Mall > your house

[MoreWineII]

High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[jakethebake]

This is the beginning of the end.

[bronzepiglet]

I wonder if they'll set up a Bed, Bath, & Beyond in that crack house down the street...

[MoreWineII]

I think this is the best line:

"Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities"

k.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the best line:

"Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities"

k.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really wish you hadn't posted this. I'm really pissed off .

edit: Hopefully a few police standoffs will at least curtail this severe trampling of individual property rights.

[poker-penguin]

Holy crap.

That's just nuts. I'd read something about this happening in lower courts before.

How long before other aspects of fuedalism are brought back?

[MoreWineII]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the best line:

"Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities"

k.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really wish you hadn't posted this. I'm really pissed off .

edit: Hopefully a few police standoffs will at least curtail this severe trampling of individual property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my first reaction: if somebody tried to take the home I'd lived in for however many years to in order to build a [censored] mall, I'd be prepared to go down fightin'. And even though I'd probably chicken out and give up the house without a fight, I bet there are a ton of people who wouldn't.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
That was my first reaction: if somebody tried to take the home I'd lived in for however many years to in order to build a [censored] mall, I'd be prepared to go down fightin'. And even though I'd probably chicken out and give up the house without a fight, I bet there are a ton of people who wouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're getting closer and closer to it being time to have another tea party.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet there are a ton of people who wouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never fired a gun in my life, but I'd shoot someone in the face over this.

[DMBFan23]

I just read this on washingtonpost.com, and [censored] that.

I also think the line about gov't knowing what's best was hilarious...

what's next, prima nocta? (braveheart reference)

[CollinEstes]

The gov't has always had the power to buy your house from you (weather you like it or not) to build a road or highway, Right of Way I believe. But this is pretty stupid.

[Mr_Gordon]

[ QUOTE ]
The gov't has always had the power to buy your house from you ( <font color="red">weather </font> you like it or not) to build a road or highway, Right of Way I believe. But this is pretty stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe the government should spend more time on education than building malls...

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the government should spend more time on education than building malls...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The government needs to be in charge of education so they can teach everyone from a very young age why they should give up their houses for malls.

[CollinEstes]

Ouch that was sad. Maybe they should.

[DMBFan23]

yeah eminent domain, for public use (hospital, road, whatever)

but the economic development thing is [censored] ridiculous

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
The gov't has always had the power to buy your house from you (weather [sic] you like it or not) to build a road or highway, Right of Way I believe. But this is pretty stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. It's been legal all along.
It's just that rececntly cities are doing it to help business rather than traffic or schools or such...

There was a big article about it in Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/01/01_407.html) a while ago.

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bet there are a ton of people who wouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never fired a gun in my life, but I'd shoot someone in the face over this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Over property?

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? Over property?

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights are the difference between freedom and slavery.

edit: what the hell do you think the American Revolution was fought over?

[jakethebake]

This pissed me off enough that I felt compelled to respond, but it really should be in Politics.

[CollinEstes]

There was a guy where I live in Houston that had to have his 100 year old barn torn down to make way for a new toll road. He lived there and also ran a buisness out of it. I would hope he would at least get to drive on it for free, but I doubt it.

[squeek12]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The gov't has always had the power to buy your house from you ( <font color="red">weather </font> you like it or not) to build a road or highway, Right of Way I believe. But this is pretty stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe the government should spend more time on education than building malls...

[/ QUOTE ]

The government should only spend time doing two things:

1) Protecting private property rights.

2) Defending its citizens from foreign invaders.

Free market&gt;&gt;&gt;Government

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
The government should only spend time doing two things:

1) Protecting private property rights.

2) Defending its citizens from foreign invaders.

Free market&gt;&gt;&gt;Government

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

[JaBlue]

[ QUOTE ]

Free market&gt;&gt;&gt;Government


[/ QUOTE ]

Great Depression

[STLantny]

Wait a sec, the judges who voted against are republican/conservative-types, I always thought it was the dems who claimed to be on the side of the little people.

[KingDan]

What site was this off of?

[spamuell]

Property rights are the difference between freedom and slavery.

Proudhon and I disagree. Please explain how.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Free market&gt;&gt;&gt;Government


[/ QUOTE ]
Great Depression

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

[/ QUOTE ]

[squeek12]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Free market&gt;&gt;&gt;Government


[/ QUOTE ]

Great Depression

[/ QUOTE ]

This debate always gets my blood boiling, so this will be my only reply to this. If the government hadn't stepped in and starting tampering with the market via price controls, regulations, etc., we would only know it as "a recession," not " The Great Depression."

Sometimes the market will experience a hiccup, but if left to cure itself, it will surely be short-lived. It's when government tries to "fix" the market that we get depressions, inflation, etc.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Property rights are the difference between freedom and slavery.

Proudhon and I disagree. Please explain how.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certainly no wordsmith so I'm not really very good with making these arguments but i'll give it a shot.

A couple of ways. First, your property becomes yours through your labor. Whether it's taken from you concurrent with performance of the labor or after the fact, you still performed labor for someone else against your will. If you are deprived of the fruits of your labor against your will, you're a slave in a very real sense.

Second, your property is an extension of your self. If a man is the sum of his actions, certainly his labor, and the fruits of that labor are a part of him in a way. By stripping him of his property, you're degrading him.

edit: again, this doesn't really belong in 00t. apologies. i won't post to the thread again.

[NoTalent]

This is 100% correct.

What has been going on for the last 6 years or so after the tech bubble is analagous to having a fire on the first floor of a building and instead of wasting the money to put it out--you simply go to the second floor. When it spreads up, you move up to the 3rd floor and so on. One day you are actually going to have to fix the problem and it isn't going to be pretty.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is the best line:

"Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities"

k.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really wish you hadn't posted this. I'm really pissed off .

edit: Hopefully a few police standoffs will at least curtail this severe trampling of individual property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my first reaction: if somebody tried to take the home I'd lived in for however many years to in order to build a [censored] mall, I'd be prepared to go down fightin'. And even though I'd probably chicken out and give up the house without a fight, I bet there are a ton of people who wouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to see one of these guys pin the bill of rights to his chest, drape himself in an american flag, and defend his home with a shotgun.

[spamuell]

I agree this should be in politics but it's here so whatever.

First, your property becomes yours through your labor. Whether it's taken from you concurrent with performance of the labor or after the fact, you still performed labor for someone else against your will. If you are deprived of the fruits of your labor against your will, you're a slave in a very real sense.

I disagree. Money is the fruit of your labour, provided you are reimbursed for your property then you have not performed labour with no benefit. Anyway, even if what you're saying was the case, this wouldn't mean that property is the difference between freedom and slavery, it would mean lack of choice is. Which is obviously true. Property is not the same as having rights, and I would argue (while you'd probably disagree) that politics is not an innate right.

Second, your property is an extension of your self. If a man is the sum of his actions, certainly his labor, and the fruits of that labor are a part of him in a way. By stripping him of his property, you're degrading him.

Property is just stuff you own. It has sentimental value but to define it as part of you is ridiculous. If someone takes your toothbrush and gives you the monetary value of it, are they robbing you of an essential part of who you are?

Not that I would want private enterprises to be able to buy someone's property while they have no choice, but this is to do with the right not to be forced to do something for the benefit of a non-state body rather than to do with the sanctity of property.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah eminent domain, for public use (hospital, road, whatever)

but the economic development thing is [censored] ridiculous


[/ QUOTE ]

what do you think the primary "public use" justification for most eminent domain proceedings is?

here's a hint? where do you think all those people driving on those roads are going every monring and night? why do you think the Gov takes land for phone/cable/internet backbone lines/railroads? or for housing redevelopment?

eminent domain has always been about economic development, this decision is just an extension of existing doctrine. its not earthshattering or even surpising, its the expected result.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? Over property?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends. I mean, I just bought my first house about a year ago. I have worked hard for the past 5 or 6 years to buy it.

If they offered me twice what it's worth, I might be okay with it, but I suspect they'd probably lowball me.

*edit* I assume they offer you some compensation, no? Or do they just flat take it and pwn you?

[spamuell]

*edit* I assume they offer you some compensation, no? Or do they just flat take it and pwn you?

I also assumed they'd give you compensation. I really don't see them just taking your house and giving you nothing, even in America.

