You'd think noone ever heard of eminent domain before.

[patcox2]

The government has always, always had the right to take your house or other property for the greater public good.

Of course, the government has to afford you due process, and they have to pay fair compensation.

There is always lots of litigation over what constitutes "public good," or whether the compensation was fair.

But in the end, this decision hasn't changed anything, has not taken away any property rights, its hardly noteworthy. Redevelopment laws which give the redevelopment authority the right to bring eminent domain actions, and even to then turn the property over to private developers, are common and have been for years.

The response to this case has been funny, its like watching people running around in a panic screaming "oh my god, oh my god, the sky is blue, oh my god, sell your house, head for the hills, the sky is blue."

[LisaM]

1. George Bush did it!

Seized public property for the ballpark in Arlington (in fact, more than was needed for the project.) So if ANY right wing person complains about this decision, throw that in their face.

[redqueen]

18. He was also sued and lost.

The property owners sued the developers, and the developers lost.

What this ruling did was make it so that you can no longer sue... they've made it legal.

This is an outrage. Pure and simple.

[LisaM]

28. I'm confused - wasn't Bush the developer?

He should have lost --- my point was, if some rightwinger tries to beef about this, let them know that their Dear Leader did the same thing.

[redqueen]

Bush himself was not the developer, no.

He was a party to the case as he was associated with the developer, but the suit was not brought against Bush himself. The developers did lose and had to compensate the victims.

[LisaM]

43. Thanks. I think there is a typo in your other post, then

you said he lost, then you said that the property owners lost.

[redqueen]

48. Thanks!

Didn't see that... fixed now.

[LisaM]

54. Not that I don't like the concept of Bush suing himself and losing

makes me laugh just to think about it!

[patcox2]

33. No, they upheld a local law that allowed it, but not all local laws allow

Its a matter of local law. If your state's eminent domain law allows eminent domain to be used for private development, than it can be, if your state's law does not permit it, then it cannot be.

Nothing new about this case.

[redqueen]

39. They had to compensate the victims.

That's so funny that you insist there's nothing new. If there was nothing new, no ruling would have been required.

[patcox2]

81. How long have they been EDing land and giving it to the electric company?

A private corporation?

There is nothing new in this case. I know because I used to work in the field. If they had changed the law, that would have been new.

Here is the case, its not, as some suggest, even a break from prior cases upholding the use of ED pursuant to a redevelopment project. The area had been declared "distressed" and a redevelopment plan was in place.

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

(b) The city's determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the plan's comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court's review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment. P. 13.

(c) Petitioners' proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U. S., at 24. Also rejected is petitioners' argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a "reasonable certainty" that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the Court's precedent. E.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 242. The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case, where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested parties' legal rights to be established before new construction can commence. The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Berman, 348 U. S., at 26. Pp. 13-20.

268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed.

[redqueen]

85. I see your point, however

even though it is legal, they have obviously raised many eyebrows with this ruling. I can only hope that if Congress refuses to define "public use", that the predictable abuse of this rule (which to me, seems the natural outcome from this ruling, as many pending lawsuits will be immediately dismissed, allowing all kinds of developers to do whatever they want provided they bribe enough city officials) will finally motivate enough people to pay attention to their civic duties to make a real difference.

[UdoKier]

89. The electric company and Wal-mart are totally different.

Utilities are heavily regulated monopolies that serve the community as a whole.

Using ED on behalf of retailers like Wal-Mart is a whole different animal.


Most of us here are obviously not lawyers, but As you can see from the poll I conducted, 99% of DUers are very upset by this ruling, and almost as many over at FR are.

If this ruling is indeed in keeping with the Constitution, then the Constitution should be changed. Private property should be protected, and not open to usurpation by any corporation with the wallet to sway a municipality into stealing it for them.

You can argue the legal merits for the decision, but why? This is not a legal forum. We should be talking about doing what is best for our country, not the ways in which this decision can be rationalized under the Constitution.

