Eminent-domain strikes again, I dare you to defend it.
 

Can there be ANY defense of this? Its for a golf course of all things, which I rather doubt is popular with our tilted friends on the left. This sort of thing is insane, and should never even get to the courts.

Are not Rush and G. W. Bush both big golfers? "Country club conservative" is a standard catch phrase for good reason.

Now to address the theme of your post: I defend it as the family and the courts have gone through the proper legal channels. The family has gotten the city to amend it's charter. Business interests in the immediate region have been mobilized.

Yet the law appears to be on the city's side to this point. Rule of law, not men.

If the situation brings such an overwhelming onus onto local citizens they'll vote with their feet and no one will remain to dress badly, pollute the local environment with excessive feritlizer, and swear while playing a game they claim to love. How much more American can you get?

2Wolves

They shouldn't take peoples land because they want to build a golf course, that's stupid.

In the Energy Policy, the Bush admin wants to take a lot of eminent-domain for combining the power grids into one mega-system. Of course, that will just make it much easier for the California-type problem to happen to anyone in all of the US and, as you can see here, also displace quite a few people.

I have trouble with a lot of eminent-domain cases... such as the Native Americans, for instance. I guess it is the American way. Salute manifest destiny and its glorious rewards.

Eminent-domain has been a great tool for capitalism, and it will continue to be. Apologies to the unfortunates caught in the middle.

Ustwo.... I agree with you. (can't believe those words escaped my mouth! :eek: ) If the family owns it, it should be theirs until they decide otherwise.

But seriously, remarks like "I dare you to defend it" and "I rather doubt [golf courses are] popular with our tilted friends on the left" really do nothing but help to start a flame war. I suggest you ask yourself if what you say can be phrased in a way that can still be convincing without pissing people off.

Because in this case I want to piss people off to some extent. I had a lot of 'the left' saying its ok when it was a court house, so I want to rub a golf course in their faces. This is something I find intolerable, and it doesn't matter if its a golf course, a court house, or a home for orphans, the government should NOT have the right.

Capitalism cannot exist without property rights. Eminent domain is the enemy of capitalism.

Do you like driving everywhere you want to go?

Cause without eminem domain you would have one hell of a messed up road network where you live.

Of course you're right but - unlike a lot of those who have commented, I agree with you most of the time - eminent domain should never come into play unless it is an absolute necessity - such as blocking a major highway or the like. I'm not sure, but in this part of the country, the price gets really high on land that the state or some other entity is trying to take by force. The point at which "for the good of the general public" as our law reads is reached, is sometimes a difficult point to acheive and when it is reached it is often a very expensive point - A golf course - not in my lifetime.

I don't disagree with that one bit. I do, however, disagree with the premise that eminent domain is a necessary component of capitalism. Quite the contrary - it smacks of authoritarianism, where property rights and individual freedoms are subverted to the authority or the will of the state.

The pure capitalistic response to your transportation example would be that free market forces would satisfy the nation's demand for transportation infrastructure. Land would be purchased and sold in a competitive market where its value would be determined in part by its ability to generate profits for its owner. Roads would be privately owned, and the right to their use would be purchased (via tolls).

I didn't say I was an advocate of capitalism, nor of eminent-domain. It just clearly has been a great tool for capitalists. Authoritarians can be capitalists, in fact, wasn't it Mousselini that said Fascism is the combination of government and business. Property rights are the enemy of true capitalism, rights prevent those with capital from taking capital from others. Isn't that the goal of deregulation? - improved profit-making... Property rights regulate capitalism, and eminent-domain is the exception created to improve capitalism (generally, it can be done for other reasons as well, such as safety and environmental concerns).

I don't have a problem with legal action. If it's legal, it's legal.
I'm not one to campaign for changing laws ( I have other fields of expertise ) or stating idealistic positions about what is right or wrong or how things should or shouldn't be. There seems to be a lot of people who are like that, so I don't really see a need to be one of them myself. As long as something is done legally it's not a problem for me.

At what point does a law become unjust ART?

we have to take up private lands for certain causes. think of the interstates or local highways. land was taken whether or not the owners wanted it. yes, they were compensated for the land, but they still lost the land.

i dont think the line is clear enough when the govt can take up your property in the name of public good.

to me, building a golf course doesnt warrant that they take up this land. an interestate? maybe, but i'm not 100% sure about that either.

Ustwo,
I guess there's a bunch of unjust laws.
That's the lawmakers' job to fix. Not mine.
I believe in a division of labor.
They do their job. I do mine.
I have some opinions but they aren't very important.
If I care a lot about something I can vote.
That's good enough for me.

I consider the corrupt use of eminent domain to be one of the biggest abuses of governmental power. It often frustrates me that so many people are ignorant of the issue.

I refuse to shop at CostCo, for instance, because of their manipulation of local governments to exercise eminent domain for their profit. One article (google for others): http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru021803.asp

Other superstores manipulate local governments in similar ways (eg. Wal-Mart http://www.rmpn.org/weblog/archives/...ink/000616.cfm) and I avoid giving them my business too.

I'm not giving them my money when they might take my home someday.

Thank you Ustwo for bringing up this topic. I think that there can be legitimate use of eminent domain but I don't think golf courses nor court houses are such uses.

Well said. Use of eminent domain is abused far too often. There are some who rant about "big business hurting the little guy", "tax breaks for the wealthy", and the like and these same people, when it comes to this topic claim that it's all ok because it's the government that's doing it. It's sickening to me.

