Supreme Ct: Govts can seize homes, bus for econ dev (Thread #2)

[UpInArms]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?dateid=38526.4403289236-837180966&siteID=mktw&scid=0&doctype=806&

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments can seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private economic development.

...very short blurb...

adding NYTs article on edit:

Justices Back Seizing Homes for Economic Development

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23wire-scotus.html?hp&ex=1119585600&en=5036788eb4cc9d17&ei=5094&partner=homepage

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

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

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

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

...still a very short blurb...

Original Thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1574059&mesg_id=1574059

(Note to Mods: As the original thread now is approaching 300 posts - less than 6 hours after the original post was made, I thought perhaps it might be less unwieldy for dial-up users if a second thread was started with this topic. Your discretion and judgment is always appreciated.)

[atreides1]

1. Just like Zimbabwe

Only without the killing, so far!!!!

[Up2Late]

17. So who was truly behind this stupid "Land Grab?" Can we blame...

...Republicans for this? (in an upcoming Political Campaign, that is.)

:shrug:

[Judi Lynn]

45. I see what you mean. Found a quick reference:

European penetration into Zimbabwe began through Christian missionaries who befriended King Mzilikazi in 1858. They were followed by fortune hunters, soldiers, and land grabbing settlers. Cecil John Rhodes and his British South African Company bought the Rudd Concession from King Lobengula ostensibly for mining purposes, but he brought an army and settled at present day Harare in 1890. Thereafter, Rhodes declared war on Lobengula and overthrew him and named the country Rhodesia. As a British colony, Rhodesia was characterized by:

1. a massive land grab exercise, which drove thousands of Africans, often at gunpoint, from 50% of the country into reservations, now called communal lands. Land was taken without compensation to the owner and given to Rhodesia’s soldiers, or later to veterans of the two world wars of the 20th century, or to any white settler, but not to black persons. This racial land division was consolidated by the Land Apportionment Act of 1930 and the Land Tenure Act of 1969, which prohibited blacks to own land in white areas.
   
   
2. the exclusion of Africans from the political process. Africans were denied the right to vote or stand for parliament, or to hold high office in the army, police or public service.
   
   
3. Africans were excluded from the best schools, residential areas, and other amenities, which were reserved for whites only. Rhodesia was a mirror image of the apartheid policy, which then prevailed in South Africa.

http://www.zimembassy.se/history.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[davepc]

88. Same thing is happening there today...just in reverse

A few farmers have paid for it with their lives when peasants angry at the slow government process for redistribution (the first promises were made 20 years ago, and then nothing happened) started squatting on farms and pre-empting the process.

[oblivious]

95. Thank you for that important historical perspective Judi Lynn.

Land was taken without compensation to the owner and given to Rhodesia’s soldiers, or later to veterans of the two world wars of the 20th century, or to any white settler, but not to black persons.

[dissent1977]

2. Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

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
Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America — was a defeat for 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.

The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Among those still pending for the court, which next meets on Monday, is one testing the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commands on government property.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property

[UCLA Dem]

3. Great, so now they can replace my house with a strip mall...fantastic.

[dissent1977]

4. Yes, this pisses me off too

And to think it was the supposed "liberal" members of the court who voted for this enormous corporate handout.

[UCLA Dem]

6. I know. So where does it end? Now they can just take your house whenever

they feel like it. Whats the point of owning land then, if the city can just take it if they want to build a Target or something.

They're going to have to regulate this somehow b/c homeowners have to have rights. Its going to become eminent domain run amuck.

Next thing you know you'll be having to give pay-off to corporations so they won't lobby the city to take your land and home! This is a bad policy and will have some really big consequences, I think.

[Tux]

13. Yup

Don't pay property tax, they take your home. A new strip mall wants your 'hood, kick everyone out and stop tearing it down. Either way, homeownership seems more like a waste of time now. Condos maybe a safe way to go but apartments maybe the housing of the future.

[AuntiBush]

84. Welcome to "BUSH'S OWNERSHIP SOCIETY!" What a Rip!

Wake-up FReepers!

Heard about this today on the news (radio)... mouth hung downwards. Though I heard it wrong. Now I know I heard right.

Can it get any worse? Un-believeable.

[nicknameless]

86. Actually, apartments aren't safe either.

There's a notable case in Las Vegas:

http://reason.com/0302/fe.ss.wrecking.shtml

<snip>

In 1993 the Las Vegas Redevelopment Authority condemned Carol Pappas’ apartment building as a "blight" so a consortium of eight casinos could demolish it to build a parking garage. No one ever surveyed the block on which Carol’s apartment building stood to assess whether it was actually blighted.

<snip>

She lost her apartment building AND her livelihood.

Governments have been seizing properties on behalf of businesses for some time. That was seen as an *illegal* abuse of power ... until now.

[hecate77]

110. Not a one on the supreme court was chosen by Democrats. No liberals there.

Either the Repugs directly chose them, or they forced the hand of Democratic presidents by forcing them to choose conservatives. There are no 'liberal' members of the supreme court, only some repug choices who sometimes don't vote th party line, but they are all conservatives. Even the most 'liberal' ones are at best middle of the road.

Folks, we have a Repug Supreme Court. Already. It will only get worse before it might get better. The only way we will ever get anyone decent on that court is to have the White House and the Senate.

[dissent1977]

128. Actually there are two Clinton appointees

Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were both appointed by Clinton. I do agree however that there are no liberals on the court that is why I put the word in quotes in my previous posts.

Just because they were appointed by a Democrat does not make them liberal.

[losdiablosgato]

123. Also this is a way to run minorities out of town

A lot of the blighted areas in towns are also the low cost housing. Mark my words there will be some towns tath use this rulling to bulldoze the poor and the minority's homes to make way for the rich yuppies. After all they can pay more in taxes.

[GHOSTDANCER]

135. These are neocons, it won't be strip malls, it'll be Wallmarts!!!!

[phantom power]

5. Wow.

That brings the old "privatized profit/socialized risk" to a whole new level. Not only can they dupe local governments to subsidize private construction projects with our tax dollars, they can just take our property outright.

[freedom_to_read]

11. in all fairness

They will have to compensate you for your losses.

Not saying I agree with the ruling, just making sure you're aware of that.

[dissent1977]

Maybe, but what is fair compensation?

Certainly the city is not always going to be in agreement with the property owner as to what constitutes fair compensation, and in the end it is going to be the property owner that usually gets ripped off.

[freedom_to_read]

16. Absolutely

And some value cannot be repaid; seeing the house you were born in, for example, be bulldozed under to make way for a parking lot.

Again, I'm not supporting the decision (I haven't had time to read & fully understand it anyways, but my gut tells me it's wrong).

Just making sure people don't think this means the government can take your property without making any kind of compensation.

[mom cat]

41. And what is fair compensation for a destroyed community?

We have seen in Boston all too well what happens when developers destroy communities. I am proud to live in the Jamaica Plain section of Boston where residents found their backbone in fighting a proposed highway right through the middle of their community. And that was a fight against government use of property. My mind just spins with the thought of developers and greedy politicians cutting deals to destroy the communities that are the backbone of this country!

[Marthe48]

131. Mother Jones Jan-Feb 2005 'The Condemned'

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/01/01_407.html


I'm thinking all of us private citizens ought to incorporate ourselves to avoid getting ripped in bankruptcy court (corporations get to slither out of their financial obligations, John Q. Public doesn't), and avoid losing our homes, which are our single largest investment and asset (if we incorporate, can we seize our own property to keep it from falling into another company's hands?)

This is a huge defeat for the private property owner. Even if we are compensated for the property, the entity seizing the property only has to pay you the fair market value. If you bought property as an investment and hoped to realize X amount from resale, now, forget it, especially if a developer has his eye on it. And this is going to have a chilling effect on the real estate market. Who in the hell wants to buy land that you no longer ever really own?

We own property on high ground in an area devastated by floods last year--Downtown businesses are moving their business to buildings above the flood stage. Even though we were safe from high water, we are no longer safe from highway robbery.

This is just ridiculous, serfdom here we come.

[phantom power]

14. Good point.

It's not exactly robbery, although I wonder who gets to determine what fair compensation is.

I still don't like it. The original concept of eminent domain was that private property could be confiscated, if sufficient public benefit could be demonstrated. Now, we're talking about somebody's private benefit. I imagine they make some argument about how private developments may constitute a public benefit, which I can actually agree with, in theory, but I think the citizens should get part ownership of these projects, if we're going to play it that way. I want compensation for my property, plus royalties on all future profits. After all, those profits were made on the back of my sacrifice. I think the same deal should apply to these big stadium projects that cities raise taxes to help fund. The city should get a cut of the profits, for it's investment.

[freedom_to_read]

21. the problem as i see it

with this ruling is that it states that e.d. may be declared, and property transferred to a private owner, if it is part of a "executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals."

The problem is that there is no precise definition of what constitutes a "carefully considered development plan." So basically a developer who want to bulldoze a neighborhood to build a strip mall could, given the right political connections, sponsor a "careful development plan," and get the municipality to e.d. the block.

I'm not saying this will happen all the time -- and there are certainly other considerations that would factor into it. (Like, for example, public outrage.) But it would, as the dissenting opinion suggests, almost certainly be the case that neighborhoods with populations who have less political and social clout would be on the chopping block.

[converted_democrat]

40. They screwed my Dad pretty good.........

They gave him pennies on the dollar for the property, and NOTHING for the existing structure. (the house that sat on the property)

[Tux]

15. Compensate?

Most local govs can't afford that. They'll compensate you but it's take years or decades. Until then, people will overload apartment buildings. So much for the American Dream.

[Abathar]

44. Compensate?

The developer would have to pay for it, not the city. All they do is tell you to get out, then turn around and tell the guy who will make millions on your property to pay you. How about just compensation and then a portion of the profits the land will make in the next 20 years. Still not enough, it should never happen, but if the scum loses 20% off the top they may only do it for legitimate reasons, not just to profit a developer.

[JeffUAW]

19. I know they will compensate you for your losses, but how do you put a

value on property that may have been in the family for hundreds of years. Farmers could lose their land, as my grandfather lost his land for the government to put in Acton Lake in Ohio. I believe in imminent domain for roads, flood protection, and the like. These are reasons why it is listed in the constitution. However, it does not say that the government can seize land for the benefit of private development. I've called every Senator I could think of that could help (Both Democrat and Republican). I suggest you do the same. Most people I spoke with stated they had received a lot of phone calls, voicing concerns about the Supreme Court's decision.

[freedom_to_read]

36. i agree and suggest

you look at post 28 below. Not because I wrote it (I actually didn't, it's copied from a poster on a different board) but because it suggests a possible legislative remedy to this ruling.

:)

[Occulus]

96. Exactly

To all those clamoring that the developer, or the city, or whomever, needs to pay you for the property, please consider this:

Some people own homes which have been in their families for generations. Some of these homes have survived storm, fire, flood, and multiple children (each of which could be called natural disasters :P ). For the owners of these homes and the people who grew up in them, the value of the home is far, far greater than its intrinsic market value. To place a dollar figure upon such an emotional bond between person and place is simply impossible, and fair market value does not even begin to approach the cost to the owner.

Personally, I think in cases where eminent domain is to be exercised to obtain property for another private interest, even in cases where the economic incentive to the exercise of eminent domain could be seen to be objectively appropriate, the party wishing to obtain the property should be forced to present in front of a jury their case for giving $X for the property. The homeowner should be allowed the same.

We should let a jury settle the amount that is to be paid, taking into account all of the physical property and emotional ties present in each individual case. Moreover, in every such case, the purchaser of the property should be required to pay the legal costs of the original owner for the purposes of their "value presentation" to the jury.

Note this would not be a trial, nor would it be a civil proceeding per se, but rather a hearing in front of a jury (or panel of citizens, if you wish to call it such) to determine the fair market value of the property in question.

We need to make this as hard as possible to do cheaply.

