# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Talon\_Karrde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Talon\_Karrde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Talon_Karrde)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/61 "2005-06-23T17:54:47Z")
**Liberal** must be having an influence on me lately, because I think this is really bad and I’m a liberal. I don’t even like people being forced to move for public benefit. If it helps the poor… well, too bad for them. It sounds heartless, but the landowners are people too and should also be protected. Find other ways to help the poor. ---
**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, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/62 "2005-06-23T17:55:17Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > Can anyone explain SCOTUS’ reasoning here? Simple. The majority defined the term “public use” the way Bill Clinton defined the term “sex”. ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/63 "2005-06-23T17:57:34Z")
> [@drachillix](#): > > Any eminent domain thread invariable screams about how homeowners are having their homes effectively stolen from them. That is pure bullshit and you know it. I don’t “know” any such thing (for starters, I am not prepared to assert that OtakuLoki is lying about what happened to his grandfather). ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/64 "2005-06-23T17:57:41Z")
I think the aghast liberals in this thread are thinking of this as the next step on the road toward a totalitarian corporate oligarchy. I totally agree with that view. I really have no problem with eminent domain for roads, schools, and other public projects. I have a big-assed problem with the government using its power of eminent domain to take money from one private entity and giving it to another private entitiy. ---
**Author:** ![WolfpackJeep](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpackjeep/32/2921_2.png) [@WolfpackJeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WolfpackJeep)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/65 "2005-06-23T17:59:20Z")
> [@danceswithcats](#): > > One of the tragic aspects of this ruling, beyond the personal toll, is that of architecture lost. When Victorian-era structures are razed, a hole has been cut in the cloth of a city, and whatever is built in their place won’t make the hole disappear. I’ll take a block of brownstones with brackets, dentil molding, and ceiling medallions of plaster over any glass and EFIS structure, bereft of character. You beat me to it. It’s bad enough when older homes are torn down and replaced with look-alike condos, but to put up a freakin’ strip mall? What a waste. ---
**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, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/66 "2005-06-23T17:59:32Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Simple. The majority defined the term “public use” the way Bill Clinton defined the term “sex”. YES! Clinton got a blowjob! That is the cause of all problems in the universe. If only Monica had swollowed, we could stop worrying about entropy! ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/67 "2005-06-23T18:06:47Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > 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. > [@Metacom](#): > > 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. Hear, fucking Hear! My god this makes my blood boil. “The Government” will have to pry my land out of my cold, dead hands if they want to confiscate it for their own whims. And since it’s now a SCOTUS ruling, I guess we’re completely fucked forever and for eternity. What, if anything, can we as private citizens do _now_?? There seems to be no one to appeal to – that’s it. The city can just take my fucking house. Fuck them. Sideways. With a chainsaw. ---
**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, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/68 "2005-06-23T18:08:43Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > How about financing loans to small businesses from tax revenues? I wouldn’t have a problem with that. > [@John Mace](#): > > To me, the principle is the same, and I’m interested if you see if a difference. I think there’s a big difference between currency and real property. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/69 "2005-06-23T18:09:46Z")
If anyone tries to take my land, I’d probably kill them, kill the entire city council, kill the developers, and call it a day. ---
**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, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/70 "2005-06-23T18:10:19Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > “Most liberals”? You’re basing this on what, exactly? I’m a liberal, and I think **Cliffy** is 100% full of shit. I know quite a few liberals, and I can guarantee that not a single one of them thinks this is a good thing. 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 ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/71 "2005-06-23T18:11:08Z")
I remember hearing about this case on NPR when it first went before the SCOTUS and thinking “Well, this shouldn’t be so hard.” _sigh_ ---
**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, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/72 "2005-06-23T18:11:36Z")
According to NPR, this is the first time such a matter has gone before the court since 1954. One of Justice Thomas’s arguments against this was that it affects the poor, minorities, and the elderly more than anyone else. Oh, **drachillix** , what kind of compensation can I expect when they come for my place (and they no doubt soon will), since I own the trailer I live in, but **rent** the lot it sits on? It’ll be difficult to move this place, since the front deck is pretty securely mounted to the trailer. 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. Oh, and my combined trailer payment and lot rent is **less** than what a studio apartment rents for in this town, plus is a helluvalot larger, so I wouldn’t consider moving from this place to an apartment a “step up.” ---
