June 23, 2005

• "It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area Isn't that why they call you a 'judge'? That feudalism just keeps rolling along, doesn't it?
• This is a travesty. "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party..." Nice. Plus, the New London houses to be razed aren't even in a blighted area. They're going to be torn down to make way for a hotel & business park, to generate tourist dollars. All Hail the Mighty Dollar!! fucktards
• It's like they've turned the country's homeowners into squaters overnight. WTF?
• = squatters
• All of them up against the wall when the revolution comes.
• Not news here in Texas. A few years back, a bunch of homes were leveled here, many agaist the owners' will, to expand a mall parking lot.
• Who would have thought that these last three would come out as opponents of corporate power? It makes sense because classic conservatives wants *less* government and more individual freedom. Pro laissez-faire doesn't always mean pro-corporate power. Classic conservatives are also opposed to corporate subsidies, tariffs, and lobbyists. It's an ironic reversal. The liberals voting for the measure justify it on the grounds of "the gov't knows best". Even though in this case, it opens up dangerous precedents for all kinds of skullduggery.
• That's nothing. I just read this legal document about some galactic overpass that's due in 2012...
• Flagpole wins.
• A guy I know is from a family that grew watercress in the same spot since the 1920s. The special lure of the land was a spring. In the '70s a mall was built and the developers were -sure- they'd be able to flush out that family farm. It didn't work. http://www.pearlridgeonline.com/1994.htm http://www.growingedge.com/magazine/back_issues/view_article.php3?AID=110244 Now, it will. This is big suckage.
• The liberal wing of the court voted for big business and the conservative wing voted for private ownership. Sometimes, I like Scalia. Only sometimes, though. And I think O'Connor's dissent was SPOT ON. This decision is, quite possibly, the first non-electoral decision taken by the SCOTUS in many years that is absolutely PATHETIC. We're not talking eminent domain, here. Public use, roads, infrastructure. We're talking about lining the pockets of developers and the city's coffers while trampling the property rights of homeowners, and that is ridiculous.
• I would like to form a guerilla group devoted to executing the heads of each corporation that profit from this.
• Eminent duhmain.
• Secretly count me in. This, the sand ads, and the thing I just posted...lots of bad fucking news today. OH YEAH AND BROADCAST FLAG LOL!
• While I abhore violence in all it's forms I've gotta say the first solution that came to mind was homeowners across the country arming themselves, getting together and mowing these mutha fuckas down. But I came to my senses and realized that would be wrong. ;)
• Doohickie: That was in my home town. An entire subdivision was torn down to make way for a mall expansion and new strip mall. One woman who was soon to die of cancer asked if she could stay in her house until she died, and the local courts said no. Then the subdivision sat empty for six months. It was the biggest use of imminent domain ever, and was widely reported, including an article in the WallStreet journal going "Um, is this going too far?" (I can't link to that because I'm not a subscriber.) Anyway, as I remember the mayor (who had been in office a looong time, and his father had been mayor before him) actually had to fight to keep his job, people were so mad.
• Of course, the people who owned the houses were paid far more than market value for their homes. (The subdivision was middle-class, but on the slide down. Had they been paid what their houses appraised for, they would have not been able to buy another house in another middle-class neighborhood.) In Arlington, TX, they bought out an entire neighborhood to build the new Cowboy Stadium. The offer to the residents was very good (They got fair market value for the houses, plus bonuses and moving expenses), but it was still the city telling you you had to leave for private development. (If you need a password for the link, try login: monkeygirl@monkey.com, password: monkey
• In this particular case, perhaps the owners got more out of their property than they could have otherwise, but remember that this is the first such breach of the spirit of "life, liberty, property." Wait and see what happens when a city with dollar-signs in their eyes decides that they'll only pay what the appraiser values the property at, and, by the way, homeowners are only allowed to use "approved" appraisers that the city has a wink-and-a-nod deal with to lowball the appraisal in exchange for future city appraisal business. This is very bad. Very, very bad. This decision simply puts raw meat before the local authorities.
• For many homeowners it's not about the money, they want to stay in their homes.
• hikikomori, I wouldn't mind locking and loading arms with my fellow protestors.
• Cool, Cali, let's do this thing!
• Well, I'm actually a big believer in proper use of eminent domain. I actually think that eminent domain should be used MORE here in LA for such things as highway widening and right of way, light rail/subway and transportation uses. But then, these all fall under genuine "public use," where, y'know, but public can USE the property. Widening the scope of public use to include an increase in tax revenue (via developer profits) is a corruption of the notion.
• Who would have thought that these last three would come out as opponents of corporate power? Are you really serious here? Tho, all being human, I could see a chance of one backing it. You do realize Big Corporations have power through numbers, money. Think of their power being what a corporation is, many in one, which will exhaust an individual by using the more factor in court. Not a group who can buy The US Supreme Court's vote.
• I'm actually a big believer in proper use of eminent domain. I actually think that eminent domain should be used MORE here in LA I believe my great aunt stood in Chavez Ravine at a spot that is now part The LA Dodger's outfield with a shotgun. She pointed it at the sheriffs when they came to make payment and remove her from one of the last houses standing on the block. The homes were bought by eminent domain which looking back today on all the homes was theft. Her pay turned into one of the least, as it was less than the first offers and the larger final offering. Netting her take in the end to be nothing. As she threw the money on the ground and left all her possessions in the home as the sheriffs dragged her away…my grandmother said, a relative and her retrieved a few family heirlooms before the home was knocked down. Her car was even left in the pile of ruble from destroying the home. Because, the great aunt believed the parked car next to the house was where it belonged. PS, the reason the LA area is known for its road system is by the proper planning long ago. They should have allocated more of it then, as Cali land is worthless dessert soil until adding water and a person standing on it having a nice eye viewing of the area. Yet, General Patton’s family owned much of it first, as (iirc) the city of Alhambra was his childhood home’s boundaries.
• In Russia, the government evicts YOU! sorry, I'm drunk, it seems
• Whoops, "desert" is with one s, must have been thinking California is a dessert by living so far away now.
• Being a fairly strict constructionist myself in some ways, thomcatspike, I don't think that a privately owned stadium should qualify under eminent domain laws... the land should be literal public use land; that is, parkland, transport infrastructure, or (I'm not sure of this) publicly owned and governmentally occupied buildings, for at the minimum of 100 years before the land can be owned privately again. Also, I think another solution to the under-selling problem is that the price paid should be the greater of: mean appraised value +25% (mean appraised value being no less than 4 appraisers working for an independent agency with no conflict of interest) or the replacement in an equivalent house in an neighborhood. I think eminent domain should be exercised more, but that those who are displaced should get MORE than market value for their homes. And in the case of the property being put for a use that (explicitly) draws revenue, previous owners get a cut of GROSS revenue for something like 5 or 10 years. Even an extremely generous calculus comes out as a win for such examples as widening/extending the freeways, as lost hours in the car means lost revenue for truckers, taxis, buses, and a very high opportunity cost for drivers, their neighborhoods, and their employers. Perhaps people wouldn't mind sticking around a few minutes extra a day at work if they didn't have 2 hour commutes. I know I wouldn't.
• Why aren't any Democrats speaking out against this? :(
• Mmmm, worthless dessert soil.
• that revenue-sharing idea sounds like a good one, chimaera.
• When reading this earlier, my first thought was that the big three jumped ship to make themselves look good on a decision they preordained. It's reassuring that others see something askew with this too.
• I'm inclined to disagree, dxlifer. Based on my understanding of Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist, I think that this is pretty consistent with their established ideological tendencies: their vote was to limit the capability of local governments to affect the property rights of individual owners. Certainly for Scalia and Thomas (two of the most "classically conservative" in the sense of generally falling toward less governmental powers) this doesn't ring suspicious to me at all.
• Why aren't any Democrats speaking out against this? Because democrats are *for* it. This isn't about big business winning...it's about big government winning. After all, it's the local governments that have the power to take people's homes.
