SCOTUS expands property-taking powers of government

[MKSheppard]

Amen.

The Shep and Anti-Shep agreeing?

*world comes to an end, God gets Pissed*

[MKSheppard]

If I ever own a sizeable tract of land, I'm going to pour used motor oil in one
section of the land from day one; because under current environmental laws,
they'd have to treat the motor oil as contamination and would have to clean
it all up before redeveloping; making the profit/cost ratio much much less...

[tharkûn]

Perhaps you missed the Court's reasoning regarding Public Use for the land. A mansion, no matter what increased tax revenue alone does not meet the requirements of a public good. A Casino which adds to tax coffers, employment and land value does because the public in general benefits from this Casino more than the $200,000 private home.

A $10,000,000 home adds to tax coffers, employment and land value. The public in general benefits from this mansion more than the $200,000 private home.

The only difference between the mansion and the casino is magnitude. Suppose the town has Trump wanting to build a casino and Paul Allen wanting to build a private estate for himself complete with airfeild for his personal fighter jets. If there is more economic benifit for Paul Allen's estate would the city then be justified to condemn so he can build his estate?

Frankly where does the logic end. Trump gets to condemn to build casinos, okay. Do smaller towns get to condemn to build a four star hotel? Or perhaps a health spa? Exactly HOW much benifit should the city be required to demonstrate? If the benifits of a private estate (employment, tax revenue, and land value) exceed a commericial development that meets these requirements, why shouldn't the city use its power to opt for the estate?

[Elfdart]

This ruling declared open season on vast numbers of low income elderly people in older (and cheaper) homes.

For example:

XYZ, inc. wants to build a new office complex. They don't want to buy real estate that's already available because it's expensive and they'd have to compete with others who want to buy it at REAL market value. Instead, they get a city council (which would stand to get a cut of the spoils) to condemn the homes of poor people (cheap real estate owned by people who can't fight back -they have no money to offer the city) and pay a completely bogus "market value" that the city itself sets. Haggling over prices with the threat of force backing one side is gangsterism.

But even if we assume that a truly fair market value is paid, it still leaves the owner in the position of trying to find a new place to live without being able to pay for it. A retiree or poor person who owns a home in a low-value neighborhood (let's say his home is worth $60,000 -not that much) and he actually gets that much (maybe a little more) for his home. He now has to find a place to live without enough to pay for it. Houses that cheap can't be found anymore, so he's either on his way to a trailer park or apartment. Poor elderly people can now be screwed out of their only real property and the thirty years plus they worked to acquire it.

[Elfdart]

If I ever own a sizeable tract of land, I'm going to pour used motor oil in one
section of the land from day one; because under current environmental laws,
they'd have to treat the motor oil as contamination and would have to clean
it all up before redeveloping; making the profit/cost ratio much much less...

Big-shot real estate brokers and big business don't have to abide by such laws. They can always get waivers and they already have the city's peckers in their pockets. "Oil, what oil?"

[Chmee]

If I ever own a sizeable tract of land, I'm going to pour used motor oil in one
section of the land from day one; because under current environmental laws,
they'd have to treat the motor oil as contamination and would have to clean
it all up before redeveloping; making the profit/cost ratio much much less...

Big-shot real estate brokers and big business don't have to abide by such laws. They can always get waivers and they already have the city's peckers in their pockets. "Oil, what oil?"

Come on over to Seattle sometime ... this guy with a couple dollars named Paul Allen spent years negotiating to buy one of the last big buildable sites on Lake Washington (a lumber mill with about 100 waterfront acres) but the deal eventually broke down over negotiating cleanup costs. He was going to put in an office park, condos, probably a restaurant and small marina ... but the City of Renton wouldn't pick up as much of the cleanup tab as Allen wanted, so no deal.

[Elfdart]

Renton could have been holding out for a better deal and overplayed their hand. Anyway, I'll wager that environmental standards are much more thoroughly enforced in your neck of the woods than mine.

Jerry Jones just snookered the city of Arlington to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars for a new stadium (exclusively for the Cowboys). In order to make room for parking, a low-income neighborhood is slated for bulldozing.

[Glocksman]

If I ever own a sizeable tract of land, I'm going to pour used motor oil in one
section of the land from day one; because under current environmental laws,
they'd have to treat the motor oil as contamination and would have to clean
it all up before redeveloping; making the profit/cost ratio much much less...

Big-shot real estate brokers and big business don't have to abide by such laws. They can always get waivers and they already have the city's peckers in their pockets. "Oil, what oil?"

Or they sell the contaminated property to the local government.

My county needs a new jail bad, but instead of building one on the site of an abandoned convention center and old grocery/warehouse that's less than a block away from the existing jail and courts building, they bought oil-contaminated property from CSX railroad that's a good eight miles from the courts building as a site for the new jail.

Make any sense?
Only if you're the politicians that CSX paid to take their envirohazard off of their hands.

[Joe]

Jerry Jones just snookered the city of Arlington to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars for a new stadium (exclusively for the Cowboys). In order to make room for parking, a low-income neighborhood is slated for bulldozing.

