RE: Eminent Domain.....what am I missing about this issue?

[Obamarama]

This morning I read a LTTE in the Detroit News attacking the "liberal activist judges," who decided in favor of the expanded powers of eminent domain.

I thought the guy must have been confused. I'm a liberal democrat and I absolutely am not in favor of giving the government expanded powers to confiscate private property. I would also think that my feelings about the subject would be similar to other liberal democrats.

Well, I opened up my local fishwrap a few minutes ago and what should I see but a LTTE calling the judges "liberal socialists."

I'm confused. Am I missing something fundamentally at odds with my liberal democratic ideology, or did I just happen to run across two wingnuts who would blame PMS on liberals if they thought they had a chance?

[patcox2]

1. The supreme court justices who approved were the liberals.

The ED decision was one in which the liberals formed the majority. The conservatives dissented.

[skypilot]

2. That was my understanding and...

...I'm still in shock. The world made just a little LESS sense with that ruling.

[MrBenchley]

4. Eminent domain is a long standing principle which is sometimes abused

The far far right wanted to knock it down as part of their "property rights" gibberish--they hope to see the end of concepts like subsidized housing for the poor, endangered species protection, and wetlands protection.

[skypilot]

"...they hope to see the end of..."

OK, I can see that. But it seems to me that conservatives are pretty upset about this ruling as well. I'm sure they don't give a damn about the poor living in subsidized housing or about endangered species or about the wetland but it seems that they CAN relate to the idea of someone taking their home and/or land.

[K-W]

12. Your average conservative, yes, but not the idealogues.

And certainly not the corporate heads.

They would have much rather seen a limitation on government power over property.

[MrBenchley]

20. Exactly so...

Characterizing O'Connor, Souder and Kennedy as "liberals" is grotesque....

[MrBenchley]

14. Well, that's it, exactly...

"they don't give a damn about the poor living in subsidized housing or about endangered species or about the wetland"
And so they hope to rev up this phony "the government is going to take YOUR home" rubbish...

Again, eminent domain is a long standing principle...and as we saw this week, totally constitutional. And in fact, just before the right wing started this phony campaign of "outrage," they were pushing a provision in the highway bill in Congress for private toll roads...which can only be created through eminent domain.

[skypilot]

15. I guess I kinda fell for...

...the "the government is going to take YOUR home" rubbish. I haven't read the ruling but one of my local papers which is fairly liberal made it sound as though the ruling would make it easier for, say, a developer to seize your property even if it wasn't "blighted".

[K-W]

17. That is a very good point, but look at what causes that.

Think of Eminant Domain as a tool of legislatures.

So it depends who is in the legislature and who they are serving.

The real crime here is that our system of representation is a joke, thus commercial intersts can buy representation and are weilding the tool that should be used by legitimate representatives of the people.

[MrBenchley]

18. It's a local government issue...

Unfortunately, in a lot of parts of the country, citizens don't keep an eye on local government and such things do go on....if you're a fan of hypocrisy, you might check out the way Spurious George and his GOP pals got the city of Arlington to seize the land for the Texas Rangers' stadium from the Mathes family....

[skypilot]

21. The case that came to mind for me...

...was the one reported on "60 Minutes" a while back. I can't remember which state it was but a developer wanted to put condos in this one neighborhood. It was a very, VERY nice neighborhood but the developer prevailed on the local government to designate the neighborhood as "blighted". Blighted in this case meant, among other things, not having a two car garage and having only one bathroom in the home. That segment made my blood run cold.

[MrBenchley]

22. Bet that was in a red state

and I'll bet that not a single Republican is on record opposing it...

Again, if there's a better reason for involvement in local politics than to keep an eye on this sort of thing, I don't know what it is...and it's significant that the response from the right wing is not to urge people to get more involved in their local communities, but to urge that the courts be packed with right wing loonies...

[K-W]

16. Im stunned that many liberals have a right wing property rights concept.

Well I shouldnt say surprised, its been the only property rights concept allowed in the mainstream for awhile.

I sometimes wonder if people realize that private property is a legal construct encoded in US law and enforced by the US government.

[MrBenchley]

19. The "property rights" movement is a stalking horse for the right wing

Here's an excellent look at how it pertains to the "Wise Use" anti-environmental movement...

