Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Seagoon on June 23, 2005, 11:02:01 AM
-
Hi All,
Today the liberal wing of the Supreme court (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) determined that cities can indeed seize private property under existing "eminent domain" laws in order to encourage "urban renewal." This decision was vigorously protested by conservatives and moderates on the court. At issue was whether cities have the right to seize desirable private property not for public works (highways, sewer works, etc.) but in order to hand them over to private developers to increase the local economy and tax base.
washingtonpost.com
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YEN
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 23, 2005; 11:43 AM
WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
The 5-4 ruling _ assailed by dissenting Justice Sanday Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America _ was a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had 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 now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he 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," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," he said.
O'Connor, who has often been a key swing vote at the court, issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
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, Conn., 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.
"We're pleased," attorney Edward O'Connell, who represents New London Development Corporation, said in response to the ruling.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
O'Connor was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of 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, with losses of residents and jobs.
The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.
City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Still pending at the high court are cases dealing with the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies. The Supreme Court next meets on Monday.
The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.
-
Scary, but why do you have to go creating a side to blame?
It isn't liberal vs conservative vs moderates. It's become the people vs the government.
-SW
-
...
-
Seems like a decision that will benefit private developers - so in that sense I view the justices positions as upside down. Liberal judges making it easier for wealthy developers to make more money. Sounds fishy to me. Why would liberal justices take a side on a decision which benefits the owners of Walmart over private homeowners?
All is not lost, though - as Justice John Paul Stevens noted in the opinion, "States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened."
Good to see you posting again, Seagoon. Haven't seen anything from you for a while.
btw, I'm not sure if this post is in violation of a rule. I thought we weren't allowed to clip and paste controversial subject matter for discussion without adding our own opinion? Otherwise its considered trolling?
-
I should note that this isn't entirely a moot point for me.
One of our good friends here in Fayetteville is a farmer, whose family still owns and operates the same historic farm his family has been on for over 200 years. The road even bears their family name.
For many years, their farm lay outside the city limits of Fayetteville, and their biggest concern was the size and quality of their harvests and the price they would fetch. A few years ago, the city annexed the area contained their farm, and then proceeded to seize several fields belonging to them and other farmers against their will and hand them over to a developer who put in yet another Super Walmart. (Fayetteville now has 2 Super Walmarts, 1 Regular Walmart, A Sam's Club (also Walmart), and another Sam's Club under construction).
This greatly reduced their arrable land and the overall production of the farm, and consequently, their ability to remain solvent. They joined a coalition of other farmers and homeowners seeking to block the ability of the city to seize more of their land (something that everyone agrees is likely) but this decision will make it well nigh impossible for people living in the already annexed areas to contest these actions.
The sad thing is that eventually a BRAC will be issued that closes enough of Ft. Bragg to substantially reduce the population and deflate the local economy. When that happens the "surplus" Walmarts will close, and join the list of vacant large commercial properties here in Fayetteville. By that time however a historic family farm that could have gone on for another century will have been eminent domained to death, and the family members instead of following their fathers will have to move on to other trades.
I'm sorry, but I regard this as theft, oppression, and consequently a gross violation of the eighth commandment. Specifically, it strikes me as not substantially different from the enclosures of 17th-19th century England that essentially removed property from powerless small tenants and handed them over to large landholders. This in turn forced the rural poor into the large cities in order to survive.
- SEAGOON
-
The part that made me laugh was the conservative judge bemoaning the fact that large corporations already wield a disproportionate influence over the political process.
You think he only just noticed?
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Scary, but why do you have to go creating a side to blame?
It isn't liberal vs conservative vs moderates. It's become the people vs the government.
-SW
WOW! Thats twice in a year we've agreed!:aok
-
One word : ouch.
One question : how is it possible ?
Another question : were is the benefice for the population ?
-
Where is Lazs when you need him
-
Un-freaking-believable, I mean how much more commie can you get?
-
I blame Clinton
-
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
Isnt this what the conserves want? Power away from the SC and back to the states?
-
Another one of your rights that the Govt has found a loophole around.
Soon they will find a way to take all your property and "redistribute" it for the good of the people.
Welcome to Red America.
-
Hi Wulfe,
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Scary, but why do you have to go creating a side to blame?
It isn't liberal vs conservative vs moderates. It's become the people vs the government.
-SW
Because at heart this is a question of philosophy of government, which is inevitably ultimately a question of political philosophy. Do the citizens serve the state, and do the perceived needs of the many outweigh the asserted rights of the few, as socialist utilitarianism posits, or does the state exist to serve and protect the rights of individual citizens?
The decision of the liberal wing isn't really surprising, their logic was essentially that the property rights of a few private individuals must subserve the greater good of the community. Tied up in this mindset are the ideas that:
A) The government (and indeed government generally) and not landowners know best what should happen to land and property.
B) That the needs of the local economy trump the wishes of individual landowners. Therefore if the state believes that the state of the urban poor can be alleviated by taking your land and handing it over to a developer who will build businesses providing jobs and taxes for social programs, then that is what needs to happen.
C) Ultimately land and indeed all private property is essentially overseen by the state. In other words, what you "own" is really what the state allows you to manage, and that it is their right to engross or redistribute that property as they see fit. You see this philosophy displayed in tax discussions in which socialists assume that it is not your money that they are taking, but rather public funds they are using for the greater good, and that it is an act of benevolence that they let you keep and manage some of it yourself.
D) All of this is ultimately tied to the question of where individual "rights" come from. Are they merely constructs granted by the state and thus revokable or even reversible, or are rights, "natural rights" given by God and thus irrevocable as the framers of the Constitution maintained? Socialists and indeed most materialists have long held that rights are granted by the state (a variant of this idea is that our rights are in fact simply liberties that we give up or cede to the state in the social contract, which are in turn parceled out to us via the decision of the majority on an as needed basis) and are thus revocable. The state has given, and the state has taken away.
So the Supreme Court decision was in keeping with elementary principles of socialist government, and the minority dissent was in fact an expression of the conservative adherence to the principle of natural rights and the belief that the state exists to protect those irrevocable rights. If you read the actual decisions you will clearly see the threads of both philosophies.
- SEAGOON
-
This is way beyond liberal vs conservative. It is truly Feudal.
I'm absolutely disgusted that this can happen.
-
The real issus is that the entire government, all 3 branches, are in agreement that both the federal and state government can do literally ANYTHING if it's in the nation's interest or a matter of national survival. In the last couple of decades, it's become more and more clear that because tax revenues (and therefore the ability to run every single government program) are directly tied to the health of the economy, keeping the economy healthy at any cost is a matter of national survival. The key to this train of thought is that all 3 branches of the government in one way or another consider the government and the act of governing to actually be "the nation".
Case in point - before the war on drugs was considered a matter of national survival, US military forces could not under any circumstances be used for border law enforcement. That changed, under Bush Sr. if I recall correctly although it may have been Carter or Reagan.
So with the economy being a fully recognized matter of national interest at this point in time, the government at all levels, from your community council to the feds, can do literally anything to anyone in the interest of boosting the economy as long as someone with enough bucks to argue the case in court can justify the actions as being necessary for stable economic growth.
That means if your house has to go to make room for the new mini-mall or quik-e-mart, you have no say in the matter because it's a court-upheld matter of national interest.
Plus the constitutional loophole of eminent domain can be stretched if a local government shows that it's local decisions are in the interest of the nation as a whole. And right now, economic interests are considered matters of national survival.
Don't like it? Write your congressmen. I'm not allowed to :)
-
If the outcome could be deemed beneficial for a dieing community... If one howeowner is holding up billions in development revenues/job creation then its a good thing.... The imminent domain thingie has been around for a long time...Its not a new development in our history.... But add the name Walmart and you get conspiracy theories popping out of the wood work...
Walmart bad.... Crack house good...
But living next to a Wallyworld I have noticed that it generally attracts a very challenged client base, might be a florida thing though? Luckily its moving soon to be replaced with bobs flea market thrift garbage dumb....
TJ
-
I understand that aspect Seagoon, but there is something I guess I didn't make clear. We have officials on "both sides" (conservative and liberal) who are doing things in various interests that are creating a socialist government, or atleast the precursor to one. Many disagree, but the Patriot Act is an example of rights being curtailed in the interest of national security. Wiretapping without a warrant, search and seizure without a warrant. Just as an example.
That's why I stated its the people vs the government, because the government thinks it knows whats best for the people (the nation) all the while walking all over them.
-SW
-
sometimes the people win , down here wally mart wanted to build another store on a site that would destroy some wetlands, the people protested, the govt backed down and denied the permits.
-
This is why I say now, and have been saying for 20 years or so, that the interpretation of the Constitution and its basic tenets as a "living document" :rolleyes: is very wrong and very dangerous.
Now, the most liberal interpretation if "imminent domain" has become "if it is good for business and for tax revenue" it is acceptable. When the Constitution and the documents that accompany it were written, imminent domain meant "for roads, for schools, for safety, for the common defense, for the expansion of utilities to serve everyone".
Now, because it has become acceptable to twist and turn EVERYTHING in the Constitution to fit ANY agenda, we need laws to protect people and personal property from the Supreme Court:eek: .
The manipulation of the Constitution has pushed us off the top, onto the slippery slope, and now we slide out of control towards disaster.
-
I've seen it used way too many times to line the pockets of local politicians. Farms that had been around for 200 years suddenly gobbled up by developers and parceled out into subdivisions with barely enough yard to have grass growing around the house. And when someone wont sell? Have the county declare eminent domain, with plans for some factory or something else that will 'provide jobs', only to see the plans for that job making machine go belly up as soon as the land is purchased, and the county conveniently selling it off for a minor profit to a developer who will make millions off of it. Heck, Lambert Int. Airport in St Louis wiped out an entire TOWN to expand and lay down a new runway. When people didnt want to sell, they had the govt. take the land for them. Eminent domain is wrong on so many levels. I just see red every time I hear about another case.