**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, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/73 "2005-06-23T18:16:35Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > How about financing loans to small businesses from tax revenues? > > I’m not putting up a strawman here, because I really don’t know your politics on this issue. To me, the principle is the same, and I’m interested if you see if a difference. This may be one of those gut-check things or perhaps where political divides start to show more. For my part, I think that I can get where you might see this as the same principals being at work and yet they are very emotionally different. In the case where the State is offering a low interest loan to an enterprising fellow who is carving out a niche for himself, grabbing for the slice of the pie, creating wealth and jobs and adding to the community, well, that just hits all of the right buttons. On the other hand, when the Mustache Twirling Filthy CEO™ arrives on the scene and grabs the house that I have spent 20 years paying for and fixing up as a part of my pursuit of the American Dream so that he can put up an office building that will boast a 40% vacancy rate or another strip mall, well that just sits wrong. ---
**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, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/74 "2005-06-23T18:21:39Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > How about financing loans to small businesses from tax revenues? > > I’m not putting up a strawman here, because I really don’t know your politics on this issue. To me, the principle is the same, and I’m interested if you see if a difference. This may be one of those gut-check things or perhaps where political divides start to show more. For my part, I think that I can get where you might see this as the same principals being at work and yet they are very emotionally different. In the case where the State is offering a low interest loan to an enterprising fellow who is carving out a niche for himself, grabbing for the slice of the pie, creating wealth and jobs and adding to the community, well, that just hits all of the right buttons. On the other hand, when the Mustache Twirling Filthy CEO™ arrives on the scene and grabs the house that I have spent 20 years paying for and fixing up as a part of my pursuit of the American Dream so that he can put up an office building that will boast a 40% vacancy rate or another strip mall, well that just sits wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/75 "2005-06-23T18:22:22Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > Although to be fair, that’s because they’re not philosophically consistent. 😉 Actually, I think it’s because they’re not complete dipshits. 😉 Believing that the government can and should play a role in some social issues (e.g. public education, environmental oversight, keeping people from starving to death, etc.) is not remotely equivalent to the belief that government intervention is a good idea in all cases. Rigid “consistency” is for stupid people. ---
**Author:** ![August\_West](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/august_west/32/18069_2.png) [@August\_West](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/August_West)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/76 "2005-06-23T18:22:45Z")
What about the 70 year old couple that have been in the same house for 40 years? Take their home and you’ve just signed their death sentence. What about the family that has had a lakeside cottage for 4 generations? A developer convinces the local council that his condos will increase their tax revenue. 4 lifetimes of memories of picnics and beach parties bulldozed. This is so wrong it makes me ill. This along with the feds raiding the medical marijuana place in CA with the ink still wet on that SCOTUS decision makes me fear my gov’t more than ever. ---
**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 23, 2005, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/77 "2005-06-23T18:24:54Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > . Rigid “consistency” is for stupid people. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/78 "2005-06-23T18:26:12Z")
You know, you guys can rail against this particular SCOUS decision all you want, and in my opinion you are correct to do so, but don’t ignore what it is that you are actually doing if you want to call yourselves Liberal. Cliffy put his finger on it: You’re not being philosophically consistent. This decision IS consistent with classic Liberal ideology, so aptly stated by Cliffy earlier in the thread: > [@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 think the ideology is a crock, but realize that decrying this SOCUS decision while still claiming to support Liberal principles is a hypocritical position to hold. It’s no different than a Conservative who tells you that he believes that the government should keep out of the personal lives of private citizens, but then supports legislation to determine what sex the person you’re screwing can be, how you should be forced to pray in school and denying women the freedom of their own bodies. Those people are hypocritical too. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/79 "2005-06-23T18:27:36Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > A case like that, where thousands of good jobs are the prize is one thing. A strip mall is something else. How is it different? A vast car factory displaces many people and a strip mall displaces a few. The former provides many jobs and the latter provides few. The difference is only in degree. On the other hand, states and municipalities will often give large projects enormous tax breaks while tiny projects, like our imaginary strip mall, usually receive none. I, personally, don’t know where anybody would get the idea we liberals would be happy with this decision. After all, we are all closet communists and don’t want Big Business taking away property. We want Big Government to take it. Don’t you guys understand ANYTHING? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![August\_West](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/august_west/32/18069_2.png) [@August\_West](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/August_West)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/80 "2005-06-23T18:30:37Z")
What about the 70 year old couple that have been in the same house for 40 years? Take their home and you’ve just signed their death sentence. What about the family that has had a lakeside cottage for 4 generations? A developer convinces the local council that his condos will increase their tax revenue. 4 lifetimes of memories of picnics and beach parties bulldozed. This is so wrong it makes me ill. This along with the feds raiding the medical marijuana place in CA with the ink still wet on that SCOTUS decision makes me fear my gov’t more than ever. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=5)