Supreme Ct: Govts can seize homes, bus for econ dev

[UpInArms]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp...

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments can seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private economic development.

...very short blurb...

adding NYTs article on edit:

Justices Back Seizing Homes for Economic Development

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23wire-scotu...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

...still a very short blurb...

[Occulus]

1. ...and the Corporation reigned, supreme over all. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

99. Yeah, but here's the sick kicker -

who voted in favor? The "good guys". Who dissented? O'Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia.

Never thought I'd find myself in agreement with that group.

[Occulus]

102. It only proves one thing.

We CANNOT trust this SCOTUS for anything. A-n-y-t-h-i-n-g.

[JRob]

153. Why does anyone think it's anything but a show?

[conservdem]

234. What do you mean by that?

[JRob]

247. It seems to me that there is all this noise being generated on both...

sides of the isle, yet when you look at the direction in which we continue to move as a nation it's seems to almost alway be advantage big business/big money.

Dem's talk, yet continue to allow, even vote for pro business bills, judges etc. Presumed liberal leaning judges supporting business over civil concerns...

By "show" I insinuate that the powers-that-be show us what we want to see (or attempt to sustain hope) while they pick away at our rights, freedoms, access to the American Dream etc.

An important thing to remember is that these people are not subject to the same realities of ordinary citizens. Separate pensions (6 figures), premium health and other benefits (to which we do not have access) and in some ways they are even beyond the law etc.

Their "Us" is not us...

Maybe "Political Theater" is a better representation. Distraction.

I guess I look more at what happens, what those happening translate into verses the "show" leading up to a given happening.

[shance]

295. Rob, that seems to be the truth doesnt it?

That its all just a show from Washington, at least with most of the lawmakers. I don't call them leaders for a reason. So few of them really are.

[William Seger]

159. Yep, and I'm afraid progressives will pay a severe price for this

Right now, there's nothing more important to the future of the country than removing the Repug stranglehold on Congress in 2006. I'm seriously afraid this horrible "activist judge" decision could undermine any hope for that.

Unless...

Is it too much to hope that Democrats will jump on this and introduce legislation -- a Constitutional amendment, if necessary -- to protect homes from greedy corporations? It would put the Repugs between a rock and a hard place: their "conservative base" and the corporate greedheads who really run the party.

[losdiablosgato]

168. We can only hope.

[reprobate]

216. Hope? Afraid that's gone when the real Democrats dissappeared.

Look at ehe date. The Democratic party has not even made any plans for the mid terms. There is no agenda. I say this a a Dem since JFK, but there is really no alternative. Under the Corporate States of 'Murka a third party is impossible, so we are left but with a single party: the Corporate party.

Let me make a prediction: It is becoming more and more apparent that the real estate bubble will burst before long, we are even seeing it being written about in that conswervative rag the Orlando Slantinel. This will put masses of people into huge debt, and when the economy results in more job losses, and more salary downsizing, we'll see homelessness to rival Germany after the big war.

Add to that the physicly and emotionally wounded returning from war and the families of the dead and wounded. And remember that Americans are the most armed nation on earth.

Who will they blame? I think the corporations. I think that we may see a time when being a member of management of a corporation will be to wear a target on your back. We may even see CEOs dangling from lamposts. Oh, what fun! We could decorate them like Christmas ornaments.

And if it starts here, I think it will spread to europe. It's started in South America already. We may just see the end of the capitalist stranglehold on the world. And I for one, am ready.

As you said, "We can only hope".

[JerseygirlCT]

248. Great idea!

[losdiablosgato]

167. You want sadder, the freepers agree with us,this is a bad decision.

Well I guess I no longer own my house, I rent it from the government.

[conservdem]

242. Its not sad that they agree, its good. Its more likely this terrible ruling

can be corrected though legislation if vast majority wants this addressed.

[DuaneBidoux]

249. You got that right!!!!! I couldn't believe my ears when I heard Stevens

the writer of the majority opinion and O'Conner saying "this is going to help wealthy developers get wealthier."

You know...I've been thinking. In a way, a bought off liberal is more dangerous than a true conservative. True conservatives would always be reluctant to give government the power to seize land.

The real problem here however is that this is just the continued shrinkage of the public sector as everything becomes private. When a city wanted to improve their city before they had to look out for everyone's interest and show a prevailing public good would come from seizure; now the right developer can pay them off and you've got it: seized property!

[smirkymonkey]

253. O'Connor dissented

I cannot believe this is happening. We are officially a totalitarian state.

[FourStarDemocrat]

267. I know, I'm shocked as well to be in agreement with that bunch! n/t

[NewJeffCT]

2. wow, just like China now...

pretty soon, we'll all be in sweatshops, OSHA will be disbanded, minimum wage will be 0, etc.

[Sydnie]

3. "Freedom is on the March" coming to a town near you n/t

[MADem]

260. Yeah, before we know it, freedom will be marching to Canada

...or Europe, or New Zealand!!

Will they have us, ya gotta wonder??? We're part of an insane, reviled nation now...and you know how guilt by association works....

[gauguin57]

4. F**K!

Oh my GOD! I'm speechless. Farewell, my America.

[getmeouttahere]

12. I waved goodbye to America on Nov. 4, 2004

[UpInArms]

20. just another signal from those that brought you *Co on 12/12/00

[JoFerret]

138. Liberals on the wrong side on this one

imo

[Straight Shooter]

27. How about December 12, 2000.

I'm sure this will be welcomed with great applause and celebration at Free Republic. *snort*


edit typo date

[Abathar]

166. Freepers are pissed too

Just jumped over to see what they had to say, I can't believe it but they are even more pissed than we are I think.

[Mitt Chovick]

240. Why don't you believe it?

They are big on property rights. Remember how in love they are with Janice Rogers Brown, who holds property rights as equal or above all others.

[Fire Walk With Me]

257. Those who give all to the concept of US Gov. will backlash the strongest.

[JRob]

157. THE BUCK STAYS HERE! In my wallet...

STOP GIVING CORPS THE MONEY TO FINANCE THEIR TAKEOVER OF AMERICA AND THE WORLD!!!!!

[PittPoliSci]

251. What are you even talking about?

It's called "eminent domain" and it's in the constitution. It's not like people who have had their home or business taken away aren't being compensated. It's been going on since the start of this country.

[Eloriel]

287. But the compensation does NOT have to be at market value

and frankly rarely is.

[Ready4Change]

5. Your house? Not your house anymore.

Property? It's all the governments. We are all nothing but renters now, subject to eviction at a corporations whim, once it convinces the government that it's development is for the "public good."

[obreaslan]

107. I'll bet that even if they take your house....

You still are responsible for paying the mortgage. And don't try to get out of it by declaring bankruptcy thanks to the new laws.

Welcome to the United States of American Express!

Maybe we can bring back indentured servitude and debtors prison too.

[iamjoy]

144. The Homeowner Is Compensated

snip:
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
end snip

However, what is "just compensation"? My guess would be appraised value (as in for tax purposes) which is usually well below market value. Furthermore, the land would then be resold at a much higher price.

The people hit the hardest will be those in slighly run down inner-city neighborhoods. When their property is seized to put up high end (more expensive) homes, these people won't be able to afford a new home at current housing prices. Or, if they are renting they won't be able to find a new apartment for the same price. Also, many of them may not have cars (either because they can't afford or don't drive) and live where they do because of public transportation.

This is bad news. I bet ACORN will be all over it.

[havocmom]

6. Bye bye American Dream! If you've got it and a rich bastard wants it...

too fuking bad for you.

So tell me again about troops fighting for 'our freedom'. All I see is they sent the troops outta town, and the Guard too, so they cold strip s of everything.

[Occulus]

15. Yeah. Pointless to buy a home now.

I probably won't until this ruling gets reversed by anoth.... oh, wait.

This is a sick decision!

[havocmom]

38. Yeah, bye bye housing bubble too!

Guess the banks and mortgage lenders didn't come across with as much $$ as the hotel and shopping mall builders did!

Think of the old folks who worked, sacrificed and paid off their homes so they could have some security! Now they can be forced to be renters/consumers again at a time they cannot afford the new market prices.

When b*sh talks about 'ownership society' he doesn't mean the citizens! He is talking about his real base, the ones he calls "The Haves and the Have Mores". No more rights for the people!

[losdiablosgato]

175. The liberals on the court are the ones who ruled for this

The RW are in the decent.

[havocmom]

208. there are no liberals on SCOTUS

they are ALL neocon stooges.

Maybe they have all been injected and only Rove has the antidote?

[reprobate]

220. What "liberal"? This ruling shows there are none.

[Vitruvius]

95. Yup -- that's how Dubya and his pals got the land for the stadium for

their baseball team down in Texas; the local gov't confiscated it from the owners, paid them about HALF of market value, and gave it to Dubya and pals.

The owners sued -- and ended up with more money; they got close to market value eventually (before lawyer's fees, tho). But -- Dubya got his taxpayer-subsidized stadium and the property owners got moved.

That's the Bu$h Rethugnican way; if they want it, they use the gov't to take it. Just like they used the U.S. Army to take over Iraq so they could get the oil.

[redqueen]

115. If I'm not mistaken, they declared many properties "condemned"

which really shouldn't have been, in order to get that thing built.

[bluestateguy]

7. True conservatives should be outraged

Nothing more than corporate welfare.

This is not government seizure to build a public park, highway, govt. office, city dump or a police station. This is an affront to what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

CNN reported that Rehnquist sided with the property owners over New London.

[Charles19]

59. Yah the conservative judges sided with O'Connor (against this)

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

[Hun Joro]

103. Yeah, I didn't understand that... n/t

[losdiablosgato]

201. Over in freperville they are as mad at this as we are

Yes we and the RW are in agreement, I do believe hell is ordering longjohns and woolins as we speak.

[bushisanidiot]

8. And the Wal-Mart shopping freeptards CHEERED!

"here, take my home, lord president walton.. just keep selling me those chinese made american flags for 2 cents each!"

[youspeakmylanguage]

49. Actually, you're wrong...

...the freepers are PISSED about this.

