Group Tries to Evict [SC Justice] Souter From Home

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060121/ap_on_re_us/hotel_souter;_ylt=AiE5As5ZUelHACu7waJpTtms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

Group Tries to Evict Souter From Home

By KATHY McCORMACK, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 18 minutes ago

Angered by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that sided with a Connecticut city that wanted to seize homes for economic development, a group of activists is trying to get one of the justices who voted for the decision evicted from his own home.

The group, led by a California man, wants Justice David Souter's home seized for the purpose of building an inn called "Lost Liberty Hotel."

They submitted enough petition signatures — only 25 were needed — to bring the matter before voters in March. This weekend, they're descending on Souter's hometown, the central New Hampshire town of Weare, population 8,500, to rally for support.

"This is in the tradition of the Boston Tea Party and the Pine Tree Riot," organizer Logan Darrow Clements said, referring to the riot that took place during the winter of 1771-1772, when colonists in Weare beat up officials appointed by King George III who fined them for logging white pines without approval.

[ixion]

1. good, I hope it works

that was one of the worst rulings ever by SCOTUS. :grr:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. Actually, it wasn't

It functionally didn't change anything in land law. People who didn't understand the ruling got all worked up about it, betraying their lack of understanding.

Harassing a Supreme Court Justice - only one - at his home is a certain kind of free speech, and I applaud the spirit behind it, but, if the people who are upset had taken the time to read and to understand the ruling and its implications, they'd realize that their cause is groundless, but their ignorance appears to be boundless.

[jimbot]

7. Actually, if they are successful

Won't it support that it was a lousy decision? If any group, for political reason can be successful in removing someone from their home to prove that the decision was lousy and they are successful, I think it is proof that the ruling was flawed.

While I don't admire most of their political beliefs, I applaud their efforts.

--JT

[jimbot]

8. Woot! I just noted post 100 :)

A little slow (I've been a member for several years) :(
--JT

[JusticeForAll]

23. Congrats!

I'm a little slow too...I've been a member since nearly the beginning...not yet at a thousand!


I don't know the details of the ruling, but it is interesting and appealing to be able to subject a ruler to his findings (with or without merit)

By analogy, and on a very different note, after Bush leaves office, I think we should follow Bush around with cameras detailing every part of his life just like Jim Carrey's "The Truman Show" to show Bush how much we miss our own privacy.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

15. Next time

they don't like a doctor's diagnosis, I assume they'll attack his home, or, at the very least, his neighborhood.

They're uninformed yahoos with shit for brains.

[ret5hd]

85. for a lawyer, you sure use faulty analogys...

to compare a diagnosis of physical fact to a finding of amorphous law...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

88. Oh, yeah?

But at least I can spell analogies.

So there..........

[ret5hd]

90. but i don't claim to be a spelling instructor, do i? n/t

[msanthrope]

11. Exactly right--I can't tell you how many times I have

explained to friends, family, and ranting acquantencies that 'Kelo' is not earth shattering; it merely restates precedent.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

14. I have, too,

and, consistently, I've failed to make what is a very simple statement of fact understandable to people who seem to be propelled by a kind of rage that has nothing to do with land use.

So, I gave up. That's what I get for not charging them. <snort>

But, people sometimes need to get these things out of their systems. What they're pulling on Justice Souter, a decent and extraordinarily dedicated and competent Justice, is shameful, and I surely do hope that the good residents of that town show them how free speech really works when it's reduced to singling out someone for doing his job.

[The Backlash Cometh]

22. I have to disagree.

I know what Souter was thinking. If we were run by a benevolent government, money being spent to revitalize blighted areas would be a good use of government power. But when you have the chamber of commerce members controlling the local board of commissions, it is chaos at the expense of the public. Horrible, horrible developmental ideas get passed through at the expense of the public.

So you have theory competing with reality.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

28. What reality?

Yours?

You know what people are thinking?

Well, good for you, but the fact remains that Kelo changed nothing.

You really know what people are thinking? That's so handy, I'll bet. Unfortunately, in any judicial decision, all you have to work with are the written words in the opinion.

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. You're kidding, right?

Three years of interacting with City Hall makes me an expert. Reviewed $5000.00 worth of public records. You want to know what's scary? They break federal law all the time, just daring people to spend the $10,000 plus to sue them. Now they won't have to because all the dirty things they've been doing is now condoned by the Supreme Court.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

49. Apples and oranges

I'm talking about a Supreme Court decision.

No, I would never kid about anyone who claims to be able to read a Justice's mind. I think that's a powerful tool that comes in handy.

As for costing ten grand to sue someone, well, I've never heard of filing fees that high.

As I said, the Kelo decision changed nothing. Nothing at all.

Translating your experience with City Hall into divining the reasoning behind one Justice's opinion in a case is a dangerous, and, ultimately, erroneous path to take.

I like your screen name.

[The Backlash Cometh]

53. Filing fees...

It would be extremely expensive to take down City Hall. There are so many law firms & judges in the area that are tied to the decisions made in City Hall, that it becomes a geometric domino effect. You can't even look for local legal representation without taking the risk of divulging information to a lawyer who has a conflct of interest. But they won't tell you. I once tried three and came close to filing a complaint with the Florida Bar. One turned out to be close friends with the good ole boys who were trying to take over our common grounds; one already had a run in with City Hall and was looking for a reason to redeem herself; and the third represented the Association that I might have ultimately had to sue.

I spent just $500.00 to have someone write a letter on his letterhead to tell my Association board that they should have open meetngs. Long convulted, multi-layered story. $10,000.00 is a modest estimate.

And I don't really care what was on Souter's mind. I only care about the effect it will have on us who just happen to be in the way.

[tn-guy]

50. I beg to differ

From the Bill of Rights, Amendment 5: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The use that the property was to be put to in the Kelo case was clearly not public<\b> use. The property will be put to the private use of whoever purchases the redeveloped property. If one wishes to see the results of an expansive reading of the Constitution that deviates from the original meaning, one need look not further than Kelo.

[Charlie Brown]

51. and you are on the same team as Alito and the Christian Right

Many cities do not have the option of boosting their economies without the help of outside organizations. You're asking the citizens of New London to swelter in deplorable economic conditions without the opportunity at urban reclamation and private cooperation. That can't be what the Founders envisioned when they ratified the Bill of Rights to protect citizens from a large FEDERAL government.

[OrwellwasRight]

62. "swelter in deplorable economic conditions"?

Please...

The whole point is that the area was not blighted -- in fact, there was nothing wrong with it.

It is not the fault of a few homeowners that developers aren't interested in investing in New London unless they can get property already occupied by someone. That is greed and power mongering, not some kind of public service.

And don't tell me that disagreeing with this case is being a tool of the Christian Right. This decision is nothing but another sell-out to the monied interests. If Wal-Mart, Exxon, or McDonald's wants ANT piece of property now, they'll get it. All it will take is a few dollars contributed to the campaign of the local mayor and city council.

[Charlie Brown]

64. are you from New London?

almost all the info I've read has stated that it was in a recession, and was looking for a way to boost the city's economy. Do you know something I do not?

"If Wal-Mart, Exxon, or McDonald's wants ANT piece of property now, they'll get it. All it will take is a few dollars contributed to the campaign of the local mayor and city council."

Could they not also do this with Federal representatives and Judical lobbyists? How is your solution of using the Federal Gov't to stop this activity going to stop the sway of corporations in politics?

I'd rather this decision rested with those closest to the community affected than with some bureaucratic Supreme Court or autocratic Federal Representatives. That is what Stevens' decision guarantees.

If you get the Fed Courts to step on the toes of local and state gov'ts, they could also ban gay marriage, abortion, and affirmitive action where it is legal. Not a very attractive precedent.

'It is not the fault of a few homeowners that developers aren't interested in investing in New London unless they can get property already occupied by someone. That is greed and power mongering, not some kind of public service."

It's also perfectly legal under the Fed Constitution and in Connecticut. Personal disagreements with another town's gov't does not always equal illegality.

[OrwellwasRight]

71. All you have to do is read ONE article on the decision

(and I have read several in addition to the decision itself) to recognize that the property condemned was not blighted and had no problems. The property just happened to be in a desirable location for the new hotel-retail complex and the folks who owned there declined to sell because they knew they could never afford as nice a property somewhere else.

From the decision:

Petitioner Susette Kelo has lived in the Fort Trumbull area since 1997. She has made extensive improvements to her house, which she prizes for its water view. Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery was born in her Fort Trumbull house in 1918 and has lived there her entire life. Her husband Charles (also a petitioner) has lived in the house since they married some 60 years ago. In all, the nine petitioners own 15 properties in Fort Trumbull—4 in parcel 3 of the development plan and 11 in parcel 4A. Ten of the parcels are occupied by the owner or a family member; the other five are held as investment properties. There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area.

Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. ____, ___ (2005) (slip op. at 4-5) (emphasis added).

As to your claim that "my solution" is to use the "federal gov't to stop this activity," well I would think a member of DU would be a little more versed in how the Constitution works. Local government are required to abide by the Constitution (in this case, the 5th Amendment). A decision by the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution and declares one action or another unConstitutional is the Supreme Court's job, not some abuse of federal power. If you disagree, then by extension, your argument implies that the Supreme Court should should allow local governments to violate the 4th amendment and perform illegal searches, violate the 8th amendment and perform cruel and unusual punishment, etc.. Surely you aren't arguing that?

My solution is that the Supreme Court should have made a correct decision on the 5th Amendment and required a true public purpose, not a private profit motive. And no, such an opinion as I would have preferred would not "stop the sway of corporations in politics." I never argued it would. But it would ensure that corporations could no longer direct local governments to seize private property and hand it over to the corporations. And that would have been the better decision for the people of New London and all of us.

[Charlie Brown]

80. RE

"A decision by the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution and declares one action or another unConstitutional is the Supreme Court's job, not some abuse of federal power. If you disagree, then by extension, your argument implies that the Supreme Court should should allow local governments to violate the 4th amendment and perform illegal searches, violate the 8th amendment and perform cruel and unusual punishment, etc.. Surely you aren't arguing that?"

Here is the relevant portion of the Fifth:

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

All it really says is that individuals must be compensated if their property is seized. There is no mention of when and how communities can and can't seize property (except that it has to be with "due process") Presumably, it must be for a reason that benefits everyone, but who decides what that is? Stevens, Souter, etc.?

Privacy and free speech apply to all citizens thru the Fourteenth Amendment. Not so with property, as there are plenty of legitimate reasons that eminent domain could be used.

The only way to protect the interests of each and every community (they're all so different, it would be impossible to adopt a uniform status or "lemon test" here), is to leave it on the local level, and away from bureaucrats.

[OrwellwasRight]

83. "for public use"

The Supreme Court has and will continue to determine what public use is. Kelo did not refrain for determining it. It affirmed that handing property over to private parties is a legitimate public use. It did not just "leave up to the local level." It affirmed a broad and almost limitless definition of it, greatly expanding local power (and not just over property owners, but over renters--like me--whose apartment buildings might be appropriated at any time).

[noamnety]

96. My sister is in New London

and I've been out there and had a look around.

This is the kelo house - hardly a blight on the city:


The biggest blight in the area is the previous eminent domain case they had there - in which some of the SAME people were displaced. Every time they buy a house, the city finds a way to kick them out. In the previous case, the land was seized, people were kicked out of their homes, and then --- the development was mysteriously dropped. And it will be mysteriously dropped this time as well, because as anyone living in the area can tell you, they aren't really going to build their fancy waterfront development there. Why? Because that particular section of town is downwind from a sewage plant. On a bad day, it literally smells like shit.

The previously seized land was just turned into urban prairie, and the city is making LESS money than they were before, because now there are neither homes nor businesses bringing in tax revenues. Huge areas of the neighborhood that were bulldozed in the previous round (a decade ago? I'm not sure of the timing, but in an entirely different eminent domain case in the same neighborhood) just look like this now:



Quote from Claire Gaudiani, president of the New London Development Corporation: "I am also the volunteer unpaid president of the New London Development Corporation, a non-profit that is leading the economic development of New London. New London is a city of 25,000 citizens. Sixty-five per cent of the children in the schools are on government assistance. Seventy-five per cent are children of color. New London has the fourth weakest economy in the state of Connecticut and the eleventh highest tax rate. This is one very poor city whose children score in the lowest category on the state’s mastery tests and drop out of high school at the rate of 50%."

Not that this isn't anything you all couldn't already figure out, but the people that have been displaced from their homes repeatedly in New London are of course in the predominantly black neighborhoods. Don't mind us - we're just cleaning up the city.

Incidentally, Claire Gaudiani is married to the head of Pfizer. "Pfizer wants a nice place to operate," said Pfizer executive David Burnett. "We don't want to be surrounded by tenements."

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

97. wow! just wow! great post, thanks. nt.

[noamnety]

98. All the case history in the world doesn't get to the heart of it.

On the surface, the issue is whether private homes can be seized for corporate use. That's what the case law is looking at.

The underlying issue in New London is whether a city can use eminent domain to harrass "undesirables" and drive those pesky blacks out of the city limits. And I'll add this isn't the only way New London is harassing blacks. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3929976&mesg_id=3929976

Anyone claiming the final decision ought to rest at the whim of local government needs to think long and hard about that. Are you really supporting the right of a local government to raze black neighborhoods in the name of making the city nicer? Do you really think it's alright to use eminent domain to drive blacks out of town?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

74. Welcome to DU

If you're interested in how the Kelo decision came to be, I'd urge you to read the history of the case.

[oneoftheboys]

77. Actually, it appears to me that the old leftie lawyer...

just didn't put quite enough effort into this one. On the other hand, he could just be bringing his own biases to the table. To be honest, that is what I suspect.

No matter, the Constitution is clear with respect to these matters. And the best part about it is the fact that "the People" (or as you prefer, the "laymen") don't need an attorney to figure it out.

All they need to do is read and think.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

84. Here's how good your suspicions are:

OldLeftieLawyer is female.

Your screen name makes this sort of sexist gaffe even funnier.

Thanks for the laugh.

I love laymen.

Why, I even married one and gave birth to a few of them, as well.

[oneoftheboys]

99. Please forgive me for assuming...

But I do believe that this the first time I have encountered a woman who referred to herself as being an "old" anything.

The fact that you classify that as "sexism" makes it easy to understand why you fail to grasp the meaning of the 5th Amendment.

[stilpist]

9. The rich and powerful hated this good decision.

They were using the case as a stalking horse. What they ultimately want is for the government to be prevented from "taking" anything from them - like taxes, or profits they would lose if they are prevented from making and selling hazardous goods.

The particular case was designed to appeal to the general public, but what they're after is to make money by socializing costs and privatizing profit. That's what they call "freedom." Freedom to screw the general public without government interference.

It's no accident that the right wing of the court voted against this decision while the liberal justices voted for it. They all understood what's really going on here.

A better way to affect eminent domain decisions is by political action at the local level, not by stripping governmet from setting policies that generally benefit the community.

[KittyWampus]

12. So A Case Might Be Made Eminent Domain Can Be Used To Seize Corp. Assets?

[stilpist]

24. I suppose so.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't want to pretend I know more than I do, but I don't see any reason why corporate property would have special rights regarding eminent domain power.

From what I've read, though, the point for the rich and powerful is to dilute the power of governments that would protect society against them. For instance, I think it was under GATT that some corporation sued the state of California for "taking" their profits - and I think the corporation won - not in a US court but in a (secret?) GATT tribunal of some sort. My rough recollection is that the "taking" was the result of California banning the use of some chemical that was found to be carcinogenic!

[Charlie Brown]

41. Most corporations provide jobs and revenue for communities

I'm no defender of corporations, but the idea that a municipality could make better use of land for the community (jobs, standard of living, etc.) would be a hard sell. Especially if the town was just going to invite in a hotel chain (another corporation) to occupy the land.

[Zynx]

67. You can't seize corporate assets without compensating shareholders.

There are laws against that sort of thing.

[KittyWampus]

82. didn't Roosevelt do some such with steel during a war?

but then, when they take land and houses from private citizens they give them money too. They don't just take the land.

