# SCOTUS: Cities can seize homes for economic development **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 23, 2005, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535 "2005-06-23T14:57:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/221 "2005-06-27T02:51:19Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > So what’s to stop the government from coming in and harvesting your organs while you’re still living? Sure you may own them, but hey, there’s this research scientist who happens to be the same blood type as you and he’s just about to make a major breakthrough, but his heart’s going to give out any day, so for the greater good, we’re going to take yours. You being the same blood type and all, plus you’re close to the hospital where the surgery would be performed, etc. etc. It’s funny that you should provide an example of the “siliver cord” relationship that I was mocked for bringing up a few posts ago. You don’t _own_ your organs; they are substantially a part of you. Your house isn’t. People in this thread really _are_ confused about what ownership means, it would seem. It can certainly be unethical to take someone’s home away from him/her, but it isn’t _always_ unethical to do so just because the purpose is economic development; presumably, the government isn’t going to do so _unless_ it thinks it is ethical, and it actually must make its case in a court of law. Harvesting organs from living people is certainly unethical, though I don’t wish to debate that in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/222 "2005-06-27T03:17:49Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] I suspect many people are like me–there is a sanctity to personal property rights that is simply axiomatic. Are these rights absolute? No. Perhaps we can argue that someone can’t prevent critical infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) from being installed in the name of “ownership.” But even that should be sparingly and judiciously handled. [quote] And the ec-deve projects are for “critical economic infrastructure” and, yes, those should be rare in number and judiciously handled. > [@](#): > > Beyond that–hey, it’s my stuff and _I_ get to decide what the best use is for it. Childish. It’s “yours” by dint of the police and military who prevent others from taking it (or who took it from the Indians in the first place), by dint of the bank that finances it, and, in general, the society that recognizes you as the owner. There is nothing axiomatic about it; indeed, every society must decide what shape property ownership is to take, and many have decided differently than we have. > [@](#): > > I do not cede that right to anyone else. You get to decide for your stuff. In the world of real property, you don’t get to decide as much as you think. There is zoning, restrictive covenants, and all kinds of restrictions to contend with. See my new [post in GD](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=322835) to learn why “ownership” is one relationship in the set of “control.” You too can become a “Practical Democratic Socialist.” > [@](#): > > For me, it is the same principle as saying you can’t kill an innocent in the name of producing a greater benefit for a greater number of people, even if the benefit is inarguable. For me it is simply axiomatic. And those who say that they know better–they know what’s best for all of us–cut no ice with me. I agree with your principle about killing innocents. But ownership is complex social phenomenon, and nothing is axiomatic about it. ---
**Author:** ![whatsittoya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/13edae/32.png) [@whatsittoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatsittoya)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/223 "2005-06-27T04:22:08Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > There’s also not another trailer park in town and zoning laws prohibit me from putting this on less than five acres of land, unless it’s in a trailer park, so even if I **were** able to move it, it’d have to be hauled at least 20 miles over back country roads. /hijack Huh, its been a couple of years since I have lived there but what happened to East Camp Trailer Park? When I left it was well maintained and in fact had a major expansion going on. /end hijack ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/224 "2005-06-27T06:00:43Z")
> [@whatsittoya](#): > > /hijack > Huh, its been a couple of years since I have lived there but what happened to East Camp Trailer Park? When I left it was well maintained and in fact had a major expansion going on. > /end hijack Never heard of it. The only other one I knew about was “Cozy Living” and that’s disappearing. **Aeschines** , if you’re a male from 18-25 in the US, you’re subject to the military draft. This means that the state gets to use your body for cannon fodder, if it decides there’s a need. You own your body, yet the state says it has the right to take possession of it and use it for it’s own purposes. Why should it stop there? Additionally, the state of TN has proven itself to be incapable of managing it’s affairs properly. Several members of the previous administration have been arrested by the Feds for taking bribes and kickbacks. The former governor had a six lane highway built to serve his **personal** residence on the state’s dime. It takes them the same amount