Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Photos of D Train Murder Depict Bloody Panic
Stuy Pyro Leaves Notes In Hieroglyphics
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
The Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that the government can seize private property and turn it over to developers, under the auspices of eminent domain. The Daily News points out that this probably warms of the hearts of developers, taking, for instance, projects like Bruce Ratner's Brooklyn Nets arena or Columbia University's development of 18 acres in Harlem...or any projects that have a "public purpose" element. In the end, it's up to the state government to determine whether or not the property should be seized, so many local lawmakers are pleading with the State Legislature to review eminent domain.
And the Court's decision had Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the majority, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissenting. Read the ruling, Kelo Vs. New London, CT, here.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
yeah, ID sucks.
http://www.ij.org/ to help fight the tide
...
IMO, the Supreme Court is, in this case, crazy.
Well, The Honest Politicians (An honest politician is One that Stays bought.) must be celebrating for their constituencies like Home Depot, Walmart, etc...
New London is a "distressed municipality"??
Great! Now I have to spend time researching what can be done if a Supreme Court ruling is really assinine.
I wonder how Stevens, et. al. would have decided if their homes were going to be seized to build a strip mall or sporting arena? I propose a highway off-ramp right through Kennedy's backyard.
For public use =ok, to turn it over to a private developer =insane.
jesus ace, that's how we ended up in this hole in the first place!
where the hell did the irony police go?
it is not OK to steal land just because the government wants to build a park, anymore than it's ok to steal land to build a carpark. period.
Perhaps the most bizarre thing about this ruling is I actually agree with Scalia.
worse yet, thomas is turning out to be the most reasonable justice on the court these days. somewhere he grew a constitutional spine along the way.
Scary. The only justices non-conservatives can count on these days are the conservative ones.
Y'all need to chill the hell out. The government can do what it wants, but the 5th amendment puts limits on it. Roads need to be built, and sometimes a landowner in the way has to make room for the greater good. The Supremes here just ironed out an issue of what renders something the "greater good." You homeonwers out there don't need to worry about Wal-Mart forcing you out anytime soon.
PS: Bruce Ratner can suck it.
"You homeonwers out there don't need to worry about Wal-Mart forcing you out anytime soon."
if you say so. not sure where you're getting this idea from, since "all" that was decided is that local authorities now basically own final decision rights on all lands within their purvey. and can grab what they want in the name of local utility.
that's fucking gross.
if you're cool with that, fine. anyone who cares about limiting government power will not be - or anyone who thinks property rights are slightly important, even.
Zoning boards have been doing this for years, of course, deeming big picture wise that certain neighborhoods cannot build a certain way, etc. The power is already there. And I don't view this as a carte-blanche invitation to cronyism. The Court merely held that deference was due to be given to the development board's reasoned determination, and the Connecticut Courts, more familiar with those specific facts, had found the same. Brooklynites can continue to fight to save Freddy's by using the political processes and by exposing weaknesses in the Nets plan. But the bottom line, here, is that just because Con Edison makes a few bucks running power lines over Joe's land doesn't mean that electricity for Joe's neighbors is not a good idea.
PS: some succor too in the fact that Joe will receive just compensation under the amendment.
This is one of those rulings that truly scares me in a way I never though I could be scared. First, the middle-class is slowly eroding in the modern U.S. Now this.
Can something like this be appealed? What is the process of standing up and saying "NO!" to this ridiculous ruiling.
I think the big difference between this and say "building railroads and highways" is that the government is essentially handing over the property to a private developer, who is going to build an office building, that the general public won't have access to, as opposed to a common carrier. So now you're not only taking something from a private citizen for public use (and I don't even fully support that) but now you're taking something from one private entity and transferring it to another private entity. All for "the public good", which 1)it's not 100% assured will improve and 2)is determined by a system vulnerable to lobbying by wealthier entities.
On top of that, the compensation is determined by the government, which is obviously going to be lower than what the owner wanted for it. I believe one of the owners' family had lived in the house for over a hundred years, and that made the house more valuable for him than for his neighbor.
Add that to the possibility that if economic development does succeed, the value of a similar home in a similar location in the future will of course be higher than the current market rate that he will have been paid, and the owner has taken an even greater loss.
I'm sorry if I rambled, I just think the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Everyone in NYC agrees with the Clarence Thomas/Scalia/Rehnquist minority opinion.
Umm, yeah New London is an economically distressed municipality.
Not only is there not much in the way of work there but the city is hampered by the fact that there are three non-taxable educational institutions in town (Connecticut College, Mitchell College and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy).
Take into consideration that the nearby sub base in Groton is currently scheduled to be closed soon and yeah, it's easy to say that there's been better times in New London.
dont forget Sandra Day O'Connor. She's a moderate, and I almost always find myself agreeeing with her decisions. She put it quite well in her dissent. Here's an excerpt:
“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”
Considering that Justice Thomas was the only person to vote the "real liberal" way in both the medical marijuana case and this case, which involves the de facto expropriation of property from the poor to the rich, I say we make him the next Chief Justice. Unlike the Scalia-puppet he's portrayed as, his opinion in the medical marijuana case showed he has the integrity to limit federal powers even when the result might offend his socially conservative instincts.
Yeah, Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice.