quote: WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses _ even against their will _ for private economic development.
...
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including _ but by no means limited to _ new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
...
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, and I should add that for once, I am firmly with O'Connor on this one!
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Posted Topics these days seem more like a bad dream than anything resembling reality.
This is a perfect example of that.
-Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I just want this remembered the next time someone complains about the conservatives on the Court not caring about individual rights.
As I've said before, the difference isn't how much one side protects individual rights - it's about which rights are protected.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't understand how any judge could rule that way in good conscience. I don't understand the reasoning. I thought they were supposed to uphold laws--how are they doing that here?
-Katarain
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This is just sad. I believe, too, that when municipalities take land from people for widening roads, whatever, they often pay below fair market value for the land.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The question is what constitutes public use, as mentioned here:
quote:nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
-the fifth amendment
They've held that even though the land goes to private developers, its for public use in a sufficient sense.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Paying below the fair market value would be almost certainly squashed by courts if a case were brought; I'm pretty certain several cases have upheld that just compensation means a reasonable market value (not appraised value, but value it could have been reasonably sold for).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But in this case, I bet they were certainly paid below market value for what residents could have received from a private developer in the same situation.
Continguous parcels almost always cost more when someone wants to own them all. Similar to a control premium in stock purchases.
That's why Disney bought options in secret on all the land it wanted for Disney America.
Dagonee
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I find it frightening that I agree with Rehnquist, Scalia, a Thomas on anything, so I'm wondering what I'm missing here.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was more replying to SS, but if that's so, did the court address that issue?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I doubt it. The amount of compensation probably hasn't been at issue yet. I'd have to read the whole opinion to be sure. But I can see it as a follow on case.
quote:I find it frightening that I agree with Rehnquist, Scalia, a Thomas on anything, so I'm wondering what I'm missing here.
Well, Scalia is one of only two justices who thought Hamdi should be either charged or released.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Oh my God, I'm becoming a strict constructionist! Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Now the court should decide that the only fair price for stealing peoples' homes to give to some private corporation is a gazillion trillian dollars for each acre.
Still angry, Katarain
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Note that I said 'often'. I don't have anything about it in front of me at the moment, and I'm not disputing that the courts sometimes step in and make the state play nice, if it's brought to court, but I am saying that I have anecdotally heard that 'often' the state does not play cricket when paying for stuff via eminent domain--and this doesn't even get into the issue where the state seizes things in the course of a criminal investigation and either never gives them back or only gives the stuff back after a long and expensive court battle.
I will keep my eyes open for links as they pop up in the future, for discussion.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
It's kind of scary when you skim over which court made the ruling, read the ruling and think "I hope they can appeal that, otherwise that would really suck," scan up to see which court it was and realize that it was the supreme court. It's almost like towns could do whatever they want in the name of public use.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Yeah. It really sucks that there's no place to appeal the supreme court decisions. The ones that suck anyway.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
This issue has been watched closely in Las Vegas, where lots of people were really ticked off when the city condemned a private property owner's land in order to build a parking garage for the downtown casinos. They're not going to be happy it turned out this way. Neither am I.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
This doesn't surprise me. Once you decide that the state is more important than people you can happily take whatever people own. Toss them out of their lives for a few more tax dollars.
This decision is an outgrowth of that ideology. It's why the conservatives protected the individual and the liberals protected the government. That is where their priorities lie in all matters fiscal.
Pix
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*snort*
Pixiest, you get the wildest flights of fantasy.
On the main subject, though, if only it said for public works.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Seems to me it's an easy way around first amendment issues with respect to strip clubs. There are documented bad effects on the neighborhood. Buying them out for a "better" use should be pretty easy if everyone is careful.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mmmm, I'm pretty certain this SC majority would lose at least one (which is all it takes) when it came to a showdown between free expression and eminent domain.
Actually, I bet they'd have soundly lost this case if it could have been shown the state was trying to target very specifically instead of creating a large plan and proceeding based on that.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yeah, but that's how I'm afraid big business will use it. You just know that half of any city could now be justifiably forced out of their homes.
I don't like people on either end of the political spectrum using the limits of the laws or decency. This ruling will surely be used to do both by both.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure my town needs a KFC and I'm pretty sure it should be on my land, so I hope they buy me out soon. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The sad thing is... other citizens will blindly go about giving their business to the new establisments that are built.
I doubt that many will keep up a boycott for long--even if some people try to start one.
I also don't have a lot of faith that if the people who are being pushed out were the ones who were the safe neighbors, they wouldn't do much either.
I'm not saying they deserve this--I'm just saying that when you see this going on in your community--it will take more than just the victims standing up and saying NO.