[J.R.]

do you guys even bother to read the "decisions" you so vehemently criticize, how can you own a home and not be aware of this stuff.

yes, they pay you "fair market value", although that's something that often gets contested in appraisal hearings as the two sides often have divergent perspectives on fair and market value.

do you know what property rights you purchased when you bought your house? remember those encumbrances on your title and your dealings with the title insurance company?

[PhatTBoll]

More goodies:

[ QUOTE ]
"A tenant in my New London apartment building found himself being locked inside: someone was padlocking his door from the outside," Bill explained. "That same day, in the middle of January, the NLDC forced my tenants out into the street in their stocking feet. I wish I could say that these were pranks, but these was deliberate acts by my town's government and a private development corporation to make property owners like me give up what is rightfully ours."

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Jim said, "When they tore down the home next to ours, the heavy equipment the NLDC operators were using lost control of the building and it slammed into my home, right where my wife and daughter were in the kitchen. It could have been disastrous. The scar left from their negligence is still on the side of our home to this day."

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Michael said, "This is the second time someone from my family may have to move because the government wants to take their home for another private party. Early in the 1970s, the City of New London told us they were taking our home for a sea wall. That wall was never built there but a private development was. If that can happen to us twice, it can happen to anyone, anywhere, not just here in Connecticut. Basically, it's homeowner beware.

[/ QUOTE ]
Link (http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/con_property_backgrounder.html)

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
"fair market value",

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, my home has an "appraised value" and a "market value" that are very far out of touch with real values.

The appraised value is $100k less than what it would actually sell for. The market value is $60k less than it would actually sell for.

I guarantee they hose you on these things.

[trevorwc]

Very interesting article. Something similar happened in Minneapolis several years ago. I don't know how much of a fight was put up, but the city (I believe it was either Bloomington or Richfield) used the power of imminent domain to force a car dealership and several other businesses to sell their property to Best Buy so they could build their corporate offices there. So in this case, it was big business &gt; small business, not mall &gt; home - but same idea - and it is wrong, IMO.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
although that's something that often gets contested in appraisal hearings as the two sides often have divergent perspectives on fair and market value.


[/ QUOTE ]

you read so good.

[MoreWineII]

Huh, I didn't even know there was a politics board, how 'bout that. I like your guys' responses better though.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Huh, I didn't even know there was a politics board, how 'bout that. I like your guys' responses better though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do tell how one amasses 2788 posts without knowing there's a politics forum.

[crookedhat99]

Now that you guys have seen the misuse of emminent domain, here is (what I think) is reasonable use of it. link (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/shows/dammed/debate.html)

Developing countries could have a need for emminent domain. But in the US, its propensity to be misused makes it pointless and anti-constitutional, as we don't have a lot of the special needs that developing countries have.

To sum it up, in the US, the -EV of the possible misuse outweighs the +EV of what the emminent domain is used for.

In developing countries the +EV of what emminent domain is used for outweighs the -EV of possible misuse.

[MoreWineII]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Huh, I didn't even know there was a politics board, how 'bout that. I like your guys' responses better though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do tell how one amasses 2788 posts without knowing there's a politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Laziness and ignorance.

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yeah eminent domain, for public use (hospital, road, whatever)

but the economic development thing is [censored] ridiculous


[/ QUOTE ]



what do you think the primary "public use" justification for most eminent domain proceedings is?

here's a hint? where do you think all those people driving on those roads are going every monring and night? why do you think the Gov takes land for phone/cable/internet backbone lines/railroads? or for housing redevelopment?

eminent domain has always been about economic development, this decision is just an extension of existing doctrine. its not earthshattering or even surpising, its the expected result.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is a good point J.R., but now instead of building a highway somewhere, they now have the option to put "somewhere" where my house was, as well as retaining the highway rights. although it all serves the same higher purpose (development, progress, $), it reduces (to a varying degree) personal property rights, which don't jive well with me. I can't get into that debate cause people believe what they believe, you know?

in addition it makes more about the "evil corporation" and less about "doing a service for the community"

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Huh, I didn't even know there was a politics board, how 'bout that. I like your guys' responses better though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do tell how one amasses 2788 posts without knowing there's a politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Laziness and ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

A winning combination*!



*The politics forum sucks anwyay.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
What site was this off of?

