I don't agree with the reaction of some re:SCOTUS ruling on Eminent Domain

[Pithlet]

Reading the responses on DU and elsewhere on the left, I do have to wonder if what precipitated the SCOTUS case on ED had been different. What if it had been a local factory who'd been in the community for many years and had been providing jobs for a good portion of its citizens wanting to expand their factory thus adding even more jobs, but couldn't because of the hold outs of one or two property owners, thus closing up shop and moving to another community that could accommodate them? A significant number of people in that community would lose their jobs, and they WOULDN'T be compensated for that the way the property owners would. Would there be quite the outrage? Everyone opposed to this ruling seems to be using the "greedy developer" rhetoric. But not all corporations are land raping greedy developers. Sometimes they ARE vital to a community, and if they're forced out by a few obstinate property owners, how is that fair to the people who've lost their jobs?

I don't know. I certainly don't want to see people forced to sell their homes to benefit Wal Mart. But a blanket ruling forbiding ED in all cases that aren't for direct public use might not have been the right decision if that had been the ruling My opinion on this matter may be unpopular, but I do think many of the reactions just aren't that well thought out, and they are buying rhetoric on the right and from libertarians. I don't see this as a sell out by the "liberal" judges on the SCOTUS, whether one agrees with the actual decision or not.

[wtmusic]

1. Eh

that scenario sounds pretty far-fetched. Unless it was the last spot of land in town the company could always MOVE, instead of forcing others to do so.

Chambers of Commerce assist with this kind of thing all the time. It's a cost of doing business.

[Pithlet]

4. Is it?

You don't think a scenario like that is possible? Regardless, my scenario really wasn't even the main part of my point. My point is the reaction to some of the opinions expressed in opposition to this ruling. My point is I don't think this was a sell out by liberal judges. I don't think they deserve to have online petitions demanding their resignation, for instance.

[wtmusic]

9. agree

But when I read the opinions themselves, the logic of the majority completely escapes me. O'Connor's dissent is particularly eloquent.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-108

[JackRiddler]

113. gimme a break

The nice, local factory that feeds the people has to go because Joe Sixpack Republican refuses to sell a property?

You got any examples like this one?

You know that what will happen now is that corps will (continue) buy municipality "decisions" to drive small property owners to the favor of corporate developers.

This is a bonanza to the corporations, and for once the conservatives are the ones who have a principle to defend.

[wtmusic]

130. This has never happened in the real world

makes a nice imaginary argument, though

[Vincardog]

2. The way it will work is that people will have to sell their houses

at a price set by the city to benefit WalMart. How much more power do you want to corporations to have? Fascism never stops. In your example a company wanted to expand and was stooped by a few property owners so it closed down. If it was doing well enough to want to expand why is the only other option to close? I am calling BULLSHIT on your argument.

[Pithlet]

6. The only option isn't for them to close

But it is an option they very well may take. Again, I'll say it though. My scenario wasn't the point. My point was the reaction to the ruling by some on the left.

[Vincardog]

28. but couldn't because of the hold outs of one or two property owners, thus

closing up shop and moving to another community that could accommodate them. That was your argument. The issue is Coprporate vs Personel rights. the SC came down on the Corporate side. I do not.
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Pithlet]

40. No

I was using an example as a possible scenario, but it wasn't my argument, which is the overreaction to many of this decision. And the issue isn't as simple as you make it. And, agree with the decision or not, I don't necessarily think the SC came down on the corporate side so much as they came down on the side of the community. ED, in itself, is vital. Property rights groups could easily argue that a community isn't making the decision to acquire property for the school to benefit the community, but to benefit the contractors who are going to build the school. The argument that many are making could be used to demolish (no pun intended) ED altogether. It just isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

And whether or not I change my mind on this issue, I really don't think this decision is going to lead to a huge upswing in the number of homes demolished, nor do I believe that all local governments will just go power mad at the expense of their voting communities. I'd be willing to bet that 99.9% of property owners are in no more danger of being ED'd then they were before.

This ruling was too broad, but I'm not sure I could support a flat out ban on ED only excepting schools and roadways, either.

[Vincardog]

77. How about a ban on ED except for PUBLIC works?

The problem comes when you trample personal rights to support Corporate profits. Why should I sacrifice my house for company x's plan to build a business office? I know the city could get more of a tax base but it would probably forgive the taxes to get the jobs.

[GiovanniC]

3. Let's Talk About the Man

Whose great-grandfather built a house with his own two hands... who received the house as a wedding present from his now-deceased grandmother... who relishes the thought that he is living in a home his great-grandfather built, that he is gardening the same soil that his grandmother gardened in. The man who says that it's just not about the money... the house and the land has too much non-monitary value to him and his family.

Then, let's talk about the developers who want to come in to raze that house in order to build luxury condominiums.

There are ways to revitalize communities without crushing people underfoot.

[Walt Starr]

8. Not to mention the fact that the community has 80 unused acres elsewhere

that could more than accomodate the development, just not as nice a location for aesthetic reasons.

What it is about is a paper entity having more rights than actual human beings.

[Lexingtonian]

14. Maybe this man should become a Christian

or join some other religion that does not fetishize- impute spiritual varieties of meaning to- material things so easily. Maybe he should liberate himself from all his idolatries and ghosts. Maybe he should understand that his ancestors wanted him to live his life in freedom rather than in idolatry of things past. Memory and obligation are important things, but to choose slavery to them is contemptible and certainly not what this fellow's ancestors would want from him- I mean, they left places too and graves of their ancestors behind. To create and live imaginatively is a far higher obligation and the true purpose of memory is to guide away from hollow repetition.

[Walt Starr]

17. All this ruling serves is to fill Pfizers pockets

and the campaign coffers of councilmen. Nothing more.

They had 80 acres elsewhere UNUSED, and still condemned these homes for the good of Pfizer.

[Lexingtonian]

39. easy to claim

but you can't back up the truth of the first statement, or the supposed point of the second.

[Walt Starr]

43. And you cannot prove that there will be any "public good" (as opposed to

Public USE) served by stripping owners of property to hand over to Pfizer, especially since Pfizer did not have to compete in a fair marketplace to set the price for the property.

[Lexingtonian]

48. yes, I can

The City of New London's elected officials and some substantial part of the electorate considers this action to be in their best interests. It's been considered at length, argued in every respect, and taken to the point of litigation.

Sure, public interest is not public good. But acting against the public interest has close to zero chance of amounting to public good, whereas acting in it has substantial likelihood. (Look at this Administration!)

Picking between 0.1% and 50% chances of doing public good, my case is made and yours is untenable.

[GiovanniC]

50. United States Elected Officials and a Substantial Part of the Electorate

thought that going to war in Iraq was in their best interests. They were wrong.

And the Constitution of this country is designed so that the forceful will of the majority does not trample the rights of the minority.

[Lexingtonian]

65. As I recall

the 'best interests' were generally associated with the image of Saddam Hussein and later the picture of his big statue getting ruined.

The Constitution of this country is also designed so that a majority does get its way, even if not to the degree it desires.

The Constitution does not say that the a priori wise thing can, should, or must be done. It is wise in assuming or admitting that stupidity has its place and necessity in the life of the society as a whole.

[GiovanniC]

68. So Are There ANY Rights That You Don't Think The Government Should Be Able

To take away from you?

[Lexingtonian]

81. I like to think that

some amount of due process and vague abidence by the Constitution are still conventional, as the social reality. The minimal rights that make basic physical survival possible aren't really under dispute, and there's no need to waste time on them.

