An Issue we can ALL celebrate over!!! Time to pay the piper...

[Divinus Arma]

Okay, so we all know about The Emminent Domain travesty (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108)that passed in the Supreme Court, right?

The one that Sandra Day O'Connor wrote "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner", where now, with Federal approval, "private property is forcibly relinquished to new private ownership". She also wrote that "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms".

Upheld by Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens; O'Connor decried "The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result" which she called "inherently harmful to society".

Remember that in this decision: "New London does not claim that Susette Kelo's and Wilhelmina Dery's well-maintained homes are the source of any social harm" and as a result". This means that blight is not relevant.

Yes, something we can all unite against. The poor and underprivledged have been betrayed. Now the rich can legally steal their homes. And the Republicans hate it because it violates private property rights.


But here is justice, friends (http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html):


Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

And from the Associated Press (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161051,00.html):


WEARE, N.H. — Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments power to seize private property, someone has suggested taking over Justice David Souter's (search) New Hampshire farmhouse and turning it into a hotel.

"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.


YES!!!:knight:

[Strike For The South]

w00t
w00t

[Redleg]

In a related manner - and maybe one that will work the House of Representives were working on a bill over just this issue.


To limit the States use of eminent domain .


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 29, 2005
Mr. HEFLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To limit the States use of eminent domain .


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Eminent Domain Limitation Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--

(1) the protection of private property is one of the three basic tenets of American government;

(2) it is the constitutional duty of the Federal Government to defend the Constitution;

(3) the United States Supreme Court's decision of June 23, 2005 in the case of Kelo et al v. City of New London et al appears to expand the definition of public use under eminent domain to significantly threaten private property rights;

(4) economic development is not a public use, for the purposes of eminent domain ; and

(5) no property should be taken for a public use unless the need for such taking is exigent.

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON STATE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN .

(a) In General- No State shall be eligible to receive any Federal assistance for any economic development unless that State has in effect a law relating to takings meeting the criteria set forth in subsection (b).

(b) Criteria- The law relating to takings must--

(1) prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development;

(2) limit the uses for which eminent domain may be used to public health and safety, rights-of-way for public utilities and public highways and parks; and

(3) require the entity engaging in the taking to show the necessity for it and that no reasonable alternatives exist.

(c) Administration- The President shall make rules to carry out this Act and determine which States are in compliance and direct appropriate agencies and entities to withhold assistance accordingly.

(d) Effective Date- This section applies with respect to fiscal year 2007 and succeeding fiscal years.





THey had the open house session on it today on CSPAN - and it passed to go to the senate if I got the right read off of the telecast before I went to work.

[Kanamori]

Hopefully, this doesn't get caught in a filibuster, unless power shifts to a more favorable position for this passing after the fili is done.

[Spetulhu]

House Vote Counters Eminent Domain Measure

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Thu Nov 3, 6:44 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Contending that the Supreme Court has undermined a pillar of American society, the sanctity of the home, the House overwhelmingly approved a bill Thursday to block the court-approved seizure of private property for use by developers.

The bill, passed 376-38, would withhold federal money from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force businesses and homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling in June, recognized the power of local governments to seize property needed for private development projects that generate tax revenue. The decision drew criticism from private property, civil rights, farm and religious groups that said it was an abuse of the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause." That language provides for the taking of private property, with fair compensation, for public use.

The court's June decision, said House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., changed established constitutional principles by holding that "any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party."

The ruling in Kelo v. City of New London allowed the Connecticut city to exercise state eminent domain law to require several homeowners to cede their property for commercial use.

With this "infamous" decision, said Rep. Phil Gingrey (news, bio, voting record), R-Ga., "homes and small businesses across the country have been placed in grave jeopardy and threatened by the government wrecking ball."

The bill, said Chip Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice, which represented the Kelo homeowners before the Supreme Court, "highlights the fact that this nation's eminent domain and urban renewal laws need serious and substantial changes."

But opponents argued that the federal government should not be interceding in what should be a local issue. "We should not change federal law every time members of Congress disagree with the judgment of a locality when it uses eminent domain for the purpose of economic development," said Rep. Bobby Scott (news, bio, voting record), D-Va.

The legislation is the latest, and most far-reaching, of several congressional responses to the court ruling. The House previously passed a measure to bar federal transportation money from going for improvements on land seized for private development. The Senate approved an amendment to a transportation spending bill applying similar restrictions. The bill now moves to the Senate, where Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, has introduced companion legislation.

About half the states are also considering changes in their laws to prevent takings for private use.

The Bush administration, backing the House bill, said in a statement that "private property rights are the bedrock of the nation's economy and enjoy constitutionally protected status. They should also receive an appropriate level of protection by the federal government."

The House bill would cut off for two years all federal economic development funds to states and localities that use economic development as a rationale for property seizures. It also would bar the federal government from using eminent domain powers for economic development.