[bushisanidiot]

58. Freeptards sell their home to the chinese run Wal-marts

by shopping there... they think it's their patriotic duty. now that the govt. is snatching up their homes, do you think they'll even notice who is doing it to them?? uh.. no. they're too blindly loyal to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh who insist that Wal-mart is good so all good loyal american freeptards will cheer, as instructed, when their homes are confiscated to make way for new Wal-mart stores.

so no.. i'm not wrong. freeptards are indeed THAT STUPID.

[youspeakmylanguage]

64. Whatever...

...if your home is snatched away by a government, any government, you're not going to be happy about it regardless of your political affiliation.

You're letting your hatred of the right get in the way of common sense.

[JoFerret]

139. Cl;arence Thomas and Antonin Scalia tried

...but they were in the minority here. O'Connor scathing in dissent.

[pazarus]

148. yeah they are

and they're ready to shoot judges over it. This is a ruling in favor of big business and government's role in helping big business.

I think it's an awful ruling with terrible implications... but then, so does everybody who has a breath of individualism left in them.

Maybe this can be the beginning of the end to the unholy alliance of conservatives and big business. Maybe they will eventually see that they don't share common goals with big business when they lose their jobs overseas and lose their homes to a shopping mall.

[AX10]

111. "Lord President Walton"

Sam Walton is one reason I can think of as to why we need to keep Roe vs. Wade intact.

[elehhhhna]

9. Rec for greatest. This means we have no property rights anymore.

Would your farm make a nice Walmart location? Sell it NOW.

[billbuckhead]

14. Isn't this what we were criticizing Chavez for?

How can we criticize even Mugabe? Welcome to the corporate state.

Remember Chimpy's first big political test was getting eminent domain to take over farms to build a new stadium for the TeXXXas Rangers?

[NewJeffCT]

30. China does it all the time

We were in Nanjing, China last September and across one long street, there were red banners stretched across the street in the air from one side to another. Every building had the same red sign - I thought it was one of those "Come to the 38th annual Nanjing Salted Duck Festival" or some similar festival, as it reminded of those signs we see in small town America.

So, I asked my wife, who speaks, reads & writes the language, what the signs says, and she basically said that the sign is telling people to leave now because the government is going to take this area and build office towers in the near future.

[redqueen]

82. Chavez takes land and builds shopping malls?

Somehow I don't think you've got that right, my friend.

I think he takes land and gives it to poor people... really not even close to the same thing.

Eminent domain was already legal for public use... this just approves it for private development. And surprise surprise... it was NOT the more liberal justices who sided with the corporations.

I'm disgusted with the justices who agreed with this decision.

[ret5hd]

110. no....in fact, just the opposite...

redistributing UNUSED and IDLE land held by corporations and the rich, often on dirty titles (read stolen) is not the same.

[NewJeffCT]

10. Can we seize Texas & sell it to Costco?

at least they're a blue corporation.

[youspeakmylanguage]

11. This from the "liberal" SCOTUS...

I'm getting sick to my stomach.

[Nordmadr]

13. I really don't know how much more of this shit I can take.

This is not my America anymore. I am not even sure it can be fixed.

I don't understand how people can be so blind.


Olaf

[youspeakmylanguage]

17. I just ventured into the cesspool...

...and the Freepers are just as upset about this as we are. This could turn out to be one of the most unpopular SCOTUS decisions of all time.

I'm still waiting for details and a breakdown of the vote.

Could a constitutional amendment finally be justified to overturn a SCOTUS decision? Wow, now I am sounding like a Freeper...

[elehhhhna]

31. Freeper calls it Communism:

"This is absolutely unbelievable, so much for the ownership society. Government bulldozing your property at their leisure is not an ownership society. Gloves are coming off, you know what this is? It's communism, it's fucking communism. "

[tk2kewl]

42. It isn't communism. It's fascism.

The government isn't taking property for the commons, they're taking it from individuals and giving it to corporations.

UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE!

[olddad56]

155. So true. The sooner people get that Democracy has been replaced...

by 'Corporate Fascism', the better off we will be. Hanging on to the past and being outraged at every turn isn't helping anything.Continuing to believe we live in a just society is called denial. All you can do is hug your kids and be glad that you haven't been hauled off in the middle of the night yet.

[FourStarDemocrat]

269. "Communism = Facsism"- Susan Sontag

Especially in this case. This is a vote for the power of local governments without the protections against the corporations and developers that buy influence with the local governments, as they have for years already with the federal government.

[Occulus]

43. For once, we are in total agreement with the Freepers.

I never thought I would see the day.

We, those who stand against this decision, are right, and the SCOTUS is dead fucking wrong.

For clarification, the words "dead fucking wrong" are intended as a simple figure of speech.

[tk2kewl]

53. Check my post above.

If they ALSO were deciding for the government in cases like Dolan v. Tigert OR (see post #19 below) then you might say "communism".

But they don't allow partial dedications for a legitimate public purpose (that doesn't make money) but they allow wholesale seizures for corporate give-aways! HO-LY SHIT!

[msanthrope]

65. Hell is freezing over.....n/t

[havocmom]

70. Not commnism when done for PRIVATE interests

The merger of government with corporations against the citizens is FASCISM!

DURBIN WAS RIGHT-

[Megahurtz]

162. It's FASCISM You Stupid Fucktard Freepers! n/t

[FourStarDemocrat]

271. Freepers are always afraid to use the word Fascism. I wonder why... n/t

[AX10]

80. This ENTIRE court needs to be removed.

[truebrit71]

16. Unbelievable....Remind me, what country is this?

Un-fucking-believable....

[NewJeffCT]

18. why did the more liberal court members vote for this?

including Ginsberg & Stevens

[redqueen]

86. Because there is no "liberal" anymore.

Those justices are more to the left than the others, but that does not make them liberals.

This is intolerable.

[OKthatsIT]

97. Afraid of judge assassinations?

Sine there doesnt seem to be a USA anymore, maybe its time to start a new govt in each state...and stop paying fed taxes.

The US Govt doesnt represent me anymore.

[davepc]

192. Because they don't interpret the Constitution "strictly"

If you go by the argument that you can interpret the Constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean, then this ruling is fine.

This ruling should also been seen in perspective with the Raich ruling last week where SCOTUS ruled that the commerce clause in the Constitution allows the fed to regulate whatever they want, whenever they want.

[tk2kewl]

19. But they can't require an easment for a bike path (Dolan v Tigard OR)

http://www.library.reed.edu/courses/syllabi/econ371/Dol...

[Inland]

68. As I suspected...

the issue wasn't whether there could be a requirmenet of an easement. It was whether the city could require one without compensating the owner.

The issue that comes up more often is what consitutes a "taking" requiring compensation, as in your case.

The majority decision is not surprising at all, ruling merely that there is no limit on takings that are compensated short of a rational basis test.

The only surprising thing is how fixed the property rights cabal has become on the Supreme Court.

[madrchsod]

21. gee..... where are all the republicans ?

states rights,anti big government, family values,private ownership, the list goes on and on...welcome to the new american century....

[Igel]

66. The conservatives on the court were in the majority.

Which means that it was the "good guys" that voted in favor of the town's taking.

[fryguy]

78. planning new strip malls and box stores where our houses currently stand

eom

[seaofcrisis]

146. Republicans were RIGHT - Liberals were WRONG

I don't think you read the article. It was the liberals on the court who did this, not the conservatives.

This is a day when we need to do a little bit of introspection. People here who blame this on conservatives are just sheep. Their thinking is, "this is bad therefore conservatives did it." I'm sorry guys, but the world isn't that simple. Sometimes we have problems in our own house.

We need to realize that sometimes the people we admire and respect don't have our best interests at heart. The "liberals" on the court screwed us over today, and they did it because they look down on us, they don't care about our homes or our property.

Face facts: the liberal side is the wrong side _on this one issue_ Break ranks with progressive leadership, join with conservatives on this one issue, and have this ruling overturned by constitutional amendment! Petty bickering, which is what I see this thread devolving in to, (as evidenced by the post I'm responding to) is exactly what they want us to do.

But, you're not going to do it, are you? You're going to keep on with the rhetoric, "the CORPORATIONS like walmart want to make this a FASCIST country run by SHRUBYA!!!111oneone"

go ahead and keep saying that shit. It's working out really well and helping to get a lot of things done.

[hfojvt]

170. how can you say such a thing?

Obviously, the liberals on this board are not happy about it, and probably the real corporate masters of the Republican party are very happy about it. It could be an opportunity to find some common ground between activists of the right and of the left. Instead the knee-jerk response seems to be "blame and hurl insults at the other side".

Ted Rall wrote about this case back in March, saying it was a tough call either way. I wrote to him:

"I have to go with the old lady on this one. As Wendell Barry wrote:
"If there is any law that has been consistently operative in American history, it is that the members of any established people or group or community sooner or later become 'redskins' - that is, they become the designated victims of an utterly ruthless, officially sanctioned and subsidized exploitation."
The developers are not trying to help the town or create jobs, they are trying to create profits for the developers and claiming 'job creation' as a beneficial side effect. I think it was Thoreau who said, "in the long run, we get what we aim for" and thus we are more likely to get profits than jobs."

I notice also, that "liberals" on SCOTUS were on the wrong side in the matter of an arrest for a traffic violation again written about by Ted Rall:

"The question is whether the Fourth Amendment forbids a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seat-belt violation punishable only by a fine," formerly liberal Justice David Souter wrote for the majority. "We hold that it does not." The dissent noted that the decision "has potentially serious consequences for the everyday lives of Americans." Well, duh. The constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure is now dead. The police can arrest and jail an American citizen for any crime whatsoever -- even a minor traffic offense. "The practical effect of the ruling is that police officers can exercise 'extremely poor judgment' and harass citizens for pointless reasons -- and those citizens are without legal redress," said Timothy Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the Cato Institute."

It is scary to find myself agreeing with the Cato institute on an issue, but there it is. "Finding common ground" is a liberal value, isn't it?

[youspeakmylanguage]

177. You're only half right...

It may be classically "liberal" judges that helped make this decision, but it is Republican legislators on the federal and state level that are forcing a larger and larger tax burden on local governments. This will spurn the seizure of property more than anything.

[seaofcrisis]

243. who r u kidding?

"it is Republican legislators"

so, the legislature of Connecticut is republican?? You can't be serious! Do the people of Connecticut know that??

