The U.S. Supreme Court crushes the little guy yet again

[meltedtime]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/


High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT)



WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

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

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

[SW]

This kind of "annexation" cough*stealing*ahem is so sickening. Eminent domain needs to be stricken from the laws.

[Gyno Rhino]

I'm seeing in the future.. Yes....

A five page argument between certain members of the site on this subject...

[rdkraus]

Back in the USSR.

[Jorge Sanchez]

The US -and many other countries as well- is so inconsistent in its values. Politicians, economists, and policy makers, particularly of the conservative variety, always seem to stress limited government interference in society/the market. Then the courts go and make a decision like this.

MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND!!!

I guess the limited government interference rule only applies when it favours big business and is completely disregarded if it will have the oppossite effect.

[TwiloMike]

I'm fairly surprised. I did not expect this. Of course, people in various towns, states, etc. have the right to vote in restrictions which will restrain this newly legalized highway robbery.

[Roark]

actually, i would say that this decision will be perceived by those on the left as a victory for the "little guy"

however erroneous that assumption may be

i foresee this precedent being used for big government to take away land from the "privileged" to redistribute wealth and services to the "underprivileged"

[Roark]

The US -and many other countries as well- is so inconsistent in its values. Politicians, economists, and policy makers, particularly of the conservative variety, always seem to stress limited government interference in society/the market. Then the courts go and make a decision like this.

MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND!!!

I guess the limited government interference rule only applies when it favours big business and is completely disregarded if it will have the oppossite effect.

all dem appointed judges decided in favor of the city

[shootermcgavin7]

Politicians, economists, and policy makers, particularly of the conservative variety, always seem to stress limited government interference in society/the market. Then the courts go and make a decision like this.

MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND!!!

I guess the limited government interference rule only applies when it favours big business and is completely disregarded if it will have the oppossite effect.

I wouldn't call Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Rehnquist "anti-Business".

And they dissented.

[Jorge Sanchez]

all dem appointed judges decided in favor of the city

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

In other words, government is subordinating individual property rights in favour of large corporations (ie: big business)

[Jorge Sanchez]

There is no such thing as an 'anti-business' Supreme Court Judge

[Paul Stagg]

I'm sickened, but not at all suprised.

I'm against Eminent Domain in ANY case, which is a stance not in keeping with what the Constitution says. However, I think it pretty clear what was meant.

And 'more tax revenue' isn't what they meant.

This isn't just a right or left thing, though. Both sides want the governmnet to have control of your stuff. They just want to use your stuff for different things.

[Roark]

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

In other words, government is subordinating individual property rights in favour of large corporations (ie: big business)

this decision is paving the way for collectivism & marxism

imo, this law will be used to penalize the property owner for the "greater good". the reasoning behind the decision was to support "economic growth".

i foresee this resulting in alot of situations such as "hey, you rich guy, you don't need all that land. we're going to take it to help stimulate 'economic growth' in your area."

[Jorge Sanchez]

Did you even read the article? And I quote:

"Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a WORKING-CLASS neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices."

"THE BENEFICIARIES ARE LIKELY TO BE THOSE CITIZENS WITH DISPROPORTIONATE INFLUENCE AND POWER IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS". Now doesn't that sound like the 'rich guy'?

But I do agree that this decision does undermine individual rights. In fact if you read my original post, that is what I was criticizing - the fact that the US preaches individual rights and limited government interference while this decision clearly contradicts those ideals. I was meerly making a comment that those ideals usually favour the free market and, correspondingly, big business. This decision, however, contradicts those ideals but still seems to benefit big business/the rich guy.

And on a side note, I think you need to actually read Marx before you go classifying something as Marxist. Karl Marx would deffinetly not have supported this decision.

Marxist does not equal communist.

[APE.]

It's been that way for years in Louisiana.

My father is an auctioneer, and in the last month 3 ppl from a local town have contacted him to do estate auctions. 2 residential an 1 buisness.

The buisness owner was paid quiet handsomely to close his buisness based on what his profits would be in the next 5 years all based on previous years taxes.

The home owners fought against it tooth and nail an were payed based upon the lowest estimate that a goverment agent appraised their home/land to be worth. After so long a waiting period the state gov. here has the right to place money in your bank account an send notice of 30 days are so to vacate.The gov. also has a program to place these families anywhere within a 50 mile range of where they were living if they should choose to work with the gov.Thats is quite far out the range if they should place them in the further reaches of these boundries.

About the only up side; even after paying these families/individuals they can keep their house and move it are sell it an contents off. Oh..but it will be considered in your taxes when filing.

[shootermcgavin7]

Karl Marx would deffinetly not have supported this decision.

Marx most certainly supported the government taking property from the private property-owners.

[Jorge Sanchez]

Marx most certainly supported the government taking property from the private property-owners.

1. Way to twist my words.

2. I repeat what I said earlier. Read Marx.

Marx did support taking property from the Bourgeoisie, defined as the owners of the means of production. This sort of property was used to subordinate the working class in order to generate profit.

This decision does quite the opposite of what Marx advocates. This decision allows local government to take property away from the working class in order to give it to other private interests (in this particular case, Pfizer - which owns the means of production) in an attempt to stimulate further economic development.

But this case hinges basically on whether economic development qualifies as serving the "public good". The courts decision means that it does. As a result, government is essentially allowed to take property from A and give it to B, so long as B makes more productive use of that property than A. And "[t]his is not a case in which the City is planning to open the condemned land… to use by the general public. Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all comers" (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...df/04-108.pdf).

So, Eminent domain, originally only designed to take private property away for the common good/use - a communistic, collectivist, marxist idea - is now being transformed into a power capable to confiscating private property for exclusive use as private property (of business) for the primary purpose of turning a profit, through which the common good is served only incidentally through economic development - a thoroughly anti-communist, collectivist, marxist ideal)

[Roark]

things like this, like the income tax, etc are collectivist/marxist/socialist ideals

the government strips all property/income from the individual and redistributes it as they see fit.

it's not about "big business"

this is pure leftist stuff

it's happening in every city. the democrats want "smart growth" and "high density housing".

if i had time i'd google some quotes from the communist manifesto, maybe when i get off work

[Roark]

1. Way to twist my words.

2. I repeat what I said earlier. Read Marx.

Marx did support taking property from the Bourgeoisie, defined as the owners of the means of production. This sort of property was used to subordinate the working class in order to generate profit.

This decision does quite the opposite of what Marx advocates. This decision allows local government to take property away from the working class in order to give it to other private interests (in this particular case, Pfizer - which owns the means of production) in an attempt to stimulate further economic development.

But this case hinges basically on whether economic development qualifies as serving the "public good". The courts decision means that it does. As a result, government is essentially allowed to take property from A and give it to B, so long as B makes more productive use of that property than A. And "[t]his is not a case in which the City is planning to open the condemned land… to use by the general public. Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all comers" (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...df/04-108.pdf).

So, Eminent domain, originally only designed to take private property away for the common good/use - a communistic, collectivist, marxist idea - is now being transformed into a power capable to confiscating private property for exclusive use as private property (of business) for the primary purpose of turning a profit, through which the common good is served only incidentally through economic development - a thoroughly anti-communist, collectivist, marxist ideal)

i disagree

what this does is set a precedent that will be used in the future by government to direct wealth and property to it's desired goals

[Genacide]

I think if my land was going to be taken I would make the land unusable. I.E. dumb a load of toxic chemicals and such on the front lawn. Perhaps a spotted owl nest would appear from out of the blue. That would get the tree huggers backing me up. :evillaugh

[Jorge Sanchez]

I see where you are coming from, but I disagree. I just finished reading the court's decision on this case. Eminent domain was initially used in order to confiscate private property in order to prevent harm or for strictly defined public use. So that is power that you are calling marxist if am not mistaken. The power to redirect wealth where the government sees fit is not a new power, it has always been a part of eminant domain (as long as it is being redirected towards the public good).

Kelo v. New London only decides that economic development is also a form of public use, although the public will not be able to directly profit or use the new facilities. For example, in this case these people are being given the boot to make way for Pfizer, a shopping mall, office buildings, and new housing. The public good is that these developments will bring increased prosperity to the area, not that the people will necessarily be able to use these new facilities.

