NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.reason.com/sullum/022505.shtml

Justice Antonin Scalia sought to clarify the principle guiding the city's use of eminent domain: "Are we saying you can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?"

"If they are significantly more," Horton said.

Opinions discussion on this policy?

Personally, I think it is a horrendous missuse of power. The public use meant highways and dams and such, not buildings/business that simply generate more tax revenue.

What happened to limitted government?

It's freaking horrible, is what it is. You Americans even have the right to property in your constitution, and you still get abused. (Don't get me wrong, we have similar abuses in Canada too.) I should add that there are times when it is necessary for the public good, I don't consider that an abuse.

For some more scary stories about eminent domain, see:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/60minutes/main575343.shtml

Aye, eminent domain, in the way it's being abused of late, doesn't seem right to me.

i hate eminent domain. i know there are times when it must be used but why does the highway never need to go through the big-ass estate of the rich guy?

this new use of eminent domain to enhance the tax base should be outlawed. its abusive. to take private property to give to another private property project is just wrong.

It's fucking bolicks is what it is. Of course, I leik the way the ACLU gives not one single shit about stealing peoples homes when they actually own them.

Not only should the definition of public use be narrowly drawn, the government should have to show a compelling need for said "public use" before being allowed to excercise it's power of eminent domain.

In cases of property development like this, the developer should just have to negotiate with the property owners until they can all reach a mutually agreed upon bargain, and if they can't well tough shit.

As it stands now, the government is just doing the work of "heavies" for property developers. (And no doubt local corrupt politicians are getting fat off the deal).

And as to the 'urban blight' horse-shit, well we all know how urban renewal in the 60s and 70s turned out.

It's fucking bolicks is what it is. Of course, I leik the way the ACLU gives not one single shit about stealing peoples homes when they actually own them.

Actually, a quick google search of ACLU and eminent domain shows that state chapters of ACLU have gotten involved in these issues. You are correct that the national ACLU has not done so yet. They certainly should, although I believe that a complainant actually has to contact them before they can consider action (or so I've been told).

i hate eminent domain. i know there are times when it must be used but why does the highway never need to go through the big-ass estate of the rich guy?

this new use of eminent domain to enhance the tax base should be outlawed. its abusive. to take private property to give to another private property project is just wrong.
No, in Georgia, the highway always seems to go through the Secretary of Transportation's property. Sometimes it weaves back and forth several times to encompass all of it.

It's the Walmarts that never seem to displace the well-to-do. Probably something about legal representation...

It is an abomination against our freedoms.

Actually, a quick google search of ACLU and eminent domain shows that state chapters of ACLU have gotten involved in these issues. You are correct that the national ACLU has not done so yet. They certainly should, although I believe that a complainant actually has to contact them before they can consider action (or so I've been told).

I know of a similar case in Yonkers a few years ago where the ACLU refused ot get involved. Half a dozen families (all working class) lost thier homes and recieived pitiful compensation.

Ironically, after all that, the developer Ikea, pulled out, and the whole area is now just abandoned.

I'll admit it has it uses.

My school is across from a section of town that degardes considerably just a few blocks away. Right across the street however, there were about a dozen abandoned houses that had recently become home to squatters, a meth lab, and a crack house. The city used its power of eminent domain to condemn the area and knock the buildings down. Now, an apartment complex is being built there.

I'll admit it has it uses.

My school is across from a section of town that degardes considerably just a few blocks away. Right across the street however, there were about a dozen abandoned houses that had recently become home to squatters, a meth lab, and a crack house. The city used its power of eminent domain to condemn the area and knock the buildings down. Now, an apartment complex is being built there.

In the case of abandoned property, that's fine. I have no complaints in cases like that. It is simply common sense. But if someone has good title and is using the house/property, then the standard should be extremely high. No?

This is an issue that cuts across party and ideological lines.

Mother Jones, the progressive magazine, did a great article on it: The Condemned (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/01/01_407.html).

To a certain degree, you can understand why local and state governments want to support development -- to improve both their economies and their tax base (and to reward campaign contributors).

But taking people's homes and property without a far more compelling need is wrong -- particularly when the compensation is far from fair.

(I'm very worried Lacadaemon. We appear to be agreeing on several things. This may be a sign of the apocalypse. ;) )

EDIT: I would note about the original article that Justice's comments at oral argument can be very misleading. Sometimes they may make their position seem clear. But sometimes they grill a certain position in order to get answers from a lawyer to shore up the way they are thinking. And they often do not have their minds made up before or duing oral argument. So the article's reading of the tea leaves may prove incorrect.

(I'm very worried Lacadaemon. We appear to be agreeing on several things. This may be a sign of the apocalypse. ;) )

Aw, shite, it's the Rapture. And I didn't get my hair done.

Edit: Great Article CT.

I love this quote:

Horney points out that by the study's criteria, nearly anyone's home could be taken by the government. "You could call the White House blighted because it's over 40 years old, it's got a lack of parking, it's surrounded by commercial development. I'm sure there is noise. If you tore it down and put in a big office building, certainly it would generate more taxes than Mr. Bush living there."

Aw, shite, it's the Rapture. And I didn't get my hair done.

ROTFLASTC. :D

I know of a similar case in Yonkers a few years ago where the ACLU refused ot get involved. Half a dozen families (all working class) lost thier homes and recieived pitiful compensation.

Ironically, after all that, the developer Ikea, pulled out, and the whole area is now just abandoned.
Who was it in NYC that had blocks of houses condemned?...I think it was the NY*Times. And they just wanted to move their offices. Isn't that right? I don't know whether the ACLU got involved or not, I've quit sending them money, so they don't talk to me either.

OMG I agree with the Cato Institute on something :eek:

I find stealing homes from elderly people who have lived in Atlantic City bungalows peacefully for fifty years in order to put up more hotels disgusting and an abuse of power.

Eminent domain is being used more and more to steal property from private citizens in order to enrich corporations, and I think that people in the US should demand their local representatives do something about it. Not much point in getting massive campaign contributions if the constituents won't vote for you, hmmm?