Supreme Court Decision on Property Rights

[kapkomet]

It's ok... the government can piss, s***, screw, and otherwise belittle anything that the private citizen has worked so hard for. After all, our governments are our friends, and we know that they are only looking out for our best interests on our behalf.

 

:puke

[Chisoxfn]

I'm surprised no one has talked about this...

 

I think it's BULL s***.

 

Discuss... and I'll join in the fray later saying why I think what I do on this issue.

Its total crap. I understand if its for interestates and highways but its another thing for businesses and other things. Its totally unfair for the people who live at the property getting taken away just because another business or business entity could earn the city more money.

[Yossarian]

I'll say it again. It's the worst Supreme Court decision in my lifetime. We all know that I'm old, sorry Carl there really used to be dinosaurs. Seriously though, this is going to be horribly abused and will lead to some violent confrontations unless there is a remedy.

[kapkomet]

Congress is too ball-less and chicken s*** to even touch this.

[southsider2k5]

Congress is too ball-less and chicken s*** to even touch this.

 

Constiutionally it isn't their place to do so. This a state and local level problem.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm lucky to be in New Jersey. Eminent Domain has been a big deal out where I live for a long time... and being an election year, a lot of Dems are trying to make themselves look better by trying to restrict eminent domain rights of municipalities.

 

There's movement on the New Jersey level, and its my assemblymen that are behind it no less. If you care about this issue, petition your alderman, legislator, state senator to take it up. Because its the only way to see it saved.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I see the BIG problem now & I'm going to look up the dissenters. If this is primarily a liberal decision then perhaps a new conservative court could overturn it.

 

While it's true that the power resides in the states to pass laws against eminent domain how long is it likely to take for that to happen? A long time. Since tax revenue & profits are concerned in this decision it's not a slam dunk for any state & lobbying efforts on both sides will typically lead to long debate.

 

The 5 justices who supported this decision should have issued a ruling similar to the one they did for the 10 commandments & religious symbols.

Essentially stating no general rule or lemon test can be applied & that each case must be deliberated separately. That would have allowed them to rule in favor of the one case in Conn but insure that any future cases take a long time to work themselves through the courts & ultimately leaving the USSC to decide in each case whether the benefit to the government & the public outweighs the loss to the private individual.

[southsider2k5]

I'm lucky to be in New Jersey. Eminent Domain has been a big deal out where I live for a long time... and being an election year, a lot of Dems are trying to make themselves look better by trying to restrict eminent domain rights of municipalities.

 

There's movement on the New Jersey level, and its my assemblymen that are behind it no less. If you care about this issue, petition your alderman, legislator, state senator to take it up. Because its the only way to see it saved.

 

I am starting the movement in Michigan City as we speak. I am working on a letter to the Anvil Chorus to challenge Oberlie and company to do something. This is going to be one quality fire and brimstone letter. Maybe this will be the kickoff to my budding political career...

[Rex Kickass]

Gotta get on the gravy train somehow, eh?

[southsider2k5]

Gotta get on the gravy train somehow, eh?

 

You know how well local politics pays Here is my rough draft. What do you all think, is it too much?

 

The Supreme Court recently made what I believe to be the biggest mistake of my lifetime, in allowing the standards of eminent domain to be reduced to the level of a joke.  Right now a community can seize a person’s property simply under the guise that is “benefits the community”.  The standard for that seems to be as low as if it increases the tax roll base and/or employs more people than the previous utilization of the property that is a “benefit”.  Essentially a business could decide that they want to turn your house into a gas station, and if the town’s administration feels that they agree, they could seize your property and then the gas station gets built.  The properties owner would have zero recourse, as long as they receive fair market value for their property.  Basically all property becomes the local communities property, because there is no way to stop your local municipality from taking it from you for the greater good.  Think about that for a second, community property being used for the greater good of all.  When I was in elementary school as a young tyke, they taught that to me as Communism and as evil.  What has changed in the last 20 years?

 

This is scary stuff folks.  What is even scarier is that our own town is looking to do this exact thing to an entire area, without even having a set plan as to what they are going to do with the land once they get it.  They want to tear down seemingly profitable businesses, with no care for their status as private property.  If Blocksom and the other businesses want to leave that is their right, but it is also within their rights to be a profitable company, on their own private property.  As long as there is no great public need for their land (I am talking about an interstate of something that is essential to a town), they should be allowed to operate like the framers of the constitution intended them to be able to. 

[kapkomet]

There's a couple of grammar things that I would change, but the point is dead on.

[southsider2k5]

There's a couple of grammar things that I would change, but the point is dead on.

 

Spelling and gammer are my downfalls... please feel free to edit.

[JUGGERNAUT]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_argumen...ipts/04-108.pdf

http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf

O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, & Thomas were the dissenters. Their opinion begins on pg 25. It's a good read for those who believed like I did that this matter does not require protection for private property rights at the Fed level.

 

Highlights of O'Connor's opinion:

DYK the govt owns 49% of Hawaii & another 47% lies in the hands of 72 landowners (mostly foreigners)? Hawaiian's only own 4%!