The thing that bothers me is that its for a damn GOLF COURSE. If it was for a necessary highway or some other such necessity (and it really was necessary), fine, so be it. The ability of the government to take land for *necessities* is something that it truly needs to be able to do. But for a damn golf course?

Use versus abuse; of the implementation of eminent domain in the United States, for however long good records are available, can you show the number of times (roughly) that its been abused? I'm not trying to rain on your parade but I can see how the immediate persons impacted would always consider it abuse.

The other point is that its easy to get worked up over the nice old couple getting kicked off their land by the big evil government. Consider for a moment if the land in question had been a (fill in the blank like the HQ for the American Communist Party or White Power) building.

From my view its a bitch when it happens to you & yours or anyone. Yesterday with carbines, today with city councils, and tomorrow with loyalty tests. At least they're not being shot off the land so things are improving.

In closing, if the law applies equally to all then it might be considered fair, but we all know how many mansions get grabbed for elementary schools or returned to tribal lands....

2Wolves

No. It has been a great tool for the state.

Um, why compete in a free market when you can just take whatever you want?

OK, time out. I think it's time you read a basic definition.

Capitalism - An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
American Heritage definition

Property rights are a necessary condition for capitalism.

Here (link) is an excellent article that discusses just that. I suggest you read it.

This is getting absurd. Do you honestly believe that free market capitalism is about "taking capital from others?" No. That's what occurs under communism, where commerce is regulated by a forceful redistribution of wealth. Capitalism is quite the opposite, where transactions are based upon mutual agreement.

This is so elementary, wilbjammin.

I'm not trying to be obnoxious here, but you really ought to brush up on your economics.

Now, continuing on with the discussion...

Eminent domain presents what economists would call a market inefficiency. The risk of having one's property seized by the state is a risk one assumes when purchasing land, and that risk is translated into a risk premium by the informed consumer. That risk premium is expressed by a lower price that the consumer is willing to pay for the land, or a higher expected rate of return that an investor will require to invest in the land.

Put it this way - if you're trying to decide between two identical houses which one you want to buy, and one offers a guarantee by the state that it will never, under any circumstances, be subject to seizure, you will favor that house. All else being equal, you will be willing to pay more for it.

The finance geeks among us recognize that the ownership of land in this country carries with it a "short call option," with no expiration date and a strike price determined by the call option's owner - the state.

That's a pricey option to be short.

Now imagine if the transportation infrastructure in this country were privately owned. Roads for example. They would be easier to pay for (EZ-pass?) than the current system of federal, state, and local tax codes, fees, and pork-filled appropriations bills. They would be cheaper to build and maintain than they are in their current state, where protected monopolies and beaurocracies control the market. Competition among road owners would drive down prices and improve services. And property owners wouldn't be faced with the threat of having their homes seized by the state.

The economic benefits would be enormous. It would be a huge victory for free market capitalism.

It'll never happen, but interesting to think about nonetheless... :)

One case of violating someone's rights is enough to label it abuse. I've seen a dozen cases of it in the last two years and that's without searching any out, simply from reading the local newspapers.

Whether the land being taken is from Neo Nazis or the nice old couple up the block it is wrong. Try to justify it all you want, it's wrong. Casinos use this tactic, big box stores use it, in this example it's a golf course, no matter how you slice it, it's wrong.

There needs to be SOME definition of the public good in these laws. If that's not clear to people, then I don't know what to say. Building a hospital, school, or highway is a hell of a lot different than building a PRIVATELY OWNED casino, golf course, or store.

Perhaps I was not clear enough, my bad. To try again I'll use the analogy of surgery: if you have a procedure that is beneficial 290 times out of 292 attempts then the procedure will continue to be done.

What I get from your post is that the evidence is anecdotal in nature and can not be compared to the over all harm or benefit to American citizens. It's a policy that when applied to a nation of 270 million individuals guarantees someone, somewhere, at some time, is going to get shat upon.

2Wolves

Your example doesn't apply as there is no willful disregard to the patient incorporated. A more fitting comparison would be that a surgeon will purposefully, with the government's blessing, without remorse, and while receiving remibursement for the murder kill 2 patients for every 290 he/she saves. Does that really sound appropriate to you?

Did you get a flu shot this year? http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/conce...de-effects.htm

You are assuming a malign intent with no evidence besides the anecdotal. That attitude isn't appropriate.

2Wolves

One person's rights are being violated to improve the economic situation of another private economic entity, that seems pretty malevolent to me. Without the guidelines I call for (some method of gauging the public good) I will err on the side of the current owner. My "attitude" is entirely appropriate. I don't attempt to tell you what attitude you should take in your postings, please don't assume that you can in mine.

In this case as originally noted it is NOT a private economic entity but the community.

Gauging the benefit or harm to the body politic was also something I put forth, but as a policy you have to have good backup to present your case for change. I'd like to see something other than anecdotal tales. As long as it remains within the law the aggrieved party or parties have a chance.

My statement is as appropriate as your trolling about killing people out of hand for the government. Quite.

2Wolves

The community, nay the government. If you'd prefer, we can look at motives. As it stands the government in question doesn't even receive tax revenues from the property in question as it's in an adjoining town. As it will be, it will not only gain revenue from the land's eventual use but it will control that land.

As far as anecdotal tales, whatever. There are several threads here that discuss eminent domain abuse, I guess those are all "anecdotal" too and not worthy of discussion.

If you think I'm just trolling then stop responding to me. It's not that hard, you can do it, just don't hit the "submit reply" button and you've achieved it.

Ustwo,
I have got to admit that any defense of this specific instance of eminent domain could not be based in any part on this specific instance, but on the idea in general.

What is wrong with this (other than that I despised golf and golfers), is that the term "public interest" is being stretched well past the breaking point and right out into the absurd.

There is a vast difference in my mind between using emminent domain to build a highway that will at the very least make economic development easier, or a school to yield a better trained work force of educated citizens on the one hand, and building a damn rec center on the other. Also, there's a huge difference between forcing the sale of a functioning family farm for trivial purposes on the one hand, and forcing the sale of derelict apartment buildings by absentee landlords on the other.

Bottom line, about this case you are absolutely correct. About the general case, though... well, let's just say I would not want you bathing my kid.

I could see how you could look at this situation and scream abuse, but even then, it is really completely different from the courthouse example you provided. It also does nothing to invalidate the practice accross the board. I could post an article or two about the abuse of prescription drugs and then say something like- "let's see all you righties try to justify the use of prescrip[tion drugs in light of this anecdotal evidence that in some instantces they are abused." Whatever, you can cry your tears and pretend to care about the little guy, but when it comes down to it, this country would be a very different place if not for emminent domain seizures. America has a very established history of bending the little guy (or gal) over the barrel so a few big old white guys can reap the rewards. To deny that is to deny your culture.

Another definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:

"Capitalism - The condition of possessing capital; the position of a capitalist; a system which favours the existence of capitalists."

Which, then makes us ask, what is a capitalist?

"Capitialist - One who has accumulated capital; one who has capital available for employment in financial or industrial enterprises."

As much as you try to refute what I'm saying with your definition, it really doesn't. The process of eminent-domain has nothing to do with means of production or distribution - it specifically addresses land rights. There's a big difference.

To be clear, the tools (instruments) and the raw material (subject) you use to create something are the means of production. Did you know its possible to have capitalism in a country where no-one owns any land at all? Means of distribution involves how one delivers goods to the market.

Another thing, free market is defined (by the American Heritage Dictionary) as "An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions."

Eminent-domain has nothing to do with supply and demand regulations.

Additionally, the Oxford English Dictionary definition gets right to the heart of what I'm saying... this system favors capitalists - those with capital and want to make more capital have a better chance to do that than people with less capital.

It really is elementary, I'll agree with you there.

The existence and survival of most authoritarian states (all that I can think of) has a lot to do with the approval of the capitalists with the government. As I mentioned earlier, Musselini said (I found the direct quote), "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." If an authoritarian system were to simply take anything it wanted, the authoritarian system would fail. Communism didn't do this, it attempted (poorly) to redistribute land and goods fairly. Like it or not, all governments do have to pay attention to the people, or else they will pay the consequences.

Eminent-domain generally has a capitalist upshot. I don't argue against the creation of roads and power lines. Capitalism is supposed to improve the quality of life for everyone. We wouldn't have supermarkets without a good transportation system, or a lot of other things. It is a good capitalistic tool.

I didn't say that. I said, "rights prevent those with capital from taking capital from others".


So, what? We have to pay a toll every time we enter a new road jurisdiction? Or what? A monthly bill? Will my car have a tracking device to show how much I use each section of each privately owned section of the road? In this case I can see the road system being owned and operated by thousands of people. How do you organize things such as freeways? How do you ensure good quality and maintenance along all stretches of the roads? How would they be cheaper to maintain and build? What about the railroad moguls that were so corrupt and manipulated markets, couldn't that happen again with that system? Government provides uniformity and standards... I don't particularly care if I spend more on roads for the guarantee that I'm going to be able to safely transverse them.

There goes my weekend plans.

I hear they are using eminent-domain as a litmus test for day care now too.

:hmm:

Emminant domain abused.

I'd just like to say that I enjoyed reading this thread, especially the posts between apechild and wilbjammin. I'm completely unqualified to talk intelligently about this subject in the general sense, so it's fun to read the arguments of those who are.

In this specific case though, as much as I love a good golf course, I have to disagree. This sort of thing isn't distinct to this one town though, I read a year or so ago, in the atlantic I think, about a town doing the same thing up in New York, I believe. The logic of the town was that a golf course and surrounding houses bring in much needed development to dying communities.

I'd suggest to the owner he find some endangered species nesting ground on his property, ASAP.

Yes but then they would have to have an enviromental impact statement every time they mowed their lawn, and would not be able to sell it at a future date :lol:

Actually, what they should do is get involved in the farmland preservation program.

Now that is a damn good idea!

This makes me physically ill. Eminent Domain is a perfect example of the raod to hell being paved with good intentions. If you want to build something, buy your own fucking property for fair prices, and stop picking on people and hiding behind an unfair law. If someone needs to build someting absolutely vital right where I live, and they can prove that, I'll sell for the 280k my house is worth, otherwise they can kiss my ass and I'll let them know in those words exactly.

What I hearing, and correct me if I'm mistaken, is the law is ok if it is a vital need and fair prices are paid.

Is that what you mean?