[Zynx]

91. It wasn't outright seizure and when Truman tried it the Supreme Court

ruled it was unconstitutional. Shareholders must be compensated since they are the owners of the property of the corporation.

[JVS]

92. When pigs fly up from the frozen plains of hell

The rich know how to protect themselves and they are the ones who have the influence (read: $$$$$) to control when and where such a thing would happen. Also any time such a thing would be contemplated, all they have to do is say "we bring $xxx,xxx in taxes to this town and hire Y people" So they'd probably be able to make a convincing argument that their presence is beneficial to the community, at least in the economic sense. Suppose we are in Gary, IN and someone wants to build a mall. The last place in the city that they'll use to build the mall is the land of the US-steel Gary works. First of all the works is already the economic heart of the town, secondly US-steel has an interest and the money to fight such a thing. Given that our government already bails out shitty airlines constantly and loaned Chysler a huge amount of money back in the day, the worst scenario for US-steel is that the federal government would intervene on their behalf and tell the local government to back off, but it probably wouldn't ever come to that. The mall would be built over the land of "have-nots" who don't have the power to resist. Some area deemed "blighted" would be bulldozed to make room for the mall, and local small business owners and homeowners (who in this land of high homeowning rates are not to be considered a priveleged elite) would be shafted. Now, this is probably what would happen anyway without the exercise of ED, but with one crucial difference: without ED the business owners who want to set up the mall have to deal with the individuals owning this land on an equitable basis and offer them enough money that they want to sell. ED lets them circumvent that by having the government step in and offer a "market value" which is falsely named because the true market value is determined by the interaction between buyer and seller, and mutual-consent to the transaction is the trigger for arriving on such a price. So big business gets the land cheaper and the displaced people can go to hell.

This is not to say ED is never justified. ED is great for building schools, police stations, etc., but a major difference exists between opening a school and opening a Starbucks. Schools are only opened when a community recognizes a compelling need for the facility (they're expensive after all) and schools do not generate profits, but rather have the goal of serving the need of the citizen. Starbucks open up like mad all over the place because their goal is to make a profit and the deciding factor in opening one is "can we make money here?". Since a school serves the community and does not generate wealth, it seems fair that they not be required to pay the amount of money that those hoping to strike it rich have to pay. Also a school is not known to vastly change the economic environment of town to a degree that the former owner of the land is unable to settle in the area. If my brother's house has a school built on it, he can probably find a similar house a few blocks away with a similar price. If however your neighborhood is handed over to this outfit http://www.sofferorganization.com/sub%20pages/newconstr.html (the example in the webpage was built on land from Pittsburgh's old LTV works) you'd better start looking far, because their whole idea is to revitalize the entire area and your poor ass won't be a part of that. So soffer buys your house and a Starbucks stands where you once lived and you can't afford to stay in the neighborhood, you've been gentrified. But the most disturbing element of this is that businesses have no curb (like the education budget) to stop them from expanding except for the matter of profitability and the aid of the government is making it easier and easier for them to profit, so it actively encourages the malling of your neighborhood. Theoretically this sets a precedent for increased government action in property which could benefit non-corporate entities, but the realty is that this is a merely a tool for the wealthy to squeeze the working through middle class, who obviously are not considered worthy to be able to sell their houses voluntarily at a profit.

[OrwellwasRight]

65. Actually, this case allows the corps to privatize profits while

socializing costs.

Who pays for the land? The the taxpayers of the city that declares eminent domain. Who benefits from the private business built on the land? The private business owner.

"The community" probably doesn't get shit out of it because the local government probably lured the business there with a promise of tax abatements, credits, and rebates. "The community" may not even have gained any jobs because mom and pop operations were put out of business in favor of the new corporate outlet, making it a wash.

if you do some reading up on local land use planning and local government (you may already have done so), you'll note that development decisions are not made for the good of the community. They are made in favor of the development interests that throw the most money around. All this decision does is reinforce corporate power.

The "rich and powerful" don't hate this decision. The "little guy" Republicans -- the ones who should be voting for Democrats but aren't because we aren't marketing ourselves very well these days -- are the ones who hate it. They are so afraid that someone rich and powerful (probably a fellow Republican) will take what little property they own. O' Reilly, Limbaugh, and the RW blowhard pundits use Kelo as part of their talking points because it gets their listeners stirred up, not because the corporate interests don't like it.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. NH will send that joker back to CA with his tail between his legs

Why pick on Souter? - because he's a liberal and this clown is funded by the RW.

Besides, NH folks are fiercely protective of their own.................

[laylah]

3. Souter may be a dem, HOWEVER;

Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8406056/

What's good for the goose...

Jenn

[izzie]

4. I read that and really got a good laugh. In an English paper!!!!!!!!

Can it really be a good law? Any one with money could take your land as I read that thing. I am sure a new Inn in Weare would help the tax payers of that town. Love to see them vote it in. These small town can get wild. My sister lived in a town in Maine that voted in every one would have to own a gun. By the way the town check told her she and her husband were the only reg. Dem. in the town. I just love things like that.

[tn-guy]

52. It's worse than you think.

Not just anyone with money would be able to take your land. How about anyone with enough political influence to sway the town council? If Kelo is allowed to stand then a simple majority of any town council can decide to take your house and resell it to anyone else for any reason. Wouldn't that make a wonderful way to get rid of "troublemakers"? If we don't have the freedom to live in our homes then what freedoms will we lose next?

[Charlie Brown]

56. So you think all eminemt domain is illegal?

Towns and cities could easily do what you suggest by reclaiming property for parks, schools, etc., without the involvement of private corporations.

