Eminent Domain...

[zaj]

We are looking REALLY bad from this USSC ruling that allows government to seize land from land owners in order to give it to other private land owners, so that THEY can develop the land differently.

There's a story out of Oakland where the city is seizing two privately owned (and used) parcels of land (one parking lot and one autoshop). They are going to tear down the parking lot to build an another autoshop for Sears. They are going to tear down the autoshop to build housing.

How F'd up is that?

It's being pinned on "liberals" on the SC who LOVE to give too much power to the government. I don't know the legal history on this issue, or the justification for why the judges ruled the way they did (seemingly looking like complete A-holes along the way).

It seems like the kind of issue that can actually bring Dems a good many Libertarian/Republican votes, if we push for reform.

But is there another reason why this *SHOULD* be going on? What am I missing here, and why isn't this issue getting front-and-center coverage?

[zaj]

1. Here's the article about Oakland, CA.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/08/04/EDG5LE1SBL1.DTL

[K-W]

2. A few things.

1. Eminant domain siezures didnt start with the supreme court ruling. The ruling refused to create an exception to Eminant Domain, it didnt give anyone any more power. If someone is to blame for eminant domain it is the authors of the constitution.

2. The justices ruled the way they did partly because the constitution does give the government broad power to sieze land and partly because putting restrictions on the governments ability to regulate property would be a major victory for the right wing who desperately wants to eliminate governments ability to regulate property.

3. The real villians in the modern cases are not the supreme court justices. They simply held that government has power, they arent the ones misusing the power, the legislatures in towns and cities are. The solution is getting the power of business out of politics on all levels.

4. The idea that private development is a public good is widely accepted throughout this country and that is not the fault of the supreme court either, that is the fault of the right wing.

[SidDithers]

Excellent post...

It should be copied and posted onto every Eminent Domain thread, particulary the ones with all the gleeful fantasizing about Justice Souter's home.

Sid

[MadHound]

7. Sorry, but the Court fucked this one up.

And if you would, explain to me how the Fifth Amendment's specific language of "public use" somehow came to mean increase in tax revenues?

Sorry but this is a huge giveaway to developers, WalMart and other intrusive corporations.

[K-W]

8. No, it really didnt.

And if you would, explain to me how the Fifth Amendment's specific language of "public use" somehow came to mean increase in tax revenues?

You are reading way more into "public use" than is actually there. Public use refers to any use seen as serving the public. Whether or not it actually serves the public is a decision for legislators to make, not for the court. All the court can decide is whether the legislators intend it to benefit the public.

Sorry but this is a huge giveaway to developers, WalMart and other intrusive corporations.

No it isnt. That eminant domain can be used in this way is not the supreme courts fault, the constitution gives states that power.

There is a real problem here and you are only distracting attention away from it.

The real problem is that business controls government. Not that government has power. If our government were actually democratic, there wouldnt be a problem here.

[Eric J in MN]

9. "Public use" should have been written into the

Constitution as "public ownership."

It was a ridiculous interpretation that taking away people's land to give to a corporation to build offices is a public use.

[K-W]

17. Well it wasnt.

And no, the public taking the land and giving it to someone else is in fact a use.

[MadHound]

12. Then explain to me like I'm a child

How allowing WalMart to raze a neighborhood full of homes is serving the public? If the founding fathers had meant for the Fifth Amendment to cover taking private property as a means of increasing tax revenue, they would have used the word "public good" not "public use". In fact, they specifically made it public use because of just the same sort of abuses we're seeing now, for the English had regularly taken over private property, with or without compensation, in order to add it on to estates, businesses, etc. Public use friend are projects such as roads, public buildings, parks, etc, not for private developments that may or may not benefit the surrounding community.

There have been ED cases before the courts throughout the years, and this is the first time that the courts have broadened the definition of "public use" to include private developement and increasing tax revenue.

And I agree with you that corporate America controls our government, why do you think we're now getting rulings such as this piece of pro-corporate BS? In fact it has become increasingly obvious as time goes on that the real tilt of the Supreme Court isn't right wing or left wing on the court, but rather pro corporate or populist. Sad to say, it has gone seriously in favor of Corporate America.

I get so sick of liberals defending this POS ruling, merely because they feel they have to fall into lockstep behind a supposedly "liberal" court ruling. Wake up, these so called liberal justices were A: Mostly appointed by conservative Presidents, and B: Aren't really liberal so much as they are pro corporate. That's the real problem friend.

[K-W]

18. You are making it more complicated than it is.

Public use friend are projects such as roads, public buildings, parks, etc, not for private developments that may or may not benefit the surrounding community.


Sorry friend, but you cant read that much into the phrase "public use", the public taking the land and giving it to someone else is a public use. That phrase simply does not mean the land must be public property for eternity.


I get so sick of liberals defending this POS ruling, merely because they feel they have to fall into lockstep behind a supposedly "liberal" court ruling. Wake up, these so called liberal justices were A: Mostly appointed by conservative Presidents, and B: Aren't really liberal so much as they are pro corporate. That's the real problem friend.

Thats funny I get sick of being told that I am falling in lockstep behind a liberal court ruling when that is no at all what I am doing.

I am just not going to sit back watching liberals fall into the trap of blaming these justices and taking on conservative property right stances in response to the ruling.

[dr.strangelove]

13. Whether or not it actually serves the public is a decision for WHO

"You are reading way more into "public use" than is actually there. Public use refers to any use seen as serving the public. Whether or not it actually serves the public is a decision for legislators to make, not for the court. All the court can decide is whether the legislators intend it to benefit the public."

That seems a bit conservative of you. The court can not review a legislature's determination that a use is a "public use". Of course they can. Scalia would love your answer. I think the court has every right to review a takings action to ensure the use was a public use. This court did just that, and concluded that there was a public use here. I think the were wrong.


Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[K-W]

21. You have it a bit backwards.

Whether or not it actually serves the public is a decision for WHO
The people who are elected to make those decisions.

That seems a bit conservative of you.

You think putting policy decisions in the hands of elected officials rather than appointed judges is conservative?


Scalia would love your answer.

Lol. Priceless. You do realize that Scalia voted to limit eminant domain, meaning he disagrees with me.

You need to pay closer attention. Conservatives were foaming at the mouth at an opportunity to limit the governments ability to regulate property.

[sandnsea]

19. Here is the opinion

Where does it say the decision was made based on increased tax revenues?

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZO.html

[Eric J in MN]

11. The Consitution doesn't say "public good."

It says "public use."

Corporate offices aren't used by the public.

They're part of the private sector.

[K-W]

15. Sorry, but that doesnt change anything I said.

Public use is extremely general and under no rational interpretation means that the property siezed must stay in the public domain. That is an absurd argument.

[Eric J in MN]

24. I don't consider an office building to be public use.

nt

[sandnsea]

20. It was a 90 acre redevelopment project

"As with other exercises in urban planning and development,12 the City is endeavoring to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational uses of land, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts."

"..the plan was also designed to make the City more attractive and to create leisure and recreational opportunities on the waterfront and in the park."

Nobody was taking land from one private individual to give to a corporation.

[Eric J in MN]

25. I don't think it's better to take land from lots of people

than one person. Especially when the public doesn't get to own the land in the end.

[sandnsea]

30. aw geesh

90 acres. 32 acres of it was naval land to start with. All but 10 people have sold. A large section of this project will be owned by the public, and be of public use. It's a redevelopment project, Pfizer coming into the area helped create the economic climate to take the project on. Don't even tell me ten people can fuck up a whole town.

Trumbull State Park now occupies 18 of those 32 acres

Parcel 1 is designated for a waterfront conference hotel... will also have marinas for both recreational and commercial uses.

A pedestrian “riverwalk” will originate here and continue down the coast, connecting the waterfront areas of the development.

Parcel 2 will be the site of approximately 80 new residences organized into an urban neighborhood and linked by public walkway to the remainder of the development, including the state park.

