Molly Ivins: Eminent development

[Dudley_DUright]

As one who cares a whale of a lot more about personal rights than property rights, let me leap right into the fray over a Supreme Court decision on the side of the property rights advocates, many of whom I normally consider nutballs. But at least they're more in touch with reality than a majority of the Supreme Court.

The justice who nailed this one was Sandra Day O'Connor, bless her. She wrote in dissent: "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."

The court ruled 5-4 that local governments may use the power of eminent domain to confiscate private homes and turn them over to private developers, who will make more profitable use of them, tax-wise. The case came out of New London, Conn., a city that has lost tens of thousands of jobs and has an unemployment rate twice that of the rest of the state.

In the late 1990s, the Pfizer drug company decided to build a $300 million research campus next door to 32 acres the city had acquired after the Navy closed a facility there. The state pledged $7 million to open the waterfront to the public, fill in the flood plain and clean up the area, which has environmental hazards. The city also came up with a redevelopment plan that includes marinas, parks, private offices, condos and a hotel. But seven of the 90 landowners in the area refused to sell.

The court essentially extended the use of eminent domain -- the right by which the government can seize private property to use for public purposes in exchange for fair market value -- to include for-profit development.

more...

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=19287

[ochazuke]

1. This should be a slam-dunk issue

It seems both liberals and conservatives dislike that Supreme Court decision. I saw an online poll where 99% were against it!

Hey, didn't G.W. Bush make his millions with the help of eminent domain abuse? The Padres' Stadium was built on land acquired that way, wasn't it?

This issue goes to the heart of corporate welfare. So, fellow liberals, let's pile on!!

[Dudley_DUright]

2. Yes, but it was the Texas Rangers, not the Padres

[ochazuke]

3. Which only goes to show ya...

That the media aren't doing their job of informing people about this issue.

Why aren't us liberals outraged by this eminent domain thing? Note that I'm the only person to reply to your post so far.

It's exactly what the fascists are out to do: use the government as a tool to expropriate assets (both public and private) to enrich the already-rich and powerful.

As the court defined it, the "public good" clause is so broad in meaning that they might as well have said that the government can take your property and give or sell it to whomever they want for whatever purpose, because it's going to generate tax revenue.

Let's get out in the lead here and show some right-wingers that us liberals are against the abuse of government power. We could get some recruits here!!

[Dudley_DUright]

4. Having read Molly Ivin's (and Lou DuBose) "Shrub" before the election

of 2000, one of the stories that pissed me off the most was the Texas Rangers using eminent domain to take land from home owners at prices way below what they land was eventually worth. Of course the MSM does not want to have anything to do with a topic that might embarrass the chimp.

[K-W]

6. Why is the reaction to an abuse of power

backlash against the jurists who affirmed that the power exists, not the legislators who abused the power?

[K-W]

5. This did not extend anything, it was a refusal to limit.

The property owners were asking the courts to place a limit on eminant domain, it was not the city asking for an extension.

What Molly Ivins and Sandra Day O'Conner seem to be concerned about is the tyranny of private wealth commendeering state power. A very important concern indeed, but one that does not change the ruling over eminant domain.

The supreme court is not in the position to end the real injustice and certainly shouldnt be placing restrictions on eminant domain in a sloppy attempt to make up for the corruption of our representation by private wealth.

The concerns are very real, but limiting eminant domain would be cutting off our nose to spite our face unless we really have given up hope of ever having democratic control of such powers as eminant domain.