Update to SCOTUS legalizing of Property Theft

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Update to SCOTUS legalizing of Property Theft

Post by Pyperkub »

Not only is it now legal to use Eminent Domain to get better property tax rates, but the gov't can also send you to the poorhouse by charging rent on your property that was seized and given to private developers:

USA today
In a letter to the homeowners' lawyer a year ago, the development corporation justified its behavior by saying, "We know that your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free."
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

Unbelievable. I wonder what the political situation is in New London that allows the local govt. to act this way? I mean when something stupid like this happens, usually public sentiment prevents culmination. In this case, it get's worse and worse.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55315
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Eminent Domain, meet Second Amendment. That or the citizenry should recognize that their little town is a laughingstock.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Austin
Posts: 15192
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:49 pm
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Contact:

Post by Austin »

:evil: :x :x :evil:
Your ad here.
User avatar
Fretmute
Posts: 8513
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:05 pm
Location: On a hillside, desolate

Post by Fretmute »

How can the state claim to have owned that property without actually purchasing it? Isn't "just compensation" a necessity in an exercise of Eminent Domain?
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Original Article cited by this OP-Ed.

Rabble Rousing as per usual.

The New London Development Corps. Lawyers sent those letters... over a year ago... not the city.
My blog: Chimpanzee Tea Party

"Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance." -Kung Fu Monkey
User avatar
qp
Posts: 4103
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:48 am
Location: Port Hope, ON
Contact:

Post by qp »

:shock:
Game developer in Port Hope, Ontario
Five Archers Corporation
@FiveArchers on Twitter!
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Post by noxiousdog »

Mr. Sparkle wrote:Original Article cited by this OP-Ed.

Rabble Rousing as per usual.

The New London Development Corps. Lawyers sent those letters... over a year ago... not the city.
Lawyers that work for the city.
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
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

noxiousdog wrote:
Mr. Sparkle wrote:Original Article cited by this OP-Ed.

Rabble Rousing as per usual.

The New London Development Corps. Lawyers sent those letters... over a year ago... not the city.
Lawyers that work for the city.
They work for a company that was awarded land by the city.

It's not like the city council just said "Hey, now that we won this case, let's charge them rent! Muhahahahaha!"

It was a legal tactic from over a year ago.

I guess New London Development Corps could sue over the money... but I would put the chances of that happening or being succesful as somewhere near 0 percent.
My blog: Chimpanzee Tea Party

"Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance." -Kung Fu Monkey
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

The stroies I've read seem to indicate that the New London Dev Corp was formed by the city.
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Poleaxe wrote:The stroies I've read seem to indicate that the New London Dev Corp was formed by the city.
I have no idea how they were set up... but they are a corporation with a board of directors, that does not appear to be under any control of the city government. I can't find anything on their website about it. But if you have a source, I'd gladly read it.

But wasn't one of the whole points that city was giving land to a private corporation for development?

You can cite this as an example of why the city shouldn't have done it... but it was long since done, and the city itself out of the picture.

This is a dispute over land that was legally transferred to another party... it doesn't have anything to do with the city government anymore... though if they are smart, they will certainly intervene and try to act as a mediator.
My blog: Chimpanzee Tea Party

"Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance." -Kung Fu Monkey
User avatar
Fretmute
Posts: 8513
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:05 pm
Location: On a hillside, desolate

Post by Fretmute »

Mr. Sparkle wrote:This is a dispute over land that was legally transferred to another party...
The article mentions that the homeowners haven't been paid. I ask again: how can they transfer the land with no compensation?
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Fretmute wrote:
Mr. Sparkle wrote:This is a dispute over land that was legally transferred to another party...
The article mentions that the homeowners haven't been paid. I ask again: how can they transfer the land with no compensation?
How can you pay the people if they won't accept the money? I believe the 7 homeowners are holding out for 2003 or more recent money instead of 2000 real estate prices.
My blog: Chimpanzee Tea Party

"Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance." -Kung Fu Monkey
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Post by noxiousdog »

Mr. Sparkle wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:The stroies I've read seem to indicate that the New London Dev Corp was formed by the city.
I have no idea how they were set up... but they are a corporation with a board of directors, that does not appear to be under any control of the city government. I can't find anything on their website about it. But if you have a source, I'd gladly read it.