Do you really think this decision won't embolden corps' to take away more people's property for a song?

[northzax]

100. soon to be applied in DC

where the city wants to knock down a strip mall, with 35 locally owned, almost all black-owned, businesses to make room for a Giant. bad luck.

[Hugin]

2. What today's ruling did is sanctify crime.

Racketeering is always wrong.

[underpants]

3. Thank you

there is nothing new here

[bowens43]

24. Yes, there IS something new here.

Private property taken from one private citizen and given to another private citizen.

[woo me with science]

52. yes, and more likely than not....

private property taken from one private citizen and given to a RICHER private citizen.

[TreasonousBastard]

101. It isn't that new...

pretty much the same situation occured in Atlantic City when Trump wanted a bigger parking lot, a new tunnel for Steve Wynn's casino was needed to get him to build...

It's usuallt the cheaper neighborhoods that get banged in these things, and "fair value" for their homes doesn't get themn enough to move to available digs.

[converted_democrat]

109. You don't get "fair" value........

You get pennies on the dollar for the land, and NO money for existing structures. How is that fair?

[Kraklen]

4. Yeah, people are blowing it way out of proportion.

If anything this will just require people to take more responsibility with their local governments. Boo hoo.

[bowens43]

29. You really should try to understand what this ruling means.

It's obvious that you are not familiar with the ruling, the situation or the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

[Kraklen]

37. The 5th amendment.

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.

Don't see any contradiction there.

[Igel]

56. "Public use" is now extended to include

private corporations and sole proprietorships.

It used to be truly for public use: roads and public buildings.

Then it got extended to public accommodations, such as utility lines.

Then it was extended to make sure middle class whites didn't have to have lower class blacks living in "urban blight." Originally burnt out, abandoned, falling-down buildings. The "public use" became "public good", essentially making sure no segment of society lived in such conditions. But nobody wanted to define "urban blight", and tie the hands of the governments in large cities.

Now "urban blight" extends to working class neighborhoods, esp. if it's deemed under-performing in tax revenue--whether property, sales, or income taxes. "Urban blight" now just means "a sufficiently powerful political constituency thinks you don't have a sufficient use, and therefore legitimate claim, to the land." This is scary stuff.

It's been happening increasingly often the last decade or so, and now SCOTUS has slapped its imprimatur on the process.

edited because Walt Star's later post is right ... see below.

[Kraklen]

66. Little difference than the way things are now.

Is an extra freeway off ramp necessarily any better for the public good than a new football stadium? You're still giving money to the private contractors who build the offramp and perpetually repair the thing.

[patcox2]

41. Well, as a lawyer for 17 years, I am familiar with the law and constitutio

And there is nothing new here. Nothing at all. I have defended, and prosecuted, ED cases (working for the development authority in one case, we tried to ED a little restaurant called Sabatinis and give it to a certain Donald Trump). Our law did not permit that.

Its all a matter of state eminent domain law, though. Some allow it to be exercised for private development, some don't.

[redqueen]

53. The Supreme Court had a chance to correct those unconstitutional

state laws. They did not. They have failed to uphold the public trust.

[patcox2]

80. Anyone care to read the decision and find out the circumstances?

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

(b) The city's determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the plan's comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court's review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment. P. 13.

(c) Petitioners' proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U. S., at 24. Also rejected is petitioners' argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a "reasonable certainty" that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the Court's precedent. E.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 242. The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case, where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested parties' legal rights to be established before new construction can commence. The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Berman, 348 U. S., at 26. Pp. 13-20.

268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed.

[Kraklen]

84. That requires too much work.

And it's more fun panicking.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

91. You got a hell of a lot of nerve,

posting sensible, informed information and then having the gall to explain, edify, even - not to mention that you think people should actually READ what the case was about!

I swear, the next thing you're gonna say is probably something like "Hard cases make bad law," or some such.