-Katarain
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
all your base are belong to us
--j_k
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: all your base are belong to us
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
What bothers me is that when you take into account how many developers and corporations receive tax incentives for this kind of development, it makes the "increased tax revenue" a bit more shaky. One could easily show a reduced tax revenue on the primary property, but possibly an overall increase in tax revenues from some sort of trickle down effect.
But that is really just speculation. I've worked on Economic Development boards and when a municipality or county starts this kind of development a lot of money can go into a project that falls through or an industrial park that never attracts enough tenants.
And there are corporations out there that fish for these opportunities to get the tax breaks, construction and infrastructure assistance and Community Development Block Grants. Some of those companies stay at the site for the minimum contracted amount of time and most never fulfill their projected employment levels. In worst cases, the companies bail at the halfway mark leaving local governments holding the bag.
I just think this is a bad, make that terrible, precedent for imminent domain. And I hate that the business environment now requires municipalities to bribe large corporations into locating within their boundaries.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I am just sickened by this.
We are facing a similar situation in the town next to ours, an old, historic farmstead is in danger because the city is rezoning the area into a commercial one. I would guess that this decision spells doom for any attempt to save it.
I drive past the farm nearly every day. it's a beautiful old home and they have horses, it's especially beautiful in the morning when there's mist on the ground and the horses are grazing on the dewy grass.
This decision makes me want to cry.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know about the rest of the country, but Philly's been going through a whole bunch of "Pay to Play" scandals. The idea that these people wo are basically accepting bribes can then decide to take away people's property for whatever they think is a good idea is a scary one to me.
Of course, I think the whole idea of forcibly offering "fair market value" when invoking eminent domain for legitimate cases is awful. If you can't offer people enough money to convince them to sell, then there's always third-party arbitration, whichi I think should reflect the costs that these people would need to take on to relocate to a comparable location. But I think that might just be my ideas of fairness and distrust of the government kicking in.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
This bothere me so much. I have already seen several small farms we used to walk past dozed over for a condo complex or park and ride...if property can now be seized for commercial ventures, how many people will even be able to have a decent amount of land anymore?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
This is way the nomination fight in the Senate is so important. When Bush nominates a Supreme Court Justice, possibly this summer, there is going to be a huge battle and major filibusters. That’s why the constitutional option is needed so that nominees can’t be filibustered. I’m really in shock that they can rewrite the constitution this way. This is in direct violation of the 5th amendment:
quote: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Key word there being PUBLIC use. Nothing to do with a private company or business development. Unreal. So…. Does this count as an activist court? They’ve certainly rewrote the law!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Considering a variant on public use is the justification for requiring handicap access to places like restaurants, no, that's not clearly how public use is defined.
I don't like this ruling, but its not beyond the pale.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It suddenly struck me how this is interestingly close to a communist idea where the houses belong to the state.
How is this any different? Is your house really yours if it can be knocked down for something less than vital?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
You could move way out in the country and still have your property seized to make way for a cell tower or feed store, whatever, if some local officials had it in for you.
We all had thought that the Soviet Union fell. Now we discover that we are living in the Soviet Union after all.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And they say extreme hyperbole is dead.
Who woulda thunk we would be in a communist state under a Republican President, much less a Bush!?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Interesting…. Well, it’s not Bush that’s trying to bring in the socialist communist rule. He wants to bring in good judges who won’t do this sort of activism. They’ll actually read the law.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If the municipal government and private businesses backing the deal didn't expect to make a profit from confiscating the property, they wouldn't want the property. That they expect to make a profit proves that they intend to pay less than fair market value.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I thought the constitution provided protection against "unreasonable search and seizure."
What if homeowners formed a landholding co-op and incorporated? Then businesses would have to treat with the homeowners corp. as and equal entity under the law, and homeowners could have considerable leverage with local government for eminent domain legislation, since their collective taxes would probably equal or exceed the tax revenues promised by the business that wants to move in. The idea is that by incorporating together, homeowners could say, you have to seize all of us to seize any of us.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If the municipal government and private businesses backing the deal didn't expect to make a profit from confiscating the property, they wouldn't want the property. That they expect to make a profit proves that they intend to pay less than fair market value.
That's not entirely true, but that'd be my starting presumption, to be overturned only with strong evidence.
After all, developers buy land at fair market value all the time and make subsequent profits. So it's not true they wouldn't want it, and it's not true they can't make a profit without paying fair market value.
But, if they have to confiscate it, it creates the very strong impression to me it that they couldn't buy it at fair market value or that just plain don't want to. Hence my thinking that it's a fair assessment absent further evidence.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:And they say extreme hyperbole is dead.
