Third Party & Independents: Archives

Rhinehold,

I see two good sides to this:

1 - Maybe this will give an incentive to the Dem’s to hold up more of the Bush43 judicial appointments.

2 - Maybe this will piss off and scare more conservatives and make Bush43 even more lame than he already is.

signed,

Eeyore

Great article, Rhinehold. This is outrageous. To think that the country that was founded on the guarantees of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Property, as Locke said)” could come to this is quite scary. Although I hold some very liberal views, I absolutely defend the individual’s right to private property. The government is meant to serve the people, not infringe upon and destroy their lives.

Ahhh…another important topic to add to my long list of pressing problems facing the Nation.
_____________________________
Along the same lines, is the case where people are essentially run out of their homes by property taxes jumping as much as allowed by law year after year, until the home owner has no choice but to move, since they can’t afford the property tax. I’m in Texas. My largest monthly bill (more than elecrticity, and telephone, internet, and utilities combined) is the property tax on the house.
_____________________
Are we havin’ fun yet? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Rhinehold—

I share your sense of outrage and disbelieve at this ruling; I just don’t understand how the Court could have ruled this way. I will have to read the opinion in it entire to try and understand. The very notion that the government can take a way one citizens private property and give it over to another private citizen because said citizen can generate more tax revenue is abhorrent and smacks in the face of everything this country is supposed to stand for; freedom has indeed take a few steps back today.

And too I share your feelings that the Supreme Court and institute I used to venerate is no longer the bastion of justice and common-sense it used to be. Those who love freedom and equality before the law need not look toward that body for justice. It would seem those who sew doom and gloom have cause to celebrate and engage is an unhealthy round of I-told-you-so’s!

Dave

If this gives Dems excuses to hold up court nominees, they are just deceptive. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Conservatives protect private property. We just were not conservative enough on this court.

I remember some old guy telling me that no man’s property was safe when politics were involved. I guess he was right.

I strongly urge that people wishing to post pro or con to this ruling read the article that is highlighted ‘decision handed down” in Rhinehold’s article.

Upon reading it I was immediately stricken with the amazing ommissions (unintentional I’m sure) of facts and contingencies by the post’s author.

Not mentioned is the fact that “under the US Constitution, governments can take private property through their so called eminent domain powers in exchange for just compensation, but only when it is for public use”.

The city of New London, Connecticut is taking a distressed area of 7 homes for an economic rejuvination.

The development replacing the homes will create jobgs, increase tax revenues and help the local economy, it satisfied the Constitution’s public use requirement.

The dissenting Justices in this 5-4 case were, Rehnquist, O’connor, Scalia and Thomas.

There is more, refer to the reference material that evidently inspired the author’s post.

Rhinehold:
“The dream, in existence for over 200 yeas now, is indeed dead.”

I agree completely, and I think it’s a total outrage.
The decision reminds me of what David said recently: “Afluence Is Destroying America’s Future”. This ruling is telling us clearly and unequivocally that our government is now run solely by and for the Wealthy and that they will henceforth rule over us, rather than We The People, collectively.

Matty said:

AMERICA, YOU ARE SCREWED! Hmmm…, did I just hear Bush said on TV that America is the land of ultimate champion of freedom. I didn’t know that owning your own property is excluded in this freedom talk. Come right down to it, The Benjamin rules. My friends. So wake up, America! There is no freedom and democracy in your land.

The gospel according to Matty

Outrageous. I just saw the article on CNN. This is indeed a landmark slap-in-the-face ruling for American freedom. Perhaps we conservatives have a point with “activist judges” after all.

This is horrible. Our entire country is for sale to the highest roller.

Around ten years ago, a casino was built near my grandfathers home, which is a small, ten acre farm lot with a 19th century house on it. Not long after the casino was up and running, some hotel reps from one of the big chains (I keep thinking it was Marriott) dropped byand offered my grandfather 500k for his property. He sternly refused, and they left. Only two days after, they returned with an offer of 750k, and again, my grandfather refused outright, and had plenty of choice words.

Now there’s nothing standing in the way of those greedy, heartless bastards. They can now come and take our heritage away from us. They can raze any of our homes - not just for parks, roads, or schools - now for resorts that they can fly their wealthy chinese benefactors to. Total MADNESS.

In Lakewood, Ohio (suburb of Cleveland) a year or so ago, the city tried to take individual residences because they were “blighted,” i.e., they only had 1 bathroom, 1-car garages, 100 years old, etc., somthing today’s buyers wouldn’t want, in their opinion. The owners and other city residents got an initiative on the ballot to prevent it. The city had wanted to tear down the homes and develop a high-end business and residential area to bring more taxes into the city. Did I mention that virtually all of Lakewood is 100 years old, etc., but this particular property happens to overlook the Rocky River and Metroparks, prime viewing. At least in this case, the citizens overcame the developer, who eventually withdrew its plans. I wonder if the same would happen today?

These are the kinds of laws and decisions that our Founding Fathers went to Revolution over. Let the Revolution begin. I have never owned semi-automatic weapons, but, the time has come. I have spent the last 6 years of my life developing 5 acres of raw land into a homestead, and built a two story home with my own two hands and assistance from my wife and daughter. I pay my taxes and give government everything it legally asks of me regarding my home. But, I will defend against anyone who tries to take it away from me, my wife and daughter for ANY price.

I built this property to pass something of real value to my daughter, and the value built into it is far, far greater than a sum of money. Let the Revolution begin. Anyone else served with imminent domain papers by state or local authorities, email me at editor@poliwatch.org, I will do what I can to assist you.

It is time for patriotic Americans to bind together to halt this runaway government which has no respect for individuals or rights. It is time for Americans to take the power away from those who would use power to profit themselves at high costs to others. It is time to defend ourselves against those would subvert our Constitution and spirit of the Founding Father’s intent to protect the public against the evils of power in government.

Gandhi, I don’t believe the “activist” judges are responsible for this one.

Rhinehold,

It would appear that everyone needs to protest the Dem.’s blocking of Conservative Judges.
We need more of them to balance the Court before ALL personal rights are stripped away from citizens.

Steve Smith… So if I want your home to build an adult bookstore thats ok if I hire a few clerks? The city would get more taxes and you get a lowball price for your HOME.
Sounds like everyone wins ,err, except you.

I was too pissed to read the decision, did that braindead justice Kennedy write it?

That’s not public use. It’s public abuse.

Public use is for a highway or a firestation or some public USE. What they have done is stolen someone’s property and then sold it for a profit to the highest f-ing bidder. That’s disgusting.

The conservatives for the most part dissented.

DAVE: You applaud this ? This is why you want more Lib judges. You’re against private property rights ?

Listen to this: If you think this is going to effect some large land owner, you’re wrong. Those large land owners have the clout and money to stave off any such action. they can even bribe city councilmen to go somewhere else.

This is only going to hurt the little guy.

Doesn’t it surprise you that the LIB judges sided with big money and the CON judges sided with freedom ?

Or, were you just being sarcastic?

I am with you 100% David Remer!

Here’s some suggested reading for those of us without the benefit of military training:

SAS: Survival Handbook — John “Lofty” Wiseman
FM 21-76: Survival, Evasion, and Escape — Department of the Army (out of print; seek used)

If they can take your land, you might want to be prepared to live off of whatever land you can.

I am definately willing to partake in revolution.

Beagle, that is absurd. Activist judges exist on both sides of the aisle. Activism can work for freedom, life and pursuit of happiness, or against it.

I abhor what liberal justices have done here. But, I am not about to knee jerk over to sanctioning filling the court with conservative activists. If we must have activist justices, and our political process guarantees we must, then I want a balance between the two. That is the only optimum protection the American people can have short of Constitutional Amendment that grants the people referendum impeachment of justices. Which is a long overdue idea whose time hopefully has come. If not, let the Revolution begin.

Steve, never before has immenent domain been used to transfer private property, including business owned property, to another private entity. It can only be taken for true public use. Roads, schools, etc. All of those are government owned.

I think my point is quite clear. It is now legal for the government, by force of gun, to remove you from your property and hand that property over to someone else. It doesn’t matter if the taxes ‘may’ increase, the government should not be in the job of land speculation. I have no problem with them giving tax incentives to bring private industries or other entities into the area to buy and devlop those lands, but it is not their purpose to redistribute the land from one private citizen to another for any purpose. Ever.

The reason the city was asked to label the area as blight (what is the definition, etc) so that it can be given to the developer is because the people who lived and worked on that land DIDN’T WANT TO SELL IT. It was their home. What’s to prevent them from labelling YOUR house or neighborhood as a ‘blight’ district?

I agree with David on this one, come take my house for a school, firehouse, or some other legitimate government use, ok. I don’t like it but I understand it and will try to deal with it.

But come to give it to a private company to develop because of the promise of ‘increase tax revenue’? You’ll have to bring extra firepower.

Subverter-

I have a copy of Col. Applegate’s “Kill or Be Killed”. That’d help too….

I hate to say “I told you so” to David, Aldolous ect., but let me recall our discussion in the following article I wrote when this case had just had its oral arguments (http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/002090.html). After I explained that the liberal judges would rule against Ms. Kelo, David said:

“I could be wrong, but, I will still put my bet on the liberal judges siding with Kelo, in this particular case and circumstance. It is one thing for eminent domain to serve the greater good for civil projects like roads, dams, etc. It is a clear and distinctly different case when corporations buy the assent of government in order to deprive individual citizens of their property rights only to enhance the future and potential property rights of corporate or business entities.

I think the liberals will side with Kelo. And I hope I am right on this. “

I do not really have much to add to what I said in the article linked above. This ruling can be grouped together with the recent Raich ruling to show that the liberals on the Court, which obviously now include Kennedy, have decided that the most important constitutional value is unlimited government power to achieve whatever ENDS government wants. Under Raich, the federal government can do whatever it wants to you under the commerce clause. And under this decision, the government of any state or the federal government, can take your home from you, FOR ANY REASON, as long as they give you money.

I am glad the liberals on this forum are starting to realize what modern “progressive” jurisprudence is all about- between this and Raich. Maybe instead of being so quick to attack justices like Thomas, you will see that often times it is ONLY the conservative justices who are willing to stand up for the rights of individual against government power. Its much more complicated the the little memos that liberal organizations send out on conservative judges. These two decisions show exactly why.

David,

How do you balance a 9 member court that votes 5-4 on every insane ruleing like this one?

Btw, further reading of the opinion shows that the property does not even have to be labelled as ‘blighted’.

Lovely.

Ok, Liberals..try this on for size.

If citys have poor minority neighborhoods, they can now take their property and sell it to a developer to build expencive, high dollar homes with high taxes. Don’t that sound fair to you?
The minoritys have no choice except to move away to another town, because they sure as hell cant afford to move to the burbs.

Is there anyone out there that thinks that citys wont start cureing their budget problems in this manner?
You remove the poor low tax homes, remove the poor that need public support, welfare, housing,ect. ect.

Libbys should be dancing in the streets over this ruleing.

They mentioned compensation for being removed from their homes. It being, apparently, a not-quite-blighted neighborhood in a small town, I wonder what the compensation would be. Enough to buy another house? Enough to buy another house and pay the property taxes on the owner’s current wages?

While I understand the city’s point - to rejuvenate the town (to make an omelette, sometimes you need to break a few eggs) through increased tax revenue - this doesn’t seem to be a case where you’re knocking down dilapidated (wow…haven’t to spell that in awhile) squatter-filled buildings. These are tax-paying citizens (I hope, anyway) who OWN their homes.

There’s no way this is going to happen. There’s going to be such an uproar over this across America that the developer will likely go bankrupt for lack of people wanting anything to do with them.

And you see - progressive, moderate, or conservative, judges are people, like politicians are people, like blog readers are people. They have good things to say and do, and sometimes they make mistakes. I don’t think you can tag this on “liberals” - I think the judges who voted for this didn’t take their medication this morning…or perhaps took too much.

Thomas,

The problem is, how do you reverse the ruling? A constitutional amendment is about the only way I can think of at this point, barring a reversal of the Supreme Court on itself on another case. This option is particularly difficult since most decisions are based upon case law, which this decision is now a part of. But, it has been done, the Great Society is one such time that springs to mind.