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v07n2/wiseuse.html

And here's the wacko fringe in Illinois...

"OPINION -- Do Illinois landowners want to join the "wetlands criminals of the United States of America"?
Landowners across the nation are being treated worse than common criminals when accused of wetlands violations. Just ask people like Ocie Mills of Florida, who spent 18 months in jail because he put a few loads of fill on a lot where he planned to build his home. "

http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=18959

[rinsd]

35. Sometimes abused?

Our history is littered with such abuse whether it deals with the railroads or gentrification in the 60's.

[MrBenchley]

3. Actually there's only one moderate and eight conservatives on the Court...

To characterize folks like Souder or O'Connor as "liberal," one must be far far far to the right....

[Obamarama]

6. I assumed that or it wouldn't have been upheld....anyone know why?

Does anyone here know what the reasoning was behind their arguments? At the time this was at the forefront of the news cycle I was wickedly busy and distracted by a family crisis.

[K-W]

11. They ruled that the constitution gives states wide lattitude on ED.

That the constitutions limitations on only siezing land for public use did not mean the land had to remain public property, and that it was up to individual states to make laws that fit with state constitutions regarding ED.

[napi21]

5. It's been explained that the SCOTUS ruling gave the power back

to the local jurisdictions. It's usually your City or County council that makess the determinations about eminent domaine and granting permits for projects. I actually think the SCOTUS did the right thinkg here. It's much easier to motivate your local council to do or not do something than it is state gov't or Fed.

I know our local council was threatened by the citizens that they'd be thrown out of office is they voted to let WM build another SC and the Council stuck with the wishes of the people! Shocked the hell out of WM too!!!

I guess I'm not understand the Pubs, who are supposed to be for States and Local rights in fighting this ruling.

[manic expression]

7. Eminent Domain can be considered left wing...

however, it is giving power to the government (hopefully, the government represents the people), so it could be considered authoritarian as well.

ED is tricky in itself, as it can be used for both bad and good things. I think the use makes it left or right wing, not the provision itself. About a year ago, one of my favorite restaurants was shut down because the government wanted the parking lot to make a bigger intersection. IMO, this is an example of unfair use of eminent domain. However, the idea is that if there is something that the people actually need, the government should take the land and use it for something beneficial to the people.

[sandnsea]

29. Saving lives is unreasonable?

Actually that's one of the better and more common reasons for eminent domain, improved transportation. The hardest part is to fairly compensate people for what they're losing, which doen't usually happen. The guy should have been given enough to live very comfortably the rest of his life because you can never guarantee a second business will work, no matter where it's located.

[manic expression]

31. It was more for convenience during rush hour

I never heard of an accident occurring there, but it was sometimes congested. I think it would be better for the community if the restaurant was left alone. Although it's true that bettering the transportation for a community is a good thing. That sitation might be pretty different than most. Especially because it was the parking lot that was taken, and the owner got almost nothing for it, and couldn't continue the business without the parking lot.

However, if it did improve transportation for the people, you'd be 100% right.

[sandnsea]

34. Curiously

You say the owner got almost nothing. Did they compensate him for just the little chunk of parking lot land? I lived in a town where they took chunks of front yards to widen the road. Never mind that they couldn't sell their houses anymore, the people didn't get compensated full value. Just for the little strips of front yard that were turned into a 4 lane road. That shit's not fair at all.

[K-W]

8. You need to look at the bigger picture of property rights.

And the role of government as the people's voice in issues of property use. Any limit on ED would set a dangerous precedent, which is why they say the constitution gives wide powers that states should regulate as they see fit.

[gratuitous]

9. You don't suppose . . .

That the letters are part of some astroturf (fake grass roots) mailings by CONservatives to discredit the Supreme Court's ruling? Naaaahhh!

However, this decision is purposely being morphed into a "takings" case rather than a simple application of a governing body's power of eminent domain, a power that has been recognized and applied throughout the life of our nation. I haven't read the entirety of the Court's opinion, but it seems that the Court carefully considered the competing interests involved, the state of the properties being condemned, and the use for which the properties were going to be put. All of which gets kind of lost when a complicated case gets cut down and stuck into a cookie-cutter mentality that everything the big, bad gummint does is wrong.

There's a .pdf copy of the Court's opinion here, and folks can read it for themselves rather than depending on the interpretation of a letter writer given to "activist judge" hyperbole:

http://www.ij.org/pdf_folder/private_property/kelo/kelo-USSC-opinion-6-05.pdf

[MadHound]

13. I'm not astroturf, probably more left wing than 90% of the people here

And I thought that ruling sucked. I've read the court's opinion on this, and it still doesn't make sense. What part of the Fifth Amendment phrase "public use" did these yayhoos not understand?

Sorry, but this was flat out bad jurisprudence, and a giveaway to corporate America. There are literally millions of horror stories involving ED, even back in the day when ED issues concerned roads, public buildings, low cost housing, etc. This number is going to multiply exponentially now that "public use" has magically transformed into "public good via increased tax revenues". Since every single house in America pulls in substantially less taxes than a business, this ruling is nothing less than a giveaway to corporate America. It puts every single American home at risk, both urban and rural.

And this fig leaf of "local control" is mighty damn thin. The federal government has consistently intervened in matters of local control when there have been wrongs that cannot be righted any other way. After all, what was the Civil War about? Prohibition? Civil Rights Act of '64? The list of federal intervention in local control is a long one, precisely because it is well known how corrupt and greedy local governments can be.

Sorry, but this ruling is a POS, and hopefully the good folks of New London CT can bring it up before the Supremes for a rehearing. A doubtful gambit, rehearings are rarely granted. But it our only hope to prevent corporate America from seizing any American home they wish at a whim.

[gratuitous]

23. Hard to refute your cogent, precise argument

Although the Court said:

The takings before us, however, would be executed pursuant to a "carefully considered" development plan. The trial judge and all the members of the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed that there was no evidence of an illegitimate purpose in this case. . . . {T}he City's development plan was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals." Slip Op. at 7-8.

That would seem to augur against your allegation that this was "a giveaway to corporate America."

The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City's development plan serves a "public purpose." Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field. Slip Op. at 10.

That would seem to go against the argument that the Court has broken any new ground with the Kelo decision, and explains the "public use" portion of the Fifth Amendment undergirding its decision here. The opinion goes on to cite numerous previous decisions where land was taken under eminent domain that was then used by another private party, including mining companies, railroads and low-cost housing development contractors.

Further, the "'local control' fig leaf" as you call it, was actually part of a development plan under the law that required a period of hearings and public input. The Court said about this plan:

To effectuate this plan, the City has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. . . . Because that plan unquestionaby serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment. Slip Op. at 13.

The Court identified what was proposed to be new about the case in question, and it wasn't the action by the City:

{P}etitioners urge us to adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use. Putting aside the unpersuasive suggestion that the City's plan wil provide only purely economic benefits, neither precedent nor logic supports petitioners' proposal. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government. Slip Op. at 13-14.

And what if the taking benefits another party? The Court discussed this at pages 15-16, in its review of another case (Berman), citing the precedent there.

The Court can't write new law; that's the responsibility of the legislative branch. The Court is bound by the law (in this case, the Connecticut statute that creates the requirement of a development plan for exercise of eminent domain for economic development) and its own precedent (numerous cases cited in the opinion, including Berman, STrickley, Midkiff and Monsanto). Which specific provisions of the Connecticut statute or the prior decisions do you feel the Supreme Court violated in Kelo?

[MadHound]

24. You are betrayed by the very words you quote friend

Public Use, PUBLIC USE! Not public purpose, not economic development, but the two words in question are PUBLIC USE. Who is getting to use this New London Development? Certainly not the public, the development in question is for business and office space. Who benefits from this development the most? Certainly not the public, especialy if the city of New London has done any tax holiday deals with these businesse, which is a common occurence. Sorry, but this ruling opens all home owners to ED abuse, because the Court DID break new ground, rephrasing public use as public purpose, and economic development as increased tax revenue.

The rest of this ruling is nothing but cover, and bald faced lying friend. And it put all homeowners at risk. For it is a well known fact that local governments can be easily swayed by a little money, a little *wink wink nudge nudge* around the ol' boy network. Just one example, my govenor, Matt Blunt of Missouri, pumped up the faux outrage when this ruling was first handed down, and promised action. The action he proposed? A task force to study the matter, which would take at least a year to complete, meanwhile leaving the residents of Missouri to the tender care of people like Wal Mart and Premium Standard Farms, amoung the more notorious of land grabbers.