You obviously know what you're talking about, you're willing and generous enough to share your knowledge with DU, and I can only thank you while I watch the headless chickens run around and give out phone numbers, demanding this bring on a Constitutional amendment.

Are you sure we're not in Kansas any more, patcox2?

Thanks.

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[ezekiel333]

102. CRDA v. Sabatino, et al.

The Federal component of the case you mentioned was never tested at the SCOTUS level as it failed in the NJ Supreme Court, under CRDA v. Coking et al., as did CRDA v. Banin, et al.

They failed due to the Public v. Private usage test as they should have.

http://www.ij.org/private_property/atlantic_city/6_20_98pr.html

What is new today, in my mind, is that the SCOTUS has crossed a very dangerous constitutional line by not ensuring Federal rights for those without means.

“The Court simply got the law wrong today, and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result,” said Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice. “With today’s ruling, the poor and middle class will be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by government and its corporate allies. The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division among state supreme courts shows just how divided the courts really are. This will not be the last word.”

“One of the key quotes from the Court to keep in mind today was written by Justice O’Connor,” Bullock said. “Justice O’Connor wrote, ‘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.’”

http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/6_23_05pr.html

[Throckmorton]

76. Not true,

in the New London, it is the low middle class home owners that are taking it in the shorts.

The New London Development Corporation is a state chartered institution, with control in Hartford, not New London. They are taking the property and selling it to a developer, not the City of New London.

[Kraklen]

78. The low middle class home owners...

are going to get fairly compensated for their property, just as if there had been a freeway built there.

[Throckmorton]

94. OK, so why can't they buy equivalent homes for what is being paid,

because they are getting much less than market rates, thats why.

[Kraklen]

97. Well then that's a problem...

that's up for courts to settle. But that's doesn't have to do with the ruling.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Eric J in MN]

106. The rich can grease local govt. The rest of us can't.

It's not about resposnsiblity of citizens.

It's about corruption we can do nothing about.

[bullimiami]

5. where i see that this invites trouble is it expands eminent domain

further into a profit making opportunity, which invites more corruption by unscrupulous politicians in league with business.


but as i posted in another thread, the justices who ruled this way are usually motivated by what they see as the letter of the law and not ideology.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. wrong...it was PUBLIC USE

for which they could seize your land...not private use that will simply generate more tax revenue...there is a HUGE difference.

Just imagine someone in ACME corp wants your land for a project (that will make them TONS of money). All they have to do is lobby properly (meaning 'spread the $$$) and convince some schmoe that ACME corp project will bring in greater tax revenues than your home. Within months, regardless of the history you have with the property or your desire to sell or not, you would be looking at the latest and greatest from ACME corp.

Not the same...totally different.

theProdigal

[SnoopDog]

9. looks like we had the same thought!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. yeah, Snoop, I just type a little quicker...

and i am bored at work... :-)

Later!
D

[Hugin]

11. Yeah... Tearing down houses to build new houses doesn't make...

sense.

Oh, yeah... And just exactly who is going to shop at
these shopping malls?

[RandomKoolzip]

12. Yup...this ruling takes eminent domain out of the hands of the government

and into the hands of the multinationals.

[Igel]

61. No, it's still in the hands of local government, by and large.

It's just that in this case the majority dem New London city council decided that they wanted greater income.

More income, more services. (And, cynically: more services, more election boasts, greater political longevity. But nobody really could be that cynical.)

[bpilgrim]

22. when i first heard this i thought the reTHUGs voted for this

i need to learn more about this but so far from what i've heard i don't like it one bit.

peace

[Walt Starr]

26. BINGO!

Liberals had better realize right now, there is not a single Justice on the SCOTUS looking out for our interests.

Not one.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

30. damned, Walt, this shit pisses me off

it is not only the SCOTUS not watching out for people...it is NO ONE IN THE WHOLE DAMNED GOV'T.

