Like owning land?

Bradylama

So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Too bad.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

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.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.

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

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

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

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The concept of property ownership has essentially gone out the window. I dont think I have to explain how angry I am about this.

Instead of paying you the price you request for your property, companies can now overshoot you to the City Council and have your property seized by the government for the sake of "Private Development." The argument is that since development of residential into commercial zoning increases tax revenues that this is a public service. This is one of the weakest arguments for any case brought to the Supreme Court and the justices know it.
 
This is utter bullshit. I'm really not sure what else to say. It's like communism run by rich people. Wait, wait... Now I remember some little spot in English history where some guy with a lot of money and political power was suddenly the owner of your land because he said so and because the head boss said he could. Wow, what're they teachin' kids today? - Colt
 
Another Great Reform in the Free Nation, World Defender of Freedom and Democracy!

naziflag.gif




Okay.

Now, seriously, what civil rights do you poor Americans have left? Censorship is at its best, protesters are regularly brutalized by the police, the Miranda Rights are no longer existant, the PATRIOT acts empower the state to a Big Brother-esque degree, and now, private property has been, in Brady's words, flung out the window.

What's next, outlawing everything except the Republican and Democrat parties?
 
Yeah baby!!

This is just what americans need, a sense of totalitarianism at it's BEST!

w00t.



But seriosly.. this is a steaming of pile of sh!t.
 
Seriously though, this is what we have the Second Ammendment for. I'm almost motivated to go out and buy a gun directly because of this ruling.

When the revolution comes, though, I doubt they'll be in short supply.
 
Hell If I am alive when the revolution occurs, I'll drive down to US (i live in canada) and join up with the rebels!

Bradylama, can you tell me anything about that new bill they pased.. the "Freedom" or "Eagle" or whatever bullshit propagandanous name it has... something to do with Homeland security ... etc < - maybe one of the reasons of this?
 
It's the Patriot act, as I wrote above. And guess what? PM's exist, you know? Try using them, or doing your own research, using Google before posting such vague and insubstantial posts.

"When the revolution comes", the world would lose the only nation capable of enforcing its role as a world cop.
 
No actually this is an abuse of the Takings Clause. The government has gone to far on this.

That said, the same thing happened when poor neighborhoods were cleared out for new condos in Washington DC a few years back. The writing for this has been on the walls.

This gets attention because it's happening in Conn.

And yes, this is what happens when large companies can channel their economic power into political influence.

That said- this has me a bit more curious about the facts of the
case-

from-
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050624/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property

I spent all the money I had," said Von Winkle, a retired deli owner, of the properties he bought in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. "I sold sandwiches to buy these properties. It took 21 years."

Most homeowners sold their properties to make way for wrecking crews, but seven families stubbornly refused to sell. Collectively, they owned 15 houses.

The U.S. Supreme Court destroyed everybody's lives today, everybody who owns a home," said Richard Beyer, owner of two rental properties in the once-vibrant immigrant neighborhood.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

I haven't read the case but- seven families own 15 properties? This suggests landlords who don't want to sell their house for the price the government wants to give them. They are negotiating for a better price by hardlining against the 'just compensation'. Everyone else has been 'justly compensated' but these folks figure they can do better.

So perhaps this is a question of the government deciding land-use- does it benefit a small group or should it benefit a larger group.

Again, I think this is pretty shaky grounds to enforce a "taking." I think it wise to look at the facts a bit closer.
 
I haven't read the case but- seven families own 15 properties? This suggests landlords who don't want to sell their house for the price the government wants to give them.

Bullshit.

They're not selling because they aren't willing to take what the Companies will give them. Keep in mind that the companies are essentially overshooting the landowners to the City Council. They're the ones that this land is being seized for, because they either don't want to pay the price stated by land owners, or the land owners, for some reason, don't want to sell their land.
 
@DJ- Just compensation-
The Fifth Compensation says- "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

Generally speaking, the requirement for just compensation means that the ownersr must be paid fari market value for the property taken. Fair market value is the price in cash for which the property would change hands in a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing center (as if they were not under compulsion to sell).

It does not mean the value to the owner, who might place a h igher value on the property than other person do, as subjective value to the owner is not compensated by the market. Thus if the property being condemned is "Grandma's house that she left me in her will as a family legacy..." you're shit out of luck.