 

The crux of the dissenting opinion is that the Public Use Clause was/is intended to be applied in a narrow view only. Economic or environmental considerations should not be sufficient for taking private property currently put to private ordinary use & transferring to a new private ordinary use.

 

Hospitals, stadiums, roads, railways, airports, etc. do not constitute private ordinary use. A new factory for Pfizer does.

 

Whatever the details of Justice Kennedy's as yet undisclosed test, it is difficult to envision anyone but the "stupid staffer" failing it.

 

For who among us can say she makes the most productive or attractive possible use of her property? The specter of condemnation hangs over all property.

 

Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz Carlton, a home with a shopping mall, or a farm with a factory.

 

States play many important functions in our system of dual sovereignty but compensating for our refusal to enforce properly the Federal Constitution (and a provision meant to curtail state action, no less) is not among them.

 

I would hold that the takings in Parcel 3 & Parcel 4A are unconstitutional, reverse the judgement of the SC of Conn, and remand for further proceedings.

 

...............................................................

 

Thomas's opinion: (I rather like this one - it's crafty)

The Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a Public Purpose Clause so long as the purpose is legitimate & the means "not irrational".

 

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

 

The Takings Clause prohibits the government from taking property except for public use (the obvious: hospitals, airports, railroad stations, roads, etc.).

 

Tellingly the phrase "public use" contrasts with the very different phrase "general Welfare" used elsewhere in the constitution.

 

The Constitution's text, in short, suggests that the Takings Clause authorizes the taking of private property only if the public has a right to EMPLOY it, not if the public realizes any conceivable benefit from the taking.

 

On the majority side: (favoring interpreting Public Use to mean Public Purpose)

Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, & Breyer.

 

***************************************

 

It goes w/out saying that the American people have not seen nor heard the last of this issue. This is essentially the litmus question if you will the American people want to hear in the confirmation process for O'Connor's seat.

 

Thomas is not known for his crafty writings but in my opinion he hit a home run in his diseenting opinion by placing the restriction that eminent domain requires the state to EMPLOY the land for public use. That even strikes at the heart of utilities who feel they can annex land with the state's approval for the benefit of the public.

 

Interpreting Public Use to mean Public Purpose is a FAR MORE important

decision than RvW because if we have learned ANYTHING from RvW it's that controversial & liberal decisions such as RvW become even further watered down over the years. Kennedy argued that NLDC had provided a convincing economic argument for the usage by Pfizer. Thirty years from now we can only imagine how flimsy an argument will need to be to grant the taking of property.

Edited July 13, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[southsider2k5]

I added a couple more paragraphs to make the letter finish a little better.

 

The Supreme Court recently made what I believe to be the biggest mistake of my lifetime, in allowing the standards of eminent domain to be reduced to the level of a joke.  Right now a community can seize a person’s property simply under the guise that is “benefits the community”.  The standard for that seems to be as low as if it increases the tax roll base and/or employs more people than the previous utilization of the property that is a “benefit”.  Essentially a business could decide that they want to turn your house into a gas station, and if the town’s administration feels that they agree, they could seize your property and then the gas station gets built.  The properties owner would have zero recourse, as long as they receive fair market value for their property.  Basically all property becomes the local communities property, because there is no way to stop your local municipality from taking it from you for the greater good.  Think about that for a second, community property being used for the greater good of all.  When I was in elementary school as a young tyke, they taught that to me as Communism and as evil.  What has changed in the last 20 years?

 

This is scary stuff folks.  What is even scarier is that our own town is looking to do this exact thing to an entire area, without even having a set plan as to what they are going to do with the land once they get it.  They want to tear down seemingly profitable businesses, with no care for their status as private property.  If Blocksom and the other businesses want to leave that is their right, but it is also within their rights to be a profitable company, on their own private property.  As long as there is no great public need for their land (I am talking about an interstate of something that is essential to a town), they should be allowed to operate like the framers of the constitution intended them to be able to. 

 

My other problem with this is the long term effects it could have on Michigan City.  My wife and are were both born and raised here and are about to have our first child.  We are currently in the process of looking for a house to buy here, but a part of me wonders if we should be doing so.  At anytime McDonalds could decide that our place would make a nice drive through, and Michigan City could take away our house.  Is this the town we want to lay roots in with the largest purchase of our lives, not being safe? 

 

My challenge today is to Mayor Oberlie and the city council to step to the forefront of this historical issue and pass an ordinance to make it impossible to use eminent domain except in extraordinary situations.  Please, protect our rights to private property Mr Mayor.

[Rex Kickass]

The communism line - a little too Dennis Methenyish for my tastes. Otherwise, nice letter.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Then again if Comcast doesn't allow competitors to rent their infrastructure states do now have the power to annex that infrastructure & rent it to competitors themselves.

 

This decision goes both ways. You can steal from the poor to profit the rich (Pfizer) or you can take from the rich to profit the poor.

[southsider2k5]

The communism line - a little too Dennis Methenyish for my tastes. Otherwise, nice letter.

 

I like the attention-gettingness of the line, but I kinda was thinking the samething.