-
What I find scary is that in the past few years you've had all three branches of government curtailing personal liberty. And with both parties seemingly trying to screw the individual it's not like you can turn to them to try and redress the issue. Whenever we get sick of a party up here we screw them in an election, but down there you would only have a case of the other party ****ing up. You guys need to give the Libertarians some seats. At least you would have a balancing force that is actually for personal freedom.
-
Originally posted by T0J0
If the outcome could be deemed beneficial for a dieing community... If one howeowner is holding up billions in development revenues/job creation then its a good thing.... The imminent domain thingie has been around for a long time...Its not a new development in our history.... But add the name Walmart and you get conspiracy theories popping out of the wood work...
Walmart bad.... Crack house good...
But living next to a Wallyworld I have noticed that it generally attracts a very challenged client base, might be a florida thing though? Luckily its moving soon to be replaced with bobs flea market thrift garbage dumb....
TJ
There is no way to justify taking the personal property of an individual and giving it to a business under the original intent of imminent domain. Besides the fact that it leaves way too much room for the abuse of power.
Imminent domain should remain as it was, with its original intent.
In Seagoon's example, imminent domain was used to STEAL personal property for the benefit of a business. WalMart has BILLIONS of dollars, and can buy property they can use that is for sale just about anywhere. The government should not have the power to force a person off of his property because a business wants it. Any way you look at it, that is wrong.
-
Hi all,
Obviously a lot of people are incredulous that this could actually have happened, that we could have gotten to the point where a municipality could actually seize your real estate, pay you what they deem to be a fair price, and hand it over to a private developer. But respectfully, this doesn't reflect any sort of sea change in the understanding of government that has prevailed in the USA for almost 100 years now.
Let me try to explain what I mean. Our problem seems to lie in the way that we view different kinds of private property when from the point of view of thory of government no real distinction exists. Private property is private property. The money that you receive from your employer goes from being their private property to your private property. You are free to either keep it liquid, or use it to purchase other forms of private property, either durable such as cars, real estate, or non-durable food, etc. or use it to secure services. If I take your money from you without having a right to do so, I am guilty of theft. This is true regardless of whether the property I unlawful seize is money or some other kind of property.
For over 100 years now, Americans have accepted the Marxist/Utilitarian principle that the state should take your private property and redistribute it "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need". Now this regularly happens to most of us, when the state siezes a percentage of our income in taxes. This is private property that has been seized and redistributed to both private and public interests "for the greater good." In fact, even money seized from us via taxation and handed over to private interests (whether it is in the form of subsidies for farmers, small business loans, etc.) "to help the economy" is ultimately seen as serving the greater good.
Now for most of us, it is money in its liquid form that is seized, but if, for instance, someone cannot, or does not pay their taxes, other forms of private property (boats, cars, real-estate) can be seized by local, state, and federal government in leiu of payment.
Since we have already ceded the vital principle that Government has a right to seize our private property and redistribute it as they see fit for the "greater good," the current emminent domain decision isn't a big stretch. What is being seized in Eminent Domain decisions is still private property, in this case it is not money, but money that has been converted into a durable good, i.e. real estate. Hence the consistency of the Supreme Court Decision. What we are really doing in complaining about it is in a sense "Katie Bar the Door."
I would instead assert that if we don't like it, we need to focus the attack on the more fundamental issue, i.e. that the state has a theoretically unlimited right to seize and redistribute our private property as it sees fit.
- SEAGOON
-
Been going on for years.
Detroit did it for GM and the poletown plant 25 years ago.
Those poor folk couldnt buy a two car garage in the burbs for what they were forced to take.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
.....in order to generate tax revenue......
That is the some of this decision.
-
While strongly I agree with the Conservative members of the Court in this case, the moderates and Liberals ruled correctly based on the law as written.
Now the reason this is even an issue is because nobody considered that corporations would be able to manipulate the .gov into taking private property from one private interest and give it to another private interest.
The law being ruled on merely pertained to eminient domain. There is no provision in the law as to what happens to the property or what is and is not an allowable use of the law.
This really, really, really sucks. We need to have it written into law that the .gov cannot take one private party's property and give it to another private party. Not ever.
And for the public use I'd like to see the .gov to have to pay twice "fair market value".
-
Removal of any persons property for eminent domain that will benefit a private business is pure and simple theft. All three branches of the US government are so far gone from reality that I truly feel this is no longer a land of the free.
I guarantee the day some government official tries it on me, is the day I am killed defending my property.
-
firebomb.
-
Before one passes judgment on this case, either way, perhaps people should read the actual opinion:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108
After reading it I deem most of the hyperbole from the press and public to be misplaced.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
For over 100 years now, Americans have accepted the Marxist/Utilitarian principle that the state should take your private property and redistribute it "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need".
That is quite a stretch, Seagoon. The first income tax was enacted in 1862, to help finance the cost of the Civil War. It was a graduated scale flat tax, with incomes under $10,000 paying 3%, those greater than $10,000 paid a higher rate.
Do you have evidence that collected taxes were being redistributed to the poor that long ago? You are basically calling Abraham Lincoln a communist. Is that your intent?
It's my understanding the significant social spending started with FDR, and expanded in the 1960s with Johnson's "Great Society" programs. Income taxes came and went several times before then, usually to raise revenue to fight wars.
-
This is very scary indeed.. Some really good post here and I'd have to agree with every point given except maybe the liberal/conservative blame that was attempted.. I think wolfe had the best post about its now the people against the government.. I believe the sooner we as americans stop letting the media divide us all into 2 or more catagories the sooner we might take back our country. We really are in this all together..
-
Originally posted by Silat
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
Isnt this what the conserves want? Power away from the SC and back to the states?
Its what Reagan conservatives wanted. The Bush adminstration favors curtailment of individual rights and freedoms and a large, very powerful and far-reaching federal government. Which is why I don't think we can correctly call Bush a conservative.
EDIT: Actually I should be more specific and say a powerful and far-reaching executive branch.
-
I am progressivly more pissed about this ruling. The SCOTUS had the chance to stop and even reverse earlier SCOTUS rullings dating back to the 1880s, but they failed. They went explicitly with the prior rulings by earlier SCOTUS' that exited in a very different corporate culture.
It is true that the SCUTUS ruled in line with existing law and SCOTUS rulings, but it is also true that they ruled WRONG
Here is a thread on another site with some informative links about this subject:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/28609695/m/272008104731/p/1
-
Originally posted by john9001
sometimes the people win , down here wally mart wanted to build another store on a site that would destroy some wetlands, the people protested, the govt backed down and denied the permits.
John What county is that in?!
TJ
-
I thought the SC interpreted the law?? Could they have changed it and still been within their legal jurisdiction?
-
Yeah, it certainly does stink, and now that it's passed through the Supreme Court, it's time for Congress to get off their tulips and change the law or modify the constitution to make the clear distinction between public need and private interest. That is, if they can tear themselves away from protecting the flag. This has already happened before the case, in the city right next to mine...Keizer. The city council voted to condemn a section of property owned by a local greenhouse to make room for a commercial development. Pretty pathetic...and just goes to show that even your local government is important, and you need to pay attention to who is being voted in.
-
Originally posted by T0J0
John What county is that in?!
TJ
pinellas, it was out on gandy, across from the dog track.
i'm in st pete, where you live?
-
One thing that strikes me about this is that both here and on Arstechnica, the other forum I frequent, everybody, Liberals and Conservatives alike, think this is complete BS, even if they see how the ruling was reached.
This is something that clearly the vast majority of Americans think is wrong. That seizing private property for corporate use is a perversion of what the US is supposed to be.
If we are, Liberals and Conservatives, united on this you'd think that the Congress would be interested in passing a law in our favor, But why do I doubt this to be the case?
-
Because you have an IQ over 50 and have seen congress in action. ;)
-
This is all a small part of the "reddening" of America.
Welcome to RED AMERICA Comrade!
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
This is all a small part of the "reddening" of America.
Welcome to RED AMERICA Comrade!
It has nothing to do with that.
It is a ruling based on prior ruling from the 1880s and 1950s.
It is wrong, but it is not new.
-
seagoon has it..
A wall mart can generate 5 million in tax revenue for a city and state.
Liberal loafer wearing taxi riders view any personal property ownership as the height of evil and feel that the greatest good for mother earth is to cram people into cities after confiscating their property.
living out away from the horde makes people think they are too free independent and turns em into red voters instead of blue ones. They drive their own cars and live in big wasteful homes.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
seagoon has it..
A wall mart can generate 5 million in tax revenue for a city and state.
Liberal loafer wearing taxi riders view any personal property ownership as the height of evil and feel that the greatest good for mother earth is to cram people into cities after confiscating their property.
living out away from the horde makes people think they are too free independent and turns em into red voters instead of blue ones. They drive their own cars and live in big wasteful homes.
lazs
Yeah, sure Lazs. That is why universally Liberals and Conservatives both think this is wrong, because Liberals are so much for it...
Wait....
That is a bunch of simple minded propaganda drivel meant to inflame emotions and create an "us vs them" flame war that you posted.
Maybe you hadn't noticed how your statement is diametically oposite of what people are posting.
But you just had to take your stereotype cheapshot at the right wing's boogie man didn't you.
-
would you say that the left was more or less a supporter of private property rights than the right?
would you say that the urban non property owning parts of the country were more or less likely to vote for the left?
Would you say that looking at a map of the nation and how it voted for the two presidental candidates that there was a real division between urban and rural voting... a real "us vs them" or am I just making it up?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
would you say that the left was more or less a supporter of private property rights than the right?
In this case I would say that they are very much the same. Both think this is a horrid ruling that was done solely based on the prior rulings from past SCOTUS and missed a golden opportunity to limit this, although that would have been "Judicial Activism".
would you say that the urban non property owning parts of the country were more or less likely to vote for the left?
Completely irrelevant because it pressumes the "left" supports this which it most certainly does not.
