The mad land grab has begun...

[Squatch]

Sorry if this a dupe...

Link

Freeport moves to seize 3 properties

Court's decision empowers the city to acquire the site for a new marina

FREEPORT - With Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Freeport officials instructed attorneys to begin preparing legal documents to seize three pieces of waterfront property along the Old Brazos River from two seafood companies for construction of an $8 million private boat marina.

The court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that cities may bulldoze people's homes or businesses to make way for shopping malls or other private development. The decision gives local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

"This is the last little piece of the puzzle to put the project together," Freeport Mayor Jim Phillips said of the project designed to inject new life in the Brazoria County city's depressed downtown area.

[crizzo5137]

1. Ahhhh yes...

what better way to inject life into a depressed area then to build a PRIVATE marina....

[Squatch]

2. Well, it sounds as if the companies in situ are doing alright

for themselves...

"Gore said Western Seafood's 30,000-square-foot processing facility, which sits on the 300-by-60-foot tract, would be forced to close if the land were seized.

That facility earns about $40 million annually, and Western Seafood has been in business in Freeport since 1946, he said."

How are they going to categorize that facility as "blighted"?

[Ragnar]

5. they don't need to categorize it as blighted.

That's what the Kelos decision was about. The governmetn may now use its eminent domain powers to seize property which is being productively used. If the land was "blighted" then there was sufficient power under existing case law before Kelos to seize the land.

[Squatch]

6. Sickening...

I'm sitting here in my own home, that I worked my ass off for, explaining to my wife that we live here at the convenience of the government.

[Ragnar]

8. The worst part is...

I am forced to agree with Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist.

[Squatch]

9. This isn't a right vs left issue, IMO. It's a class issue all the way.

Life is good in the USA if you are in the top tier of earners. Middle and lower earners are getting screwed, in part due to their own apathy.

[earth mom]

19. I disagree.

Middle and lower earners don't have the cash to fight these bastards-You are talking big bucks. How can you say anyone could be apathetic about losing their home?!

[Squatch]

27. Sorry, I mean the rest of the middle and lower earners

in the country, and not necessarily the ones who are losing their homes/businesses.

They represent the bulk of people in this country and simply don't care enough to do anything about it. At least not yet.

[K-W]

15. But you do live at the convenience of the government.

Who do you think secures the borders of this land and enforces property laws.

You dont have a right to own land. You own land because of the laws of the government. On top of that our constitution specifically states that no matter what laws of property are, the government can compel people to forfiet property as long as it compensates. Taking the whole constitution into account it is important to remember that due process is also neccessary.

The problem in this case is simply not eminant domain which is vital to democracy.

The problem is that there is no due process because the government is deeply corrupt, thus the wealthy and thier authoritarian organizations are setting the policy of what is supposed to be a democratic government.

So the act of taking the land is illegitimate, because the process of government is not legitimate, but that isnt really something the supreme court could ever rule on since it is a part of the corrupted state. The court ruled correctly that a democratic government can sieze land legitimately.

Do you expect the supreme court to rule that our nation has defaulted on democracy? The responsibility for fixing the injustice in these land grabs lies on the citizen restoring legitimate government. The liberals on the supreme court were preserving the right of what they take to be a democratic government to govern.

In the long run the wealthy dont like this decision, because if the government can take your house and give it to wal mart, then if we restor democracy, the government can take away a wal mart and give you a house. Now I dont think either action is per se a good idea, but it is a power, like the use of force, that must be vested in a legitimate state to preserve democracy.

[Squatch]

16. Hmmm...

"Who do you think secures the borders of this land and enforces property laws."

The fact that the government secures borders and enforces laws does not entitle it to remove my rights to life, liberty, and property.

[K-W]

17. That is partially true.

The fact that a government is legitimate would entitle it to remove your rights to life liberty and property with due process. Which is my point, our government is corrupted to the point of illegitimacy. Our government does not function to express the will of the people as equals. But the supreme court isnt going to rule that democracy is dead. The liberal justices, thinking honestly that this is a democracy, ruled correctly that with due process it can sieze property. The constitution provides compensation as a bonus, but a legitimate government can deprive people of rights with due process.

It is a completely bogus argument to say that the government cant deprive you of rights, to argue that is to argue that all governmental intervention is wrong, even legitimate democratic intervention.

You are also confusing the right to property with a particular conceptualization of property. Your right to property is preserved through compensation. You have no natural right to any specific plot of land.

[Ragnar]

18. That's not the point at all.

No one with any sense is arguing that the government cannot take property for the collective good. If the government wants my land for a police station, a freeway or a tourist center, I can deal with it. What is happening is the government is going to be seizing land for private interests. If they threaten to take my house to build a wal-mart, I will teach a lesson in the application of the second ammendment.