Sorry friend, I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but this ruling is nothing but a severe twisting and stretching of the Constitution, which is now so battered that every single homeowner is at risk. The only silver lining is that there is such widespread bipartisan anger that perhaps our so called leaders will listen, and correct the excesses of this ruling. One can only hope.

[gratuitous]

28. I'm sorry, your specific objection was what again?

I mean, it's easy to rant and rave, but from what I read, the City of London followed the law in Connecticut, the Court ruled in accordance with the law as written, and in accordance with its prior rulings.

I realize it's the vogue right now to state over and over one's opinion and pretend it's fact, but I don't see too many facts lurking in your post. There is lots of your opinion ("may be" "possibly") that the City of London was not exercising its eminent domain power for a public purpose, but no fact or statute to back up that assertion. According to the statute, the development plan, and the Court's ruling, the land was being taken for a public purpose. Just as in the Berman case cited by the Court, there was another private party that could or would benefit at the other end of the city's exercise of eminent domain.

Because the Court had previously ruled on this very point, it couldn't very well find against itself. Or are you saying that the Court should ignore the law, the facts and its past decisions, in order to arrive at a result that is pleasing to you? Perhaps you could file an amicus brief next time and save the Court a lot of time on all that messy law and fact junk and reach the decision that you endorse?

[MadHound]

30. First of all, if you read the opinion

You will see the that court is ruling that increased tax revenue is now being defined as "public purpose" You don't think that is new, and rather disturbing?

And the Court has countered itself, and revised previous rulings time and again. You merely have to go through the Court history regarding one issue, slavery, to see that.

Sorry friend, but this was a giveaway to corporate America. If you wish to be one of the Dems who defend it on the basis that it was made by the so called "liberal justices" fine. But the majority of people in this country realize exactly what occured, that the Supreme Court just gave away our houses and homes. Perhaps you need to stop living in a partisan world, and try the reality based one instead.

[Obamarama]

10. Great replies, everyone!

I obviously need to do a little more reading on ED issues (emminent domain not erectile dysfunction, just to clarify!). I've understood the peripheral issues, but that's about all.

[Nye Bevan]

25. The thing about this ruling that sends shivers down my spine....

is the thought of the prominent local businessmen on the golf course with their city council buddies. "We'd like to build a new factory/megastore/luxury apartment building...... but there are people living where we want to build..... but think of the tax revenues our project will bring you..... now let's talk about campaign contributions". The Kelo ruling entitles the city councilmen to throw the homeowners out of their properties to benefit their big businessmen buddies. Local politics can be a cesspool of corruption and the potential for abuse is horrendous.

[sandnsea]

26. Upholding State's Rights

Eminent domain is constitutional. Part of that project is actually a park. There's also new housing to accommodate a business coming in, I forget which one. Plus some other typical city development stuff, AND the hotel complex. It's an entire community redevelopment that 12 or so people are standing in the way of.

Regardless, they are following local law. If the city or state doesn't like their eminent domain laws, they can change them. It's that simple.

[MadHound]

27. State rights, yeah, that's the ticket!

After all, that arguement worked out soooo well when it came to slavery, or voting rights:eyes:

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt friend. States rights can only go so far, but when abuses occur, the Federal government has a long history of stepping in and cleaning up the mess. Sadly, they dropped the ball on this one.

[sandnsea]

33. That's the Constitution

You'll need a Constitutional Amendment to change it. This is a property issue, not a human being issue. Property rights are granted through law, none of them are inalienable granted through "the creator". If you want to make personal property rights a priority over the public good, it'll require changing the constitution. It'll also mean the end of all zoning and environmental law as well.

If people don't like their local land use laws, the people need to change them.

[chaska]

32. Get used to hearing this one thrown in our faces..., but....

they are wrong. The "activist judges" were the ones that voted AGAINST this.

Nobody is defending taking private property for private profit. It's just not the fault of the court or the Constitution, it's the fault of our sorry ass legislatures.