High Court: Govts Can Take Property for Econ Development

Bloomberg News

[Helmholtz]

U.S. Supreme Court says cities have broad powers to take property.

[xzins]

Yes, you may plagiarize away.

This decision is an abomination and the end of real private property rights in America.

The "ownership" president needs to weigh in on this one fast and furious.

[jstolzen]

Sorry..have to agree w/the previous poster.

Dubya has done very, VERY little on the things that count.

He needs to be more vocal and come down hard on the side of the right issues (eg: judiciary and this totally disastrous SCOTUS decision on private property rights). He campaigned well and talked a good talk..but the proof has NOT been in the pudding in terms of ACTION.

REAL leaders would be all over this. If I had Dubya's job, I'd be on TV TONIGHT leading the charge to get Congress to pass legislation outlawing this mess that SCOTUS just put out.

Private property rights are officially dead. You'd hear something from most "real" leaders. We won't hear DIDDLY on this from Dubya, IMHO.

There are days I'm sorry I voted for the guy, quite frankly. Of course, letting Kerry get in would have been MUCH, MUCH worse. But the choices lately are: BAD, and much worse.

[Roccus]

Don't know if anyone else is doing this, but at 5PM EDT I re-hung my flag upside down. I think that all property owners who have flags should do the same. It's a public display that will not go unnoticed.

[processing please hold]

Maybe the game they're playing (politicans)is divide and conquer. If we and the DU can keep the hatred and name calling at full swing, we won't pay any attention to how we are ALL being screwed by our government and big bissiness.

[processing please hold]

Yes, you may plagiarize away.

Thank you very much.

[redgolum]

The Quad Cities are already targeting churches, schools, and other non profits for increased "fees".

I expect that someone in a big city will go after a church soon. To much prime, "untaxable" revenue.

[jstolzen]

You nailed it.

The problem with Dubya is (OMG, I'm going to sound like a dreaded DU'er here for a sec - plz forgive me)..is that he is WAY too tight with big business. (Kick self..return to FR).

OK..whew..I'm back. But, you DO have to note that this seems to be Dubya's priority. Judges? Nah. Property rights? Nah. Oil at $60/barrel and no action taken? Yep.

And there's been no prosecution of some of the REAL corporate crooks. Off Scott free. Of course, arresting them and putting them on trial might make a dent in the campaign coffers, and we can't have that now, can we?

[american spirit]

If you read a little closer I was discussing POSITIVE law and not "color of law" which is what characterizes codes and ordinances. Without too much effort on your part, I think you'll find open beer drinking ordinances conform to the state laws regarding such. On the flipside,show me where ordinances, codes, etc. are positive law......don't hold your breath.

[AntiGuv]

Hmm.. That is an interesting way to put it. I'll have to think about it (actually, what I want to do is read the dissents in their entirety - I haven't done that yet).

So, I take it you're agreeing Justice Kennedy's formula of judicial divination? ;^)

[processing please hold]

Agreed. Will do.

[Just A Nobody]

I expect that someone in a big city will go after a church soon. To much prime, "untaxable" revenue.

I was a little busy and thought I may have not understood. Basically what they were saying was this decision is not a matter of eminent domain, but revenue.

So that is true?

[MOgirl]

Hello,

Well, we have now found an issue that we can agree on. You own your property, as I own property. Neither of us should be stripped of our property. This ruling is a horrible ruling, and will affect both the Left and the Right, as our political leanings will mean nothing when we are driven from our homes and property due to the fact that a commercial development wants it. We are all equal in this. I am sure we will disagree on many things, but I think this one will unite us.

Glad to be here, MOgirl

[redgolum]

Pretty much.

They are saying that the government taking a property and then turning it over to a private developer is an acceptable way to use eminent domain, if that transfer would be to a use that generates more tax income.

[processing please hold]

I was a little busy and thought I may have not understood. Basically what they were saying was this decision is not a matter of eminent domain, but revenue.

Was Eminent Domain......a TROJAN HORSE?

[patriot_wes]

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels


We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

[processing please hold]

We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.

Dear God help us. Where did you find this? Do you have a link or site?

[P-Marlowe]

If it is then it is a PUBLIC use. If it isn't, then the government is simply transferring property to a more preferred private or corporate entity.

Public use is a vague term. I believe that any purchase of property for a redevelopment plan is, in fact, a purchase for a public use regardless of how the land is later used -- as long as it is used in accordance with that plan. 99 times out of 100 these redevelopment plans are submitted for public comment before they are passed and the public has a right to speak out. The public also has a right to threaten to vote out any official who votes for such a plan. But as a general rule these plans benefit the public at large and thus I think that these plans in many cases have saved entire towns from ruin -- especially in the cases in which land was taken to implement a plan in which a large factory needs to be erected and land is needed to implement it.

One problem that you have is that when you discuss facilities like Wal Mart that under the first amendment facilities like Wal Mart have been determined to be public arenas and Wal Mart is prohibited from infringing upon the free speech rights of people who gather at their front doors. The same goes for Malls. So in essence, even though they are on private property, they function as a public gathering place.

The fact of the matter is that it is unseemly and may even seem unfair that the government can develop an economic plan and then condemn your house and sell the land to someone who will agree to implement that plan, but the constitution does not guarantee that all laws will be fair. It does, however, require that just compensation be given for any property it takes. And if you don't like the reasons why your local government is taking your land or your neighbor's land you are not without recourse. You can vote the bums out.

[Just A Nobody]

...turning it over to a private developer is an acceptable way to use eminent domain, if that transfer would be to a use that generates more tax income.

You or I could constitute a "private developer" if the home we were going to build brought in more revenue than the current occupant.

[processing please hold]

You or I could constitute a "private developer" if the home we were going to build brought in more revenue than the current occupant.

Good heavens. I'm still in shock over this ruling and it's only getting worse by the minute.

[Dat Mon]

You said..."Nothing in the constitution prohibits the government from taking your land for whatever purpose it sees fit. The only constitutional proviso that must be fulfilled is that you must receive "just compensation."

The assumption of Eminent Domain was always that the land taken would serve the needs of the public as a whole...and would be held by the government...thus indirectly publicly owned.

Highways and utility right of ways have a precedent....but not without court actions of course. In 'urban blight' areas many of the homes were already owned by the city through delinquency of taxes or had been condemned for unsafe conditions or violations.

In this ruling...none of that applied. This ruling allows private property in good standing to be seized and then sold to another private individual...for an implied public benefit...which is nebulous at best.

How do you assess the fair market value of such property? If a developer plans on putting a multimillion dollar resort on it...isn't the fair market value the value to the developer?

If I own prime waterfront property worth 100k undeveloped...why should a local government force me to sell it to a developer who will then turn around and resell my property for a handsome profit? Why cant I sell it later on myself and reap that profit. What if I cant afford to buy another prime waterfront property in that area?

In this case...it never is "just compensation".

Since property values are continually increasing...why not have large land development companies come in and buy entire towns. Raze the town and put in a planned upscale community. All the resident will have to relocate of course. It can be done at any time or place now. Does anything in this ruling prohibit such a thing?