On eminent domain, the Supreme Court, and the media

[justben]

Some of the media are making a big deal about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London regarding government exercise of its power of eminent domain.

Comments

[starlancer]

The fact that it is not new does not make it right. It is still Wrong. (Note capital W - morally and ethically so, not in the sense of "legally incorrect

[justben]

It is still Wrong.

In this particular case? Why? I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm curious what other people think.

The fact that you are required to pay property taxes on it or else forfeit it means essentially that it is merely held in fief from the government.

That doesn't seem fair to me. By your logic, nearly *any* government limitation on property ownership could be interpreted as complete lack of property ownership. It's just not that black-and-white. Frankly I don't understand your suggestion that, "we've actually gone backward from feudalism." It's the same malaise that I said I hear in the media reports, and I honestly want to know what's behind it. I won't say things are perfect -- far from it -- but that description just isn't what I see in the current state of things.

[aerianne_elana]

All I know is that the Stockbridge City Manager was on the news tonight saying that taking the property that a florist has been on for more than the 20 years that I've lived here, is the right thing to do for the economy and growth of Stockbridge. It just doesn't seem fair to me.

[freakchylde]

In the case that was decided yesterday, I would argue it didn't meet litmus due to the fact that is wasn't a blighted area that needed economic stimulation to the point it needed to seize land for a strip mall. In fact, it was a fairly well-off area

[justben]

In fact, it was a fairly well-off area.

I'm not sure what to make of that, since by my reading of the court documents, the area was declared legislatively to be in economic peril.

However, I don't agree with the "fair and just" compensation that is given.

This to me seems a reasonable complaint, and one I've heard from other sources as well. I agree that it should probably be investigated and probably addressed.

I will say that there are local governments who will do this.

This certainly sucks, but part of me wonders what the alternative is. If the alternative is for the federal government (in the form of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court) to say that it is absolutely *never* acceptable for governments to take lands for economic reasons, then the anti-Federalist in me tempted to forgive some local errors to avoid broad absolutes.

[freakchylde]

It's something that has to be addressed at the state level, as it's a state level function. It's not the federal government that's yanking land, just the states. :) GA has stuff in the Constitution to prevent that, but from what I've heard it's not enough.

As for Texas, well, they're notorious for having issues with people owning property (least in the Dallas/Denton/Ft Worth area).

[justben]

It's something that has to be addressed at the state level, as it's a state level function.

That's basically what I'm reading in the majority Court opinions: that it's something that can and should be handled at the State or local level.

[heliumphoenix]

The biggest problem here is not the decision the SC made per se, but the precedent it sets. Specifically, that it allows (not mandates, but allows) for the local government (which are notoriously easily swayed by big business) to deprive rightful landowners of their property. Under "normal" emminent domain interpretation, this was not a big deal, since in addition to 'appropriate compensation' for the property, the property was marked for "public use". "Public use" was usually considered to be for the "Public good", ie, roads, schools, utilities, and other public works which are inherently for the benefit of the public which they support

[justben]

I'm not entirely certain that you read my post before composing your reply, since the meat of my post was dedicated to citing facts rebutting precisely the allegations you're making. What am I missing here?