• I just love the high squirm factor of this decision. First of all, it's just the latest in the long and decidedly ugly history of eminent domain. I believe this mess was first played out publicly in the early 1960s clash of Jane Jacobs and Robert Moses over the fate of Grenwich Village. After, of course, Moses had allready decimated the Bronx. What makes today's news so interesting is that the left has long struggled to empower government to step in to the market and facilitate transactions which serve the "greater good" - generally defined as job creation, etc. Now, I suspect that most folks want their local government to work hard to bring employment to their communities. For any large employment center, you can be sure that the additional tax revenue, plus direct jobs produced in the community, plus the indirect and induced effects (i.e., economic activity resulting from spending by employees at the new center) will increase the aggregate prosperity of the community and help to fund public services like schools and social programs. This should come as little surprise to American monkeys because this sort of economic development policy is explicitly codified in most communities' land use laws. The problem, it seems is with the use of the police power of the state. The inference of some sort of quid-pro-quo between the developers and the city officials in question has not been proven yet. It may exist, but I'd like to see it before assuming the worst. That said, it appears to be a questionable precendent, but frankly I'm not about to soil myself just yet. The flip side to this problem is the property rights movement, who wish to take away all power of the government to establish zoning, urban growth boundaries and environmental protection areas. Since this is also a blow to those folks, I'm not quite sure how to react. Obviously the government's powers of eminent domain must be policed rigorously to prevent corruption. If (and I agree it's a big if) corruption can be avoided, I hardly see how this will alter much at all. This is largely an ideological confrontation not a practical one.
• chimaera, suppose the government wanted to set up a CIA training facility. Or a research facility. Or a nonprofit organization. Or a wildlife preserve. This land wouldn't be "open to the public." But do you think it ought to have the right to do it anyway? I bet that few would object to all of these. This is a tough case to argue against because, on principle, there isn't much difference between this and other cases in which the US government invokes eminent domain. It's a fundamentally utilitarian proviso in the US Constitution in that it allows the government to seize private property as long as it's in the interest of the public. The majority opinion, if I understand it, says that there are economic gains to be made here and that judges oughtn't be the ones to decide that these aren't worth the intrusion on property rights; and that, in fact, the Constitution forbades it. Which makes some sense. I mean, the tax dollars this generates will benefit the public, not to mention the jobs it creates. I think it's at least conceivable that something like this, if not this particular case, could be in the public interest. I wonder if some of the negative reaction isn't a symptom of a more general aversion to "big business" trumping the rights of the "little guy" -- or, in other words, an aversion to the way utilitarianism appears ready to set aside justice in favor of the public good.
• In other words, is it that you oppose the basic principle of eminent domain for utilitarian goals, or is that you don't believe this goal to be a worthy one -- that private business is never in the public interest? If it's the latter, I think you have a much tougher case to make, probably an impossible one, but at the same time I bet it's the assumption a lot of people rely on for their gut reaction to this decision.
• Smo: That's exactly what I'm arguing - that the outrage is due to the assumed corruption underlying the decision. It seems we're all very cynical around here. Recall that for the most part, it's businesses that employ people.
• that the outrage is due to the assumed corruption underlying the decision Can't ... type ... too... angry...
• I hadn't seen your post before I made mine. But, yes, it seems we're on the same wavelength, pieisexactlythree.
• What really struck me about this case was the dissenting group Compare the dissenting group in the recent and equally repulsive Gonzalez v Raich decision:

  O'Connor
  Thomas
  Rehnquist
• >It seems we're all very cynical around here. Gee- I can't think why that would be. >that private business is never in the public interest? What kind of private business are we talking about, here, practically speaking? 'Cause I strongly suspect we're talking about Walmart. We're talking about malls that screw up neighborhoods, destroy local businesses, and subject their minimum-wage employees to a host of unconscionable labor practices. And now they can take your house to put one in your neighborhood, while declaring it to be 'for the public good', because it's Reaganomically Delicious. For fuck's sake.
• Stan, we're not talking about a kind of business. That's my point. We're talking about a category of land use - one that generates economic activity. Now, on a side note, what's going on with those local businesses if their customers suddenly and unceremoniously abandon them in favor of the crap o' mart? Perhaps there not selling stuff anybody wanted, given the choice? But that's a tangent. Would you be upset if your local goverment ordered the closure of the OTB or porno store to make way for a factory that employed union workers to make wind turbines? Sure, it may be a little unlikely, but after all, we're just talking in hypotheticals here. Theoretically, it's no less possible than the bleak scenario you described above. My point is simply that there are a range of possible scenarios here which run the gamut from true stewardship of the public good to crass manipulation via bribery and deceit. We give the government the tools. How they're used depends on the integrity of those we elect to administer them.
• Okay, but now the question becomes "is this business good for the public." It's empirical, and dependent upon what "the public good" means, which is itself dependent upon what the people want (especially if you're a utilitarian where what's right and what's good are the same thing). The majority opinion argues that this is a social and political decision, meant for elected representatives, and not for the judiciary. Which, I think, makes some sense. I'm not in love with what this means, but nor do I love the idea of judges second guessing what the people determine to be in their best interests. Of course, all of this hinges on whether or not the right to declare eminent domain ought to be so widely conceived as it is in the US Constitution, and that's what I question. The only reason this hasn't been a problem up till now is, I think, due to the high level of respect for property rights in the US. (I can't stop laughing at the phrase "Reaganomically Delicious.") On preview: Damn you, pieisexactlythree!
• >Would you be upset if your local goverment ordered the closure of the OTB or porno store to make way for a factory that employed union workers to make wind turbines? Your phrasing suggests I should regard that as a good trade. I can only assume you're some sort of god damned hippie. You ecofascists can have my dirty pictures when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers. No, but seriously- >We give the government the tools. How they're used depends on the integrity of those we elect to administer them. -this terrifies me. I'd rather not give them the tools. By the same token you could counsel people not to worry about provisions of the Patriot Act which expand federal powers at the expense of civil liberties, because those provisions will never be brought to bear, we promise, except against The Bad People. Theoretically, anyway. Of course, in practice, it all depends on the integrity of our elected officials, but hey- 'smatter?- don't you trust your elected officials? Enn oh spells 'no'.
• is it that you oppose the basic principle of eminent domain for utilitarian goals, or is that you don't believe this goal to be a worthy one -- that private business is never in the public interest You appear to have lost track of exactly why this decision is controversial. The use of eminent domain in furthering economic interests is not new. That has been going on for a long time, with many recent controversial examples. This SCOTUS decision is controversial because they appear to have taken all reins off of governments using the 'economic interests' argument as a justification. This appears to be a deliberately broadly worded decision that says courts have little interest in government decisions in this area. Forget malls or CIA training facilities. Forget the fact this is exactly the sort of situation where utilitarianism breaks down, as people have highly differing values for utilities that are diametrically opposed in property development. This decision says that a multi-millionaire could get the city to condemn your house and property and force sale simply by promising to build a larger mansion on which they can level higher property taxes than your house justifies. This decision says that money can be used as an excuse to trump almost anything.
• Recall that for the most part, it's businesses that employ people. So it follows that what's good for business is necessarily good for people? Please. Anyway, the statistics I've seen show about 110 million private sector jobs in the U.S. vs. about 100 million public sector jobs. So even your "most part" can be seen as bit of a stretch.
• They could have brought business in here through infill development, without forcing people out their homes against their will. Homes that would have gone up in value, too - but they will never pay the people what the houses would have been worth. On the urban planning side, this is just an insane decision. I live in a city where a bunch of economic development has happened on the seasshore - restaurants, theatres, stores. They look like a cesspool. You have these boxes surrounded by highways and more boxes. And they aren't doing well, and the city is broke half the time. Meanwhile, the downtown core is full of empty storefronts. If you want a vibrant seashore, make it a good neighbourood with lots of shopping. Buy up the empty houses, leave the others, fill in with bussinesses that match the character of the neighbourhood - restaurants, small stores, etc. If you have a few large areas, bring in the large businesses there. Look to create a vibrant main street where people want to hang out - you'll up your tax base as well as increase safety (eyes on the street), and the pleasantness of your city. Put parking areas on the OUTSIDE of your mainstreet area - smallish ones dotted around so that people can drive in, but not so that they dominate the area. I can think of places that do this well, which a few people might recognise - Bloor between Royal York and Prince Edward in Toronto - they have parking hidden in a strip behind the stores, great choice; I rememeber a little more vaguely the area of Halifax where they have the Buskers festival - that seems to be a really nice harbour/shopping area.
