Anyone understand the rationale of supporting eminent domain?

I don't understand why liberal judges would support the gov't right to take property from the citizens. I keep thinking there must be some reason I'm missing.

this scares me. i am pretty much ok with it where structures are abandoned or left to decay but for my city to take my house so mall-mart could build a big box store?? there would be some sh** going down then. and the gov't talks about the compensation for the property. does this include enough to get another house? does it include extra for the history (if there is any)or the mental anguish? my house is fine but old. it is only worth about $28000. if that is all they gave me i would have to move into some kind of very scary neighborhood to find another house that inexpensive.

does not matter if it is for the public good, for back stabbing behind the counter deals, for fraud, legitimate reason or not.

government agencies will take what is yours and give what they think you oughta have.

Your only defense is to vote in people who will not do such a thing in the first place.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/liberaltshirts.htm

Keep in mind that the concept has been with us forever. What has changed is who is running government. The concept assumed that government will only act under duress, and when we had true civil servants running the show, they understood this responsibility. But now we have Bizniz Men running the show and the chamber of commerce is now calling the shots. THAT's what has changed.

I actually had a right-wing nut taxi-driver try to tell me how horrible local government was because the Daytona Beach local government was considering eminent domain to fix up some areas along its beaches. I stopped him dead in his tracks when I told him that it was the same people who voted for less government (Republicans) who had control over our local governments and who are using government laws for all the wrong reasons -- i.e. property development.

i.e. on edit: regarding those liberal judges, I can only say that I'd have to see the precedent they're reviewing before I can answer your actually question. I do go out on tangents sometimes. Sorry.

There's also a few other companies that come to mind... Carlyle Group, etc.

I disagree, but they saw the case in terms of letting city planners develop a city.

Many cities over 50,000 are caught in a trap. They have declining tax bases. That means they have to cut services. Poorer services make the cities less livable. More people leave. The tax base further declines. Its a cycle that ends with the remaining city being not much more than a crime wave, with those too poor to leave as victims. New London, that city that was the defendant in this latest case, had a declining tax base.

There is a place for economic development. Most cities over 50,000 have engaged in it. In my city economic development brought the city back from the verge of disaster. Just because some people make a lot of money does not make something inherently bad.

Despite the fact that compensation is offered, some people don't want to go along. It comes down to their rights against the needs of the community. Our society doesn't consider property to be the more important than say, health or welfare. The needs of the community come first.

Our 5th amendment allows government taking for public use. The issue in this case was whether the seizure in New London was for a public use. The liberal justices could not come up with a definition of public use that would exclude only handouts to greedy developers. The justices followed long established precedent with this decision. This case is nothing new. The courts assume that if the public wants a property, they must have some use for it. So, any excuse can cut the legal test.

Its up to the citizens to choose elected officials who will use this power wisely. States may also impose their own limits.

*** My idea for improvement would be to offer compensation based on replacement value to low value properties. Many say that eminent domain is a more agreeable option when it is used to condemn blighted communities. I think the opposite is true. The residents of blighted communities are those who are least likely to find another place to go. Compensation should be large enough to enable them to do that.

I tried to wade through the 58 page decision, but it's a lot of legalese for me. I agree that it is more fair to include non-blighted areas in eminent domain. A black caller on a local radio show said now white people will know what it is like to have the gov't take their property. It's very unfortuate if the right is abused in any case though & it seems it could be legislated more sensibly to encourage public profits over individual greed.

I'm still trying to get my head around this, too. There are a few good posts trying to explain this. Read this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3940035
Here's my stab....

Far right corporatists oppose this ruling because it strengthens the validity of the "takings clause." The Constitution has always allowed government to take private property for the common good as long as owners are compensated fairly. The ruling solidifies this notion and it strengthens government's ability to exercise the public good over private interest.

Unfortunately, in this instance the "private interest" is the little guy, not big corporations. But the ruling will also apply to the big corporations-- ramifications of which are much larger.

Far right judicial groups have been trying for many years to reinterpret the takings clause to apply it to all govt regulation of corporations. For example, passing environment regulation that would lower corporate profits = "taking." They think govt should compensate corporations for the loss of their "property" (profits) resulting from regulation. This would effectively halt government regulation of business because it would cost us too much money.

According to this analysis, this SC case is a perfect red herring. People get outraged over govt kicking homeowners out their homes. The people then support actions to curb govt's ability to overrule private interest for the common good. Corporatists pounce on this to look like they are on the side of the people. Scalia, Thomas, et al. then use this opportunity to twist it so corporations get all the benefits and people get screwed. It has happened many times before.

We're outraged right now because its the little guy who's getting screwed. We have to pay attention to the "slippery slope." Had the decision gone the other way, i.e., had Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas prevailed, we'd be looking at a precedent that can be used to undermine govt's ability to act in behalf of the public good.