Anyway, I don't care about the legislature right now. Today the battle was in the courts and today the liberals could have stood up for the little guy, but today they showed their real colors. They are not our friends.

[youspeakmylanguage]

245. Who said I was talking specifically about Conn.?

Ask b4 flying off the handle!

This ruling now encompasses the country as a whole. And the federal legislative branch is certainly forcing the cost of government on local municipalities.

[Old and In the Way]

246. Amen.

The hidden costs of our federal taxation give-aways is coming back to the bottom 97% in the form of local/state tax increases and unpopular revenue generation schemes. There's no free lunch. But our friends at the FR were never bright enough to figure this out.

[Junkdrawer]

22. I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United Corporations of America...

And to the Republicans on which they stand,
One Party, Under God, Invisible,
With Liberty and Justice only for the Wealthy.

[dweller]

23. that's it?? that's all we get for a story???

it should have been written in whisper, or invisible ink.

edit for more links:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-23-scot...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/200...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a5Z...


dp

[UpInArms]

34. see updated original post

with NYTs link added

[MuseRider]

24. I have been waiting for

this decision. Not that I am surprised by the results but I was hopeful that it would be different.

[Inland]

25. No surprise, and no problem.

Really, I don't worry about it. The fact is that eminent domain is and always was perfectly legal and the only requirement is just compensation to the owner---which, given the coffers of government, is a requirement that puts it beyond practical use in most circumstances.

[Occulus]

36. there WAS another quasi-requirement

that the purpose be for a public use. That's WHY the SCOTUS had to rule.

[youspeakmylanguage]

48. Increased local tax revenue = public use (now with text)

Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue...

I'm literally sick to my stomach...

[Occulus]

50. Goes hand in hand with their ruling that money is a form of speech.

Or some such like that.

Oh, and businesses WILL pay those taxes, right? I mean, there aren't any loopholes for them to AVOID paying those taxes.... are there?

[youspeakmylanguage]

45. So entirely wrong...

...this goes far beyond what we've considered fair imminent domain in the past. Local governments are seizing entire neighborhoods and handing the property over to developers simply so the proposed strip mall or office park built in their place will supposedly increase the local tax base.

Do you think this will affect million-dollar homes and businesses? Nope, it will only affect the affordable housing that is situated in urban areas near more upscale developments. This is going to screw over the "little guy" in the worst way possible.

Those of us that own small, affordable homes near upscale urban developments have A LOT to worry about.

[Inland]

61. Nope. It happens, and its not a problem.

While eminent domain is rarely exercised, it is often exercised for private development. How do you think they build stadiums and re-develop brownfields? How do you think something gets to USSct in the first place? By NEVER happening?

Moreover, I don't see the problem with increasing the local tax base. I'm not sure how housing remains affordable without a local tax base in commerical and industrial development, since then the taxes are entirely paid for by residential housing. Moreover, keeping a stock of affordable housing by eliminating selling opportunites for the majority doesn't really seem fair or effective.

And no, it won't affect million dollar homes, because those already add to the tax base, and because they cost more money. The lack of money to buy huge chunks of land and go through an eminent domain process explains why the process is only used for the most recalcitrant holdouts. The affordable housing is also affordable for another use--the only question is which use is best.

I don't see the advantage in saying that the older cities and suburbs have to nix a development as long as there is one holder of a property that won't accept any amount of money to leave. The entire city suffers from the disadvantage to the guy with an entire farm out in the exurbs that he wants to sell in one piece. Roads, water, sewer, police already developed and waiting all go to waste as the sprawl goes farther and farther out.

[youspeakmylanguage]

72. You are completely and utterly and devastatingly wrong.

My fiance and I own a small but beautiful 1930's house in a small neighborhood of houses in a medium ring of Charlotte, NC. A neighborhood just like ours is being demolished in Conn. so an office park can be developed in it's place. And you're telling me not to worry? I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.

This ruling will greatly encourage sprawl, since the only way to provide affordable housing without fear of seizure will be to build on cheap land in small municipalities without a large local government, which is usually in very rural areas. Urban areas will become playgrounds for the rich, since any affordable urban housing can be bulldozed to build another shopping mall or office building. Air pollution will increase dramatically as more and more low to middle income workers will be forced to drive long distances to work in urban industrial zones.

More and more of the rich are moving into urban cores and more and more lower and middle income Americans are being forced into the suburbs and rural areas to find affordable housing. This decision will pave the way for this to increase tenfold.

This is a complete and total disaster for urban America as we know it.

[redqueen]

90. You are entirely correct.

There's a world of difference between "public" and "private"...

[Inland]

93. No offense taken. You have your interests.

I understand that you want to stay in your house, even if you are offered fair compensation. While I don't know whether the project is a worthy one or not for your area as a whole, I can see that you don't consider that to be the issue. Understandable, yet regrettable and ultimately a problem for society as a whole, as shown my points--which you don't really address.

It isn't unusual or bizarre, as a concept, for private property owners to wish to use their property in a manner that isn't best for society as a whole. I suspect that you would leap up to protest the person next door selling his place for a slaughterhouse. The conservatives on the court want that owner's wish to be sacrosanct, so that all regulation gets knocked down. I don't, because I like the fact that representative government has the power, and sometimes does, act in the best interest of society as a whole. Making arbitrary constitutional distinctions as to whether eminent domain is acceptable depending on the purpose being a park, a school, a senior retirement home, a utility or an office park isn't workable.

Good luck with your elected representatives. That's where you can take your complaints.

[redqueen]

96. How does this ruling address zoning laws?

I don't get why you're bringing up slaughterhouses... that kind of thing is restricted by zoning laws... it has nothing to do with eminent domain.

[Inland]

128. Of course it does.

Both eminent domain and regulation are entirely tied up in the property rights cabal looking to dominate the supreme court.

Both are the targets of those people WITH private property that assert that any restriction is a taking, like eminent domain, and can only be done in the most limited set of circumstance.

I bring it up because its the end of the slippery slope.

[redqueen]

132. That's a stretch.

IMO there's no slippery slope which leads from zoning laws to siezing private property to hand it over to commercial developers.

[youspeakmylanguage]

106. My points are backed up by hard facts...

All you have to do is study the case that was brought before the SCOTUS.

You're slaughterhouse example is a complete strawman fallacy. We're not talking about basic zoning laws. This issue at hand is private property being seized by the government to be turned over to private developers simply for the sake of increasing local tax revenues.

Making arbitrary constitutional distinctions as to whether eminent domain is acceptable depending on the purpose being a park, a school, a senior retirement home, a utility or an office park isn't workable.

You call the differences between a public school and a privately-owned office park "arbitrary distinctions"? Are you being serious, or is this some sort of farce? It's a simple game of "Which of These Things Is Not Like The Other".

Your condescending attitude towards those of us that own property possibly affected by this decision only betrays the fact that you obviously do not own similar property. If you gleefully think that by running people out of their homes you'll have some sort of urban utopia to enjoy, you are sadly mistaken.

This issue may actually separate the progressives from the fascists among us.

[Inland]

135. To me, its not a question of whose ox is being gored. To you, it is.

A public school isn't like a privately owned office park--in a whole bunch of distinctions without a difference. As the oral arguments made pretty clear, there is arguably public benefit to having either one. Or arguably the greatest good is having neither, or at least not one more.

But you don't thik that the greater good is an issue. I do. You think it is entirely up to the owner. I don't. You don't include those people who pay taxes and are struggling to maintain their homes under that burden to be "possibly affected" by the decision. I do. You don't think that running people out of their homes will build an urban utopia. I don't either, but then again, the issue isn't an attempt to build an urban utopia. It's to build an office park, no more, no less. If you think affordable housing and a shrinking tax base is the way to go, I can recommend the urban heaven of Rockford, Illinois to you, where I can buy a house for half the cost of my three bedroom condo and pay twice as much in property taxes. But that's not really all that affordable, now, is it, when you pay twice the taxes?

If you wanted the decision to rest solely on the bundle of rights that you have as OWNER, whether you in your own choice decide to do, regardless of the good of anyone else, regardless of the amount of money you are offered, then you should side with the minority and those people who consider private property sancrosanct. I don't.

[youspeakmylanguage]

172. So...

If one hundred home owners in an area are paying higher property taxes than they should, the most effective and fair solution is to drive 25 of those homeowners from their homes, build an office park that *MAY* increase local tax revenue, so the other 75 home owners *MAY* see a decrease in their property taxes.

Of course, I'm sure where you live there are no failed businesses and empty "big boxes" left by departing retail conglomerates. And, of course, I'm sure where you live any increase in tax revenue is channeled directly to relieving the tax burden of property owners.

Excuse me while I laugh and puke at the same time.

[Megahurtz]

169. I agree.

That totally makes sense.

[Occulus]

100. Are you a major developer yourself?

It sure sounds like you have a stake in this ruling.

edit: hmm. No response. Well, I guess that answers THAT question.

[Inland]

123. ROFL! I own my three bedroom condo!

The stake I have in the ruling is that of someone who LIKES developed areas and DISLIKES sprawl and BELIEVES that private property rights aren't the be all and end all.

Major developer. That's pretty funny. The only thing I've developed is film. Guess you might have to address the substance of the arguments after all.

Hm, no response. I guess we all know now.

[smb]

133. Don't Kid Yourself

I own my three bedroom condo!

Until somebody with more political pull decides he wants to take it....

[Inland]

137. And pay for it.

We'll decide then whether to think he had a good public policy reason or not to want it.

[youspeakmylanguage]

193. Perhaps more tax revenue can be generated by using the land your...

...condo building sits on for a factory. But hey, they'll give you 10 cents on the dollar for what you paid because your building is now "blighted". Congratulations!

[smb]

131. Meanwhile, back in the Reality-Based World....

And no, it won't affect million dollar homes, because those already add to the tax base, and because they cost more money.

Puh-leeze. The reason this won't affect mansions is because people who live in mansions have more political pull. Period.

[Inland]

142. I guess the cost of land doesn't fit into reality based world anymore.

Nobody is looking to tear down or buy something expensive. They are trying to tear down and buy something that is relatively cheap.

Really, you guys have got to think this stuff through. The land taken has to be paid for. Paying for something often makes you decide not to take it. Nobody is going to WANT to buy million dollar homes for a widget assembly plant.

[RobinA]

184. Million Dollar Mansion

owners are the only ones entitled to protection from the State, and then only by way of economic barriers??? Jeez, which Constitutional principle is THAT based on?

It's not whose ox is being gored, it's the fact that any ox is being gored. To some people, everything is not a matter of dollars and sense. I live in an old farmhouse with 30 very desirable acres. It's tax sheltered so that we do not pay nearly the tax that 30 McMansions on the same property would pay. The Supreme Court has just put its seal of approval on one of the many developers who are always sending us "If you are considering selling.." letters acquiring our land for tax revenue purposes. Maybe I'd love to take the money and retire to Florida and maybe I wouldn't, but if I do, I'll sell. If not, the government shouldn't be able to do it for me.

[youspeakmylanguage]

196. That is EXACTLY OUR POINT!!!

The homes of the rich aren't going to be taken! The property of lower to middle income urban owners will be seized!

Of course, if this will lower your property taxes, all the better, right?

[Rose Siding]

26. The majority: Souter, Breyer, Kennedy, Bader Ginsberg and Stevens

Very strange- I would have thought the opposite; that this won with the Felonious Five.

[IrateCitizen]

35. No, it actually makes perfect sense...

Private property rights are sacred to the four who dissented on this one. Remember -- several of the more "conservative" court justices also dissented on the recent medical marijuana decision as well, saying it unfairly restricted the states' rights to govern their own affairs.

[Doomy]

44. What is up with

these justices? I'm shocked about Ginsberg.

[samsingh]

88. this ruling has interesting implications that could be positive

because it removes the notion that every home can be an armed fortress like the Davidians in Waco.

[redqueen]

92. How does it remove that notion? n/t

[Occulus]

118. Seems to me, this would only ENCOURAGE an armed response. n/t

[Rose Siding]

134. Unfortunately, it also removes the notion

that homes are safe from the interests of corporate developers.

[youspeakmylanguage]

180. The Davidians weren't on valuable land...

This will hurt lower to middle income urban homeowners. It won't affect rural owners of cheap land and doube-wides.

This is a complete disaster.

[Mandate My Ass]

28. Maybe those people affected can file a class action suit

Oh wait, never mind.

[youspeakmylanguage]

32. If our politicians have any sanity there will be an amendment push...

...to overturn this. The initial outrage has crossed party lines, so I'm remaining hopeful.

[redqueen]

98. We should start calling NOW.

877-762-8762.

[youspeakmylanguage]

117. This is from a freeper...

Target every single member of Congress.

Get all the addresses of their private homes.

Go before their local town councils, board of supervisors, whatever, and propose converting their private homes into office buildings.

Just watch what would happen.

Hell is freezing over and pigs are flying by my window...

Consider this - we could launch a JOINT CAMPAIGN with the freepers to promote a constitutional amendment.

<on a lighter note - I'm at 600 posts! Very cool!>

[redqueen]

125. That is a most excellent idea!

That would definitely send a message to the corporatist-leaning reps in BOTH parties, wouldn't it?

[potone]

149. Agreed.

I feel sick. How can the only reasonable members of SCOTUS defend this? I don't get it. "Public good" is not the same as "public use". I was hoping to buy my first house--a modest one--soon. Is there any point in doing this now?

How did it come to this?

[youspeakmylanguage]

183. There may not be if you are looking to buy in an urban neighborhood...

...but if you're looking to buy in the sticks you're probably ok.

[redqueen]

222. It came to this starting in the 80's, when the leaders of the right

started promoting the gordon gekko idea that "greed is good".

It was all downhill from there.

[IrateCitizen]

29. I'm in agreement with Rehnquist, Scalia, O'Connor and Thomas here...

They all had the good sense to dissent on this decision. It was the supposed "liberal" judges -- Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter -- joined by Kennedy, who voted in favor of this ridiculous ruling.

All this at a time in which cities and towns need to drastically retool the way they do development, in order to give a virtual carte-blanche to developers.

[KoKo]

54. Why would the "liberal" judges vote Yes on such an Abomination?

I can't understand this at all..

[wild potato]

283. Why are DU members surprised?

This is a very interesting thread. Many DU members are expressing surprise about which SC Justices voted on either side of the ruling. However, if you read the conservative site's reaction to the ruling (for example FreeRepublic or National Review) there is no surprise whatsoever. Why such a stark difference? It seems to me that many DUers have just gotten hit with the Clue Stick. That bitch hurts, doesn't it? Obviously reasonable people (heh heh heh) from across the political spectrum can have differing views on this issue, but we should all strive to understand political reality so that there are fewer "surprises." My own opinion on this issue closely matches that of O'Conner in her dissent:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."

This is a victory for the big boys against the little guy. The Democratic Party should not be proud of having appointed and/or promoted the Justices who engineered this travesty.

[Megahurtz]

176. What the Fuck?

The Liberals voted in favor of this???

It really seems like there is NO Democratic Party anymore.

[IrateCitizen]

202. Souter and Stevens were appointed by Republicans

Stevens was a Ford appointee, and Souter was a GHW Bush appointee. And Kennedy is certainly NOT a liberal -- he was one of the Felonious Five.

There are really only two "Democrats" on the court -- Breyer and Ginsburg, both appointed by Clinton.

[Megahurtz]

211. Weird.

Seems like a lot of elbow-rubbing going on.
I bet the big bucks were passed around between them.
What else could it be?

[Mitt Chovick]

244. Stevens and Souter are as liberal as anyone on that court

compare there records with Ginsburg and Breyer and tell me what the difference is.

[ixion]

33. that's funny, because CASTRO thought the same thing, and

all the repugs hate him for it.

[redqueen]

104. Only conservative justices dissented.

This was a favor from our "liberal" judges.



And did Castro really take private lands and use them to build shopping malls and office parks?

[ixion]

119. damn...

I really hate it when I find myself siding with the likes of them, but in this case I would be on the dissenting side.


And no, Castro didn't build malls, but he didn't build anything that was of any use to anyone but his regime, either, from what I've read.

[RobinA]

188. Sheesh,

I couldn't agree more about siding with the likes of Scalia. And only yesterday I agreed with Santorum. It's a world gone mad.

[Cicero]

37. Furious!!!!!!

It's this sort of thing that the Congress should be passing Constitutional amendments against, instead of non-issues like flag-burning.

You wait, this ruling is going to rank right up there with such gems as Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson.

SCOTUS is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!















Later,

[youspeakmylanguage]

52. There already seems to be universal, bipartisan outrage...

...hopefully that will spur an amendment.

[SlipperySlope]

39. We've been sold out by the very judges we thought we could trust.

My day is ruined

[Occulus]

47. Ergo, none of them are worthy of our trust. n/t

[tk2kewl]

40. This needs to be a HUGE issue in the confirmation process of judges

How did the 5-4 vote break down?

[Igel]

69. Exactly wrong for

dem partisan purposes.

Conservatives lost, were in the minority. Liberal judges won: the outrage is over *their* opinion.

[tk2kewl]

81. I stand corrected.

I posted this before I saw how the vote broke down. I cannot believe this. We are fucked and we will get a full-on fascist nomination for the court now.

[Politicub]

41. This decision makes me sick to my stomach

I haven't read the opinion, so perhaps I'm overreacting. But, at first blush it sounds like no good for the people can come from this decision.

Why won't the Supremes stand up for the little guy? They do so in matters involving legal representation, it seems. But when it comes to shit like this, they side with big business.

[YankeyMCC]

46. Ok you got me

Where's the camera? Come on now...this can't be real...I'm being punked right?

Maybe the nytimes and marketwatch domain names are being highjacked and are actually taking readers to the Onion...yeah that has to be it.

[frictionlessO]

Well Hello Wedge Issue! How many home owning bushies think this is ok??

My guess is not many, and thanks to their own party....

edited to add: Wow I was wrong and I duly apologise. This is just too wrong, how did the least conservative (dont kid yourself there are no real liberals on USSC) judges do this?? I am at a loss, please someone educate me.

[nikraye]

51. I can't believe I'm in agreement with Scalia, Rehnquist,Thomas

The most conservative of the SCOTUS were the dissenters:

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor...issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She (Sandra Day O'Connor) was joined in her (dissenting) opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
WaPo article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

This gives the green light to unheard of opportunities for government/corporate corruption. Un-fucking-believable.

[Bonhomme Richard]

56. My thoughts exactly. My world is..............

Upside Down.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

63. Okay I think my head is officially exploding. WTF is wrong with

these people??

[XemaSab]

84. Word

I think I'm just going to crawl back in bed.

Wake me when it's over.

[gauguin57]

55. I am appalled at the liberal judges. What are they THINKING?

Good Lord! This is so scary!

[fryguy]

57. makes me ill to say, but i'm with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas on this one

even though i understand the principle that the the majority seems to espouse in saying that, for certain issues, it is better to leave them with local officials than let judges make decisions - but this sure isn't one of those issues and has immense consequences....

also interesting to note is that the three horsemen, who are usually front and center in protection state's rights (Bush v. Gore notwithstanding) bucked that here and the "liberal" justices favored big business..... welcome to bizzaro-world

[bettyellen]

60. Walmart is getting their money's worth, huh?

[SnoopDog]

62. "... nor shall private property be taken for public use"...

This is part of the Fifth Amendment.

This is a direct violation of our Constitution. They cannot 'take' ones home and property and give it to a 'corporation'.

It would be of my opinion that the only way our government can legally take our property is to fairly compensate the owner and provide that property for PUBLIC USE only. A corporation is not for public use.

You know, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land here.....

[Occulus]

73. LOL here's the loophole:

"b-b-b-but! The Constitution doesn't mention taking land for PRIVATE use! BWAHAHAHAHAAAAA!"

[SnoopDog]

85. I would argue that...

you cannot infer lesser rights to the citizen. Absence of a direct clause for private use indicated that it cannot be done.

Remember, the Bill of Rights gives rights to the citizenship unless directly specified like the 5th amendment for property seizers. Otherwise all rights are 'reserved'.

[fryguy]

75. haven't read the opinion yet

but i'm guessing that it expands the definition of "public use" as to include private development which benefits the community as a whole. its total shit whatever they say.....

[SnoopDog]

87. I would argue that you cannot expand to a more broader understanding..

Public use is public use and private corporation are, well, private.

