Update to SCOTUS legalizing of Property Theft

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
Ranulf
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:07 am
Location: The Barrens

Post by Ranulf »

Mr. Sparkle wrote:
Tareeq wrote:Or are you asserting that in the 20th century only poor people had their land taken for highways?
No, but only poor people got their homes taken for the Inner Harbor. That was 20 years ago.

Many Liberals have objected for decades to ED for precisely this reason... the reason why non-libertarian conservatives have joined them now is because of Kelo and the fact that the middle class is involved.

EDIT: What you think of invoking ED to rebuild New Orleans?
While class is and likely always will be part of the issue, please stop drinking the Marx coolaid. What scared most people was that with Kelo, the government or anyone with enough cash/power etc. to buy off the government could just steamrole you off your land no matter what, just for the mere promise of "more tax revenue" to other private parties.
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Ranulf wrote: What scared most people was that with Kelo, the government or anyone with enough cash/power etc. to buy off the government could just steamrole you off your land no matter what, just for the mere promise of "more tax revenue" to other private parties.
I still maintain that if you were poor, they already could (and did) and not many were upset. Stories like this rouse anger, because it's middle class white people.

The majority object to abuse of what constitutes "blight"... not that the government can intervene when a neighborhood is in bad shape.
My blog: Chimpanzee Tea Party

"Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance." -Kung Fu Monkey
User avatar
Ranulf
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:07 am
Location: The Barrens

Post by Ranulf »

Mr. Sparkle wrote:
Ranulf wrote: What scared most people was that with Kelo, the government or anyone with enough cash/power etc. to buy off the government could just steamrole you off your land no matter what, just for the mere promise of "more tax revenue" to other private parties.
I still maintain that if you were poor, they already could (and did) and not many were upset. Stories like this rouse anger, because it's middle class white people.

The majority object to abuse of what constitutes "blight"... not that the government can intervene when a neighborhood is in bad shape.
Right, because they don't have good rules regarding what is "blight" then governments can have all sorts of silly reasons to steamrole people off their land for more revenue. Of course who largely supported Kelo and who dissented? Certainly didn't seem to be the so called party of the poor/minorities.
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Ranulf wrote:
Mr. Sparkle wrote:
Ranulf wrote: What scared most people was that with Kelo, the government or anyone with enough cash/power etc. to buy off the government could just steamrole you off your land no matter what, just for the mere promise of "more tax revenue" to other private parties.
I still maintain that if you were poor, they already could (and did) and not many were upset. Stories like this rouse anger, because it's middle class white people.

The majority object to abuse of what constitutes "blight"... not that the government can intervene when a neighborhood is in bad shape.
Right, because they don't have good rules regarding what is "blight" then governments can have all sorts of silly reasons to steamrole people off their land for more revenue. Of course who largely supported Kelo and who dissented? Certainly didn't seem to be the so called party of the poor/minorities.
Some states do, and some states don't. It's up to your state to determine what limits it wants on the power of eminent domain.

And their are plenty of people on the left who are upset about Kelo, and eminent domain in general... you might find it upsetting that a nice middle class neighborhood is getting bulldozed to make way for a yacht club, but people on the left have opposed it for evicting poor people to build an Inner Harbor or football stadium.
My blog: Chimpanzee Tea Party

"Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance." -Kung Fu Monkey
Tareeq
Posts: 10374
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:07 pm

Post by Tareeq »

Mr. Sparkle wrote:And their are plenty of people on the left who are upset about Kelo, and eminent domain in general... you might find it upsetting that a nice middle class neighborhood is getting bulldozed to make way for a yacht club, but people on the left have opposed it for evicting poor people to build an Inner Harbor or football stadium.
Actually almost all of the pro bono work and amici briefs opposing eminent domain of any sort over the past 30 or so years has come from people you would identify as of the "right." That includes the stadiums. The left may oppose it as you say but they don't do anything about it.

The NAACP is a notable exception.

The reasons left-wing groups tend not to get involved is that they don't involve themselves with property rights. They don't care.