[unblock]

43. there's no such thing as 'fair' compensation for INVOLUNTARY actions

you can't just TAKE something from me, then pay me a certain amount and call it fair. even if that amount is more than i could have gotten had i sold VOLUNTARILY.

it was transparently worth more than market price to me, otherwise i would have already sold voluntarily.

this is just plain theft. any compensation is not 'fair', it's mearly appeasement.

[NorthernSpy]

48. oh, it's MUCH worse than "just plain theft"...

Remember that the almighty State backs up all its actions with force of arms. This is armed robbery.

[davepc]

89. fairness?

Yeah, you get the appraised value for the land itself, but nothing for the structure and improvements that are on it.

Real fair.

[nicknameless]

93. It is common for eminent domain compensation to be only

a fraction of what the property is worth.

If you don't like what they're offering you, you can take them to court. Of course, many property owners can't afford to hire an attorney to represent them. For those who *can* hire an attorney, how much money will they have left, after legal expenses, to purchase a replacement property?

I can only hope that outcries from both the left and the right will persuade Congress to make such takings illegal.

[hecate77]

112. Do you want Big Business to value your home for you?

What makes you think you would get fair market value from these pigs? Likely, you will not get enough to replace what you have, after you have to pay all the fees and appraisals and commissions to get a new place, assuming any are even available.

[yorkiemommie1]

7. over my dead body

we have been betrayed yet again.

[earth mom]

35. I feel EXACTLY the same way.

Seems like some people think it's just fine...that is when it's happening to the OTHER guy. :grr:

[starscape]

8. Pathetic.. I am so thoroughly displeased..

...with the Court's action in this case. I've said enough about it on the other thread, but I hope we all make some noise about this.

grr... A few more houses go down so we can bring in a Wal-Mart.. or a Best Buy.. or a chemical company..

[bribri16]

9. I am stunned! The "liberals" on the Court actually voted this way.

I see both sides of the issue but seizing individual property for PRIVATE development is not a position that I want to be identified with. this decision will cost the Dems big time as the Republicans use it as another wedge issue against "liberal" court appointments. I am sickened.

[UpInArms]

10. related Forbes article: MSM not happy with USCC decision?

Power To The Public

http://www.forbes.com/business/services/2005/06/23/pfizer-kelo-scotus-cx_da_0623kelo.html

NEW YORK - The U.S. Supreme Court is often vested with awesome power--the last word, the final arbiter and all that. Once in a blue moon, that's true, but mostly it's a crock, and the "takings" case the court decided today shows why.

In the case entitled Kelo v. City of New London, the court, by a 5-to-4 vote, ruled that a city may take control of private homes and may use underlying land for an economic revitalization project, provided, of course, that the city pays the home owners "just compensation."

The issue in the case (see: "Supreme Court Takes On The Public") was whether the taking was for "public use," which is what the U.S. Constitution requires. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that New London had met that test because "The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including--but by no means limited to--new jobs and increased tax revenue."

But the court didn't really decide that the scheme was public. More accurately, it decided that it would not decide, nodding to its "long-standing policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field." If New London and Connecticut officials thought it was a good idea to capitalize on a research facility being built by drug giant Pfizer (nyse: PFE - news - people ) by constructing "a waterfront conference hotel at the center of a 'small urban village' that will include restaurants and shopping"--which is the plan--who are the Supremes to say different?

In this case, the court majority could not defer enough. In his opinion, Stevens noted the court's traditional deference to state legislatures: "For more than a century, our public use jurisprudence has wisely eschewed rigid formulas and intrusive scrutiny in favor of affording legislatures broad latitude in determining what the public needs," he wrote.

...more...

[Dover]

12. Question

In cities like Austin,Tx., where the city regularly fights developers and has, on occassion, bought large acreages in order to PREVENT development (usually due to watershed protection issues), can this law make it easier for the city to seize land for conservation as well? Just looking for a silver lining here.

Of course this presumes that the city budget can compete with those of a developer too.

[freedom_to_read]

18. my understanding

...is that that was the case before this ruling. That is, the government (local, state, or federal) has always had the right to declare property eminent domain if it was to be put to public use.

Strictly interpreted, that means that it must be made into public land; that is, it must be available to everyone. That definition was expanded (before this case) to mean more "public use." I.e. you could declare e.d. and sieze property to build a public building (such as a water purification plant, for example) that was not open to the public.

This decision takes that and expands it 1 step (or maybe 2 steps) further; stating that the state can take private property and transfer it to another private owner, so long as it is part of a plan that benefits the public as a whole.

In theory, it might give municipalities greater leeway to pursue urban restoration projects. In practice, I think, it's going to be abused by developers, and mighty quick.

It's strange and sad to find myself siding with Thomas and O'Connor on something!

EDIT: for disclosure purposes, I'm not a lawyer or trained in law, so my interpretation may be incorrect. If someone with greater expertise finds an error in my reading, please correct it!

[Dover]

thanks for that explanation.

and appreciate the disclaimer too.

That makes sense, since bushco is business friendly, rather than conservation friendly...or even city friendly. I'm guessing they will continue to place their people in positions on city councils and state boards in order to optimize the potential for these seisures.

[Dover]

20. thanks for that explanation.

and appreciate the disclaimer too.

That makes sense, since bushco is business friendly, rather than conservation friendly...or even city friendly. I'm guessing they will continue to place their people in positions on city councils and state boards in order to optimize the potential for these seisures.

[JeffUAW]

23. Currently, cities and municipalities do take over abandoned

land in an act of imminent domain. The land is eventually sold to developers for condos, businesses, etc. I don't have a problem with that. However, that is the far side of the imminent domain law, and on the very edge of how far I feel comfortable in letting the government go in seizing private land.

[unblock]

75. in a nutshell there is now NO SUCH THING AS HOME OWNERSHIP

there is only renting from the government.

you now live in your house at the government's mercy. they can now kick you out in order to remodel your house and give it a higher tax assessment.

oh, and guess what. they don't even have to be RIGHT in thinking that whatever development project they're contemplating will actually raise more tax revenues. in other words, they can kick you out FOR ANY REASON, all they have to do is have a 'cover story' of a supposedly superior development project.

i'll bet that they can even charge LESS taxes to the new owner of the land that once was yours, and argue that the market shifted and that's why they can no longer charge as much in taxes despite the 'superior' development.

the is wrong on so many levels.