I was just make a lose comparison, is all. Obviously it's not the same, just approaching a disconcerting amount of leaning in that direction.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not you
Mr. Lambert
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dag: lots of people just don't want to sell, so that a developer can't buy at market value doesn't generally indicate what you say it does.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Oh good, I was hoping my local community would be able to bulldoze that church. We need more Indian Casinos and strip clubs in this town.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Dag: lots of people just don't want to sell, so that a developer can't buy at market value doesn't generally indicate what you say it does.
If someone doesn't want to sell, then the market value may be taken as infinity, or some ridiculously high number - say three million dollars for a two-room apartment - according to the strength of that conviction.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KoM: No.
That's the price the person wants, not the market value. Someone who wishes to sell a small, tumble-down house can set a price of ten billion dollars, and it will not be the market value, and it will not sell. Just because the government happens to be the one trying to buy it does not change that.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
I really dislike this. I dislike it already that someone can be forced from their home to build roads, but I understand why and agree with it. This absolutely blows my mind. I see alot of possibilities for corruption with this.
And I want to add, is anyone in favor of this decision?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
What I find sort of strange about this is that, even though the conservative justices were in the minority opposition to the ruling, it will likely be Republicans who benefit the most from it.
Big business can raise a glass to the supreme court for removing barriers toward land development. If Haliburton or Phillip Morris wanted to expand their holdings, for instance, they can do so far more easily now than they could before.
Just a strange turn of events, really, that the liberal justices gift wrapped a ruling for the wealthy heads of business, while the conservative justices fought for the little guy.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
quote:Just a strange turn of events, really, that the liberal justices gift wrapped a ruling for the wealthy heads of business, while the conservative justices fought for the little guy.
No it isn't. This is classic liberal vs. conservative stuff. The liberals on the bench were for expansion of government, and the conservatives were for contraction of government. This isn't out of line of stated ideologies.
I, for one, am not happy with this. I don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said. I'll just say that developers should buy the land on the market, and if the owners say "no", then they should walk away (it happens, but not as often as I would like). The government should use the land to conduct government business (this hardly happens anymore too).
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: But, if they have to confiscate it, it creates the very strong impression to me it that they couldn't buy it at fair market value or that just plain don't want to. Hence my thinking that it's a fair assessment absent further evidence.
I agree with fugu. My first assumption would be that they just plain didn't want to sell. There's a similar situation happening in Daytona Beach. Someone wants to redevelop the boardwalk with new restaurants, shops and hirise condos. The small mom&pop businesses that are already there don't want to sell because they don't want to leave and they don't want to see that happen to the boardwalk. I'm sure some of them were holding out for more money. It's in court now, but this ruling certainly isn't going to help their case.
As far as governments paying fmv, I work with FDOT a lot. The anecdotal evidence I hear from people who work there, including their appraisers, is that FDOT does generally pay fmv or more. In municipal governments, I can see a reason to screw people, but it doesn't happen as often as you think at the state level. The people who make those decisions don't get a bonus, don't get a better raise or worry about getting re-elected. Believe me, they have no problem wasting your taxpayer dollars.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
TheReader, you're right. It isn't out of line of *stated* ideologies... but those have been obscured in this country for quite some time.
Yes, "conservatives" (who are often Republicans, but those words are in no way parallel) generally want less government involvement. However, the freeing up of government constraints is often so that business can have its way - less government regulation means more power for wealthy businessmen to make more money, and less need for them to give it back to the government in taxes. So the *stated* goal of smaller government has come to mean something different in practice.
While this ruling expands government's power, going against the stated goal of smaller government, it serves the practical secondary goal of removing restrictions and red tape for land-development-minded businesses.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Flying Cow, it *really* is unfair of you to presume this hypocrisy in conservatives.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag: lots of people just don't want to sell, so that a developer can't buy at market value doesn't generally indicate what you say it does.
The legal standard is the price that would be paid between a willing buyer and a willing seller, both with complete information.
I agree that my statement doesn't hold true all the time. But I stand by my original assessment that that's the reasonable presumption until proof otherwise is obtained.
Proof otherwise might include a lone hold-out. This would be a strong indication that the market was correct. Not the case with the New London situation. They used the condemnation power on a whole neighborhood, immediately disrupting the market.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, and Flying Cow, as you say, it isn't out of line of "stated" ideologies. It is out of line with distortions heaped on those stated ideologies by their opponents.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't believe they can use condemnation without first offering to buy, and a waiting period following that.
Also, market value depends on how the good is being conceived. Is it homes in that neighborhood? Is it homes in similar neighborhoods? Is it homes with similar appraisal values?