The reason goes back to a simple problem- how can you value subjective interests. Rather than plummet into the depths of the seller's soul, the court gives fair market value. It's efficient. However, the market value does take into account the possibility of future uses as well as existing uses- and thus the owner is entitled to speculation value.

If the sellers disagree with the the government's value of hte house, they can hire an attorney to fight out the value in court.

@ Bradylama-

Unless you are a mindreader, I have doubts you know what the owners are thinking.

You've got seven families owning 15 homes (which is over twice to many houses- what do you do with that space if not rent it?) You have a couple of holdouts in a neighborhood that is supposed to be rezoned. Oh and it's seven families out of 90.

City officials envision a commercial development including a riverfront hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing the adjoining Pfizer center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

Means that the value of the property goes up.
Remember this is Conn- generally pretty pricey real estate, at a time when real estate prices are bubbling.

To be honest, if I was an owner, I would have held out for a better price on the house, considering what the city has planned. Forcing the town to renegotiate means I don't have to hire an attorney and go to court. I profit by holding out for a better price. It's rational.

And it's not the companies, it's the local government that is taking the prooerty-

And why is the local government taking the property-
New London once was a center for the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country.

So the plan is urban renewal.

Which is consistent with earlier court decisions. The issue of whether a taking (or eminent domain) has been much litigated in the context of urban renewal, with the key issue being whether the government can take the land away from one private owner and transfer it to another.

Generally speaking condemnation has been upheld for public purpose, and that is not necessary that the urban removal replace dilapitadeted slum dwellings, but may remove sound buildings in a substandard neighborhood.

But the problem is transfer-- In an earlier decision the court held- "Appellants argued that this makes the project a taking from one businessman for the benefit of another businessman... THe public end may be as well for better served through an agency of private enterprise than through a deparmtent of government. We cannot say that public ownership is the sole method of promoting the public purpsoe of community redevelopment." Berman v. Parker 348 US 26 (1954).

Eminent domain can be used to condemn priavte land for use in a scheme to revitalize the economy and promote commerce. It is sufficient if the purpose of eminent domain is the well-being of the city and has a signficant economic advantage (Courtesy Sandwich Shop Inc v. Port of New York Authority, 12 NY.2d 379 (1963)- and that land can be resuold to a private corporation to build an industrial plant. Poletown Neighborhood COuncil v. City of Detroit 304 NW.2e 455 (1981).

In Hawaii the legacy of a feudal land tenure system in whcih half the island was onwed by a tiny group of landlords was the basis for a reapportionment of the land.

In fact the court had ruled that the government may use it's powers of eminent domain in a "hold out" problem where a few owners seek to increase the price of their property above fair market value. This seems to be what's going on here.

So the court's decision is consistent with earlier decisions- some going back into the 1950s. In otherwords, it's not time to get out your AK-47 and defend your property line from those damn commie liberals.

That said, I agree with O'Conner-

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

That is something to worry about.
This was a narrow decision and there's a good chance it will be reversed.

NPR has done a bit more on this, a few more of the facts of what's going on as well- check it out. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4716834
 
Bradylama said:
Seriously though, this is what we have the Second Ammendment for. I'm almost motivated to go out and buy a gun directly because of this ruling.

When the revolution comes, though, I doubt they'll be in short supply.

Actually Bradylama there's a pair of court cases in lower appellates regarding the Second Amendment - both holding contradictory viewpoints. IIRC, the Fifth Circuit Cort of Appeals upholds the Second Amendment as an individual right where the Ninth does not. I'll hunt up the specifics of the cases and provide link when I find them.

I don't see how this ruling can be argued as anything good.
 
@ Bradylama-

Unless you are a mindreader, I have doubts you know what the owners are thinking.

They're thinking "I want a better price for this property my family has poured it's blood, sweat, and tears into." The City government is circumventing private exchange for the sake of some supposed economic benefit. There was a guy on CNN who's father was uprooted by the New London government 31 years ago for the sake of a seawall that has never been built. What is the guarantee that the land will even be developed?

So the court's decision is consistent with earlier decisions- some going back into the 1950s.

Because this decision has precedence doesn't make it any less stupid. You know that, Welsh.
 
I dont know why, but this oddly reminds me of activities of Majestic XII in Deus Ex....

