Eminent Domain: Hell Freezing over, I agree with Scalia and Thomas

[Fire]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development. It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said. "The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
.......


This means that if Wally-World wants to build yet another one of their big boxes over my house, the can destroy my home if they contribute to the right campaigns. Eminent Domain is not just for bypasses anymore. I'm very disappointed that politicians and judges, seemingly independent of their party affiliation would work to completely fuck over their constituents, siding with corporations over people.

[still_one]

1. unfortunately the property owner has NEVER won these cases

They do have to compensate them approprately

When people purchase a house you will notice that you do NOT have any oil or mineral rights ON PROPERTY YOU BOUGHT also

[Fire]

3. Which is why

local governments can pull all sorts of tricks to lower the property value of your home before they have a bunch of armed thugs steal it from you. What about sentimental values or people who buy property as an investment?

[Deep13]

4. Even if the price is fair ...

... it is small compensation for property that was not for sale.

[still_one]

26. if you are 80 years old and big brother says we own your property

pretty bad

[ProudDad]

13. How do you compensate a retired couple

who've worked their whole lives for a nice little house in a nice little neighborhood and then are bulldozed out for a f*ckin' wal-mart?

How do you handle the mental anguish of this kind of deprivation? How do you put a price on that?

This decision also puts YOUR house in danger too! How would you feel if the "elected" republican politicians in your town decide your house should be a Wal-Mart and bulldozed your home?

[Captain Hilts]

2. It's how Prez Bush made his money...

http://www.mollyivins.com/showMisc.asp?FileName=970509_f1.htm

[kath]

37. exactamundo!

[GainesT1958]

5. If the decision had gone the other way...

No city or town in the U.S. would have been able to acquire property for economic or community development-related purposes, including providing affordable housing. The community development movement--along with making green spaces in cities and ever-mushrooming suburbs--would have ground to a halt. No, I agree with the five who voted to say that New London, Conn., acted within its rights under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It's a victory for community development, for low- and moderate-income people--like most of us here at DU--and for planning, in general. We would have LOST rights had Scalia and Thomas had their way--just as we lost them when they formed the majority in Bush v. Gore.

B-)

[ProudDad]

14. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

The decision was whether a City could TAKE private property for a PRIVATE DEVELOPER...NOT for public purposes.

This decision WIDENS the scope of pro-big-business to rape and pillage those who aren't as powerful. All they have to do is bribe enough politicians in their town to have them take your home for a Wal-Mart.

(Yes, I DO hate Wal-Mart)...

"WASHINGTON – Government officials do not violate the US Constitution when they seize and demolish homes and businesses to make room for PRIVATE development.

In a major decision that narrows the constitutional protection of property owners, the US Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause authorizes government seizure of private property even when it merely offers a (alleged) benefit to the public, rather than actual public use."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0624/p01s01-usju.html

(Alleged above added by me)

[Deep13]

22. Suits me.

This is not for affordable housing. It is for big, out of town developers making luxury housing using nonunion labor and big strip malls.

[Zynx]

31. This is for the benefit of CORPORATIONS!

This is not for low income housing.

[mitchtv]

6. the states may pass laws against this

It is time to get busy

[Deep13]

8. They might in CA, ...

... but our corporate puppet government never will. If we try to do a ballot issue, developers will advertise and convince people that we will be thrown into the stone age if it passes.

[Sugarbleus]

35. DUer Cleitas posted some weeks ago that a mobile home park

full of low income elderly residents was just taken over/bought out by an upscale condominium developer. The elderly were left swinging in the breeze. This was in central Calif.

Calif isn't protected any more than any other state at this point.

[ProudDad]

15. THEY CAN'T!

This is the Supreme law of the land and no State can override it.

That's why they're called the Supreme Court of the United States.

[Jacobin]

16. Not if it deals with a state statute

The court is upholding state statutes against a federal constitutional attack. If the legislature changes the law, there is no issue.

The legislature could fix this, but since business bribe all the congresscritters, its not likely to happen.

[Deep13]

18. Yes they can.

The Supreme Court rules that states who force sales under state law are not violating the Federal Constitution. These are cases where state courts have already ruled in favor of the developers based on state law. If you change state law, it never becomes a constitutional issue.

[Deep13]

7. This is a terrible decision, ...

...especially considering how development-crazy local governments are.

Consider this: a farm has been in the family since colonial times. Now the city council wants to put a Spawlmart there. Sprawlmart uses the city to force a sale. They give the city the cash and the city gives it to the disgruntled owner. It's like money laundering. What is to stop the locality from using this against conservation efforts such as land trusts?

