The Next Supreme

[Avivaldi72]

Chief Justice Thomas?

Those three words do not even belong in the same sentence, let alone as a direct phrase. Why not Chief Justice O'Connor?

Clarence Thomas was one of the worst appointments to the Supreme Court to date, although I am sure Bush & Co can come up with something far worse!

Why not have a woman in the role of Chief Justice?

[NateBrei]

You know when Rehnquist retires, the next Chief Justice will HAVE to be one of the current justices. Although that justice will have to go through a bruising gauntlet of a confirmation hearing, the court won't be able to wait (for years) until someone else could get through the confirmation process based on the current status in congress.

On second thought...maybe someone new should be nominated to the court & as Chief Justice at the same time. That would eliminate the need for one contenious hearing.

<small>[ 06-13-2005, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: NateBrei ]</small>

[Haggis@wk]

From CNN:

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

So much for private property rights. Kennedy and Souter voted with the majority, proving once again just how essential it is that Bush picks somebody reliably - and permanently - conservative when there's an opening.

You can Pi** and Moan about the "Patriot Act" all you want guys, this is a real example of your most important rights being lost.

I can't think of any right more important to most Americans than the right to own property protected from the vicissitudes of local government and now that's in serious jeopardy.

Keep in mind these are liberal justices deciding to give your property to Wal-Mart!

The requirement to pay fair market value is a grossly inadequate safeguard on government power for two reasons in "Kelo."

First, it fails to take into account the subjective valuations placed on the property by people whose families have lived on the land, in at least one case, for a 100 years.

In other words, if the Supreme Court rules for the city, the government will be able to seize land at a price considerably below the reservation price of the owners.

Second, unlike the prototypical eminent domain case, in which the land is seized to build, say, a school or road, in this case the city is using eminent domain to seize property that will then be turned over to a private developer.

If this new development increases the value of the property, all of that value will be captured by the new owner, rather than the forced sellers. As a result, the city will have made itself richer (through higher taxes), and the developer richer, while leaving the forced sellers poorer in both subjectivly and objectivly.

Justice O'Connor's dissent makes the point eloquently:

"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."

I am not impressed at the Supreme Court’s record in this current session.


A small prediction, the reverberation of this case are going to be huge and will probabaly affect the 2008 elections at all levels, local, state and federal.

<small>[ 06-23-2005, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Haggis@wk ]</small>

[piqaboo]

Ptthththt!
I agree with you Haggis,<whine> but you coulda responded where I started the discussion! </whine>

Many states are looking at Prop13-like measures that limit growth in property taxes. The goal is to avoid taxing people out of their homes (can you imagine paying off the mortgage free & clear, then having your neighborhood get trendy, and having your prop taxes go up 10x in a year or two so that you could no longer afford your home?).

I'm for those Prop13-like measures. Those of us who buy into the inflated neighborhood get to pay tax on the inflated value. Fine and fair.

But, this limits local gov't income, giving local gov't a HUGE incentive to eminent domain property and give it to the highest bidder. And rendering folks essentially homeless. My next door neighbors (3 of 4) could never afford to buy into a neighborhood this central again. They might get enough on sale of their home to buy another outright, but they couldnt afford the proptaxes if they did. The articles I've read suggest that some of the folks in the supreme court case are in the same boat. And is it to create those high paying manufacturing jobs? Nope, its to create a lot more of those negatively viewed service sector jobs.

What a crock.

[Shapley]

Haggis,

I couldn't agree more. A bad decision, and a good argument in favour of the "nuclear option". We need conservative judges on the bench!

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

I think these guys are starting to smoke evidence or something. I agree, this is a huge infringement on personal freedom. To me, it's another example of selling out our government to corporations(The Corporate States of America).

I'm very disappointed with the Supremes these days, too. Ever since they lost Diana Ross........

[piqaboo]

Ok, here's my post (on different thread) from 1:44 pm (this morning, my time).
_________________________________________________________

Whats up with the Supreme Court ruling on exercising eminent domain over home-owners in order to build shopping centers?

