OK what are your thoughts on the "liberal" supreme judges vote on the..

[southernleftylady]

Eminent domain issue?

[MercutioATC]

1. It's not as bad as some sensationalists make it out to be.

All the decision did was give the states the right to decide...it didn't mandate the use of eminent domain.

That said, it's still dangerous as Hell...

[LaurenG]

2. The thing is though states/cities/counties have

always used eminent domain when they wanted someone's land. My husband is a Realtor and he said there are no cases where the homeowner has won that he knows of.

[MercutioATC]

3. I know. Like I said, this SCOTUS decision does suck.

Imagine:

You buy a nice 3-acre wooded lot so you can have privacy...or you have a family farm...or you're in a small house on a small lot which is all you can afford right now.

But it's YOURS.

Wal-Mart/Exxon/Papa John's Pizza wants to build a store in your neighborhood and offers to buy your property. You like your place, so you decline their offer. They run to the city and make the case that they'll be paying more in taxes than you do.

The city seizes your land and gives it away...possibly to a corporation you truly despise (like Wal-Mart). You receive "fair market value" for your property which is determined by THEIR appraiser.


All of this is possible....PROBABLE in some pleces.

However, the SCOTUS decision just removes one more layer of protection - one that didn't really work anyway. It doesn't automatically give states the ability to seize property; it just gives them the right to legislate it.


I still think it's a really bad idea.

[LaurenG]

5. It's a horrible thing to do

Cincinnati just did this to the community of Oakly, it's becoming a fashionable part of town. They homeowner's fought for at least a year but they lost out to a wealthy developer. They just finished razing the properties about 2-3 weeks ago. It's very sad.

[GiovanniC]

6. Worse Yet, From The Case the Court Decided Yesterday

One of the guys in this case... the house was built by his great grandfather. His elderly parents live there. There is a rich history of tradition and heritage in this home. Also on the property is a house that his grandmother gave him and his wife as a wedding gift. He gardens the same soil that his grandmother did.

What is the fair market value of tradition, heritage, sentiment, and history?

[MercutioATC]

7. I have enough of a problem with this when it's for public use.

Seizing private property to turn it over to a private developer????

I agree with you 100%.

[Deb]

4. NY has a "Right to Farm" law

that supposedly protects agricultural district lands from eminent domain.
I expect to see other states pass similar laws and current NY Ag district lands to expand with owners seeking protection.

[trof]

8. I was a "victim" of eminent domain.

It's a long story. A five year battle in New Hampshire.
The five year battle was the pits. Always this dark cloud over my head. Not knowing if I'd lose my home or what we'd do, where we'd go, if that happened.

The outcome was pretty good, though.
I was able to negotiate the price up from their original low-ball to something acceptable. It didn't hurt that I had been a realtor and real estate appraiser for a time. I'd guess that less knowledgeable folks might not have fared as well as I did.

And state law required them to pay my new home search expenses, moving expenses, and closing costs on our new home.

They were a bit surprised to learn that we had decided to move to Alabama, rather than a few blocks or miles away. But hey, a deal's a deal, and the law is the law.

They paid our expenses for two house-hunting trips to coastal Alabama, moving costs, and closing costs.

[Hugin]

13. It's happened to my family twice....

All of the "just payment" people around here don't realize
that eminent domain is a tool used by the unscrupulous to
take land at the lowest price possible.

If they really had to pay what the property is worth. They
couldn't or wouldn't do it.

[trof]

9. Oh, to answer your question: I disagree with ruling.

I think it gives government too wide a latitude to take private property for other than strictly "public" projects.

[GiovanniC]

10. The Government Basically Has The Power To Take Private Property

For any reason. I was listening to a guy on NPR talking about his farm the other day, and how all the people near him had sold out their farms, and developers are constantly knocking on his door trying to get him to sell too. But he said he never, ever would sell to developers. Looks like he doesn't have the final say now. If the government wants to let developers build $1.25 million luxury condominiums on his family farm, they can, and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it. It's bullshit.

[bpilgrim]

11. here is the text of the Decision & Dissent ------------- --------- > LINK

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/000/04-108.html
(thanks to steve2470 for posting)

After reading that i am more comfortable having this authority resting with local authorities rather than federal authorities.

also this case was part of a comprehensive urban renewal project not just a land-grab for a single developer i.e. it originated with the town authorities not a private developer.

read it first before getting sucked into the rw spin.