[K-W]

21. But we are talking about failed democracy,

not a technical due process failure. The problem is that the law is unjust because our system is corrupted. The supreme court isnt asked to determine the justice of a law, only the legality. The problem here is not that the government can sieze property, it is that our government represents the wealthy, not the people and thus is writing these terrible laws.

[Ragnar]

23. I agree with you to some extent.

Yes, the law is a symptom of the disease. The disease needs to be treated, sure. Some symptoms are severe enough to require consideration on their own merit, and this is one.

[K-W]

25. Certainly, but the supreme court ruling is just a distraction.

This is an outrage and the focus of our attention needs to be where it belongs, the legislators who write the aweful laws that abuse thier power, not the supreme court that rightly rules they have the power they are abusing.

[Squatch]

3. More info...this story has quite a bit of history

Link

[MetaTrope]

4. Good news!

Think of all the jobs that will be generated by replacing two seafood companies with a nice private marina!

[Gormy Cuss]

7. The decision is a win-win for Repubs

The more left-leaning justices wrote the decision and the Repubs get to steal property for lucrative private deals and blame it on the liberals.

No one will remember that the justices ruled based on limiting Federal intervention.

I can not believe this is now the law of the land. Eminent domain should be a severely restricted tool for public development only. I wish I were rich enough to propose new revenue generation schemes that require eminent domain of the homes of all five justices who made the decision.

[K-W]

11. There is nothing wrong with eminant domain

And this was a short term win for the wealthy(although possibly a long term los) and a loss for conservative idealogues.

Eminant Domain should be exactly what it is. We should just have a truely democratic government that can actually make legitimate decisions on issues as important as property distribution.

[Squatch]

14. There is everything wrong with eminent domain.

It is an open door for the people who write and interpret the laws to remove from you what you have earned.

It should be exceedingly difficult for governments to impose eminent domain. The law must side with the individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property and not misapplied "public good" tenets.

[K-W]

20. You are partially right.

It should be exceedingly difficult, just as it is exceedingly difficult for government to deprive people of other rights. But that is a matter of legislation. Our laws should make it very difficult, but it isnt the supreme courts job to rule on whether a law is good or not, only whether it is constitutional.

You dont seem to understand the nature of government and property. The law is the reason you can claim to have earned something. It is a legal framework that allows you to go and work and get paid money and then exchange that money for property that you then get to keep. And as long as this legal framework doesnt run afoul of the constitution, liberals on the court will uphold it. Conservatives oppose eminant domain because they favor more feudal economic models where indviduals have more soverign control over property and thus the people with all the property become immune from any responsibility to the government that grants them that property and, assuming a democratic government, the people who make up that government.

The problem is that our government is not democratic. It doesnt represent the will of the people it represents the will of the wealthy and thus it serves thier interests. That is where the injustice springs from here, not from the extremely democratic idea that a legitimate government can make laws governing property.

[Gormy Cuss]

22. There is everything wrong with eminent domain.

You were kidding, right?

Eminent domain has always had the potential for abuse and has been abused, but in subtler ways because local governments focused on public benefit in terms of infrastructure, better housing, etc. Now it's used as a tool to let private developers have their way. There is no justification to forced relocation for a shopping center or private marina. The payoff to existing owners is not related to its true market value but to the value assigned if the proposed redevelopment weren't on the table.

[K-W]

24. That something can be abused doesnt make it evil.

Any power given to the government can be abused if the government is corrupt. This is an argument against corruption, not government power.

Your complaint is with the laws the legislators are passing because they dont serve your interests, but they are making the laws because they got elected. If you want the laws to serve you, you have to find a way to get politicians to represent you and not the rich.

As long as people who think the public interest is served by commercial development at the expense of personal liberty get elected, the supreme court will uphold thier right to make the laws based on thier perception of the interests of the people, that is our system.

[Gormy Cuss]

31. Didn't say it was evil

Perhaps your reply was meant for another poster. I also did not say the court erred because I'm not a lawyer. I said that eminent domain was already a tool that was abused and this ruling will only make it worse. I said nothing about laws passed by legislators, only the court's ruling.

I don't want my interests served at the expense of the public good. I do vote against pols who serve wealthy or corporate interests at the expense of the rest of us.There is nothing wrong with accumulating wealth, only with trampling over anyone who gets in your way. That is my job in a democratic republic. I can not force you or anyone else to see the inherent problem with using eminent domain to protect the interest of wealthy land grabbers. I can only speak out against it. If the majority of voters think forced removal for a shopping center is a good idea, I find myself in the minority and my vote alone won't be enough to remove the legislator.

[K-W]

32. You said there was everything wrong with eminant domain.

And as I said, a tool is not wrong or right, the way a tool is used is wrong or right. The problem isnt eminant domain, its how the politicians are using it.

