<mini-gripe>If they were allowed to collect the speeding ticket fees there would be a line wanting to do it. Sat in the court room the other day with close to 150 people waiting to pay my random highway tax... and that was only the afternoon session. Majority of the tickets were $100 - $250. You do the math. </mini-gripe>

When your boss has no stake in your productivity.....................................

There have been independent studies that show government and private enterprise to be roughly equal in terms of efficiency.

The problem often is that the systems are FUBAR on both sides, and logic would suggest more hope of the eventual evolution of better systems within the private sector. However, this is more likely within small and medium-sized firms. "Conglomeratization" results in businesses that operate more like governmental departments.

And that's what I've asked for. I would love to see such an animal. It's oft discussed, rarely seen.

Tech..

You did kind of leave yourself open that time....

I would like to see such a study. I suppose because my experiences in both the private and public sectors are anecdotal to some.

sorry for the "progressive" confusion. Actually the terms liberal and conservative have changed through the years as defining a groups philosophy. Currently the wisdom in "PC term for pinko lefty liberals" is also correct in mass-media. If those words were to be used in England a different definition would also result. In the US, when relating to the US Constitution, a clearer and more timeless definition is "fundamentalist" or "strict constructionist" whose position is that the Constitution should be followed in text and spirit. In other words the Constitution is the Constitution of the US, period. The "progressive" position is that the Constitution is flawed and can be adjusted through the Supreme Court.

The Constitution also states that eminent domain can only be invoked when land is required for "public use". Public roads fit into the definition of public use. The Constitution's requirement of "just compensation" was trashed in the recent SC ruling concerning eminent domain by the progressives as I said in a previous post.

The SC ruling will benefit those citizens with influence and power in politics directly and indirectly harm those citizens seeking just compensation. In other wise wording "rich *********s taking care of other rich *********s." as I stated way way above.

Personally I think you're screwed by the fundamentalists and the progressives.

JYL, are you still there? Or have you fled the thread now that it's degenerated into the typical gubmint/no-gubmint diatribe?

Anyway, this is a regrettable decision, and a lousy ruling. Here's why.

There's no question that the Fifth Amendment contemplates the taking of private property for public use. If you see the world through a "Law and Economics- University of Chicago" lens, (one of which I have in my perceptive toolbox and the sheepskin to prove it, dammit) it makes sense: you want to avoid a "bilateral monopoly" wherein each side becomes a "holdout" because of the value of her property to the other.

Such were not the facts, however, in Kelo. Petitioners did NOT seek increased compensation, they wanted to keep their homes.

I don't get it, Pfizer, a big-business pharmaceutical corporation that so many on here have bashed in the past, erects a research facility, and then when the municipality takes private property adjacent to the facility for "public benefit" but not public use, you all think it's great?

Can one of you civil liberterians please explain how facilitating the process of the seizure of private property by the municipality in this way is additive to our "concept of ordered liberty" guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?

JYL, I haven't forgotten about you. Having read the opinions (all of them) I think the pivotal argument is what constitututes a permissible public use. I am NOT persuaded by the majority's determination to defer to the will of the municipality in deciding whether their proposed use meets the Constitutional test-- that's why we have a Supreme Court in the First Place. Or as Justice O'Connor put it, brilliantly,

Look out, all you property owners whose forty acres aren't being put to their highest and best use! Here comes the town council of local dimwits to take it away!

Do you know what I think the effect of this ruling will be? It will be to CATALYZE local politics, which isn't such a bad thing-- the importance of representation at the local level just got powerfully brought home to Mr. and Mrs. U.S.A.

Well, I don't consider these discussions to be a game, so instead of 'leaving myself open' I was simply not that interested in Googling up the studies.

I figured either people would discount it before seeing or possibly cite them, themselves. If I really had a dog in this fight, I might spend the time, but I'm killing time between meetings...

I would figure Sup to have a copy of such a study framed on his wall:)

Don't be silly, Len. I don't have the wall space so I've vound them in leather and stacked them near the fax machine. I'm kidding, of course. And I'm rushing to get some things done before my flight. But I'm interested too. The difference is that you are convinced that there is no way a gubmint agency can be anywhere near as efficient as a private company....and I think it would be challenging for a private company which has a built-in inefficiency (the need to privide a return to stockholders over and above service "costs") to match gubmint's nonprofit efficiency. And as I've reported, I have seen gubmint workers put their heart and soul into their jobs, producing surprising work volumes. No kidding.

