How about this response to the Supreme's property Decision?

[More Than A Feeling]

Yes, but you can take it from a corporation, too (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by CDR Adama on Jun 23, 2005 -- 09:59:34 PM EST
Every town in America is now one ballot initiative from seizing the local Wal-Mart and turning it into a building for small buinesses, farmer's markets, etc.

From TMP Cafe

Just imagine the possibilities...

(Disclaimer: I completely disagree with the decision. I think it is a license for the highest bidder to start lawfully stealing property from anyone who catches their eye...but still, interesting to consider some unforeseen reversals of the same principle.)

[wtmusic]

1. And which entity makes more money for the city?

That would go...nowhere.

Seizing anything from anyone, without a public benefit, is wrong.

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Hey, public benefit doesn't just mean more tax money

we already know that, based on eminent domain for highways and such. Surely there could be a public benefit to replacing Walmart with something else?

(Again, I hate this decision, and would never support what I am suggesting. I am too afraid of the consequences for the people most likely to be screwed by this decision. I am just playing around with the possibilities)

[wtmusic]

4. I agree

but realistically, monkeys will fly from my butt the day a city tears down a Wal-Mart to build a park.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. First off, I disagree with the desicion..but

it has been shown that box stores drive out the small businesses. Most jobs in the US are produced by small business.
Local business keep their mony in the community instead of sending it back to Corporate headquaters out of state. Many small businesses pay higher wages than do large corporations.

Jobs bring in residents and increase the overall tax base.

Ergo, under the recent decision there is nothing to stop a community from paying fair market value for the land and improvements of a Walmart and selling it to small businesses.

If a few places do this, I'm sure the court might reconsider their decision.

[wtmusic]

5. The revenue that megastores like WalMart generate is enormous

My city of 100,000 (Burbank, CA) once was home to the headquarters of several large corporations (Disney, Lockheed, Warner Bros, NBC).

The largest revenue source for the city? Sales tax from the local Costco.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. Here in Montana we have no sales tax, so that's not an issue.

[DefenseLawyer]

8. The problem of course is that "making money for the city"

is likely in many places to be replaced by "kicking money back to the politicians". The potential for corruption here, when you try to extrapolate a "public benefit" from a private real estate venture seems vast indeed.

[wtmusic]

9. Yep

a very fine line. I don't understand opinions like Stevens' where he says:

"While such an unusual exercise of government power would certainly raise a suspicion that a private purpose was afoot, the hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise."

Confronted as in, homeowners are supposed to go up against a Supreme Court decision?

:wtf:

[Broken_Hero]

6. Its, i have no words...

I have no idea what to think of this crap. I saw this on Nbc Nightly News, and i was damn suprised at this decsision. And then i was even more mindboggled that the rule applies to Economic Growth also, so if your house, is well, your house, and walmart or target or any chain comes in and says "Hey old man Peterson's house isn't worth a damn, lets tear it down and set up shop"....thats how i intrepret this decision, its sick. If they ever come to my house and demand this, they will have to kill me. Really, its no joke, this is my house, my land, if they want it, they will literally have to pull the smoking shotgun, and .41 from my hands, and i think a lot of other people would be the same way.

don't get me wrong, i like diplomacy, but if that fails and they still get my house, by law..in the words of Bon Jovi "I'm going down in a blaze of glory"....later, Old Man Peterson.

[oblivious]

14. You'll be sympathetic to these farmers in China.

Chinese Peasants Attacked in Land Dispute
At Least 6 Die as Armed Thugs Assault Villagers Opposed to Seizure of Property

By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 15, 2005; Page A12

SHENGYOU, China -- Hundreds of men armed with shotguns, clubs and pipes on Saturday attacked a group of farmers who were resisting official demands to surrender land to a state-owned power plant, witnesses said. Six farmers were killed and as many as 100 others were seriously injured in one of China's deadliest incidents of rural unrest in years.

The farmers, who had pitched tents and dug foxholes and trenches on the disputed land to prevent the authorities from seizing it, said they suspected the assailants were hired by corrupt local officials. They said scores of villagers were beaten or stabbed and several were shot in the back while fleeing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401542.html

Just a minor side note: I notice in every other report of this incident around the world, the people attacked were called "farmers" or "villagers". Only the Washington Post chose to call them "peasants" in the headline.

[WatchWhatISay]

10. Where did this come from?

Why havent our media informed us that such a case was coming down the pipes. Seems like everyone is enraged but if this had been a topic of public discourse, instead of Michael Jackson and Terry Schiavo, maybe the Supremes would have had a clue how this would enrage all sides.

[WillowTree]

11. The most bizarre part of this...

....is that all of the more progressive justices voted for this, while Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor, the most conservative justices, all voted against it. What the Sam Hill is THAT all about? It's like living in an alternate universe.

[lvx35]

12. not bizarre at all

Property rights are one of the old right wing concerns, thus they want lower taxes, because the government shouldn't be getting into their property. Contrast this to a far left wing (communist state) where the government can own all property. The concept of welfare for instance, is based on the government taking some property from the rich in the form of taxes and redistributing it to the poor.

What is alarming about this to me from a leftist perspective is that its taking property from people and giving it to CORPORATIONS, other private entities, without even the pretense of redistributing it to the people a communist state would have. What we have here is corporatism, which belongs neither to the left nor right, but can be found as one of the major defining factors of fascism. (scroll down to the definition section to see what I mean.

[WatchWhatISay]

13. Makes you wonder

If, while the left and right battle it out over values, the real power in this country is neither of them. Are the wealthy enjoying watching us go at each other like a bunch of gladiators, while they are happily robbing us blind during the distaction?

[lvx35]

15. good point

one definatly wonders! This is one issue where activists fom both sides are screaming, yet it goes through anyway. I have no idea how any interpretation o the constitution could allow for this.