Supreme Court Ruling: Does This Bother You?

[LTAWACS]

The latest from CNN:

U.S. Supreme Court rules local governments may seize homes and businesses for private economic development. Details soon.

[uncertaintraveler]

Perhaps not surprisingly, the decision broke along the established fault lines: the 3 conservatives and the swinger vs. the 5 "search, seizure and taking is a good thing" block.

I liked O'Connor's dissent.....and, like her, I believe that the effect of the ruling won't be applied equally (say, similar houses, but in different neighborhoods, both fall under a city's definition of "blight," clearly the house in the less-wealthy part of town will be razed). I'm sure plenty of future law review articles will say this, but the decision is a travesty for private-property-rights advocates.

[Lowbrow]

This stuff wigs me out.

Makes me want to get all branch davidian and stuff.

[bruce_oneal]

local governments have even more power to take homes and land after a recent supreme court ruling. what is happening to this country?!?

read article here: recent supreme court ruling

[MidtownCoog]

Sadly, some people don't deserve to own property.

Take a drive through Thrid Ward and see for yourself. I am specifically talking about the abandoned lots and homes.

[bruce_oneal]

Sadly, some people don't deserve to own property.

Take a drive through Thrid Ward and see for yourself.  I am specifically talking about the abandoned lots and homes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i guess we are opening ourselves up to all kinds of land grabs. what's now to stop wealthy developers from coming into areas and completely taking over. not sure why you immediately thought about 3rd ward? there are tons of areas that could qualify...?

there are other areas throughout the city that could be deemed 'needed' and developed ... seems like people --any people-- will have a much harder time holding on to anything if someone wants the property.

[MidtownCoog]

not sure why you immediately thought about 3rd ward

I drive Elgin all the time to UH. Some homes really do need to go. And I am not talking about ones that have people living in them.

[bruce_oneal]

I drive Elgin all the time to UH.  Some homes really do need to go.  And I am not talking about ones that have people living in them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that could be said for any place. i think my point is that when you apply BROAD strokes (as this ruling does) it affects more than just the one little area in new london, ct (as the ruling was intended).

there is now legal precendece for such tactics to take place in potomac, md, houston, tx or other areas. as the article stated, there were homes that have been RESIDENCES to people for decades, but now that the developers want the land for their proposals, it is easier to basically take.

[jt16]

This does bother me. As was stated earlier, this ruling was based on homes in a working class neighborhood in New London, CT, not third ward Houston. This seems like a socialistic decision to me. This is not how our country was founded. Government grabbing private property at will.

[bruce_oneal]

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

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

it's rare that i agree with justice thomas' or antonin scalia's decisions, but this is making me rethink some things.

[RedScare]

This stuff wigs me out.

Makes me want to get all branch davidian and stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I don't know if I'd go there, lowbrow, but maybe a little more libertarianism or even anarchy might be helpful.

uncertain traveler, usually the conservative justices uphold the gov't right to search and sieze with little justification. How does this ruling fall along established lines?

[Lowbrow]

This is the Kelo house they want to demolish in pink.

[RedScare]

This is clearly a troubling ruling. To know that if Tilman Fertitta wants to build an aquarium in your neighborhood and your house is in the way, that the Supreme Court affirms his right to use his political influence to take your home in "order to generate tax revenue", is disheartening to say the least, outrageous being a better description.

Is that the only right left in this country...the right to make money at anyone's expense? The overuse of justifying every intrusion in the name of economic progress is getting old.

One man's blight is another man's castle.

[UrbaNerd]

This is wrong. After all, everyone has the right to life, liberty, and PROPERTY.

[westguy]

This has gone on for a long time in Texas. When I lived in Arlington there were some property owners unwilling to sell land for the new Ballpark. They also took their land to build strip malls for the benefit of Bush and his buddies. Its evil, but these rights were taken away from Texans a long time ago.

[uncertaintraveler]

uncertain traveler, usually the conservative justices uphold the gov't right to search and sieze with little justification.  How does this ruling fall along established lines?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have always interpreted the conservative justices as being, if you will, "strict constructionists" when it comes to property rights, but "living documentarians" when it comes to personal rights. As in, they interpret searches and seizures of the person under different standards than seizures of private property. Under the former, they say that the government doesn't have to meet much of a standard (and some would say, no standard) and individuals have limited rights. Under the latter, the would have a standard that is much higher and onerous on the government and individual property owners have great protection from the arm of the government. Its all a sliding scale...or slope....

[RedScare]

westguy,

at least the situation you describe was a government taking property for the public use (a baseball stadium), although the biggest benefactors were overpaid ballplayers and President Bush.

Now, it seems land can be taken for office buildings, if the developer can prove it is for the public good. Tax generation is considered for the public good. It is a very low bar.

[RedScare]

"Under the former, they say that the government doesn't have to meet much of a standard (and some would say, no standard)"

I think I fall into the 'no standard' group.

Thanks for expounding on your view (and sorry I misspelled 'seize')

[kjb434]

yeah,

The left leaning judges have just sided with a very slippery slope judgement.

These means that at any time a government within the US can take you property under the asssumption it may make more revenue for them by being used as something else.

Lets' say you and some neighbors live near a bayou in Houston and some developer would like to turn the area where you live into an entertainment like district (kinda like Kemah) but needs you land. The government can say the proposed development would generate more revenue through taxes than you and your neighbors houses; then take away you house.

