# 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:** 13
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/241 "2005-06-27T17:27:07Z")
_sigh_ No. And this will sound like a huge cop-out, but I always jump into these things (stupidly) assuming that others have a comparable background in constitutional theory and constitutional law…and then, in those instances when it isn’t true, I don’t have the time to engage the debate. So I’m gonna try to stop posting about con theory, at least until my clerkship finishes up this fall and I have some free time. Things are way more complicated than you make them out to be, **John** ; maybe **Hamlet** can elaborate. Sorry for starting something I don’t have time to finish. ---
**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, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/242 "2005-06-27T17:31:56Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > _sigh_ No. > > And this will sound like a huge cop-out, but I always jump into these things (stupidly) assuming that others have a comparable background in constitutional theory and constitutional law…and then, in those instances when it isn’t true, I don’t have the time to engage the debate. So I’m gonna try to stop posting about con theory, at least until my clerkship finishes up this fall and I have some free time. Things are way more complicated than you make them out to be, **John** ; maybe **Hamlet** can elaborate. Sorry for starting something I don’t have time to finish. Hey, I’ll admit I’m a layman. Don’t take my questions for anything other than what they are: questions. I’m trying to learn this stuff. Maybe I get ahead of myself sometimes, but in the previous post I’m really just asking a question, based on the way I see it. No problems about not wanting to take the time to elaborate. But don’t “sigh” me, please. That’s very patronizing. ---
**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, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/243 "2005-06-27T18:30:49Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > 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. Theres a blurb in today’s Washington Post about the situation in Loudon County, Virginia that I alluded to earlier. The long and short of that story: Loudon County is one of, if not the, fastest growing counties in the country. It is under extreme development pressures from Washingont DC. Several years ago, a slew of candidates for the Board of Supervisors ran on a “anit-sprawl” platform and won election. They then began to to institute reforms of the County’s planning regulations. Enough people in the County disagreed with the direction that the Board of Supervisors was going in that nearly **the entire Board of Supervisors** was removed in one election. The Board now is made up of a much more pro-development group. As the Post points out, the current members were heavily financed by the development industry, but there is also a ground swell of opposition to the direction they’ve chosen. In short, don’t underestimate the power of the electorate to change the makeup of the Board (and the direction the municipality moves). I’ve been caught in enough whipsawing of officials to personally know this to be the case as well. As an aside, The Washington Post site requires free registration, but I’ve never gotten a single email from them or anyone else that seems remotely connected, so I wouldn’t worry too much about the registration. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2005, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/244 "2005-06-27T23:59:24Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > Absolutely nothing new here - the practice has been going on forever and is supported by legislation and legal precedent. We thrashed this out when the case was first heard and I, for one, expressed the opinion that the SC would uphold the locality. Yes, well, you are by your own characterization elsewhere a New Democrat Bill-Clinton’s-cock-sucker. As for the real progressives (not perfectly synonymous with liberals) & the real conservatives (not exactly the big-business types) a lot of us are pretty disgusted at this decision. It takes certain previous cases which were bad precedent to begin with, where a technically unconstitutional result was for exceptional reasons seen as justifiable, & reaps the fruit of those by finally tossing any pretense of clear “public use” to the wind. By precedent, within the hermetic world of lawyers, it’s logically consistent (with previous constitutionally dubious decisions), & that’s all you can say for it. As for justice, in the real material world? It has none. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/245 "2005-06-28T00:03:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What can you conclude about Scalia and Thomas now - and what can you conclude about Breyer and Stevens now? Well, I will admit, as someone raised GOP & strict constructionist who left for the Democratic Party, that while I strongly disagree with Scalia on a few theoretical issues, I have never been impressed either with the wisdom or with the perspicacity of the high court’s left wing. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/246 "2005-06-28T00:10:18Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > I second you **Crafter Man** When I run out of rounds, they can have my house. Then, after the feds gun you down, they’ll call you a fascist like they did Randy Weaver. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/247 "2005-06-28T00:23:40Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > Although to be fair, that’s because they’re not philosophically consistent. 😉 > > **Binary** and the others, let’s turn it around – why is eminent domain OK for roads and schools but not for facilitating private development? Remember, the ideal is that the private development will facilitate more jobs and a better standard of living for people in the area. > > –Cliffy Facts on the ground, “Cliffy.” A. The road is public use. Open to the general populace. The school is publicly administered (though not exactly open to the general public). The freaking strip mall is private all the way down the line. B. What is this “will facilitate more jobs”? It is intended to do so. It might. But the ideal, the hope really, of increased tourist revenue or whatnot, is not a concrete reality, whereas the dispossession is insultingly concrete. If two things pertained–first, that this were a major industrial project; second, that the area had no resident homeowners–the city could have had a point. Using blight-oriented eminent domain rules in this instance is like amputating a healthy hand. Oh, wait, you live in D.C. You don’t know what the ground looks like. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/248 "2005-06-28T01:00:34Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Actually, it’s an opinion that stands up for democracy, rather than fucks it over. The democratically elected local government enacted legislation to take this property. The non-democratically elected Supreme Court deferred to their findings and decisions, and decided not to involve itself in legislative determinations. Democracy won out in this case. So democracy (which, at its worst is simply very large-scale networks of collusion) won out over the Bill of Rights & the idea of protected rights of citizens to their own homes. Gee, I guess we need a catchy one-word ideological term for _not being a prick_ to compete with the oh-so-sacred “democracy.” ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/249 "2005-06-28T01:03:37Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > > [@Metacom](#): > > > > AFTER the government has decided what they want, and AFTER they’ve competed with other companies to get the contract to build the improvements on the property. After the improvements are built, the the public owns the land and the improvements. > > > > It’s not comparable to selling land to a specific developer. > > But if the benefit to the public as a whole is the same, why is the difference important? > > –Cliffy Ah, but it’s not the same. In one case, the public gets a project with a defined nonfungible good: a road. In the other, the public gets a speculative boondoggle. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/250 "2005-06-28T01:10:53Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > But isn’t that question at the root of many cases before the SCOTUS? [Capt Obvious] Our world is very different from that of the Framers and they didn’t exactly create a document that has every definition spelled out for all time. The Supremes often need to interpret the original intent in light of modern beliefs and mores. [/Capt Obvious] Leaving Constitutional interpretation to be handled by a non-vettable, unimpeachable body of a few mediocre & average lawyers, each chosen for his perceived sympathy to the hot-button issues of the current President, with no real guarantee that they themselves are free from corruption; is a piss-poor substitute for a vital public life, where the public debates & has a chance to affect new statute & new constitutional amendments. The latter is democracy at its best. The former is paternalistism by a cartel too often incompetent in the field of a particular case, & generally unable in the process to correct their own mistakes. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/251 "2005-06-28T01:14:15Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Use: n. (ys) > > The act of using; the application or employment of something for a purpose: with the use of a calculator; skilled in the use of the bow and arrow. > > The condition or fact of being used: a chair in regular use. > > The manner of using; usage: learned the proper use of power tools. > > The permission, privilege, or benefit of using something: gave us the use of their summerhouse. > > etc. > > Seems that public “use” would also mean public “purpose”. Which is what the Supreme Court said 100 years ago too. So what’s the problem again? Um, no. Where in that definition do you see “purpose.” Look again, monkey. It isn’t there. –foolsguinea, SDMB semanticist. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/252 "2005-06-28T01:18:53Z")
> [@Yeticus Rex](#): > > Middle of the Road business owner here…and I think this ruling is like a hammer; it can be a good tool in the hands of wise and sensible officials (to remove obsolete, dangerous or unoccupied buildings), or it can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of desperate and greedy officials (displacing people who have kept their property in good condition)…in these days of budget shortfalls, I fear that the latter is more likely to happen at the detriment to the citizens it will displace. Again, obsolete, dangerous, & unoccupied buildings fall under the “blight” exception in most states. The municipal government in this case never even claimed that the neighborhood was blighted. They just want to play Sim City with real people’s lives. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/253 "2005-06-28T01:25:12Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > Anyone want to start a campaign to seize and close WalMarts in order to benefit communities by encouraging independant local businesses? Hey, Anthony Kennedy says it’s okay… Let’s do it! ---
**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 28, 2005, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/254 "2005-06-28T03:43:25Z")
After all if tearing down houses and building malls serves the public by creating jobs, won’t tearing down the mall and rebuilding the houses serve the public by creating housing? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/255 "2005-06-28T07:44:31Z")
Hey, folks, I just realized, this is karma working! We swiped the land from the Native Americans, and now we get to experience it ourselves! Hopefully, we’ll get at least mint on the pillow, if not a reacharound. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/256 "2005-06-28T10:33:08Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > Theres a blurb in today’s Washington Post about the situation in Loudon County, Virginia that I alluded to earlier. The long and short of that story: Loudon County is one of, if not the, fastest growing counties in the country. It is under extreme development pressures from Washingont DC. Several years ago, a slew of candidates for the Board of Supervisors ran on a “anit-sprawl” platform and won election. They then began to to institute reforms of the County’s planning regulations. Enough people in the County disagreed with the direction that the Board of Supervisors was going in that nearly **the entire Board of Supervisors** was removed in one election. The Board now is made up of a much more pro-development group. As the Post points out, the current members were heavily financed by the development industry, but there is also a ground swell of opposition to the direction they’ve chosen. In short, don’t underestimate the power of the electorate to change the makeup of the Board (and the direction the municipality moves). I’ve been caught in enough whipsawing of officials to personally know this to be the case as well. > > As an aside, The Washington Post site requires free registration, but I’ve never gotten a single email from them or anyone else that seems remotely connected, so I wouldn’t worry too much about the registration. I don’t see how that post makes your case at all. What I understand you to be saying is that over the course of several years, local powerbrokers were engaged in political pissing contests and implementing central plans that nobody liked. The electorate was fickle, and moved from one extreme to another. Meanwhile, whether anyone felt safe in his person and property is unclear. It seems to me that when a magistrate comes to claim your home, solving the problem with a get-out-the vote campaign next time around is like waiting to have your brakes fixed until after you\ve smashed into a tree. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/257 "2005-06-28T11:42:38Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It seems to me that when a magistrate comes to claim your home, solving the problem with a get-out-the vote campaign next time around is like waiting to have your brakes fixed until after you\ve smashed into a tree. Plus, what about someone like **Tuckerfan** , who might not be able to find a new place to live in the same city? You can’t vote any city officials out of office if you don’t live in that city. That’s another way that this could be abused: A suburb which is mostly middle-class or upper-class, but has a neighborhood that is not so well off, decides to clear out the riffraff and put in a mall or something. The displaced residents can’t afford to buy a new house within that city, so they’re effectively exiled to another community. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/258 "2005-06-28T18:31:13Z")
Bwahahahaha! > [@](#): > > On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter’s home. > > Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land. > > The proposed development, called “The Lost Liberty Hotel” will feature the “Just Desserts Café” and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.” [http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html](http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html) ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/259 "2005-06-28T18:35:16Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > Bwahahahaha! > [http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html](http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html) 😃 That’s priceless. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/260 "2005-06-28T18:36:13Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > Bwahahahaha! > [http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html](http://www.freenation.tv/hotellostliberty2.html) Marvelous. Simply… sublime. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=14)