Most poor people don't own their homes. They can be evicted when the lease runs out anyway.
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Tareeq wrote:The reasons left-wing groups tend not to get involved is that they don't involve themselves with property rights. They don't care.
Clearly property rights are more of an issue for libertarians and Republicans than Democrats... but it seems to me that Kelo has awakened pretty wide bipartisan support for reigning in ED powers, beyond the traditional NAACP objections.

You should be pleased... FOX says that at least 25 States are considering bills to limit ED. Sounds like the system working as intended.
My blog: Chimpanzee Tea Party

"Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance." -Kung Fu Monkey
Tareeq
Posts: 10374
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:07 pm

Post by Tareeq »

Mr. Sparkle wrote:Clearly property rights are more of an issue for libertarians and Republicans than Democrats... but it seems to me that Kelo has awakened pretty wide bipartisan support for reigning in ED powers, beyond the traditional NAACP objections.

You should be pleased... FOX says that at least 25 States are considering bills to limit ED. Sounds like the system working as intended.
I said that would happen months ago in the last thread, and I am pleased. You on the other hand should be mightily displeased, given your preference for a Leviathan state.
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Tareeq wrote: You on the other hand should be mightily displeased, given your preference for a Leviathan state.
No, I think it's probably a good idea to limit it to "blight" and be clear on what that means... I also think it's a good idea, if you are going to bulldoze poor people's houses, to be replacing them with low income housing and not Walmart's... but I don't think it was the Supreme's job to make that value judgement, and I think that the states can handle their own bidness in that regard.

I don't have any particular preference for the size of the State, but I do acknowledge there are things that Government can and should do that a private business beholden to shareholders never would.
My blog: Chimpanzee Tea Party

"Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance." -Kung Fu Monkey
User avatar
The Preacher
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13037
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:57 am

Post by The Preacher »

Mr. Sparkle wrote:but I don't think it was the Supreme's job to make that value judgement, and I think that the states can handle their own bidness in that regard.
Unheard of! Absurd!
You gave each other a pledge?
Unthinkable!
You do not take from this universe. It grants you what it will.
Tareeq
Posts: 10374
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:07 pm

Post by Tareeq »

Mr. Sparkle wrote:I also think it's a good idea, if you are going to bulldoze poor people's houses, to be replacing them with low income housing and not Walmart's...
Assuming they own the land, they're paid for it. If they don't own the land they don't own anything, and they're released from the lease.

There's no shortage of projects. I recently defended a case against a housing authority, brought by a woman who contended that the housing authority should have taught her child not to stick a paperclip into an electric socket, or should have designed the sockets in such a manner that it would have been impossible to insert paperclips into them.

I was appalled at her living conditions, until I saw that she was only paying $39 a month for her two bedroom apartment. Then I was just appalled.
I don't have any particular preference for the size of the State
You made a funny!
The Divider
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: North Carolina

Post by The Divider »

Tareeq wrote:
There's no shortage of projects. I recently defended a case against a housing authority, brought by a woman who contended that the housing authority should have taught her child not to stick a paperclip into an electric socket, or should have designed the sockets in such a manner that it would have been impossible to insert paperclips into them.
There was her mistake. She should have sued the housing authority for not providing her free electrical outlet guards and a houseboy to install them for her.

<aganon spartacus>Free houseboys for all!</aganon spartacus>
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Post by noxiousdog »

Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Al
Posts: 2233
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:46 am

Oh wait....

Post by Al »

noxiousdog wrote:More fun implications.
He should file a lawsuit. Take it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary!
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Update to SCOTUS legalizing of Property Theft

Post by noxiousdog »

Saw a reference to this on another site and did some other searching, but the punchline is
10 years later (or 5 depending on when you're measuring), the land is still undeveloped.

Sorry it's a Fox insider link, but it's the most recent one. There's lots of corroboration over the last year.