2Wolves

The unfortunate fact is that "fair prices" are determined by the government, not the evictee. In every case I've seen in the tri-state are, the "fair price" has been between less than 40 percent of the actual value. Families move into tiny apartment and condos because their $300,000 Colonial on an acre of land complete with 2 car garage and in-gorun pool was ruled by a court to be worth $50,000. Others get the price of the land, not the house. Mom and pop stores shut down because the measley check they get can't possibly relocate them to the mall or shopping center whose parking lot paves over 50 years of memories and hard work because those 20 parking spaces are so vital to the local economy.

If the system worked, I wouldn't mind. The problem is, it just ends up screwing over good, honest homeowners and businesses get screwed over so that chain stores and fast food joints are more important to local campaign contributions, err, I mean, economy.

The evictee would set as fair a price as the government agency. Binding arbitration could be a possible solution.

As for the system screwing over people; do you have a more global data set then the usual "poor old kindly farmer" bit that makes the news?

2Wolves

Bumping this thread due to the 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court essentially supporting using eminent-domain to benefit private companies.

LINKY

All I have to say is that this is not a left or right issue to say only the left does this or only the right..... well it's bullpucky. Both sides do it equally well.

The laws are there, if you don't like them vote to change them. Until then enjoy the drive on your roads, the product that comes to your area by rail, your community parks, the utilities that light, heat, give you cable and water your house.

Is it unfair? Yes.

But as the Right loves to point out so often on these boards life is unfair.

(By the way I'm on the center-left and I love to play golf.)

This isn't about roads or utilities -- this is about abusing a law (meant purely for necessities like the previously mentioned) and using it to benefit a private company. As pro-business as I am, golf courses and office buildings are NOT necessities for the "public good" and using eminent domain in order to get cheap land for your buddy the contractor is beyond wrong. I really don't understand how some people can defend this abuse of power by the government and scream and shout about ANWR oil-drilling.

I totally agree it is wrong, but the laws obviously allow it. It's not a right or left issue, and in all honesty I believe this could start a ground swell of people wanting to change the laws. The laws obviously do not distinguish one form of business as ok and another as not ok from doing this. (IF they did I am sure the right would have fits saying how could gov't decide which business has what rights). This is just an example of an abuse of laws.

If you don't believe this has been going on for years upon years then look up how GM, Ford, Chrysler, the Steel industry and so on got their properties. Look up how the area malls 25-30 years ago got their malls.

My father did land surveys on the weekends and as a kid I grew up being his rodsman and I saw this alot. Wendy's headquarters in Dublin Ohio was "purchased" this way.

As for ANWR..... I may not like it but Bush won. His actions speak for themselves and so did his approval ratings. I am but me and all I can do is my best, screaming and complaining get me nowhere, organizing and speaking out and working to change laws gives me more of a chance to change the laws.

Several people stated: it's okay to take people's land for highways, roads and powerlines but not a recreation center. How does one draw that line?

I disagree Pan. This is not "a law," per se, Eminent Domain and the taking of property with just compensation for the PUBLIC use...is actually a constitutional ammendment, the fifth to be exact. Here is the text:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Law or consitutional restriction or whatever. You're right it needs to change. And so does the Supreme Courts interpretive abilities.

This decision is complete and utter destruction of this principle, and broadens the definition of public use to include taking property to give to rich developers who financed my last campaign so they will also finance my re-election.

Disgusting.

No one is safe or secure in their homes, anyone's property can be siezed, to help finance any politicians next re-election.

Your right though this isn't a left or right issue. Essentially, every politician interested in their own survival and eliminating any accountability is on the left. Even those who claim to be on the right. They're all sacks of shit imho.

Don't even get me started on researching what a complete mockery of "Just Compensation" has been basterized to mean as far as a government body is concerned. Pennies on the dollar!

The left has started this consolidation of power...and the people have bought it hook line and sinker. The new deal, the great society, the compassion industry, affirmative action, roe v wade, ad infinitum. All complete and utter failures. Yet we keep on plugging away...as if the garbage who created this nonsense can or even will fix it?

-bear

Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

What appears to missing in this discussion is *how* the supreme's came to this decision. I completely agree with their finding that this is a state decision, not a federal one.

what i find funny in this is that i doubt any of you who are complaining about this ruling were terribly concerned when the same logic exactly was employed by city after city throughout the united states to herd the poor from area to area in the name of "beautification" or "urban renewal"--no no--convention centers and vital highway access routes, office buildings and sports complexes all have at one time ro another been put up on top of older residential neighborhoods that were more often than not, simply confiscated using precisely this logic.

this ruling is that it appears to simply roll the purview of this version of eminent domain from the poor--whose dispossession you doubtless have no problem with as such--to the middle class--that is to you, to people like you...using the same logic as before--"improvement" of tax base = "improvement" of everything.

in fact, i am surprised that this kind of thing is not cheered by the right, following the logic of their ideology of capitalism--the whole "raising all boats" pseudo-logic. just goes to show that the destruction visited by capitalism is just dandy for conservatives so long as they can pretend that it will always effect other people.

to be clearer about what i am saying, here is an article from today's ny times on the decision:

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/po...rtner=homepage

notice the emphasis placed on the basic argument "but our house is not ugly" as if it was universally agreed previously that every structure occupied by poor folk was a priori ugly, and those occupied by the middle class a priori not.


more broadly,
i have never really understood conservative objections to eminent domain in general--i mean apart from this case--the class dimension of it notwithstanding--i dont see the basis for it, beyond a kind of self-defeating individualistic worldview, one that would enable individuals to imagine that, say, the value of their property was not contingent on infrastructure, on services, etc.---i have assumed from the outset that this fight over eminent domain was in fact part of the conservative assault on the whole idea of the public as over against the private.

eminent domain is something that is pretty difficult to defend in positive ways, frankly--partly because it seems pretty straightforward in that there should be some kind of overriding of individual property rights in the interest of the public (infrastructure, etc.)--i have no problem with that, but it is not something that one can really cheer about. perverse stuff, all this.

Incorrect kind contributor. This was not an affirmation in any way of "states rights."

This is a federal constitutional issue NOT available for states to decide. The Supreme's decided that the emiment domain doctrine allows for the taking of private land for what ever that government can dream up as a public use. Including influence peddling developers who will build high dollar condos which generate more tax revenue then the small middle class neighborhood homes.

This was an expansion and consolidation of government powers, and an errosion of ordinary citizens rights. Nothing more.

-bear

in the matter of property ownership, how exactly does this distinction "ordinary citizen" vs. "government" work if the value of the sacred property is a function of the (public) infrastructure around it, of the patterns of investment that situate it--which are more often than not worked out in co-ordination with municipalities, etc.
if you sell your sacred property, you would rely on the workings of markets which are created and hedged around at every step by legal strictures, all of which are public. the currency that you would accrue is a social phenomenon.
the relation of you as buyer to your mortgage is a highly circumscribed one, legally.
the deed that gives you title is a legal document.
the idea of private property is a legal construction.
every single step of every single aspect of this relation entails a very very close interaction between the private citizen (also a legal term) and the state....so i don't see how you can make a strict separation between the two and be coherent in any way. but maybe you can explain it?

this separation does not seem to me to involve an analytic viewpoint in any way--these seem straight political/ideological claims.

I think Elphaba had an excellent post.

It appears that when a justice says "it's a community's right and the state can change the laws" the Right still claim violation and that it's BS Liberalism. But yet when the judge claims something as federal they yell again "liberalism".

I also think if you truly believe this is done in the name of tax revenue.... then maybe you would be best served to find ways to hike up the tax base.....

You shouldn't count me in with that branch of the right. I am quite consistent in this regard. There are several clearly enumerated federal areas of concern. This is one of them, asa outlined in the fifth ammendment

Read the ninth and tenth ammendments, for additional guidance.

Of course it is the commerce clause, that has truly allowed for the erosion of state rights and the ever expanding realm of federal jurisdiction. This in addition to a common theme from the Supreme Court referred to as compelling interest. Which, imho, is a load of BS. We'll tell you what is a compelling interest through the ballot box.

Finally, I "believe" as you put it, that this property seivure was based on tax revenue because that's what the town of New London argue they were doing it for.

I agree that raising taxes would also have solved the problem...but hey, this way the politicians will still get re-elected, because only insignificant, inconsequential pions are displaced, and the heavy hitting influencial donors, developers and investors are not only wealthier, but your revenues are up and your re-election committees are better funded. Sounds like a win-win. Unless your a blue collar or middle class drone.

Your right on the money Pan. This isn't a left or right issue. However this is also not states right issue.

I wonder how it would be possible for a state government to restrict a local governments application of a permissable constitutional privledge?

You really think that poster had an excellent at bat? A tiny sampling of a rather ominous decision resulting in an inaccurate conclusion of the entire opinion.

-bear

If I erred in my conclusion, I appear to be in good company. :)

Time magazine went into some detail about this particular case two or three issues back. My copy has long since gone into the trash, but I'll try to find something online. If I recall, the issue wasn't specifically about increasing the tax base, but to fulfill a promise made to support a large influx of employees.

Perhaps, while I do that, you can clarify your position by providing links to your claims?

Somehow I figured this argument would go the exact opposite that what it currently is. I figured the "left leaners" [not meant in a bad way] would oppose this decision since it in effect gives the rich with a bit of money to spend a constitutional go-ahead to take the poor man's land all in the name of more government and the "right-wing" [again, not meant in a bad way] to be calling this a landmark decision for big business.
I sure missed it. I guess big government is ok as long as it's taking land to make a bigger tax base? Would it still be ok the government took these people's land if they was going to put a church there? I think all you "lefties" [again, not meant in a bad way} would be screaming bloody murder about how the religious "righties" [not meant in a bad way...] was taking over the world.

My opinion of this ruling is that it sucks! It just proves that in reality "we the people" own nothing and the government owns it all and we merely pay rent in the form of taxes. Republicans get elected promising smaller government and less bullshit and in reality all we get is more of the same shit just rolled up in a different wrapper. Don't get your panties in a bunch, I realize this had nothing to do with the elected parties I'm just frustrated and venting a bit.

this was our Attorney General's response to the ruling.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_art...?storyid=65141

You want links to my opinions? You want to provide links to yours? From Time magazine? The decision was published today. How could Time have had any insight into what this decision does three week ago.

I'll tell you what...

As soon as the opinion is made available in full here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/opinions.html

You can read it for yourself.

The "Syllabus" is particularly informative. So is O'Connors dissent.

-bear

Since I'm in a jovial non-confromtational mood...I'll, with all sincerity, whole heartedly agree that Pan is definately good company.

Peace bro...or bro and sis...or....well...

