Posted on 07/30/2004 4:49:43 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
Michigan Supreme Court strikes down 1981 Poletown decision
By DAVID EGGERT
The Associated Press
7/30/2004, 7:30 p.m. ET
DETROIT (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday redefined the power of Michigan governments to take property for development projects, overruling a landmark 1981 decision and barring Wayne County from acquiring land for a 1,300-acre project near Detroit Metropolitan Airport.
On the court's final day of its term, all seven justices agreed that the earlier precedent should be overturned, though they differed on the reasons and whether the decision should be applied retroactively.
Justice Robert Young, who wrote the lead opinion, called the 1981 case allowing Detroit's Poletown neighborhood to be cleared for a General Motors Corp. plant a "radical departure from fundamental constitutional principles."
"We overrule Poletown," Young wrote, "in order to vindicate our Constitution, protect the people's property rights and preserve the legitimacy of the judicial branch as the expositor, not creator, of fundamental law."
Young said the case presented a clash between two fundamental legal principles: individuals' right to control their private property and government's authority to condemn property for public use.
The court heard arguments in April about an effort by Wayne County to acquire land for a planned 1,300-acre industrial and commercial project near Detroit Metropolitan Airport. The case drew the attention of Michigan communities as well as advocacy groups from across the country.
The county in 2001 sued landowners who refused to sell property for its Pinnacle Aeropark project in Romulus and Huron Township. Lower courts sided with the county, which argued that it had the right to buy the remaining land — about 2 percent of the project site — under Michigan law and the Poletown precedent.
But the defendants argued that the 1981 Poletown case was flawed. They said the state constitution limits governments to use eminent domain in instances where the land will have a public use.
"This is a towering decision by a very bright court," attorney Alan Ackerman, who represents the landowners, said Friday of the Supreme Court's ruling. "The day of unlimited governmental power to acquire property may be over."
Makes sense to me.
On the island of kefalonia in greece, there is an endangered species of sea turtle which on occasion lays eggs on the beaches.
If a beach owner finds a turtle egg nest they destroy it right away and crush all the eggs. A finding of a nest endangers property rights via the lower protection of private property rights over in europe.
I imagine in the states, similar quite actions are now taken to protect private property.
Me too.
And it's the most liberal. And the most libertarian. And the most socialist. And the most fascist ;)
Whoa...! Now there's a statement that is sure to have the scumbag Democrats soiling themselves.
Thank you, Dan from Michigan,
for posting this ED case ruling. I live in a community that could be considered a "blighted community" and subject to ED for the purpose of a Walmart or because a golf course development with homes is going to be built adjacent to this neighborhood. Either one would increase tax revenues to the local government entities compared to present tax revenues.
I can accept ED for the purpose of a legitimate government function but not for the purpose of satisfying a developers desire to confiscate property for the developer's needs or for the purpose of increasing tax revenues to the local government, city/county/parish.
Would you Conservatives who beleive in Private Property Rights please write to your Congress-person calling their attention to this decision. Ask them to enact legislation resticting ED to government needs, which does not include expanding tax revenues by taking private property from individuals in their homes.
Nov. 2 - mark your calendars - reelect Bush.
A Louisiana Goldwater Republican (genuine old fart)
Have a good day....
It was the City of Detroit that condemned many hundreds of homes in that stable area of Detroit. General Motors wanted to build a new automated Cadillac plant. Some of the oldest commercial building in Detroit were in the way, as was a fine old historical Catholic Church. Furthermore, Cadillac added insult to injury by building a parking lot around the area cemetery (where some of my relatives rest) and baring people from visiting the cemetery except on special occasions and with permission of the factory guards. The only way in was through the factory parking lot, which was guarded.
Detroit, Wayne County and the State of Michigan gave GM huge tax breaks. GM, in turn, promised to hire local area people before any others. But, that was a scam.
More homes were condemned there than there ever were jobs in that factory and GM still gets nearly a free ride on taxes.
The above article is incorrect, as written, because it mixes in circumstances from various areas and gives the impression that most of that happened in Poletown. The people of Poletown did not want to leave because some were third generation in the same homes. It took Detroit over three years to get them all out of there.
I did not live there when that happened, but I did live there a while as a kid and had friends and relatives in the area. That was a sad, sad time for many Detroit families.
I suspect that if property owners here in WA found an Eagle's nest they might think twice about broadcasting it...
Actually, there is an active nest in a new park here. It is huge and has a couple of chicks. Amazing to see them up so high in the airie flapping their wings. We humans are doing no harm to them, and they are fine - but it slowed park construction for TWO YEARS.
Thanks very much! For some reason it hadn't occurred to me that a court might have originated the limitation, even though that is what happened in Michigan.
I hope they at least derive some culinary satisfaction from the findings. I understand turtle meat is quite a delicacy, though I've yet to try it.
"The day of unlimited governmental power to acquire property may be over."
YES! Now if we can get this idea across to the BLM we might actually have a chance.
ping to a State awakening
And cheers for one small step toward reclaiming our country from runaway government.
Hip, hip, hooray, right?!
Poletown though wasn't a slum.
They don't call Virginia "the Old Dominion" for nothing!
This old article always comes to mind when property rights are in debate.