Nice job, SCOTUS.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Update to SCOTUS legalizing of Property Theft

Post by Pyperkub »

This article seems to go into more depth:
* Almost no one knows that a new party, One New London, whose express purpose was to prevent the New London Development Corporation from carrying out its Supreme Court-sanctioned actions, came out of nowhere and won two seats on the seven-seat City Council, losing out on a third seat by 19 votes.
* Almost no one knows that City Council, with the One New London Party members strongly dissenting, voted in May 2006, formalized in June, to evict the remaining holdouts, while demanding "past-due real estate taxes, claims for use and occupancy and claims to collect rent from third parties" to the tune of (I'm not kidding) $946,000 and change.
* Almost no one knows that infuriated city residents mounted what from all appearances was a successful petition drive to put the question of the city property takeover of the Kelo and Cristofaro properties on the ballot in just three weeks. Absent the petition and looming referendum overhang, it seems likely that City Council would have brought on the bulldozers. Instead, it began negotiations with Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell. Rell ultimately brokered a deal that, while constitutionally unacceptable, was probably the best anyone could have hoped for in the situation.
Though I think you can skim over all the "leftist media/journalist failure' bs from the site, as I did run across some NY Times articles as well in my googling.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Moliere
Posts: 12301
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
Location: Walking through a desert land

Re: Update to SCOTUS legalizing of Property Theft

Post by Moliere »

New London may build a “memorial park” honoring victims of eminent domain on the former site of the Kelo house
New London, Connecticut Mayor Daryl Finizio recently signed an agreement authorizing the construction of a “memorial park” on the former site of Susette Kelo’s “little pink house,” one of the fifteen residential properties condemned by the city as part of a failed development project that led to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision upholding the takings in Kelo v. City of New London (2005):
...
Although the land was originally condemned for the purposes of promoting “economic development,” the poorly designed original development plan and a number of later proposals fell through; the condemned property lies empty to this day, used only by feral cats. The case did, however, generate a massive political backlash and resulted in the enactment of eminent domain reform laws in numerous states and the rekindling of a national debate over property rights and takings.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19324
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Update to SCOTUS legalizing of Property Theft

Post by Jaymann »

Don't underestimate the political clout of feral cats.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Re: Update to SCOTUS legalizing of Property Theft

Post by Enough »

And don't underestimate the power of money to corrupt. Colorado's original tea partier, Mike Dunafon (organized the Glendale Tea Party in 1998, held rallies for Magpul after gun controls measures, libertarian darling, etc) apparently now loves himself some eminent domain. Glendale itself is a crazy, crazy place. It's a tiny town of less than 1 square mile that's embedded in Denver most famous for it's nude bar, Shotgun Willies (saving Willies started Dunafon's political career).

Now Glendale wants to return to its glory days as an entertainment hub for Denver and is proposing a $175 million development on 42 acres currently occupied by a mish mash of small businesses. Dunavon and city council want to use eminent domain to get rid of those pesky hanger-ons that refuse to sell out so the development can proceed. A local 25-year old oriental rug store is leading the charge to resist being bought out and things are getting pretty hot. Last night they marched with a bunch of protestors to the city council meeting to protest but the city council still approved the use of eminent domain so the entertainment complex developer can proceed.
After more than three hours of testimony, the city council voted unanimously to pass a resolution giving the city's urban renewal authority the power to use eminent domain at a 42-acre site slated for a $175 million dining and entertainment complex on the banks of Cherry Creek, but not before requiring the city to negotiate and engage in mediation with private property owners.
"We are not here to take anyone's property," Dunafon said.

The mayor said eminent domain is used only after all negotiations between the city and private property owners on a property sale have broken down. He said the city still wants to work with the several landowners on the Glendale 180 site in coming up with a redevelopment plan.

"We fully believe we can work this out," Dunafon said.

But those who attended the meeting Tuesday were adamant that Glendale was being unfair to private property owners along East Virginia Avenue, who could be hit with a forced sale of their property should condemnation go forward.

According to a last-minute amendment that was negotiated in a flurry of meetings across the room, Glendale's urban renewal authority will be required to negotiate with the private property owner and engage in mediation if an agreement can't be reached before condemnation could proceed.
:roll:
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream

“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Update to SCOTUS legalizing of Property Theft

Post by Pyperkub »

Something finally done


Enough? IDK, but it's something.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82099
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Update to SCOTUS legalizing of Property Theft

Post by Isgrimnur »

Image

Do you really think our mogul-in-chief is going to sign something that negatively impacts real estate developers?
It's almost as if people are the problem.
Post Reply