I don't think the Constitution guarantees me any absolute rights. Life- no. (Death penalty and drafting into armed conflicts.) Liberty- no. (Incarceration.) Happiness or Property- clearly not. (Taxation and confiscation.)

Do we have strong conditional rights to these things...in the present, no. You can buy them for yourself from the idiots who run things now, but they are rarely given freely.

I'm a Democrat because I think the truly key, situational and relative and conditional, rights are lacking. We can- and out of necessity must- go an awful lot further in acting in accord with the rights of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment- due process rights, equal protection of the laws guarantees, and full citizenship (aka dignity) conceded to Americans. Republicans would prefer to eradicate the 14th Amendment fully from the Constitution if they could and keep the rest. And they have gotten pretty close. We live by very fragile versions of these rights at the moment. Utterly without them the society cannot work. I'm about as absolutist about these rights as one can get...which is wierdly and astonishingly radical in the present environment.

You and many others think your interests can be defended from the present sociopolitical idiocy by an absolute entitlement to certain objects/activities of selfinterest. (Property, gun ownership, killing in selfdefense, medical benefits to employment, etc.) But it's a logic and transaction of privileges absent a structural base of rights to solidly prop them. One fight with Power about them and they get knocked down.

I see no improvement possible in staying on the defensive and attempting to secure things by making them dogmatic absolutes- ever endangered by inability to restrain power properly. The problem is in institutionalized injustice of process and the time is ripe to (a) reengage there, and (b) go on the offensive.

In that my view of this legal case is the opposite of yours. But mine is the one the liberal justices took and yours the one the conservatives took, for good reason.

[GiovanniC]

87. The Good Reason Is That They are Morons

And have thrown private citizens under the bus in favor of huge corporations.

[Lexingtonian]

corporations

also happen to consist very largely of private citizens.

[GiovanniC]

103. Do You Have a Point?

Are you suggesting that as long as something benefits a corporation, it doesn't matter what happens to private citizens because private citizens work for corporations?

Are you suggesting we sit back and embrace our corporate overlords?

[Lexingtonian]

112. Do the words 'fairness'

or 'balance' play any role in your thinking?

I don't give a crap about the interests of the corporation per se. I am concerned about you not admitting that there are at least two groups of people here with claims worth listening to. Deciding because one has 'corporation' associated with it that it all is a simple Manichaean duality, pure black and white, seems to be blinding you to the fact of there still being real people with honest and sincere interests on the side you don't like. Is the notion that what they want to do could be honorable and might just not be Pure Evil too difficult to accept? If one Nobel Prize winner said he wanted to do cancer research in the new facility, would you deny him this because Pfizer cannot be permitted any victory?

Maybe society is a feudal as you propose where you are. It doesn't feel so where I live, 100 miles from New London. And you really seem to have no respect for the ability of the people of New London to judge whether they'll get into the predicaments you suppose, or how bad such a thing is.

[GiovanniC]

120. If One "Person" Wanted To Take Away Another "Person's" Home

I would disagree with that too.

Now go away.

[Walt Starr]

52. And the takings clause of the fifth amendment specifies...

PUBLIC USE!

Not "public good" or "public interest". The wording is specific and has a specific meaning.

This ruling effectively nullifies the conditions of the takings clause.

[Lexingtonian]

60. oh well

There go the ocean-based national parks and all the closed wilderness areas. And our military bases. And Camp David. And Cheyenne Mountain. And the National Petroleum Reserve. And the National Archives.

You just fucking have to be kidding me.

[GiovanniC]

63. Not a Single Thing You Mentioned Is Not Public Use

They are a far cry from strip malls and condos built by private developers, too.

[Walt Starr]

66. You have got to be kidding ME!

Sorry, you really don't seem to understand when land is under public use as opposed to private use.

:eyes:

[Lexingtonian]

69. do explain to me

the distinction to make between this deal and Los Alamos National Laboratory, which was build on governmentally claimed land and is technically run as a 'private' nonprofit corporation by the University of California system. Is Los Alamos under public use?

[Walt Starr]

72. Oh good Goddess!

Let's see. I'd say developing the nuclear bomb on the land under the direction of the Pentagon during a time when we were engaged in a declared global conflict pretty much demonstrates public use.

:eyes:

A Pfizer research facility and office park is not even close to comparable.

[GiovanniC]

73. I'll Try to Put it in Words I Think You Can Understand

Los Alamos: Government property managed by a federally-funded school as a laboratory for the government Department of Energy for the purpose of energy research and national defense. PUBLIC USE


Pfizer: A huge, rich, multi-national for-profit corporation which demanded the homes of residents be ripped away from them so that it could build a new facility in a pretty place. PRIVATE USE


Is it sinking in yet?

[Lexingtonian]

85. what is Pfizer building there?

I thought it was research facilities, not their marketing or accounting offices.

And wasn't there a War declared on cancer a few years ago? Not that I'm in a hurry to declare pharma companies in any ways altruistic, but doing a share in a national project of (arguably) greater historical importance to the U.S. in world esteem than going to the Moon is not exactly a Bad Thing. Why not let them use their obscene profits for the public good in the U.S. rather than their CEOs investing it in China?

As for Los Alamos...didn't that sort of thing spin off nuclear reactor technology and power generation? Off of which a bunch of private profit was made- in tax breaks, anyway?

And how and why were uranium mines placed in the West, when the U.S. was short on the stuff in the late Forties? Seems like private companies did the mining and I'd suppose that eminent domain and National Necessity played their roles too.

[GiovanniC]

90. Yeah, Pfizer Just Wants to Take People's Homes So They Can Cure Cancer

:eyes:

You've made yourself clear... you think that a large multinational corporation merely COVETING a piece of property is enough reason to wrench it from its owner. Why don't you just come out and say it and own it:

CORPORATIONS > PEOPLE

Pfizer could have built its facility without taking away land and homes from people and still benefited the town of New London.

It's all about GREED and ENVY for government and corporations... but it's the guy whose house gets taken that should discover Christianity. :sarcasm:

[Lexingtonian]

98. I really don't understand how you jump to so many

conclusions. Your materialistic absolutism is truly schizophrenic. By the way, did you know that DU is a corporation?

The City of New London is an adequate forum for the citizens there to reach a decision about who is being covetous and greedy in this situation. Maybe those nice little old ladies hanging onto those shacks, or mansions, are just out to drive up the buyout price.

Not that I assume this to be true, but let that be a possibility you aren't accounting for.

If you ran a corporation that put 1,000 well paying jobs into New London, a dying little city 50 miles from Anywhere That Matters in the region, wouldn't you find a little respect and good behavior and accommodation from the locals reasonable? Essential?

[GiovanniC]

105. If They're So Far in the Middle of Nowhere

Explain to me why Pfizer can only build its facility on the homes of nice little old ladies, to borrow your term. I'll even help you out by answering the question for you -- they want THAT SPOT because THAT SPOT is pretty, and the other place where they could just as easily build their facility without forcing people from their homes ISN'T as pretty.

Of course, in your opinion a corporation should get anything a corporation wants, and to hell with regular people... which is why I'm done arguing with you. Maybe someday, when a corporation is ass-raping YOU, you'll begin to understand. Or maybe not... maybe you'll just accept your ass-raping for "the greater good". Either way, I have no use for you.

