It is very long and there is a lot of discussion about the ruling. Thank you for that link.
So the ruling wasn't about the 'merits of using ED in this particular case'. It
was about whether or not 'economic development' falls under the definition of 'public use'... do I have that right?
Stevens couches it thusly;
"This Court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek."The opening post makes this point;
"As first glace (sic), you may think that giving private homeowner property to a private corporations is a bad thing. And it very well might be in many cases. However, if the Court had ruled differently and NOT allowed local governments to do this, it would have been a disaster for local governments to build for the community (including when the purpose is to help the environment, build affordable housing, create jobs, etc.). It would have sacrificed needed community power at the hands of the sort of property-rights extremism frequently displayed by right-wing libertarian types."
The only problem is, at
second glance, giving private homeowner property to a private corporations is a bad thing, IMO.
So why didn't the judges fashion a ruling that would have narrowed the definition of 'public use' to mean 'help the environment, build affordable housing, create jobs, etc.' If the moderates could land this ruling, why could they not clearly define 'public use'?
Despite the fact that this would have broken precedent with 100 years of previous rulings, maybe it's time for a change. 100 years ago, the top 1% of the wealthiest citizens weren't sucking the country dry on the scale we see today.
Dire Radiant says:
Their next step after Kelo, had the dissenters won, would be to revisit the balancing test for whether gov't regulation amounts to a taking. In the next case about regulatory taking, the PRA would point to the public good test established by the SCOTUS... whatever it might be... and argue that the regulatory purpose was not good enough to satisfy that test. So much for gov't regulatory power; every regulatory law that industry doesn't like (and isn't that all of them?) would be tied up in Kelo challenges.
Huh? Industry is getting around government regulatory power by getting pro-industry types appointed by pro-industry Administrations, like
George Walker Bush's administration.Lobbyists are 'taking care' of
legislation. Joe Biden is a credit card lobby ho.
Unless you are rich, it is nearly impossible to run a viable congressional campaign without corporate financial backing, since their donations make up about 75% of the money that candidates receive . In the most recent election, the candidate who raised the most money won 94% of the time .
Once elected, an army of roughly 20,000 corporate lobbyists provides constant reminders of just whose money elected whom. The combination of corporate political donations and pressure from lobbyists is an excellent investment for the corporate world. It helps them frame the issues and keep critical interests out of the halls of government. Sometimes the payoff is direct. In 2000, corporations received $125 billion in tax-breaks and subsidies, a return of about 100 to 1 on their investment. In addition to draining taxpayer dollars to support corporate welfare, the government also heavily subsidizes the research and development side of many industries, particularly the pharmaceutical, technology and military hardware/weapons industries, spending billions of government dollars and then giving away the findings for virtually nothing to corporations, who proceed to make a profit.
They
already challenge every piece of legislation they can with challenges of all sorts, they don't need no steenkin' Kelo decision.
So, hypothetical fears are posited against making a useful ruling to set limits on ‘public use’, which the court
could have done. It was
within their scope to tackle the meaning. To me, that is the problem with this ruling; and Conservative and Libertarian blogs are making hay with it. One of the most disgusting, Bush worshipping Senators, (Cornyn of Texas), whom I am inflicted with, is even scoring points with this ruling;
In Congress, Sen. John Cornyn (R) of Texas has introduced the protection of homes, small businesses, and private property act. A similar, bipartisan bill has been introduced in the House.
"The power of eminent domain should not be used simply to further private economic development," said Mr. Cornyn in a statement. The bill would bar federal funds for state and local governments that seize land for private development.
When a partisan knucklehead like
Cornyn can look good due to a ruling like this, there is something wrong.
Listen to this quote;
Eminent domain is mentioned in the Constitution. For generations, the power was used almost exclusively for roads, bridges and public buildings, said Adrian Moore, vice president of the Reason Foundation, a nonprofit policy group in Los Angeles.
Politicians abuse eminent-domain power to achieve policy goals that have nothing to do with the public good, Moore said.
"Taking people's property away for a public interest is one thing, but taking it away to give to another use that will pay more taxes is terrible," Moore said. "That means that nobody's property is safe."
Moore said Des Moines' use of eminent domain is a good example of abuse, because the agribusiness park "is not an extensive community benefit" and gambles public money.
Even that bunged up
Libertarian has a good
sounding case.
By refusing to enter into a dialogue about the interpretation of ‘public use’, it encourages private developers to get cockier, and they have no problem lobbying legislators into reinterpreting the word
blight:Boynton Beach is among coastal Florida communities that are using eminent domain powers to acquire real estate and transfer it to private developers to build luxury condominiums and shopping areas in choice waterfront locations, according to Steven Anderson, director of the Castle Coalition. The coalition, named for the libertarian motto “A man's home is his castle,” is an advocacy group associated with the Institute for Justice, the Washington, D.C.-based organization that has been representing the Fort Trumbull plaintiffs in the New London case.
The coalition has produced a report documenting 10,000 instances of such “private to private” real estate transfers employing eminnent domain in 41 states between 1998 and 2002. Many of them are in coastal Florida, where communities are seeking to displace lower valued real estate with luxury developments to enhance their property-tax lists, Anderson said. In addition to Florida, California and New Jersey stand out for the volume of such cases.
Florida made the process even easier with new legislation that liberalizes the interpretation of blight, one of the conditions that enables municipalities to take property by eminent domain. Blight was the justification when New London used eminent domain to clear areas in the Winthrop and Shaw's Cove areas of the city in the 1960s. The Fort Trumbull case revolves around another constitutionally allowable purpose, of condemning property for public purposes. The Institute argues that securing land for private developers doesn't qualify as a legitimate public purpose.
Dems are getting slaughtered on
this ruling. It is being spun as a defeat for the little guy,
and the arguments against meddlling with ‘public use’ are ringing hollow among moderates, and frankly, the poor.
Even George {{gag}} Will {{choke}} sounds sensical on this argument, how bad is
that? Answer: Really f’n bad.
How did George Walker Bush make his ‘fortune’?
eminent domain.This a goddam train wreck.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
