Friday Open Thread: The New London Ruling
Personally, I think this sucks:
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, in one of its most closely watched property rights cases in years, that fostering economic development is an appropriate use of the government’s power of eminent domain.
Well sure, if you’re talking about public infrastructure like roads or schools. But we’re talking about a goddamn office park.
I think Max Sawicky has it just right:
The squirrelly thing here is not the employment of government fiat per se, but the collusion between government and business. A trade union, consumer group, or community organization is not likely to connive with public officials to wreck a neighborhood for the sake of a private business development. Typically these groups block business development, which can be a good or bad thing but is less likely to have the negative consequences realized by the victims of this court decision.
Yep. As anyone who’s been following the GOP’s Zany K Street Hijinks knows, the relationship between public power and private dollars has become way, way too close. I’m worried that this ruling fits into a larger pattern of allowing favored corporations to use the government as an ATM machine. I welcome any thoughts.
allowing favored corporations to use the government as an ATM machine.
And/or allowing the use of eminent domain so an ATM machine can be installed in a neighborhood.
Forgive me, it is too hot to think where I live.
In Germany? I thought it was a temperate zone 🙂
The thing that pisses me off the most about this is that I agree with Scalia and Thomas who were in the dissenting opinion!
Seriously, this sux balls. The worst thing about these eminent domain issues is that the cities never pay what the property is worth. Since they’re in control of the tax value, they just drop the tax value of the property and then pay a little bit less than that. It would be one thing if these displaced families were being paid a good price for their property, but a lot of times, they aren’t even getting what they paid for it.
I think it should be between the developer and the property owner. If the developer wants the property bad enough, he just pays a shitload of money to the owner to vacate. But instead they pay the city a shitload to make the owner vacate. How fucking stupid.
Are we doing open threads now? I thought that was for sites with, you know, more than 38 readers.
I think it should be between the developer and the property owner. If the developer wants the property bad enough, he just pays a shitload of money to the owner to vacate. But instead they pay the city a shitload to make the owner vacate. How fucking stupid.
Yeah. And the definition of what is in the “public interest” is always prickly. Building a Wal-Mart could be considered “in the public interest” under the vagueness of the ruling.
(And yes, I HATE, HATE, HATE agreeing with Scalia and Thomas, so I normally just cite O’Connor.)
Are we doing open threads now? I thought that was for sites with, you know, more than 38 readers.
It’s Friday. I can’t muster the mental energy for substantive wingnuttery today 🙂
Well, there’s always Friday cat blogging.
[evil Vincent Price laughter]
It’s Friday. I can’t muster the mental energy for substantive wingnuttery today 🙂
You’re not supposed to be writing it — duh!
You’re not supposed to be writing it — duh!
I think it’s a shitty use of eminent domain- that doesn’t sound so wingnutty to me.
GAAH!
When I first read about this ruling, I assumed the majority consisted of Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and a couple of pick-up votes from the others. Then I find out that those three evil bastards voted on the correct side of something for once! Cripes! Couldn’t they have shown this modicum of sense during the Bush-Gore decision? Jeebus.
This does suck- and I HATE agreeing with those states-rights assholes.
If you believe in a free market, then this is shit- it should be between the developer and resident. But it’s so much easier for the corps to get the governments to do their bitchwork for cheap. Bastards…
Then I find out that those three evil bastards voted on the correct side of something for once!
OK so I’m not crazy. Good to know 🙂
Sadly, no! has 138 readers you moran.
Sadly, no! has 138 readers you moran.
So we’re bigger than Crooked Timber?
Consider that the ruling essentially follows precedent and locates eminent domain decisions at the municipal and state level. Furthermore, the decision does not override, and does not prevent, the enactment of legislation to restrict eminent domain. The Court’s decision was that the Constitution does not forbid the New London action.
We’re all sympathetic to the plaintiffs in this case, but they also served as a cover for what their right-wing lawyers really wanted, which was a far-reaching ruling bringing down eminent domain as far as they could. That’s judicial activism.
Maybe I should start printing up bumper stickers that read “You can have my property when you pry it from my cold, ded fingers.” Gotta be forward-thinking, here.
Uh, I spelled “dead” that way on purpose. Really.
Consider that the ruling essentially follows precedent and locates eminent domain decisions at the municipal and state level. Furthermore, the decision does not override, and does not prevent, the enactment of legislation to restrict eminent domain. The Court’s decision was that the Constitution does not forbid the New London action.
Fair enough. I think the solution is to get the legislature in gear to define the proper uses for eminent domain.
Too bad Texas has gone to the wingnuts, because I, being a true and semi-proud Texan, think there needs to be a Wal-Mart in a certain area of Crawford, TX. I think that’d be a dandy use of eminent domain. As soon as the good people of this state come to their senses (and we will!), I think that should be first on the agenda.
Ann Richards for Governor….again!!
Here’s another thing…say you’re retired. You’ve paid off your home. Your get kicked out of it because some millionaire wants to put a golf course where your neighborhood used to be.
What are you supposed to do now? I don’t know of too many banks that make loans to retirees. Do you?
Bad policy, I agree. But the majority was correct: SCOTUS has no business determining what specific actions do and do not constitute a legitimate “public purpose.” I wish that there were a way BS corporate welfare schemes that screw over poor people were unconstitutional, but they’re not…
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” — attributed to Benito Mussolini
“If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck
of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” — George W Bush.
This is the Lochner decision of the 21st Century. Problem is, philosopher kings don’t live in the real world where corrupt local officials are easily swayed by 30 pieces of silver.