It’s evident that many, perhaps most, state governments will clamp down on excessive application of this ED ruling. While I agree with much of what’s been said above, let me add this:
There are hundreds of cities across the United States with huge blighted areas with no signs of relief. This ruling could clear the way for economic revitalization and the creation of jobs. Revitalization and jobs beats urban blight and intergenerational joblessness. Without effective intervention, these distressed centers will remain distressed for decades. Wringing hands over worst-case scenarios, while viscerally appealing, underestimates the potential for good here. In short order, I imagine state/local governments putting stops in place to eliminate/sharply curtail abuse.
Take a long drive through some of these blighted areas and tell me a different strategy wasn’t needed.
That’s not what this case hinged on, was it? The area in question was not “blighted,” and the people had no desire to move or be compensated. Unless I’m misunderstanding, my problem with this decision is that it establishes eminent domain beyond building roads or restoring blighted sections.
Eminent domain, for all practical purposes, now applies to anything the government could care to pursue, so long as the effort creates more tax revenue. Again, this effectively restricts the government from doing those things that it really doesn’t want to do anyway–i.e., not allowing the application of eminent domain in instances where it will reduce tax revenue. Some restriction.
I still assert that the phrase “for public use” has been interpreted by the SC to mean, for any practical purpose, “whatever the government wants to do.” Wherever you fall on the “strict constructionist” scale, it seems to me you’d have to agree that this defies simple logic: whoever inserted the phrase wanted it to realistically guard against something, something the government would otherwise be likely to do. Right now it guards against the government behaving like a James Bond villain, stealing property to give outright to its evil cronies. Just my opinion, but I have to think “for public use” meant something more than that.
I hope this turns out to be the only application related to the the new ruling, but I don’t think it will happen. As Stratocaster replied
This happens more often than local and state governments want to admit, even though it is probably still fairly rare. Pertaining to the assertion that local governments may soon attempt to curtail abuse, I’m not optimistic that this will happen either. First, partisanship runs deep, and local governments can be as wild as the US Congress when it comes to making laws. They may split based on how they think eminent domain shouldn’t be used and do nothing. Second, there is always the possibility that they will be starry-eyed with the new ways to get tax revenue without really trying, and do nothing.
Unless this ruling really does unify government against it from the local level to the national level, citizens are equally unified against it, and we can keep the unity going long enough for it evolve into a serious national discussion, I see nothing but growing complacency and apathy in the future. But that’s just my personal cynicism about government’s inability to govern.
Stratocaster pretty much nailed it. The importance of personal property rights cannot be underestimated in the success of a nation or the happiness of its citizens.
If it were up to me the only use of eminent domain would be for roads or safety related construction (such as a levy). Unless it can be proved in a court of law that someone’s location is the only one that will work for a required municipal project there is no excuse for government control of property. This doesn’t stop a municipality from bribing a landowner with wheel barrels of money if they want to build a revenue-generating project.
In my area the city is buying up houses around the airport as they come up for sale and then bulldozing them over. That’s fine with me. But to force someone to sell is an abuse of power that was specifically addressed in the original Constitution. The abuse of power, in this case, leads directly to a group of 5 judges who have acted in place of the legislative branch of government. The power to change law with the wave of a hand should not be taken lightly. Legislators spend a great deal of time making such monumental changes and they are directly accountable to their constituents by vote. There is a check-and-balance of power between legislator and voter. No such balance exists between judge and citizen.
I think it’s time we looked at the powers entrusted to the Supreme Court and enforce the intended separation between it and the legislative branch. Courts have routinely mandated that a municipality act on the law. There is no reason why they can’t do the same for the legislative branch in regards to laws that need clarification. It is the function of elected officials to act on behalf of the people who choose them and this relationship should be enforced by the court system and not usurped by it.
Whoa… Whoa…Whoa hold on there champ. In case you missed it, it was the legislative branch that decided to condemn this property. It was the legislative branch to which SCOTUS deferred in making the determination of “public use”. I know that the judiciary will remain, to some people, a constant scapergoat for whatever is wrong, but you’re blaming the less blameworthy people on this one.
This makes no sense to me. Once again, the judicial branch can’t exercise the power of eminent domain. Blame the legislature. And in this case, the elected officials decided to condemn this property. The court is only deferring to the legislature, not usurping it.
Forget it, Hamlet . Like Bluto in “Animal House,” when he makes his speech condeming the Germans for Pearl Harbor, many posters are confused on the issue but they’re still “on a roll.”
In Judge Thomas’s dissenting opinion he made the case that the phrases “public use” and “public welfare” were both used in the constitution to mean very different things. IMO, this project is a matter of public welfare. What really worries me about this decision is the potential for corruption.
