Why I *DON'T* disagree with the Supreme Court

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

For YEARS conservatives have tried to use the courts to couter regulatory laws passed by communities who don't want polluters to spoil their land and get away scott free.

The conservatives on the court have held in the past and are attempting to hold in the future (see: NAFTA) that it is tantamount to expropriation to pass laws which restrict the profits of business even if those laws are regulatory laws that prohibit polluting or otherwise spoiling the environment.

This decision states local governments know what is in their best interests better than federal governments and RETURNS power to local government.


If the people of Connecticut are unhappy with their LOCAL government, it's a HELL of a lot easier to get rid of them than the feds.

""Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community."

[acmavm]

1. You know, that's an excellent point you have there. I didn't think about

it that way. Giving this back to the states is in our best interest.

Interesting, I'll have to think this over.

[bribri16]

60. Thanks for making me feel a little better about this. n/t

[atreides1]

2. You May Be Right

But it still doesn't help the people being kicked out of their homes and businesses.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. I believe they will get the fair market value for the home

I might be wrong but I don't think their homes were condemned and their property taken without compensation.

[Tux]

11. Paid over years

Never upfront.

[spooky3]

157. What is your evidence of this? Here's a link that implies the contrary:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=edit&forum=132&topic_id=1879919&mesg_id=1882247

[Felix Mala]

17. No, they get market price. Also, in most states you don't have to

pay taxes on court judgements, so they get an even better deal.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. I read further. The homes were condemned but there is nothing to stop

the locals from passing laws on HOW to compensate for this takings so it need not take years for them to be paid off.

The right is being alarmist about this as they KNOW this limits them.

Furthermore, slums i.e. homes where POOR people have lived have been being taken for YEARS under the guise of economic development and FOR the benefit of strip malls without making low cost housing available...it's funny that my fellow liberals are running to the aid of the middle class because they see this negatively affecting them, but the poor have been dealt this card for DECADES!

[converted_democrat]

28. That's not what my Dad got...........

He got pennies on the dollar for the land, and NOTHING for the existing structure. (He got nothing for the house on the property)

[unblock]

187. no, you get what the government decides is "just compensation

which could by much more or much less than market price.

in any event, market price is by definition defined by market participants. if you're not a market participant, as in the case of someone who isn't interested in selling at the market price, then getting market price is still a ripoff.

if you're a house flipper who buys and sells and moves for a living, then you might not have a problem with eminent domain and getting "market" price for you house.

but otherwise, your own value for the house is rather more than "market" value, or else you'd be selling voluntairly.

[ProudDad]

35. What's the "market value"

of a neighborhood?

What's the "market value" of finally achieving your "American dream" and having it taken away?

What's the "market value" of losing a HOME through no fault of your own?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. Most of the rest of the neighborhood sold and did quite well

And their American Dream was taken for MONEY...they can indeed get another home. To read DU one would think these people will be left homeless..that is not at all the case.

[girl gone mad]

167. self-deleted. n/t

[CityDem]

194. Negotiate the selling price

Which real estate transaction would you like to be a part of as a seller:

1. You list your property and deal with individuals who make offers. You have the right to accept offers or negotiate the price.

2. The local government tells you that they are taking your property and tell you how much they are going to pay you -- no negotiation or appeals.

[OneTwentyoNine]

43. Really? Read Begala's book about Bush and Arlington Stadium...

They basically ran the guy off his land with chump change so they could build the stadium. He had to sue their ass,so much for just compensation.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. and he won that lawsuit...so much for your argument

Again, this court reiterated that the property cannot be taken SOLELY for the enrichment of another's private interest.

[OneTwentyoNine]

77. And..so much for your argument about fair compensation...

Otherwise a lawsuit might not have had to happen. I also love the line that the court said about property being taken "solely" for anothers private interest. Hell,even and idiot like Bush could have argued that the new stadium wasn't just for his enrichment,it was for the good of all Texas citizens.

And like good little lemmings the City Council of Arlington would have to agree especially when they see the mega tax$$$$$ rolling in.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

79. Um...lawsuits happen all the time. My point was he had a remedy and

he got it.

[girl gone mad]

168. That family happened to..

have enough money to be able to afford good lawyers.

What happens to all of the people who can't afford to hire attorneys and can't afford the time off of work while the case is being heard in the courts.

This particular case wasn't resolved or 6 years. What about the elderly or the old who may not have 6 years to seek a satisfactory resolution?

[smb]

130. I Believe!

"I believe they will get the fair market value for the home"

Given the disparity in legal representation between Joe Sixpack and a megacorp developer, this is about as realistic as believing in leprechauns.

[spooky3]

153. I think Nina Totenberg on NPR said they were offered $1.6 million

for 10 houses on less than 1 acre of land. In an economically depressed community that New London was (per the court records) that may well be fair market value.

Her site has only audio links. Here's another link that documents the amount, plus it implies that it would be available immediately, not paid over time as alleged by another poster.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aWs_t9txelkQ&refer=top_world_news

[wtmusic]

3. Ah, you're on old-style Republican

(A compliment...Thomas Jefferson would be proud!)

[barbaraann]

4. This ruling gives new meaning to "All politics is local."

My mind boggles at the thought of what local governments can now do.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

5. Bless your heart

I couldn't believe the outrage I saw in other threads about this decision.

Then I realized no one had actually read the decision, nor understood its context.

I wonder if this marks the swing back to states' rights that I've envisioned for a while now. The Raich case was so tortured in its Commerce Clause reasoning, I think that it was just a marvelously subliminal way of the Supremes saying to Congress, "Get off your ass about this one."

I wonder.

Thanks for this generous explanation.

[sadiesworld]

51. I've had similar thoughts.

Could it be that the majority sees the writing on the wall for the future of the Supreme Court (and the trend in federal courts generally)?

Some seem to assume that the majority passed up an opportunity to define "taking" narrowly, I say we have no idea how the Court would have defined it. Perhaps the majority was heading off a broad interpretation.

Of course, like pretty much everyone else, I haven't read the opinion. :)

edit to add: We truly need to stop accepting the corporate media's interpretation--let's face it, we were told that the filibuster compromise was a dem "win".

[OldLeftieLawyer]

56. Here's the opinion

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/000/04-108.html

And, yes, I agree with you about the pap we're spoon-fed by the media. I was on the warpath about that "compromise," trying to explain to people that Frist had set us up and knocked us down, just like pins in a bowling alley. They were celebrating some kind of big victory, and the next thing you know, three antedeluvian jurists who would have embarrassed Torquemada are on the federal bench.

Some win.

Read the opinion. It's a good one.

[sadiesworld]

63. Thanks for the link.

:hi:

[Synnical]

78. Yeah, I was appalled, too

Until I actually read the decision. Thanks for the link - I was just about to track it down again to send to a friend.

The final paragraphs:

Just as we decline to second-guess the City's considered judgments about the efficacy of its development plan, we also decline to second-guess the City's determinations as to what lands it needs to acquire in order to effectuate the project. "It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area. Once the question of the public purpose has been decided, the amount and character of land to be taken for the project and the need for a particular tract to complete the integrated plan rests in the discretion of the legislative branch." Berman, 348 U. S., at 35-36.

In affirming the City's authority to take petitioners' properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation.21 We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law,22 while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised.23 As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate.24 This Court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Connecticut is affirmed.

[jmaier]

6. I fully concur.

Hopefully, when the hysteria dies down folks will realize that not too much has really changed in the eminent domain world with this ruling except broadening the definition. Execution, and in fact, specific grounds are state regulated and you can hit back when things get out of hand. It makes it easier for non-development oriented communities to claim land for environmental purposes as well.

In practice, a lot of bad decisions are going to get made but they will be made and addressed at the appropriate level of government.

[Kraklen]

7. I agree.

And it will force people to become active in their local governments.

[zipplewrath]

8. It's always been a touch subject

Despite most folks concept of private property, it wasn't the one the authors of the constitution set up. They specifically mentioned the right of eminent domain and they specifically stated that compensation had to be made. Basically, the SC got it right. The complaints are valid, and I can see trying to craft some wording for an amendment to address this specific complaint, i.e. taking it merely to had it over to someone who wants to get rich. Kinda stretches the concept of "public use" a bit. But it's how most sports stadiums get built. It's how "urban renewal" happens. And as someone in this thread pointed out, really it's more of a "states rights" issue at this point.

[ProudDad]

37. Sports stadiums are crap!!!

They are built by robbing us of our tax dollars then handed over to rich, fat cats to get the profit!!!

Damn!

Check this out:

"George W. Bush loves baseball. And why not? After all, baseball has been very good to the governor. When it comes to power, the governor is a true triple-threat. Consider his record: (1) His initial baseball investment of $600,000 carries the current potential of a 2,500 percent return. (2) Through savvy P.R. and political maneuvering, he and his partners have persuaded a city and the state to directly subsidize a facility for their business. (3) Not content with taxpayer subsidies, he and his fellow owners have also successfully used the power of government to take land from other private citizens so it could be used for their own private purposes."

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

[SteppingRazor]

10. My one and only comment on this very long argument.

I figured I wouldn't post on that behemoth thread in GD: Politics -- why just get lost in the shuffle -- but I do have one thing to say here. The original wording of that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" but in the Declaration read "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." Seriously.
Land ownership is, and has been, one of the most basic parts of American sociopolitical life since the very beginnings of the nation. Today's ruling dealt a serious blow to the very heart of the American Dream, and it was a blow dealt by our side.
Our Supreme Court justices (the good ones, I mean) are of the old-school, government-for-all-things liberal ideology. The sort espoused by folks like FDR. And while I think FDR -- and that philosophy in general -- can do a lot of good. When it comes to basic property rights, the government can kiss my ass.

