Government Power to Take Property Backed by Top Court

[m3talsmith_redu]

Government Power to Take Property Backed by Top Court

Should the government have the right to take 'private property' from any group or person, to use for any purpose, even if it means giving it to another private group or person?

[m3talsmith_redu]

My feelings are that private property should stay exactly that, private. Which means there should be no federal regulations or wanton land grabs, et cetera.

The reason is that, if given this option, it creates another monopoly for the powerful, it's not constitutional (if you had true private property, which most people do not), and it's a blatant abuse of our Government onto those who cannot defend themselves.

An example locally. There was a private law firm with a huge building here in my town 10 years ago or so. The city wanted their post office there, but they didn't want to own the building. The lawyers refused to lease it. One of the wealthier town families wanted to own it. So the city took the building, parking lot and land, from the lawyers, sold it to the rich family for $1, then the family in turn leased it back to the city on a triple net lease term and made the city responsible for all maintenance. So the cities raised taxes, via a hike in city utilities which also uses the new building, to make the people of the city pay for this expense rip off of a building, the rich people get richer with only a $1 investment, and the law firm got screwed out of their office space having to lease one down the block vs. owning their own.

That's just one example.

[PatrickHenry]

Eminent domain is the term for this action by government. The SCOTUS majority got it wrong. This reduces the concept of private property to a vague and unenforceable concept. What the Court said is that, in essence, you hold your property in lieu of the government's need to redistribute it for their own purposes and friends. If the government can show a need for the property for government's OWN USE, I can see a case for eminent domain. But to sieze private property for the use of another private entity is misusing government powers, IMO.

This means you rent your property from the government, paying property taxes as your rent. And the gov can throw you out if they decide they want to do something else with your property. See, it's not really yours.(irony)

This is tyranny.

60 Minutes did a segment on this last year: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in575343.shtml

[Osborn F Enready]

Great thread, thanks for the information and the link.

[m3talsmith_redu]

Quote by: PatrickHenry This means you rent your property from the government, paying property taxes as your rent. And the gov can throw you out if they decide they want to do something else with your property. See, it's not really yours.(irony) This is tyranny.

I agree with you completely.

[The Dunedan]

Keep your powder dry, folks. It won't be long now.

[Lou Minotti]

The Founding Father's revolted over less...Pure Tyranny. No other name for it.

[Lou Minotti]

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random...'' The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.''

- Lord O'Connor gets it right for once...

[Zeebadee]

If you think this decision was bad, wait until Bush gets a couple of his choices confirmed, including the Chief Justice. The journey to the demise of America as we know it is steadily accelerating.

[fedfem]

I am hoping there is something we are missing or a misunderstanding. I am off to find the actual case in question.

[m3talsmith_redu]

Quote by: fedfem I am hoping there is something we are missing or a misunderstanding. I am off to find the actual case in question.

From what I heard from NPR (not a reliable source in my books) this related directly to a planned city development 'for the good of the city'.

I'll have the read the opinions myself too.

[RickSp]

How can the government do this?

It is entirely constitutional, which of course does not mean that it is right. To put this case in particular and eminent domain in general into context, one need only look at the "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment which reads: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The Constitution legalizes the taking of private property for public use with the provision that just compensation shall be provided. (To suggest that the Founding Father revolted over less is interesting as the Founding Fathers made this legal in the first place.)

The issue in this case was whether the development of a research facility for Pfizer in conjunction with a state and federal project to redevelop the New London waterfront qualifies as "public use" under the constitution. The Justices ruled that it does.

From today's NY Times:

[T]he majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens resolved a question that had surprisingly gone unanswered for all the myriad times that governments have used their power under the Fifth Amendment to take private property for public use. The question was the definition of "public use." [T]he majority concluded on Thursday that public use was properly defined more broadly as "public purpose." Justice Stevens noted that earlier Supreme Court decisions interpreting the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment had allowed the use of eminent domain to redevelop a blighted neighborhood in Washington, to redistribute land ownership in Hawaii and to assist a gold-mining company, in a decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1906. "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Justice Stevens said, adding, "Clearly, there is no basis for exempting economic development from our traditionally broad understanding of public purpose." In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor objected that "the words 'for public use' do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power." Justice O'Connor said, "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded."

Justices Uphold Taking Property for Developing

I happen to agree with the dissenting view. Nevertheless, however you look at it, the provision and the process is indeed constitutional.

[Lou Minotti]

the provision and the process is indeed constitutional.

Do you seriously think this is what the Founding Father's intended when they wrote the Constitution?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Lou Minotti Do you seriously think this is what the Founding Father's intended when they wrote the Constitution?

I think the language of the "Takings Clause" is clear. The Founders intent that the judiciary should interpret law is also clear. The ruling is based on explict language from the Fifth Amendment. The Founders could not see two hundred years into the future so they provided that the Supreme Court Justices can interpret language, such as the meaning of "public use" in a 21st century context.

This is an example of why I am a libertarian but not a constitutionalist. For its first seventy years the constitution explictly supported slavery. It was completely constitutional. Just because it is constitutional, does not make it right.

[Lou Minotti]

I think the language of the "Takings Clause" is clear.

If it's so clear why do we need a bunch of political cronies to tell us what they want us to think it means?

[m3talsmith_redu]

Notice guys, this thread is not about whether it's constitutional. As Patrick pointed out, it is completely. This thread is whether it's right or not, and under what circumstances.

I think that both PH and RickSP agree that it's not right. As I do to.

And there are other issues involved here. What would you consider 'public use'? What is considered 'just compensation'? Should just compensation be budgeted federally, state wide, or locally? Should it be based on a sliding scale that slides based property value in the local area plus the housing market trends, sentimental value, future living conditions, span several years worth so that a proper life can be restored, et cetera?

You see what I mean?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Lou Minotti If it's so clear why do we need a bunch of political cronies to tell us what they want us to think it means?

You are scary Lou. Do you even try to pay attention? Nevermind.

[Lou Minotti]

I'm scary? At least I don't make excuses for the corporate slave state.

[RickSp]

Quote by: m3talsmith_redu Notice guys, this thread is not about whether it's constitutional. As Patrick pointed out, it is completely. This thread is whether it's right or not, and under what circumstances. I think that both PH and RickSP agree that it's not right. As I do to. And there are other issues involved here. What would you consider 'public use'? What is considered 'just compensation'? Should just compensation be budgeted federally, state wide, or locally? Should it be based on a sliding scale that slides based property value in the local area plus the housing market trends, sentimental value, future living conditions, span several years worth so that a proper life can be restored, et cetera? You see what I mean?

With all due respects didn't you start one post by suggesting that this was unconstitutional? And when did Patrick point out that it was constitutional? I must have missed that.

This entire case centered on the definition of "public use." Just compensation in this case was not a particular issue. It was considered to be fair market value of the homes to be taken, presumably without a pain and suffering premium.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Lou Minotti I'm scary? At least I don't make excuses for the corporate slave state.

I was wrong. Amusing is the more accurate.