Just Peace
:thumbsup:

-bear

I'm a bro.... last time I went pee I was..... and thanks Elphaba and J8 for the compliment.

And let me just say, when I say right I am usually focussing on Neo-Cons like Limbaughs and the Bush hardliners. There are many great moderates that I truly respect.

Much like when someone says left, and are focussing on the more extreme. It's easier to just type.

Just want to clarify.

Shani..... looks like you live in the right state.

I need to move to Georgia. I just wish it wasn't so blasted hot there in the summer.

Yes it does suck, but it is the law. As far as do you own it...... they do have to pay fair market value, and they usually go by the appraised value that the taxes you pay on the land is.

As I have stated I worked with my dad as his rodsman growing up and I know for a fact, a vast majority of people like it when they have eminent domain because they either got more for the property than they would have or it increased the value of surrounding land.

I do think the people need to make a rising and start getting laws to make sure this is somehow controlled, or we could end up in trouble.

The ruling was a wake up call that we need to check local and state laws and adjust them.

I KNOW you are...I can tell by your avatar ;)

It's the other bro/sis...that im not sure of. Erring on the side of caution, covering all my bases...dotting my tee's and crossing my eye's...

You know just generally trying to lighten the mood.

Oh how I'm sooooooo good at ~that~ :crazy:

-bear

I hope your attorney general knows that federal law outranks any state law thats on the books.

Depends on exactly how the case came about. If it was someone fighting a law that said their city was allowed to do this then the opposite would be true.... a law that states private land cannot be emminent domained for private gain (which I believe Elphaba showed at least 1 justice claimed).

I can't see even SC saying that a local law in a case like this would be illegal and that the COnstitution allows private developers to take land. From what I gather it just upheld a local law.

this kind of ruling makes me revert to marxist form:

the legal framework within which property relations works is nothing more or less than the legal framework of class warfare. what is interesting in this is that the petit bourgeois--who have been systematically invited through the distortions of conservative ideology to pretend that their interests are identical with those of the economic elite, for which the republican party, now as always, carries--um---water--now find that their interests are not identical with those of the economic elite.

what a shock.


it seems to me that the "little guy vs. the System" line that has been central to the debate in this thread is, in the main, incoherent as a way to understand what is going on here.

think about it: the claim that private enterprise can provide services that previously the state provided better and more efficiently--a claim central to the fantasyland that conservatives live in, but one that has been falsified over and over (think british rail or think the water supply problems in chile for example)--leads in the longer run to a blurring of the line between private and public functions.

as an argument, the above appears not to be a problem for the right, it seems--but now, like i said, the petit bourgeois--you know, the small business types, the small landholders---find themselves as a result of this ruling basically cast back into the wrong side of the class system.

that this line of conservative argument does not mesh at all with the obsession with private property rights is no surprise.

it is not that i support the ruling--i dont really care about it one way or another--but what i find surprising is the handwringing on the part of conservatives over it.

Roachboy,

what I find most interesting is how these responses will play out...
If I understand the concept of hegemony correctly, then I would be accurate to state that the dominant ideology wouldn't allow the people negatively affected by this ruling to question the class structure and law, as an apparatus reaffirming the class structure, but rather to seek an explanation that is conceivable within the social context we are operating within.

so how will they [those negatively affected by this ruling] make sense of the ruling?
one plausible way seems to be blaming the activist judges. or the overreach of the federal government or judiciary.

how this is handled and rationalized is most interesting to me...

Pardon, but I don't find this conducive to any discussion.

Indeed, it is clear that you too have made up your mind and have already summarily dismissed any world view that does not agree with yours.

How is this any different from what you are decrying?

I read the opinion to expand on an existing constitutional priveledge. Which in effect confirmed an existing local law, as opposed to striking it down.

I to am stumped.

I see it as perfectly reasonable for any locality, in Georgia for example, to challenge ANY Georgia State Constitutional provision that restricts this federal constitutionally permitted privledge.

For example, the first ammendment gaurantees a right to free speech, with clearly and narrowly defined exceptions...does this then mean that states can restrict speech further? In essense restrict or reduce this constitutional provision? If so how? Why?

I might have erred in ~my~ interpretation of this, as many of the pundits, talking heads and elites have asserted just that.

Baffled :crazy:

That is why I am but a constitutional sophomore.

-bear

You've, as usual, read a lot of shit into what I wrote.
Wondering how people are going to make sense of this demonstration of the disconnect between how the law actually operates when it's supposed to guarantee private rights in the United States doesn't "decry" anything and I didn't dismiss anything or anyone in my comments.

But don't worry about it, my comments were directed at roachboy in order to elicit his opinion about this subject. I don't visit this board enough to care what you have to say about my post or your expressed inablity to understand what I wrote.

Ah my post returns from the dead.

Look at the judges who voted for this horrible abuse of power.

Guess what 'side' of the political fence they are on.

Fucking typical.

This is indefensible, un-American, and I would expect such rulings only from a fascist or communist nation.

This is the quintessential precedence of the government being superior to the citizens it serves.

The fact that this is allowed by LOCAL governments only makes it more abusable and horrific in nature.

As an American I am disgusted.

Quite honestly, this post makes me sad. I thought we had moved beyond this.

I don't really have any commentary to add specifically on property rights, but i think it's important to comment on this statement.

How is it not useful to a political discussion to note how rhetorics are constructed? Property rights, or any other idea, does not naturally have a framework in place to discuss it. In the west, we primarly have chosen to operate on an assumption of indivual rights to ownership as negotiated by law. This doesn't stike me as a particularly "natural" assumption...and i see no reason to treat it like an invented concept. This of course, does not mean it is without merit. It may be the best invented concept among many...though i happen to think otherwise.

So yes...i think it's entirely appropriate to see how these concepts are justified, explained, and constructed. That is the debate...

A pity you got flamed back on that response you gave, but to be honest...i think your dismissal was a bit quick.

hegemony is about cultural domination: it is about controlling the terms of debate.
in the states, the hegemonic ideology is a variant of neoliberalism, whcih trickles down onto the heads of most of us in the form of an endless apology for capitalism in all its forms. contemporary conservative ideology is obviously part of this--but it is not identical with it. same goes for such ideology as there is in the democratic party that is not a simple duplicate of the republican.

from this follows the complete absurdity of the right casting the democrats as leftist--like the old saw goes, the us is a single party state with two right wings.

with a question like this ruling on eminent domain, the terms of debate are really pretty interesting--i think the incoherence of conservative ideology provides the folk who see their world through it no basis for criticizing the ruling--i could point out specific instances above, but i think they speak for themselves. the claims about "the government" assailing the right of individuals is at the very best a truncated way of seeing what is happening here.

in the main, i think smooth was right about the matter of responses to it having as much if not more symptomatic as logical interest.

I think it is indeed useful. But as I read and understand his post, he seem predisposed, nay scornfull, towards any framing that goes against what he considers to be the proper framing:

At least, that is one way this passage could be understood.

But instead of taking a step back and looking at how else his post could have been reasonably intrepreted, he chose to flame.

The funny thing is, that I understood his post perfectly and could have agreed with most of it. How a debate is framed is half the battle in any contest, but without more clarification from him, I don't see why he got so huffy when I intrepreted some ambiguous lines of his in a particular way.

Those three damn Commie Leftist Republicans! :hmm:

You know the SC is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they uphold a local law (which this case was about) the citizens cry "how could they, liberals"..... Screw that. It's and excuse to not have to go about getting the local law changed by petitions and ballot.

Easier to blame everything on those libs.... instead of saying "well, fuck I guess we need to get off our fat asses and change the laws."

Then the SC is damned if they overturn a local law..... "how dare those fucking Libs, tell us what laws we can or cannot have." Instead of getting off your fatasses, figuring out what part of the law is illegal and rewriting it.

Jesus, it's not brain surgery people. The SC basically tells you in their summations what problems exist and it's up to you to change them.

It's bullshit to say they are legislating.... all they do is look at the laws as how they are on the book and make a ruling. Don't like the ruling.... change the laws so that they abide by what is constitutional. Stop fucking taking the easy way out and blaming "those libs" or those "neo-cons".... Blaming is just laziness and wanting to hate someone instead of working to change things.

Thanks for the good convo, roachboy. It's been a pleasure interacting with you on this board and I learned things from you almost every time you posted. I wouldn't have remained around as long as I did if it weren't for my desire to read more of your insight. It's pretty obvious to anyone who chooses to see my past interactions that I don't come into the politics board anymore. Within the first day of me returning to see what was going on in a number of weeks, the little thorn in lebel's ass that he has about the things I write seem to have fully bloomed in his mind into a mushroom cloud that warrants censoring my participation. It appears I'm off to join Manx. Have a nice [virtual] life...

...some of us have better things to do with ourselves than get bent out of shape when a person replies that they didn't post for your benefit or understanding.


If "cleaning" your board means purging the long-time, valuable contributors from your presence because they word things in ways you don't agree with then hopefully you will re-evaluate the ways in which you interpret what people write before you lose them all.

I didn't "flame" anyone until lebel, who relishes swithing from moderator ("staff") status to member status when it suits his purposes, took it upon himself to pick at my post based on what he assumes I mean whenever I post. If this were an isolated incident, I wouldn't have responded the way I did; every longtime member here knows that the kinds of commentary he makes towards particular members of this community and then jumps back in disbelief when someone responds in kind.

In fact, he still can't leave my comments alone...now claiming that they were "scornful". Of course, in a more rational world I would argue that saying I don't really care what you have to say about my comments isn't a "flame." Perhaps some people are reading antagonism into my comment that I wasn't interested in whether he understood what I wrote, which he now claims he understood and partially agreed with. That seems mildly interesting to me since his opening line to me was that he couldn't conceive how my comments were conducive to discussion.

If it's any consolation - your wife/g-friend has real nice tits.

how is the above an acceptable post?

OK Guys and Gals....this really needs to stop.

We have many personalities in here....and each grates on the others in some way, but that does not mean we cannot have debate and discussion that actually makes everyone think.....about politics. Unfortunately this seems to have become a discussion of TFP politics rather than Government politics. If there is a problem with a MOD or any other staff member.....feel free to PM the Boss and it will be adrressed, but there is absolutely no reason to bash each other in public, short of trying to garner support from the rest of the community.
I'm not going to close this thread.....and I am going to request Smooth rethink leaving this board, as I would love to see everyone put in the effort to improve this place. I mean "Everyone" Staff, Members, Lurkers......Everyone.