The only thing that this ruling changed is that public use is now less rigidly defined. Now eminant domain can be invoked in the name of economic development which will inevitably favour developpers and large corporations more than the individual citizens to whom the benefits are being only incidentally accrued. That, I would argue, is what makes eminant domain more pro-business and less communistic than before. Eminant domain will favour small groups not the collective.

[Jorge Sanchez]

And this decision also means that property can only be confiscated if the proposed new property will be more efficient/profitable than the one before. In other words, big, profitable businesses cannot be easily evicted while your house could.

[shootermcgavin7]

2. I repeat what I said earlier. Read Marx.

I HAVE read him. What's you're excuse?

Marx did support taking property from the Bourgeoisie, defined as the owners of the means of production. This sort of property was used to subordinate the working class in order to generate profit.

This decision does quite the opposite of what Marx advocates. This decision allows local government to take property away from the working class in order to give it to other private interests (in this particular case, Pfizer - which owns the means of production) in an attempt to stimulate further economic development.

Marx supported the government taking control of ALL property by the "intellectual elite" (in other words, a philosopher, like Marx, who knew better than you what to produce).

It's obvious we both disagree with the ruling, but almost every single totalitarian government has gotten its start by attacking the "Bourgeoisie". Hitler, Stalin, you name it. They did it all in the name of the "Working Class".


Marx was a horrible author who's grasp on history ranged from mediocre to poor. Although Gyno may like his essay comparing Jews to Vampires. It basically bled into his later ideas that flopped, communism.

[Jorge Sanchez]

I don't mean to be dismissive here, but by property Marx meant only property that reproduces wealth. Someone's house is not what he meant by property. If you don't realize that you only have a partial undrestanding of his work.

And I agree that many totalitarian leaders have built their power on the ideas of Marx, however, all of them were dogmatic applications of often misinterpreted/misrepresented versions of Marx's ideas. That is why I said communism is not Marxism.

I am not here to defend Marx. I don't agree with the majority of his ideas and obviously he turned out to be wrong about the whole communist revolution thing. But he did, in fact, have an excellent grasp on history up until the industrial revolution.

And finally, I assume that by your attack on Marx rather than my argument, you have accepted that I am right about the original argument. If not, you have committed a logical fallacy.

[shootermcgavin7]

I don't mean to be dismissive here, but by property Marx meant only property that reproduces wealth. Someone's house is not what he meant by property. If you don't realize that you only have a partial undrestanding of his work.

Marx didn't believe that property reproduced wealth. Marx believed in the labor theory of value. I.e. property could only produce wealth to the value of the labor that was put into it. I'm not going to give you an economics lesson, its apparent that you feel you fully understand Marx's faulty views, and far be it from me to correct you.

Marx also didn't beleive in time value of money. In other words, the theory behind interest didn't make sense to him. A key part of classic marxism has subsequently been glossed over by people even stupider than Marx was.

And I agree that many totalitarian leaders have built their power on the ideas of Marx, however, all of them were dogmatic applications of often misinterpreted/misrepresented versions of Marx's ideas. That is why I said communism is not Marxism.

And hey, this is the best part: When you give the government control of your entire economy (as per Marxism/communism entails - there isn't a difference in reality, regardless of whatever tiny nuances you're thinking of....the COMMUNIST Manifesto, which outlined COMMUNISM was written by MARX) you create a totalitarian government. Amazing huh?

I am not here to defend Marx. I don't agree with the majority of his ideas and obviously he turned out to be wrong about the whole communist revolution thing. But he did, in fact, have an excellent grasp on history up until the industrial revolution.

Right, the Roman Empire crashed because of a "revolt of labor". The Germanic tribes, the rise of Christianity, the attacks of the Persians on the Eastern front, etc, etc, etc, etc have absolutely nothing to do with it.

The guy was close to being historically ******ed. Or at least so narrow minded it is comical.

And finally, I assume that by your attack on Marx rather than my argument, you have accepted that I am right about the original argument. If not, you have committed a logical fallacy.

You apparently didn't fully read my last post:

It's obvious we both disagree with the ruling

Your argument is incorrect because you stated that the "US is _______". You ARE correct in when you bitched that the US in "inconsistent". The US is a very heterogenous place and as such, everyone in the population has very different views on pretty much every subject. I'm happy our population is "inconsistant".

THAT'S where your argument is incorrect.