"By subjecting all projects to penalties, we are removing a loophole that localities can exploit by playing a 'shell game' with projects," said Rep. Henry Bonilla (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a chief sponsor.

The House, by a voice vote, approved Gingrey's proposal to bar states or localities in pursuit of more tax money from exercising eminent domain over nonprofit or tax-exempt religious organizations. Churches, he said, "should not have to fear because God does not pay enough in taxes."

Eminent domain, the right of government to take property for public use, is typically used for projects that benefit an entire community, such as highways, airports or schools.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion in Kelo, said in an August speech that while he had concerns about the results, the ruling was legally correct because the high court has "always allowed local policy-makers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public goals."

Several lawmakers who opposed the House bill said eminent domain has long been used by local governments for economic development projects such as the Inner Harbor in Baltimore and the cleaning up of Times Square in New York. The District of Columbia is expected to use eminent domain to secure land for a new baseball stadium for the Washington Nationals.

~D

Congratulations!

[Divinus Arma]

Excellent. I can't believe the Supreme Court let this get by.

IIRC, it was the liberal ones that pushed it through, no?

You are correct. The five liberal justices passed this, while the four conservative leaning justices voted against it.

Oh please let the GOP win in 2008! please please please please!!!! I want to see at least one of these liberal jerks retire and be replaced by a conservative.... please please please please

edit: yes, I saw the house bill. Great. But not far enough.

[Aurelian]

Just like everybody else, I was rooting for the property owners in this case.

However, don't blame the liberal justices on this one. While I agree with the concerns of the minority, I think the majority made the right legal decision.

The right-wing spin types have spent the last year or so portraying liberal judges as "activists" who try to make law from the bench. Well, in this case it was the more conservative members of the Supreme Court who took an activist position.

The majority ruled that eminent domain is an issue that is governed by state and local laws; and that in previous cases the Supreme Court has ruled that "public purpose" applies to slum clearance and land redistribution as well as roads and highways. So, they did what judges should do, and applied current law and precedent to the case. They made the right ruling.

Now, it's up to federal and state legislatures to change the law so private developers can't gobble up private homes for "economic development" purposes. It's good to see that there are at least some moves in that direction.

On a slightly different note: If you get more conservative justices we'll have much bigger problems. The conservatives have supported the notion that the president can declare anyone an "enemy combatant" and lock them away indefinitely. This "enemy combatant" notion can (and has been applied) to US citizens, as well as non-citizens, and violates one of our explicit rights in the Constitution... the right of habeas corpus. Allowing the president the power to unilaterally declare someone an enemy combatant with no legal rights is a truly horrible precedent. With a stroke of a pen, anyone who opposes a sitting president could just disappear, and nobody would have the ability to challenge the detention judicially. Tyranny.

[Divinus Arma]

Just like everybody else, I was rooting for the property owners in this case.

However, don't blame the liberal justices on this one. While I agree with the concerns of the minority, I think the majority made the right legal decision.

The right-wing spin types have spent the last year or so portraying liberal judges as "activists" who try to make law from the bench. Well, in this case it was the more conservative members of the Supreme Court who took an activist position.

The majority ruled that eminent domain is an issue that is governed by state and local laws; and that in previous cases the Supreme Court has ruled that "public purpose" applies to slum clearance and land redistribution as well as roads and highways. So, they did what judges should do, and applied current law and precedent to the case. They made the right ruling.

You obviously did not read the entire ruling and accompanying dissent. If you did, then I am wrong. And that means you are clearly a socialist if you believe that the elimination of private property is a good thing.

Previous rulings were based on the concept that the land being taken was a public burden. In this case, their is no public burden. There is just a bunch of nice houses that somebody else wants to own. By allowing anybody to make a claim on another's property simply based on the promise that it will produce higher tax revenues, the federal government is essentially eliminating private property right in the United States. As a result of this ruling, property exists to benefit the public, not the individual.


On a slightly different note: If you get more conservative justices we'll have much bigger problems. The conservatives have supported the notion that the president can declare anyone an "enemy combatant" and lock them away indefinitely. This "enemy combatant" notion can (and has been applied) to US citizens, as well as non-citizens, and violates one of our explicit rights in the Constitution... the right of habeas corpus. Allowing the president the power to unilaterally declare someone an enemy combatant with no legal rights is a truly horrible precedent. With a stroke of a pen, anyone who opposes a sitting president could just disappear, and nobody would have the ability to challenge the detention judicially. Tyranny.

I think you are an enemy combatant. Where is my pen?

[Divinus Arma]

GOP? Meh. I wanna see a Conservative with no Social Agenda as President in '08. Let the states handle social issues. The President should focus on federal issues.

hee hee

Federalism! Federalism! States Rights! States Rights! -Gelatinous Cube


I agree with you. Ever heard of the Republican Liberty Caucus (http://www.rlc.org/?p=FAQ#4884)?

