SCOTUS: High court OKs personal property seizures (NSR)

The Fifth Amendment issue was that eminent domain should be utilized, as it states, for 'public use'. With cities going into debt, they used the arguement that the tax revenue from private commercial development became something the public would use.

Just saw a special on this on TV tonite and people are losing their homes because their neighborhoods are labeled as deteriorating, the weakest excuse possible, but accepted nonetheless in eminent domain fights, because the houses are more than 40 years old and had weeds growing nearby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splat

The Fifth Amendment issue was that eminent domain should be utilized, as it states, for 'public use'. With cities going into debt, they used the arguement that the tax revenue from private commercial development became something the public would use.

Just saw a special on this on TV tonite and people are losing their homes because their neighborhoods are labeled as deteriorating, the weakest excuse possible, but accepted nonetheless in eminent domain fights, because the houses are more than 40 years old and had weeds growing nearby.

---

the beauty of the new SCOTUS decision is they dont have to pretend that things are deteriorated. they can do whatever the fuck they want, subject only to being voted out of office in the next election.

The saddest thing about the tax revenue argument is that most of these deals are done with TIF where the increased taxes are abated for 20 or 30 years as another incentive for the deal.

Agreed, CoreShot. Totally.

This ruling is revolting. It undermines the very basis of the founding of this nation. It is evil and insidious. Nothing good will come of this for citizens and small business owners.

I was thinking about this the other day on my drive to work I was thinking (don't know if this has been said but), if every one put their houses on the market for some outrageous price and just keep it there then when Joey Bag O doughnuts developer comes along and wants your land just tell em thats great its on the market if they want it. The price is set if they want it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomK

Think on this twist. You own a house with an acre of land. Land is zoned for higher density - say 8 houses per acre. Developer can now force you to sell the land at a huge discount (eminent domain siezure prices are lower than going market price) because the local government will collect higher property taxes from 8 houses than your 1.
Since when is possible increased tax revenue a "public benifit" ?

---

I disagree regarding lower market price for eminent domain siezures. In my state when eminent domain is used the state must pay fair market value. I have been witness the use of eminent domain regarding a highway reconstruction. The unwilling seller received the same value for his property as the willing sellers.

Quote:

---

Just saw a special on this on TV tonite and people are losing their homes because their neighborhoods are labeled as deteriorating, the weakest excuse possible, but accepted nonetheless in eminent domain fights, because the houses are more than 40 years old and had weeds growing nearby.

---

I think your talking about a PBS show? I saw the same thing. The mayors of those towns were portrayed like evil landloads that wanted to evict tennants for a higher class applicant. What they didn't seem to grasp was that they don't own the land.

From www.volokh.com:
In his dissent in Kelo (buried on page 14), Justice Thomas may well have written my all-time-favorite line of any constitutional opinion (perhaps, in part, because it does not seem to be written to be famous):

"Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’'s interpretation of the Constitution."

As his most recent work (of Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto), The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else explained, Western systems are built upon a bedrock of property rights. Without this basic system of property, and the capitalism built on it, those stuck in the third world are cut off from capital markets, cut off from investment, and cut off from doing business with anyone beyond their immediate kith and kin. They have no officially recognized property that can be offered as collateral.

A brief bio from the CATO Institute (how many economists get targeted for assassination anyway?).

The rich get richer. This AM I heard that Wal-Mart is putting a super store a few miles away from the 20 acres I own. There goes the ranch. :cussing: :fuckyou: Idaho or bust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth

This ruling is revolting. It undermines the very basis of the founding of this nation. It is evil and insidious. Nothing good will come of this for citizens and small business owners.

---

agreed, however, I don't think I'm the only one that thinks Halsted and North are better served by Crate and Barrel and The Container Store than being Cabrini Green's north western butress.

What is telling here is that a group of people who have radically different views ALL feel this a terrible, dangerous and revolting ruling. What the fuck is the court doing???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

agreed, however, I don't think I'm the only one that thinks Halsted and North are better served by Crate and Barrel and The Container Store than being Cabrini Green's north western butress.

---

Poor example.
1) public housing is not owned by the occupants (it would be different if they were co-ops)
2) Cabrini was part of a larger plan to tear down the vertical slums that perpetuate generations of poverty, and replace them with scattered site housing. Actually, last I heard, this was a pretty good thing (particularly for the sketchy developments along south lakeshore drive). The Cabrini land grab redevelopment was just an extra bonus for the urban yuppies.