Would you say that looking at a map of the nation and how it voted for the two presidental candidates that there was a real division between urban and rural voting... a real "us vs them" or am I just making it up?
lazs
Completely irrelevant because it pressumes the "left" supports this which it most certainly does not.
-
Hello Karnak,
Originally posted by Karnak
While strongly I agree with the Conservative members of the Court in this case, the moderates and Liberals ruled correctly based on the law as written.
...
This really, really, really sucks. We need to have it written into law that the .gov cannot take one private party's property and give it to another private party. Not ever.
And for the public use I'd like to see the .gov to have to pay twice "fair market value".
I agree with your statements quoted above, and while I am very sympathetic to your desire, I think it's going to be more difficult to consistently do this than we think.
That is especially true when one considers that a heavy proportion of local, state, and federal revenues raised via taxation already go directly to private interests and corporations.
For instance, in 2004 the U.S. Small Business Association (SBA) made or guaranteed over 21 Billion dollars worth of credit to Small Businesses and in 2003 over 8.3 billion dollars worth of those loans were "charged off" i.e. direct unrecoverable losses.
That's 21 billion dollars of taxpayer private property that was seized and then given out to private corporations in order to assist them to earn profits. 8.3 billion dollars of which went into various bottomless black holes.
Now some would say, "well we have to do that its for the public good, it grows the economy and increases the tax base. By means of the government confiscating a little bit of the private property of individuals and giving it to corporations, everybody exponentially benefits!"
But of course those are exactly the arguments behind the corporate assistance use of eminent domain. The problem is that our reaction to seizing and redistributing real estate to private corporations is far stronger than our reaction to seizing and redistributing money to private corporations, but ultimately its all private property in either liquid or non-liquid forms, and often, as I pointed out, someone incapable of paying their taxes will end up forfeiting real estate or other property anyway.
Constitutionally, we've dug a rather nasty hole that just keeps getting deeper.
- SEAGOON
PS: Didn't I recall reading that you lads fought a war for independence over an attempt to "recover public funds" spent on the French and Indian War via a variety of customs taxes? Whatever happened to that spirit? Per capita taxes in the colonies were under 2% and no agents of the Crown were calling for the actual seizure of real estate to benefit British corporations, funny what we are willing to endure if only the temperature is increased slowly enough. Anyone for Frog Soup?
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Removal of any persons property for eminent domain that will benefit a private business is pure and simple theft.
Spot on.
-
The right of eminent domain is old and established. It is a flawed and rotten law, but it is a constitutional law. The court ruled appropriately.
I don't like the law. I think it is the government strongarming the private citizen out of their rightful belongings. It happens all the time and there was nothing new. We need to elect legslators that will change it. That's all we can do.
-
"In 1972 a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team."
(http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B0006VZ5WG.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg)
-
Last year 60 minutes ran a story about a town (I wish I could remember where it was) that had a section of small homes built right after WWII. Most of the owners were returning GIs and their families. At the time these homes were on a hill that use to look over an empty field.
Well as time went on this field was turned into a beautiful park with a lake, etc. Suddenly the old section became very desirable real estate. The town counsul and Mayor were quick to figure out that if they could get their hands on this property and have condos built, the town would make tons more money on taxes etc, than these old retirees were paying on their modest homes.
So the town counsel passed a law that said if a house didn't have an attached 2-car garage it was considered "blighted". Under the law, blighted property could be taken by the town under eminent domain. Well these old homes either didn't have garages or had single detached ones. These were beautiful little houses that people raised their kids and grand kids in.
The kicker of the story was when 60 Minutes interviewed the Mayor, they got her to admit that her home (which was in a different part of town) didn't have a garage either. However it wasn't declared blighted. I don't know how it turned out for these families.
It use to be that eminent domain laws were for public safety or infrastructure issues. Like widening/adding roads, building water towers, etc, that while terrible to those affected, did bring benefit over all. However it sounds like now they are giving carte blanche to municipalities that just want to make a buck.
63tb
-
Just my $0.02
I read this today and it made me sick. I was also thinking OMG yet one more time I'm going to have to agree with liberal judges, then I read the voting disention and was shocked and at least happy that the conservatives voted against this.
This makes me sick that a citizen can lose his home for the "good of the people" in the name of "private development".
Totally sickening erosion of basic principles of rights.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The manipulation of the Constitution has pushed us off the top, onto the slippery slope, and now we slide out of control towards disaster.
I agree.
And as someone else said. Where is Laz when you need him.
No time like the present to get ready
-
63tb,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml
-
Cats and dogs swapping roles, eh?
First the Liberal judges stop "medical marijuana" and next the hand eminent domain over to the commercial developers. Bah.
Tell me again, do you want "strict constructionist" judges that have to find "textual" support in the Constitution or do you want folks that can stretch simple words to cover any new desire or fad?
That being said..............
I'm aware of a small town that's getting a relatively huge influx of military within a few months. The older parts of town really are blighted; small <800 sq ft shacks that are actually leaning left and right on their foundations. Some decent ones in there but probably 60% long overdue for replacement.
The city sees this opportunity to revitalize. They'd like to redevelop downtown. It's probably their last chance. However, they are not going the "eminent domain" route. They offer tax abatements to developers that can buy up a whole city block (maybe 10-14 houses, small blocks) but they aren't putting any pressure on the owners to sell.
Developers have contacted the owners of these falling down rental shacks. Suddenly everyone thinks a shack is worth 3X appraised value and vacant lots (where shacks have fallen down and been removed) are 10X appraisal.
So, Developers are buying farmland on the edge of town for a fraction of the price per acre. Yes, they have to put in streets and utilities but it is still cheaper BY FAR to build a new subdivision on the edge of town.
This contributes to urban sprawl and condemns the "inner city" to decay for essentially forever. It's unlikely such a huge influx of new residents will ever come again.
Question: Should the city "eminent domain" in this case? The area is probably 20 blocks by 20 blocks, which is most of "downtown".
It's probably too late to do anything, but should they have gone the eminent domain route?
-
Toad,
Were they privately owned? If yes, that's their prerogative to go the greedy route.
If they're publicly funded, well, they'd already been building on them.
-SW
-
Oh yeah, the houses/lots are almost all privately owned.
A very few of the worst were condemned by the city and taken for taxes. These were used for a low-income self-help program funded in part by USDA (never did figure out that connection) where folks help build their own houses. City contracts the major "tech" stuff like plumbing, electrical, foundations, the families band together and do roofing/siding/painting. It's worked well for them
The end result is going to be a rotting down town and spawling suburbs as the troops come rolling in to town. The folks asking 20K for a 50X150 downtown lot will own it the rest of their lives and nothing will be built on it. No one's going to but new houses in a tumbledown distirct that costs more.
I know it's their choice, but their tossing their last chance to revitalize. Seems foolish but hey, it's their choice.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I know it's theirchoice, but their tossing their last chance to revitalize. Seems foolish but hey, it's their choice.
yup that's really all that matters.....choice.....everyt hing else should come second.
-
Yeah, I know.
Just bums me that we're going to get a spawling town with a rotten core.
More places to hunt changed into "3Br, 2.5BA, 2 Car, fenced yard" because some people are tardlets. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, I know.
Just bums me that we're going to get a spawling town with a rotten core.
More places to hunt changed into "3Br, 2.5BA, 2 Car, fenced yard" because some people are tardlets. ;)
yup know what you mean. That happens in almost every city. The downtown decayse and suburbia sprawls and spreads. Either way I'd still rather have the choice to be a tardlet then be mandated one by a city council with the "people's" best interests in mind.
-
So when does it get fixed?
Quail never come back to paved over areas and seems like all we do is keep paving and moving on?
-
Toad, are you advocating that the government take their property away from them? Sounds like you're leaning in that direction.
-
I admit I'm wavering.
Some towns just get old and die. Some stay vibrant for ever. Some start to die and are given a chance to live again.
This one is going to die because some folks that own lots that wouldn't sell for $2000 before the military announcement are now worth $20K in their owner's eyes. That this flies in the face of any and all logic is lost on them. These are lots in shanty town (That has nothing to do with the people renting them. The houses are really just falling down shanties and the actual owners don't care and won't fix them up.)
It works out to over $100K per acre in these blighted areas if Developers pay their price.
The tardlets REALLY think Developers will buy into a rundown downtown for $100K an acre when you can drive 6 miles and buy 320 acres of flat farmland for about $2k an acre.
Oh yeah... smart move.
So I get to thinking about "they paved paradise, put up a parking lot" and I lean towards codemning the entire downtown, pay them maybe 2x the old assessments and bulldoze the whole thing down and start over.
I know it isn't right but their stupidity makes me want to slap them and wake them up. $100K an acre? Sure thing. They must think it's San Diego or something instead of Kansas flatland.
-
Country is stock full of idiots. But doing those who aren't stupid a disservice by eminemt domain, no thanks.
These idiots, well the ones in your case, will remain there or elsewhere. Doesn't really matter.
Sprawl is sprawl, you improve that area for consumers and you get more consumers.
Washington, DC is the model for that.
I lived there, and have lived in both burbs east and now west of DC. (East was more country and is quickly becoming suburbs, west is more burbs but was country less than 5 years ago)
I could go into it, but it really doesn't matter. They could pave that area over and build on it. Eventually living in that condo that got built on shanties will cost four times that of a full blown house on half an acre of land 10 miles outside the city limits.
Sprawl is knocking on everyone's door that lives in or close to a "dream town".
Choice should be the peoples, give up their home for more or less money... or get run over by the government.
I'm in favor of them having a choice.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Sprawl is sprawl, you improve that area for consumers and you get more consumers....
.....Sprawl is knocking on everyone's door that lives in or close to a "dream town".
-SW
The only way they get "more consumers" out there is if the Military orders them to live there.
There ain't no way a mid-Kansas town is ever going to be confused with a dream town.
This is the "brass ring" and probably their last shot. C'est la vie, though.
-
Even though I was sickened by the descriptions of some of these stories, I'm staying in the middle of the road on this one. Eminent Domain has proper uses at times. Toad gives a pretty good example - the greed of a bunch of tinpot absentee landlords is going to prevent a city core from being revitalized, and instead cause urban sprawl, which can be a damaging trend on several levels.
Seems like this is a good situation to use direct, participative democracy - put it on a referendum and let the townspeople decide. They know the character of the neighborhood and whether or not the city's (and their own) interests are best served by leaving the area intact. The idea of a mayor bought off by a wealthy developer and operating with the blessing of a SC decision does seem like government run amok, but putting the decision in local citizens hands seems appropriate.
Isn't that how residents who successfully fought emminent domain threats won?
-
This topic is a double-edged sword, In my Profession i deal with many Eminant Domain projects (i'm a lisenced land surveyor in Texas) and for every deserving project that really needs Eminant Domain to complete it I.E. road widenings, runway expansions, etc. there are those "Special Interest" groups that have the money and power to get some government entity to give them the power of Eminant Domain. A perfect example was when Bruton Smith decided to build the Texas Motor Speedway, he was able to get the State of Texas to establish a Sports Authority for his project with the power of Eminant Domain just so he could aquire additional land adjoining his property for additional parking to me thats not what Eminant Domain is for, Eminant Domain is for the good of the public not so somebody with money and power can get his own way. On the other hand most people think that if their property is going to be taken by Eminant Domain that they should get some outrageuos fee for their land and thats not the case. In a recent project i was involved in for a the extension of State Highway 190 one of the property owners wanted $40,000 an acre for land that was in the 100-year flood-plain which was really worth about $2,000 an acre needless to say that the County filed Eminant Domain on that property owner, who will get maybe $4,000 an acre at most for his land.
-
I believe that the only way a government can seize land should be for public works projects and then... it should be at a percent higher than fair market value.... like about 50%
blight? too bad. condem the structures if they are not to code. Re zone if need be. Let the peoole who live there deal with wall mart or whoever on their own.
so far as karnak and "us vs them" is concerned... if you vote for democrats who put liberal judges on the SC then you are indeed "against" me... I am your enemy. You are the reason that my rights are being taken away. To get what you want you are stepping all over my rights and confiscating the sweat of my brow to do it. So yeah... it is "us vs them" allways has been.
It is amusing to note that karnak and I are stereotypes of the stereotypes I mentions so far as lifestyles urban/suburban.
I also note that every time it is mentioned that rights are being taken away by the left... some lefty gets up and says how unfair it is to scream "us vs them"
It's a war.
lazs
-
What about if you voted for Democrats who are against the Patriot Act? How does that affect your rights and liberties, Laz?
Thing of it seems to be, as Gunslinger observed, it doesn't seem to always run along traditional liberal/conservative lines - he was all ready to admit he had to side with the liberals on this decision (as he had in the past, though infrequently), and then was surprised to learn it was liberal judges who are selling out the common man in this particular case.
That's why there's talk of "us" vs "them", but it doesn't refer to libs vs conservatives, its the "people" vs "government". Both movements at various times seem intent on throttling the little guy.
"When Government fears the People, there is Liberty. When the People fear the Government, there is Tyranny."
-
Vote LP
-
I would much rather fight the patriot act than have liberal whack job socialist SC members and new social programs.
As you can see... the patriot act never really went anywhere and is dieing the death it deserves.
If I vote democrat then I am attacked from about 20 different angles by people so powerful that I am powerless.
Point... the people of Kalifornia vote to make english the only language used on state forms and such. this takes like a year and a half to come to vote on and is overwhelmingly passed...
A couple of extreme liberal ninth circuit judges who were appointed by..... by you and your touchy feely socialist democrats... they simply negate the entire will of the voters and declare the amendment null and void..
Now.... do you honestly think a republican appointed judge would have done that?
lazs
-
Don't like it? Check out the Libertarian party. Maybe our two party system won't allow an LP president, but it might be in your best interest to have local government that puts your rights over 'doing what's best for you' as if you were a child. With respect, both the Republican and Democrats seem guilty of that mindset.
-
I am about 90% libertarian. Would probly vote for one for pres if he was viable and my doing so wouldn't ensure a democrat getting in.
lazs
-
I don't trust 'extreme' judges, period. Doesn't matter if they are conservative or liberal they are going to render a decision that harms me somehow.
If you keep calling me a socialist, I'm going to be forced to point out again that socialism is the hand that feeds you, Mr. Public Servant. Not only that, but by your own admission you've proven over the last 10 years that Socialism is more efficient by defeating every privatization proposal that has come along regarding your plant. So you're not just a Socialist, but an effective and competent one.
Doesn't bother me; I'm for whatever works and works good, and works cheap. If that means public ownership of the means of production in some cases, then fine. Doesn't mean I'm against private industry. Suffice to say I'm against 'excesses' - whether they be excessive government restrictions of our rights or excessive government borrowing and spending, excessive tax breaks or excessive social spending, excessive government secrecy, or excessive foreign policy. We seem to have it all nowadays.
-
point it out all you want... I am only a "public servant" so long as I can prove that I am the best alternative.
I don't believe that is what you want tho. I believe that you want tax supported monopolies like public schools where there is no competition for the tax dollars.
what is "excessive tax breaks"???? There is no such thing. Any tax is too much. No tax break is too excessive. If there is something like defense that we need we should all pay equally.
Anything else should be a user tax. Want roads? pay at the pump and when you regester a vehicle.
Want schools? pay for the area you live in and then each parent gets an equal portion to spend on any certified school they choose.
What else you want?
lazs
-
I don't consider a judge that interprets and issue strictly in accordance with the text that is actually in the constitution to be "extreme" in any sense of the word.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." ----George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790
-
Ya know, it's pretty rich watching conservatives blame the liberals on this one. This is a conservative victory.
Take, for example, the local situation we have where I live. The local government has condemed a large chunk of land next to the local Wal-Mart. It was taken away from it's owner at an undisclosed price by the city council, which is all Republican. The land was sold to an Economic Development Corporation.
Just this week they announce a new Lowe's will be built on the site and they will get a $1M tax abatement over the next 10 years.
Same thing just down the road, a chunk of land was condemed by the county commissioners court, which is 90% Republican. The land was sold to an Economic Development Corporation. A few weeks later they announced the sale of the land for $67,000 per acre (a premium price for this rural area) to an Oil Company for their new Texas Corporate HQ. They were given tax abatements also. These tax abatements mean the businesses will not be paying any school property taxes. Meanwhile, the tax assessments just went up across the county.
These Economic Development Corporations (private companies)are run by local politicians and buisnessmen (all Republicans) and are cheering them as victories. Not to mention the great profits they have made personally.
Oh, did I mention the leader of one of these EDC's was recently arrested on child pornography charges?
-
Viewed another way, it's quite rich watching the liberals on this board not blame the liberal justices - John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer - for the clear erosion of personal property rights in this case and the clear erosion of State's Rights in the medical marijuana case.
From your post, am I now to surmise that those ever clever big-money conservatives in the vast right-wing conspiracy have now suborned the liberal wing of the Supreme Court?
Help me here; I'm having trouble seeing Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer as tools of the conservative right.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Help me here; I'm having trouble seeing Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer as tools of the conservative right.
They just upheld the law as it is written. Bad law? Yes. Constitutional law? Yes. As in the MediPot case, change the law. They've come out and said so.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I admit I'm wavering.
Some towns just get old and die. Some stay vibrant for ever. Some start to die and are given a chance to live again.
This one is going to die because some folks that own lots that wouldn't sell for $2000 before the military announcement are now worth $20K in their owner's eyes. That this flies in the face of any and all logic is lost on them. These are lots in shanty town (That has nothing to do with the people renting them. The houses are really just falling down shanties and the actual owners don't care and won't fix them up.)
It works out to over $100K per acre in these blighted areas if Developers pay their price.
The tardlets REALLY think Developers will buy into a rundown downtown for $100K an acre when you can drive 6 miles and buy 320 acres of flat farmland for about $2k an acre.
Oh yeah... smart move.
So I get to thinking about "they paved paradise, put up a parking lot" and I lean towards codemning the entire downtown, pay them maybe 2x the old assessments and bulldoze the whole thing down and start over.
I know it isn't right but their stupidity makes me want to slap them and wake them up. $100K an acre? Sure thing. They must think it's San Diego or something instead of Kansas flatland.
I agree that it looks like (on the surface anyway) that the owners are trying to take the developers to the cleaners. But think of it like this: assessed or appraised value doesn't put a roof over your head. If you sell a house that you live in, you've gotta REPLACE it.
If the house you have is worth $20k because it's in a "blighted" area, and they give you $20K for it, what do you have? About half a down payment on a $200 K house. The average house in the US costs $205k, as of yesterday's news.
I think the process should look at REPLACEMENT value, rather than at MARKET value. Then people would be less angry about eminent domain takings, since they are being adequately compensated for the taking. To do any less is theft.
-
The replacement value of an 800 sq ft plain jain shack like the ones leaning drunkenly on those streets might be $50-60K... if anyone builds those anywhere anymore.
These old leaners were built before "code" and are grandfathered. There's no "apples to apples" comparison.
That aside, are you saying that someone should be able to swap out a 80 year old leaner for a new, improved "code" 800 sq foot home and that "eminent domain" should pay enough to cover that transition? No deduction for age and neglect? That's "fair"?
Because if the new lots, after bulldozing, have $50-60K in each them.... here comes the suburban sprawl. It just doesn't work out in the flatlands. Too much land available without the hassle just a few miles down the road.
-
Replacement value will, as Toad has outlined, cause way too much complexity.
In my opinion, the best solution is to reign in Eminent Domain so that the number of people that get stepped on is reduced as much as possible. Since there's probably no equitable way to really 'fix' the situation without changing it back to the original concept... junk the current incarnation and go back to basics.