I think John and some others have touched on the key here. John may be right. It may have been the duty of the Court to determine that this kind of gubmint benefit does not "clear the bar" set by the Constitution. But again, this would have gotten the Court into the future business of determining precisely where the line is drawn, in a very grey area. Potentially, the facts of the case could include physical geographical limitations for the municipality. That is, it could be that the property in question in one of these cases might be the only property where this economic revitalization can possible occur, to save the municipality from economic death. In which case, it comes down to the interests of a few private land owners versus the interests of the municipality to survive. Just hypothetically. I'm still pointing out that these decisions are not so easy as they seem on their face.

What seems so fantastically obvious to you, Len, that this is clearly a liberal, socialist gubmint agency abusing their power to shove communism down America's throats, is not my vision. Yeah, maybe that's what happened, at least in part. But what you dismiss categorically, I still suspect more than anything. And that is the observation that commercial interests are organized and have colossal political resources. I think this was business' decision, with some gubmint representative as the pawn on the board. I have seen, time and again, gubmint bodies cower at and yield to the crushing political clout of business "associations."

But I can tell you this: From one apparently rabid liberal (or so you guys think), if you guys are defending the rights and lives and freedoms of citizens vis-s-vis corporate or commercial interests, you've got me in your corner with you. But I'm just not as smart as you guys. What seems to be an absurdly easy analysis for you guys, to me simply raises more questions.

I'm still here. Or rather, I'm back, after having spent the day - sigh - working for a living.

On a rational informed level of discussion: I do think the lower courts need more guidance on how to test whether economic development qualifies as a "public use". The majority opinion didn't give that guidance, and ideally it would have. After Kelo, the law stands in a sort of unclear middle ground.

The majority opinion did not (contrary to Justice O'Connor's dissent) say that property may be taken by eminent domain simply to put it to a use that generates more tax revenue - so it didn't endorse that extreme position. But the Court also did not (contrary to the petitioners' request) say that in no case can economic redevelopment ever qualify as a "public use" - so it didn't endorse the other extreme position either.

Perhaps the majority didn't set forth a detailed set of guidelines because, when you think about it, it would be very hard to do so assuming you wanted to preserve the ability to use eminent domain in situations like redeveloping a blighted urban slum neighborhood (the Berman case).

Justice O'Connor tried to get around the Berman problem by proposing the test that economic development is a "public use" only when the property is causing harm to the community, which she said would include a slum but not a middle-class home. I'd call this the "is it a nuisance?" test.

Why didn't the majority go along with her? Perhaps because they felt that elected governments should have the power to make tough decisions and do difficult things in the public interest - beyond simply abating nuisances.

Take the Kelo case. A slowly dying city has a chance to remake itself and generate potentially several thousand jobs for its citizens. The cost is that nine people must accept just compensation for ten family homes and five investment properties. Is this such a crazy idea? Suppose it were one family home? Should one person be able to prevent the revitalization of a whole city?

I can see why the majority didn't want to, or couldn't, make an absolute, "bright-line" rule. Even though I wish they could have given lower courts some better guidance.

I do agree that this decision may lead to more public attention to the use of eminent domain, and even to local laws that restrict abuse of the power. That would be a good thing.

BTW, here is an interesting viewpoint on the case, somewhat different from mine:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1702891

Now, on an uninformed irrational level of discussion: Len, with apologies in advance, on this particular issue you are a crackpot wearing a tin-foil hat.

Okay, that was a pretty rude thing to say. Why'd I say it?

Look, I am a pretty pragmatic person. I think that the point of understanding a law (or any similar thing) is to be able to change it, use it, influence it, etc - in other words, to do something practical with it.

Since you are so worked up about this, let's suppose you decide you actually want to do something about the power of eminent domain. Maybe get a law passed limiting your local government's ability to use the power or maybe to defeat a particular eminent domain case.