[Crazed Rabbit]

The majority ruled that eminent domain is an issue that is governed by state and local laws; and that in previous cases the Supreme Court has ruled that "public purpose" applies to slum clearance and land redistribution as well as roads and highways. So, they did what judges should do, and applied current law and precedent to the case. They made the right ruling.

No, the ruling was a travesty and completely wrong. Never before had emminent domain been used to take property for the sole purpose of greater tax revenue. There was no precendent, so the liberals took the side of expanding government powers 'for the good of society' when anyone with a pea brain could see that the constitution limits eminent domain to public works such as freeways or roads. They greatly expanded the powers of government, even past the unconstitutional taking of land for slum clearence.

And in case you haven't noticed, the point of the supreme court is not to apply 'current law and precedent' (read: their own opinion) to cases, but to rule based on the constitution.

Crazed Rabbit

[master of the puppets]

...wow thats a w00t but there may be some downsides...

[Aurelian]

You obviously did not read the entire ruling and accompanying dissent. If you did, then I am wrong. And that means you are clearly a socialist if you believe that the elimination of private property is a good thing.

Previous rulings were based on the concept that the land being taken was a public burden. In this case, their is no public burden. There is just a bunch of nice houses that somebody else wants to own. By allowing anybody to make a claim on another's property simply based on the promise that it will produce higher tax revenues, the federal government is essentially eliminating private property right in the United States. As a result of this ruling, property exists to benefit the public, not the individual.


No, I read it. "Findlaw" has the opinions and notes at the following LINK (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108)

Ultimately, I think we have the same opinion on this issue. However, I think the position is a bit overstated above. As for property rights, the court long ago decided to let local governments violate the property rights of the poor in order to redevelop cities economically. Maybe this case is useful because it puts a middle class face on the people who are dispossessed.

I stand by the majority decision based only on its adherence to established law and precedent, but not on its moral outcome. The finding was appropriate within the context of the law, but the law clearly needs to be clarified to prevent this kind of taking.

Here's the summation of the majority opinion:


We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose "public use" requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law,22 while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised.23 As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate.24 This Court's authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City's proposed condemnations are for a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.

Again, the opinion was based on state and local laws, and was consistent with the court's previous positions on public use.

The footnotes shed some more light on the court's attitude towards "blight" and the role of private development in public use.



Footnote 13

It is a misreading of Berman to suggest that the only public use upheld in that case was the initial removal of blight. See Reply Brief for Petitioners 8. The public use described in Berman extended beyond that to encompass the purpose of developing that area to create conditions that would prevent a reversion to blight in the future. See 348 U. S., at 34-35 ("It was not enough, [the experts] believed, to remove existing buildings that were insanitary or unsightly. It was important to redesign the whole area so as to eliminate the conditions that cause slums. . . . The entire area needed redesigning so that a balanced, integrated plan could be developed for the region, including not only new homes, but also schools, churches, parks, streets, and shopping centers. In this way it was hoped that the cycle of decay of the area could be controlled and the birth of future slums prevented"). Had the public use in Berman been defined more narrowly, it would have been difficult to justify the taking of the plaintiff's nonblighted department store.

Footnote 14

Any number of cases illustrate that the achievement of a public good often coincides with the immediate benefiting of private parties. See, e.g., National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp., 503 U. S. 407, 422 (1992) (public purpose of "facilitating Amtrak's rail service" served by taking rail track from one private company and transferring it to another private company); Brown v. Legal Foundation of Wash., 538 U. S. 216 (2003) (provision of legal services to the poor is a valid public purpose). It is worth noting that in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229 (1984), Monsanto, and Boston & Maine Corp., the property in question retained the same use even after the change of ownership.

Footnote 15

Notably, as in the instant case, the private developers in Berman were required by contract to use the property to carry out the redevelopment plan. See 348 U. S., at 30.

Footnote 16

Nor do our cases support Justice O'Connor's novel theory that the government may only take property and transfer it to private parties when the initial taking eliminates some "harmful property use." Post, at 8 (dissenting opinion). There was nothing "harmful" about the nonblighted department store at issue in Berman, 348 U. S. 26; see also n. 13, supra; nothing "harmful" about the lands at issue in the mining and agriculture cases, see, e.g., Strickley, 200 U. S. 527; see also nn. 9, 11, supra; and certainly nothing "harmful" about the trade secrets owned by the pesticide manufacturers in Monsanto, 467 U. S. 986. In each case, the public purpose we upheld depended on a private party's future use of the concededly nonharmful property that was taken. By focusing on a property's future use, as opposed to its past use, our cases are faithful to the text of the Takings Clause. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5. ("[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"). Justice O'Connor's intimation that a "public purpose" may not be achieved by the action of private parties, see post, at 8, confuses the purpose of a taking with its mechanics, a mistake
we warned of in Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 244. See also Berman, 348 U. S., at 33-34 ("The public end may be as well or better served through
an agency of private enterprise than through a department of
government").


Again, I don't like the outcome of this case and I hope the legislatures make some new laws that help set the boundaries for these kinds of takings.