This parcel also includes space reserved for a new U.S. Coast Guard Museum.

Parcel 3, which is located immediately north of the Pfizer facility, will contain at least 90,000 square feet of research and development office space.

Parcel 4A is a 2.4-acre site that will be used either to support the adjacent state park, by providing parking or retail services for visitors, or to support the nearby marina.

Parcel 4B will include a renovated marina, as well as the final stretch of the riverwalk.

Parcels 5, 6, and 7 will provide land for office and retail space, parking, and water-dependent commercial uses. 1 App. 109—113."

[Eric J in MN]

34. So they're mostly getting the poor and middle income people to leave

and building houses for the rich.

How is that something progressives should support?

[sandnsea]

41. I support the 25,000

people in New London who are going to get 1,000 new jobs from Pfizer, the improvements and additional land to the state park, the new museum, the new marinas, and the new riverwalk and waterfront. That's who I support. Not the ten people who are holding out for more money.

[Egalitariat]

14. The Constitution does not say "public GOOD", it says "public USE"

like a school, highway, or sewer plant.

The USSC ruling just expanded the definition of "public USE" to anything that increases the property tax base.

[K-W]

16. You are wrong on two counts.

Public use does not mean school highway or sewer plant, it means any use by the public (aka government)

And no, it didnt expand the definition of public use. It refused to limit the definition, there is a big difference.

[Eric J in MN]

36. An office building and new private homes isn't "public use."

It's private use.

[K-W]

38. You seem to be missing the point on purpose.

What the property is eventually used for is irrelevent to whether the government developing it is a public use or not(it obviously is)

Any use by the public is a public use.

I agree with you that this is wrong, but it is constitutional whether you like it or not.

[Eric J in MN]

39. 5 justices agree with your interpretation of the Consitution, and

4 with my interpretation of the Constitution.

[K-W]

40. Thomas, Scalia, and Rhenquist are the legal experts you want backing you?

I think you will find they have very little credibility.

[Eric J in MN]

43. It was Sandra Day O'connor's dissent I liked...

"The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

[K-W]

44. So only 1 justice agreed with you.

O'Conner is 100% right, but that isnt an argument for limiting eminant domain, it is an argument for changing the political process.

[Eric J in MN]

45. She thought it was unconstitutional to take the land

for these purposes, or she wouldn't have voted that way.

Also, getting money out of politics is extremely difficult.

[K-W]

46. She was wrong. EOM

[jbnow]

3. I don't know the legal justification

for that decision either, and really hardly care because it is just so wrong. I know it's long been done for building roads and that is bad enough. It's also been done when they were considered blighted areas which can be questionable.
But this makes no good sense at all, is so subject to abuse. People losing their homes and businesses so some other people or company can profit? Even if the city has to approve it developers can afford pretty good bribes for those low paid officials.

The liberals on the court did vote for it. So much for protecting the little guy. There is someone who plans to go after their homes one by one and you know, that seems fair to me.

It is up to states to pass laws barring it.

[K-W]

6. Its in the constitution, blame the framers.

But I think you should thank them instead. Wait for the day the little guy needs land that the big guy has. Eminant domain is not the problem and should remain robust, it is the government using it that needs to be changed.

Sorry for the edits.

[Eric J in MN]

10. It should be the public who owns any property taken

by eminent domain.

It shouldn't be allowed when the land goes to a corporation.

[K-W]

22. I agree in principal, but that isnt the law.

I would love to rewrite the constitution that way, but it would take a rewriting to do it.

[sandnsea]

23. Not that simple

Of the land in question, 4 lots are in parcel 3 and 11 in parcel 4a, 5 of them are investments. How would you solve this problem?