I dont think we really disagree that much, but your subject was an indictment of eminant domain, not a particular use of it.

[Gormy Cuss]

37. Please review the whole thread.

I was replying to your broad comment that there was nothing wrong with eminent domain. That's like saying guns don't kill people, people kill people --technically true, but missing the point. I replied with the exact opposite of your comment for effect--apparently it got your attention
:)

Eminent domain once was used rarely. In recent years it's been used more frequently and creatively to force the sale of residential property to stingy corporations for private development. Now it may become the preferred means to expedited the process until enough local voters catch on.

[K-W]

38. I apologize for thinking you meant what you wrote in your post.

I was simply indicating that there was nothing inherently wrong with eminant domain, that it can be used for good or bad policy is not an idictment of the power. I said nothing broad and certainly did not mean that bad could not be done with the power.

[Gormy Cuss]

40. Just a friendly discussion

One thing that's both annoying and entertaining about GD is that we all have a tendency to use absolutes as a quick argument. You wrote 'nothing wrong with' it, so I counter with the opposite. Had you written 'nothing inherently wrong with it', I would not have challenged it.

:toast:

I hope you don't mind the argument. I find DU is the best place to sharpen my debate on issues.

[franmarz]

10. The new land grab caper--

As the 3 stooges film said--LITTLE BY LITTLE, BIT BY BIT, SLOWLY WE TURN AND WALLA- our rights are being taken away.This is going to go on, only in small segments here and there, til suddenly, we wake up one day and find that we are very restricted in our everyday life.

[K-W]

12. What rights were taken away? EOM

[BR_Parkway]

13. The Return of the Robber Barons -

When in the Course of CORPORATE events it becomes necessary for one BOARD OF DIRECTORS to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all COMPANIES are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of PROFITS. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among CORPORATIONS, deriving their just powers from the consent of the CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the CORPORATIONS to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their WEALTH and PROFITABILITY.

-----------------------------------------

We the CORPORATIONS of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect MARKETPLACE, establish TARIFFS, insure PROFITABILITY, provide for the common STOCKHOLDERS, promote the general ASSET INCREASES, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[K-W]

26. Actually free market theory wants eminant domain crippled.

Everyone seems to be forgetting what the property distribution in this country is like. Corporations and the wealthy are extremely interested in limiting the states power to govern property.

[lastliberalintexas]

30. They used to

You seem to be forgetting that we've entered a new era in the US, one in which corporations are no longer monitored by the government, but instead ARE the government.

You are correct though that eminent domain is not in and of itself bad or evil, at least as originally used and intended in the law. ED allowed the government, usually local, to obtain property to be used for the PUBLIC good. This decision does no such thing, and instead allows the government to officially become arms of whatever corporate interest it chooses.

This decision ultimately has nothing to do with "the states power to govern property" since the property will only be seized by the government. It will then be turned over to the private sector for *their* governance.

[K-W]

33. There is nothing new about it.

And it used to be much much worse. The US has always been steered by a group of elites backed by the power of the wealthy corrupting electoral politics and social order.

The conservatives havent changed, they will still cripple the governments power, but that doesnt mean they cant use that power to profit in the meantime.

You are wrong, redistributing property is governing it. Its just not governing it well when it is done in this fashion.

[chaska]

28. K-W, you have the patience of a saint. Thanks for the education.

[FreedomAngel82]

29. This is disgusting

Excuse me while I puke.

:puke:

[cap]

34. all well and good except

the rich and powerful never get to see their homes bulldozed.

[Indy Lurker]

35. Isn't this going to be a HUGE problem for minority groups?

And not necessarily racial or ethnic minority groups.

In this case it's a stinky seafood manufacturer.

Am I missing something or will it be:

"We don't like your factory / low income housing / Mom and Pop Store / Farm. Our town is is going upscale, and we think it would look better with a Marina / Strip Mall / Mc Mansion subdivision."

All the city officials have to do is make sure 51% of the voters think it's a good idea by the next election.

Of course the city officials could also retire, and go to work for a developer.



You used to have to spend city dollars and build a park, or road to wipe out "undesirable" parts of town. With this ruling, it can be "outsourced" to private parties.

[SammyWinstonJack]

36. Welcome to the United States of Corporate America.

Thanks again you sleaze balls on the Supreme Court! They fucked up in 2000 and again in 2005. :wtf: A private boat marina? Eat the rich!

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sgent]

41. The supreme ct is just one avenue

Those that oppose the court decision, can pass laws on the State lvl which will essentially prevent it from taking effect. Start working on your state legislatures if you want to stop this.

Seeing how most freepers hated this decision as well, I wouldn't think it would be too hard to pass.