# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/21 "2005-06-23T15:40:59Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > It’s a good decision. It’s also not new law – I believe this has been roughly the state of the law since the early '90’s at least. (It was certainly the case when I took my property class in 1998.) It’s not new law - the question was whether it was good law. I’m a liberal myself, and in my opinion this crosses the line. I’ve no interest in letting government run amok, whether it’s a liberal or a conservative government. The decision stretches the meaning of public use beyond all recognition. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/22 "2005-06-23T15:41:52Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well, I can’t say I’m horrified by the decision…after all, the government has had eminent domain for quite a while, hasn’t it? Its not like this is new…I’ve seen it happen before where part of someone’s property is seized by the government to expand a road or whatever…for the good of the public. This is fundamentally different from seizing land for a road, though. With a road, or a public utility, or some other _PUBLIC_ project done on land obtained via eminent domain, the improvements made to the land directly benefit the public (because the public can use the road) and the land is managed by the government with the interests of the people in mind. When you take land and give it to a private, for-profit entity, the majority of the citizens will only indirectly benefit (through increased city services procured with the increased tax reveneue) and the land will be managed by a private entity with that entity’s (not the public’s) best interest in mind. > [@Cliffy](#): > > American liberalism is based on the assumption that governments can solve social problems; ergo, liberals should in general want government to have such tools as are available to go about their work. I don’t think taking land from one homeowners and selling it to for-profit corporations is a good way for the government to solve social problems. ---
**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 23, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/23 "2005-06-23T15:42:33Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > Also, John Mace, your point is well made. I have a pretty big socially Liberal conditioned response but I do work pretty darn hard at at least seeing and trying to understand other points of view. Yes, you do, and I shouldn’t have implied otherwise. There are, though, many on this board who don’t understand the principle. Although Scalia seems to let his social conservativism color his rulings at times, Thomas is pretty consisitent in not doing so. The Medicinal Marijuana decision is a perfect example. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/24 "2005-06-23T15:42:33Z")
> [@Barbarian](#): > > … But if the business plan for any eminent domain purchase is based on the idiocy of attracting tourists to a region (Tourism! The least reliable economic driver in existence!) such a plan will fail. I don’t know. Didn’t it work astonishingly well for Flint, MI? ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/25 "2005-06-23T15:44:53Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > When you open that up to private developers with a lot of money that are not beholden to anyone but shareholders, I see potential for massive abuse. But where is eminent domain opened to private developers? Eminent domain is still exclusively and always the province of the government. Private developers may be the beneficiaries, but only because the government (if it isn’t corrupt) thinks that the area’s population will be better served with the development than whatever is sitting on that land now. If the government is corrupt, a different ruling in this case won’t stop them from doing plenty of evil. And they can be prosecuted, of course. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/26 "2005-06-23T15:47:21Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > I think that the difference is that, as I understand it, eminent domain is traditionally used for things like building roads or bridges and the like. While this clearly can suck for a particular set of landowners, I am at least able to see these things as a part of the “commons” and something that will be to the good of the whole community. Well, thats true. Seems this is just taking things a step further, giving the people more power to seize property…for the good of all. I mean, take a little for a road or bridge, take a lot for a new mall…its a matter of degree, isn’t it? And perhaps the people having a new mall, parking garage or office park really does trump my right to my home (or my little roach infested one room appartment). Needless to say, I’m also against this on the principle of the thing…I’m just stunned at the wide variety of OTHER folks who are also against it in this thread. Maybe we all CAN get along. 🙂 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/27 "2005-06-23T15:57:24Z")
**Cliffy** , I guess that if your point of view is the classic American Liberal one, then I can no longer call myself that. This is a bit of a shock, because I have always identified as such. I really don’t know where that puts me, because as far as I can see all of the political schools of thought just have it wrong. I guess that on social and economic issues I believe that the government should basically act as a referee that has made fair rules, and damn well makes sure that everyone plays by them. What saddens me is that we seem to be loosing the concept of things that are in the public domain and are a direct benefit to the community (Like libraries, schools, roads and such) and things that are privately owned an have some diluted theoretical benefit in tax revenue (like convention centers, shopping malls and the like). At the end of the day, I tend to trust the former because the benefit is obvious. People are reading or learning or better able to commute to work and move goods from point to point. By the same token, I mistrust the later because I see the cities coffers as these ever-hungry bottomless maws that will never be satisfied. By opening this up like this, there is no real motivation for them to not seize land for half-coked schemes. ---
**Author:** ![rexnervous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@rexnervous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rexnervous)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/28 "2005-06-23T15:58:15Z")
> [@drachillix](#): > > Its called a real estate appraiser. What if I don’t agree with the appraisal? What about moving costs, or temporary housing costs if a new place cannot be found in the time alloted? What about any additional real estate costs associated with purchasing the new house? What if I happen to work next door, and the new place I find to live requires the use of a car to reach the same job, which I currently don’t own? Or let’s say I want to stay in the same neighborhood (schools, friends) but all available housing is $100,000 more than my appraisal - will the local govt cover the difference (this isn’t quite so far-fetched - I happen to own the only two-bedroom house on my block - my house is worth, say $260,000. The cheapest house available in any two-block direction is easily $375,000)? And what about the emotional toll - of having to uproot against your will. Is that justly compensated? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/29 "2005-06-23T16:04:37Z")
Although I don’t have a problem with the general concept of government doing things for the common good which may at times cause problems, this decision just seems to open up all kinds of opportunity for abuse. It’s kind of like why I oppose torture. Give a government a weapon like that, no matter how much they beg and plead and say they’ll be good and careful and everything and … they’ll shoot your eye out, every time. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/30 "2005-06-23T16:09:32Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/31 "2005-06-23T16:14:16Z")
Thanks for adding to the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/32 "2005-06-23T16:14:19Z")
[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=303900&highlight=domain+compensation+Supreme](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=303900&highlight=domain+compensation+Supreme) Here’s the link to our earlier discussion of the case. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/33 "2005-06-23T16:15:20Z")
I grew up in New Albany, OH, back when it was a little farming town of 5K people. Les Wexner, who owns The Limited, decided that he liked the town, and promptly began buying the place up and building multi-million dollar homes. Nobody in the town had the money to fight for very long, and whenever Wexner wanted something, he simply donated things like fire trucks, etc., to the city. There was ample evidence of bribery and illegal activities (including vote rigging), but the locals couldn’t get any of the authorities to investigate. Of course, it looks like I’m screwed in my present domicile as well, since they’re starting to build up this town with multimillion dollar homes, so it’s only a matter of time before I get booted. I think I might just have to dig out that Earth First! manual I’ve got around here. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/34 "2005-06-23T16:18:26Z")
You’re welcome. Think nothing of it. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/35 "2005-06-23T16:28:48Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > This ruling prevents lone holdouts from derailing an economic development plan Nonsense. If a plan is valid, it can simple move elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/36 "2005-06-23T16:31:57Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > But where is eminent domain opened to private developers? Eminent domain is still exclusively and always the province of the government. A distinction without a difference. If I pick your pocket while wearing a Bozo the Clown hand puppet, the theft was still done by me, not by Bozo. ---
**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 23, 2005, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/37 "2005-06-23T16:34:25Z")
To anyone who thinks this is a good decision, i’d ask you to read the incidents described in [this report](http://www.castlecoalition.org/top_10_abuses/top_10_report.pdf) (pdf) and make an argument that this is the sort of thing that should be happening in America. The New London case that was just decided by the Supreme Court is actually the first example listed in this document. Abuse of eminent domain has been on the increase in the past decade, as self-interested local decision-makers waltz over people’s rights in the interests of their own greed and power hunger. Sure, they often attempt to justify their decisions as being in the public interest, but in many cases the very public that is alleged to benefit from these decisions is also strongly opposed to them. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/38 "2005-06-23T16:38:36Z")
I don’t see what the big deal is. Is seems to be working just fine in Zimbabwe. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/39 "2005-06-23T16:47:11Z")
I feel like I’m in an alternate universe. I love these new threads. I join my fellow liberals in condemning this latest encroachment upon our liberty. Tyranny is tyranny, whether the scale is local or national. To those who have argued that classical liberalism would take us back to the days of robber baron capitalism, I submit that this sort of authoritarianism, and not freedom, is the road to cronyism and partnership between government politicians and business tycoons. Now, all that a thug will need to dislocate people for his own gain is a local magistrate in his pocket. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/40 "2005-06-23T16:49:19Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > What I am forced, however, to admit in the interest of honesty is that the justices that I usually find to be loathsome (Scalia and Thomas notably) made what I consider to be the right call on this one. > > I am hoping that someone that has read the decision will come along and explain to me in simple terms how this makes any kind of sense. What can you conclude about Scalia and Thomas now - and what can you conclude about Breyer and Stevens now? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=3)