US Supreme Court has gone mad!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Smiley

The original Joe 6 pack anecdote made no mention of sweat equity, merely sit and drink beer and wait for property value to go up.

It matters not whether there is sweat equity or not the chilling effect goes to all RE speculative ventures.

However if you are adamantly opposed to land speculation and feel that brings no value to the table and further requires no work you are entitled to that mistaken impression.

[notyoueither]

I'd be inclined to agree with you on most things, Ogie, but I fail to see what speculation has ever created, other than rich speculators.

[:) Smiley]

Speculation and urban planning are frequently at odds with each other, the most visible consequence being ugly vacant lots or boarded-up buildings in the middle of downtowns while prime farmland outside the city gets paved into parking lots.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
And to add a final note, from the last paragraph of an article on pages A3 and A10 of the WSJ about this decision :


Five projects, and this is only one developer. Which supports my point about increased (ab)use of Eminent Domain.

Actually that paragraph seems to show why those believing that there is going to be a massive increase in eminent domain are being silly. It shows that this practice is ALREADY being used frequently and that most towns and muncipalities have been using eminent domain for private parties... which is the only reason that 5 projects would be threatened by an adverse ruling.

[Mr. Harley]

Actually, Imran, it appears - and I will admit this is anecdotal observation over a couple of decades - that there has been increasing use/misuse of Eminent Domain for these economic development/transfer of property to private developers for years. My quote shows that the development companies were quite aware that they were on the razor edge of the traditional use of Eminent Domain, and were worried that the courts would be unfavorable. That quote if anything indicates now they will be even less cautious, by inference.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I doubt it would make much of a difference. People seem to forget that politicians have their primary eye on reelection... and companies prefer to avoid bad PR.

[Mr. Harley]

It depends on the level of the politics, the amount of money involved, and the amount of people involved. The higher the level of politics, i.e. the more removed from local voters, the more money they get from developers, i.e. the more paid political ads they can run to convince suckers - uh I mean voters - to cast their ballot for them, and the smaller the number of people involved - we want to bisect Joe Farmer's fields for that road to our new light industrial development complex, then the worse it is. I respectfully disagree, Imran, it is going to make a difference, and in a negative sense. Even if New London is a slum - it's these people's HOMES. They should not be made to move to enrich some development group.

[Berzerker]

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court upheld 50 years of precedent today,"

The Mayor is pleased ~150 years of precedent was ignored?

Imran

You do realize there is a difference between the state and private business, right? Right?

Did I say there was no difference? Someone said the Marxists predicted corporations using eminent domain laws to take people's property. I said there is irony in people who turned eminent domain into an ideology making that criticism. Now you think I'm equating the state with private businesses?

And as usual Boortz is the master of the obvious. They could do that BEFORE this ruling. If they wanted to build a park, they could take your land in a second.

He mentioned the early history of the practice and explained why this is different. What is your problem?

Ogie

He obviously was referring to transfer of private property from one private individual/enterprise to another via governmental machinations as he referred to the obvious historical use of eminant domain in the beginning of his rantings.

Obviously... Get back on your meds, Imran

[Imran Siddiqui]

He mentioned the early history of the practice and explained why this is different. What is your problem?

His whole rant that your property is actually the government's as a result of this ruling is just pure bombast, meant to rile the reader into thinking this ruling takes away more of their property rights! When, of course, it doesn't. It simply allows the taking that has gone on for decades to benefit another party.

It's sloppy writing, meant, obviously, to rile up people, even though the consequences of that passage are already established, for many, many years.

[Mr. Harley]

The problem is that in the past there was some question as to that misuse of Eminent Domain, and that served at least as a partial check on the worst misuse. Now there is absolutely no question, and you will see the misuse increased, IMHO.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
The problem is that in the past there was some question as to that misuse of Eminent Domain, and that served at least as a partial check on the worst misuse. Now there is absolutely no question, and you will see the misuse increased, IMHO.

Even if that is so, do you think that Americans have lost more of their right to property by this ruling? Do you think this ruling means that it is more likely (afterwards) that the government really owns your property?

I mean it's just foolishness to say that people had more property rights and the government had less power before this ruling.

[Mr. Harley]

It's not the more property rights, or the government's power Imran. It is the application, and the clarity supplied by this ruling, that makes a bad situation even worse. If you remember my posts on the first thread, way back when SCOTUS took the case, I have always been highly critical of Eminent Domain for economic development. If someone didn't like the prior situation, this just makes it worse.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's not the more property rights, or the government's power Imran.

I suggest you re-read the Boortz article again, especially the part we are discussing.

[Berzerker]

His whole rant that your property is actually the government's as a result of this ruling is just pure bombast, meant to rile the reader into thinking this ruling takes away more of their property rights! When, of course, it doesn't. It simply allows the taking that has gone on for decades to benefit another party.

It's sloppy writing, meant, obviously, to rile up people, even though the consequences of that passage are already established, for many, many years.

What exactly did he say that is untrue? You keep saying this is nothing new only to follow that up with something that is new - "It simply allows the taking that has gone on for decades to benefit another party."

You dont consider this relevant? If increasing the tax base is a good enough reason, then who but the very powerful can avoid losing their property?

[chequita guevara]

One of the problems is that eminent domain has previously only been used to destroy blighted communities. Recently, in Long Beach, NJ and a case in Ohio (watched Now last night), the definition of "blighted" was expanded to mean not multimillion dollar businesses or homes. In the Ohio case, I can kinda understand it, cuz the whole rest of the community sold and and only one couple refused to sell. The NJ case was much worse, as it seems most of the residents refused to give up their beach front property, only to have it seized so yuppies could move in.