[GiovanniC]

21. There Is Something to Be Said For the History and Heritage

That comes from a generational gift like a home your great-grandfather built. Your self-righteous bullshit preaching aside, there is nothing wrong with a man appreciating the connection to his now-deceased grandmother that comes from gardening the same soil she once gardened.

You preach about how un-Christian it is for this guy to cherish his home and his land, yet see no problem with the government stealing it from him so that a developer can build million-dollar condos on top of it.

I'd tell you that maybe it's you who could use a dose of religion, but I don't see that doing much good.

[Cato1]

36. Your negative attitude towards...

...regular little people who appreciate their family history is something which is going to destroy the Democratic party. Democrats shouldn't expect any election victories with your elitist, aloof attitudes.

[Lexingtonian]

44. nice elision and unwarrantable conclusion

I dunno, but I don't think people who unabashedly live in the past or according to selfserving mythologies, and/or according to idolatries and occultisms, vote Democratic at this point.

I didn't know that having integrity and selfhonesty is now "elitist, aloof attitudes". I guess I'm still learning new things every day.

[GiovanniC]

47. Some People Think That the Christianity You Suggested He "Get"

Is a "self-serving mythology", too.

Just make sure you aim away from your glass house when you go around throwing those stones, kay?

[Lexingtonian]

56. I don't know

It's the doctrine of fetishization that concerns me. People can practice it, and they will, and one should be compassionate to the degree possible.

But it's idea that it's defendable on principle, that your particular idolatry can be imposed on and supercede the collective interest, that entails a collision with reality.

Sure, I still have glass windows in my own house. Go ahead, toss away. Just don't try to make the rules such that everyone has to live in a 100% glass dwelling.

[GiovanniC]

64. Your Idea That the Will of the Majority Should Supersede the Rights

of the minority concern me much, much more than "idolatry" of "fetishism" do.

[Lexingtonian]

67. ???

fetish/fetishism: http://www.answers.com/topic/fetish

I don't see where I argued majority will. A majority has rights, too.

I admire your concern and championing of minority rights. You should try being in the majority on something that is morally right sometime, though, and see what you think of an extreme exercise of minority rights in the defense of the morally wrong. Say, the first O.J. Simpson verdict.

[GiovanniC]

71. I Don't Know What Planet You Just Descended From

First of all, I know exactly what fetish/fetishism means. Not sure why you felt it necessary to post the definition. It doesn't concern me much.

You seem to be arguing that if the majority wants your property bad enough, they should be able to take it whether you want to give it up or not. I disagree with that.

I also find your condescending self-righteousness quite distasteful. I hate to break this newsflash to you, Sparky, but you are not the authority on all things "moral". I am much more concerned about the government seizing the property of citizens to enrich large corporations than I am about a 10-year-old celebrity trial verdict. Maybe O.J. Simpson is the most important issue that we face in whatever universe you crawled out of, but here there are a few more pressing matters to attend to.

[Lexingtonian]

93. thanks for the smarm

but it doesn't help your case.

You seem to be arguing that if the majority wants your property bad enough, they should be able to take it whether you want to give it up or not. I disagree with that.

1. They do need to compensate you for it fairly.
2. It's hard to live in a community where people around you believe your choice to fight an eminent domain issue failed on the merits.

I don't know where you make up this stuff about "to enrich large corporations". You don't consider it possible that the city officials of New London could be acting in the interests of the citizens of New London at large, whatever the corporate profit status of Pfizer. Where I am, in small city New England, the assumption of public officials being corrupt is not novel. It just is bourn out too rarely for people to consider it respectable, and if it is the case we have contempt for the citizens who tolerate it reaching proportions where it affects the quality of their life. We're not New Jersey.

[GiovanniC]

102. You're Welcome for the Smarm -- You Earned It

You're talking about taking away people's HOMES in order to give them to companies. Don't give me any shit about people being compensated fairly, because frankly "fair" is in the eye of the person being forced to sell his property and if a price is fair to that person then we wouldn't even be talking about this right now.

If a person decides that their property is worth more to them than all the money in the world, for whatever reason, that is THEIR FUCKING PEROGATIVE. If an owner doesn't want to sell their property for the price offered, TOUGH FUCKING SHIT. Offer them more or go fuck yourself.

If you want something that someone else owns, you offer them an amount that THEY deem reasonable, not an amount that YOU deem reasonable.

[Lexingtonian]

126. So

How about returning your property to the Indian tribe it was taken from? They certainly didn't get what they consider reasonable value, so you should probably go and rectify that injustice. After all these were their HOMES, not to mention hunting grounds, and all kinds of other intangibles. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrit, would you? I mean, the government got the land for pretty close to free and that violates your rules, and you wouldn't want to profit off violating your own rule.

The Indians love property absolutists like you. And no, they don't believe in wierd abstractions like 'fair market value' either. Oh, for some reason they lease rather than sell. Don't get too attached!

[noiretextatique]

100. the OJ verdict had little to do with morality

and everything to do with white americans feeling cheated by the justice system, a system that by and large, many white americans see as "theirs," as in, whomever they feel should be found guilty should be found guilty. many people are so convinced that OJ was guilty that the verdict is seen not only as a travesty, but also as payback...but a more rational interpretation is the simpliest and most logical one: reasonable doubt. and, i might add, a fairly pathetic effort by the prosecution. what does "minority rights" have to to with OJ? especially since OJ had pretty much declared himself unblack. i have no doubts some people might have been manipulated by the race card...it works both ways too, given the reaction to that verdict and continued bitterness about it. you would hardly believe that this is the same country where guilty verdicts against the birmingham bombers and medgar evers killers took some 40 years because of the tradition of jury nullification for white defendants.
the OJ verdict was just the workings of a system that is notoriously generous to those with power and money. and it's still the poor and people of color who most often get screwed by that system.

[Lexingtonian]

109. I wrote that hoping it wouldn't get people

to actually arguing the verdict. I meant just to say that the jury ruled in a way that to them seemed moral and about the LAPD, but to others (whites, if you will), who constituted a much larger number than the other side, it seemed to be about OJ and incompatible with the evidence if not morality.

I lived in California at the time and even saw Lance Ito shopping at the supermarket I usually went to a couple of times during the runup to the first trial. I left LA about two months before that verdict. LA was still dealing with the aftermath of Rodney King, the riots and burnings, and the dying of good blue collar conservative white mens' jobs in the aerospace contraction. Elderly white people were just horrifying about it all.

Everything was wrong about the whole Simpson thing throughout. I look back at it now and it really was a public rehashing of everything people hated, rightly or wrongly, about American society of the late Seventies and early Eighties. Everybody involved brought too much baggage to the thing and dumped it out onto the story somewhere along the line.

[noiretextatique]

117. it was a nightmare, that's for sure

and there was way too much baggage associated with the trial and the verdict. i tried to ignore the entire story as much as possible, but unfortunately, when the verdict was announced, i was working at a junior college in oakland. most of the students were black and they cheered the verdict. most of the teachers/administrators in my department were white, and they were morose. i couldn't understand THE DEPTH of either reaction, to be honest, but i was appalled by the cheering. so i asked a few students why they were cheering, and they said it was a victory for a black man. so i asked them: how does that 'victory' affect you? do you think you are more or less likely to be stopped, arrested and convicted of some crime because of this verdict? do you really think OJ would give a damn about you, if you were on trial for murder?
a kind of groupthink took hold, i think. what it taught me: a lot of resentment and anger and bitterness is still simmering, just below the surface.

[Lexingtonian]

122. very true

Everybody made the trial about themselves. The three people it was supposedly about no longer actually exist as human beings. They're now mere Celebrities, shells into which we put part of ourselves.

That resentment and anger and bitterness is the reality that remains. It's where the story began and what it turned on and where it ended, as I see it. Generations have to pass before it vanishes.

I think it's a little like the Philadelphia, Mississippi, murders. It'll seem to have a resolution of sorts, yet fester on for a long time, and then finally someone will talk on the record and give us certainty about how it really was.

[Redstone]

80. That may be the wierdest opinion I've ever seen on DU.

How the hell do you equate wanting to keep your house with "choosing slavery?"

Owning a house is a fetish? And idolatry?

Ohhhkay, then.

Redstone

[NorthernSpy]

110. sooo... this man's attachment to what he owns is shameful...

... but other people's covetous attachment to what he owns is just ducky, and part of the circle of life, and he should just step back and reliquish what owns to these strangers so that they can own it all instead of him.


Pardon me, but what the hell?

[Coastie for Truth]

15. Subsumed into "Rich Folks' Hiways Thru Poor Folks' Bedrooms" in Pennsylvan

See my append "The issue is "Fair Market Value" - below

[Patiod]

5. We're dealing with it in my area

A local town on Philadelphia's Main Line wants to "smarten up" it's already-viable "downtown". They are forcing out long-term existing businesses to make it attractive to a developer to come in and make the area around the train station spiffier.

http://emdo.blogspot.com/2005/04/businesses-and-residents-have-been-met.html

http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=22638&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

[Pithlet]

7. I'm not arguing

That businesses and governments should do whatever the hell they want, nor am I arguing that I believe corporations should have more power. I just want to clarify that, because it seems that is how I'm being read.

[Coastie for Truth]

34. My wife's family grew up in Ardmore -

her sister manages a business there. Sis's attitude "If they give me enough money - and all the bells and whistles - I'll move."

[Coastie for Truth]

10. The issue is "Fair Market Value"

As Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices Musmanno and Papadakis always said -- THE REAL ISSUE IS THE DETERMINATION OF "FAIR MARKET VALUE"

Yesterday's Supreme Court is not the end of the world for home owners and small businesses. In fact, the very home owners and small business owners can use it as a sword.

This was the case when Pennsylvania changed its Eminent Domain Code in response to overwhelming grass roots political pressure.

The CHANGE CAME in THE "hey day" of Grass Roots politics - the late 1960's and the early 1970's. (Remember the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam war?) This was also a localized (in time) period of urban expressway construction.

The political slogan to effect change was "No More Rich Folks' Highways Through Poor Folks' Bedrooms." The Governor was a hard line lunch bucket liberal, Milt Shapp, and the issue was I-95 through Philadelphia and I-279 ("East Street Expressway") through Pittsburgh.

The political organization in Pittsburgh was masterful - an African American community activist (Frankie Mae Jetter) and an optometrist (Martie Krause) who was a perennial City Council candidate.

The result - a new Eminent Domain Code with a new definition of "Fair Market Value".

Under the new definition, "Fair Market Value" was defined as the greater of:

1) The Value of the property if put to the contemplated land use after the taking.


--This means that farm land condemned for an Interstate Highway Interchange is value - NOT as farmland -- but as the land for a hotel or hotel-restaurant-gas station complex.

My Dad was the attorney who won that issue for a farmer whose farm land was taken for one of the I-70 interchanges in Fayette County - made the farmer an instant millionaire.


2) A "comparable" home or business in a "comparable" neighborhood.

There is some fancy legislative language, and the original trial court decisions were written by Pittsburgh Trial Court Judge Nick Papadakis, and the subsequent Supreme Court Decisions were written by Judge Papadakis after he was appointed and then elected to the Supreme Court (that was Pennsylvania in the Shapp Days :))

A ""comparable" home in a "comparable" neighborhood" in Pennsylvania does not mean the "fair market value" of that particular house. It means the fair market value of a brand new house, of comparable square footage in the nicer suburb where the homeowner's kids live.

And the eminent domain award includes - by statute - dislocation compensation money, relocation money, and an allowance for "fixing up" (it's called "drapes and rugs and painting money").

There's also a sweetener for sweetener for not appealing the Administrative Law Judge's findings to Commonwealth Court.


Bottom Line
1. Eminent domain for private redevelopment is prohibitively expensive.

2. Private redevelopment for a high end residential facility usually means that existing homeowners get a unit in "fee simple absolute" - no mortgage, an easement "running with the grantee" (i.e., as long as they live there) of no homeowners association assessments -- in the new condo complex.

3. Displaced businesses generally get a new site - again in "fee simple absolute" - no mortgage, fairly close to the old site.

4. The further result is that developers are willing to make their best offer high and early.



Does it work?

Three condos went up in my old neighborhood -- and the displaced homeowners all got free - paid in full, no mortgage, units plus some "walking around money. No eminent domain, no law suits.



See my previous post

[GiovanniC]

25. If Businesses Were Willing To Offer People What Their Homes Were Worth

TO THE OWNERS, the Eminent Domain (particularly for private use) wouldn't be an issue. If someone doesn't want to sell their home for all the gold in the world, they shouldn't be forced to. But in most cases, if you make an offer that's extremely beneficial to the homeowner, they won't refuse.

[Coastie for Truth]

29. The effect in Pennsylvania has been exactly that - big first offers

But in most cases, if you make an offer that's extremely beneficial to the homeowner, they won't refuse.

A tremendous increase in offers that are extremely beneficial to the home oener or small business owner.

[GiovanniC]

32. The Only Caveat I Have

Is that some people have motivations that do not include money. Like a man in a rural part of my state with a nice, sprawling family farm. Most people have sold off their land, parcelled off for lots for new home builds. Some have sold to developers. He has had lots of offers from developers but has said he won't sell for ANY amount of money because of his (his words) "moral obligation" to protect the family farm.

I don't think he should be forced to sell to developers, fair market value or otherwise.

[Coastie for Truth]

35. Read the "Pennsylvania" definition

of "fair market value>"

When it looked like we would get a subway ("SkyBus") on the "Fifth Avenue Line" through Pittsburgh's East End - I would have taken "Fair Market Value" (as defined in Pennsylvania Law) for my house - in a heart beat - and bough a nicer house a few blocks away.

Everybody has a price. You may dream about it - like buying a winning Lotto ticket - but it's there.

[GiovanniC]

38. I Think There Are Some People Who Have Certain Values Money Can't Buy

[Coastie for Truth]

42. I won't argue with you

But Justice Nick Papadakis was a real lunch bucket, FDR, "people's judge" - who was very generous -- and he said "Everybody has a price."

[GiovanniC]

45. The Family Farm Guy... I Really Don't See Him Having a Price

Maybe he does, I don't know. But the farm has been in his family for generations and he deplores the idea of developers buying up farmland to put condos and malls on. Maybe he has a price to sell it to another farmer, but I just can't picture him selling to a developer for any price.

[Coastie for Truth]

51. The other effect of the Pennsylvania Law

His price is so high it destroys the economic viability of the project, and so the project should not have gone forward.

[GiovanniC]

53. And That's Something I Can Live With

That's how capitalism works.

[cynatnite]

11. It opens a door to abuse

From Justice O' Conner:

Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner whowill use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Accordingly I respectfully dissent.

Justice Thomas says:
I cannot agree. If such “economic development” takings are for a “public use,” any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as JUSTICE O’CONNOR powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1–2, 8–13. I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion. Regrettably, however, the Court’s error runs deeper than this. Today’s decision is simply the latest in a string of our cases construing
the Public Use Clause to be a virtual nullity, without the slightest nod to its original meaning. In myview, the Public Use Clause, originally understood, is a meaningful limit on the government’s eminent domain power. Our cases have strayed from the Clause’s original meaning, and I would reconsider them.

[Pithlet]

16. You're right. It is definitely is

I'm not disagreeing there. Thank you for responding in a reasonable manner. I'm afraid I'm going to be flamed as someone who supports wanting to rip Grandpa's hard earned homestead away from him and give it to Wal Mart.

[Walt Starr]

49. I have a newfound respect for Justices O'Connor, Thomas, Scalia, and

Rhenquist.

I have a newfound disdain for Justices Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Stevens.

[GiovanniC]

92. I Absolutely and Totally Agree With Them Both Here

[Nye Bevan]

12. NO corporation should be able to force a homeowner off his property

even if it wants to build a factory.

Let them offer the homeowners enough compensation that they will leave *voluntarily*-- say a brand new house, no mortgage, with $100K cash compensation for the inconvenience.

Corporate profits are soaring. Look at CEO salaries. Let them pay proper, negoatiated compensation if they feel they need people to move out.

Of course with the SCOTUS ruling this will not happen. A corporation will announce that it is planning to build a factory in the elderly Mrs Smith's neighborhood. The announcement alone pushes the value of her house down from $100K to $80K. The corporation then claims that the "fair market value" is $60K and (with the help of campaign contributions to their buddies on the city council) kicks her out of her house making her lose $40K.

[Coastie for Truth]

19. That was the "desired" effect of the Pennsylvania Law.

[Pithlet]

20. I would definitely support

regulations to ED that would force the government or corporation to bargain with the property owners and give them the power to ensure they get market value and even above that.

And I'm not even wedded to the opposing viewpoint. I just think much of the opposition is knee jerk. I mean, my local news made it seem like the bull dozers will just show up without warning.

[warrens]

13. I agree

New London is falling apart, and they came up with a plan to buy out about 70 houses and build a multi-use environment that would encourage business development, clean up the river, attract some new housing, etc. All but, I believe, four homeowners took the buyout.

This was clearly in the best interests of everyone in the town. The place is turning into what a lot of towns in the Rust Belt looked like in the 1970s.

[wuushew]

18. Local government should not be in the business forcecasting area

Are local officials well versed with the nature of the company, the competitive environment, the intention and time horizion of the company's business plans?

Eminent Domain in regards to public infrastructure is absolutely simple in comparision. X numbers of households need so many killowatts of electrical transmission cabability, produce so many gallons of water and sewer waste and breed X number of kids that will require building this or that number of schools.

Apples and oranges

[Pithlet]

22. Pears and bananas!

Valid points. I'm just not sure I support an all out fedral ban on communities making those decisions.

[Nye Bevan]

26. The "Local Officials" play golf & hunt with the company's executives

and receive thousands in campaign contributions from them.

It's not hard to imagine how these local officials will react when these executives ask for a few poor people to be thrown off their properties.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. ED has traditionally been used for the PUBLIC good.

This ruling allows ED to be used for things that are at best indirectly beneficial and more importantly are directly beneficial to private enterprise. The specific case is, in my opinion, an abomination. Private homes are being taken in order to build bigger private homes (luxury condos). This is crap. What would prevent some rich person from going to your town and demanding your home by ED, arguing that his big new house that he will construct on top of the ruins of your modest house will generate 2-3x your taxes and thus benefit the 'public good'?

ED is the taking of private property by force, backed by all the power of the state. Its use ought to be limited to the most clear cut cases: bridges, roads, canals, resevoirs, railroad right of ways, etc. Opening the door like this is simply making another tool available for the rich and powerful to dominate the rest of us, using the state and its monopoly of force to make us bend to their will and their infinite greed.

The propertarian right ought to be up in arms about this nonsense, but I think they are so deeply compromised at this point that there is nothing that the Ruling Party can do that will get them to see the light.

[Pithlet]

30. ED should definitely be limited

I do feel the ruling was arguably too broad, and that isn't good either. I'm really torn on this issue. I don't want to see the property rights crowd mow down ED entirely, either. And I do think it is possible that sometimes the decision to exercise ED in favor of a corporation that will do a community good is the right one, and I'd hate to see that blocked because of an outright ban. The people who would lose their jobs because of the holdouts of a few property holders wouldn't be compensated the way those property holders would. What good is owning a property if the community around it crumbles. I don't want open season on homeowners by corporations, but I don't want to see the opposite end of the scale either.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. Railroad right of ways

were an example of using ED for the direct benefit of private corporations, however the corporations were also directly serving the public interest by developing a transportation infrastructure. I fail to see how building luxury condos is 'directly serving the public interest'. Instead it seems to be a gross misuse of ED.

[davekriss]

24. You have not convinced

First, the vast majority of corporations are not "socially conscious" except insofar that it contributes to the bottom line. That is not to say that the board rooms and executives are evil -- it's to say that, given the rules of the game, they must behave in ways that maximize shareholder value. Otherwise they are not doing their jobs and are subject to censure and job loss.

Second, if a corporation is threatening to pull up roots and leave unless the state "takes" the property of private citizens, I say let it leave. The state should not be granted the right to "taking" private property of one set of individuals for the private gain of other individuals, even when in so doing a public good is also gained (in your scenario, the preservation and expansion of employment).

This is a classic "the means are justified by the ends" case. I think we should be very careful about exercising negative means to achieve a perceived good end. And I prefer brakes on state power in most cases.

(Gawd I'm sounding like a paleo-conservative! It's just the social-libertarian coming out in me...a natural suspicion of and resistance to state power.)

[Pithlet]

27. I do feel the ruling was too broad

At the same time there were justices who would have written rulings getting rid of ED alltogether. I am torn on this issue. I don't want to see people lose their homes so a developer can put up McMansions. I don't think that's right, and I don't think they should have that right. But, again, my point was that I feel some of the reactions to this decision are over the top. While I agree with you on the nature of corporations, I'm not sure an all out ban on ED for anything except the most obviously necessary reasons is the way to go, either.

[BuyingThyme]

31. A homework assignment for all ED enthusiasts:

Please rent and watch the movie THE CASTLE.

It's not only educational, but it's one of the best movies ever made:

http://tinyurl.com/7vj5m

[wuushew]

59. I am in favor of ED where it comes to airports

many congestion, environmental and safety concerns can be addressed by prudent design and placement of airport facilities.

[G_j]

33. find me a town where

local politicians are not in the pockets of developers.
They may exist, but it ain't this town. Walmart developers here after being defeated twice, created a PAC which helped put pro-Walmart development people on the City Council. Now they have their Super Center on the river. :puke:

Irresponsible development is ruining our beautiful area.
I cringe to think of what doors this ruling may have opened for sleaze bag greedy politicians.

[Nye Bevan]

37. Bingo. Local politics is very often a cesspool of corruption

The local politicians are the best buddies of the local businessmen. Now they can get together and decide to grab whoever's property thay want.

I imagine that casino owners are licking their lips.

I am convinced that in the next couple of years there will be at least one *major* scandal resulting from this ruling.

[Texasgal]

41. So I guess Wal-Mart

forcing people from their homes in order to give some people a job is okay??

Here in Austin, there was perfectly fine wal-mart off the hwy. But it just wasn't good enough for those money-grubbers. They went and LEVELED a low income trailer park that had been there for over 30 years.

Yup... the trailer park consisted of mainly retired VETS. They were DISPLACED out of their homes so that wally world could expand.Making it even more atrocious than ever. The shopping mart is HUGE.

And guess what? They moved out of their old location. So now we have a perfectly HUGE BLUE BOX sitting empty on the side of the hwy.

This ruling is bullshit... utter bullshit!

[Pithlet]

46. I hope you didn't mean

that you thought that is what I was saying. Because it wasn't. Believe me, I would never support Wal Mart in such a venture, nor would I support any local government that allowed them to get away with it. But I also don't think that abuses of the system are a reason to do away entirely with that system. I think there are ways to deal with that without an outright ban that would basically weaken ED, which would definitely be a bad thing for communities. Our elected officials, that WE elected ourselves, should not have their hands tied allowing a community to flounder by shattered ED laws. And those who argue how corrupt local governments are? We need to do something about that. If anything, this might just galvanize people to stop being complacent about their local governments.

[Texasgal]

55. Thing is..

The reason why so many of us are against the ruling, and are having knee-jerk reactions about it is because so many times it is a GREEDY corporate entity that is gouging our private land and forcing people from their homes.

I have not heard one case ( although I am sure they exist ) regarding your original post. Although another case here in Austin showcase's a burger joint that has been located near the university of Texas for 20 years. It's a virtual landmark. However, the regents want to tear the burger joint down to make room for a parking garage. There is a public need for parking on campus, seeing that UT is the largest college in the state, parking is sparse. But the whole burger joint will loose their jobs.

It's kinda shitty situation really....

[Pithlet]

61. I think the fears are founded in reality

My scenario is admittedly very basic, because it is a post on a message board. I really didn't have much room for scope there. Eminent Domain is not inherently evil. When used correctly, it is not only beneficial but sometimes absolutely vital. While this ruling was probably too broad and arguably invites abuses, I don't want to see ED eroded to the point where it's useless, and that is what those on the right want to see happen. And I do believe that, with limits in place for protection from abuse, corporations shouldn't necessarily be stricken from the list entirely when it could be hugely beneficial to a community. When jobs are at stake, for instance.

[earth mom]

82. And you think that this new Supreme Court ruling won't be abused?

The corporate whores are already rubbing their hands together in gleeful anticipation of what they can grab up for a song so they can make millions off of it. Got waterfront property? Forgetaboutit! Got a multi generational home sitting on the main street in some trendy area? Forgetaboutit! You are SCREWED!

This ruling is nothing more than a legal way for corporations to rape and pillage and profit big time! PERIOD.

:puke:

[Pithlet]

94. I never said otherwise

Clearly, those abuses have to be prevented. But, as I just said in another response, limiting ED only to public lands is extremely shortsighted. If a community's economic base is ruined, the property of the people holding out and refusing to sell will plummet. Not allowing for communities to make any concessions to the corporations that their base depends on does no one any good. By no means do I believe that corporations should get carte blanche to take whatever property they want. But a ruling that expressly forbid it in all cases could spell disaster for many.

[earth mom]

129. Allowing it AT ALL is allowing for it be abused and allows

for greedy corporations with big wallets and pricey lawyers to come in and get WHATEVER it is they want. How can you not see that? Give them an inch and they will take a mile and that waterfront property to boot. :sarcasm:

[mnmoderatedem]

54. Hmmmm...

well first off let me say that you do indeed raise an interesting counterpoint. In fact you could argue that the particular example you cite REALLY IS in the best interest of the public, and therefore could legitamitly fall under the realm of eminent domain. Still, I would hope that settlements can be reached with the landowners that would give them a tidy profit that they are willing to accept, and everyone's happy. This CAN be done.

All to often though, the private land is being seized becuase the local government has determined that "the interests of the public" now include putting up a Super Target or a condiminium where a greedy developer has greased corrupt local politicians and gotten his way under the guise of Eminent Domain. The SC ruling is going to make it all to easy for abuse to escalate.

[Pithlet]

57. I do believe it can be done

And I would want every avenue exhausted before ED was invoked in the scenario I brought up in my OP.

And, I do agree that the fear this will be abused by local governments is very much founded. I would have loved for the SCOTUS to include limit that puts a heavy burden of proving public interest. We, as voting members of our community, definitely have to mobilize and make sure our governments put those limits in place in light of the broad nature of the ruling.

[GreenArrow]

79. "greedy developer"

Redundant. There is no other kind. They are among the dregs of human society.

[spanone]

58. This is way beyond eminent domain. Facism is a word that comes to mind.

[H2O Man]

62. I wonder if my aunt had balls

would I call her my uncle? The case was exactly what it was, and coming up with any other example is an exercise in nonsense.

[Pithlet]

70. I don't understand your response

You know, I'm trying my best to be civil in this discourse. Read my responses in this thread, if you haven't already. Whether you agree with me or not, I do think I brought up some valid points. If you want to discuss them with me, fine. If you want to point out where I'm wrong, even better, because as I said in some of my other responses in this thread that I'm not entirely sure I support the decision as it stands. If you just want to dismiss me in such an offhand manner, that's not fine.

[H2O Man]

124. The OP asked

what if the case that was in decided by the Supreme Court had been different. It makes no sense to discuss the decision by substituting a different set of circumstances for the test case. The case was exactly what it was. That is where I believe you are wrong. When that serves as the foundation for the discussion, I do not think it can be of any serious value.

The case should be discussed only for exactly what it is. It gives business power not only over private property, but over the three branches of government. When the actual case is examined, including the court decision, a valuable discussion can follow.

[Pithlet]

127. When my point, or at least my original point

was wondering if the reaction would be different in a different scenario, then yes, it does make sense.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to dictate the discussion. Just because you disagree with what I say doesn't mean it isn't worthy of discussion. I agree with you that the ruling, the way it was handed down, gives businesses too much power. My point, however, is that a completely opposite ruling, which is what many are arguing for, one that completely disallows local governments from even making the decision to begin with, would be just as bad. Communities should definitely be made to make the case that an ED is for the public good. But they shouldn't be flat out told they can't make it. And just because the benefactor is a corporation doesn't automatically rule out public good. I don't think that roads, schools, hospitals and parks are the be all and end all of a communities success. Those things mean nothing if you don't have the jobs and the tax base. I do believe that the case has to be especially air tight when involving a corporation because of the very real risks of abuse.

[Vinca]

74. I don't know how you can support the Supreme Court decision.

The scenario you cite - saving jobs by allowing a factory to expand - is sunshine and flowers. What about Walmart taking Grandma's house for their greedy, cheap merchandise? The decision opens the flood gate in areas where land is scarce. So long old neighborhoods, hello Home Depot. Will a developer decide to take over my hill top for condos? I don't know, but it's crossed my mind in the last day.

[Pithlet]

88. I don't necessarily support it as it stands

But I do have an issue with the absolute property rights crowd. I don't want to see Wal Mart taking Grandma's house, as I've said repeatedly in this thread. I do think there should be protections in place to prevent such abuses. But I'm not for an all out ban on ED, either, and a ruling such as those being proposed that NEVER allow for the scenario I propose could do that very thing. Because, what is stopping the absolute property rights crowd from crowing that a community that wants to build a school is only doing so to benefit the corporation building it? I'm weary of anything that could weaken the status of ED completely, because it IS necessary. The rights of property holders should not absolutely supersede all others. Non-property holders have a right to benefit from a stable community as well.

