We are now COMPLETELY screwed

[tk2kewl]

Based on how the court voted today and who voted for and against New London, the pukes will DEMAND a right-wing judge be appointed. The court is a disgrace IMO.

New London:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23wire-scotus.html?ei=5094&en=5036788eb4cc9d17&hp=&ex=1119585600&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1119539227-4Cp7XKcYiCeHmHtkVM9DZA

Tigerd:
http://www.library.reed.edu/courses/syllabi/econ371/DolanvTigard.pdf

On edit... Dolan v. Tigerd was a case in the 90s were the court decided against Tigert, OR when they required a dedication of bike path. Not a seizure of all of the plaintiffs land for a corporate give-away, just a small portion of the property as part of the development process to be dedicated to a legitimate public purpose.

No to dedication for bike path, yes to seizure for corporate give-away.

[JRob]

1. More info, links please...

[tk2kewl]

3. Added links

to the NYT story for New London decision and to a pdf Tigert decision

[SteppingRazor]

2. You mean we werent' completely screwed before? n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. Seriously. Just another shoe dropping off the centipede

[tk2kewl]

8. the point is this more is political fodder for the pukes

we will get a full on fascist nomination for the court

[katsy]

4. I thought the gop was the best friend...

corporate whores could wish for.

Voters, including greens, libertarians and constitutionalists will be furious. But not the gop corporate whores.

The Dems should step up and speak out against this ruling. Which reminds me to ask... is the ruling available online yet?

[tk2kewl]

6. the most liberal judges voted FOR it and the most CONSERVATIVE

judges voted against it. We are fucked.

[FrannyD]

10. like medical marijuana

Makes you wonder. Maybe they are fearing for thier lives like Senator Cornyn warned them....

[katsy]

14. OUCH!!!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


The same liberal scotus that installed numbnuts in the whitehouse?

[Double T]

5. Absolutely Completely Screwed

[FrannyD]

9. Sad Ruling

I didn't think it was going to go this way. Everyone should be outraged. File sharing ruling also due today. Please don't let it be 2 for 2. x(

[tk2kewl]

11. I didn't think so either. Shame.

I worry for people of limited means. Any local government can now bulldoze any low-income neighborhood under the guise of economic development, or so it seems.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. Just a picky correction from a former Oregon resident

It's "Tigard," not "Tigert."

[tk2kewl]

13. K. sorry, fixed.

[welshTerrier2]

15. let's discuss this in a little more detail ...

my first reaction was "how dare they allow big, evil corporations to screw individual homeowners like this?" ...

and yes, i agree with the argument that the "little guy" will be unable to protect "his castle" when the big scary people want to build gambling casinos and shopping malles on his property ...

but look at this through a different lens ... it might explain why the more liberal court members voted for this and the conservatives voted against it ...

the lens is one that argues that the society's interests should be the government's top priority even ahead of the understandable but selfish interests of any individual ... of course, to arrive at this point of view, you must presume that you have "good government" ... you have to believe the purpose of government, no matter how corrupted it's become by serving primarily greedy corporate interests, is to serve the general welfare and the public good ...

perhaps we've all grown so cynical that government is evil because it is so controlled by big money that we can't see how government is supposed to work ... instead of some fat cat development project, let's say the government chose to tear down a bunch of million dollar homes along the ocean to make the seashore a national park that all Americans could enjoy ... would that be OK? or let's say a town (like mine) totally failed to plan for commercial revenues and all the land was sold off to residential builders ... the problem our town has now is that we can't afford to pay for our schools ... suppose we chose to tear down some houses to build an office park to increase the tax base so that kids could get a good education ... would that be OK?

some will still say "no" to these examples ... they'll argue that "a man's home is his castle" ... no one wants to have the government push them out of their home ... i understand how horrible that can be for those affected ... but, i think it's worth considering this issue from a less cynical perspective ...

perhaps it's naive to believe we will ever have "good government" not paid for and owned by commercial interests ... perhaps governments should not be empowered to take away private property under any circumstances ... perhaps, even in situations where the justification for an "eminent domain" seizure is well-meaning, it still should not be allowed ...

but it's not all that surprising to me that the liberals on the Court took the position they did ... i guess it all boils down to whether the individual's rights to private property should come before a broader societal purpose and whether you trust the government to pursue that societal purpose ...

[tk2kewl]

16. good points, and agree with you in large part

which is why i included the Tigard case in my post.

my problem is that eminent domain MUST have limits, and in New London I think they have gone way beyond what is reasonable.

I am from LI and have been through New London many times by ferry on my way to New England. This is a gentrification excises nothing more IMO.

I also have a degree in environmental science and land-use planning and my career started in that field (although I have moved on to other things). I firmly believe in limiting property rights in the interest of the community, I just think this is too much.

[welshTerrier2]

19. "eminent domain MUST have limits"

the "limits" under the law (as i understand it) are that the seizure must serve a "public use" ...

it's certainly clear that a bike path or a new road would serve that purpose ... perhaps the need to build a new school, a library or even a town hall would serve that purpose ...

but what if the purpose, as in this case, is to generate more tax revenues for the community by seizing property to make it available for commercial use ... would you argue that by seeking "commercial use" you are automatically NOT seeking "public use"?

i think this question sat at the core of what was facing the Court ... there is no question that the case involved here, especially building a gambling casino, was about as ugly as it gets ... what better symbol than a casino of crass materialism and greed? but even given that, revenues are revenues ...

who should set the standard and make the measure of what constitutes "public use"???

actually, to argue the other side of the case, if one literally interprets the phrase "public USE", one could argue that while the public will be able to USE the casino and the Coast Guard Museum, generating more revenues for the community, which is the town's primary argument for employing "eminent domain", is really NOT a "public use" at all ... look at the main argument cited by the majority of the Court:

"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," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

from the NY Times article:

"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"."

