Are you saying that you would feel better if it was for a highway to contribute to suburban sprawl and enrich a few investors who bought the land where the exits will be and contributed generously to the people who decided where the exits would be?
Condemnation is going to suck no matter what they want to use your land for. My question is, why are you blaming David Souter. He would never have had a chance to hear the case but for the people of New London, and the voters of Connecticut. Besides, he never said it wasn’t a lousy thing to do. He said it wasn’t unconstitutional. Now you’re saying, “Aha, when we do it to you, will you still think it’s a lousy thing to do, albeit legal?” I think he will.
No, actually, they didn’t. In fact, they preserved “200 years of accepted parameters for eminent domain”.
Bleah…I think this is likely how Bricker often feels (although he evidently has a higher threshold for repeating his arguments). I’m out of novel ways to say how fundamentally wrong I think the action taken by the city of New London was, so I’ll just say that I wish that everyone’s ire was directed where it belongs – heaped on the lawmakers and executives that came up with the plan and set it in motion in the first place.
Originally Posted by SaintCad
[T]he State of California could use it to seize almost every private residence in the state. Why? Property taxes in Calif. are based on the purchase price of the house. If the state takes the property and resells it for more than the original buyer bought it for, property taxes go up and the state can pay off its huge deficit (public benefit).
For those of you who think that this is a slippery slope, please point out anything in Kelo that would prohibit this?
You are missing my entire point. The Constitution is what is suppose to protect me, not the government’s self-restraint and Kelo took away that protection. Again I ask the question, after Kelo what restrictions are there if a government wants to seize private property and redistribute it to whomever they want in the name of “public benefit”.
Eminent Domain is common law, not constitutional empowerment. The government “owns” all land as sovereign, we hold it as “fee simple tenancies” from the government. And the government can take it back.
What the Fifth Amendment guarantees is that if it’s taken, it must be in accord with due process of law, and fair market value paid for it.
And that “public use” clause is in there.
Actually, there are cases where eminent domain for economic development does make sense. If you need to aid a manufacturing firm to put together a parcel of the right size for its plant, having a holdout in the middle of it is a problem.
On the other hand, that’s a case of balancing. The guy who owns an abandoned warehouse that sits there, most people would say deserves only to get fair market value for his decrepit ruin. Then you have the family homestead that sits there, and the “reasonable man” takes a quite different view.
But both have to somehow be dealt with constitutionally.
Yes it would suck if a highway went through my property. No it wouldn’t such a fraction of the amount compared to someone buying it out from under me because they had lots of money. If you don’t see the difference just say so and we’ll walk away confused by each other’s opinion.
Again, no such thing has been done. Unless your definition of “vitually no meaning” also has virtually no meaning. (See? We can all participate in the fun of misusing words!) There is a very particular meaning here (although certainly broader than you’re willing to accept). The first sentence from the Cornell Law syllabus on the case:
The original action was part of an “integrated development plan” (which I assert was wrong-headed from the get-go, as it required owners to relinquish property against their will). It was not arbitrary. It was not targetted at any individual. It was meant to provide “public benefit”, i.e., that of promotion of economic health of the city. That is a proper function of government, is it not?
You can make the argument, as Justice O’Connor did in her dissent, about “secondary public benefits” not being sufficient – but you’re not. Rather, you’re flailing and wailing about virtual meaning (or lack thereof).
There are a lot of things that the government is not prohibited from doing that it doesn’t do because (1) the elected officials in question don’t want to do it, or (2) even if they did want to do it, they know that they would be voted out of office. You are wrong in depending on the U.S. Constitution as your only protection from governmental decisions you don’t like. You have the duty and ability as a citizen to make sure that your local government is comprised of people who don’t do things that you don’t want them to do.
The same thing that would stop them before the Kelo decision. The fundamental misunderstanding you have is that Kelo changed the law. It didn’t. It merely said that what local governments have been doing all along is within their power to do.
Well neither have I, so we’re in agreement on something. Of course the phrase “thank you sir may I have another” has no relationship to this Joe Blow moron who’s trying to take Souter’s house, so I don’t see why you brought it up.
(Suppose, for the sake of argument, that someone moves to seize Joe Blow’s house by eminent domain. Your line of reasoning states that that’s morally acceptable too.)
No. It is wrong to steal someone’s greatest possession, period. That’s why I oppose the theft of Kelo’s house, and also why I oppose the theft of Souter’s house. You, on the other hand, apparently favor the theft of Souter’s house. Therefore you believe that it is good to steal someone’s greatest possession.
