LIBERAL LAND GRAB (Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al.)

NY POST ^ | June 26, 2005 | EDITORIAL

[Liz]

The stereotype is that conservatives are heartless and in the tank to big business — while liberals are the ones who stand up for the little guy.

So how come the liberal Supreme Court justices just sold a bunch of New London, Conn., homeowners up the Thames River?

In essence, the court expanded the requirement of "public use" — the longtime limit on eminent domain — to anything that supposedly enhances economic activity. No more need for a truly public need — such as highways, parks and bridges.

The liberal bloc — Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer — joined with moderate Anthony Kennedy to state that economic development is a legitimate "public purpose" that can override private property rights.

The court's more conservative members — Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia — all dissented.

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton......" wrote O'Connor.

Added Thomas: "Losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful."

It's ironic that the conservative justices are the ones who sound like the New York liberal voices that rise to block almost any sort of economic development.

Kelo is the logical end product of a political philosophy that seeks generally to expand government power.

It did so this time, in spades.

Both Congress and state governments need immediately to consider what specific limits can be drawn on the concept of "public purpose" — and how best to mitigate the effects of this truly disturbing decision.

[mware]

I just tried to call into a radio station on the court ruling.

The screen caller said they were not taking calls on that topic today.

Stunning.

[Peach]

What gets me is that the cable news channels have spent VERY little time on this. I'm interested in the Natalee Halloway case, but it's NOT something that's going to impact the entire country, for crying out loud.

[mware]

This is just a hunch, but I wonder if they are afraid that by discussing it, they may be accused of inciting the public (regarding judges safety)

[NewHampshireDuo]

And if the president and Republicans don't use it, we're in big trouble.

All I hear is crickets from the WH.

[mewzilla]

We don't need no stinkin' news channels, Peach :)

I know people who can't name their mayor, Congress critter, or President. Folks who can't tell you the capital of their own state. Who don't know beans about how any form of government works.

But they know about SCOTUS's recent decision on okaying the snatching of private property by local governments.

Oh, boy, do they KNOW about it. And the words mad and scared don't begin to cover it.

I think a tipping point has now been reached.

[alice_in_bubbaland]

I will be flying the "Gladsden Flag" this Fourth of July in protest of this ruling. Here in New Jersey our property rights are already being challenged with the "Highlands Bill"

[jla]

28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America : "Resolved: no government, agency, district, or authority, nor any such entity created under the authority of same, whether public or private, shall have the authority to compel any owner of a property, whether real or virtual, movable or not, to sell same to any other entity, whether public or private, by use of any application or form of law, duress, coercement, or mandate."

Nice, but I'd add a Section 2 -

No citizen's property ("land") will at any time be subjected to any type of tax or levy.

And being that this would be in the U.S. Constitution it supercedes any state or local attempt to tax one's property.

[AndyJackson]

Both Congress and state governments need immediately to consider what specific limits can be drawn on the concept of "public purpose" — and how best to mitigate the effects of this truly disturbing decision.

This is real easy, actually. Pass a bill defining public use to be use by the public as Justice Thomas argued, and state that no state shall receive any federal funding from any federal source for any purpose if it excercises eminent domain for any purpose other than public use, uses any method other than legal methods to induce surrender of property or pays anything less than the expected value of the property upon completion of the planned development effort. Further provide that any citizen can file an action in any Federal Court to enforce this act, and can obtain attorneys fees plus 10% of any federal funds returned to the Federal government as a result of violation of this act.

[APFel]

This whole thing could have been avoided if New London repossessed the property in the "usual" way.

Send out an appraiser to reevaluate the value of the properties. The appraiser estimates the property to be worth an obscene amount of money, so the town jacks up the property tax so high that the home owners can't afford to live there anymore and the homes aren't marketable at the price the appraiser sets.

Boom- back door eminent domain. The land is up for grabs.

For those of us who are upset about this ruling (myself included), perhaps this will serve as a wake up call to all of the government's rules on home ownership. I live on an acre of land, but I can't cut down a tree without saying "Mother, may I?" to the city government. I can't modify the interior of the home without having some jerk with a clipboard wander around my house in order to adjust the taxes I pay. Minneapolis just recently (a few years ago) condemned some buildings downtown in order to give the property to the Target Corporation against the owner's will.

In essence, the SCOTUS did nothing but officialize stuff that was already widespread practice.

Call me a silver lining gazer, but I think that the outrage caused by this ruling (from both the left AND the right) may swing the pendulum in favor of the home owners.

APf

[AndyJackson]

there NO way that man can purchase anything even close to comparable for that price.

The Just compensation part is still subject to litigation through the courts I presume and will end up right back at the Supreme Court, I suspect. Kennedy might between now and then get some starch in his collar.

[Cowman]

Overnight, we've gone from a democratic republic with individual rights to a fascist state where government now controls all private property for the Marxist "common good."

It didn't happen overnight.

It began when the first property tax was put in place. Think about it -- You pay the market price for your house, you maintain your house and property, you insure your house and property you are subject to any liability risk from your property, but if you do not pay an annual rent to the town you will be removed from this property that you have paid for, insured, maintained and are liable for. You will be replaced with someone who will pay this rent to the town

You do not own your property -- the town does.

this ruling just affirms that

The same theory applies to automobile excise taxes.

[oblomov]

"Unintended consequences" does not exist in the vocabulary of liberals. They judge government action only by its intentions.

[kitkat]

***Go out to Utah, have a city take over an abortion clinic, give the land to Walmart.

Instant repeal. Liberals are so predictable.***

Good idea. Mind if I add to it? I haven't located a Walmart, Costco, Sam's Club or Home Depot in Georgetown where some of the Senators live.

[Peach]

That's a thought. But they HAVE to discuss it.

[Mark was here]

I have been thinking about a new amendment for a while, here is the idea.

The government cannot transfer ownership of any property taken by eminent domain, to private ownership, until a period of 100 years has passed. No scheme of any sort to subvert this simple principal will be permitted.

[sergeantdave]

This could burst the real estate bubble in a number of places. Why invest hundreds of thousands in a house - and in the case of small business millions - when the government can come along and seize it.

If this decision causes a recession or real estate collapse, we know whose fingerprints are all over it.

[oblomov]

This ruling pricked the housing bubble where it exists. And I would venture to say that it will depress residential property values even where that has not been a bubble.

[Cowman]

Good idea. Mind if I add to it? I haven't located a Walmart, Costco, Sam's Club or Home Depot in Georgetown where some of the Senators live

How about some of that wonderful low income housing they are always wanting to build. It would be my guess that Georgetown has less than the minimum amount of low income housing.

The servants will just have to live somewhere else

[bwteim]

Same issue raised by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide's

See The Death of "Just Compensation"
Posted on 06/24/2005 3:53:19 PM EDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430009/posts

[School of Rational Thought]

My neighbors house is not really up to the standard of the neighborhood but is on a very large lot.

Perhaps I should have the city transfer the property to me so I can tear it down and build something more economically advantageous?