• The inference of some sort of quid-pro-quo between the developers and the city officials in question has not been proven yet. The big news in Dallas this past week was the FBI raids on two Dallas city council members for (presumably, but all indications are pointing to) this very thing. The good, if not great, news is that all those churches you see taking up prime real estate are now fair game, especially since churches do not pay taxes. Since most of the urban curches are experiencing downward attendance, the time is right to bulldoze them and put in a MegaSuperWalKmart, a new headquarters for the New York Times, or a brand new skyraker for that real estate developement company that cleared the "blight" in the first place. So what if the blacks are the primary attendees for urban chruches - it is not as if they're going to start voting Republican.
• Well, Smo, I know we're mostly stuck with hypotheticals, but here would be my stance on what you brought up: CIA training facilities, governmental operations, and wildlife preserves, though not open to the public, can arguably be said to benefit everyone more or less equally. That is, the only private enterprise that could or should profit from the development would strictly be a contractor hired to build the land and turn it over to a governmental institution. Such contractor would only be making their money on the issue secondarily, and not in an ongoing fashion. Where I draw the line is clear, and it's in the distinction between the primary beneficiary and the secondary beneficiary. If title, lease or right of exclusive use of the land were transferred to a non-governmental entity (even a not-for-profit organization), then the transaction could be said to specifically and in an ongoing fashion financially benefit the recipient of that property or use right, they are the primary beneficiary of the transaction. Not the government (which ostensibly represents the people and as I defined above, have some leeway in saying what constitutes "public use." In the case in New London, or any place where the motivating factor is economic development, tax base growth, and/or employment, but that is via private ownership or use of the property, then the public is a secondary beneficiary of that use, not the primary. If anyone but the public (also, as I said, embodied in Governmental departments which can be said to benefit the public more or less equally) is the primary beneficiary of the deal, then I say it's not a matter of eminent domain, it's a matter of property theft and a boondoggle to line the pockets of the TRUE primary beneficiary.
• (Ah, finally able put in words what my stance on it is: the important question is "Who is the primary beneficiary?" Thanks, Monkeys for a very interesting, thought-provoking, and for me verbal-crystallizing discussion!)
• I think jb brings up something very important here: There are good ways to do economic development and there are bad ways. I'd like to make it perfectly clear also, that I am not advocating for any and all development in all circumstances. Additionally, I would not argue that what's good for business is a priori good for people at large. This is obviously false. However, there also cannot be a dichotomy between business interests and community interests if we are to create livable communities that are economically viable. Positing an inherent conflict between the two ensures a disasterous outcome. The interests of some particular business may be adverse to the interests of the community. Or, they may be complementary. Blanket statements on this relationship are not helpfull. The reality is that the nature of the retail and office market has changed since our country's mixed use main streets were built. You're fighting an uphill battle if you simply want to preserve a pre-1950's urban development pattern when the market (i.e., consumers) obviously wants other things. The goals of downtown revitalization and accomodating consumer preferences for large format retailers are not mutually exclusive, and when handled carefully, can be synergistic. When downtowns try to compete with big boxes on their terms, the mom-and-pops always loose. They can't compete on price or selection. That's just a fact of modern retail economics. However, by offering services that are not direct competition - i.e., custom products, high end stuff, personalized services etc. - independant businesses can suceed in spite of the presence of big boxes. In addition, governments can require that big-box opperators fund downtown improvements as a condition of entering the market. Where this strategy has been implemented it has largely been a sucess. These situations are all unique and their merits must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Eminent domain comes into play when the market is not producing an outcome that is deemed to be in the public interest. Theoretically, everyone has a price for which the'd be willing to part with their property. Under normal market conditions, the developer must weigh land acquisition costs as part of his or her feasibility analysis for a project. If those costs are too high for a given site, it is deemed not feasible and the project must either seek a new site or be abandoned completely. That's all well and good. However, on some occasions, the local authorities who are charged with the task of growing the economy in their jurisdiction deem that public intervention is warrented because the net benefits of the deal outweigh the net costs to the public at large. Finally, it all hinges on the ability of citizens to police their government for corruption. Where corruption thrives, eminent domain will likely be used for selfish and cynical purposes. That much is obvious. This eminent domain squabble is a sideshow. The real issue here is government corruption.
• This eminent domain squabble is a sideshow. Unless you're one of the people whose homes are being taken from them. This is one of my peeves about social-science types -- laser-focus on the macro often means lack of attention to the micro.
• Hawthorne: you're probably right. And you got me - I was an anthropology major. You've just made the case for why the market should be left alone to make these choices.
• This decision says that money can be used as an excuse to trump almost anything. It appears that way. But is it the decision or the law itself that's the problem? If it's the latter, then I contend that the courts oughtn't be the ones to change it.
• You've just made the case for why the market should be left alone to make these choices. Ah, yes, faith-based thinking....
• it all hinges on the ability of citizens to police their government for corruption...This eminent domain squabble is a sideshow. The real issue here is government corruption. It's hardly a sideshow when it is providing a direct incentive and avenue for government corruption. One fights against corruption by attacking the incentives. Furthermore, the issue is not merely government corruption, but government tyranny. Corruption is not required for this decision to allow local government to drive roughshod over individual rights in service to a few particular officials' view of what constitutes the 'public good'. See the millionaire's mansion example above... But is it the decision or the law itself that's the problem? If...the latter...I contend...courts oughtn't...to change it It is the courts responsibility to interpret, manage and balance the laws as they exist, most particularly the constitution. That is their role. That is why they are called Judges. By making this decision the Supreme Court has abrogated this larger responsibility, and deliberately removed eminent domain disputes based on 'economic interest' from the courts responsibility. Rather than shirk their judicial responsibilities in this area of law, if the Justices wished to allow broad future latitude for local governments in this area, the proper action would have been for the Supreme Court to make a narrow decision affecting only this particularly case or economic circumstance, or refuse to hear the case entirely. Allowing local courts to continue to decide on a case by case basis.
• The question, Hawthorne, is which do you have less faith in? The market or your elected officials? Skepticisim is prudent, but ultimately someone has to decide. Left to the market, the matter must be settled between private parties: the buyer and the current land owner. If the land owner doesn't want to sell, absent eminent domain, there's nothing the buyer can do about it. The alternative is to let the government decide if a recalcitrant property owner is placing a disproportionate burden on his or her community by not making a deal. So it's either the government running someone off their land, or a private entity somehow coercing an unwilling seller. Both are equally unpalatable. The question is which scenario is the more likely threat to most communities' well-being. and nal, by your logic, some traffic laws could be construed as an incentive to corruption. A cop could have my car towed based on a subjective assessment of my driving. He could let me off if I bribe him. This is commonplace in many countries. If you read the policy document I linked to you'll see that property tax revenue alone does not constitute a public good. You are right that if misused, emient domain can be a very desructive tool. We must, for logical purposes, separate arguments about misuse from arguments about the validity of the tool itself. They are not coterminus.
• We must, for logical purposes, separate arguments about misuse from arguments about the validity of the tool itself Misuse is precisely the discussion I have been promoting, and the discussion that this court decision fosters. Furthermore, you deliberately misinterpret my point about corruption incentive in your desire to focus solely on the utility of eminent domain in general. It is disingenuous to pretend that the issue is simply that corruption is possible in any regulated system. That is a patently obvious statement. The point is that this decision enables broad and tyrannical corruption outside of the oversight of the courts, and in an arena amenable to the type of subtle illegality that is more difficult to prove or prosecute.
• It is the courts responsibility to interpret, manage and balance the laws as they exist, most particularly the constitution... By making this decision the Supreme Court has abrogated this larger responsibility. Okay, what law, specifically, did they fail to take into account?
• It is, obviously, not a matter of a law they failed to take into account, but a law they deliberately chose to interpret so broadly as to remove future disputes over the law from the courts' pervue. Private property is an important underpinning of American society. 'Public good' is a similarly important but deliberately vague term that must be interpreted and judged depending on circumstance. Justice Stevens wrote 'Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized Perhaps not, but it certainly should be possible to judge whether the public purpose in a particular case outweighs individual property rights. There will, obviously, be disputes in this area. In some cases not everyone will agree whether the public purpose being served is sufficient. There will invariably be other cases, however, where any neutral observer would agree that individual rights are being trampled by an insufficient 'public' purpose. This broad court decision says that judgement should be left to local officials, invariably biased, without recourse to the courts, whose role, amongst others, is to act as a neutral observer. The more one reads this decision, the more it comes across as exceptionally lazy and shirking. "Economic development is important. Public purpose is broad and difficult to judge. It's all so messy." "Don't bug us if one is being grossly abused in the guise of the other. Try to make sure your local officials aren't corrupt or foolish."