"The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with New London, ruling that promoting economic development outweighed private property rights. Homeowners argued that since their neighborhood is neither a slum nor crime-ridden, it does not meet legal standards for application of eminent domain." CNN story

So did the Feds. LA Times story

Knocking people out of water-view victorian style homes to build a conference center next door to a pharmaceutical plant. WHY would anyone want to schedule their conference in New London? If anyone is familiar with the area, can you fill me in, please?

<small>[ 06-23-2005, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: piqaboo ]</small>

[Haggis@wk]

I'm sorry Piq, I didn't know you had commented on it elsewhere and since I'd started this thread earlier I just went to it.

Maybe this will convince other that strict interpretation of the Constitution is really, really important.

[piqaboo]

[deflated] yup, this is the right thread for the topic, alrighty [/deflated]

Define strict interpretation.

Based on the actual verbage ("Nor shall property be taken for public use, without just compensation.") of the constitution, this is legal. After all, the public will be using the

Based on an overall reading of the general trends of the Constitution, its not what was intended.

<small>[ 06-23-2005, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: piqaboo ]</small>

[Nicole Marie]

Hi Piq-

New London is a city on the coast in CT. New London went through a time of slow economic development. The side of the city that is on the water was always kept up, beautiful homes, great small shops, eats etc. But go a few blocks inland and it left a bit to be desired, run down buildings etc.

So the town started to attract new companies and started to build up the inland sections. They did a great job and the entire city is doing great. Well it was only a matter of time before attention was turned towards the coastal side of town. Now all these companies and the town want to build on the water. The city is designed as small residential roads that lead off the main part to the water. To build anything of "size" (like the convention center) you have to rip down neighborhoods, take out the small quaint roads, and basically kill the small beautiful neighborhoods. So the city said yeah sure go for it and the neighbors said F$%# YOU and it went to court.

Most of us in CT sided with the neighborhood. This center will destroy the typical New England look we love so much.

[piqaboo]

NM, my point exactly.
Destroy the charm of the town and what is there to attract conventioneers? The warm CT water and beaches? (truely, I am asking, not being smarmy).

At least when San Diego built its oddly shaped convention center, all we destroyed were commercial warehouses and commercial piers (which latter was hotly contested and controversial). And when we "redeveloped" our rather slumly downtown area, we did it one small shopfront at a time, with one exception. There was a historic plaza, named after our first big realestate guy. That was filled into become the worlds most confusing shopping center with the same name: Horton Plaza. This change anchored all the other change. (and boy, did it go three rounds, even tho it was already city property to begin with).

[Nicole Marie]

I wish in CT we developed with the style you outlined Piq.

Recently in CT there seems to be a race with towns. They feel they have to get to the finish line first. My town of West Hartford for example approved a new development without voter approval first (town law says all commercial development must be voted on first) Law suits filed etc in my town over this. This rulling has those of us who love small towns a bit worried. If the government is going to side with town governments and big business then there's not much left for the rest of us. Many of the developers do not want to work with neighborhoods either so there is no way to make all sides happy.

It's too bad. New London is beautiful but the town is sending it right back into the dump it once was. The overdevlepment of it will be what kills the town. There are already several convention centers in the area to compete with. The casinos have a few, Hartford just built a huge one and New Haven and Providence RI have centers. Folks go to New London for "New England" not a convention center. It'll stand empty for a long time.

[Haggis@wk]

For 200 years it was illegal for private party "A" to take private party "B's" property if "B" didn't want to sell it. No more.

I try to avoid histrionics in my posts and modestly believe I’m generally successful. That said, today the Supreme Court just made every property owner in the U.S. a serf, holding property until the Lord (state) finds a more profitable use for it.

Considering how many local politicians are in the pockets of big property developers - and now with this ruling as an incentive, I suspect that number will grow – the environment for abuse is only going to get worse.

