Can someone clearly explain to me the difference between the

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

SCOTUS's ruling on property rights seizures, and the traditional system of eminent domain? From what I gathered, it appears as if the limits on eminent domain have been lifted, and now local governments can take your property, and give it to another private entity (wealthy corporations), as long as the state deems your property economically viable. In other words, Wal Mart could force you out of your home, if a state felt the seizure would generate sufficient tax revenues. Am I on target here?

[pnorman]

1. There was some mention of "only in accordance with law",

but the barriers to unjust confiscation would be substantially weakened. Surprisingly, what might be considered "baddies" by DU members (O'Connor, Scalia, etc --- "The Felonious Five") took a dim view of that, while the "goodies" (Stevens, etc.) went the other way. My own sentiments are (reluctantly) in accordance with those of "The Felonious Five".

pnorman

[Inland]

2. No, there are more requirements than that.

First, you can read the opinion.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108&friend=nytimes

But as to the requirments for eminent domain, aside from compensation, there is the following:

*As for the first proposition, the City would no doubt be forbidden from taking petitioners' land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party. See Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245 ("A purely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void"); Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska, 164 U. S. 403 (1896).5 Nor would the City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit. The takings before us, however, would be executed pursuant to a "carefully considered" development plan. 268 Conn., at 54, 843 A. 2d, at 536. The trial judge and all the members of the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed that there was no evidence of an illegitimate purpose in this case.6 Therefore, as was true of the statute challenged in Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245, the City's development plan was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals."*

[mongo]

4. I think it could easily be used to build a walmart

Especially in some economically depressed area - I.E an area with a lot of boarded up houses, or any commercial property that is being underused.

The public benefits (I AM PLAYING DEVILS ADVOCATE HERE - DON'T FLAME ME):

1. Provide jobs in an economically depressed area.
2. Better shopping opportunities within walking/shorter driving distance for neighborhood residents.
3. Bring more tax revenue into the municipality/Walmart's participation in local charity and community events.
4. Attact other local business/new entrepeneurs into the area (because they usually build a strip mall next to the Walmart if they have the space.

I don't think this being used for a Walmart is a stretch at all. The other thing this will be used against is of course adult business. A sudden need will arise for community centers/senior centers/whatever, and the ONLY place in town to put it will be where that nasty adult store is.

[Inland]

6. But won't landowners near by band together and insist on the adult store?

I mean, why have a Wal Mart when you can have adult vids?

The answer is clear enough: the adult store is to property values and neighborhood commerce what a slaughterhouse is to property values and neighborhood commerce. No offense, it's just the case.

Now, there ARE plenty of areas where an adult store is a huge plus, but they tend to be a little more isolated. What's the name of the adult big box chain? Wouldn't mind that among the new warehouses off the highway, and if one had to do a condemnation to move out the little house there, why not?

[mongo]

7. The secondary effects doctrine is a myth

the adult store is to property values and neighborhood commerce what a slaughterhouse is to property values and neighborhood commerce. No offense, it's just the case.

For every study (there is just one that is always refered to) there are several others that show no negative secondary effects of an adult business in the neighborhood.

Especially when you diferentiate between types of adult business, the retail only store has NEVER been shown to create a negative effect on a neighborhood.

I for one, am living testimony to that. I moved into a building that had been empty, in an area that has been famous for drugs and prostitution for years. I put so much pressure on the area Ho's - keeping them out of my lot and off the block behind me, they started moving downtown. The downtown association just paid for a bunch of cameras because the problem was getting so bad down there.

I pay my taxes, I keep my lot patrolled, there is nothing tasteless in my front windows - why am I singled out? One study in NC showed that more crime happens in a MacDonalds parking lot than an adult store in similar economic areas.

[adnoid]

3. On target?

Absolutely. All they need is a "plan" of some sort. It could be the cookie-cutter "plan" Wal-Mart is no doubt now drafting for just such a purpose. There's no questiona Wal-Mart would generate more in property taxes and sales taxes that your house (and your neighbor's houses) would, so the "plan" would reasonably benefit the local gov't.

[pnorman]

5. I see where this had been discussed in greater detail elsewhere on DU.

Here it is: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1881440

pnorman

[GracieM]

8. What to think????

To disagree with this decision seems to align me with Scalia and Thomas...

What the hell just happened????