of time to build 1-mile of interstate as it did to build the 1000+ mile Al-Can highway. The state spend millions (possibly **billions** ) to lure an NFL team to the state, because of the promised dollars this would provide to the economy, not only from the games, but also concerts, etc., that could be held in the stadium. Thanks to the fine print in the contract (that nobody working for the state apparently bothered to read), the state has to keep coughing up money to maintain the thing, and there’s been **no** concerts held in the stadium because the team’s owner wants too much money, so it sits empty most of the time. (I won’t even get into the mess of the previous governor trying to have the legislature arrested, or calling in phony bomb threats to his own office, trying to circumvent the state’s constitution, or any of the other things that have gone on.) I personally know people who’ve had their land ganked out from underneath them, and depsite their efforts to point out to officials that the means by which this was done were illegal (and we’re talking **lots** of law violations, like vote rigging, clandestine council meetings, to name but a few), they were unable to save their land. This new ruling just makes it that much easier for that to happen. Now, the landgrabbers don’t have to spend so much money bribing officials to get the “job” done. Also, because many of the folks who handle such things **aren’t** elected, the voters have no way of recalling them at the polls if they’re unhappy with the job they’re doing. It’s not merely axiomatic reasons that people are alarmed by this. It’s the fact that folks **know** that the government doesn’t always have their best interests at heart, not only as individuals, but as groups. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/225 "2005-06-27T06:02:25Z")
Okay, my bad. I assumed everyone knew the basics of why property rights are good. But apparently this isn’t true so I’ll explain. Property rights are good because without such rights it is difficult for an average individual to prevent a more powerful individual or group from seizing control of property. In such a situation you will either develop a society in which all property is owned by a small minority (in which case social progress will be surpressed by the self-interest of that minority in preserving their own status) or a society in which property is only owned by those individuals who are able to defend it from all challengers (in which case social progress will be minimized by the state of anarchy and the burden of defense). To prevent either of these states from arising and to promote social progress, sensible societies adopt policies of recognizing and promoting property rights. This allows average individuals to own property without having to assume the individual burden of defending it or the worry that others will take it away. This system benefits society as a whole both because it helps the individuals who make up that society, because it encourages individuals to develop their own property secure in the knowlege that they will be able to benefit from their efforts, because by showing individuals how they personally benefit from the rule of law it encourages respect for that institution, and because by allowing individuals to use their properties in many different ways it allows society as a whole to be exposed to these different possibilities thereby encouraging progress as beneficial new ideas are discovered and spread by example. ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/226 "2005-06-27T07:20:27Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Yeah, we’re using it in the same sense. But I’m saying, So they own it–so what? Screaming, They own it! They own it! Doesn’t convince me that therefore the government shouldn’t have the right to take it from them. You have to argue that. Do you think that Stalin should have had the right to take away private ownership of farms and form collectives with his Five Year Plans? That didn’t exactly turn out well. The following is from a letter written to a friend of Stalin during that period. [link](http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/aa2feig1.html) [main page](http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/collect.html) > [@](#): > > In the kolkhozes which I observed I attempted to learn how much the livestock had diminished in comparison with the years 1927-28. It turns out that kolkhoz Ziuzia has 507 milch cows at present while there were 2000 in ‘28; kolkhoz Ust’-Tandovskii collectively and individually has 203 head, earlier they had more than 600; kolkhoz Kruglo-Ozernyi at present has 418 head of beef cattle and 50 held by kolkhozniks, in 1928 there were 1800 head; kolkhoz Goldoba collectively and individually has 275 head, in 1929 there were 1000 plus head, this kolkhoz now has 350 sheep, in 1929 there were 1500. Approximately the same correlations were found also in the kolkhozes Ol’gino and Novo-Spasski. > > … The situation of the kolkhoz livestock farms is a bad one, primarily because of lack of feed. Milk production has reached extremely low levels of 1, 2 or 3 liters per day instead of the 5-7 liters normal for this region in a high-yield year. > > …The second item concerns the sowing campaign. The situation is such that there is not enough seed in the kolkhozes. There is no way that we will be able to fulfill the plan for grain production, and the shortfall in the krai will probably be 15-20 percent. Besides this, horses are quite emaciated, a significant number of them have already died, and in addition, the people do not have provisions. And so the spring planting will occur in exceptionally tight circumstances… > > …Here is the situation: all kolkhozes have been given a plan for sowing. [crossed out: Some areas were given state subsidies in order to carry out this plan. As a result] some kolkhozes have enough or nearly enough seed (including the state subsidy), but other kolkhozes have barely any seed. Since the planting will be carried out according to plan, one group of kolkhozes will sow all fields, but another group with less seed will be faced with a large underfulfillment of the sowing plan. Even ignoring the violence involved in the collectivization of farmland, it’s clear that revoking private ownership drastically reduced agricultural output due to poor planning. Granted, the situation with the SCOTUS ruling won’t lead to anything that drastic, but other people have posted examples of the government reassigning private land and the negative effects that resulted. This ruling will only make it easier for more screwups to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/227 "2005-06-27T08:48:16Z")
**Tuckerfan** , sorry to hear that Tennessee is so screwed up, but the fact that the government is incompent or unjust in administering the law doesn’t mean that the law itself is bad. In general, I don’t believe that the draft is a good idea or right for the very reasons you state. **Little Nemo** , I agree that property rights are a good idea. Their artificial creations of society and varied in form. Eminent domain is part of the form they take in the US (and most countries), and it’s a good thing most of the time. **Sturmhawke** , Stalin and his policies were evil and sucked. The use of eminent domain could suck based on the society and sometimes sucked in the US (I’m not denying that). But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a necessary thing for society. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/228 "2005-06-27T10:15:31Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > You don’t _own_ your organs; they are substantially a part of you. Your house isn’t. Apparently, you’ve never owned a house. At least, not one in which you’ve invested your labor and heart, and which forms most of your memories. And I do own my organs. Being a part of me makes them no less owned. In fact, everything that I own is a part of me. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/229 "2005-06-27T10:17:21Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > **Sturmhawke** , Stalin and his policies were evil and sucked. The use of eminent domain could suck based on the society and sometimes sucked in the US (I’m not denying that). But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a necessary thing for society. Slavers argued the rights of society over the rights of men. So did Stalin. All central planners think they’re doing the right thing for society. Fuck central planners. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/230 "2005-06-27T11:37:52Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Slavers argued the rights of society over the rights of men. So did Stalin. All central planners think they’re doing the right thing for society. Fuck central planners. You know, I’ve noticed that the people who like this decision are mostly fans of the concept of “social engineering.” The idea that the government know how you should live (and where) is fundamentally at odds with the concept of civil rights. People who say things like “Let’s bulldoze all the suburbs and force everyone to live in highrise apartments in the city,” must love this verdict. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/231 "2005-06-27T12:47:20Z")
I wasn’t aware that the Framers of the Bill of Rights intended that the protections therein shield citizens from actions of state and local governments. What’s originalist about Thomas’s dissent, again? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/232 "2005-06-27T14:31:46Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > **Tuckerfan** , sorry to hear that Tennessee is so screwed up, but the fact that the government is incompent or unjust in administering the law doesn’t mean that the law itself is bad. “Giving money and power to government is like handing whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” P. J. O’Roarke. And I wasn’t simply talking about problems with TN’s government. The people I know of who hand their land ganked from them, lived in Ohio, so there’s two states. The fact that the **ruling** (there’s a difference between laws and rulings) makes it easier for abuse to occur, means that it’s a **bad** ruling. Period. > [@](#): > > In general, I don’t believe that the draft is a good idea or right for the very reasons you state. Yet, the rationale for it, is similar to the eminent domain laws: The state has the right to protect itself for the greater good. Slapping “greater good” on an argument is like slapping “for the children” on an argument, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/233 "2005-06-27T14:37:29Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > I wasn’t aware that the Framers of the Bill of Rights intended that the protections therein shield citizens from actions of state and local governments. What’s originalist about Thomas’s dissent, again? Doesn’t the 14th amendment extend those protections to citizens of the states? ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/234 "2005-06-27T14:43:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Slavers argued the rights of society over the rights of men. So did Stalin. All central planners think they’re doing the right thing for society. Fuck central planners. The location field in your info is empty, so I can’t know where you live for sure; however, if it is in the United States I’m guessing that you have a comprehensive land use plan and your locality has some sort of zoning ordinance that keeps a nuclear plant from being built next door to you. You have land use planners to thank for both of those concepts. Of course, you could argue for the repeal of the zoning ordinance and let market forces control where industrial uses are built. Should you ever want to sell (and I suspect you would if a rendering plant, nuclear facility, or some other noxious use was to go up close by), it may only take, say, 50 to 100 years to sell your property. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/235 "2005-06-27T15:36:39Z")
What is to stop a city from declaring that a nuclear plant beside my house would be in the public interest? ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/236 "2005-06-27T15:46:16Z")
You and every other person that feels like a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood isn’t a good idea. The politician that votes to put a nuclear power plant in your neighborhood today has to get your vote tomorrow. If you think it doesn’t work that way, try doing a search for Loudon County, Viriginia and read all about the revolving door for County Supervisors that land use and planning issues has created. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/237 "2005-06-27T15:49:43Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > The politician that votes to put a nuclear power plant in your neighborhood today has to get your vote tomorrow. Of course, if the politician benefits enough personally from the nuclear power plant he may not _need_ your vote tomorrow… ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/238 "2005-06-27T16:26:39Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > You and every other person that feels like a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood isn’t a good idea. The politician that votes to put a nuclear power plant in your neighborhood today has to get your vote tomorrow. If you think it doesn’t work that way, try doing a search for Loudon County, Viriginia and read all about the revolving door for County Supervisors that land use and planning issues has created. What if the politician is not an at large candidate? I don’t know about where you’re from, but here only two commissioners are at large. Suppose the vote is seven to three. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/239 "2005-06-27T16:37:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Doesn’t the 14th amendment extend those protections to citizens of the states? So some say. It certainly wasn’t the intention of the original Framers, and it’s extremely questionable whether, and to what extent, it was the intention of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Thomas doesn’t address the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, but rather takes it as given – which would be fine for anyone but a strict originalist – and all the while he attempts to discern “public use” as meant in the 1780s, not the 1860s. Just another example of how absolutist schools of constitutional interpretation (like absolutist political philosophies) necessarily bend with the weight of history and the difficulty in applying theory to practice. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/240 "2005-06-27T17:16:00Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > So some say. It certainly wasn’t the intention of the original Framers, and it’s extremely questionable whether, and to what extent, it was the intention of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Extremely questionable?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29) > [@](#): > > While it is necessarily impossible to gauge the intention of all the framers (and all the ratifiers) of the Fourteenth Amendment, there is substantial evidence—i.e., from the Congressional Globe—about the intentions of John Bingham, the principal framer of the Amendment. Bingham stated many times that the Fourteenth Amendment would enforce the Bill of Rights against state governments. Granted, that’s a link to Wikipedia, but if you have another, better one, I’d be happy to see it. > [@Gadarene](#): > > Justice Thomas doesn’t address the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, but rather takes it as given – which would be fine for anyone but a strict originalist – and all the while he attempts to discern “public use” as meant in the 1780s, not the 1860s. Why? If we assume that the 14th amendment did “incorporate” the Bill of Rights, then it would inorporate the original intent of those rights, and therefore the meaning, especially in the 1780s, would be relavent. No? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=13)