United States of America - the land of freedom and democracy....
 
Bradylama said:
@ Bradylama-

Unless you are a mindreader, I have doubts you know what the owners are thinking.

They're thinking "I want a better price for this property my family has poured it's blood, sweat, and tears into."

Again, as mentioned in the above post- there is no way that the government or anyone else can put a value on the subjective value of a building- therefore it's excluded.

That might suck, but it's consistent in law- the court doesn't value feelings but market value. You know, it's that whole market controls everything that you Libertarians are so fond of.

The City government is circumventing private exchange for the sake of some supposed economic benefit. There was a guy on CNN who's father was uprooted by the New London government 31 years ago for the sake of a seawall that has never been built. What is the guarantee that the land will even be developed?

You really should have listened to the NPR story before speaking. There has been a lot more going on to this than a mere property swap. New London has been in trouble for the past few years and the city and state are trying to renovate and renew it.

7 families out of 90, 15 houses owned by 7 families = renting. This stinks of hold-out.

So the court's decision is consistent with earlier decisions- some going back into the 1950s.

Because this decision has precedence doesn't make it any less stupid. You know that, Welsh.

No but what is stupid is your comment that this is the end of property in america, thank god for the second amendment so I can defend my property, and time to kick the libertarian revolution into gear. A bit over-the-top.

I know, the notion of the government taking property burns you because it's unfair. In this case it burns me because I don't like the idea of the leverage of the wealthy over the poor. But then, maybe New London could use a little renewal and I don't much care for the possibility that people might be squeezing the government for a few more dollars than Fair market value.

Then again here's another case of taking and property regulation.
Near Westhampton beach the Army Corp of Engineers built a jetty to stop beach erosion. For years, steady storms had been threatening properties along the shore, and with the jetty, those properties were saved. Some rather clever lawyer turned mayor, used that government levy to argue that the saving of some properties led to the destruction of others. His success led to a reapportionment of property, millions of tax dollars spent on the beach to restore the sand, and a promise by the government to both keep the beach and restore property damage for 30 years. In otherwords 30 years risk free.

So where the government takes away it also gives.
 
So where the government takes away it also gives.

The government shouldn't be "taking" in the first place.

Your example falls short because this lawyer-cum-mayor was able to argue that government intervention resulted in the destruction of property. The very justification for Environmental Protection laws is that they protect existing properties by leaving others in a "natural" under-developed state. The core of the issue surrounding environmental protection is whether or not the government should provide just-compensation for re-zoning land for the sake of environmental protection.

You know, it's that whole market controls everything that you Libertarians are so fond of.

Cute, but Libertarians are also fond of the preservation of Individual Rights, including the right of a property owner to do with his property as he sees fit (conflicting issues falling into aforementioned destruction of property through erosion, etc.,). The result of this court case essentially says that people have absolutely no right to their land when the government deems it so. If so, what's the point of even owning land? How far is this Common Welfare bullshit going to go?

New London has been in trouble for the past few years and the city and state are trying to renovate and renew it.

Yes, with Individual Rights as the sacrificial lamb. This is tantamount to the end of property in America, at least for the time being. We might have to wait for some of the Supreme Court Justices to die off before this decision is ever overturned. I for one am not going to place my faith in a system that may or may not lean back to support my rights. As political climates have eroded our civil liberties, not much is being done to restore them.

I just don't place as much faith in the System as you do, I suppose.
 
This makes me really glad I live in Norway, allthough they do kick people out of houses here to make roads and stuff....
 
The government shouldn't be "taking" in the first place.

Which again goes to that balance between individual rights and collective interests. Should the city build a bigger airport because the airport isn't big enough. Should we build a military base for national security, should we build a highway, a railroad, etc.

Based on your rather extreme view, no highways, railroads, or just about anything could get built.

That said the Takings Clause has been in the Bill of Rights for a long time, and the condition is just compensation. Have the parties received just compensation or are they holding out for more?

I would be surprised if you could find a better or more honest system of eminent domain. It is this basis of Just Compensation that also has defined how the US deals with international takings under Act of State Doctrine (Countries will not take private property without just compensation).

