The tyranny of eminent domain

[xagent]

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4147

On February 22nd, the future of property rights in America will be at stake as the Supreme Court begins oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. New London. The central question at issue is: should the government be able to use its power of eminent domain to seize property from one private party and transfer it to another?

The seven property owners on the side of Kelo are the last remaining of more than 70 families whose homes and businesses were targeted for demolition several years ago by the city of New London, Connecticut, to make room for a 90-acre private development. The story of one of the owners, Susette Kelo, is representative. Kelo, a nurse, bought and painstakingly restored a home that initially was so run-down that she needed to cut her way to the front door with a hatchet. After she had achieved her dream home, she was informed in November 2000 by the local government that her home was condemned, and ordered to vacate within 90 days. She and the other owners remain in their homes only by the grace of a court order, which prevents eviction and demolition until their appeals are exhausted.

What justifies this treatment of Kelo and the other owners, who simply want to be free to live on their own property? The seizures and transfers, the government says, are in "the public interest"--because they will lead to more jobs for New London residents and more tax dollars for the government. This type of justification was given more than 10,000 times between 1998 and 2002, and across 41 states, to use eminent domain (or its threat) to seize private property. The attitude behind these seizures was epitomized by a Lancaster, CA, city attorney explaining why a 99¢ Only store should be condemned to make way for a Costco: "99 Cents produces less than $40,000 [a year] in sales taxes, and Costco was producing more than $400,000. You tell me which was more important?"

...

This is unjust and un-American. America was founded on the principle of individual rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What do these rights mean if an individual is not free to remain in and enjoy the house he chooses to build his life around, simply because others are clamoring for a shopping mall? Just as it would be unjust for the government to shut down the printing presses of a newspaper because its reporting is unpopular, so it is unjust for the government to raze a house that an individual has earned, developed, and loves, no matter how many cry that the land should be put to other use.

If the Supreme Court rules against the property owners in Kelo, then no one's home or business is secure. As Dana Berliner, an attorney for the owners, explains: "If jobs and taxes can be a justification for taking someone's home or business then no property in America is safe. Anyone's home can create more jobs if it is replaced by a business and any small business can generate greater taxes if replaced by a bigger one."

This is ridiculous...

If anyone here actually supports the fucking fascists/socialists of Connecticut, I ask them: by what right? It does not matter who would put it to better use. Anything can be justified in the name of the "common good" or on its utilitarian value. Pointless if it means tearing down the property of one man - the product of HIS life's work - even if thousands of people supposedly benefit.

I don't care if this is constitutional or unconstitutional, or whether it falls within the scope of the law or not. It's an immoral law, not only because its violating someone's property rights (you Marxists would argue that all property is theft - so justification based on property rights is meaningless). You're essentially saying that whoever takes this land over(whether its a big multinational corporation, or a government organization) has more rights than the people who rightfully own it. I thought everyone had equal rights in this country?

Whether it goes into the hands of a private developer, or into a public project - fuck both. If private, that private developer needed to resort to fraud, dishonesty, and coersion (via government pull), to seize property it did not earn. If public, you're asking people to give up their rights and their life, for this notion of public interest.

Remember, the main justification of the government is that turning the property over will bring in more tax revenue.


Oh, and where is the ACLU in this? Aren't they the ones that claim when the rights of some criminal are violated, it is injustice for all? Aren't civil libertarians the ones who mistakenly think security and liberty are conflicting values, and any security measure which supposedly deprives a person their civil liberties, compromises the freedom of everyone? There is not even a mention of this on the ACLU site or any so-called civil liberties and human rights websites...

[xagent]

More, less-biased sources, for anyone who will immeditely disregard anything from a source called "Capitalism Magazine"

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2113868&
http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/
http://legalaffairs.org/webexclusive..._emdom0205.msp

[Wren5]

When they're doing that for things like highways then that's just the way it has to be. You don't (or shouldn't at least) get totally screwed, they still pay you for your property. A city's ability to function at a basic level, like finishing a badly needed highway, is more important than the ability of a few people to choose the same piece of property to own for whatever reason.

The taxes thing is kind of pushing it. I'm still thinking about this.

Edit: I appreciate the knock on socialism.