The recent complaint filed against Taiwanese immigrant Taung Ming-Lin and his corporation Wang Lin, Inc., for alleged violations of the federal Endangered Species Act is another example of the federal government usurping its powers.
Ming-Lin's company is charged, in a complaint filed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with killing several Tipton Kangaroo rats and destroying the habitat of two other endangered species. Mr. Ming-Lin's crime was plowing 723 acres of scrub land owned by his company in Kern County, California, 150 miles north of Los Angeles.
Does the federal government have the constitutional authority to enforce the Act on private land located within a state?
To understand the answer to the question, it is first necessary to understand the limitations of government powers. The federal government derives all legislative power from the Constitution. All powers not specifically enumerated are reserved to the states or the people. This principle was succinctly stated by the framers, in their writings, particularly in The Federalist.
In The Federalist, number 14, James Madison spoke of the limited power of the federal government:
"In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated obiects ......Madison also distinguished the limited powers of the federal government with those reserved to the states. It is important to note that the powers of the federal government related primarily to external (foreign) affairs:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. (number 45)Put quite simply, the federal government was empowered primarily to deal with foreign affairs while the States would concern themselves with domestic affairs.
Thomas Jefferson made this point in 1824:
With respect to our State and federal governments, I do not think their relations (are) correctly understood by foreigners, (or Americans, for that matter.) They generally suppose the former subordinate to the latter, but this is not the case. They are coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. To the State governments are reserved all legislation and administration in affairs which concern their own citizens only; and to the federal government is given whatever concerns foreigners or citizens of other States, these functions alone being made federal. The one is domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government; neither having control over the other, but within its own department.In The Federalist, number 83, Alexander Hamilton stated that Congress was not granted general legislative powers:
The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or in other words of the national legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general legislative authority was intended.The question as to whether the federal government should have power over land located within a state was before the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It was proposed to grant Congress exclusive legislative authority over what is now the District of Columbia, and like authority "over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings." The first part of the provision was agreed to and a short debate ensued concerning the second:
MR. GERRY contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular state by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the state into an undue obedience to the general government. MR. KING thought himself the provision unnecessary, the power being already involved; but would have to insert, after the word "purchased," the words, "by the consent of the legislature of the state." This would certainly make the power safe.Agreement with this change was unanimous and would become Clause 17 of Article 1, Section 8 of the federal Constitution.
The debates in the Constitutional Convention illuminate the framers' fear of the federal government usurping power. There appears to be no question that the consent requirement of Clause 17 was added to prohibit the federal government from destroying the sovereignty of the states. Clause 17 is one of the checks and balances incorporated in the constitution to keep the federal government within the bounds of its delegated powers.
The Endangered Species Act was passed by Congress in 1973. As in the case of Mr. Ming-Lin, the federal government is enforcing this law throughout the United States without regard for the prohibition of Clause 17. The Senate Report on the Act in 1973 acknowledged the limited jurisdiction of the federal government: "For the first time, the knowing taking of an endangered animal in violation of the law is a criminal offense where the federal government has retained management power." (emphasis added)
In 1988 there was an amendment to the Act to afford greater protection to plants. A Senate report again acknowledges the federal government's limited jurisdiction: "Currently, anyone who captures, kills or harms a listed animal commits a violation of the Act for which substantial criminal and civil penalties may be imposed. However, it is not unlawful to pick, dig up, cut or destroy a listed plant unless the act is committed on federal land. Even on Federal land, however, there is no violation unless the plant is removed from the area of federal jurisdiction." (emphasis added)
In 1956 Congress prepared a report entitled Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas within the States. The report contained an in-depth legal analysis of federal jurisdiction over land located within a state. The authors of the report reached the following conclusion based on clause 17 and decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court: "It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State , . . . "
The lawbreaker, in other words, is not Mr. Ming-Lin. It is the federal government.
At the time of the original publication, Mr. Greenslade lived in Walnut Creek, California.
Reprinted with permission from The Freeman, a publication of the Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., September 1995, Vol. 45, No. 9.
No doubt the folks in Poletown had their own local method for insuring they had a decent urban environment.
GM, however, wanted a place to put in a big factory. With a myriad of properties available in the area, somebody in GM wanted the factory in that general area irrespective of the wants and desires of the locals.
All I can say is I am very happy that Henry Ford and his automotive industry cronies decided to relocate the auto industry to Detroit and out of Indianapolis!
I don't think this decision hurts GM, but it may well allow a certain class of property owner in Wayne County (and in other Michigan counties) to continue to use their property in a manner harmful to their neighbors and thereby effectuate their own ultimate property clearance anywhere they wish.
There's really nothing like a private 1/4 acre landfill in a residential area to convince the neighbors to sell out cheap and move somewhere else. Someday some of these judges might ask the residents of the bad areas in Detroit if they like living like this.
That includes my next door neighbor using his property to violate my private property rights.
For instance, I have a neighbor who runs a dance studio in her home. In addition she has been known to cater dinner parties where liquor was served.
I didn't purchase my home for the purpose of living next door to a dive.
One day this particular neighbor decided she didn't like the corn growing in my garden and called on the State Board of Health to investigate the situation and issue me a citation.
She made a big mistake. It cost her dearly.
My God, there is hope after all.
I'll debate this with you tomorrow. I tired tonight. OK?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.