It would require, as it did with Roosevelt, a strong push from the President bordering on overstepping the balance of power, and I don’t see that happening with this current administration to be honest.

So, start getting in touch with your senators and congressmen, get that constitutional amendment fired up. This, above all else currently being discussed, should be the deciding factor on how to vote until it is resolved.

Thomas, what if the private company happens to be Microsoft or Wal-Mart (or some other mega-corporation)? There might be an uproar but people are hardly going to stop buying their products because of their indignation. Like I said before, people will sacrifice their principles for their livelihood.

Happily, part of the ruling stated that it’s not the position of federal judges to decide on local issues - it’s best left up to the city and state level (which is also divided on the issue). I’m guessing that this statement will allow more discussion at the local level for this argument, as it should be.

Otherwise, it’s trespassing by any reasonable person’s view (the Supreme Court obviously not amongst those people today). Most states are pretty flexible when it comes to dealing with trespassers.

It’s also stealing. I can’t give you a dollar for your car, take it, and say I paid you. The price has to be accepted by both parties. And if the property isn’t for sale, then that’s that.

This is wrong in so many ways.

Beagle,

I didn’t think of that one. Good point.

Now cities can not only get rid of the lower income housing population, but they can get rid of the extra costs associated with lower income populace.

Wow, increase income and lower costs

So, the first ruling says you can’t improve your property for profit unless we say you can. (property owners have to keep their property for lower income rentals).

Then they say, but we can steal it from you and take the same profit that you wanted to make for yourself.

The poor are going to have to go somewhere… unless that is they simply become homeless…

Hm, this should be good for people who rent/lease property…

How about this for a quote from a fanatical socialist:

“Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.”

The lunatic liberal who said this? Why none other than Theodore Roosevelt in 1910.

Come on people, let’s calm down. Property has no intrinsic rights in the United States (thank God), people do. That’s why Jefferson changed Locke’s three “indivisible ” rights that governments are obliged to protect from “life, libery and property” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. The only protections that the Constitution affords private property are that it cannot be siezed without “due process” or “just compensation”. (See the Fifth Amendment.)

Lest we begin to man the barricades prematurely, bear in mind that the courts will continue to deny the ability of the government to confiscate anyone’s personal property unless doing so promotes the general welfare and the affected individuals are compensated fairly.

Establishing the definition of the general welfare is a legislative, not judicial, function (notwithstanding the dissentling opinions of the “activist” judges in the minority).

Beagle said: ” How do you balance a 9 member court that votes 5-4 on every insane ruleing like this one?”

4 Conservatives, 4 liberals and swing voter, or 3-3-3 would be better. But that is up to Presidents and the Senate. I for one am damn glad the Senate filibuster is still in place after a ruling like this.

This ruling violates the spirit the intent of the Constitution of the US. It is time for Americans, as Rhinehold suggested, to contact their Congresspersons and demand Congressional reversal of this ruling. The Congress can pass a federal law that prevents violation of private property rights for the benefit of other’s private proverty enhancement.

David R. Remer wrote: These are the kinds of laws and decisions that our Founding Fathers went to Revolution over. Let the Revolution begin.

Wow. I feel the same way actually.
I’ve just not seen you get so riled.

However, there may be an easier way, that could perhaps restore the balance of power (not simply shift it) between the people and the government, if enough people (not necessarily a majority either) participate to unseat a significant portion of incumbents (e.g. 20% would be nice, 40% or 60% or would be fantastic), and it’s really the most simple, most easy, least costly, easiest to understand, easiest to implement, easiest to do, requires the least coordination, doesn’t need a party, doesn’t need a lot of money, provides force that many other approaches lack, is the most peaceful way to do it, and is far more preferable to a revolution.

But, I realize the people may never realize it, despite it’s simplicity. And, politicians are privately wondering why the people don’t do this one simple thing, and hoping this is the one thing they never figure out. That’s why I keep sending it to all Congressman and the Executive offices. If nothing else, they may start to fear that the people may in fact do this one simple thing.
____________________________
Is it just my imagination, or is government growing more tyrannical each day (i.e. the recent ruling to ban flag burning, allow governments to sieze private property, and ban the displaying of unpleasant pictures, not to mention a few unsavory things in the Patriot Act)?

You say that property can’t be seized without “due process” or “just compensation”. But who determines what “just compensation” is? The same officials who want to seize the property for private development. Does anyone think that these people will receive compensation sufficient enough for them to buy new homes? I doubt it.

Misha, I have no regrets for what I wrote. In fact, I am pleased that I was careful to qualify what I hoped would happen in this case, while admitting that I could be wrong.

If you think this case is going to make me a champion of conservative judge appointments, you would be dead wrong. One bad ruling by the Supreme Court on this issue would not make up for the many wrong rulings a conservative stackded Supreme Court would render upon and against the people’s rights to choice and freedom from undue government intrusion.

The liberal bent judges were clearly wrong on this decision though. Absolutely and unequivocally wrong, IMO. And you were right in your warnings in your previous article. Very right.!

Outrageous. I just saw the article on CNN. This is indeed a landmark slap-in-the-face ruling for American freedom. Perhaps we conservatives have a point with “activist judges” after all.

Impressive spin considering they were upholding the law and agreeing with the government.

For the record, I disagree with the decision, but to call this activism makes no sese.

Dan, Uncle Sam with a pointing finger needs a new updated caption: “I am out to get you and your property” would be appropriate.

I would not hold my breath for anti-incumbent grassroots movement just yet. That just doesn’t happen unless broad swaths of the population are forced into desitution or, forced to give up their sons and daughters to a war grinder. Things are going to have to get a whole lot worse before the public pays attention. As I have written many times before however, that time may not be far off.

Michael, fair market value is the yardstick for governments when seizing and selling other’s property or assessing them for tax purposes.