Edit2: Utilitarianism is not a universal truth, I'll admit. There are some things that should be given to a human being regardless of the greater good. But this is reserved for more weighty rights than the choice of where you live, or more realistically, what specific house in a city you live in.

This kind of thing should be caught by democracy, not by rights laws. The people shouldn't have elected officials that would throw them out if they didn't want that. And they should use the appeals process to stall and elect someone else if that is what they want.

[Heinrich Himmler]

Doesn't sound as if they're offering to pay though... just "condemning" a house with orders to evacuate.

Before ForeverLurk opens his fucking trap though, I'll point out that the Nazis, his "wonderful" organization, forced Jew, gays, gypsies, and all other "undesirables" out in the same manner, so before he cries out government oppression, he should consider that methods like this are familiar to him. But the Nazis always cry oppression unless they're the ones doing the oppressing, and FL is as dumb as a cat turd and soft as a sponge so he'll shout his rhetoric anyway.

[xagent]

Originally Posted by Wren5

When they're doing that for things like highways then that's just the way it has to be. You don't (or shouldn't at least) get totally screwed, they still pay you for your property. A city's ability to function at a basic level, like finishing a badly needed highway, is more important than the ability of a few people to choose the same piece of property to own for whatever reason.

The taxes thing is kind of pushing it. I'm still thinking about this.

That would be like me stealing your car, which you refuse to sell, by me leaving you some money as compensation. Theft, regardless. "But I'd drive it more and take better care of it than you!".

Build the highway around the home. Would you support tearing Mt. Rushmore or the Wahsington Memorial, or some national forest to build a highway? Probably not. Yet that is government owned land, owned by the people who'd want to build a road thorugh it. Not the case for Kelo vs. New London. The individual rights of the person who rightfully owns something takes precedence over a road, a condo, an expansion of City Hall, or whatever else. Look at the irony: government can't build on land itself owns, but it has the right to ask someone else to sacrifice their rights and property.

Are you saying that some people have less rights than others?

[Nano]

More needs to be explained about this "private development"

if its a highway, tough cookie, but if its a housing or business development they have no right to seize their property, and they ARE obliged to offer FMV for whatever they DO seize.

[Ray Charles]

I dislike eminent domain for the same reasons xagent had. If it's your property, they shouldn't take it simply because they think that someone else will put it to better use. Think about it this way: you own a truck to drive to work and back, but all the contractor down the street can afford is a subcompact. If the contractor owned the truck, he would use it to it's full potential. Should the city say that you need to hand over the keys? Of course not. Eminent domain is the same principle. That mall will utilize the land in a way that's much more beneficial to the community than you will, but it doesn't give them the right to take yours.

EDIT: wow xagent used the same example while I was writing this. Oh well.

[xagent]

Originally Posted by Nano

More needs to be explained about this "private development"

if its a highway, tough cookie, but if its a housing or business development they have no right to seize their property, and they ARE obliged to offer FMV for whatever they DO seize.

In this case, it is for a private developer. Read the slate.com story:

the lawyer for the city of New London, Conn., pulls out an actual prop. In response to a query from Sandra Day O'Connor as to whether there's a concrete development plan for what would replace the handful of homes being condemned, Wesley W. Horton hauls out a big poster board with the whole proposed community laid out. Condos here, marina here, yank out this crappy little Victorian house and the health club will go there, he enthuses.

Sounds like your typical housing complex, shopping malls, improved homes, etc...


And do you say tough cookie because you think the government has a moral right to do this? Or because it is allowed to do this by law? I'm not debating the law here, as I said in my first post. (blacks segregated? tough cookie. its allowed by state government)

[Nano]

Originally Posted by xagent

That would be like me stealing your car, which you refuse to sell, by me leaving you some money as compensation. Theft, regardless. "But I'd drive it more and take better care of it than you!".

Build the highway around the home. Would you support tearing Mt. Rushmore or the Wahsington Memorial, or some national forest to build a highway? Probably not. Yet that is government owned land, owned by the people who'd want to build a road thorugh it. Not the case for Kelo vs. New London. The individual rights of the person who rightfully owns something takes precedence over a road, a condo, an expansion of City Hall, or whatever else. Look at the irony: government can't build on land itself owns, but it has the right to ask someone else to sacrifice their rights and property.

