Eminent Domain: If they evacuate a city, they can RECLAIM that property?

Is this true?

just take your land anytime insidious facist corporations like WallyWorld want to build a new store on it. That's new just this year. Previously, government could only use eminent domain to take your land if they wanted to build a public project on it, like a county courthouse or a highway. But, just this year, precendents have been set by the courts allowing any facist pig corportation to take your land anytime they want to for commericial reasons. So, if you bought, say, land at the beach for an investment, because its got a great view, your investment can get fucked if Hyatt Hotels also thinks its a great view, and just feels like putting a hotel where you put your house.

Eminent domain is *government* taking. Private corporations have no government power to take your land. That government power arises from the "takings"/"just compensation" clause of the U.S. Constitution. That document grants no such power to private corporations. Can you cite any of the cases you refer to? Your post doesn't make any sense to me.

Private land was seized, and given to another company because that company could produce higher tax revenues than the original owner.

Upheld by the Supreme Court.

I can find links if you'd like, but I'm sure your google works as well as mine. :-)

Then I can look it up myself.

This description varies from the original - it now sounds like the government took land, then the land was "given" (by the governement) to another company. While that is certainly unusual, it's not equivalent to a private corporation "taking" your land, which it has no ability to do under the law.

It's Kelo v. New London, 200 U.S. 321, decided June 23, 2005.

As I suspected, it does *not*, as "Is It Fascism Yet" originally posted, "(allow)any facist pig corportation to take your land anytime they want to for commericial reasons. So, if you bought, say, land at the beach for an investment, because its got a great view, your investment can get fucked if Hyatt Hotels also thinks its a great view, and just feels like putting a hotel where you put your house."

It holds as follows:

After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Petitioners brought this state-court action claiming, inter alia, that the taking of their properties would violate the “public use” restriction in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the some of the properties, but denying relief as to others. Relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, and Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding all of the proposed takings.

Held: The city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause. Pp. 6—20.

The rational for the ruling is stated as follows:

(a) Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land–at least not in its entirety–to use by the general public, this “Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the … public.” Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.” See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 158—164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power. Berman, 348 U.S. 26; Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229; Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986. Pp. 6—13.

(b) The city’s determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts. To effectuate this plan, the city has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the plan’s comprehensive character, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of this Court’s review in such cases, it is appropriate here, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment. P. 13.

(c) Petitioners’ proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U.S., at 24. Also rejected is petitioners’ argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a “reasonable certainty” that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the Court’s precedent. E.g., Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 242. The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case, where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested parties’ legal rights to be established before new construction can commence. The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Berman, 348 U.S., at 26. Pp. 13—20.

Note that the court clearly states: "the city could not take petitioners’ land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party". This case does not, therefore, mark any real departure from precedent in the law of eminent domain. It in fact supports the points raised in my earlier post on the subject.

It's very hard keeping up with Bushco's crimes, there are so many. You must at least give them credit for their ability to multitask.

way things are today - the New London case doesn't change that at all. See my post just above yours which details the court's holding regarding a city land redevelopment project - which does not give anyone's land to any specific company.

I think we're off on a tangent here - and that it's better to focus right now on stuff Bush is directly responsible for - such as the delay in getting federal relief to New Orleans during the past week.

legislate against the supreme court ruling which now allows corporations to use eminent domain for commercial enterprizes, believing that was never the spirit of the law. It also saddens me that everyone everywhere, even on DU tries to silence everyone else who is saying something they wouldn't have said.

They want to claim NOLA for rebuilding into a plasticized Republican simulation of the Big Easy complete with golf course, gentrified housing tracks, golf courses, gated communities, golf courses and did I mention Golf Courses? The rebuilt NOLA will be a twisted Disneyfication of the old with nothing real.

Prediction: Few NOLA evacuees will be able to afford to return to their home town. The new NOLA will be a republican stronghold.

Humming. Hyst humming.

I've posted this before but I want everyone to realize what is happening to the black and minority populations of Louisiana. They're being forcibly displaced permanently from their homes and land so that Louisiana will be a red state in 2008. This ethnic cleansing is as repugnant as the horrors of Kosovo and the heart ache that first brought the Cajuns to Louisiana. This group of poor blacks will become the American version of the Palestine refugees. Permanently confined to a camp so that they will never have any political power.

The evacuees are going to be resettled to either solid red states(Texas) or solid blue states(Michigan) so that they won't affect the outcome in those states. They know that they're going to lose the 2008 election and using the dirtiest of tricks to hold unto power.

Watch first for a lot of finger pointing from the shrub at the local officials to deflect the blame onto them. Then the amount of money that will be poured into Louisiana for the 2008 election.

Carl Rove is still the puppet meister at work.


RegexReader
$USA =~ s/Republican/Democrat/ig;

Don't worry--N.O. has always been a country unto itself. The damn yankees still haven't figured it out-

The highly influential" behind the scenes" leaders of the tightknit community of the Greater New Orleans Area are likely to make these carpet baggers offer they "can't refuse" and kindly ask them to leave---if you know what I mean--

There are rich Corporate Geeks that may "try" to carpet bag but they will not succeed--there's no way outsiders can take over without close connections
-in New Orleans everyone's families have tight connections that span generations -and they won't tolerate corporate takeover attempts.

Watch the news in the near future.
headlines:Out of town business investors "missing".

That's the just way it's always worked there.

NO had an underworld, but that underworld is now as dispersed and dead as the rest of the city. NO, at this point, is nothing more than a bunch of soggy buildings and deserted streets. The community, the tradition, and the people are gone.

A city is what the people make of it, and the people of New Orleans made a great one. But what is New Orleans when there are no people left? Just a shell. When new people come in, THEY will make what they will of it, and the opinion of the old city won't matter...they aren't around anymore to affect the outcome.

There was a thread showing there was some doing the Southern Decadence parade in what remains of New Orleans. Their spirit is still there.

Just that shrub's cronies are going to use the new use of eminent domain to demolish the houses of the poor and convert the area into their new mansion's back yards. This great tradition will be destroyed for more golf courses and walled subdivisions where there were once thriving minority communities.


RegexReader
$USA =~ s/Republican/Democrat/ig;