# 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:** 19\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/301 "2005-06-30T19:46:06Z")
> [@Ferdechhio](#): > > Of course it is. Does that really needed to be said? Don’t tell me, tell **Metacom**. He’s the one who’s bringing up “legal relevance” as if that’s what I’m talking about. > [@](#): > > In one case the ulimate result of the threat carried out is loss of private property. In the other instance the ultimate result of the threat carried out is loss of life. It is reasonable to assume that any threat made against someone will be carried out. Losing one’s private property is no where near the plane of losing one’s life. So there’s a difference as a matter of degree. Granted. Although I think the “private property” disguises the fact that we’re talking about a wee bit more than a pen and pencil set, here: we’re talking about a home where a man has lived for many years. Although Souter can clearly live without it, we are talking about a significant conseqence. Now perhaps you could consider the question I posed to **Guinastasia** : how is the threat of personal consequences for judges in response to their decision a good idea in a nation that values an independent judiciary? > [@](#): > > And Clements isn’t even threatening Souter, in any manner. He’s publically stating his intention to kick Souter out of his home, in what is clearly a response to Souter’s agreement with the majority decision. Sounds like a threat to me. Hell, [ask the man himself:](http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029) (caution: World Net Daily link, if you don’t like that sort of thing…) > [@](#): > > “I realize there is a contradiction, but we’re only going to use it against people who advocated” the Kelo decision, Clements told WND. “Therefore, it’s a case of retaliation, not initiation.” “Retaliation”. If that’s not a threat, what the hell is it? ---
**Author:** ![ScoobyTX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@ScoobyTX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ScoobyTX)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/302 "2005-06-30T20:05:51Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > Now perhaps you could consider the question I posed to **Guinastasia** : how is the threat of personal consequences for judges in response to their decision a good idea in a nation that values an independent judiciary? Maybe if judges realized that their decisions might affect them- if they had a little skin in the game- they would pause before greatly expanding the definition of “public use,” or keeping an absurd definition of “interstate commerce,” or considering any other bit of the law. > [@Orbifold](#): > > He’s publically stating his intention to kick Souter out of his home, in what is clearly a response to Souter’s agreement with the majority decision. Sounds like a threat to me. Sure, it’s a “threat,” but it can’t in any stretch of the imagination, be equated with threats of physical harm (illegal activity). He made the call, he has to live with the consequences, as a citizen of the US. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/303 "2005-06-30T20:11:44Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > So there’s a difference as a matter of degree. Granted. Although I think the “private property” disguises the fact that we’re talking about a wee bit more than a pen and pencil set, here: we’re talking about a home where a man has lived for many years. Although Souter can clearly live without it, we are talking about a significant conseqence. Poor Souter! Poor poor Souter. I weep for him. So willing to take away the homes of other people, who have lived there for many years. I weep. > [@Orbifold](#): > > Now perhaps you could consider the question I posed to **Guinastasia** : how is the threat of personal consequences for judges in response to their decision a good idea in a nation that values an independent judiciary? Because it helps keep them honest. Otherwise, we’re dealiing with privelage. Private. Law. If a judge decides that your home can be seized for economic reasons in whatever place you’re at, he should have his home seized if there’s an economic benefit. Fair is fair. What, judges should be immune from their own policies? “Oh, this is the law for the rest of you. But I really like my house. I will, however, let you eat cake if you would like.” > [@Orbifold](#): > > He’s publically stating his intention to kick Souter out of his home, in what is clearly a response to Souter’s agreement with the majority decision. Sounds like a threat to me. But not a threat against his life. Only his property. Which, thanks to Souter, is perfectly legal. And, let’s face it, a hotel will offer many more jobs and more tax revenue than Souter’s private residence. > [@Orbifold](#): > > “Retaliation”. If that’s not a threat, what the hell is it? It is exactly as much of a threat as Souter made to the entire nation. “If you get in the way of bussiness, aint nothin’ you can do. Prepare to lose your home.” Well, the chickens are coming home to roost. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/304 "2005-06-30T20:28:57Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Poor Souter! Poor poor Souter. I weep for him. So willing to take away the homes of other people, who have lived there for many years. I weep. Guess what: I don’t like the legal decision either. I think it’s crappy that a low-income family can have their home taken away just so that someone can build a strip mall or a hotel. I just also think it’s crappy when it happens to Souter, too. > [@](#): > > **ScoobyTX** : “Maybe if judges realized that their decisions might affect them- if they had a little skin in the game- they would pause before greatly expanding the definition of “public use,” or keeping an absurd definition of “interstate commerce,” or considering any other bit of the law.” > > **FinnAgain** :"Because it helps keep them honest. Otherwise, we’re dealiing with privelage. Private. Law. …“Oh, this is the law for the rest of you. But I really like my house. I will, however, let you eat cake if you would like.” " As I’ve already said in this thread, I’m not questioning the legality of Clements’ actions. I am also not suggesting that Souter should be immune from his own law. But Clements’ actions…seeking personal revenge against Souter in response to Souter’s decision…is just wrong. We’re not just talking about judges having “a little skin in the game” here, we’re talking about judges having to worry about revenge-seekers every time they make a decision. I want judges making decisions based on the law, not based on the whims of whatever little vindictive bastard might be waiting in the wings to punish them for the next decision they don’t agree with. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/305 "2005-06-30T20:38:15Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > . > But Clements’ actions…seeking personal revenge against Souter in response to Souter’s decision…is just wrong. Personal revenge? Have I missed something in this thread or on the ‘net? Was Clements’ house seized? Or is he trying to make Souter aware of the effect his ruling has on common folk in this country? And, in the process, using the law on _exactly the same type of mechanics which Souter intended it to be used?_ > [@Orbifold](#): > > We’re not just talking about judges having “a little skin in the game” here, we’re talking about judges having to worry about revenge-seekers every time they make a decision. On this point we may have to agree to disagree, I refuse to have the debate cast in those terms. I see it as judges having to face the consequences of their own rulings in their own lives. This seems eminently fair. > [@Orbifold](#): > > I want judges making decisions based on the law, not based on the whims of whatever little vindictive bastard might be waiting in the wings to punish them for the next decision they don’t agree with. You can’t have it both ways. If judges make decisions based on the law, and those decisions make the judges themselves vulnerable, what reason is there not to go after the judges? To me, doing anything else smacks of private law. If common folk can have their house seized due to his decision, he can have his house seized due to his decision. I see nothing that’s not kosher according to Hoyle. ---
**Author:** ![Ferdechhio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3e96dc/32.png) [@Ferdechhio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferdechhio)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/306 "2005-06-30T20:54:14Z")
> [@](#): > > by Orbifold > > Don’t tell me, tell Metacom. He’s the one who’s bringing up “legal relevance” as if that’s what I’m talking about. Sorry. > [@](#): > > by Orbifold > > how is the threat of personal consequences for judges in response to their decision a good idea in a nation that values an independent judiciary? It is not a good idea. But it has been stripped of all legal recourse (less state’s legislature). Thusly it cannot be defined as a threat, which is against the law. Clements could not have threatened Souter in that he had no idea which way he would vote and after the vote it wasn’t against the law. Now threatening to develop Souter’s home, prior to the vote, if Souter did not vote a certain way, is a threat and coercion; but that didn’t happen here. O.k. so now that the word “threat” is boiled off, what do we have? Yes, Clements targeted Souter’s home because Souter voted for expanding emminent domain. But Souter gave him the authority. He took rights away from many and gave them to a few. While I agree with you that you shouldn’t target specific individuals because of personal feelings; I also think you shouldn’t be surprised when you get punched in the face after making face punching legal. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/307 "2005-06-30T21:02:49Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > In this case and “economic development plan” is not a document prepared by an individual developer, but rather it is a planning document prepared by the locality. Economic development plans, just like Comprehensive Plans, have to be developed with public input, have to be adopted by the local government body, and by themselves have no legal standing (they aren’t “law.”). Emminent domain, the zoning ordinance, and other local ordinances are the mechanism by which land use planning (and economic development) plans are implemented. And don’t forget that the ruling basically said that the government has **no** obligation to see to it that the plans actually unfold (or are even capable of unfolding) in the manner specified by the plans before seizing the property. So, Clemens could, in theory, take Souter’s land, bulldoze the house, and then let the land lay fallow, and **there’s no legal recourse against Clemens for doing so.** _That’s_ got to be a major league suckitude, IMHO. Not only can they gank your land from you, but then, they **don’t** have to use it for the purpose which was given as justification for ganking it from you! Og bless America! ---
**Author:** ![Erwin\_Chemerinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ce73a5/32.png) [@Erwin\_Chemerinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erwin_Chemerinsky)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/308 "2005-07-01T00:59:34Z")
> [@](#): > > So, Clemens could, in theory, take Souter’s land, bulldoze the house, and then let the land lay fallow, and there’s no legal recourse against Clemens for doing so. No, he can’t. The locality can take the land. Clemens can’t. You would never suceed at Duke. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/309 "2005-07-01T01:10:28Z")
> [@Erwin Chemerinsky](#): > > No, he can’t. The locality can take the land. Clemens can’t. You would never suceed at Duke. Okay, we’ll do the **long** version, then. The locality takes Souter’s land, sells it to Clemens (for a mere pittance of it’s value, I’m sure) **and then** Clemens let’s it lay fallow. Better? ---
**Author:** ![Erwin\_Chemerinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ce73a5/32.png) [@Erwin\_Chemerinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Erwin_Chemerinsky)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/310 "2005-07-01T01:19:04Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Okay, we’ll do the **long** version, then. The locality takes Souter’s land, sells it to Clemens (for a mere pittance of it’s value, I’m sure) **and then** Clemens let’s it lay fallow. Better? Except for the fact NH has indicted that it will not allow this. Also, the locality has not created an economic development plan. As far as I can tell the only “plan” is Clemens and it is not much of a plan. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/311 "2005-07-01T01:32:03Z")
> [@Erwin Chemerinsky](#): > > Except for the fact NH has indicted that it will not allow this. Also, the locality has not created an economic development plan. As far as I can tell the only “plan” is Clemens and it is not much of a plan. And your point in picking this nit is? I was merely posting a hypothetical of what **could** happen, if Clemens were allowed to go through with his plan. Oh, and fuck Duke. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/312 "2005-07-01T01:35:40Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > Well, to be the contrarian voice of the day: > > I wonder what Judge George Greer of Florida thinks of this idea of threatening judges in response to court decisions we don’t like? In this case, I really don’t give a good goddamn. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/313 "2005-07-01T01:43:36Z")
> [@Erwin Chemerinsky](#): > > Except for the fact NH has indicted that it will not allow this. Also, the locality has not created an economic development plan. As far as I can tell the only “plan” is Clemens and it is not much of a plan. So, in effect, we are all equal but some are more equal. Is that how it goes? Souter helped make this “law”, now he should feel the full weight of it. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2005, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/314 "2005-07-01T13:06:37Z")
Writing in dissent of yesterday’s decision, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said cities shouldn’t be allowed to uproot a family in order to accommodate wealthy developers. “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,” O’Connor wrote. “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.” Justice Clarence Thomas’ addition to O’Conner’s dissent: “If such ‘economic development’ takings are for a ‘public use,’ any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution.” Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the AFA Center for Law & Policy, said America’s founders “held that government was instituted to protect property as much as persons, but today’s high court no longer respects private property.” “There is a world of difference between taking private property for a legitimate public use, such as the building of a road, and some private developer’s get-rich-quick scheme,” he said. “In effect, the Supreme Court has written over city hall: ‘The government giveth, and the government taketh away.’” ---
**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:** [July 1, 2005, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/315 "2005-07-01T14:20:00Z")
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retiring. > **[CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos](https://www.cnn.com)** > > View the latest news and breaking news today for U.S., world, weather, entertainment, politics and health at CNN.com. ---
**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:** [July 1, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/316 "2005-07-01T16:18:48Z")
If it’s “a shitty, immoral, dangerous thing to do” to take away somebody’s property, then Justice Souter shouldn’t have legalized it. He should not expect to be immune to the consequences of the legal decisions he makes. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2005, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/317 "2005-07-02T14:41:49Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > If it’s “a shitty, immoral, dangerous thing to do” to take away somebody’s property, then Justice Souter shouldn’t have legalized it. He should not expect to be immune to the consequences of the legal decisions he makes. Exactly. Unless the Governent cares to publically and officially declare that there really is no equality (drop the pretense). I wonder how fast the Courts ( or someone) will find a way to change this “interpretation” if Souter’s house is taken. “Ye shall reap what ye sow” “What goes around, comes around”. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/318 "2005-07-03T14:14:04Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I agree with your principle about killing innocents. But ownership is complex social phenomenon, and nothing is axiomatic about it. Nothing is axiomatic about it for _you_. You do understand that I was assigning the feeling to “people like me”? If I find a certain position to be axiomatic, that does not imply that I think the rest of the world is as right-minded as I am, believe me. 😉 There are people who would disagree with you and me regarding the principle about killing innocents–they’d think it complex, impossible to reduce to an axiomatic statement. The editorial pages are chockfull of competing, mutually exclusive “axioms.” ---
**Author:** ![whatsittoya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/13edae/32.png) [@whatsittoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whatsittoya)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2005, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/319 "2005-07-03T15:25:04Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > “Ye shall reap what ye sow” > “What goes around, comes around”. I ran across [this](http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=19543) today. It looks like Mark Twain agreed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=15)