Property rights are one of the major factors in the economic success of the U.S. The fact that the owner of property has rights to sell it, keep it, deed it, inherit it, Will it etc. makes economic transactions both easier and more certain. Think of it this way, you are thinking of buying a house, but now you have to not only consider things like the quality of house, the neighborhood but how attractive it might be to a developer in 100 years.

The Supreme Court might have, with this one ruling, deflated the “real estate” bubble; I’ll let you know by next month


Nicole, thanks for the heads up, I thought I had read somewhere that the houses under considerations were not considered to be “blighted,” another condition frequently cited in “Eminent Domain.”

I was going to make some snide comment about Piq’s and OT’s property, but I can’t.

I’m appalled, just appalled.

[piqaboo]

originally posted by HaggisSomewhere;
I was going to make some snide comment about Piq’s and OT’s property, but I can’t.

Oh come on. Try. Just try!
I bet you can do it!


On another note, I agree. I am appalled by the decision. Why is it that the gov't never wants to annex land in Rancho Santa Fe to make a public-use park? I can suggest a good lot for the purpose. Apparently its a good place for a gathering .... Eminent Domain this?

[Nicole Marie]

I hear ya' Haggis and Piq. As a property owner (of several properties - I own rentals too) this has me EXTREMELY worried. I'm going to second guess next time I buy. Is there a possiblility in the future Big Brother will want my land?

Haggis you are right too about local corruption. The Mayor of my town works for a law firm that has dealings with the development compnay that was given the go ahead before the public vote. The town also gave the developer permission to fund the build by bonding out private land. The taxes on my property just increased an average of $1000 from last year to fund this development. It's such a scam... Living off the grid looks better and better each year.

<small>[ 06-23-2005, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Nicole Marie ]</small>

[BigJon@Work]

How sad! I was positive that the Supremes would rule in favor of the induhvidal. Here is one case where Congress needs to pass a law.

BigJon

[Shapley]

NM,

This ruling has removed all motivation for developers to bother dealing with the property owners. Want to develop, just pick your site, go the government, which will "condemn" it to lower the market value. The government will seize it, and sell it to the developer, who will pay the "fair market value", with a few bucks thrown in to the politicians "campaign fund", and happily go about his business.

This isn't as far fetched as it seems. About a decade ago, in St. Louis, MO, a small two-story commercial building, which housed, I believe, a flower shop and a handful of offices upstairs, stood next to a five-story office building belonging to a well-connected legal firm. The legal firm wanted to expand, and the little flower shop was in the way, and they didn't want to sell (it was a profitable business). The law firm went to city hall, who condemned the building as "economically underutilizing" the ground it occupied. I never heard the outcome of the case, as it didn't make the local Cape Girardeau papers (I read about it while in the St. Louis area). It was my understanding that they lost, and couldn't afford the legal fight through the appeals process, but I could be wrong. They may have accepted the pre-condemnation price before the proceedings were completed. In any case, dirty politics was at work, and this case has opened the door to more of it.

Of course, I saw it coming with the "Rails to Trails" act, but most people didn't agree with me on that one.

V/R
Shapley

[BigJon@Work]

Hoo Boy! All the big hitters on this board agreeing on something? Watch for a dimensional space-time rift to open somewhere over the US.

BigJon

[piqaboo]

Spell out what bothered you about the Rails to Trails act, please?

[Shapley]

In an nutshell:

Property owners and railroad companies hammered out right-of-way agreements years ago, under terms of which the right-of-way reverts back to the property owners when the railroad abandons them.

The government, seeking a cheap way to establish more public-use areas, voided the terms of those agreements by holding the right-of-ways (with no payments to the property owners) as public-use areas in the interim, until the railroads should need them again (even though the railroads have indicated that that wasn't likely to happen, and would likely be fully capable of negotiating right-of-way agreements in the future, and at locations meeting those future requirements, should there ever be any).

In short, the government stole the property, under pretense of extending the right-of-way agreement to which they were not a party, acting as an agent for the railroad, which had not contracted them to do so.

V/R
Shapley.

<small>[ 06-23-2005, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>