Posted on 06/23/2005 1:54:47 PM PDT by calif_reaganite
McClintock to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights
“Today the U.S. Supreme Court broke the social compact by striking down one of Americans’ most fundamental rights. Their decision nullifies the Constitution’s Public Use clause and opens an era when the rich and powerful may use government to seize the property of ordinary citizens for private gain.”
“The responsibility now falls on the various states to reassert and restore the property rights of their citizens. I am today announcing my intention to introduce an amendment to the California Constitution to restore the original meaning of the property protections in the Bill of Rights. This amendment will require that the government must either own the property it seizes through eminent domain or guarantee the public the legal right to use the property. In addition, it will require that such property must be restored to the original owner or his rightful successor, if the government ceased to use it for the purpose of the eminent domain action.”
###
And the difference will be?
The farmer opened the barn door but didn't demand the cows go out - think they'll stay in the barn or head for those green - and free - neighbors pastures, now that the fences have been torn down?
I make my farmer analogy again - the farmer opens the barn door but does not force the cows to go out to green pastures - but he gives them permission too.
think they'll stay in the barn?
Why? California is *NOT* currently effected by this SCOTUS decision. It's left to the states and CA law is *already* requiring a finding of "blight" before property can be kidnapped by the gov't.
Well said - in a nutshell.
You are but a renter at their leisure - except the landlord only collects your money - you do the upkeep, pay the taxes, increase the value, do all repairs and upkeep.
but the "landlord" can kick you out at any time...
Fight this now or keep your bags packed
A landlord would be certifiably insane to kick out a good renter! Granted, some of them are, but if you stick to a place run by a reputable property management company they will want you around, year after year, and the renter gets benefits that the home owner can only dream about!
Good for him.
Well, it's a nice analogy, but here would be the real world impact:
The USSC issues its decision that upholds the efforts of a local government that performs a taking on private property for private use.
The State of California amends its Constitution to prevent local governments and itself from taking private property for private use.
Now who is going to challenge that in Federal Court? Presumably, the local government or some business that wants the local government to use the eminent domain power. Is their argument going to be that today's decision REQUIRES that a state allow it's subdivisions to allow takings of private property for private use?
I can't see that happening or it being successful.
You said it, my friend. This is about the last man left in government who remembers the Constitution.
He is proposing to amend the CA State Constitution, not the US Constitution. Doing so would protect the property rights of citizens from the abuse of eminent domain from the state level downward. Unfortunately, it offers no protection against a federal abuse of eminent domain.
Yes, I recall that it was in Atlantic City.
Do you think the liberals on the court would have felt the same way if it had been WALMART that wanted to take people's homes?
Another similar story....but the Mich SC reversed it...
Poletown seizures are ruled unlawful
State Supreme Court restricts government rights to take land
July 31, 2004
BY JOHN GALLAGHER
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER
Reversing more than two decades of land-use law, the Michigan Supreme Court late Friday overturned its own landmark 1981 Poletown decision and sharply restricted governments such as Detroit and Wayne County from seizing private land to give to other private users.
The unanimous decision is a decisive victory for property owners who object to the government seizing their land, only to give it to another private owner to build stadiums, theaters, factories, housing subdivisions and other economic development projects the government deems worthwhile.
Detroit and other municipalities have used the Poletown standard for years to justify land seizures as a way to revitalize.
In the decision, the court rejected Wayne County's attempt to seize private land south of Metro Airport for its proposed Pinnacle Aeropark high-technology park. The Pinnacle project, announced in 1999, is geared to making Wayne County a hub of international high-tech development linked to the airport.
Backers of the Poletown standard warned that Friday's decision could be a "significant blow" to revitalization efforts in blighted cities like Detroit. John Mogk, a professor of land-use law at Wayne State University, said Detroit needs to use its powers, known as eminent domain, to seize land to clear large tracts for new economic development, including retail centers, office parks and residential projects.
"Any limitation on the power of eminent domain will reduce the chances of the city accomplishing those kind of projects," Mogk said. "No other city with which Detroit competes has such limitations placed upon its ability to acquire tracts of land for future development."
In the original Poletown ruling, the court allowed the City of Detroit to seize private homes and businesses on the east side so General Motors Corp. could build an auto factory. The bitterly contested seizures and the court's ruling in favor of the city had national implications and led to similar rulings elsewhere.
Thousands of homes and dozens of churches and private businesses were bulldozed in Detroit's former Poletown neighborhood to make way for the GM plant.
Of 1,300 acres needed for Wayne County's Pinnacle project, property owners representing about 2 percent of the land have refused to sell. They have resisted, in part because much of the project would later be turned over to private developers and other entities.
In Friday's decision, known as Wayne County v. Hathcock after one of the landowners in the case, the court ruled that the sweeping powers to seize private land granted in the 1981 Poletown case violated the state's 1963 constitution.
"The county is without constitutional authority to condemn the properties," the court's opinion read. All seven justices voted to overturn Poletown, although three dissented over some technical aspects that do not affect the main ruling.
Justice Robert Young, who wrote the lead opinion, called the 1981 case allowing Detroit's Poletown neighborhood to be cleared for a GM 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."
Alan Ackerman, one of the attorneys who represented landowners in the case, said he was "elated at the recognition that it is a government of limited powers. The constitution did not contemplate that the government would do everything for everybody."
But a spokesman for Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano issued a statement saying that "the Michigan Supreme Court's decision to change Michigan law and divest municipalities from their ability to create jobs for their citizens is a disappointment not only for Wayne County, but for all of the Michigan communities struggling to address these difficult economic times."
The court said its ruling covers any condemnation cases now being heard before lower courts in which Poletown issues have been raised. The former owners of Poletown properties that were seized to clear land for the GM plant are not affected by the decision.
The decision won't stop all uses of eminent domain. All sides agreed governments can still take private land for traditional uses such as slum clearance or for a private use deemed essential to the public good, such as to build a regulated public utility. And the government's ability to seize land for governmental purposes such as building schools and roads was never in question.
What the decision does mean is that the cost of land just went up for municipalities trying to accomplish economic development. Now that governments can no longer use the threat of seizure, private owners and speculators could demand higher prices to get out of the way of projects that government leaders deem essential
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/land31_20040731.htm
That's the vast majority of the abuses. Many states already have laws and constitutional provisions that would prevent these kinds of takings. Connecticut citizens need to get organized and fix the problem there.
Federal legislation can be passed to take care of federal abuses.
It's good to see McClintock doing something. Good man. If he fails it will because more Californians don't care than do care.
I heard it, too :)
Sen. McClintock is SO right.
This is one of THE most frightening decisions by our "highest" court in the land in decades.
May God help us.
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.