This is where we need a Constitutional amendment, not on the goddamn flag thing.

[ProudDad]

9. I saw a piece about this on 60 minutes

These are lower-middle class (mostly white) folks in a little neighborhood that's in the way of another f*ckin' shopping mall.

There should be a reasonable limit to eminent domain and I felt that these folks had a good case.

Yep, it's nuts but even a stopped clock is right twice a day (once if it's digital).

Of course, as for the rest, the Supremes are all hard-core capitalists. For capitalists that which makes the most profit is the "most good".

[Deep13]

20. heard about that

That was in Lakewood Ohio not far from here. The election barely refused to allow the city to authorize money for the seizure and the mayor who was behind this legal theft attempt was kicked out of office for it. Unfortunately, this is not a common result.

[ProudDad]

10. PS

This also points out a MAJOR problem with the democrat party.

Those at the top are HARD-CORE, Rich capitalists. They are as much true believers as the repukes in the silly notion that corporate capitalism is the be-all and end-all of resource distribution systems on Earth.

That was Kerry's problem, Clinton's main problem, etc. etc.

They're full of sh*t, but that's what they believe.

As I said before, the "greater good" is always the thing that makes the most profit to these clowns...

[welshTerrier2]

11. i agree with the liberals on the Court

before some of you jump all over me, please read my posts in the previous thread on this subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1878929&mesg_id=1878929

the Fifth Amendment states that governments have the right to seize private property (i.e. eminent domain) for "public use" ...

my first point is that, even though certain corporations will benefit from this seizure in New London, that does NOT mean that the community will NOT also benefit ... the local government cited a "public use" which was that there will be increased tax revenues and more jobs as a result of this action ...

i believe the Court was right to leave the power to make these decisions in the hands of the elected government ... please understand that this does NOT mean that some or even many governments are not absolutely corrupt and in the pocket of big money ...

the real problem we face is that big money has totally corrupted our democracy ... every lobbyist and any government official who meets with one or accepts money from one should be beheaded ... the problem is undue corporate influence on our elected officials ...

having said that, the Court was right not to block "good government" from acting in the best interests of local communities ... i consider raising more revenues for the tax base to be a legitimate "public use" ...

some accept the idea of "eminent domain" as enumerated in the Fifth Amendment for such purposes as building hospitals, roads, schools, libraries and so forth ... but suppose the current tax base in a community, due to the lack of commercially available space, is insufficient to pay for those projects ... if a community seeks an increase in the tax base so that it can afford the very projects you approve of, is this not a legitimate "public use" ???

i think there are two views that are making people here oppose the Court's decision ...

the first is that some people here are really not progressives - they're libertarians ... they don't think the government and the citizens the government is elected to represent should have more rights than the individual ... they don't trust governments to do the right thing ... and they believe that they earned it, they bought it, and it's theirs ... i don't consider this to be a progressive view ...

the second group (i consider this a progressive view) objects because they see the stranglehold that big money has on our democracy ... there is no question that big money has totally poisoned the best intentions of our Constitution and our country's ideals ... but to rule in favor of blocking governments from acting in the best interests of a community doesn't seem like the right solution to the problem ... what we need is better government that values the best interests of all its citizens, not just the wealthy; what we don't need are Court rulings that tie the hands of governments from being able to do just that ...

it seems to me that increasing the tax base and creating more jobs is a perfectly valid interpretation of the Constitution's "public use" clause ... the fact that certain corporations may, in this case, directly benefit from the ruling does not preclude the community realizing the benefits they enumerated ... it is NOT at all surprising that the liberals on the Court voted as they did to protect the rights of governments to serve the best interests of the community as they see fit ... it is also not surprising that many DU'ers who see themselves as progressives have a huge capitalist, libertarian approach to their thinking ... capitalism always puts the ME ahead of the US ...

[ProudDad]

17. I disagree

1) In Capitalism, the big fish will eat the little fish. It's built into the system. (Uh, most of us are the "little" fish, by the way)

2) The Supremes could have required increased scrutiny and due diligence rather than opening up the candy store to Wal-Mart. For instance, in the New London case, I'll bet that the new shopping center will cost more jobs than it will deliver.

3) One could increase the tax base by taxing the rich.

In California, I keep hearing the Gropenfuhrer and others saying we have to be good to big business or they'll leave. I say, f*ck 'em, let 'em leave. Just as the Iraqi's are not so stupid that they can't run their own country, we don't need a bunch of rich fat cats running our economy either. Maybe if those bastards got out we'd be able to create an economy based on humane values -- a combination of small-c capitalism and socialism -- that would really work.