This makes me want to give up...I have been down before at the crap I see...this really ... really ... aw, hell, who cares...

theProdigal

[redqueen]

46. It's up to us... if we ALL CALL and demand they overturn this

with an amendment, Congress may listen. That's our only chance.

We have to make sure our voices are heard.

877-762-8762

[ProdigalJunkMail]

59. you know, red, i just don't know any more

i thought this was one that was a no-brainer. i was literally expecting a 9-0 vote on this one. if they can say this is ok, it is obvious they aren't reading the constitution anyway...congress may listen...but my fear is that this decision is about to be used as one HUGH whomping stick to knock the shit out of park on nominations to the bench...

Dems can forget this :

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.democrats.ap/index.html

theProdigal

[redqueen]

67. I see that as just more reason to get loud.

I've learned in collections that the best way to get clients to pay their past due invoices when they're blowing you off is to bug the hell out of them.

Thanks for reminding me of another reason to call and pester them today. :)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

70. thanks for the cheery note, subject redqueen

but i think i am going to just crawl under my desk a puke...maybe tomorrow i won't feel so bad...

SubjectProdigal

[redqueen]

74. Here's hoping so, friend.

:pals:

And when you feel better... make some NOISE! :hi:

[woo me with science]

32. exactly!!!!!! nt

[DrGonzoLives]

47. EXACTLY

It's sad to see so many liberals agree with this ruling simply because they can't stand Rehnquist et al. Their reasoning in the dissent isn't perfect, but at least they were right for once.

This precedent means that companies can now lobby the government to take away your house to build whatever they want. I can't wait to hear the complaints of those who support this decision when it happens to them.

[onenote]

87. or tearing down businesses for the development of low income housing

that's what the principle upheld in the decision allows. Everyone is panicking, but stop and think for a minute. Why did the conservatives dissent? Becuase they realize that urban governments are progressive and are more likely to take private commercial property so it can be used by PRIVATE developers, albeit subject to government imposed conditions, such as requiring a certain amount of low income housing, green space, environmentally progressive amenities, etc. Yes, the case at hand involved private homes taken for development as commercial property, but its a two-way street and the same principle allows a government to use ED to take a run down commercial property that a developer is sittin on and make it available to a developer who commits to build housing and other publicly beneficial development.

onenote

[redqueen]

88. Why do you think urban governments are progressive?

I haven't noticed any trend that way. Many urban governments are just as dominated by corporate whores as the US Congress is.

[onenote]

99. more urban govts promote low income housing than suburban/rural

I don't have a link, but I'm fairly confident its the case. Up until now, a city that wanted to take private property (developed or undeveloped)for use as low income housing would have to bear the cost itself -- in other words, if it took the property from one private entity to provide to another private entity (who would then develop the property in accordance with terms specified by the local government), the locals faced the prospect of being sued by the original property owner. Now they don't, and the result could well be more residential renewal in urban areas.

onenote

[redqueen]

104. I believe that's true.

However there being more of them doesn't reassure me that there's anywhere near enough of them. I know my urban area is strictly corporatist.

I hope you're right. Thanks for the positive spin. :)

[SnoopDog]

7. The correct term is 'public use' not 'public good'.

Big difference. Public use means that the land is used for PUBLIC USE. A private corporation is NOT public use.

The Supreme Court just violated the Constitution. Period. (Funny, that is what they are to uphold!)

[AlCzervik]

10. exactly, taking away private property to give to another private party

this isn't for a new on ramp, this is for private real estate developers.

[Greybnk48]

8. been around forever

everyone should go see The Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy, where not only is Auther Dent's house "in the way" of the new bypass that needs to be built, it turns out that the planet Earth is "in the way" of the new Intergalactic Bypass that needs to be built. The planet of course is destroyed in the name of progress.

[redqueen]

21. Highway = public use. Strip mall = PROFIT.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. damned right! n/t

[Eric J in MN]

82. Exactly. The govt. shouldn't be able to take away your land,

and then make you a trespasser when you return.