Eminent domain has been with us since the Founding. The authors of our constitution were aware of it and of its legitimate uses in metropolitan and developing communities. There is no way they intended the Fifth to revoke local communities of that power.

[tn-guy]

73. Not at all

However; the principle of eminent domain has traditionally meant that property taken by the state would be for public use. Public use is generally understood to be for some purpose that benefits the public as whole and that the general public can make use of. Common examples would be roads, parks, fire houses, schools, military bases, etc. In the Kelo case, however, the use was to be for a fancy hotel/resort complex that would be operated to the benefit of the owners. There was no pretense that the property was to be put to public use. This was a case of the city deciding that it would prefer one person to own the land rather than another and enforcing that preference with the power of the government.

[Vinca]

5. It was a lousy Supreme Court decision, but

I'd be surprised is the residents "voted him off the island."

[stilpist]

10. No, it was a good Supreme Court decision.

although the case was about a lousy local eminent domaim decision. The Supremes protected us with their decision.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

16. Yes, you're right

But, for whatever reasons (and I truly don't understand), there's this uninformed rage driving these folks - who, by the way, are doing our right of free speech a perfect disservice.

I really do wonder what the impetus is for this truly stupid behavior.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. In what way is the Wikipedia entry incomplete?

I'm no lawyer either, but I can't find anything in the history to cause me to disagree with O'Connor's dissent:
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Susette Kelo (the property owner) was supported by NAACP, The Southern Christian Leadership Conference and AARP.

The Pfizer corporation was the big winner here.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

72. With all due respect,

it would take me far more time to explain it to you, and for that I'm sorry. But when I referred someone else to the possible resources they might want to read in order to read the case's history in order to understand that Kelo simply codified existing law, I was accused of being condescending.

So, you can read the history of it, but trying to make a vast generalization about a decision based on one line in a dissent and who wrote the amicus briefs is gonna get you going down the wrong road.

If you know a land use lawyer, ask him or her about it. It's been uniformly misunderstood by the laymen.

And, good luck.

[Vinca]

32. How can it possibly be good to oust Grandma in favor of Motel 6?

Can you explain the good part briefly and in layman's language?

[Charlie Brown]

37. The town affected was a former mill town

that had come on hard times (unemployment, delinquency, etc.). The city council believed they could boost the local economy and create jobs by making a deal with the hotel association. This opportunity would not have been possible without the offer from the hotel/resort. New London had acquired all the land they needed except this one house. In spite of repeated offers to give her another place of residence and compensate her for the full value of the house, the woman refused. The city council has to think of ALL its citizens, and not merely the rights of one stubborn elderly woman. Therefore, they used imminent domain (which has been used by municipalities since colonial times, btw).

Despite all the griping here, New London will probably be a better place to live b/c the town made this decision, and the woman will live in peace somewhere else (probably still complaining and griping for the rest of her life).

The Connecticut Supreme Court and the USSC affirmed that New London was within its rights.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

42. Your synopsis is incorrect in many particulars

This link is probably the best summary I can find so that if we are to discuss something, at least we know what we are discussing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London

I find myself totally concurring with the dissenters, in particular Sandra Day O'Connor.

[Charlie Brown]

43. from the link:

Sorry, I see nothing here which contradicts what I said. Can you elaborate?

Apparently, there were more plaintiffs than Susette Kelo, but that's it. Regardless, this hostility against Justice Souter is still an incredibly petty and spiteful way of addressing disagreement with the decision, especially towards one of our allies.

"The case was appealed from a decision in favor of the city of New London by the Supreme Court of Connecticut, which found that the use of eminent domain for economic development (the central focus of the case) did not violate the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The court found that if an economic project creates new jobs, increases tax and other city revenues, and revitalizes a depressed (even if not blighted) urban area, it qualifies as a public use. The court also found that government delegation of eminent domain power to a private entity was also constitutional as long as the private entity served as the legally authorized agent of the government."

"The development corporation created a development plan that included a resort hotel and conference center, a new state park, 80–100 new residences, and various research, office, and retail space. The plan divided the area into six parcels, but did not specify the exact plans for development in any but the first parcel (the resort hotel and conference center). The city in 2000 approved the development plan and authorized the corporation to acquire land in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood.

Fort Trumbull was an older neighborhood, some 90 acres (364,000 m²) in size and including 115 residential and commercial lots. The development corporation offered to purchase all 115 lots; however, the owners of 15 of these properties did not wish to sell to the corporation. Of the 15 properties, ten were owned by occupants, and five by investors. These owners were the petitioners in this case; the lead plaintiff, Susette Kelo, owned a small home on the Thames River in the development area."

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

45. The number of plaintiffs is significant

Your version had the one little grumpy old lady and I think that makes quite a different story than an entire neighborhood being redeveloped. As far as the matter of compensation for the housing, that issue is still up for grabs and was one of the major points of contention that I think you gloss over in your summary. (And did you read the part about how now the city is going after back RENT? I think those are thuggish and strong-armed tactics designed to teach anyone else in New London that when they make you an offer you can't refuse, they are serious and you will be harmed financially if you buck them.)

I think the liberal wing of the Supreme Court expanded upon the previous definitions of "public use" in a way that will be all too horrifyingly clear in the future as the corporatacracy takes hold. I agree that it is "reverse Robin Hoodism".