But wasn't one of the whole points that city was giving land to a private corporation for development?

You can cite this as an example of why the city shouldn't have done it... but it was long since done, and the city itself out of the picture.

This is a dispute over land that was legally transferred to another party... it doesn't have anything to do with the city government anymore... though if they are smart, they will certainly intervene and try to act as a mediator.
From USA Today:
(The city's development corporation gained title to the homes when it condemned them, though the owners refused to sell and haven't collected a cent.)
From your OPed:
The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires.
from Their Website
NLDC's Development Partners



State of Connecticut
Pfizer Inc
New London, Connecticut


A key to the NLDC's success in redeveloping New London is the financial and technical support it receives from the State of Connecticut. Under the leadership of Governor John Rowland, and with the continuing support of the Connecticut General Assembly, the state of Connecticut has directed tens of millions of dollars into New London's revitalization efforts. Support for the development of the Pfizer Global Development Facility and the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Project also reflect the state's commitment to the development and support of the State's Biotechnology Clusters in New London.
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
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

Wiki
Seeing an opportunity, the city of New London reactivated the New London Development Corporation, a private entity under the control of the city government, to consider plans to redevelop the Fort Trumbull neighborhood and encourage new economic activities that might be brought in by the Pfizer plant.
Tareeq
Posts: 10374
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:07 pm

Post by Tareeq »

Honestly I don't see the big deal. This just looks like a bit of hardball negotiating tactics to me.
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

Tareeq wrote:Honestly I don't see the big deal. This just looks like a bit of hardball negotiating tactics to me.
I don't think we want local govt. playing hardball with it's citizens for economic gain.
Tareeq
Posts: 10374
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:07 pm

Post by Tareeq »

Poleaxe wrote:
Tareeq wrote:Honestly I don't see the big deal. This just looks like a bit of hardball negotiating tactics to me.
I don't think we want local govt. playing hardball with it's citizens for economic gain.
If the principle behind Kelo is constitutionally valid (not that my opinion matters, but I believe it to be so under pre-Kelo precedent), this is a perfectly acceptable tactic for the city's attorneys to employ.

Litigation is hardball. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch with the puppies.
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

Tareeq wrote:
Poleaxe wrote:
Tareeq wrote:Honestly I don't see the big deal. This just looks like a bit of hardball negotiating tactics to me.
I don't think we want local govt. playing hardball with it's citizens for economic gain.
If the principle behind Kelo is constitutionally valid (not that my opinion matters, but I believe it to be so under pre-Kelo precedent), this is a perfectly acceptable tactic for the city's attorneys to employ.

Litigation is hardball. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch with the puppies.
Politics are also hardball, which brings me back to my origional question: why hasn't public sentiment risen up to put the stink-eye on this whole deal?
Tareeq
Posts: 10374
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:07 pm

Post by Tareeq »

Poleaxe wrote:Politics are also hardball, which brings me back to my origional question: why hasn't public sentiment risen up to put the stink-eye on this whole deal?
Damned if I know, but every member of the New London city council is a yankee. The only behavior that would surprise me would be if they didn't take the opportunity to act in the fashion of jackasses.
User avatar
Enough
Posts: 14688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
Location: Serendipity
Contact:

Post by Enough »

Here is a response from the NLDC on the use of eminent domain (it's a MS Word document).
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
WAW
Posts: 2438
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Colonie NY

Post by WAW »

CEO of the New London Development Corporation is David Goebel (Phone: (860) 447-8011 -- Fax: (860) 447-3833; davemg@nldc.org).

Officers of the Board of Directors :

Michael W. Joplin, President (860-526-0006). AME Development.
Ronald W. Nossek, (860) 678-6000, Treasurer. Kostin Ruffkess & Company, LLC.
Karl-Erik Sternlof, Esq., 1st Vice President. ksternlof@brownjacobson.com, (860) 889-3321. Brown Jacobson.
Samayla D. Deutch, Esq., Second Vice President, (212) 629-3981. Open Space Institute, Inc.
If you want to share the love.
You want to know how I did it? This is how I did it, Anton. I never saved anything for the swim back!
WW
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Enough wrote:Here is a response from the NLDC on the use of eminent domain (it's a MS Word document).
Money paragraph:
Certainly, anyone would sympathize with a property owner who is forced to give up a home in which he or she resides. However, the reality of Fort Trumbull is that a minority of the Supreme Court plaintiffs are owners who occupied properties owned by them. The other plaintiffs were absentee property owners. Initially, all property owners sought to secure compensation for these properties over and above the amount initially offered (the highest of two independent appraisals). The reality of eminent domain disputes is that they are usually fought over money rather than rights. Any review of public policy involving eminent domain must recognize the difference between disputes over money and disputes over rights, and address each separately. By addressing money issues and compensation levels, public policy makers have the potential to ease the burden on the property owner and limit the use of eminent domain. However there is no remedy, short of eliminating the power of eminent domain, to appease the handful of owners who are so attached to their properties that no amount of money would ease their anxiety of having to leave. These property owners command great sympathy and ultimately force the public policy decision on eminent domain. The courts have decided that it is legal for a government to take their property. Legislatures will have to decide whether it is worth it to the citizens they represent.
If you don't want this to happen in your town, then contact your state representative and see how emminent domain is worded in your Constitution and ensure that it protects you from private developers.

Such hypocrisy I see on this issue.

States Rights! Unless those states are liberal.

Constructionist Judges! Unless I disagree with the Founders.
My blog: Chimpanzee Tea Party

"Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance." -Kung Fu Monkey
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Post by Pyperkub »

Mr. Sparkle wrote: Such hypocrisy I see on this issue.
Why is it hypocrisy to want to hold onto your property, whether you are living there or not? Or to sell it for what you think it is worth, rather than be forced to sell it for 2000 prices to a (mostly) private development corporation?

It is their property, after all, or at least it was... that certainly would be one facet of property rights.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Tareeq
Posts: 10374
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:07 pm

Post by Tareeq »

Mr. Sparkle wrote: Such hypocrisy I see on this issue.

States Rights! Unless those states are liberal.

Constructionist Judges! Unless I disagree with the Founders.
Such willful blindness I see in this post. How about:

Sanctity of Private Property! They've always been pretty consistent on this issue.

or

Government By Cronyism is Wrong! Even Howard Dean agrees with this, though he lies when he blames Kelo on conservative justices.

You assume that the people who oppose Kelo only care about one or two issues. To the contrary, they weigh competing values, and they're quite as sophisticated as you are.
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Tareeq wrote:You assume that the people who oppose Kelo only care about one or two issues.
I assume you wouldn't care if Yankees wanted to revitalize their local economies to benefit the entire community, despite 7 money grubbing owners, most of who don't even live on their properties.

You have your own state government - can't you handle this stuff on your own?

If that isn't enough, then I assume that, if you didn't think the Founders gave you enough property rights... you know, you might propose to amend the Constitution. Not make up shit that never was.

You're a fan of the 2nd Amendment; you should be familar with that argument.
My blog: Chimpanzee Tea Party

"Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance." -Kung Fu Monkey
Poleaxe
Posts: 7140
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:54 pm

Post by Poleaxe »

Mr. Sparkle wrote:
Tareeq wrote:You assume that the people who oppose Kelo only care about one or two issues.
I assume you wouldn't care if Yankees wanted to revitalize their local economies to benefit the entire community, despite 7 money grubbing owners, most of who don't even live on their properties.

You have your own state government - can't you handle this stuff on your own?

If that isn't enough, then I assume that, if you didn't think the Founders gave you enough property rights... you know, you might propose to amend the Constitution. Not make up shit that never was.

You're a fan of the 2nd Amendment; you should be familar with that argument.
My copy of the constitution says that Ed may be exercised for public use, not economic redevelopment and income growth through tax collection from third parties to which the govt has transferred the property.
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Poleaxe wrote:
Mr. Sparkle wrote:
Tareeq wrote:You assume that the people who oppose Kelo only care about one or two issues.
I assume you wouldn't care if Yankees wanted to revitalize their local economies to benefit the entire community, despite 7 money grubbing owners, most of who don't even live on their properties.

You have your own state government - can't you handle this stuff on your own?

If that isn't enough, then I assume that, if you didn't think the Founders gave you enough property rights... you know, you might propose to amend the Constitution. Not make up shit that never was.

You're a fan of the 2nd Amendment; you should be familar with that argument.
My copy of the constitution says that Ed may be exercised for public use, not economic redevelopment and income growth through tax collection from third parties to which the govt has transferred the property.
The Supreme Court doesn't agree with your definition of public use... nor have many of the various courts that have reviewed these cases over the more than 2 centuries of this country's existence.
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:
Tareeq wrote:You assume that the people who oppose Kelo only care about one or two issues.
I assume you wouldn't care if Yankees wanted to revitalize their local economies to benefit the entire community, despite 7 money grubbing owners, most of who don't even live on their properties.
I wouldn't care if you all choked on bagels tomorrow, no, but there's more to this country than Massachusetts and Connecticut.
You have your own state government - can't you handle this stuff on your own?
Go back to the original Kelo thread and read what I wrote then.
If that isn't enough, then I assume that, if you didn't think the Founders gave you enough property rights... you know, you might propose to amend the Constitution. Not make up shit that never was.
We've been over this previously Sparkle, so I'm going to assume you do not mean to accuse me of abusing my purported profession (I am after all, an imaginary internet persona) to fabricate argument from authority by "making shit up that never was."

I'm going to assume instead that your outburst is the result of ignorance of the appellate process on your part. Evidently you read a summary of Blackstone or Locke sometime and took from this the belief that questions of law have always been settled, or at least have been since 1789. The settled questions of law exist in the ether, waiting merely for an appropriate lawsuit to bring them to the attention of a court, which discovers what has always existed.

That's a nice fiction, but it's not the way the appellate process really works. In point of fact, the specific question of whether a city council may take private property for redistribution to third private parties in order to increase tax revenue was unsettled until this summer. Its settlement was a close thing too, as witnessed by the dissents of O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, who needed only a Kennedy to make their version of the law the answer which has always been settled.

(See Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the second time I've cited that case in a day, for an example of making shit up that never was.)
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Tareeq wrote:We've been over this previously Sparkle, so I'm going to assume you do not mean to accuse me of abusing my purported profession (I am after all, an imaginary internet persona) to fabricate argument from authority by "making shit up that never was."
You are so sensitive sometimes! I meant "you" in the generic... though I apologize for the fact that was unclear... I realized there was a chance that you might think I was speaking directly to you, but decided not to edit this time... my mistake. I thought by now, you would be used to my bombast... but I guess I can accept that you just don't like it /me. So be it.

As far as I've noticed, you've not made much of any argument about it... other than that you don't like it personally. But I will scour the previous thread to see what you said... I got more the impression that you were stirring the pot, while Preach and I went at it.

I was speaking to people who pretend that had some sacred property rights that all of sudden got taken away. The government has always been able to take your shit... they just need to make up an excuse and pay you for it.

And I realize that this particular matter wasn't settled until recently... (and you might remember I admitted this last time you asked)... but the decision is not surprising or inconsistent with past decisions, nor is it expressly defined anywhere... you guys asked for it by letting the courts decide the answer instead of clarifying with the legislature.