SCOTUS disagrees, and that's a shame.
-
Originally posted by rpm
They just upheld the law as it is written. Bad law? Yes. Constitutional law? Yes. As in the MediPot case, change the law. They've come out and said so.
Medipot? How about honor the State's Rights already in the Constitution. It was an INCREDIBLE reach to base that decision on "interstate commerce". You know it and have said as much here.
O'Connor nailed it: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, "
Eminent Domain is limited by the grants of power in the Constitution, so that property may only be taken for the effectuation of a granted power. Now, "we think we need more tax money" is considered an "effectuation of a granted power".
In reality, O'Connor nailed it (as she did in MediPot): "O'Connor nailed it: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, ".
I don't think that's an enumerated power.
-
Congress is responsible for making and changing laws, and they should get on it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The replacement value of an 800 sq ft plain jain shack like the ones leaning drunkenly on those streets might be $50-60K... if anyone builds those anywhere anymore.
These old leaners were built before "code" and are grandfathered. There's no "apples to apples" comparison.
That aside, are you saying that someone should be able to swap out a 80 year old leaner for a new, improved "code" 800 sq foot home and that "eminent domain" should pay enough to cover that transition? No deduction for age and neglect? That's "fair"?
Because if the new lots, after bulldozing, have $50-60K in each them.... here comes the suburban sprawl. It just doesn't work out in the flatlands. Too much land available without the hassle just a few miles down the road.
Codes, condition, actual values, etc. are beside the point, in my opinion. If a landowner has an 800 sqft. house when the process starts, he/she should have either another 800 sqft. house or the equivalent value in money to purchase another. A landlord that gets a revenue of (say) $500 per month from a property should be able to get that same amount of income from the replacement property.
In common law, there is a principle that an injury should be compensated in such a way that the injured is returned to the same state as existed prior to the incident. I think that should apply here.
-
So if the government "eminent domains" an old tumbledown 800 square foot shack, the owner should receive "like for like"? Another tumbledown 800 foot shack 15 blocks away?
Or is your idea of "like for like" to swap an uninsulated, code-less 800 sq ft shack for modern, code built brand-new 800 square foot home?
-
Originally posted by SOB
Congress is responsible for making and changing laws, and they should get on it.
Wow. That's twice we've agreed on something SOB. This is getting spooky.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I don't trust 'extreme' judges, period. Doesn't matter if they are conservative or liberal they are going to render a decision that harms me somehow.
...
Doesn't bother me; I'm for whatever works and works good, and works cheap. If that means public ownership of the means of production in some cases, then fine.
Hi Oboe,
Please don't interpret this as beating up on you, it isn't. It's just that your post displays how pervasive a certain philosophy that is part and parcel of the Supreme Court (SC) decision is. I'm going to break this down into two sections:
I. You say you don't want judges who render decisions that hurt you. By this I trust you mean (and you can correct me here) you don't want judges who make decisions that contradict your worldview or preferences. Like most modern Americans you want judges who are going to decide in accord with your beliefs. You strongly believe, I take it, that acting in accordance with your beliefs will produce the greatest common good. Therefore when an eminent domain action will bring about the greatest good, it should be upheld, and when it won't it should be struck down. Hence you want to see judges installed who have similar if not identical preferences and politics and who rule according to their preferences.
Therefore since we view our own preferences as good and normal, an "extremist" is defined as someone who can be expected not to rule in accordance with our preferences. The less likely they are to agree with us, the more extreme their beliefs are.
What Conservatives want, however, (and you can read Scalia's comments on strict constructionist constitutional interpretation (http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm) here) are justices who will "strictly interpret" the constitution setting their own preferences aside. For them an activist judge is someone who does follow his preferences rather than ruling according to the strictest possible interpretation of the constitution.
Let me give you an example of how that works in my own life and work. I am, as you know a minister, and I belong to a denomination that has a constitution I have sworn that I have "received and adopted" as my own, and that I will follow. In part that Constitution states regarding worship that "the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture." therefore while I have certain preferences regarding worship style and might desire to implement them in the church, I have to confess that they are not prescribed in the bible. Therefore I follow the constitution, and I set my preferences to one side and worship according to the mandates in the word, even if I foolishly believe that "my way is better" or that "my preferences would better serve the common good". It should function the same way for a justice on the SC and that the common good is best served by adhering to fixed standards, rather than sliding principles. The meaning of the document is therefore fixed rather than "living" and can only change by means of amendment rather than de novo interpretation. This will sometimes, perhaps even often, mean that strict constructionists will rule against what the popular culture considers to be "best for the common good."
II. Regarding your statement regarding public ownership of the means of production, that is in essence, exactly the same philosophy as the current SC decision regarding "eminent domain." What public ownership of the means of production usually has entailed (in Britain for instance) is the public sector taking over or "nationalizing" formally privately owned industries. Now in Britain, this involved paying off the owners of the seized industry (as in the case of eminent domain property) but usually not in accord with real market value, or with a view to potential future profits. And keep in mind that this seizure is done regardless of the wishes of the stockholders, who are often ordinary middle-class people. They suffer even more because they are often paid off at or below the current market price, which is often not the price that the stockholder would sell his stock at and often results in a substantial real loss. Still this beats the system that prevailed in Cuba, Zimbabwe, and the Soviet Union were private industry and agriculture was simply seized "for the common good," with no payments to the original owners.
All in all though, it reflects a utilitarian idea that the ends justify the means and that whatever serves "the common good" in that it is in accord with our preferences is justifiable.
I don't agree with that philosophy. Like the framers of the constitution, I believe in fixed unchanging standards, and what Jefferson called "natural rights" and that theft, as defined by God in the moral law, is always theft, regardless of whether we see it as "aiding the common good." To quote Lord Acton - "Opinions alter, manners change, creeds rise and fall, but the moral laws are written on the table of eternity."
Ultimately, it comes down to whether we act in accordance with a belief in fixed and unchanging absolutes, or whether we believe that all decisions are both relative and subjective.
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon, that ^^^^^^^^^^ was impressive.
-
Hi Seagoon,
With all due respect, I don't see my philosophy in your argument.
I think perhaps you've taken a piece of it and carried forward to such a degree that I no longer recognize it. I hold as possible that you are thinking on a higher plane than I, but allow me to explain:
My statement regarding public ownership of the means of production was in reference to Laz' employment as manager of a municpal wastewater treatment plant. This is not an argument for nationalizing a private industry - it is overwhelmingly likely that Dixon's wastewater treatment plant was built with public money and has always been operated as a public utility. Rather it is, quite the opposite, an argument against privatizing public utilities - and it is made more cogently by Laz himself, who says in the past 10 years he has defeated every privatizing proposal, either through the sheer efficiency of his operation or by showing errors in a proposal's assumptions. I am sure this is due in no small part to Laz and his skill as an engineer and manager. My statement, "I am for whatever works, works good, and works cheap" could certainly be construed as utilitarian, given its focus on usefulness and efficiency, but that is a long way from claiming "the ends justify the means" in my mind. In fact I can't see how the two could be connected.
Regarding the extremist judges - I meant judges who have an agenda - be it far right or far left. For example a far leftwing judge may make rulings which weaken parental rights over their children, or a far rightwing judge may make a ruling mandating that creationism be taught in science class. I perceive either as negative.
I don't know if this is clear but I am in the middle on the recent SC ruling, but as I understand it, it was made by the majority judges who were strictly interpreting Constitutional law? Or do I have that backwards? I am generally disappointed by decisions which favor the well-heeled and well-connected, as O'Connor indicated this decision would, on the grounds that the monied class already has so many advantages by virtue of their wealth and power. But I was heartened by the granting of power back to the States, as I think eminent domain decisions should be made on as local a level as possible.
I take it you are strictly opposed to eminent domain without exception? That is one of your 'fixed standards'?
-
Sorry my 5 minutes was up so I couldn't edit my first reply.
I think I disagree with you Seagoon on whether the framers of the Constitution believed in fixed and unchanging standards. If they did, why would they have included Article V (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5) , instructions describing how to amend the Constitution?
-
I think the point Seagoon is making (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that for the system to work, there has to be a certain amount of friction to keep things together. If the process of altering the constitution was as easy as filling out a suggestion form and dropping it in a box, then the document that defines the structure of our society would be all over the place trying to reflect every slight change in the popular wind and would eventually fly itself apart.
Yes, the constitution can be changed, but it's designed so that it takes more then a momentary 'gust' of popular opinion. That's also why we have the offset election years for the various branches. The framers were saying essentially "yeah, the world turns and there may be some adjustments needed" but they were also trying to make sure that no single event could be SO outrageous, infuriating, or offensive as to, in the matter of months, tear down the house they built and replace it with something completely new.
Are there consequences to this? Yes. The constitution, if it's working right, should always piss off a few people. It shouldn't ever be quite "perfect" for everyone, because the flexibility to make that happen is the same flexibility that will tear our way of life asunder.
-
TJ!
Letter to J. Cartwright, 1824). THOMAS JEFFERSON ON DEMOCRACY 68 (S. Padover Ed. 1953).
Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most productive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that it received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every 19 or 20 years, should be provided in the constitution, so that it may be handed on, with periodic repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.
Happily for us, that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers, and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or restore their constitutions.
-
Just FYI: Less than 24 hours after this passed, home owners in Arlington, Texas were summarily told to be out of thier homes to make way for the new Dallas Cowboys Football Stadium.
Before this was passed, it appeared the stadium was going to not be built in Arlington as many home owners did not want to move.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Just FYI: Less than 24 hours after this passed, home owners in Arlington, Texas were summarily told to be out of thier homes to make way for the new Dallas Cowboys Football Stadium.
Before this was passed, it appeared the stadium was going to not be built in Arlington as many home owners did not want to move.
tsk tsk tsk,
that's just evil. Especially if somone is losing a house that may have been in the family for generations. Or an elderly couple that retired to this home of theirs that they'd ben planning for years.
-
Don't you find it odd the lawyers already had the paperwork drawn up before this was enacted? There is no other way they could have prepared all the legal documents in less than 24 hours.
Seems very strange to me. Bubba factor at work (for those who live in Texas, you know what I mean)?
-
no clue what that means skuzzy
-
Born and raised in Texas and you do not know what the 'Bubba factor' is? Ok, that's a first.
Bubba factor: Laws are laws, but in Texas, the judges will often override the law (federal, state, local,..it does not matter)in favor of something else. For instance, Texas is a community property state (50/50). But in a divorce those laws get tossed out of the window and the judges rule any which way they feel like.
Lawyers will seldom seek to get a judgement overridden (i.e. taking it to a higher court) as the lawyer will find himself/herself not able to win anymore cases, regardless of who the judge is.
-
well.... if a facility is being built by a municipality... say a road or water/wastewater plant or high school... that is completely different than a Wall mart or privately owned stadium..
I think that the price the city pays should be 50% over the going rate. so long as they are OWNER OCCUPIED
You might look at the homes as trash... the owners may look at them as... well..
Their friggin home... the only friggin home they have or are likely to ever have if they can't afford another one.
Wall mart being goughed?? your kidding me... They have to put in MILLIONS of dollars in infrastructure improvements in order to even break ground.... They don't blink an eye if you tell em that they got to put in 2 miles of new storm and sewer line at a cost of 3 million.... Tell em they got to put in a park and they will...
To even consider that a homeowner occupant is "gougeing" poor old Wall Mart by asking even double the going price is silly.
Does that mean that.... as your property becomes more valuable... you can't get whatever the market will bear if someone wants to put in some housijng tract or whatever that will bring more tax money to the city?
If you hold out and don't sell a developer your home... you might be holding back millions in city improvements and revenue... soooo..
by you guys logic... the housing developer gets to take your house for "fair market value" no matter what it is actually worth if he had to pay for it by dealing with YOU... THE ACTUAL OWNER.
This is really bad guys.
lazs
-
Some of the Arlington home owners are alledging the city cut the appraisal of thier homes in anticipation of the stadium being built there, as they only pay what the home appraises for from the tax records.
-
I bet that stadium will be built with tax dollars too. Not unlike the Spurs' new home.
-
This is so wrong.
Now that the goverment has givin itself the power , I see it being used to "expand the tax base" ie, take the land and hand it over to a private company / individual for the sole purpose of generating more tax revenue.(See Skuzzy's example above)
I urge Everyone to contact their congressmen asap.
The only way we (as a nation) can stop this is to raise a big as fuss as possible.
Otherwise, this Country is going to become (if it has'nt already)become The United Socialist States of America.
I bet the Forefathers are rolling in their grave right now.Their intent was Not to enable the goverment to take private property and sell/give it to another private individual to profit from.
It was to provide needed infrastructure to the public.
-
Hi Oboe,
Yes, I believe that the use of force or the threat of force to make someone hand over their own legally obtained private property against their will is almost always a variety of theft.
You see, I don't see much of a difference between being forced to hand over my family farm against my will in order to build a Walmart or a new DHSS branch or a block of council flats. The intentions (at least the stated intentions) in all of them are good, and intended to serve the greater interest, but I believe all of them violate a natural right granted to all people by their Creator.
Unfortunately, I will concede that a certain amount of wiggle room on this subject (eminent domain) is in fact built into the original text of the constitution. For instance, the 5th ammendment of the US constition states: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (italics mine) So the ability of the government to seize private property against your will and reimburse you for it, has been there from the beginning and that this power was further extended by the Income Tax ammendment (16) of 1913.
The strict constructionists argued in part that this interpretation of "the public use clause" of the constitution effectively twists it out of shape via an excessively broad interpretation. Yet more "penumbras" have been discovered. Certainly the framers would not have allowed seizures to increase the tax base, etc. Road building, defense, etc. perhaps, but Condos and Strip Malls? Not a chance. The "I'll rule according to what is best for the Common Good" trend has got to stop or we will rapidly become entirely subject to the whims of the judicial oligarchy.
In any event, Chairboy is right, I do indeed believe that the process of ammending the constitution should be the most difficult of all legal processes (and in the US, it is) in order to preserve continuity rather than having us become entirely subject to the demogoguery of the age or political fads of dubious value.
I believe however, that the ammendments we enact should be in keeping with natural laws (i.e. those laws that men are granted by their creator) rather than being against them. I would, for instance, oppose an ammendment allowing for murder not because it doesn't "serve the common good" but because I agree with the signers of the Declaration when they affirmed the following:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
Clearly, the US government is not acting here to secure these God given rights.
- SEAGOON
PS - there were indeed prior attempts in US history to raise revenue via income taxes, but these were always of dubious constitutionality. Lincoln's attempt here is in the same category as his suspension of habeas corpus. Great man that he was, he did many things of at least questionable constitutionality in his quest to preserve the union.
-
I really think it is time for the people who are represented by the idiots who voted for this to pull the plug on thier man.
If we, the people, do not get off our collective tushes and take control back from the people who are flushing our country down the drain, no one else will.
Unfortunately, we do not have the guts, interests, nor desire to shake the status quo. "It's not my problem" should be tattooed on the forehead or every man, woman, and child in this country.
Now that I have said that,..I am going to go take a nap as there is not a damn thing anyone will or could do. I hear the sheep herder's call.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I really think it is time for the people who are represented by the idiots who voted for this to pull the plug on thier man.
If we, the people, do not get off our collective tushes and take control back from the people who are flushing our country down the drain, no one else will.
Unfortunately, we do not have the guts, interests, nor desire to shake the status quo. "It's not my problem" should be tattooed on the forehead or every man, woman, and child in this country.
Now that I have said that,..I am going to go take a nap as there is not a damn thing anyone will or could do. I hear the sheep herder's call.
supreme court...appointed isnt it?
-
Oops, you are right. Oh well, we need to get that changed anyways. Appointed for life is just wrong.
Ahh,..forget it. I get too riled up about injustices. We the people,...our fore-fathers would be ashamed, I should think.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Oops, you are right. Oh well, we need to get that changed anyways. Appointed for life is just wrong.
Ahh,..forget it. I get too riled up about injustices. We the people,...our fore-fathers would be ashamed, I should think.
sure is, luckily they just "interpret" the law, you can still have this peice of garbage altered...
you arnt the only one, i have to leave the room when those law and order type shows come on...and not because i hate that type of show either...
-
Thank you Seagoon, that Scalia link was an interesting read. I especially agreed with his assessment of how wrongfully judges are being nominated nowadays - not on their merit as honest, good, and reasonable lawyers, but on their positions on key issues. The partisan strife this leads to is evident with the recent filibustering controversy.
I think I differ with you in that I don't see this as a decision that benefits the "Common Good". I tend to agree with Justice O'Connor's assessment that it will instead ultimately benefit the well-heeled. I think "common good' is being used as a charade in this case.
It is interesting for me to note that on this BB where there can be such a wide disparity in opinion, no one is looking at this SC decision favorably. Its seems each of us is either outraged or at least very concerned about the implications.
I'm interested in the Natural Laws you speak of. Can you spell them out here?
Can anyone give any context as to what the Founding Fathers could've been thinking of when then drafted the 5th Amendment (one cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation)? What abuse lead to this amendment? Surely they couldn't have imagined taking people's homes to build shopping malls and professional sports arenas. Were they really thinking more along the lines of the Navy impressing private merchant ships to service in time of War, or the taking of someone's livestock to feed troops or something?
-
Subtopic:
Scenerio: Lets say one of these home owners decided to arm himself and board up his home in a defensive fasion.
Could u as a local law enforcement type remove the home owner by force if he refused?
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-
It's a time to "Free America"....
Said this for 8 years now.
mac
-
Remember .. you own nothing ... the US goverment OWNS EVERYTHING .... you merely rent it ....
Property tax.....
Do they really need to get you there after income tax, sales tax etc etc etc....?
least they could do is sunset it for retired persons over 65.
____________________________
If you've ever been to Burlington .... in the 70's urban renewal here took many homes of many peoples.... mostly Italians.... this land now has a Wyndham Hotel on it ....
This is nothing new. Just more laws heading in the wrong direction.
-
Every Morning when you awake, look in the mirror, straight into your eyes and say "I am an American, I can make a difference."..
Then tell yourself "Yes I believe in Taxation without representation"
I believe in the "Separation between Church and State."
I believe "All men are created equal."
If you don't have a sick feeling in your guts then roll aside.
The Preamble... remember this?... Begins with We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Read each word...
mac
-
If you are not throwing up now, hurling your guts out, then maqybe you're feeling okay in America.
-
Just my $0.02...Kerry's "I have a Plan"... Bush "Mission Accomplished"
Wake up America... are we to forever bow to a two tard party line? When will we get America back?
Will we ever be as Free as we tend to show the rest of the World?
Tell me how many are homless in America?
Tell me how many Children go to sleep hungry at night in America?
It's time we take care of OUR own house before others overseas...
Look and see what America has done, where we've been, how much the rest of the World depends on us.... Have they all cared about starving children in West Virginia? Our EarthQuakes in California? Farmers in the Mid West with dieing crops?
It's time to do something, stand up, make your voice heard...or roll over and die like the rest of the sheep.
Free America!!!
mac
*off the soap box*
-
Skuzzy, I'm sure the ambulance chasers errrrrr Attorneys had the Eminant Domain Papers already prepared for filing in Tarrant County Courthouse but were waiting on the court's decision. In Texas appraisal price of the land is a factor but not all of the financial decision on Eminant Domain. The Judge picks 3 freeholders (3 impartial property owners in that county) to a board and they listen to all arguements for and against including 2 or 3 appraisals on the fair market value of the property before making a decision and recomending that decision to the judge. If you want to place blame in this case blame the State Legislature they're the ones who have the power to declare Sport's Authoritys and give them the power of Eminant Domain.