Taking away someone's property for "the greater good" is, contrary to what some of my fellow DUers have posted, NOT more democratic. It is stripping away the rights of the individual -- one of the basic, inalienable rights originally envisioned by the Founders -- and replacing it with, not representative democracy, but socialist communism.

And given the common freeper tactic, it almost makes me physically ill to write that a liberal decision is socialist or communist (seriously, my stomach's kinda churning right now), but that's where it stands. Our side dropped the ball today. And we will pay for it down the road.

[Lexingtonian]

14. My comment on that-

Individual land ownership with nearly absolute rights is an agrarian value. Rooted in the abuses of European land owners and rulers and overpopulation/poverty of medieval times. More truly American concepts of land ownership are those of the Native peoples.

This is no longer an agrarian society.

[Zensea]

32. Life, health, liberty and possessions - Locke

I think that Jefferson got the phrase from John Locke.
"All mankind...being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."

[eallen]

12. I don't like that argument. Pollution should be regulable on grounds....

A polluter doesn't own the air or water or outside property affected by his pollution. Because of that, pollution -- almost all of it of any concern -- should be regulable under the same principle as any other activity that has broad affect on other people and their property. Such regulations don't amount to a "taking," and we shouldn't treat them as if they were. In particular, someone does not deserve compensation because they cannot pollute the air or water from some activity on their property. Those simply aren't privileges that come with a piece property.

[ProudDad]

39. How many "polluters" have been removed by Eminent Domain?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

45. The courts HAVE ruled that some regulatory laws are takings

and the trend with conservatives is headed in that direction. Feel free to read up on the subject. It's why laws protecting endangered species are under attack.

[Nederland]

13. The problem is

Even if "local government" takes your house and you succeed in voting out those that approved the deal--its too late. You still lost your house.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. You can get another house with the money you are paid

People in rural areas need JOBS too.

[SteppingRazor]

23. What if you don't want one?

What if, say, this house has been in your family for five generations? What if your great-grandfather built it with his own two hands?
Do you just get another house? Does the government compensate for the loss of heritage and sentiment as well as the property?
If so, what's sentimental losses running in Bush's America? About a penny per ton or so? ;)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. Nobody owns anything in perpetuity and that has ALWAYS been the law

[Nederland]

46. Since When?

Honestly, I wasn't aware of that. Is this a Federal law, or in the Constitution?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

55. The rule against perpetuities goes back to English common law and is

adopted by most states...to be clear I was responding to the comment about the properties being held for generations. The intent of the rule was to stop dynasties from controlling areas..but it pertains specifically to trusts and property held in trusts...my basic point to the poster being that nothing is forever.

[Nederland]

150. Sorry NSM

Unless you can point to a specific law backing up your claim I'm afraid I just don't believe you. I did a little reasearch on the subject and haven't found anything that indicates that title to property passes to anyone but whoever is specified in a person's will.

I may be wrong, but you are going to have to do better than a few ramblings about common law.

[OneTwentyoNine]

52. bullshit buddy......

You or your family are the ones who choose the "perpetuity" of said property. A family member dies and leaves you the house its your choice whether to carry on with the property or sell it. It should be the homeowners choice not local government or rich ass developers.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

53. What law? n/t

[high density]

109. Umm, this is a capitalistic society, right?

I can sell stuff I own, but I'd rather not have my house and property ripped out from under me because some land developer and local government see dollar signs.

[guardian]

143. Wrong

You obviously DON'T KNOW the law. Ever heard of a fee simple absolute estate and the bundle of rights that go with it? That's how most people own their homes.

The property owner is entitled to all rights incident to the property. Because the esteate is of unlimited duration, it is said to run FOREVER. Upon death it passes to the owner's heirs as provided by will.

I guess you just want to side with Walmart against mom and pop! Grow up and smell the coffee!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. And I disagree with your not disagreeing

It matters not to me whether the whip of tryanny is held in local hands or federal hands. This just violates every concept of the private property rights of the individual. Everyone understands the concept of emminent domain for public use- roads, schools, etc. but this is just a hideous tumorous outgrowth of that concept. I have already witnessed a misuse of this where in a community close to me a big box store owner had the city try to take land that was necessary for them to have a rear truck entrance. The big box company never approached the owner of the property and tried to buy it the good old-fashioned way - no - they had the town condemn it on their behalf under the principle that the Supreme Court just backed up. Private land taken to benfit another private land owner.

I know of many older, quaint communities all around the country in beautiful locations, many waterfront, where I'm sure the developers can't wait to get their hands on them and put up condos and McMansions and "increase the tax base". What community or homeowner in this country is now safe from the predations of land developers and greedy local governments. And if you think local governments are more immune from graft, corruption and bribery, then you have another think coming. How many cities and towens are ALREADY run under the aegis of a good-ole boy who-knows-who type atmosphere?

I don't think I have ever felt so totally disgusted and appalled in my life. I think evryone should get together on this one. I would impeach the whole court over this. I would march in the streets over this. Could a Constitutional Amendment overcome this? Can the individual states themselves ban this abomination?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. Jobs are a public interest..no?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

50. "Jobs" is the Trojan Horse. Wake up and smell the Starbucks!!

I think there have been hundreds of years of case law and common law that was wiped out by this arguement.

"The effect of the decision, O'Connor said, "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."

The ruling has broad potential implications nationwide, giving cities wider authority to condemn homes and businesses to make way for more lucrative developments."

That quote was taken from the WP article. The framers did NOT say "Public use or to provide employment opportunites". For cripes sakes, one of the basic tenets of a capitalistic society is that businesses will figure it out. They can BUY land from WILLING BUYERS any time they bloody well please at market value IF the buyer is willing to sell.

[welshTerrier2]

59. consider these two cases re: public versus private distinctions

let me offer the following two, somewhat absurd, hypotheticals ... the first makes some strong points against the Court's decision; the second makes arguments that there is no essential difference between private and commercial use of the seized property ...

in both cases, the following hypothetical situation exists in a town ... half of the people (very wealthy) live in very large, very expensive houses and the other half (very poor) live in very small, very inexpensive houses ... the wealthy people are trying to find a way to get rid of the "blight" of the poor side of town ...

case one: the wealthy people argue that they want to "raise the tax base" in the town ... to do this, they propose to tear down all the cheapy little houses and build luxury houses ... more expensive homes, they argue, would produce far more revenue via real estate taxes ... if we are to accept the argument that "raising the tax base" is a legitimate "public use", how can we protect the poor in a community from being driven out by the wealthy?

case two: now, take the same case as above but instead of building luxury housing, let's say the justification provided for tearing down all the cheapy little houses is that the wealthy folks simply must have a large park because there is "inadequate recreational space" in the community ... again, how can we protect the poor in a community from being driven out by the wealthy?

and finally, for those arguing that "parks" are fine (i.e they meet the "public use" standard) but "private enterprise" is not, would you really condone case number two or are you really a libertarian in progressive clothing who objects to the Fifth Amendment under any circumstances but is using the "private enterprise, corporate bogeyman" as an excuse?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

69. Okey-dokey, here's my answer

In case #1, I personally DON'T accept "raising the tax base" is a legitimate public use. That means that anyone who provides for any type of upgrade in land use whatsoever is providing a "public use". Again, I am quoting Sandra Day-O'Conner because her dissent really hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned. Also having "affordable housing" IS towards the public good as far as I am concerned.

The ONLY way I could possilbly accept the case of #2 is IF there were genuine blight (not make believe blight like in the Lakewood Ohio case) and If there really was inadequate recreational space. But I personally would not take those actions if I were on the city council of the mythical city you describe. If there was truly blighted property, I would think that it would be good public use to knock them down and then fund some kind of affordable housing initiative that would address first the housing needs of the people who had lost their homes. I would give them first dibs at the new housing and I would help them find temporary housing while the re-development went on. If the cheapy housing was not just blighted, but only small and cheap, I would do nothing at all and I would try to find other land that would be better suited to addressing the recreational needs of the community.

I have no idea where that would place me in your classification sysytem.

[welshTerrier2]

76. well, OK but ...

i'm not sure you really answered case #2 ...

let's accept as a given (in my hypothetical) that there was zero open space in the town ... everything was residential housing ... and let's say that the wealthy folks got the town government to call for a massive eminent domain seizure of all the little camp cabins along the lake to provide some outdoor recreational space ... let's say this required tearing down many of the little tiny houses owned by the poorer folks in town ...

i support low cost housing just as you do ...

but the point of the hypothetical is to point out that just because a seizure like this is for a "public use" (i.e. not commercial exploitation) doesn't necessarily make the situation any more palatable to some than a private seizure ...

frankly, among many who have posted here, i think the "anti-corporate" argument is a thinly veiled libertarian excuse to object to the taking of private property by government for any purpose whatsoever ... these libertarians don't accept the Fifth Amendment's "eminent domain" clause regardless of what the government's purpose actually is ... they are, of course, entitled to their opinion but i thought it was worth poking a little at their underlying motivations ...

as for classifications, i don't know where you fit in until you elaborate more on case #2 ... it sounds like you accept the idea of "eminent domain" for cases where the public good is legitimately being served ...

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

80. You got it exactly right: I accept the idea of eminent domain for

cases where the public good is legitimately being served. Your scenario in case #2 is NOT palatable to me, even though it's done in the guise of public rather than private benefit. To simplify my position : Eminent domain should take place only as the last possible alternative in any situation. It should be like war: rare and for unquestionable reasons that any common person could easily understand. It should not be used as a matter of wealth transference.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

120. In this case the public good is legitimately being served

the research facility, hotel resort and restaurants means hundreds (possibly more) jobs versus the right of 54 ( if one supposes it's 9 homes with a family of five in each) people to stay put out of convenience or sentimentality even after the rest of the neighborhood has agreed to sell for a fair price in an area where jobs have been an issue for several years.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

128. In this case, it appears that the public good is being served BUT

to me it is not. I think the greater public good is knowing that if you purchase a piece of property that a governmental entity can not swoop down upon you and demand that you transfer your ownership rights at a price you may or may not consider fair to another PRIVATE party. I know I am repeating myself, but the 5th Amendment does not mention "employment opportunities" or expanding the tax base. This goes more to social engineering and it may in fact be a good thing ( who can argue against jobs in a depressed area - oops! I guess I can) but it has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment in my opinion. I see it as one more way of transfering wealth, stepping all over the rights of the individual, and turning us more everday into either the Corporate States of America (private interests have too much power) or the Facist States of America( the State has too much power) or the Socialist States of America(the good of the majority trumps the rights of the minority). And believe me, I see the lure in the Socialist States of America. (I believe in a single-payer National Health so I absolutely cherry-pick my positions and am not consistent , as I believe most Americans are not when you discuss individual issues with them.)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

147. It's no less consistent with the 5th amendment than using eminent

domain so that a train track or road could go through.

Their wealth is not being taken and they had plenty of room for negotiation with the city and other interests. They live in an area of the DOWNTOWN which needs to be revitalized in order to serve that community.

I don't have a demand that you be consistent but that you REALLY consider if this IS a transfer of wealth. I don't see it as such. If their town becomes further economically depressed and people can't find work and default on properties in their area, that is a transfer of wealth too...only more disastrous.

[smb]

138. The Difference Is As Follows

With the park (or any other example of legitimate -- i.e. to build a government-run infrastructure facility), the jurisdiction loses significant tax revenue.

To illustrate the significance of this -- everybody who thinks we'd be in Iraq if BushCo expected Halliburton stock to drop as a result, raise your hand....

[smb]

132. Yep

"I know of many older, quaint communities all around the country in beautiful locations, many waterfront, where I'm sure the developers can't wait to get their hands on them and put up condos and McMansions and "increase the tax base". What community or homeowner in this country is now safe from the predations of land developers and greedy local governments. And if you think local governments are more immune from graft, corruption and bribery, then you have another think coming. How many cities and towens are ALREADY run under the aegis of a good-ole boy who-knows-who type atmosphere?"

I call this abomination the "Boss Hogg Ruling".

[nolabels]

16. Yea the assholes are not the ones getting their home ripped out from them

Stevens states "Promoting (or protecting) economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government" to which one can add SO WAS SLAVERY

Suppose someone took his judgeship from him and declared all his ruling were bogus. I wonder how he would feel about government intervention then?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. Actually in this case if you read his decision he left LOTS for local

governments to consider..like how they DEAL with property owners in the face of economic development.

These people will be getting MONEY for their homes. Low income housing has been being knocked down for years in the name of getting rid of blight and no one complained. Everyone would rather have a strip mall than a ghetto in their neighborhood. These people will not be left homeless.

[nolabels]

127. Monetary compensation is all well and good but some people.........

attach their being to the place they live. I hope we never have to sell our couple acres. I have lived here about 19 years now but this area of the inland empire is filling up very quickly now. Being on the edge between the low income area and bunch of new snooty housing developments kind of makes me long for the good ole days when it just us hicks out here.

Quality of life is one that is hard to quantify but the record of almost all government is easy to track. Mostly promises made by government is broken sooner or later broken. I only relate this to show in the long haul giving them an inch will result in the government (and others backing it)in taking a mile. I have seen it here I don't need any more proof. Their promises, good intentions or even laws not written in stone are worthless.

Try this on for size


http://www.endofsuburbia.com/previews.htm
(nice little preview of the movie at the link)

[zanne]

18. I think you're all trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Nice try, but no cigar.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. Nope. I'm trying to point out who the real pig is

[welshTerrier2]

24. i totally agree ...

i won't reproduce my mile-long writings from the 4 other threads on this topic ...

the bottom line is that, although corporations are a corrupting influence on government officials at all levels, the Court was right not to codify a system where governments could not at least have the potential to act in the best interests of their communities ...

[TreasonousBastard]

26. I agree with that technical interpretation of the ruling, but...

historically the federal courts have been often used to get relief FROM local governments.

New Jersey is not unlike many places around the country where what happens locally has little to do with the will of the people, but depends almost entirely on the will of the county party leaders.

They used to be called "Bosses" but they don't like the sound of that any more, so they are now "Leaders."

Atlantic City, Asbury Park, and other places have had these battles, some ongoing, and the local politicians are almost impossible for the voters to influence without major outside support.

In my city, the mayor runs unopposed and has managed to get all but one of the council members from his personal camp. Elections and petitions are a joke when the county leader is calling all of the shots. And my town isn't the worst of them by far.

So, although the theory might be that there is local relief available, the actual results might be far different when the Law of Unintended Consequences kicks in.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. Oh I completely agree with your first statement

In this case however after reading further, the local government DID act fairly with the homeowners. Most sold and a few held out. Stevens made it clear that if the property were taken SOLELY for the enrichment of the private interest at the expense of the OWNER that he would not be ruling as he did. He made clear the economic interests of the entire community were at stake.

[TreasonousBastard]

30. OK, I am going to have to spend more time reading the decision...

and everything leading up to it.

This battle will rage on without me for a while.

[ProudDad]

84. BUT IT'S FOR

an OFFICE PARK AND CONDOS!!!!!

That's BOGUS, man!!!

I wouldn't have sold either.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

112. That is not accurate.

The choice was a just choice. To provide jobs for a community begging for them..probably hundreds if not thousands over the rights of 9 holdout families who are being COMPENSATED for that property.

So here's your choice. Hundreds if not thousands of jobs (some quite decent paying) versus (hmmm..let's say the average family is 5 people) the CONVENIENCE AND SENTIMENTALITY of about 54 people.

No one wants to see our homes seized unjustly. These people are being PAID for their homes. Some said they would not move at any price.

Now...the choice is 54 stubborn people or JOBS FOR YOUR ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED COMMUNITY where MANY will lose their homes if they don't find work.

CHOOSE.

<snip>


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus24jun24,0,4454555.story?coll=la-home-headlines

City councils, county boards and state agencies deserve "broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power," Stevens said. Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined him in the majority.


Based on that reasoning, the justices upheld a plan by officials in "economically distressed" New London to revitalize its downtown with an office complex, restaurants, a hotel and a marina. The city's effort would complement plans by the drug company Pfizer Inc. for a $300 million research center nearby.

Thursday's ruling allows city officials to seize the homes of nine New London families that had refused to sell.

[smb]

133. Sorry

You have a right to your property. You don't have a right to be given a job.

And, in any case, the people who want to find jobs can (drum roll please) MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. (Obviously, you can't say that this is "unfair", since it is precisely what you want to coerce the affected homeowners into doing.)

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

31. Many small ponds are run by a few big fish

I agree with you, that the federal courts provide relief from the what are often the mini-dictatorships that exist in many towns and cities.

[ProudDad]

33. I'm sorry but

I just can't handle the substitution of another f*ckin' shopping center for a lower-middle class neighborhood. It's a lousy trade.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

36. Again read the decision. This area has had problems providing jobs

for quite a while..I don't think that is a lousy trade.

[ProudDad]

40. The whole damn country

is having problems with jobs!

The reason is Corporate Capitalism, profit ubber alles, which this decision is going to make worse!

[OneTwentyoNine]

49. You keep talking like every neighborhood will be like this one...

The SC decision didn't mean just this one neighborhood,it opens the door to this land grab BS anywhere. My father is almost 82,would it be a good thing if he was forced to move just because a millionaire developer wanted his house and ten others cause he heard through the grapevine that Walmart was eyeing that land? How great,an 82 year old gets kicked out of the house he's been in since 1980 so the Walton spawn can become bigger billionaires.

Maybe what the SC should have done was put in a provision that any homeowner being kicked out by a developer automatically gets 10 times the going value of their home. Bet that would stop this shit in its tracks.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

54. Actually you can pass that law locally with this decision

The Supreme Court left it up to municipalities to work that out. Local communities CAN define what compensation should be provided in such an instance. You might want to actually READ the decision.

[OneTwentyoNine]

73. You don't need to walk all the way though a chicken coop...

To know it smells like shit,and thats what this SC decision is.People on both sides of the aisle have come out against this but I guess you think its a good thing.

City Commisioners dictating that a millionaire developer pay the homeowners 5-10 times the value for their trouble?!?! Make me laugh...They could care less,all they care about is the tax base of said properties. They can get much more out of commericial/retail than several houses so out you go. You'd be lucky to get the going rate or a little more,local government won't be on any homeowners side.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

75. The case does not provide for any precedent that was not there before

It simply reaffirms prior cases.


Who elects local governments?

[ProudDad]

85. You're WRONG

read the ruling yourself.

It EXPANDS prior precedent to allow taking of property for PURELY PRIVATE purposes with the tortuous reasoning that this taking MAY result in an indirect "benefit" to the municipality in the form of ephemeral new taxes.

This is something new and dangerous...

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

91. Exactly! n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. Nope. In every section, Stevens carefully referenced the prior decision

on which he relied. Jobs and commerce are no less indirect than a park..who says anyone will ever use the park?

[ProudDad]

87. Local BIG money elects local governments

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

114. In California, communities are passing laws against allowing Wal Mart

to build super centers because communities know what their needs are better than the federal government. This law reaffirmed that communities have the right to interpret what is beneficial to theier economic development and what isn't.


Maybe what the SC should have done was put in a provision that any homeowner being kicked out by a developer automatically gets 10 times the going value of their home. Bet that would stop this shit in its tracks.

A greater understanding of high school level government class would be useful here.

The legislature legislates.
The courts adjudicate.

Nothing in this decision stops your state government from passing a law on your suggested proviso.

