[P-Marlowe]

I haven't read the decision, but it sounds perfectly constitutional to me. Governments have always had the authority to condemn land and to take it from a private individual provided that the land owner is paid just compensation.

The government is not stealing the land, but it is taking it in order to promote the General Welfare (which is a perfectly constitutional purpose). Land which can be better used for commercial purposes than for agricultural or for residential purposes can be taken in order to promote the best use of the land for public purpose. In most cases I suspect that the public purpose is to create a higher tax base and to promote jobs and economic development.

As long as the party from whom the property has been taken has been justly and adequately compensated, the consitution does not appear to be violated.

In most cases the disputes do not concern whether the govenment has a right to take the land, but whether the payment is just and adequate for the taking. But I see no violation of the Constitution here.

Can anyone explain how the US Constitution is violated if a City condemns land so that it can later resell it to a developer in order to promote the General Welfare of the community or promote economic development? If it does, then I musta missed that lesson in law school.

[jude24]

Prepare to be flamed.... there's so much knee jerking going on here, I'm sure there must be a doctor with a rubber hammer somewhere.

I'm withholding judgment until the slip opinion makes the Supreme Court's website.

[You Dirty Rats]

Your position on this goes well beyond even what the Supreme Court majority said today. "Promote the General Welfare" is listed in Article I, not Amendment V. None of the opinions in this case cited the General Welfare clause; the decision turns on one issue and one issue only: What is the meaning of "Public Use" in the Fifth Amendment?

The Court did not say that the Takings Clause can be used to justify taking one house to replace it with one business. On the contrary, they relied on the overall plan and the benefits of a major redevelopment. Your position would permit direct transfers of one piece of property from one private owner to another based solely on a net benefit in General Welfare (such as higher taxes on a store than a house or farm). The Court rejected that logic.

You might want to consider reading the opinions.

[jude24]

In most cases I suspect that the public purpose is to create a higher tax base and to promote jobs and economic development.

I do recall that this is a legitimate basis for what would otherwise be a violation of the dormant commerce clause.

[blue-duncan]

Back in the late 60' and 70's it was called re-development and it saved the downtowns of many aging cities. Now it is another re-shuffling of the property uses. If you want to hear some screaming just wait until they increase your taxes so the state or municipality can take productive farm land for open space or preservation that only the Audobon Society will use.

Of course, if you were conspiratorily minded or addicted to the "Left Behind" series you could make out a scheme to soften up the populace for the taking of church property for the common good, thus putting mega-churches out of business. There goes the coffee bars, the MacDonalds, the book stores and the large choirs. All that's left is small group Bible studies. By the way, we are starting another six week study Sunday evening at my house if anyone is interested (Adv.).

[coloradan]

According to the Fifth Amendment, takings must be (1) justly compensated, and (2) for public use. A Pfizer factory is not a public use. What do property rights even mean, if someone can convince the local city council that they could provide more tax revenue from their use of my land - or your land - than I or you can, and therefore, the government can and should seize it and sell it to that person? If every parcel of land is up for the highest bidder, what do property rights, as described in the Constitution, even mean?

[xzins]

Sorry, P-M, but we thoroughly disagree.

You have just outlined the principle of wealth. If you can find a wealthy private investor to put in something on my land that brings in more money than what I'm doing with it, then you can take my land.

That means that only the wealthiest own anything.

Ahab & Jezebel just lived in the wrong age. By this ruling he could have simply taken that vineyard he coveted. After all, he was richer.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Can anyone explain how the US Constitution is violated if a City condemns land so that it can later resell it to a developer in order to promote the General Welfare of the community or promote economic development? If it does, then I musta missed that lesson in law school.

By "condeming" the land, the government is the sole arbitrator of what the "fair market failure" of said land is. Add a normal dose of "corruption", and the property owner is simply "screwed".

Furthermore, in this case, the land was not "condemned". It was simply determined that a different owner would provide mor revenue for the city than the current owner(s). Once THAT becomes the standard, ANY property can be taken, at ANY time by the government and given to another, simply because the new owrner will pay more into the cities coffers.

This is very much in line with the recent rulings regarding interstate commerce. Since just about everything a person can conceivably produce is "just one step away" from interstate commerce, the Federal Government can regulate EVERYTHING you do in "your" home.