"The Fort Trumbull area is situated on a peninsula that juts into the Thames River. The area comprises approximately 115 privately owned properties, as well as the 32 acres of land formerly occupied by the naval facility (Trumbull State Park now occupies 18 of those 32 acres). The development plan encompasses seven parcels. Parcel 1 is designated for a waterfront conference hotel at the center of a “small urban village” that will include restaurants and shopping. This parcel will also have marinas for both recreational and commercial uses. A pedestrian “riverwalk” will originate here and continue down the coast, connecting the waterfront areas of the development. Parcel 2 will be the site of approximately 80 new residences organized into an urban neighborhood and linked by public walkway to the remainder of the development, including the state park. This parcel also includes space reserved for a new U.S. Coast Guard Museum. Parcel 3, which is located immediately north of the Pfizer facility, will contain at least 90,000 square feet of research and development office space. Parcel 4A is a 2.4-acre site that will be used either to support the adjacent state park, by providing parking or retail services for visitors, or to support the nearby marina. Parcel 4B will include a renovated marina, as well as the final stretch of the riverwalk. Parcels 5, 6, and 7 will provide land for office and retail space, parking, and water-dependent commercial uses. 1 App. 109—113."

[Eric J in MN]

26. Make the house owners a big enough offer that they want to sell (nt)

nt

[sandnsea]

27. Maybe they did

Sometimes that doesn't work. Try again.

[Eric J in MN]

28. They don't have the right to force people off their poperty and

put up an office building, even if they're also putting up other things.

If the city is going to force anyone off their land, the PUBLIC should own everything on the land.

[K-W]

31. Under the constitution they do have that right.

Whether you think they should or not is a different issue.

[sandnsea]

32. Did you read the decision?

Go read it, I posted it above. At the bottom are the cites, going back 150 years. Land has been taken for alot less "public good" than this redevelopment project.

[Eric J in MN]

35. I read some of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner's dissent.

"The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

[Eric J in MN]

37. I would write "liberals" instead of liberals,

as the ones who voted for it.

I don't consider Anthony Kennedy, David Souter or Stephen Breyer a liberal.

Though they are more liberal than Scalia.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. Two ways to handle it

1. Ban - or severly limit - ED for "private" redevelopment.

2. Make the statutory ED award so high that a developer would have to be crazy. This alternative, "a home for a home, a business for a business" or "instant millionaire ED" is what Pennsylvania has. It seems to work - far fewer frivolous and questionable projects.

This is because the statute, Title 26, Artice VI, 1-603(2) allows the diaplaced property owner to get the property's value for "The highest and best reasonably available use of the property and its value for such use."

stripped of lawyer talk - that means its value to the developer - which is always higher then its present value as a home or small business.

[JDPriestly]

5. The abuse of eminent domain

has to be dealt with at a local level. We have to hold our local governments to account for improperly taking property for private purposes. We don't want to abolish eminent domain if the property is taken for a public purpose. The problem is in defining what is public and what is private. Is improving a property so that it generates more tax revenue a public purpose? That is the argument that is used to justify community redevelopment, the program in question here.

This issue is more complex than you think. Community redevelopment has been used to improve truly blighted areas in many communities. On the one hand, this has devastated the housing stock available to the poor. On the other, it has raised up communities, increased tax revenues for good projects and services. I have seen communities that are absolutely beautiful thanks to community redevelopment. People never even noticed until the redevelopment began to devour the properties of middle class people. Until that time, middle class people loved the improvements in their cities and towns.

So, you see, this is very complex. It has to do with the declining status of the middle class in many areas of the country among other things.

[TeeYiYi]

29. I think you nailed it . . .

re: "People never even noticed until the redevelopment began to devour the properties of middle class people."

. . . This country has gradually gone from poor, middle-class, rich and uber-rich to just two classifications — rich and poor. Nobody noticed when eminent domain was adversly affecting people on the 'other side of the tracks'. We're all on the wrong side of the tracks now.

TYY

[K-W]

33. Indeed.

I find it funny that people are romantisizing the old way of doing things where only poor peoples property was fair game.

[sandnsea]

42. In addition

This court has been fighting for private land rights in order to do away with environmental regulation by state and local officials too. They couldn't hardly back away from private land rights now.