[ComerPerro]

34. I love you, NSMA

:hi:

[welshTerrier2]

38. "public use" has long been interpreted to mean "public interest"

source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html#3
NOTE: scroll down to the section on "Public Use"

At an earlier time, the factor of judicial review would have been vastly more important than it is now, inasmuch as the prevailing judicial view was that the term "public use" was synonymous with "use by the public" and that if there was no duty upon the taker to permit the public as of right to use or enjoy the property taken, the taking was invalid. But this view was rejected some time ago. The modern conception of public use equates it with the police power in the furtherance of the public interest. No definition of the reach or limits of the power is possible, the Court has said, because such "definition is essentially the product of legislative determinations addressed to the purposes of government, purposes neither abstractly nor historically capable of complete definition. . . . Public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order--these are some of the . . . traditional application(s) of the police power. . . ." Effectuation of these matters being within the authority of the legislature, the power to achieve them through the exercise of eminent domain is established. "For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end." 183 Traditionally, eminent domain has been utilized to facilitate transportation, the supplying of water, and the like, 184 but the use of the power to establish public parks, to preserve places of historic interest, and to promote beautification has substantial precedent. 185

The Supreme Court has approved generally the widespread use of the power of eminent domain by federal and state governments in conjunction with private companies to facilitate urban renewal, destruction of slums, erection of low-cost housing in place of deteriorated housing, and the promotion of aesthetic values as well as economic ones. In Berman v. Parker, 186 a unanimous Court ob served: "The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled." For "public use," then, it may well be that "public interest" or "public welfare" is the more correct phrase. Berman was applied in Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 187 upholding the Hawaii Land Reform Act as a "rational" effort to "correct deficiencies in the market determined by the state legislature to be attributable to land oligopoly." Direct transfer of land from lessors to lessees was permissible, the Court held, there being no requirement "that government possess and use property at some point during a taking." 188 "The 'public use' requirement is . . . coterminous with the scope of a sovereign's police powers," the Court concluded.

[ProudDad]

42. And the public interest is served by another Wal-Mart??

uh, how???

[welshTerrier2]

47. well, meeting the "test" is another matter ...

i posted the legal analysis because some have rigidly and explicitly adhered to the amendment's "public use" clause in a very narrow manner ...

the point is that a long history of case law has moved away from a requirement that the public actually has to use, i.e. physically utilize, the property after it is seized ...

now, whether Wal-Mart meets the "test" of serving the "public interest", that's another matter ... from my read of what i posted, it seems like the courts see the assessment as a matter for legislatures to make rather than the judiciary ...

if a local government decides a Wal-Mart is in the community's best interest, the "public interest", it looks like that's the way it's going to be ... clearly the courts do not see it as their role to define what is and what is not the "public interest" ...

let me offer the following two, somewhat absurd, hypotheticals ... the first makes some strong points against the Court's decision; the second makes arguments that there is no essential difference between private and commercial use of the seized property ...

in both cases, the following situation exists in a town ... half of the people live in very large, very expensive houses and the other half live in very small, very inexpensive houses ...

case one: the wealthy people want to raise the tax base in the town ... to do this, they propose to tear down all the cheapy little houses and build luxury houses ... more expensive homes, they argue, would produce far more revenue via real estate taxes ... if we are to accept the argument that raising the tax base is a legitimate "public use", how can we protect the poor in a community from being driven out by the wealthy?

case two: now, take the same case as above but instead of building luxury housing, let's say the justification provided for tearing down all the cheapy little houses is that the wealthy folks simply must have a large park because there is inadequate recreational space in the community ... again, how can we protect the poor in a community from being driven out by the wealthy?

and finally, for those arguing that "parks" are fine but "private enterprise" is not, would you really condone case number two or are you really a libertarian in progressive clothing who objects to the Fifth Amendment under any circumstances but is using the "corporate bogeyman" as an excuse?

[ProudDad]

86. Uh, your case one is what this ruling was about

To take people's little houses to put up an office park and condos for the more affluent...

[DuaneBidoux]

48. Why I DO disagree

This is but one more dismemberment of the public arena to be replaced by the private arena. Prior to this ruling a city or community could take land for the public good. As it is, from libraries, to universities, to airports, to mass transit, the public arena is being starved for funds. But guess what? If we can take land and convert it for private use then we don't have to support public venues and the larger public good. It is a shameful thing when a rich developer can ever convince a city to take away someone's property, and now that a city can figure out how to do it with private money it will have to be much less creative to figure out how to actually adress the public good.

Edited to add: we are watching the complete disappearance of the concept known as "The Public Good."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

61. Again, reread the decision

The courts held that the fact that there was private benefit did not OBVIATE the fact that there was public benefit as well to jobs being provided. The area is economically depressed and needs jobs. In his decision, Stevens specifically stated that working out compensation in these instances can be addressed by those communities.

If one wishes to be an activist where this decision is concerned then get working with local people and legislators to DEFINE just compensation in these situations.

Look at this case - the rest of the community sold and moved. A few hold outs went after this case. They are getting compensated for their property.
AND FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME...this has happened to people in poor communities for YEARs. Their low income homes were sold or declared condemned to make way for strip malls for years with no low income homes available for them to move into.

I find it CURIOUS that everyone acts like this is new. Low income housing has been being taken for YEARS under these same principles only it is classified as blight and done in exchange for "economic development" which is exactly the case here.

[ProudDad]

88. Just because it's been easy to exploit the poor in the past

doesn't make exploitation right...

[smb]

134. So What?

"AND FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME...this has happened to people in poor communities for YEARs."

By this logic, it was unfair to convict Killen of doing the same thing other good ol' boys had been doing for years.

[DuaneBidoux]

183. My point is simply that with it easier to do it through private than

public then public entities will again suffer. We're moving toward a time when there is nothing public, no public libraries (try Exxon Mobile/Library). Instead of a park for everyone it will be a gambling casino financed by the private. I hope I'm wrong, believe me, but this is the way, I believe we are heading.

Edited to add: By the way, just to chime in, I have expertise in "public/private partnership projects" and I can tell you that the public is fading fast and the private is taking over.

[mongo]

190. So prove it NMSA

AND FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME...this has happened to people in poor communities for YEARs. Their low income homes were sold or declared condemned to make way for strip malls for years with no low income homes available for them to move into.

Sold by who? The slumlords that owned the property and rented it as low income housing?

Condemned? Yeah, because the houses had repeated violations of local housing code.

Show me where houses were taken from their owners by eminent domain that were NOT condemned because:

- the structure did not meet local housing code , and was therefore a
blight

- or because the taxes were not paid on the property

all to build a strip mall or other private enterprise.

[hughee99]

176. The "Public Good"...

As you said in the edit, the "Public Good" is starting toward anything that provides more $$ for government. An environmental group raises money to purchase land to protect it from developers. Developers convince them to take the land because the Walmart they're going to put on it will create jobs and tax revenue. Is the public good served?

Even worse, imagine this. The government takes the house you've lived in for years for the "public good". They pay you the ASSESSED value, which is the value they put on your house for tax purposes. After all, they've been telling you this value for years and you've never claimed that it's too low. Let's say that is (in the case of my house this year) $160K. They turn it around and sell it for actual MARKET value (appraised last year about $250K). The "public good" is served because they town just made $90K profit which it can now use for public programs. The process of transferring the property has provide work for Realtors and lawyers, and maybe the people who move in there promise to run a home daycare. The town makes a profit, local Realtors make a TAXABLE profit, lawyers make a TAXABLE profit, if the daycare is opened, there may be a small profit there, and the few children that may attend this daycare have a place closer to home. EVERYONE ELSE BENEFITS, so this must be for the public good.

Sadly, I fear that "the public good" will come to mean that you can F**k one person really bad, as long as you can claim that the public has, even if only slightly, benefited in some way. As has been the case since the beginning of time, it will be the little guy who is the one getting screwed.

[pmbryant]

57. I completely agree with you

Furthermore, as I understand it, this case was a straightforward extension of earlier cases that allowed eminent domain for "urban renewal".

If poor people can have their homes ("blight") seized by eminent domain, then the better off should not have an exemption from this process.

--Peter

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

62. Thanks Peter..I've said the same thing numerous times today

[mongo]

192. The REASON that poor people can have their homes seized

if they are a "blight" is because they DO NOT MEET LOCAL HOUSING CODE.

There is a difference.

[smb]

195. I keep explaining it; Mongo keeps explaining it -- When Will It Sink In?

"If poor people can have their homes ("blight") seized by eminent domain"

For the umpteenth time, if a property is actually "blighted" (i.e. it's a firetrap from which rats and roaches swarm out into the neighborhood), the government may legitimately condemn it under well-established police powers.

[Sparkly]

58. I was born & raised in New London, so this hits home to me.

But I don't understand the comparison of feds affecting profits via environmental laws and feds allowing cities to oust homeowners for business profits. Are those not apples and oranges? Does one really affect the other? (Couldn't we have environmental laws at the federal level and still have strict standards for cases like this one?) :shrug:

Even if most of the residents approve of the local government's decision, does that make it fair to the individuals in the minority who are affected by it?

Seems to me that initiatives for the "public" should be those that involve public money (schools, libraries, etc.) not private profit-making business development.

Just my humble opinion.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

64. And I can definitely see your point..but consider this Sparkly

Again, this has been being done in poor communities for years under the guise of urban "blight" and redevelopment. IF there are no jobs in New London, how far behind can the blight be?

The decison reiterates that one cannot take from another SOLELY to further enrich private interests..and it leaves it to the community state or municipality to DEFINE what the compensation should be in these instances.

on edit..from Steven's decison..I added the bold for emphasis: (a) Though the city could not take petitioners' land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals," ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ... public." Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158-164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power. Berman, 348 U. S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986. Pp. 6-13.