If you start off by loudly insisting that there is no power of eminent domain recognized in the US Constitution, you have just shot yourself in the foot before you've taken even one step. It really doesn't matter how convinced you are, or whether God or Mohammed or the Man on the Moon told you you were right. Because every single person - at least, every judge, lawyer, regulator, legislator, executive, or other person who has any of the authority or power or influence that you must harness to accomplish your goal - acknowledges that there is such a thing as a power of eminent domain and that there are fifty State Constitutions and two centuries of Supreme Court rulings discussing it. You get tossed out of the building and you can harangue passerby on the sidewalk, but you don't accomplish a thing.

So, go ahead and tell us that the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution does not establish a governmental power of eminent domain. Write it on a neocon blog, tell all your friends, argue it here on PP. While you're at it, tell us that the government doesn't have the right to collect taxes, and similar ideas. You're wasting your breath.

I think this is unfortunately true. My job is analyzing companies to determine if we should buy their stocks. I've seen such screwed-up things in companies that some people would swear only happen in government.

Here's one. A large company desperately needs to cut its cost structure to return to profitability, because its market and its sales have shrunk by 50% and that's not going to change. So, every quarter, management trims a thousand or a few thousand employees from the payrolls. Yet the operating expense doesn't go down. What the heck? Guess what. The company's full-time equivalent headcount has in fact been cut from 40,000 employees to 30,000 employees. But when an employee is laid off and collects his severance, he gets hired back as a contractor, so that now the company has 10,000 contractors. 30,000 + 10,000 = 40,000. No change.

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com
Texas limits eminent domain use. Good for them. Have you pinged your state govt abouit this yet?

July 18, 2005, 9:09AM

THE LEGISLATURE

House approves limits on eminent domain use

By POLLY ROSS HUGHES
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau

RESOURCES
• Complete coverage: See more stories and resources on the 79th Texas Legislature from the Houston Chronicle.
AUSTIN - Private property owners would be protected from state and local governments seizing their land for economic development purposes under a bill overwhelmingly approved by the Texas House Sunday night.

The bill, drafted in response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing eminent domain seizures for economic development projects, gained final passage 136-0.

Earlier Sunday, the House also gave final passage to legislation allowing phone companies to offer enhanced TV services throughout Texas, which one report shows will create 12,000 new jobs and $1.8 billion in ongoing annual investments.

The House version of the eminent domain bill was amended to stop the city of Freeport from seizing waterfront land from a family-owned shrimping company to make way for a private marina project.

The Senate has passed similar legislation, but differences must be worked out in a conference committee before midnight Wednesday when the special session ends.

The House bill also requires local approval from county commissioners courts for state use of eminent domain to seize land for gas stations, convenience stores, hotels and other commercial enterprises in the median of the Trans-Texas Corridor, Gov. Rick Perry's ambitious toll road project.

House sponsor Rep. Beverly Woolley, R-Houston, said the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. New London, Conn., "harms what we hold dear in Texas, the protection of private property rights."

That decision ruled in favor of the city of New London, which condemned 15 private properties for an economic development involving a private corporation.

"Ultimately, what the court decision said is, you are allowed to own property, pay your mortgage, pay your taxes and you can keep your private property until someone offers to pay more taxes on that property," Woolley said. "This decision has shocked and alarmed property owners across the country."

The Supreme Court, in making its decision, specifically said state legislatures and other local governments are free to restrict the use of eminent domain further if they don't want to allow its use for private economic development purposes.

Perry added the eminent domain issue to the special session's agenda after a flood of calls and letters from Texans seeking private property rights.

The House approved several other amendments,including one by Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, requiring governments to pay replacement value to property owners in certain land seizures.

Rep. Will Hartnett, R-Dallas, protested that the change would affect nearly every eminent domain seizure in Texas and undo 50 years of eminent domain law.

Corte, however, argued property owners have little say when governments seize their land, so it is only fair they get reimbursed for replacing it.

"Did those people ask to have their land taken away? No, they did not," he said.

The bill, which was passed in the Senate 25-4 before the House amended it, makes clear that eminent domain can be used for traditional purposes such as railroads, public roads, utility services, water and wastewater projects and drainage projects. It would allow economic development seizures if the land is blighted and harmful to the public.

The bill allowing phone companies to compete with cable companies will also return to the Senate because it was amended in the House.

It allows companies that want to offer TV services to get a statewide franchise starting in September. In return, the companies would pay a fee based on their gross revenues.

Yes, thankfully our state legislature got something right this time.

And timely too!

Must be in their own best interest....