[Carolab]

97. If the city wants a development in an area they will find a way.

They will even work with developers directly, using their police power/rights to condemn the land for public use--i.e., right of way for a road, utilities, etc. They can grant the property to the public via a land patent. The property adjacent can then be opened up for development, by dedicating it back to the government for use as determined by zoning. I had a situation whereby the city decided they needed to run water and sewer through my and my neighbor's back yards, plus a road under which the water and sewer lines ran. They claimed it was for the public good and seized the land through eminent domain. The truth was they were in "cahoots" with a developer who had purchased a 10-acre hobby farm a few doors down and decided it was time to develop it after renting it out a few years. Of course, once he developed that land, it "made sense" to run a road from that development to an adjacent neighborhood by crossing my and my neighbors' properties. We had large lots ranging from 1 1/4 to 2 1/2 acres. The city compensated only enough to cover the special assessments. The developer and the city got a row of expensive new homes that backed up to the park reserve that USED to be at the edge of my back yard. I got a road, and the back of my house faced that new road since I and my neighbors were no longer allowed to access our driveways from the front (a two-lane thruway).

[nicknameless]

104. How awful!

Very sorry to hear that happened to you. :(

[Carolab]

126. Thanks. I lost a lot but I learned a lot too.

Put it to use by getting my real estate license. Now I work in the industry as one of the "good guys(gals)" out there.

[davekriss]

22. Fascism

Mussolini defined it as the marriage of corporate and state. What is this short of the marriage of state power to advance corporate gain? Who here wants to continue to argue that we've not become a fascist state?

[JeffUAW]

25. I don't think we are there yet, however, this ruling puts us one step

closer than we were before. And guess what? I can't blame the conservatives for this one!

[davekriss]

37. "Takings"

My understanding is that the conservative position is anti-taking, that the state (be it federal, state, or local) should not have an easy hand in seizing private property for whatever purpose.

My understanding of the present decision is local municipalities now have the right to exercise eminent domain, not only for immediate public use (as in construction of a park, water treatment plant, or prison), but for private use as long as that use can be shown to yield public benefit (as in higher tax revenue). I think that is an awful power to cede to the state.

Putting aside for the moment issues with the influence of accumulated economic might on the public policy agenda, it becomes an instance of the tyranny of the majority over the individual. There are and should be constitutional brakes against such tyrannies, and in this case one such brake has been further removed.

But, worse, there are two votes in America: The dollar vote and the democratic vote. Few things get on the agenda of the democratic vote that do not first pass the dollar vote. Now the problem with this situation is that the those of us with more dollars get to vote more often than those of us with less. So whose interests get represented when left with two candidates in the voting booth? The smart rabid developer will have contributed to both campaigns.

Fascism? I think so, for this and many other reasons. Fascism in Benito's definition, not Adolph's.

[Sayitisntso]

60. Mussolini didn't just define the word, he coined it...

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

[VegasWolf]

24. Now they can put in that shiny new WalMart SuperStore in your

neighborhood.

[reprobate]

26. My LTE to the Orlando Slantinel

Since today's United States Supreme Court ruling it is now apparent that Americans have NO property rights any longer. And the truly galling thing for us libs is the fact the the supposedly liberal justices were the ones to vote for this abomination.

It is now possible for any developer or corporation, possibly with the help of a little under the table persuation, to take the homes of anyone. Of course the ones to suffer the most will be the people in the economicly depressed areas, because they will get little compensation for the home they saved and save for, and will be forced to be renters again. At the age when they had hoped to have security in retirement, they will be forced into the market they simply cannot afford. I wish them luck, because our corporate government won't help them.

The only thing that will stop this is up to the voter. Vote every politician who was behind this out of office and send a messege that this will not be tolerated, even if that person is running against a chimpanzee.
Remember, the home you save may be your own.



---------------------

Unfortunately I seem to be on their no-print list so I don't think this will be seen by anyone else

[illumn8d]

27. wow...

They managed to 'outsuck' the medical marjuana decision. I can't believe who I side with on this one...

[dissent1977]

54. It is hard to accept that we are on the side of Thomas and Scalia

But with this decision that seems to be the case. The medical marijuana decision was much the same way (except Scalia did side with the "liberals" in that one). If the "justices" who voted for this type of tyranny are considered liberal then we live in scary times indeed.

[freedom_to_read]

28. There IS a legislative remedy to this decision

All it takes is a little initiative from Congress. It seems from the blogosphere that this issue has exercised the ire of conservatives and liberals alike. Perhaps this could be a bipartisan effort?

----------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This is NOT my idea, or my post. It is copied (with permission of the author, whose moniker is Alive) from a poster on another board.
----------------------------------


"Congress could, by statute, put a stop to this.

he statute would not trump the Constitution or the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. However, the statute wouldn't have to trump the Constitution because the statute would not conflict with it.

Enacted law (laws passed by legislatures) can grant more individual freedoms than the Constitution grants. For example, the Constitution does not protect homosexuals from employment discrimination but local laws sometimes do. This isn't unconstitutional; it is an extension of individual liberties.

The statute (oversimplified) would look like this:

"No state or municipal government may take private land for the use of a private person. State or municipal governments may take land only for the use of said governments and only with just compensation."

This law does not conflict with the 5th Amendment which states "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." So the law would be valid.

Now I know what you're thinking. "But Alive, what about enumerated powers!?!" If you're interseted in the answer, read on. If not, just be on your way. :)

Congress could word the statute to fall under the interstate commerce clause by with the following addition:

"No state or municipal government may take private land for the use of a private person engaged in interstate commerce. State or municipal governments may take land only for the use of said governments and only with just compensation."

It would be fairly difficult for a company to ever convince a court that they were not engaged in interstate commerce. Especially after the broad reading the the Court gave the interstate commerce clause in the recent marijuana case.

