2005-06-24 10:19![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
digitaldiscipline
digitaldiscipline[courtesy of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
selkiesiren
The Framers must be fuming, inspired by The Supremes ruling that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"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," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
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."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Holy fuck, people. Where do these assholes get off, thinking that they can just walk over the fucking Constitution?
selkiesirenThe Framers must be fuming, inspired by The Supremes ruling that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"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," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
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."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Holy fuck, people. Where do these assholes get off, thinking that they can just walk over the fucking Constitution?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I'm not all that smart, frankly. I just have the cunning to hang around smart people and bother to pay attention.
And yeah...WTF??????
(no subject)
(no subject)
Unless, by "public use," they mean "generates more tax revenue, which is public use."
(no subject)
What pisses me off the most is that this allows the rich to steal from the poor just to make the rich richer. The neighborhoods that are prime for this sort of thing are the blue collar neighborhoods. "Private developers" translates into rich white men.
(no subject)
(no subject)
and they called the 80s the "Decade of Greed"
Still though, hearing things like this makes me want to spead up the process of getting my Dual Italian/American citizenship.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
just in time for the morons here
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050622/1053688.asp
Morons all of them
(no subject)
Fwee! Too many commas!
(oh, and to your subject line? No thank you. I don't know where they've been. Or rather, I do and don't want to catch it.)
(no subject)
It's about f***ing time that the government stepped in. There have been many decent projects that have been flushed down the drain because one or two little people didn't want to sell their houses, thinking, "Oh, I'm going to stay where I was and keep living in the run down shack that my welfare family has been in for the last 100 years and keep this entire area from improving."
Screw em.
If you want a better alternative, make the compensation part of eminent domain based on the projected "improvement in income" rather than the value of the land. I don't mind if the developers have to pay somewhat more, but making the land entirely unavailable for purchase just isn't fair.
Very *large* areas of downtown buffalo come to mind. They should just be entirely bulldozed down. But some little jive politican says, "No, we can't abandon these people...," and what the hell happens -- the area gets further run down and the developers take their money to the suburbs.
It's the whole reason almost no residents are moving back into downtown buffalo (allentown and surround area aside), and none of the businesses are moving back there either.
Crappy politics, crappy policies, stubborn a**holes, eroding tax base and shitty weather. Why the hell would I want to put my development money there.
Walking on the constitution? That's the biggest load of bullcrap I've ever heard. Otherwise we wouldn't have had eminent domain in the first place (see the 5th amendment).
Hell, in some places in buffalo, people would pray for eminent domain to be invoked just so they could get money for their houses.
Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now...but I suggest you guys check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain which was just updated to cover the latest ruling.
(no subject)
I agree with your suggestion of the compensation for eminent domain be adjusted.
Buffalo's fucked for a lot of reasons, most of which you mentioned. Maybe it's because we left. ;-)
(no subject)
the 5th amendment makes no mention of using eminent domain for private projects.
if the private developer really see's the investment potential, then to quote Marlon "They'd make em an offer they can't refuse"
Everyone has a price.
(no subject)
Eminent domain iirc isn't used on a majority of property. In every case ever done, it's only been used on holdouts, those that have been unwilling to relinquish property at the proposed prices.
To quote the wik: Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale. (end quote)
In most of those situations, the developers already own a considerable portion of what they need. Even city planners don't try and route new streets through areas that they don't already control a decent amount of the right of way.
5th amendment vs private projects: To quote the wik again:
The property need not actually be used by the public; rather, it must be used or disposed of in such a manner as to benefit the public welfare or public interest. (end quote)
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but if increasing the tax base and jobs (both first hand) then that directly benefits the public welfare and is therefore in the public's interest. Secondly, usually it's the poor people that end up benefiting from the increase in tax revenues (see better schools, fire, police, sanitation, welfare, medicaid, etc). Let's also not forget that any government body that gives incentive for development (taxes or otherwise) clearly would be using eminent domain to further that end and would legally be permitted to do so under the above. So in that respect, if the government is "financing" the operation...is it "really" a private development? When was the last time you saw a business development large enough to require eminent domain that was *entirely* privately funded?
Buffalo was fucked before we left, but it certainly took a turn for the worse since. I have a feeling that the tax revenue generated from my purchases at Best Buy alone caused the budget deficit and the subsequent raising of the sales tax rate.
(no subject)
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I would disagree that "Public Use" = Public Welfare = Public Interest
Increasing the local tax base is not a public interest but rather a continued sucking of the wallets that all governments are famous for. Let see we cant raise property taxes anymore, how about we raze this neighborhood and put up some McMansions. The area will be prettier and our tax rolls go up because we can appraise higher and get higher taxes with higher tax revenue we can give the people more stuff!!!! It has to be in the public good.
Bulldoze for a public water treatment facility fine by me
(no subject)
It can only be taken "for use" which I'm sure most people would agree that there must be some kind of foresight...I would imagine that public interest would underlie that. The local law can't just seize the land for no reason.
Property Taxes: Who says you can't raise it anymore? Hell, it's gone up even since I left. And yeah, you can put up some mansions, but you have to be able to get people to pay more than what it costs to build it. Drop a dozen million dollar mansions by Broadway market and see who buys them.
Water Treatment: Heh, funny you mention that...there's a big thing going on about using eminent domain with the new ruling to seize some land to build another water treatment plant out here.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Caution: