Posted on 07/25/2018 8:05:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled, in the Kelo v. City of New London decision, that eminent domain could be used to seize private property from one owner and give it to another in the name of "economic development." It remains one of the most controversial decisions the court has made this century.
Yesterday, Congress belatedly addressed the troubling issues raised by the decision by passing the Private Property Rights Protection Act. As Ed Morrissey at Hot Air points out, no major media outlets covered this seminal issue regarding the rights of citizens to be secure in their property.
Amazingly, not one major media outlet picked up on this, not even to note that it took thirteen years for Congress to address the issue. It might not have gone far even now had it not been for renewed interest in the case from the recent independent film Little Pink House, starring Catherine Keener as Susette Kelo and Jeanne Tripplehorn and produced by Ted Balaker, formerly of Reason.
It's tough to understand the indifference. The House vote didn't have much drama to it, but the issue directly aims at the relationship we have with government and the nature of private property, a core right recognized in the Constitution. Kelo perverted that relationship, putting everyone's property rights hostage to politicians who want to hand off spoils to bigger entities. The case prompted some states to step in and redefine eminent domain to prevent another New London abuse, but Congress has remained relatively passive about it until now.
There are many justifiable instances where the needs of the community might be best served by employing eminent domain. The argument isn't if states and local governments have the right to invoke eminent domain,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Supreme Court gives new meaning to own your own land (until we need it).
btw after the Kelo decision Pfizer came in New London and started building on the land.
Fast forward ten years or so—in a corporate re-organization they abandoned most of the property so...
It turns out that homeowners were kicked out of their property so it could turn into vacant land.
The good news—all the scumbag politicans got their cut from Pfizer. :-(
I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem right.
Takings for public use is an enumerated power in the Constitution, so the 10th amendment doesn't apply. I don't think that "defining" a meaning of an enumerated power is a state power. That belongs to SCOTUS, who decided in Kelo.
I think they decided wrong, because "use" is not "good," when "good" means taking from one private owner and giving it to another private owner on the hopes of receiving higher taxes. In both cases, the "use" remains private so there is no public taking.
Furthermore, how does one define "just compensation" for a Kelo-based taking, when the use remains private but the government receives more taxes? Does the prior owner get a share of the increased taxes? What if the increased taxes never materialize, as had happened in New London?
That's why it is better for SCOTUS to reverse the Kelo decision, rather than have 30 states create a hodge-podge of reactionary laws.
-PJ
To be accurate, the full name is "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."
So, not only was it not affordable, it didn't protect patients, either. Patients ended up losing their doctors and their coverage, so they weren't protected. And they paid more for the privilege.
-PJ
I read just yesterday “Little Pink House”, the movie based on the Kelo episode, is now available here and there on some of the video services. (Not Netflix though.)
It’s a tough movie to watch, because you know how it ends.
If the Senate doesn’t pass also overwhelmingly pass this, they are worthless.
We have no journalists in our MSM. They are all propagandists for the democrat party, otherwise known as "The Party" as in Orwell's 1984.
“Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle – the principle of the public good.”
“Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that ‘the good’ was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it – well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act.
...
"If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own – I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being’s right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!”
-- Hank Rearden, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand
Even though the property in the Kelo case was never developed, you can be sure that the developer PAID the politicians who made the transfer possible.
That is not what the 10th amendment says, regardless, making the claim that a clearly enumerated power isn’t in fact a power because the power isn’t explicitly defined....makes no sense.
That being said, the Kelo decision was patently absurd.
You mean like "natural-born citizen" was understood?
Used meant that the public needed the property for a public use such as a road or a building that couldn't be placed anywhere else.
It would make sense to define it like that but since it isn't clearly defined in the Constitution, and since the 10th Amendment gives powers not reserved to the federal government to the states and the people, then Connecticut is free to define, or corrupt, the term any way they wish. And if anyone has to define "public use" then I'd rather it was the states and not the feds. Any Congress which defines public use narrowly can, at a later date, place a broader definition on it.
Why should Congress punish a state for exercising one of their Constitutional powers? Say a future Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade. If a Democrat Congress passed a law mandating that any state that did away with legal abortion would lose some sort of federal funding for two years, would that be right? We may not agree with how Connecticut defined "public use" but it was their right to define it how they saw fit. If Congress sanctions a state for using eminent domain for obtaining land for a private developer or a sports stadium or whatever then what is to prevent a future Congress from sanctioning a state which did not allow eminent domain for a private developer or sports stadium or whatever? I would much rather leave that power in the hands of the state.
So are you saying that eminent domain was a power reserved to the federal government and not to the states?
I'd say that "public use" is much less esoteric than "natural-born citizen." The average person would be more expected to understand "public use" than "natural-born citizen."
Any Congress which defines public use narrowly can, at a later date, place a broader definition on it.
Define it or not, there is still the direct text in the 5th amendment:
...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
"Private" is contrasted with "public," and "taken" is conditional on "just compensation."
Congress cannot legislate this away via corrupt meanings, and I believe the proper place to resolve this is SCOTUS, not the states. Any laws that states pass will still have to be resolved against the text of the 5th amendment, and that will eventually lead back to SCOTUS.
-PJ
Are you saying that eminent domain is a power reserved only to the federal government?
I don't think that "defining" a meaning of an enumerated power is a state power. That belongs to SCOTUS, who decided in Kelo
I would respectfully disagree. The Fifth Amendment says that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Article I, Section 12 of the Constitution of Connecticut says "the property of no person shall be taken for public use, without just compensation therefor." In neither case is "public use" defined. So in one respect I would agree that any state law that defines it the way it was used in Kelo would be subject to judicial review, and in this case it was the Connecticut Supreme Court that reviewed it and ruled on it and that's where it should stay. If the people of Connecticut don't like it then they can elect a legislature that will change it.
I think they decided wrong, because "use" is not "good," when "good" means taking from one private owner and giving it to another private owner on the hopes of receiving higher taxes. In both cases, the "use" remains private so there is no public taking.
And I don't necessarily disagree with you, but if Connecticut wants to define "public use" as a private development that increases taxes then it's their right to do so.
They had a situation in Kansas 15 or so years ago where the government of Wyandotte County used eminent domain to obtain property to build the Kansas Speedway. Their logic was that doing so would stimulate retail development in an area that desperately needed it, and the tax revenue would benefit the population as a whole. As it turns out their plan exceeded far beyond their wildest dreams. The Speedway led to retail development, restaurants, entertainment venues and the tens of millions in tax revenue they realize from that area has led to better services and lower taxes for everyone in the county. The Kelo development may have been a flop but that isn't always the case.
Furthermore, how does one define "just compensation" for a Kelo-based taking, when the use remains private but the government receives more taxes?
I'm pretty sure what was used to determine "just compensation" for the property owners in the Kelo case was the same process used to define just compensation in any other eminent domain case.
Does the prior owner get a share of the increased taxes? What if the increased taxes never materialize, as had happened in New London?
By all accounts the Kelo development was a failure, but that really isn't relevant. If the Kelo development had been a stupendous success like in the Kansas case would that have made it all OK to you?
That's why it is better for SCOTUS to reverse the Kelo decision, rather than have 30 states create a hodge-podge of reactionary laws.
Sorry, I would rather have 50 states create a hodge-podge of definitions for eminent domain than have Congress mandate a singe one-size-fits-all definition.
Apparently not, or so the Connecticut legislature decided.
After Kelo, some communities in South Florida tried to use eminent domain to evict people living on the Florida Intracoastal waterway. These people owned property they acquired in the 1970s, and the local governments decided to condemn them as blighted so they could use the land for yacht club marinas. The land was too good for the people who owned it.
The world's "rich and famous" discovered South Florida in the 1990s with the conversion of Miami's "South Beach" from a senior retirement locale to Euro playground when the original retirees passed on. Unfortunately, later retirees settled on the intracoastal waterway in Broward County, and they were still there (or their children were).
The people sued and eventually won.
-PJ
Come on... That wasn't a case of not understanding the plain meaning; it was a case of brazen political overreach supported by the court.
They all knew what they were doing.
-PJ
What about reparations?
Not true. It would restore the protections contained in the 5th Amendment, which applies to the state through the 14th Amendment.
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.