• The question, Hawthorne, is which do you have less faith in? The market or your elected officials? It's not either-or; there's a place for both. I can point to plenty of examples where both have done good, and plenty of examples where both have done bad. Also, I can imagine plenty of examples of justified use of eminent domain; not sure this is one of those.
• Fair enough
• Okay, here my last attempt at this. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff was a similar case. Here the government wanted to redistribute property from one owner, who owned 90% of the land, to another, on the grounds that more landowners were better for the market. Is this okay? If you're with the Hawaii Housing Authority, on utilitarian grounds, but you're against this case (and other cases like it), then I think you have to argue that business isn't in the public interest. And I don't think you can do it. Of course, cries about fairness and justice are fair game, but then you have to be ready to defend the Hawaii Housing Authority on non-utilitarian grounds. And that, again, is tough. I fail to see the difference between these cases, except that one went rich -> poor and the other went poor -> rich. But, without knowing anything about how the actors became rich or poor, how can we be sure that the former is just while the latter is not? Unless there's a presumption in favor of egalitarian results (something conservatives would resist for the same reasons they oppose this ruling), I fail to see why the one is okay while the other isn't.
• I'm not sure you're responding to my last post, or someone else's earlier one, but I'll give this a shot. Neither myself, nor the dissenters in the SCOTUS decision, are arguing that the Kelo decision was necessarily wrong in this particular case. We are arguing that the majority judgement was so broad as to give free rein in using the 'economic benefits to the public good' excuse to trump almost any objection to eminent domain. Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff is a completely different case, because the reasons for the land appropriation are completely different. Land redistribution is a very complex subject. The differences and complexities of individual situations are the point here. The use of eminent domain to foster 'economic development' is not, in itself, a bad thing, but it is a tool that should be used with care and nuance. When that tool is being blatantly abused there should be a neutral party that the abused can turn to for judgement. Remember that when individual rights are grievously abused, it starts affecting the fabric of society. After a certain point individual good becomes public good. Three situations: A) The government, faced with a disaffected populace, seizes scarce land from a wealthy majority land owner to re-distribute for subsistence farming and homesteads, with minimal appropriate compensation. B) The government, faced with a promise of a substantial property tax increase, seizes scarce land from large numbers of low-income small land owners and deeds it to a wealthy individual trying to construct a private estate and eco-preserve. C) A wealthy corporation, after making binding promises to construct quality high-density housing and a large factory, receives land seized from large numbers of low-income small land owners on which to build a corporate headquarters. Situation B seems easily seen as immoral and not in the broader public good. C, while morally arguable, seems to fit the ideal of 'economic development' quite well. Under this ruling it would appear that both B and C are equally permissible and of equally little interest to the courts after this point. Meanwhile, situation A, the one that has broadest effect on society and public good, and thus should best be decided by a legislative body where democratic processes can allow popular input, that could still go to court.
• Ah, okay. Then I believe we agree, for the most part, although I still think that it's the law that's the problem, not the decision. But I see your point. Thanks for helping me to understand it properly.
• I like you, pieisexactlythree. You have strong opinions, but you're reasonable. It's a nice balance you've got going there.
• Or maybe there is a difference between kinds of property. I know I certainly see a difference between a person's house and abode (or their sole business and livelyhood), and a person's property which exists only to rent to other people, or the property of a corporation which owns other property. The first have a much greater right, in my mind, because what they have is what they need. So I would see expropriating someone's house to build a walmart as worse than expropriating a walmart to build houses.
• If America will eventually be completely owned by foreigners, then maybe this isn't completely a bad thing?
• What a cool discussion.
• Fuck. I go on vacation for a week and I miss this completely. This is an awful decision. Sometimes the Court has to simply consider the potential for abuse. It is why police cannot stop anyone that they want (by law -- of course, they do it anyway). In this case, the liberal judges should be terrified by the potential for abuse. Can they not foresee business making large contributions to the members of legislature that make the decision about destroying other people's homes?
• Some states don't like expanded eminent domain, either
• Village Voice criticizes NY Times deal for new Times Square office space seized by NY State for "public use."
• Good news! (maybe this should be on the front page? feel free to put it there if you think so; I won't be mad)