24-06-2005 00:42									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Are we talking, state, county, city, city block -- which have the right to seize property now?

The government in the US has always been able to seize property for public purposes, with proper compensation (i.e., normally rather generous). This decision made clear that "public purposes" is to be construed broadly.

	24-06-2005 00:44									#32
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by dv8ed quote: Yes. Define "correctly". I somehow doubt it will be what the owners would have sold for before this ruling (assuming they would have sold at all.)

Correctly meaning Fair Market Value, as it always has been for eminent domain.

	24-06-2005 00:45									#33
	Put an end to popups!

quote: quote: Originally posted by dv8ed Yes. Define "correctly". I somehow doubt it will be what the owners would have sold for before this ruling (assuming they would have sold at all.)

That's an area for potential abuse that I see. The owner will get a better than market price, but the owner probably will be constrained in pushing up the price for his plot when he's the last to sell, etc.

	24-06-2005 00:51									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

They should have done this on the Summer Solstice - with that lovely full moon. So far we have The Diplomat, Mr. Fun, Dinodoc, Stuie, Gepap, St. Leo, Impaler, Oerdin, JohnT, Lawrence of Arabia, Tuberski, Ogie, Boann (I checked her thread) and myself (my adjective is OBSCENE) all in agreement. If we can get Ned and Che to post and agree - it's a blue moon!

I'm not quite sure where dv8ed, Imran and MtG fall on this (their posts don't make it clear), and of course DanS is our lone dissenter.

	24-06-2005 00:53									#35
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Lone dissenter? I said I saw both sides of the coin.

	24-06-2005 00:56									#36
	Support Apolyton

OK - seeing both sides is the closest thing to dissent we have in this case, and you seem to be fairly comfortable with the decision. So in the name of intellectual argument at Apolyton, .

	24-06-2005 00:58									#37
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Just because I'm not foaming at the mouth, I'm "fairly comfortable with the decision?"

To be clear, as a city taxpayer, this decision is probably in my interest in an immediate and tangible manner. The city is about to use eminent domain to acquire about $125 million in land for a new ballpark.

	24-06-2005 01:00									#38
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I am disgusted at having to agree with Thomas, that's what i hate. I can;t really think of any decisions I have agreed with him on-Scalia a few times before, but never, EVER Thomas.

I feel so dirty.

Damn you Souter!

	24-06-2005 01:01									#39
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Wow... the liberal 4 have now pissed off the left to no end in this session of the Court (first with med pot and now with this). Maybe it's a ploy to make it look as though CJ Scalia isn't such a bad idea to those on the left .

	24-06-2005 01:03									#40
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc They should have done this on the Summer Solstice - with that lovely full moon. So far we have The Diplomat, Mr. Fun, Dinodoc, Stuie, Gepap, St. Leo, Impaler, Oerdin, JohnT, Lawrence of Arabia, Tuberski, Ogie, Boann (I checked her thread) and myself (my adjective is OBSCENE) all in agreement. If we can get Ned and Che to post and agree - it's a blue moon! I'm not quite sure where dv8ed, Imran and MtG fall on this (their posts don't make it clear), and of course DanS is our lone dissenter.

lol .. amazing isn't it...

	24-06-2005 01:09									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DanS The government in the US has always been able to seize property for public purposes, with proper compensation (i.e., normally rather generous). This decision made clear that "public purposes" is to be construed broadly.

Here too. The higher the institution that can seize property, the less chance for corruption. If only federal government could do it, it would only be used for highways and military bases but if city governments can do it (can't here) it leaves much room for corruption.

	24-06-2005 01:16									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

In the US, there are a number of factors that determine what level of government is the least accountable to the people. But most political decisions are still made at the local level.

	24-06-2005 01:29									#43
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Wow, this ruling just screams "corruption", it's amazing.

But I am curious about one thing: I thought the supreme court decided whether a law was constitutional or not. So, which political body produced this decision in the first place?

	24-06-2005 01:35									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The city of New London, Connecticut.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...onpost#dissent1

quote: Petitioners are nine resident or investment owners of 15 homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut. Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery, for example, lives in a house on Walbach Street that has been in her family for over 100 years. She was born in the house in 1918; her husband, petitioner Charles Dery, moved into the house when they married in 1946. Their son lives next door with his family in the house he received as a wedding gift, and joins his parents in this suit. Two petitioners keep rental properties in the neighborhood. In February 1998, Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceuticals manufacturer, announced that it would build a global research facility near the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Two months later, New London's city council gave initial approval for the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) to prepare the development plan at issue here. The NLDC is a private, nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist the city council in economic development planning. It is not elected by popular vote, and its directors and employees are privately appointed. Consistent with its mandate, the NLDC generated an ambitious plan for redeveloping 90 acres of Fort Trumbull in order to "complement the facility that Pfizer was planning to build, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the city's waterfront, and eventually 'build momentum' for the revitalization of the rest of the city." App. to Pet. for Cert. 5. Petitioners own properties in two of the plan's seven parcels--Parcel 3 and Parcel 4A. Under the plan, Parcel 3 is slated for the construction of research and office space as a market develops for such space. It will also retain the existing Italian Dramatic Club (a private cultural organization) though the homes of three plaintiffs in that parcel are to be demolished. Parcel 4A is slated, mysteriously, for " 'park support.' " Id., at 345-346. At oral argument, counsel for respondents conceded the vagueness of this proposed use, and offered that the parcel might eventually be used for parking. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36. To save their homes, petitioners sued New London and the NLDC, to whom New London has delegated eminent domain power. Petitioners maintain that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the NLDC from condemning their properties for the sake of an economic development plan. Petitioners are not hold-outs; they do not seek increased compensation, and none is opposed to new development in the area. Theirs is an objection in principle: They claim that the NLDC's proposed use for their confiscated property is not a "public" one for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. While the government may take their homes to build a road or a railroad or to eliminate a property use that harms the public, say petitioners, it cannot take their property for the private use of other owners simply because the new owners may make more productive use of the property.

	24-06-2005 01:42									#45
	Got spare money?

Of course, considering the outrage, the Congress will obviously pass a law that will make this ruling irrelevant, won't it?

	24-06-2005 01:47									#46
	Suffering from ads?

Historically, reform of emminent domain is a republican issue. It has been killed most often by democratic politicians, who normally govern cities, and find eminent domain a good tool to help redevelop the slums. Generally, republicans don't govern cities and redevelopment is not yet neccessary in their areas. Large parcels of undeveloped land are still available.

Last edited by DanS on 24-06-2005 at 01:52

	24-06-2005 01:57									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Of course, considering the outrage, the Congress will obviously pass a law that will make this ruling irrelevant, won't it?

the court explicitly said that STATES may pass laws that restrict cities from doing things like this. I suppose congress could try to come up with something under the commerce clause, then we could have this whole argument the other way

	24-06-2005 02:06									#48
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Wow... the liberal 4 have now pissed off the left to no end in this session of the Court (first with med pot and now with this). Maybe it's a ploy to make it look as though CJ Scalia isn't such a bad idea to those on the left .

You mean the three moderates and two conservatives. One conseravtive and three reactionaries voted against.

That's okay. We just have to use our state constitutions to put in an amendment forbidding the government from taking our property to give to some developer.

	24-06-2005 02:13									#49
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap I feel so dirty.

Think how I feel... I agree with DanS!

Must shower! Must scrub clean! Gaaaaaaaaaah!

	24-06-2005 02:15									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc They should have done this on the Summer Solstice - with that lovely full moon. So far we have The Diplomat, Mr. Fun, Dinodoc, Stuie, Gepap, St. Leo, Impaler, Oerdin, JohnT, Lawrence of Arabia, Tuberski, Ogie, Boann (I checked her thread) and myself (my adjective is OBSCENE) all in agreement.

Now I feel filthy.

	24-06-2005 02:20									#51
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Of course most home owners have only limited funds to with which to seek legal recourse, and we all know who sets "fair market value" - the city/county real estate assessor and/or the guy with the most highly paid lawyer.

	24-06-2005 02:40									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

One thing I find interesting is that a couple of justices live in Southwest DC, a large portion of which is being redeveloped by heavy use of eminent domain.

	24-06-2005 03:45									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

sign me up for opposition.

This ruling just makes me ill. I can't imagine what it would feel like to have a home of 20 years taken from me for "market value" and replaced with a strip mall. :vomit:

	24-06-2005 04:09									#54
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The SCOTUS ruled correctly, nothing I know of in the US Constitution prohibits the states from using eminent domain for whatever reason. I'd have to read the dissent to see what they say on the matter. The Constitution authorises the Feds to do the same but limits application - for federal installations, post offices, dockyards, arsenals, etc. The land must be used for federal purposes, not private.

There is a somewhat notorious case in New Jersey where Donald Trump wanted an elderly widow's property to build a garage for his limos. He asked local thugs (politicians) to seize her land and sell/give it to him and they did.

So we would need to look at the specific state constitution involved to see what restrictions it places on eminent domain. Frankly, I'm not much of a fan of emiment domain even when the land is to be used for government.

The irony here is that while politicians use eminent domain in the name of redeveloping slums, the politicians share alot of the blame for creating slums in the first place.

	24-06-2005 04:11									#55
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara You mean the three moderates and two conservatives. One conseravtive and three reactionaries voted against. That's okay. We just have to use our state constitutions to put in an amendment forbidding the government from taking our property to give to some developer.

No, I mean FOUR LIBERALS. Just because you are a leftist wackjob doesn't mean you define the middle of American politics .

After all, only a wackjob would consider Ginsburg and Breyer to be 'moderates'.

quote: Of course most home owners have only limited funds to with which to seek legal recourse, and we all know who sets "fair market value" - the city/county real estate assessor and/or the guy with the most highly paid lawyer.

Well, to be fair, the assessor has set the value for property taxes. Maybe this will make more people want the value of their home listed higher, rather than lower (which allows them to save on property taxes).

	24-06-2005 04:14									#56
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

We are just going to have to take eminent domain away from the government.

	24-06-2005 04:14									#57
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: I'd have to read the dissent

Interestingly enough the dissent would allow the seizure if it was for a strip mall or small office buildings or housing development. It had a problem with having most of it benefiting one private party.

SOOO, if this was a strip mall case, the decision would be 9-0.

	24-06-2005 04:16									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

At most 8-1. Thomas narrowly construed "public use" to mean actual public use, not private use.

	24-06-2005 04:22									#59
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I will say though using eminent domain to hand people's property over to developers violates the spirit or intent of eminent domain as employed by the feds. The Constitution spells out why eminent domain is needed by government and nowhere in that rationale is "economic development". Its like the restriction on ex post fact legislation, the Constitution spells out why expost facto legislation is to be condemned - it endangers existing contracts. But the courts have held that the restriction only applies to criminal legislation, i.e., government cannot punish you for behavior that was legal at the time even if that behavior is later criminalised. The problem with this interpretation is the Constitution mentions contracts. For example, the feds cannot go back in time to raise taxes even though this often happens. When Clinton entered office they raised taxes back to Jan 1 before Clinton was inaugurated. This puts existing contracts in jeopardy by imposing economic burdens of people they could not plan for.

	24-06-2005 04:36									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: the Constitution spells out why expost facto legislation is to be condemned - it endangers existing contracts.

You got it incorrect. The provision (Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1) says:

"No State shall. . .; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility".

It didn't say or "any OTHER Law imparing" contract, but impairing the obligation of contracts is another restriction on the state. Ex post facto was also intended to be for criminal litigation (it may have been the primary consideration). This is seen by Calder v. Bull decided in 1798.

quote: I believe that but one instance can be found in which a British judge called a statute, that affected contracts made before the statute, an ex post facto law; but the judges of Great Britain always considered penal statutes, that created crimes, or encreased the punishment of them, as ex post facto laws.

quote: If the prohibition to make no ex post facto law extends to all laws made after the fact, the two prohibitions, not to make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; and not to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, were improper and unnecessary.

Also Jefferson believed it to apply in criminal cases as well:

quote: "The sentiment that ex post facto laws are against natural right, is so strong in the United States, that few, if any, of the State constitutions have failed to proscribe them. The federal constitution indeed interdicts them in criminal cases only; but they are equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases, and the omission of a caution which would have been right, does not justify the doing what is wrong. Nor ought it to be presumed that the legislature meant to use a phrase in an unjustifiable sense, if by rules of construction it can be ever strained to what is just."

(Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13th, 1813)