[fryguy]

101. it is a good argument

unfortunately the majority wouldn't (didn't) agree with it . . . .

as one of my former law professors once said: "the supreme court is not the final arbiter because they are correct, they are correct because they are final arbiter." (can't remember who originally said it)

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. Hey, ya think that means that this ruling can be used to shut down

WallyWorlds across the country, for the benefit of the community as a whole?

[youspeakmylanguage]

186. Not unless you can use the land for an enterprise that generates...

...more tax revenue than the WallyWorld. Perhaps you could build a giant sweatshop, or a nuclear power plant.

Yep, this is definitely going to make America a better place to live!

[RaleighNCDUer]

204. How bout removing the wallyworld and replacing it with a

hardware store, a grocery store, a clothing store, and automotive shop, a plant nursery, a toy store, an electronics store, a video store...

You know, all those small, local businesses that were knocked out of the competition by the wallyworld, undercutting the existant tax base and lowering the standard of living for the entire community.

[youspeakmylanguage]

207. How would they generate more tax revenue than a Wallyworld?

By dramatically increasing the prices of the products sold? Would that benefit the community enough to warrant seizing private property?

[RaleighNCDUer]

255. For one thing, wallyworld operates on a basis that protects itself

from local taxes, whenever possible. Wallyworld sucks money out of the community, while local businesses keep money in the community. Instead of being siphoned off to Bentonville, and from there to sheltered off-shore corporate accounts.

Also, pay scales would be naturally higher for local businesses, who are in competition with each other for employees, rather than having a single employer being the only game in town - a slight exaggeration, I know, but in many small towns the wallyworld is in single largest employer, and it winds up setting the standard for local wages: piss poor.

Mind you, I'm not arguing for siezing private property -- I'm arguing for using this ruling to dismantle the wallyworld corporate empire.

[drm604]

94. For the sake of accuracy

the full quote is "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation", which is a bit different from what your post seems to imply (I could be misunderstanding you). This ruling doesn't remove the "just compensation" requirement. But I do have problems with forcing people to sell for the sake of private businesses. I also wonder how just compensation is determined.

[SnoopDog]

113. No, I know of the 'without just compensation" part...

It did not fit on the subject line so I removed it.


First, this violates the Constitution. The framers wanted to specifically secure the rights of the citizenship and specifically disallow this very problem. You have a right to be secure in your own home. The only way to 'take' it is with the 5th and the government must use it for PUBLIC use.

That said, (once again this violates the Constitution), then I would say that 'just compensation' to the property owners would be cash for the land and a continuing percentage, like 50 percent of the gross profits of the corporation!

[fryguy]

122. interesting thought

the notion that "just compensation" might/should include continuing profits of the corporation that seizes an individual's property. sounds to me like a great topic for a law review article, if not inclusion in future litigation on the topic....

unfortunately (or fortunatly) i'm no longer in law school and do not practice in this field, but would be curious to see how it might play out if someone does pursue it - - so calling any DU law students and constitutional and/or property attorneys out there....

[drm604]

152. I like your just compensation idea!

I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that one could argue that the value of the land is equal to whatever it could earn through it's most profitable allowable use, and therefore "just compensation" should be based on that.

[RatRacer]

67. Hell getting cold: I agree with the "conservative" wing of the court

What the hell are the more liberal judges thinking?

[bunny planet]

71. OMG, that is simply wrong on so many levels.

I really have to think about escaping from this country.

Bulldozing people's homes to put up shopping malls? WTF

[LibertyLover]

74. Court decision on taking of homes

I am speechless and dismayed by this decision. And I find myself in a position I never thought I'd be in - agreeing with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, who were in the minority. I think I need to go lie down.

[bluestateguy]

79. Looks like we agree with the Freepers

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428902/posts

OK, time to take a shower now.

[AX10]

76. While I proudly support, O'Conner, Renquist, Scalia, Thomas...

I am ashamed of this court.

If I had things my way, all 9 members would be removed and be replaced with the following...

1-Al Gore
2-John Conyers
3-Barbara Boxer
4-Dennis Kucinich
5-Lowell Weicker(Chief Justice)
6-Mario Cuomo
7-Mike Malloy
8-Ed Schultz
9-Ron Paul

[youspeakmylanguage]

77. The worst part of this...

...is that Republican legislatures on the federal and state level are dedicated to pushing as much non-military spending on local governments as possible, which will only encourage local governments to require more and more tax revenue.

[flvegan]

83. I just got sicker.

I didn't see that coming. Thanks for that sledgehammer to the forehead.

[youspeakmylanguage]

89. Yeah, living in the reality-based community...

...can sometimes be hazardous to your mental and emotional health.

I've been trying to calculate for the last few years the best way to avoid so many of the small disasters and threats to my livelihood and way of life that are looming in the years ahead, and I can only figure out one way I can guarantee myself and my family will be safe, healthy, and comfortable - getting rich or, at the very least, saving as much money as possible. What a sad state of affairs we have on our hands.

[RaleighNCDUer]

91. So now corporations enjoy eminent domain... nt

[GodlessBiker]

105. This totally sucks! The Constitution says "public use" not "public good"!

I can't believe this. People's homes being taken and being given to Walmart and strip malls.

[Occulus]

121. Loophole alert!

The Constitution does NOT exclude eminent domain for private use; it only addresses public use.

Private use is not explicitly forbidden, if I read my loopholes correctly....

[GodlessBiker]

158. The Constitution limits government power.

It says government make take private property for public use. If the use isn't public, then government does not have the power to take property.

[RobinA]

197. So Here's What I'm Wondering

Can the government now take PUBLIC land for the new public good? How 'bout if my state goes in and condemns federal land, say a nice big flat military base, for a couple hundred acres of taxpaying condos? Assuming, of course, that the DoD doesn't pay state taxes.

[GodlessBiker]

209. Politicians should worry when DU and Freepers agree so strongly on this.

[redqueen]

236. They'll only worry if we make enough noise.

877-762-8762

[zbdent]

108. No-win situation for the left

If the left had said "We cannot allow this to happen" then you would be hearing the "States' Rights" screams . . .

My take on this is that the felonious five knew exactly what was going on . . . that this could be used against the left in every way . . . you would be getting the "anti-business" quotes from the lefties and the "states' rights" quotes from the righties in the media.

[PATRICK]

124. And create deceptive issues

so that when new justices are nominated they can express their stand against this and bind the Dems. Can't do anything anyway so just generally point out to people what is happening with the SCOTUS under Bush and say it would be worse.

[redqueen]

130. Who gives a $#*@?

Really, the public is against this, not just the left but the right as well. If Democratic Senators and Reps get out front of this and decry this decision, thinking Republican voters will give them their grudging respect, just as we are doing with the conservative justices who made the right call here.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[redqueen]

112. Start calling your senators and reps NOW!

PLEASE!

If you don't already know, find out who your representaitive and senators are and call and let them know what you think of this decision. We need them to address this NOW before any greedy private developers get their bulldozers started.

This is one day I'm GLAD to have republicans representing me. My call might mean a bit more to them today than the usual pestering.

Please, call now!

877-762-8762

[Lorien]

114. This is going to big abused like nothing else

sure. America is an "ownership society"; the big corporations will own each and every oone of us!

[Patiod]

120. It doesn't just affect private homeowners. Small businesses

are screwed as well. A fight in my community is described here

"A group of students at Ithaca College in Ithaca NY is dedicated to helping residents and businesses of Ardmore PA fight the abuse of eminent domain. The Township of Lower Merion PA is trying to acquire 10 historic properties and businesses which would be turned over to a private developer. Every one of these properties is occupied and several are second and third generation family businesses!

The Township as instituted a project known as the Ardmore Transit Center. This ambitious $140 million plan requires the destruction of those 10 properties in order to construct a much larger complex that would include retail space, residential units, and a parking garage. The central focus is around building a new SEPTA/AMTRAK train station, which everybody agrees needs to be done. The demolition of this block of stores is not a necessity for the project; it is as the Township has argued a necessity to give developers enough interest to even consider the project. "

[redqueen]

127. These are the situations that worry me.

Those developers are probably ready to pounce now that this decision has come down on their side. That's why we need to act fast to get this ridiculous decision overturned by way of an amendment.

This is patently unconstitutional and neither we NOR republicans can afford to wait... people will be losing their homes and businesses soon.

[Frangible]

145. So who do you appeal to?

The supreme court has ruled in favor of the corporations, there's no step up on the ladder to take this to. The corporate whoring politicans have sold us out yet again.

The law isn't on our side here... it's against us.

[redqueen]

154. Congress.

They can pass an amendment to overturn this decision.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[NNguyenMD]

179. the city council and/or mayor, its a local issue not a federal one

[youspeakmylanguage]

191. And it CERTAINLY isn't hard to corrupt a local official...

I mean, just take a look at Chicago...

[redqueen]

225. No, the SCOTUS just made it a federal issue.

Time for us to petition Congress to right this wrong.

[smb]

126. Geez...

...when even the FReekazoids can tell how evil this decision is, how on earth could five justices solemnly sign off on it?

[progressivebydesign]

129. OMG! I was hoping this wouldn't pass!

Interesting to note that the hardline republican justices voted against it. It's utter madness and a major violation of our rights.

[Frangible]

136. What the FUCK???

Since when did corporate profits trump property rights?

And why the FUCK were the dissenting judges conservatives?

Why the FUCK did this happen when even Freepers disagree?

I say they should make a stand and exercise their second amendment rights! Even the highest court of the land whores out to corporate profits and fails America.

[elehhhhna]

140. Here in Sugar Land, the City's giving property away at half-price

to Mister Swift Boater Bob Perry.

[usregimechange]

141. I almost always agree with Stevens and the liberal bloc but not

on this one.

[elehhhhna]

143. How they gonna reconcile the major tax-breaks to these businesses

in terms of local incentives versus "The good of the community"?

Will states bidding for business now let those businesses shop EVERY BIT OF LAND, then offer to get it for 'em?

When do we stop KOWTOWING to Corporate America?

[Hugin]

147. Shocking: Government Power to Take Property Backed by Top Court

June 23 (Bloomberg) -- Local governments have broad power to take over private property to make way for shopping malls, office parks and sports stadiums, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

The court said government agencies can constitutionally take property in the name of economic development -- and even transfer it to another private party -- as long as the landowners receive compensation. The 5-4 ruling today came in a case involving land near a Pfizer Inc. plant in New London, Connecticut.

``Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court in Washington. He said the justices ``decline to second-guess the city's considered judgments about the efficacy of its development plan.''

The ruling is a setback for property-rights advocates angered by what they said is an increasingly common practice, now used thousands of times a year.

More here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aTn...

My thoughts:

This is OUTRAGEOUS! It violates one of the basic concepts
behind the U.S. Constitution. Government taking private
property and giving it to private interests.

[JRob]

150. This crap will continue to escalate until we collectively make a stand

It is time to send a message to Corporate American and their lap dogs in the WH and Congress.

THE BUCK STAYS HERE! In my wallet until...

[Megahurtz]

151. I can't fucking believe this one......

Every fucking day I swear there is something new and insanely assinine
that this Repuke Administration pulls on it's citizens!

I honestly can't fucking believe this one.
Welcome to the New Fascist Republic. This country has totally gone to hell.

on edit: Okay, I was wrong.
I cannot believe that it was the Liberal side that did this!!!
I AM SHOCKED!

[nolabels]

263. In a totalitarian state they have both sides attacking the middle

The elitism is the key here. I am not shocked but do wonder when people will get that democracy with true representation is a good thing and make it come back to the vogue. This seems just another example of activist judges circumventing written laws

[NashVegas]

156. Now That I've Read the Full NYT Article ...

These leap out:

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said."

....

''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,'' he said.

And


''Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,'' O'Connor wrote. ''The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.''

This type of seizure has been going on for two centuries, allowed by the constitution or those who interpret it. What Stevens, et al, seem to be saying is, "if you don't like it, elect a new city council."

I don't agree with the decision, but I do agree with the sentiment. We can't expect SCOTUS to save us everytime our elected, so-called leaders try to fuck us over.

[NNguyenMD]

178. my thoughts exactly, its the city thats accountable not SCOTUS

so support local candidates who pledge to use eminent domain conservatively.

This must have been a very difficult vote to make, but thats these guy's jobs. No one said it was a pretty one.

[NewJeffCT]

187. The problem with leaving it in town hands...

Is that a small town official is probably a lot more susceptible to $290 billion Wal-Mart leaning on them than is a federal judge.

[cthrumatrix]

181. sickening

[youspeakmylanguage]

189. The SCOTUS should have upheld the 5th amendment...

...by stating that local governments do not have the right to seize property simply to increase tax revenues. This has not been going on for 2 centuries - it is a brand new abomination.

[NorthernSpy]

224. well, they've already trashed most of the other Amendments...

... why make an exception for number 5?

[pazarus]

160. big business wins another one

Finally, a decision to bring together the entire political spectrum in disgust. Americans don't like their property being taken away from for the government to give to huge private invesotrs. It's criminal, or it should be.

It's funny because conservatives think liberals wanted this and vice versa.... It seems to me that conservatives didn't want this but the corporations that own them do. Maybe they'll start a rift. Liberals didn't want this, and I hope that doesn't get lost in the fray.

I am trying to understand the flip side of this--the judges think the city knows what's best?--but it's completely against everything I feel about personal ownership. I hope the Democrats start talking about their disgust with the ruling and grab the spotlight before the Republicans lay claim to it as their own. Everyone in America (well those who don't own a fortune 500 company) sees this as a bad idea, and this better not become a liberal-conservative issue.

[ckramer]

161. Is there a compensation clause in the ruling?

[pazarus]

163. oh--and I hope the supporters homes are seized first

[youspeakmylanguage]

190. Maybe we can start by seizing the property of the 5 justices...

...and handing it over to Wal-Mart. I'm sure they would love that.

[ridgerunner]

164. Chalk me up as another person outraged by this

This is an age old problem, just ask the Cherokees how they feel about eminent domain. Or Kentuckians for that matter.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[are_we_united_yet]

165. Folks

This is very very very very very very bad.

[McSpazitron]

171. Be careful how the SCOTUS decision is interpreted....

Read most (if not all) of the articles written about this ruling and it will look like the Supreme Court agreed with the actions of the municipality.

That's not necessarily the case.

What the majority opinion stated was that the Constitution gives governments the right to seize private property for public use, but that it's not the role of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine what "public use" was - or, more accurately, it is not the role of the Supreme Court to overrule a local government's definition of what public use was (paraphrased).

So, in essence, the Supreme Court only looked at whether the actions of the municipality (New London, CT in this case) were unconstitutional, and decided that, in the larger sense, they weren't. They made no ruling (nor was it in their jurisdiction) as to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the local government's actions - only on their (and their state's) legal right to determine the limits of their authority.

[youspeakmylanguage]

173. So basically they gave local municipalities carte blanche...

...to decide if property is "blighted" or not.

Yeah, that sure makes me feel relieved.

[McSpazitron]

195. I wasn't trying to make you feel relieved...

I was just trying to point out that the bad party in this affair remains the local municipality.

While I don't agree with New London's definition of what qualifies under Eminent Domain, I am glad that the Supreme Court decided not to rule on something that, frankly, was out of their jurisdiction to strike down. If they had struck it down, they would have been extending their powers beyond what the Constitution provides, and would in fact be behaving like "activist judges" - interfering in a local/state affair that the Constitution clearly allows for.

What the decision really emphasizes is that people should really be active in these issues on a state and local level, encouraging state legislatures to establish limits to Eminent Domain, and voting in local elections to prove your displeasure with the actions of your local council members. It de-emphasized the role of the federal government in deciding cases that, really, are local issues.

Those who applauded the Supreme Court not overruling in the Schiavo case on the basis of the fact that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to do so, should (frankly) also applaud this ruling on the exact same grounds.

Keep in mind that the people whose property are being seized will be compensated, too. And probably pretty well: the local courts will determine "fair value" and will take into account intangibles (such as sentimentality) as well as more concrete factors. Again, I'm not supporting New London's decision, just trying to point out a fact that many people forget. They hear "The government can seize your property!" and think we are talking about situations similar to what Jews faced in Nazi Germany.

[youspeakmylanguage]

203. We have rights under the Constitution...

...and one of those rights was the freedom to purchase and own private property. This decision effectively renders that right moot based on the whim of whatever local government jurisdiction the property falls under. The SCOTUS needed to uphold our constitutional rights and they failed miserably.

[McSpazitron]

210. Here is the text of the Fifth Amendment,

which is the basis of Eminent Domain:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (emphasis added)

The bolded text states, quite plainly that property can, in fact, be taken - provided the person or entity is compensated for it.

[youspeakmylanguage]

212. So that gave them the right to declare increased tax revenue from...

...the development of a private developer "Public Use"? It's a crock of sh*t and you know it.

All a local government has to do is declare a piece of property "blighted". When that happens the original owner can be paid as little as 10 cents on the dollar. Of course, if you've just invested thousands in home improvements or repairs you won't be compensated for that, either. All it will take is a handful of corrupt local officials to put anyone's private property in absolute danger of being seized.

I should probably stop posting. I haven't been this angry about a piece of news since the war started. Of course, having your home threatened by seizure is a grand way to raise anyone's blood pressure.

[McSpazitron]

221. You are right in that the local government decides

what is "public use".

And that's the heart of the matter as far as the US Supreme Court was concerned - it's within the local (and state) government's right to define "public use" or Eminent Domain.

All the Supreme Court did was step out of the matter. They made no ruling on the merits of New London's actions or the challenges to those actions by the property owners. And in that, they did the right thing.

Look, I disagree with the municipalty's actions as much as anyone - but it's not the role of the Supreme Court to get involved in this issue beyond determining whether the actions of the municipality are within the guidelines of the constitution. And the 5th amendment gives them (the municipality) that power.

I do, however, disagree with your "10 cents on the dollar" statement. The value and comensation will be determined with as much due process as any other matter. The municipality cannot just state what they will pay - they must pay what a judge tells them is fair value (as I am sure the issue of just compensation will also hit the courts).

[youspeakmylanguage]

223. Where in the 5th amendment does it say that local governments...

...have the right to declare what "Public Use" is and isn't?

[McSpazitron]

227. It doesn't

But it also doesn't say that is the Federal government's role or the Supreme Court's to define it either.

And that is the heart of this decision. SCOTUS deferred to the local residents in defining "Public Use" - through voting and local legislation.

[youspeakmylanguage]

232. @$#%!#%^#@$

And that is the heart of this decision. SCOTUS deferred to the local residents in defining "Public Use" - through voting and local legislation.

dog help us.

[smb]

215. WTF?

Those who applauded the Supreme Court not overruling in the Schiavo case on the basis of the fact that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to do so, should (frankly) also applaud this ruling on the exact same grounds.

Nonsense. The US Constitution doesn't say anything about life support issues. The US Constitution does mention takings in conjunction with public (not private) use. Thus, the federal government has no business sticking its nose into the former, but does have authority to require local governments to respect the limitations of the latter.

[McSpazitron]

226. It's not about life support issues...

It's about jurisdiction.

In the Schiavo case, the SCOTUS decided that they had no basis to overturn a ruling of the lower courts. They did the same here. Both decisions are based on juridiction. They had no jurisdiction and they said so.

This property seizure is in (in the municipality's opinion) for the public good, and is therefore within their powers. SCOTUS agreed that seizure of property for public good (Eminent Domain) is, indeed within their power. The question came down to "What is 'public good' "? And in that issue, SCOTUS stated that it is not within their jurisdiction to decide what is better for for the public in a local issue. They felt that the citizens of the locality are in more of a position to decide that then they are. And that the local citizenry will voice thier opinion through voting and pushing legislatures and city councils to set an acceptable definition of "public good".

[redqueen]

231. I love how these corporate whore "journalists" tell us what we should do.

Ahem... David Stout and other whores at the NYT...

FUCK YOU!

SOMEONE has to define "public use", and it's sure as hell not gonna be dozy Joe and Jane public, who barely pay attention to civic matters!

[are_we_united_yet]

185. Well said but I don't think this nuance buys land owners anything

If the Federal Govt leverages influence on the Municipality (like imposing some funding contingency) for the purposes of Land development, with no recourse for the owners, they can effectively seize property via the Municipality.

