Anyone want to start a campaign to seize and close WalMarts in order to benefit communities by encouraging independant local businesses?
Why go through all that trouble when we can just break the mirror in the store’s office? :dubious:
Jeez, enough with the name-calling already.
I find interesting that here is another political intersection in politics. Something both sides can agree on. Classical liberals are opposed to government takings and supportive of private property rights. Moden Liberals want the poor to have more power over the right and powerful. Those goals are both in danger when the government starts favoring corporations by writing laws that favor them. Other similar issues are the increasingly strong grip corporations are gaining over the culture through copyright extensions, acts like the DMCA, the reduction of fair-use rights, and other legislation.
If we could ever find that third party in politics that could be successful, it could start by taking an explicity pro-freedom, pro property rights stance. I think a lot of modern Liberals have been moving in the direction of Classical liberalism in economics as well. Socialism and Communism have been waning in popularity for 30 years. Tax policy remains a big difference, but I think there’s a lot more overlap now than there was even 10 years ago.
Any (LA) Dodger’s fans here?
Huh?
It must be late. I don’t get this either.
It was an episode of South Park, where Wall-Mart takes over the town. And the mirror was in the electronics department, not the office.
Any takers on how long before some city pulls this crap, only to have the company they yanked the land for, spend years employing mostly temps, then shuts down and moves to China?
I think you’re right.
The way I have been using my terms, this case doesn’t quite fit. There is a nuance that my previous examples didn’t explore.
When I talked about Kyllo, I said the process was correct. The “process” was interpreting the words “reasonable search.” The result reached was one I disagreed with.
This case does not draw on penumbras or emanations, so the process is cleaner than it might be. But it’s also finding that “public use” means something that was never intended. I objected to the Court finding that “Equal Protection” meant something completely unintended by the authors of that phrase, and I object to the Court finding that “public use” means something radically different than the authors of THAT phrase wanted it to.
And here, again, the problem: you guys that were thrilled when the Court decided Lawrence v. Texas and Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood… you cheered the Court for imposing its own meaning on the Constitution and ignoring the dead white men whose meaning originally shaped the Constitution.
Now you’re not cheering.
But you created the monster. You set the monster free. As long as the monster slayed your enemies, you were happy. Now it’s beginning to gore some friends, and suddenly you’re aghast?
An ye reap, so shall ye sow.
Walter O’Malley got the City of Los Angeles to pay about $4,000,000 for public improvements when he privately built Dodger Stadium.
The hidden assumption here is that the Court ever decides a controversial case purely on Constitutional grounds. My feeling is that most of the time, the Court uses doctrines like ‘textualism’ or ‘strict construction’ as cover for making the decisions they’d like to make anyway. Or ignores them and uses some other cover.
Two things. First, of course, is Cite? I read Thomas’ opinion and I see very little actual support for this position. Even his use of the “dictionary at the times” shows that “use” includes “purpose”. So if you can provide some evidence that all the framer’s and those who ratified the Constitution clearly only meant the taking of property that would be directly used by the public, I’d love to see it. Second, the world is, of course, a radically different place. Major metropolitian areas, the Water and Mining rights in the Western expansion, and economic development plans were so far beyond the ken of the founders as to be ridiculous.
This ruling was in line with precedent going back 100 years. The narrow test of whether or not the public directly uses the property has been rejected for that long now. The Mills Act, the water rights, easements, etc., all grew up beyond the gentlemen farmer and horse drawn carriage, and all laid the basis for this decision.
As much as you wish it to be so, this decision isn’t about the creation of a new interpretation. It’s about, as Kennedy’s opinion points out, the incredible deference the court gave to the legislature. I thought you were all for rational basis tests, and, as Kennedy points out, that’s the test this one got. Self-governance wins out again.
The problem is that, to some people, their own property rights are much more important than someone else’s civil rights.
Now you’re not cheering.
But you created the monster. You set the monster free. As long as the monster slayed your enemies, you were happy. Now it’s beginning to gore some friends, and suddenly you’re aghast?
An ye reap, so shall ye sow.
[/QUOTE]
An interesting thing happened to the faction on the Supreme Court known as “liberal”.
Fifty-one years ago, the “liberals” ruled that corrupt state and local governments could not deny civil rights to black people, rejecting the idea that “local leaders, not federal courts, know local needs best”.
The current crop of “liberal” justices thinks that people of any race, creed , or color can be ejected from their property by "local leaders who best know local needs"and that property handed over to those developers who have given the biggest campaign contributions to those who “know best”.
I live in a county, Sarpy County in Nebraska, where the chief planner has himself become a developer and is petitioning his bosses, the County Commissioners, for zoning variances opposed by this man’s neighbors. No one involved expects the “local people who know local needs best” to vote against a fellow good ole boy.
The former mayor of Bellevue, in Sarpy County, got her way last year for a rezoning of farm property she owned in order to build a huge housing development in an area with an inadequate infrastructure. Her neighbors might as well have stayed home from the planning commission meetings and zoned out in front of a ball game, cop show, or “American Idol” for all the good their protests did. ( They got minor reductions in the total number of housing units, and that was it.)
“Local leaders best knowing local needs”; or ,at least, local greeds. Nobody’s property is safe from them.
If the planner is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and has been out of public practice for less than a year, he’s in violation of the AICP Code of Ethics and should be reported.
Browsing various political sites, I note that pretty much all sides are appalled, from the Free Republic far right to the Democratic Underground far left.
So fix it.
–Cliffy
Fix what? The world? Kind of a tall order, no?
(comparing the list of “liberal” justices and noting she voted against the majority in this case) Huh?
Well, that’s already happened. Used to work for a Fortune 500 where we made tax deals like that and I used to type the memos…“depreciation on the plant will be 30 years, but we only anticipate 10 years of useful life before we build again and write off the asset. Our tax arrangement with the city of Podunk is eight years, so we only expect two years of property tax exposure.”
Well, now that we’ve got that cleared up… :rolleyes: 
Like another poster, I know fuck all about “classical Liberalism”–no, no, you don’t have to teach me! But I do know that what comprises a modern day liberal/progressive (and let’s not go back to Kansas for that one, either!, OK?)
Bricker -I bet your alot of fun at parties…
I am with **binary[/Bwhere is my country? What has happened to it?
This ruling only compounds already dificult problems, and puts Mr. and Mrs. America directly at odds with Mr. Developer–it may not effect my community, but I can see resort areas and beachfront (as has been mentioned) becoming ghetto-ized in a touristy way.