Florida city considers eminent domain (6000 low income for Yacht moorings)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051003-122623-2136r.htm

Florida's Riviera Beach is a poor, predominantly black, coastal community that intends to revitalize its economy by using eminent domain, if necessary, to displace about 6,000 local residents and build a billion-dollar waterfront yachting and housing complex.

"This is a community that's in dire need of jobs, which has a median income of less than $19,000 a year," said Riviera Beach Mayor Michael Brown.

He defends the use of eminent domain by saying the city is "using tools that have been available to governments for years to bring communities like ours out of the economic doldrums and the trauma centers."

Mr. Brown said Riviera Beach is doing what the city of New London, Conn., is trying to do and what the U.S. Supreme Court said is proper in its ruling June 23 in Kelo v. City of New London. That decision upheld the right of government to seize private properties for use by private developers for projects designed to generate jobs and increase the tax base.

[Lerkfish]

1. and so it begins....

are we going to create a herd of nomadic homeless in this country?

humanity being trampled by corporations is the unspeakable crime of this generation

[Megahurtz]

9. You're damn right!

This is sick! Everything for the rich and affluent.:puke:

[Delphinus]

19. And what gets me,

is the rich and affluent need us peons to do their dirty work for them. What, I'm wondering, will the town of Punta Gorda do since they've made it uninhabitable for the less prosperous? Where will they go to find their servants?

[AndyTiedye]

39. The Hired Help Will Commute From Far Away at Great Expense

and when gas gets too expensive, they will spend almost as much time on the bus to work as they do working.

[The Backlash Cometh]

43. BUT IT'S THE LIBERAL JUDGES WHO HAVE HANDED THIS

POWER TO OUR CORRUPT REPUBLICAN DOMINATED BOARDS OF COMMISSIONS.

Hello, is no one on DU paying attention?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4962760&mesg_id=4962760

[Jawja]

60. Yes, that's what I don't understand.

Methinks they (the liberal Justices) saw a chance for property acquisition for the good of the entire community.

Count on Republicans to now gobble it up for private profit, at the EXPENSE of the community. Don't know where the Court was coming from on this.

[The Backlash Cometh]

68. I can't believe that our Supreme Court justices are blind to what

is happening out here. The one thing that I suspect may be the problem is that you have conservative Democrats who are just as bad as Republicans. Buddy Dwyer is one of them here in Florida. They are real estate moguls and they're worse than Republicans when it comes to developing land. What they've done through their law firms is all the explanation you need to answer why the Democrats lost power.

[Coexist]

61. Why are you saying that it is LIBERAL JUDGES?

SCOTUS is not liberal???

[The Backlash Cometh]

66. The Liberal supreme voted for this, the conservative did not.

What more can I say?

[K-W]

71. That is conservative spin.

The justices (who arent all that liberal anyway) ruled not to create an exception to eminant domain. And frankly their argument is pretty compelling.

They didn't hand any power to anybody. The government always had this power, the court just upheld it. The arguments made for the exception were compelling to people of a progressive mindset, but as an issue of constitutional law I think the court made the right decision.

Blaming the moderates on the court for something that is being done by local business communities and thier political cronies is to be quite off target.

[ScreamingWhisper]

85. Incorrect.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer,and John Paul Stevens all voted to affirm

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist with Justices O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas all voted against.

That is fact.

And the chief difference is it's basis for local government tax base increase instead of the former basis of community necessity.

The world turned upside down that day.

[The Backlash Cometh]

86. Thank you, ScreamingWhisper. And welcome to DU. n/t

[K-W]

93. Incorrect about what? Nothing you posted factually disagrees with me.

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer,and John Paul Stevens all voted to affirm

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist with Justices O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas all voted against.

That is fact.

Indeed, it was a ruling supported by all but one of the court moderates and opposed by all of the courts right wing radicals.

And the chief difference is it's basis for local government tax base increase instead of the former basis of community necessity.

That just isnt true. The standard has never been community necessity. Highways werent built out of neccessity, they were built as development projects. The chief difference is that the land will end up as private property in someone elses hands. This is not unprecendented and the court ruled that as long as the redistribution is meant to serve a public purpose, it doesnt matter if it eventually ends up in private hands. This is a very reasonable position, the constitution does not specify that siezed land must stay in the commons.

The world turned upside down that day.

It would have been a much bigger legal change if they had ruled to limit eminant domain. Im not sure exactly how 5 moderate justices ruling with precedent to uphold a lower court ruling could turn the world upside down.

[ScreamingWhisper]

102. Prior to this judgment

it was accepted that if, for instance, a bridge or highway was required by the state, the state had to award a fair market value for that property. There was little recourse for the owner outside of possible zoning restrictions or the such that the owner could go to court and fight for.

With this judgment, a city or state can now assume that property based strictly on that government bodies "perceived" increased value
they can create, by handing ownership of that property to a commercial developer of their choosing. (though I sure they must have a bidding process somewhere along the line).

All I'm saying is that when a people's rightfully owned property can be uprooted, not because of a municipal requirement, but because of a commercial desire, that is what's wrong. I believe the individual land-owner previously had much more control in these cases to fight for their right to maintain ownership.

Yes, the land-owner is still awarded a market value as payment, but how many millions does that property in turn make for the new commercial developer.

[K-W]

108. But municipal requirement isnt the constitutional standard.

Prior to this judgment it was accepted that if, for instance, a bridge or highway was required by the state, the state had to award a fair market value for that property. There was little recourse for the owner outside of possible zoning restrictions or the such that the owner could go to court and fight for.

If a bridge or highway were required for the state? How could a bridge or highway be required, except to facillitate the private economy, which is exactly the reason cited for the Kelo siezure? Bridges dont feed or house people they facilitate the private economy which provides people with goods/services/jobs.

And what about the early highway projects, before our society was reliant on motor vehicles? Back then highways were a development project. They met no neccessity.

With this judgment, a city or state can now assume that property based strictly on that government bodies "perceived" increased value
they can create, by handing ownership of that property to a commercial developer of their choosing. (though I sure they must have a bidding process somewhere along the line).

First, that was true before this judgement. The supreme court upheld a lower court decision citing precedent. States could always do this and have done similar things before.

Secondly, that isnt entirely true, the state in Kelo wasnt just claiming increased property revenue, it argued based on job creation and economic stimulation that the development would tangibly benefit the people of New London.

All I'm saying is that when a people's rightfully owned property can be uprooted, not because of a municipal requirement, but because of a commercial desire, that is what's wrong.

But municipal requirement is an odd standard, and no, people cannot be uprooted just because of a commercial desire.

People can be uprooted by the government if the government can credibly argue that its purpose will serve the public. It can only serve a commercial purpose if that is what the government chooses to do. And that is where the focus on this issue needs to be. The choices being made by local governments, not on the fact that the moderates on the supreme court dont see this as being unconstitutional.

I believe the individual land-owner previously had much more control in these cases to fight for their right to maintain ownership.

Kelo got to go all the way to the supreme court to fight to maintain ownership. So I'm not sure what you mean.

Yes, the land-owner is still awarded a market value as payment, but how many millions does that property in turn make for the new commercial developer.

But there is nothing in the constitution that outlaws profiteering off government contracts.

This whole thing is very very dirty, but the supreme court could only look at whether or not it is unconstitutional. So what is the point of focusing on the supreme court and on the one issue of constitutionality when there are so many other aspects of these deals that stink, and the supreme court didnt do anything that outrageous.

[ScreamingWhisper]

116. You make very powerful arguments....

and have a firm grasp of the facts. Which is good.

I actually CAN see the local officials point of view in seeing this as the "golden ring" of opportunity to bring a growth of jobs, marine education, and increased tax revenue, all of which is needed in that area...

What do you think? Will the yacht owners who "...need a place to store and service their yachts..." bring other opportunities to the area?
Is it more likely that those displaced will simply move further inland, buy what property they can, away from their former (now much more valuable) property and continue to live as they did before?

I have to wonder if the local officials could so aggressively moved forward with the displacement of 6K people before the Supreme Court ruled as they did. I don't remember many similar stories prior to the ruling, though I'm sure they existed.

I've enjoyed the discussion.

[TankLV]

33. More like budding "revolutionaries".

More and more people have nothing left to lose.

The time is getting short.

Which side will you be on - I know which side I will be on

[The Backlash Cometh]

44. Which side will you be on? What choices do we have?

You either have the side that gave them the power in the first place, or the side that abuses that power.

[TankLV]

121. ????

Please explain - you're post is confusing to me.

[Cronus Protagonist]

53. Time to invest in tent and mobile home makers?

Seems there's a lot of call for tents & mobile homes these days... and soon to be more...

[bluestateguy]

2. I know how we can revitalize a community

Just kick all the poor people out and tear town their houses!

[Lochloosa]

16. Or Flood them out....

I'm just saying

[electron_blue]

18. oohhh, they explained it - they will revitalize those poor by

providing new jobs for them. Yacht-mooring building jobs, I presume.

[CBGLuthier]

3. are they going to give

low income people jobs tearing down their own houses and building something for the rich.

The revolution may be more nigh than we think if these bastards start this shit.

[VegasWolf]

4. Hope a hurricane wipes out the shiny new yacht club! nt

[cyberpj]

10. Doesn't matter - Gov't insurance programs w/pay to rebuild it w/our taxes.

Sucks, doesn't it?

[FlaGranny]

5. More about the project

http://www.rivierabch.com/page.asp?PageId=33

Edit: Riviera Beach is the place to go in PB County if you want to go where the drive-by shootings take place and drug dealers hang out.

[bandy]

92. The shootings and drug deals are in western Riviera closer to I-95.

I've lived in this area for more the 40 years. What they are talking about is some prime real estate on the beautiful intracoastal and the ocean. The western side of the intracoastal is lined with Fla. Power & Light and the Port of Palm Beach along with other businesses. The wealthy have been fighting for a long time to turn Peanut Island (a recreational island in the middle of the intracoastal, owned by the county I think) into a place for only the wealthy. As it stands right now that area is enjoyed by so many people who go there to moor their boats and enjoy the water and island. It's also right inside the mouth of the inlet and truly a nice place. On the ocean, the wealthy would like to turn that into another Palm Beach or Jupiter Island (the richest town in the US, just up the road from here). Some businesses (motels, hotels, shops) have been there since I was a kid, which was a long time ago. One older motel, Sailfish Marina/Motel was in fact going to be sold for the purpose of turning it into a yachting paradise but so many county residents raised so much hell they finally changed their mind. My family has spent a lot of weekends there celebrating birthdays and such. I don't see how they could move the poor any further away from this area then they already have. Something is rotten with this whole idea Something is not right. I don't think this will affect the poor as much as they would like us to believe. I think it is just a prime waterfront grab.

[DawnneOBTS]

6. Yeah, and where do the people go, Jeb? n/t

[triguy46]

Thanks to SCOTUS...

All property is now a potential gated community, marina, shopping mall, business park, technology park, etc.

[K-W]

8. Ah, scapegoating the supreme court...

The supreme court simply ruled with the precedent. Why focus on them when it is the business community and the politicians in thier pocket who are the real problem here?

[triguy46]

14. OK, I'll scapegoat the appeals court.

I'm not sure I see the disconnect between a judicial environment in which business desire are embraced as much as by politicians. When was the last time the courts ruled for anyone considered 'low income?'

[K-W]

15. The court can only rule on the law.

The judicial environment didnt embrace businesses desires, it ruled as a matter of law. The court simply said that the government did indeed have the ability to sieze land. The city governments are the ones in bed with business in this case.

Read the majority opinion, or a syllabus if you havent already.

[The Backlash Cometh]

46. The supreme court didn't do anything "simply."

They better get to work and start figuring out how they can stop this law from being abused by racists.

[K-W]

69. They cant get to work stopping anything.

They can only made decisions based on the law about cases brought before them. In this case, they were asked to place a restriction on the exercise of eminant domain that made no legal or practical sense.

There is no problem with the government siezing land for economic development. The problem with these deals is the nature of the development.

If that nature can be proven to be racist, or violate some other area of the constitution, that is one thing. But no such case has come before the court.

Put simply, economic development is a public good and that is all the court was asked to rule on. The fact that some cities use this power to develop in ways that benefit the rich over the poor is outside of the scope of the supreme courts powers. They cant overule legislation just because they dont like it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

73. You cannot make broad-brushed statements that economic

development is a public good. Is it a public good to cement our wetlands? Was it a good idea for NOLA? They developed their wetlands in the last few years. How much of it contributed to their problems?

There has to be parameters and what is evident is that there are NONE. This bad law is not the first domino. It is the last.

[K-W]

82. The supreme court doesnt make the laws.

You cannot make broad-brushed statements that economic development is a public good.

Actually the supreme courts decisions are broad brushes. But I actually wasn't claiming that all attempts at economic development were good, but that that economic development, as an idea, is a public good. Which is really the only issue that mattered in the decision. The court isnt supposed to tell cities how to develop, that is a decision reserved for elected officials.

That is the real problem with many of these siezures. The elected officials involved do not really repesent the people. You cant expect the supreme court to rule that our system of electing officials serves elite concerns and not the people. That is the crime here and it is outside of the scope of a supreme court decision.

Is it a public good to cement our wetlands? Was it a good idea for NOLA? They developed their wetlands in the last few years. How much of it contributed to their problems?

Well, wetland development is a different issue. But as I explained, the supreme court isnt in a position to choose how cities develop.

There has to be parameters and what is evident is that there are NONE. This bad law is not the first domino. It is the last

The supreme court doesnt get to set these parameters. The paramters of what constitutes development are set by elected officials. As long as thier goal is to benefit the public, even if thier actions dont appear to be likely to produce that goal it is thier decision to make since they are supposedly legitimate representatives of the people.

[The Backlash Cometh]

89. Supreme Courts can define the prongs that establish what constitutes

a public good. They should have at least left some dicta as guidance. They have created a huge problem for us. Bigger than you can ever imagine.

[K-W]

103. No they cant. They can only interpret the law.

The only parameters they can make are those supported by the law. You cant just insist that justices make parameters because you wish there were paremeters, you need to find where the law calls for these parameters.

They should have at least left some dicta as guidance.

They do have some guidlines. The guidline is that the use must be intended to serve the public, and compensation must be paid. Those are the only guidelines the constitution makes and the only guidelines the supreme court can enforce. Since the city made a credible case that the development project serves the public, it fits the very wide criteria of the constitution.

They have created a huge problem for us.

How could a court affirming a lower court ruling that doesnt change precedent create anything? Why do you insist on blaming the court for the actions of a city government that the court simply didnt find a constitutional objection to?

[The Backlash Cometh]

110. Supreme Court justices can certainly define prongs that have to

be met in order to apply certain law. Yes, those prongs generally are derived from written law, but the Supreme court DOES interpret those laws. Scalia is FAMOUS for giving narrow definitions to the written law, which alters everything that the legislators thought they were voting for. And if Scalia can narrow the interpretations, why can't the liberal judges do the same?

As for dicta, the Supreme Court justices are allowed to write dicta until the cows come up. It may not be law, but it does give people guidance of where the law may be headed in future cases.

[K-W]

114. Only if the law justifies it. The supreme court cant make its own law.

Yes, those prongs generally are derived from written law, but the Supreme court DOES interpret those laws.

Right. Exactly. The supreme court can only define prongs, parameters or whatever if the law supports that interpretation. So if you think the supreme court should have set certain parameters around eminant domain you need to find the section of the constitution that can be interpreted to support those parameters.

Scalia is FAMOUS for giving narrow definitions to the written law, which alters everything that the legislators thought they were voting for. And if Scalia can narrow the interpretations, why can't the liberal judges do the same?

It depends on whether the interpretation is supported by the law.

[The Backlash Cometh]

115. I'll tell you what IS supported by the law.

What happens when two laws conflict with each other? In this case, it would be the law that claims that eminent domain is justified when it will create public good vs. laws which protect against discrimination. We all know who is going to be impacted if commissioners across this nation suddenly decide to use E.D. to get rid of their "blighted" black areas of town. The Supremes should have seen this coming and should have included dicta in their ruling to prevent commissioners from running rough-shod over the weakest of us. They didn't, and now we have a sloppy law on the books that will be abused countless number of times before someone with means and a conscience, decides to challenge it.

And I beg to differ, but Scalia has been an activist judge and has sabotaged many laws. Maybe it's time for the remaining left-leaning judges to do the same.

[K-W]

117. Descrimination is an entirely different issue.

What happens when two laws conflict with each other? In this case, it would be the law that claims that eminent domain is justified when it will create public good vs. laws which protect against discrimination.

The laws do not conflict with each other. Whether something is a valid eminant domain siezure and whether or not it violates equal rights legislation are two seperate legal issues.

We all know who is going to be impacted if commissioners across this nation suddenly decide to use E.D. to get rid of their "blighted" black areas of town. The Supremes should have seen this coming and should have included dicta in their ruling to prevent commissioners from running rough-shod over the weakest of us.

Actually, localities accross this nation have been using ED to get rid of blighted black areas of town for a long time. This is nothing new, so there would be no reason for the justices to bother commenting on it in a case that didnt involve racial descrimination.

They didn't, and now we have a sloppy law on the books that will be abused countless number of times before someone with means and a conscience, decides to challenge it.

Im a bit confused. Are you referring to the new london city law?

And I beg to differ, but Scalia has been an activist judge and has sabotaged many laws. Maybe it's time for the remaining left-leaning judges to do the same.

Well they really shouldnt have to. Scalia has to manipulate laws because he is working to subvert freedom and democracy.

And I doubt that if even one moderate judge decided to try and twist the law to knock down an eminant domain siezure the others would go with him/her.

[The Backlash Cometh]

118. I'm afraid that your arguments are a bit pollyanna for me.

Our reality is that there is an organization called the Federalist Society which strove to make sweeping social reform through the courts. They have succeeded. Sitting around and debating couldn'ts and shouldn'ts is pointless. What we need to talk about is, now that the worst has happened, how do we fix it?

[DFWdem]

91. No, they created new uses for eminent domain

Previously, property seized via eminent domain was for "public use". The SCOTUS changed that and allowed eminent domain for "public good". There is a HUGE difference between the two.

[K-W]

94. That isnt true.

Previously, property seized via eminent domain was for "public use". The SCOTUS changed that and allowed eminent domain for "public good". There is a HUGE difference between the two.

No, public use is what is written in the constitution. Public good has long been the judicial interpretation of what is written in the constitution. Public use is interpreted to mean any use that serves the public good.

This is not a new standard, but a very old standard that the justices referenced in thier decision.

They did not create new uses for anything.

[DFWdem]

97. You see no difference between the two?

If public use is, in fact, what is written in the Constitution, then that should be the end of the debate. The difference between public use and public good is beoming more clear with every eminent domain case: public use involves taking property to build roads, bridges, schools, etc., while public good now means "if it brings in more tax revenue for the city, that's good for the public." The SCOTUS has now put their seal of approval on this concept, and those who cannot afford to fight a protracted legal battle will be the ones who suffer the most.

[K-W]

98. You are still misunderstanding.

If public use is, in fact, what is written in the Constitution, then that should be the end of the debate.

The end of what debate?

Public good isnt an alternative to public use, it is an explenation of what public use means. Public use is extremely vague, the court has to decide what constitutes a public use. The standard they use is that a public use is a use that serves the public good. The logic being that if it serves the public good, the public are using it.

The difference between public use and public good is beoming more clear with every eminent domain case: public use involves taking property to build roads, bridges, schools, etc., while public good now means "if it brings in more tax revenue for the city, that's good for the public."

So your issue is with how the city defines development. It is not the supreme courts role to tell the city how to develop. The legislators are presumed to be the legitimate agents of the people, they get to choose what strategy of development is persued, not the supreme court.

The SCOTUS has now put their seal of approval on this concept, and those who cannot afford to fight a protracted legal battle will be the ones who suffer the most.

No, the Supreme Court didnt endorse any concept of development, only that development was a goal that qualified as a public use.

[DFWdem]

99. No, I understand their thinking, but I think it is flawed

To me, the ruling is a clear case of straying too far from the original intent of the law. It's one thing to use eminent domain to claim property that will be used by the majority, if not all, of a town's citizens, such as a road or bridge. It is quite another to claim land that will be used by private entities by building a marina or condominiums. How will the majority of citizens use that land? Hell, i'm sure it will be considered private property, and they most likely would be arrested for trespassing if they step foot on it. If private developers want the land, let them make offers to each individual landowner and buy them all out. Using eminent domain to accomplish the same thing is just an end run around individual property rights.

[K-W]

100. That isnt what they are saying.

To me, the ruling is a clear case of straying too far from the original intent of the law.

They ruled that economic development constitutes a public use. I havent seen any evidence that this goes against the intentions of the framers, but that is an entirely different issue than public use and public good.

It's one thing to use eminent domain to claim property that will be used by the majority, if not all, of a town's citizens, such as a road or bridge.

Not every road or bridge is used by over 50% of the population.

Meanwhile the city is arguing that development will prove useful to most of the people in the city.

It is quite another to claim land that will be used by private entities by building a marina or condominiums. How will the majority of citizens use that land?

Again, nothing in the constitution suggests that the majority of the public must physically use all property siezed. Just that the purpose of the siezure be a public use.

Hell, i'm sure it will be considered private property, and they most likely would be arrested for trespassing if they step foot on it.

Also, nothing in the constitution suggests that land siezed must remain owned by the government.

If private developers want the land, let them make offers to each individual landowner and buy them all out.

I agree, but the city council of new london doesnt agree. So why dont you take it up with them instead of going after the supreme court who were not the ones who made the decision that the best way to develop the new london economy was to give handouts to the business community. Something that is just not unconstitutional.

[DFWdem]

101. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree

I completely disagree with the SCOTUS interpretation of public use. You do not. That's fine, I have no problem agreeing to disagree. First New London, CT, now Florida, and now there's another one. Check this out, from New Jersey:

http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1128229442104780.xml?starledger?nnj&coll=1

On May 21, Albert G. Mauti Jr. and his cousin Joseph hosted a fundraiser for Assemblyman Joseph Cryan at the Westmount Country Club in Passaic County. The two developers and family members picked up the $10,400 dinner tab, donated another $8,000 and raised more than $70,000 that night for the powerful Union County Democrat, according to state election records. Three days later, the governing body in Cryan's hometown of Union Township -- all Democrats -- introduced an ordinance paving the way for the Mautis to build 90 or so townhouses on six acres of abandoned industrial land along the Conrail line in town.

There is just one problem: Union Township doesn't own the land. It is owned by Carol Segal, a 65-year-old retired electrical engineer. Over the past 10 years, the Union Township resident says, he has spent about $1.5 million to acquire the property, and he, too, wants to build townhouses there.

Segal said he met with Cryan, who is head of the township's Democratic Party, and other local officials "scores of times" over the past five years to discuss the project. He claims the talks turned adversarial after he rejected proposals to work with various developers they proposed. On May 24, the five-member township committee voted unanimously to authorize the municipality to seize Segal's land through eminent domain and name its own developer.

"They want to steal my land," Segal said. "What right do they have when I intend to do the exact same thing they want to do with my property?"

[K-W]

105. If you dont want to debate it, then yes, we will have to. EOM

[DFWdem]

107. No offense, but...

The entire eminent domain argument, pro or con, depends on one's interpretation of public use vs. public good. We've debated that and have arrived at different conclusions. I prefer to award more rights to the current property in cases of eminent domain, especially if the land will be transferred to a private entity rather than a local, state, or federal gov't. In those cases I favor making the private entity buy out the private land owners rather than seizing the property through gov't intervention. However, if a city wants to build a new road or some such other obviously public use, then eminent domain is acceptable. My opinion is that the supreme's ruling was one of "We know better than you what's good for you."

[K-W]

113. Non taken.

No offense, but... The entire eminent domain argument, pro or con, depends on one's interpretation of public use vs. public good.

No, it doesnt. Public good and public use mean the same thing in this context. They do not represent different interpretations.

We've debated that and have arrived at different conclusions. I prefer to award more rights to the current property in cases of eminent domain, especially if the land will be transferred to a private entity rather than a local, state, or federal gov't.

Which is a perfectly reasonable opinion, but until you can find that written in the constitution, you cant expect the court to rule based on it. This argument is one that should be directed at the local governments that make these siezures, not the supreme court.

In those cases I favor making the private entity buy out the private land owners rather than seizing the property through gov't intervention.

I dont disagree with you. But it isnt in the constitution, so the supreme court could not possibly have ruled that.

However, if a city wants to build a new road or some such other obviously public use, then eminent domain is acceptable.

The city of New London would argue that creating jobs is an obvious public use.

My opinion is that the supreme's ruling was one of "We know better than you what's good for you."

The supreme court ruled that it is up to the state and local governments to determine how eminant domain is used, because the constitution does not provide many parameters. It didnt make a ruling about what is good for anyone.

[The Backlash Cometh]

45. Why don't you go take a look to see how they voted.

What judges voted in favor of eminent domain for economic purposes, and which ones didn't?

[K-W]

70. I already know who voted for what, whats your point?

Moderates Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer concurred not to introduce an exception to eminant domain.

Moderate O'Connor dissented.

Crazy conservatives Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented.

It actually tells you a whole lot about the decision. And I find it suprising so many on DU find themselves on the same side of this issue as Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and all the property rights propaganda put out by the wealthy.

O'Connor's argument holds some water, but it really isnt the courts place to make those judgements and the majority opinion is not an unreasonable one.

The supreme court isnt the one pushing poor people out of thier homes so that developers can get fat contracts, local legislatures are. And I think the people who are pushing to get blame placed on the supreme court are to a large extent people along the lines of Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas, who want to take advantage of this unpopular ruling to build support for limiting eminant domain, and government regulation of property.

[The Backlash Cometh]

78. I don't think this law is popular even with liberals.

Those of us who fought in the trenches know exactly how it's going to be abused. The lefties who voted for this law still think our government is run like a benign entity and that elections are run fairly. We all know that's a crock. We don't have the manpower at the local level to stop any of the crookedness that takes place when these projects gain traction. Whatever the supremes may think we have to stop abuses in this law are long gone.

[K-W]

83. Which lefties voted for this law?

I am not familiar with the makeup of the New London City Council, but I doubt there are many lefties on it.

As far as the Supreme Cour Justices who arent lefties, they never voted for this law. They just decided that it was constitutional. Which is a rather important destinction to make. They ruled on a specific question of constitutional law, not on the overall justice of the situation.

don't have the manpower at the local level to stop any of the crookedness that takes place when these projects gain traction.

Exactly. The problem here is that local governments are dominated by business and upper class interests and that progressive viewpoints are marginalized and excluded.

And this has nothing to do with the supreme court ruling. Which is a diversion. The supreme court could only rule on the constitutionality of siezing property for the purposes of development. They werent in a position to correct the corruption of local politics by elite interests and they werent in a position to tell New London how to develop.

[The Backlash Cometh]

87. Check out ScreamingWhisper's post for your response.

[zbdent]

7. Wonder if the Righties are gonna bitch about all the low-income

people being railroaded out of their homes to make way for the millionaires' parking lot . . .

[Kailassa]

11. and they called the NO blacks looters ....

There is not a lot you can do to a person that is worse than stealing their home and throwing them out. A town like this doesn't deserve to be classed as civilized. Cilvilized societies take care of their own.

In Australia we have a similar law. If you can get a copy of "The Castle", you can have a good laugh while watching the true story of how an Aussie community beat it.

[FlaGranny]

12. I keep wondering

if ANYONE has bothered to check. Riviera Beach is a Democratic city, with a black Democratic mayor, a city that is 67% black, and has a black city council. This is a town where millionares are nonexistent and republicans nearly so.

[Opusnone]

24. Riviera Beach is due

As are many PB county communities bordering the coast. If the plan is to revitalize, like the mostly black historic Sistrunk in Ft. lauderdale, and train and hire locals to build, etc. it would be palatable i.e. quotas for the builders requiring a percentage of locals to work on the project or construction of afforable working-class communities to alleviate crime and blight. I drive through Riviera Beach at least twice a week, and it is very blighted. If the rich want a marina, let them have it. They'll still have to drive miles through tough terrain to reach their boats.
If the plan is to create a new Delray Beach, where the poor blacks have been forced out and replaced by $750,000 condos, then it is a bad idea. Given the Democratic council, I hope it will be the former.

[The Backlash Cometh]

47. It doesn't matter how you start FlaGranny.

Once you allow the genie out of the bottle, it's over.

There was a corrupt property rights attorney here who actually went about strategizing how to stop the Storm Water Management Department from limiting the development of wetlands. You know how he was going to do it? He was going to peruse the papers for reports of little guys who were stopped from developing their lands because of the regulations. He would have represented them for free. Then, once he had precedent, he was going to use those court cases so he could continue to buy wetland for cheap, and develop it any way he wanted to. You see, he was a developer too.

The road you're walking down is full of the same turds from the same Trojan Horse.

[FlaGranny]

74. I hate the eminent domain laws.

Any of us could be a victim of them some day.

In Palm Beach County, there is a group called "Evolution and Revolution: The New Downtowns." City planners from several towns are trying to "revitalize" some very, very bad, broken down, and crime ridden areas of their cities. Other cities have already revitalized.