I was trying to give you libertarians a public relations tip, by explaining how the general public will interpret Joe Blow’s juvenile and stupid behavior. You can sit around whining about how the public should interpret Mr. Blow’s behavior differently, but it won’t do you any good. The public will still view Joe Blow and his supporters as arrogant jackasses, regardless of your whining. If followers of your philosophy continue to behave like small spoiled children, you can hardly complain about the world at large not caring what you think.
The epsiode of Joe Blow attempting to steal Souter’s house illustrates that Joe Blow is stupid and hypocritical. It illustrates nothing about strokes of pens, parameters, 200 year precedents, elections, or removal from office.
Aristotle classified six levels of human behavior. The highest level, practiced by the most superior people, is the acknowledgement of absolute laws of right and wrong. The lowest level, practiced by the most inferior people, is that expressed by the phrase “you hurt me, so I’ll hurt you”. Joe Blow is operating on exactly that principle, and thus demonstrating himself to be an inferior specimen of humanity.
I don’t mind at all, Lib. It’s one of the archaic concepts underlying realty law: for all practical purposes, title to the house you own differs only in very minor ways from the manor a Norman knight received as a fief from William the Conqueror.
As to the OP, if the parties have every legal right to do so, I don’t see why they shouldn’t attempt to have Souter’s land siezed, if for no other reason than to bring more light to this (IMHO) unfair practice. It may not change Souter’s mind, but maybe it will show elected officials that they too are subject to the same laws and rulings as we the people are
At this point, wouldn’t it require a contitutional amendment, since any lower-level law could be considered “unconstitional” and thrown out? What would need to be said in such an amendment? Something along the lines of this?
**I. No private property taken for public use shall be sold, leased, or otherwise used by any private entity.
II. In consideration for the sacrafice required of the private entity being deprived of their property, a standard reperation shall be either one and one-half times the market value of said property or property of equal and similar value.
III. Should such seizure of property be determined by a court of law to be of a frivolous nature, the private entity shall be recompensed three times the value of the property only.
IV. Should the public no longer require the use of said property, it is to be first offered back to the person deprived of the property at the same price that it was taken for. If said person is no longer available, the property shall offered to their first-generational heirs at market price before being auctioned off to the general public.
V. This amendment shall apply only to situations that arise after it is passed. **
You’re operating under the premise that 2 wrongs don’t make a right. I’m operating under the premise that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. What the SC has done is wrong. By allowing wealthy individuals to force a sale, they’ve legislated a crime from the bench. The concept of forcing a purchase to generate tax revenue has no limits.
Souter says it’s OK. He has absolutely no right to complain. He is 1 of 5 people who decided to broaden the scope of eminent domain beyond any relationship to constitutional law. It’s irrelevant to the court decision whether the people forcing him out of his home are doing so for greed, a summer palace, or just meanness.
Is it wrong to take Souter’s house? Only from the standpoint that it’s wrong to exact punishment from a someone who makes theft legal.
Okay, I don’t. Seems to me taking away you’re home is taking away you’re home. What goes up afterwards is not much concern because you don’t live there anymore.
No, I’m not missing you’re point. You’re missing mine. The only protection you have ever had is the forbearance of the government. Kelo didn’t vhange anything.
The reason we have a State of California is because the government condemned land and gave it to private companies that operated railroads. They also “checkerboarded,” rendering adjacent proprty nearly useless, so the railroads could buy other land cheaply. Local governments would condemn land right in the middle of town in order to entice railroads to come in. Again, this is not new.
It is also not a bad thing. The New London government should not have condemned the property, but a city that has condemned a large amount of property, and finds would it be better benefit the citizens by being back on the tax rolls should have the option to unload it.
I don’t think so…in my understanding, one of the characteristics of eminent domain cases is the judiciary’s deference to the legislature. In other words, should there be a state law specifically defining what falls under the rubric “public use”, the SC would let it go at that.
Last I heard, there were 13 states proposing such legislation; IMO, all 50 should be doing so.
[QUOTE=saoirse]
No, I’m not missing you’re point. You’re missing mine. The only protection you have ever had is the forbearance of the government. Kelo didn’t vhange anything.
[QUOTE]
Really? What year did California beome a state? (1850) When was the transcontinental railroad compleated? (1869) How many houses were seized and torn down to make the railroad? (My guess is close to zero) Is the railroad issues over eminate domain similar to modern day freeways? (yes)
If the only protection you have ever had is the forbearance of the government, then why is it in the Constitution?
How many times does this have to be corrected? They did NOT “legislate from the bench”. There are laws about this. They were passed by the Connecticut legislature. New London’s government used them. Someone objected to the manner of their use and asked a court to decide if the use of the law was in accordance with the Constituion. The Supreme Court said New London used them in an acceptable manner. That’s it. No legislation. No “activist” judges. No “legislation from the bench”.
And we’re going to make a liberal of you yet!