-
Guys,
what is your take on a government (federal) that expropriates land and 30-35 years later sells it a huge profit over what they paid for it in the first place? The expropriation was to stop urban spral but are now selling it to developers. :eek:
I should mention that the farmer was renting back, what was family land for several generations, from the government. If the government had not 'stole' the land from the farmer, he would be still farming or getting all that money if he sold.
It is not just in the USofA that the government craps on the 'little people'.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Guys,
what is your take on a government (federal) that expropriates land and 30-35 years later sells it a huge profit over what they paid for it in the first place? The expropriation was to stop urban spral but are now selling it to developers. :eek:
I should mention that the farmer was renting back, what was family land for several generations, from the government. If the government had not 'stole' the land from the farmer, he would be still farming or getting all that money if he sold.
It is not just in the USofA that the government craps on the 'little people'.
Its a bad deal.
The USA was specifically designed from the ground up as a country where it would be difficult for the government to crap on the little people. I think that is why everyone is so mad here.
-
If they keep doing this stuff they had better take our guns away!
lazs
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Bubba factor: Laws are laws, but in Texas, the judges will often override the law (federal, state, local,..it does not matter)in favor of something else. For instance, Texas is a community property state (50/50). But in a divorce those laws get tossed out of the window and the judges rule any which way they feel like.
Lawyers will seldom seek to get a judgement overridden (i.e. taking it to a higher court) as the lawyer will find himself/herself not able to win anymore cases, regardless of who the judge is.
If that's true it would put your judical system in same class with those in 3:rd world banana republics.
-
Staga, I'm pretty sure that Skuzzy wasn't exactly praising the situation. I'm no mindreader, but there seemed to be a certain 'vibe' that his description was slightly less then complimentary and it is possible that he has some reservations as to the righteousness of the situation.
-
Anyways I think you still have a word to say who are sitting in the city council and who's running the whole show?
Wouldn't that make yourself to blame if the persons you've selected are the ones who are also acting against your will?
Of course it's easy to blame someone else; I spent two weeks in Russia and it's same deal in there: "We would do otherwise but our leaders..."
-
LOL, someone calling this a liberal decision? Please, the SC is concervative based and this decision is definitely a "concervative" one. It is to benefit the well off, those that can afford shopping malls, office complexes, etc.
Prediction:
We'll not see private property of the well off being forced to give up theirs for the development of homeless shelters, public schools, medical clinics, etc (those that "help" the poor).
"Liberal" decision? Hahahahahaha !
-
This is all leading to this:
The People's Republic of America
(http://www.geocities.com/sfs_tie_pilot/PRA.GIF)
-
Originally posted by Toad
So if the government "eminent domains" an old tumbledown 800 square foot shack, the owner should receive "like for like"? Another tumbledown 800 foot shack 15 blocks away?
Or is your idea of "like for like" to swap an uninsulated, code-less 800 sq ft shack for modern, code built brand-new 800 square foot home?
Whatever it takes to replace the property in the same area. The problem with the $25k shack is that it is hard to replace for $25k.
My basic point is that it should not be easy nor convenient for the government to violate your property rights. It should hurt, and cost the government money. Sorry, but that's the way to make sure they don't lightly violate your rights.
Put it this way: BigCorp comes in and takes your land. BigCorp doesn't compensate you fairly--and remember the principle of status quo ante. This is called "Theft". Why should the government be able to do the same, and call it "Eminent Domain"? Especially when the purpose of the taking is to turn the property over to BigCorp to build a shopping mall.
The ends do NOT justify the means. Just because the city will be "better" after the taking, doesn't make it right. Compensation is due the property owner. That compensation must be fair, and adequate to return the injured property owner to status quo ante.
regards,
shubie
-
"If they keep doing this stuff they had better take our guns away!"
They can have my Red Ryder when they pry my cold, hard fingers from her!
Honestly. What a bum rap they're getting in Arlington. Cripes :(
And I'm not so sure that people turn a blind eye to this but rather they may feel "But what can I, the little guy, do?" against a government which IMO is wrought with Pols bought and paid for.
I'm sure many could be wary of a vindictive town hall, city legislator or state government - or worse of all the Feds. Being outspoken can suddenly have oneself thrust into very undesirable situations.
-
I'm not sure fair market value is what should be given in cases where corps. want to buy private property.
Check it out, you have a house worth $150,000. A land development corporation, or what have you wants to buy you property, now how much is worth? $300,000? Supply...demand.
Except they won't have to buy it at that price. City annexes it and gives you $150,000. The irony is that you pay the city taxes, you are are subsidizing them taking your land from you, how ****ed is that?
-
thrawn is correct... fair market is what the market will bear. If a developer wants the land then it is worth more than before he did...
lazs
-
We keep talking about fair-market value, there is also the relocation costs as well as the things you cannot put a price on.
What if you have to pull your kids out of school and move them to another school district?
What about that tree in the back yard where you first hung a tire from so your kids could play?
What about all that custom work you did to your home so you could enjoy it more?
What about the memories?
None of that carries a price tag. It cannot be bought nor sold. Many people, including myself, actually look at a house as a home. I know it is getting rarer, but I have lived in my home for 13 years and will be retiring there. We have long term plans to customize it for our needs and desires.
None of these things will add to the intrinsic value, but it will add to the quality of our lives together.
This is where things fall apart. The government has essentially sent us a signal saying we should not get attached to the house. We should be prepared to bail when they want us to for no reason other than they think a newer commercial building would be better for the city.
Our house is not an investment. It is our home. The hypocrites in Washington who claim family is falling apart just lobbed another grenade at it. The truly saddest part is nothing can nor will be done about it.
I am angered and saddened.
-
I just wish there was a way to get our governmant back...and don't say "exercise your right to vote" I think history proves that once they are there our leaders' priorities change from the common good to their own good.
-
Skuzzy, there is a silver line in the popping of the housing bubble. People certainly won't see housing as a investment for awhile.
-
But you cannot look at it as a home either Thrawn. It's just a building for keeping you out of the weather.
Make sure you do not get to know your neighbors. No point in that. Oh, I do know my neighbors. We throw block parties from time to time, have dinner at each others homes ..oops...house.
This is a travesty of the greatest degree. Part of the American dream just died.
-
What's the big fuss? The US government is only promoting capitalism and consumerism - isn't the mass purchase of Chinese imports the only thing that will save the US economy? Walmart is the future!
And if you can't see that, then you must be communists or something and completely against free enterprise.
-
You do not know much about our country if you believe that Dowding.
-
Skuzzy I didn't say I didn't look at housing as just a roof over my head, when my wife and buy a house we will be looking for the place we will die in. Big piece of land, good neighbours and all. My biggest concern is finding a place far enough from the city so it doesn't creep up on us when we are in our 60s.
-
The point is, the Forefathers never intended for the goverment to be capable of taking private land and turning it over for a profit , whether it be for a another private party, or the goverment itself.
I mean, come on, is'nt this what Mugube is doing in South Africa ? (While the way it's being done here is'nt close to what's happening over there, the principle is the same)
My letter's going in the mail tomorrow, and gonna send my congressman a email tonight.
-
It’s just a matter of time before someone who is forced to relocate for a Walmart kills the president of Walmart Corp or the judge who OKed it. Once a few of these top dogs of major corporations or a few judges get knocked off, other corporations and judges will start thinking twice about what they are doing. I know that if I was a juror on such a victim’s murder trial, I would acquit. You cannot really expect a reasonable man to put up with such BS.
eskimo
-
I cant help but think that Wal-mart is like a roach motel. One day..on a saturday afternoon..every Wal-mart in the nation will simply implode. At that time an old man in a brown robe, will need to take a seat.
When asked what the problem is by a young man beside him...he will reply " It was as if millions of rednecks suddenly cried out at once, and were suddenly silenced."
-
You guys need to turn this law on the big boys... so where does Bill Gates live?
-
LOL... YOU have selected your officials so you can blame yourself if things like that are happening.
Stop your crying and do something about it.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
isn't the mass purchase of Chinese imports the only thing that will save the US economy? Walmart is the future!
And if you can't see that, then you must be communists or something and completely against free enterprise.
lol
-
Walmart is a very successful business, what could be more American than Walmart?
-
mcdonalds.
they did it first...though i think they offer better incentives and perks and at least with then you get the hamburgler.
-
Hi Oboe,
Sorry about the long delay in replying again. I've been working some insane hours of late, and to tell the truth, I'm getting to the point where I have difficulty thinking, remembering, and concentrating. I get the feeling it may be time for a vacation, but who knows when and if that'll happen. Anyway, enough of my griping.
Originally posted by oboe
Thank you Seagoon, that Scalia link was an interesting read. I especially agreed with his assessment of how wrongfully judges are being nominated nowadays - not on their merit as honest, good, and reasonable lawyers, but on their positions on key issues. The partisan strife this leads to is evident with the recent filibustering controversy.
I sincerely think Scalia is one of the best legal minds in America today, and while he is dismissed as a "conservative" who needs to be defeated as the next chief justice because he won't legislate social change from the bench and has a strict constructionist approach to the constitution, I believe he would make an excellent replacement for Rehnquist.
I think I differ with you in that I don't see this as a decision that benefits the "Common Good". I tend to agree with Justice O'Connor's assessment that it will instead ultimately benefit the well-heeled. I think "common good' is being used as a charade in this case.
It's worth reading most of the actual majority decision to see how pervasive this idea of the "greater good" and socialist/utilitarian principles really has influenced the interpretation of the "public use clause" (I've edited out irritating reference #s to prior cases - emphasis is mine):
--------------
"HELD: The city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause. ...
(a)Though the city could not take petitioners’ land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted “to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals,” ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land—at least not in its entirety—to use by the general public, this “Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the . . . public.” Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natura interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings
(b) The city’s determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the plan’s comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court’s review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment.
I'm interested in the Natural Laws you speak of. Can you spell them out here?
The following is a good synopsis of the idea of natural law given by Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.