Chuck H., you are missing two extremely important aspects of this ruling. 1) the ruling defends eminent domain seizure by state and local governments to the purpose of making that property available to other private interests. 2) in many states, judges are elected, others appointed. If you don’t see how the little guy with a home won’t stand a chance in the courts against big business interest’s influence in the courts, you missed a crucial aspect of this ruling. Especially in places like here in Texas where judges are elected and will side with the campaing and lobby money that keeps them on the bench.

subverter, individual survival techniques will be worthless if there isn’t a general population cohesion that supports those who aim to defy government wrongs.

d.a.n. wrote:

Is it just my imagination, or is government growing more tyrannical each day

You forgot the national ID card that was passed with little comment from anyone recently…

Lawnboy,

It is activism it that it creates a new right that wasn’t there, only it awarded this ‘right’ to the government. This opens up such a can of worms that it makes my head spin that it was even invented. It’s a very broad interpretation of ‘public use’ that I suppose shouldn’t surprise me considering the interpretation of ‘general welfare’ that has giving new rights to the government.

We should be limiting government interaction into our lives, not expanding it. Any institution that has the legal right to use a gun and force us to do ‘x’ should always be limited to the bare minimum, allow for groups and organizations that don’t have that power do everything else.

It is activism it that it creates a new right that wasn’t there

I’ll admit that I haven’t read the decision, but my impression is that they didn’t give the government any more rights than the government had given itself through the legislature and the executive. The standard complaint about “activist judges” that I’ve heard is that the judges are creating law instead of interpreting law. As I said, I don’t like the decision, but how did they write new law in upholding the decisions of the other branches? They didn’t award a new right - they upheld a right.

The other option is that “activist judges” is really just code for “Liberal judges whose decision I didn’t like.”

There was no doubt in my mind that this article would be so outlandishly used. Now we are tearing down houses for adult book stores, casinos, etc. The 7 houses involved were at the brink of falling apart. The action by the city is good for everyone. Now we have people who live in the wilds of North Dakota moaning and groaning that their homes are going to be seized.

Is there no such thing as controlled, reasonable moderation with you liberals. The Liberals on the Supreme Court voted IN FAVOR of the city doing what it did.

Rhinehold, you write in a point above that you think your point is clear. As do I. I think the point of your message is to stir up a controversey of epic proportions using scare tactics that will cause people to think they should sit up at night tp protect their homes from destruction or seizure.

This event involved a depressed inner city area that was an eyesore, danger to it’s residents and, reconstructed, offers an opportunity for improved economic conditions. This happens every single day in major cities throughout the country.

Rhinehold wrote: You forgot the national ID card that was passed with little comment from anyone recently…

Oh, yeah. Those identity cards are stupid, since they can be faked, stolen, etc. They solve nothing.

Ok, I’ve calmed down just a little bit.

The blanket statement of “liberals” was wrong because it only covers all, not just the 5 braindead ones that passed this ruling.
I don’t think that most liberals or Dem.’s will agree with this once they think about all the abusive crap that can come from it.

I think this will likely hurt the Dem. party politically. I can find no glee in that because it hurts EVERYONE and was just plain wrong.

The point I made about this hurting the poor and minoritys the most, I still feel is quite valid.
” Just compensation” for ones home, will be based on its value in that poor neighborhood.
The 50-75K ? they get wont buy them another house, but the 500K homes that replace them sure as hell will bring in more taxes!

I don’t have a link for you, but if you search “Benton Harbor,Michigan” you will get an idea about how this will get abused.

A poor(mostly black) city right on lake michigan, that has about zero for a tax base.
It now looks like a bombed-out city in a war zone, but if there was ever more primo realestate I don’t know where it would be.
Raze the entire city and sell it to developers you get mega taxes and cash, I agree.

I don’t agree with what will happen to the poor black familys that live there now.
The city has serious problems, but most of those living there are really nice people, I’ve been there alot(its a great salmon fishing port).
Shouldn’t poor black familys have easy, close access, to something mostly the rich get to enjoy?

This ruling makes me want to puke!

Wow, Beagle, if what you’re saying is correct, this is even a bigger financial opportunity than I suspected. Rich people will flock to places like Benton Harbor, Michigan and profit enormously from it.

For many this will be the investment opportunity of the decade, for others, it will mean the loss of their home and the necessity to find new living quarters or become homeless. I have a feeling that this ruling will long be remembered in American history books.

Can this be right? Extending eminent domain to private business?

phx8, there’s nothing in the Constitution that says they can’t…

Can this be right? Extending eminent domain to private business?

Not quite. It’s extending eminent domain to include more than what it did. It was supposed to be for roads, schools…completely public infrastructure projects. The SC, with this ruling, allows the definition to include projects that will increase taxes which will in turn affect the public infrastructure.

In this case, it’s a little bit like a Law and Order episode I saw - a woman kills a sex offender who is just a monster and hurt her child, though she has no real proof. Is it good that this predator (he was pretty bad in the show) was removed? Yes (though killing is never good). Should she have done it? No.

Same here - will it improve the community? Very likely. Is it worth uprooting families from their homes, however downtrodden they may seem? No. Sometimes, you need to forsake a few to save the many, but not always, and I think this case is wrong and may set an awful precedent.

Zeek,

I’m sure many will profit from this, I have a harder time making a joke of the pain it will cause for some that wont profit at all.

If someone wished to profit from this; I would invest in demolition companys near big citys and port towns. Expecially ones that can deal with waste such as asbestos and lead paint( older homes tend to have lots of that).

David -

I respectfully disagree.

Stevens opinion says, in effect, that questions of eminent domain are best decided by the legislature, not the judiciary. If a local government decides that promoting the general welfare entails private development, so be it. He was not affirming the wisdom of the legislature’s decision, only its constitutionality.

Who would you rather have decide what is in the best interests of the general welfare of the people? A “tyrannical” federal judiciary?

He was simply stating that, unless the siezures were palpably NOT in the general interest or did NOT compensate the owners fairly, they must be constitutional. It seems to me that the people (or their elected representatives) have a better idea of what’s in their own best interests than a handful of Supreme Court Justices in Washington. This is the ultimate definition of judicial restraint.

In fact, according to the New York Times:

“Of course, he wrote, the city would be barred from taking one’s property and transferring it to another private owner strictly for the latter’s benefit.”

Second, notwithstanding the nature of selecting judges in Texas, if the siezure of your home did not promote the general welfare or did not include just compensation, you could appeal an adverse decision to the Supreme Court, just like the property owners in New London - only this time you’d win.

