# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![LittleSable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d6d6ee/32.png) [@LittleSable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LittleSable)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/101 "2005-06-23T19:05:52Z")
Eminent domain was claimed when Jeep wanted to expand in Toledo, Ohio, a few years back. The people whose homes were bought out weren’t happy, of course, but lots of residents didn’t want to see one of the city’s major employers leave. It was interesting to watch the debate play out; the “Toledo loves its Jeep” stickers and signs were very numerous. ---
**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, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/102 "2005-06-23T19:06:34Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > 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: > > 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. That’s absolute bullshit. I know it feeds some sort of visceral need for you to rag on liberals at every possible opportunity, but you could at least pull your head out of your ass long enough to think about the issues a little bit before being such an idiot. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that government has a particular role in helping to alleviate social and economic inequalities, while still maintaining that certain types of government intervention are unreasonable or do more harm than good. Sure, these things sometimes get messy at the margins, and it sometimes involves looking at the individual case rather than relying on absolutist dogma to arrive at a conclusion as to what constitutes the correct action. But a belief that government can play a positive social role is in no way inconsistent with a belief that certain lines should not be crossed. Sure, any non-absolutist political philosophy is liable to run up against problems of consistency, problems that are not amenable to an easy solution. But the fact is that very few political ideologies are completely consistent. Virtually every one of us, no matter what our political position, runs across problems that force us to weigh some of our convictions against some of our other convictions. In fact, much as i often disagree with the libertarian position, it does have the virtue of being one of the really consistent political philosophies. Believing that government should take on some active role in alleviating social and economic inequality, but that there are limits beyond which this should not go, is not a hypocritical position. It is no more hypocritical, for example, than belieiving that government should pay for the military or for freeways, but not for medical treatment and poverty relief. Each position simply reflects different beliefs about what government’s role should and should not be. Unless you are a dogmatic libertarian or an absolutist authoritarian, there are always going to be some apparent inconsistencies in your political worldview, and if you think that people are hypocritical for taking such positions, then you probably ought to take a look at yourself as well. Personally, i think that political discussions would be much more fruitful if people were more willing to acknowledge where their potential inconsistencies lie, and try to explain why they feel the way they do. For example, i tend to adopt a libertarian stand on most social and cultural issues. On economic issues, though, i tend to adopt a democratic socialist position. Now, i realise that, to a libertarian (and perhaps to others) these might seem like contradictory positions. And i believe that many libertarians make convincing arguments about why they believe that deprivation of economic liberty (through taxation, wealth redistribution, etc.) is as bad as other deprivations of liberty. But just because i find their arguments interesting and internally coherent does not mean i share their viewpoint, and the reason for this is a personal moral compass that believes that, in many cases, the liberty lost in a system of taxation and wealth redistribution is far outweighed by the benefits that can result from such a system. This does not make me a hypocrite; it just means that my outlook is different from that of a libertarian or a conservative, and that i have the burden of finding myself in situations where i need to make a decision based on the pros and cons of the particular issue at hand, rather than falling back on what you dictate to be “the liberal position.” ---
**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, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/103 "2005-06-23T19:09:37Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > The only stupid thing here, asshole, is your unwillingness to be honest about what exactly it is that you unthinkingly espouse (I’m a Liberal! Yay me!) I never said “Liberals love big government” (My God, an actual Moderator misatributing quotes! Seems to me you might want to brush up on the rules that you are supposed to be enforcing.), what I said was that Cliffy’s quote was an accurate description of classic American Liberal philosophy. Huh, maybe I’ll get banned. That would be embarrassing. > [@](#): > > No, it doesn’t. In fact, you brain dead troglodyte, if you’d bothered to read what I actually wrote, you’d be dumbfounded to realize that taking a more nuanced position, specifically in deciding issues based upon their individual merits rather than stuffing everything into an ideological straightjacket, \*is exactly what I am advocating here. \*Jesus, wasn’t reading comprehension required where you went to school? No. We didn’t have geography either, so I always screw up geography words in Pictionary. What you wrote was: > [@Weirddave](#): > > Cliffy, thank you for your little refresher course on exactly where **most Liberals are coming from.** (emphasis mine) Bullshit. Your use of the present tense coupled with the word “most” reads as a statement about the opinions the majority of modern liberals currently hold. Most modern-day liberals do not subscribe to classical American Liberalism as described by **Cliffy**. Your follow-up comment that this somehow makes us hypocrites is ridiculous. ---
**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, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/104 "2005-06-23T19:10:31Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > but the direct benefit is to private developers. NO liberal is going to be happy about that! Who builds the schools, parks, and highways? Private companies. Eminent domain projects almost always lead to a private company directly profiting. That’s not the question. The question is, is the benefit to the community worth the disruption to certain specific members of the community? And IMO, that is a question that can be answered only on a case-by-case basis. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/105 "2005-06-23T19:12:08Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > I second you **Crafter Man** When I run out of rounds, they can have my house. When they (finally) sieze my land, they’ll find my body next to pile of hot brass. ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/106 "2005-06-23T19:15:06Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > As many posters here have stated, emminent domain being used to build schools, public transportation infrastructure, parks, or Og help us even highways is one thing; seizing private property for the benefit of private development is quite another. I guess I don’t get the distinction. If my land is seized from me to expand a bridge or provide a road or park or whatever ‘for the public good’, or if its seized to make a new strip mall, or new grounds for a factory or a parking garage…well, its still been seized from me, hasn’t it? Am I supposed to feel better about losing my land because its for the good of the public? Why? Consider: If the government seizes my land to widen a road, well, thats a good thing…lots of folks benifit by a little bit less traffic in the morning/evening rush hour. If the government seizes my land to give it to a company to create a new factory making cars for instance, then that provides my community with more jobs…which is a good thing (from The Public™’s perspective). I don’t see the distinction because in both cases the government has seized my land. Is the distinction being made here because someone benifited by the seizure of my land? I mean directly, because in both cases it seems to me The Public™ has benifited…even if I’m fucked myself. Greater good and all that. I’m not trying to be arguementative here…I really don’t see the difference except in one case the government has seized land and someone made a profit (though, in ED the government sometimes seizes land and someone profits too…its how Intel built a plant in my city in fact). -XT ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/107 "2005-06-23T19:15:10Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > Who builds the schools, parks, and highways? Private companies. 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. ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/108 "2005-06-23T19:16:00Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Well aren’t we the touchy little bastard. :p… Today, I would totally have to cop to that. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/109 "2005-06-23T19:16:25Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > I can’t see how the SCOTUS decision is anything other than another of many recent serious fuck-overs of our democracy. A well-deserved pit! 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. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/110 "2005-06-23T19:22:22Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > Who builds the schools, parks, and highways? Private companies. Eminent domain projects almost always lead to a private company directly profiting. That’s not the question. The question is, is the benefit to the community worth the disruption to certain specific members of the community? And IMO, that is a question that can be answered only on a case-by-case basis. I agree with case-by-case. I knew _someone_ was going to point out that alll public contracts involve private contractors. Well, duh. I don’t see this as a problem in and of itself. The problem is that public schools, parks, and highways are all primarily for the benefit of the public at large. A shopping mall or luxury condominiums are primarily for the benefit of the developers, and only indirectly benefit the public as a whole. See the difference? That difference matters a lot to liberals. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/111 "2005-06-23T19:22:36Z")
Am I the only one who read **Hamlet’s** first post (which he buttresses with his most recent one)? This case is about the majority interpreting precedent in a way that defers to the legislature over the meaning of the words “public use.” No more, no less. **Bricker** , I’m assuming this one a “process good, result bad” decision from your point of view? ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/112 "2005-06-23T19:22:58Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > No, it doesn’t. In fact, you brain dead troglodyte, if you’d bothered to read what I actually wrote, you’d be dumbfounded to realize that taking a more nuanced position, specifically in deciding issues based upon their individual merits rather than stuffing everything into an ideological straightjacket, \*is exactly what I am advocating here. \*Jesus, wasn’t reading comprehension required where you went to school? I fail to see how you were advocating anything at all. Sounds like you saw the oppurtunity to call people who identify as liberals “hypocrites”, based on the somewhat unusual premise that someone who identifies as liberal must support every single bullet point in the “classical liberal ideology”, whatever the hell that is. If you didn’t mean this at all, then you need to look at your writing style before frothing at the mouth. I don’t think reading comprehension was the issue here. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/113 "2005-06-23T19:25:18Z")
> [@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. Decisions that allow local bodies to vote away or weaken constitutional protections–I view these as a threat to our democracy as a whole, yes. ---
**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, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/114 "2005-06-23T19:25:38Z")
**xtisme** , Well, as a earlier poster mentioned there is a difference between the State finding a need for a bridge or a road and some developer coming along and snatching your waterfront property that has had four generations of your family live and die there because they could make some bank on it, but by the way it will pay more taxes. Perhaps it is just some touchy-feely emotional difference (and I realize that someone got screwed in whatever scenario you pick), but there is a difference. ---
**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, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/115 "2005-06-23T19:34:16Z")
> [@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 ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/116 "2005-06-23T19:35:24Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’m not trying to be arguementative here…I really don’t see the difference except in one case the government has seized land and someone made a profit (though, in ED the government sometimes seizes land and someone profits too…its how Intel built a plant in my city in fact). > > -XT I see your point, and up to a point I completely agree with you. I’m not sure of the details of the Intel plant you mention, but under certain circumstances I wouldn’t even have a problem with a scenario like this, if the town was otherwise destitute and the increase in employment would revitalize the town. In this case it would be analogous to building a highway extension. The problem to me would be the transparency of the process, and the legal recourse available if you wished to challenge the eviction. Are there systems in place to prevent Wal-mart from deciding they’ll make tons of money with a store situated on privately owned land, and lobbying for right to take away this land? If so, I doubt this new ruling will have much effect at all. If not, then we have a problem. I am typically against any forced removal at all, even for the public good. I recognize that it is sometimes necessary for infrastructure improvements, and in cases like this I would reluctantly give my approval. But it would take a lot to convince me that it was the right thing to do, and you’d be more likely to succeed with a concrete and demonstratedly beneficial highway extension than some wishy washy promises of extra tax revenue from a new supermarket. ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/117 "2005-06-23T19:36:59Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > just opens the door for stoma-fucking tools like **Weirddave** to start ranting about how liberals hate the wealthy; have a wealth fetish; can’t back up their arguments with reason; etc. You have a cite for my saying that? If not, cram it up your cunt, bitch. > [@mhendo](#): > > That’s absolute bullshit. I know it feeds some sort of visceral need for you to rag on liberals at every possible opportunity, but you could at least pull your head out of your ass long enough to think about the issues a little bit before being such an idiot. Seems to me that it’s you who gets his jollies by accusing me of liberal bashing when all I am doing is pointing out the inconsistencies in their stance, something that I like to do WRT Conservatives too. Groupthink isn’t thinking at all, and partisan kneejerking is killing this country. > [@mhendo](#): > > It is perfectly reasonable to believe that government has a particular role in helping to alleviate social and economic inequalities, while still maintaining that certain types of government intervention are unreasonable or do more harm than good. Sure, these things sometimes get messy at the margins, and it sometimes involves looking at the individual case rather than relying on absolutist dogma to arrive at a conclusion as to what constitutes the correct action. But a belief that government can play a positive social role is in no way inconsistent with a belief that certain lines should not be crossed. Why, I do believe that someone who held that position wouldn’t be a liberal then! In fact, that would be exactly what I have been talking about all thread! You could just say “You’re right” next time and save all the typing. > [@mhendo](#): > > Sure, any non-absolutist political philosophy is liable to run up against problems of consistency, problems that are not amenable to an easy solution. But the fact is that very few political ideologies are completely consistent. Virtually every one of us, no matter what our political position, runs across problems that force us to weigh some of our convictions against some of our other convictions. In fact, much as i often disagree with the libertarian position, it does have the virtue of being one of the really consistent political philosophies. Again, you continue to support my positions! I am positively aglow with embarrassed pleasure! > [@mhendo](#): > > Believing that government should take on some active role in alleviating social and economic inequality, but that there are limits beyond which this should not go, is not a hypocritical position. It is no more hypocritical, for example, than believing that government should pay for the military or for freeways, but not for medical treatment and poverty relief. Each position simply reflects different beliefs about what government’s role should and should not be. Unless you are a dogmatic libertarian or an absolutist authoritarian, there are always going to be some apparent inconsistencies in your political worldview, and if you think that people are hypocritical for taking such positions, then you probably ought to take a look at yourself as well. Except that my position has ALWAYS been to evaluate each situation on it’s individual merits. What is it that you think I should look at? > [@mhendo](#): > > Personally, i think that political discussions would be much more fruitful if people were more willing to acknowledge where their potential inconsistencies lie, and try to explain why they feel the way they do. Why I do too. How about that? Unfortunately I see very few people willing to even acknowledge the inconsistencies in their position, even when those inconsistencies are standing in front of them conducting the London Philharmonic playing The 1812 Overture with full cannonade accompaniment. ---
**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, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/118 "2005-06-23T19:37:55Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > **xtisme** , Well, as a earlier poster mentioned there is a difference between the State finding a need for a bridge or a road and some developer coming along and snatching your waterfront property that has had four generations of your family live and die there because they could make some bank on it, but by the way it will pay more taxes. > > Perhaps it is just some touchy-feely emotional difference (and I realize that someone got screwed in whatever scenario you pick), but there is a difference. This is a mischaracterization of how the process of emminent domain works. “Some developer” does not come along and snatch your waterfront land away. The government **buys** your land, based on a negotiated transaction. In order to get to that step, the government must win a condemnation suit, and in order to do that the government has to have an adopted economic development plan, which is developed through the democratic process (including public hearings that any citizen is free to participate in). There are also other standards of review for determining whether the condemnation can proceed. While I certainly agree that there are emotions involved, it isn’t a give than anyone gets screwed. I know from personal experience - I’ve been involved in emminent domain cases and dealt with property owners. ---
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/119 "2005-06-23T19:45:24Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > Am I the only one who read **Hamlet’s** first post (which he buttresses with his most recent one)? This case is about the majority interpreting precedent in a way that defers to the legislature over the meaning of the words “public use.” No more, no less. > > **Bricker** , I’m assuming this one a “process good, result bad” decision from your point of view? My money is on “wrong process, bad result”. We’re talking about interpreting the original meaning of “public use” in the constution, not the way a legislature might want to use it today. ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/120 "2005-06-23T19:46:08Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > You have a cite for my saying that? If not, cram it up your cunt, bitch. No, and given that I was speculating about something that people _like_ you _might_ do it’s impossible for me to have a cite about it. But then, I don’t have to explain that to a such a master of nuance as you! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=7)