No more property rights (USA)??

[Kygron]

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

 

Someone please tell me there's a GOOD reason for this decision! The repercussions could be disatrous!

[husmusen]

Emphasis mine:

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.

 

wow, I'm a little surprised.

 

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

 

You know it's funny but everybody talks about the Swedes and our horribly socialist government, but I mean we've got rights. The government can aquire our property for public hospitals, defence bases, public schools, roads etc. But they can't give it to other people for a shopping mall.

 

Essentially(if the story is accurate) this implies that Mega Corps by proxy of the local council have the right to seize whatever property they desire.

 

Cheers.

[revprez]

You know it's funny but everybody talks about the Swedes and our horribly socialist government, but I mean we've got rights. The government can aquire our property for public hospitals, defence bases, public schools, roads etc. But they can't give it to other people for a shopping mall.

 

So the Swedes are hostile to private property and the entrepeneur. We already knew that. Let's try a less fluffy list of things governments can do with stolen property. They can build Robert Byrd museums, spotted owl refuges, prisons, public landfills, and office space for tax agencies. Not one of these will put up a cent to the dollar a strip mall can breath into a town's economy. So what's so noble about eminent domain for "public use" anyway?

 

Rev Prez

[Dak]

Someone please tell me there's a GOOD reason for this decision! The repercussions could be disatrous!

 

id guess the real issue is, not that this law has been passed, but how are the authorities going to use it -- or how frequently are they going to use it.

 

as long as the authorities dont use it too casualy, then i guess it will be benificial overall as it could stop cities from stagnating and allow the local economy to be strengthened/rejeuvenated -- although, having said that, i can see how the legislature could be invoked too easaly/oftern.

 

without knowing the exact guidelines under which this law is to be used, i cant really tell if it seems like a good or a bad idea.

[Mokele]

So what's so noble about eminent domain for "public use" anyway?

 

From what I know, it's not so much noble as necessary. If something for public use *needs* to get built (like a bypass to releive near-stationary traffic), it would, without eminent domain, be possible for suitably stubborn individuals to simply prevent anything from happening by refusing to sell their property, no matter what the price.

 

I actually drove on an example of just such an instance not too long ago, outside of Peoria, while visiting an ex. There was a nice long bypass to relieve congestion, but it literally dead-ends after 6 miles because someone would not sell their property and had a good-enough lawyer to fight things and make it not worth the city's effort. What could have been effective was ruined by individual selfishness and stubbornness. In such cases, it is sometimes necessary for the government to overpower the will of the individuals in order to accomplish something for the collective good.

 

Now, as for this decision, I'm a bit skeptical, but at the same time, I'm not sure it's all that alarming. The decision was mostly that the locals officials know best, and, while there could be a few negative consequences, I doubt they'll be much different from now.

 

Mokele

[revprez]

From what I know, it's not so much noble as necessary.

 

You pick a select few sweet-sounding cases and refuse to justify the rest. Necessity is clearly not an active principle in the law. For a less fluffy example than the list you provided, Robert Byrd wants to build a new old folks community center on your land and name it after himself. Nobody outside your small neighborhood really cares, but you're going up against a well financed interest group, a popular US Senator and you've never organized for political action in your life. The town supervisors, city council, or whatever approves. Hell, put it up for a vote and only a quarter of registered voters--skewed heavily towards the older demographic, comes out to support the plan.

 

So I ask again, what's so noble about eminent domain for "public use?"

 

Rev Prez

[Pangloss]

The ability to use eminent domain was already in existence for things like hospitals, schools, roads, etc. What's different about this case is that it allows land to be seized (siezed?) for shopping malls and high-rise condos.

 

Husmusen, you may be surprised, but many on the American political left are in favor of this decision. That's the socialistic side. They like it because it gives the government more power to take things away from individuals. Are you kidding? They eat that kind of thing up. Check out this excerpt from the New York Times editorial on the subject:

 

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor lamented that the decision meant that the government could transfer any private property from the owner to another person with more political influence "so long as it might be upgraded." That is a serious concern, but her fears are exaggerated. The majority strongly suggested that eminent domain should be part of a comprehensive plan, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, underscored that its goal cannot simply be to help a developer or other private party become richer."

