Reason why the KELO case is dangerous and we all should be worried

[AngryAmish]

There is a woman's health center (abortion clinic) a few blocks down from my office. It gets protesters pretty often. I live in Chicago, a town that votes quite blue but is still mostly run by Catholics. The Church has a lot of pull in this town. And Daley can do whatever he wants.

What if Daley (or a local alderman) decide that putting a Starbucks is a greater economic benefit than the abortion clinic? Eminent domain will allow the city to grab it and give it to Starbucks. That is their fig leaf and there is not a damn thing we can do about it.

Magnify that by 100 in KKKristian areas.

KELO will become the hammer to shut down every unpopular business.

[punpirate]

1. Yes and no...

... I think a good case could be made that targeting individual businesses is not in the general public interest. In the case before the Supreme Court, this was a large community which would be displaced, for presumably a greater public good. In the process now defined, the local government would still have to show that the public good would be enhanced by such a taking--and not that a private profit-making entity maintained that its interests would be enhanced by such a taking.

Cheers.

[AngryAmish]

2. I kinda got a bug up my ass about this so bear with me

In reviewing constitutional issues, any court has 3 different standards of review for gov't action. KELO chose the weakest, rational basis. As long as any rational reason, which in practice is any reason, can be put forth it will pass constitutional muster.

My example will pass rational basis because health services are not taxed around here, while lattes are. More $ for gov't (as in KELO) = OK by SCOTUS. The mayor could always say, hell, there are 20 other clinics in the city limits. Then he says, there are 19 other, until there are 1 or 2.

[punpirate]

3. True enough...

... but the court ruling really affirmed a practice that has been in effect for a long, long time--probably fifty years or more. There was a case in Mississippi several years back, where the county made a taking for land which would be used to build a Toyota plant--it was a large project and involved moving people off one of the first black-owned homesteads in the state--it was a sort of unofficial national landmark.

The owner prevailed, not because the state would have lost an appeal on those grounds, but, rather, because Toyota said that they would just build around the owner's property.

This is not a new process that the court has defined.

Now, in the case of this clinic, in the instance you describe--because it's not tied to the property for sentimental reasons, it could conceivably move a door or two down from its original location without significantly inconveniencing its clients. Now, if the city then tried to remove it from its new location to satisfy yet another profit-making entity, the case could be made that the city was using the statute improperly.

My advice is not to get excited about it until it actually happens.

Cheers.

[AngryAmish]

4. I am used to a corrupt local government

It will happen and that depresses me. My health clinic example is just a horrowshow example.

I know about the existing caselaw and like stare decisis as much as the next guy. But there should be Some limit, and I think private to private takings should be subject to heightened scrutiny.

[punpirate]

5. Oh, I agree...

... I don't think the ruling was a good one at all--especially because it's simply one more way in which corrupt local governments are further corrupted by corporate interests.

But, you don't say why you're sure it will happen--has the city or the borough council tried to get rid of the clinic in the past?

If so, that might be grounds for misapplication of the statute, if they try to use public takings to get rid of you. :)

[Outrider]

6. Also

In theory they could say that it is the publics best interest that the clinic be removed so that the community no longer would need to pay for the police presence when the protesters show up.

[Carolab]

7. No. It's only about the money.

They are taking out areas of low-cost housing/"slums" where they can erect shops/condos/offices.

If there's a buck in it, they'll claim ED. Otherwise, no.

[AngryAmish]

8. They have been doing that for years

The 1954 decision that allowed this one (I forget the name of the case) was a slum-clearing project. Read Justice (I can't beleive I am writing this) THomas' dissent on the history of the use of ED. Mostly, it is used against minorities.

[Carolab]

9. Yup. Ties right in with trashing Section 8 housing.

There is a serious shortage of "affordable housing", and they mean to chase out the poor and the elderly from these areas. Where will they go? Out onto the streets? Or into the homes of family/friends who can ill afford to house them? Or into "faith-based charities"?

[AngryAmish]

10. Nope

Leave town. That is the ultimate goal.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. At least the good news is that KELO was a broad ruling,

meaning that it covers a lot of ground (no pun intended). New cases to the Supreme Court requesting specific exceptions and definitions will come in the future to narrow it. For instance, local and state government cannot make an "arbitrary and capricious" decision. It will still have to prove the validity of its proposition.

KELO just means we will have to spend money in the future for court costs that we would have preferred to allocate elsewhere in order to keep our cottages and storefront busineses.