Carrying eminant domain WAY too far

[rraley]

Well vrai, I think that the founding fathers would be highly upset with you for criticizing eminent domain so terribly.

Here's a good example of eminent domain and it should be familiar to most in Southern Maryland. The flattop housing development by the base was "encroaching" upon the base because it was in line with all the flight paths. This "encroachment" had to be ended in order to make St. Mary's County more competitive in the BRAC process so the county government decided to buy the land, pay the owners/renters of the housing fair compensation so they could live somewhere else, and bulldozed the properties. Smart move and all thanks to eminent domain.

Also think about the area around Oriole Park at Camden Yards...similar action was taken there and thank God because now when I leave the stadium to go to my car I don't feel threatened.

 

[Triggerfish]

That's one thing - evicting people and tearing down their homes for shopping malls is something else entirely. Taking of land for the public good should be just that - FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD, not for Wal-Marts.

I have never seen a town or city in my whole entire life that didn't have some unused land around that could be developed, and I doubt this particular town is any different. Eminent domain is fascist and wrong.

So I guess the correct way to phrase this is, EM is SUPPOSED to be for the benefit of all.

 

[Triggerfish]

All right ya'll make up your minds. Are they right or left? They can't be both!

Yeah I was wondering the same thing...fascist is extreme right....

 

[Railroad]

As an example of a "good" application of Eminent Domain, the City of Goose Creek, S.C. seized the back half of my property so they could dig up and replace the sewer lines and water lines (the easement wasn't wide enough). They tore my fence down and took out a beautiful old tree, but they did the work and got it done. I don't recall whether they put my fence back or not. I sold the house and moved either shortly before or shortly afterward.

But they were doing it for (ultimately) a good reason - to benefit those of us who lived in that community. This is a whole lot different than the City of New London (where I also used to live) stealing property. There was a bit of urban blight there, down around Bank Street and northwest Montauk avenue, but that's not where this guy's house is. I'll wager that, with the Navy pulling out of New London, the town's going to wither a bit anyway - everybody will want to be across the river in Groton (the other sub base and General Dynamics, where they build submarines).

 

[vraiblonde]

Also think about the area around Oriole Park at Camden Yards...similar action was taken there and thank God because now when I leave the stadium to go to my car I don't feel threatened.

Well, I'm just thrilled, Raley, that people lost their homes and businesses so you don't have to feel threatened on your way to the ballgame.

 

[vraiblonde]

Yeah I was wondering the same thing...fascist is extreme right....

What gives you that idea? Fascism definition:

1. <LI type=a>A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
3. Oppressive, dictatorial control

This sounds more like the liberal Democrats, not the Republicans. Smoking bans (in your own home, no less), eminent domain, "hate" crimes, repression of speech on college campuses, PETA, ELF....those are your basic liberals at work.

Republicans are for LESS government intervention, not more. Where did you get the idea that fascism means extreme right?

 

[vraiblonde]

As for this decision, it seems pretty outta whack for me, but you could look at it this way: the judiciary is staying out of a local, legislative question.

Wrong. The job of the Supreme Court is to protect the little guy from corrupt, greasy-palmed local judiciaries and legislators. Some local judge says, "Yep, this here developer can take your home and build condos on it. I have ruled!" and the little guy takes it to the Supremes, who say, "You can't do that, corrupt local official."

 

[vraiblonde]

Also recall that seven of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents...so if you have such a terrible problem with the Supreme Court, blame your own side, not "liberals."

This is infuriating. A Supreme Court nominee must make it past the Senate, sweetie pie. If it were just up to the President, you'd see a very different set of Supremes - Robert Bork would be there instead of Kennedy, for example.

 

[ylexot]

To me, this seems more socialist than fascist. Socialist would be for the good of the majority at the expense of the few while fascist would be for the good of what the government wants...screw the people. Maybe it's a hybrid...fascism under the guise of socialism. Either way, it's just sooooooo f'ing wrong.