 

O'Conner's fears aren't exaggerated. They're REALITY.

 

More examples of support for this decision can be found in such places as moveon.org, democraticunderground.com, and similar places.

 

Fortunately much of the American political "left" is very much opposed to this. Left-leaning libertarians and "classical liberals", and many left-leaning people in general, are surprised and disturbed by this decision.

 

Unfortunately it won't make any difference. This will be forgotten by next week, and just be another example of our gradual, seemingly inevitable (and in my opinion tragic) slide into "accidental socialism".

[revprez]

The ability to use eminent domain was already in existence for things like hospitals, schools, roads, etc. What's different about this case is that it allows land to be seized (siezed?) for shopping malls and high-rise condos.

 

And I say so what? So long as an alderman or a supervisor or a mayor can survive politically, why not?

 

Rev Prez

[Mokele]

You pick a select few sweet-sounding cases and refuse to justify the rest. Necessity is clearly not an active principle in the law. For a less fluffy example than the list you provided, Robert Byrd wants to build a new old folks community center on your land and name it after himself. Nobody outside your small neighborhood really cares, but you're going up against a well financed interest group, a popular US Senator and you've never organized for political action in your life. The town supervisors, city council, or whatever approves. Hell, put it up for a vote and only a quarter of registered voters--skewed heavily towards the older demographic, comes out to support the plan.

 

1) Did I even once lead you or anyone reading my post to believe I was giving the situation a comprehensive treatment from all angles? Was that even my purpose? No. My purpose was to show that, in some cases, ED is necessary to resolve problems. Not noble, not even nice, but a necessary evil to deal with problems that can arise.

 

2) My personal feelings in the hypothetical situation are irrelevant, for two reasons: a) I already explictly stated that ED exists to trump selfish individual desires, and I fully admit to being a very selfish person and b) I did not argue that *ALL* cases of ED were valid, ethical, or otherwise "good", merely that some are. Every law that can be abused *will* be, but that doesn't mean the law should automaticly be thrown out, only that it should probably be ammended, re-written or somesuch.

 

As for "Necessity is clearly not an active principle in the law", I'd argue that necessity is the guidance for *all* laws. If it wasn't necessary to resolve a situation legally, we wouldn't have a law for it, now would we? Situations arise, and must be dealt with, often within a legal context. I'd say that much of law exists in order to create a system or to create rules to deal with theese situations. While it's nice to talk about the higher purpose and such of laws, at the end of the day they must be functional.

 

Mokele

[revprez]

1) Did I even once lead you or anyone reading my post to believe I was giving the situation a comprehensive treatment from all angles? Was that even my purpose?

 

I don't think you didn't fool anyone into believing your treatment was comprehensive. Your entire argument boiled down to ED is justified because: "it would, without eminent domain, be possible for suitably stubborn individuals to simply prevent anything from happening."

 

Of course, then you went through a list of things that were either necessary or would enjoy wide public support. At no time did you write that ED where public necessity was not an issue is unjustified. In fact, you haven't even defined public necessity.

 

No. My purpose was to show that, in some cases, ED is necessary to resolve problems. Not noble, not even nice, but a necessary evil to deal with problems that can arise.

 

So I ask again what's so noble about ED for "public use?"

 

b) I did not argue that *ALL* cases of ED were valid, ethical, or otherwise "good", merely that some are.

 

You didn't even argue whether most ED cases were valid, ethical or otherwise good. So either you were unclear, or simply being facetious. Either way, we still have a question as to whether ED for public is use is noble. In fact, if so is it more or less noble than ED used to the benefit of a private interest?

 

Every law that can be abused *will* be...

 

That's a pretty strong claim.

 

As for "Necessity is clearly not an active principle in the law", I'd argue that necessity is the guidance for *all* laws.

 

1) Really? Is MLK Day necessary?

 

2) "The law" in "[n]ecessity is clearly not an active principle in the law" refers to eminent domain. States, towns and cities primarily use it to condemn property in order for new private development to take hold. There is no test to determine whether it is necessary to tear down a condemn building. A developer simply submits a plan to the relevant agencies who markup for whatever legislative or regulatory body handles such things; and damn the people who may live there.

 

Rev Prez

[Mokele]

At no time did you write that ED where public necessity was not an issue is unjustified.

 

Congratulations, you can read! That's because, and listen carefully, that isn't my point.

 

In case you didn't notice, *I* and writing these posts. Therefore *I* decide what position i want to take and what I want to say. My initial post in this thread as a simple thesis of "ED exists because in some cases it is needed." Nothing else. I don't argue about the larger ethical ramifications, I don't argue about the 'nobility', and I don't argue about how often or if ED is abused. You have perpetually attempted to insinuate that I have said something about this and try to draw me out, when frankly I have nothing to say on those issues.

 

So I ask again what's so noble about ED for "public use?"

 

What do I care if it's "noble" or not? That's not what I'm concerned with in this thread, and frankly, I don't give a shit.

 

Your perpetual attempts to attach the "ED is noble" position to me, in spite of my repeated assertions that it is not, is a Strawman, for which I have sent in a warning. Don't do it again.

 

You didn't even argue whether most ED cases were valid, ethical or otherwise good. So either you were unclear, or simply being facetious.

 

It's called "only adressing the point I was posting about". My position is *NOT* about the ethics of ED, only it's functionality. The two are, of course, not one and the same, and frankly,I don't give a shit about the ethical ramifications, or I would have posted about them wouldn't I?

 

Either way, we still have a question as to whether ED for public is use is noble. In fact, if so is it more or less noble than ED used to the benefit of a private interest?

 

Yes, yes you still do have that question. Congratulations, it's a doozy, and I'm sure you'll have hours of fun figuring it out. However, I have no interest in it at all, and am not going to waste my time on it.

 

"The law" in "[n]ecessity is clearly not an active principle in the law" refers to eminent domain. States, towns and cities primarily use it to condemn property in order for new private development to take hold. There is no test to determine whether it is necessary to tear down a condemn building. A developer simply submits a plan to the relevant agencies who markup for whatever legislative or regulatory body handles such things; and damn the people who may live there.

 

I mean that the law itself is necessary (in that it needs to exist) to resolve such conflicts, not that there is an internal necessity test.

 

Mokele

[revprez]

What do I care if it's "noble" or not?

 

The question wasn't directed to you personally the first time I ask it. What makes you think it was the second and third time?

 

I mean that the law itself is necessary (in that it needs to exist) to resolve such conflicts, not that there is an internal necessity test.

 

You argue that this law is necessary because something needs to exist to address these cases. That's an 'if and only if' condition.

 

Rev Prez

[Mokele]

The question wasn't directed to you personally the first time I ask it. What makes you think it was the second and third time?

 

In the third instance, because it was the sole line in response to a section of my post you quoted. That's pretty clearly directed at me. If not, you *seriously* need to work on the formatting of your posts.

 

You argue that this law is necessary because something needs to exist to address these cases. That's an 'if and only if' condition.

 

And? I argue that there is a problem that ED solves. Does it solve it the only way, or the best way, or even a good way? I don't know. That's all I've been saying.

 

Mokele

[john5746]

You pick a select few sweet-sounding cases and refuse to justify the rest. Necessity is clearly not an active principle in the law. For a less fluffy example than the list you provided' date=' Robert Byrd wants to build a new old folks community center on your land and name it after himself. Nobody outside your small neighborhood really cares, but you're going up against a well financed interest group, a popular US Senator and you've never organized for political action in your life. The town supervisors, city council, or whatever approves. Hell, put it up for a vote and only a quarter of registered voters--skewed heavily towards the older demographic, comes out to support the plan.

 

So I ask again, what's so noble about eminent domain for "public use?"

 

Rev Prez[/quote']

 

It's in the constitution for one.