These "homes" in Riviera Beach, for the most part, and I can't swear to how many, are probably owned by "slum lords." Few of the people who live in them actually own them, because most of them couldn't afford to. Usually, the laws will require low income housing be built in these areas and this low income housing is new, much nicer, and usually even cheaper than renting from the slum lords. Within a couple of miles from where I live, there are two low-income apartment complexes that I'm familiar with, which are very well maintained, and much nicer places to live than these blighted neighborhoods they want to tear down. There are income requiremens (and rent controls) - to keep out those who earn too much.

For the most part, I belive it will be good for Riviera Beach and it's residents, if this plan is implemented, and, in the long run, will improve life for them. It will also create more jobs for residents. There are few employment opportunities in Riviera Beach at this point.

Mayor Brown was born in Riviera Beach and I believe he wants to help the town and it's people. The people of Riviera Beach deserve a nicer city to live in.

I can certainly understand the other viewpoint, too. No one wants to be evicted from their home.

[The Backlash Cometh]

75. I thought I read in the article that these people felt that they WERE

already a stabile community? And you make a broad-brush conclusion that NONE of them own property. What if that isn't true? How can you even sell-out one property owner by making such a sweeping statement?

[wellstone_democrat]

13. Bet "tax incentives" arrive immediately though!

you know, to "help" encourage development

[Uncle Joe]

17. First they lose their vote and then they lose their homes?

How on earth can Jeb Bush look at himself in the mirror without a passionate impulse to regurgitate? Somebody needs to change that inscription on our currency to "In The Dollar We Trust", before the U.S. gets sued for false advertising.

[AZBlue]

23. Vampires don't have reflections

"How on earth can Jeb Bush look at himself in the mirror..."

He can't see himself in the mirror anyway so it doesn't bother him.

[AZBlue]

20. Eat the Poor - official motto of Bush & Co.

Convenient timing with the court ruling and all...Jeb must be getting SCOTUS some nice Christmas presents!!!! :mad:

[Freddie Stubbs]

79. What does this have to do with Jeb?

This is something that the city council and the mayor are doing.

[Lindacooks]

21. Is he related to Brownie??

</sarcasm>

They sure seem like they're cut from the same cloth.

[flvegan]

22. So, how many jobs will this yacht club bring?

And by "jobs" I mean how many jobs that pay more than $19,000/year will this bring?

[Akoto]

25. I live in Florida, and ...

The eminent domain thing seems to have exploded down here. A few months ago, someone down the street got hit with it. They offered him cash, but pretty much told him to get lost either way.

What is it with this state? It's nothing like when I was growing up. Glad I'll be out of here by the end of this month.

[AwareOne]

27. In Daytona Beach, the historic boardwalk is about to be

bulldozed to make way for condos. I live near there and the boardwalk was one of my only reasons to visit Daytona. The arcades, rides, pizza joints and shops were great entertainment for families. Eminent domain is being used to force out the few remaining businesses.

[rppper]

30. and what's worse about the boardwalk is the hypocricy.....

.....in the excuses the city council uses. they claim to want to make daytona so family friendly, especialy when you start bringing up events that have been in this city forever. but in reality they are owned by condo developers from south florida who couldn't care less about family, just selling units and weeks.i have been coming to daytona since 1982 and have lived here since 1997. i can not begin to tell you how much beachside has changed, and with last years hurricanes wiping out 70% of the older beachfront hotels, it is only a matter of time until the whole beachfront is a solid stretch of concrete and steel....expect the same for riviera beach too, because once it starts, it will not end.

[The Backlash Cometh]

49. This Daytona Beach incident was used by a Libertarian taxi-man

as an example of corrupt government. But I stopped him and reminded him that it was the Chamber of Commerce in this area that controls our Board of Commission. He gave me a sly smile, as if he had been caught and started talking about a book called, "The Chaordic Age."

[The Backlash Cometh]

48. In my area, they use eminent domain like a money laundering scheme.

They offer tons more than the land is worth. Hell, in one case they re-zoned it to commercial before making the offer. Commercial was more valuable than the original rural use.

[TroubleMan]

26. Riviera Beach is where I work. I'm going to have to start mentioning this

to people I meet. This is the first I've heard of it, but I don't read the local paper or watch the local news.

This is bad news, and pure bullshit, because there's places for yachts to go all around Palm Beach county, but there is very, very little affordable housing.

Let me say that again:

PALM BEACH COUNTY (AND THE SURROUNDING COUNTIES) HAVE PLENTY OF PLACES FOR YACHTS, BUT THERE IS VERY, VERY LITTLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

Of course Riviera Beach is mostly inhabited by poor black people, and it's on beach front territory, so we know who's going to win, unfortunately.

Goddammit.

[Erika]

29. More attempts of ethnic cleansing?

Force the poor black communities out of their housing, cut health care benefits, and scatter them to the winds.

[TroubleMan]

31. A little bit, but it's mostly just greed in this case

However, whenever you talk classism in America, it also is based in racism. In this case, though, the greedy people would kick their own family out to get that property.

[Erika]

34. point well made

If the Republicans keep up the class war against the poor and the blacks, we'll see Watts revisited.

[brentspeak]

38. Unlikely. The mayor of Riviera Beach is black

Even worse and embarrasing, he's a Democrat. :(

[NorthernSpy]

59. oh, please! in any injustice, there are ALWAYS collaborators!

I'd bet that most ethnic cleansing schemes have involved collaboration from opportunistic individuals among the targeted people.

You really haven't noticed that yet?

:eyes:

[RagingInMiami]

50. Just scatter them to other areas of the county

Broward is very diverse and it will remain so. It's just that this poor black community happens to be residing on some prime real estate, which is very scarce down here.

It's happening all over down here, especially in Miami.

[Freddie Stubbs]

81. Take a look at who is doing this (Mayor and City Council)

http://www.rivierabch.com/page.asp?PageId=33

http://www.rivierabch.com/page.asp?PageId=44

[mike_c]

28. anything for a buck-- things never change....

Pigs.

[lostnfound]

32. Riviera Beach, hometown of Air Force Airman 1st Class Elizabeth Jacobson

age 21, who just died in Iraq.


I hope your family isn't one of the ones that gets evicted.

This country's priorities are so upside down.

[Bigmack]

64. Did you save that pic, too?

I posted a few days ago about her and about a 45 yr old guy that had been retired from the army for 10 years and got called back to get clipped in Iraq.

Her picture haunted me and I left it on the desktop.

Is this the kind of sacrifice we have to make for Iraqi "freedom"? It ain't worth it!

Also, what the hell was a 21 yr old Air Force kid doing "convoy escort duty"?
No offense to the Air Force, but they're not trained in the infantry arts.

[lostnfound]

35. Poor people don't have a right to waterfront property?

even if it's been in their family forever, and market demand hasn't enticed them to sell?

[PeaceProgProsp]

36. How does making life easy for rich and hard for poor revitalize economy?

It's sounds like it's compounding and exacerbating an existing problem.

[Art_from_Ark]

37. Last year, the Michigan Supreme Court

reversed the "Poletown" decision which made this type of eminent domain possible in Michigan in 1981. Poletown was the name of a town that was completely razed (and its residents kicked out) to make room for a new GM production plant.

http://www.freep.com/news/mich/land31_20040731.htm

[jbnow]

52. I am in MI

I know it is up to local laws to limit eminent domain, but can the SCOTUS ruling override the ruling of the MI Supreme court now?

I feared it might have to be states or cities passing laws to limit it, not just courts ruling on limits, since lower court rulings would be set aside by SCOTUS ruling.

[Art_from_Ark]

120. Interesting question

On the one hand, this Supreme Court has paid lip service to state's rights.

On the other hand, they have shown before that there are times they do not respect decisions of state supreme courts (for example, the case with Florida's SC during Election 2000)

[henslee]

40. Been it miami for two months. It is a shithole of overdevelopment

filth and rude drivers. They'd pave over everything if they could and are in the process of relaxing manatee habitat laws. Seems that they are quite satisfid with the 3000 that exist. This town is Greedyville. And now hollywood is about to get a mammoth hotel, apt. complex of its own to rival anything.

[RagingInMiami]

51. Here you have the widest gap between rich and poor

than any other major US city.

[henslee]

76. I can feel it. And the violent crime here.... really is violent.

And there is no sense that everyone is even close to being on the same page. on edit... And to think they are right in the middle of one of the greatest naturally endowned environments-- everglades/gorgeous beaches, the intercoastal and yet they are on pace to muck it up in record time.

[RagingInMiami]

77. It's not nearly as violent as it was back in the 1980s

Whereabouts do you live? What brought you down here?

[henslee]

84. I am in S. Beach right now. Family & bus. brought me here. Used to

visit as a little kid. Am a CA resident. We're setting mom up in an apt. Thank god it finally cooled off.

[RagingInMiami]

88. Now we're headed into the nice weather.

The only problem is, this is also when it gets very overcrowded, especially in SB.

If you have any questions about anything down here, feel free to PM me. I was born and raised here and just moved back a year ago after living ten years away, most recently in the SW USA.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

41. As the fascist feds...

...continue to turn off funding spigots to the states, you can expect desperate municipalities to pull more and more of this kind of eminent Nazi domain crap. The poor will always be the first ones targeted.

[The Backlash Cometh]

42. But it's the LIBERAL judges who are giving them this power.

Why has no one on DU had the courage to look this monster in the face?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4962760&mesg_id=4962760

[jbnow]

54. No one in DU?

Many in DU have. I sure complained, it sounds so very right wing. I have not read the decision and while told it was based on following laws and that local legislative bodies had to stop it, why did the "bad" (right wing) judges rule in what seems a more decent way?
I recall reading about some group who planned to get the properties of the judges who ruled for it one at a time and I liked the idea. But not sure a city would go for a business being built on wealthy homes where there is already a good tax base and where other rich neighbors would be upset.

What gets me in this one is them saying they'll "pay at least the assessed values of homes and businesses it buys". That isn't even fair market value. I look at my property tax valuation and it's 1/3 of appraised value or money I would get if I sold it.
Where will people have to go with that? And what about renters?

It is such a tempting way to get rid of unwanted neighborhoods and best of all to make money.

But I am remembering some town declaring an area blighted so they could tear homes down and build other things. The owners really fought that, these were not blighted home. I don't recall the outcome, but I am just wondering if that is how states that don't allow eminent domain for business purposes still get to do it, just declare the area blighted.

[The Backlash Cometh]

55. There's something very wrong about this case.

As for following precedent, I just don't buy it. There's something overlooked in all this.

I will say that the Liberals have shot themselves in the leg with this one and may have hit a major artery. My brother uses it as an example of why you can't make broad-sweeping statements regarding the good of any party.

[theHandpuppet]

57. Bingo!!!

You wrote:

"What gets me in this one is them saying they'll "pay at least the assessed values of homes and businesses it buys". That isn't even fair market value. I look at my property tax valuation and it's 1/3 of appraised value or money I would get if I sold it."

Same here, jbnow! Our property tax valuation is 1/3 of our home's appraised value and I know we could sell it right now for at least twice the valuation. With a flood of DC area-commuters grabing up properties in this area, it won't be long before long-time residents of this blue-collar neighborhood of affordable homes and rentals are pushed out in the name of "revitalization".

[FlaGranny]

80. Yeah, but this area IS blighted.

It is REALLY, REALLY blighted.

[jbnow]

95. Any idea of the answer

to blighted neighborhoods?

I was thinking when I wrote about the blighted area case that in this case even if eminent domain law was changed they could still get it based on that, and in this case maybe it is true.

There are so many cities with blighted neighborhoods, really, really blighted. Cities would be more prosperous, attractive and safer if they all did something like this if the area is really bad.

But what about the people who live there? I'd guess most don't own the homes, they rent them. I'd guess most don't like to live in those conditions either and fear the crime, but it's all they can afford. It's the landlords that will get the money if a city takes it over, not the renters.
Where do people go when there is nowhere they can afford to live?