Congress could also use it's spending power to validate the law:

"No state or municipal government which receives any federal money for any purpose may take private land for the use of a private person. State or municipal governments may take land only for the use of said governments and only with just compensation. If a state or municipal government does not adhere to this provision, they may not receive any federal money for any purpose"

This way, Congress uses the threat of cutting of money to get what it wants."

[JeffUAW]

30. Yep, congress just has to make a law the the supreme court

can interpret. Go figure!

[Shikkapow]

49. Put aside the differences

"All it takes is a little initiative from Congress. It seems from the blogosphere that this issue has exercised the ire of conservatives and liberals alike. Perhaps this could be a bipartisan effort?"

Exactly.
I am not a democrat, or a Liberal by any means, but this autrosity MUST be stopped.

The gov't can step in and take my home away for a wallyworld, because it generates a bigger tax base tham my home? yup according to the Supreme idiots it can.

I don't care which way your vote swings, which way you lean, or what your opinion is on any topic that was contested in the last election, this crap HAS to stop.

Tell Kennedy, McCain, Clinton, Warner, Feinstein, Frist, Kerry, Hutchison.. or whoever it is that represents you in the Senate/House that this "ruling" shall not stand or you will find someone else that will take this issue to an amendment vote.
Get out, and for a moment put the other issues aside, because this affects all of us in one way or another.
The American dream, two cars, 2.5 kids and a Wal-Mart that used to be our house...

[XNGH]

29. Scary ruling

This has got to be one of the most heinous and un-American ruling ever issued by the SOTUS. This means that the government can give you 10 cents on the dollar for YOUR property on a whim. Have a disagreement with a local politician or protest to much and VOILA the government seizes your property. Have a nice house and the local politico wants it VOILA the government seizes it. Don't want to give up your house ... the government takes it Waco style. Also remember that money is also property. How soon will it be till the government decided to seize ALL your assets ... for the common good.
This my friends is EXACTLY what revolutions are made of. What frosts me is that it was the supposedly LIBERAL justices that voted for this abomination.

[JeffUAW]

31. Ditto, My friend!

[freedom_to_read]

32. not really

there aren't really any liberal justices on the SCOTUS. Ginsberg and Bryer are the only Democrats.

You mean the "more liberal" (in comparison to the rest, who stand politically somewhere between Augusto Pinochet and Darth Vader) justices voted for it.

Yeah, go figure.

[XNGH]

33. More Liberal

I stand corrected ;<)

[CA4freedom]

55. Tom McClintock's statement

I'm not a Dem or a liberal, but in the spirit of mutual respect and seemingly common cause in neutralizing this destructive decision by SCOTUS, I'd like to post for you the statement released by the Republican California State Senator and Candidate for Lt. Governor Tom McClintock on the issue. He will be introducing a state constitutional amendment. This is something that liberals and conservatives do not seem to disagree on very much.

-----------------------

Senator Tom McClintock released the following statement on the United States Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut.



McClintock to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights


"Today the U.S. Supreme Court broke the social compact by striking down one of Americans’ most fundamental rights. Their decision nullifies the Constitution’s Public Use clause and opens an era when the rich and powerful may use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain.”

“The responsibility now falls on the various states to reassert and restore the property rights of their citizens. I am today announcing my intention to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights. This amendment will require that the government must either own the property it seizes through eminent domain or guarantee the public the legal right to use the property. In addition, it will require that such property must be restored to the original owner or his rightful successor, if the government ceased to use it for the purpose of the eminent domain action.”



###

[hollowdweller]

64. If the Democratic leadership has any sense they need to propose this at

the national level.

[Tin Man]

78. Yes, Dems better get out in front of this issue IMMEDIATELY

...because this thing is growing some big-azz legs: clearly a LOT of people are very angry with this decision.

Dems gotta show that we respect and will protect the (property) rights of the common man - if we hesitate, the Repugs are gonna seize this issue as their own and use it to beat us over the head from now until 2008.

Dems should push for a constitutional amendment correcting this decision ASAP!!! Write your (Dem) representatives about this.

[davepc]

92. Amendment for what?

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

An amendment that specifies "public use"?

This is the kind of things that happen when you have a SCOTUS that uses the Constitution as a rubber band to fit be stretch to meet policy.

FDR helped start the trend, and now that power has become rather expansive.

So, the same reasoning that got us the New Deal, desegregation, and Row v Wade gets us the war on drugs, eminate domain abuse, and a commerce clause that regulates a woman in Californian growing a plant for her own use.

Them the breaks.

"It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights... Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.


The Constitution has no chains, its something that policy gets justified around by expanded meanings of reasonably transparent pre-existing language.

We are in a new age of federalism. Maybe....just maybe, some anti-federalism isn't such a bad thing.

[AX10]

68. KICK

Go Tom Go!

Too bad he takes such right wing views on social policy. His ideas to fix the budget crisis in CA were not that unreasonable. He and the Dem legislature could have struck a deal that most could have lived with.

[CA4freedom]

77. Honest liberals and conservatives shouldn't disagree here

I firmly believe that this issue something that liberals and conservatives can set aside their differences for and achieve a solution that prevents this egregious, despicable insult to Freedom from taking hold in California and then in other states.

[eauclaireliberal]

34. They are free to take my property at their own peril n/t

I said, n/t.

[guitar man]

58. Right on!!!

Couldn't have said it better myself.:thumbsup:

I suggest we all start arming ourselves, heavily. And stock up on plenty of ammo.:patriot:

[meti57b]

74. lock and load! My glue gun is ready!

[guitar man]

79. LOL

Glue the bastards to the house, then see if they want to bulldoze it!

[flying dog]

117. something to bulldoze with

A couple of years ago in Granby Colorado, the town was basicly screwing a guy out of his shop to help a big business so he made himself an armored bulldozer and did a couple million dollars damage to the town. I gotta wonder if we won't see this kind of thing happening a bit more. You gotta know that local governments will be all over this ruling like stink on shit! They'll be dying to level a few houses to build some wally world or strip mall.