In the other thread I provided numerous examples as far back as the 18th century where courts allowed local governments to move private citizens so that other private citizens could build a Mill... or canals... or whatever.

It's not new.
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:In the other thread I provided numerous examples as far back as the 18th century where courts allowed local governments to move private citizens so that other private citizens could build a Mill... or canals... or whatever.

It's not new.
"You're a fan of the 2nd amendment" seemed a bit personally directed. How could you know that, let's say, noun, who also dislikes Kelo, is also a fan of the 2nd amendment? (For the record, he's not.)

Nonetheless, apology accepted and sorry for any misunderstanding on my part. What follows is not a soapbox, just a summary of the law as I understand it from Con Law and a bit of reading oh so many years ago.

Kelo actually is new, in the sense that it is a heretofore quite debatable extension of old law. Mills and canals (as well as railroads and in more modern times electrical carriers and cable tv) have a special place in the law as common carriers, private entities that are subject to governmental regulation as they serve a public interest, and are therefore only quasi-private. Common carriers must serve the public and are severely restricted, by law, in their ability to deny that service. You're correct that common carriers have just about always been beneficiaries of ED. An electrical company, which may not discriminate against its customers on many grounds apart from those constitutionally or otherwise legally protected (race, age, religion, etc.) is clearly a "public use".

As an example, a private entity, say Taco Bell to pick up from the last thread, may deny you service on the grounds you refuse to wear a shirt or shoes. Your electrical company may not. As I understand things (and I invite Guido, who has more experience in this field than I, to correct me), prior to Kelo the Supreme Court had not addressed the question of whether a non-common carrier private entity (which Pfizer is - they can kick you out of the office park for refusing to wear a shirt) could be the beneficiary of ED.

Put another way, is a Taco Bell a public use important enough to justify seizing a person's home?

That's why it was a 5-4 decision. It was new, though I believe the holding was a legitimate and logical extension of precedent. What I mainly advocated in the earlier thread was writing to legislators for those who (like me) disagree with the ramifications of the decision.

Kelo is an invitation to government abuse and usurpation, and I'm sure you see that. My city council would never dare take my home (because I know 3/7ths of them). That doesn't protect poor people, or slumlords, who are people too.

Parenthetically, I find your characterization of the Kelo appellants as "greedy" to be disingenuous and beside the point. If a burglar broke into their homes to steal property the government would use lethal force to prevent that, even if the burglar offered to pay for his misdeeds. What privileges Pfizer over a burglar, morally speaking?
User avatar
Ranulf
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:07 am
Location: The Barrens

Post by Ranulf »

Tareeq wrote: What privileges Pfizer over a burglar, morally speaking?
Money to pay lobbyists and city officials.
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Tareeq wrote:Put another way, is a Taco Bell a public use important enough to justify seizing a person's home?
I don't think so... but isn't that what local governments are supposed to be for? To put it another way, is seizing an absentee slumlord's property and renovating it into quality low income housing justified "public use"? I brought up the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative in the last conversation... but it seems very similar to this New London situation, in that the Dudley Neighbors Inc. is a non-profit private organization that has been given the responsibility of exercising DSNI's power of ED, which was granted by the city of Boston... it takes private property, compensating the owner fairly, and then parcels it out to private or non-profit developers who develop/build on it... which is then leased/sold to private citizens and business owners.

Now, they only take abandoned lots that are still under private ownership... but if I own that lot, isn't it my right to leave it abandoned and undeveloped? Isn't it in my economic best interests to hold onto that land until the the property values go up because the land around it is being developed into a nice neighborhood? Shouldn't I try and get the developers to pay me off handsomely?

Is providing affordable low income housing to residents "public use"? Is providing commercial areas for local businesses to operate "public use"? I say it is... the benefits to the community as a whole are quite obvious and clear, though the individual property rights of these absentee owners are being "trampled", as it were, for private developers/owners. I'm not sure what these absentee owners were given for their land, but certainly not what it was worth in a neighborhood of 150k homes (sold to residents at 90k).