Did it go to referendum? I despise publically-funded stadiums for private interests, I think it's one of the most disgusting things local governments can do. Nothing makes me more happy than when voters tell those overpaid fuckers to take a hike.

[darthdavid]

If this happened I'd get a couple buckets of rocks and sit on my roof hucking them at anyone who tried to demolish my house.

[tharkûn]

XYZ, inc. wants to build a new office complex. They don't want to buy real estate that's already available because it's expensive and they'd have to compete with others who want to buy it at REAL market value. Instead, they get a city council (which would stand to get a cut of the spoils) to condemn the homes of poor people (cheap real estate owned by people who can't fight back -they have no money to offer the city) and pay a completely bogus "market value" that the city itself sets. Haggling over prices with the threat of force backing one side is gangsterism.

At least here in Michigan if the market value is bogus there is a relatively easy way to force arbitration and get market value. One local municipality condemned property and watched the price tag triple or something ludicrious when the owner fought. Of course that only involved the mid thousands in lawyers fees and I wouldn't say trust that to hold up against GM.

But even if we assume that a truly fair market value is paid, it still leaves the owner in the position of trying to find a new place to live without being able to pay for it. A retiree or poor person who owns a home in a low-value neighborhood (let's say his home is worth $60,000 -not that much) and he actually gets that much (maybe a little more) for his home. He now has to find a place to live without enough to pay for it. Houses that cheap can't be found anymore, so he's either on his way to a trailer park or apartment. Poor elderly people can now be screwed out of their only real property and the thirty years plus they worked to acquire it.

The value of the neighborhood is immaterial, the senior getting a fair value will receive the value of the land. The problem comes when the house is much less expensive than other houses on the market, or the only houses of comparable value sit on much more land. In some areas, like say beachfront, in will be utterly impossible to buy a comparable house and property - there simply are zero on the market.

There is obviously a trade off between respecting property rights and public welfare, however this ruling is far, far to open to potential abuse to be good law.

[Durandal]

If this happened I'd get a couple buckets of rocks and sit on my roof hucking them at anyone who tried to demolish my house.

That's great. Take your me-tooing over to testing where it can be pruned regularly.

[Elfdart]

Jerry Jones just snookered the city of Arlington to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars for a new stadium (exclusively for the Cowboys). In order to make room for parking, a low-income neighborhood is slated for bulldozing.

Did it go to referendum? I despise publically-funded stadiums for private interests, I think it's one of the most disgusting things local governments can do. Nothing makes me more happy than when voters tell those overpaid fuckers to take a hike.

Yep, and it barely passed. The city and Jones promise to be "fair" with homeowners. Translation: BOHICA!

[Iceberg]

Renton could have been holding out for a better deal and overplayed their hand. Anyway, I'll wager that environmental standards are much more thoroughly enforced in your neck of the woods than mine.

Jerry Jones just snookered the city of Arlington to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars for a new stadium (exclusively for the Cowboys). In order to make room for parking, a low-income neighborhood is slated for bulldozing.

Jeez, compared to that, Carl Pohlad is the heart of generosity for offering up a third of the cost of a new stadium for the Twins, regardless of the fact that he stands to recoup 2/3 of that by selling naming rights (undoubtedly to Best Buy, the only major Twin Cities corporate interest that doesn't yet have a sports stadium named after it).

[Chmee]

Renton could have been holding out for a better deal and overplayed their hand. Anyway, I'll wager that environmental standards are much more thoroughly enforced in your neck of the woods than mine.

Jerry Jones just snookered the city of Arlington to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars for a new stadium (exclusively for the Cowboys). In order to make room for parking, a low-income neighborhood is slated for bulldozing.

Jeez, compared to that, Carl Pohlad is the heart of generosity for offering up a third of the cost of a new stadium for the Twins, regardless of the fact that he stands to recoup 2/3 of that by selling naming rights (undoubtedly to Best Buy, the only major Twin Cities corporate interest that doesn't yet have a sports stadium named after it).

Allen ponied up a couple hundred million of the new stadium costs as part of his agreement to buy the Seahawks and demolish the old Kingdome ... King County still paid a big bill but it was a decent deal as stadiums go ... considering most are total developer boondoggles.

[Stuart Mackey]

The railroad barons of America's past will be cheering this on from the grave, no doubt.

[Elfdart]

As well as the ghosts of all the other villains of history who used pseudo-legal means to take homes from the people who owned them and offering less than market value to make it look all nice and legal. To really make it fit in with past land grabs, they need to pay someone who doesn't even own the home and then kick the owners out and force them to move to Oklahoma -a fate worse than death. The lords who masterminded the land clearances of Scotland would be also be proud.

[Phil Skayhan]

I write a little something concerning this decision on ASVS-HN. Now perhaps I take a little liberty with the facts, but why should I let that get in the way of a good story?

Enjoy.

[RedImperator]

I write a little something concerning this decision on ASVS-HN. Now perhaps I take a little liberty with the facts, but why should I let that get in the way of a good story?

