Posted on 06/26/2005 4:22:57 AM PDT by Liz
Nice! that's thinking on your feet.
What usually happens is that there is great emotion when these things happen. For example, in Conn, there is a lady that was born in her house I believe. There is no market value for that.
another thing that happens is people sometimes put money into a rehab or remodel then expect to get that back out of the property. That seldom happens in the real world, and often the rehab/remodel is as much emotional as it is financial.
Depsite all the angst on this, what the court did was simply rule that what has been happening can continue to happen. And that the quasi public groups no longer need to do that facade.
We know people who lost their home in Philadelphia in which they had lived all their married life and where their children were born, a gorgeous Victorian. What they received for it would not even come close for a comparable home.
Somehow it doesn't make me feel better knowing that local governments have already been circumventing the Constitution. But whether they have or no (and I'm willing to believe you on it), in my mind it is a great tragedy that the highest court in the land has so cavalierly jettisoned our right to be secure in our property.
And I don't see how that can fail to have a major effect on the lawsuits associated with these cases. Not to mention graft.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't care that it's been going on, it makes me want to weep watching our American traditions die. I guess I don't "get it," I'm not sophisticated and worldly or whatever.
Now while the RR's can move public goods, including troops and other military goods, they still are private entities. Part of the deal was the RR's had to make available those lines for others to use (of course for a fee). Maybe that was the beginning of the regulation of the RRs and other transportation. I'm not sure.
Virtually every conservative will laud what happened then and how crucial it was to the development of the United States and it's push toward opening the western frontier.
But what was so different to those property holders then vs the property holders now. Why do we laud the linking of the west via the Railroads as vital and necessary when in fact if we hold to the same rhetoric we hear today, it was a terrible travesty, because the property of one private individual was transferred to a corporation.
I'm actually this hasn't gotten larger play in the MSM, but a similar thing happened in Arlington, TX with regard to the Texas Rangers. The stadium was built by the use of eminent domain. And a young businessman by the name of George Bush was heavily involved in that. A quasi public corp was used to allow the process to take place when in fact, a commercial enterprise was able to flourish because of it. Try to enter that park in January when there is no chance of a game being played and see how public of a place it really is.
Perhaps the founders intent was more toward compensation and public good rather than concern over who owns what.
Talk radio has been funny over the past few days. There have been calls by hosts and callers that corporations have gotten too powerful and that we've got to stop the flow of money to our elected officials so this can be properly addressed at the various local levels. Funny how just a few months ago that action was deemed a first amendment right. Some Christian talk radio host are going as far as to say that this is an effort to be able to take out the churches at will. Funny how some churches have been able to grow and add space using the same criteria that a young businessman in Arlington, Tx did. Now if the court simply made it official, then how is it probably anti-church?
"...money being given to the Connecticut residents isn't half what they need to buy a comparable house anywhere in the state of Connecticut. "
Would you believe as low as 60K?!?!?!
"...money being given to the Connecticut residents isn't half what they need to buy a comparable house anywhere in the state of Connecticut. "
Would you believe as low as 60K?!?!?!
Well I'm not thrilled to hear that the Supreme court of Victorian times made the same mistake. I'm still devastated and shaken that our court ruled as it did this week. Add to that last year's ruling on CFR and last month's ruling on medicinal marijuana and interstate commerce. I figure it's only even money whether the court would uphold any of the Constitution at this point. Justice Steven's language really throws me for a loop. He references "public interest" and "careful planning." The similarity of that to the words "common good" and "central planning" aren't a coincidence IMO.
My son is home for a long weekend from law school. He pretty much takes the same view of this as you do, and, since he's actively studying this stuff, can quote case history all the way back to the founding. We were discussing the thing last night over a couple beers. Apparently as early as 1814 Congress was using the Interstate Commerce clause to step outside its constitutional bounds. Hell, I think most of the founding fathers were still alive then.
I know all this now, but I still feel like I'm suddenly living in a different country than the one I grew up in and lived in for so many years. Maybe I was living in a dream, but I'm still sad.
I haven't heard talk radio the last few days, wondering what Rush will have to say about it, if anything.
Frankly the Patriots for Profit make me sick.
" 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."
So this little detail escaped our supreme court justices , but they succeeded in finding abortion rights. Hmmmm!
I think judges should interpret according the Constitution and what it means. It's not so hard to figure out, all you have to do, IMO, is ignore most of the precedents and go back to the original. But I understand that's not the way it's done.
Still, I think that piece of paper (our Constitution) and its history can continue to exert strong influence, assuming that Americans retain an awareness of it.
I don't consider this to be judicial activism, since they aren't writing "law." A huge mistake, more like. Perhaps a deliberate one, though.
I'll wait to see the effects of this. My thinking at the moment is that there will be lots more eminent domain takings than there have been. It should be easier for the developers to win the cases. And I feel like this ruling may have a much more widespread effect than the one for the railroad rights of way. It could get scary.
Never heard of Patriots for Profit.
It's a term I use to describe those who use patriotism as a means for profit, and at the expense of truth or fact. As we both agree, this isn't necessarily judical activism, yet the talk radio hosts either state or allow callers without correction to state that this is another example of judicial activism. They profit because it keeps listeners tuned in, responding and ad dollars flowing.
I tend to like Rush, I've heard him be very eloquent at times. I listen if he's on when I'm driving usually. I believe he is more of a Republican than I am, however. I don't mind that he's made money from it, pursuit of profit is a good thing, IMO. I might think he was weird if he ran it non profit and gave all the extra to charity, for instance.
Our constitution guarantees citizens the right to life, liberty and possession of property without fear of confiscation. We will fight for our lives, our liberty,.......what are we to do if a local municipality decides capriciously to take it from.....file a suit which has been codified by 5 robes? Do we fight...literally? That seems to be the last resort.
We are damn near that condition down here in Texas already. This is absolutely insane. The working man can only take up the pitch fork.
The court is saying Emminent Domain's "public use" = private use and government revenue. They removed any requirement of emminent domain seizures to show an actual benefit to the public. No longer must there be blighted or for public use such as in Joesbucks' examples.
The decision stipulated that the government can freely transfer property between private parties so long as the government receives a benefit. As a result the burden of proof is shifted to homeowners to prove the results of a seizure will be of less economic value to the community and the government than current ownership.
Before this governments and developers had to prove their seizures meet emminent domain's "public use" hence there was usually a public angle, like a stadium. Now "public use" has been redefined to be the very ends sought in seizing properties in the first place -economic gain by other private parties and the government. And they don't even have to prove the gains will materialize. The gains simply have to be anticipated.
Kelo vs. New London has given developers and governments the green light for essentially any type of land seizure.
Emminent domain seizures are now protected from lawsuits citing Kelo's definition of the 5th's "public use". Public use = the mere anticipation of economic gain and government revenue. In effect all seizures are now explicitly protected by this new definition.
Not bad but, how about if we develop John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer homes into something that will bring in more money for the city.
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.