The SC ruled that eminent domain is legal and virtually without definition. To say that they don’t actually kick your door down is irrelevant to the fact it is now LEGAL to do so unless State legislators intervene. They did not mandate this intervention. In effect, they’ve removed the definition of eminent domain from their scope (which is the right thing to do) but they did not MANDATE that it be clarified on a Federal level which is where it belongs (because of its mention in the Constitution).
Your logic that the legislative branch does the dirty work is true in the sense that the SC voted your Constitutional rights into the hands of those legislators. If this doesn’t bother you then that’s your right of opinion (until the SC defers the definition of free speech to the State level).
Imagine the zoning abuses of the wealthy taken to a new level. John Kerry might decide your house is as annoying as the fire hydrant he had relocated from his Beacon Hill residence. Ross Perot might want to bulldoze all of Westlake to build a strip mall. Ted Kennedy might want to relocate wind generators on your property and George Bush thinks an oil derrick would look good next to them. Nothing stopping them from outspending you in court except a handful of small-town politicians who we all know cannot be influenced with money.
How could you justify the concept of someone forcing you out of your house because they can general more tax revenue than you? The SC thinks it’s justifiable for local politicians to define your constitutional rights. This is happening and it’s happening now.
As I noted before, the only consequence will be a flurry of activity in state legislatures restricting local government’s powers of emminent domain. Other than that, the issue is a complete non-starter.
Emminent domain is a legislative tool that is rarely used in comparison to other forms of economic development activity. The reasons are pretty simple: it is expensive, time consuming, and politically unpopular. Accordingly, when it does happen it makes big news and people run around bewailing the sorry state of affairs and threatening “The Government.” There will no be a groundswell of outrage (“I’m shocked…Shocked! to find out that emminent domain is being used like it has been for nearly 100 years!”) and a flurry activity in state legislatures in response to something that’s been going on (rarely) for longer than any individual legislator has been alive.
Sorry, I don’t follow your logic at all. Unless I missed something, the articles cited and the SC case did not involve “blighted” areas, except according to certain politicians’ convenient definition–e.g., “condemned” = “occupied, undilapidated properties that we really want to give to someone else who will create more tax revenue.”
It’s the SC’s primary role to stop nitwits from exercising undue power, for Pete’s sake. That’s what they do. If the SC rules that it’s OK for the police to make a search without just cause and a warrant, would your reaction be, “Why are you pissed at the judiciary? It’s the police who broke into your house and rifled through your drawers, not the Supreme Court. The SC was simply deferring to the local authority to make the determination as to what a legal search should be. Blame the cops.”
While I see your point, the judiciary is unique in that they are not generally directly accountable to the voting public (speaking purely of the Federal judiciary - I know some state elect judges to lesser courts). The most direct way to influence public policy isn’t by filing suit - it is by electing legislators who feel like you do. So, while it is all well and good to not agree with the decision, directing your wrath at the Court itself is pointless (by and large). That’s the entire reason that such knock-down, drag-out fights are made during appointments to the bench - it is the last real chance the voting public has at bringing any sort of weight to bear on the court system.
You mean pointless in the sense that SC Justices needn’t be concerned in the slightest by our outrage, so, yes, I agree. I just meant that the root of this “evil” is the SC decision. I have greater hope that the SC will render a wise decision than I do that every legislature in the country will only pass constitutional laws. When that hope is dashed, I am disappointed, and that disappointment is not diminished to any degree by the fact that I can vote out the rascals who steal my house come next election.
An opinion. Thank you. You’re correct in what you’ve said except that this occured before the SC decision. The examples I gave (in my State) involve wealthy individuals who are trying to use their power and influence to force a private sale of property. In both cases they had the sympathy of the local government. I don’t know (and cannot cite) statistics as to the frequency of it but I expect it will grow exponentially because of the SC decision.
And again I reiterate my opinion that it is not the Supreme Court’s function to define something in the Constitution. That is a legislative function. Yes, they are tasked with the narrow gray area of law but they have thrown the baby out with the bath water on this. It is clearly an area of Constitutional law and it has been given over entirely to States.
Here’s where I think you’ve missed the boat. There will NOT be exponential growth in the number of eminent domain cases because now that the issue is on the radar screen state legislatures will react and amend state laws further restricting the practice. That was my entire point in the earlier posts - the issue and practice has been around for more than 100 years and people were largely ignorant of it except on those rare cases when it became the latest “breaking news story.” The little old lady standing in front of the bulldozer is big news. Once the next news story comes up, the little old lady is forgotten (“Whatever happened in that case? I don’t know…did you hear about the conjoined twins?”). Then, when the next eminent domain case comes up, people who are just as uninformed about the issue as they were the first time rant and rave all over again (my “on a roll comment”).
Long story short, state legislatures will act to restrict eminent domain and in a few years the only people who will remember the Kelo case are people sitting for the American Institute of Certified Planners exam.