[Charlie Brown]

46. That's all very horrible and unethical

and I agree the plaintiffs should be fully compensated, as is prescribed by the 'Fifth. However, placing municipalities at the behest of the state and federal governments would have been equally unethical and potentially dangerous. Local governments have the right to determine what is in their best interest.

how is New London's use of imminent domain in violation of the Fifth?

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The rulings of the SCOC and the USSC affirmed that urban redeveloping fell under the definition of public use, and I think it was the correct interpretation of the Fifth.

Free speech is also abused by some groups, but thankfully the courts have upheld it.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

47. I said that I agree with the dissenters and I do

I think they phrased the reasons for their dissent far better than I am able to. I have referred to Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent a number of times in this thread. They only referenced a few of her points in the Wikipedia entry I linked to - it's easy enough to Google Kelo and find out anything a person might want to know about this case.

When this case was going on, I followed it very closely. I believe that this case expanded the definition of "public use" to a broad and undefinable "public interest" than can and will be used in the future to transfer the assets of the poorer and weaker into the hands of the stronger and more connected. I realize that the answer to my fears is for people to make sure that their state governments define the limits of "public interest" in a way that will assuage my fears. I see that you agree with the majority opinion. I do not. I think this is the second worst opinion of the Supreme Court.

(What? you want to know what I think the worst opinion was? To me it was when they totally abandoned the concept of illegal search and seizure and due process when they decided it ok to seize, possess, and even SELL the assets of suspected drug dealers BEFORE they were ever found guilty in a court of law. They thought it was ok to abrogate the Constitution for this special exception. Mark my words, in the near future they will also decide its ok to seize the property of pornographers and then onto any other class of criminal (when will government dissent be formally criminalized?) they want to disenfranchise and impoverish before any due process can take place. We might want to talk to a few Jews that survived Nazi Germany and ask them under what pretext they lost their property.)

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. Cool!

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The rulings of the SCOC and the USSC affirmed that urban redeveloping fell under the definition of public use, and I think it was the correct interpretation of the Fifth.

"Public use"? Does this mean I can go roast marshmallows in the new hotel's lobby?

Or do you mean "public use" as in I can pay some corporation for the use of it?

Sorry, I'm not buying. "Public use" morphed into "public benefit" without the appropriate due diligence and it pains me to say it but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The right-wingers on the court tried to do the right thing.

[Charlie Brown]

61. and the Federal Constitution is your basis for these beliefs?

the primary purpose of the Bill of Rights was to LIMIT the power of the Federal Gov't and guarantee that local and state gov'ts still maintained the right to make their own laws and provide relief for the common good.

You believe that Jefferson, Franklin, etc. would have supported a Federal Gov't that blocked New London from exercising eminent domain as its elected officials had prescribed? (eminent domain was nothing new in their day).

"public use" includes the use of property for economic and employment opportunity, and hopefully New London will benefit from this move, as could other economically depressed communities.

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. No, a dictionary.

"Public use" means something specific to me. Like, roads, schools and parks.

I don't think that Jefferson, Franklin, etc. would have condemnmed people's property to give it to the East India Tea Company.

[tn-guy]

54. sorry, no sale

I suppose that if your town wanted to plop a WalMart down on top your house then that would be fine, too. If we are willing to accept that the town had to think of ALL the citizens and ignore the rights of 15 who didn't want to sell, then why not accept the premise that Bush had to think of ALL the nation's citizens and ignore the privacy rights of a few thousand? Sorry, rights are rights, they are enumerated precisely so the majority cannot take them away when it desires.

[Charlie Brown]

55. it would be constitutional

My city council would all be rooted out of office at the next election, as they would not be acting in good faith for the good of the community, but it would be within the law for them to make that decision.

Privacy is explicitly protected by the Fourth Amendment. We're talking about the Fifth Amendment here and the definition of "public use." Some of you apparently believe that all urban reclamation and redevelopment projects are illegal if they involve the use of eminent domain. I shudder to think what would happen to defunct urban areas and their residents if that interpretation was put into effect.

[Vinca]

44. Thanks. I thought I had missed something when I originally

learned about the case, but I guess not. I still think it's a horrible ruling. Not so much for this particular case, but for instances that might follow and will now have legal legs to stand on.

[Charlie Brown]

35. I think Stevens wrote the decision

and it upheld the status quo. The Federal Government cannot interfere with communities' use of imminent domain, as long as the person affected is properly compensated.

The Connecticut Supreme Court had earlier issued the same ruling.

I don't know why everyone is so upset about this ruling. It's always frustrating to see Progressives on the same team as talk radio and the Christian Right (and probably Alito). And no, these idiots do not have the right to harrass and "evict" Justice Souter out of personal spite. That is most definitely illegal in itself.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. I am not understanding the posts that say it was a good decision

It was the Keloe decision, right? That basically said it was fine to use eminent domain to transfer a private interest to another PRIVATE interest and used as the justification that anything that would increase the tax base could be said to benefit the greater good. It was a HORRIBLE decision! Sandra Day-O'Connor's dissent used a phrase along the lines of "Now every Motel 6 can be turned over to Hilton" or something like that. I also understand that the people who say the decision was sound base that on the fact that it pretty much said that local and state governments should make the decision. There are a lot of crappy local and state governments who should never have this kind of power to determine how they can transfer private assets. The federal court is where the protections of AMERICANS is determined and the majority of the justices made one of the most horrific decisions ever.

