

The Connecticut dispute was a test of government power versus individual rights, pitting a community's hopes for economic rebirth against the rights of an individual -- in this case a nurse named Susette Kelo -- to keep her home.

The case turned on the provision in the Constitution that says the government may take private property "for public use" so long as it pays the owner "just compensation."

Originally, "public use" meant the land was to be used by the public, such as for a road, canal, military base or government building. In the 19th century, railroads were permitted to take private lands because they served the public. Then in the mid-20th century, the court said officials could condemn homes and stores in "blighted" areas as part of a redevelopment plan. That helped spawn an era of "urban renewal" across the nation.

In Thursday's decision, the court went a step further and said the condemned properties need not be blighted. Now, as long as the goal is to create new jobs or raise tax collections, officials can seize the homes or shops of unwilling sellers, the court said.

[Hugin]

20. Not so just compensation....

Due to the fact the property owner is being denied their
right to "develop" their own property in the future.

When the U.S. Military was a large presence in Europe they
were required to compensate the owners of property which was
damaged during maneuvers not only for the object itself. But,
for any future products of that product.

For instance, if a cherry tree were killed they were required
to pay not only for that tree, but, for any trees/cherries which
that tree may have produced in the future. It was a punitive measure
to discourage rampant destruction.

I consider that to be "just compensation". One of these property
owners may have in the future decided to build some condos on
their property. They've now been denied that right and the choice
has been given to another individual.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. Zoning laws probably would have precluded that

after all, why can't I run a discoteque in my quiet little cul de sac?

[Walt Starr]

29. Without a test, this ruling most CERTAINLY contradicts that!

Show me the test to determine if real property is being transferred from A to B solely for the beneift of B.

[Javaman]

24. They only have to be conpensated, not given fair market value...

Big difference.

[Walt Starr]

26. I wouldn't sell my house for TWICE what "fair market value" is

No way.

[Pithlet]

30. Our local news made it sound like

The bulldozers will just suddenly show up out of nowhere without warning and flatten your home. :eyes: It's no wonder people are reacting to this news the way they are.

[DianeG5385]

18. Why do you think they changed certain 'inalienable rights"

in the Constitution ,I can't recall who wrote it, Thomas Paine? Who termed the inalienable rights to be " Life, Liberty and Property" to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? This was deliberate.

[Vladimir]

23. I am quite ambivalent on this issue

on the one hand, I don't much believe in 'property rights', and seizing private land for public use is something I often find laudible. On the other hand, I do not much like the idea of the government forcing a contract between two private parties for a piece of land just because one of these parties will 'pay more taxes' or otherwise 'act in the public good'. Considering the disproportionate amount of influence wielded by corporations in the USA, I am tempted to regard this as another way for big-business to get what it wants. Of course, a government with willpower could also use it in the other direction - I suppose we will have to wait and see.

[H2O Man]

28. It is exactly

what the people who founded this country were fighting against. The implication is that you do not "own" your property, but are a serf renting at the whim of the aristocracy. In the past, there were cases where the government could use "eminent domain" in limited cases where the government had no alternative but to "buy" a person's land. This case, if I understand it correctly, expands that concept, even to the extent that a person's property can be taken for use by a private business interest. This is as clear of a indicator that business is in complete control of government -- including the judicial branch.

I'm outlining an essay on the Anti-Rent War of the mid-1800s. This conflict, which has been erased from our history books, was known as the "Second American Revlutionary War." It pitted the Jeffersonians against the Hamiltonians. It was an effort of the common land-owner against the arisotracy. It fits with this issue.