Are you saying that some people have less rights than others?

Building highways around thing is many times not possible. I'll give a current example: my town is building a second loop around it to decrease traffic saturation on roads coming into town, because my town is the largest area city. This has caused them to force eminent domain on a LOT of people, but its impossible for them to curve around everyone because it would create more chaos, create inefficiency, and cost even more than acquiring the land. No one "sacrifices" much of anything other than property, and they get compensated justly for it, in most cases. If we had to build around every piece of property, there would be no straight roads in this country, and that would be completely idiotic.

[Nano]

Originally Posted by Ray Charles

I dislike eminent domain for the same reasons xagent had. If it's your property, they shouldn't take it simply because they think that someone else will put it to better use. Think about it this way: you own a truck to drive to work and back, but all the contractor down the street can afford is a subcompact. If the contractor owned the truck, he would use it to it's full potential. Should the city say that you need to hand over the keys? Of course not. Eminent domain is the same principle. That mall will utilize the land in a way that's much more beneficial to the community than you will, but it doesn't give them the right to take yours.

EDIT: wow xagent used the same example while I was writing this. Oh well.

There was a local house on some property that was to be acquired for building two 15 or so story buildings for corporate offices and the like. They offered this man half a million for his house, which was valued at about 80k house and land. The man wanted 1 million, and wouldnt take anything less. He still lives there, in a run down house, with an old ass car. Go figure, greedy fucker.

[xagent]

And if you don't support say, tearing down hundreds of homes to build a new GM plant (1981, Poletown case in Michigan - read the slate.com article), why a highway? A highway brings zero revenue. A GM plant brings in millions of tax revenue over some poor homes. I can argue it is better "public use", and will help fund even more highways, and other redistribution programs. My point: No forceful taking away of property or sacrificing anyone's individual rights is ever justified.

Does your "right" to drive from point A to B 15 minutes quicker take superiority over someone else's right to life, liberty, and happiness?

EDIT: LMAO, Sandra Day O'Connor asking the lawyer for New London city:

"'So if you took away a Motel 6 and replaced it with a Ritz
Carlton,' asked O'Connor, 'More taxes. That's OK?'

"'Yes it's OK,' Horton replied quietly."

[Nano]

Originally Posted by xagent

In this case, it is for a private developer. Read the slate.com story:



Sounds like your typical housing complex, shopping malls, improved homes, etc...


And do you say tough cookie because you think the government has a moral right to do this? Or because it is allowed to do this by law? I'm not debating the law here, as I said in my first post. (blacks segregated? tough cookie. its allowed by state government)

in this case, i believe the citizens have a right to protest. Housing developments have no basis for eminent domain.

[mathlete]

They are compensating her, but only at fair market value.

There are two major issues to be decided here. First, should the government compensate more than market value to make up for the trouble? (I honestly thought they did, maybe it was a local law that I got that from).

Next, should the government have to give justification that passes a certain test in order to invoke eminent domain?

I think both are pretty clear that they should be true. However, I disagree that taking land for private interests is always a bad thing since a great public utility can sometimes be gained from this.

[Nano]

Originally Posted by xagent

why a highway? A highway brings zero revenue.

Thats a silly statement, from such a staunch capitalist.

Refined highways allow more efficient movement of materials and products, saving money, meaning that more money will generally be spent, and that totally discounts toll ways and such. And like i said, highways are more justifiable because it isnt always logical to twist around them.

Does your "right" to drive from point A to B 15 minutes quicker take superiority over someone else's right to life, liberty, and happiness?

No ones life, liberty, or happiness is being taken away.

[xagent]

Originally Posted by Nano

Thats a silly statement, from such a staunch capitalist.

Refined highways allow more efficient movement of materials and products, saving money, meaning that more money will generally be spent, and that totally discounts toll ways and such. And like i said, highways are more justifiable because it isnt always logical to twist around them.

That statement was given from a more statist point of view, I was posing a hypothetical. Of course for me the less revenue the government gets, the better.

No ones life, liberty, or happiness is being taken away.

The homeowners; Their innocent life is being dictated by the government; their freedom to live where they want, without harming anyone else, is being taken away; their happiness is cleary being taken away. They were not harming anyone by peacefully living where they lived - whether it was for a road or a condo complex