We have commited to cleaning up this board. We would very much like the help of all who frequent politics in doing so. We have no intention of playing favorites in any way and will use a very simple formula to accomplish corrective actions in here from this point on, these steps are as follows:

If you make a statement that seems to staff as inflamatory, we will Remind you of what civility is.....in Yellow

We ask that others indulge in self control and refrain from rising to the bait, as it can take time to notice these things

If you outright insult, or degrade the person of another member, we will stop you from doing so again for a period of time, and tell EVERYONE exactly why and for how long.....in orange

If anyone goes beyond this....in any way, they will never have the opportunity to do so again.....Period

You see red....things have become very bad

We only hope these extreme measures can be temporary, and allow some of the immaturity to leech out of this board. If not.....our ranks are going to thin quite a bit. If these rules seem harsh or "Fascist" to you.....

Deal With It

What a unique discussion. The conservatives, thought to be in the pocket of the fat cat developers, abhor this decision.

The leftists, sticklers for individual freedom, applaud the taking of private property.

And those who despise the thought of drilling in the ANWR, and who want to confiscate all SUVs, are suddenly very concerned that our highway system is top-notch.

You make a very excellent point. As hurtful as it may be to read this, I agree with you 100%. We americans are a bunch of fat lazy fuckers. We want everything yesterday. We always take the easy road. And when something doesn't go our way, we try to place on the blame elsewhere instead is standing up and taking responsibility for out actions. Or non-action in this particular case. The SC only interprets law. They don't legislate from the bench. The look at the law and apply it to the situation and rule on it. That's all they do. We, (yes that included you too) need to stand up and tell our "representatives" that this shit don't fly. If they wont represent us like they are elected to do, then boot their asses.

I guess the SP ruled correctly since eminent domain is the law. I wish it wasn't at least not the ability to take land from one private citizen and give it to another.

But if government has the ability to take from one and give to another at least the party losing the property should be given just compensation (fair market value). A $100,000 home in the way of a new Wal-Mart should be worth millions.

Souter may be looking for another home soon...

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
i'm skeptical that it will go through, but it's interesting to see someone trying to do this.

I'm not fully (or even partially) versed in eminent domain, but I will say that in most case, especially this one, that it's a load of hooey. I like the one quote, back on page one, where the city officials said they were doing the renovations in the "HOPE" of improvements. That's bullshit, 110%. You had best NOT hope it's gonna improve the city. You better KNOW 130% that it WILL.

On the topic of "just compensation," giving someone market value for their home is ridiculous. My house was given a FMV (Fair Market Value) of just under $80,000. If I'm offered $80,000, what does that do for me? Not much, really. It gets me out, and that is it. It doesn't pay to find another place, doesn't pay for the time off from work that will be required to search, inspect, and do all the final closing on a new place, nor does it pay for the place that I have to stay between residences.

I realize that there is probably a time frame given, but, in extenuating circumstances, it may not be enough time. What then? If a person has to find land, then build a house, that takes a bit longer yet.

My opinion on the matter is this...I understand the provison to take, with just compensation. However, if the evictee isn't wanting nor willing to sell, or move, then the local government can do no more. Forcing a sell would constitute some such crime that I can't think of a name for...either way, it's bad. Theft, it would almost amount to. If a government wants land, they can go about it like us common folk do. If they don't like it, that's too bad. If E-D needs to be invoked, just compensation needs to equal FMV for the residence, plus a percentage of a year's wages, plus compensation for time living in an apartment, plus the downpayment to a new home, plus another 15% of that overall total for the inconvenience. Maybe more.

I'll go away now, before I get too worked up, and get myself in trouble. At least you know what I think.

On trickyy's article above, I do find that ironic, really. As much as I dislike the whole general idea of E-D, this would kick ass! Get bit by the law/decision that you approved!

There are far more knowledgable folks than I that could look into Freestarmedia, but that article looks like a sophisticated hoax. Nothing at Snopes as yet.

Addition: C'mon folks..."Lost Liberty Hotel" sounds legitimate?

This court ruling is that IF your local government allows private eminent domain then it is legal.

That being the case if your community VOTES to have or HAS laws that already state you cannot do that....... then that law is upheld also.

So if your area doesn't have a law protecting you, go out get petitions signed and get it on the ballot and vote to pass it. That way you have nothing to worry about.

Blaming the SC is freaking easy and what the Right wants so that they have a rubber stamp in all 3 branches and can do whatever they want.

The Right finds fault in every ruling now because THEY want public opinion to hate the SC and blame the SC for everything.

The 10 Commandment ruling.............. what was wrong with that .... truly what was wrong with it? Constitutionally the government CANNOT show favoritism to one religion over another. Putting the 10 Commandments up and then other Judeo Christian symbols without any other religion represented is in fact government showing favoritism toward a religion.

They did not say a private company could not have walls with nothing but religious artifacts on them..... just government buildings..... and yet the Right wants you to believe the SC is just whacked out and trying to take God out of everything.

So why are they playing to the fears of the people? Why are they making these rulings more than what they truly are? One has to truly wonder.

One would think. In reality however, most likely you would only get the last appraised value from the county treasurers office. Usually, that number is below fair market value.

Beucase that's all the right is good for. They prey on the fears of everyone to justify their actions. Whether it's Iraq, 10 commandants, telling people that they'll die if they vote for Kerry, or anything else. They're just so power hungry it's sickening.

Well, I don't see that anyone else has posted this yet. Sure hope it's not a hoax.

Link

There's a thread on the article here