Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Michigan Supreme Court Halts Eminent Domain For "Economic Development"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Justice Donate to DU
 
Muzzle Tough Donating Member (187 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 12:51 AM
Original message
Michigan Supreme Court Halts Eminent Domain For "Economic Development"
I'm very glad to see this. Score one for the litte guy!

http://www.ij.org/media/private_property/michigan/7_31_04pr.shtml

Landmark Eminent Domain Abuse Decision

Michigan Supreme Court Halts Eminent Domain For “Economic Development”

Court States Poletown Was “Erroneous”

WEB RELEASE: July 31, 2004

Washington, D.C.—In a case with nationwide implications to halt the abuse of eminent domain, the Michigan Supreme Court last night reversed its infamous Poletown decision, which had allowed the condemnation of private property for so-called “economic development.” In a unanimous decision in County of Wayne v. Hathcock, issued at 9:30 p.m. on Friday, July 30, the Court decisively rejected the notion that “a private entity’s pursuit of profit was a ‘public use’ for constitutional takings purposes simply because one entity’s profit maximization contributed to the health of the general economy.”

In the 1981 Poletown decision, the Michigan Supreme Court allowed the City of Detroit to bulldoze an entire neighborhood, complete with more than 1,000 residences, 600 businesses, and numerous churches, in order to give the property to General Motors for an auto plant. That case set the precedent, both in Michigan and across the country, for widespread abuse of the power of eminent domain. It sent the signal that courts would not interfere, no matter how private the purpose of the taking.

But in Hathcock, the Court called Poletown a “radical departure from fundamental constitutional principles.” “We overrule Poletown,” the Court wrote, “in order to vindicate our constitution, protect the people’s property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law.”

According to Dana Berliner, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which filed a brief in the Hathcock case, the case has profound nationwide implications. “Poletown was the first major case allowing condemnation of areas in the name of jobs and taxes. It is cited in every property textbook in the country. The Court literally rewrote the book with this decision,” said Berliner. The use of eminent domain for private development has become increasingly common throughout the United States. According to Public Power, Private Gain, authored by Berliner, there were 10,000 properties either taken or threatened with eminent domain for private parties in the U.S. between 1998 and 2002. And state supreme courts from Nevada to Connecticut have relied on the Poletown decision when upholding the condemnation of land for private parties.

“The Court made an exception in Poletown because of the supposedly enormous benefits of the GM plant,” said Berliner. “Instead, the exception swallowed the rule.”

The application of Poletown in Michigan produced disastrous results. Michigan courts tended to forbid small condemnations for private parties, but when the city and developer claimed the project would have a significant economic impact, lower courts upheld the takings.

“Poletown gave cities and developers an incentive to make outrageous, wildly inflated predictions of the impact of the project,” explained Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. “It was the worst possible incentive. The Poletown project itself also didn’t come close to living up to the promises. In all likelihood, it destroyed more jobs than it created.”

<snip>
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
PROGRESSIVE1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Private Property is called that for a reason.
and NO ONE has the right to STEAL it from you!!!

Victory!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
GetTheRightVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Score, 2 points for the good guys,
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Eminent D. is not stealing. Adverse Possession is legal stealing.
Eminent Domain is more like a forced sale. The government will compensate for the land. And this ruling only involves taking land for Economic purposes. Other E.D.'s are still okay, apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mike Niendorff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Well, if you want to *really* talk about stealing ...

... just look at how title to such lands was originally "acquired" in the first place.

One quote in particular stands out to me:

"The courts of the conqueror will not enforce the claims of the conquered." (Johnson v. M'Intosh).

Kind of says it all, I think.


MDN


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. There's that McIntosh again.
Would you happen to have the full case citing? Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mike Niendorff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823)

MDN

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Mike Niendorff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. no prob, happy to help :)

Not often I get to dust off my old property law materials anymore :)


MDN

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-19-04 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. Here is the case on the web
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. Adverse Possession happens between two private parties...
...of very unequal bargaining positions (!) -- the property owner should have way more resources than the person adversely possessing their property.

Eminent Domain is the government along with a private corporation exerting their very power advantage to get something they covet and couldn't get by paying a fair price for the property.

(If the property they wanted were so valuable, why aren't they willing to pay market price for it?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. Alleluia
It's not career government officials controlling growth management nor eminent domain anymore. It's now private interest, trying to take over community development, and it's generally not a managed, controlled growth when you have so many good ole boys trying to outdo each other. Giving E.D. powers to local government is a dangerous thing. The people have lost control of the vote because they don't have a responsible media to inform them, and even if they make an informed vote, there's no guarantee that their votes will be counted.

For this reason, E.D. powers should not be given to local governments until we can restore our country's free press and ensure safe elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DBoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-18-04 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. We need a strong democracy before even thinking about socialism
otherwise we will just have economic planning for the corporate elite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Justice Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC