Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

DU View of Kelo v. New London, eminent domain

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-26-05 01:21 AM
Original message
Poll question: DU View of Kelo v. New London, eminent domain
Edited on Sun Jun-26-05 01:21 AM by usregimechange
Do you agree with the majority in Kelo v. New London?

Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, et al., more commonly Kelo v. New London, is a land-use law case argued before the United States Supreme Court on February 22, 2005. The case dealt with the limits of eminent domain, and specifically ruled that, under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, local governments may condemn private houses in order to use the land for uses that are primarily commercial, so long as such use serves a demonstrated "public use."

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Poppyseedman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-26-05 05:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'll read the whole opinion
Though I am not a lawyer, the opinion is a very disturbing ruling.

Basically the court took out the "Taking cause" of the fifth. New rules were applied.

"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, 158164. 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"

Your local "yahoo" city councilman now has more rights than you to your property if they feel like your land can serve their ideas better.

"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."

Gee, Most of the appreciable benefits will be going to Pfizer Inc. which is private not public good, not the community

Here's the opinion in PDF


Our side SC judges did this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 18th 2017, 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC