# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![St.Urho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e7dd6/32.png) [@St.Urho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/St.Urho)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/141 "2005-06-23T22:27:55Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > This provides way too much power to corporations and the local governments that they buy. Eminent domain is great for freeways, as that’s the only way they’d get built. And I can even see if for great mega-projects that truly have a huge economic impact. You might recall the General Motors Poletown project some 20 odd years ago in Detroit (Hamtramck). A case like that, where thousands of good jobs are the prize is one thing. A strip mall is something else. Funny you should mention Poletown, since the Michigan Supreme Court overturned their decision in the case recently. > [@Michigan Supreme Court](#): > > “We overrule Poletown,” Young wrote, “in order to vindicate our constitution, protect the people’s property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law.” Am I correct in assuming that the recent SCOTUS decision will have no bearing on the Michigan decision? ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/142 "2005-06-23T22:36:28Z")
Maybe I am just stupid here, but 1. there is no “urban blight” to correct here, right? and 2. what kind of “fair market value” or “just compensation” does one get from an appraiser?–your home has been condemned! I would think that there was no such thing as a FMV for a condemned home…or is the Gment ONLY paying you for the land? Is this token money? And I feel like a person in that Tom Lehrer song…“who’s next?” IMS, the New London area does not serve as crack house central or similiar. HOW is this for the public good? And let us by all means follow the effing money. I am sure that Mr. Mogul is gonna build a community center or at least donate a pint of his blood, maybe. As a liberal, this sickens me. To own your own home IS the American dream. This may be legal, but yet again, the law is an ass. An immoral, unethical ass. [aside; I have more respect for O’Connor now than previously.] And to those who would define liberalism for me or call me a hypocrite(I don’t wan to wade thru all this for names) for not following some “classic” model of it–go to hell. So, if one does not adhere to all precepts spouted by neo-cons, one doesn’t count as that, either? By all means, let us have purity of philosophy in politics–the world has no room for pragamtism or heart. :wally :rolleyes: ---
**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, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/143 "2005-06-23T22:36:56Z")
> [@newcrasher](#): > > Gays HAVE civil rights… This must be true! He used all caps. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/144 "2005-06-23T22:38:32Z")
forgot to say that the “classic liberal” argument that government solves all social issues does not hold here–there IS NO social issue here. There is a developer who wants to make money and there is a city council who wants to assist that developer. Mr. American Homeowner gets screwed. If I were one of those homeowners, I would be out burning a flag or something… ---
**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, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/145 "2005-06-23T22:40:43Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > This must be true! He used all caps. They do have the rights, just as Indians and Blacks have rights. But those rights are ignored by magistrates who find them to be politically inexpedient. ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/146 "2005-06-23T22:42:59Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > forgot to say that the “classic liberal” argument that government solves all social issues does not hold here– Or anywhere. That is NOT the classical liberal argument. This is classical liberalism: [Liberalism in the Classical Tradition](http://www.mises.org/liberal.asp), by Ludwig von Mises. An excerpt: “The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production… All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand.” ---
**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, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/147 "2005-06-23T22:53:05Z")
The biggest problem with the decision is that it is far to broadening of it’s definition of public use. AS on eof the dissenting justices (O’connor?) said, it basically gives any community the right to buy any property if it can be determined it is more valuable to the community for another use. It is my belief that the takings clause is targeted for two specific purposes: First, to provide needed pathways for publis or quasi-public works programs that need, generally specific land to work. Things like highways, railways, and right-ofways for utility lines which generally only have so much leeqay for routing. The second would be land needed for the governemet so it can basically can do it’s job and provide the needed services: gov’t office buildings, police and fire stations, schools, etc. My interpretation would be that econommic development is absolutely not one of the reasons. ---
**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, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/148 "2005-06-23T22:56:36Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > 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. Your biggest problem is your constant tendency to present yourself as the voice of reason, when you are, in fact, as partisan as anyone else. The whole “I’m a moderate and therefore more rational than everyone else” bullshit that is your constant mode of argumentation just gets a little old. > [@Weirddave](#): > > Why, I do believe that someone who held that position wouldn’t be a liberal then! You’re an idiot. Plenty of liberals hold exactly that position, despite your constant attempts to portray them as nothing but irrational party-liners or hypocrites. > [@Weirddave](#): > > 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. I’ll think about saying that when you’re actually right about something. > [@Weirddave](#): > > Again, you continue to support my positions! I am positively aglow with embarrassed pleasure! I may support your general position on this issue. The problem is that, in your intial post, you didn’t even say what it was. You did nothing but accuse liberals of hypocrisy for opposing the ruling. I don’t support the idiocy, the reductionism, and the self-righteousness you displayed in making your alleged point. > [@Weirddave](#): > > 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? Except that your first post to this thread, to which i was responding, made virtually no attempt to deal with the current issue in any substantive way. It was nothing more than a mindless screed, giving us your fantasy of what constitutes liberalism, rather than any evaluation of the pros and cons of the question at hand. It was, when your “argument” is boiled down, nothing more than “If you call yourself a liberal, and you disagree with this ruling, then you’re a hypocrite.” Remember your own words: > [@weirddave](#): > > 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. Nice to know that you—someone who seems to masturbate at every opportunity to make blanket condemnations of liberalism—are also the person we should look to for a definition of what liberalism is. ---
**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, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/149 "2005-06-23T23:22:34Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > I’m REALLY interested in what you think my ideology is. Please, tell me what it is that you believe I stand for. No you’re not. You just want to scream “liberal” some more. ---
**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, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/150 "2005-06-23T23:33:00Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Or anywhere. That is NOT the classical liberal argument. You are, of course, correct. But, to be fair, **eleanorigby** and most of those who have used such a term on this page of the thread have done so in quotation marks. She also said “classic liberal,” not “classical liberal.” And these people were responding to the first person to refer to modern liberalism as “classic Liberal ideology” in this thread, which was **weirddave**. ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/151 "2005-06-23T23:36:04Z")
I know fuckall about what constitutes “classic liberalism”, I just call myself a liberal Democrat because other parties conform less well to my personal beliefs. I believe that indivdual rights come before corporate interests, so I very strongly disagree with this ruling. If you want to know where I stand on other issues, look up Pete Stark’s voting record. He’s become a dick lately, but until someone else comes along who I agree with 90% of the time I’ll keep voting for him. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/152 "2005-06-24T00:19:02Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > You are, of course, correct. > > But, to be fair, **eleanorigby** and most of those who have used such a term on this page of the thread have done so in quotation marks. She also said “classic liberal,” not “classical liberal.” And these people were responding to the first person to refer to modern liberalism as “classic Liberal ideology” in this thread, which was **weirddave**. Very well, then. I can appreciate such a distinction. I’m not one to scream “nitpick!” whenever such a point is made. Thanks, Mhendo. As I said in the flag burning thread, these are issues on which modern and classical liberals alike can join together. ---
**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 24, 2005, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/153 "2005-06-24T00:27:03Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Very well, then. I can appreciate such a distinction. I’m not one to scream “nitpick!” whenever such a point is made. Thanks, Mhendo. As I said in the flag burning thread, these are issues on which modern and classical liberals alike can join together. I think that’s right. I think it would also behoove us all, when we disagree, to realise that not everyone who disagrees with us does so merely out of malice or hypocrisy. Which was the problem that i had with **weirddave** ’s pointless screed. It seems to me that the term “classic” was being deployed in this thread to mean “typical” or “archetypal” of modern liberalism, rather than classical in the proper sense. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/154 "2005-06-24T00:31:19Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > What the fuck is happening to my country? I second that emotion. If you think this decision is bad, wait until the same court has to enforce the new constitutional amendment prohibiting free speech when in the guise of flag burning. It ain’t our father’s country, friend. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/155 "2005-06-24T00:34:39Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > As I said in the flag burning thread, these are issues on which modern and classical liberals alike can join together. Not to mention conservatives as well, at least those who are concerned with assaults on the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/156 "2005-06-24T00:40:14Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Not to mention conservatives as well, at least those who are concerned with assaults on the Constitution. Agreed. I just cited a paraphrase of Voltaire in the other thread. Conservatives too are horrified by authoritarianism. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/157 "2005-06-24T00:41:22Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > It seems to me that the term “classic” was being deployed in this thread to mean “typical” or “archetypal” of modern liberalism, rather than classical in the proper sense. :smack: Ah! I should have discerned that for myself. ---
**Author:** ![want2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@want2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/want2know)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/158 "2005-06-24T01:16:23Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > **Binary** , in the abstract your analysis requires that private developers are running the show. But they’re not – they can only get their hands on condemned land if they can convince the government to condemn it for them. Therefore, all the horrble things you note about developers, such as the concentration only on stockholders’ interests, whether true or not (and I think they are true but they’re not horrible), don’t really matter – because before anything happens, the government has to first determine that the development would be good for the community. > > Now in the real world, such a determination can certainly be the result of a corrupt or ineffectual government, but that’s not a reason to take the power away. Instead, it’s a reason to pay attention to politics, so that it doesn’t happen in your town. > > –Cliffy Cliffy, in a perfect world, your argument might make sense. In a world where government officials were trustworthy and beyond reproach, we probably could all feel secure about this decision. Unfortunately, we live in the _real world_ --a world where we live by the NEW Golden Rule: “He who has the gold, makes the rules.” Believe me, this decision is just \*\*begging \*\* to be abused, and don’t think for a minute that unscrupulous developers aren’t positively salivating at the opportunity! If you truly believe that this is still “government by the people, for the people, and of the people”, you obviously haven’t been paying attention. Mark my words, the ramifications of this decision will make the Poletown situation look like nothing! Trust in government is not given, it is earned; this government has a lot of earning to do. ---
**Author:** ![jacksen9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce73a5/32.png) [@jacksen9](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jacksen9)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/159 "2005-06-24T02:24:12Z")
I just came back from my Florida vacation. I suppose the million dollar condo builders will now take everything on the ocean side, provide jobs for the locals cleaning rooms and stuff and prevent all beach access. That way you can live in a beach town but never be able to go to the beach. There are already problems with beach access in many of the more popular tourist spots. We spent a few nights in a Days Inn that was just across the road from the beach. We could see the beach, between the high rise hotels and condos but they had it all fenced off so you had to go two miles down the road to get to a public access spot. No more quaint little beach house rentals or individual houses will be left. What a bad decision. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535/160 "2005-06-24T02:33:29Z")
> [@Gangster Octopus](#): > > It is my belief that the takings clause is targeted for two specific purposes: First, to provide needed pathways for publis or quasi-public works programs that need, generally specific land to work. Things like highways, railways, and right-ofways for utility lines which generally only have so much leeqay for routing. The second would be land needed for the governemet so it can basically can do it’s job and provide the needed services: gov’t office buildings, police and fire stations, schools, etc. My interpretation would be that econommic development is absolutely not one of the reasons. You’ve just hit the nail on the head. Some people here have said that “public use” is a vague term, but that’s not true. For over 200 years, the term has been understood to mean that the land siezed will end up being owned and used by the public, not by a private entity. Some exceptions have been made, where the land ended up in private hands, but provided a really good benefit to the community (like a factory with thousands of desperately-needed jobs) but they were _exceptions_ that ran against the general rule, and were justified by extraordinary circumstances. Now, the Supreme Court has said “Fuck it. The cities can make up whatever definition of ‘public use’ they want.” Now, if my city wants to tear down my house and put in a gas station, how can I possibly fight them? The only definition of “public use” is whatever definition the city finds convenient. This is a decision that just begs to be abused. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-cities-can-seize-homes-for-economic-development/309535.md?page=9)