Tweet
Are we talking, state, county, city, city block -- which have the right to seize property now?
-
The government in the US has always been able to seize property for public purposes, with proper compensation (i.e., normally rather generous). This decision made clear that "public purposes" is to be construed broadly.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891 -
Correctly meaning Fair Market Value, as it always has been for eminent domain.Originally posted by dv8ed
Define "correctly". I somehow doubt it will be what the owners would have sold for before this ruling (assuming they would have sold at all.)Yes.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
That's an area for potential abuse that I see. The owner will get a better than market price, but the owner probably will be constrained in pushing up the price for his plot when he's the last to sell, etc.Define "correctly". I somehow doubt it will be what the owners would have sold for before this ruling (assuming they would have sold at all.)Originally posted by dv8ed
Yes.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
They should have done this on the Summer Solstice - with that lovely full moon. So far we have The Diplomat, Mr. Fun, Dinodoc, Stuie, Gepap, St. Leo, Impaler, Oerdin, JohnT, Lawrence of Arabia, Tuberski, Ogie, Boann (I checked her thread) and myself (my adjective is OBSCENE) all in agreement. If we can get Ned and Che to post and agree - it's a blue moon!
I'm not quite sure where dv8ed, Imran and MtG fall on this (their posts don't make it clear), and of course DanS is our lone dissenter.The worst form of insubordination is being right - Keith D., marine veteran. A dictator will starve to the last civilian - self-quoted
And on the eigth day, God realized it was Monday, and created caffeine. And behold, it was very good. - self-quoted
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.
Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I'm very sorry… I wish it were otherwise.Comment
-
Lone dissenter? I said I saw both sides of the coin.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
OK - seeing both sides is the closest thing to dissent we have in this case, and you seem to be fairly comfortable with the decision. So in the name of intellectual argument at Apolyton,
.
The worst form of insubordination is being right - Keith D., marine veteran. A dictator will starve to the last civilian - self-quoted
And on the eigth day, God realized it was Monday, and created caffeine. And behold, it was very good. - self-quoted
Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.
Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I'm very sorry… I wish it were otherwise.Comment
-
Just because I'm not foaming at the mouth, I'm "fairly comfortable with the decision?"
To be clear, as a city taxpayer, this decision is probably in my interest in an immediate and tangible manner. The city is about to use eminent domain to acquire about $125 million in land for a new ballpark.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
I am disgusted at having to agree with Thomas, that's what i hate. I can;t really think of any decisions I have agreed with him on-Scalia a few times before, but never, EVER Thomas.
I feel so dirty.
Damn you Souter!
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard ShawComment
-
Wow... the liberal 4 have now pissed off the left to no end in this session of the Court (first with med pot and now with this). Maybe it's a ploy to make it look as though CJ Scalia isn't such a bad idea to those on the left.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
They should have done this on the Summer Solstice - with that lovely full moon. So far we have The Diplomat, Mr. Fun, Dinodoc, Stuie, Gepap, St. Leo, Impaler, Oerdin, JohnT, Lawrence of Arabia, Tuberski, Ogie, Boann (I checked her thread) and myself (my adjective is OBSCENE) all in agreement. If we can get Ned and Che to post and agree - it's a blue moon!
I'm not quite sure where dv8ed, Imran and MtG fall on this (their posts don't make it clear), and of course DanS is our lone dissenter.
lol .. amazing isn't it...
"If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun." -Katherine HepburnComment
-
Here too. The higher the institution that can seize property, the less chance for corruption. If only federal government could do it, it would only be used for highways and military bases but if city governments can do it (can't here) it leaves much room for corruption.Originally posted by DanS
The government in the US has always been able to seize property for public purposes, with proper compensation (i.e., normally rather generous). This decision made clear that "public purposes" is to be construed broadly.Comment
-
In the US, there are a number of factors that determine what level of government is the least accountable to the people. But most political decisions are still made at the local level.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Wow, this ruling just screams "corruption", it's amazing.
But I am curious about one thing: I thought the supreme court decided whether a law was constitutional or not. So, which political body produced this decision in the first place?"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- DisComment
-
The city of New London, Connecticut.
Petitioners are nine resident or investment owners of 15 homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut. Petitioner Wilhelmina Dery, for example, lives in a house on Walbach Street that has been in her family for over 100 years. She was born in the house in 1918; her husband, petitioner Charles Dery, moved into the house when they married in 1946. Their son lives next door with his family in the house he received as a wedding gift, and joins his parents in this suit. Two petitioners keep rental properties in the neighborhood.
In February 1998, Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceuticals manufacturer, announced that it would build a global research facility near the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Two months later, New London's city council gave initial approval for the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) to prepare the development plan at issue here. The NLDC is a private, nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist the city council in economic development planning. It is not elected by popular vote, and its directors and employees are privately appointed. Consistent with its mandate, the NLDC generated an ambitious plan for redeveloping 90 acres of Fort Trumbull in order to "complement the facility that Pfizer was planning to build, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the city's waterfront, and eventually 'build momentum' for the revitalization of the rest of the city." App. to Pet. for Cert. 5.
Petitioners own properties in two of the plan's seven parcels--Parcel 3 and Parcel 4A. Under the plan, Parcel 3 is slated for the construction of research and office space as a market develops for such space. It will also retain the existing Italian Dramatic Club (a private cultural organization) though the homes of three plaintiffs in that parcel are to be demolished. Parcel 4A is slated, mysteriously, for " 'park support.' " Id., at 345-346. At oral argument, counsel for respondents conceded the vagueness of this proposed use, and offered that the parcel might eventually be used for parking. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36.
To save their homes, petitioners sued New London and the NLDC, to whom New London has delegated eminent domain power. Petitioners maintain that the Fifth Amendment prohibits the NLDC from condemning their properties for the sake of an economic development plan. Petitioners are not hold-outs; they do not seek increased compensation, and none is opposed to new development in the area. Theirs is an objection in principle: They claim that the NLDC's proposed use for their confiscated property is not a "public" one for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. While the government may take their homes to build a road or a railroad or to eliminate a property use that harms the public, say petitioners, it cannot take their property for the private use of other owners simply because the new owners may make more productive use of the property.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Of course, considering the outrage, the Congress will obviously pass a law that will make this ruling irrelevant, won't it?
"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- DisComment
Comment