"The concept of "natural law" is central to the Western tradition of thought about morality, politics, and law. Although the Western tradition is not united around a single theoretical account of natural law, its principal architects and leading spokesmen–from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas to Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King–have shared a fundamental belief that humanly created "positive" law is morally good or bad–just or unjust–depending on its conformity to the standards of a "natural" (viz., moral) law that is no mere human creation. The natural law is, thus, a "higher" law, albeit a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.1 St. Paul, for example, refers to a law "written on the heart" which informs the consciences even of the Gentiles who do not have the revealed law of Moses to guide them (Romans 2:14—15). Many centuries later, Thomas Jefferson appeals to "the law of nature and nature’s God" in justifying the American Revolution.
Most modern commentators agree that the Founders were firm believers in natural law and sought to craft a constitution that would conform to its requirements, as they understood them, and embody its basic principles for the design of a just political order. The framers of the Constitution sought to create institutions and procedures that would afford respect and protection to those basic rights ("natural rights") which people possess, not as privileges or opportunities granted by the state, but as principles of natural law which it is the moral duty of the state to respect and protect. Throughout the twentieth century, however, a lively debate has existed on the question whether the Constitution incorporates natural law in such a way as to make it a source of judicially enforceable, albeit unwritten, constitutional rights and other guarantees."
Natural laws are thus universal absolutes that supersede and should guide humanly enacted civil (or "positive laws").
Modern jurisprudence, particularly since the 20th century has tended to reject the idea of Natural Law, or any objective basis for our own laws and has instead pursued a belief that positive law is all there is, and that all we are left with are entirely subjective decisions devoid of final moral character. One of the greatest exponents of this view was Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes who held that law was ultimately simply the product of the human mind. He firmly believed that the Law should be practiced without reference to "morals" outside of legal ideas, and that ultimately laws should be analyzed only according to their desired ends - this point is critical - especially in understanding the recent SC decision.
For instance here is a quote from Holmes with direct bearing on this issue: "I look forward to a time when the part played by history in the explanation of [legal] dogma shall be very small, and instead of ingenious research we shall spend our energy on a study of the ends sought to be attained and the reasons for desiring them. As a step toward that ideal it seems to me that every lawyer ought to seek an understanding of economics."
You'll note in both Holmes and majority decision, any notion of external and inviolable "rights" (which by the grace of God, most of the members of this board still embrace) held by property owners is disregarded. These are viewed as illusory, the only interest is in the ends sought to be attained and existing jurisprudence, thus economics to Holmes and to the present SC decision was of paramount importance.
Those who believe in natural law are instead focused on the means. So in the statement:
"We want to economically rejuvenate a community by seizing private property and handing it over to private developers"
The Positive Law proponent focuses on the desired ends: "We want to economically rejuvenate a community"
while the Natural Law proponent focuses on the means to the ends:
"by seizing private property and handing it over to private developers"
Thus Souter (positive law) says "Economic Development desirable and in keeping with our broad interpretation of public use clause - APPROVED"
While Scalia (natural law) says
"Seizing Private Property and handing it over to private developers" a violation of both the natural law which forbids theft and the 5th ammendment which states that it may only be given for a truly public use, otherwise it is theft - DENIED"
One focuses on the god-given rights of individuals while the other focuses on the greater good to be achieved by the desired ends.
Personally I prefer looking at the means, so that when someone says, "Lets create housing for the poor..." (Good Ends) we don't forget to notice the end of the sentence "by giving them a portion of your home" (Bad means)
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Walmart is a very successful business, what could be more American than Walmart?
Walmart, good for America? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/view/)
-
Walmart is scary. Employers should be the eager and ambitious...hoping they find one or two employees who are (among the 10 who arent). Walmart is a weird mix of cult and money. Im disappointed. I thought IBM, or Microsoft was going to be the first Corporate state...now I guess its that little yellow smily face slashing prices. Hmm..the evil Mr. Happy.
-
Skuzzy - I believe certain Americans think capitalism and free market economics can provide the ideal society, definitely, although my post was a little tongue in cheek. Call it British humour. I find it quite amusing that many of those who fervently support the corporate body, cry foul when it actually uses its accumulated influence.
The truth is that free market economics and capitalism will never overcome corporate greed, for instance, and in effect act as facilitators for its propagation, as in this case.
Flit - Mugabe is the President of Zimbabwe, not South Africa.
-
truth is...no matter what... capitalism does the most good for the most people so far as opportunity... it is one of the few systems that offers unlimited opportunity. even the wall mart example... we are better off than some socialist little island... those people take the money and buy another house. It is up to us to make sure that they come out better than before and entirely possible under our system.
most everyone I know in this oppressed capitalist country owns a large home and everyone else has the opportunity to do so.
that is the reality of the systems. How many of your co workers and friends own homes downding?
lazs
-
One of the Walmart sons died in an ultralight accident yesterday.
11th wealthiest dude in the world.
eskimo
-
...and even HE couldn't afford today's inflated Cessna/Piper/General Aviation prices. That's a sign, people.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Blah blah socialist blah blah ad nauseum
How many of your co workers and friends own homes downding?
Time to change the record Lazs, home ownership in the UK is on a par with if not at a higher level than in the US and has actually boomed under or maybe in spite of our evil socialist government.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Time to change the record Lazs, home ownership in the UK is on a par with if not at a higher level than in the US and has actually boomed under or maybe in spite of our evil socialist government.
Howdy Momus,
Does your figure count 'shared ownership' homes as 'home ownership'? In the SO system, people buy a house in partnership with a company, so they own 50% of the home and hope to eventually purchase larger shares of it until they own it outright. The 50% share is mortgaged, so this is not the same as saying 'the bank owns it until I pay off my mortgage', they actually only have a half share of their home mortgaged to their name, if I understand the system correctly. There is also the 'Right to buy' system where the state heavilly subsidized the purchase, which was the major contributor to the spike in home ownership in England during the 1980s.
I suspect this is what lazs may have been referring to, but I'm not sure.
Home ownership in the US was at 69.2% in Q2 2004, according to the Census, and has continued to rise. This is without the same level of government subsidy that is enjoyed across the pond, which seems pretty significant.
-
Hi Chairboy,
Shared ownership is not unknown in the UK but still only accounts for a relatively small proportion of home ownership; 0.7% of all households according to the last UK census in 2001 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/housing.asp), which also shows a level of 68.2% in home ownership, which is broadly in line with the US. Given the performance of the UK housing market since then I would be surprised if the percentage has decreased.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
that is the reality of the systems. How many of your co workers and friends own homes downding?
lazs
at over 150,000 pounds for some ****ty little pos "house", any of his friends that do own homes would be smart to sell out and move to canada or the states...
-
LOL, just don't move to California, particularly the SF Bay area. $522,000.-560,000 is now the avg price of a house. Yeah, I rent.
-
momus... they are saying that 68% of you own homes including what I would call an apartment (1st and second level homes). I would say that is not as high as here.
It also says that 27% of brits don't own any kind of car or truck.
I did not see any figures on house size. they did mention number of rooms but... our older tiny little crackerbox homes often have a lot of small rooms while newer homes tend to have less, and larger rooms.
to get back on the subject... I think that the city need to be able to buy up land for public utility projects but not for private business.. they do have the right to zone that property for commercial instead of residential if they please tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
American's better than the limey
yeah.
no question.
-
and... we have nicer teeth.
lazs
-
hahem ... you have teeth :D
-
Apples and oranges given the geography and demographics. For instance, since our small nation of 60 million has one of the biggest cities in the world within it, containing 12 million people, it's hardly surprising that the take-up of cars might not be as high as other countries on a percentage basis.
As far as I have experience, everyone I know has at least one car and the roads have never been as busy.
Vorticon - I wouldn't move to the States. Everything seems so coated in arrogance, not even swarfiga would remove it. I'm guessing it would become terminally irritating.
Always liked Canada as I have distant family over there.
-
Arrogance? Dowding, this country is too diverse for you to put that label on all Americans. No offense.
You might have had a bad experience, like I did in soccer, but it does not make all a bad lot.
-
I know Skuzzy - I actually work for an American company, so I have had fair amount of contact and most of it has been good. Excuse my arrogance. ;)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
LOL, just don't move to California, particularly the SF Bay area. $522,000.-560,000 is now the avg price of a house. Yeah, I rent.
I am glad I own, best & smartest thing I ever did in Bay Area.
-
Yeah, prices are just too high for my wife and me. We could get something "affordable" but that would entail 1 hr + commutes each direction. No way.
We'll find something out of state and retire there.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
[B}Flit - Mugabe is the President of Zimbabwe, not South Africa. [/B]
Thanks for the clarification, but it does'nt change the point ;)
-
I live in the outer edge of the bay area in a county that outpaces allmost all areas in home values going up... I am glad that I allready own... I will have what is to me... a small fortune when I sell it and then I will buy a nice place somewhere else free and clear and retire.
That is pretty much how it works in America.. you try to buy the most house you can and then a bigger or better one as the you get more income or whatever.
and downding.... we have a "few" big cities here too. Tell ya what... you can have em.
lazs
-
As to the title of this thread, this supreme court ruling is horrible. Opens the door for gov to take personal property for the greater good of the community. Stupid.
In CA, we have prop 13, which limits the property tax based on what you paid for the home. The market value of a lot of homes is greater than the purchase price. Mine is more than double. Next thing you know, they are gonna want to take my home & sell it to someone at market value to increase the property taxes & increase greater good of community.
-
Nevermind, already posted
-
Been there done that myelo. (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=154104)
-
oops, sorry
-
big gun... you hit it... I am on prop 13 and the tax and spenders have been working diligently and from every angle to get me back into the system... this seems like a good endrun for em...
Like they took a page out of the anti gun nuts playbook.. eat away at the rights from every angle.. keep throwing stuff at the wall till something sticks... keep em on the defensive or hope you get somethin passed while no one is looking.
lazs