[olddad56]

38. it would only be fair that after they steal your house...

you would still have to make the payment.

[Dover]

39. Isn't this ruling, in a nutshell, the U.S. foreign policy as well?

The U.S. claims Iraq's oil is necessary for our "public use" and seizes it by force or subterfuge, with little or no significant compensation to the that owner/country?
And don't the developers/private companies make out like bandits?

Bushco is for 'freedom' alright. They want to free us all of our property, privacy and rights.

[Vinca]

42. This is a horrible ruling. I'm stunned.

I think the original complaint involves people in an old neighborhood being displaced in favor of condos. It's hard for me to believe what is happening to this country and every day it seems to get worse.

[Daphne08]

46. Outrageous!

I cannot believe this ruling!

[NorthernSpy]

47. think: If this happens to you, what are you going to do?

This could happen to ANY of us. It could be YOUR home that some bigshot views one day with covetous eyes.

This is intolerable. We're going to have to do something about it.

[AlienGirl]

50. A step toward feudalism

Now the rulers are presumed to own all the land, and we are merely the occupants who can be removed at will. We get closer to feudalism every day.

Tucker

[2Design]

51. they are already do this in Va Beach which has a

city council that is stacked with pat robertson university graduates -

they go against the people's wishes
they are in cohoots with developers to help line their pockets and many real estate agents brokers continue to be on council and make these decisions - the fight against a high rise hotel - was really quite a trip on both sides but they worked around things and forced resignations to get the votes they wanted that were internal

this is terrible to watch - they are taking away peoples lives - I don't see them taking rich peoples houses on the water but these people who have owned their homes for life

[WatchWhatISay]

52. Dont have time to read through all of both threads yet, but I'm wondering

if anyone has wondered how this is any different than Bush's baseball team buddies (a quasi- govt entity called a Sports Authority) taking the Curtis Mathes family land by eminent domain in order to build the ballpark at Arlington.

[Megahurtz]

53. Economic Development?

Here in "Beach Towne" Southern California, the wealthy builders (corporations) buy singular lots
with an old home on it and tear down the old house,
then split that one lot and build two homes on it,
then more wealthy people buy up these homes and move into them,
and the builders get double their money for one lot.

The City/State also gets double property tax money.

So does this ruling allow for anyone to come in and propose to the City
that they will bring the City more tax revenue if they kick someone off
of their single-home property and turn it into two tax-producing properties?

Is this the kind of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT that this ruling allows for???
More tax revenue for the City and State, maybe?

What makes anyone think they will stop at Wal-Marts and strip-malls?:scared:

[Mythsaje]

56. That tears it

this Supreme Court is officially a travesty.

[jtb33]

57. Absolutely sickening...

and the worst part of it is that in this case, the CONSERVATIVES were doing the right thing! Grrrr!

[cosmicdot]

59. another 5 to 4 decision from this court

"the liberal wing" of the SCOTUS :rofl:

(oh, that corporate media and its labeling;
SCOTUS = 7 GOP appointees; 2 Dem appointees)

plus a 'Reagan' appointee

made up the majority ... siding with the corporate developers who may control the local council (don't know) ...


Interesting words about 'the victims' from Arizonan Sandra Day, but, imho, she isn't caring about 'the have nots' as 'victims' as much as she's thinking about her wealthy Western red state Republican large land owner friends with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process" as 'victims' who might find themselves pitted against corporate Republican developers with "disproportionate influence and power in the political process".

[BooScout]

61. There is no balance of power anymore....

And I cannot move to the UK fast enough. :-(

[eleonora]

62. I can't believe this is happening

And liberal judges are behind this.... Un-freakin-believable. I'm floored...If I had my tinfoil hat on I'd say there is a MAJOR CONSPIRACY going on in Washington involving politicians from both sides of the fence. Who the hell is governing us???? Damn!

[XNGH]

67. Conspiracy

I don't think you need a tin foil hat as I tend to agree with you and believe that the politicians from both sides are in cahoots over the big issues.

[hollowdweller]

63. This unpopular ruling will help Bush get a more conservative justice

When his time comes to appoint one, since the moderate wing spearheaded this decision. This decision is a tragedy for democrats.

[Puzzler]

65. The terrible decision is all over the right-wing forums...

... and they are all screaming about the "liberal" members of the Court being part of this ruling.

-P

[Gyre]

70. Sadly, that would be correct.

John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion. However, every one of them are repiglicans. So they're gonna have a hard time making the "lib" label stick.

Gyre

[cosmicdot]

130. that just may have been the plan

to help set the tone here at Rehnquist's replacement 'eve' ... the Corporate Media is cooperating by playing up the 'liberal' label in connection with the decision ... helping to stir things up ...

the SCOTUS is virtually the coup's jewel-in-the-crown for corporations, for the fundamentalists, for the right-wing extremists (aka the Council on/for National Policy-CNP), and so much more (future Bush v. Gore decisions, civil rights, etc.)

it could be seen as a win-win decision ... it might not be the defeat they're making it appear to be

local corporate business interests won
...
good for the Republican agenda

it influences the upcoming replacement debate, and the court's future make-up
...
good for the Republican agenda

was the White House involved?
--- They certainly politicize everything.

Would this court oblige to help set the SCOTUS right-wing for decades to come?
--- They appointed $hrub in 2000 ...

(I don't think tin foil hats are required anymore)

5 to 4 gives the impression that the SCOTUS is 'liberal' (in people's minds; and, fodder for the spin room talking points)

~ perception is key ~

Majority

John Paul Stevens
Party: Republican
Nominated by: Ford

Anthony Kennedy
Party: Republican
Nominated by: Reagan

David H. Souter
Party: Republican
Nominated by: Poppy Bu$h

Stephen G. Breyer
Party: Democrat
Nominated by: Clinton

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Party: Democrat
Nominated by: Clinton

[Wabbajack]

66. The good Justices voted for this??

I never thought I find myself on the same side as Scalia. They should be ASHAMED of themselves.

[AX10]

69. Let's put it this way, the "conservative" or rightist members....

voted in favor of the common man. It's quite disturbing to see Ginsberg, Bryer, and Stephans vote like this.

[Alizaryn]

71. Question ...

Would this ruling allow for a town to "take" Church Owned property? Doing so would definitely increase taxes so it seems to fit the rational. There are many resort areas where a good portion of the prime property is Church owned ... just wondering.

[JeffUAW]

72. your sick!:)

[meti57b]

73. at least we're not claiming it's a good thing like the pukes do when their

guys do something to screw the country.

[geckosfeet]

76. What the hell,,, the US can take a whole freakin country to steal

their oil. Why shouldn't local bosses,,, er,,, government be able to take what they want too?

[PittPoliSci]

80. dear wild potato:

i agree with you 100%. I think we had the exact same observation about other posts. Sorry I couldn't PM you just yet. And on a sidenote, welcome to DU!

[Inland]

81. Neither surprising nor disturbing.

I gotta say I'm not understanding the entire alarum from the left side of the table.

The fact is that most jurisdictions have assumed that eminent domain had purposes other than the restricted one the petitioners argued, namely, that the government had to own the condemned property.

In fact, the petitioners couldn't come up with a workable distinction between condemning for the transfer to a private entity for what is arguably the public good and condemning for the transfer to a government for what is arguably a public good. In the case at hand, in fact, the city would still own the property--subject to a long term lease, proving that the form didn't control function.

The fear seems to come from the concept that the cities and states would simply buy out and transfer property from poor citizens to rich ones seeking to develop their land. I am going to assume that this is a happy country where there are nothing but greedy developers with huge pots of money looking to put engines of economic growth in our inner cities, and that they are looking at areas, not where most everybody wants out or at least cash, but want to stay.

The SCt made it clear that the system isn't a conveyor to aid a private citizen without a public goal:
****
As for the first proposition, the City would no doubt be forbidden from taking petitioners' land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party. See Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245 ("A purely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void"); Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403 (1896).5 Nor would the City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit. The takings before us, however, would be executed pursuant to a "carefully considered" development plan. 268 Conn., at 54, 843 A. 2d, at 536. The trial judge and all the members of the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed that there was no evidence of an illegitimate purpose in this case.6 Therefore, as was true of the statute challenged in Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245, the City's development plan was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals."
***

Well, that all seems pretty good. To the extent that anyone feels that they need more than the constitutional protections, they can enact laws to prevent cronyism and such.

Now the other side: you should be aware that there is a "property rights cabal", supported by the dissenters here, that seek to create an entirely new (new since 1880) theory of property rights that will prevent zoning, and most other, regulations. Backed by Justice Thomas, the man who didn't see any rights involved in a prisoner getting his teeth bashed out in an interrogation, this theory makes it impossible for the state to enact ANY regulation that lessens the value of property, including, of course, intangibles, stocks, even expectations of profit. For more info, see
April 17, 2005, NYT Sunday Magazine
The Unregulated Offensive

[Taoschick]

91. A lease, or a giveaway?

In the case at hand, in fact, the city would still own the property--subject to a long term lease, proving that the form didn't control function.

The city is going to lease the confiscated land to the developer who stands to earn millions for 99 years at a dollar a year. The developer is going to use the land for parking lots, office space and upscale condos. The very people who are being forcibly removed from their homes won't be able to afford to live in the "housing" that will be built. How is that serving the public good?

[davepc]

94. Theres a healthy middle

between the needs of "the people" and the rights of individuals.

The pendulum doesn't need to be stuck on one side or the other.

When public use means actually, honest to god public use, and just compensation means actual honest to god compensation then eminate domain isn't a de-facto bad thing.

But when its a hammer of government to fuck the little guy in the aid of a corporatist, then somebody has to take that hammer away from the government, or impose such limits on the government that they can not swing it freely.

[nicknameless]

82. How unbelievably Appalling! And the "liberal" justices, for god's sake!!!

Hey, maybe we're lucky. In the Middle Ages, they used to label people "witches" and murder them in order to steal their property.

:grr:

[hecate77]

115. They are anything but liberal. 7 repugs,and 2 forced on Dems by repugs

Stop using the term 'liberal'. Use less right wing or something. Not a one of them is progressive or liberal in any way. They are all tools of the Repugs.

[nicknameless]

118. Ginsberg and Breyer were Clinton appointees.

But, as Mike Malloy would say, "Clinton was the best Republican President" we've had in quite a while. ;)

The opinions and rulings of 4 out of those 5 justices have tended to be to the left of the extreme right fascists on the Court. That's why I put "liberal" in quotes.

[hecate77]

120. And they were vetted as acceptable to Repugs. Not liberal, no

matter who appointed them. We have not had the chance to put a real judge on the SC in a long, long time.

[nicknameless]

127. Reiterating: That’s why I put “liberal” in quotes.

My post was 4 lines long. How could that be a challenge for anyone to read?!

[nicknameless]

83. Since it is the function of the Supreme Court to merely interpret law,

and given the fact that Progressives AND Conservatives are in agreement on this issue, can't the Congress pass legislation to make such taking illegal?

Interpret *that* you INjustices!!!

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[othermeans]

100. Forget it! I read the posts on Free Republic-you guys blame the

liberals for this, yet the majority appointments to SCOTUS are Republicans. Welcome to Bush World.

[BadGimp]

98. Is it just me...

Or is this the scariest shit imaginable?

I have been following this SC pending decision for 2 years and I am unable to quantify the horror I feel this represent to Americans.

Tell me I am crazy, please.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[othermeans]

101. Contact King George I'm sure he's a big friend of the little guy!

[Deja Q]

102. So, US gov't can take anyone's home and give it to a corporation?

So the homeowner won't even get paid?!

Whatever happened to zoning districts?

[davepc]

105. you get paid

appraised value of the LAND.

If you have something on that land...you know like your house...oops doesn't quite factor in to the equation.

Then again it never did. Would make it prohibitively expensive to bulldoze neighborhoods for superhighways and the like.