[redqueen]

13. I disagree COMPLETELY.

Do you not recognize the difference in pressure which city councils face when deciding which properties to force owners to sell?

Certainly this has always gone on under the table, at least here in TX (e.g. the Ballpark in Arlington)... however what this ruling has done is given councils permission to do this much more easily and faster.

Do you recognize the difference between the impetus for putting in a new highway or park, as compared to putting in a new office complex or strip mall?

Who pressures the state / city / county to put up new roads? Roads are regulated and you can't just say "well let's put up a new one... it'll increase our tax base!"... same with parks... they don't generate profit, so what's the impetus? However, with OFFICE PARKS and STRIP MALLS, $$$$$$$$ is the impetus, and that's a VERY motivating (and CORRUPTING) factor.

I almost didn't take your post seriously...

[VOX]

14. Prepare to be gang-tackled.

If one were to sit down and examine the decision under a "legal microscope," it might in fact turn out that the decision may not change much, although the business of **private development** is a tough wicket.

However, the way in which this decision has been handed down and framed -- "Private-business fat cats can trump the little guy" -- has struck a dissonant chord with conservatives and liberals alike.

There will be some **major** fallout from this ruling, and it won't be good for the progressive side.

[redqueen]

34. The fallout depends on how Democrats in congress address this.

Please, call them now and tell them what you think!

877-762-8762.

If you aren't sure who your Representative or Senators are, please check here.

[aintitfunny]

15. Heifer Dust

Eminent domain has always been. Eminent domain is appropriate, necessary for public highways, etc. This is different enough to be a major concern. This is not a "blighted" neighborhood. Why the fuck is an expensive development better than a neighborhood? Why the fuck should it ever be. These are good citizens with a lifetime and history in this place. This is a terrible decision. Less for the tragedy of the current litigants than for what potential it represents. This literally invites local politicians to get rich with developers at the expense of the citizenry.

[helderheid]

17. I learned this in my real estate course

Made me twitch

[KittyWampus]

19. Corporate Profits Are Not Public Use.

[bowens43]

20. I guess you don't understand the ruling or the situation.

This was the government taking the property of a private citizen and giving it to another private citizen. This wasn't for the 'public good' it was for the good of the land developers. This land isn't being taken for 'public use'. This ruling was a violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution and I am ashamed that 'liberal' justices are responsible for this.

[Kraklen]

27. The 5th amendment?

You mean this ruling requires people to testify against themselves in criminal courts?

Those bastards.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Kraklen]

49. LOL

Lighten up.

[redqueen]

51. You might wanna edit out that personal attack.

I share your frustration with those that refuse to see, but that will be deleted.

[bowens43]

64. Yes, the 5th Amendment

Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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 offense 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.

I guess you slept through your high school civics course....

[Kraklen]

71. So what you're saying is...

this ruling means that people won't be justly compensated? Boy, I missed that portion of the statement.

[Ron Green]

38. That's what I don't get. How is it that these justices came down on what

is clearly the wrong side of the issue?

:eyes: :wtf: :dunce: :spank: :thumbsdown: :shrug:

[UdoKier]

23. Eminent Domain has always been primarily for public projects.

The increasing use of ED for for-profit projects has been disturbing to a lot of people for years now. The fact that SCOTUS just decided that it's okay paves the way for it to be a lot easier for corps to do this whenever they like.

Forgive the rest of us for worrying about our kids' futures under such a ruling.

[redqueen]

55. Yes, please forgive us for being upset that the SCOTUS just failed

to enforce the constitution.

:eyes:

[stopbush]

31. Actually, you can blame * for this.

His tax cuts have dried up the federal coffers. Local and state govs - who don't get the same trickle down from the Feds as they did before bushco raided the Treasury - must now scramble to make ends meet, and that means looking for ratables. So now, if your home taxes aren't footing the bill for X sq feet in town, we'll just rezone you as commercial property and let WalMart move in. Of course, we'll give them a 30-yr tax abatement to lure them here, so there won't be any revenue for a bit, but...