This was the premise of the cased decided in the Supreme court. I don't like to get political on this forum, but the left leaning judges on the Supreme Court just screwed us all. This would also make it much easier for the Trans Texas Corridor to accuire land without objection.

Very scary.

[Subdude]

There were two threads on this topic so I merged them.

[Subdude]

Liberal v conservative seems like a misleading way to understand the ruling. It sounds like the real split, as it very often is with the Court, is about federalism and the relative rights of local or state governments vis-a-vis the federal government. The ruling is saying that the federal courts don't have jurisdiction over the issue, and that local governments are in the best position to make these kind of decisions.

The problem is that local governments tend to bend to the pressure of developers or to fall for high-profile but uneconomic projects such as stadiums (by the way, a stadium built for a privately-owned team is a private use, not public). Texas is quite advanced in condemning private property for businesses. Hurst was a leader in the trend by codemning housing for a shopping mall a few years back. Now the city of Arlington will acquire private housing in order to provide a new stadium for the privately owned Dallas Cowboys.

[westguy]

I haven't read the rulings, but you are probably right Subdude. Texas is a very conservative state, but it does little to protect property rights of its citizens. Its probably not a left-right issue so much as a federal-vs-states one. You can no longer distinguish these issues between idealogies, especially since conservatives hold power over all branches of the federal government.

[kjb434]

true,

but on local levels, i believe republican and democrat, conservative and liberal don't always apply like they do on the national level. Most local politicians are so bent on there legacy (such as a stadium) that they don't really look at their core ideologies either way they swing.

In New Orleans, a liberal democrat mayor was looking to take over a lart part of east New Orleans to build a stadium for thesaints and/or a NASCAR track by condemn many lower income homes (use to be middle class but has been on a down trend).

Look at Washington DC, the new baseball stadium will overun a predominately gay district by condemning the land in the area. And DC is by no means conservative.

I think it's just a local politician wanting to make there mark on the land and have a place in History whether they are liberal or conservative.

Either way you look at it, the decision has reprecussions they we have not yet to see.

[johncoby]

3 of the 5 justices who supported this ruling were appointed by Rs:

Stevens - Ford

Souter - Bush I

Kennedy - Reagan

This is wierd.

[ricco67]

It has been interesting that after a judge gets elevated to the surpreme court, that a conservative justice tends to vote more liberal, and the same can be made for "liberal" judges as well.

But anyway, this doesn't bode very well, and it seems to be VERY contrary to the "individual rights". with the Rep's are known for.

Ricco

[MidtownCoog]

Ed Wufle said it'll swing back if governments take unfair advantage.

That being said, lets start tearing some crap down.

This city needs a makeover.

[Hunter]

Personally I do not feel that this is a good thing at all. And I can see all too much way that it will be abused.

I have a friend (not in this state) who lost his home to development. The city and county wanted to expand a road and straighten it out. A few house including his were in the way. The government stepped in a seized the house telling him that he will be compensated for it. He and the other home owners tried to file an injunction to stop the work or at least delay it but it was shot down. In the long run he lost his house which had been in the family for 3 generations and they city only paid him for less than half of its actual worth. Eight years later he is still living in a rental home because they did not give him enough money to buy a new home and housing is not cheap where he lives. Yes he has a lawsuit pending but the local government keeps getting the dates moved. At this time it will be another 2 years before it comes up in court.

No I do not believe that this is a good ruling at all. I do agree that this city needs a make over but all of the new housing being built inside the loop is so expensive that the average family cannot afford it. So they move further out to the out lying communities and the problem starts all over again. My other problem is that the majority of the new developments going up inside the loop look ugly beyond belief and are all being built below standard. I just do not see how this is helping matters in these ares.

[N Judah]

Strange how nobody cares when eminent domain is used to bulldoze homes to put up freeways that benefit suburban communities. Now that governments are using the same tactics to revitalize urban districts, everyone's suddenly up in arms?!? Give me a break...

I don't like it either, but this ruling was just the next logical step in something that began a loooong time ago...

[Subdude]

As I said, it's not really a conservative v liberal thing, but in any event local governments are moving fast. It was in the paper this morning that Freeport is condemning some businesses to build a new marina.

[kjb434]

Using eminent domain for public projects is well withing the confines of the 5th amdendment to the constitution. This is where eminent domain comes from.

Freeways and utitlities fall under this and procdures exist to protect the rights fo the people being affected. This ruling just through out the 5th ammendment. And the way the majority opinion is written, a government can sieze technically anything. The judge who wrote the majority opinion (Ginsburg) was the head of the ACLU legal team. I guess they really don't care about civil liberties.

The issue was: Can the government on behalf of a PRIVATE entity use eminent domain?

This means if Tilman Ferttita wants to rip out half the heights for a project that MAY give the city more revenue than the property taxes of the homes he is demolishing, he can go ahead and use the city to back him. No objection needs to be heard. I can see every developer claim when he knocks down to houses to build 8 claim that he will give the city more revenue. Some much for saving old homes.

This has problems written all over it.

As for as some of the judges being appointed by republicans, this doesn't mean they are conservative. Only three judges are openly conservative and four are openly liberal. Two generally sit on fence.