End of Freedom in America?

[Schiavona]

What do you all think of the Supreme Court's widening of the parameters for condeming real properity?

Now local governments can condem your land so some developer can line his pockets-as long as everybody thinks it will be good for the local economy.

Many Libertarians believe that freedom is part and parcel of properity ownership and have opposed taking land to build infrastructure (roads, etc.), what do you think?

Now your house can be torn down to build condos...........

[mrbiggs]

I can't think of a very many circumstances where the government should be able to take land at all. Even if a large highway is being built somewhere, and millions of people will benefit from one house being taken down, I still think it's a stretch of the constitution to allow such an action.

I don't know why the Supreme Court would rule this way. Actually, I do, because it seems to me that they are constitutionally correct. I just can't think of a circumstance in which the government should be able to take a citizen's land, whether or not they pay for it.

[RebelFencer]

I think that it then becomes a matter of just compensation, whatever they define "just" as is up for grabs.

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

What do you all think of the Supreme Court's widening of the parameters for condeming real properity? .....

I believe the ruling is a bit more narrow than that. If memory serves, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that just compensation be paid when the power of eminent domain is used, and requires that "public use" of the property be demonstrated. Typically this is only used as a last resort when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale. Usually, it is required that just compensation be made for the appropriation (including recognition of emotional value, lost income, future appreciation, etc.)

The Supreme Court ruling basically upheld the right of the city, under local law to do this, as it was not prohibited by Federal Law and the consitution under the 5th amendment. However, it was noted in the opinion that state or local law could block this power for strictly economic reasons, if local or state laws were passed to do so.

There was a recent similar court case in a similar situation near here, where a local city tried to rezone and take the property of a community church, to turn their land (and adjacent parcels) into an expanded race track and adjoining shopping mall. They lost...

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Larrison

The Supreme Court ruling basically upheld the right of the city, under local law to do this, as it was not prohibited by Federal Law and the consitution under the 5th amendment. However, it was noted in the opinion that state or local law could block this power for strictly economic reasons, if local or state laws were passed to do so.

It was not prohibited by the view of a socialist dominated Supreme Court, the majority of whom believe in the nanny state as the best arbiter of what people need for themselves. These things must be left to people who study these types of things... the layperson is simply not qualified to understand the complexities of the situation... don't worry we'll take good care of you and your family right here in this special developmental village...

Originally Posted by Larrison

There was a recent similar court case in a similar situation near here, where a local city tried to rezone and take the property of a community church, to turn their land (and adjacent parcels) into an expanded race track and adjoining shopping mall. They lost...

They lost before the Kelo ruling. I wonder if the city fathers will try again now that the legal environment is more... amenable.

I started a post on this earlier, but it disappeared. Probably due to lack of interest, which scares me more than anything else...

[Moses]

Sadly, "serving the public good" can mean as little as getting more taxes from the corporation that wants your house and your land than you.

Supreme Court, thou hast disappointed.

-Da Mose

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by RebelFencer

I think that it then becomes a matter of just compensation, whatever they define "just" as is up for grabs.

The silver lining on this very, very dark cloud is that, writing for the majority, J. Stephens opened up the possibility of reviewing exactly what "just compensation" is. Very little silver lining but...

[Inquartata]

So the Constitution prohibits quartering troops on private citizens' homes, but not taking their homes outright...


Of course, the government has been encroaching more and more on private property rights as the years have passed. Until now it was content with telling people what they could and could not do on their own land. I guess that wasn't sweeping enough.


Very disappointing decision, which hopefully will be among the first revisited when the majority turns conservative again.

[Philistine]

Right now there are 8 states (IIRC) which currently explictily forbid eminent domain in whole or in part for economic development. (A common exception is in the case of blight).

28 states have now introduced legislation or state constitutional amendments to similarly limit eminent domain based on economic development (again with varying levels of exceptions).

On Kelo itself--it's a strong states-rights case which gives very substantial deference to the legislature--isn't this exactly what Conservatives think the Supreme Court should be doing....

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Apparently not....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050729/...libertarians_1

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Right now there are 8 states (IIRC) which currently explictily forbid eminent domain in whole or in part for economic development. (A common exception is in the case of blight).

28 states have now introduced legislation or state constitutional amendments to similarly limit eminent domain based on economic development (again with varying levels of exceptions).

On Kelo itself--it's a strong states-rights case which gives very substantial deference to the legislature--isn't this exactly what Conservatives think the Supreme Court should be doing....

--Philistine

Are you saying, Phil... that what the ruling was here in Kelo, wasn't so much about the affirmation of the act of taking the homes, but the upholding of the state legislative ability/right to decide and rule in the matter?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Apparently not....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050729/...libertarians_1

Seriously Inq, are you citing the Liberatarians here as the voice of the Conservatives?

[Inquartata]

No, but they are doing the Lord's work. ( So to speak. )

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Are you saying, Phil... that what the ruling was here in Kelo, wasn't so much about the affirmation of the act of taking the homes, but the upholding of the state legislative ability/right to decide and rule in the matter?

Pretty much.

One of the main issue was what deference should be given to the (municipal) legislature's determination that the taking was for "a public use." (They also decided against any bright-line rule that purely economic benefit couldn't constitute a public use).

--Philistine

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Apparently not....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050729/...libertarians_1

Kinda goes to show that judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder....

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Or a finger in the eye of the beholder.

[Schiavona]

Sometimes property has a purely $, sometimes it means more to the people who own it. Americans are used to the idea that their homes can be taken away for the purposes of building something that is owned by everybody, such as a road or a bridge. What I can't understand is how the people supporting this can think that people will accept loosing their property so some developer can put up a mall or condos.

What Thomas Jefferson do?

[fatfencer]

If the price of liberty is eternal vigilance... then we fell asleep and now were hosed.

Argentina is looking pretty nice now.

Fatfencer

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Right now there are 8 states (IIRC) which currently explictily forbid eminent domain in whole or in part for economic development. (A common exception is in the case of blight).

28 states have now introduced legislation or state constitutional amendments to similarly limit eminent domain based on economic development (again with varying levels of exceptions).

On Kelo itself--it's a strong states-rights case which gives very substantial deference to the legislature--isn't this exactly what Conservatives think the Supreme Court should be doing....

--Philistine

Without violating the intent of the Bill of Rights!

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Pretty much.

One of the main issue was what deference should be given to the (municipal) legislature's determination that the taking was for "a public use." (They also decided against any bright-line rule that purely economic benefit couldn't constitute a public use).

--Philistine

They ruled that the town fathers could take from citizen A and give to citizen B for a supposed economic stimulus. They expanded the concept of "public use" (thank you Berman v Parker) to include anything that could concievably benefit the public including private commerce. That defacto nullifies the protections of the Fifth Amendment, it's been turned on it's head. The very thing the Founding Brothers were afraid of has come to pass. The nanny state rules supreme... as long as it's for a "public use".

How was this taking not purely for economic benefit? To revitalize a "dying" town? Towns live and die just like anything else. With their death, property becomes MUCH cheaper. It's sad but aren't death, decay and rebirth the way nature works? This way the town fathers can enjoy the increased tax revenues with the blessings of our Supremes. Public use, indeed.