I think that making the ramifications of the law clear to someone who passed it is unusual and somewhat radical, but I really don't see anything wrong with it. This action is just asking Justice Souter to personally experience the outcome of a law that he personally decided was just and fair. I highly doubt whether the citizens of his own town will go along with the seizure, but then again, I don't know how pissed off they are are at the decision. But, that just points out a major problem with the decision. The disposal of Justice Souter's personal land should not be determined by either the animus or the friendship that he possesses in his own town. Everybody get it?




edited for spelling

[OldLeftieLawyer]

17. It was Kelo,

and you'll understand it better, I believe, if you read the case's history, including the cases before it and whatever legislative history you can find on he matter of eminent domain.

Trying to understand one opinion without putting it in its proper legal and historical context will always end in failure for the reader. It's all part of a very large historical, political, and judicial quilt.

[stilpist]

19. Can you suggest a source

that would explain all that in a way that would be accessible to the layman?

I think that for folks here at DU, the focus is on the perceived injustice of the original local eminent domain decision. And I agree that the case stinks on its face. We can all imagine how we'd feel if our own local government forced us to sell our own property. Especially where the public purpose is only an increased tax base.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

20. Try this

Read the oral arguments. Read the briefs to the SC. Read the history of the case. Read the supporting cases, their decisions, including the dissents. Read the case law cited, including those in footnotes.

It's a lot of work, so be warned.

Check the Supreme Court site, as well as findlaw.com, but, I really have to tell you, this is why there are lawyers and why there are non-lawyers. It's like trying to understand a medicial diagnosis if you're not a doctor. It's awfully hard.

The case doesn't stink on its face, by the way. It simply affirms everything that was already in place. That's why the history is so important.

I wish you luck. If you figure it out, you'll laugh at all this misdirected outrage.

[OrwellwasRight]

75. I think you are really writing off the fact that there are lots of lawyers

including ones well versed in property and land use law who disagree with Kelo. Reading the case and the oral arguments is not necessarily going to make one agree with the reasoning any more than reading the decision and oral arguments Wyoming v. Houghton is going to convince me that it is constitutional to search the passengers in the car without any probable cause specific to those passengers.

The Supreme Court often gets it wrong, and I think this is just another case in which they did. It also goes to prove that there are no liberals on the court anymore. There are right wing crazies (Scalia and Thomas), regular right wingers (Roberts, Kennedy, O'Connor), and moderate liberals (Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer). I don't see how allowing Pfizer to take whatever property it wants is a "liberal" decision, and I don't think it is. It is a decision of moderates who are so caught up in giving the 5th Amendment some kind of backing after all the Scalia-led assaults on it in recent years that they can't see that they are actually hurting the little guy.

As a lawyer, I am sure there are cases that you read in which the reasoning purports to simply be applying existing doctrine in a new context but with which you wholeheartedly disagree.

Likewise, there are reasonable lawyers who think that Kelo took existing doctrine too far (and that is totally leaving out the question of whether the existing doctrine is even right -- about which reasonable lawyers also disagree).

[OldLeftieLawyer]

79. Hey..

I was asked, and I gave the information.

It ends there. See how easily my part in this laymen's debate ends?

<click>

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

21. I know that I am on quicksand in attempting to discuss a legal decision

with a lawyer, but I will foolishly proceed. I think there's a dash of condescension in your answer, by the way, as you advise me to read "the case's history, including the cases before it and whatever legislative history you can find on the matter of eminent domain." You left out me getting a law degree. And then, I guess I will be qualified to have an opinion about this matter.

Although it is part of a very large historical, political and judicial quilt that is far too intricate for a dolt like myself to comprehend -what I see is that the liberal judges voted for it because in some way it is a construct for social engineering. For once, (and believe me , I thought the earth had tilted on its axis)I found myself in agreement with Scalia, Thomas et al. I care about property rights of the individual, even if they are pitted against the wealthy or the connected. I stand by to be admonished and corrected.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

27. I love it

I do my best to respond, I give a legitimate and thoughtful answer, and then, because someone's not a lawyer, they find my reply and advice "condescending."

Proceed in your ignorance, then.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

29. I did not find your reply condescending because I am not a lawyer

I found it condescending because it was condescending.

I have reread this thread and in your replies you talk about "people who don't understand" "uninformed yahoos with shit for brains" "uninformed rage driving these folks" ended by your advice for me to "proceed in ignorance". I have not seen the legitimate and thoughtful answer that you refer to. You know, the one where you tell us WHY we are so pathetically ignorant and where you enlighten us as to the points we are missing. Even though some of us are not lawyers, go ahead, give it a shot.

[bear425]

31. !

:popcorn:

[SledDriver]

33. Damn...

are you sure you're not a lawyer?

[PassingFair]

36. Well deserved, Phoebe!

:applause:

[ret5hd]

86. woohoo phoebe!!!

[JVS]

94. !

:popcorn: :thumbsup:

[wordpix2]

69. in my hometown, there's an old railroad bed by the river and it would make

a wonderful hiking trail/greenway as it's wooded, hilly and very scenic. When the railroad company gave up the railbed, it allegedly transferred ownership of the bed to adjoining landowners. However, knowledge about the transfer is sketchy and it would take a researcher quite awhile to dig up documents re: the transfer. A historian who tried was unsuccessful.

Question: Would you suggest conservationists try to protect this band of green with the help of eminent domain? So far we haven't tried. There are 75 property owners along the 13 mil of trail and without use of eminent domain, it's most likely that landowners would not agree to conserve a greenway for perpetuity on their own.

If the railroad bed and band of green along the river aren't preserved, property owners could start putting up fences and preventing others in the neighborhood from walking there, if our local land use commissions allow it.