Clearly, for the government the specific neighborhood is important, but what's relevant here is what the precedent is for calculating market values.
If your assumption were true, then there'd be no point to eminent domain in many cases, as the government could only buy at the price the person would have sold at anyways.
As the government often applies eminent domain for public works, this is clearly not the case, therefore your method is not the one for determining market value.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If your assumption were true, then there'd be no point to eminent domain in many cases, as the government could only buy at the price the person would have sold at anyways.
I can't tell if you're disagreeing with my statement of the legal standard. That is the legal standard.
quote:As the government often applies eminent domain for public works, this is clearly not the case, therefore your method is not the one for determining market value.
No. For public works, there's no profit motive for the government. Here, there is a profit motive - for the developers.
That's what changes the situation and my initial presumption. Where there's a profit motive, I am immediately suspicious of coercive sales. By definition, the government is interfering with the market, and they're doing it in such a way as to make a private venture or ventures profitable.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Public works are by definition interfering with the market -- for one thing, they're buying up property that was developed through action of the market!
Not to mention there's a considerable profit motive in public works, its just not (usually) for money. Public works are improvements to the city,
BTW, your quote contained one outright falsity:
quote:After all, developers buy land at fair market value all the time and make subsequent profits. So it's not true they wouldn't want it, and it's not true they can't make a profit without paying fair market value.
That some developers make a profit off of buying some land at fair market value is not indicative that all developers which buy land at fair market value are going to be able to make a profit. This is easily demonstrable by appealing to construction ventures which fail.
Furthermore, since you're defining fair market value as what the person asks for, then if, say, all the people in a neighborhood wanted $2 million for houses they could only sell to other potential homeowners for $100,000, then at this "fair market value" there probably isn't a developer in the world who could make a profit on putting a mall there.
Plus, I'm amazed you say that is the legal standard, when it isn't:
For instance, in Michigan (which is apparently better to property owners than most states):
quote:Your award must be based upon the market value as of the date of taking.
A. The highest price estimated in terms of money that the property will bring if exposed for sale in the open market with a reasonable time allowed to find a purchaser buying with knowledge of all of the uses and purposes to which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used.
Note that its not what the person is asked for, and in fact the sellers opinion doesn't matter one whit. Instead, its the value you'd get if you put up a for sale sign and got the best deal possible.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Public works are by definition interfering with the market -- for one thing, they're buying up property that was developed through action of the market!
Duh! That's my whole point.
quote:After all, developers buy land at fair market value all the time and make subsequent profits. So it's not true they wouldn't want it, and it's not true they can't make a profit without paying fair market value.
Look at what I said: "it's not true they can't make a profit without paying fair market value." I certainly did not mean all developers will always make a profit. It's ironic you seize on this statement, since it was introduced to demostrate the fallay of aspectre's statement being universally applicable.
quote:Plus, I'm amazed you say that is the legal standard, when it isn't
You're misunderstanding what is meant by "willing buyer and willing seller." In this case, the seller isn't willing, so this standard does NOT mean "the person is ask[ing] for." The quote you listed is a restatement of the willing seller standard. Here's one source:
quote: Fair value is usually considered to be the fair market value - that is, the highest price somebody would pay for the property, were it in the hands of a willing seller. The date upon which the value is assessed will vary, depending upon the governing law. If the parties do not agree on the value, they will typically utilize appraisers to assist in the negotiation process. If the case is litigated, both sides will ordinarily present expert testimony from appraisers as to the fair market value of the property.
quote:It is usually said that market value is what a willing buyer would pay in cash to a willing seller. Where the property taken, and that in its vicinity, has not [317 U.S. 369, 375] in fact been sold within recent times, or in significant amounts, the application of this concept involves, at best, a guess by informed persons.
Again, strict adherence to the criterion of market value may involve inclusion of elements which, though they affect such value, must in fairness by eliminated in a condemnation case, as where the formula is attempted to be applied as between an owner who may not want to part with his land because of its special adaptability to his own use, and a taker who needs the land because of its peculiar fitness for the taker's purposes. These elements must be disregarded by the fact finding body in arriving at 'fair' market value.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The interaction between willing buyer and willing seller does not imply that if all the people in the neighborhood are asking exorbitant prices, those prices are fair market values for that neighborhood, which is my primary contention.
Note this part
quote:Again, strict adherence to the criterion of market value may involve inclusion of elements which, though they affect such value, must in fairness by eliminated in a condemnation case, as where the formula is attempted to be applied as between an owner who may not want to part with his land because of its special adaptability to his own use, and a taker who needs the land because of its peculiar fitness for the taker's purposes. These elements must be disregarded by the fact finding body in arriving at 'fair' market value.
That the people in a neighborhood have a particular attachment to their land is "eliminated" from the consideration of fair market value -- even if they're together in that attachment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That the people in a neighborhood have a particular attachment to their land is "eliminated" from the consideration of fair market value -- even if they're together in that attachment.
I haven't argued that attachment value is included in condemnation fair market value.
You keep making my point for me. If a developer walked in and tried to buy a whole neighborhood in order to build a development, he would pay much more for the last house he bought. This is a well-documented, highly repeated phenomenon. In many cases, this still allows the developer to make a profit.
If condemnation is used, the reasonable presumption is that developer would not make a profit (or an acceptable profit) by purchasing the neighborhood as described above. What's for sure is that the developer will make more profit via use of condemnation than from buying the neighborhood on the market.
Which is really my entire point.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Looks like we got our wires considerably crossed. Ah well, still an interesting discussion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ah well, still an interesting discussion.
As always. Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Jim-Me and Dag:
Is it really so unfair or distorted? Couldn't it be spun this way?:
<<This ruling will provide a significant boost for the economy, allowing businesses to more easily establish themselves in formerly locked residential areas and create jobs for those living in those areas. More businesses will lead to lower unemployment rates and will put more money in the pocket of the average citizen, increasing their purchasing power and fueling the economy. The ruling eliminates red tape and obstacles to starting business ventures, which will only serve to further fuel the economy, increasing property values and the standard of living.>>
Is that not an argument that might come from the Republican camp?
I mean, I think this ruling is a load of carp, myself, but it doesn't surprise me that our government would churn it out - and it wouldn't surprise me if it came from either side.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Only if you ignore the ongoing attempts, especially in conservative legal circles, to protect private property from government. For examples, look up "regulatory taking" sometime.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Yes, but is this protecting it from government? Or is it protecting it from private interests?
It seems that the ruling is against holders of private property and for capitalist-minded people who want to develop said property. The governmental function in this whole shebang is the newfound power to give the greenlight to private business/industry, rather than a power to take land for themselves.
The government already has processes in place to seize land for things like roads and other public works - this is giving power to private developers more than it is giving power to the government.
I mean, when they built Atlantic City, they drove out all the residents along the beach and constructed casinos - lots of arm twisting and buying out going on, with severely undercut prices. With this legislation, Donald Trump (as an example) would have a lot fewer obstacles in getting the go ahead to develop the whole of the beachfront property in any given coastal residential area into casinos.
Are there conservative circles that are against this? I'm sure. Are there liberal circles that are against this? I'm also sure. Are there circles on both sides of the aisle that are for this? I think there are, for different reasons.
If nothing else, the major campaign contributors for both parties surely made out like bandits in this particular instance.
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
Originally posted by FlyingCow
quote:TheReader, you're right. It isn't out of line of *stated* ideologies... but those have been obscured in this country for quite some time.
That's why I said stated. There are stated ideologies (what they say) and actual ideaologies (what they do). This is a rare case of both sides reconciling their respective stated and actual ideologies. Otherwise you are debating with me about a point I didn't make.
As a person with conservative views, my reasons against the ruling and this use of eminent domain are that I believe that using eminent domain to gain on the competition is unfair to other businesses and creates an artificial advantage, which destroys what the free market is supposed to be. I also believe it is an unfair way to gain property because it effectively bullies people out and virtually eliminates their choice to sell or keep it. That hurts the property market, and much more importantly, the people living there and the neighborhood. This is why eminent domain should be used rarely and solely for government use.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The Washington Post is reporting that the case that sparked the latest round of eminent domain battles (made it all the way to SCOTUS) has taken a surprising twist. Because of the furor, the bank that originally agreed to finance the development that the city had favored in their property seizure has backed out. There are also something like 44 states likely to pass laws limiting local government's discretion in eminent domain, especially in cases that would transfer ownership to private entities.
One unfortunate side effect, though, is for the people who agreed to sell. Many of them apparently decided to move already and are now stuck with a house they thought had been sold.
Ooops.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
If they agreeed to but, it doesn't matter if teh financing fell through, theose people should get their money...it is still a binding contract, isn't it? Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm sure the developers were smart enough to put a clause in there about the purchase being contingent on being able to acquire 100% of the neighborhood.
There are too many stories of the little house surrounded by sky scrapers for them (or their financers) to not insist on some contingencies.
But I would be disappointed if those people hadn't gotten some up front money that's non-refundable.
I wonder if they'll start a class action lawsuit, and if so, who they would sue: the developers, the city, or the folks in their neighborhood who wouldn't sell.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)