As with medical marijuana or the extension of patents, the crux of the issue was NOT the wisdom of the government’s actions, but the existence of any provisions in the Constitution that would prevent it from acting.

Unless you can find a clause in the Constitution that precludes the ability of a private company from promoting the general welfare or you can think of better arbiter of what that welfare entails than the elected representatives of the people, I’m afraid that you’re just going to have to swallow hard on this one and make sure that the knuckleheads in the legislature don’t decide that turning your property into an amusement park promotes the common weal.

So calm down and put away your M-16. Nobody’s going to let the government take your property and sell it to Wal-Mart. But if a private developer can convince your local government that your house should be turned into a sewage treatment facility, I’d check the classifieds.

For the past 6 weeks or so I have been challenging myself to see if I could contribute anything to a forum such as this.

I find that I cannot do so without getting angry,overly spirited and emotional.

You cannot teach an old dog new tricks.

Thanks for the opportunity, however I will no longer be posting.

steve smith~

You will be missed…I enjoy reading your posts!! I do understand though, I decided not to go here!

Steve Smith,

Your post was very measured so your emotion must be private. I’d like to remind you that the reason most people post here is because they DO feel something about the issue. Mostly, we debate points of view which by definition are personal, emotional insights into how the world might work. You can’t fight without passion.

I told a friend one day that I was miffed about something some politician had done. His response was right on:

“Good. Stay angry.”

Steve, maybe you can clear up a few things for me then, since this decision, giving the government the ability to transfer private property between individuals against the will of the current owner, doesn’t seem to bother you very much…

The 7 houses involved were at the brink of falling apart. The action by the city is good for everyone.

So, the decision stated that the houses had to be falling down to be taken? Here’s some problems with that statement.

1) It was clear that there is no requirement that the house be considered ‘blight’. Any house can be taken in order to increase tax revenue anywhere.

2) If the 7 houses were ‘falling down’, why weren’t they condemned? The people who are trying to prevent their homes from being taken are still living there, it would seem to me that they wouldn’t be allowed to if they were condemned.

Now we have people who live in the wilds of North Dakota moaning and groaning that their homes are going to be seized.

A public interest law firm representing the homeowners said that more than 10,000 properties have been threatened with government seizure over the past few years.

They now have the legal right to perform these seizures, yesterday they did not.

I can understand why these people are concerned.

Is there no such thing as controlled, reasonable moderation with you liberals. The Liberals on the Supreme Court voted IN FAVOR of the city doing what it did.

I am not a liberal. I am a libertarian. This issues goes to the very core of what I believe. So yes, I am more than a little upset, and I am also very well versed on the true impact of what has just happened.

I think the point of your message is to stir up a controversey of epic proportions using scare tactics that will cause people to think they should sit up at night tp protect their homes from destruction or seizure.

Yes, we should be idle sheep and allow one of our most basic and necessary American rights to be further taken from us. Eminent domain, taking a person’s private property without their agreement for public use, was a necessary evil that was for building roads, schools, hospitals, etc. It has now been extended to ‘increase the beauty and tax revenue’, allowing the property to be taken, against the will of the owner, and given to another private entity strictly for a private enterprise. In this case, Pfizer! Surely they could have negotiated a good price to the people to change their mind and get a tax rebate from the city to help pay for it. Why the need to extend the rights of Eminent Domain?

I’m sorry that you can’t grasp the enormity of what has been done here today. It concerns me deeply and I’m not sure why anyone would think it a good thing. Sure, it would be nice if everyone had a beautiful new home to live in, in areas that were not blocking business growth of course, but we aren’t all rich enough to afford that I’m afraid.

“The 7 houses involved were at the brink of falling apart. The action by the city is good for everyone. Now we have people who live in the wilds of North Dakota moaning and groaning that their homes are going to be seized.”

Ok… so their homes were at the brink of falling apart. There’s no reason why the city couldn’t condemn the homes and declare them unfit for habitation, if that’s the case. That wouldn’t be stepping on anyone’s rights…

But these people own not only the homes, but the LAND that they are on. And this ruling essentially says that, if your land isn’t bringing in enough tax revenue for the city, they can take it away and give it to someone who will provide more tax revenue from it. It’s outrageous!

(As a postscript, I must express disappointment in many people on this board. An issue comes up that the left and right mostly agree on here, and they still use it as ammunition against each other. That saddens me.)

The local paper (http://www.theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx?re=0BFE6861-3C00-40D9-867C-09ADF6FDF468) describes the soon to be demolished neighborhood as one featuring “Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.”

Nothing in the article suggests that these homes are dilapidated or “falling apart”. In fact this site (http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/) describes one plaintiff’s house as having been “lovingly restored”.

The Supreme Court made the wrong decision. Now these unfortunate people have to pay for the court’s error.

So calm down and put away your M-16. Nobody’s going to let the government take your property and sell it to Wal-Mart.

Actually, see this article. WalMart, Costco, Home Depot, and others have already been doing exactly this. There are links to better articles in the Watchblog archives, if you look in the independent/conservative side.

I didn’t have time to read all the comments above, but I’m glad to see people from both sides of the aisle agreeing that this is a terrible abuse of power. I would say I can’t believe that the Court ruled so egregiously against property, but these are the same liberal justices who ruled a few weeks ago that the Interstate Commerce Clause applies to private, non-commercial activities. Should we really be surprised?

Justice O’Conner’s dissent is quoted in the Times:

“Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,” she wrote. “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.

“As for the victims,” Justice O’Connor went on, “the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.”

Let’s get some Constructivists on that Court, STAT!

TO: Everyone who thinks this decision isn’t so bad, follow this fact set:

The biggest boom to my largely rural county is housing subdivision development. We are located 25 minutes north of a major city, San Antonio. Our county government and school boards are populated by real estate developers, contractors etc. Development is the main industry in this county.

The problem they face now, is that demand for land is not occuring all over the county. NO! It is occuring along the main throughfare from San Antonio, Hwy. 281. My 5 acres sits one mile off of Hwy. 281.

Now project the economics. Highest demand for development includes my 5 acres, and the 100’s of other 2-20 acre single home sites in this area. The potential for tax revenue is greatest if these single family acreages can be converted to subdivisions which have 5 homes and families per acre instead of one family for 10 acres.

With government officials careered in development, the Supreme Court just handed them the keys to bypass private property rights to 1) line their own personal pockets by throwing familes off acreage homesites and developing that acreage and 2) increase tax revenues in this area a minimum of 5 fold per acre.

Still think I don’t have anything to worry about? This is not a unique situation either. This situation exists in rural areas adjacent to large metropolitan areas all over the country. Millions of Americans could be forced or bought out of their homes at fair market value. Who establishes fair market value? The developers and contractors.

So the political lesson here is, if you have a choice of candidates in local elections between a real estate person and trash hauler, vote for the trash hauler. Your private property rates will be safer in his/her hands.

David,

I know exactly what you’re saying. My home is close to what could be called the burbs(not quite). A one acre lot sells for 15K-50K in my area, and I own a hell of a LOT of those one acre lots!
I would hate to be run off my property to give government more tax income.
With 3 private ponds and one side of a small private lake, I’ll bet those tax N spend bastards are drooling right now to remove my hayseed ass out of this township!
(but to be fair, I can’t blame them “grin”)

Jack/James,
My first post was entirely cynical.
This is a disgusting decision, it’s a time when classical conservatism should have made a stand and the foolish part of Liberalism made to look at itself critically.
The part about stopping Bush43 appointments is a real wish of mine, however. From my understanding of the ones squeeked through as part of the latest compromise, they all would have voted the majority way this time.
To me, Bush43 is so far radically conservative he almost meets the radical left at the “end” of the political mobius strip.

Steve,
Don’t give up just yet. Maybe just a vacation is in order?

Today’s ruling is simply outrageous. I remeber going by the Pfizer plant there on the way to visiting the Navy Yard there during vacations my family frequently took to Southern Connecticut until three years ago (I loved to walk around on the sub they had there at the Navy Yard). The Pfizer plant is huge there, and sprawls for maybe a good thirty acres; I remeber the nearby homes not being in the best of shape, but certainly not falling apart enough to be condemned. The only reason they might be considered “undesirable” is that the homes are small in size and on tiny lots of less than an eighth of an acre.

I reread O’Connor’s dissent and it struck me that it was very similar to most of the comments on this blog. She identifies a right that does not appear anywhere within the Constitution (i.e the right of property) and whose existence has been denied by the Supreme Court since the New Deal and the “sick chicken” decision. Her dissent was very similar to the fictious “freedom of contract” doctrine the Court invented to strike down so much of the Progressive legislation of the early Twentieth Century.

Do we really want the Supreme Court to decide for us when our government can and cannot exercise its right of eminent domain? It seems to me that the best place to decide an issue such at this is within the local, state and federal legislatures.

Certainly the legislature can abuse this power as corrupt legislatures have abused many of their powers in numerous ways throughout American history. But the best way to fight legislative abuses or mistakes is politically, not judicially. If we don’t agree with our representatives, we should act - petition, rally, dissent and vote. We can’t passively expect the judiciary to decide for us what is or is not in our best interest. That’s up to us, not them.

Conversely, the Court has handed the legislative branch a tremendous weapon to achieve social and economic progress. Is a manufacturing plant befouling the environment? Seize the property under eminent domain and sell it to a manufuacturer who will clean it up. Are slumlords objecting to razing a neighbrohood? Seize their propery and sell it to a devoloper who will construct decent and affordable housing. Are the labor practices of a superstore detrimental to the general welfare of the community? Seize its property and sell it to a developer who will rent it to local businesses that will pay a livable wage.

Power is a double-edged sword. It can be exercised for both good and ill. It’s up to us, not the Supreme Court, to tell our legislatures what we want them to do on our behalf. And, contrary to Justic O’Connor, I think that this is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers intended.

David Remer: “individual survival techniques will be worthless if there isn’t a general population cohesion that supports those who aim to defy government wrongs.”

Firstly, survival techniques are never worthless in any case, and especially not in such a case as which you have outlined - if fact opposite that. Just think of what reasons people have to avoid gathering in defiance of our government. Number one, of course, is that a vast majority of us (myself included) cannot afford to break away from their jobs and families. Barring that, people are unsure of how they will aquire their basic essentials ie; food, water, shelter, and hygiene. Knowing either how to accommodate these essentials, or finding people who can provide them, is certainly a great part of the solution.

On a side note, I believe that these survival techniques should be taught in public schools. There was, very recently, a close call involving a now famous 11 year old who undoubtedly would’ve faired better had he been instructed some starting around the second grade. I realize that he was in the boy scouts, but that is an elective program, and too few parents choose to help their children understand the principles of ground-level living … mine among them.

Back to the topic - I have been trying to understand the logic behind the supporters of this decision during every slice of free time today at work, and now I’ve read every post in this thread. I recognize the idea that, for example, building a toyota factory in the place of what some may consider a run-down community will create jobs, encourage more development, and generate more tax revenue.

But, shouldn’t Toyota have to BID on the property just like any other Johnnie-come-lately who intends to purchase said area, to build a place that will serve the CHIEF purpose of generating profit for the developer? In the end, if the residents refuse the bid for x amount from anyone, then that’s that, right? Well, I’m not the smartest guy I know, but this supreme decision sure seems to FLY IN THE FACE of all the common sense inside of me. I mean, could any of you honestly knock on the door of any of these poor family’s houses, look them in the eye, and tell them to move out of the way of PFIZER freaking incorporated? If so, take me with you - I want to see it with my own eyes.

Okay, perhaps I get a little too excited whenever someone mentions the word “revolution”, but I tell you this: This ruling will allow acts that are similar to someone breaking into your home, stealing your valuables, selling them around town, and watching as the police blame you for not selling the items to the thief. What is the difference? Instead of wearing ski masks, these theives wear suits with ties. Instead of taking whatever is IN your house, they’re taking the house and the land it sits on. Instead of selling your house, they’re replacing it with with a place that will get them alot more money. And instead of the police doing nothing, they’re helping the suited house theives remove you from your property, by force.

Compensation? Sure, you can knock me to the ground and take my shoes, but stuffing a $20 bill in my mouth makes everything just fine. Right.

Chuck H, you actually believe Jefferson would have supported the loss of his beloved Monticello under eminent domain. Or George Washington his Mt. Vernon estates? Most of the founding fathers were not wealthy. Do you believe they would have supported the wealthy using eminent domain to secure attractive property from private citizens for their own purposes?

I don’t think so.

subverter, you just countered your own argument when you said: “Number one, of course, is that a vast majority of us (myself included) cannot afford to break away from their jobs and families.”

This is the survival technique 98% of Americans employ and believe in. That pretty much makes my argument.

subverter, as for the rest of you comment and analogy, I agree. I would add that your analogy could be slightly improved upon. They take your home, force you to accept their price, and from that price, they pay off your mortgage and any other incumbrances of lien against the property, give you what’s left, raze the property, raise the property assessment price, which raises the property taxes of all other properties in the area, which forces some owners to sell due to lack of resources to pay the taxes, which then becomes a vicious cycle of buying and selling as market values ebb and flow according to supply and demand.

Does anyone wonder, after reading this, why America is no longer a stable nation, with stable families, with roots and history based on the concept of home. Home used to mean life. Today, home means whatever roof under which one parks oneself for the time your employer chooses to retain your services. Home is defined by employment, not by family, history, roots, and a house shared by generations of a family. Those days are almost gone entirely, and this ruling by the court insures that only the aristocracy will ever have a choice of having a home base that does not change every few years.

David Remer, this will be my last post on the topic of survival as I think we might have to agree to disagree on this point.

I think maybe you don’t see the difference between the type of survival I’m thinking of, and the mode that I concede most of us live by. I didn’t counter my arguement by submitting that I too live the normal life. There’s a difference that I was trying to point out, which is self sufficiency versus dependancy. I’m trying to say that, precisely because the majority of us are dependant on our respective employers, and slaves to our own luxuries (which you said yourself in other words), that the very most basic knowledge of wildlife survival is not worthless.

I said that the main reason we tend not to stand up for ourselves is that, basically, we’ve all bought our own prisons. And, aside from that ridiculous tragedy, we need our essentials - all of which grow or flow freely all around us. Provided that we rediscover that primal knowledge that got us all here in the first place, the peoples’ lack of concordance can be remedied to a certain degree. It’s a matter of sustenance. Self sufficiency defines survivng. Trading our bodies’ energy for monetary compensation, in order to purchase our essentials from someone else, is a lifestyle of dependancy, and while this IS a mode of survival, it’s on a different level; a bigger picture.

If enough people come together, then a form of the latter mode will eventually take precedence, obviously. It’s the transition to the former that would be a devastation to both the unprepared, and the government which relies on the assumption that Americans are unwilling to take it that far.

subverter, thank you for the clarification. I agree with you. Interdependence, as the Greeks discovered in 300 BC, or the Romans, or Byznatines all, is a house of cards. I was missing this more basic argument of yours, and I appreciate your patience in helping me see it.

This is a theme I have written about many times in assessing the state of the future based upon globalization and Friedman’s “The World is Flat”. Many thanks.

It’s seldom I see so much consensus among conservatives, liberals and independents on WatchBlog. And I’ve got to say that, liberal though I am, I tend to side with the Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas on this decision. (Of course, people should remember that Souter, Kennedy and Stevens were all nominated by Republican presidents.)

As for the decision itself, I sure hope it’s not as bad as it looks. Oddly enough, this decision is packaged as taking power away from the Feds and giving it back to local governments. That is, Stevens said that it’s up to local officials rather than federal judges to decide if a project will benefit a community. People will have to get a lot more careful about who they elect to local government in coming years.

Another odd development I’ve seen so far is that some of the organizations who represent poorer folks in my local area actually applaud the decision because they think it may make it easier to get economic develop in the poorer parts of town. To me, this sounds like a case of “better watch out what you wish for,” since it could lead to increased gentrification, but there it is. I guess time will tell whether local governments abuse this power, but I’d prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to individual property owners.

Now, if only there’d be some conservatives on this board that stand up for free speech (as raising their voices against the despicable flag burning amendment) to the degree they stand up for their own real estate. If I had to chose, I’d rather they take my property than my free speech.

Reed,

While I normally want most things to be decided by our local governments, there are basic rights and limits placed on government that are in the constitution and should be decided at the local level. This is exactly what the 9th and 10th amendments were there to address.

If the Supreme Court had ruled the other way, the limit of using eminent domain for public use only (schools, roads, etc) would have been hard set across the whole collection of states and everyone would have had the same knowledge that their homes would not be taken from them and given to someone else for their own private use.

Now, thanks to this decision, it is up to each state, or each county, etc, to come up with those limits and rules on when they can and can’t use eminent domain. Some states already have a pretty strong definition, others have said nothing on the matter yet. In my own state of Indiana, there are going to be hearings through the summer and at least some state representatives on the individual’s side of the issue. So, I hope that it works out for the best.

However, our ‘esteemed’ mayer made some statements that made me want to throw up this morning. He said :

“City officials use the power of eminent domain very selectively and very carefully,” said Indianapolis, Indiana, Mayor Bart Peterson, NLC’s 2nd Vice President. “Generally, property is taken only in the context of an overall economic development project that will provide significant benefits to a neighborhood. This usually involves public hearings or some other type of public process. In addition, the Constitution’s Just Compensation requirement ensures that cities treat property owners fairly, as do state and federal laws that govern the use and limits of eminent domain. And the media demands that we be accountable.”

He went on to say that the uses of eminent domain will be few and far between, and we should trust the governments to use it wisely.

HA. We have put limits on government in place precisely because you CAN’T trust it. You can’t give that kind of all-reaching power to a group of people who have the legal right to use force on anyone.

He mentions the federal limits on eminent domain, except the ruling just expanded (contrary to the argument that there has been no expansion) to allow ‘PUBLIC USE’ to include ‘PRIVATE USE’. I’m sorry Bart, but where’t the federal limits on the use of eminent domain again? Oh, you have to fairly compensate the owner of the property (fairly beig left up to interpretation)? Well, that’s good enough for me then.

Chuck H,

Excellent counterpoint but I would suggest that this is more a matter of “trust” than anything else. Do people trust the gov’t to do whats right for the majority and not what’s most profitable for the contributing special interest?.
Anyway, the reason I believe there is such a broad spectrum of protest is besides answering “no” to the first question above, this action violates a prototypical tenet of both (L)eft and (R)ight; big gov’t out of private life. The (L) will likely see more of a big business interference, the (R) will likely see more of a loss of property issue but it’s the same coin.
Do we abrogate a core belief, forget any explicit rights, that such property is private and only in the most extreme case can the gov’t be allowed to take it. A good example is the expansion of I93 through Boston about 50 years ago

Rhinehold,

I watched on msnbc last night, the lawyer that argued the case for new london defending the ruling. He was grilled quite hard that it was basicly stealing someones property for property tax gain.
I don’t have a transcript so I cant quote him, but he mostly admited that and countered with whats the difference? They could take your home for a road/school before, taxes help a city the same way???????????

The program was; The Situation, ,, Tucker Carlson, a new show that was quite interesting, it blew fox out of the water based on content last night, they spent their crappy program time on the missing girl in Aruba ? ( do watch news from all sides daily)

A good example is the expansion of I93 through Boston about 50 years ago

That is sad true example of what could possibly happen. When the elevated Central Artery was originally constucted in the early 1950s the gov’t seized private property in the path of the hyway with compensation being $1 per acre. The gov’t expected for people to sue the rest f the value back, but because many non-English speaking imigrants lived there; they did not know they had the right to sue and the City got away with theft.

rest f the value

should be: rest of the value

Just heard an interesting theory. The left judges are doing this to attack religion. Think about it. How much revenue does a church generate for the city council ? If you knock it down and let a developer get at it, you’ll have more money to annex more property. and so on…

James,

Elvis is alive and Sasquatch lives in my basement.

The left judges are doing this to attack religion. Think about it. How much revenue does a church generate for the city council?

James, Where’d you hear this grand theory? I got news: this decision came from a conservative Supreme Court, and I haven’t heard seen a ground swell of liberal support from it here on WatchBlog. I personally don’t want to see my own church bulldozed. No, churches won’t be the targets for the most part. It’ll likely be poorer communities, the very communities that many liberals would like to protect from business interests. But, then again, it’s often hard to predict the outcomes of such decisions.

“Power is a double-edged sword. It can be exercised for both good and ill. “

That’s why limits are important. This decision just showed how unlimited and potentially very ill it can get.

Reed,

A guest host on the Laura Ingram show mentioned it. He didn’t suggest that the court did it for that reason. He speculated that Donald Trump could make a lot more revenue for NYC if they gave him the land that St Pats is on.

As for this being a conservative court. If you judge by appointing presidents - maybe. If you judge by how they vote, you have 4 left 3 right and 2 that you never really know

He speculated that Donald Trump could make a lot more revenue for NYC if they gave him the land that St Pats is on.

James,

Sounds like it was being said for effect. But I agree that there’s potentially a slippery slope here. As for the Court, I thought Bush v. Gore settled the question about the partisan leanings of the Court but apparently not. I agree it’s sometimes hard to pin down which way some of them will go.

Hi All:

Haven’t Seen This Anywhere, But Scary Thought:

What do we do when Bill Gates wants or Walmart wants Washington DC? Someone, will try that and win, Imagine what we could do with the tax revenue by tearing down the Whitehouse and putting up a SuperCenter? I hope when they do that the Bill of Sale has a minimum occpancy requirement At least 50 years should keep most Walmarts out because they usually abandon their store for new digs, every fifteen(15) or so years.

As Always,
Wayne

I found this site via Google search on third parties in the process of doing some research for a project I’m beginning, but more on that later on.

Regarding this “Eminent Domain” ruling by the USSC… Here is South Florida, the City of Hollywood just decided to seize a family’s property which has been in their family for generations and is their sole means of income. City of Hollywood used the “Eminent Domain” backdoor to seize the property because a private developer is planning a huge commercial center on that site. He sweetened the deal by offering to restore the exterior of an historic building that is part of the family in question’s property.

There are also rumors that this development company donated a lot of money to a key City Commissioner’s election campaign.

This property was not “blighted” or run-down at all. It is just old and in the way of this developer. The developer had gone to the patriarch of the family offering him incredible sums for his land/building, only to be rebuffed on several occasions, as the property was NOT for sale at any price. The man recently died leaving his widow and children to fight the city to retain their family business and property. The widow is in ill health and the family doesn’t have the money to keep fighting this developer in court. There is an appeal, but again, the monetary resource scales are grossly out of balance.

The assessed value of the property varies by several hundered thousand dollars, but it is the family’s heritage that is important to the family. Unfortunately, the family will likely be forced out eventually, their heritage lost to this developer.

Bye bye Article V…

Yet another reason why I’m running for state senate in my district.

Fight the good fight people! Non Illegitimus Carborundum! (Don’t let the bastards wear you down!)

Matt Unger

It sounds extreme but revolution might be our only hope now. Revolution in one form or another is our obligation as the last line of defence against the government. We are the fourth CHECK. The two party whacks in DC have forgotten that we the people are the government and they continue to undermind America and the Constitution. I understand your frustration… What will it take for all of us to say enough is enough. All clear thinking Americans must make as big a stink as possible to their local officials, form demonstrations, etc…

Matt Unger, thank you for that event occuring in S. Florida. That is exactly the kind of dynamics at play that result in families having no rights to ownership of their land and homes.

Best of luck on your election bid, our country needs politicians willing and able to represent the people of modest means as well as everyone with a bribe to offer.

Jesus, who would’ve thought that we’d all wake up one morning and realize that the GREAT SLIDE has already occurred. This fourth of July will be more of a memorial service for the American dream rather than a celebration of its birth. This only strengthens my conviction, savage political biases notwithstanding, that the only way to reclaim our basic rights is a full blown ressurection of Freak Power; a massive takeover bid starting at the grassroots level. Once the format has been tested and refined, it can be applied to larger political scales.