[Sparkly]

68. I see that point too, but...

It seems to me there's a bit of "NIMBY" going on, too. That one area isn't the only one where a business could set up. It just doesn't seem right to me that others get to tell these people to get out.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

71. The real NIMBY going on is that the middle class saw no problem

when this was happening to the lower class. I don't know the intricacies of development and location planning in that area..what I do know is that this case does not repeal the 5th amenment, does NOT steal people's property without fair compensation and goes further to reiterate that people CAN pass laws regarding what that compensation should be in the event that private interests prosper...when considering that Cheney is considering doing away with some aspects of the takings clause for his energy bill...I think it's good that this precedent setting case leaves it to local governments to decide the terms of those takings.

[ProudDad]

89. BLIGHT? Bogus!!!

It's very easy to sit in a comfortable middle or upper-class environment and talk about someone else's neighborhood as being "Blighted" and not worthy to exist.

This is the Tyranny of the Affluent carried out by the bought and paid for pols.


We've experienced this in San Francisco. The dot bombers took over most of the affordable housing in the city, drove prices through the roof and now the city is all but unaffordable except for the most affluent.

Ah, but they got rid of the "blight". How cool is that? :sarcasm:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

101. And where were you when they did that? They didn't need this ruling to do

it..that was done a decade ago.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

65. with the sub base closing this is even more critical

to New London's economic well being. I know this sucks and I have my own New England roots, but people have to remember that there is a public/private partnership which has to JOINTLY make these decisions.
The freepers are idiots, because as nsma points out, it cripples federal govt. control in favor of local control. Freepers should be doing cartwheels about that part of it- they HATE the Feds!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

67. thanks for the back-up in explaining this

;-)

[Sparkly]

70. Okay, I don't get that part.

I don't see how it limits Fed decisions. I do see how it makes it easier for local government to take over, but I don't understand how it keeps the Feds from doing something they could do before. :dunce:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

74. It only limits Feds by reaffirming a prior case that said Feds didn't know

better than local government here:

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.

In Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954), this Court upheld a redevelopment plan targeting a blighted area of Washington, D. C., in which most of the housing for the area's 5,000 inhabitants was beyond repair. Under the plan, the area would be condemned and part of it utilized for the construction of streets, schools, and other public facilities. The remainder of the land would be leased or sold to private parties for the purpose of redevelopment, including the construction of low-cost housing.

The owner of a department store located in the area challenged the condemnation, pointing out that his store was not itself blighted and arguing that the creation of a "better balanced, more attractive community" was not a valid public use. Id., at 31. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Douglas refused to evaluate this claim in isolation, deferring instead to the legislative and agency judgment that the area "must be planned as a whole" for the plan to be successful. Id., at 34. The Court explained that "community redevelopment programs need not, by force of the Constitution, be on a piecemeal basis--lot by lot, building by building." Id., at 35. The public use underlying the taking was unequivocally affirmed:

"We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive... . The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. In the present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them. If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation's Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way." Id., at 33.

[smb]

135. That Doesn't Require Eminent Domain

"a redevelopment plan targeting a blighted area of Washington, D. C., in which most of the housing for the area's 5,000 inhabitants was beyond repair"

In a case like this, the government already has a legitimate ability to condemn the property under its police powers (to remove a fire and health hazard).

[mongo]

193. And here is the crux of that biscuit

this Court upheld a redevelopment plan targeting a blighted area of Washington, D. C., in which most of the housing for the area's 5,000 inhabitants was beyond repair.

In other words, the houses did not meet local HOUSING CODE and were condemmed.

[Eastside Blue]

66. So ... states rights won out?

Unless I'm not remembering things correctly, hasn't the SCOTUS just done a flip-flop on states rights issues?
You're saying that, in this decision, the SCOTUS essentially ruled for states rights. OK, then what happened with the medical marijuana ruling? Didn't the same people rule against states rights?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. On medical marijuana they cited the commerce clause rightfully so

since to do otherwise would undermine portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1965

[ProudDad]

90. The law is an ASS

as Dickens said and he knew something about "blight" too.

Just reinforces my opinion, the law always favors the rich.

The marijuana decision was pro-pharmecutical corporations.

follow the money...

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

95. Really , he said "The law is a ass"

AUTHOR: Charles Dickens (1812–70)
QUOTATION: “If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”
ATTRIBUTION: CHARLES DICKENS, Oliver Twist, chapter 51, p. 489 (1970). First published serially 1837–1839.

quote is from bartleby.com

I usually hate people who make these minor pendantic corrections, but in this case, this quote is one of my all time favorites and it's actually better with the weird out of fashion syntax.

[ProudDad]

118. Thanks

I only remembered the "Law is an ass" part.

[Eric J in MN]

94. There is no cmmerce in a sick woman

growing a small amount of pot for her own use.

Saying so wouldn't have destroyed the Civil Rights Act.

Restaurants are commerce.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

102. It would help to have some legal training before you make such comments

Congress has the power to regulate commerce. That broad power granted by the same BROAD interpretation to the commerce clause gives us the right to demand equal treatment for women and minorities in the workplace federally, allows us to pass strict environmental laws and strict labor laws.

Perhaps some of our DU armchair lawyers should go to law school so that they may have their understanding of how all of those laws and precedents came to be.

[Eric J in MN]

108. A workplace is commerce.

A woman growing pot for herself isn't commerce.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

113. Sorry my pet parrot is busy so I will respond to this with a new idea.

The LAWS that govern pot are under the COMMERCE clause. It is the DUTY OF CONGRESS to remove POT from those laws or make an exception to those rules. The same laws that REGULATE whether your doctor is fit to prescribe medicine fall under this same area of the law. Therefore, CONGRESS must make this exception.

Or should we undermine all laws regulating the prescription of medicine which benefits drug companies even more?

No. We should pressure congress to change those laws.

[Eric J in MN]

124. There is a difference

between drugs which are sold, and marijuana grown for personal use.

The Supreme Court could have ruled that the federal govt. has no power over the latter because it's not commerce.

The Supreme Court instead ruled that it is covered by the Commerce Clause. I disagree with the decision.

[Hippo_Tron]

110. Congress has the power to regulate INTERSTATE commerce

There is nothing interstate about a woman growing pot in her backyard. And even if you do interpret the clause as to mean all commerce, a woman growing pot for herself and not selling it, has nothing to do with commerce.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

115. And that is not the issue and it is late and I am lazy

read this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3806087#3806109

[Walt Starr]

81. Why am I unsurprised?

:eyes:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

82. But the "taking" was legal..I thought all your arguments rested

on what was legal and what wasn't. You confuse me, Walt. When there's a Mexican on the other side you don't seem to have a problem with taking their constitutional right against false imprisonment away..but when there's a homeowner you've got a problem with an action that was ruled to be legal by the USSC

[Walt Starr]

83. This decision was bad law. It borders on what the Stalinists did in

Soviet Russia, with a corporation between the government and the people so the profits go into corporate coffers.

And I'll say it quite bluntly, any nominee put up by Bush who gets before the Judicial Committe and decries this ruling gets my support 100% for confirmation. Everything else be damned! I'll be watching closely and writing to Obama about this ruling.

It's the law, and I will become an outlaw if the local government tells Wally World they canhave my house for another one of their abominations!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

99. Bullshit. This decision was based on prior precedent.

And supporting a Bush nominee who will defend sneak and peak, torture, and detaining people without trials because you wish to protest a ruling that benefits the greater community with jobs and commerce over INCONVENIENCING someone to move?

Really?

Basic reading skills would be of great value here. They bought the house.

[ProudDad]

92. Only legal because 5 pro-capitalist

judges said it was.

I'd bet you $100 the Warren Court of the early '60s would not have ruled it this way.

[Eric J in MN]

93. This ruling doesn't stop federal laws passed by Congress for over-riding

local laws.

I'm still against this Supreme Court ruling.

More of my opinion at my blog:

http://www.moveleft.com/moveleft_essay_2005_06_23_greed_gone_wild_supreme_court_rules_that_cities_can_take_your_house.asp

[ProudDad]

96. Great reply on your blog

I agree with you and (sob) O'conner, Scalia, Renquist and Thomas 100%

[Eric J in MN]

97. Thank you (nt)

nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

103. Big problem with your essay here

Most hospitals are privately owned now...so should we not let them build? How about railroads? They've always been able to take your land and they are not publicly owned? Why is it that jobs to a community thirsting for them isn't worth the same deference to a HANDFUL of owners that are now inconvenienced and have to move but will be equitably compensated?

Now, since Sandra Day O'Conner has become DU's newly crowned "Queen of the Little Guy" can you all please explain to me her positions on Americans with Disabilities, the elderly and the American workforce and their desire to have rights in the workplace?

[smb]

136. Answer

"Why is it that jobs to a community thirsting for them isn't worth the same deference to a HANDFUL of owners that are now inconvenienced and have to move?"

Because you have a right to your property, and you don't have a right to be given a job.

Again, if these people can't find jobs where they are, let THEM get off their asses and move.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

98. More from the dissent opinion which I totally concur with

Quoting Sandra Day-O'Connor' dissent


"Who among us can say she already makes the most productive or attractive use of her property?" Justice O'Connor asked.

She added: "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Both Justice O'Connor and Justice Thomas, who also filed his own dissent, emphasized that the decision's burden would fall on the less powerful and wealthy. "The government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more," Justice O'Connor said. "The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."]

The quote above is from the NYT article.

The text below is taken from her dissent.

How much the government does or does not desire to benefit a favored private party has no bearing on whether an economic development taking will or will not generate secondary benefit for the public. And whatever the reason for a given condemnation, the effect is the same from the constitutional perspective--private property is forcibly relinquished to new private ownership.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

100. Funny..two judges who repeatedly rule against labor right invoking

fear of the powerful.

[ismnotwasm]

104. That's what I thought

Anyway, had to go and read the WHOLE DAMN OPINION because of you guys, I haven't done that since an American ethics class. Usually just bits and pieces. So from what I understand, this ruling changes nothing that wasn't in place before and gives a nod/nudge to states rights. Generally, the fact that the government is able to take anybodies property for any reason still basically sucks, but more power was NOT obtained by the government to do so, is that about it? Or should I got try and read it again, along with the precedents?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

105. It distinguishes public use in a different manner than in the past

but does so citing the precedent of other cases. Again, I think people are being alarmist. It defers to the JUDGEMENT of the planners as far as economic development of the area is concerned.

It clearly states that while the benefits to the community are not precise nor guaranteed, the planners carefully developed a plan for economic growth that involved development AROUND the Pfizer facility...you know..things like restaurants and other facilities that DO create jobs.

Nowhere does this ruling state that property may be taken by eminent domain STRICTLY for the benefit of a private interest WITHOUT benefit to the community at large and without just compensation but to read the opinions of armchair legal professionals at DU, they are now bringing in the marshalls, tossing you out on the street and making you homeless so that corporations may prosper. :eyes: Based on THAT interpretation, zoning laws would be takings since they are telling you what to do with your property...and just why SHOULDN'T I be able to run a strip club discoteque out of my house in a residential cul de sac?

[ismnotwasm]

107. Ok, I think I get it

It wouldn't stop another court case, if the plantiffs (right word? so not a lawyer) could prove that using eminent domain was for private interest. In fact, I wonder how many more court cases will come up because of this decision? Could it be turned around a bit, I wonder, to actually benefit property rights by a clever lawyer?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

111. No. If someone wants you to get out of your house so they could

build a mansion there, this decision does not make that possible.

[smb]

137. How Naive ARE You?

"If someone wants you to get out of your house so they could build a mansion there, this decision does not make that possible."

Unless the local politicians (hi how ya doing oops I just dropped an envelope behind the desk) can concoct a rationale for it being in the "public interest".

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

160. I am not naive ..I can read..I read the decision

[Sugarbleus]

116. "Local" government in our western state already thinks it's groovy

to toss low income, elderly residents from older mobile home parks (for one example) so upscale condominiums can be developed. The frail resident's compensation will buy them exactly ZERO elsewhere.

I think this is a HORRIBLE decision.

I know, let's bulldoze the white house, the capitol, the supreme court, the senate buildings et al, so we can return that area to a park-like piece of ground "for the good of the community". Move all them into some NON-opulent buildings somewhere in flatland America. The Feds have occupied that concentrated little patch in the eastern quadrant for way too long; it's time for them to move on. :sarcasm:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

117. And that was done under the law as it stood prior to the USSC

decision. So what has changed?

I know the Treasure Island case

As to your last paragraph...I think we could end ALL urban blight if we used your logic to take K street and turn it into a food bank. :)

[ProudDad]

119. I love your plan

for K street. The world would be better off if it were a food bank...

:-)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

121. And this community will be better off with hundreds of jobs

instead of housing for approximately 54 people (assuming it's 9 households with 5 people each)

[Sugarbleus]

125. Haven't been down on K street in awhile but last I was in Sacto

near UCDAVIS MED, I was rather uncomfortable. A lot of tension and "discontented" individuals roaming around.

I think the thing that has changed with the SC decision is that it's brought the disgraceful practice of displacing people for pure profit motive, out of the closet. I can just hear the wheels turning in some organizations boardroom. I can "feel" the hands rubbing together. 'Oh goodie, we've been give free reign and nothing or no body can stop us now.' Instead of improving/upgrading areas of poor, lower income residents, they can just force them to LEAVE..let them run for cover like a bunch of cockroaches. NO HOLDS BARRED now.

ANYTHING that displaces people who are barely hanging on by a thread for purely private enterprise is rotten to the core. Even for those who are displaced for acceptable reasons such as roads, sewers etc SHOULD be compensated by enough financial recompense so as to be able to purchase a dwelling elsewhere. For the poor, disabled, aging population, they should fully compensate AND relocate to establish those folks AT COMPANY EXPENSE. <----That would be decent

I live at the bottom of the social ladder on a fixed income. We are a family of aging disabled folk. We cannot find housing for RENT even in the proverbial "Ghetto". Hell will freeze over before we ever climb UP AND OUT of this situation. So when I hear of folks being displaced for corporate reasons when affordable housing is so rare................I revolt.

[Nikki Stone 1]

122. Local governments are easily bribed and easily impressed--please read!

The small town types who take the jobs on local city councils and county boards of supervisors are not always the brightest bulbs in the pack, and they tend to be far more susceptible to bribes. Case in point, Prince William County, VA. Their little board of supervisors was completely taken in by the Disney corporation, which wanted to build "Disney's America" (complete with Mickey Mouse slavery exhibition--don't ask) on top of an actual Civil War battlefield. They were going to destroy the battlefield to put up their tasteless plastic theme park.

The "local government" was like the innocent farm girl in the big city and got completely seduced by the expensive talkers at Disney, who promised lots of jobs for the county's citizens and lots of tourist and tax dollars. What they neglected to mention was how much Prince William County was going to pay for the infrastructure improvements and how much land (and quality of life) residents were going to lose.

The only reason Disney didn't get to spread its crap all over PWC is that wealthy individuals, like the owner of M&M/Mars, had horsefarms in the area. Their money and influence dragged the US Congress into the mix and soon there were hearings on Disney's planned blot on the landscape. The rich people, however, won, and Disney didn't get to put up their display of Mickey Mouse in chains (which was rumored to be in the plans.) This was one of the few times I ever remember saying "Thank God for rich people."

But, if you don't have rich people with friends in Congress on your side, your local government is more likely to be seduced and completely taken in by big corporations.

I shudder to think what will happen now as big multinationals who want to pollute take on the goobers that people most local government. God help us all.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

126. Anyone can be bribed. The court expanded PUBLIC USE to

PUBLIC INTEREST.

Again, at the risk of repeating myself...this redevelopment plan to the DOWNTOWN was formualted around the fact that Pfizer is building a research facility there. The homes are being purchased to revitalize the area and add offices, a hotel a marina and other businesses...that's HUNDREDS of jobs....for which all the other neighbors sold and 9 families held out (even though they were offered decent money for their homes) Which is MORE in the public interest? 9 families sentimentality toward their homes? No one is taking their property without compensation.

What is HORRIBLE is that people would think this were justifiable for a park but NOT desperately needed decent paying jobs in an economically depressed community!

[Tinoire]

123. Interesting way of looking at it

Interesting thread too. Thanks

[smb]

129. Nonsense

The whole basis of the American system is that basic individual rights (such as the right to one's private property) are to be removed from the political give-and-take.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

149. And if their property were taken without compensation, you'd have a point

[TnDem]

188. Who decides---compensation?

"fair compensation"? Get real...Here's a scenario...

If the local government forces you to sell your place for $25,000 total which is the "tax apraised value" to a developer who then subdivides it and sells it for $100,000 per parcel to law offices, a bank and a retail store, then how did I get a fair value for that parcel? Explain that to me? You are not implying that the developers are going to sell it for cost, right? If they make a three, four, five fold profit, then how can my forced $25,000 offer be deemed fair?

Do you think these developers have the people's best interest in mind? You will never get "fair market value" unless you are allowed to sell it in the open market...To the highest bidder.

You all decry the campaign finance system and yet silently agree with five silly old SC idiots that would force me to sell my house for peanuts to a developer that has made campaign "contributions" to the entire city council to make this ruling for me.

[LynneSin]

131. Thank you, for some reason this whole case perplexed me

I mean, for me to be angry over the SCOTUS decision means that I actually agree with Thomas, Scalia & Rehnquist - something I've not done since any of them got to the high court.

IF the Moderate/Liberal judges defended this case then I knew there had to be more to the story then what everyone was bitching about. From what you have written - it seems that basically SCOTUS is saying that our state & local governments should be the ones to make the final decision, NOT the US government. ANd let's face it - we all trust our local governments more than the Federal one

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

151. It's saying that the courts are not going to second guess

states and cities on matters pertaining to what constitutes public interest when the city met their burden with a detailed plan for economic development.

People are posting as though this property was stolen and the owners will be out on the street.

The state of Conn. can go FURTHER in situations such as this by LEGISLATING what should be done in such instances.

Furthermore, everyone who is against this when it creates many jobs can see the point of eminent domain for a park, a railroad or a hospital...but really? A park? When people need jobs? And what about hospitals? Are they not now privately owned? Can the public afford to go to the hospital if they don't have a job?

I think there needs to be a balance between local power and federal power. Were there not, then locals could still say "we won't rent to black folks" I think this decision respected that balance but I also DO THINK it sets precedent when a corporation claims that communities are screwing them out of a profit by not letting them put MTBE in their gas...it says communities know what is in their interest and that the court should not second guess that without good cause.

[Cell Whitman]

139. AGREE - I still say this is a sucker punch from the right

I am no law expert, but when Ginsburg goes one way there is a reason. You know how the repugs make issues look like one thing when there is a LOT more to them. I think we were suckered on this one.

I bet this case was picked by the right because it "looks" so cut and dry. I may be wrong but it amazes me how quickly so many bought into this. This post has only two recommendations and one was mine. I find that very odd. The right has been behind this case since day one is my guess because it does looks so cut and dry and we are falling for it.

The repugs want to END environmental law and cripple governments. As Atrios pointed out last night on AAR - The court likely saw both sides as bad apples. (not the little old home owner but those behind her with the real agenda) Kennedy likely went the way he did because he knew the wingnut judges would load down any ruling that went the other way with language that the right would use to pervert the takings clause over time.

Takings clause example: Say a city has an environmental law stating that all property next to the towns water supply cannot be strip mined...the property rights crowd wanna say that the city has "taken" their land and therefore the city must pay them for it. They could still use the property for a hotel or whatever just not strip mining in this example.

This would put an end to environmental law. Cities could not afford this.

I think this is the real thing the majority on the court were seeing in the case down the road...

____

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/gelpi/papers/ptreanr.htm

The champions of the property rights movement claim that they are fighting to restore the original understanding of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They invoke James Madison and other founding fathers as support for proposed statutes that require the federal government to pay property owners when it prevents them from harming the environment or jeopardizing the survival of endangered species. Wetlands regulation, it is often said, "takes" property by diminishing its value, and the founders adopted the Takings Clause to ensure that, when government regulations diminished the value of property, the owner would receive compensation. Increasing numbers of lawsuits are being filed on the same theory. Established Supreme Court standards for resolving takings claims, litigants contend, are at odds with the founders' belief that property ownership was a natural right that the government could never limit. These suits urge courts to return to the founders' vision, and claim that, once that vision is revived, the judiciary will routinely invalidate local land use and environmental protection standards.

Widely shared and forcefully repeated, this conception of the original understanding has come to play a central role in the debate about the Takings Clause. But it is demonstrably and dramatically wrong. The original understanding of the Takings Clause was, very simply, that the federal government had to compensate the property owner when it physically took property --such as when it took land to build a fort. The clause did not require compensation for regulations under any circumstances. Property rights advocates ignore the plain language of the clause, the evidence about what the founders and other Americans in the early republic thought the clause actually meant, and the founders' views about property and democratic government. Claiming to rely on history, property rights advocates embrace, instead, a myth.

more.....

[guardian]

140. This is BAD and YOU should be upset.

As a licensed real estate broker I can tell you that people rarely receive true fair market value for their property when property is condemned by a municipal or other government body through a court action under the principal of Eminent Domain. You'll get pennies on the dollar. Just bend over. Grab your ankles and smile.

Yes. I know the law says the government is supposed to pay fair market value. But, in practice the governing body will use very low appraisals, disregard higher appraisals, or just arbitrarily rule in favor of themselves.

If you are a small business. They won't compensate you for the moving costs, or the lost income while your doors are closed, or worry that you may actually lose your business altogether because you couldn't find suitable or properly zoned or affordable replacement location.

Further, you won't be compensated for the time, effort, stress, large ancillary moving costs for losing your property.


Another case of where the average citizen looses again. I view this as just another weakening of our democracy. It lets the cronies and puffed up beaureucrats take their bribes and kickbacks from their business buddies to screw the little guy.

It kills me to say it. But, Thomas, Scalia, et al were right on this one.

You should write your state and federal legislators and complain about this one.

[Cell Whitman]

144. So you don't believe in Eminent Domain ..period?

in any manner or form?

[guardian]

145. Stop with the red herring argument

I'm telling you how it is.

Are YOU in favor of stealing Aunt Flo's home so Walmart can build a superstore? Your favorite town concilman will get a brown paper bag with small unmarked bills.

Is that what YOU want?

Grow up.

[Cell Whitman]

146. I asked you a question

just because you couldn't answer it without just blabbing your talking points don't take it out on me. See my post above, it was a legit question.

Can you actually answer it?

[guardian]

152. And I asked you a question too

which you chose not to answer.

Your question "So you don't believe in Eminent Domain ..period?
in any manner or form?" is a red herring question and a waste of time. I believe a private party should not be able to take other people's private property. That is what this ruling allows.

[Cell Whitman]

159. I answered it by asking you to read my post above yours.

Which I imagine you still haven't done or you would know why I am asking. There ARE legit questions about this. You're post is written in manner which leads me to belive you do not believe in the concept at all. That was the reason for my question.

As anyone knows there is MORE to these rulings than often meets the eye. Read my post.

So is your answer that you don't believe in the concept in any form.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

154. Yes I know there are horror stories..and the good people of

Connecticut have the power to pass laws to protect property owners and business owners from that occurring. Remember, there would be MANY plaintiffs in this case were they not negotiated with in good faith.

9 families held out over an entire neighborhood. Again, it KILLS me to see so called liberals defending the very same justices who have REPEATEDLY attacked labor with their decisions.

[smb]

173. Your New Soulmates

"9 families held out over an entire neighborhood."
"A few homos are holding out over the entire community of normal people."
"A couple of atheists are holding out over the good Christian folks who want to have prayer in school."

...and so on. Either you believe that people have rights even if the neighbors don't like it, or you don't.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

174. Your comments are complete non - sequiturs to my comments

I believe people have rights. Nowhere in this thread did I state otherwise. I believe property owners are entitled to fair and just compensation for their property during periods of redevelopment. I do not believe it is fair or just for one person or 50 to stand in the way of jobs for hundreds, possibly thousands.

[spooky3]

158. They were offered far more than pennies (link inside).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=edit&forum=132&topic_id=1879919&mesg_id=1882247

I don't know how that compares with market value in New London.

It may not cover moving expenses, etc., but they also don't have to pay Realtor fees, fixing up expenses, etc., and may not have to pay recording taxes or other fees a seller usually has to pay.

[MadHound]

141. Sorry, but I don't buy your arguement.

There is a big difference between regulatory laws concerning pollution and other such issues, and allowing a city, county or state to seize your land, paying you less than what you would get on the free market, only to turn in over to a private business, simply to raise more tax revenue or bring in jobs.

In addition, even in a local government, once you vote the person in, you face a near impossible task of getting rid of them until the next election. Thus, stealth pro corporate candidates will and do abound, and we're screwed before we even know it. Besides, you know as well as I do that like any other governmental entity, local and state governments are run on the Good Ol' Boy network, and are much more receptive to those that line their pockets than the average ordinary citizen. Corporate money has as much a corrosive influence on the local level as on the national, and locally citizens have far fewer tools to battle this corrosive influence than on the national front.

Sorry, but this is a bad decision, no matter who made it. I'm not going to blindly praise bad policy just because it was made by people who are supposed to be liberal.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

155. I am not blindly praising bad policy

when the choice is hundreds possibly thousands of jobs over the convenience of 9 families in an economically depressed area, I'd take the side of those hundreds or thousands of jobs. If everyone in town can't find work, their property will be worth even less and they HAVE A REMEDY for compensation that they can still take to the courts.

Nowhere did the court agree that one property can be transferred for the enrichment of a private interest without just compensation.

[MadHound]

165. OK ,but there are a few other factors to take into consideration

First, just or fair compensation, as determined under ED generally runs ten to twenty percent less than what the property would bring on the free market if the property was put up for sale, and in many cases even less than that. If you wish to hire a lawyer to fight city hall and get that free market price, you're going to spend the money you make on lawyers' fees.

Second, in the vast majority of cases, if a business or development wants to move into a town or city, and they can't get the land they want initially, they will simply move across town to land they can get. The jobs won't be taken away, nor the tax revenue.

Also, in some corporate cases, the company you let in may create jobs, but for the jobs it creates in its business, jobs in the community at large are lost. Example, WalMart. It is a well known fact that for every job a WalMart creates, 1.5 jobs in the community are lost. And the jobs that are created are at a lower wage, to the point where the employees are elegible for, and are forced to take, food stamps and Medicaid, thus they are a net tax burden.

Now, let us take a look at the rural scenario. You have a small organic farmer, raising organic heirloom vegetables and fruit. A large corporate hog producer comes in and wants to locate on that property. This corporate farm spreads some largesse around the county's Good Ol' Boy network, and the county goes after the small farmer with ED and after compensating that farmer at below free market prices, the corporate farmer moves in. Corporate hog farms are notorious for their pollution. They render housing for miles around unihabitable due to the smell and air quality. They pollute the water to the point where the EPA comes in. They produce massive amounts of runoff, both of chemicals and waste. Sure, they're bringing in more taxes, but at what cost?

Sorry, but this is a ruling that is leaving itself wide open for abuse by corporate America. It is a give away to big business, and will further increase the crony capitalism already rife in state and local govenment. It is a bad policy that strips all property owners of any security in their property rights. It needs to be challenged, and changed via a Constitutional amendment. I generally respect and agree with your opinions on the issues NSMA, but I think that you're on the wrong side of this one.

[Czolgosz]

142. I posted this elsewhere, but I'm re-posting it here because this should be

something we ALWAYS bring up whenever we discuss eminent domain.

So as far as I can tell,

1. The Republican dominated court wrote an opinion
2. which was signed by a majority of Republicans
3. which favored big businesses over individuals.

Which part of this is surprising to you?

This, as far as I can tell, is business as usual.

Take the interesting example of one underachieving oilman from west Texas. This is a guy who drove a few oil companies into the ground and then wrongly used his insider knowledge to avoid taking the financial loss personally and ultimately violated SEC rules about reporting the matter. Turns out, this guy was a failure at everything he touched, but his daddy was a big shot politician.

The Texas Rangers baseball team wanted to build a new stadium in Arlington, Texas, and they wanted the government to take land away from Texas families to build the stadium. But the Texas Rangers didn't have the political clout to do this until they came up with the genius idea of selling part of the team (for pennies on the dollar, it was a real sweetheart deal) to this failed oilman with the politically connected daddy. This was basically a Texas version of the deal where the Libyan government hired Billy Carter to help them negotiate the purchase of transport planes while Jimmy Carter was president.

This deal completely screwed the Mathes family out of their land in Arlington, Texas. In fact, the Mathes family didn't even get a one fifth of the fair market value for their land which they were kicked off.

The result? Well, the failed oilman was well paid for helping screw the Mathes family out of their land. The Texas Rangers got the failed oilman $14 million for the part of the team it sold him for only $600,000 (which is a hell of a lot bigger payoff than Billy Carter ever got). In 1993, the Houston Chronicle newspaper asked the failed oilman if he deserved credit for the stadium, he said "When all those people in Austin say, 'He ain't never done anything,' well, this is it."

I don't have to tell you who the failed oilman was, do I?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

148. We need to hop on this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3936560

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

156. And they sued him and won

[Czolgosz]

161. But did Bush and the Rangers ever re-pay the City of Arlington for

the $7,500,000 overrun which they were legally obliged to pay but which they were refusing to pay?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

162. If not I would assume there is a lien on the property

as is the remedy of the person who has the court order

[Tom Rinaldo]

163. I live in a rural area

First let me apologize in advance for not having had time to read this thread. I have been swamped with other personal and political work, so I am just writing to the original poster's point.