This decision is just bad law supporting the corporate capitalist rapists and pilligers.

[welshTerrier2]

27. re: your 3 points ...

POINT 1: on capitalism, it is my belief that capitalism and democracy cannot co-exist ... i see capitalism as an inherently evil force ... capitalism, and its fuel, big money, have totally corrupted our system of government ...

to try to explain why i agree with the Court's decision and to try to show where i agree and disagree with your position, consider the example of the military-industrial complex ... what better example can one present to show the abuses of corporate America working against the best interests of the American people ... lobbyists literally are choking the halls of Congress ... our electoral process is poisoned by the money that trans-national corporations provides to buy whatever and whomever it wants to buy ... what our Congress has allowed is nothing short of a system of blatant bribery and blackmail ...

but what's the solution? should we expect the Supreme Court to step in and have them try to assess whether any given line item in the defense budget is in the national interest or is it a giveaway to another corrupt corporation with its hooks into most of our elected representatives? is this an appropriate decision for the judiciary? remember, we don't elect the Supreme Court justices ...

i don't think the courts are the right vehicle to resolve this problem ... BUT, that doesn't mean it isn't a huge problem ... our entire system is corrupted by these abuses ... instead, what we need is better government ... we need to carefully monitor the relationship between business and government ... we need adequate oversight by government watchdog agencies to ensure that the best interests of the citizens has not been sold to the highest bidder ... we should not, however, tie the hands of government in a belief that it will always act in a corrupt manner ...

local governments are being starved for funds ... the NCLB act has put enormous burdens on local school systems without providing the desperately needed funding to support the program's requirements ... communities must have the right to decide for themselves whether an "eminent domain seizure" serves their best interests ... this is true even in cases that also may benefit private, greedy corporations ...

it is the abuses of capitalism that must be constrained; not the rights of governments elected by the people to serve the best interests of their communities ...

POINT 2: Due diligence and scrutiny ... governments often make bad decisions ... governments widen roads and rezone areas of their communities to try to attract businesses all the time ... sometimes these expensive projects produce absolutely nothing ... how often have you seen large areas of acreage with signs that say something like "Future Home of XYZ Office Park" ... and the signs have been there for 25 years or more and nothing has been built ...

there are certainly no guarantees that jobs will be created or that the tax base will increase ... but who should make this assessment as to what will happen? should the courts be put in a position where they are trying to determine the degree of risk the community is willing to take to produce future revenues? should they be the financial analysts trying to project the risks and benefits to the community? i just don't see this as the proper role of the judiciary ...

i agree that both due diligence and scrutiny of major ventures are critically important ... but i see this more as a role for the local governments than a role for the courts ...

POINT 3: and finally, you suggested taxing the rich to raise the tax base ... there is certainly no reason to rule this out as a vehicle for generating more revenues in a community ... but doing this should not preclude the rights of a local government from taking advantage of other avenues to increase tax revenues ...

to conclude, there's a reason that those on the Court who supported the majority opinion were the liberals and those who did not were the conservatives ... the justices didn't suddenly get confused and switch roles ... the liberals didn't suddenly decide to support the "fat cats" while the conservatives suddenly decided to support the poor and the oppressed ... the liberals voted as they did because, in spite of the fact that capitalism has poisoned our government, they saw a better government functioning as our Founding Fathers hoped it would ... they saw a government functioning in the best interests of American citizens; not in the best interests of a rich and powerful few ... to cynically close the door on what government should be did not seem like something that should be permanently codified in our laws ...

[Deep13]

23. "public use"

That's what this turns on. Is taking from one person to or give to a private developer "public use." Even if CT is building affordable housing, it is still private housing. Public use means something owned by the state and used by the public, like a park, a sewer, a school or a road, not a goddamn corporate shopping mall.

Whether the public will benefit or not is irrelevant if it is not for public use.