 

The scary thing about this ruling is that it makes MONEY. If you know anything about local politics, its that the rich have too much influence. A developer's wife is head of the county council in my county. They already have the county bending over to the realtors and developers.

 

That being said, the local governments will have to allow this to happen, so there may be some problems, but the people can still fight back.

[revprez]

It's in the constitution for one.

 

I didn't ask whether its in the Constitution. I asked what's so noble about it?

 

The scary thing about this ruling is that it makes MONEY.

 

Why is that scary at all? Condemnation of blighted areas happens all the time and I rarely hear anyone here complaining about it on principle.

 

If you know anything about local politics, its that the rich have too much influence. A developer's wife is head of the county council in my county. They already have the county bending over to the realtors and developers.

 

Then if you don't like it, and you believe you have a cache of support in your community, run for office or organize behind a candidate you think can do something about it.

 

Can you tell us what you have against these developers other than the alleged conflict of interest?

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

In the third instance, because it was the sole line in response to a section of my post you quoted.

 

The question followed your stated disinterest in the question. Why would I ask you the same question a third time if you decided not to address it?

 

That's pretty clearly directed at me.

 

Not even you can believe that.

 

And? I argue that there is a problem that ED solves. Does it solve it the only way, or the best way, or even a good way? I don't know. That's all I've been saying.

 

Good, now that you've gotten that off your chest I'll get back to my question. What's so noble about eminent domain for "public use?" And for those who may be missing the context, it was in response to another member's view that eminent domain that serves private interests is unjust.

 

Rev Prez

[john5746]

I didn't ask whether its in the Constitution. I asked what's so noble about it?

 

I know Libraries and Museums are not as important as Malls, but they do have some nobility.

 

 

Why is that scary at all? Condemnation of blighted areas happens all the time and I rarely hear anyone here complaining about it on principle.

 

Money may provide a strong influence to push people off their property and it will more than likely be poor or middle class people who have little political influence.

 

 

Then if you don't like it' date=' and you believe you have a cache of support in your community, run for office or organize behind a candidate you think can do something about it.[/quote']

 

That is what I alluded to at the end of my post.

 

Can you tell us what you have against these developers other than the alleged conflict of interest?

 

Nothing specific as of yet. But, I see the influence they have with government. If they start taking people's property only to make a buck, I will have a problem with it. I won't be able to "vote" against them though.

[revprez]

I know Libraries and Museums are not as important as Malls, but they do have some nobility.

 

I didn't ask about libraries and malls. I asked about eminent domain.

 

Money may provide a strong influence to push people off their property and it will more than likely be poor or middle class people who have little political influence.

 

In fact it is almost always lower income people who are pushed off, although few of them are actually property owners. My point is what's so scary about it? You've had nothing to say about condemnation since you've gotten here; I know, I've checked your posts. Condemnation isn't exactly special knowledge; you should know something about it. So what's the big deal?

 

That is what I alluded to at the end of my post.

 

Well, may the best person win.

 

Nothing specific as of yet. But, I see the influence they have with government.

 

So is this all penis envy or what? If all that's pissing you off is the fact that private and public interests are doing business with each other and a party happens to have family in the government, I don't expect you'd make a successful candidate and I question whether you have a message around which others can successful organize. I mean, after all, if you were in Green territory this wouldn't even be an issue.

 

If they start taking people's property only to make a buck, I will have a problem with it.

 

But why? Do you hate money?

 

Rev Prez

[Kygron]

Back to this new desicion please.

 

I didn't know about all this controversy when I posted. I didn't know about eminent domain until I first heard this story on the news. What surprized me is that the supreme court got involved, and then voted AGAINST property rights. Now, maybe their desicion will be strictly regulated or something, but it sounds like it's too open for abuse.

 

It was also surprizing because I thought of one solution without loss of rights right away. Now, I'm new at this so it may not be a good one, but here goes:

 

If someone's going to make money off this deal, they should have enough money to pay for the property. If they don't have enough to pay for the property, then the deal isn't worth it. They should NOT be able to go to the athorities and say, "He won't accept my offer, make him move anyway!" When demand is high, the value of a property skyrockets, this is a NORMAL part of the economy and I don't think it should be sidestepped. There is no "market value" when one individule is buying from one other.

