Eminent Domain

Arathena · Post by **Arathena** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:33 am

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... roperty_dc

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case on the power of the local or state government to seize property(with 'fair' compensation), for leasing to private redevelopers.

The tradtional useage of Eminant Domain has been to build public services that, for various assorted reasons, can go in no other place, such as roads, or location sensitive services, such as firehouses, and it demands that the property so siezed be used for public functions.

The city, of course, is arguing that increased revenues and a better local economy will result from this, thus satisfying the public use requirements. The neighborhood association is arguing that this is effectively theft of their property for the benefit of private businesses.

Yeah. Go Go Government Smash and Grab, take from the citizenry. Sorry, Town council, you shouldn't get to bulldoze my house and displace my family by force because you'll get more tax dollars out of a widget store. That's not what Eminent domain's for.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:51 am

Well said, Arathena.

I hope the SC rules in the right direction.

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:12 am

Relbeek Einre wrote:Well said, Arathena.

I hope the SC rules in the right direction.

I thought you would want it to rule in the left direction.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:15 am

I think both the right and the left would agree on this one:

Personal property rights are paramount in this case.

It's just the corporate whore neocons who'd disagree.

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:36 am

I disagree, I know a few non corporate greedy devloper bastard types that would jump on board.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:01 am

In recent years, the concept of eminent domain has been stretched to the absurd. In my mind, this is a flagrant violation of property rights. It's an abuse of power (albeit one born of desperation and cowardice on the part of local governments)

What is interesting here, is if the SC makes a finding that the taking of the land is illegal, then some local governments will be in worse shape when they have to reimburse property owners for the present, re-developed value of the land, and then also comepensate them for lost revenues. And if a jury gets a hold of it, punitive damages may be added on top of it.

Tromor · Post by **Tromor** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:15 am

This case is at least almost debatable. There are cases out there where a county or city has closed down one store, and given the land to another.

Washington DC is trying to do that right now; close up an old shopping center so 'better' shops can open up. Rather than do this by buying out the old stores, they are trying to use emi eminent domain.

I hope the SC shuts this down hard and swift.

Akhbarali · Post by **Akhbarali** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:20 am

This one would seem like a Constitutional slam dunk if not for some mixed messages from the courts on the issue of using Emminent Domain for private redevelopment. I am sympathetic to the dilema faced by local governments trying to redevelop blighted areas but private property rights are one of the cornerstones of our Democracy. They should not be weakened for economic expedience. The court should put an end to "taking" for private devolpment and leave these negotiations where they belong, in the hands of developers and property owners. I say this as a former Urban Planner that is well aware of the enormous collective benefit that can come from aggresive private redevelopment.

I do not percieve this to be as much a left-right issue as it is a buearacracy/politico/big business vs individuals issue.

Akhbar

Aquinas · Post by **Aquinas** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:51 am

I worked for a federal judge for a bit. The judge in the chambers next to us had a similar case. There were a number of disheveled lots that the city of Cypress had allowed a local church to take over and build a mega-church. The church came in and cleaned the area up, significantly increasing the property value. As they began to build Cypress, impressed with the good job the church did cleaning the lots up, decided to take it and give it to Costco. They argued the same type of thing: Higher local taxes and more jobs equaled a public use. Judge Carter handed their ass to them.

http://www.rluipa.com/media/TBF080602.html

Klast Brell · Post by **Klast Brell** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:19 am

It happened in minnesota as well when eminent domain was used to give Best Buy a new headquarters.