US Supreme Court has gone mad!

[Commy]

US Supreme Court has gone mad!

I think the key word here is "US"...actually, I'm not surprised, stupid Americans...wait, I am an American...time to move to Europe now...

See, one thing that I used to like about America was that the federal government used to have little control over such matters...until Bush and friends came along...

Anyway, most laws and issues were delt with by the state or local people, so if you didn't like the law, you simply moved 5 miles north into the next county, sometimes moving to different states if things got real bad...

But now, with stupid fascists running our country...time to head off to Russia...I guess that Russian flag is there for a reason besides the fact its easy to spot on Poly...

[Berzerker]

I've never thought this day would come, that the marxists would turn out to be correct.....

You mean the people who made eminent domain an ideology?

[Zkribbler]

A decade ago, I worked in L.A.'s eminent domain court. And what I saw there was that this power is usually used for is slum clearance.

For example, what is now downtown L.A. used to be old mansions which had been deteriorated and were being used as boarding houses. Now it's towering spires of glass and steel.

Chavez Ravine was taken in the late 50's, so that a private enterprise -- Dodger Stadium -- could be built.

Is just compensation paid for these takings?? Well, uh, theoretically. However, govenmental entities are notorious for undervaluing the property. A whole new breed of contingency lawyers have sprung. Their fees are based upon a percentage of the increased price they can get you.

Someone asked which governments can "take" -- all of them. Cities, states, counties, cities, school districts...what blew me away is when I found out that even California Edison (a private utility) has this power.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker


You mean the people who made eminent domain an ideology?

And managed to put it in the Constitution a full 31 years before Marx himself was even born. Those sneaky, time-travelling bastards!

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
A decade ago, I worked in L.A.'s eminent domain court. And what I saw there was that this power is usually used for is slum clearance.

For example, what is now downtown L.A. used to be old mansions which had been deteriorated and were being used as boarding houses. Now it's towering spires of glass and steel.

Chavez Ravine was taken in the late 50's, so that a private enterprise -- Dodger Stadium -- could be built.

Yep, and if anyone here knew about New London, CT, they'd know the entire city is basically a slum . Most politicians aren't going to go willy nilly taking over houses if it isn't located in a slum area because they like their jobs.

[Berzerker]

And managed to put it in the Constitution a full 31 years before Marx himself was even born. Those sneaky, time-travelling bastards!

I didn't say they invented it, just that they made it into an ideology.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Most politicians aren't going to go willy nilly taking over houses if it isn't located in a slum area because they like their jobs.

Why not? It didn't stop the siezure of homes that weren't in a slum area in this case.

"Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
"Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

This is a true statement. The question is: is this a bad thing?

Would you rather your neighbor was a Motel 6 or the Ritz? The Ritz upgrades the neighborhood.
Shopping malls bring in a lot of sale taxes and take the pressure off other taxes.
Factory's provide more jobs and more taxes than farms.

That is why these takings are considered to be for a "public use."

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Berzerker


I didn't say they invented it, just that they made it into an ideology.

It already was an ideology - the ideology that the State could act in the public interest, as long as it treated fairly its private citizens while doing so. It's a good ideology and, incidently, a vast improvement over the old ideology of "the King does what he pleases." But if what that has turned into is that the State can hand your house over to a coporation for private development, it's got f*ck-all to do with Marx -- except that Marx would have predicted that, in a capitalist society, this is what the State would eventually do.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
This is a true statement. The question is: is this a bad thing?

I'd rather that the government not have the unfettered authority to sieze my land for private commercial use because a developer thought it would be easier to get the government to force me out rather than try and deal with me.

[Berzerker]

It already was an ideology - the ideology that the state could act in the public interest, as long as it treated fairly its private citizens while doing so.

You cant treat private citizens fairly when one loses their property to another, thats why the commies assumed control over everyone's property - thats fair
And that is making an ideology out of eminent domain...
The fact eminent domain was practiced in certain situations doesn't mean the Marxists didn't turn it into an ideology - the basis for structuring an entire society.

If what that has turned into is that the state can hand your house over to a coporation for private development, it's got f*ck-all to do with Marx -- except that Marx would have predicted that, in a capitalist society, this is what the state would eventually do.

Which is why I pointed out the irony of Marxists predicting a bad thing only to use that bad thing as the basis for an ideology.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why not? It didn't stop the siezure of homes that weren't in a slum area in this case.

"Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Did you even read my post? New London, CT, is basically a huge slum. It's even worse than New Haven.

[Berzerker]

Well, the decision was more limited than that. Its natural the government would call in developers to develop land it just obtained via eminent domain. The developer is getting a 99 year lease for $1 and has to operate according to government mandates, so the property is "owned" by the government. Its the reasoning I reject, its one thing when government uses eminent domain to perform a constitutional function like building and maintaining a naval fleet, like a dockyard, and quite another when the land is taken to build a hotel to increase the tax base. It isn't the function of government to increase the tax base...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Did you even read my post? New London, CT, is basically a huge slum.

Your condescension aside the New London case wasn't about houses that were in a slum. If it were, it would have already been safely covered by Berman v. Parker.