[flying dog]

111. re: you get paid

Does this mean that if you live in a condo that you're screwed? If they only pay for the land and you have a condo or a townhome with little or no actual land then you're SOL. And what if the amount that they offer won't even pay off your loan? They should at least have to pay the value that they use to decide your property taxes with.

Dean and company had better grab this and run with it quick or the republicans will. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for congress to do anything to protect us from big business. They haven't yet.

[Inland]

124. That's not true. Owner gets the value of land and improvements.

After all, the government is taking all of it. Therefore they have to pay for all of it.

[Carolab]

103. Statement of Ralph Nader on Supreme Court Eminent Domain

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49368

[nicknameless]

106. Doesn't this also call into question whether or not there's a

true public benefit? Corporations notoriously pay very little in taxes, relatively speaking, so the benefit to municipalities is questionable. It seems more likely that local government officials will end up taking bribe money (excuse me, election campaign "free speech" contributions) in exchange for the seizing of private properties for corporate use.

Edited to add:
And wouldn't this especially be the case if the business were Walmart or like Walmart? These stores are a huge financial drain on local governments because so many of their employees are on public assistance.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nicknameless]

108. True.

See my post #93.

I wouldn't go so far as to describe Clarence Thomas as a "decent man and true American" though. He just picked the correct side this time. ;)

I really feel that public pressure will be too great for this ruling to stand very long. It will take Congressional action to override it, followed by a new interpretation by the Supremes(?) I'd assume so, anyway.

[nicknameless]

109. And welcome to DU!

:hi:

[flying dog]

114. another big break for big business

You're right. Big companies are drawn in by promises of huge tax breaks, so they actually pay little or no taxes. Where the local governments make their money is from the taxes of the working class employed there. Again, the little guy gets screwed while the big companies make all the money. And the worst part, you can't even pin this one on Bush!

[nicknameless]

116. Welcome to DU, flying dog

:hi:

This is an outrageous ruling, to say the least.
Regarding your signature, did you see Nader’s statement about it?
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49368
(Thanks to Carolab)

[flying dog]

119. Thanx for the welcome

Yes I did read it. As usuall, Ralph is right on. I went to freerepublic and they are pissed too. Anytime that they agree with the rational world then you know that something's screwed up! Kind of like the NRA agreeing with the ACLU on the patriot act.

[nicknameless]

121. Very true

And environmentalists & unionists opposing NAFTA along with Pat Buchanan.

[Inland]

125. It does, but in this case, the answer was yes.

The trial court found that there was a comprehensive plan for the public good, that it wasn't a means to just aid some invididuals, and that there wasn't anything like bribes going on. It's recited in the opinion.

Now turn it around. Would you have it that no condemnation could take place no matter how much public good would come of it, no matter how squeaky clean it was, no matter how much money was offered the homeowner to voluntarily leave? If ONE homeowner must move for a development that would save New London, would you have it that constitutionally, nothing could be done? That was the petitioners' position in the SCt.

[Taoschick]

129. It's not always about money.

How far are we willing to take this? The Constitution included eminent domain to protect the sovereign's ability to claim land (with just compensation) for projects such as roads, schools, military bases, etc.. It was never conceived to take property away from private citizens so that another private citizen could make money off the property.

The land was to be given to the development corportation on a 99 year lease for ONE dollar a year. They would then build office buildings and upscale condominiums. The developers and the city would gain an economic windfall while the original owners would receive a pat on the head and an admonition not to be so greedy.

Who will be the likely targets of land grabs? It won't be the rich, that's for sure. Middle class, lower class, minorities, and the poor will suffer to line the pockets of real estate developers. The people removed from their property will not be able to afford to live in the same area once development takes over and raises the property values. They'll be displaced. What about retirees who've paid for their homes? What are they supposed to do? Rent an apartment with their life savings? No public good can come from this.

[nicknameless]

136. Thanks for this post. Excellent points!

(I hadn't seen the reply by Inland until today... I need to get better about checking my posts.)

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Stand and Fight]

113. More erosion of civil liberties...

My God...

[lonestarnot]

122. Just unfuckingbelievable!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

132. You know,

nothing in the law of eminent domain changes with this decision. It's purely procedural, giving the power to localities instead of having it vest in the Federal government. That's all. It's the same eminent domain as it was last week, last year, last decade, and on and on.

I trust you all were this outraged when poor people in cities everywhere are moved out of their homes in the name of "gentrification." That's eminent domain.

And you must still be angry about what we did to the Native Americans, huh?

Ry Cooder has a new CD out about the eminent domain matter that resulted in the Dodgers' ballpark in Chavez Ravine. Do you know how long ago that was? Same eminent domain laws, different jurisdiction, very fine Cooder album.

Read the opinion in Kelo. The notion that this is a "liberal/conservative Justices" matter is flat-out incorrect. It's nothing more than a states' rights matter. That is all it is.

Read the opinion. You'll feel better.

Except all the poor people who've been moved out are still moved out, and gentrification is still running smoothly. What have you done about that? Same law as today, you know.

[Sugarbleus]

133. As an affordable/accessible housing advocate, you can imagine

how this news sits like a ROCK in my stomach!!

Here I've been barking about the housing crisis for months; suggesting ways to reclaim older buildings for low income folks to live in..such as that. NOW, the gov just wants to bulldoze private homes and structures willy nilly.

If the gov can up and bulldoze homes/businesses of people who have worked their ASSES OFF to aquire.....how safe are we the renters and lower income folks going to be. Where do we go?

[aion]

134. What if you owe more on it than the State says it is worth?

Will they force you to pack up, demolish your home, and forbid you to bancrupt the remaining debt? I am guessing that you would never be in possession of the monies given for the property -- it would go straight to the bank.

Most people realize that there are times when the housing market is a 'buyers' market, and times when it is a 'sellers' market. When it is a seller's market, you're in a position where your home's value is going up because of a lack of homes in general. It's during these times when you can pump out more equity from your property in the form of loans.

If a bank has lent you $50,000 for the property, and the government tells you that 'fair market value' is closer to $35,000, who swallows the extra $15,000?