Judge Says Stockton Wrong to Take Private Property (eminent domain)

[The Straight Story]

Judge Says Stockton Wrong to Take Private Property


STOCKTON, CA (AP) -- A state appellate court says the owners of land that is now home to the Stockton Ports' ballpark should not have been forced to sell the property to the city.

The court found that Stockton's eminent domain act against Marina Tower was a "gross abuse of discretion." The city must pay the owners' legal fees, estimated to be close to $1 million, and possibly pony up more for the property.

The court said the city failed to specify a public use for the property, then talked with a developer about building private luxury apartments. The judges wrote that this was a case of "condemn first, decide what to do with the property later."

Mayor Ann Johnston was critical of the eminent domain act and blamed it on a previous council, city attorney and city manager.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=55018&catid=2

[Fireweed247]

1. A win for the people? Shocking!

:applause:

[ThomCat]

2. One win is not enough.

Eminent Domain is being abused far too often, far too widely. We need a law on the books at the federal level putting some serious limits on how Eminent Domain can be used. x(

[Thothmes]

3. Aided and abetted by five members of the SCOTUS.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. The Kelo case - an abomination saying that yes, public entities

can transfer private property to another PRIVATE property owner - pretty much gutting the entire reason of eminent domain in the first place as being the taking of land for common use like schools, roads, libraries, etc.

Justice O'Connor in her dissent said famously "Nothing to prevent a state from taking a Motel 6 and replacing it with a Ritz Carlton" once the other geniuses agreed that raising the tax base fell under the area of common good.

This modern Court will be looked at by historians as one which committed itself to gutting the Constitution and depriving common citizens of the guarantees therein.

The ONLY door left open by the Supreme was to say that states themselves have an obligation to pass specific laws about what that state regards as permissible eminent domain. So, if your state is friendly to big business that likes to pay little or nothing for land it plans to develop - watch out! And, even if your state has reasonable eminent domain laws this year, it may be changed next year if a more business vs little guy legislature comes in since the SCOTUS did not protect us at the Federal level.

Just another travesty.

[KharmaTrain]

4. There Are Goods And Bads...

In this case, it was a bad...I've never favored taking property by ED for a commercial venture. If the county or other local authority wants to build a park (and approved by the voters) that one deal, but surely there's plenty of land that can be purchased on the market that would serve the purpose.

The other hand, there are times where ED is a benefit. It can be used to clear out slumlords and assist in neighborhood redevelopment. If we're going to look at alternative forms of transportation...expanding light rail and other services for the public good, ED can prevent land speculation and years of costly delays.

The question in this story is if there was some money under the table involved...either to the city or the council people in building the ballpark.