[Vinca]

123. Of course eminent domain is necessary, but it's not necessary

to put business on the receiving end of things and that's what this DIRECTLY does. Bypass the actual need of the citizenry, go directly to the bank account. It's not a community taking some houses to build a school, it's a billionaire tossing average folks out of waterfront property to profit on expensive condos. It's not right. Business is sacrosanct to the Bush administration and this is an invitation to rape and pillage low and middle-income neighborhoods that might happen to be near water or have a spectacular view or be in close proximity to a metropolitan area. This is like birthdays, Christmas and the Fourth of July all wrapped into one for development companies. This country is going to hell in a hand basket.

[Generic Other]

75. There's one little old lady living in Boeing's Seattle parking lot

She wouldn't sell her house. She is surrounded by a sea of parking spaces, but the company respected her property rights. And who was harmed? She kept the home she was born in that her parents had owned before her, and Boeing lost a half dozen parking spaces. Big deal.

Maybe developers need to learn how to work around obstacles instead of always just trying to smash them.

Forcing people to sell their property for private development is theft. It was wrong when we did it to the Indians and it is still wrong today.

[Redstone]

78. No. Just fucking no. You are WRONG.

Eminent domain is for public projects.

That means roads, bridges, schools, and parks.

It does not mean factories. It does not mean hotels. It does not mean condominiums. It does not mean McMansions.

If yourhypothetical factory wanted to expand, it could build itself another fucking building.

May I state something plainly? People are more important than corporations, and more deserving of protection by (and from) the government. Anyone here disagree with that?

So, why don't you provide us with even one example of a company that has been "forced out by a few obstinate property owners?

Just one?

Redstone

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

83. so it would be OK with you if the same people were moved for a park?

instead of JOBS?

[Warren Stupidity]

89. A park is clearly a PUBLIC GOOD

A factory is not clearly a PUBLIC GOOD. Also parks tend to have rather inflexible geographic restrictions, on the other hand just build the factory somewhere else. There might be some case where a specific type of factory could only be built in a specific location, and the factory was clearly of general benefit to the community, etc. etc. As I pointed out elsewhere, railroad right of ways are an accepted us of ED and typically are both a direct benefit to the private railroad corporation and the the public.

The case at hand decided by the SC involved tearing down existing homes to build luxury condos. Why not deal with the merits of that case, and its implications in its rather breathtaking expansion of ED, instead of some hypothetical?

[Pithlet]

91. Jobs are indeed a public good

A factory pulling up roots devastates a community. I've witnessed this first hand. Those parks will cease to exist if the economic base of the community is devastated. The schools will be underfunded. And the property owners who refused to sell will see those property values plummet. It is shortsighted to insist that the only way a community can be benefited, or even saved, is if ED is limited ONLY to public property.

[Warren Stupidity]

95. Well I've specifically cited examples where ED

has not been limited to public property, for example railroad right of ways. The case at hand involved tearing down one person's home in order to construct another home. Seems a bit on the questionable side to me.

Anyhow, another thread has illuminated me on the SC decision. They did not decide on the merits of this specific case, they decided on the right of local governments to use ED, and most importantly that local government's decisions to use ED are presumed to serve the public good unless proven otherwise.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3940035&mesg_id=3940035

[Pithlet]

97. Yes. And we all know that happens

And I've said time and again that I thought instances like that were wrong. I'm not supporting that. But, I still don't think we limit communities and tell them they can only invoke ED if it is used for public property, and do so at their peril. It doesn't mean I think these same communities can take the property away from whoever the hell they want. Clearly, limits are necessary. But we don't let them die because we had to absolutely protect the rights of property owners at the expense of everyone else.

I don't think SCOTUS should have ruled the way they did, but I also don't think they should have expressly forbid ED for all communities no matter what unless they use the property publicly, the way many are insisting. Because it ignores that corporations sometimes ARE a necessary and valuable base for a community. You just cannot ignore that. You can't ignore that many thousands of communities depend on the corporations based there for their continued existence. You can't just say to hell with the community, bye bye corporation that wants to expand because property rights, and the rights of those who own it, supersede all others. I don't buy it.

[Redstone]

96. Are you going to think the same way when they come to take

YOUR house, so they can let someone with more money than you build a bigger house?

Hey, why not, according to you: Think of the construction jobs that will be created to build that big house that replaces yours, and then the maids / groundskeepers who will have jobs at that big house after it's finished!

Redstone

[Pithlet]

99. I knew this was coming.

I'm surprised that hasn't been leveled at me already.

First of all, I never said it was okay for developers do do what you just suggested! Time and again, I've said it. I'm only for ED if the case can clearly be made that it benefits the public good. My whole argument is that public good isn't necessarily limited to public use only. Public good CAN and indeed DOES extend to the economic job base, and making sure that base sticks around. I don't know why people are having a hard time understanding that point, even if they don't agree with it. Stating that does NOT mean I'm rah rah Wal Mart, rip that house from Granny's hands!

Second of all, of course I'm not going to like it if the community has deemed that their needs are more important than my right to stay put. But, I don't base all my opinions on what will only benefit me personally.

[Redstone]

107. And when was the last time that a corporation kept it promise

of providing and maintaining a certain number of jobs after extorting money and / or people's houses from a state or local government.

As far as I know, and I pay attention to these things, it's NEVER happened in Connecticut.

State and local governments have become unquestioning whores for anyone who presents them the "jobs" bullshit, which ALWAYS turns out to be a chimera. At least in Connecticut.

Redstone

[Pithlet]

111. You're talking to someone

who watched a community devastated by GM when it pulled up roots and abandoned it, and broke promises to boot. I am not a corporate apologist by any means. My whole point is that while corporations are often the embodiment of evil (you will get no argument from me there), I won't ignore that they are often vital to a community. I'm definitely not arguing that a community should bend over backwards and do everything it can to appease corporations. But I won't argue that the federal government should tie their hands and refuse to let them make decisions that might save themselves. The argument that corporations are evil will do nothing to comfort the poor person that lost their job. It won't do anything to comfort the children who's education has been compromised because their system's tax base eroded.

[Redstone]

114. But that's my point. If cities are told that they can take

people's houses in return for nebulous promises from corporations, they will.

Every time.

I live near New London, and go there frequently. There is no "greater good for the community" in this case. The city took those houses because they think that some day, some developer will come in and put up "upscale" hotels and condos.

This particular case is nothing more than class warfare. Period. It's naked agression against working-class people. The city is saying this: "Fuck you, we don't care if you work hard and pay your property taxes. We don't want your type around here. We want people with more money than you have, so get out.

That's what is happening in New London. And don't kid yourself that it's anything else.

Redstone

[Pithlet]

115. I'm not arguing for New London

As I said, I'd have been behind a ruling against them. I'm not kidding myself about what's going on there. I don't think communities should be allowed to do that. Because that isn't what I'm arguing. Obviously, those in charge of the decision making have to be held accountable for their actions, and made to prove that their decision is indeed what is best for all.

Don't forget that the cities ARE the people. They are us. If we don't want them acting against our best wishes, we are responsible for holding them to our best interests. Sometimes, as evil as they are, those best interests and the interests of a corporation DO intersect. And, while I don't disagree with most of what you just said, I think it is folly to ignore that. Telling a community to hell with them, "we're not going to let corporations get away with this! Even if you do like those jobs they provided you, and the tax base they provide, so sorry!" doesn't seem right.