[welshTerrier2]

28. i agree in part ...

the Fifth Amendment uses the phrase "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

clearly, you have chosen to interpret the word "use" as meaning to physically use the seized property ... this would include such examples, as you cited, as parks, schools, roads, etc ... the public would have the right to "use" the property ...

and i'll go further with your argument to say that even though the public would have a right to "use" a shopping mall or a casino, the usage is not the primary justification being provided by the city of New London ... they are not arguing that shopping and gambling is an appropriate justification for an "eminent domain" seizure ... the primary justification provided was to increase the tax revenues and create jobs ...

so, if one accepts your definition of the important phrase "public use", private enterprises clearly do NOT meet the test ...

but suppose we intrepreted the phrase "public use" to mean any bona fide public "purpose" ... while we may be skeptical about corporate interference in government, and we certainly have no guarantees that there will be either more jobs or more tax revenues, should we automatically conclude that just because corporations may benefit from this seizure that the citizens of the community will not also benefit?

even returning to the exact wording of the amendment, "public use", is it not a "public use" to rezone an area of a community for private commercial development with the hope of increasing the tax base?

i am not a lawyer and have no Constitutional expertise whatsoever ... but i do know that a major role for the judiciary is interpreting the Constitution ... and i do know that intepretations are not always based on a verbatim reading of the precise words in the Constitution ... does "public use" mean for the "public's physical use" or is it reasonable to interpret it to mean "public purpose"?

btw, for those who want to very narrowly read the Fifth Amendment verbatim, i don't see anything in the amendment that precludes seizures for non-public use purposes ... the exact wording only addresses the compensation issue where a "public use" is shown ... it's an aburd point i'm raising only to show that there has to be room for judgment in reading the Constitution and that there are dangers in blindly adhering to the letter rather than the spirit of the law ...

[Deep13]

41. First, rezoning is not a seizure...

...It may affect the market value of the property, but does not deprive the freeholder of possession or title.

Your point about not precluding non-public seizures has occurred to me before. The reason that the takings clause applies to state government at all is because of the 14th Amendment. Both the 5th and the 14th are clearly restrictions on governmental power. The 14th protects due process, equal protection and privileges and immunities. It is frankly inconceivable that these concepts protect against public acquisition of private property but not corporate acquisition. I have to think that part of the reason for the takings clause was to prevent something like the Scottish evictions of the 18th century where peasants were simply ejected from their lands to be used for grazing sheep.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

19. I remember the Breyer nomination

we were incensed that Clinton was nominating such a capitalist tool.

Looks like we were right!

[depakid]

21. You should probably read the decision and consider

the broader implications before repeating that statement too many times....

[doodadem]

24. Don't know about other parts of the country

But where we are in central Calif, there's a whole bunch of unleased retail space sitting around. If you build it, they don't necessarily have to come. We saw the same thing going on in Cincinnati when we were still there--shopping malls begging for tenants.
So why build more?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Deliberate tax losses?

Back in the 1960s, when gas stations were sprouting up at ridiculous rates in our area (four on a single corner in a town that had only one road going through it?), an accountant whom my parents knew explained that the oil companies were opening money-losing stations so that they could right them off as tax losses.

[doodadem]

29. And they're going to take peoples' HOMES to do that?

Haven't they already gotten enough tax breaks from Bush?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. For that type, there's no such thing as "enough tax breaks"

The executives who plan these things are the evil spawn of an amoral business climate.

[ProudDad]

30. Just saw the news

The homes in question were nice little water-front homes in a small (lower-middle class) town on the Conn coast.

They will be knocked down to build "an office complex and Condos".

Ok, tell me where's the justice in this?

DAMN IT, just because the city can allegedly make MORE MONEY by screwing regular folks in favor of yuppie scum does that make it right or Constitutional?

I don't think so!!!

[Fire]

32. Free Republic's take on this...

Free Republic doesn't seem to like this either

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429268/posts

[Sugarbleus]

36. Except for the inference that this ruling is "Socialism" and

it's the "liberals" fault, I think they are appropriately upset and I agree with them. Who woulda thunk it. lol

[Sugarbleus]

33. I just posted my discontent before I saw your post...I thought no one

was the least bit concerned about this. I think it's an outrageous statute...

[IndianaGreen]

38. and I agree with Sandra Day O'Connor

You will lose your home so that some rich bastard turns a profit on what used to be your property. The public good is now defined as the corporate good!

We should storm Congress and demand legislation be passed to fix this travesty!

Protecting our homes from government intrusion and takings is far more important than protecting the flag!

[Nikki Stone 1]

39. Why did the more liberal judges vote the way they did?

They had to understand the implications.

[Deep13]

42. What liberal judges?

The last liberal justice sat on the Supreme Court was Thorogood Marshall. Now there are only moderates and conservatives and two loose cannons (or rather one who votes twice).

[IndianaGreen]

43. There are no liberals on the Supreme Court

As in Iran, we have conservatives and ultra-conservatives. There are no moderates!

[Independent_Liberal]

40. I guess hell is freezing over...

I agree with Scalia and Thomas as well.