:hi:

peace

peace

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Yes it was a good decision

First, you must turn a blind eye to the ultimate private profits, because there is also an ultimate public benefit to the development (which is the main reason for eminent domain) and the court concluded that what is in the best of local interests are best decided by local governments- NOT the Feds.
It was a sound decision, and the power of government to enact ED must be preserved.

[MadHound]

16. Sorry, but private profits cannot be ignored,

And the public benefit isn't always what it is cracked up to be.

Let me give you a real life example, coming soon to a town or city near you.

Say on the outskirts of town a WalMart wants to build another big box store. Half of the home owners in the area are willing to sell out, but the other half don't. WalMart goes to the city, and want them to use ED to seize the land, stating that a new Super Center is for the public good, additional tax revenues, bringing in jobs. The city seizes the land, paying "fair market value", which in the vast majority of cases is ten-twenty percent less than the real market value.

Now then, WalMart wants some tax concessions as a price for bringing all of these new jobs to town, a standard WalMart tactic. The city agrees, so thus the "public good" of increased tax revenues is negated before the store even opens. In addition, a new Super Center is going to bring with it immensely increased storm water runoff, thus wiping out the fragile ecosystem of that state park downstream. There are also problems of increased traffic in the locale, forcing the city to put in turn lanes and stoplights. Also, there are costs incurred for upgrading sewer, water, and emergency services to accomodate the new SuperCenter. But hey, that SuperCenter is bringing in new jobs, right, so it is still all for the public good, right?

Wrong, because it has been shown time and again that for every single job WalMart creates in a community, 1.5 jobs are lost elsewhere in the community, and the jobs that are created are lower paid jobs than the employment they are replacing. In fact, WalMart pays its employees such a low wage that these new employees now qualify for Medicaid and food stamps. Thus WalMart isn't just draining away jobs and tax revenue from the city, but also tax monies from the state.

Meanwhile, the Super Center is making obscene profits, which are not recirculated back through the city, like local businesses do, but this cash is shipped directly to Bentonville Arkansas.

And all of this is done in the name of the public good? I don't think so friend, this ruling is just another in a long line of giveaways to corporations. There is no good in this ruling at all.

[Hugin]

17. Dayum straight!

Like all decisions this one was based on "good faith".

But, I've seen a diminishing amount of "good faith" from
any corporate entity of late.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. Exactly right, which is why WalMat would be denied ED

You people act like carte blanche is now given to every Tom Dick and Harry corporation, inlcuding low life scum like WalMart to do what they want. That is simply not the case, and all the evidence you cite as to why WalMart should not be granted ED would be entered into arguements for the homeowners to show that the ultimate public benefit is NOT enough to warrant the siezure of the properties. ED is not so easily enacted and requires that ample public benefit be expected to result. The ruling ensures that local governments remain free to determine and act in what they conclude are in the best and greater public interests, WITH public input.

And I must ask: How often do you, as a liberal, find yourself disagreeing with Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsberg?
They made the right decision. It is the anti-government justices O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Rhenquist who are on the wrong side.

[MadHound]

19. I guess you missed that phrase of mine

"Real life example" This is from my hometown, this has occurred, WalMart has gotten land through ED. Wake up and smell the plutocracy friend.

And you really need to get involved in your local politics to realize that most local politicos are more interested in helping out the Good Ol' Boy network than actually following their constituents wishes. Sorry to burst you bubble, but local governments are just as corrupt and corporate oriented as state and national governments are, especially as the city size gets larger. They don't run on the pristine models of a democratic republic, they run on the principle of "scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours"

And don't get so damn caught up in ideological exercises that you're blind to all else. Liberals are just as fallible as conservatives, and if anything, this ruling just further proves that were truly living under the two party/same corporate master system of government. So I agree with the "conservative" justices, so what? Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in awhile. Right is right, no matter who is writing the opinion.

Sorry friend, but this is a horrible ruling, and the majority of Americans, both liberal and conservative realize this. Now if you wish to continue to defend the indefensible out of some blind ideological loyalty, go for it. But realize that you are in the minority, and that this a morally wrong position. Seizing private property for private profit is NOT the American way.

[Brewman_Jax]

12. They agreed with the 5th Amendment

but I can't agree with using Eminent Domain to seize land for private/corporate interests. Court battles over Eminent Domain for public projects have and still rage. Two examples I know are Boston's Central Artery project and a road expansion here in metro Atlanta.

[pox americana]

15. puzzling.

Wasn't "state's rights" the justification for legalized slavery before the Civil War?

Frankly I just don't get it.

[GreenArrow]

20. private property taken for public use.

Next step:

Public property taken for private use.

Disgusting ruling.