Virginia Question 1 - Eminent Domain

[TruCelt]

I had the same reaction Chessic, and I voted accordingly. I actually do not want the State legislature to have the leeway to change their minds about this ona case-by-case basis. I was thoroughly disgusted by what happened in Tyson’sCorner a few years back, and feel that the US Supreme Court compeltely blew it on this one. Eminent Domain shoudl be used only in the case of powerful public need - like the road has go through here or that ravine will prevent us from building one at all. . .

[Peremensoe]

@muldoonthief

Maybe because the entity that passes statutes is the same entity that exercises Eminent Domain? So if they have enough money waved under their noses, they can just modify/repeal the law, and then seize the orphanage for Scrooge McDuck’s new caviar factory. Whereas a constitutional amendment would tie their hands permanently.

Well, not permanently; the state constitution can always be changed again (as I expect it eventually will be on same-sex marriage). But this is basically the answer–to make it harder to change.
It should be noted that the amendment also makes ‘legitimate’ eminent domain, for real public uses, more expensive due to the compensation clause–some local governments argued that it could become prohibitively so.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Sailboat

Whether or not that’s true, all the liberal-minded people I know – and especially the more radical lefties – are extremely dubious of gov’t seizure of property via eminent domain.

Well I can’t speak for the people you know.

On looking it up, I see the conservative/liberal split on the SC was even more clean-cut than I remember it. Basically the liberals plus swing man Kennedy against the conservatives.

From Wikipedia I get the impression that reaction pitted conservatives/libertarians and African Americans against liberals. (I assume African Americans are more likely to have their homes condemned due to “blight”.)

In fact, I’d venture to say that it’s my vague impression that libs in general are against big government intrusion every bit as much as conservatives – when we’re talking about intrusion into the lives of private individuals.

I disagree with this. (HCR being but one example.)

Sure, there are some identifiable exceptions where liberals seem inclined to see an individual’s rights curtailed for what they consider the greater good; what some commentators seem to miss is that there are identifiable exceptions on the other side, where conservatives seem inclined to endorse welfare and living off the government – again, it’s corporate welfare and corporate subsidies they’re fine with.

I’m actually skeptical of claims that corporate welfare is a liberal/conservative issue (other than on the campaign trail).

As I see it, the primary forms of corporate welfare derive from lobbyist payola (neutral), promotion of social goals (neutral, although specific goals may vary) and competition between different states/municipalities (neutral).