If one were to narrowly interpret the Fifth Amendment, one might argue that there is a difference between a "USE" and a "PURPOSE" ... the argument made in this case was NOT that community residents would benefit by being able to USE a gambling casino; the argument made was that the community would benefit from the revenues the casino generated ... with a narrow interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, that's a PURPOSE; not a USE ... you USE a road; you USE a bike path; you USE a library; you do not USE a gambling casino for the public good ...

but in the end, I think government should have the right to seize private property for a public PURPOSE ... and while greedy, swine-like casino owners may get rich in the process, that doesn't exclude the possibility that the community will benefit as well ... it's hard to see how leaving this measurement to the courts instead of the elected representatives of the people, however misguided they may be, is the right way to go ...

[tk2kewl]

22. I understand your argument

but I do think there should be a harder line between the terms "use" and "purpose".

I worked on an extensive planning issue on LI in the mid 90s that created 50,000 acre pine barrens preserve in Suffolk Co through the use of development rights transfers. The purpose of the plan was to preserve natural groundwater recharge areas vital to LI's sole source of drinking water. This serves a CLEAR public purpose. I don't see the same clarity in the New London plan.

edit: bad punctuation

[welshTerrier2]

24. clearer lines ...

well, the "drinking water" justification is absolutely a CLEAR public purpose ... no argument there ...

but how about a community citing increased revenues and jobs to make an eminent domain seizure? let's assume you accept their argument that both increased revenues and more jobs will result from the seizure ...

would you want to apply a standard that the increase in revenues must be "critically needed"? should the community's financial status be an issue in allowing increased revenues to meet the public use test?

or should the potential revenues have to be targeted to meet a specific community need rather than just generally increasing the community's tax revenues? so, for example, let's say a community wants to build a library but lacks the funds to do so? would dedicating future revenues to this specific project meet the "public use" test?

there is no question, at least not in my mind, that the groundwater project you cited is a far more tangible example of public use than is a seizure to increase the tax base for general, unspecified purposes ...

if you want the lines to be clearer, how would you draw them around the issue of increasing the tax revenues for a community by seizing residential property for commercial purposes? or would you want to deny communities the right to do this?

[tk2kewl]

25. I think I would have to deny that right

Rezone the entire area for your hoped for revenue producing use, and allow the individual property owners the ability to negotiate in good faith with the incoming developers. That's how I would handle it.

[welshTerrier2]

27. that may explain the division on the Court ...

the argument you're making, that has tons of merit although ultimately i would probably disagree, explains the idealogical divide on the Court and why they voted as they did ...

your "let the market handle it" approach is (no offense intended) a more republican view ... all parties are free to negotiate in their own best interests and no "higher government purpose" is allowed to be imposed on the outcome ...

the liberals on the Court disagreed with this view and argued that communities, not individuals, should be able to make their own determinations as to what meets the standard of public use and what does not ... they accepted the idea that a government's view of what is in the best interest of the community should supercede private property rights ...

ultimately, that is one of the key ideological differences between left and right ... the right likes phrases like "personal responsibility" and "don't let the government reach into your pocket" ... if you earned it, it's yours ... they see "the spoils of capitalism" as your right and the society has no right to interfere ...

the left, on the other hand, argues that individuals "should ask not what your country should do for you but what you should do for your country" ... the left values the "greatest good for the greatest number" over the personal preferences of the individual ... while individual liberties must be protected, the best interests of the society must be served ...

my point is not to necessarily disagree with your interpretation of eminent domain ... frankly, this case is somewhat disturbing given the nature of the enterprises involved ... but i do think the Court's interpretation and how the Court divided along ideological lines was very understandable ...

[tk2kewl]

28. For me it is more about a tangible public benefit rather than a

predicted one.

I have moved right on the property rights issue as I have gotten older and invested in real estate of my own, but my problem with the ruling is that New London is predicting the future with their plan not simply providing for an immediate public use.

[tk2kewl]

18. also...

my point was in the political arena we are screwed by this.

[JRob]

17. This crap will continue to escalate until...

we collectively make a stand.

I get criticized for saying we need to refuse to participate in the economy even though we continue to see an assault on every aspect of our lives.

They're leaches sucking away more and more of what we have to feed their giant machine and world expansion. It will not stop.

It is time to send a message to Corporate American and their lap dogs in the WH and Congress.

THE BUCK STAYS HERE! In my wallet until...

[paula777]

20. I agree. This is the LAST nail in our coffin. RIP democratic party

[Al-CIAda]

21. As it becomes clear that the Dems are IMPOTENT and chickenshit,

more will listen to alternatives.

Alex Jones is going ballistic over this emminent domain land STEALING.

[smartvoter]

23. The court fight is over now. Can you hear it already?

"I'm not sure I agree with your definition of 'outside the mainstream.' They won't take your homes away, if that's what you mean."

This is bad. Really bad.

[DrGonzoLives]

26. Idiotic decision

I gotta say I agree with the conservative wing (though maybe not completely with their reasonsing).

Private interests should not use the government as a tool to take people's property. It would be one thing if this were a hospital, or a new road, or something like that, but this is just ridiculous. what happens if they get no tenants? Where is the increased tax reveue then?

I also find it curious that there are some professed liberals here who are siding with the idea that the government should be the tool of corporate America and rip people's homes out from under their feet.