Enjoy.

The sad thing is, that's a far less egregious abuse of eminent domain than what this decision allows--an airport is at least a public facility. Make it a country club and resort hotel and you'll be closer to the truth.

[Phil Skayhan]

You're stealing my follow-up. But I'll give you a teaser...

If you look to the upper left of the pictures, you'll see Delaware Park Race Track and Slots. How much revenue could be generated by a true casino, nay, a whole city of casino...and so close to Philly off I-95 combine with the new airport, it would be sure to put a serious dent in Atlantic City's pocketbook. Take that AC!

[MKSheppard]

Y'all are missing a very important implication of this ruling. You are looking at the issue of eminent domain affecting land only. The Fifth Amendment addresses "private property", which could include vehicles, guns, or any other item of value. And now that the Supreme (supremely stupid) Court has ruled that "public use" really means public benefit, how long do you think it will be before local governments get the idea to seize guns because it is a "public benefit" to remove them from the streets? The background information on the Chicago lawsuit to recover gun injury costs from the manufacturers and dealers would provide the financial basis for executive action without the basis in law. So what might "just conpensation" be under such circumstances? The scrap value of steel? How about a 'lease' of the gun for about 50 years for a couple of bucks?

This extraordinarily dangerous ruling puts every piece of property you own (land, cars, guns, money, furniture, clothing) at risk.

[Netko]

Actually, the fact that the goverment can take guns as a "public benefit" mesure can be very usefull, altough not in the "OMG EVIL GUNS" way, but rather as a last ditch defense mesure as it was used in, say, Croatia in '91 when all the nastyness over here started. There was a serious shortage of arms since the whole Yugoslavian Peoples Army basicly got turned into the Serbian Army in all but name and on the other hand there were tons of volonteers who wanted to fight to defend our consitutionaly sanctioned referendum's decision to withdraw from Yugoslavia. Anyway, because of the situation (more "soldiers" then guns) the gov. invoked a rule in the weapon carrying laws that alowed for confication for purposes of defense and that was a major factor for us surviving the first critical months of the war until we got proper military grade weapontry.

For instance, my grandfather's two hunting rifles were modified into military snipers and used to good effect in the war (he is/was a retired army officer, but at the time his health was critical so he couldn't reactivate). After the war we got a token compensation, nowhere near the value of the weapons (and a set of uniforms iirc) since they were lost/destroyed in the war, but really, in such a situation, compensation isn't exactly a priority.

P.S: actualy wanted to post this example in a (american-centic) gun debate for a long time since it has elements that both sides could use and it is only a decade and a half old. The pro-gun side can harp on the effectivnes of a armed population in stoping a military grade enemy, while the anti-gun side can say how usefull mandatory gun registration can be in such a situation to supply arms to those who can actualy use them instead of them being locked up in homes far away from the battlefield(s).

[Elfdart]

Y'all are missing a very important implication of this ruling. You are looking at the issue of eminent domain affecting land only. The Fifth Amendment addresses "private property", which could include vehicles, guns, or any other item of value. And now that the Supreme (supremely stupid) Court has ruled that "public use" really means public benefit, how long do you think it will be before local governments get the idea to seize guns because it is a "public benefit" to remove them from the streets? The background information on the Chicago lawsuit to recover gun injury costs from the manufacturers and dealers would provide the financial basis for executive action without the basis in law. So what might "just conpensation" be under such circumstances? The scrap value of steel? How about a 'lease' of the gun for about 50 years for a couple of bucks?

This extraordinarily dangerous ruling puts every piece of property you own (land, cars, guns, money, furniture, clothing) at risk.

Oh please! With the license to steal the Supreme Court just handed out, they'll be too busy ripping off old ladies and laughing to the bank to bother with snatching this guy's phallic toys (I mean, guns). In fact the firearms this putz and others like him fap over will most likely deter land-grabbers. Old widows on S.S. are more likely targets.

[Glocksman]

Y'all are missing a very important implication of this ruling. You are looking at the issue of eminent domain affecting land only. The Fifth Amendment addresses "private property", which could include vehicles, guns, or any other item of value. And now that the Supreme (supremely stupid) Court has ruled that "public use" really means public benefit, how long do you think it will be before local governments get the idea to seize guns because it is a "public benefit" to remove them from the streets? The background information on the Chicago lawsuit to recover gun injury costs from the manufacturers and dealers would provide the financial basis for executive action without the basis in law. So what might "just conpensation" be under such circumstances? The scrap value of steel? How about a 'lease' of the gun for about 50 years for a couple of bucks?

This extraordinarily dangerous ruling puts every piece of property you own (land, cars, guns, money, furniture, clothing) at risk.

Oh please! With the license to steal the Supreme Court just handed out, they'll be too busy ripping off old ladies and laughing to the bank to bother with snatching this guy's phallic toys (I mean, guns). In fact the firearms this putz and others like him fap over will most likely deter land-grabbers. Old widows on S.S. are more likely targets.

AFAIK, Shep doesn't own any guns.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yeah, he can't. He's a felon.