SCOTUS rules that seizure of private propert for private development is ok

[Arta]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

All I can really say to this is.... what?! I don't understand why this would be allowed at all, let alone end up in the S.C. I don't find myself in agreement with Scalia and Rehnquist very often (they dissented), but today, I am.

Can anyone elaborate on this a bit?

[CrAz3D]

I think the cities' reasons for seizing a house only has to be 'for the betterment of the community'.  Like maybe a highway, or tear a few neighbor hoods down & put up some concert halls, business offices, hotels...it's stupid.



I say they can take my house when I'm dead (& out of bullets)


As for Scalia, I think he is my fav.  I like his view of the Constitution of being a concrete thing, not something that changes everytime we get a new president.

[dxoigmn]

I think the cities' reasons for seizing a house only has to be 'for the betterment of the community'.  Like maybe a highway, or tear a few neighbor hoods down & put up some concert halls, business offices, hotels...it's stupid.



I say they can take my house when I'm dead (& out of bullets)


As for Scalia, I think he is my fav.  I like his view of the Constitution of being a concrete thing, not something that changes everytime we get a new president.

I find it funny that you feel so strongly for the Constitution yet you have from time to time said things that are opposite what the constitution says (free speech thread comes to mind). In this case, you believe the government shouldn't be able to take your house; well the 5th amendment says they can with just compensation.

Edit: Also, this is debatable, but it seems to me that the Bush administration has been the worst offender of and many times has ignored the Constitution.

[CrAz3D]

yeah, I'm not into this whole neo-republicanism...(that's what I call it at least), I figure I'm conservative generally.

As for freedom of speech, uhm, yeah, your rights don't trump someone else's

[MyndFyre]

Interestingly enough, I wasn't sure what this was about when I first read it (nice acronym by the way -- Supreme Court of the United States).

However, lately, the Town of Gilbert (where I live and work) has been granting land use (more or less giving the land) to a company called Big League Dreams.  This company runs and maintains the parks for which it is responsible; however, it's privately-funded.  This is an email I sent to my mayor about it:

Mr. Mayor:

First, I realize that, as an employee, it is somewhat inappropriate to be contacting or in another way being involved with the political process in the Town.  However, given that I am also a resident, I believe that if I am not permitted to voice my opinion, it is infringing upon my rights as a citizen and a taxpayer.  Furthermore, despite my position within Parks and Recreation, and that Big League Dreams has a direct impact on the Parks and Recreation Department, I do not believe it has a direct impact on my job security; therefore, I believe there is no real conflict of interest.  I have attempted to discuss this political-personnel issue with the Personnel Director, and have not received a reply.

Having said that, I believe that allowing Big League Dreams, or other companies with similar interests, to continue to pursue further arrangements within the Town is a problem, and an abusive dispensation of public lands.

First, public lands are just that: public.  I realize that there is a certain fiscal benefit from tax revenues generated by allowing a private corporation to provide services to the community.  However, the lands are no longer accessible to the general public.  It is my understanding that, for parks developed by Big League Dreams, residents will be required to pay a fee for entry, and that residents will also be unable to bring their own food into the park.  Our park policies have not limited these right uses of public land in any way, with the exception that alcohol could not be consumed on public lands – a policy which, I believe, was primarily intended to prevent the consumption of alcohol by minors due to non-monitoring.

Second, I believe that this "public-private partnership" that Big League Dreams provides is essentially a government-sponsored monopoly.  Big League Dreams agrees to license their park such that a competing BLD park is not located within a given surrounding area.  In exchange, aside from our own programs, we are agreeing to provide a non-competitive area for them?  (By the way, if I am misinterpreting the minutes from the meeting on 24 May, I apologize).  This is to be a 20-mile radius?  That is ridiculous, "for the protection of the Town" or not.  Quite frankly, it is a monopoly.

Finally, I believe that the use of public lands in this manner is an abuse – or could potentially be an abuse – of eminent domain.  It was not particularly long ago that the location of the Freestone Recreation Center was acquired via the use of the right of eminent domain.  If we can use any public land to enter into these "public-private partnerships" that BLD is proposing, then what is to say we couldn't use land acquired through eminent domain for these purposes?  For that, we might as well just seize private land to provide a private service!

Mr. Mayor, as always, I appreciate your time.  I hope to see you at the Library again some time soon.

Thank you,

[Kp]

Discussion on this has essentially fallen into two categories, as far as I've heard.  One side (the one with which I agree) concurs with Crazed and Myndfyre (and Arta?  Hard to say, and I don't want to put words in his mouth) that this is a perversion of the concept of eminent domain, and that abuse is inevitable.  The other side (whose proponents I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting in person) sees this as a great boon for cities that can finally go acquiring land that they just couldn't get through any other means.  It's worth noting that the SCOTUS members who supported the city referred to the "public purpose" of economic development, not "public use" (as the Constitution characterizes the privilege of eminent domain).  Public use historically has meant works of immediate and practical use to the public, such as roads and schools.  Public purpose is a less well defined concept, and the court's majority opinion seems to assert that any activity which benefits the government's coffers -- and thus provides more money to spend on government programs -- constitutes public purpose.

[CrAz3D]

In a nearby town the city has taken over 7 homes to expand 1 school & 17 more to build a new school.  From what was said on the news the people that had to give up their homes were generally not thrilled.  It is quite a hassle to find a new house (one that is hopefully priced @ what the city paid you) & move into it.  I'm not sure, but does the city/government/school district pay for the moving of the family?

Now, I don't totally agree with people having to give up their homes for roads/schools but is a HELL of a lot more sensible than a shopping mall or hotel or country club thing.

Something I noticed on this topic on f150online.com was that most people came to the conclusion that we own nothing & 'rent' everything.  Taxes, car registration, are all forms of rent...so I suppose it is the government's property but I don't believe that is the way it originally began & it wasn't meant to be like that.

[Forged]

From what I read in the local newspaper  A group of 13 people are going to be forced to move off of the land they live in, in order to make room for a private research facility and its' mini suburb surrounding it.  One of the residents has lived in her house since 1918....

[CrAz3D]

From what I read in the local newspaper  A group of 13 people are going to be forced to move off of the land they live in, in order to make room for a private research facility and its' mini suburb surrounding it.  One of the residents has lived in her house since 1918....

see, stuff like that is JACKED!

If she is well enough to not be in a nursing home I'm sure she'd be well enough to hold a gun & I'm sure she knows how to use it...POWER TO THE OLD WOMAN! (so long as she ain't driving )

[Topaz]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotus.property.ap/index.html

All I can really say to this is.... what?! I don't understand why this would be allowed at all, let alone end up in the S.C. I don't find myself in agreement with Scalia and Rehnquist very often (they dissented), but today, I am.

Can anyone elaborate on this a bit?

Preposterous

[Arta]

I think that the state's right to seize land for public use is necesary, although it may be horrible for those made victims of it. I think that the state seizing land for private use is outrageous.

[Forged]

somewtimes for highways it might be neccisary, but they don't really need to build the highway on top of your house....

[Adron]

somewtimes for highways it might be neccisary, but they don't really need to build the highway on top of your house....

They may need to build it on top of someone's house though. Might as well be your

[Topaz]

They'll tear your house down, not build over it.

[Forged]

it was a figure of speech....

They may need to build it on top of someone's house though. Might as well be your Wink

not really, roads can curve.