Now, you may say, that this is a more admirable use of ED than bulldozing homes for a Pfizer plant... and I would agree... but it is the same thing, really... the benefit to the community is the "public use"... instead of a uplifting a poor community and giving them the ability to own their own homes in their own neighborhood, it provides jobs and a strong economic base to build around.
That's why it was a 5-4 decision. It was new, though I believe the holding was a legitimate and logical extension of precedent. What I mainly advocated in the earlier thread was writing to legislators for those who (like me) disagree with the ramifications of the decision.
I agree.
Kelo is an invitation to government abuse and usurpation, and I'm sure you see that. My city council would never dare take my home (because I know 3/7ths of them). That doesn't protect poor people, or slumlords, who are people too.
I certainly can be abused... and perhaps the New London case in an example of said abuse... but I would hate to see things like the DSNI stopped, because local communities don't care enough to handle their own bidness and keep their city councils or state legislators in check.

I'm sure this New London thing didn't just "happen"... I would imagine local residents had ample time to object and correct the situation...
Parenthetically, I find your characterization of the Kelo appellants as "greedy" to be disingenuous and beside the point.
I think there are 90 acres of land involved... the home-owners in question occupy ~1.5 acres... everybody else didn't have a problem with it. Is it germane? I believe it is, because the public relations campaign of the Libertarians likes to paint this as Big Evil Government tossing hard working families out on the street with a few pennies for their troubles... which is really not the case.
If a burglar broke into their homes to steal property the government would use lethal force to prevent that, even if the burglar offered to pay for his misdeeds. What privileges Pfizer over a burglar, morally speaking?
What the Government giveth, the Government can taketh away.

I don't particularly like the idea of invoking ED to build luxury condos... but ED is a powerful tool for communities to revitalize themselves. I'd rather not see that curtailed by the Feds, when the slippery slope you fear is completely within your own community's power to prevent.
My blog: Chimpanzee Tea Party

"Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance." -Kung Fu Monkey
User avatar
Fretmute
Posts: 8513
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:05 pm
Location: On a hillside, desolate

Post by Fretmute »

Mr. Sparkle wrote:I'd rather not see that curtailed by the Feds, when the slippery slope you fear is completely within your own community's power to prevent.
The slippery slope I fear is completely within my community's power to cause. I'm worried about them abusing power; telling me that they might not do so isn't particularly reassuring.
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Fretmute wrote:
Mr. Sparkle wrote:I'd rather not see that curtailed by the Feds, when the slippery slope you fear is completely within your own community's power to prevent.
The slippery slope I fear is completely within my community's power to cause. I'm worried about them abusing power; telling me that they might not do so isn't particularly reassuring.
Well, then it behooves you to contact your state representative and see what you can do about amending your Constitution... though, as I recall, you were already miffed about Dallas's use of ED to get land to build their new football stadium... and you probably have a snowball's chance in hell of gathering much support to stop that sort of thing, if it would negatively impact the 'Boys.

Tareeq seems to think it's ok to seize private property in the case of "public carriers"... do you agree? Would it take the sting out, if they were bulldozing your ancestral home to build a power plant to be operated by some vast power dealing conglomerate, just because they can't discriminate about who they provide power to?

Is that the distinction you care about? Discrimination?

Certainly using ED for "public carriers" could be just as steeped in crony-ism and self serving politics... but that doesn't mean you eliminate the power because some people are retards.

You property rights are not sacred. They exist at the whim of the Government. The Government serves the will of the people. Sometimes that may mean that you are forced to sell your property for the betterment of the community. Sorry, but 'dems da breaks... but it's that way, so that you or Mrs. Kelo can't hold the entire community hostage because you refuse to take the highest of two independent estimates of your property value... that's just unreasonable and unfair to the city as a whole.
My blog: Chimpanzee Tea Party

"Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance." -Kung Fu Monkey
User avatar
Fretmute
Posts: 8513
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:05 pm
Location: On a hillside, desolate

Post by Fretmute »

Mr. Sparkle wrote:Tareeq seems to think it's ok to seize private property in the case of "public carriers"... do you agree? Would it take the sting out, if they were bulldozing your ancestral home to build a power plant to be operated by some vast power dealing conglomerate, just because they can't discriminate about who they provide power to?

Is that the distinction you care about? Discrimination?

You property rights are not sacred.
If I had my druthers, my property rights would be sacred. Given that this is an unlikely to occur, I'll read the Constitution in such a way as to put the most limits on ED. As it stands, pushing for the most stringent classification of "public" seems to be the way to do this.
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Fretmute wrote:If I had my druthers, my property rights would be sacred.
So, in the the ideal Fretmute world, would it be under no circumstances could the Government force you to sell... or would it be only under some circumstances?
Given that this is an unlikely to occur, I'll read the Constitution in such a way as to put the most limits on ED. As it stands, pushing for the most stringent classification of "public" seems to be the way to do this.
I would suggest that pushing for a particular interpretation of the wording of the Constitution is perhaps the least effective method to protect your property rights as you could possibly choose.

I'm not sure, but I don't think Justice Stevens is polling public opinion on the internet after oral arguments are concluded.

Even if a more property-rights oriented court reversed Kelo, there is nothing to say that another court couldn't just reverse-reverse it.
My blog: Chimpanzee Tea Party

"Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance." -Kung Fu Monkey
User avatar
Fretmute
Posts: 8513
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:05 pm
Location: On a hillside, desolate

Post by Fretmute »

Mr. Sparkle wrote:So, in the the ideal Fretmute world, would it be under no circumstances could the Government force you to sell... or would it be only under some circumstances?
In my ideal world, it would be none. It seems to me that government ought to exist to protect my property rights, not to subvert them for its own use.
Mr. Sparkle wrote:I would suggest that pushing for a particular interpretation of the wording of the Constitution is perhaps the least effective method to protect your property rights as you could possibly choose.
True; I spoke previously in an "ideal" sense again. In Fretopia, all Justices agree, and no further protections would be needed. ;)
Tareeq
Posts: 10374
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:07 pm

Post by Tareeq »

Actually I don't think it's ok when property is seized for the benefit of a common carrier. It's just ancient law that eminent domain is permissible in such cases.

And if you think the Supreme Court doesn't keep abreast of public opinion you're mistaken. They're the most insulated branch by design and inclination (being aged law school geeks), and they're the heaviest handed, but they keep an ear to the ground, the same as any other government institution that ultimately derives its legitimacy from public respect.
User avatar
Mr. Sparkle
Posts: 12022
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Post by Mr. Sparkle »

Tareeq wrote:Actually I don't think it's ok when property is seized for the benefit of a common carrier. It's just ancient law that eminent domain is permissible in such cases.
So are you completely against the idea of eminent domain, or do you feel it should only be used for buildings that are owned and operated by the State?
And if you think the Supreme Court doesn't keep abreast of public opinion you're mistaken. They're the most insulated branch by design and inclination (being aged law school geeks), and they're the heaviest handed, but they keep an ear to the ground, the same as any other government institution that ultimately derives its legitimacy from public respect.
They're only human... and I suppose it depends on their own particular philosophy of the Constitution... but I would imagine that Scalia, at least, would claim that he is not influenced by public opinion.
Fretmute wrote:It seems to me that government ought to exist to protect my property rights, not to subvert them for its own use.
It seems to me, that there are some things that are more important than property rights... as long as you are fairly compensated... the needs of the community can outweigh your right to refuse to sell. Whether those needs include building a Pfizer plant... or a football stadium... is a legitimate matter of debate... but for government to function, it needs to be able to pull out the trump card to get things done.
My blog: Chimpanzee Tea Party

"Osama Bin Laden can suck my insouciance." -Kung Fu Monkey
Post Reply