Eminent Domain (as far as I'm concerned) is a necessary evil, but should only be used in extreme cases. From what I have seen, this case is nowhere even remotely close to being extreme.

 

[vraiblonde]

but to take, steal or grab someones rightful property because they can cop more tax revenue from Abercrombie & Fitch than they can from the rightful owner in property taxes is DEAD WRONG.

And this is exactly what the Supreme Court just said - if these guys will pay us more in tax revenue, they can take your property. They just put private property up on the auction block.

 

[ylexot]

I found this regarding eminent domain. Here is an excerpt:

Notwithstanding the grant to individuals, the eminent domain, the highest and most exact idea of property, remains in the government, or in the aggregate body of the people in their sovereign capacity; and they have a right to resume the possession of the property, in the manner directed by the constitution and laws of the state, whenever the public interest requires it. This right of resumption may be exercised not only where the safety, but also where the interest or even the expediency of the state is concerned; as where the land of the individual is wanted for a road, canal or other public improvement. The only restriction upon this power, in cases where the public or the inhabitants of any particular section of the state have an interest in the contemplated improvement as citizens merely, is that the property shall not be taken for the public use without just compensation to the owner, and in the mode prescribed by law. The right of eminent domain does not however imply a right in the sovereign power to take the property of one citizen and transfer it to another, even for a full compensation, where the public interest will be in no way promoted by such transfer. And if the legislature should attempt thus to transfer the property of one individual to another, where there could be no pretence of benefit to the public by such exchange, it would probably be a violation of the contract by which the land was granted by the government to the individual, or to those under whom he claimed title, and repugnant to the constitution of the United States. But if the public interest can be in any way promoted by the taking of private property, it must rest in the wisdom of the legislature to determine whether the benefit to the public will be of sufficient importance to render it expedient for them to exercise the right of eminent domain, and to authorize an interference with the private rights of individuals for that purpose.

 

[Larry Gude]

5th amendment...

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

The Washington Post starts out by saying "...in the case of Kelo v. City of New London the result is quite unjust, yet the courts decision was correct."

They support the decision because they cannot or will not distinguish between a shopping center, in this case, and ballparks, railroads and inner city redevelopment plans.

Unjust but correct. Liberty and justice for all. Unjust but correct. Liberty and justice for all. The Dredd Scott decision was correct you asshats. Need help on the justice of it?

Scalia stated in oral argument that New London is saying they can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes.

Stephens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter and Breyer say 'yes' to that and go further by making clear that in the 5th Amendment, 'public use', the word 'public' being the limiting factor to limit government power, doesn't mean what it CLEARY says.

O'Conner says it is likely, not possible, likely, that beneficiaries of this decisions will be people and groups with disproportionate power and influence in the political process including large corporations and develpoment firms.

Backing her up, Scalia and Thomas said the consequences of this decision will not be random (read 'blind').

Stephens exscused the majority from reality by saying the court has and should avoid 'rigid formulas' and 'intrusive scrutiny' in favor of giving deference to legislatures, broad latitude, in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings clause.

Guess what? The legisltature did no such thing. They created a private non profit development committee to do the dirty work. Come election day what will they say? "It wasn't us!!! It was that damnable committee!!"

Stephens et al have given PRIVATE entities legislative powers including the POWER to take your ####ing house if Don Trump will pay more in taxes for it.

Thomas, simply the clearest Constitutionalist on the court, noted the common law law origins and CLEARLY restrictive purpose of the framers 'public use' requirement and says "the court owes no deference to a legislatures or city governments self interested re-interpretation of the phrase 'public use' any more than a court owes deference to to a legislatures determination of what constitutes a 'reasonable' search of a home.

This case is the essence of what a court does; determine, judge. Is New London using eminent domain for the public use or not.

Clear, CLEARLY it is not.

A development firm is totally free to try and buy these homes but it's cheaper to use the government to force them out. The government is free to raise taxes if it thinks it needs more money but they lack the political courage to do so, thus, set up a commitee, a PRIVATE committe to throw people out of their homes for less than what THEY choose to sell for.