[tn-guy]

87. It's very likely the "adjoining owners" own the land

Quite a lot of railroad was built on land the railroads did not actually own. What they had was a "right of way" that allowed them to use a strip of land for the railroad. If they cease to keep the line in operation, the land reverts to the original owner or his successor. If that is what happened in the case you describe (a big if) then the adjoining owners actually own the land now that the railroad is discontinued.

[Ian David]

18. Someone go tell Freeperville that we're behind them on this one!

Can we seize Justice Thomas' house too?

We can build the Coca-Cola Pubic Hair Museum.

[TheCowsCameHome]

30. Good one!

[OrwellwasRight]

76. Lol. nt.

[mmonk]

25. So he determined the ruling all by himself?

Does this mean the ruling was 1 to 0?

[Charlie Brown]

40. You'd think they'd be more angry at Stevens (who wrote the opinion)

and what about Breyer, Ginsburg and Kennedy?

[robbedvoter]

26. Lost Liberty Hotel? Nice. Now Souter is one of the moderate ones

I hope you are aware of it. He voted for the recount in 2000.

[Charlie Brown]

39. He also voted with the court on Law vs. Texas, Roemer vs. Evans,

and other cases which have protected minorities, upheld free speech, diminished the death penalty, etc.

Anyone who thinks Souter is our enemy is out of their mind. He is our ally.

and it's certainly not a good idea to harrass and intimidate our allies.

[kskiska]

89. And what about Souter's neighbors?

No one thinks they would object to having a hotel placed in a residential, wooded area on their street (most likely up in the boondocks and zoned residential)? Why are they being dragged into this?

[Wilms]

34. Great! n/t

[Charlie Brown]

38. A man is harrassed and threatened b/c of political differences

How is that "great?"

[JVS]

93. A man is hit with the club he helped make. That's classic!

[stepnw1f]

57. We Should Use it On Halliburton, Walmart, etc... (nt)

[JVS]

95. Fat chance

[brentspeak]

60. Logan Darrow Clements is a Republican candidate for governor of California

He's deliberately targeting Justice Souter because Souter is allegedly a "liberal".

(info about Clements posted for the 2003 recall election)

http://www.smartvoter.org/2003/10/07/ca/state/vote/clements_d/

D. Logan Darrow Clements

Candidate for
Recall of Gray Davis; State of California

Biographical Highlights

* Party: Republican
* Occupation: Businessman
* Executive producer of television newsmagazine
* Former publisher of national business magazine
* MBA in finance from University of Rochester
* BA in economics from University of Rochester


Top Priorities if Elected

* Privatize all government owned schools and colleges to cut spending 50%+
* Make the economy boom by reducing taxes, regulations and gov. interference
* Minimize government by transferring government operations to private business



Position Papers

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand predicted California's problems almost 50 years ago
Maximize the economy by minimizing government

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

63. That is one scary resume!

I wonder what television newsmagazine? His priorities, oh my God! And quoting Atlas Shrugged! I didn't know why you posted this, but then I saw he was mentioned in the OP.

I doubt very much if Souter will lose his home, but as someone far upthread posted, if he does, it will just show how messed up this decision was. And it also brings out the point - what if someone in your town wanted your property just to be vindictive? What if he was wealthy and connected? What if he wanted to build 4 condos on your previous single family home on the waterfront and you refused to sell to him? He goes to the town council and argues that the 4 condos will bring in more tax revenues than your single family. He also offers to endow 3 scholarships each for the police and fire departments. Maybe he sweetens the offer in other ways we are powerless to know about. Will it be a big surprise when the Town Council votes that you must accept whatever they have determined to be a fair price? You know what folks? Right this moment we are discussing influence peddling in the highest corridors of the government. Well, hold on. There ain't no corruption like municipal corruption. Small ponds filled with big fish who have been enabled and empowered by a horrible decision.

[Charlie Brown]

66. On the other hand, the decision could do a lot of good

Economically disadvantaged communties could reclaim property on their own initiatives and try to provide employment opportunities and revenue for their citizens by working with private groups. The glass could be half-full.

You can argue that any law or precedent could be abused, like Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, or the Right to Choose. Sometimes, getting the Feds involved is not the best solution, and simply replaces one set of problems with another set.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

68. No, it's not half full, it is empty.

Charlie Brown , some of your post have been non-sensical to me. Nobody that I have seen on this thread has claimed that eminent domain in and of itself is inherently wrong when used correctly. This case has opined that eminent domain can be invoked even when the transfer of property is from one private interest to another private interest under a broad and undefined concept of "public interest". That is the plain and simple fact that has united strange political bedfellows from both the right and the left.

[Charlie Brown]

78. I just think the decision should rest with communities

many econimically wanting areas do not have the means to revitalize themselves without outside help. If the funding does not come from gov't, then where?

There are some instances where working with a private group would be inevitable to revitalize an economy. I think cities and communities are within their rights to use eminent domain to this end.

How is that "non-sensical?"

Our worst enemies are using this case as a "wedge-issue" to attack Democrats and steer the Republican agenda (just like they use flag-burning and gay marriage). Conservative and religious activists used this very issue to promote Alito, and a lot of folks at DU appear ready to join them. I guess all the folks here at DU can cheer along w/Falwell, Dobson, etc. that an "anti-private use" judge is being appointed to the SC. Forgive me, but I find the sentiments of a lot of the anti-Kelo crowd non-sensical.

[wordpix2]

70. quite the neoCon resume