 

When the case is that a stubborn person won't sell (and I'm talking 10+ times the "market value") then why can't you just build a few blocks down? I doubt there's THAT many stuborn people! Maybe it'll cost you "more" for that property, but it's still less than the infinite value that one person demands.

 

To me this looks like someone thinks they deserve to have someone else's property, and so they get laws made saying so. I thought respecting others' rights was what law was all about. It takes some extra work to do so, but it's that extra work that makes society livable for everyone!

 

Maybe people don't share my opinions. Maybe they want this "accidental socialism" that Pangloss mentioned. I didn't know that fact about the country I'm living in. I think that's why I was surprized.

[husmusen]

I don't have a detailed knowledge of US property law, so I will be commenting on general principles.

 

What appears to have occured here is that corporations now have the right of emminent domain providing they can show some small fringe benefit to the community and sway the local council (the manner and means by which local councilors and mayors might be swayed I'll leave to your imagination but I see what Drug companies do for Doctors and I'd find it hard to believe that they keep doing it because it doesn't work).

 

Or to put it in laymans terms, an individual may not use his property rights to frustrate a corporations ->*Right*<- to make a profit.(Sarcasm intended).

 

I can also see this opening a big door to crony capitalism.

 

Cheers.

[jdurg]

It is way too funny how misinterpreted this decision is by just about everybody out there. Take the time, please, and read through the entire document and not just the one or two lines that the newsmedia are pointing out. This decision by the Supreme Court is absolutely, positively, nothing new. There are numerous cases of precedence documented in the decision which have already said the exact same things that this judgement is saying. No new laws or rights have been granted. It's just that rights have not been taken away. Since the lat 1800's, governments have had the power to take away land and give it to a private individual if it is for the benefit of the community. (A case that is cited in the decision, I believe, mentions a mining corporation and their seizure of land in order to build transport lines).

 

Based upon their judgement, in order for a city to seize the property of a private individual, they MUST do so as part of a planned out redevelopment project which is for the proven benefit of the public. They can't just take the land because ONE individual wants to build something there. Just think of what would happen if the law was changed and the power was fully given to the individuals.

 

I know the town that this case came from. (I live a short drive away from New London, CT). In this area we also have the U.S. Naval SubBase, and with its potential closure the economy of the area could take a MASSIVE hit. If the base closes and the economy does stagnate, let's say the city of Groton has a plan to redevelop the area in order to attract people to the city and bring in some economic gains to help improve schools, law enforcement, etc. There is one squatter, however, who refuses to give up his/her home in order to benefit the area. If the Supreme Court had decided in the other manner, however, the city would have no legal recourse and the economy would further decay and the detriment to the people of the area would increase tremendously.

 

Or, let's say that a corporation is nested in a city and a competitor wants to move into an area of the city that the local government is thinking about redeveloping. The owner of that corporation could just buy a house in the redevelopment area and prevent not only the redevelopment of the area, but the introduction of competition. Would that be a good thing?

 

As the decision was handed down, it leaves open legal recourse for those who feel they are affected. The Supreme Court basically said 'we don't see any arguments which should make us switch our beliefs on this issue which have been in existance for hundreds of years'. If there is an issue on whether or not a seizure is legal, take it through the court system.

[Pangloss]

Well that's one way of looking at it. Obviously Justice O'Conner would disagree with you, however, about the remifications of this case.

[jdurg]

Well of course. This wasn't an easy thing to decide upon. It's just that the 'petitioners' couldn't come up with a strong enough argument to change the minds of 100+ years of precedence. I think they did they best they could with this case. In this way, they just said 'we're not changing anything. If something like this comes up again, we'll just have to deal with it again'.

[Nevermore]

I lived right next to the final house in question, on east street in New london CT as a small child. The owner was Ms. Maralyn, a nurse.

[bascule]

I thought this was awesome:

 

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

 

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

 

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

 

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

 

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

 

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

 

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

 

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

 

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.