Judge Souter - Eminent Doman law he passed gonna take his house!

[jyl]

I going to guess that most of the people who are ranting about this case still haven't even read the decision, much less researched the law behind it.

[MikeCT]

Looks like some nice property

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by jyl
I going to guess that most of the people who are ranting about this case still haven't even read the decision, much less researched the law behind it.

Enlighten me, What is the "law" that supports this decision? And what else are we missing that makes this a proper and/or reasonable decision? I don't care about compensation or the state of the property, I want to know how this was justified via the Constitution.

The framers took extra care to protect our property rights. What in this case circumvents those special protections? Thanks, I am always open to education.

[jyl]

Originally posted by gr8fl4porsche

Taking private property from 1 entity and giving it to another
entity just to increase tax revenue hardly seems like public use.

If you read the decision, you will see that increasing tax revenue was not the sole justification for the city's economic redevelopment plan.

Reading the decision will also tell you that the majority opinion explicitly stated it was not approving a transfer of property that is made "just to increase tax revenue".

Again, I will bet that many of the posters here and elsewhere have't even bothered to read the decision and get the basic facts.

If you do read the decision you will see that these were the facts that the Court had to work with: New London had been designated by the state as a "distressed municipality", population was steadily declining (lowest since 1920), unemployment was 2X the state average, and the local naval base had closed taking a lot of local jobs with it (1500 jobs from a city of just 24000). The state and the city earmarked New London for economic revitalization, and the city approved an economic redevelopment plan that was designed to turn 90 acres of abandoned naval base and surrounding residential neighborhood into marinas, retail shops, restaurants, offices, a new Coast Guard museum, and a riverfront walk, next to the new state park and new large private R&D facility that were already being developed.

Now, I have no idea if the plan was the "best" one, but I can clearly see that the city was trying to revitalize the Fort Trumbull area in a way that would create many thousands of new local jobs by attracting tourists, shoppers, office workers, etc. These redevelopment plans can work incredibly well - think of 3rd St Promenade in Santa Monica or Old Town Pasadena or 4th St in Berkeley or whatever local example is in your city - they can literally rejuvinate a city. So it doesn't seem so crazy for the Court to rule that, on the facts that it had to judge from, the development plan that was proposed by the City of New London, approved by all the state agencies, and voted on and approved by the city council, was designed to serve an important public purpose and thus qualified as a "public use".

Remember that the US Supreme Court isn't able to itself investigate the facts of a case - they take the facts as determined by the lower courts (in this case, the Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Connecticut). Remember also that the power of eminent domain is not something that the Supreme Court made up - it is explicitly written in the US Constitution and the Connecticut Constitution, that a government can take private property if it pays just compensation and is doing so for a public use. Finally remember - again, read the decision if you want to see this - that in over 100 years of decisions, the US Supreme Court has said that the federal courts should avoid trying to micro-manage or second-guess the judgment of local elected governments about what is a justified "public use". The Court basically says that if the government has made a reasonable showing that it is acting in the public interest, that will pass the judicial test.

Honestly, folks, if you study this case and the law behind it, you'll find that the decision is not surprising at all. The plaintiffs had a very weak case, and they were trying the legal equivalent of a "Hail Mary" pass. They asked the US Supreme Court to make a brand new judicial rule that no economic redevelopment plan could ever qualify as a "public use". Not real likely to win that one.

[Moneyguy1]

Ever been to New London? Development of this area is similar to putting lipstick on a pig.....

Shouldn't some areas just be allowed to die with dignity?

[widebody911]

Originally posted by gr8fl4porsche
Supe, I disagree with this statement

"I'm not sure this is a case of ultra-socialism. I suspect it is a case of ultra-capitalism. "

I think an example of pure ultra-capitalism would be to keep raising the offer $ until both parties agree.


Like I said in the other thread, maybe in a textbook, but they've figured out it's cheaper in both the long and short term to simply rent the politicians.

[jyl]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Enlighten me, What is the "law" that supports this decision? And what else are we missing that makes this a proper and/or reasonable decision? I don't care about compensation or the state of the property, I want to know how this was justified via the Constitution.

The framers took extra care to protect our property rights. What in this case circumvents those special protections? Thanks, I am always open to education.

The US Constitution explicitly permits government to take your private property against your will if it pays you just compensation and if is doing so for a public use. (So does the Connecticut Constitution.) You may think that is shocking and unfair, but it is right there in the Fifth Amendment.

Over 100 years of decisions by the US Supreme Court - all sorts of courts, from liberal to conservative - have recognized that this power is granted to the government by the US Constitution. I mention this in case someone wants to say "well, I don't personallyinterpret the Constitution that way, so it isn't there" - kind of like the crackpots who believe the Constitution says the government may not collect taxes . . . sorry, but nobody (but the crackpots and the jailhouse lawyer-types) denies that the Constitution permits eminent domain.

Now, what is a "public use"? Well, 100 years of US Supreme Court cases have said that this concept is pretty broad. It does not simply mean property that will be directly owned by the government, like a road. It means a use that is designed to benefit the public interest. So the federal courts have generally been deferential to state and local governments, who have used eminent domain to redevelop urban slums, use properties for irrigation, force access over private properties for railways, break up land barons' oligopolies, and so on. Now, you may disagree with this. You may think the federal courts should hold a tight leash on what state and local governments can and cannot do to benefit the local citizens, and that federal judges should be poring over blueprints and vetoing decisions by local elected governments. Or you may think that local governments should be encouraged to take over privately owned land and make it into government-owned land, as a trick to avoid the control of those federal courts. Think about what that would mean. Do you want federal courts micro-managing your city's development, or would you prefer to vote for the people who run your city? Well, the US Supreme Court has basically said that unless a local government is really abusing the eminent domain power - doing things that can't be shown to have any rational public purpose - the federal courts are going to stay out of it.

So, len, that's the basic law behind the decision. Now please read my other posts, in this thread and the other one, about how the Supreme Court applied that law to this particular case. I'm not trying to duck your question, but I'm tired of typing my fingers off explaining this decision, when many people can't even be bothered to read the decision itself.

[lendaddy]

FAir enough JYL,

But the problem is in your premise. You said:


"The US Constitution explicitly permits government to take your private property against your will if it pays you just compensation and if is doing so for a public use."


Actually that's misleading. The Fifth Amendment doesn't permit Government anything, it limits the governments power.

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " This is not an invitation, it's a barrier.

There is no "Public Use" of the land in question, correct?

Also, you go to great lengths to claim this will help the area or revitalize it or whatever. None of this matters, it's not the point. It's also not what the case was brought to the SC for. No doubt it would help the area even more if the richest 2% in the town were forced to give the city council 80% of their wealth for public works, right? But would it violate their Constitutional rights? See the point?

It would benefit the area to round up the poor and ship them to DC, but it would violate their Constitutional rights, no?

You also say:

"If you read the decision, you will see that increasing tax revenue was not the sole justification for the city's economic redevelopment plan. "

Like I said, I don't care what the motivation and/or benefits are. It violates my rights and is hence...illegal. End of story, next case.


If we as a people think the government should have this right, we should amend the Constitution to say "may take and distribute to others, private property for the general benefit of the public".

But it doesn't, not even close actually. We are fukcing with a delicate system here and we will regret it.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by lendaddy

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. " This is not an invitation, it's a barrier.

There is no "Public Use" of the land in question, correct?

.

"just compensation"... there is no more "just compensation". Developers can now low bid the offer and threaten a law suit under eminent domain.

Transfer of property from one citizen to another is Not "Public Use".

There are now no limits of local goverments controling private RE property.

" I'm tired of typing my fingers off explaining this decision, when many people can't even be bothered to read the decision itself."

[Mule]

Thom said:
"Like I said in the other thread, maybe in a textbook, but they've figured out it's cheaper in both the long and short term to simply rent the politicians."

They must've also figured out that left wing politicians are cheaper to rent!!!!!

I think there was an email that went out or maybe an incoming message from the big giant head. "Cause every left wing meatball I've run into is trying their dead level best to spin this as a conservative decision. They even have different reasons why. But when you ask them why all the leftist / socialist judges voted for it they start chanting like the "moonies" used to do if you picked on them.

[Franklin]

I am a small time rancher in Colorado. A bigtime developer has announced his plans to build a toll road through or contingent to our property utilizing a 19th century law passed by the Colorado State Legislature to build the Pikes Peak Toll Road to condemn (steal?) our land.

This law permits him to confiscate land and buy it at "fair market value" for the 660 foot right of way for the highway and a two mile "conservation easement on both sides of the right of way. The Colorado House and Senate passed bills that would stop this land grab.

Our conservative Republican Governor, Bill Owens, waited to the end of the current legislative session and vetoed the bill. His rational was that the state couldn't afford to build highways so private industry should be permitted to steal peoples property to do so. The importance of the timing of the veto is that with the legislature out of session, they couldn't vote to overturn the veto.

This is neither conservative or "progressive" (is this the new PC term for pinko lefty liberals?) politics. This is simply politics as usual, rich *********s taking care of other rich *********s.

[gr8fl4porsche]

My original point is simple.

If you want private property for any purpose other than 'public use', you have to pay the owners what it takes to buy the property.

It doesn't matter if the area is blighted, condemned, ugly, smelly or covered with cow shiit. If you wanna play - you have to pay.

It is BS that the local gov's can pull this emminent domain crap to build strip malls and pay this so called 'fair market value'. The value of any item is what the buyer is willing to pay for it. The value of my house is determined once it is sold - anything prior to that is an estimation.

I am not opposed to building up areas - I am actually for it being in construction - but here in St. Louis, if you are a developer and want a chunk of the town - you can FORCE the current occupants out with the help of the local gov's and you as the developer determine the value of the compensation. We have a nice case going on right now where the local residents are fighting to retain their houses in a relatively affluent area.
This has nothing to do with public use - simply more strip malls in an area littered with Lowes, Home Depot, Walmart, Target, etc. All within a 1/2 mile of each other.

[techweenie]

Well, maybe this is what we have to look forward to. It's an excerpt from an article on China:

-----------------------------
There were more than 58,000 protests, many of them over land rights disputes, across the country in 2003, a Communist Party-backed magazine, Outlook, has reported.

This month, villagers in northern Hebei province protesting to keep their land were attacked by a group of armed hired toughs. Six farmers were killed and 48 injured in the ensuing battle.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Franklin
The Colorado House and Senate passed bills that would stop this land grab.

Our conservative Republican Governor, Bill Owens, waited to the end of the current legislative session and vetoed the bill. His rational was that the state couldn't afford to build highways so private industry should be permitted to steal peoples property to do so. The importance of the timing of the veto is that with the legislature out of session, they couldn't vote to overturn the veto.

John, your input is WAY too constructive. And those facts, they're not welcome here. This group wants to rail against someone, from their armchairs. Not just any 'someone.' The witch they want burned is the gubmint we all rely on. That's the easy scapegoat, and that's this group's agenda. Facts are too messy.

This above story is fascinating, particularly in light of our many discussions here including this one. Legislatures everywhere are scared to fund even the most basic and necessary infrastrutures because of the propaganda and mud-tossing out there. This is exactly what commercial interests want. They're building a toll bridge here in Tacoma. Sounds like Franklin's going to get a toll road. Those are going to be recognized as mistakes when we wake up and smell the coffee.

I say we build our own infrastructure, rather than having private business build it and rent it back to us. (but I guess, this kind of bonehead, idiotic concept is what makes me one of those crazy mixed up liberals) Cheaper if we build it ourselves. And if someone is going to argue that private construction is cheaper than public, well they'd better come armed with some data. Building roads is something gubmint has more experience with that private.

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by Franklin
I am a small time rancher in Colorado. A bigtime developer has announced his plans to build a toll road through or contingent to our property utilizing a 19th century law passed by the Colorado State Legislature to build the Pikes Peak Toll Road to condemn (steal?) our land.

Time for a cobalt nuclear bomb. I believe the land will be unusable for many years.

[lendaddy]

Sup,

I'm tired of this circular argument so just show me YOUR data. I think common sense will tell you government sucks at cost effective approaches, so show me how I'm wrong.
I'm honestly curious where/how you think the losses get made up. Here's a conversation you'll never see....

GUY1> "Man, did you see that team of county road workers back there? Man they were kickin asss!"

GUY2> "Heck yea man, those guys always take care of business, if only everyone had the work ethic of government employees this country would still be kicken Chinas butt"

GUY> "Damn straight!"

[Moneyguy1]

Len

I think the bottom line is government is always reactive rather than proactive.

As for government effectiveness, government is generally involved in jobs that the private sector is unwilling to take on. There is very little money to be made in private industry creating and owning an interstate, for example.

I worked with local governments for years and was involved in situations where the town/city would bid against private companies for things like refuse collection/disposal. In many cases, after review by an independent panel, the municipality was the lowest bidder!!

All arguments concerning private vs. public efficiency have points that can be made. I see very little in your argument s that are factual either. "Common sense" is neither, and does not equate to logic and fact. All situations are different and must be examined individually.

Cheers!! Rant on!!

[Superman]

Hey, I've seen county road workers leaning on shovels, as a method of road maintenance, as much as the next guy. But it's not those county road workers who build roads. It's private construction contractors. And the contract is administered by a state DOT. Contract administration is what separates the men from the boys when it comes to being efficient or inefficient. What's our smallest state? Rhode Island? I'll bet RI has ten times the experience at administering road-building contracts than the most experienced private company. If you hire a private company to do this, then besides not getting the experience you need, you're also putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. As much as you guys HATE gubmit (the same gubmint you own, by the way), I have never heard anyone seriously suggest that we place private companies in charge of counting and certifying election results. And for good reason. In your heart, you know you need to rely on gubmint. Too bad it's also your favorite hate target.

[lendaddy]

Yes, I know that gubmint doesn't actually build the roads, I am talking about long term maintence/upkeep. Loves me them road commissions, they is ALL about running lean

[Moneyguy1]

And when I was a consultant for Kodak, I saw technicians in R&D padding the backs of their chairs with foam and taking very long naps. I watched machinists working on "government projects", using company time and treasure. One difference is that the "private sector" can hide it better. There is abuse in every theatre of operation; it seems to be part of human nature.

Of course, one can argue that these are "unsubstantiated" observations and ask where is my data? Does that mean I need to post affidavits and photographic evidence? Does that mean that my word is not good enough or that I am lying? Better change the trial system since witnesses don't have irrefutable evidence...