The inequity here is the right to seize property from owners with no apparent legal recourse for those impacted.

If you are telling me that this decision doesn't imply the previous sentence, then I need to reread this.

[McSpazitron]

206. Of course, you're right in that

the Federal Government could leverage influence on municipalities. They do so now in things like federal funding aid for education. The feds can basically say that if a local school district doesn't comply with policies established under the executive branch of government (i.e., the Federal Department of Education), then they will lose federal funding.

I agree that that is not good.

But the legal recourse is with the state and local judicial systems (after the fact) and with encouraging your state or local municipality to define an acceptable limit to Eminent Domain (before the fact). But if the local government acts within the law then their is no basis for that legal recourse. Therefore, the thing to do is fight for your state to pass a statute acceptably defining what can be accomplished through Eminent Domain.

[redqueen]

229. If they won't define "public use", who will? n/t

[NNguyenMD]

174. what does this line mean?

"Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. 'States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.'

'The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue,' Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer."

The part where he says that "States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened."

I'm not so sure if these Justices are simply just handing a givaway to corporate developers. Aren't they moreso saying that the Federal Government has no say on how a city decides eminent domain? That its up to the city or state to restrict the rules on eminment domain not the courts?

I'm no legal scholar, but maybe they are just interpreting the constitution the way they think it means. These 5 judges aren't idiots, at least I dont' think they are, maybe they personally don't believe a city should uproot families for economic growth but are admiting that its not in the juristiction of the Federal courts to tell a city that they can't do that. And if its up to the city and state governments, then its the job of the voters to hold the local governments' feet over the fire to make sure that eminent domain is only practices for publics works like roads, schools, etc.

Thats just the way I interpreted it, I get the feeling given the way they've ruled in the past that these guys didn't just caved into corporate interest.

[McSpazitron]

214. You are exactly, 100% correct....

especially:

Aren't they moreso saying that the Federal Government has no say on how a city decides eminent domain? That its up to the city or state to restrict the rules on eminment domain not the courts?

and

maybe they are just interpreting the constitution the way they think it means.

[smb]

217. Stevens Is An Idiot

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community.

The issue is not whether or not the use of eminent domain for private profit "will benefit the community". The issue is whether or not the use of eminent domain for private profit violates the property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

For obvious reasons, the very "local officials" who stand to benefit from exercising that power cannot be entrusted with the last word on that question.

[redqueen]

239. Thank you.

I hope you'll call your Senators and Representative and share your thoughts on the matter.

877-762-8762

[NorthernSpy]

182. no wonder the government jails armed robbers...

... they don't appreciate the competition!

Yet another victory for the almighty State, courtesy of its own judicial branch.

Let's see: the State can take away your home, your means of self-defense, your freedom, your wages -- and if the American Medical Association's proposal prevails (we were discussing it here in LBN a couple of days ago), the government will even be allowed to presume ownership of your mortal remains as well. What can't they take away from you, I'd like to know!

Me, I don't draw much of a distinction between the corporate sector (the intended beneficiaries of this evil ruling) and the government. They are all the same bunch of people.

The Court's "liberals" and "conservatives" do make a good show of bickering over things like this, but none of them are really on our side.

[hughee99]

194. I think we've FINALLY found an issue

that we agree with the freepers on. This is F**king Bulls**t!

[rainbow4321]

198. Means the Trans-Texas Corridor can be built where ever TX wants it

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sharedcontent/APStories/sto...


The consortium that won a $7.2 billion deal to build the first part of the Trans-Texas Corridor, in part because it promoted use of private money, has inquired about public money.

Cintra-Zachry wrote a letter to the Federal Highway Administration saying it is interested in applying for a $320 million low-interest loan. The developer said in the letter that the loan would help build the 42-mile State Highway 130 extension from south of Austin to Seguin, estimated at $1 billion.

Some say the inquiry contradicts deal-breaking claims that no taxpayer money would be used on the project. The Gov.'s Office and the consortium say the deal didn't prohibit using federal money. Only state money was mentioned.

When the state and Cintra-Zachry signed the deal March 11, Gov. Rick Perry's office issued a news release saying that the construction would be done "at no cost to taxpayers."

---------------
http://gonzalesinquirer.com/articles/2005/05/23/news/op...

The issue of loss of property rights through the state's use of eminent domain is a great concern of rural landowners, and some Texas lawmakers agree.

Rep. Harvey Hilderbran, R-Kerrville, had this to say at the Austin rally: "The government is out of control. They're trying to take our property rights away from us."

The Trans Texas Corridor stands to benefit few but the politically privileged and well-connected but holds the promise of destruction for farms and ranches that have been in Texas families for generations along with small towns and communities scattered across this vast state.

Adoption of HB 3363 would afford Texans, rural and urban alike, time to thoroughly study TTC and then make the determination if it is a concept citizens want to support. As things now stand, politicians and bureaucrats have the sole power to decide when and where the superhighway will be built. That is a decision that should be in the hands of Texas voters.

[Megahurtz]

199. I think we need a Revolution. n/t

[0rganism]

200. AAARGH! This was a fucking slam dunk for the homeowners

and the dipshit so-called "liberals" on the courts just gutted #5.

Yeah, fuck it, I'm with Scalia on this one. Maybe when bush appoints another of his wacko rightwingnuts to the court we can get this travesty overturned.

[Catherine Vincent]

205. This is outrageous.

Where can we find the opinions of those justices that voted for this? I can't believe all the liberals did. And why isn't this on the homepage?

[SeekerofTruth]

213. Liberals voted for this! This scares me...

It was the liberal judges who voted 'yes' to this. This scares me to no end!

[smb]

219. Oh, Great....

It was the liberal judges who voted 'yes' to this. This scares me to no end!

Yep. Now, the Pubbies have the argument "we gotta get our judges on the bench or else your city council can steal your house any time they want".

The betrayal of the majority in this case leaves the Democrats with no answer to that argument.

[theearthisround]

218. Even freepers are outraged, this is truly a Corporatist Kleptocracy

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428929/posts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative power is given to corporations that represent economic, industrial and professional groups. Unlike pluralism, in which many groups must compete for control of the state, in corporatism, certain unelected bodies take a critical role in the decision-making process. This original meaning was not connected with the specific notion of a business corporation, being a rather more general reference to any incorporated body. The word "corporatism" is derived from the Latin word for body, corpus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy
Kleptocracy (sometimes Cleptocracy) (root: Klepto+cracy = rule by thieves) is a pejorative, informal term for a government so corrupt that no pretense of honesty remains. In a kleptocracy the mechanisms of government are almost entirely devoted to taxing the public at large in order to amass substantial personal fortunes for the rulers and their cronies (collectively, kleptocrats), or to keep said rulers in power. Kleptocrats typically use money laundering and/or anonymous banking to protect and conceal their illegal gains.

[youspeakmylanguage]

228. Some Freepers have gone beyond outrage...

Some are advocating outright assassination of the justices.

It shouldn't be long before the U.S. Marshals Service is all over their servers and offices.

[NorthernSpy]

238. I do wonder...

.. whether Marvin Heemeyer was the first swallow of the long, hot summer that seems sure to follow on the heels of this ruling.

[are_we_united_yet]

261. It is not often I have common ground with Freepers n/t

[LilBitRad]

230. Totally sucks

Fuck this.

If this doesn't wake up America, nothing will.

This isn't about eminent domain, this is about fucking greed.

The SCOTUS just screwed the common man.

Cocksuckers.

You can bet the people in the Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard, or places like that won't have anything to worry about, but pity the family that lives on East A Street, North Willow Lane or South 22nd St. have cause for concern, and I won't believe for a minute, they would ever receive just compensation for their property.

What's worse, is the identities of those who voted in the majority.

[Megahurtz]

233. Renters are not immune to this ruling either.

What if a corporation wants to buy out the land that your apartment/apartment complex is on?
Where are you going to go?

Just like above in post# 72, the urban areas will become a playground for the rich.

And renters are not much good for tax revenue anyway, are they? Usually they don't have as much money to spend at those shopping malls so who needs 'em?

This ruling has the potential to get very nasty for everyone.

Well, except, of course, the wealthy.

[Robert Oak]

235. let's have a "top ten corrupt Supreme court decisions" T-shirt

and list.

This one is just unbelievable. That means anybody who pays off their local government and is looking for a prime location can just seize someone's home to build there.

Just unreal. Farewell America.

[onenote]

237. as a matter of principle, not a bad ruling

I know that's a shocking thought, but consider this -- under this decision a city council or state government can exercise eminent domain over privately held, but run down commercial property so that the property can be given to developers who agree to build low income housing (or to dedicate a portion of the development to low income housing) and for other purposes that serve the public interest. The conservatives on the court understood that public taking of private property is a two-way street. This case took homes for commercial development, but the next case could go the other way. And, indeed, conservatives generally fear the power exercised by urban governments, which often seek progressive solutions. As others point out, ultimately, how this power is used is a political question -- will city/state government take the homes of constituents for commercial development or will they take commercial properties that are an eyesore or otherwise contribute to blight and hand them over, with strings, to developers who will put them to better use. There will be bad uses (or at least uses that a progressive would disagree with), but I'm betting there will be more good uses.

onenote

[redqueen]

That's a very positive outlook.

I'm actually beginning to see an upside to this! THANK YOU!

If we can't get the SC to define "public use", then perhaps this will force more people to wake up and pay attention to their local civic duties. After all, we get the government we deserve.

[LilBitRad]

241. I'm glad you have faith,

but there is no way in hell I would expect anything but more bad uses than good.

It's a dog eat dog world, and now private homeowners got handed Milkbone underwear.

[Megahurtz]

256. Oh be fucking serious.

Like the City Governments are really going to make their revenue off of low-income housing!!!

Where does the funding for low-income housing come from anyway?
From the oh-so-generous Federal Government?

Yeah, I bet the City and State governments are just going to jump at this one,
since they are just going to make so much revenue off of that low-income housing
and those low-income citizens.

NOT!!!

This was another vote for Private Corporations!
Corporate America owns us now!

This is all about MONEY$$$$$$$
Don't you know this?