I live in a rural community. Our township is in the Catskill Mountains in New York. We are part of New York City's watershed. This is an extremely important bio diversity area also. There are just a few more than 3,000 people in our whole township. There is a local figure here who has aligned himself with major developers to promote our region as a major resort location, and his plans include lopping off the top of a mountain and putting some golf courses on it.

Here is my point. The scale of our local politics is relatively tiny, and this person has been able to tap into big money to influence our Town Board. The amount of "studies" this person can have funded to support his positions, the amount of glossy slick mailings this person can mail to every household in our community (promising JOBS), the amount of economic incentives this person is able to leverage to selected politically influential individuals to support his development plans, is staggering when viewed against the standard backdrop of political activity that traditionally has been the norm here.

Major developers are eager to "purchase" local governments, which often can be "bought" very cheaply relative to the profits that they stand to make. This Supreme Court ruling makes it much easier for them to use paid for majorities in local government to facilitate aggressively pursuing development schemes that exist to line their own pockets.

Power politics gets personal in small communities. I will not be surprised to see threats of targeted "eminent domain" confiscations of people's property below market value (market value is another concept that is malleable to local power politics) being made at people who are considering standing up against the developers and their paid for local governments.

A local government may be sincere in wanting to promote economic development for all their citizens, but if local governments become the means to seize properties wanted for lucrative development schemes meant only to profit special interests, I expect special interests to start seizing local governments. A typical local election campaign here for control of our Township typically was run about $10,000 in the past. Mere peanuts for developers.

[guardian]

164. I agree

This is why this ruling is bad. The taking of other's real property should be limited to public works (e.g., roads, schools, hospitals, etc). And even then done very carefully and on a very limited basis.

People already are screwed when the property is condemned for public use. It will only be worse when people's homes are taken for casinos and superstores.

[KoKo]

181. That's happening where I live in the booming Sun Belt. And it's

impossible to fight the Real Estate Interests because their lobby influences the legislators.

I understand what NSMA is saying the Supremes basically kicked this back to the local Courts to deal with. But, the issue of Private over Public is becoming a big one since there's so much free money to developers these days with the low interest rates and the Venture Capitalists funding REIT's which is fueling land grabs like nothing I've ever seen.

The Supreme's ruling comes at a time when local governments like yours and mine (mines Big City, btw) are in the pockets of those with the biggest bucks and it's sold to the folks as development which will be profitable for the citizens in the long run...but it doesn't always work out that way.

Catskill area, huh? My hubby grew up Putnan Valley area, Fishkill. :hi: His Dad was on the County Planning Board for years trying to beat back the "Fat Cats" who were always plotting some give away to the wealthy up in Garrison. :D

[noamnety]

166. What the media isn't telling you

1. They aren't getting "fair market value" according to my sister who lives in New London. They aren't getting enough to buy a comparable house in a comparable area in the same city and cover moving expenses.

2. The city has done this repeatedly to some of the people there. This isn't the first time New London has forced the exact same people out of their houses. I haven't seen any of those people interviewed in the media.

3. This is a separate issue from pollution or blight. The lawyers arguing to take away their houses specifically did NOT use the blight provision to justify it. So unlike a corporate pollution scenario, the homeowners weren't harming anyone in the community - except by being less desirable than rich people.

4. This goes hand in hand with other policies being taken up by the local city officials. In another thread, I talked about New London bringing in outside policemen as part of a harassment campaign to drive "undesirables" out of town. The reason they are using a harassment campaign is that the so-called undesirables haven't done anything illegal, so they can't charge them with a crime. But they can, apparently, send police to barge in on them in the middle of the night for no reason.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3929976&mesg_id=3929976

5. I reject the argument that this is about local government vs. federal government rights. The case is about local government vs. property owner rights. It's about allowing a government - at any level - to discriminate against the lower classes. It's a housing discrimination suit, hiding under the guise of "what's good for the community." To be blunt, it's town officials deciding that it's in the town's best interest to drive out poor people.

[Ron Mexico]

172. Exactly. "Fair market value" is what the government feels like paying, and

not one fucking cent more.

I can't see how anyone except for a CEO could be for this decision. Not since the USSC sodomized the entire country in 2000 by putting a cordless penile substitute in the White House has it fucked us as badly as it did yesterday.

[smartvoter]

177. On point number 1:

I was exposed to a similar scenario at one point (not personally but knew the people) and it was exactly the same story.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

179. While I can't argue all those specific facts, the courts left it open

for communities to pass laws that allow for greater protection in these circumstances. California laws and other states are tougher and require "blight." The court SPECIFICALLY reiterated that states can do that.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the way of DEFINING just compensation when it is a private party receiving some of the benefit.

This law CAN lead to abuses if people do not ACT within their states to insure it doesn't, but there MUST be some balance between cities and states wishing to create revenue and commerce and jobs and individuals staying put under any circumstances.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

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

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

182. Please..you were indeed fearmongering and your post to me later on

was less than flattering.

MY POINT IS the courts left it open for communities to avoid and legislate AGAINST those abuses you guarantee WILL happen.

[smartvoter]

185. Your definition of fearmongering is comical.

First, I never guaranteed anything. I said I think a specific type of scenario will happen. I hope I'm wrong, but I have worked with investors/developers, including sitting in an office while local pols are called to get them in line to vote on an issue, and think it's a strong possibility. So I put up a friendly donation challenge to DU that we see something like it by year-end. And you didn't like it so you called me a fear monger.

I could just as easily say you are being an apologist for things you are posting out here. I won't, because I think you have the right to think and express yourself.

(The irony here is it turns out you don't even disagree that it can happen, you just don't like it being said.)

You have a huge "last word" thing going on that I see wasn't reserved only for me last night -- it's through this entire thread, so I am dropping this now, regardless of what you post afterward.

This is just silly, and maybe we'll be in agreement on the next issue.

[unblock]

169. easier for citizens AND CORPORATIONS to change local governments

it's VERY easy to corrupt or replace local government officials. with low budget campaigns and little public scrutiny, it's very easy for a corporation willing to shell out a few bucks to get a favorable board. not everyone is corruptible, and it might not work in EVERY town, but it sure works in a lot of them.

oh, sure, it's also then very easy for public outrage to come in and sweep the corrupt officials out, but by then it's too late. you're out on the streets and walmart now owns the city block you used to live on.

then what?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

170. Clean elections are easier to legislate on the local level

Look..every decision can be manipulated against the people. Every decision. When a dangerous criminal is set free on a technicality, people think Miranda rights are against the people. When the Valejo (sp?) case was decided it was IIRC in defense of union money supporting politicians (remember..money is free speech?) that too has been manipulated.

The court left it to the states to provide greater remedies against abuse. The two points I have attempted to make throughout are that

1) The court left SOME balance regarding what constitutes public use and that CAN INDEED be to the advantage of locals...states, municipalities, etc.

2) In an area where there has been longstanding concern for jobs, I do think commerce outweighs a handful of people who acknowledged in court they would not sell for ANY price.

[smartvoter]

178. This is exactly my view. nt

[Ron Mexico]

171. You're wrong - people are being fucked by way of "fair" compensation.

If compensation was fair in the eyes of the owner, there would be no need for eminent domain to begin with.

Further, "fair compensation" is subject to taxation, so a house that is paid off but must be sold means that a homeowner will be told to get the hell out, and have to take a mortgage out on the second home because the same government that fucked him to begin with taxes him out of a good chunk of his "fair" compensation.

Note that nowhere does it state that the homeowner is entitled to the value the government says the property is worth when assessed for property taxes. Homeowners are also not compensated for lost time at work or moving expenses.

The USSC just opened the door to corporations being able to submit lowball offers to landowners and kick them off their property when the owner doesn't want to sell. The decision didn't grant power to the states, it granted power to Wal-Mart.

Real estate is no longer a sound investment for anyone but multimillion dollar corporations. This is the most horrifying court decision since Bush v. Gore, and in the end it will be just as costly.

[unblock]

186. as i said, no such thing as home ownership anymore.

from now on, there's only renting from the government, and they can cancel your lease at any time.

real estate taxes are your 'rent' and eminent domain now on very easily fabricated pretexts is the government's right to cancel your lease and forceably evict.

[Old and In the Way]

175. Thanks NSMA.....

No lawyer here, so I appreciate your professional opinion.

Doesn't this happen anyway? I know on the southern coast of Maine there are hundreds of sad stories about people who can't pay the exorbitant property taxes on their ocean front real estate and end up selling. It sucks, but they are reimbursed.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

184. Hear, hear

"States' rights and local control" doesn't have to mean lynching, kiddie-porn churches and medievalist science curricula. It can mean medical marijuana, mileage minima, and cities saying NO to polluters and exploitative businesses.

The first use of the decision should be the removal of rich people from their houses, which can then be used as homeless shelters and extra classroom space for public schools.

[greblc]

189. So we're to believe Pfizer...

used no Political influence to win this case? They have lobbyists in Washington. How couldn't they influence a small economically depressed community in Connecticut? It's terribly easy to be caviler about individuals rights when it's not you, your neighbor or someone you care for. How many of us would voluntarily make the same sacrifice for our communities?

This community fed these people to Pfizer.

We might just as well start sacrificing virgins on mountain tops, or our young to an unjust war.

[Wabbajack]

191. Yeah like when some local goverments

thought blacks should have to drink from those water fountains over there.

[smb]

196. That's Why "Deference"

...does not apply when a clear constitutional right (e.g. the limitation of eminent domain to PUBLIC USE) is violated by local government.

The Supreme Court has placed its imprimatur on Boss Hogg shenanigans.