[Redstone]

118. But when they DO act against our best interests,

the damage is done.

Sure, we can "vote the bastards out" in the next election, but does that undo the damage?

No, it doesn't.

There must be limits.

Redstone

[Pithlet]

121. Limits. I'm all for those

Let's see if this helps make my point clearer. Eminent Domain exists because sometimes governments have to invoke it for the public good. And often the public good is new roads, schools, hospitals, parks, etc. And I see that few seem to be arguing against that. Because all those things are for the public good, and communities need those things to function, and few progressives would argue against that, unless they have a huge Libertarian streak. But the very same people who seem to have no problem with that suddenly do when those needs are jobs and community sustaining tax bases? Buy off and tear down those houses for the school, but not for jobs! And the reason for that is it's because the entities that provide those things are evil corporations?

It seems that some are more making the arguments against corporations while ignoring those other aspects of community. They want to demand the SCOTUS rule against corporations and Send Them a Message while ignoring those other issues. It makes no sense to me. I think their ruling was too broad, and I don't want to see the abuses that invites. But they were right not to rule broadly against all EDs that aren't for schools, roads etc.

[earth mom]

84. Well said! Bravo!

:applause:

[Pithlet]

86. People are more important than corporations

But, community is also more important then the individual rights of property owners, which is exactly why I support the ED you just mentioned. My hypothetical factory may not be able to build itself another factory in that community. It may have to upgrade to keep up with demand in order to stay afloat. Besides, my hypothetical was only meant to point out that it is entirely possible for the needs of a community that a corporation not be run out of town because of a few property holders refusing to sell. Non-property owners matter, too.

I don't know why you're being so combative, with all the bold and everything and the demanding I come up with an example. I'm not pro corporation. I'm not anti-property holder (I AM one, for God's sake). I don't even agree with the broad nature of this ruling, which is something I've said repeatedly in this thread. I think they could have stuck with just ruling against New London. But, while I'm not gung ho on corporations, I also don't believe that it is impossible for one to be a benefit to a community, and that the wants of a small number of property holders should be able to come between that corporation and its community. And some of the arguments being made by some against this ruling sound way too much like absolutist property rights rhetoric, and that makes me uncomfortable. And those were the types of responses I was primarily responding to, as well a the ones stating that the judges ruled because they are pro-corp and anti-property owning citizen. Non-property owning citizens count, too.

[NorthernSpy]

101. All hail the Kommunity!

But, community is also more important then the individual rights of property owners, which is exactly why I support the ED you just mentioned. My hypothetical factory may not be able to build itself another factory in that community. It may have to upgrade to keep up with demand in order to stay afloat. Besides, my hypothetical was only meant to point out that it is entirely possible for the needs of a community that a corporation not be run out of town because of a few property holders refusing to sell. Non-property owners matter, too.

But home is not a mere piece of property, any more than a family is just a random collection of biological entities. The right not to be driven from ones shelter is a fundamental right of the person. It's not a mere "property right".

I seriously doubt that the hypothetical factory in your example couldn't come up with an offer sweet enough to persuade someone in the surrounding locale to sell to them. Adding eminent domain to the mix merely allows the company to avoid the necessity of bargaining with a willing seller. All you'll have done is to have created a new entitlement for corporations to get whatever they want at whatever price they want to pay. Gawd forbid the commyooonity's corporate darlings should have to buy dear in a free and uncoerced transaction!


:eyes:

[Pithlet]

106. I don't see it that way

It is possible that the factory couldn't come up with a deal sweet enough, and that there could be one hold out that won't sell no matter what. And, if that factory pulls up steaks and the community is economically devastated, then those stayed put and exercised their all mighty property rights will also be devastated. They were shortsighted holding out on principle.

I just don't push off the needs of the community as inconsequential (cute spelling, by the way). Property rights won't do you much good if your values plummet when your community collapses. And I don't see property ownership as some high and mighty ideal above all others. I don't see why non-property owners, and what is good for them, shouldn't also get consideration. And that is what ED does. It gives them consideration as well.

While I don't think SCOTUS was right in such a broad ruling because of the abuse it invites (which I'm against!), they were right to refuse to tell communities that they can only consider the wellbeing of the community and exercise ED if a non-corporation is the entity benefiting it. It shortsightedly ignores that corporations are often the economic base that allows that community to flourish.

[NorthernSpy]

116. rights outweigh 'best interests'

While I don't think SCOTUS was right in such a broad ruling because of the abuse it invites (which I'm against!), they were right to refuse to tell communities that they can only consider the wellbeing of the community and exercise ED if a non-corporation is the entity benefiting it. It shortsightedly ignores that corporations are often the economic base that allows that community to flourish.

And individual humans are what make the Commyooooonity possible at all. Push 'em out of their homes often enough, and they'll turn on you. Well, if there's any justice left in this world, they will.

Communities, by the way, simply aren't entitled to any particular level of prosperity -- and certainly not at the expense of the fundamental rights of their members.

I just don't push off the needs of the community as inconsequential (cute spelling, by the way). Property rights won't do you much good if your values plummet when your community collapses. And I don't see property ownership as some high and mighty ideal above all others.

Not half as cute as "pulling up steaks", which sounds like a tasty endeavor. But that really isn't how you harvest steak, though it does work for potatoes.

And I see that you haven't taken my point about property rights not being the only interest one has in ones home. I maintain that there is a fundamental right of the person at stake (which, incidentally, is also the kind you pull up in plural).

[Pithlet]

119. And those individual rights mean squat

if the cooooooommuuuuuuuuuuuuuniteeeeeeeeeeeeeee (whee, that's fun!) isn't there. If your property is no longer worth squat, and the schools are so underfunded your kids don't get the education they need, what do those vaunted right mean to you now?

I did take your point about the fundamental rights. And if we lived in a vacuum where what happens to other people never has an impact on ourselves, I would agree. Look, I own a home. I understand all the warm fuzzies that gives. But, I also understand that that fundamental right of mine won't mean shit if my dorplestopagufulusssss(community)isn't solid. I took your point. Do you take mine, that community is the very foundation that makes us able to enjoy our rights?

[NorthernSpy]

125. without mutual non-aggression, there is no community

If people can be turned out of their homes to further some notion of the "greater good", then there is no community to begin with. Community exists only when the agreement to refrain from aggression against anyone is consistently upheld by everyone. Without that, all you have is the tyranny of the majority, and a collection of human rats all scrapping for whatever leftovers they can get.

I'd say that on the whole, community is not something we generally have much of. We have a post-industrial mass society, and it does whatever it has to to keep itself going. But I wouldn't dignify any of what it does with terms like "community". The only actual community worthy of the name in the New London story is the small bunch of Fort Trumbull neighborhood holdouts. That small group of people does seem to function as a community -- which makes their having to surrender their homes to that spurious "larger community" of newcomers and mutual strangers that politicians so love to court -- well, it just makes me gag, is all.

[GreenArrow]

128. B-I-N-G-O

:thumbsup:

[pmbryant]

104. Excellent points, excellent post

I don't have much to add, except

:thumbsup:

I already think most people's reactions to this ruling are based on a misunderstanding of the issues, but your post brought up a new angle that I hadn't thought about yet.

--Peter

[Pithlet]

108. Thank you.

I don't expect that everyone should come around to my thinking on this, but it is nice to know that I'm not the only one who does think this way. :)