[/ QUOTE ]]

It's all over the news. Just google news it.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Huh, I didn't even know there was a politics board, how 'bout that. I like your guys' responses better though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do tell how one amasses 2788 posts without knowing there's a politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Laziness and ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

A winning combination*!



*The politics forum sucks anwyay.

[/ QUOTE ]
It does suck, but it is ground central for ignorance.

[J.R.]

my point is not that the goal or aim of economic development is right or desirable or fair, but that this "economic development" justification has generally been accepted and used as the basis for eminient domain takings for some time, so I don't think the supreme court's opinion is as novel or groundbreaking as the media makes it out to be, its just a natural extension of existing doctrine.

the probelm is the decision vests too much discretion in local jurisdictions, so now states have to pass laws to protect homeowners or they will get screwed by walmarts and other big retail companies who can exert enourmous pressure on local goverments given the bigtime tax revenues such business can provide to a community.

[MoreWineII]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Huh, I didn't even know there was a politics board, how 'bout that. I like your guys' responses better though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do tell how one amasses 2788 posts without knowing there's a politics forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Laziness and ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

A winning combination*!



*The politics forum sucks anwyay.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my experience, most political message boards do. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
I would love to see one of these guys pin the bill of rights to his chest, drape himself in an american flag, and defend his home with a shotgun.


[/ QUOTE ]


...yelling the words of Benjamin Franklin:

Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.

[JaBlue]

[ QUOTE ]

Sometimes the market will experience a hiccup, but if left to cure itself, it will surely be short-lived. It's when government tries to "fix" the market that we get depressions, inflation, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you please tell me how the depression was corrected?

[squeek12]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sometimes the market will experience a hiccup, but if left to cure itself, it will surely be short-lived. It's when government tries to "fix" the market that we get depressions, inflation, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you please tell me how the depression was corrected?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't want to even try to explain austro-libertarian macroeconomic theory in this setting. I might lose what very little street cred I have...Well, I don't think I have any cred, but still don't want to explain anyway.

[usmfan]

[ QUOTE ]

yes, they pay you "fair market value", although that's something that often gets contested in appraisal hearings as the two sides often have divergent perspectives on fair and market value.


[/ QUOTE ]

One thing not mentioned is that many states provide for compensation based on the FMV of the property as it existed before the condemnation. I.e., its value as farmland. But what they should really be paying is the value of the land at its intended use. I.e., the value of the land as it would sit next to that new strip mall or interstate.

I'm really disappointed by the justices who wrote this opinion. Traditionally, there has to have been some type of "public purpose" for eminent domain. While an argument can be made that economic development is public in and of itself, this is not some kind of government run economic development. This is the gov't. seizing the property for the benefit of a private corporation, requiring only FMV compensation to the landowner. As an aside, my experience has been that owners usually get the shaft after the compensation award minus atty fees and expert witness costs.

If you don't feel Wal-Mart breathing down your neck yet for their new supercenter, you better look behind you. Hopefully, states will enact more stringent eminent domain legislation since individual property rights no longer mean much in federal gov't.

[JaBlue]

I consider myself liberterian but it is hard to deny history, my friend.

[squeek12]

[ QUOTE ]
I consider myself liberterian but it is hard to deny history, my friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that the economy rebounded despite government intervention, not because of it. The complete argument is just too complex to do it justice here. Great minds are in constant disagreement about how much if any gov't involvement is good for the economy. I doubt we would convince each other either way.

I'm just happy to see that so many are truly interested in economics.

[benjdm]

I would love to see one of these guys set up some kind of 'poison pill' for after they get the house and land. No idea what that could be though. Buried hazardous material ?

[zephed]

[ QUOTE ]
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

[/ QUOTE ]
Good quote, and I think it applies to all sides.

Our rights are being eroded in the name of national security, gun "control"/law enforcement, patriotism and "moral values". I'm sure y'all can think of others.

I want my due process, right to bear arms, freedom to dissent, and right to decide what is "decent" for myself.

[MoreWineII]

I think an aspect of the issue that hasn't really been discussed is ...what about my moving costs and the stress and hassle of moving?

Who's gonna compensate me for that?

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I think an aspect of the issue that hasn't really been discussed is ...what about my moving costs and the stress and hassle of moving?

Who's gonna compensate me for that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention lawyer fees, court time, annoyance of having to dicker over what fair market value is.