Your example falls short because this lawyer-cum-mayor was able to argue that government intervention resulted in the destruction of property. The very justification for Environmental Protection laws is that they protect existing properties by leaving others in a "natural" under-developed state. The core of the issue surrounding environmental protection is whether or not the government should provide just-compensation for re-zoning land for the sake of environmental protection.

Part of environmental law is about land use, as is taking. When the Corp of Engineers says you can't develop your wetlands, it's damn close to a taking. But then you don't seem to know much about the Takings Clause or environmental law, and I don't feel like filling in the gaps of your short-sighted and ignorant understanding of Environmental Law. However, you might pick of Perceival and Miller's casebook on Environmental Law, or Rodgers on Environmental Law.

Cute, but Libertarians are also fond of the preservation of Individual Rights, including the right of a property owner to do with his property as he sees fit (conflicting issues falling into aforementioned destruction of property through erosion, etc.,). The result of this court case essentially says that people have absolutely no right to their land when the government deems it so. If so, what's the point of even owning land? How far is this Common Welfare bullshit going to go?

Love how you go to extremes. No the people are entitled to just compensation. At the political level these folks had the right to debate and protest this at the City and State level through democratic processes.

Let me see, shall we deny jobs and better quality of life for the people of New London so that you can protect "grandma's house" for another generation (or otherwise squeeze the government for a few bucks)? The doomsday book and the rule against perpetuities put an end to perpetual legacies and the doctrine of waste says that property should be used for economic purposes.

So sorry, getting fair market value for their houses, which includes for future expectations based on rising values, isn't that bad a deal. People can relocate.
New London has been in trouble for the past few years and the city and state are trying to renovate and renew it.

Yes, with Individual Rights as the sacrificial lamb. This is tantamount to the end of property in America, at least for the time being. We might have to wait for some of the Supreme Court Justices to die off before this decision is ever overturned. I for one am not going to place my faith in a system that may or may not lean back to support my rights. As political climates have eroded our civil liberties, not much is being done to restore them.

"Sacrifical Lamb?" Come on. Just compensation means they get what their value is. Let's go back to those num ber 7 families owning 15 houses, out of 90 families in a neighborhood in exchange for a project that will create new jobs, parks, etc, and which will help clean up New Lond. I have a hard time crying for these folks just because they won't get more money for grandmothers house.

News Flash- Grandmother is dead. I don't see why the interests of a current generation living in a dieing town needs to be foresaken for the legacy of the old, or even for the sentiments of a few. Given the choice between choosing a better future for many in lieu of a past precious to a select few, I go with the future.

And yes, their rights were legally protected-

And let's recall a few things-
(1) these are hold outs- most of the folks have already sold and moved on.
(2) these hold-outs could have voiced their democratic rights at the city and town level
(3) they are still getting a pretty good deal on their homes.
(4) they did get to argue this out in court.

Legally, they got their fair rights.

The issue is less one of whether the courts did right, but the relationship of business and politics.

That said, yeah- our individual rights have been on the dive for a long time. But thank the republicans for that one.

I just don't place as much faith in the System as you do, I suppose.

No Bradylama, you just haven't studied law. This is why your argument is both extreme and foolish- it's uninformed. Take a year of Con Law and then you will really see what there is to be scared of. You'll be impressed in how few liberties we really have.

Don't forget, I still side with O'Conner on this one.

The question here is not so much a matter of law- the law has been followed (it is a close decision). Rather the major question has to do with political processes. Was the politics of this fair? I don't refer to the hold-outs who are probably trying to squeeze for more bucks, but the decision to build and the issue of political influence.

But that's a matter of state jurisdiction and local politics, upon which the court trends lightly. THe Court (ironically led by O'Conner on this issue) has been moving in a "hands off" approach to the states for the past 15 or so years.

Those are issues- the preservation of state soveriegnty and local autonomy that the republicans have been arguing (speaking about independence from Washington, but not about the higher levels of corruption at the local level).

The real question is not whether the law was applied as it should- all this case says is that property need not been in slum or in dilapidated condition for the government to take it. THe question really should be what motivated the policy decision to make this transfer. Is this a move where local politics is more influenced by corporate giants than individual rights. I don't think the facts are very clear on this. If it is, than it's an old story. On the otherhand, if the city acted in a way that it really thought would benefit a town that has been struggling- perhaps it is democracy at work.
 
Back
Top