You people who support this better find a mirror and find it quick.

While you still have one.

 

[ylexot]

I'm just waiting for someone with a trailer/shack/small home on waterfront property to get kicked out for some billionaire's mansion because the tax revenue for it will be more...

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm just waiting for someone with a trailer/shack/small home on waterfront property to get kicked out for some billionaire's mansion because the tax revenue for it will be more...

What are you waiting for? It just happened and the Supremes said it was okay.

 

[ylexot]

What are you waiting for? It just happened and the Supremes said it was okay.

I'm waiting for one individual's wants to override another's ownership rights. This was a case of corporate wants (ok, it's just as bad).

 

[Pete]

This is infuriating. A Supreme Court nominee must make it past the Senate, sweetie pie. If it were just up to the President, you'd see a very different set of Supremes - Robert Bork would be there instead of Kennedy, for example.

and Bush and Ford would not have had to kiss liberal butt in the Sentate Souter (wretched 2 face) and Stevens (a waist of air) would be has beens on the 9th Circuit.

This is a truely sad day for personal rights. Where is the "Peoples Pary" railing against the taking of rights?

 

[Larry Gude]

They're off...

...fighting for the rights of those who'd cut their fools heads off given the chance.

What's some poor schmuck tossed from his home in Connecticutt when you can be supporting violent religious nuts sitting as POW's at Gitmo?

 

[vraiblonde]

Where is the "Peoples Pary" railing against the taking of rights?

And considering that the ones evicted are typically poor and/or minorities, you'd think the libs would be losing their minds about this. It's like the Flattops - yeah, they compensate them for their move, but where are they going to move to?

All those people who will be kicked out of Southeast to make way for Nat's Stadium - where are they going to go? It's not like they can take their piddly compensation from the city and buy a new house or find reasonable rent in DC.

Why don't they build National's Stadium on Capitol Hill? Displace all those effers? You ever notice that - that cities never invoke eminent domain in neighborhoods where rich, powerful people live and work? Why do you suppose that is?

 

[rraley]

Wrong. The job of the Supreme Court is to protect the little guy from corrupt, greasy-palmed local judiciaries and legislators. Some local judge says, "Yep, this here developer can take your home and build condos on it. I have ruled!" and the little guy takes it to the Supremes, who say, "You can't do that, corrupt local official."

I agree, but modern conservatism holds that the Court should stay out of all legislative actions. It's called "judicial restraint," or whatever conservatives wanna call it today.

 

[rraley]

What gives you that idea? Fascism definition:

1. <LI type=a>A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
3. Oppressive, dictatorial control

This sounds more like the liberal Democrats, not the Republicans. Smoking bans (in your own home, no less), eminent domain, "hate" crimes, repression of speech on college campuses, PETA, ELF....those are your basic liberals at work.

Republicans are for LESS government intervention, not more. Where did you get the idea that fascism means extreme right?

If you look at any political science or government textbook it will define communism as being on the radical left and facism as being on the radical right. The main reason for communism being to the radical left is the government's ownership of industries to create equality for all in theory. The main reason for fascism being to the radical right is its emphasis on nationalism (think about it in less radical terms, American conservatives are more likely to tout their love of America than liberals, am I right?). Furthermore while fascist governments do have great control in a nation's economy it is not done in order to achieve equality; it is more as a means to control the populace (which is a deviation from Marxist theory). Both systems advocate government control of expression, speech, etc. etc. which I can see coming from both sides as means to advance their propaganda.

And vrai, Republicans are not for less government intervention. Exhibit 1: Terri Schiavo. Exhibit 2: abortion. Exhibit 3: assisted suicide. Exhibit 4: gay marriage. Exhibit 5: tort reform. Exhibit 6: the greatest increase in the size of government under President Bush since the Great Society. Exhibit 7: prescription drug benefit. I can go on for days. I do not do this to prove that Democrats are for less government intervention because they are not, but just to say to you that the GOP is not about limited government anymore.