This just horrifies me

[spittin_in_the_wind]

I just wrote to my state senator and state representative asking them to introduce legislation to make this practice illegal in my state. Perhaps all the outraged homeowners in this country should follow suit...

Robin

[Chuck_Clark]

I honestly can't believe the Supreme Court came to this decision. It's appalling.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/23/scotu ... index.html

Redwolf

Heavens! Horrifying and appalling don't begin to describe it! Why even bother to pretend there are such things as private property rights anymore?

Sara

AMEN!!!

The local city has planned for 25 years to build a second reservoir. They started proceedings then stopped then started then stopped... (you get the picture). Throughout it all, they went along merrily condemning and grabbing farms, and in may cases then leased the production rights back to the dispossessed owners. Betting is running heavily that, between the city and the Corps of Ditchdiggers and Levee Extenders, said lake will never be built. Now what?

What I get a hoot out of in all this is how outrage cuts straight across normal ideological lines. That and the fact that the Court break was the EXACT Opposite of what I would have expected.

Just when I think I knw what's going on...

[Wormdiet]

Anyone familiar at all with William Gibson's work? Among his various ideas, he envisioned a global society where corporate entities were the actual powers (with paid military bodies) and government became relegated to a pro forma status, at least by comparison, and in actuality served as a functioning arm of whatever corporate power had the best leverage.

And to think I once thought the "future" would be a cool thing.

Neal Stephenson's book Snow Crash takes the same idea and turns it into a satire. Brilliant, hilarious book btw.

[Lorenzo]

If anyone is interested in reading the court's syllabus, here's the text:
Kelo vs. City of New London

As one who has long been involved in takings issues, this is extremely interesting to me. This opens up the way for the privilege to be abused, IMO. It's a little disconcerting to think the only recourse is to vote the officials out of office...and that's not out of the question.

-from the summary:

• this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the . . . public."

It goes on talking about the city's plan and how the carefully formulated development would rejuvenate the local economy.

• Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment.

The dissenting opinion of O'Connor and Thomas is interesting. Good reading all 'round. Thanks for the link, Redwolf.

[dwinterfield]

I've been waiting to see how this case came out and I don't like it.

I've skimmed the 1st part of the majority position and looked at some of the dissents and arrived at a bunch of contradictory conclusions.

* I get scared when I come to the same conclusion as A. Scalia.
* The majority's arguement is thoughtfully reasoned and makes sense.
* This is going to create a significant new issue in state and local politics. The decision rightly places policies on eminent domain with the states.
* Bloomfield's comments on judicial activism get it right. The quality of political debate would improve if everyone acknowledged that our feelings about judicial activism are almost entirely predictable on where the court comes out on a particular issue. When we like the finding either it's not judicial activism or it's okay this time. When we don't like the finding it's outrageous judicial activism. (The right has more to apologize for in this regard than the left.)
* I hope this gives pause to the strict constructionists out there. I think the majority followed the rules, reasoned carefully, properly deferred to the states and made a terrible decision. The framers produced a magnificant Constitution - a truly great framework for a government. But it's not perfect. It doesn't provide a good answer on every issue. It needs to evolve over time. We, as a society, face complex issues that the 18th century framers could not have imagined. We should do what they did - take basic ideas of liberty, justice, democracy, equality and apply them in the modern world (as they did in their time) and find solutions that give us a better society. Looking backwards won't find all the answers for the future.
* The dissents are right in expressing concern that this will lead to economic and racial injustice. It also opens new doors for corruption.
Bad decision

[jbarter]

What form of compensation do the dispossessed get?

[I.D.10-t]

It goes on talking about the city's plan and how the carefully formulated development would rejuvenate the local economy.

• Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment.

The thing that I do not understand is how improving the economy is always considered in the public good. Our great state has gambling to bring in tourists (economic good) but I wonder about the additional costs associated with it. It does not seem to help the tribe people proportionately to the revenue created. I find that tourism a horrible thing to base an economy on. It produces nothing, and leaves you dependent on the wealth of others. Not a good long-term source of income (IMO).

So whom does it really help? (Puts on tinfoil hat.) The government has the most to gain. So why would the government need extra funds if it has primary interest is not the public good?

[Joseph E. Smith]

... disgusting. I am so fed up and tired of my tax dollar going to fund this kind of Bull****!

[dwinterfield]

What form of compensation do the dispossessed get?

In the New London case and most eminent domain cases the folks forced to leave are paid the so-called fair market value for their property. Generally this is determined by professional property assessors. In the New London case I've heard the dispossessed on tv several times over the years and I don't think their issue was the adequacy of compensation. It was always that several extended families had lived there for several generations and they don't want to go.

That said, adequacy of compensation would always seem like a potential area for abuse in any eminent domain case. Especially when the people being forced out are poor.

[missy]

I've seen compensation be fair, then I've seen it be notoriously unfair.

In one case here, the village declared the area a "blight" area. So, instead of true market value, the people were offered about 1/4 of what their homes were worth.
I also know of one case where a school district tried to take a farm over, and was only going to pay what they thought the "farm" was worth, not what the land was worth if it was subdivided (this was in an area that was going through major growth). All the neighbors got together and told the school board if they did this, they would makes sure another levy was never passed. The school backed down (it was a stupid place to put the school, anyway).

[dwinterfield]

All the neighbors got together and told the school board if they did this, they would makes sure another levy was never passed. The school backed down.

That's my idea of local government at its best.

[spittin_in_the_wind]

Well, my state rep wrote back to me and said he agrees and will make sure the legislation is introduced. What about yours?

Robin

[dubhlinn]

It ain't exactly a new strategy this taking from the poor and giving to the rich....


Check this out.

Dick Gaughans rendition is the pick of the bunch by far

Not all of the links are active..just the ones of the well known lefties... funny that

Slan,
D.

[I.D.10-t]

Well, my state rep wrote back to me and said he agrees and will make sure the legislation is introduced. What about yours?

Robin

Al right, I am willing, I just have one question. If I were to write such a letter. What points should be made. The court decent seemed kind of long winded, what are the main points that should be mentioned?

[jsluder]

It ain't exactly a new strategy this taking from the poor and giving to the rich....


Check this out.

Dick Gaughans rendition is the pick of the bunch by far

Excellent song, and Dick Gaughan's version is very very good. But I'm particularly fond of Karan Casey's rendition (with harmony vocals by guitarist John Doyle) off her album "Songlines". I really like her voice, and I'm a sucker for vocal harmony (if it's done well).