This case stinks because private property owned by regular people was handed over to developers so the city could revitalize an area and augment tax revenues. In a democracy we're supposed to have the power to prevent elected politicians from abusing their right to eminent domain by throwing the bums out of office. What we need is more democracy and better-informed voters. We need better rules for protecting the less-powerful. We need to come out with legislation or a Constitutional amendment that will spell this out and not be able to be twisted to give the powerful even more power.

For instance, my county is trying to install a mass transit system to decrease traffic and pollution. The district has almost the entire needed corridor through buying an old rail coridor. However, a few houses and businesses block the coridor. Without the right of eminent domain these few businesses can block the entire project. Without eminent domain laws many roads, railroads lines, utility lines, and some airports would not be built. Much of our infrastructure that has encouraged economic growth would not be there.

Many western states are battling private property owners about environmental regulations that limit use of property. Private property owners are claiming illegal taking of land value since the government has limited economic uses. So far, the courts have mostly ruled that the government can restrict private property use, take away economic value, to achieve a greater good of protecting rural values and the environment. With unlimited property rights, local governments couldn't have zoning and restrict uses.

I'm sure everyone of us can cite numerous examples of abuse of this authority. The freeways that destroyed neighborhoods. The convention centers, ballparks, and hotel rows that enriched few and hurt many. Still, the eminent domain power is important.

I haven't decided my opinion on this particular case. I haven't read the decision but I'm for the power of eminent domain.

What it comes down to to me is that if you don't want eminent domain abuses, elect local legislators that agree.

We have a situation here in NJ where the city is trying to "revitalize" a commercial area filled with heavy industry by taking certain commercial properties to be given to retail, such as Target.

The 5th amendment says government may take private property
for "public use", but a 5-4 majority ruled that it
is up to local governments, by and large, to define
that term. A city's carefully formulated economic
development plan is entitled to deference, Justice
Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, even if it
mainly benefits privated entitites.

http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleFriendlyCA.jsp?id=1...

In their best interests, cities don't plow down
established middle-class neighborhoods to put up
Wal-Marts. Typically a plan will call for a business
that employs many with a park/public recreation etc.
alongside it. Cities have to fairly compensate homeowners
and move them to other residences. This law has already
been in place for years....usually blighted areas are
resurrected.

razed the entire West End, a funky but vibrant neighborhood of working class people, and replaced it with a moonscape of luxury apartment tower blocks. Yes, it improved the city's tax base. No, it didn't imporve the area, which is now a moonscape of blank walls and locked doors at pedestrian level.

That exercise in eminent domain pretty much ended the concept of urban renewal in that city and caused people to redefine "blight."

Taking the homes of working class people to create paradises for yuppies is just one more insult of a corporatized government run amok. It's happening all over the country, but most especially in places that have nice views, and now governments don't have to cite "blight." They can cite greed instead.

This is not my country. My country has a government of, by and for the people that protects us against the rich, powerful and greedy.

It is a classic abuse of eminent domain used to displace low income or working class residents for the enrichment of private developers (and providing a modest increase to the city tax base.) I wonder how the old West Enders feel about those signs stating "if you lived here, you'd be home now."

My reaction to the ruling is similar to yours, that we have now lost the need to define 'blight' at all. A corrupt local government can use the flimsiest of reasons to invoke eminent domain.

For all the talk here of holding local governments accountable to avoid this, it's not that easy. Many other communities are going to get their own West Ends before they realize just what they're up against.

I said this on another thread on this issue, the decision is a win-win for conservatives. They can blame the liberals on the court and scream about the taking of property rights at the same time that they're using the ruling to push through lucrative development deals.

Greed.

It's not as if this hasn't been happening for years as cities and counties and the federal government have been compelled to extend roads due to internal migration, sprawl and growth or structures needed to be constructed to prevent flood waters from sweeping away crops, or deemed environmentally sensitive to our ecosystem.

It really doesn't matter what the reason as generally cases are settled due to the fact that the land being "siezed" ie. bought, isn't occupied rather than investment land laying smack in the middle of, right or wrong (This is subjective), the needs of society.

Of course there have been horrible decsions made just as there are horrible decisions made by "private" businesses that pollute our waters and outsource our livelyhoods, yes I know that "neat" places were razed by the DOT a few decades ago, that wasn't always a good thing, hell there aren't very many 100% "good" things period.

The problem lies in the fact that this country is a good old boy kleptocracy and there are several cases that I'm aware of where some rich asswipes buy up some remote piece of swampy land in Florida knowing full well that it's going to be declared environmentally sensitive so no development can take oplace, ever, and then then they sue the state because the state offers them what they paid for it instead of what the land would be worth developed with retirement mansions.

They cry that they've been robbed when in fact WE'VE been robbed and most people don't even know it.

Oh forget it...

that Jack Balkin does an analysis. He's probably thinking about it now, I hope.