That's not a rhetorical question.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

62. Good point, thanks for the link.

[newspeak]

72. liberal judges?

I thought all of the Supreme Court judges except one have been appointed by Rethuglicans. So, now there Liberal judges, instead of CONservatives, just because their a little liberal on the social side, not business, but social. This country has gone so far RIGHT to facsism, that middle right looks liberal!

[jbnow]

90. Perhaps it is better put

the most conservative judges, the ones we like least, are the ones who voted against it.

I don't know why. I don't know what the ruling was based on, I didn't read it. I know they shouldn't just vote for the way they think it should be. I know the majority opinions said local legislative bodies have the power to determine it and not them.
I can't judge the legal right or wrong based on precedent, I just know I hate the ruling.

[K-W]

96. Because the right wingers hate eminant domain.

Its not too hard to understand why the party that represents the people who own most of the country would want to remove the ability of the government to regulate property.

Imagine for a moment that a town run by popular progressive officials decides it wants to sieze land owned by a major corporation to construct housing for the poor.

This example makes it much easier to see why everyone voted the way they did.

[newspeak]

104. yeah, Bush hates eminent domain

He hates it so much that him and his good ole buddies tried to screw the Mathes family out of their property for their precious stadium!

[K-W]

109. False dichotemy.

Conservatives can hold the long term goal of destroying eminant domain and still abuse it while it exists.

In fact not only does abusing eminant domain make them money, it makes eminant domain less popular making it easier for them to try and destroy it.

The right knows that the same power could be used against the wealthy and corporations if they lost control over the government. If it means destroying the threat of redistribution, they wouldnt mind giving up what is at the moment a nice tool for them to make money.

Thus Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas ruled in favor of limiting eminant domain.

[malaise]

56. So much for

life, liberty and property - the rich man's property of course.
No surprise and loads of historical precendent. Remember how they destroyed the Tuskagee airmen's property and all now they have not been compensated. NOLA next.

[NorthernSpy]

58. that dumbass mayor gets his facts wrong

"Palm Beach County is the largest county east of the Mississippi, and we have the second-highest rate of poverty in the county," the mayor said.

Wrong, dumbass! Aroostook County, Maine is the largest county east of the Mississippi. None of those other "largest county" pretenders even come close. Aroostook is 6,453 square miles. Palm Beach County is 2386 square miles -- if you're generous and allow them to count the marine area as well. The land area is only 1974 sq.miles.

Unless of course, Brown meant to say that Palm Beach County was the most populous county east of the Mississippi...

In which case -- wrong again, dumbass! At 2.5 million people, Kings County, New York (which encompasses the Borough of Brooklyn) has over 1.2 million more people than has Palm Beach County.


And as for Riviera Beach having the second highest poverty rate in the county -- well, who knows? They might -- though given Brown's propensity for making public statements without checking his facts, I'm not sure I'd be inclined to take his word for anything. But clearly, it seems that he plans to reduce that poverty rate not by doing anything that will actually make the poor more prosperous, but rather by simply expelling them from the only desirable property they'll likely ever have a chance to inhabit.

When ramming their pet projects down our throats, politicians always shriek over and over again, "it'll create JOBS!" But those promises never seem to pan out. There are never as many jobs as they say there'll be, and those that are created often end up filled by illegal migrant labor. The poor and working class Americans who were displaced basically just lose, period.

Thank God there are already people working to prevent this stupid project from going through. I truly hope the homeowners prevail in Riviera Beach.

[populistdriven]

63. I am sure Brown will get a nice payoff from the developer

[Megahurtz]

111. Exactly!

Maybe this is what happened with those "Liberal Judges" too?:shrug:

Bribes! Sick!:puke:

[Bloodblister Bob]

65. Kiss Your Property Goodbye

While it is true that the State has long had the power to seize your property (for unpaid tribute), the recent Supereme Court ruling has effectively eliminated the concept of private property in the U.S.

The greedhead developer who best greases the palms of the greedheads down at your City Hall will be able to destroy all that you and your family have worked for. If you resist, armed government thugs will remove you from your property.

I pray that all State legislatures will pass legislation making this horrible decision moot before more families are destroyed.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

67. This kind of stuff is going to become more and more prevalent...

Starting in New Orleans and most everywhere else because of the $3.00 to $4.00 gasoline. The suburban SUV people are going to want to move back in closer to town, so they will demand that the poorer neighborhoods be "cleaned up" (translation: depopulated, torn down and redeveloped).

[superconnected]

106. Nobody suffers like the poor, blacks and elderly when the republicans are

in.

take the way they F* the middle class and multiply it by a thousand.

[Bravo411]

112. This is just wrong .....

It's going to piss off a lot of people and not just the ones who had their property taken. Even if they don't own the property and are renters, it's the only place they can afford to rent and will have no place to go.

I wonder how long after the marina is built you start to see the boats sinking. I could just see a group of people certified to dive going in with scuba gear and hand drills putting a couple holes in the bottoms of these yachts. Sink 4 or 5 boats a month and nobody will want to keep their boats there.

Posted by Bravo411
http://bravo411.blogspot.com

[NorthernSpy]

119. perhaps we could release some sea lions in the area...

Sea lions are great!

Sea Lions Sink Boats in Newport Harbor
By Roy Rivenburg, Times Staff Writer


Think of them as amphibious sumo wrestlers. A pack of rowdy sea lions has invaded Newport Harbor, sinking boats, thrashing docks and, with their nonstop barking, turning residents into sleepless zombies.

In a scene that has played out up and down the West Coast, the whiskered creatures are charming tourists but exasperating local officials, who are considering a bizarre array of methods to thwart the federally protected mammals.

Tonight, the Harbor Commission will discuss the situation, which took on added urgency after 18 sea lions piled onto a 37-foot sailboat this month and sank it.

(...)

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-091405sealion_lat,0,1671731.story?coll=la-home-headlines


Those sea lions are the best! They could do much good in Florida. Too bad our eastern pinnipeds are all so well-behaved.