Honestly, I wonder if this kind of scenario would have developed if Gore had been rightfully placed in the WH.

[MadHound]

35. Sorry, but you're wrong on this one

The Supreme Court just redefined Public Good as bringing in more tax revenue. Thus it opens the door for local governments to seize anybody's land in order to give it to a corporation, who will pay more in property taxes.

It is an obscene ruling friend, I suggest you read up on it.

[woo me with science]

60. The blame

belongs with the so-called progressive justices on this court. It is important to focus blame where it belongs so that they are held accountable, at least in the court of public opinion.

Diluting this into the larger Bush-is-responsible-for-everything mantra isn't going to have any effect at all on these justices and is unlikely to cause any reaction by our progressive legislators, who need to be outraged about this.

[MadHound]

72. The only blame I mentioned was attributed to the Supreme Court

However if I were going to expand it, I would have to blame corporate America, for they are the real movers behind this obscenity.

[Eastside Blue]

36. Decision may or may not be noteworthy ...

But you know the way it will be spun in the media will be the reason why * has to appoint a right-wing judge to the SCOTUS.

[Al-CIAda]

57. The impotent Dems need to come out strongly on private property

rights over corporate takeover -but they won't.

Fucking sorry ass complicitors.

[Igel]

65. It's hard.

The dem-leaning SCOTUS judges were the majority.

The city council that won the case is dem majority.

[redqueen]

69. We get the government we deserve.

I've already called several relatives and asked for their help in shouting this down. We must all contact our representatives and senators and get LOUD. They will ignore us if we let them.

877-762-8762

[salin]

40. heck its how bush made his money

create a quasi public private entity to get big $$ from taxpayers - then use eminent domain to get folks to sell their land... then build a ballpark (and get a tiny bit of ownership of the team along the way)... then sell shares at a grossly inflated rate. Never would have gone down that way without eminent domain.

[Walt Starr]

44. WRONG WRONG WRONG

Public USE, not public "good".

Teh "liberals" on the SCOTUS just granted special property rights based upon the size of your wallet at the expense of the fifth amendment.

[salin]

50. was the texas ranger stadium for public use?

nope. It was sold as a public good (that is "good for the local community"). That was years ago. I don't think this is "new."

[Walt Starr]

58. first time the challenge went to the SCOTUS

and the so-called "liberals" let everybody down and imposed corporatism.

Plain and simple, the SCOTUS is now meanngless because we get screwed by both sides.

It's over. I no longer give a damn.

[salin]

63. you are correct about the Supreme Court ruling

but we have been getting screwed from all sides for quite some time now.

[redqueen]

62. What's NEW is that it's now legal.

This has been challenged in courtrooms across the country.

If the SCOTUS were dong their jobs, they'd have noted the vast difference between PROFIT and genuine public good.

[salin]

68. Sadly for the past 25 years the right has peddled the notion

that any profit for the wealthy or for corporations is for the public good (trickledown)... to the point where it is often accepted in general principal. Which, imo, is why we are headed for conditions that could set the stage for another Depression.

[redqueen]

73. That's BS.

The corporatists are taking over both parties. It's up to us whether or not we let them.

So far, things don't look so good... I hope this outrage wakes millions more up to the threat facing our country. This isn't about Republicans and Democrats anymore... just about all of them are whored out to corporate donors.

[salin]

75. agreed - just saying that when things take hold

of the 'collective wisdom' public sentiment ... that often whole communities accept the line of bs.

Sadly, I don't think this will cause an outrage accept for those directly concerned. There would have to be a rash of land takings around the country to affect enough people personally before an outrage would wake up millions.

[ComerPerro]

45. Thank you

[hfojvt]

77. nothing new here, only people may not understand our history

"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."

Wendell Barry "The Unsettling of America"

So nothing has changed except that we have become even more aware of how vulnerable we are, and we see that the courts, rather than protecting the people from the powers, are instead there to justify the powers of the powerful against the people.

I hope their "development" gets boycotted.

[redqueen]

86. The power of the wallet.

That's really our last recourse. That's a great idea. If all else fails... we just stop spending. Grow our own food... make our own clothes... trade books & movies. They did it in Argentina after their collapse... we may do it here before the collapse.

[stopbush]

79. Of course we've heard of eminent domain.

When was it, third grade that we first learned of ED.

Rather than not changing anything, this ruling expands ED...like when * expands weapons inspections into a full-blown war.

As SD O'Connor wrote:

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

[Misunderestimator]

83. THIS BENEFITS PRIVATE BUSINESS.... It is NOT the same as it was.

Government roads and government projects yes... Ruling this way in favor of local governments seizing property in order to benefit PRIVATE companies... this is reprehensible.... and predictable. Perhaps they've been getting away with this all along by playing with the rules and turning over property to private companies after seizing it for other reasons.. but now they can steal property with impunity.

You don't see a problem with sanctioning this theft?

[BiggJawn]

90. Taking my house to ass-kiss Walmart into coming to town...

..is "The Greater Public Good"?

It may be common where you live and practice Law, Patcox, but it's a novelty here in Indiana. Usually, the Government takes land and builds an arena on it then gives it to Jimmy Irsay or the Simon Bros for the use of their Millionaires to "play" in.

The concept of razing a whole neighbourhood to build a Circuit City is foreign to us. The Arenas are arguably "public" buildings. The Circuit City is not, not even in a Liberarian's wildest wet dream.


I'm laughing my ass off, because I'm a renter, and the last argument for home ownership just got blown away...

[GOPisEvil]

92. Eminent domain exists to claim land for PUBLIC use.

This ruling allows land to be given to a PRIVATE entity.

That is BIG NEWS.

[leftofthedial]

93. "public good" has now been extended to the interests of private

developers and other businesses who want to use one's land.

This is more than noteworthy. Who has influence with governments, especially these days?

Corporations, not individuals. That's who.

[Egalitariat]

96. ED used to be for Public USE; not the greater public good

The Constitution's 5th Amendment was rewritten today, and it was rewritten by the liberal wing of SCOTUS.

I think it's a sad day.

[smartvoter]

98. It has meant for public, not private purposes. This is over the line.nt

[DistressedAmerican]

103. A Strip Mall Is Not The Fucking "Greater Public Good". Period.

[Cleita]

105. Emminent domain sucks. It always has.

There was a case in Los Angeles back forty years ago when eminent domain was enforced to build the Hollywood Freeway. One lone Korean war vet wouldn't give up his home. He holed himself up with his guns and vowed to shoot anyone who approached him. He held them off for a good length of time, weeks I think, and finally they got him out and sent him to jail.

The people however were touched by his bravery, but no one could do anything about it. I don't know whatever happened to him in the long run and I'm sure he's dead now, but it was one of those incidents that the media was all over like the runaway bride.

[earth mom]

107. This is far more serious. A Supreme Court Decision.

This case will effect countless others and no doubt the little guy will lose every time as a result. You are laughing at people who care about what happens to other people whose only asset is their home and property.

Aren't democrats supposed to care what happens to their fellow man? Anyone who thinks it's fine and dandy to snatch someone else's property does not care about the welfare of their fellow man. Isn't that what children do by the way? Take what isn't theirs?

FOR SHAME! :puke:

[converted_democrat]

108. Yea, they give you pennies on the dollar for your property and give

you no money for the existing structures. No money for existing structures. Period. There is nothing fair about that.

[Czolgosz]

110. I have posted this elsewhere, but I am re-posting it here because this is

something we must ALWAYS bring up whenever we discuss eminent domain.

So as far as I can tell,

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

Which part of this is surprising to you?

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

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

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

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

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

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