[onenote]

259. what if the facts of the case were this:

Government takes undeveloped property that owner is sitting on (former site of demolished parking garage) and turns it over to private developer who agrees to use it for a mixed use development: combination of commercial property and residential, with a set percentage dedicated for low income property. Original property owner sues government, claiming its an infringement of its property rights. My bet: a lot of folks on this list would be rooting for the government to win that case. The principle upheld in today's ruling is the same.

onenote

[GodlessBiker]

266. Government should lose that one just as it should have lost this one.

[Megahurtz]

293. By what I see,

like where I live, in California for example,
there is not a big push to bring in low-income housing because it's not a moneymaker.

There are more shopping malls, huge corporation buildings and wealthy homes being built.

Do you know why? They bring in the money. Not just money but BIG MONEY.

It's the NewRiche that bring in the revenue, not "the Little Guy".

If this is a "for example" somewhat undesirable small town that you're talking about,
I still think their Government is going to follow suit of the more populated areas.

Low-income housing is not a money-maker, and the climate of this country today is
GREED - "me, myself and I", not helping the poor.

None of these Governments (State or City) are going to be in a hurry to build low-income housing
and bring in the resulting crime that often comes with it (drugs, violence, theft)
which will chase out their wealthy citizens and therefore chase out their revenue!

That's why I think that the scenario you described will rarely, if ever, happen.

It's all about MONEY$$$$$$$$$$$$, and the Big Corporations have it.

[DuaneBidoux]

250. We lose our freedom to people who answer to no one.

[PittPoliSci]

252. has NOBODY here heard of eminent domain?

This is NOT a shocking ruling! It's been in the Constitution since it was drafted hundreds of years ago! This is just holding up precedence NOT starting a new one! There isn't even a mention of property in the Constitution, except for when the government takes it away! This is just reaffirming that. And if the government does take away your business or home, they will compensate you. That's the law, this hasn't changed anything!

[are_we_united_yet]

258. I view it as Big Business giving notice they intend ..

to take what they want. From that perspective, and given the present political climate, it is more ominous than shocking.

[PittPoliSci]

262. it's always been ominous.

I don't know too many local governments that are going to be willing to sign people's land away to build a Wal-Mart or something though. I know in my area recently there was a debate about whether or not a mag-lev train line should be built. The argument was that it would run too close to a housing plant, and therefore, it seems to be going nowhere. Honestly, I could care less if a few people lose their homes in order to make a new mass transit system come into my area. The amount of money it would take to build it, and the jobs it would create are worth more to this area than a bunch of lousy 400K dollar homes that these people already can't afford.

So, in my opinion, if a few semi-well off people would lose their "unlanded" estate, or some less fortunate people their home, it's worth it as long as something meaningful and useful is being entered into the community.

[LiberteToujours]

264. "meaningful and useful"

Who gets to decide what is "meaningful and useful"? Not me. Not you. The big corporations with their hands in the pockets of the politicians will decide. Or even if you take a less cynical view, the local politicians will still side with the corporations when they see the tax revenues it will bring to the city. Guess who brings in lots of tax revenues? Wal-Mart, for one.

Your argument with the mass-transit system is moot. A mass-transit system is public property and thus seizure of land for such projects has been legal since the 5th amendment. We are talking about _private, economic development_. There's a big difference.

[PittPoliSci]

272. i can say this though...

houses that can be built anywhere aren't necessarily useful.

[starscape]

277. uhh... houses are useful.. to live in.

Especially if it were your house.

The homes in the case that went before the court were in great condition, and one of them was more than 100 years old and had stayed in the family for generations. But hey, who can compete with Pfizer??

[are_we_united_yet]

270. I agree with you only in part. My prediction is we're likely

to end up with more Subway's, Wal-Marts, Starbucks, Borders, Barnes and Nobles, Quiznos', Shopping Mall's (etc) than transit systems (BTW, I completely agree that a new transit system is good use of land provided it is warranted)

400K homes will continue to be built by developers harvesting land for their own greedy interests, energized by this latest ruling.

In short, I don't see the good or even the neutraliy in this one.

[Megahurtz]

294. Heh. Try living in Southern California. n/t

[GodlessBiker]

268. Read the frickin' Constitution!

Government can only take property for "public use," like a park, government building, road, etc. The Constitution does not permit the government to take property for the "public good," to increase the tax base or some ridiculous reason like that.

[PittPoliSci]

273. why don't you read the constitution...

try the preamble, where it says that the function of the govnerment is to promote the "general Welfare." Therefore, when the government takes land, it is doing so in the interest of promoting the general welfare of the people.

[GodlessBiker]

274. You're kidding, right?

The function of government may be to promote the general welfare, but government may only do so with the powers we give it through the constitution. The power we have given it when it comes to taking our homes is that it must do so for "public use," not simply for the "public good."

[PittPoliSci]

279. not that i disagree with you...

but how is a Wal-Mart not for public use? It may be privately owned, but so were the railroads that many people in the 19th century lost their land for. it's just a matter of time and place.

[starscape]

282. .. or a putt putt golf course.. or an oil drill

We need a distinction between "public" and "private" here. Wal-Mart, or Pfizer, or such are private, for-profit companies, for starters. A public school, park, or highway is not. Those are "public use." A Wal-Mart is a "private use" venue that just happens to be open to the public. But try loitering there, and you are kicked off for trespassing (just as an example of public vs. private).

[PittPoliSci]

But in the 19th century

there was a massive land grab by railroad barons, and the government gave them eminent domain. It was largely accepted back then as a standard practice. what I don't understand is, how is what is going on today any different than that?

[starscape]

288. I would say that...

This was a very different country 150 or so years ago. Simply, there was a lot more land, a lot smaller cities, so it probably affected a lot less people. And those who were affected likely weren't living in homes they had owned for generations. Does that make it right? Not necessarily. But maybe just a little less ominous. If I was losing my home to a railroad, I'd be pretty upset. But I think eventually I'd get over it.

If I was losing my home so it would become a Walgreens, I'd be pissed. That's what is happening. There is a court case involving a soon-to-be Walgreens just a few blocks from me. Several houses and a long-time Mexican restaurant are being forced to pack up and move.

So wmy question is, how long until they decide the Walgreens doesn't make enough money, and they condemn it to bring in an electronics store? Or wipe the whole block and build a hotel? It just doesn't make sense.

[PittPoliSci]

290. I agree with you.

I think I'd be pretty damned pissed if I lost my home to a Walgreens.

But I guess people in the 19th century probably viewed railroads as another form of that too though. I mean, weren't there enough lines, ever? I guess it all depends on how you rationalize it.

[starscape]

278. whoa... you really trust the government...

... to bulldoze homes for Pfizer, Wal-Mart or whoever in the name of the "public good??" It's for the good of raising their tax base! Why not tear out whole neighborhoods when commercial development will bring in tons of money for the retailers - and the city coffers?

And that's not even counting the less-than-honest officials in some towns or cities who make back-door deals with developers before the houses are even "condemned"..

[PittPoliSci]

281. i don't really trust the government anymore.

but i'm saying that the provision needs to exist when projects for development come along like a new mass transit system. of course people are going to try to exploit it to put in stuff like wal-mart, unfortunately though, it seems like we are going to have to take the good with the bad, and now, we're going to get more bad.

[LiberteToujours]

284. That provision _already existed_

Mass-transit systems are clear public use. Wal-marts are not. You are placing a lot of trust in the government to tell the difference. They will not.

[PittPoliSci]

286. You're probably right.

But my local government, at least in my experience, is more sympahtetic to the needs of the people, and has fought every step of the way to block a Wal-Mart from coming into my area. It seems unlikely that they would even try to take people's land away to put in a development that is already largely unpopular.

Does anyone know how the majority of citizens feel about the development in Connecticut?

[wild potato]

289. Read which Constitution?

Read the Constitution? You mean the one written by the long-dead slaveholders, or the ever-new "living" one?

[PittPoliSci]

291. So let me get this straight...

You're a strict constructionist...right? You don't think the Constitution should be changed or "interpreted" then.

But you disapprove of the one written by the slaveholders?

[wild potato]

296. Either it's living or it isn't

In fact, I am poking fun at those on this board who say "read the constitution" since I have seen no strict constructionists posting here. I'll repeat a point I made above: many people on this thread are "surprised" by how the Justices lined up on this decision. Yet on FreeRepublic and National Review (to name two well-known conservative sites) none are surprised. Why this difference? I think that many here on DU are getting hit with the Clue Stick today, and that's a good thing.

[Fire Walk With Me]

254. This map shows where "PoleTown" used to be before GM forced them out:

http://tinyurl.com/7p5no

GM bought up houses in Detroit's Polish area, and those who would not leave, were forced out.

The main entrance to the plant is Lucky Lane.

[starscape]

285. sad.. shows that this has been happening...

...for a long time now; I just hate to see it further legitimized. SCOTUS has just sped up the process for those who are having to deal with those pesky homeowners..

[Old sixties guy]

265. Bow down to the Great God Capitalism

After this insane decsion giving carte blanche to the Walmartization of America I no longer will ever condemn the actions of the ELF folks as being the acts of"eco-terrorists"
The REAL terrorists are wearing business suits and sitting on city councils and city planning commisions kissing the butts of the big developers.

[primavera]

276. You tell 'em, Old sixties guy!

And welcome to DU!

[starscape]

280. Damn right, old sixties guy

We need a little trip back to the sixties to undo this garbage ruling...

[Megahurtz]

297. Amen Brutha!

Welcome to DU!

[HuckleB]

275. Even self-proclaimed "conservatives" are unhappy about this.

See: http://landv.net/IC/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=4483&s=08276...

for a bit of anecdotal evidence. It's right-wing central, there, for the most part, though very different from freeperville.

[starscape]

292. Traditionally, this would probably be a conservative issue..

It deals with property rights at its essence. However, I think we are seeing a real intersection here of Democratic values, as many Democrats have taken an active interest recently in how communities develop and grow, and what we feel is "progress" versus what might just be unwanted "development." Case in point is the Wal-Mart battles.

We're also sensitive to the inherent greed seen between many city officials and "big-box" developers with no respect towards the homeowners and, in some cases, the community at large.

Plus, we're all Americans, most of us respect the ideal of owning our own home and our own "space" (however small , and we cringe to see someone's lifelong dream bulldozed so that a Best Buy can be built down the street.

We're sympathetic.

[Moderator]

298. Thread #2

Located here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...